Twinkie Town: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:





Notes on a Cycle

I've been tinkering with an essay asking the question why people are going so ga-ga over Carlos Gomez. Then Gomez hit for the cycle in Wednesday night's game against the White Sox. This is therefore not that essay.

I still think that essay needs to be written, though. Howard Sinker is one of my favorite Twins writers, but he wrote something that's almost entirely indefensible based on what sabermetrics has taught us about how players usually develop:

As Gogomez continues to harness his extraordinary gifts, I suspect we’re going to be spectators to something special.

There are all kinds of problems I have with this statement, not the least of which is that it smacks of going shopping on an empty stomach, or thinking about a relationship while you're floating in that first post-coital glow -- they're situations where your rational thought process is far too easily short-circuited, and you end up making decisions that you very quickly regret.

At the same time, though, it's not necessarily an improvement to be that guy who, the morning after that post-coital glow, calmly describes how fat his partner looks in her underwear. So this isn't that essay -- not yet, anyway.

Instead, I thought I'd take a gander at cycles, particularly cycles by young players, and see if it told us anything about what they might become -- a much more specific and limited response to Howard's comment. Interesting things I found:

- Gomez is the fourth-youngest major-league player since 1956 (where baseball-reference's data begins) to hit for the cycle. Each of the three younger players is interesting in his own way.

Alex Rodriguez (age 21 years, 313 days) - Since nobody expects Gomez to develop into another Rodriguez, there's not much point in belaboring this point (but see below).

Jim Fregosi (age 22 years, 115 days) - Forty days younger than Gomez.

I suspect most people will remember Fregosi as a manager, not as a player. Twins Geek will likely remember Fregosi as the manager of the 1993 NL Champion Phillies. Others may remember Fregosi's uneventful three-year run with the White Sox, or his first managing gig for the Angels before being replaced with Gene Mauch during the strike-shortened 1981 season.

Those who do remember Fregosi as a player are probably most likely to remember him as the centerpiece of a trade that makes the A.J. Pierzynski trade look like small change: Fregosi, by himself, was traded to the New York Mets in exchange for Nolan Ryan plus three other players. Two points:

1. Ryan had just turned 25 and wasn't even a full-time starter yet, and

2. Fregosi was actually really good before the trade.

In 1964, when Fregosi hit his cycle, he hit .277, had a .369 on-base percentage, had a .463 slugging percentage (for an OPS of .832), and batted third in the order in 115 games for the Angels. As a shortstop. (If you don't think a .277/832 is all that impressive a batting line, remember it was 1964 -- Fregosi's OPS+ for that season was 141. As a shortstop!)

Fregosi made his first All-Star team that year and finished 13th in the MVP vote. He would make five more All-Star appearences before being traded, and his 13th place finish in the MVP vote in 1964 was not his best finish -- he'd finish 12th in 1970 and 7th in 1967. He'd never have an OPS+ of 141 again, but during his All-Star/MVP-vote run he'd have an OPS+ of between 108 and 125 pretty much every year, usually finishing around 114. As a shortstop. During the 1960s.

He wasn't perceived as a great fielder, winning only one Gold Glove during that span, but his range factor at short was consistently above average, his fielding percentage was almost always league average or better, and he was a far better hitter, and a consistently better hitter, than the Gold Glove shortstops of his era -- Luis Aparicio, Zoilo Versailles, and Mark Belanger.

Like Gomez, Fregosi was beloved in Southern California for his attitude as well as his baseball skills; one account refers to Fregosi as a 'cheerleader'. Unlike Gomez, Fregosi was expected to become a manager eventually, and in fact was hired away from the Pittburgh Pirates in 1978, for whom he'd played 20 games, mostly as a pinch-hitter, to take over for fired Angel manager Dave Garcia.

There's no real Hall of Fame argument for Fregosi -- two of his best comps are Shawon Dunston and Roy Smalley, and none of his comps is a Hall of Famer or likely to become one -- but for a number of years he was a heck of a player and is likely still fondly remembered by Angel fans.

Cesar Cedeno (age 21 years, 159 days)

The youngest player to hit for the cycle since 1956, Cedeno actually makes a more interesting comparison to Gomez than the other two players on this list.

