… that being John Benson's #1 yellow sticky note on draft day.
The players most likely to exhibit the most dramatic spike in performance are those aged 26 who have several years of major league experience - John Benson
His #2 sticky note, the one on the right side of his computer monitor :- ) being those players who had radically better second halves than first halves.
………………..
We posted a few times on Geoff Baker's blog and attracted a couple of Seattle P-I type posters. These posters, evidently long-time D-O-V lurkers, held up two players as evidence that Dr. D can't evaluate players — those players being Yuniesky Betancourt (age 25 last year) and Jose Lopez (age 23 last year).
This obviously implied that for Frenchy and JLo, the results are now in on their careers — in their early 20's.
………………..
Even assuming a hitter is talented, it's possible he'll never pan out.
Even assuming you have a guy who hit 300/340/500 in AAA in a pitcher's park at the age of 20, as Lopez did — or assuming you have a guy had a 91% CT% in the AL after only 400 minor-league AB's, as Betancourt did — the guy still may not jell.
To the P-I poster ;- ) each passing year is proof that the 23- or 25-year-old never had any talent. To him, each year that goes by without 40 homers is just more proof that starring in the PCL at age 20 doesn't mean anything.
But to the roto champ searching the landscape for a huge bargain breakout, those three (3) years of lackluster ML performance are the fuse burning down to the quick of the bomb. To the roto drafter with a "Post-Hype" sticky note on his monitor, each U-26 ML year gone by is another four inches of the fuse burnt down…
Assuming the hitter was talented, of course.
Maybe the 20-year-old AAA hotshot will never pan out. But if he does, the years spent in the majors create an ever-increasing threat of performance spike…
………………..
A super-extreme U-26 sleeper? This guy, who came up very young and talented, and then posted five (5) long years of lukewarm performance in the majors. But each year gone by created more internal pressure inside the bomb… five dreary years of early-20's mediocrity, followed suddenly by 48 homers and a .629 SLG in a pitcher's park.
………………..
We all seem to be pencilling Yuniesky Betancourt in for "stays the same" offensively in 2008.
Is that based on considered roto-geek-a-matic judgment … or is it based on being whipped into submission that there is no cheering in the press box? :- )
.
=== Post-Hype Sleeper Syndrome Dept. ===
John Benson IIRC was the first one to recommend the little draft-day sticky note of Age 26 ballplayers. This being the most frequent age for a developing hitter to post a "breakout" year. Shandler and others agree.
Betancourt's OPS's:
80 - 2005
86 - 2006
93 - 2007
105 - 2007 2H
……………………….
Betancourt's CT%'s:
91 - 2005
90 - 2006
91 - 2007
……………………….
Betancourt's PX's:
66 - 2005
67 - 2006
70 - 2007 1H (389 SLG)
97 - 2007 2H (445 SLG)
………………………
Betancourt's Eye Ratios:
0.46 - 2005
0.31 - 2006
0.31 - 2007
.
=== Dr's Diagnosis ===
Betancourt's CT% — the number of times he puts the ball in play, as opposed to striking out — is Vidro-esque, and among the best in baseball.
This is despite the fact that he came to the majors very green, having had only 410 total minor-league AB's (!!) plus whatever he scrounged as a teenager in Cuba. Betancourt with extremely dubious experience was rushed to a league he should have had no chance at — and from Day One, began squaring up the ball on ML pitchers like Jose Vidro.
……………….
If there's "no cheering in the press box," what you point out right now is that Betancourt will never hit for any power whatsoever — that he'll hit the same .300/.320/.400, into eternity, that he hit as a raw frosh.
This seems to be a loose consensus among field scouts: that Betancourt "lacks the build" to hit for decent gap power. Some disagree — notably Bill Bavasi and, not notably, myself.
You as the reader decide whether, as Betancourt learns to anticipate pitches a tick earlier (as he of course will), he will be able to do anything with those pitches — 45 doubles, 5 triples, 15 homers … or whether he'll hit the same 35 doubles, 2 triples, and 8 homers he hit last year.
