SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jackie Bradley
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 9, 2013 16:04:01 GMT -5
I think it's really, really silly to hinge promotion decisions on what age Bradley would be if the Red Sox wanted to re-sign him in free agency six years down the road. Agreed completely, I was just using it as a counter to people wanting to slow the clock. I don't think either should be the motivation.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Mar 9, 2013 16:14:38 GMT -5
I don't think that there is any reason to start JBJ in the majors this year as it (and possibly 2014) is likely going to be a bridge year where the Red Sox will be lucky to just break .500. Let him get another 200 ABs or so in Pawtuckett and bring him up around June 15 or so, along with others such as Webster and RDL to give them some big league experience while getting rid of some dead weight on the major league roster (e.g. Aceves, Mortenson, Sweeney|Nava, etc).
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 9, 2013 16:23:32 GMT -5
Bill James says a players peak years are between 25 and 29. Others state 27-31. If you are going to argue that there is no evidence players peak years extended far later into their 30s during what is wildly considered the steroid era then go right ahead. Maybe my perception is off, but offensive numbers have changed a lot the last 3 years. My prediction is its going to be more of a younger mans game going forward. If guys are ready, I want as many of their good years as possible. I'm not interested in delaying the clock so I have to decide whether to resign a guy at 30 or 31. Would much prefer to do it earlier. That's not how this works. You're the one making a claim, the burdon of presenting evidence is on you. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot It's really not, this is a message board. Just don't go referring to me as intellectually lazy because you disagree or feel I didn't provide you with the necessary evidence to backup my point. Not everything is black and white in the world. Some things can't be proven as 100% factual. They require some predictability for future as well as an interpretation of the past. I already know I could give you 100 different examples and statistics that backup my reasoning and you'll just counter them. Which, honestly is normally great, but I really don't care to ahve a discussion with someone who falls back on insults. I'm all for you not agreeing and if you cared to be considerate and inquire why I felt the way I do, I would share some of the reasons. I'm not writing a thesis here so I really don't need to site everything from the past 20 years that lead me to believe why I feel baseball shifted out of and now back into a younger mans game. I'm also open minded enough to be talked out of that feeling by someone who's not trying to insult my intelligence. Maybe you're having a bad week; I don't knw, not really something I expected out of you. Then again, it's a message board - I don't know you maybe that's just who you are.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 9, 2013 19:29:50 GMT -5
I'm not calling you intellectually lazy because I disagree with you or because I doubt your intelligence. I'm calling you intellelectually lazy because you put an unfounded statement out there and instead of making a factual arguement to prove it, you're throwing some kind of hissy fit about my message board decorum. Whatever, if you don't want to convince anyone that's fine with me, but then why bother posting at all?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2013 14:15:06 GMT -5
I do love arguments over debate tactics and it was interesting to read about Russell's Teapot, "you can't prove a negative". I think you forgot a couple of links that might be helpful. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawmanen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causationFenway isn't arguing that there isn't evidence of changed peak performance, there maybe, though I am not sure it has been adequately presented. He's pointing out, correctly, that the change peak age performance while possibly correlated with increased PED use wasn't necessarily the cause in the change in peak performance. If RJP wants to use this line of reasoning, he has to show some evidence of that link other than that they both happened at the same time. The whole PED discussion has been filled with illogical conclusions backed by false and ever changing narratives. Asking that people back lines of reasoning with evidence and logic, ESPECIALLY, on this particular issue raises the level of discourse of the entire message board. That makes it more enjoyable for me, and I think for others as well.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 10, 2013 20:28:44 GMT -5
I do love arguments over debate tactics and it was interesting to read about Russell's Teapot, "you can't prove a negative". I think you forgot a couple of links that might be helpful. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawmanen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causationFenway isn't arguing that there isn't evidence of changed peak performance, there maybe, though I am not sure it has been adequately presented. He's pointing out, correctly, that the change peak age performance while possibly correlated with increased PED use wasn't necessarily the cause in the change in peak performance. If RJP wants to use this line of reasoning, he has to show some evidence of that link other than that they both happened at the same time. The whole PED discussion has been filled with illogical conclusions backed by false and ever changing narratives. Asking that people back lines of reasoning with evidence and logic, ESPECIALLY, on this particular issue raises the level of discourse of the entire message board. That makes it more enjoyable for me, and I think for others as well. He has to show evidence that peak age actually did change during that "the steroids era", whenever that might have been. Remembering that Clemens and Bonds both played into their 40s isn't enough. Without actual data on this there's nothing to argue about. And in any case, whatever the average peak season is, the aging curves of individual players vary wildy. There's plenty of players who peak in their early 20s, or for that matter in their mid-30s. The average peak age is just that, an average. It's a starting point, but adjustments should be made for the individual player. With Bradley, I see an early peak. He's not a burner so he's got less spead to lose before he becomes a tweener type outfielder, and it doesn't seem like he's the kind of player who can compensate for loss of speed with increased power as he ages. None of which even really matters in terms of where to assign him to start the 2013 season. Just start him in the minors and if he's truely ready it won't take long for him to get an oppertunity.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Mar 10, 2013 22:07:04 GMT -5