Cedeno came up to the big leagues in 1970 as a 19-year old outfielder and hit .310 in a half-season, good enough to finish fourth in the Rookie of the Year vote. A regular in his next season at age 20 (Fregosi also was a regular at a young age, starting consistently at age 21), Cedeno exploded onto the scene in 1971 and 1972 with two surprisingly similar seasons -- he played 139 games in each, hit .320 in each, slugged .537 in each, stole 55 bases one year, 56 the next. Cedeno was an All-Star both years, finished 6th in the MVP vote in 1971 and 11th in 1972, and was doing all of this in one of the most extreme pitcher's parks in baseball history, the Astrodome (though the single-season park factor for 1972 suggests that something happened that year to actually make the Astrodome a friendly place for hitters, at least for that one season).

He played in four All-Star games, starting once, and won five consecutive Gold Gloves in center field during the same span of time. As with most players of his era (and before), his best seasons were behind him by the time he turned 30, but he still had a little play left in him -- released by the Reds in 1985 at the age of 35, he was signed as a free agent by the Cardinals at the start of September as a replacement for injured slugger Jack Clark and proceeded to have one of the best stretch runs in major league history, hitting .434/1213 with six home runs and 19 RBI to help the Cardinals to the division title.

Like Fregosi, Cedeno isn't many people's idea of a Hall of Fame candidate -- his comps include Amos Otis, Devon White, and Marquis Grissom -- but he was an excellent all-around player and if Gomez ends up anything like him, I think most Twins fans will accept that gladly.

How likely is it that Gomez will turn out like Cedeno, based solely on his 22-year old cycle? About as likely as the odds that Eric Milton's 24-year old no-hitter suggested he'd have a career like Vida Blue, which is to say, not at all.

There have been 131 cycles hit in MLB since 1958 (at least by baseball-reference.com's count), by 122 different players. By Bert Blyleven's California public-school math, that means that 113 of those players hit for the cycle once in their careers, period. Of the nine players who hit for the cycle more than once, none hit more than two cycles in their careers -- though interestingly, both Fregosi and Cedeno are on that list, which also includes George Brett, Frank White, Bob Watson, Brad Wilkerson, Chris Speier (!), John Olerud, and Ken Boyer. Great hitters like Mickey Mantle, Carl Yastrzemski, Willie Stargell, and Andre Dawson have hit for the cycle, but so have not-so-great hitters like Oddibe McDowell, Freddie Patek, Greg Colbrunn, and Neifi Perez (!!). Some great hitters -- even Hall of Famers -- never hit for the cycle, such as Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn. Barry Bonds, even in his pre-steroid days, never hit for the cycle.

Like the no-hitter for pitchers, hitting for the cycle is an impressive achievement that doesn't require you to be an impressive player to accomplish.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments | Add your comment

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

There's some truth here.

I enjoyed this line:

...it smacks of going shopping on an empty stomach.

It does, but I’ve been guilty of it myself, especially after last night’s show. But it isn’t just the cycle that makes me excited watching Gomez. It’s a combination of of his skills and, something completely subjective, a combination of his potential and how far I’d like to see him go.

With players like Gomez it can be dangerous, especially when they’re young, because that potential can be smoke and mirrors. He’s very athletic, he’s so fast, there’s so much flash to his game that sometimes it’s easy to get blinded and look past more telling attributes like control of the strike zone and pitch recognition, or hitting the cutoff man or reading balls well off the bat. But it’s way too tempting to look at who he is right now, and not see what he could become in the future with more experience.

And I’m the guy who said there’d be no real difference in total wins at the end of the season between playing Denard Span or Carlos Gomez. If Gomez keeps playing like this, playing well in the field and being relatively serviceable at the plate while stealing 40 bases, I’ll have to eat crow.

Which I’ll only be too happy to do.

by Jesse on May 8, 2008 7:17 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

Makes sense, Jesse...

...and I know what you mean about being happy to eat crow. I’ve got some very dire predictions for the club on this site, and yet I’d be happy to buy cmath his beer-and-bomb on June 20 with the Twins still in first place and Gomez playing like Rickey Henderson.

I just don’t see it—I see a team that’s embarking on what’s likely to be a 41-day Bataan Death March, after which the players who are new here are going to start wondering why they thought signing on with a team that just dumped its four best performers from last year was a good idea.

If I’m wrong, wonderful—it certainly wouldn’t be the first time by any means. I just can’t see what I see and then sit down and write ‘Twins in first place at the break! LET’S DO IT!’ That’s just not in me.

by dwintheiser on May 9, 2008 1:08 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Mel Ott

Says hi.

