In praise of Chris Burke

[No? in Austin]

I think the misconception around here is that Chris Burke is not well liked.  At least by some of the regulars.  I think that this misconception has lead to some real tension in terms of talking realistically about the kid's ability and potential for being a good major league contributor to the team.  It's a shame really that some of the side items of "shortstop", "Offense makes up for Defense" and "attitude" tend to skew the perception of Chris Burke in here.

Let's clear the air if you will and talk honestly and with all sincerity.  It's not anything on Chris Burke as much as the pronouncements of messiah-ship that has caused for the lack of honest talk about him.  Leaving aside the savior complex, one can see the very good value of Burke as an everyday player.

But let's drop several items off the list right away, shall we:

1. Chris Burke is not an answer for a middle of the lineup hitter.  He's not going to hit 40 hrs, drive in over 100 runs and to project that sort of thing for him is crazy.

2. Chris Burke is not a major league shortstop.

3. Chris Burke is serviceable as a major league second baseman, but has his flaws with the position as well.

So what can Burke honestly do to get himself an everyday gig around here?  This:

1. Be a top of the lineup hitter similar to Biggio... get on-base, get to second base (scoring position) as often as you can (by way of doubles or stolen bases, doesn't matter).  Drive in runs when you can but try to be a high average, some power type of hitter instead of the other way around.  The #2 spot (and eventually leadoff) is wide open for him right now... here is his chance now that Willy has decided to be Mr. Big League and summarily got his arse sat down.

2. Master the centerfield position because that seems to be the best fit for his talent.  You don't need a great arm to be a good centerfielder, you do, however, need to read the ball off the bat well and have the quickness and speed to run down balls in the gap.

Chris Burke may of found his niche finally on this team beyond a utility player.  He knows it and here is hoping he'll put a stanglehold on the opportunity.  His confidence seems to drive this kid (hence why he can be a bit arrogant at times), so the more comfortable he gets with this opportunity of batting #2 and playing centerfield, the more he'll contribute.  And *THAT* can be a very good thing.

Chris Burke, I'm on your side... Go Chris!  

[toddthebod]

On the tv broadcast last night, there was a discussion that a White Sox scout was at the game and had good things to say about Burke.  There was no discussion if the WS were actually scouting Burke for a possible trade.

[homer]

JD said last night that a White Sox scout was in Monday (or maybe it was yesterday) and had high praise ("glowing remarks") for Chris Burke. Then JD said something about Burke being in a White Sox uni (or something similar) and Brownie said he would be hard to get.


ETA: scooped by todd... shiny object passed by while I was typing

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
On the tv broadcast last night, there was a discussion that a White Sox scout was at the game and had good things to say about Burke.  There was no discussion if the WS were actually scouting Burke for a possible trade.

Believe it or not, I didn't catch one inning of the game last night.  I had other pending plans with in-laws.  But I've been thinking for several days how well this current opportunity fits who Chris Burke should be for the Houston Astros.

Not shortstop.
Not second base unless he gets better at mastering the position.
Not #5 hitter.
Not #6 hitter.
Not messiah.

Just a nice #2 hitter who does things well in that slot and also plays a good centerfield for the Astros.  Imagine if you will the things they wanted out of Biggio when they moved him there from second base, but this time you have the younger legs and arms of Burke.  It is a fit and one I hope finally puts to rest all the other crap that surrounds this kid's career asperations.

[JimR]

i agree with your assessment, Noe. i do not think he will hit for a real high average, but if he will use his speed to his best advantage, it will not matter much. i like that he is enhancing his trade value, but it is apparent to me that TP is in love with him.

my view of him:

1. Super Utl.
2. decent 2B
3. decent CF and LF but should not play RF b/c of his arm
4. not a SS except in an emergency

[Limey]

I was explaining to my buddy last night that I'm not convinced that Burke has the all-around game to be a starter in the bigs, the denouement of the conversation was Burke bladdering the ball into RCF for 2 ribs.

[EasTexAstro]

Quote:

Quote:
On the tv broadcast last night, there was a discussion that a White Sox scout was at the game and had good things to say about Burke.  There was no discussion if the WS were actually scouting Burke for a possible trade.

Believe it or not, I didn't catch one inning of the game last night.  I had other pending plans with in-laws.  But I've been thinking for several days how well this current opportunity fits who Chris Burke should be for the Houston Astros.

Not shortstop.
Not second base unless he gets better at mastering the position.
Not #5 hitter.
Not #6 hitter.
Not messiah.

Just a nice #2 hitter who does things well in that slot and also plays a good centerfield for the Astros.  Imagine if you will the things they wanted out of Biggio when they moved him there from second base, but this time you have the younger legs and arms of Burke.  It is a fit and one I hope finally puts to rest all the other crap that surrounds this kid's career asperations.

You know, I don't know baseball nearly as well as you do. I wasn't even thinking CF.

I have been thinking about how he tracked down balls in LF last year. Burke seem to be a more consistant  hitter at getting on base. Not a power guy, but what good is a high strike out power hitter when nobody is getting on base? I thin You nailed it, Noe.

[JimR]

he has been playing CF the last few games. he played CF a few games during his tenure in RR. Taveras is getting himself in the doghouse, i think.

i agree with you too, Limey. i think the jury is still out on him, but he clearly is making progress. the key for him, imo, is to recognize his limitations and to try to maximize the skills he does have. perhaps he should call Noe?

[S.P. Rodriguez]

I watched the game last night and he did exactly what you are describing.  He's working counts, fouling off pitches, making solid contact, and simply getting on base.  He had an outstanding game last night and I don't want to base too much off one game against a Kerry Wood that was less than his past self.  However, if he keeps up this type of success at the plate and can provide adequate defense in CF, I think Willy just lost his job.  Burke may even allow Biggio to move to the 2-spot which, IIRC, Biggio prefers and performs better at this stage of his career.  

Defensively, Burke had one play in CF where he didn't seem to react very well, with a hit to shallow CF that he didn't  play very well.  He ended up with a sliding catch attempt where the ball got past him.  Berkman was there to back him up so it was not a horrible mistake and I'm not sure Willy would have caught it either.  At best, he could have kept the ball in front and not relied on the RF to back him up.  I assume with more time in CF, if he gets it, his judgement in those situations will improve.  

My question is what has changed about his swing?  He does not look like the same hitter from early last season.

[EasTexAstro]

Quote:
he has been playing CF the last few games. he played CF a few games during his tenure in RR. Taveras is getting himself in the doghouse, i think.

I haven't been able to watch much lately, so I was just remmebring last year where it took a perfect hit to the gap for a ball to get between Willy and Chris. I know Burke went into cewnter a few times last year, too. I wasn't sure how his arm would play into his defense in CF, as I remember Biggio really struggling to hold runners. Burke's speed could let him get to more balls and possibly position himself better than Biggio ever did.

I really wish Willy could get going.

BTW, my secretary just came in. Her son-in-law coached Stubbs in HS. She says he is really excited. Wish the Astros could have netted him, but good for him.

[Astroholic]

They asked Burke about that play after the game and he said he went for it because he knew Berkman would be backing him up and he would not be able to take that risk if he was playing one of the corners.

[Limey]

Quote:
i agree with you too, Limey. i think the jury is still out on him, but he clearly is making progress. the key for him, imo, is to recognize his limitations and to try to maximize the skills he does have. perhaps he should call Noe?

Or Clint Eastwood.  A man's got to know his limitations.

[austro]

Quote:
Defensively, Burke had one play in CF where he didn't seem to react very well, with a hit to shallow CF that he didn't  play very well.  He ended up with a sliding catch attempt where the ball got past him.  Berkman was there to back him up so it was not a horrible mistake and I'm not sure Willy would have caught it either.  At best, he could have kept the ball in front and not relied on the RF to back him up.  I assume with more time in CF, if he gets it, his judgement in those situations will improve.  

I think he got a late jump on that one, but I thought it was a reasonable chance to take, and for the same reason that he mentioned in the post-game interview: as he was coming in, he saw Berkman looping around behind him, so he knew that even if it got by him it wasn't going very far (because it was a looper) and Berkman would be on it quickly.  I thought the jump was sub-par, but the decision-making was good.

[Limey]

Quote:
I remember Biggio really struggling to hold runners. Burke's speed could let him get to more balls and possibly position himself better than Biggio ever did.

Biggio's lack of speed forced him to play so deep that he could barely reach the cut-off man, let alone hold a runner.  Burke can play a little shallower.

Neither of 'em gets anywhere near as close as Willy T to Mabry's shot to the hill in the 9th.*

* On the topic of prescient conversation at the park with my buddy, he made a comment about Mabry being dangerous and I was half-way through agreeing with him when said shot was launched.  Maybe we should apply to 740...

[MusicMan]

Quote:
Maybe we should apply to 740...

Why, did you have a recent prefrontal lobotomy we should know about?

[David in Jackson]

Quote:
i agree with your assessment, Noe. i do not think he will hit for a real high average, but if he will use his speed to his best advantage, it will not matter much. i like that he is enhancing his trade value, but it is apparent to me that TP is in love with him.

my view of him:

1. Super Utl.
2. decent 2B
3. decent CF and LF but should not play RF b/c of his arm
4. not a SS except in an emergency

I agree with this, except we need to get more offense (and power) out of LF.

