The Kid calls it a career

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I am sure you're right that you won't change my mind, but I wouldn't mind hearing your perspective all the same. Unlike KSyrup or some others here, you are also intimately connected to the other primary team in that race and will have more experience to draw on with which to comment on the Angels.

Oh all the arguments you could use, that's about the lamest of them all.

[Ksyrup]

If anything, I'd argue that your intimacy with the team is precisely the reason why you continue to stick to the convenient story, instead of look at the facts objectively.

[jeff061]

You only say that cause he argued the shit out of you.


Sore loser.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by jeff061

You only say that cause he argued the shit out of you.


Sore loser.

What? That because I'm not a fan of the team, I can't possibly know or interpret what happened? Look, you guys can continue to stick to the story, I'll just look at the facts. That team didn't start fading for 2.5 weeks after his injury. A 12 game lead with 56 games is not as big a lead as a 9.5 game lead with 38 games. Not to mention a 12 game lead in the WC with 38 games left. It's simply a convenient demarcation to point at to make sense of something that otherwise defies belief. There most be some trigger for what happened, and that's the most convenient thing to point to. I get that. But please, just recognize that's all it is.

[jeff061]

Fuck dude. Stop using facts. Clearly you are out of your league here.



/heavy enough??

[Ksyrup]

Ah, page breaks and stuff.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Oh all the arguments you could use, that's about the lamest of them all.

I don't understand why you got to be dickish. Look, sorry I dared to have an opinion different than yours. Can we be friends now?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If anything, I'd argue that your intimacy with the team is precisely the reason why you continue to stick to the convenient story, instead of look at the facts objectively.

The facts back up my story.

[Rizon]

Is this the Griffey Jr thread or did something get mixed up here?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I am sure you're right that you won't change my mind, but I wouldn't mind hearing your perspective all the same. Unlike KSyrup or some others here, you are also intimately connected to the other primary team in that race and will have more experience to draw on with which to comment on the Angels.

It doesn't have anything to do with my being a fan of the Mariners - it has to do with having a lot on instruction on human psychology and how the brain works, and applying that to how we view baseball and things like perceived cause and effect and "clutch" and "chemistry" and the like.

First off, know this - the human brain is predisposed to taking events that appear related and creating a narrative around those events to "explain" them. Sometimes there is a narrative that helps explain events. But sometimes, the events (if they are connected at all) are really just random variation or "luck". Except, people don't like hearing that - they want to think that everything happens for a very specific reason. They want to think that a pitcher that is on a hot streak has learned a new pitch, or got a motivational talk from a mentor that has stuck with him. Those things may be true, but it may also be true that he's just in a run of good luck - line drives and grounders that were finding gaps previously are now being hit right at fielders and turned into outs. A hitter that's been struggling may similarly see bad luck turn to good luck, those balls that were hit right at people now finding gaps, or maybe he's enjoying better weather and seeing his warning-track fly ball outs now carry just a little farther and over the wall for home runs.

Now, I'm not going to dispute the idea that clubhouse chemistry exists. There's no question that some clubhouses are a lot more fun and positive and great than others. The question is how much that actually affects on-field performance. Because of the difficulty in teasing out all of the variables that can affect performance and the reality that you need large sample sizes to prove effects, it's a daunting task to try to measure clubhouse chemistry as a real effector on athletic performance.

I'm not going to argue that losing Disarcina didn't negatively impact the psyche of that Angels team, especially given the history of that franchise up to that point. The question is how much any change in the attitude of that clubhouse affected on-field performance, i.e. how much does mental state trump talent.

I get that fans of the franchise felt like it was cursed, and maybe some of the players felt that too. But we're also talking players in the Major Leagues, the highest level of baseball in the world. I'm a little skeptical that they had psyches that were so fragile that losing Disarcina sparked a mental collapse that led to them blowing that huge division lead.

It's easy to write that story, but we should be aware that we as humans are susceptible to wanting to write those stories and believe them, regardless of whether they are actually true or not.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Uh, right. I'm not in California so I've never heard of Donnie Moore. That story never made it past Arizona, I guess. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention I lived in Atlanta in the 80s, before he ever put on an Angels uniform.