Um, yeah, I appreciate your restraint. Kind of like, “You know honey, I could talk about how that bulge looks like an uncooked brat worst when it hangs over your biking shorts, but you just gave it up, so I’m going to tell you how pretty you look in those biking shorts. Was that out loud?” It’s like AdamOnFirst pointing out that Gomez struck out twice on the same night he hit for the cycle. Never mind that Brendan Harris also struck out twice on an 0-3 night. For some reason, Gomez gets a lot of scrutiny for stuff every other player is doing. I still can’t figure out why.

I think Jesse’s question to DSP says it all. To paraphrase: Numbers can tell you what a player has done, but they can’t tell you what a player will do because players develop at different rates. It takes scouts to tell you how players will develop. And no other organization scouts players (post draft) better than the Twins. If you’re paying attention, you might have noticed that Gomez is developing rather rapidly. It doesn’t mean he’ll have another game like last night this year. And, yes, he still has a LOT to learn. But he will continue to grow. By the time he’s 24, he’ll be a star, all the more quicker because he had to learn on the biggest stage against the toughest pitchers.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 8, 2008 8:18 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

Since you mention it...

...I’ll give you a preview of the main event.

For starters, this comment…

To paraphrase: Numbers can tell you what a player has done, but they can’t tell you what a player will do because players develop at different rates.

...is simply not true. Numbers can tell you what a player is likely to do, and they can certainly tell you what a player is not likely to do:

- A player who never hits .300 in the minor leagues is not likely to ever hit .300 in the major leagues.
- A player who never hits as many as 10 HR in a season in the minor leagues is not likely ever to hit 30+ HR in the major leagues.

I could go on, but I’m sure you get the point.

This is not new information—let me pull out a quote:

“The minor league translation is not a prediction of what the player will do, but an evaluation of what he has done. Incidentally, it is true in most cases that what he does next will be somewhat similar to what he has done in the past.”

This was written by Bill James - surprise! - in 1984, and published in the 1985 Baseball Abstract. James also points out:

“As a guide to major league performance, minor league batting statistics are reliable virtually 100% of the time. . .In anticipating future major league performance, minor league batting records are of essentially the same degree of reliability as previous major league batting statistics.”

I’d also like to point out that since, then, the science has advanced to the point where even college statistics, properly understood, do a good job of estimating eventual major league performance—this has been used in the Oakland front office since the turn of the century and is a big part of why they’ve had such a valuable and talent-rich minor league organization over that time.

And while I will freely admit that I am not an expert on translating minor league stats to major league equivalencies, I see nothing that suggests that Carlos Gomez is going to be ‘special’, in the sense that a guy hitting .280/750 as a major league outfielder is ‘special’ - that’s Mark Kotsay. I’m not saying Kotsay (or Gomez) can’t be a useful player on a good team - hell, the A’s with Kotsay in center won 88 games in 2005. But if Mark Kotsay is your definition of ‘special’, then you’re obviously not building a very good team around him.

For some reason, Gomez gets a lot of scrutiny for stuff every other player is doing. I still can’t figure out why.

Because nobody is pretending that Brendan Harris is a 5-tool star waiting to blossom with the right seasoning.

Look, you don’t have to convince me that watching young players with potential is exciting—I’m the guy who followed Twins Geek around in his web wanderings from 2003 to 2006 convinced that Luis Rivas was going to blossom into a star Any Day Now. I’ve been there. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but this time I’m betting with the smart money.

If you’re paying attention, you might have noticed that Gomez is developing rather rapidly.

Because he did something Wednesday night that nobody in the last fifty years of baseball has done more than twice, only a handful of people have done more than once, and has been done by major leaguers with the sterling hitting credentials of a Neifi Perez or Greg Colbrunn?

Sorry, that’s a fluke. It’s an exciting fluke, but it’s a fluke.

by dwintheiser on May 9, 2008 12:56 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

If Gomez' cycle was a fluke

it could have happened to you or me, and the odds of that are the kind of definitive numbers that James is talking about.

Look, life, like baseball, eschews prediction. We can have expectations and we do, given our experiences, many of which can be expressed in terms of numbers.

But, we can’t control the future, nor accurately predict it. If we could, on June 7th of 2006, you would have predicted that the Twins would end up being “also-rans” in their division and that Justin Morneau would be a Canadian-sized Doug Mienkiewicz.

