Mike Swanson showed us the way to the Royals dugout. I cannot even begin to describe what I felt when we walked up the steps leading to the field.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Blog Your Way
If you are looking for a point-by-point recap of last night's Blog Your Way to the K, I highly recommend @BHIndepMO's post over at his blog, Burnt Ends by BH. Brandon did an excellent job writing about pretty much everything we heard last night from Ned Yost, Eric Hosmer, Mike Moustakas, Ryan Lefebvre, Nate Bukaty and Dayton Moore.
As a result, I won't get into that much here. However, I would like to talk about "The Process," which I think the Blog Your Way to the K participants saw in action Wednesday night. While that term has definitely gained a negative connotation among Royals fans, it isn't without merit. Moore and his lieutenants are building more than just a baseball team: They're strategically building an entire organization.
The three events the Royals have held to give bloggers exclusive behind-the-scenes access to the team are a part of that construction. Mike Swanson, Royals vice president of communications and broadcasting, led us to the Royals dugout where we met with the team's manager, the new faces of the organization in Hosmer and Moustakas, the team broadcaster and one of the more well-known radio voices in Kansas City. And, of course, we met with the general manager just an hour later.
In other words, the Royals went all-out to give us access to the most important people involved with the organization. The Royals know they will probably get some positive publicity out of this, but that means the public relations department also knows exactly what they're doing.
Moore talked about the importance synergy will play in becoming the organization he envisions a few years down the road. As much as they would like to, the Royals will not be able to buy an Adrian Gonzalez or a Curtis Granderson. We already knew that; that's why they're developing all this talent at the minor league level.
But beyond the team's players liking each other and being able to play well as a unit, it's also important for the team's fans to be on board too. As united as Royals fans already are (especially on Twitter), events like Blog Your Way to the K further advance that part of the mission.
I also snapped a few photos of what we saw in the dugout. Those are posted below.
As a result, I won't get into that much here. However, I would like to talk about "The Process," which I think the Blog Your Way to the K participants saw in action Wednesday night. While that term has definitely gained a negative connotation among Royals fans, it isn't without merit. Moore and his lieutenants are building more than just a baseball team: They're strategically building an entire organization.
The three events the Royals have held to give bloggers exclusive behind-the-scenes access to the team are a part of that construction. Mike Swanson, Royals vice president of communications and broadcasting, led us to the Royals dugout where we met with the team's manager, the new faces of the organization in Hosmer and Moustakas, the team broadcaster and one of the more well-known radio voices in Kansas City. And, of course, we met with the general manager just an hour later.
In other words, the Royals went all-out to give us access to the most important people involved with the organization. The Royals know they will probably get some positive publicity out of this, but that means the public relations department also knows exactly what they're doing.
Moore talked about the importance synergy will play in becoming the organization he envisions a few years down the road. As much as they would like to, the Royals will not be able to buy an Adrian Gonzalez or a Curtis Granderson. We already knew that; that's why they're developing all this talent at the minor league level.
But beyond the team's players liking each other and being able to play well as a unit, it's also important for the team's fans to be on board too. As united as Royals fans already are (especially on Twitter), events like Blog Your Way to the K further advance that part of the mission.
I also snapped a few photos of what we saw in the dugout. Those are posted below.
Out-Talenting People
A lot has been made of my Twitter post that paraphrased Dayton Moore's comment about never being able to "out-talent" teams in Kansas City. Moore's direct quote from Blog Your Way to the K is below.
We're never gonna out-talent anybody here. I understand it goes with the territory, but there was a lot of criticism deflected about why we would sign a guy like Jeff Francoeur. But the truth of the matter is we're not going to out-talent anybody here in Kansas City. It's impossible to do.
We've got one of the smallest markets in all of sports, period. Our owner is a terrific owner, but he's not going to go out and spend a $100 million payroll and a $100 million payroll when we can only sustain a $55 million or $60 million payroll in this market.
