Ackley

[Logicallylethal]

Some fans are just more optimistic than others...

There's no reason to shoot down another person's optimism by injecting your own gloom feeling on a player. Ackley is hitting .319 so far post all star break (72 abs). The glass half full fan will see that as a positive sign and hope that maybe Ackley has figured it out. The glass half empty fan will inject gloom and pessimism saying it's the typical Ackley tease and he will return to hitting .200 before the year ends.

Come on guys...have some faith...stop being such debbie downers...

Ackley i'm cautiously optimistic about because his sample size is much smaller...but Smoak...he's earned my confidence. The guy has always had a great eye at the plate. He's always been a patient hitter who works the count well. Now he's put it together with some power and hits for a solid avg too

I mean...how can you not like what Smoak has been doing this year? He's hitting .273 with a .366 obp and .451 slg for the year. In the past 3 months he has been hitting .301 with a .401 obp and slugging .546. That's a .947 ops!

Isn't that exactly what you want in your starting first basemen!? Not to mention that Smoak has become an excellent fielding first basemen as well.

 

[blstoker]

Comparisons to Michael Young were really bad.

Bonds is a whole new level.

Ackley's OBP has been below .300 for almost a year...oftentimes well below that, even making it into the high .100s and extremely low .200s at times.

That's monumentally bad. Remarkable, really.

Bonds' OBP fell below.300 exactly one day in his first season...that would be his 2nd day in MLB. That's it.

At his very worst in his first 2 years in MLB, Bonds' average OPS was still nearly 200 points higher than Ackley's.

Tonight, for the first time in nearly a year, Ackley got his SLG above .300 (.301 to be exact).

Other than the first few games of his 2nd year in the bigs, Bonds' SLG was 150-250 points higher than that every day.

If you're trying to be silly, you're succeeding admirably. Any other all time greats Ackley compares with?

The problem is that you refuse to see the actual point. It isn't that Ackley is going to be Michael Young, and definitely not gonna be Barry Bonds, but that it took them a couple of years or more before they found their groove and became the players they would be. This has nothing to do with whether Ackley will one day hit 73 HRs, or even 20 for that matter, but that he is still relatively inexperienced and his career is not over just because he's been struggling.

If you really want an example you could look at that would be more similar to what is expected of Ackley, try Omar Vizquel. His first 3 years he batted .230 total, never was above .250 for an entire season. His OPS never topped .600 for a year. Despite hitting .294 in 1992, his 5 year average in Seattle was just .252. I'm sure everyone can agree that he turned out to have a really good career, despite being a little lacking offensively his first 3 years.

 

[hawkfan1073]

The problem is that you refuse to see the actual point. It isn't that Ackley is going to be Michael Young, and definitely not gonna be Barry Bonds, but that it took them a couple of years or more before they found their groove and became the players they would be.

This is what I was trying to say with the Michael Young comparison. Never said Ackley was better or will be better...just in the same ballpark at least as Young. You're right...I'm right....who gives a fried turkey sandwich really?

 

[hawkfan1073]

How about this....kids don't do well...you bash them. When they do well...how about giving them some credit?

 

[Thisnamewasntaken]

I don't understand the obsession with Ackley. He's played well for less than a month. Big whoop. Until he proves he can stay above .250 for a few months in a row, he's garbage. If he's still on this team as an everyday player in 2014, then it means that our prospects like Franklin are tragically horrible.

Smoak is getting there, but I won't acknowledge it's real unless he keeps it up the rest of the season.

Agreed 'ol chap. I must say what a marvelous observation. I concur.

 

[beefman138]

Anyone else realize that for the month of August he is hitting .371 with an OPS of .920?

Maybe, just maybe he has made adjustments?

I hope he dominates for the next decade.

Mostly because I have a Rookie Card of his, serially numbered to 60 copies. (#39/60)

Lets go Ackley! The second-best second-baseman in the League named Dustin. Even though he hasn't played second base a lot lately...

 

[johnfree63]

Michael Young's first 2 years in the Majors he hit .249 and .262 with an OPS of .699 and .690.
Dustin Ackley in his 1st 2 seasons(less overall games played) has pretty similar #'s.

Young didn't figure it out until he turned 26. Ackley will be turning 26 this coming year.

You asked for one....there you go.

Sorry that doesn't work. You said that you've seen players take longer to "get it".

Ackley's career #'s (through 1344 Plate Appearances)- .242/.309/.347 19 HRs 105 RBIs
Young through 1400 PAs- .277/.318/.412 34 HRs 183 RBIs

You got another name?

 

[hawkfan1073]

Sorry that doesn't work. You said that you've seen players take longer to "get it".

Ackley's career #'s (through 1344 Plate Appearances)- .242/.309/.347 19 HRs 105 RBIs
Young through 1400 PAs- .277/.318/.412 34 HRs 183 RBIs

You got another name?

I NEVER said Young and Ackley were comparable other than the fact that it took Young a couple years to blossom. See, here is where you guys are failing to understand. I am not saying Ackley is going to be an all-star but I am saying that other players have taken a couple years to come into their own. If you are looking for a name to drop that is comparable to Ackley's stats I can't help you because I have no idea how good or bad Ackley will be going forward. All I know is there are players(and I'm not going to spend any more time data mining to come up with a name to appease you) that have taken a couple years......

Deny that Michael Young didn't see dramatic improvement in his third full season in the bigs? THAT right there proves my argument.