But, you know what happened? Tthe Twins and Morneau threw the numbers out the window and made an historic baseball run, like 40 games over .500 for the rest of the year, and for Mr. Morneau, an AL MVP.

Who could’ve predicted that looking at the numbers? Nobody.

Check out Robinson Cano’s Minor Leauge numbers and get back to me. Or Nick Blackburn, for that matter. Players play hurt, have personal problems, come into their element, bloom late—shit happens, my friend.

And when shit happens, the numbers don’t always capture the kind of smell that matters.

by Old Twins Cap on May 9, 2008 1:07 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Shit doth indeed happen

And I returned and saw
That the race is not always to the swift
Nor the battle to the strong
But that’s the way to bet.

- mashup of Ecclesiastes and Damon Runyon

by dwintheiser on May 9, 2008 1:12 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Semantics
  1. Numbers can tell you what a player has done, but they can’t tell you what a player will do because players develop at different rates.
  2. Numbers can tell you what a player is likely to do, and they can certainly tell you what a player is not likely to do.

Statement 1. (my statement) uses the term “will”. Statement 2. (your statement) uses the term “likely”. These two statements are consistent. They’re both true. To say that statement 1 is not true is, well false.(I say “well” because it’s impossible to evaluate the truth value of a statement that has the word “true” in it.) Players sometimes do unlikely things. It’s prudent to predict that they won’t do what their numbers suggest unless you have a sense, from scouting, that they are developing at an unlikely rate.

I claim that Gomez is developing more quickly than his numbers might suggest. I base that on scouting. You only want to look at his numbers. We’ll have to agree to disagree about that. One thing I do take issue with: You’re equating Carlos Gomez to Luis Rivas. Unlike Rivas, Gomez has had stretches of very good numbers. Rivas never did. His evaluation was based entirely on tools. But what the scouts failed to take into account was his ability to learn. I guess he’s learned a few things since the Twins gave up on him. But he never became the player the scouts said he would because he was a slow learner. I think Gomez is a quick learner. So that’s where they differ.

There once was a pitcher who was drafted in the 29th round of the 2001 draft. He did not sign right away, but was a draft-and -follow who signed the next spring and reported to Elizabethton. For three years, he struggled to do anything consistently, partly because of injury and partly because of maturity. Along about 2007, he started putting it all together, but as a 25 year old in AA, he was barely a prospect. He made the jump to AAA and continued to get batter. He made the jump to the majors and struggled. But he took all those learnings to the Fall League and won the pitcher of the year award there.

Still, as a 26 year old with a half season of AAA, most raters didn’t consider him a prospect prior to 2008. But some did. Those who did thought he was a late bloomer who had finally turned a corner. He came to spring training, won a starting job with the Twins, and is now the leading candidate for Rookie of The Year in the American League. His numbers said he was not likely to be any better than a long reliever with a short career. He is an unlikely ROY candidate.

Unlikely stuff happens. Predicting that, by definition, takes a good scouting eye. I’m not saying I do, but that I trust those with good scouting eyes. A LOT of guys with good scouting eyes have said Gomez is a quick learner who will eventually show people that games like Wednesday night are not a fluke. I’m betting a little against the odds (by the numbers anyway) because I trust those scouts.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 9, 2008 10:16 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

BTW

I don’t think Gomez is likely to cut down on his strike outs significantly this year. I do think he will gradually work out more walks, though. And when he hits the ball fair, he will get on base a high percentage of the time because of his combination of speed and power. If a team tries to play in to compensate for his speed, he’ll hit the ball past them. If they try to play back to compensate for his power, he’ll hit the ball in front of them. When he makes contact, he’s really tough to defense. He could strike out 130 times this year and still hit .280/.320/.450. I’ll take that from a 22 year old with his range and arm.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 9, 2008 11:18 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Semantics?

1. Numbers can tell you what a player has done, but they can’t tell you what a player will do because players develop at different rates.
2. The minor league translation is not a prediction of what the player will do, but an evaluation of what he has done. Incidentally, it is true in most cases that what he does next will be somewhat similar to what he has done in the past.