So we've gotta, our team has to be better than anybody else. We have to have synergy. We have to have togetherness, very similar to what the Colorado Rockies had three years ago. They had some young, talented players. But they played together, they loved each other, their families got along, and they went out and played hard every single night.
That's what baseball is. We've been together and we've been doing this every day since the 12th of February. Every single day since the 12th of February. These players have been with each other during that period of time. For them to play together as one, they've gotta like each other.
It's gotta be a good team. Guys like Jeff Francoeur and Gordon and Hosmer and guys like that. Treanor and Bruce Chen and Mitch Maier are very important to the team. And that's how you have to look at it.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
On Ned Yost
Photo by Minda Haas
Here's my stance on Royals manager Ned Yost: I think he is absolutely the right guy for the job in Kansas City right now. Tactically, some things he does drive me up a wall, but his patience with young players makes him ideal right now. However, here's the thing that has surprised me as I have observed and listened to him over the past year: I really want him to be the guy who molds the Royals young talent into a division winner. Beyond that, I want him to be the manager of those division winning clubs.
There's just something about Ned that makes me root for him to succeed, which has made the last few weeks with the Royals all the more disappointing. Still, his decision to make Alex Gordon the team's leadoff hitter has created a fun ripple effect around baseball, as Tampa Bay and Colorado have followed suit by leading off Evan Longoria and Carlos Gonzalez in recent weeks. Look, Yost certainly has his downsides too. He seems to pitch Tim Collins as much as humanly possible. Last year, he let Jason Kendall drain the offense by always batting him second. His patience with Luke Hochevar is beginning to wear very, very thin.
Yost is one of those old-school baseball guys in some ways. He has a little too much affinity for the sacrifice bunt, seems to leave his starting pitchers in one or two hitters too long, and sometimes ignores left-right splits. (This is another case with Collins, who Yost will allow to face left-handed batters despite lefties getting on base nearly 40 percent of the time against him this year.)
But in a way, you can find successes in those failures. (That is, aside from the Kendall thing which seems to have no defensible explanation whatsoever.) Minor leaguers, when they've been called up, have been put into game action immediately. No time to sit around. Rightly or wrongly, Hochevar has taken some buttkickings because his manager left him in games to work through his self-created jams. Collins continues to get chances despite bad control problems. The common theme is that Ned Yost believes in his ballplayers, expects success right away and will give them every opportunity to succeed, even at the expense of looking like your run-of-the-mill manager who doesn't pay attention to detail.
But I see something a little different in the way Yost goes about his business compared to other managers, especially previous Royals managers. Tony Muser was irresponsible, ruined Jose Rosado, and tried to do the same with Chad Durbin. Tony Pena sent out Zack Greinke to warm up in the 8th inning of his home debut, only to pull him before the first hitter just so Zack could get cheers from the crowd. Buddy Bell said things could always get worse. Trey Hillman rode a unicycle.
In short, each previous Royals manager seemed to always be one step away from total instability for a variety of reasons, and none really ever seemed to be in control. I sense something different from Yost, who I think is a little more aware than we give him credit for.
A Ned Yost story: I remember watching his postgame press conference after a 7-3 loss at home to Cleveland earlier this season. Kyle Davies pitched and had a good outing for Kyle Davies. Somehow he managed to walk nobody in six innings and allowed only 2 runs. However, he still had to come out after six because he gave up seven hits and had thrown 90 high-stress pitches.
Anyway, after the game, a reporter asked Ned what made Davies so good that night. Ned said a few things about having good stuff and whatnot, but then came the interesting part: "But you know, he got his pitch count up," Yost said, emphasizing "pitch count" with an agitated tone. He went on to say Davies had a good outing, but left some sliders up and got BURNED, again emphasizing burned.
I don't know that those statements make him any different from most other managers. Maybe Charlie Manuel or Manny Acta or Joe Girardi would say the same things. But it was an example of why I think Yost is the right guy for this job right now, and could be the right guy in the future. Yeah, I guess Davies had a good outing, but dammit, he got his pitch count up again! And did you guys see those two hanging sliders?