I wasn't trying to be patronizing; rather, pointing out that the Angels -- although not the Cubs or Sawx -- had a long and well-publicized history of failure. Although that 1986 loss and Donnie Moore's subsequent suicide were the certainly the lowest points, their whole history was one of failure. Much of it centered on Gene Autry, a beloved figure and popular owner, who owned the team for almost 40 years and won a grand total of 3 division titles and no pennants. This was frequently mentioned in the Seattle press, being another AL West city.

As for whether DiSarcina's injury was the beginning of the end, I don't have a dog in that hunt. My team won; CR's team lost. Neener-neener.

Can we talk about Griffey again? He's better than any Angel that ever played the game, that's for sure.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I don't understand why you got to be dickish. Look, sorry I dared to have an opinion different than yours. Can we be friends now?

I'm not trying to be a dick. I honestly think the argument that because you're a big fan of a team, your interpretation of what occurred is more legitimate is...uh...not the best argument. That's separate and apart from your opinion on the underlying discussion. I respect that your opinon on that is different than mine. But the idea that your opinion means more or you have some special insight because you lived it as a fan of the team (as opposed to the opinion of a big baseball fan on the other coast who follows both leagues very closely) - I don't agree with that.

[stevew]

True story.

One of my friends put a hole in the head of his Donnie Moore Starting Lineup after the dude offed himself.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I wasn't trying to be patronizing; rather, pointing out that the Angels -- although not the Cubs or Sawx -- had a long and well-publicized history of failure. Although that 1986 loss and Donnie Moore's subsequent suicide were the certainly the lowest points, their whole history was one of failure. Much of it centered on Gene Autry, a beloved figure and popular owner, who owned the team for almost 40 years and won a grand total of 3 division titles and no pennants. This was frequently mentioned in the Seattle press, being another AL West city.

As for whether DiSarcina's injury was the beginning of the end, I don't have a dog in that hunt. My team won; CR's team lost. Neener-neener.

Can we talk about Griffey again? He's better than any Angel that ever played the game, that's for sure.

I know all about the Angels story. My point is none of it means anything. It's not connected. If it was, 2002 wouldn't have happened. What's the explanation? Oh, they finally summoned the courage to break the string of bad luck that haunted them for decades! No. They lost some painful games for a long time, and then they won. It's a nice story to weave together when discussing the history of the franchise, but none of it is connected in a cause-and-effect way. Donnie Moore didn't haunt the dreams of the Angels' 25 man roster for 45 days in 1995 and cause them to lose. And the loss of Disaarcina, while I'm sure it didn't help either on the field or in the clubhouse, didn't spark a sudden inability to win games. It looks and feels that way in hindsight, because the story makes sense and with their history, another ill-timed injury coincided with a slide, but he didn't matter that much.

It's just like the Twins this year. When Nathan went down, you'd think they lost 3/4ths of the team in a plane crash or something. Most statistical observers concluded that at best, the guy was worth 3 victories. And of course, they really haven't lost a beat without him there. And you don't hear anything about it now. But what if they struggled the first 2 months? Guess how many articles would have been written about how the loss of Nathan killed this team. Why? Because that narrative would have fit the storyline everyone saw coming back in March. It really wouldn't have mattered if the bullpen was the culprit, either - then it would have been "reliever depth and veteran presence" that they lacked. HUMAN NATURE.

As far as Griffey... eh, I was never a big fan of Griffey. Great talent, sure, enjoyed watching him play and all that, but in his interactions with the public, he did himself no favors. I specifically remember one HR Derby interview he did (I think it was the year Sosa kicked ass in Atlanta) where he was interviewed on the field, and he acted like he wanted to be anywhere but there, and gave these cliche answers in such a monotonous, "somebody please get me out of here" way... unfortunately, that's the lasting memory I have of him.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

As far as Griffey... eh, I was never a big fan of Griffey. Great talent, sure, enjoyed watching him play and all that, but in his interactions with the public, he did himself no favors. I specifically remember one HR Derby interview he did (I think it was the year Sosa kicked ass in Atlanta) where he was interviewed on the field, and he acted like he wanted to be anywhere but there, and gave these cliche answers in such a monotonous, "somebody please get me out of here" way... unfortunately, that's the lasting memory I have of him.

Griffey is a complicated guy. He's a superstar who could act like a diva, but he could also be as playful as anyone in the clubhouse and usually tried to involve each and every person on the team, the staff and the support crew.

He's a sensitive guy, and that's been both a blessing and a curse - he could develop difficult relationships with reporters if he felt slighted or embarrassed, but he could also give tremendous stories if he felt comfortable with the reporter.