Saying that you can’t be 100% sure that a player won’t perform better or worse than his minor league numbers isn’t the same as saying that a player is likely to do about what he did in the minor leagues. In a Boolean/internet argument sense, this is indeed true. In a knowledge/understanding sense, this is horsepucky. You can say that a player will occasionally perform better or worse than his expectation - heck, modern projection systems expect this and report their projections accordingly - but even with scouting you can’t say which players will perform better, which will perform worse, and which will perform at their expectations.

We could do this semantics thing all day—saying that Gomez has had stretches of very good numbers but Luis Rivas never did? What do you mean by ‘stretch’? Does the .318/849 Rivas hit in 41 games at AAA Salt Lake in 2000 count? How about the .310/737 he hit in his September call-up in 2000? Or the .292/764 he hit down the stretch in September of 2002 when the Twins were icing their first division title? Or the .300/788 he hit in May of 2003? Or the .354/933 he hit in June of 2005? Give me any ‘stretch’ of games Gomez has played in, and I’m confident I can find a similar sized stretch where Rivas hit just as well or better. What does that prove?

A LOT of guys with good scouting eyes have said Gomez is a quick learner who will eventually show people that games like Wednesday night are not a fluke.

A lot of guys with good scouting eyes are wrong, then—that was the whole point of the essay. If hitting for the cycle were not a fluke, then somebody in the last fifty years would have managed it more than twice in his career. Or are you saying Gomez’s cycle shows that scouts think he’s going to eventually be a better hitter than Barry Bonds, who never hit for the cycle?

Look at it from a different perspective - say Craig Monroe hits three homers tonight against Boston. Does that make him a powerhouse slugger we got at a bargain price of $3 million+, or would that just be one good game? Most folks would say the latter, and deservedly so, because Monroe has a track record. Well, so does Gomez - even if most folks don’t seem to want to acknowledge it.

Unlikely stuff does happen. That’s part of what makes baseball baseball. But to expect both unlikely and good stuff to happen to somebody based on your admiration for a player and a belief in someone else’s expert opinion of his potential? That’s faith-based sabermetrics, and I’ll pass, thanks.

by dwintheiser on May 9, 2008 5:18 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Horsepucky

Is there a degree of uncertainty about whether Gomez will reach his ceiling? Yes. Is there more certainty that he will reach his ceiling than there was with Rivas? Yes. Where does this certainty come from? Not from faith-based sabermetrics, which is an oxymoron if ever there was one. Two organizations (Mets, Twins) and a prominent information service (BA) have staked their reputations on the claim that Gomez will reach his ceiling. Are you claiming that your analysis is better than theirs?

Now that I understand in what sense you mean hitting for the cycle is a fluke, I agree. In particular, Gomez was lucky Quentin didn’t get to that ball that was made into a double, and he was lucky the official scorer ruled it a double and an error rather than a triple. He was also lucky that the pitcher jabbed at his chopper before the shortstop had a chance to make a play on it. But he was not lucky that he had four good at bats out of six. That was not a fluke. And I will double down on that beer if he does not have 50 more games in which he has four good at bats this year, of which, perhaps only 5 will result in four-hit games.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 9, 2008 5:55 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Not my analysis...the same analysis

From an October 1, 2000 article in the StarTribune penned by LENIII:

“When Luis Rivas doubled against Cleveland on Wednesday, fellow Venezuelan infielder Omar Vizquel was waiting for him with some advice.

”’He said I need to see the ball and try to hit it to right field and make contact,’ Rivas said. ‘He’s seen me play before.’

“As Vizquel began to motion with his hands and arms as he spoke to Rivas, Twins manager Tom Kelly took notice. He was pleased to see a player reinforce something he and the coaching staff already have told Rivas. But, they all admit there are no serious flaws in Rivas’ game; he just needs experience.”

Check out your back issues of Baseball America circa 2000; you’ll see the same things being written about Gomez today were being written about Rivas eight years ago, which is why people like me were so high on him.

Just because it isn’t on the Internet doesn’t mean you can pretend it doesn’t exist.

by dwintheiser on May 11, 2008 4:45 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Intangibles

You have a long an illustrious career defending him in the blogosphere. We know that. He actually started out pretty decently and his career might have gone better had he not broken his wrist on a high hard on in game two of 2002. After that, the flashes of brilliance we saw were fewer and further between as his career went along. Until recently, he was barely able to hold a AAA job. Apparently he’s had some sort of epiphany this year. But it was four years late and four stars short.

