Lars Anderson

[ORS]

Massage the nuance of your positions and parse all you want, but you did say he would be adequate now. It appears as though you consider .750 to be an adequate level of performance, ie "it doesn't blow". I, and others, disagree. For any position, bottom 3rd, by definition, blows. That's Ryan Garko level performance, with worse defense.

 

So, stop whining and portraying yourself as some sort of victim. You made a strong statement in that he could be "adequate" now, only it fell apart when you got into what "adequate" means. Heaven forbid, people wanted you to clarify your subjective standard.

[Dojji]

OK you hypocrits, this is what I said -- CONSISTENTLY -- about Anderson at the time we were talking about signing Teixeira.

 

Yeah, but if we do nothing, we can keep Lowell around and roll the dice on Anderson, who's looking like a tremendous prospect right now, with the idea that even if that doesn't pan out it's not that hard to come up with a solution later.

 

I don't think Teixeira improves this team enough to justify bringing him in at the expense of both Lowell and Anderson.

 

Lars is going to start the year in AA but if he stays there all season I will eat a baked baseball. With ketchup. He'll probably debut in 2009 if he puts up the kind of numbers I think he will. Much like Ellsbury did in '07. There's too many injury-prone people Anderson would be a good potential replacement for for me to think he'll spend all of 2009 on the farm. If he has a good debut cup of coffee Anderson's going to start pushing a veteran aside by 2010 and given any luck at all will be starting 1B by 2011.

 

And the piece de resistence:

 

We're dealing with a Boras client after all, and he'll be muddying the waters for all it's worth and will take the fact that we traded Lowell to every other team in the bidding to see if they'll up the ante now that Boston is officially desperate to win. If just one of those teams bites, we're screwed. That will mean either Bailey as the full-time 1B or Anderson rushed to the majors too soon, both less optimal solutions than just leaving Lowell where he is.

[Dojji]

Duplicate post.

[Dojji]

Massage the nuance of your positions and parse all you want' date=' but you did say he would be adequate now. [/quote']

 

I said that once, among my umpteen posts on the subject. And that once is "contradicted" by the rest of my arguments which focus around Andersin being ready by next year or the year after.

 

If you're going to round on me for hypocrisy, at least round on me for an actual hypocrisy rather than just an overstatement.

 

It appears as though you consider .750 to be an adequate level of performance, ie "it doesn't blow". I, and others, disagree. For any position, bottom 3rd, by definition, blows. That's Ryan Garko level performance, with worse defense.

 

Difference being Garko isn't a 21 year old rookie with tremendous upside.

 

So, stop whining and portraying yourself as some sort of victim. You made a strong statement in that he could be "adequate" now, only it fell apart when you got into what "adequate" means. Heaven forbid, people wanted you to clarify your subjective standard.

 

The operative question here is, exactly why is this such an issue in the first place? Because I said that I thought a700 was right that Lars is still a bit raw? He's a 21 year old kid in freakin' AA, if he gets catapulted to the bigs for some reason and is successful it'll be because of his tools, not exactly his veteran's savvy, I don't see why this is a difficult concept.

 

You're trying to tackle me for a contradiction that isn't even a contradiction.

[Dipre]

That's because if asked, I would have qualified my statement exactly that way before the fact.

So?

 

Umm no, you're revising history to fit your memory. When you do that I reserve the right to correct the record. My belief in Lowell being able to fill his role had at least as much to do with my reluctance to bid the farm on Teixeira. To the point atht I was accused at least twice in the various Teixeira threads of either being Lowell or Mrs. Lowell.

 

Fail. Your faith in Anderson was widely spread across your posts as the fallback if Lowell was hindered, citing Youk's ability to slide over to 3rd and hand the position to Lars. Take a f***ing stand.

 

I certainly never said that Lars would reproduce Teixeira's numbers if moved to the majors now, to the point that I went out of my way to avoid doing so. Feel free to keep trying to skewer me for taking a position I never took -- I guess everyone needs a hobby. That dog doesn't hunt though.