[NeilT]

Quote:
I think the misconception around here is that Chris Burke is not well liked.  At least by some of the regulars.  I think that this misconception has lead to some real tension in terms of talking realistically about the kid's ability and potential for being a good major league contributor to the team.  It's a shame really that some of the side items of "shortstop", "Offense makes up for Defense" and "attitude" tend to skew the preception of Chris Burke in here.

Let's clear the air if you will and talk honestly and with all sincerity.  It's not anything on Chris Burke as much as the pronouncements of messiah-ship that has caused for the lack of honest talk about him.  Leaving aside the savior complex, one can see the very good value of Burke as an everyday player.

But let's drop several items off the list right away, shall we:

1. Chris Burke is not an answer for a middle of the lineup hitter.  He's not going to hit 40 hrs, drive in over 100 runs and to project that sort of thing for him is crazy.

2. Chris Burke is not a major league shortstop.

3. Chris Burke is serviceable as a major league second baseman, but has his flaws with the position as well.

So what can Burke honestly do to get himself an everyday gig around here?  This:

1. Be a top of the lineup hitter similar to Biggio... get on-base, get to second base (scoring position) as often as you can (by way of doubles or stolen bases, doesn't matter).  Drive in runs when you can but try to be a high average, some power type of hitter instead of the other way around.  The #2 spot (and eventually leadoff) is wide open for him right now... here is his chance now that Willy has decided to be Mr. Big League and summarily got his arse sat down.

2. Master the centerfield position because that seems to be the best fit for his talent.  You don't need a great arm to be a good centerfielder, you do, however, need to read the ball off the bat well and have the quickness and speed to run down balls in the gap.

Chris Burke may of found his niche finally on this team beyond a utility player.  He knows it and here is hoping he'll put a stanglehold on the opportunity.  His confidence seems to drive this kid (hence why he can be a bit arrogant at times), so the more comfortable he gets with this opportunity of batting #2 and playing centerfield, the more he'll contribute.  And *THAT* can be a very good thing.

Chris Burke, I'm on your side... Go Chris!  

Frankly, I must have slept through the Burke as Messiah threads, and the older I get the more likely it is that's true.  I just don't remember any Burke wars, and I must have kept my mouth shut (unlikely as that may be).  Or maybe I don't remember being in the middle of them: that's possible too.  I don't remember paying much attention to Burke until last year.

What I have found interesting about Burke, Taveras, Lane, Ensberg, and Everett is that they're all fairly young position players who are developing and not developed, and they're fun to watch for that reason, win or lose, succeed or fail.  The one thing you've got to give them is time, which is trying. I guess if what I missed with Burke was positive overreactions, what I didn't miss was what I've thought were negative overreactions, so I end up as a Burke defender.   How did that happen, other than my not keeping my mouth shut?  I dunno, but here's what I like about Burke:  I think his defense in left last year was terrific, much better than could have been expected.  I liked that he had no complaints about going out to left, or anywhere else he's been sent.  He may have had attitude problems at Round Rock, but he doesn't seem to have them now. Just the opposite.

I think he plays hard.  Biggio hard, maybe.  That's kinda intangible, isn't it?  But the mistakes Burke makes aren't because of loss of concentration or will, but over-playing.  

I like his at-bats.  Not all of them are good, but even in his last at bat last night, the guy is working. Perhaps because of my unexpected role as a Burke defender, I've ended up watching his at bats with greater intensity than I would normally have watched them. I seem to go out of my way to watch them. Generally, they're good, even when he fails. Sometimes they're not, but that's rarer.

I liked his numbers last year, strange as they were.  If he gets it together, he'll be a nice combination of power and OBP.  

I don't trust the business about his arm completely:  it's not that I don't believe there has been some failing there, but I suspect it's been over-played.  Last night at second Burke takes a deep grounder in the grass at center and lasers it to first, too late.  But it was not a weak throw: from where I sat it was all that throw should have been. Even The Play, where the ball bounces short, as I recall was thrown hard, hard enough to bounce off Berkman's glove and get saved by Ausmus from going into the stands.  There may be problems with the arm, but . . . Like most things about Burke, like not hitting for power, for instance, it may be overblown, and may be premature judgments on a developing player.  

I haven't seen Burke play second enough to know whether he'll be serviceable, and he may never be on the field at short again.  I dunno, but ya'll have taught me to like the guy just because I guess I'm such a contrarian, and saying that he seems "not well-liked" in my mind would have been an understatement. Should I start bashing Burke now?

[JimR]

if you do not question his arm, you have not been watching near closely enough.

also, he will never be a combination of "power" and anything. he does not have power, but he will hit an occasional HR.

what he is is what Noe said: a 2B, a utility player, and maybe a CF or LF.

[ASTROCREEP]

I'd be interested to know HOW MUCH the White Sox really like him.


Chris Burke might be able to play CF for another team, but as long as they are playing at Minute Maid the Astros need a better defensive CF.

[pravata]

Quote:
...the pronouncements of messiah-ship that has caused for the lack of honest talk about him. ...

Two years ago, Lane was the poster boy.  Now it's Zobrist, Pence, Jimerson, Scott, Hirsch, anyone who hasn't been in the majors is touted, by commentators, as better ("has to be better than...") than who they have up already.  Now it's Burke, who's next?

[JimR]

me, too. i think the Astros are beginning to think they need a better defensive CFer than Willy too. Posednik anyone?

[NeilT]

Quote:
if you do not question his arm, you have not been watching near closely enough.

also, he will never be a combination of "power" and anything. he does not have power, but he will hit an occasional HR.

what he is is what Noe said: a 2B, a utility player, and maybe a CF or LF.

What I said was that the problems with his arm are probably overplayed, like much of Burke.  If you're saying he's not a right fielder or a shortstop, fine, but that's a long way from saying his arm's too weak to play, say, centerfield, which I think you've said from time to time about Burke.  

If power is defined as home runs, then no, maybe he won't hit for a lot of power.  If he continues to hit like he's hit this year, though, that's some power, and it's a long way from saying he'll never be anything but a singles hitter, which I think you've said from time to time about Burke.

Maybe I'm wrong about what you've said.  My point has never been that Burke is the Messiah, only that I don't know yet what Burke is, but what I'm seeing doesn't conform to the kind of judgment he's received here.

[homer]

Quote:
Posednik anyone?

For who? Burke and ... ?

[BudGirl]

Quote:
me, too. i think the Astros are beginning to think they need a better defensive CFer than Willy too. Posednik anyone?

I have liked him for a long time now.

[juliogotay]

I don't see Taveras making progress as a hitter. He reminds me more and more of Brian Hunter with those feet moving in the batters box. Will he ever be able to drive the ball enough to have gap power? At least Burke has double and triple potential because he hits line drives on occasion to the gaps. Taveras never seems to hit the ball hard.

[Limey]

Quote:
Taveras never seems to hit the ball hard.

He also tries to bunt for hits when a sac-bunt is what's required.  That dab down the 3B line whilst legging it out of the batter's box - which invariably goes foul - is really fucking annoying when there's no one out and a runner on.  The count ends up at 0-2 and Willy's no forced to get a hit, which means the runner will still be at 1st with 1 out almost every time.

[Limey]

Quote:
I have liked him for a long time now.

I smell restraining order...

[BudGirl]

Quote:

Quote:
I have liked him for a long time now.

I smell restraining order...

What's one more?

[Limey]

Quote:
What's one more?

You have each and every one framed and on your wall.  Admit it!

[JimR]

"probably overplayed"

no, it is not.

[NeilT]

Quote:
"probably overplayed"

no, it is not.

Well, then, define that a bit more.  He literally has no arm, and what we're seeing is a prosthetic?  His arm is so poor that he will never play regularly and well at any major league position?  His arm is poorer than Craig Biggio's at this stage in Biggio's career? Are the problems with his arm correctible, or are they simply physical limitations?  Are they problems with strength?   Accuracy?  Is it a combination of glove and arm?  Footwork?  How many plays in a season will the limitations on Burke's arm make a difference?  All?  1? 10? 100?  Since You've already told me that watching Burke on a day to day basis will prove that Burke is unsuitable as a major league player, why not be more specific?  How many runs over the next 10 games will Burke's arm cost us?  I would guess there will be some particular play where Burke will make a bad throw, and that particular play will prove that Burke isn't a major league player.  The problem is that no particular play proves that, good or bad.

As to Posednik, none for me thanks.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

If Houston is actually considering a trade including Burke to the White Sox, I would wager Houston is after one of the WS pitchers.

[jasonact]

Quote:

Quote:
...the pronouncements of messiah-ship that has caused for the lack of honest talk about him. ...

Two years ago, Lane was the poster boy.  Now it's Zobrist, Pence, Jimerson, Scott, Hirsch, anyone who hasn't been in the majors is touted, by commentators, as better ("has to be better than...") than who they have up already.  Now it's Burke, who's next?

