Alex Gordon's Career: A Cautionary Tale for Pedro Alvarez and the Pirates
by Charlie on Aug 25, 2009 5:26 PM EDT
38 comments
Baseball Prospectus has an interesting article (subscription only) about what in the world happened to the Royals' Alex Gordon. The article doesn't reach any firm conclusions, but suggests that one possible reason Gordon hasn't set the world on fire is that he didn't receive enough development time in the minors.
I mention this here because the parallels between Gordon and Pedro Alvarez are pretty interesting. Like Alvarez, Gordon was selected with the second overall pick in the draft as a 21-year-old third baseman who had pretty much been the best thing ever in college. Like Alvarez, Gordon didn't play pro ball in the year he was drafted.
Instead, the Royals started him at Class AA Wichita the following year. There, he hit .327/.427/.588 for a full season, which didn't exactly dampen the Royals' enthusiasm for him, so they made him their starting third baseman the following year.
It hasn't worked out. Gordon hit .247/.314/.411 in his rookie year. The next season, he drew more walks but still didn't show the power you'd hope for from a second overall pick. This season, Gordon had hip surgery in April, went on the DL, and hasn't hit when he's even been available. It's certainly possible that his hip is the main reason he hasn't played well this year, but then he also didn't play all that well even before that.
It appears Gordon could have used more time in the minors, and we'd do well to consider that with Alvarez. His stint at Lynchburg raised plenty of questions about his ability to control the strike zone, but his play so far as Class AA Altoona (.326/.411/.560) closely resembles Gordon's Class AA line. The Pirates seem likely to resist the temptation to promote Alvarez straight to the majors next year, and I think they're right to do that. Gordon's example shows the potential hazards in moving a player like Alvarez up too quickly, and Alvarez could probably stand to have at least a couple months at Class AAA before he's called up.
Matt Wieters, another top college pick who got only one full year in the minors, did get a couple months at AAA at the beginning of this year and has been mediocre so far in the big leagues, so even that rather conservative promotion schedule might not be a panacea for Alvarez. But at least the Pirates will get an extra year of player control in the bargain, and they won't have to worry about whether they promoted Alvarez too quickly.
0 recs |
38 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Let him wait
I see only 2 good reasons to bring Pedro up next year: 1. if he’s absolutely dominating AAA, doing everything right, or 2. to get some rookie jitters out of the way before a putatively competitive 2011. But I think that McCutchen has shown that well-prepared, talented players don’t need to fear jitters. Arguably, the cure for rookie jitters is to be so prepared that you don’t feel like a rookie.
If we get Tabata and Lincoln up here next year, I can wait for Pedro.
I agree
I’d be shocked if Pedro played in Pittsburgh next year.
Apart from the very good reason of wanting him to perform at as high a level as possible during his time in Pittsburgh, bringing hm up is going to open a window in which the Pirates can expand the season ticket base enough to actually pay for some of these kids once they reach free agency years. That is, IF the Pirates can field as competitive team (near .500) at that point.
It’s quite possible that with a second year Tabata and a first year Pedro, as well as some experience among these starters, the team could finish .500 and get people excited about the growth potential.
I think next year is going to be a growth year for the improving pitching staff, Lastings Milledge, and a year to see if some of these surprises like Jones and Young can stick.
If those questions are answered positively, then Alvarez could be the piece that begins the resurgence.
by MarkInDallas on Aug 26, 2009 4:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Defense
Also, given the big question marks around Pedro’s glove, I see even less reason to bring him up in ‘10. If we were only looking at his bat, then I’d say he could very well be within 3 playing months of being ready. But I simply don’t believe that his glove is that close.
Also, we have a tolerable interim solution at 3B, and I’d like to see more from Andy before we decide what comes next for him.
I think that unless Pedro slows down a great deal, he’ll definitely be up in ‘10. The only issue is when, and where he’ll be playing. Depending on how LaRoche and Jeff Clement turn out, we could see Pedro at either third or first.
IMO, what position Pedro plays (assuming he keeps hitting very well) should be solely up to his defensive aptitude, not what LaRoche or Clement do.