 

No, but you sai he'd be "adequate", and "adequate" means major league ready, because "adequate" means "Average" english major, and the "Average" first baseman last year had an .824 OPS, meaning:

 

A) Fail. Because you refuse to admit the fact that you stated it.

 

B ) Fail. Because you underestimated what "Average" or "Adequate" production from a first baseman stands for, and now you try to hide behind a "He could have a .750 OPS" which is Ross f***ing Gload production. So no.

 

 

There are 8 starting 1B (based on games and plate appearances) around the league with .780 or lower OPS. A .750 OPS is bottom third in the league among 1B, it doesn't really "blow."

 

I bet those 8:

 

A) Sucked.

 

B ) Were injured.

 

A .750 OPS can only be "adequate" for a middle infielder, or awesome defensive catcher.

 

I was tyrying to avoid exactly this conversation at the time. The whole argument is moot anyway -- if Lars is our starting 1B for any length of time in 2009 it's because the Sox have punted the season.

 

Why?

 

You said yourself he could provide "Adequate" production, and "Adequate" is a .824 OPS or better, which is not all that bad.

 

Lessee if I follow the chronology of this fiasco. a700 posts in here a post that might, if twisted in just the wrong way, be perceived as vaguely critical of Lars Anderson. He says that a 21 year old kid with 150 at bats in Portland looke3d overmatched against big league pitchers. A horrible shock, that, I mean seriously, the guy wasn't born swinging a bat at the major league level... geeze, what's the point then?

 

Strawman.

 

And off the record, i never said he wasn't "overmatched", i defended his approach at the plate, because i've been following the couple of ABs he's had, and he's been swinging at strikes and has taken a couple walks, so is that not a sound approach, even if the results aren't there?

 

Following the predictable dogpile on a700 I point out that Lars Anderson is in fact still quite young and really could use some polish, much like a700 said, and the front office's approach in dealing with Anderson reflects exactly that reality. There is nothing in this statement that is inaccurate, or even particularly critical of Anderson. My only crime is agreeing with a700, for which I get the book thrown at me.

 

Nope, your crimeS are being a hypocrite, overstating things, and meddling in other people's arguments without having anything constructive to add.

 

Apparently I didn't get the memo when someone nominated St. Lars of Anderson for deification because apparently noting the facts about a prospect that I'm pretty high on myself makes me a rank blasphemer in some parts.

 

Strawman and childish, take a stand, you made a comment full of fail, contradicted your own view of Anderson, get called on it, and turn the thread into a "Melrose Place" sized soap opera, be a man, and admit you failed, and got owned.

 

Oh, and the funny part? I'm probably Lars' biggest fan on the board, and have taken some heat for exactly that, as has been noted by my persecutors in this thread. You'd think that they'd bear that in mind when reading what I say about a guy. I guess critical thinking is a bit too much to ask given the people in question.

 

If you're such a big fan, then why not take a stand and show your support for the kid by letting other people argue and keeping your asinine comments to yourself.

[Dojji]

If you're such a big fan, then why not take a stand and show your support for the kid by letting other people argue and keeping your asinine comments to yourself.

 

Under the circumstances... :lol::lol:

 

Thanks for completely hijacking the thread BTW.

[Dipre]

Under the circumstances... :lol::lol:

 

Thanks for completely hijacking the thread BTW.

 

It's not hijacked, since the topic we are is still Lars Anderson, isn't it?

[Dojji]

So?

 

Woulda thought that was a gimme. Not surprised I overshot my audience there.

 

You guys are trying to call me out on one comment where I misspoke my position. I clarified. I cited posts similar to my true position that I made at the time.

 

You must be really bored.

 

Fail. Your faith in Anderson was widely spread across your posts as the fallback if Lowell was hindered, citing Youk's ability to slide over to 3rd and hand the position to Lars. Take a f***ing stand.

 

That is my stand. You're the one who wants to say that I said he'd be Teixeira in 2009 if we let him. What I tried to say, and obviously did not make clear enough at the time, despite saying it clearly and repeatedly, was that he'd be above replacement level. And yes, I think he could get by on his tools at this stage in his career, for a reasonable value of "get by." That doesn't mean he isn't raw or couldn't stand some seasoning in the minors.