I don't remember this messiah talk for anyone in recent memory. Fans may get excited about players in the minors, such as Pence, Hirsh, etc., but that does not mean that most fans expect those players to be the savior of a franchise. Maybe I just haven't seen what's really there with regards to fan reaction to these players, but it has always looked more like appropriate excitement, rather than too lofty expectations for a player. For instance, I'm very excited about what Hirsh and Pence might do for the Astros in the coming years, but that doesn't mean that I expect them to come in and immediately become all-stars, or even become all-stars at any point in their careers. But I am excited for what they could potentially do, just as I am exicted about what Burke is currently doing. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

[Arky Vaughan]

I'm imagining that the vast majority of messiah talk about Chris Burke is from people who (1) hardly saw him hit other than in the 2005 playoffs and (2) have almost never seen him play defense, particularly at shortstop.

Which means, unfortunately, they're also very unlikely to read or comprehend your post. Any bets on how many "Burke to shortstop" threads get started the rest of the season? I'll take a first stab: I'm guessing at least six.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Well, then, define that a bit more.

Accuracy and power in a guys throw comes from footwork primarily.  Some, however, have a naturally great throwing arm, even if the transfer-from-glove-to-set-plant-throw method is not followed exactly.  Frucal at short is a great example of great *natural* arm, really bad footwork at times.  What happens in that case?  Lack of accuracy.  So, let's set that as our benchmark. (Edwin Encarnacion at third for the Reds is another example of naturally strong arm/really bad accuracy... look to mechanics flaws due to reliance on arm only in those cases).

Chris Burke is not gifted with a great arm (like a Frucal).  Not necessarily a big deal, look at David Eckstein for an example.  However, if you couple the lack of proper mechanics *behind* his throws, you then get lack of accuracy coupled with lack of strength.  What that gives you is a really bad idea for shortstop.

Really bad.

It is also a bad idea for second base if you consider that turning a double play is vital.  But let's leave that for a moment. So, back to having Burke's arm exposed.  If he doesn't do well to set-plant-and-throw (primarily) or at least rushes his throws to deviate his mechanics too much, he's going to not do well throwing the ball.  Again, refer to Frucal and Eckstein for polar opposite examples.  Frucal can deviate because he has a gun to make up for it, Eckstein cannot.  What Eckstein does well is make sure his mechanics are almost flawless in his throws (accuracy is key) and also a wee bit of cheating on his reads.  He's mastered being one step ahead of where the ball might be hit by reading well what a pitcher is doing, what a batter is tending to do, and so on.  Frucal?  He reacts.

So when you see Burke get a good throw off, either in center, left, as a cut-off man, in the infield... rest assured it was proper mechanics involved.  It was also accuracy that got the runner, not arm strength.  So there is no problem with having a lack of an arm in the majors, but you better understand how to use the other facets of throwing well enough to *compensate*.

You don't ignore the lack of arm strength, you compensate for it.  You do Chris Burke no favors by saying it is overplayed or a non-factor.  How else would he know what the expectations would be for him and the things he needs to improve if honesty in such evaluations were not in place?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
But I am excited for what they could potentially do, just as I am exicted about what Burke is currently doing. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Who said what Burke is doing now in his current role was "wrong"?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I'm imagining that the vast majority of messiah talk about Chris Burke is from people who (1) hardly saw him hit other than in the 2005 playoffs and (2) have almost never seen him play defense, particularly at shortstop.

Which means, unfortunately, they're also very unlikely to read or comprehend your post. Any bets on how many "Burke to shortstop" threads get started the rest of the season? I'll take a first stab: I'm guessing at least six.

Eggszactly!

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
I'm imagining that the vast majority of messiah talk about Chris Burke is from people who (1) hardly saw him hit other than in the 2005 playoffs and (2) have almost never seen him play defense, particularly at shortstop.

Which means, unfortunately, they're also very unlikely to read or comprehend your post. Any bets on how many "Burke to shortstop" threads get started the rest of the season? I'll take a first stab: I'm guessing at least six.

Most of the messiah talk started after he was drafted, before playing pro ball.  Pudnits talked him up as the next Biggio.  After having a successful 1/2 season at Michigan that talk continued.

[jasonact]

Quote:

Quote:
But I am excited for what they could potentially do, just as I am exicted about what Burke is currently doing. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Who said what Burke is doing now in his current role was "wrong"?

No one. I don't think I understand that question. What I mean is that there's nothing wrong with getting excited about young players and what they might do for a team.

[Kit]

2. Master the centerfield position because that seems to be the best fit for his talent. You don't need a great arm to be a good centerfielder, you do, however, need to read the ball off the bat well and have the quickness and speed to run down balls in the gap.

I dunno I like him defensively at 2nd base much better than CF.

I think 2nd base is his spot and he will be above average defensively there once Bidge gets his 3,000+ and rides off into the sunset. If he's still an Astro...which is a big if...

Wish Willie T. would have gotten some more LH AB's over the winter..if he continues to struggle offensively this (batting/bunting from the left side) might be his best chance to stay in the bigs.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
Well, then, define that a bit more.

You don't ignore the lack of arm strength, you compensate for it.  You do Chris Burke no favors by saying it is overplayed or a non-factor.  How else would he know what the expectations would be for him and the things he needs to improve if honesty in such evaluations were not in place?

But that's exactly my point, Noe.  I'm not saying it's a non-factor, though I am certainly admitting I don't know how large a factor it may be.  What I am saying is that whatever the failings of Chris Burke's arm are, I suspect they are not so overwhelming that he will never be a valuable major league player. I suspect that's an overstatement. Maybe he won't be, but if not, it won't only be because of his arm.

[JimR]

LH ABs? what??

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Well, then, define that a bit more.

You don't ignore the lack of arm strength, you compensate for it.  You do Chris Burke no favors by saying it is overplayed or a non-factor.  How else would he know what the expectations would be for him and the things he needs to improve if honesty in such evaluations were not in place?

But that's exactly my point, Noe.  I'm not saying it's a non-factor, though I am certainly admitting I don't know how large a factor it may be.  What I am saying is that whatever the failings of Chris Burke's arm are, I suspect they are not so overwhelming that he will never be a valuable major league player. I suspect that's an overstatement. Maybe he won't be, but if not, it won't only be because of his arm.

I understand, but you answered with a question as to the overplayed factor of Burke's arm.  It's is not overplayed to state the truth about it.  He'll never have Frucal's arm.  So he needs to do *other* things to make himself viable as a major leaguer... which is the point of this thread.

Bottomline: choose the right way to look at his potential, and you're actually doing Burke a favor.  I like how he's being used now, as a starter, to help the team win.  Which, again, is the bottomline.

#3 hitter?  No.  I don't care how much some fans want it to be so.  #5, #6 or even #7?  See the previous answer.  He can certainly *try* to help, but please don't sell me on how surprised one may be that he's not doing well at those batting positions.  Power?  Come on now, are you doing Burke any sort of favor saying he can be a major league power hitter?  See the point... it's about appropriate expectations meeting appropriate opportunities to make one smile about a players chance to be a contributor to winning.

Burke current success at contributing to the cause of making this club a winning team again is eggszactly that to me (and I ain't talking about last night either... I didn't watch last night).  I'm talking about finally seeing how he's being used to appropriate levels for the *TEAMS* sake.

[JimR]

who said this: I suspect they are not so overwhelming that he will never be a valuable major league player. I suspect that's an overstatement.

you are either being obtuse intentionally or you are being disingenuous. he can be valuable AND have a lousy arm, which he does. see Rivers, Mickey.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
who said this: I suspect they are not so overwhelming that he will never be a valuable major league player. I suspect that's an overstatement.

you are either being obtuse intentionally or you are being disingenuous. he can be valuable AND have a lousy arm, which he does. see Rivers, Mickey.

Juan Pierre = modern day Mickey Rivers.

P.S. The irony of that statement is this is a thread "IN PRAISE" of Chris Burke!  I came not to bury him...

[EasTexAstro]

Quote:
Power?  Come on now, are you doing Burke any sort of favor saying he can be a major league power hitter?

Can I call a time out for a second and ask a question?

I always concidered someone who could consistantly hit hard line drives to the gaps, with a very occasional longball or line drive down the line, somewhat of a power hitter. Is that reserved only for big time HR/long fly ball hitters by baseball people?

What would Burke be considered besides maybe a gap power hitter? What would that be called? From what little I have seen so far in the last couple of years, he seems to be hitting about like OP, with maybe a little more pop. Somewhere between Everett and Ensberg. Is that wrong?

[JimR]

i first used Pierre as my example but figured Neil would say "no, thanks" to Pierre's value. no one can say Rivers was of no use.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
i first used Pierre as my example but figured Neil would say "no, thanks" to Pierre's value. no one can say Rivers was of no use.

Especially when he played BillyBall.  He was the prototypical leadoff man for Billy Martin managed teams.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:
i first used Pierre as my example but figured Neil would say "no, thanks" to Pierre's value. no one can say Rivers was of no use.

Man, I hated Rivers when I was a kid because he tried to steal against my idol Johnny Bench in the '76 World Series.  Funny what motivates your feelings when you're 9.

[matadorph]

Burke just left the game after apparently aggravating his left shoulder in the batter's box.

[MusicMan]

Quote:
Burke just left the game after apparently aggravating his left shoulder in the batter's box.

Subluxation of the shoulder just confirmed.

Damn you Noe!!!  You're supposed to use your powers for GOOD!