He was tremendously giving in his off-time, and there are numerous stories of fans coming up to him and having great interactions with him. But there were also stories of not so great interactions.

One thing that's interesting to note with Griffey - he has a social anxiety issue, where he's really, really uncomfortable in crowds of strangers. Airports are not a good place for him.

I can totally respect that others have differing views on Griffey. He's not actually my favorite Mariner ever - that would be Edgar Martinez - but I can say without reservation that it was tremendously rewarding to get to watch him play, even if the last couple of years leading up to his trade to Cincinnati (and the ugly nature of how he arm-twisted that trade) weren't as much fun. It's a little bit of an exaggeration to say that Safeco is the "House that Griffey built", but it's not an exaggeration to say that he was the guy that really made the M's fun to watch, and he's the first guy that really put the Mariners on the national radar. His presence and ability were important factors in the M's staying put in Seattle and becoming a local institution after so many years of threats to move.

[Ramzavail]

Originally Posted by oykib

Griffey was a 10-time gold glove award winner and is 12th in Total bases, 31st in Runs scored, and 14th in RBI. He's also 6th in extra base hits. oh, and he's 5th in home runs-- he hit 220 more than Snider. And Snider didn't lose any time to army service.

It's not even close.

More "total" stats again *rolls eyes*

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I know all about the Angels story. My point is none of it means anything. It's not connected. If it was, 2002 wouldn't have happened.

It's just like the Twins this year. When Nathan went down, you'd think they lost 3/4ths of the team in a plane crash or something.

My feeling is that you are discounting the human aspects of the game. Baseball players have the reputation -- in my estimation, deserved -- of being the most superstitious among American athletes. Things that have nothing to do with reality have a significant effect on a clubhouse. I don't know squat about DiSarcina, so I can't speak to this specific case. Just my last two bits on that.

As for the Twins, they just lost 3 of 4 to the Mariners. No one does that and survives. Their season is over.

Seriously, though, it is not an apples to apples comparison. The Twins don't have 30+ years of history where they sucked eggs. Quite the contrary, actually.

[oykib]

Griffey came up as a productive regular at 19, when it was much harder to do.

Snider came up at 20 and wasn't a productive regular until 22.

Griffey was productive until 37. Snider was until he was 36. Griffey's biggest years were bigger (OPS+ of 171.170, 165,155,153, 150, 149) than Snider's (171, 170, 169, 165, 143, 140, 136). Griffey was a better fielder.

Griffey earned those extra numbers. Rate stats don't tell the stoies by themselves.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by oykib

Griffey came up as a productive regular at 19, when it was much harder to do.

Snider came up at 20 and wasn't a productive regular until 22.

There have been a lot of bad arguments in this thread, but this one absolutely takes the cake as its worst.

[Ramzavail]

Those OPS+ look pretty similar to me. All I was trying to say that Griffey/Snider is a better comparision than Griffey/DiMaggio - and you kept saying it wasn't even close. I know Griffey is/was a better player than Snider but if Willie Mays is #1 to CF, DiMaggio is #1A. IMO.

Another comparison point, both Griffey and Snider didn't fair too well in the 30's.

I still don't even know what you are even saying in your last post concerning age. But as I was saying Griffey compiled alot more "stats" than Snider just from the 2800 more ABs he got. Their AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+ looks really similar to me. Whereas, Joe DiMaggio's do not, when compared to Griffey.

Certainly, I don't buy the expansion era with smaller ball parks and rarified air as being a more "difficult" era to play in. I don't buy at all the lefty specialist being an overriding factor then smaller ball parks and lower graded talent in the major leagues. Snider played with less technology, bigger ball parks, and a lower concentration of talent.

So I don't know, maybe I'm nuts, but I just see alot of similarities.

[MrBug708]

Speaking as a mostly non Angel fan these days, everyone around here will point to the injury as the beginning of the end. Sports writers, media, everyone. Until this thread, I didn't think anyone thought otherwise.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Speaking as a mostly non Angel fan these days, everyone around here will point to the injury as the beginning of the end. Sports writers, media, everyone. Until this thread, I didn't think anyone thought otherwise.

Just because people think that doesn't actually make it so.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ramzavail

if Willie Mays is #1 to CF, DiMaggio is #1A. IMO.