 

What you fail to understand is that your "contradiction" doesn't even exist -- it's the same "contradiction" a lot of young players have when they come up and haven't reached their peaks yet. It's the same "contradiction" that makes a lot of people unduly paranoid about promoting minor leaguers in the first place.

 

No, but you sai he'd be "adequate", and "adequate" means major league ready, because "adequate" means "Average" english major, and the "Average" first baseman last year had an .824 OPS, meaning:

 

Umm no, adequate and average don't mean the same thing and aren't even particularly similar semantically. Average suggests proximity to the mean or median. Adequate merely implies sufficiency, the condition of minimally filling a requirement.

 

Averageness can't be the standard of adequacy because semantically that results in recursive reduction -- eliminating all below average players moves the median and mean, the standard goes up, and we start over. . The originally average players become "inadequate," repeat ad infinitum until you have only one adequate player in the league. A simple Reducto ad absurdum makes your argument exactly that. Absurd.

 

In baseball terms I take "adequacy" to mean at or above replacement level. Semantically, the implication of what "replacement level" means seems to support that position. The idenficiation of a replacement level sets a standard of adequacy that avoids recursive reduction and allows a semantic cleanness your standard never could.

 

*waits patiently for DipreG to completely ignore this and attempt to drive the same point home several posts later... again*

 

 

A) Fail.

 

Indeed.

B ) Fail.

 

Now I think I see the problem. DipreG has Alzheimer's.

 

Because you underestimated what "Average" or "Adequate" production from a first baseman stands for, and now you try to hide behind a "He could have a .750 OPS" which is Ross f***ing Gload production. So no.

 

Which is replacement level production from a 1B. But way to completely lose your point in a total English fail.

[Dipre]

Oh yeah.

 

I get what you're saying.

 

Average is median.

 

While adequate is sufficient.

 

Then i ask, in baseball, how can below average be sufficient?

 

*patiently awaits for english major Doiji to find more dictionary words to weasel out of argument.

[Dojji]

It's not hijacked' date=' since the topic we are is still Lars Anderson, isn't it?[/quote']

 

Barely.

[Dojji]

Oh yeah.

 

I get what you're saying.

 

Average is median.

 

While adequate is sufficient.

 

Then i ask, in baseball, how can below average be sufficient?

 

*patiently awaits for english major Doiji to find more dictionary words to weasel out of argument.

 

OK lemme ask this:

 

Sufficient for what? Sufficient to carry a baseball team? Sufficient to be a contributing player of a championship team? Sufficient to be a starting-caliber 1B? Sufficient to be worthy of MLB playing time? Sufficient to polish my boots and beg for a cookie?

 

The best standard for sheer, raw sufficiency I'm aware of is replacement level. I believe Anderson to be an above replacement level ballplayer right now. That's not particularly a stretch -- there's a standing argument that replacement level should probably be reanalyzed and raised somewhat. But until it is, that's where the standard is and I think Anderson could meet it right now.

 

The question I don't know the answer to, and never addressed or even tried to, is whether he could be worthy of a spot on a playoff team. However, Anderson's peripherals are very good and he's an advanced hitter for his age -- he could probably surpass my standard if we needed him to as long as we were willing to put up with youthful hiccups along the way.

 

I took some heat last year for saying exactly the same thing about Masterson and that turned out pretty good so in the unlikely situation that Anderson sees significant playing time (seriously there's like 6 players ahead of him on the 1B depth chart until we know how the Spring Training cuts go) I believe he wouldn't embarrass himself.

 

A team with limited depth at 1B that had an Anderson in their system (like the Mariners or Rangers) would probably contemplate pushing him into the majors. We're a little better off, which means that we only see Anderson as a starter for an extended period if a couple vets were on the DL or have already been dealt for kids (particularly thinking of Lowell and Bay here). That's what I meant by "punting."

[CrespoBlows]

This is really funny how he talks about him saying those things during the Teixeira sweepstakes.

 

The post I quoted from is the third in the thread.

[Dojji]

This is really funny how he talks about him saying those things during the Teixeira sweepstakes.