[NeilT]

Quote:
who said this: I suspect they are not so overwhelming that he will never be a valuable major league player. I suspect that's an overstatement.

you are either being obtuse intentionally or you are being disingenuous. he can be valuable AND have a lousy arm, which he does. see Rivers, Mickey.

Did I misunderstand, Jim?  You think Chris Burke will be a valuable major league player? Despite his lousy arm?

[NeilT]

That sucks.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Well, then, define that a bit more.

You don't ignore the lack of arm strength, you compensate for it.  You do Chris Burke no favors by saying it is overplayed or a non-factor.  How else would he know what the expectations would be for him and the things he needs to improve if honesty in such evaluations were not in place?

But that's exactly my point, Noe.  I'm not saying it's a non-factor, though I am certainly admitting I don't know how large a factor it may be.  What I am saying is that whatever the failings of Chris Burke's arm are, I suspect they are not so overwhelming that he will never be a valuable major league player. I suspect that's an overstatement. Maybe he won't be, but if not, it won't only be because of his arm.

Quote:
It's is not overplayed to state the truth about it.

Great. I think statements to the effect that his arm is "lousy" are exaggerations, and don't tell anyone much about the truth of his arm. Are there problems with it? Sure.  Is it worse than Furcal's?  Sure.  Is it better than Biggio's?  I'd guess so.  Does that mean it's lousy?  I guess I'd be more careful than that.

Quote:
#3 hitter?  No.  I don't care how much some fans want it to be so.  #5, #6 or even #7?  See the previous answer.  He can certainly *try* to help, but please don't sell me on how surprised one may be that he's not doing well at those batting positions.  Power?

Did I say #3? Or #5 or #6 or #7?  I frankly like him at #2, but that's not what I said, either. I said he may turn out to be a nice combination of power and OBP.  There's a lot of room between saying that and saying that he's going to be Barry Bonds.  Or Morgan Ensberg.  He's not Willy Taveras, though, either.

Is the only criteria for hitting with power hitting home runs?  He's not evidencing any power, then.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
who said this: I suspect they are not so overwhelming that he will never be a valuable major league player. I suspect that's an overstatement.

you are either being obtuse intentionally or you are being disingenuous. he can be valuable AND have a lousy arm, which he does. see Rivers, Mickey.

Did I misunderstand, Jim?  You think Chris Burke will be a valuable major league player? Despite his lousy arm?

Not despite, but *with* his lousy arm.  Is that bad?

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Great. I think statements to the effect that his arm is "lousy" are exaggerations, and don't tell anyone much about the truth of his arm.

It's not an exaggeration if it's the truth.  I had a lousy arm, but I played damn fine baseball.  Is that bad for me?  Do major leaguers who contribute to a winning team get deducted points for lack of style like in ice dancing?  It's still about winning pretty much in baseball.  Lousy or non-lousy arm.

Quote:
Are there problems with it? Sure.  Is it worse than Furcal's?  Sure.  Is it better than Biggio's?  I'd guess so.  Does that mean it's lousy?  I guess I'd be more careful than that.

The reason you evaulate the tools a player brings to the table is to maximize the strength, minimize the weakness.  It will lead to winning or chance to win at a higher percentage.  For instance, if a pitcher only has one really good major league pitch and a so-so set of other pitchers, does changing him over to a reliever position instead of a starter mean it's demeaning or someway a bad thing to say he has a lousy changeup or lousy curveball?  No, it's honest and if the guy has a plus fastball and gets people out in the 7th inning, he's a major leaguer who contributes to winning.

I, for one, do not feel bad about saying Burke has a lousy arm.  And also that he can be a good contributor (used correctly) to winning baseball.

Quote:
Did I say #3? Or #5 or #6 or #7?

No.  But I never intended to say it was your viewpoint.  It is a general viewpoint by those who feel Burke is going to be the next star on this team.  If I somehow implied you said this, my bad.

Quote:
I frankly like him at #2, but that's not what I said, either. I said he may turn out to be a nice combination of power and OBP.  There's a lot of room between saying that and saying that he's going to be Barry Bonds.  Or Morgan Ensberg.  He's not Willy Taveras, though, either.

It must be my eyes reading "power" and equating to what my standards of "power".  Sorry about that.  I didn't realize that you had a different standard.  At that point, I should've asked "Define power" for me.  It is usually what I will do for clarification in case I misunderstand.

Quote:
Is the only criteria for hitting with power hitting home runs?  He's not evidencing any power, then.

Hitting for power is not necessarily evidenced by the outcome of a swing, but by the approach of the player.  Bagwell = power hitter.
Tony Gwynn = high average hitter.

So I'd just like to see Burke use the *approach* of the Gwynn's of the world (or Mark Loretta).  You sacrifice power for high average and vice/versa.  Does that mean Gwynn never hit a homerun or was not good at gap to gap power?  Nope, just the opposite.  He was good at it, but it was not... repeat *NOT* his approach to hitting.  I may of misunderstood your point about power entirely, been doing that I suppose, but like I said, mention power and I envision the approach more than the production/outcome.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
Burke just left the game after apparently aggravating his left shoulder in the batter's box.

Subluxation of the shoulder just confirmed.

Damn you Noe!!!  You're supposed to use your powers for GOOD!

I SUCK!!!!  

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
who said this: I suspect they are not so overwhelming that he will never be a valuable major league player. I suspect that's an overstatement.

you are either being obtuse intentionally or you are being disingenuous. he can be valuable AND have a lousy arm, which he does. see Rivers, Mickey.

Did I misunderstand, Jim?  You think Chris Burke will be a valuable major league player? Despite his lousy arm?

Not despite, but *with* his lousy arm.  Is that bad?

Not if you think "lousy" an accurate description. Jeff Bagwell's arm is certainly lousy.  Craig Biggio's arm is not very good, and neither, I'm suspecting, is Ausmus's.  That said, I guess I would think Burke's is a good bit better than Biggio's.  I remember Jim saying that Burke couldn't play the outfield because of his arm.  Maybe I remember wrong. I took that to mean that Burke's arm would keep him from being anything more than a relatively valueless utility player. Maybe I misunderstood Jim. Maybe Jim thinks that, which is ok by me, but the level of negative hyperbole has always surprised me.  Lousy? Horrible?  You don't think that's just a wee bit . . . strong?  Is it this bad:  every throw by Burke will result in an error?  That's lousy, no question.  Or is it this bad:  every 15 or 30 games or so Burke will rush a play, not set up properly, and the throw will result in an error.  Is that . . . lousy?  15 games, maybe.  30?  Not so much.  So how bad is he?  I'm not trying to get you to say he's good, only to qualify what "lousy" is, and whether that's not exactly the mirror image of declaring Burke the Messiah.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I always concidered someone who could consistantly hit hard line drives to the gaps, with a very occasional longball or line drive down the line, somewhat of a power hitter. Is that reserved only for big time HR/long fly ball hitters by baseball people?

I don't know about anyone else... really, I don't... so I can't speak for them.  I just know that you generally don't ascribe "power" to guys who hit for high average as an approach to hitting.  They're not *trying* to hit for power.  The swing is compact, short, they swing with the pitch and wait on pitches well.  They don't try to pull a pitch, they go up the middle with it, they will look for contact as a staple of how they want to hit.  That they have a little bit of "pop" in their bat does not equate to "power" to me.

It just says they have "pop" in their bat.

When you get a player who hits for high average and power, you've got a superstar.  Usually you have one or the other.  Hence why I would, personally, hestitate to throw "power" and "high average" as staples of a players ability because we're talking (in my mind) about elite superstar hitters.

So personally, I'd love for Burke to develop a high average approach to hitting, like a Mark Loretta for instance.  He'll get his gap hits and his homeruns, but Loretta looks for contact and knows how to put a ball into play where his chances for a hit are really high.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
I remember Jim saying that Burke couldn't play the outfield because of his arm.

Right field.

[NeilT]

So now we're at the same place.  I'm asking you to define lousy and you're asking me to define power.  I feel the strong need for a smiley face.

 

[BUWebguy]

Would you say Burke's upside would be a Steve Finley-type player? (Finley as an Astro, not Finley as a 30-HR Padre/Dback)

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
So now we're at the same place.  I'm asking you to define lousy

I did.  He has bad footwork and a noodle arm.

Quote:
and you're asking me to define power.

When you say "power" are you talking production or approach.

Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.

[JimR]

you cannot be this stupid and have a law degree.

disingenuous.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Would you say Burke's upside would be a Steve Finley-type player? (Finley as an Astro, not Finley as a 30-HR Padre/Dback)

I'm hoping Mark Loretta-ish in hitting (look at me, I'm doing the Messaih dance!) and somewhere near serviceable on CF defense.  Finley?  That may be too high.  A lower standard may be better... say... Marvin Benard?

[NeilT]

Quote:
you cannot be this stupid and have a law degree.

disingenuous.

And this is because I've said that you've said that Chris Burke can't be a major league player?  Is that not what you've said?  If I mis-read you, I'm sorry.  If I didn't mis-read you, then I think you exagerrated his flaws. That's about as straight-forward as I can make it.  If you've changed your mind, fine.  If you haven't, fine, but I don't think I'm being disinginuous, nor stupid.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
So now we're at the same place.  I'm asking you to define lousy

I did.  He has bad footwork and a noodle arm.