………………
Personally I can see two completely different swings from Frenchy:
1) the arm swing, pictured above, that he has used 90-95% of the time to date
2) the swing where he winds his back shoulder, Ichiro-like, and launches the ball on a line, 375-400 feet.
.
=== Shandler's Diagnosis Dept. ===
Hacking ways still limit upside of excellent CT%.
Second half PX spike, and 6 Safeco homers, from a RH hitter, are intriguing.
(Comment on CS's…)
Pay for a repeat (of 2007) [and hope for a not-too-likely upside, in Shandler-speak - Dr D].
2007 value: $14
2008 value: $16
.
=== D-O-V Site Prognosis, Dept. ===
Betancourt's talent has been pooh-poohed since he was comp'ed to Cesar Izturis, but when the Mariners signed him, they lumped him with Lopez in terms of being very talented both defensively and offensively. The Mariners could be wrong, but it is clear that they believe that Betancourt has a blue-chip offensive pedigree. That is a piece of information that factors in.
Betancourt has now had 1,300 ML at-bats, to go with his 400 minor-league AB's. He comes into 2008 as "a 26-year-old with experience."
If he hits the 300/310/445 that he hit in the second half, his OPS+ will go from 93 to 105.
…………….
If we weren't, um, too close to the situation …. would we be forecasting Betancourt to repeat 2007? Or would he be on our yellow sticky note as Age-26 Breakout Candidate?
Shandler's strategy is to hope that you buy him at 2007 values, locking in fair production and giving yourself a nice little shot at overperformance. Same for most of the roto kings here, I would think.
But, I'm curious what others think — is Betancourt now maxed out at 300/310/400, or is he a threat to leap a plateau at the plate (300/320/440)? Two plateaus (310/330/475)?
Cheers,
Dr D












February 15th, 2008 at 2:13 am Quote
.
My own inkling…
Betancourt is a serious talent. That 91% contact rate in 2005 is awfully impressive when you think about it.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:20 am Quote
PECOTA even has Betancourt improving I believe.
There’s also the little issue of John McLaren wanting his baserunners to learn to be more aggressive and the whole base stealing workshop he’s planning for ST (w/ Rich Amaral and his career 74 SB% doing the teaching). If Betnacourt can learn to be a threat on the bases…and he’s certainly capable of it with his raw speed…his value will increase even further.
My early projection has Betancourt becoming a roughly league average hitter and increasing his SB rate.
February 15th, 2008 at 5:17 am Quote
.
Right, and to be clear as you would put it, D-O-V is not pegging Frenchy for an imminent 2008 bustout…
If you listed six criteria for a breakout candidate, they’d include growth in eye rate, CT%, age-26 syndrome, and a bunch of stuff…. Betancourt would have some of these things but not others…
Still, you’re talking about the excellent talent and the ML investment time in the rear-view mirror…
February 15th, 2008 at 5:37 am Quote
Just checked to make sure Betancourt wasn’t a second half guy (like Beltre is, for example…and Sexson)…and he’s not. At least not so far. Which makes me lean toward giving his hot second half more weight.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:59 am Quote
Betancourt seems to me to be somewhat unique and therefore a bit difficult to project either way. He has the flash and arm to be quite a good SS, if not the focus from pitch to pitch. Time will tell on that one.
Very toolsy hitter with pretty good hands. I generally refer to hands first when looking at hitting potential. Roughly, first, a kid needs to show ability to get around on a fb in a breaking ball count. He does pretty well with that, but needs to work on refining his approach to an AB. He looks like he has to rely on his athletic ability to compete from time to time, and since he still has youth, he gets away with that approach. I don’t see any reason that he can’t start to hone his skills to the pro game, but conversely, the opposite is a real possibility.