Although I think JBJ is more likely to peak early, rather than late, I attribute this more to his advanced program in college, his position played and his body type but even I would start him in AAA ball. That said, I think Barry Bond's statistics alone at age 39 with 45 HR, 222 walks, .362 average and .609 OBP is probably plenty of data to indicate that steroids extends many careers. I would also postulate that early adopters probably break down earlier though, for example perhaps if one considers Junior and Arod as likely steroid users in Seattle. I think extended, long term use of steroids probably curtails careers according to data as I understand it. I don't feel compelled to have to take the time to prove everything in a recreational sports forum though. If others disbelieve it, they can certainly take the time to look it up if they want.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 10, 2013 23:09:37 GMT -5
Although I think JBJ is more likely to peak early, rather than late, I attribute this more to his advanced program in college, his position played and his body type but even I would start him in AAA ball. That said, I think Barry Bond's statistics alone at age 39 with 45 HR, 222 walks, .362 average and .609 OBP is probably plenty of data to indicate that steroids extends many careers. I would also postulate that early adopters probably break down earlier though, for example perhaps if one considers Junior and Arod as likely steroid users in Seattle. I think extended, long term use of steroids probably curtails careers according to data as I understand it. I don't feel compelled to have to take the time to prove everything in a recreational sports forum though. If others disbelieve it, they can certainly take the time to look it up if they want. This is the entire problem. Using a Barry Bonds season in isolation to prove a league wide effect is absurd. Barry Bonds is the outlier of outliers not named Babe Ruth, he was a baseball alien. It would be like citing Babe's stats in any single season to prove the effects of alcohol and borderline obesity on player performance. Gain an adequate sample size and let's talk, but Fenway's right, the narrative used to be steroids caused a flash peak and eventually made players break down. How would you explain Pedro's peak performance in the late 90s? PEDs? It was the outlier of outliers after all...
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 11, 2013 1:04:40 GMT -5
There are plenty of other examples. Check out Roy Sievers from the 50s and 60s. After a great rookie season at 22, injuries derailed him till he was almost 27. He came on over the next seven years. I watched Warren Spahn pitch as a kid, at the end of his career. That end included 23 wins at age 44. Or the Sox' own Dwight Evans. He started his run when most players peak and kept going into his late 30s. Edgar Martinez is another. It was a travesty that after taking apart the PCL, he didn't even get a full-time job in the majors till he was 27. He had his best season at 37 and at 40 he was still good enough for a .294/.406/.489 line with 24 home runs. The people who play the game are almost reverential in the way they talk about his skills. He was fanatically devoted to his work which was destroying pitchers, the kind of hitter who would show up hours before a game to do his exercises including flash cards for his eyesight. A one-case extrapolation is always a shaky way to analyse a situation. I think most of us are suspicious of what happened back there with Bonds. The fact is he was a phenomenal player before PEDs became an issue across the sport. I just don't think we can say the use of those drugs uniformly did this or they did that. The variation in the game over the years has always been pronounced thanks to the owners and their continual screwing around with the ball, with fences, with the mound, the strike zone, and more. It's tough to swallow but I don't think we'll never know for sure what the effect was.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 11, 2013 1:53:11 GMT -5
There are plenty of other examples. Check out Roy Sievers from the 50s and 60s. After a great rookie season at 22, injuries derailed him till he was almost 27. He came on over the next seven years. I watched Warren Spahn pitch as a kid, at the end of his career. That end included 23 wins at age 44. Or the Sox' own Dwight Evans. He started his run when most players peak and kept going into his late 30s. Edgar Martinez is another. It was a travesty that after taking apart the PCL, he didn't even get a full-time job in the majors till he was 27. He had his best season at 37 and at 40 he was still good enough for a .294/.406/.489 line with 24 home runs. The people who play the game are almost reverential in the way they talk about his skills. He was fanatically devoted to his work which was destroying pitchers, the kind of hitter who would show up hours before a game to do his exercises including flash cards for his eyesight. A one-case extrapolation is always a shaky way to analyse a situation. I think most of us are suspicious of what happened back there with Bonds. The fact is he was a phenomenal player before PEDs became an issue across the sport. I just don't think we can say the use of those drugs uniformly did this or they did that. The variation in the game over the years has always been pronounced thanks to the owners and their continual screwing around with the ball, with fences, with the mound, the strike zone, and more. It's tough to swallow but I don't think we'll never know for sure what the effect was. So......how BOUT that Jackie Bradley!