Quote:
and you're asking me to define power.

When you say "power" are you talking production or approach.

Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.

Production.  What else can I talk?  This season he's got 23 hits with 8 doubles and 1 triple and 1 home run.  That means that 10/23ds of the time he's at the plate, he's hit for extra bases.  I don't know nothing about approach, but that seems to me to be hitting for some power.

[EasTexAstro]

Quote:

Quote:
I always concidered someone who could consistantly hit hard line drives to the gaps, with a very occasional longball or line drive down the line, somewhat of a power hitter. Is that reserved only for big time HR/long fly ball hitters by baseball people?

I don't know about anyone else... really, I don't... so I can't speak for them.  I just know that you generally don't ascribe "power" to guys who hit for high average as an approach to hitting.  They're not *trying* to hit for power.  The swing is compact, short, they swing with the pitch and wait on pitches well.  They don't try to pull a pitch, they go up the middle with it, they will look for contact as a staple of how they want to hit.  That they have a little bit of "pop" in their bat does not equate to "power" to me.

It just says they have "pop" in their bat.

When you get a player who hits for high average and power, you've got a superstar.  Usually you have one or the other.  Hence why I would, personally, hestitate to throw "power" and "high average" as staples of a players ability because we're talking (in my mind) about elite superstar hitters.

So personally, I'd love for Burke to develop a high average approach to hitting, like a Mark Loretta for instance.  He'll get his gap hits and his homeruns, but Loretta looks for contact and knows how to put a ball into play where his chances for a hit are really high.

Thank you. Perfect answer.

[ASTROCREEP]

Subluxation of the shoulder?

I have know idea what that means, sounds horrible.

With this and Willy in the dog house (I don't know why)Maybe give Preston some time in CF and bring up Scott?

I like Lamb at 1st, with Berkman, Preston and Palmiero/Scott in Left.

[OldBlevins]

Quote:
you cannot be this stupid and have a law degree.

disingenuous.

Judge Buchmeyer would disagree.  The Link

[OldBlevins]

Quote:
Subluxation of the shoulder?

I have know idea what that means, sounds horrible.

With this and Willy in the dog house (I don't know why)Maybe give Preston some time in CF and bring up Scott?

I like Lamb at 1st, with Berkman, Preston and Palmiero/Scott in Left.

I'm not sure if I like it or not, but Scott seems like the logical candidate.  I imagine Taveras' OBP is part of the reason he's in the doghouse.

[JimR]

i have exaggerated his arm weakness? Noe said noodle arm. i have said noodle arm. do you understand that, Neil?  his arm is weak. he cannot throw as well as MLB OFers need to throw so he will need the assistance of relay throws. he cannot make the throws required of a MLB SS. he is adequate at 2B. he can go get balls in the OF b/c of his speed. he does not have the arm for RF, but he can get by in LF and CF.

his hitting has improved. he has speed. he has value as a utility player, and he can have value as a CF because a good arm is not required. he will never have a good arm, and he will never hit for power. he can be valuable if he is willing to accept his limitations and do only those things he does well--hit hard ground balls and line drives as much as possible and run, run, run.

[WulawHorn]

Question Jim et al...

how does the short dimensions in left field at MMP affect what the astros need in an arm?  Can you ignore arm strenght b/c you ain't scoring from first on a double down the line- you play shallow so you don't tag up etc. or should you try to find a premium arm to shut down the running game on guys trying to go home on singles b/c the OF is playing shallow.  I guess #3 would be do you just ignore the dimensions altogether?

Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
he can be valuable if he is willing to accept his limitations and do only those things he does well--hit hard ground balls and line drives as much as possible and run, run, run.

BINGO!  Good call Coach!

[JimR]

they can hide his weaknesses better at MMPUS.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Production.  What else can I talk?  This season he's got 23 hits with 8 doubles and 1 triple and 1 home run.  That means that 10/23ds of the time he's at the plate, he's hit for extra bases.  I don't know nothing about approach, but that seems to me to be hitting for some power.

See, that is why I accept that I was talking "approach" and you were talking "production".  You can get a line drive double or a seeing eye double down the line or even a blop double towards *shallow* right or left field lines.  That's not power, that's contact.  In fact, it's a product of a good high average hitter.  SLG is calculated by how many bases you accumulate, that is for sure.  Lots of doubles, triple and of course homeruns gets you a high SLG.  But when you look at approach along with production, you may get a better feel for what KIND of hitter you're talking about.

That is what I reserve such statements as "power" to some extent, but like I said... I speak only for myself and absolutely no one else!  I would hate to see Burke try to become a power guy in approach.  It would really hurt his game in the negative.  Hence why it would be better, IMHO, to keep from getting too hyped up with his doubles and homerun *production* and more hyped about his approach at the plate.  His swings against the Reds on Saturday and Sunday, as a for instance, was a thing of beauty.  Dude was swinging level, going for hard line drives instead of trying to jack one every AB.  He had the classic approach of a top of the order guy and I for one was enthused to watch him play/hit like that.

[WulawHorn]

so you'd go with hiding a weakness vs really emphasising a strength?  I think that's what I was thinking- i.e. you can put any arm out there in left but I got to thinking maybe you'd play it the other way to completely shut down the running game (i.e. making it hard to advance more than one base on balls hit to left).

[NeilT]

Quote:
i have exaggerated his arm weakness? Noe said noodle arm. i have said noodle arm. do you understand that, Neil?  his arm is weak. he cannot throw as well as MLB OFers need to throw so he will need the assistance of relay throws. he cannot make the throws required of a MLB SS. he is adequate at 2B. he can go get balls in the OF b/c of his speed. he does not have the arm for RF, but he can get by in LF and CF.

his hitting has improved. he has speed. he has value as a utility player, and he can have value as a CF because a good arm is not required. he will never have a good arm, and he will never hit for power. he can be valuable if he is willing to accept his limitations and do only those things he does well--hit hard ground balls and line drives as much as possible and run, run, run.

Jim, I think that's a very fair assessment. I might quibble about what a noodle is, or power is, or what is is, but I'll stop. I don't think fundamentally I could disagree with anything you said.

Well, except that I do think he'll be a bit better than adequate at second.  If he keeps hitting.  

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
so you'd go with hiding a weakness vs really emphasising a strength?  I think that's what I was thinking- i.e. you can put any arm out there in left but I got to thinking maybe you'd play it the other way to completely shut down the running game (i.e. making it hard to advance more than one base on balls hit to left).

A strength of Burkes is his speed and quickness.  That could.. notice *COULD*... mean good things in center and lost in left.  That's just a for instance mind you.  Also, you can't really use a cutoff man in left to help him as much as you could in center.  That could work out well to have Burke throwing to Everett for relays instead of Burke in left and having guys go first to third.  I remember when in 2004 when Biggio was in left and Albert Pujols, with a hurt leg mind you (Achilles heel?) tagged up from second to move to third on a fly ball to left.  A fly ball to left!!! And big Poo-holes made it too!  This was game six of the NLCS too.

WOW!

By the way, I remember how they (the Astros) tried to change Terry Puhl into a power hitter early in his career.  Puhl tried to change his approach and swing to accomodate the Astros but never got untracked like they wanted him too and in Puhl's mind it hurt his early development.

When Puhl went back to contact and high average, his career as a hitter took off.   It is the sort of thing one must be aware of when looking at a good hitter or potentially good hitter.  Use their strengths, minimize their weakness.  If you change them, make sure you're trying to develop something in them that is within their makeup and toolset of potential.

[ASTROCREEP]

Quote:
i have exaggerated his arm weakness? Noe said noodle arm. i have said noodle arm. do you understand that, Neil?  his arm is weak. he cannot throw as well as MLB OFers need to throw so he will need the assistance of relay throws. he cannot make the throws required of a MLB SS. he is adequate at 2B. he can go get balls in the OF b/c of his speed. he does not have the arm for RF, but he can get by in LF and CF.

his hitting has improved. he has speed. he has value as a utility player, and he can have value as a CF because a good arm is not required. he will never have a good arm, and he will never hit for power. he can be valuable if he is willing to accept his limitations and do only those things he does well--hit hard ground balls and line drives as much as possible and run, run, run.

How about Hunter Pence, does he have a Burke arm? Or better.
(for '07-'08 considerations)

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:
i have exaggerated his arm weakness? Noe said noodle arm. i have said noodle arm. do you understand that, Neil?  his arm is weak. he cannot throw as well as MLB OFers need to throw so he will need the assistance of relay throws. he cannot make the throws required of a MLB SS. he is adequate at 2B. he can go get balls in the OF b/c of his speed. he does not have the arm for RF, but he can get by in LF and CF.

his hitting has improved. he has speed. he has value as a utility player, and he can have value as a CF because a good arm is not required. he will never have a good arm, and he will never hit for power. he can be valuable if he is willing to accept his limitations and do only those things he does well--hit hard ground balls and line drives as much as possible and run, run, run.

How about Hunter Pence, does he have a Burke arm? Or better.
(for '07-'08 considerations)

Most I hear from say average to just below average.  He's best suited for left as an outfielder.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
...the pronouncements of messiah-ship that has caused for the lack of honest talk about him. ...