While Betancourt took a step back in the field last year, his hitting seemed to improve, if not his approach. Young kids need to show improvement every year, I saw it with him while not with Lopez. Obviously, Lopez has some more in the hitting toolbox so he too, is not a lost cause. To say that the M’s success this year is dependent on the middle infield taking a step forward would be pretty obvious.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:49 am Quote
It bears mentioning that his offensive and defensive game came together at roughly the same time in 2007. His defense was way off early. Once he got over those terrible throws to 1B his offense seemed to gell. With the yips behind him, I really expect a solid season from wire to wire in 2008.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:39 am Quote
Don’t forget that it is because of the value placed on Betancourt by the M’s that Adam Jones is now a centerfielder.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm Quote
Betancourt’s doubles are promising, but I’m betting he ends up with more single-digit HR seasons than double-digit. If anything, I’d expect a major jump in batting average to be much more likely.
There’s three areas where I’d like to see him improve….
1) Someone with the ability to avoid strikeouts like he does should be able to spoil pitches and significantly improve on such horrible walk ratios. I really do think its realistically within his skillset for his walk rates to QUADRUPLE sometime down the road.
2) As Matt said, there’s no reason why Betancourt can’t be a base stealer. He’s never going to be an Ichiro, but he should be able to steal 20-30 bases per year like Jeter. Obviously, this will require not just a more aggressive approach, but he’s also got to learn the nuances of base stealing. There’s no excuse for a player with his speed to be caught stealing 50% of the time.
3) Betancourt is a stud with the glove, but he’s still making a ton of errors. I’d like to see him take a step up and take over as the unquestioned top defensive SS in the AL.
Betancourt’s a .290/.310/.410 hitter now, and I think the potential is at least there for him to be a .320/.360/.425 guy with elite SS defense.
——————————–
For the Mariners at least…. Jose Lopez, I believe, is done.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:59 pm Quote
.
LOL :- )
What was the origin of that? Was that Mark, or somebody, on Fassero after the second game of 1997? Or am I remembering that wrong?
Yours is going to turn out even worse amigo. …well, the “for the Mariners” clause will probably save you.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:33 am Quote
Slghtly OT, but I didn’t know where else to post it. Fascinating article in Vanity Fair about Cuban Baseball and the strange case of the US vs Gus Dominguez. Yuni features fairly prominantly - not a very flattering portrayal.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/cuban_baseball200807?printable=true¤tPage=all
June 13th, 2008 at 8:31 am Quote
Betancourt’s lazy.
Now, I said the samething about Guillen before his final year with us. That was the first year he really showed he had a burning desire in him to be somebody, that he hit a HARD .740+ OPS at SS while looking like a tiger at the plate. Tiger…ha…Anyway, then we threw him out and he went on to be a star. Fuse burning, remember? You could see it in him in ‘03, and that down the stretch when every one else was folding the only two guys keeping it together were Winn and Guillen. I was sad to lose Carlos, and even sadder for us that he then turned into a star.
He said many unflattering things about the Ms organization and how they treat their players. He felt respected in Detroit and performed accordingly.
So maybe Betancourt just doesn’t feel welcome, as Guillen didn’t. Guillen was viewed as the anchor around Freddy. Now it seems it may have been the other way around. I don’t know that Betancourt has that rep, but that article looks about right for how Betancourt treated his defection and his smugglers.
The question now is whether Betancourt has caught Cuban Ballplayer Disease. Symptoms include: getting fat and happy, becoming a sloppy player, not caring about getting better at the game, wasting talent, etc. Betancourt has the talent to be better than he is, and yet his defense keeps deteriorating and his offense has still flat-lined at the same level he was as a rookie. We’ll see.
I think everybody knows I’m higher on Lopez than I am on Betancourt. Unfortunately, Hulett and Valbuena are available in the next 12 months for trial at 2B, followed by Triunfel (in theory) in a few years… but we don’t have a ML-ready SS coming up any time soon. Betancourt’s gonna get a good long time to show off his CB Disease if he has contracted it.
