Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005 |
Two Games
Rockies 6, Worse-Than-Rockies 1
OP came back, and you've gotta give the guy props for only handing out four earned runs.I'm taking a break from the Dodgers for a while. It's just too painful to see what double-A guys they're going to put up there. But speaking of that -- I read in the comments of a recent post that
[E]ntering 2002 the minors were empty and since have been built up with teenagers from the draft and overseas, the oldest among the new wave are 20,21, or 22 years old. I think its a little to much to ask that they produce at the major league level.Is it really? Let's see: the Angels got Troy Glaus up when he was 21. Francisco Rodriguez was up and a huge contributor when he was twenty. Ervin Santana is 22. I'm not saying this is a reasonable expectation that all prospects, or even the majority, should be ready at such a young age, but frankly, if the drafts are so great, there ought to be at least one of them busting through the top levels. Chin-Feng Chen? Please.
But I Daresay He Don't Deserve It: Angels 2, Twins 1
The first "good" performance by Santana since the June 25 game against a weak-hitting Dodgers team, Santana came within a few inches of blowing up in the first, getting out of a bases-loaded jam in the first, settling down in the second and thereafter. He still threw a ton of pitches, not good. Despite it all, he got a win, which I'm not sure he really deserved considering how badly he pitched.Benjie's homer was the difference, and he actually showed flashes of the Gold Glover he used to be tonight; it was probably his best defensive game I've seen all year. And speaking of defense, Adam Kennedy's snare of that Lou Ford grounder just knocked me off my feet. AK so deserves a Gold Glove this year. If he keeps hitting, he's got one sewn up, doubly so if the Angels win the division.
Comments:
Is there a site that does pitch by pitch recaps? Santana threw a lot of pitches, but it seemed like a ton of them were foul balls. An unusually high percentage, it seemed.
Benjie's homer was the difference, and he actually showed flashes of the Gold Glover he used to be tonight; it was probably his best defensive game I've seen all year.
Yowza! I completely disagree. He got pretty lucky on the ball he backhanded late in the game, and to his credit, he took the brunt of a lot of the aforementioned foul balls, but the lone run of the Twins came as a direct result of his lazy backhand attempt on what was generously ruled a wild pitch. Now, the run might have scored anyway, but at the time, I think a lot of the responsibility was Bengie's.
He called a great game, and obviously the homer was huge, but I sure didn't see a return to defensive prominence.
Yowza! I completely disagree. He got pretty lucky on the ball he backhanded late in the game, and to his credit, he took the brunt of a lot of the aforementioned foul balls, but the lone run of the Twins came as a direct result of his lazy backhand attempt on what was generously ruled a wild pitch. Now, the run might have scored anyway, but at the time, I think a lot of the responsibility was Bengie's.
He called a great game, and obviously the homer was huge, but I sure didn't see a return to defensive prominence.
I thought that, considering how effectively wild Santana was throughout the game, and likewise for K-Rod, he did a pretty good job.
You cite Santana and K-Rod. Let's leave off Glaus - he came up years ago and isn't relevant to this discussion (certainly, Beltre could cancel him out).
Santana has a negative VORP this year. Derek Thompson is at 4.6.
K-Rod is clearly superior to anything the Dodgers have - except for home-grown Eric Gagne, but I won't use him as a comparison. So that's one.
24-year-old Jake Woods vs. 24-year-old Franquelis Osoria? Is that worth dissecting?
Dallas McPherson? I guess that's two for the Angels.
That leaves the Angels are ahead, 2-1. Is that enough to praise one farm system and indict the other?
I agree with your premise that at some point, someone has to produce. But the Angels aren't exactly living off their recent drafts either.
Santana has a negative VORP this year. Derek Thompson is at 4.6.
K-Rod is clearly superior to anything the Dodgers have - except for home-grown Eric Gagne, but I won't use him as a comparison. So that's one.
24-year-old Jake Woods vs. 24-year-old Franquelis Osoria? Is that worth dissecting?
Dallas McPherson? I guess that's two for the Angels.
That leaves the Angels are ahead, 2-1. Is that enough to praise one farm system and indict the other?