Mantle was a better CF than DiMaggio. Seriously, take a look at Mantle's batting numbers (for starters his career 172 OPS+). I don't think people realize just how amazing the Mick was.

DiMaggio was the better defensive CF, but probably not as much as people would think as Mantle's range factor was pretty decent.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Just because people think that doesn't actually make it so.

I didn't know anyone thought any differently

[molson]

I'd be willing to bet that this has been the most heated Gary Disarcina debate ever.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

My feeling is that you are discounting the human aspects of the game. Baseball players have the reputation -- in my estimation, deserved -- of being the most superstitious among American athletes. Things that have nothing to do with reality have a significant effect on a clubhouse. I don't know squat about DiSarcina, so I can't speak to this specific case. Just my last two bits on that.

As for the Twins, they just lost 3 of 4 to the Mariners. No one does that and survives. Their season is over.

Seriously, though, it is not an apples to apples comparison. The Twins don't have 30+ years of history where they sucked eggs. Quite the contrary, actually.

I don't deny that in a crucial moment, an individual might blow something with the presure of a situation caused by a team's history weighing heavily on his mental state. That would be a single moment in a single game. Not saying it was the case, but a Bill Buckner-type moment. Sure, I can see that. A team collectively going in the tank for almost 2 months, game after game, every 9 innings? No. That goes way beyond anything the mind can force to happen.

And the idea that the Twins have survived the Nathan injury because they have some history of success and the Angels didn't...phooey.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Speaking as a mostly non Angel fan these days, everyone around here will point to the injury as the beginning of the end. Sports writers, media, everyone. Until this thread, I didn't think anyone thought otherwise.

Bill James has made a living disproving almost everything people thought they knew about baseball. The one thing I've learned over the past 15 years of rethinking what I learned about baseball as a kid is to not blindly accept the narrative sports writers give you because most of the time, it's just a combination of convenience and lack of understanding (or unwillingness to challenge their beliefs). And again, part of that is the fact that their job, in writing stories for the local papers, is to explain to the fans why something is happening. I'm sure that between the lack of a good explanation and the cliche/trite answers given to them by the players and coaches in the clubhouse, the Disarcina thing makes as much sense out of an impossible-to-believe situation as anything. And it's easy for the typical fan to appreciate, given the timing. But none of that makes it so.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by oykib

Griffey came up as a productive regular at 19, when it was much harder to do.

Snider came up at 20 and wasn't a productive regular until 22.

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

There have been a lot of bad arguments in this thread, but this one absolutely takes the cake as its worst.

Check out this study.

It and others like it have shown that the average age of major leaguer rookies has slowly ticked up over time-- except for when expansion years have odd effects. There are fewer teenagers as we move forward in time. There are also fewer teenagers being productive regulars.

That seems to indicate that it was harder to debut as a 19 year-old and be an above average regular in 1989 than it was to debut as a 20 year-old and be a bench player in 1947.

Please explain the flaw in my logic.

[RedKingGold]

Fewer "teenagers" doesn't necessarily mean it was "harder" for Griffey to break through at 19. His development curve just had a quicker uptick.

I fail to see your correlation.

EDIT: And your study does not necessarily support your hypothesis.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Fewer "teenagers" doesn't necessarily mean it was "harder" for Griffey to break through at 19. His development curve just had a quicker uptick.

I fail to see your correlation.

EDIT: And your study does not necessarily support your hypothesis.

Fewer teenagers and an older average rookie age do indicate that it's harder to break into the majors at a young age. What else could it mean?

I think we'd all stipulate the fact that players want to break into the majors as soon as they can and, further, that teams want any talented players they can get their hands on.

If it were as easy as years past, you'd have just as many players being productive regulars as there were in years past.

Players just don't make it to the majors and produce like Griffey at age 19 in the modern era.

How many guys can you think of since 1989, Griffey's debut season?

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by oykib

Fewer teenagers and an older average rookie age do indicate that it's harder to break into the majors at a young age. What else could it mean?

It could just mean that based on current GM/player development conventions, fewer guys get a crack at the majors in their teenage years. In other words, being patient with player development is the norm more so than in the past.

