Erboes wrote: But why is it when someone brings up a varifiable claim such as this it gets attacked but when someone calls a player the next "George Brett" no one says a thing? I'm trying to bring as much objective thought to this very muddled process, that is all. "FAR from convincing"?
Erbos, I guess you didn't read my "George Brett" post carefully enough. I didn't say he was the "next" George Brett. I said he COULD
be the next George Brett, if the Rangers are really, really, really, lucky. Perhaps I jumped the gun a bit but Blalock reminds me of Brett.
Here are Brett's numbers at age 21 and 22
Age 21: .282/.312/.363 129 hits, 49 R, 21 doubles, 5 triples, 2 HRs, 47 RBIs
Age 22: .308/.353/.456 195 hits, 84 R, 35 doubles, 13 triples, 11 HRs, 89 RBIs
Here are Blalock's stats:
Age 21: .211/.306/.327, 31 hits, 16 runs, 8 doubles, 0 triples, 3 HRs, 17 RBIs
Age 22: .300/.350/.522, 170 hits, 89 Runs, 29 doubles, 3 Triples, 29 HRs, 90 RBIs
Brett was better at age 21 but about even at age 22. So I checked Baseball-Reference.com to check Blalock's similarity score. I was suprised to find out that at age 22 he was most similar to Scott Rolen.
Scott Rolen at age 22:
age 22: .283/.377/.469 164 hits, 93 runs,45 doubles, 3 triples, 21 HRs, 92 RBIs
So I guess I'm more comfortable comparing Blalock with Rolen.
I was speaking in generalities about young players improving. That doesn't mean every young player improves. But the general trend is upward improvement. I do have some questions:
1) Why do you only go back five years, Why not ues ALL of baseball history. Player improvement has been studied for years, since at least the ealy 1980s
2) Why do you compare Blalock to outfielders and first baseman?
I pull out some of my old sabermetics book and find some of the studies. I'll post some of the stuff very soon...