Two years ago, Lane was the poster boy.  Now it's Zobrist, Pence, Jimerson, Scott, Hirsch, anyone who hasn't been in the majors is touted, by commentators, as better ("has to be better than...") than who they have up already.  Now it's Burke, who's next?

I don't remember this messiah talk for anyone in recent memory. Fans may get excited about players in the minors, such as Pence, Hirsh, etc., but that does not mean that most fans expect those players to be the savior of a franchise. Maybe I just haven't seen what's really there with regards to fan reaction to these players, but it has always looked more like appropriate excitement, rather than too lofty expectations for a player. For instance, I'm very excited about what Hirsh and Pence might do for the Astros in the coming years, but that doesn't mean that I expect them to come in and immediately become all-stars, or even become all-stars at any point in their careers. But I am excited for what they could potentially do, just as I am exicted about what Burke is currently doing. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

This guy The Link  Pallillo suggested that next time Lane Ks in the 6th, the fans should start a Pence chant.  I didn't say you were saying it, I said I have heard it.

[Arky Vaughan]

What would you consider Ty Cobb? He had an approach to hit for average, but he was one of the best power hitters of his era and is 10th all-time in extra-base hits. I'm not sure approach matters except where it determines results.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
What would you consider Ty Cobb? He had an approach to hit for average, but he was one of the best power hitters of his era and is 10th all-time in extra-base hits. I'm not sure approach matters except where it determines results.

This is what I said earlier:

When you get a player who hits for high average and power, you've got a superstar. Usually you have one or the other. Hence why I would, personally, hestitate to throw "power" and "high average" as staples of a players ability because we're talking (in my mind) about elite superstar hitters.

There is a reason why guys like Cobb and Ted Williams (for example) are unique.  Burke is not in their league, so I'd rather he have the approach of a contact hitter, swing level, wait on pitches and get his line drives.

Approach matters.

[VirtualBob]

Quote:

I think 2nd base is his spot and he will be above average defensively there once Bidge gets his 3,000+ and rides off into the sunset. If he's still an Astro...which is a big if...

He will *not* be above average defensively at 2B with that footwork.  Noe threatened to provide a delayed comment about the impact of a weak arm plus bad footwork on turning the double play, but he has yet to deliver, so I'll take a shot.  If Burke's overall footwork is bad, his footwork when trying to turn a DP as a 2B is worse than horrible.  He will be adequate at 2B, but not average (and certainly not *above* average).

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
What would you consider Ty Cobb? He had an approach to hit for average, but he was one of the best power hitters of his era and is 10th all-time in extra-base hits. I'm not sure approach matters except where it determines results.

This is what I said earlier:

When you get a player who hits for high average and power, you've got a superstar. Usually you have one or the other. Hence why I would, personally, hestitate to throw "power" and "high average" as staples of a players ability because we're talking (in my mind) about elite superstar hitters.

There is a reason why guys like Cobb and Ted Williams (for example) are unique.  Burke is not in their league, so I'd rather he have the approach of a contact hitter, swing level, wait on pitches and get his line drives.

Approach matters.

Noe, this is also what you said earlier:

1. Be a top of the lineup hitter similar to Biggio... get on-base, get to second base (scoring position) as often as you can (by way of doubles or stolen bases, doesn't matter). Drive in runs when you can but try to be a high average, some power type of hitter instead of the other way around.

Isn't Burke's approach to hit with "some power"?  Isn't that what you want?

[davek]

Quote:
What would you consider Ty Cobb? He had an approach to hit for average, but he was one of the best power hitters of his era and is 10th all-time in extra-base hits. I'm not sure approach matters except where it determines results.

Hey Alkie, I mean Arky... You ever consider that Cobb as one of the greatest of the all time great just might have had the ability to hit for both power and average?...

This whole discussion has revolved around Chris Burke and I doubt even his parents are going to confuse him with a five tool player...

I believe No?'s point is and has been that Burke has more talent in the hitting for average area than hitting for power... And that since he's not good enough to do both successfully he should adjust his approach to maximize his capability to hit for average...

Also, consider this, if approach doesn't matter how come so many hitting coaches and instructors want hitters to change their approach when the pitcher gets to two strikes in the count?...

[JimR]

Burke should never even think about power much less try to hit with power. he should concentrate on hitting the ball as hard as he can and never getting the ball in the air. doubles will come from his speed and line drives in the gap.

[David in Jackson]

Biggio, though he bats leadoff a good bit, isn't really a prototypical leadoff hitter anymore.  He gets on base less but brings above average power.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
What would you consider Ty Cobb? He had an approach to hit for average, but he was one of the best power hitters of his era and is 10th all-time in extra-base hits. I'm not sure approach matters except where it determines results.

This is what I said earlier:

When you get a player who hits for high average and power, you've got a superstar. Usually you have one or the other. Hence why I would, personally, hestitate to throw "power" and "high average" as staples of a players ability because we're talking (in my mind) about elite superstar hitters.

There is a reason why guys like Cobb and Ted Williams (for example) are unique.  Burke is not in their league, so I'd rather he have the approach of a contact hitter, swing level, wait on pitches and get his line drives.

Approach matters.

Noe, this is also what you said earlier:

1. Be a top of the lineup hitter similar to Biggio... get on-base, get to second base (scoring position) as often as you can (by way of doubles or stolen bases, doesn't matter). Drive in runs when you can but try to be a high average, some power type of hitter instead of the other way around.

Isn't Burke's approach to hit with "some power"?  Isn't that what you want?

The approach is to get on base, let somebody else drive in the runs.  But, like Biggio, if an opportunity arises to drive in a run is there, go for it.  Biggio has been good at driving himself in with all those leadoff homeruns.  That's not bad for Burke to try either, however not at the expense of being a good get on-base guy.  Biggio in his prime was hitting #3 before he went to leadoff, so he brought a lot of the approach of a #3 to leadoff.

I would just as soon allow Burke to continue his career path through the minors... that of a solid #2 guy.  That should continue to be his approach.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Burke should never even think about power much less try to hit with power. he should concentrate on hitting the ball as hard as he can and never getting the ball in the air. doubles will come from his speed and line drives in the gap.

Yup.  You guys say things much gooderer than me!

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
Burke should never even think about power much less try to hit with power. he should concentrate on hitting the ball as hard as he can and never getting the ball in the air. doubles will come from his speed and line drives in the gap.

Yup.  You guys say things much gooderer than me!

Correct grammer is "much more good".

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Burke should never even think about power much less try to hit with power. he should concentrate on hitting the ball as hard as he can and never getting the ball in the air. doubles will come from his speed and line drives in the gap.

Yup.  You guys say things much gooderer than me!

Correct grammer is "much more good".

In my old neighborhood, that is as correct as it got!

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
What would you consider Ty Cobb? He had an approach to hit for average, but he was one of the best power hitters of his era and is 10th all-time in extra-base hits. I'm not sure approach matters except where it determines results.

This is what I said earlier:

When you get a player who hits for high average and power, you've got a superstar. Usually you have one or the other. Hence why I would, personally, hestitate to throw "power" and "high average" as staples of a players ability because we're talking (in my mind) about elite superstar hitters.

There is a reason why guys like Cobb and Ted Williams (for example) are unique.  Burke is not in their league, so I'd rather he have the approach of a contact hitter, swing level, wait on pitches and get his line drives.

Approach matters.

But what about this?

Quote:
Hitting for power is not necessarily evidenced by the outcome of a swing, but by the approach of the player.

Bagwell = power hitter.

Tony Gwynn = high average hitter.

Until he tore up his shoulder, Bagwell regularly hit .300 or better. And Gwynn hit 543 doubles, 21st all-time. Whatever the approach was, Bagwell hit for some average, and Gwynn hit for some power.

And if approach, and not results, is what matters, what was Cobb's approach? What was Williams' approach? The results may have been a mixture of average and power, but we're told the results aren't what's important, it's the approach. Can a player, even an immortal player, practice two approaches at the exact same time? Or did they just pick a different approach every once in awhile to improve their average or improve their power?

[JimR]

oh, please.

disingenuous must be contagious.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
You ever consider that Cobb as one of the greatest of the all time great just might have had the ability to hit for both power and average?

No, I hadn't considered that. I didn't know that about Cobb. I know he hit a lot of doubles and triples. Did he hit for average too? But you're telling me about his ability. I was asking what was his approach?

Quote:
This whole discussion has revolved around Chris Burke and I doubt even his parents are going to confuse him with a five tool player...

Right. But that still doesn't tell me what Ty Cobb's approach was.

Quote:
I believe No?'s point is and has been that Burke has more talent in the hitting for average area than hitting for power... And that since he's not good enough to do both successfully he should adjust his approach to maximize his capability to hit for average...

I think Burke's upside (if his arm doesn't fall out of his shoulder) is a guy who hits for decent (but not great) average (.280s) and hits for decent (but not great) power (30 doubles, 15 home runs). What approach would he have to take to get that mixture?

I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, by the way, who thinks that Burke should be trying to hit line drives, rather than swinging for the fences. But in that ballpark, some of those line drives are going to carry into the seats, and some are going to shoot the gaps and result in doubles and triples.