~G
June 13th, 2008 at 8:33 am Quote
Interesting article. Thanks for the link.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:46 am Quote
Well, I never expected Betancourt’s offense to improve, but I also didn’t think he’d regress this much defensively… Hes a bad player right now; it kills me to think that he had so much trade value a couple years ago.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:05 pm Quote
:- )
June 13th, 2008 at 3:41 pm Quote
More Yuni, this time from Hardball Times. They profile the “inverse” three outcome players: those that almost never walk, strikeout or hit home runs.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/three-two-one-contact/
June 13th, 2008 at 4:08 pm Quote
I find G’s comments about Cuban Ballplayer Disease pretty interesting. Is this a disease from which the patient usually recovers? IMO Betancourt needs to be on the trade block and we should go get us a replacement.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:22 pm Quote
VERY.
Had never occurred to me before, that the difference between communist, poverty-stricken Cuba, and the liberty and wealth here, could fulfill a human being’s life dreams in the first year.
Why wouldn’t it rob you of your career ambitions? It would me of mine.
……………….
My church does a lot of work in Cuba, including one of my best friends who spends a couple of weeks a year there, brings back the pictures, etc. You wouldn’t believe the poverty and squallor, and especially you wouldn’t believe the oppressive fascist Big Brother element. There’s a reason that parents fearfully name their children ‘communist’ names.
Cubans haven’t fared well in the majors generally. I bet you G-Money’s theory is a big part of that.
June 13th, 2008 at 5:00 pm Quote
Speaking of Cuba and the almost hysterical relief that Cubans enjoy when they arrive here…
When I hear America-bashing going on, that there is this and that imperfection in our country …. at times even descending to the Churchillian point of rooting for the terrorists, as if all of our little social injustices create An Intolerable Human Condition…
My first thought is always, if only they could spend a month in Cuba, or Togo, or even Juarez (across the border from El Paso).
………………..
Zumsteg’s poisonous diatribe against Sutcliffe: the hatred of Sutcliffe, his sense that he and/or the reporter had been irreparably harmed past the point of an adult response …. Zumsteg’s own hatred was provoked by what?
That Sutcliffe said something he didn’t like.
The hatred is in response to the fact that Sutcliffe was treating a female with less than prim professional respect, with a little undertext that maybe somewhere, someplace, somebody believes that men should run the country. Catch me Rhett, I think I’m suffering the vapors.
In any third world country on the planet, a female who lived the life of a U.S. reporter would just about think she died and went to heaven. There’s no need to get apopleptic over somebody saying something we don’t like.
But in America, that is what has to pass as our variation on oppression and suffering: any individual citizen saying something we don’t like.
…………………..
And females, BTW, receive much more genteel verbal treatment from men, than we give to each other. Hillary Clinton did not receive the criticism, from her male competitors, that she would have received had she been a man. Camille Paglia (a hyperliberal, atheistic lesbian, not to slap any labels on) wrote a fascinating piece on this last week. American women enjoy very sensitive treatment from American men.
You and I, as men, will say disrespectful things to each other; we’re more careful around women. Do you think Derek Zumsteg would have written a F** Y** Christina Kahrl !! column?
……………………..
But that’s PC for you: complete, irrational, venomous hatred erupts …. any time we hear something we don’t like.
I think it was in Spiderwick that the child complained,
That’s American media these days. Everything is geared around trying to prevent people from saying things we don’t like, typified (almost self-parodied) by an offensive op-ed that rebukes speech that offends others. And the satire finishes with panache: comments closed :- )
Spend a month in Havana. Get a grip on what it’s like to live in truly intolerable conditions.
………………………
And if you want people to think that you are an Enlightened Being Of Love And Acceptance, fighting to eradicate Hatred and Intolerance ….. consider an approach other than a F*** Y** column. The beam in your own eye, brotha.
/rant
June 13th, 2008 at 7:34 pm Quote
#18: With you every word, m’friend.