Why didn’t he develop? I suspect it had more to do with intangibles than physical tools. He got lazy. He gained a bunch of weight. He preferred hanging out in the clubhouse and playing cards to doing extra hitting and fielding work. And he never made adjustments in part because you have to work at it to learn new things.

So what? What does Rivas have to do with Gomez? You might think they’re similar players. But I see as many differences as similarities, starting with past performance. Gomez had an OPS over 700 in four out of six years in the minors. Rivas had an OPS over 700 in one out of five years in the minors. But the bigger differences are in the intangibles. Gomez is bubbling over with enthusiasm. Rivas was moody and at times sluggish. Gomez works hard and gives 110% on every play. Rivas couldn’t care less half the time. These are the things scouts notice that don’t show up in the box score.

One anecdotal report from a rival shortstop when Rivas was at the peak of his career is not enough to quell the tide of question marks scouts had on Rivas long before he came to the majors. The Twins thought his tools and Sargent Rock would make him into a star. As long as he had TK kicking him in the rear every time he loped, he did his work and it showed on the field. Gardy is not that kind of manager. You have to want to work under Gardy. You have to show up and ask his coaching staff for extra work. They’re more than happy to do it, but they won’t force you. And you can’t teach enthusiasm, desire, or motivation. Those things Rivas lacked, more so after his injury. Those are the very things that make Gomez a fan favorite and more likely than Rivas to reach his ceiling.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 11, 2008 6:22 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Correction

Gomez finished with an OPS over 700 in each of his four seasons in the minors. I read the table wrong. My bad.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 11, 2008 6:35 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

2 more

2 more K’s today. His marginal contact skills and total inability to take a walk still worries me, but he’s definitely talented and exciting.

"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane

by AdamOnFirst on May 8, 2008 10:31 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

I think you have to look at the at bats and see

People assume that every strikeout is the same, like he swung at tree sliders in the dirt or something. I don’t see it that way. Even when he strikes out, he takes pitches and fouls off pitches. For example, the first strikeout came within inches of being a double down the line. I’m not making apologies for him. But just because he still strikes out doesn’t mean he’s not making progress.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on May 8, 2008 11:00 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

the walk tha won the game...

yup, Gomez.

He has looked a lot better lately as far as taking pitches and making contact go.

http://noblingblings.blogspot.com/

by Aaron Fix on May 9, 2008 11:43 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

The kid is special.

How does 22 years sound? It’s been 22 years since Kirby hit for a cycle. If I do the math correctly that means that the last Twin hit for the cycle did it the same year Carlos was born.

Depending on how you look at that, it’s a mighty long time. Kind of like the passing of the Dalai Lama’s reign or something.

You can parse the numbers and find ways that Gomez does not measure up. But, when you watch him, you realize there are unique gifts here. Will he be able to fully control and utilize them? Beats me.

But did anyone else see the throw he made on Tuesday night when he tried to get Quentin at third? Yeah, he got an error for a bullet on-target throw after charging the ball like a panther.

I’ll say it again: the most exciting player to play for the Twins since… well, it’s been 22 years.

And yes, he did steal second today before being called out by the umpire.

by Old Twins Cap on May 8, 2008 11:27 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

Bang

How likely is it that Gomez will turn out like Cedeno

Not likely. How many ballplayers are charged with manslaughter for killing their mistresses?

by Johnny Safron on May 9, 2008 1:12 AM EDT reply reply   0 recs


User Tools

TT is an SB Nation blog of, by and for the fans. We strive to be the best Minnesota Twins blog by providing quality content and analysis, as well as daily news and notes on the team. We hope you'll make Twinkie Town your home for all things Twins!
Ad-medium-smq

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Minor League Report...May 3, 2008

Recent FanPosts

Morneau_small
Tolbert on DL
Small
Gomez and Casilla
Fatty_small
Section 119, Row 7
Small
Liriano update
Small
I have a cold...
Chef2_small
Weekly Whatnot, 5/7
Small
Minor League Report...May 10, 2008
Userimageservlet_small
Reusse's Karma
Small
Who'da thunk?
Small
Notes on a Cycle

Post New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Ad-banner-faketeams

Managers

Twinkietown_small Jesse

Hrbek_small Jon Marthaler

Fatty_small cmathewson

Authors

Corey_in_drag_small Corey Ettinger

Moderators

Small mbennett

ad

Site Meter