If Alvarez can play major league level third base and hit at an elite level, he shouldn’t be moved period. As (hopefully) an elite hitting prospect, he’ll have much more value staying at third than if he is a face in the crowd of Pujolses, Fielders, and Howards at first base. I don’t like the idea of lesser prospects like LaRoche forcing him around. Pedro’s future should be up to Pedro.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Aug 25, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Why trade learning time for Peak Pedro?
I have trouble believing that Pedro’s glove will be ready for Prime Time in 2010. If that’s the case, why burn service time on 2010 when we could be getting it in 2017, when he’s at his absolute peak as a ballplayer? To win 3 more games in 2010? To keep him from getting bored in Indy?
As I said, if he’s perfect in AAA, then bring him up, but what are the odds that he’s perfect by next June? No glove issues? Ks under 25% (or, better, 20%)? Able to go the other way when that’s all the pitcher gives him?
I want a finished product, not a work-in-progress.
If his bat is as good as advertised, I don’t think the glove really matters. They should make a decision about where to put him, stick with it, and don’t look back. And yes, I think that if he hits at AAA you have to promote him, because I don’t think you want him to get bored at AAA. I can’t prove it, but I do think there’s a negative developmental value in having a top prospect who otherwise isn’t challenged stay at a level too long just because his glove isn’t good. I think the Devil Rays may have permanently messed up B.J. Upton by doing that.
By the way, @Gorkys above: if Alvarez turns out to be a face in the crowd of Pujolses and Fielders, well, I’ll be pretty happy.
Here is Rany on the Royals......
take on the Alex Gordon situation from 8/18. One of the more respected bloggers around and an ardent Royals fan, like Joe Posnanski, Rany was banned—later recinded—by the Royals this year for his commentary about the team. You think we have it bad following the Pirates, boy is it infinitely worse being a Royals fan apparently and there is NO light at the end of that tunnel.
Rany:
http://www.ranyontheroyals.com/2009_08_16_archive.html
Joe Poz:
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/
The three latest entries on Joe’s blog here are two amazing ones about the Royals sandwiching a great post about the legendary Dock Ellis.
Charlie, I think.....
you did Gordon a bit of a disservice by glossing over his performance last year. You said:
“The next season, he drew more walks but still didn’t show the power you’d hope for from a second overall pick.”
It was his age 24 season and he slashed .260/.351/.432. He hit 16 homers and 35 doubles and had an OPS+ of 110. With all the arguments made on this site about young doubles power turning into home run power I think that is pretty darn good. One of the big arguments in favor of Andy LaRoche is that his doubles power should turn into home run power as he ages. I mean he’s hit 12 homers and 31 doubles in his whole career. And it has been true for countless others. Just a few days ago you said this about Andy LaRoche: “A third baseman with a .714 OPS, a decent OBP and a good glove can become a very good player if he adds some power.” (Gordon’s career UZR/150 is better than Andy’s). I don’t think you can have it both ways, when Gordon last year was a year younger than LaRoche is this year and he put up the numbers listed above.
Also to say more power was expected from the second overall pick, well that is a little silly. Power isn’t the only component to being a high pick. Tim Beckham was the number one pick last year and I’m sure power wasn’t the leading component. In fact only two players since 1991 who were drafted second overall have had a season where that hit even 25 home runs, and only one, J.D. Drew hit more than 30 and he did it exactly one time. So, a 24 year old hitting 16 home runs and 35 doubles is pretty damn impressive.
To say: “It’s certainly possible that his hip is the main reason he hasn’t played well this year, but then he also didn’t play all that well even before that.” is pretty hard to swallow when up to that point the guy had career numbers of .253/.332/.421 going into this year, which are better than LaRoche’s this year and substantially better than his career.
However, I do agree this year has been an unmitigated disaster whether it is the hip or something else.
Part of it comes down to expectations.
Gordon was billed at the time of the draft as being ML-ready with the bat right from the get-go (A brief quote from BA’s pre-draft analysis of him: “Gordon should hit for power and average because he has a sweet lefthanded swing, strength, exceptional strike-zone discipline and the ability to make adjustments…There’s no glaring weakness in his game, and he should advance rapidly as a pro.”). As such, it was a disappointment to the Royals that he was not, even if he ends up becoming that player in the future.