Still, I was pretty curious about teenage players making a dent in the modern era. So I skimmed through guys that received ROY votes. These are the guys that did so as teenagers from 1970 to present:

1970 - Cesar Cedeno, 19
1984 - Dwight Gooden, 19
1989 - Ken Griffey, Jr.
1991 - Ivan Rodriguez, 19
1996 - Edgar Renteria, 19
2003 - Jose Reyes, 19 (turned 20 the day after his debut)

Gooden was the only one of these guys to win ROY. Griffey hit .264 and finished 3rd in the AL behind Gregg Olson and Tom Gordon. Also, A-Rod got a decent amount of playing (200+ plate appearances) time when he was 18-19 but did not get a ROY vote. He was an All-Star and narrowly finished 2nd to Juan Gonzalez in the MVP race when he was 20, though.

[Lathum]

A little off topic but I am headed to the Mariners game today with a guy who works for the team and we have a suite, really looking forward to it.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

It could just mean that based on current GM/player development conventions, fewer guys get a crack at the majors in their teenage years. In other words, being patient with player development is the norm more so than in the past.

This.

Different doesn't necessarily mean harder.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by oykib

Fewer teenagers and an older average rookie age do indicate that it's harder to break into the majors at a young age. What else could it mean?

That teams are more conservative with their player development than they have been in the past.

Originally Posted by oykib

I think we'd all stipulate the fact that players want to break into the majors as soon as they can and, further, that teams want any talented players they can get their hands on.

Since Griffey debuted the gap between markets has increased dramatically. Most teams now are trying to maximize the production they can get out of a player while he's under their control. Playing a guy because me might be worth 2 wins at 19 could cost you a 8 win season at 25.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Atocep

That teams are more conservative with their player development than they have been in the past.




Since Griffey debuted the gap between markets has increased dramatically. Most teams now are trying to maximize the production they can get out of a player while he's under their control. Playing a guy because me might be worth 2 wins at 19 could cost you a 8 win season at 25.

Teams don't keep guys who would be effective regulars down in the minors to have control over them longer for more than a little while. In '89, Griffey had a 108 OPS+ in 508 plate appearances while playing above average in centerfield. No organization is keeping someone down who can do that.

Here's the link to the Baseball reference page of stat leaders through age 20. Only Griffey and A-rod appear with any regularity of position players in the past 25 years. Edgar Renteria makes a noticeable number of appearances too.

But the number of guys from earlier eras of baseball is impressive. It's moderately rare for teenagers to make the majors. But it's that much more difficult for them to do well. They did well a lot more frequently in the past.

That's also in Bill James Historical Abstract, by the way. He posits that the argument that baseball players were better in the past was bunk, partly because there were so many more effective teenagers in the past than now.

But if you look at the thru-age-20 leaderboard, do you notice how many HoFers are on the list? No GM is going to be so conservative that he keeps a hall of fame talent in the minors after the point where he can be an effective starter. If the player is that good, what are you saving his pre-arbitration years for?

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by oykib

Teams don't keep guys who would be effective regulars down in the minors to have control over them longer for more than a little while. In '89, Griffey had a 108 OPS+ in 508 plate appearances while playing above average in centerfield. No organization is keeping someone down who can do that.

Here's the link to the Baseball reference page of stat leaders through age 20. Only Griffey and A-rod appear with any regularity of position players in the past 25 years. Edgar Renteria makes a noticeable number of appearances too.

But the number of guys from earlier eras of baseball is impressive. It's moderately rare for teenagers to make the majors. But it's that much more difficult for them to do well. They did well a lot more frequently in the past.

That's also in Bill James Historical Abstract, by the way. He posits that the argument that baseball players were better in the past was bunk, partly because there were so many more effective teenagers in the past than now.

But if you look at the thru-age-20 leaderboard, do you notice how many HoFers are on the list? No GM is going to be so conservative that he keeps a hall of fame talent in the minors after the point where he can be an effective starter. If the player is that good, what are you saving his pre-arbitration years for?

Have you been following Steven Strasburg at all?

[oykib]

You mean the guy that's going to be in the majors next week? The guy who spent all of two months in the minors?

[Ramzavail]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Mantle was a better CF than DiMaggio. Seriously, take a look at Mantle's batting numbers (for starters his career 172 OPS+). I don't think people realize just how amazing the Mick was.

DiMaggio was the better defensive CF, but probably not as much as people would think as Mantle's range factor was pretty decent.

I'm not against making Mantle #1B - but I don't see it as clear cut as you do.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Have you been following Steven Strasburg at all?