 

The post I quoted from is the third in the thread.

 

Yep, I see it. That was a assumption I made because of what DipreG was on about with me saying that during the Teixeira sweepstakes. In fairness to me, and to DipreG as well, I did say that back then too. The key phrase then was that I thought if called on he'd "do all right." Another statement implying adequacy rather than brilliance.

 

And a part of that post you conveniently did NOT mention, was my using Billy Butler as a comparison. Billy Butler hit what last year?

[Dipre]

OK lemme ask this:

 

Sufficient for what? Sufficient to carry a baseball team? Sufficient to be a contributing player of a championship team? Sufficient to be a starting-caliber 1B? Sufficient to be worthy of MLB playing time? Sufficient to polish my boots and beg for a cookie?

 

The best standard for sheer, raw sufficiency I'm aware of is replacement level. I believe Anderson to be an above replacement level ballplayer right now. That's not particularly a stretch -- there's a standing argument that replacement level should probably be reanalyzed and raised somewhat. But until it is, that's where the standard is and I think Anderson could meet it right now.

 

The question I don't know the answer to, and never addressed or even tried to, is whether he could be worthy of a spot on a playoff team. However, Anderson's peripherals are very good and he's an advanced hitter for his age -- he could probably surpass my standard if we needed him to as long as we were willing to put up with youthful hiccups along the way.

 

I took some heat last year for saying exactly the same thing about Masterson and that turned out pretty good so in the unlikely situation that Anderson sees significant playing time (seriously there's like 6 players ahead of him on the 1B depth chart until we know how the Spring Training cuts go) I believe he wouldn't embarrass himself.

 

A team with limited depth at 1B that had an Anderson in their system (like the Mariners or Rangers) would probably contemplate pushing him into the majors. We're a little better off, which means that we only see Anderson as a starter for an extended period if a couple vets were on the DL or have already been dealt for kids (particularly thinking of Lowell and Bay here). That's what I meant by "punting."

 

Ok then lemme ask you this:

 

Do you or don't you think Lars Anderson could put up replacement level numbers in the Majors right now?

 

Also:

 

Do you think that even though he's been "overmatched" in ST, his "Swing at strikes, take a walk" approach is not a sound one?

 

And finally:

 

Do you think a guy who swings at strikes, goes the other way, and always has an above .380 OBP all under the age of 22 is "Raw" with the bat?

[TheKilo]

20-year all star!!!!

[Dojji]

Ok then lemme ask you this:

 

Do you or don't you think Lars Anderson could put up replacement level numbers in the Majors right now?

 

I just said exactly yes.

 

Also:

 

Do you think that even though he's been "overmatched" in ST, his "Swing at strikes, take a walk" approach is not a sound one?

 

I just said in so many words above that he's advanced for his age and probably wouldn't embarass himself. That said, that age happens to be 21. MLB pitchers would make him look stupid on occasion of course. I think he'd probably strike out way more than he ever has in his life if he was called up now. There's reason he's starting in AA after all. But he has the ability with his tools to get enough hits and walks to make it work. And you never know if he mightn't just blow us away. That's the way it is with rookies -- you never know.

 

And finally:

 

Do you think a guy who swings at strikes, goes the other way, and always has an above .380 OBP all under the age of 22 is "Raw" with the bat?

 

Jacoby Ellsbury's OBP in AA was what? Turns out he could have perhaps used a bit more seasoning.

 

We're speculating about jumping a guy two levels, it's not a shock if there's a legitimate speculationj about whether the peripherals hold up. He's an advanced hitter for a 20 year old. He's an advanced hitter for a gyuy with only a handful of AA at bats. I'm not sure if he's an advanced MLB hitter yet. Not without more time in the minors to refine his style against AAAA pitching. That's really the big reason I'm not going hell-for-leather on the Anderson Express actually.

[Dojji]

20-year all star!!!!

 

Considering he's 21 YO and we're contemplating a 2009 debut, don't rule it out. If he becopmes a starter in 2010 he'd have to play until he's 42 to have a real chance to pull it off -- but for a first baseman, given reasonable health, and especially if his plate discipline translates to the big league level, that kind of longevity is quite possible.