Quote:
Also, consider this, if approach doesn't matter how come so many hitting coaches and instructors want hitters to change their approach when the pitcher gets to two strikes in the count?...

Who said approach doesn't matter? I said approach doesn't matter except where it determines results. I'm not saying players don't have different approaches. But a guy whose approach is hitting line drives and still hits some into the gap that he gets extra bases out of, has produced some power. And a guy who approaches by swinging for the fences, but is quick enough to put some of them between the infield and the outfield for enough hits to bat .300, has produced some average.

At which point, the results speak for themselves.

[NeilT]

Quote:
oh, please.

disingenuous must be contagious.

11 syllables in a 4 word sentence.  That's hitting for some power.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
oh, please.

disingenuous must be contagious.

What's disingenous, Jim? I meant what I said. If you have a problem with it, answer it with something other than an insult, if you are capable of doing so.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
oh, please.

disingenuous must be contagious.

Jim, you were around for both of them. What was Cobb's approach? What was Williams' approach?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
oh, please.

disingenuous must be contagious.

What was Bagwell's approach when he batted .368? I know what the results were: power and average.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
But what about this?

Quote:
Hitting for power is not necessarily evidenced by the outcome of a swing, but by the approach of the player.

Bagwell = power hitter.

Tony Gwynn = high average hitter.

Until he tore up his shoulder, Bagwell regularly hit .300 or better. And Gwynn hit 543 doubles, 21st all-time. Whatever the approach was, Bagwell hit for some average, and Gwynn hit for some power.

Is the objective here to catch me in some sort of whack sort of "let's see if he knows what he's talking about?!?!" sort of way or to try to understand my actual point?  If the former, we can stop now and save both of us a ton of wasted time to reach a peace accord say... oh... 25 post later.  If the latter, my bad to use two hall of famers when talking about the subtle yet very real *difference* of the approach to hitting for "power" and for "high average".  My use of actual personalities has thrown you off and for that I apologize.

Quote:
And if approach, and not results, is what matters, what was Cobb's approach?

Not what I said.  I said that "approach matters".  Period.  I never said "production does not matter", I said I was "not talking about production", just approach.  See the difference.

As to Cobb's approach, there is an excellent book out on Ty Cobb written by Al Stump.  Read it and then you and I can have a personal or e-mail talk about what you found in said book that tells you eggszactly the approach Cobb used.  It is outlined in there quite well.  It even tells some keen ancedotes abot Cobb and Heilmann and also how Cobb managed the Tigers by changing the approach to hitting of the team because he disliked how everyone wanted to hit like Ruth.

Good read.

Quote:
What was Williams' approach? The results may have been a mixture of average and power, but we're told the results aren't what's important, it's the approach.

Again, I didn't say results didn't matter.  Why are you trying to pin stuff on me that I didn't say?

Quote:
Can a player, even an immortal player, practice two approaches at the exact same time? Or did they just pick a different approach every once in awhile to improve their average or improve their power?

At this point, all I can ask is for you to tell me because you seem to think I am of an opinion that is not really there or in anything I said earlier.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
oh, please.

disingenuous must be contagious.

It's me.  I can't communicate as "gooder" as anyone else.  I bring this on every time it seems.  I blame me.  (and I'm not kidding)  

[Arky Vaughan]

This is an oversimplification, but I understand that Burke should be trying to hit line drives, not swinging for the fences. Gwynn has said the key to his hitting was trying to hit line drives. Ty Cobb always tried to hit line drives, except for the day he told the reporters in batting practice to watch, because he was going to show them something that day to make them stop talking about Ruth, and he hit three home runs, presumably by swinging for the fences.

As I said, I agree wholeheartedly that Burke should not be swinging for the fences, he should be hitting line drives.  If he lives up to expectations (of which I am doubtful), I think he'll derive some power that way, because some of the line drives will reach the seats, and some will end up in the gaps, and that will give him some extra bases.

Is that the approach you think Burke should take (trying to hit line drives, not swinging for the fences), and do you think the results will be that he will get some doubles and maybe even a few homers out of that approach?

[davek]

Quote:

Quote:
oh, please.

disingenuous must be contagious.

11 syllables in a 4 word sentence.  That's hitting for some power.

Not quite so much power as you suppose... There's only 10 of those syllable things in that 4 word sentence...

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
oh, please.

disingenuous must be contagious.

11 syllables in a 4 word sentence.  That's hitting for some power.

Not quite so much power as you suppose... There's only 10 of those syllable things in that 4 word sentence...

So much for my career as a scorekeeper.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
This is an oversimplification, but I understand that Burke should be trying to hit line drives, not swinging for the fences. Gwynn has said the key to his hitting was trying to hit line drives. Ty Cobb always tried to hit line drives, except for the day he told the reporters in batting practice to watch, because he was going to show them something that day to make them stop talking about Ruth, and he hit three home runs, presumably by swinging for the fences.

That story is in the book by Al Stump.  Funny thing about that story is he was apparently trying to make the point to these reporters that their enamored view of Ruth's baseball (not just power) prowess was indeed something that could be copied if he wanted to.  However, Cobb held true to his "approach" to hitting as more conducive to success in baseball than Ruth's power approach (that indeed produced as many strikeouts as it did homeruns).

Good call.  The story of Cobb taking Heilmann under his wings is also a very good reference point for Cobb's philosophy.

Quote:
As I said, I agree wholeheartedly that Burke should not be swinging for the fences, he should be hitting line drives.

Then we are not in disagreement on "approach".  Cool. (I really didn't want to go 25 post with you today, I don't have time! hehe)

Quote:
If he lives up to expectations (of which I am doubtful), I think he'll derive some power that way, because some of the line drives will reach the seats, and some will end up in the gaps, and that will give him some extra bases.

Certainly, I never discounted that.  I told Neil that his viewpoint or statement of "power" had production in mind (to which he said that he was eggszactly limiting it to production).  I told him that is why it is difficult for a person like myself to jump into an agreement such a view (or opinion) because I was talking about "approach" (although not as an exclusive nor as an end all be all).

My intent to praise Burke in this thread was my admiration for such an "approach".  It nothing more than that.  Of course we can talk production all day and have an entire different set of variables to deal with here, but I'll leave that discussion for those who are more inclined to measure things in baseball.  It's a good discussion to have, might even be fun... but I didn't start this thread with that in mind nor do I want to spend a whole lot of time on it either.

Quote:
Is that the approach you think Burke should take (trying to hit line drives, not swinging for the fences), and do you think the results will be that he will get some doubles and maybe even a few homers out of that approach?

It's a question that has variables involved of course.  Every major league hitter who employs a short, compact swing that is level will indeed hit some homeruns and gap doubles.  The key is that they're hitting a mistake pitch by the pitcher.  Meaning, the pitch is fat, middle in, no movement and with some velocity.  In such cases, your approach and the pitchers inability to make a pitch contribute to said "pop" in your bat.  But that's not a pure power approach nor a pure "power" ability.

That is two different aspects.  It is thus difficult to me to ascribe the term "power" to a guy who did his job hitting well when they had contact and hitting a line drive in mind.  You'll often hear a major leaguer say "I was just trying to hit the ball hard" or "put a good swing on the ball" or "I ran into that one" when talking about their approach.  Usually, they're talking about a situation late in the game or a situation where an RISP chance was really good.  The approach to hitting being contact and good level swing will produce a chance for power, but you got to get some help by the pitcher (in terms of a mistake pitch).

It is the guys who can hit a good pitch by a pitcher and still drive it out of the park that is the power approach or ability that diffrenciates a Burke from say a Bagwell.  All I was trying to say with this thread is that the former is a better approach for Burke and one I welcomed him using rather than a middle of the lineup, power approach that tends to screw up a hitter if you don't have the natural ability to work your way through it.

[strosrays]

Quote:
By the way, I remember how they (the Astros) tried to change Terry Puhl into a power hitter early in his career.  Puhl tried to change his approach and swing to accomodate the Astros but never got untracked like they wanted him too and in Puhl's mind it hurt his early development.

When Puhl went back to contact and high average, his career as a hitter took off.

Puhl was a natural leadoff hitter -- good average, solid OBP, decent speed, some consistent gap power -- but he was often dropped in the order by the perennially power-poor Astros.  Through much of the last part of the 1980 season, IIRC, Virdon had Puhl hit third while Rafael Landestoy and then for awhile Joe Morgan led off (Morgan usually batted 2nd or 3rd in his prime with the Reds - his power made that possible, not to mention the Reds already had Rose at leadoff).  Of course, you could say it worked -- first Astros pennant, a heartbeat away from the WS -- but still... Bill James once wrote that the overwhelmingly negative effect the Dome had on offense caused the Astros to misjudge their own players, and precipitated disastrous trades of guys like Morgan, Staub, Mayberry, Colbert (actually taken in the expansion draft, I think), etc., etc., just as they were coming into their primes.  Trying to make Terry Puhl into a power hitter may have been another way to misjudge a player.

BTW, one of the oddest moves like this was in Montreal in the mid-'80s, when Buck Rodgers moved arguably the second best leaadoff hitter of all time, Tim Raines, to the middle of the order to "get some RBIs out of him."  (Like the Astros, the Expos played in a park that depressed power-hitting.)  Didn't work, either.  It was like hooking up the low-boy to your Maserati, to "take advantage of some of that horsepower."