I don't believe super 2 existed in that time period(Griffey's first season)

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by oykib

Teams don't keep guys who would be effective regulars down in the minors to have control over them longer for more than a little while. In '89, Griffey had a 108 OPS+ in 508 plate appearances while playing above average in centerfield. No organization is keeping someone down who can do that.

You're working with perfect knowledge of what Griffey did after the fact. A team is making its best guess that a player is going to be above-replacement level to take the chance of starting his arb/super-2 clock so early.

And Strasburg was a college pitcher (plenty older than a high school kid) who could have pitched last fall in the majors, so I'd say his MLB career has been delayed by nothing more than money considerations.

[dawgfan]

Teams are not holding prospects back for more than a few months in order to delay the start of their arbitration clocks. I hardly think that invalidates the observation that it's more rare for teenagers to be playing productive roles in the majors now than in the distant past.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And Strasburg was a college pitcher (plenty older than a high school kid) who could have pitched last fall in the majors, so I'd say his MLB career has been delayed by nothing more than money considerations.

Money was a big factor, and the key factor with regard to the precise date of the call-up. But additional issues factored into Strasburg playing in the minors.
1) He signed on the last day possible, effectively meaning he couldn't get any minor league time last year;
2) The Nats expected to mostly stink, so they didn't feel the need to rush him to the Majors; and
3) The Nats management made the conscious decision to err on the side of caution with Strasburg.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Teams are not holding prospects back for more than a few months in order to delay the start of their arbitration clocks. I hardly think that invalidates the observation that it's more rare for teenagers to be playing productive roles in the majors now than in the distant past.

It doesn't invalidate it; it largely explains it.

If money, service time, etc., were of no consequence, then Strasburg could have pitched in September for the Nats. A bunch of good-looking prospects would get called up much earlier than they are, because the teams would have very little to lose by giving them a month tryout at the end of the year or shuttling them back and forth between the minors and majors when someone gets injured.

Jason Heyward destroyed 3 levels of baseball at the age of 19. He could have played last year in the bigs, at least the last third of the season. The only reason he was kept out of spring training this year is he was SO good, they couldn't justify keeping him down. None of the factors that kept him in the minors last year were present decades ago.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It doesn't invalidate it; it largely explains it.

If money, service time, etc., were of no consequence, then Strasburg could have pitched in September for the Nats. A bunch of good-looking prospects would get called up much earlier than they are, because the teams would have very little to lose by giving them a month tryout at the end of the year or shuttling them back and forth between the minors and majors when someone gets injured.

Jason Heyward destroyed 3 levels of baseball at the age of 19. He could have played last year in the bigs, at least the last third of the season. The only reason he was kept out of spring training this year is he was SO good, they couldn't justify keeping him down. None of the factors that kept him in the minors last year were present decades ago.

I do agree with most of what you are saying, but I think there are some pretty big differences from Griffey/ARod to Heyward.

For one, Griffey and ARod were both #1 prospects in all of baseball from the time they were drafted on. (both the #1 overall pick in the draft) Heyward wasn't even the top prospect in his own organization at the start of last year. (he was drafted with the 14th pick) He was the fifth ranked prospect in baseball heading into the year.

While he tore up the minors last year, he started the year in A ball. Griffey Jr. and ARod both reached Double A at the age of 18. (one year before Heyward) Stands to reason they got called up one year before Heyward did.

I think if Harper tears up the minors, we'll see how much this plays out. Harper is as hyped as Griffey and ARod. If he were to go nuts in teh minors, I'd bet money he'll be up before he turns 20.

I think both of you guys are right, though I'd lean slightly to your side. I do think teams are being more cautious.

[Ksyrup]

You're going to have your no-doubters in any era. The guys we're talking about are mainly the ones who decades ago teams weren't afraid to throw in the fire versus now, they'll develop them beyond the point they're ready (in some cases) before they bring them up.

Strasburg was a no-brainer, and even he wasted time in the minors. They invented things for him to work on jsut to rationalize keeping him down. Needed to work from the stretch, and then he never put anyone on, or when he did, they pulled him because of pitch count. OK...?

[dawgfan]

Obviously there are some kids that are being held back a few months due to concerns about starting their arbitration clock. But if a kid is so good that he'd make a major difference right now for a team in contention, chances are high that he's going to get called up. I can't think of an example of a stud that's been held back more than a few months. There are arguments to be made that regardless of arbitration clocks and whatnot, the Nats woudn't have pitched Strasburg right away after they signed him last year.