Similarly, his defense turned out to be less than advertised. He was billed as an average defender on draft day, and less than a year into his ML career the Royals were already talking about moving him to first.
So, LaRoche....
being billed as one of the top three prospects in the LA organization at a higher level in professional baseball at the same age is not significant?
LaRoche had been sitting around AAA for three years...
…waiting for a chance to start. When guys are in that position, the hype around them dies, whether they deserve it or not. By the time he was traded, even an inferior prospect on the same team like Blake DeWitt was getting more press.
Gordon, in contrast, was promoted too quickly for the hype to have a chance to bubble down.
Well, clearly that....
hasn’t happened and he is grading out above LaRoche. Who actually cares what “they were talking about less than a year in to his career?” His performance has obviously stopped that conversation, don’t selectively use quotes and statistics Vlad it’s bad form. Some meaningless quote is random and you didn’t link it, not that it matters, and I’m using the stat you profess to like—UZR/150. Do you have any evidence that they are talking about that now or it is in their plans, to move him to first base?
And are you telling me that at age 24 hitting 16 home runs and 35 doubles is not exhibiting power? Answer that for me please.
SLG of around .400
is what Roberto Clemente had until he broke out at 25 – when he hit 16 home runs and pushed his SLG to .458.
by MarkInDallas on Aug 26, 2009 3:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I didn't link the quote...
…because it’s from an old BA draft preview, and as such is behind the pay wall unless you’re a subscriber (and therefore useless to 90% of the people here). If you want, I’ll be glad to link it for you.
The difference in the amount of disappointment around both players is that Gordon was the recipient of a much higher level of hype than LaRoche was. I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp. LaRoche was one good prospect among many, a low-round pick made good, on a team that didn’t really need him or seem to know what to do with him. He was a prominent prospect, to be sure, but only to people already inclined to pay attention to prospects (Which is maybe 5% of MLB’s fan base as a whole. Maybe.). Gordon was immediately annointed as the franchise saviour for KC, because they didn’t have anybody else of real value in the system and because high first round picks always attract a huge amount of attention. People were talking about him potentially putting up a 20-20 season as a rookie, and wondering whether he’d be KC’s cleanup hitter out of spring training. The hype was greater by several orders of magnitude.
THAT’s why Gordon is seen as a bigger disappointment.
My point hasn't been at all about......
who was a bigger disappointment. I have been arguing that the performance of Gordon was significantly better than Charlie gave him credit for and then brought up LaRoche because just the other day Charlie cited LaRoche’s numbers suggesting they were good, but said hadn’t played very well, when his numbers were much better. I don’t care about expectations, I’m talking about what has actually happened.
I think
the point of the original post is just that top prospects struggle sometimes if you rush them and therefore the Pirates should be careful with Pedro Alvarez, who has Gordon-like talent and expectations. I think we’ll all be massively disappointed if Pedro’s performance is in any way similar to Gordon’s performance thus far.
I have no idea how Andy LaRoche is relevant to that conversation…he was never a a “franchise-saviour” type of prospect and he certainly wasn’t rushed through the minors.
They are two
different things. 1) expectations: we probably wouldn’t be disappointed if Alvarez put up the type of season Gordon did last year with 16 HRs, 35 RBIs and an OPS+ of 110 next year. We certainly would be disappointed if he put up the numbers that Gordon did this year which may or may not be effected by injury. 2) performance: I brought up LaRoche because Charlie said Gordon hadn’t played very well up until this year, but just argued recently that LaRoche—the same age and position—had been good, when his numbers were worse than Gordon’s. I think it’s easy to see why that is relevant when talking about performance.
Yes, I think we all know how you feel about Andy LaRoche, but this post is about rushing potential superstars to the big leagues and Andy doesn’t belong in that converation since he A) Wasn’t a potential superstar B) Wasn’t rushed to the big leagues.
Aramis Ramirez is another example of what Charlie is talking about and I sincerely hope the Pirates don’t make the same mistake with Pedro. We only get 6.5 years of him, so let’s make sure he does all his learning at AAA and not while his free agency clock is ticking.