 

Of course, we're talking about some pretty long odds, and he'll have to avoid not just ordinary injuries but also Mo Vaughnitis, but players do make it on occasion. Certainly given his ceiling, he wouldn't surprise too many people if he went on to have a great big league career, health permitting.

[Dipre]

I just said in so many words above that he's advanced for his age and probably wouldn't embarass himself. That said, that age happens to be 21. MLB pitchers would make him look stupid on occasion of course. I think he'd probably strike out way more than he ever has in his life if he was called up now. There's reason he's starting in AA after all. But he has the ability with his tools to get enough hits and walks to make it work. And you never know if he mightn't just blow us away. That's the way it is with rookies -- you never know.

 

 

Jacoby Ellsbury's OBP in AA was what? Turns out he could have perhaps used a bit more seasoning.

 

We're speculating about jumping a guy two levels, it's not a shock if there's a legitimate speculationj about whether the peripherals hold up. He's an advanced hitter for a 20 year old. He's an advanced hitter for a gyuy with only a handful of AA at bats. I'm not sure if he's an advanced MLB hitter yet. Not without more time in the minors to refine his style against AAAA pitching. That's really the big reason I'm not going hell-for-leather on the Anderson Express actually.

 

That's exactly what i was trying to tell a700 in my post, but you came and created a 4-page shitstorm when you actually think exactly the same way i do.

 

So you just like to stir up controversy for shits and giggles i suppose?

[Dojji]

Well I'm not above it sometimes, since I've been known to take unconventional positions just to see if I can defend them, especially when it comes to prospects (thus my escapades with Gabbard, Snyder, Masterson, Lowrie and Natale), but I thought you were misconstruing a700's point too -- and I thought that there was a little too much personal crap being thrown his way. He wasn't saying anything beyond what he saw himself and I didn't see him make any effort to project beyond the limited sample that he saw from the guy, and his analysis looked fairly reasonable to me (depending on how you define "raw" I suppose) so I thought that people were being a bit too quick to jump down his throat over it.

[CrespoBlows]

Yep, I see it. That was a assumption I made because of what DipreG was on about with me saying that during the Teixeira sweepstakes. In fairness to me, and to DipreG as well, I did say that back then too. The key phrase then was that I thought if called on he'd "do all right." Another statement implying adequacy rather than brilliance.

 

And a part of that post you conveniently did NOT mention, was my using Billy Butler as a comparison. Billy Butler hit what last year?

 

Billy Butler sucked last year.

[Dipre]

Well I'm not above it sometimes' date=' since I've been known to take unconventional positions just to see if I can defend them, but I thought you were misconstruing a700's point too -- and I thought that there was a little too much personal crap being thrown his way. He wasn't saying anything beyond what he saw himself and I didn't see him make any effort to project beyond the limited sample that he saw from the guy, and his analysis looked fairly reasonable to me (depending on how you define "raw" I suppose) so I thought that people were being a bit too quick to jump down his throat over it.[/quote']

 

Well you "supposed" wrong.

 

I'd like to see you quote me saying that Lars was not being overmatched by Major League pitching.

 

What you can quote is me posting some numbers (while never insulting a700 or discounting his point) to defend what i thought was an unfair opinion to the kids' maturity and hitting approach, his approach is polished and ready, he simply lacks experience, is basically what i was trying to convey, but then you and the dude whose name starts with a k, kreibhblabla jumped on me like i had just raped a 4-year-old.

 

a700 said something, i debated him peacefully and respectfully, you and the other genius created a shitstorm, that's about the size of it.

 

And since this is a RED SOX DISCUSSIONS FORUM, i was conveying my point in a discussion about a RED SOX PROSPECT, and isn't that what we're here to do?

[Dojji]

What I said that kicked this off:

 

I dunno, I think he has a point -- a few of us are a bit too eager to defend Anderson in this thread.

 

What started this was a personal opinion based on a snapshot of at bats seen by one poster. Not a scouting report, not really presented as if it should be taken as one. Basically it's just 700's opinion, one backed by his impressions upon seeing Anderson, and not an unreasonable one IMHO considering where the kid is in his career.