More recently, there's the case of Alcides Escobar. Escobar's a spectacular defensive shortstop whose batting average is nearing the Mendoza Line and whose OPS is nearing the Traditional Royals Shortstop Line. Despite his offensive struggles, Yost has refused the temptation to pinch-hit for him late in games, presumably for fear of having to replace him at short with Mike Aviles.
By now, you have probably read and/or listened to Yost's comments about not pinch-hitting for Alcides Escobar in the ninth inning of last night's 9-8 loss to the Blue Jays, comments that will probably have KC sports radio buzzing for the rest of the week. The big remark was this one:
I want him having as many at-bats as he can get, because there's gonna come a time when we're in line to win a championship and I want him to be able to handle himself in those situations.
We can argue all day about that comment alone, but one thing is for sure: Yost believes in Escobar's talent and is trying to develop him at the major league level. Is it really doing Escobar any good to come up time and time again in pressure situations and fail almost every time? Isn't that ruining his confidence? Would he learn more by Yost kicking him in the seat of the pants, so to speak, and telling him he won't hit in those situations until his overall offensive game improves?
All are debatable points. Those who can't believe Yost is sacrificing chances to win games now for the mythical shot at a "championship" in the future have a great point, one that I agree with. Nothing helps a young player's confidence much more than contributing something -- anything -- to winning ballgames. Which brings up another point: If Escobar's going to hit, why not utilize his speed and go for the bunt single in those situations every once in awhile?
But at the same time, I understand what Yost is doing and why he's doing it. He believes in Escobar, knows what the Royals have invested in him, and is hell-bent on putting him back out there time and time again, even after constant failure to produce. He seems to think that's the best way to approach the situation, and I find it hard to blame him. His intentions are good and he's doing what he thinks is best for the organization in the long-run.
I have no idea whether this approach will work. Maybe Escobar will never figure it out. Maybe Kyle Davies will never learn how to throw strikes. Either way, being a manager of a baseball team is about more than just X's and O's. It's about managing people and getting the very most out of them as possible. Ned Yost expects his players to excel and seems like the kind of guy who will never be satisfied by the way his players perform. He will always push for more. That's the kind of person I want managing the Royals.
I hope that in time, the Royals win a World Series. I also hope Yost is at the helm saying, "Yeah, but we had to play seven games to do it."
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Joakim Soria: Special Delivery
It's been about one week since Joakim Soria lost his job as the Royals closer, although the Royals haven't had a single save opportunity for anyone in the last seven days or so. During that time, Ned Yost has found two opportunities for Soria to pitch in the series against the Twins, and Soria has largely been successful: Only an Alcides Escobar error Saturday night has kept him from perfection over his last three innings.
While Soria hasn't struck out any hitters in that time, Yost is likely to hand the ball back to him in the 9th inning sooner rather than later if that trend continues. But do a handful of appearances prove that the old Soria is back? Hardly, but that's been the problem for all of 2011.
Judging by his public comments, Yost has been living in a fantasy world with Soria all year, pretending that everything is fine. That wouldn't be the first time the Royals have ignored warning signs from Soria, as the team waited and waited to put him on the disabled list with a shoulder ailment back in 2008. Unfortunately, it appears they have learned nothing from that experience. Check out this comment from Yost in a June 1 Kansas City Star article:
Maybe he is healthy. Yost and the Royals certainly would know more about that than I do. But I have to strongly contend the statement that there isn't "a lot of difference" between Soria in 2007-2010 and 2011. Quite frankly, I don't know what McClure is looking at if he can't see a significant mechanical difference in his closer now.
I say that because I have spent some time looking at Soria's archived video highlights on MLB.com, and see a new hitch in Soria's delivery. Here are two videos which I think clearly show a difference. I selected both videos as examples of consistencies I saw throughout the years. (I apologize for the first video apparently not being embeddable. There are still some kinks to be worked out on that fabulous new code from MLB.com.)