Quote:

Quote:
i first used Pierre as my example but figured Neil would say "no, thanks" to Pierre's value. no one can say Rivers was of no use.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Especially when he played BillyBall. He was the prototypical leadoff man for Billy Martin managed teams.

This is nitpicking on my part, but while I agree with you and Jim that Rivers was quite useful and actually very good (and had a rag arm), I don't consider him a prototypical leadoff hitter.  Didn't walk enough.

He may have been a prototype for the time - guys like Rivers, Ralph "Roadrunner" Garr, Ron LeFlore, Garry Templeton, and to a lesser extent Omar Moreno were fast and as long as they were hitting .300 or more, were more than adequate at the top of the order.  But with meager "secondary" on base skills, once they dropped off to .260 or so (Templeton and Moreno rather quickly, LeFlore and Garr a bit later) they were batting 7th.  The thing that set Rivers apart from most of the rest of these guys is he could really hit, didn't matter where he was.  But once his average finally fell off...

Martin did have the prototypical leadoff man early on Oakland, and then for awhile in NY.  Rickey Henderson, of course, who had it all.  He was still a viable leadoff hitter at 40+, hitting .240, because of all the walks (and power and speed).  Long after Rivers, et al, would have been, comparitively speaking.

[astro pete]

Quote:


Not quite so much power as you suppose... There's only 10 of those syllable things in that 4 word sentence...

I think he meant that if that sentence had made any sense, it would have had 11.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
He may have been a prototype for the time - guys like Rivers, Ralph "Roadrunner" Garr, Ron LeFlore, Garry Templeton, and to a lesser extent Omar Moreno were fast and as long as they were hitting .300 or more, were more than adequate at the top of the order.

Eggszactly!  Prototypical to BillyBall was Rivers (that reads so Yoda-ish!) in that it was contact that Martin wanted.  You put the ball in play, anything can happen.  Thus you swung the bat.  But BillyBall was also hitting behind a runner, squeeze plays, hit and runs... all contact enabled baseball.  Taking pitches and working counts wasn't necessarily the name of the game... it was beat down on the ball, run and make them get us out with Martin!

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:


Not quite so much power as you suppose... There's only 10 of those syllable things in that 4 word sentence...

I think he meant that if that sentence had made any sense, it would have had 11.

And the contrarian bell just sounded and we're off!  This thread will now self-destruct into 50 or more post of nothing worth reading in 1... 2.... 3... 4.... *POP*!

[pravata]

Quote:
...  Of course we can talk production all day ...

Not really.  All you can legitimately do with "production" is to point at it.

[austro]

Quote:
Puhl was a natural leadoff hitter

Digression: a little blurb in the Austin paper this morning said that Terry Puhl's son, who evidently played at St. Ed's, was drafted by the Mets yesterday.

I don't know what his approach to hitting is.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
...  Of course we can talk production all day ...

Not really.  All you can legitimately do with "production" is to point at it.

And measure it.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Eggszactly!  Prototypical to BillyBall was Rivers (that reads so Yoda-ish!) in that it was contact that Martin wanted.  You put the ball in play, anything can happen.  Thus you swung the bat.  But BillyBall was also hitting behind a runner, squeeze plays, hit and runs... all contact enabled baseball.  Taking pitches and working counts wasn't necessarily the name of the game... it was beat down on the ball, run and make them get us out with Martin!

Was Billy Ball a term that was actually used to describe Martin's managerial style?

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Not quite so much power as you suppose... There's only 10 of those syllable things in that 4 word sentence...

I think he meant that if that sentence had made any sense, it would have had 11.

And the contrarian bell just sounded and we're off!  This thread will now self-destruct into 50 or more post of nothing worth reading in 1... 2.... 3... 4.... *POP*!

The contrarian bell sounded when you wrote the original post, a totally, 100% disingenuous commendation of Chris Burke, when you really were trying to bash him....

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Not quite so much power as you suppose... There's only 10 of those syllable things in that 4 word sentence...

I think he meant that if that sentence had made any sense, it would have had 11.

And the contrarian bell just sounded and we're off!  This thread will now self-destruct into 50 or more post of nothing worth reading in 1... 2.... 3... 4.... *POP*!

The contrarian bell sounded when you wrote the original post, a totally, 100% disingenuous commendation of Chris Burke, when you really were trying to bash him....

Good to see you're still taking stupid pills every morning.  Stay gold, p(h)ony boy!

[NeilT]

Yes.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:


Not quite so much power as you suppose... There's only 10 of those syllable things in that 4 word sentence...

I think he meant that if that sentence had made any sense, it would have had 11.

I was trying to figure out if disingenuousness was the noun, but it made my head hurt to think about it.

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Not quite so much power as you suppose... There's only 10 of those syllable things in that 4 word sentence...

I think he meant that if that sentence had made any sense, it would have had 11.

And the contrarian bell just sounded and we're off!  This thread will now self-destruct into 50 or more post of nothing worth reading in 1... 2.... 3... 4.... *POP*!

The contrarian bell sounded when you wrote the original post, a totally, 100% disingenuous commendation of Chris Burke, when you really were trying to bash him....

Good to see you're still taking stupid pills every morning.  Stay gold, p(h)ony boy!

good one

[astro pete]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Not quite so much power as you suppose... There's only 10 of those syllable things in that 4 word sentence...

I think he meant that if that sentence had made any sense, it would have had 11.

I was trying to figure out if disingenuousness was the noun, but it made my head hurt to think about it.

Must be those stupid pills.

[JaneDoe]

Quote:

Puhl was a natural leadoff hitter -- good average, solid OBP, decent speed, some consistent gap power -- but he was often dropped in the order by the perennially power-poor Astros.  Through much of the last part of the 1980 season, IIRC, Virdon had Puhl hit third while Rafael Landestoy and then for awhile Joe Morgan led off (Morgan usually batted 2nd or 3rd in his prime with the Reds - his power made that possible, not to mention the Reds already had Rose at leadoff).  Of course, you could say it worked -- first Astros pennant, a heartbeat away from the WS -- but still... Bill James once wrote that the overwhelmingly negative effect the Dome had on offense caused the Astros to misjudge their own players, and precipitated disastrous trades of guys like Morgan, Staub, Mayberry, Colbert (actually taken in the expansion draft, I think), etc., etc., just as they were coming into their primes.  Trying to make Terry Puhl into a power hitter may have been another way to misjudge a player.

BTW, one of the oddest moves like this was in Montreal in the mid-'80s, when Buck Rodgers moved arguably the second best leaadoff hitter of all time, Tim Raines, to the middle of the order to "get some RBIs out of him."  (Like the Astros, the Expos played in a park that depressed power-hitting.)  Didn't work, either.  It was like hooking up the low-boy to your Maserati, to "take advantage of some of that horsepower."

HUH?  I thought the Astros won their  first pennant  this year.  Winning the pennant means you won the National League and went to the World Series.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:

Puhl was a natural leadoff hitter -- good average, solid OBP, decent speed, some consistent gap power -- but he was often dropped in the order by the perennially power-poor Astros.  Through much of the last part of the 1980 season, IIRC, Virdon had Puhl hit third while Rafael Landestoy and then for awhile Joe Morgan led off (Morgan usually batted 2nd or 3rd in his prime with the Reds - his power made that possible, not to mention the Reds already had Rose at leadoff).  Of course, you could say it worked -- first Astros pennant, a heartbeat away from the WS -- but still... Bill James once wrote that the overwhelmingly negative effect the Dome had on offense caused the Astros to misjudge their own players, and precipitated disastrous trades of guys like Morgan, Staub, Mayberry, Colbert (actually taken in the expansion draft, I think), etc., etc., just as they were coming into their primes.  Trying to make Terry Puhl into a power hitter may have been another way to misjudge a player.

BTW, one of the oddest moves like this was in Montreal in the mid-'80s, when Buck Rodgers moved arguably the second best leaadoff hitter of all time, Tim Raines, to the middle of the order to "get some RBIs out of him."  (Like the Astros, the Expos played in a park that depressed power-hitting.)  Didn't work, either.  It was like hooking up the low-boy to your Maserati, to "take advantage of some of that horsepower."

HUH?  I thought the Astros won their  first pennant  this year.  Winning the pennant means you won the National League and went to the World Series.

NL West Pennant (or Division crown).  Not League though (as you pointed out).

[strosrays]

Quote:
HUH?  I thought the Astros won their  first pennant  this year.  Winning the pennant means you won the National League and went to the World Series.

Technically, yes.  And in fact I agree with you; but it is common now to refer to a division title or even wild-card qualification as a "pennant", witness the fake metal flags -- pennants -- bolted up on the side of the train trestle in MMPUS.

I think I've heard you can even theoretically award yourself a pennant if you finish second in the division and out of the wild card, if A.) you feel like it was really a tie and, B.) you can get some flunky from the commissioner's office to agree with you.

That's what I heard, anyway.  And you are right, 1980 was the Astros first time to win anything, but it wasn't a pennant.

[JimR]

you should have chosen a school that taught English, petey.