I agree with your premise that at some point, someone has to produce. But the Angels aren't exactly living off their recent drafts either.
Here's my problem with leaving Glaus out of the discussion, Jon: if you've got a truly great draft, you're going to get a Troy Glaus -- that is, you're going to get a major impact player. Glaus was up in the same year he started his professional career. I don't say that that is necessary, but come on -- are you seriously suggesting that the Dodgers, for all their allegedly great drafts, don't have even one player good enough to break through to the major leagues after two and a half years?
Of course, the obvious ounterexample is Adrian Beltre, but I'm concerned about guys coming up, period.
Of course, the obvious ounterexample is Adrian Beltre, but I'm concerned about guys coming up, period.
Again, I don't disagree with your premise.
But what I would say is ..
1) Joel Guzman could undoubtedly match Glaus' rookie OPS of .571 - DePodesta probably sees that as a big fat waste.
2) Considering you have to go back to Glaus to find a relevant Angel, maybe the 2-3 year time frame isn't that viable a standard.
But what I would say is ..
1) Joel Guzman could undoubtedly match Glaus' rookie OPS of .571 - DePodesta probably sees that as a big fat waste.
2) Considering you have to go back to Glaus to find a relevant Angel, maybe the 2-3 year time frame isn't that viable a standard.
Was K-Rod an Angel draft pick? Are we talking about the draft or young players in general?
In any case, Glaus isn't relevant, unless you think a .571 OPS seven years ago is worth getting excited over.
In any case, Glaus isn't relevant, unless you think a .571 OPS seven years ago is worth getting excited over.
Excited? Yes. I want to see some concrete evidence that the farm is actually producing. That is the exact point of this diatribe. And I don't see it.
To answer your question, the point originally raised was that the Dodgers' quality minor leaguers are all 21-22 years old and so we shouldn't expect anything from them. I say that's bogus and that we should expect something from at least one of them after several years of supposed quality drafts.
Well, again, Guzman could come up and do what Glaus did in his rookie year, if that's the standard. His OPS+ was 49. Edwin Jackson? He could come up now and be that bad.
But by holding Guzman back, DePodesta extends Guzman's free agency clock a year. Wouldn't the Angels rather have Glaus 2005 over Glaus 1998?
It's really only your use of Glaus that's bugging me. Clearly, until a Dodger draftee has an impact, a given Dodger draft has had no impact.
But by holding Guzman back, DePodesta extends Guzman's free agency clock a year. Wouldn't the Angels rather have Glaus 2005 over Glaus 1998?
It's really only your use of Glaus that's bugging me. Clearly, until a Dodger draftee has an impact, a given Dodger draft has had no impact.
Wouldn't the Angels rather have Glaus 2005 over Glaus 1998?
No; ask Will Carroll why. (The short answer is "multiple cortisone injections".) I don't understand this question; why should any team expect minor leaguers to come up and be immediately useful?
No; ask Will Carroll why. (The short answer is "multiple cortisone injections".) I don't understand this question; why should any team expect minor leaguers to come up and be immediately useful?
Actually, let me rephrase that: why should a team expect to have major league quality performance in a player's first year? It's not that it doesn't happen, but ...
Why should a team expect to have major league quality performance in a player's first year?
This conversation is just turning bizarre, so I'm going to drop out. If your standard for success in this discussion is having a player on your major league roster below the age of 22, no matter how bad he is, consider that standard met by the Dodgers. Jackson and Guzman could come up right now and be just as bad/good as Glaus was.
This conversation is just turning bizarre, so I'm going to drop out. If your standard for success in this discussion is having a player on your major league roster below the age of 22, no matter how bad he is, consider that standard met by the Dodgers. Jackson and Guzman could come up right now and be just as bad/good as Glaus was.
Jon, I seriously don't get your point. So, because a rookie has nothing to learn in AAA, is promoted to the major league level and doesn't do especially well in his first year, this is bad? Not everyone's going to be Rookie of the Year, Jon. Guzman and Jackson clearly have more to learn in the minors; there's a distinction here.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.