 

The actual quote made no attempt whatsoever to project into Anderson's future so take a step backward and recognize that all we're getting is an opinion of where the kid is at, right now -- and considering that he is not pencilled onto the 25 man roster in any way, shape or form, it's an opinion that might not be limited to a700hitter.

 

In context, it makes sense that a 21 year old kid who has barely poked his head above A ball would be a bit overmatched against big league arms and would still have some learning to do about the finer points of his position defensively. You can say all that and make no comment at all about where he'll be 5 years from now. So I recommend that those who are being overdefensive of Anderson, and yet decry those who call them on it by telling them to get off the pulpit, have a soap box to descend themselves.

 

The next post in the thread.

 

You, sir, are a hypocrite.

 

Of the worst kind.

 

That is all.

 

 

Yeah, I'd say you conveyed your point pretty well there. That's some quality discussion of Red Sox prospects there. Hats off to you.

 

Face it, you started this at least as much as I did by being overly snarky and too quick to defend Lars against a criticism that really stands up to objective analysis if you take a second to look at what a700 was really saying -- the same treatment you seem to be blasting me for not giving you.

[Dojji]

Billy Butler sucked last year.

 

That's kinda my point. Butler's a young hitter who's talented enough to mash at the big leagues, and hit reasonably well in 2007 (enough to prove that the talent is there at least), but regressed last year. As a mater of talent and tools, he's a big league hitter but he probably was too raw when he was called up. That said, 2007 pretty much suggests that what I said of Anderson at age 21 was also true of Butler at the same age -- the talent was there if you wanted to take a flier on him.

 

Of course the problem with Butler, and the reason you probably want to hold Anderson down a bit longer too, is that even though the talent is there, the consistency might not be yet. With that said though, again, Anderson has more than enough tools to succeed at the big league level if you're willing to give him the playing time to develop properly. The reason he won't crack the roster in April is that this team has better options and he's still a bit... wait for it... raw and underdeveloped.

[jacksonianmarch]

Players begin their careers with the tools. What needs to be developed is the approach. Butler came up a free swinger and had a decent start. The league adjusted to him and its on him to adjust back. Anderson already has a good approach, the question is will he maintain that when his MLB career is in its infancy. A lot of very patient MiLB hitters who come up to the bigs very young (20-22) seem to forget that patience is a key part of hitting. They eventually re-establish it as they age.

[Dipre]

Players begin their careers with the tools. What needs to be developed is the approach. Butler came up a free swinger and had a decent start. The league adjusted to him and its on him to adjust back. Anderson already has a good approach' date=' the question is will he maintain that when his MLB career is in its infancy.[/b'] A lot of very patient MiLB hitters who come up to the bigs very young (20-22) seem to forget that patience is a key part of hitting. They eventually re-establish it as they age.

 

Thank you.

 

Thank YOU.

 

+100 respect for Jacko right here!

 

Jacko the voice of reason people!

[Dojji]

Seriously, dude, are you on something? No one is disagreeing with you!

[Dipre]

That's exactly what i was trying to tell a700 in my post' date=' [b']but you came and created a 4-page shitstorm when you actually think exactly the same way i do.[/b]

 

So you just like to stir up controversy for shits and giggles i suppose?

 

Wow, you caught on, that's what i've been saying all along.

 

Well done.

[az1soxfan15]

watch out yankee fans this kid is gunna be giving you problems for years to come...

[diony]

watch out yankee fans this kid is gunna be giving you problems for years to come...

 

Oh really?

[redsoxsuperfan]

All depends on when there is a need for him. Right now' date=' Jeff Bailey and Chris Carter are probably ahead of him in the pecking order[/quote']

 

Don't forget, Chris Carter is the guy they trade Wily Mo Pena for ultimately. They wouldn't have just picked anyone - they really do want to use him and make sure they don't rush Lars.

 

Anderson is probably more seen as an ultimate replacement for Mike Lowell with Youk returning to third, or perhaps a back up plan should they not end up with Bay after this year.