Most (95%) people don’t truly understand how life is for most people in this world. In a way, our society is the same as the high levels of aristocracy in old Europe, totally disconnected from the harsh realities of life for the masses on our planet. That’s just fact, and if you want to become angry at me or Doc for pointing it out and attack some other part of the statements, that’s your right. It also exemplifies part of what he pointed out..
I don’t have a problem with people reasonably pointing out something they find to be unacceptable, and even doing so in a colorful and grandiose fashion. But we should all acknowledge the simple truths of life, and the way it actually is before we launch into how we’d like for it to be. I love the equal rights provided in our country, but everyone needs to understand that they aren’t really rights, they’re privileges. Privileges which Doc and taro and Matt and Sandy and G and I and everyone else here are happy to provide to our fellow (wo)man in the efforts of creating something which is unnatural, but better than everything else we’ve seen.
People, at large, have it backwards. They think that how life is for us in the USA is how life must be in order to be anywhere close to fair or reasonable. That’s simply not the case. Go spend a few weeks in Sudan and tell me that women are oppressed in our country. Talk with Afghani women about many of the ‘rituals’ they undergo while they’re still just girls and then tell me that you think we’re unfair, as a society, in our treatment of the fairer sex. Or back to the Sudan, how about we discuss the treatment of Christians, both men and women? Oppression, you say? It’s a bunch of statues huddled around a manger, for crying out loud!!
Gah, my problem is whenever I try to engage anyone on this subject, I get the blank stare for about three minutes and no communication occurs. Which is too bad, because if we well and truly understood just how amazingly good we’ve got it, compared to the vast majority of the world, alot more of us would be involved in activities which spread our knowledge and perspective to the world.
Places like this foster this type of discussion though, which is why I keep coming back, even though I think I’m officially done with the M’s until they install new ownership. It’s not about the baseball, mate. It’s the fans you watch it with
June 14th, 2008 at 5:34 pm Quote
Had a family discussion with my 16-year-old son this last week. He’s at that age where he thinks
he has EVERYTHING figured out, and he’s just itching to express his ex cathedra opinion about
things he’s never researched and knows nothing about. And everybody’s just supposed to accept
what he says, “don’t bother me with the facts.” You know, typical 16-year-old. (He’s actually a
pretty good kid, he just thinks he knows more than he actually does.)
Anyway, since he’s started going to the local community college he is of course spouting off
typical liberal rhetoric all of a sudden. In the family discussion he indicated a readiness to
toss away all the hard-earned liberties we enjoy as Americans. He seemed unable to comprehend
how America was a historically unique place. I began to describe to him how, when I was his age,
I had the rare opportunity to travel with a student group behind the Iron Curtain and see
first-hand the oppression and hopelessness of a Communist regime. Prague, Czeckoslovakia. East
Berlin. If you only read about it, you had not idea. But even a cursory reading of history, if
you are willing to face it, tells you that as a rule tyrants of a sort completely different from
the supposedly evil hegemony of the U.S. have terrorized the unfortunate.
My son, of course, who knows all but has experienced nothing, completely dismissed every fact I
reasonably attempted to submit for his consideration. He’s my son. He’s 16. I love him, and I am
confident he will straighten out in time. Grown-up liberal pundits, indeed presidential
candidates have no excuse of age. Why do they persist in their refusal to take actual world
history, indeed actual current conditions in most places on earth, into consideration in their
judgments about America. They have no sense of balance or proportion. If you try to bring this
up, instead of letting it have an effect on their thinking, they mumble a dismissive “of course…blah, blah, blah” and go merrily on with their blather about how America is the real cause of whatever problem they are concerned about.
So as long as you’re going to rant, Doc, I’ll join you in the exercise.