I don't have....
a strong opinion about Andy LaRoche. The only thing I have pointed out is that I think is performance has been subpar.
If you follow my argument, you will understand that I brought Andy into the conversation as a reference point when describing Gordon’s performance, because there are many similarities and Charlie spoke of it a few days ago.
Seems like we're talking past each other a bit, then.
I took Charlie’s post here to be at least as much about the Pedro Hype Train (and the expectations created by it) as about Pedro the prospect himself. Whereas the earlier post on LaRoche you are referencing was more of a pure analysis.
I still think Gordon is a promising player, but I also think he’s been a disappointment. There’s no contradiction there, and I think most Royals fans would see it the same way. When drafted, Gordon was a massively talented player in a very deep draft. That Gordon can even be compared with Andy LaRoche right now shows how badly Gordon’s career has gone relative to expectations, and I like LaRoche.
And the issue is not so much the exact number of homers he has right now relative to other second overall picks. (And by the way, there have been eight pitchers drafted 2nd overall since 1991, along with a bunch of abject disappointments and several guys who are still in the minors, and there hasn’t been a single productive position player drafted overall since 1991 who hasn’t hit at least 25 homers in a season, so I’m not sure why you’re framing your argument that way, unless you don’t feel it’s reasonable to expect to get a good player with the second overall pick.) The issue is that, as a third baseman, Gordon needs to hit home runs to really justify the pick. If he were, say, a great defensive catcher, that might not be the case.
there hasn’t been a single productive position player drafted overall since 1991 who hasn’t hit at least 25 homers in a season
And the guy who comes closest, B.J. Upton, hit 24 in the one season in which he was genuinely justified being drafted that high.
And why the italics?.....
that isn’t a quote of mine even though you are responding to a point I made. If you want to quote it, it’s right there, quote it right.
BJ Upton has “genuinely justified his being drafted high” with his .213/.313/.370 line this year? His OPS+ of 76? He’s hit a total of 18 home runs in his last 1167 ML PAs. Seems he might have a little Alex Gordon in him. I’m just asking for a little consistency in the argument and one time you not taking umbrage that you are being questioned in your opinion.
You wanna defend your comments go ahead, but it would be nice if on occasion you could see that maybe you point isn’t as valid as you think. I’ve tried to lay this out in both cases as analytically as possible. No personal attacks, just straight facts based on performance. If you think I’m being an ass okay, sorry. I just don’t think your point are valid.
Thanks for the journalism lesson, but I was quoting myself, not you. I’m not sure why you’re lecturing me, since I’ve been very polite in responding to a blizzard of arguments, the overall point of which I can’t even discern.
You seem to have misunderstood my point. You wrote that only two second-overall players since 1991 have hit 25 homers in a season.
Also to say more power was expected from the second overall pick, well that is a little silly. Power isn’t the only component to being a high pick. Tim Beckham was the number one pick last year and I’m sure power wasn’t the leading component. In fact only two players since 1991 who were drafted second overall have had a season where that hit even 25 home runs, and only one, J.D. Drew hit more than 30 and he did it exactly one time.
Lots of those players were pitchers, more were colossal busts, and still others are still in the minors. And one of the ones remaining is Upton, who’s had one season in which he looked like a second overall pick and hit 24 homers that season. There hasn’t been a single good position player drafted second overall since 1991 who hasn’t hit more than 25 homers in a season.
Should the Royals not expect to get a good player with the second overall pick? And if so, how does it support your point to say that Gordon doesn’t need to hit for more home run power than he’s shown so far to avoid being a disappointment? True, there are players like Joe Mauer who can be superstars despite not hitting lots of homers, but Gordon, who has less defensive value than Mauer and probably isn’t likely to hit for that much average, isn’t that sort of player.
I never said....
“that Gordon doesn’t need to hit for more home run power than he’s shown so far to avoid being a disappointment?” which you say I did in the comment above. Not once did I say anything like that.
I said that hitting 16 homers and 35 doubles in your age 24 season was pretty good, IMO. And as everyone on here says all the time, that indicates that more power is likely to develop as you get older.