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Mar 11, 2013 2:59:52 GMT -5
Wow, Bonds puts up numbers like he did at the end of his career and that alone is not evidence that steroids generally extended careers when used near the end of those careers. A .609 OBP for God's sake at age 39. Roughly .150 higher than his early year peak at age 28. Wake up. The only reason he didn't hit over 60 HR every year in that period is because no one wanted to pitch to him.
And you can put all the other mega studs like McGuire, Sosa, Clemens etc up there as well at the end of their careers. And BTW, isn't it realistic that some of these guys didn't actually get caught? Manny went many a year as a mega stud and didn't get caught until the end. My bet is that there may have been as many users who didn't get caught as there are that did.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 11, 2013 6:32:12 GMT -5
Wow, Bonds puts up numbers like he did at the end of his career and that alone is not evidence that steroids generally extended careers when used near the end of those careers. A .609 OBP for God's sake at age 39. Roughly .150 higher than his early year peak at age 28. Wake up. The only reason he didn't hit over 60 HR every year in that period is because no one wanted to pitch to him. And you can put all the other mega studs like McGuire, Sosa, Clemens etc up there as well at the end of their careers. And BTW, isn't it realistic that some of these guys didn't actually get caught? Manny went many a year as a mega stud and didn't get caught until the end. My bet is that there may have been as many users who didn't get caught as there are that did. Sammy Sosa was (basically) done by 35. McGwire was done by 37. Dwight Evens had a longer career than both those guys. ZOMG, Evans was on the roids! Wake up, indeed. Also, this has extremely little to do with Jackie Bradley. Who is totally not on steroids because they totally don't exist in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 11, 2013 7:27:21 GMT -5
Also, this has extremely little to do with Jackie Bradley. Who is totally not on steroids because they totally don't exist in 2013. Additionally, when someone is caught doing steroids, it's proof that baseball's testing program is failing. Let's try to get this back on target by throwing out random predictions about JBJ's debut. I'll go for July 2.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 11, 2013 7:36:33 GMT -5
Yeah guys, let's keep the discussion on JBJ.
My prediction: he's up for a few weeks in May after Victorino/Ellsbury suffers a minor ankle/hamstring injury. Comes back up in late July and kills it through the end of the season.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 11, 2013 7:43:14 GMT -5
Pick a date! It's no fun if you don't pick a date!
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Mar 11, 2013 7:55:30 GMT -5
I find it absolutely hysterical that a Jackie Bradley thread turned into a steroid discussion. Anyway, I'm going out on a limb and predicting that JBJ makes the team out of camp with Gomes DH'ing and Ortiz missing the first 3 months of the season.
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Mar 11, 2013 9:32:50 GMT -5
I've decided to be wildly, unabashedly optimistic about this season: July 31st, after Ellsbury is traded because the team feels they are doing well enough that they can afford to take the downgrade to Bradley (who is sporting a .425 OBP on the season).
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Mar 11, 2013 11:01:58 GMT -5
JBJ starts out the year in AAA and gets called up to provide a better OF option against RH pitching than Victorino, who appears to me to be well on his way to Carl Crawfordsville.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Mar 11, 2013 11:43:55 GMT -5
I'll go with a September first call up for Bradley.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Mar 11, 2013 11:47:11 GMT -5
I see a June call up. He is close to ready (not quite there yet), and there is no point in delaying his debut if he is ready.
|
|
|
Post by onbase on Mar 11, 2013 11:47:50 GMT -5
June 23rd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2013 11:55:16 GMT -5
That too. Attribution error as well as mistaking correlation for cause. In general errors in logic are annoying ESPECIALLY on this particular subject. Now for someone to use the "crossing the street" fallacy which is my favorite.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Mar 11, 2013 12:08:25 GMT -5
Bradley homers on the first pitch today.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 11, 2013 12:40:41 GMT -5
If we look at last year's numbers, Bradley showed decent power. While he hit more home runs in Portland, he showed better slugging in Salem. By his own admission, he was tired by the time he got to AA. Still, there were 2 triples and 5 home runs to go with a handful of doubles while slugging .432. That was after his .500+ in high A. I don't see him ever hitting 20 home runs, but I do think he's capable of .450+ slugging once he gets comfortable in the major leagues. Combine that with the likelihood of a high OBP and that's a very good player.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Mar 11, 2013 12:47:13 GMT -5
I'll say Bradley comes up for good if/when Ellsbury is traded, or September. No, I'm not picking a date!
It seems to me he'll have reasonable slugging ability - after all he had 57 extra base hits last year. 10 homers, 5-10 triples, 35 doubles per year?
|
|
|