June 14th, 2008 at 5:44 pm Quote
Naaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh :- )
Has he read The Gulag Archipelago yet? That usually appeals to CC students, as well as stopping them short with their “moral equivalency of nations” shtick…
Or he might google Japanese and German war crimes… the specifics tend to have a rather chilling effect on those who fancy that a jail in Guantanamo is mankind’s ultimate hell…
With you as his dad, am sure he will… especially in view of the fact that you’re not heavy-handedly trying to control his thinking in the way that parents from the opposing world view would be doing…
Join me for a weep anytime :- ) (Jack Nicholson)
June 14th, 2008 at 6:06 pm Quote
You know it’s funny. When I was a kid his age, I was an independent thinker, but I knew that I didn’t know anything until I had researched it. I would read anything to increase my understanding. He’s different. He want to opine first, and when I try to suggest anything, it’s automatically wrong because it’s me who’s suggesting it. Again, typical 16-year-old. Occasionally I’ve sent him links to interesting, factual articles, but I know he doesn’t read them. He’s the kind of kid who’s going to have to be smacked around a little bit by life in order to figure out he needs to approach his opinions a little differently. He will…because life will indeed smack him around some.
However, you’re right. Even though I’m tempted to do otherwise, I steadfastly insist that he tells me what he really thinks, not what he thinks I want to hear. I don’t want to raise a parrot.
June 15th, 2008 at 4:02 am Quote
Why the heck is attending community college at 16?
Not faulting you for trying to give him the best chance at success by accelerating his education if he’s ahead of most high school students, but I’m here to tell you…as someone who was not so long ago 16-20, kids are NOT READY to handle college at those ages anymore.
In fact when I have children, if I see the same kind of warning signs you mention in your post, I don’t plan to allow them to attend college until they’ve spent a year or two working somewhere to learn what the real world is like.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:02 am Quote
HaHa…all kids aren’t the same, Matt. We’ve got an intern that’s 19 and a year away from his master’s in software engineering from Harvey Mudd. If his parents had done anything but challenge him with college courses at an early age it would have been a disservice.
His parents know his maturity level best. If they think he can handle it, I say pile it on.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:25 am Quote
You can challenge your kid with college level material without exposing a mind that is not emotionally mature enough to understand that college rhetoric is laced with propaganda to said propaganda. Not saying all kids are the same…but the indoctrination that goes on in our colleges and universities is beyond the ability of most children under the age of 20 to cope with other than by conforming.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:08 am Quote
Agree with the spirit of what you’re talking about here Matty… and applaud your awareness… IMHO emotional maturity is indeed arriving later and later for wealthy American youngsters…
…………….
Have to say on this point, our daughter just graduated from a homeschool-assist HS on Monday and got the A.A. from Green River CC on Thursday.
You are right about the sudden immersion into liberal evangelism; every lit/humanities type class she took was an unsubtle left-wing propaganda campaign, by her own description. She was a lot more worried about it than I was :- )
Takes a lot of involvement from the parents, starting age 12 and even younger, to ‘counter’ her exposure to ‘evangelism’ … if the parents allow the child to be exposed to all points of view, and themselves offer a strong case for their own perspectives … then a sharp teenager can learn to seek Truth with a fair mind…
Again, it becomes a question of confidence in one’s own perspectives …
You’re probably also aware that a strong grounding in ‘church’ while growing up is correlated with high family integrity later on …
…………….
That said, no matter what a parent does, some children are going to rebel at some point, whether at CC age or after they get their apartment, or whatever… you can’t control a human mind :- )
June 15th, 2008 at 11:07 am Quote
Back to Betancourt, how about him trying on his own to bunt a 3-2 pitch with runners at 1st and 2nd with no one out with the M’s down two? Not only does he not get the bunt down, he bunts at an obvious ball. If he can’t even manage to keep himself from bunting at a ball out of the strike zone he needs to be taken out of the lineup immediately. If I were in charge I’d option him down to Tacoma for pulling a stunt like that. It’s the kind of incompetence which I can’t stand yet seems to be fully supported by the M’s. But hey, Reed has been working out at 1st base. A team that would consider using Reed at 1st and Ibanez in LF is apparently content with incompetence.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:46 am Quote
That was BETANCOURT calling that play? He looked MAD when he was asked to bunt 3-1…he went over to the third base coach and had a 20-second argument with him. I thought for sure McLaren was just being retarded as usual (when it comes to in-game strategy) and calling obsessively for the bunt.