2009 vs. Seattle
2011 vs. Minnesota
The difference, I believe, is in his arm action. Let's take a look at a couple of still images from those videos. While these stills below are inconclusive, they still show a glaring difference in Soria's mechanics. I went over each video carefully to get as close as possible to freeze-framing at the same point in his delivery.
The image below is of Soria from 2009, when he posted a career high in his strikeout rate:
In this frame, we see Soria with a loose arm action in which he fully extends his arm behind him before unloading a pitch to Ichiro Suzuki. This motion characterized Soria in the first few years of his career.
The next image is Soria in Thursday's appearance against the Twins in 2011:
Here, we see a couple of things. First, Soria is shortening the extension he gets when loading his arm back, and creating a 90-degree angle with his elbow. There's also a bit of an inverted W going on as a result, which can be bad news for just about any pitcher. Also, is it appears he's more upright on the mound and not getting as much drive from his legs off the rubber.
I don't know whether this change is injury-related or not, but while Soria swears up and down that his arm feels good, I can't help but recall something Rany Jazayerli mentioned about former Royals closer Jeff Montgomery last week on 810 WHB. Montgomery at one point had a shoulder injury, Jazayerli said, but didn't feel any pain from it because he naturally changed his delivery to avoid any discomfort.
Maybe that's what has happened to Joakim Soria. Maybe not. Either way, the Royals need to find out because his delivery has changed over the years for whatever reason. Bob McClure needs to go over those tapes again.
While Soria hasn't struck out any hitters in that time, Yost is likely to hand the ball back to him in the 9th inning sooner rather than later if that trend continues. But do a handful of appearances prove that the old Soria is back? Hardly, but that's been the problem for all of 2011.
Judging by his public comments, Yost has been living in a fantasy world with Soria all year, pretending that everything is fine. That wouldn't be the first time the Royals have ignored warning signs from Soria, as the team waited and waited to put him on the disabled list with a shoulder ailment back in 2008. Unfortunately, it appears they have learned nothing from that experience. Check out this comment from Yost in a June 1 Kansas City Star article:
“Mac (pitching coach Bob McClure) has gone back and looked at every one of his saves in the big leagues since 2007,” Yost said. “There’s not a lot of difference there. There are no glaring weaknesses. We don’t find that he’s tipping pitches anywhere. His arm is healthy. It’s just a matter of getting back on track.”
Maybe he is healthy. Yost and the Royals certainly would know more about that than I do. But I have to strongly contend the statement that there isn't "a lot of difference" between Soria in 2007-2010 and 2011. Quite frankly, I don't know what McClure is looking at if he can't see a significant mechanical difference in his closer now.
I say that because I have spent some time looking at Soria's archived video highlights on MLB.com, and see a new hitch in Soria's delivery. Here are two videos which I think clearly show a difference. I selected both videos as examples of consistencies I saw throughout the years. (I apologize for the first video apparently not being embeddable. There are still some kinks to be worked out on that fabulous new code from MLB.com.)
2009 vs. Seattle
2011 vs. Minnesota
The difference, I believe, is in his arm action. Let's take a look at a couple of still images from those videos. While these stills below are inconclusive, they still show a glaring difference in Soria's mechanics. I went over each video carefully to get as close as possible to freeze-framing at the same point in his delivery.
The image below is of Soria from 2009, when he posted a career high in his strikeout rate:
In this frame, we see Soria with a loose arm action in which he fully extends his arm behind him before unloading a pitch to Ichiro Suzuki. This motion characterized Soria in the first few years of his career.
The next image is Soria in Thursday's appearance against the Twins in 2011:
Here, we see a couple of things. First, Soria is shortening the extension he gets when loading his arm back, and creating a 90-degree angle with his elbow. There's also a bit of an inverted W going on as a result, which can be bad news for just about any pitcher. Also, is it appears he's more upright on the mound and not getting as much drive from his legs off the rubber.
I don't know whether this change is injury-related or not, but while Soria swears up and down that his arm feels good, I can't help but recall something Rany Jazayerli mentioned about former Royals closer Jeff Montgomery last week on 810 WHB. Montgomery at one point had a shoulder injury, Jazayerli said, but didn't feel any pain from it because he naturally changed his delivery to avoid any discomfort.
