caulfield12 Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 now hitting .176 (3 for 17) with a homer and 4 RBI's on the season... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 It wasn't a Grand Slam, it was a 3 run HR. He hit it off the facade in LF, it was a bomb but it was not a granny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 ??? -- Yahoo shows a 3-run homer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnB Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 title fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChWRoCk2 Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 Still not an impressive average. But I still wish we would have kept him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 I personally am not a big fan of Young. I think his cieling as a player is something along the lines of Mike Cameron, and while Young does play good D, I don't think he will be as good as Cameron. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but I don't think he is going to turn into this 40-40 guy many of you guys and some "scouts" are making him out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 6, 2007 -> 10:28 PM) I personally am not a big fan of Young. I think his cieling as a player is something along the lines of Mike Cameron, and while Young does play good D, I don't think he will be as good as Cameron. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but I don't think he is going to turn into this 40-40 guy many of you guys and some "scouts" are making him out to be. I haven't seen any 40-40 projections... I've seen 30-30 potential and our cupboard is bare in the outfield. I supported the trade when it happened, but it's tough to argue with results. Anyway, it'll be win-win when Vazquez becomes our ace this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 6, 2007 -> 09:43 PM) I haven't seen any 40-40 projections... I've seen 30-30 potential and our cupboard is bare in the outfield. I supported the trade when it happened, but it's tough to argue with results. Anyway, it'll be win-win when Vazquez becomes our ace this year. It will be a win-lose when Vazquez becomes the first pitcher in history to throw 9 perfect games in one season, and finish with an ERA of .21... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 6, 2007 -> 09:28 PM) I personally am not a big fan of Young. I think his cieling as a player is something along the lines of Mike Cameron, and while Young does play good D, I don't think he will be as good as Cameron. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but I don't think he is going to turn into this 40-40 guy many of you guys and some "scouts" are making him out to be. I've heard Mike Cameron as a mere comparison with Eric Davis as his ceiling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted April 7, 2007 Author Share Posted April 7, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 6, 2007 -> 11:04 PM) I've heard Mike Cameron as a mere comparison with Eric Davis as his ceiling. Might as well go with Willie Mays, who Davis was compared to coming up (heck, every athletic CFer with power and speed who was/is African-American).... In all seriousness, it's like the "next Michael Jordan" thing. Better to think of Mike Cameron (minus the arm strength) and expect not so many stolen bases as Cameron when he started out (13-17?) and maybe 20-22 homers. I don't see him as a true 30-30 guy, hopefully I won't be proven wrong on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 Young has always had the speed and power. It's his batting avg. that has been a concern. He still has a career avg under .270 in the minors. I don't expect him to suddenly hit better than that in the bigs. Unless AZ can accept him hitting .225-.240, I see Young going back down to AAA this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted April 7, 2007 Author Share Posted April 7, 2007 QUOTE(beck72 @ Apr 7, 2007 -> 07:41 AM) Young has always had the speed and power. It's his batting avg. that has been a concern. He still has a career avg under .270 in the minors. I don't expect him to suddenly hit better than that in the bigs. Unless AZ can accept him hitting .225-.240, I see Young going back down to AAA this year. His career average in the minors is .267, with an OBP of nearly .360. The D-Backs do have a ton of talented young outfielders, but they won't give up on CY quickly. I'm still skeptical about him ever having 30 stolen bases in a season, we'll just have to wait and see on that one. Below average arm in the OF. He also has 449 K's in 1789 at-bats. Not Joe Borchard or Rob Deer territory, but not very good either. If he can hit .240, he's profiling very similarly to Mike Cameron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 GODDAMMIT, HOW COULD KENNY TRADE JEREMY REED????? ...oh, wait....sorry, that was the LAST Jesus Christ that Kenny traded away.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted April 7, 2007 Author Share Posted April 7, 2007 QUOTE(The Critic @ Apr 7, 2007 -> 11:28 AM) GODDAMMIT, HOW COULD KENNY TRADE JEREMY REED????? ...oh, wait....sorry, that was the LAST Jesus Christ that Kenny traded away.... The problem is that Jeremy Reed never had the ability to hit 15 homers or steal 25 bases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Apr 7, 2007 -> 01:15 PM) The problem is that Jeremy Reed never had the ability to hit 15 homers or steal 25 bases. Maybe so, but Reed hasn't done any of the magical things he was supposed to be able to do. I don't know if Young will become what he has the potential to be, but it's just funny to me to see a thread pop up every time he does something for the D-Backs. Those Reed threads.....kinda not happening anymore.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Apr 7, 2007 -> 01:15 PM) The problem is that Jeremy Reed never had the ability to hit 15 homers or steal 25 bases. Uhhhh...? Those are almost the EXACT numbers people used when transferring Reed's numbers to the majors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted April 7, 2007 Author Share Posted April 7, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 7, 2007 -> 05:52 PM) Uhhhh...? Those are almost the EXACT numbers people used when transferring Reed's numbers to the majors. And he never did that, because he was only capable of doing that in the minors or college. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Apr 7, 2007 -> 06:40 PM) And he never did that, because he was only capable of doing that in the minors or college. I understand what you're saying, but Seattle traded for him with the thought that he would. So, when he was traded, he DID have that potential as far as Seattle was concerned. Really, that's all that matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 After today, he's hitting .182 with 8 RBI's. I wasn't even sure that was statistically possible this early in the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Apr 8, 2007 -> 12:01 AM) After today, he's hitting .182 with 8 RBI's. I wasn't even sure that was statistically possible this early in the year. A prime example of why RBIs are a bad way of evaluating a players performance on the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 QUOTE(Felix @ Apr 9, 2007 -> 05:26 PM) A prime example of why RBIs are a bad way of evaluating a players performance on the year. You are way off. I'm sure every team would love 8 RBI's a week from a player despite hitting .182. Runs are the most important factor in the end. If you have someone driving them in, I'll take that over someone hitting .333 and never scoring or driving in runs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 QUOTE(rangercal @ Apr 9, 2007 -> 05:36 PM) You are way off. I'm sure every team would love 8 RBI's a week from a player despite hitting .182. Runs are the most important factor in the end. If you have someone driving them in, I'll take that over someone hitting .333 and never scoring or driving in runs. so you're taking Raul Ibanez over Jim Thome? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 10, 2007 -> 01:06 AM) so you're taking Raul Ibanez over Jim Thome? are you talking about the course of a year or the course of the season? If anyone averaged 8 RBI's a week despite hitting .182 would have a spot in my lineup anyday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan99 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 QUOTE(rangercal @ Apr 10, 2007 -> 09:55 AM) are you talking about the course of a year or the course of the season? If anyone averaged 8 RBI's a week despite hitting .182 would have a spot in my lineup anyday. They wouldn't in mine. Because if you are hitting .182 you aren't scoring any runs and the only reason you are getting RBIs is because you are having an incredible amount of opportunities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 QUOTE(rangercal @ Apr 10, 2007 -> 09:55 AM) are you talking about the course of a year or the course of the season? If anyone averaged 8 RBI's a week despite hitting .182 would have a spot in my lineup anyday. The point is, that would never happen. RBI's are like W-L for pitchers. They may not be 100% irrelevant, but they are very dependent on circumstances not under that player's control. Therefore, they should be taken with a few big grains of salt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.webp.29cc6c9fee0f01ceeb4f722593e5e3ba.webp)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.