Betancourt reminds me of Rey Quinonez. Talented but no ambition and no brain.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm Quote
Sorry it took so long to answer your concerned comments, Matt. Appreciate you lookin’ out for me!
I should add, that while I am frustrated with my son’s current attitudes on some things, he’s not turning into a nihilist or a radical. He’s just got a strong current running through him right now to chart his opinions off the beaten path of what he’s been raised in. It’s funny, I recall upsetting my Dad greatly as a 17-year old facing the draft turning into a conscientious objector for a little while in the early 70’s. Just trying out my wings. I also ticked him off in the 1976 presidential election, the first in which I could vote, because I gravitated to John Anderson instead of Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan. Anderson was the John McCain of the mid ’70s, a Republican with some liberal leanings. As it turned out, all these exercises on my part were aberrations which I completely rejected by the time I was 25. But they served an important purpose to me, to establish myself as an independent thinker.
My son was homeschooled until this his first year at GRCC, as was my daughter who is 19 and within one quarter of getting her AA from Green River with a GPA about 3.8, as was my daughter who is 23 and graduating from Gene Juarez Academy of Beauty with good job offers in hand. All are good kids, including my son despite his current issues. All have a sound foundational world view that they are in the process of making their own.
None of this is to dismiss what you say, Matt, however. The dangers you warn against are very real. I remember as a 15 year old facing high school teachers in history and English that were determined to destroy the upbringing I had received from my family. By the grace of God and the strength of that upbringing, they did not come close to succeeding. A few years later when I walked into the world of Cal State Fullerton my teachers in Speech, Music, Anthropology, etc. were obviously obsessed with doing the same. Though I was sorely tested, I knew I would not break, because I was armed, having read Romans 1 many times over.
One of the things that helps me with my son is trying to remember how I felt during those times. I did not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I wanted to listen to other points of view and not be so arrogant as to assume I had nothing to learn. Even now, when dealing with my son, I try to acknowledge as much as possible whatever truth can be found in his assertions. Often there is some common ground. Sometimes not. I never want to discourage him from making a reasonable attempt to “try on” ideas. I’ve done it my whole life. What is worthless is discarded. What is gold is kept. Some is still being refined in order to discover which is which. Above all is the revealed truth of God in the Scriptures (sorry if this offends some in a baseball forum, but as long as I am engaging in a soliloquy I’ll speak the unvarnished truth as I see it).
All this said, perhaps this gives you some perspective on why I’d let my son go to community college at 16. He’s a good student (though he does have trouble writing papers), and he’s doing what some 16-year-olds do. I did the same, and I turned out to be, as one friend described me, “one of the last of the straight arrows.”
Again, thanks for your genuine concern, and here’s hoping all of us, including myself, learn to strike wise balances in raising our kids. Sometimes it isn’t easy, and all to often we make honest mistakes.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:14 pm Quote
That vanity fair article was fascinating! It had a lot of great info about Cuba and baseball, and was a fun read just for that, but it really took Betancourt down a couple of notches in my eyes. Not baseball wise, but human being wise. It painted Yuni as a selfish, arrogant jerk, who is only looking out for himself. Now, of course, this was just one journalists opinion, and he was rooting fro the sports agent, but it is pretty sad when you have knowledge that could spare a man from prison and you refuse to testify, even though it won’t hurt you in the least. Come on, Yuni, I expected better from you!
Cuban Ballplayer Disease indeed! I wonder if the M’s could threaten to revoke his work visa as a incentive to work harder?
June 16th, 2008 at 3:28 pm Quote
#28
Yeah, granted we don’t know the whole story, but its enough for me to dislike him as a person.
Betancourt always rubbed me the wrong way, and I know why….This is crazy, I’ve never disliked any hometown player as much as I dislike Washburn and Betancourt. .
Can we ship both of them out of here? They’re both terrible baseball players anyways.