Maybe that's what has happened to Joakim Soria. Maybe not. Either way, the Royals need to find out because his delivery has changed over the years for whatever reason. Bob McClure needs to go over those tapes again.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Royals Notes: Maier & Mahay
• Royals Review has a tremendous idea the Royals need to consider: letting Mitch Maier patrol center field in 2010. I'll let you read the article for yourself, but suffice it to say that Maier's playing time for next year is in jeopardy, but Willie Bloomquist's is not. And so the Royals go.
UPDATE: As I suspected, the Royals released Ron Mahay and he signed with the Twins. The Royals are on the hook for the rest of his 2009 salary and the Twins will pay him a pro-rated portion of the league minimum.
• The Royals made a roster move with their bullpen today when they recalled Yasuhiko Yabuta from Triple-A Omaha. To make room for Yabuta on the 25- and 40-man rosters, veteran left-handed reliever Ron Mahay was designated for assignment.
The 36-year-old Yabuta has disappointed since leaving Japan and signing a two-year contract worth $6 million. He was expected to capably replace the departed David Riske, but threw only 37.2 innings in his rookie season before being demoted. The move was perhaps more indicative of the quality of the Royals 2008 bullpen, as Yabuta posted a decent 89 ERA+. In fact, he was quite good over his last 22 appearances, posting a 2.92 ERA and allowing opposing batters only a .688 OPS.
However, he reclaimed his roster spot by pitching effectively in Omaha in 2009. Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of his season is that he struck out 53 batters in 45.2 innings, a significant improvement over last season when he whiffed only 58 in 78 innings between Kansas City and Omaha. Regardless, he remains a fly ball pitcher with underwhelming stuff, so home runs will continue to be a concern.
• For Mahay, the move essentially ends his Royals career, as the Royals will probably release him after he clears waivers. He joined Kansas City when he signed a two-year, $8 million contract before the 2008 season and immediately became an integral part of manager Trey Hillman's bullpen.
In 2008, the 37-year-old had a solid season protecting leads for closer Joakim Soria, as he posted a 3.48 ERA in 64.2 innings of work. He also tied Ramon Ramirez for the club lead with 21 holds.
The 2009 season was not nearly as kind to Mahay. His ERA jumped all the way to 4.79 and he allowed nine home runs in only 41.1 innings, perhaps a sign that age may finally be catching up with him after years of maintaining a constant level of success well into his late-30s.
Interestingly Mahay was let go instead of Roman Colon or John Bale, both of whom have been far less effective. However, it seems the move was not entirely based on performance. The Royals appear to have acted to give Mahay an opportunity to sign with a playoff-bound team before the Sept. 1 roster deadline.
RON MAHAY 2008-2009 ------------------- IP ERA K BB WHIP ERA+ 106 3.99 83 48 1.55 108
Why +/- could be a problem at Missouri State
I have some thoughts on the Royals and we'll get to those in another post coming shortly. First, I would like to discuss an interesting development from my first day of class at Missouri State.
My first three years at MSU, I have seen a lot of change in the university. We said goodbye to Hammons Student Center and hello to JQH Arena. Head basketball coach Barry Hinson was let go, and Cuonzo Martin took his place. The interior of Siceluff Hall was gutted and completely renovated. And there's probably more I could list here.
However, at least one thing remained the same until today: the grading system. After years of going with a straight ABCDF scale with no pluses or minuses attached, the school has switched to the plus/minus (+/-) system for the Fall 2009 semester. I learned of the switch this morning when on my opinion writing syllabus, I saw a grading scale far more detailed than any I'd seen before. It was certainly news to me, although I knew the school had advocated it for the past few semesters.
To illustrate the +/- system, here is an example: The plan MSU had used before meant a student who scored anywhere in the "A" range would receive four grade points per credit hour (PPCH). In the +/- system, an "A" would still be worth four PPCH, but an "A-minus" is worth 3.7 PPCH. MSU's definition of grades can be viewed here.