I have tried to make two points:
1) expectations:
I don’t think most people would be disappointed if Alvarez put up the type of season Gordon did last year: 16 HRs, 35 RBIs and an OPS+ of 110—next year. Your comment about those numbers for Gordon was “(he) still didn’t show the power you’d hope for from a second overall pick.” I disagreed and would ask what type of power numbers you expected from a 24 year old in his second season?
2) performance:
I brought up LaRoche because you said Gordon hadn’t played very well up until this year, but also argued recently that LaRoche—the same age and playing the same position—has been good. Gordon’s career numbers are much better than Andy’s. His 2008 season is much better than any season Andy has had. And, his career numbers are much in line with the season Andy is having this year. I thought the two arguments were inconsistent.
*correction
above that is supposed to say 16 HRs and 35 doubles (not RBIs)
Maybe I misread you quote....
you are saying there isn’t a single productive position player drafted overall since 1991 who hasn’t hit at least 25 homers in a season? Isn’t that the definition of some level of production? So you are saying the guys who were drafted who have succeeded have succeeded?
Yes, I will agree with that. I don’t get the point at all. Guys drafted since 1991 who have been successful have all hit 25 home runs in a season. Yes, we agree. Not sure how that plays into the conversation at all.
Again, and I’m quoting YOU this time:
Also to say more power was expected from the second overall pick, well that is a little silly. Power isn’t the only component to being a high pick. Tim Beckham was the number one pick last year and I’m sure power wasn’t the leading component. In fact only two players since 1991 who were drafted second overall have had a season where that hit even 25 home runs, and only one, J.D. Drew hit more than 30 and he did it exactly one time.
Charlie, you picked....
the stats not me. I agree with your point. But, one’s draft position doesn’t determine things once you are playing professionally, your production does. Of course, Royals fan are disappointed when they think they are getting George Brett and it doesn’t pan out.
My point is that you can’t say two players who have stats where one has outperformed the other, that one did good, okay or whatever you want to say, and the other didn’t play well. Performance is easily evaluated. You made your argument based on expectations. So say that. Don’t say Gordon didn’t perform particulary well and LaRoche has been good or okay when they are the same age and play the same position and Gordon’s stats are clearly much superior than Adam’s except when he had hip surgery this year.
You are moving the goal posts if you do that. Based on expectatoins, maybe. But when BA rates Andy as a top prospect in the Dodgers organization at 22 and 23, I’m not even sure you have that leg to stand on.
It seems odd...
…that you’re giving Gordon a pass for 2009 based on an injury, but not willing to do the same for LaRoche for 2008 based on an injury of comparable severity. It’d be fairer (and more useful) to do both, or neither.
One other fairly important factor that hasn’t been mentioned yet is age. Gordon is more than a year and a half older than LaRoche, so a straight comparison across years isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison in terms of ceiling.
What?????
Gordon is five months YOUNGER than LaRoche. Don’t know where you are getting that info, both B-R and FanGraphs have that data.
And I did give Andy a pass on his injury. I compared Gordon’s career rate numbers to LaRoche’s numbers this year. And I didn’t give him the injury pass, Charlie did, which I think we can all agree is an open question.
Huh.
Must’ve mis-read. Could’ve sworn I saw a ’82 DOB for Gordon…
If you’re comparing Gordon’s career rate numbers to LaRoche’s 2009 rate numbers, then I don’t see how you can say that Gordon’s are “clearly much superior”. Gordon’s career OPS+ is 95, and LaRoche’s 2009 OPS+ is 91. Four points of OPS+ is pretty small beer.
Well people I'm sure are bored at this point.
I think I tried to answer with a few of the posts above. Gordon’s career numbers are much better than Andy’s. His 2008 season is much better than any Andy has had. And, his career numbers are much in line with the season Andy is having this year.
So the moral of the story is
we shouldn’t have traded Aramis.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Aug 27, 2009 1:40 AM EDT reply actions
question
for whomever…
how much of the difference between expected and actual performance for both Gordon and LaRoche is a factor of their actual on-field performance and how much is simply because of the large difference in what they were expected to do? (i.e. Andy wasn’t a shining third base beacon in a system that was completely dry and searching for a hitter to hang their system on)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