 

[hawkfan1073]

But if you must have other names..here are a few that took a while to reach their prime.
Dante Bichette
Louis Gonzalez
Jose Bautista
Sandy Kaufax
Randy Johnson
Joe Nathan
Vinny Castilla
Kevin Millar
Jamie Moyer
Scott Brosius
Al Leiter
Jayson Werth
David Ortiz

 

[cezero]

But if you must have other names..here are a few that took a while to reach their prime.
Dante Bichette
Louis Gonzalez
Jose Bautista
Sandy Kaufax
Randy Johnson
Joe Nathan
Vinny Castilla
Kevin Millar
Jamie Moyer
Scott Brosius
Al Leiter
Jayson Werth
David Ortiz

some of those are a lot more realistic comparisons, that's for sure.

 

[cezero]

The problem is that you refuse to see the actual point...

The actual point is that any comparison between ackley and bonds at any point in their careers is patently absurd.

Stating anything else is moronic.

 

[hawkfan1073]

The point wasn't to compare Ackley to anybody really. All I was trying to say was that Ackley could turn his career around because it has been done before by other players. The point wasn't trying to be made that Ackley will end up better than any of those guys. Everyone on here seemed to want to compare Ackley's #'s to another players and that wasn't the point actually. I just gave an instance in which someone (Young) started out slow and picked it up around their 3rd year. So, with precedence, Ackley could very well end up a good player still.
Same with Smoak......

Montero I just am not sold on....fat, no running, can't field or hit. Can't believe we gave up Pineda for him....yuck

 

[cezero]

Everyone on here seemed to want to compare Ackley's #'s to another players and that wasn't the point actually.

that would be you, when you explicitly posted links....

...to their #'s.

Michael Young Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Dustin Ackley Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

references

 

[hawkfan1073]

that would be you, when you explicitly posted links....

...to their #'s.

You missed the point and get a (Ce)zero for today....

 

[hawkfan1073]

I posted those links for reference not to compare each others numbers but to show that Young had a marked increase in his 3rd season. I guess I didn't need to put the link to Ackley I guess.

But back to my original point....do you agree?

 

[cezero]

The point wasn't to compare Ackley to anybody really.

Everyone on here seemed to want to compare Ackley's #'s to another players and that wasn't the point actually.

Michael Young Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Dustin Ackley Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

references

i'm beginning to see the point you were trying to make

thank you for being so logical

 

[dude82]

Anyone that has watched professional sports for more than five minutes ought to know that not every player matures into what they're ultimately going to be at the same rate. There are some players that you know pretty much right away are going to be great (Griffey, Rodriguez, Felix, etc.), but those guys are rare. For everybody else, it can take a little while. The bottom line is this... it's been 20 years since the Mariners last produced, and more importantly, held onto, one of those types of players from the hitting side and obviously that's making some people antsy. The problem with being antsy is that you lose all perspective because you just want guys to be what they're going to be right now and if what they are right now isn't particularly good, you give up on them because you think that's all they'll ever be.

Adding another layer to this is that the Mariners haven't been good in 10 years and the hitting has been the main culprit, so every hitting prospect that comes through doesn't have the luxury of working out the kinks in the minors, getting off to a slow start in the majors or succeeding early in the majors and then failing to immediately adjust to the adjustments other teams have made to them, because both the fans and the organization itself don't have the patience for it.

I share the frustration, but just because the team struggled a lot before most of the guys on this roster were even on the Mariners' radar, doesn't mean that these guys should be shown less patience if they're not hitting their stride in the first couple of years at this level than they'd be shown if the situation before they got here had been better.

 

[hawkfan1073]

Anyone that has watched professional sports for more than five minutes ought to know that not every player matures into what they're ultimately going to be at the same rate. There are some players that you know pretty much right away are going to be great (Griffey, Rodriguez, Felix, etc.), but those guys are rare. For everybody else, it can take a little while. The bottom line is this... it's been 20 years since the Mariners last produced, and more importantly, held onto, one of those types of players from the hitting side and obviously that's making some people antsy. The problem with being antsy is that you lose all perspective because you just want guys to be what they're going to be right now and if what they are right now isn't particularly good, you give up on them because you think that's all they'll ever be.

Adding another layer to this is that the Mariners haven't been good in 10 years and the hitting has been the main culprit, so every hitting prospect that comes through doesn't have the luxury of working out the kinks in the minors, getting off to a slow start in the majors or succeeding early in the majors and then failing to immediately adjust to the adjustments other teams have made to them, because both the fans and the organization itself don't have the patience for it.

I share the frustration, but just because the team struggled a lot before most of the guys on this roster were even on the Mariners' radar, doesn't mean that these guys should be shown less patience if they're not hitting their stride in the first couple of years at this level than they'd be shown if the situation before they got here had been better.

Man, i wish I would have just said this.....lol

 

[hawkfan1073]

i'm beginning to see the point you were trying to make

thank you for being so logical

Sorry, if I am confusing....I confuse myself alot too.

 

[cezero]

no worries, hawkfan

i apologize for being so condescending

i'll just say again that barring a downright miraculous remainder of the season for ackley, i'll be very sad if the m's are so bad next year, they're still carting him out to play cf or 2b. That will mean one of two awful things: (1) Franklin is so bad the rest of this year and spring of next year that Ackley is back at 2B. Please no. (2) The FO didn't care enough to find a legitimate and competent center fielder. Fuck that, too.