Apparently the change was approved in June 20, 2008 because MSU wanted to follow what they call "the majority of colleges and universities in the country which have established Plus/Minus Grading as a best practice." I am unsure of the validity of that statement but I will assume for the sake of this post that it's true. According to the article, the system will be reevaluated in two years.
I am not writing to say +/- grading is a bad idea, although as a student, I am sad that 70 percent and 79 percent are no longer equal to each other. On the contrary, I think the grading style has its merits especially because its enhanced attention to detail will provide a more accurate measure of a student's academic performance.
However, I have a couple of concerns. First, this change raises questions about the calculation and accuracy of composite GPAs for non-freshmen. Second, the university created a possible nightmarish situation when it gave instructors the option of grading "the old way" if they choose. Changing to +/- grading must be applied universally or not at all.
My first problem is with how the new method would blend with the old method of calculating grade point average. Obviously the two cannot be blended together on a transcript; such a calculation would be terribly skewed and an inaccurate representation of any student's work.
Fortunately, this question seems to have been answered. I posed the question to a former instructor of mine earlier today who informed me that grades prior to this semester will be factored independent of +/- grades going forward. "I am almost certain that is true," he wrote. I sure hope he is right, because handling that any other way would be totally irrational.
My second (and more significant) problem is that MSU -- for some reason, I'm sure -- gave instructors the option of grading on the old scale if they choose to do so. This one is a big issue because it creates the possibility that not everybody will grade on the same scale. As such, this decision is detrimental to the integrity of a college transcript from MSU.
The obvious solution to this problem is to require all instructors to use the +/- system before it's too late. Failing that, the university has a couple of options that will rectify this scenario; neither of which are particularly appealing.
First, if the instructor I wrote to is correct and grades prior to this semester will be factored separately, classes that do not use +/- could be worked into the GPA for prior semesters. However, that would falsely influence the prior body of work by mixing two entirely different systems together. This is akin to assuming Albert Pujols would have hit just as well in 1932 as he does today. Different eras must be considered apart from one another.
The other option is to basically do nothing and allow class grades scored "the old way" to mix with the +/- era. I consider this some kind of integration from hell. If the +/- system says 90 percent is an A-minus but an instructor decides a 90 percent is an A, straight-up, that again falsely influences the student's total body of work.
The bottom line to me is that universality must accompany such a drastic change of course. The instructor of the opinion writing class chose to use +/- this semester. His reasons for doing so bothered me, though. As he stated in class, a student who receives an 80 percent should not get the same grade as another who gets an 88. It was "unfair," as he called it.
I can see his line of reasoning; it's always seemed a little strange to me too. But calling it "unfair" is not an argument that can hold water. It was perfectly fair because everybody was evaluated under the same set of standards. Were those standards perfect? No. But at least they were applied across the board by every instructor with no exceptions.
Adding +/- to grades will probably have a positive impact for 2009-2010 freshmen if the system stays in place their entire college careers. However, it could negatively affect non-freshmen because the accuracy of their transcripts could be in jeopardy. Measures to protect against that must be taken, preferably by requiring every instructor to use +/- in their grading.
My first three years at MSU, I have seen a lot of change in the university. We said goodbye to Hammons Student Center and hello to JQH Arena. Head basketball coach Barry Hinson was let go, and Cuonzo Martin took his place. The interior of Siceluff Hall was gutted and completely renovated. And there's probably more I could list here.
However, at least one thing remained the same until today: the grading system. After years of going with a straight ABCDF scale with no pluses or minuses attached, the school has switched to the plus/minus (+/-) system for the Fall 2009 semester. I learned of the switch this morning when on my opinion writing syllabus, I saw a grading scale far more detailed than any I'd seen before. It was certainly news to me, although I knew the school had advocated it for the past few semesters.
To illustrate the +/- system, here is an example: The plan MSU had used before meant a student who scored anywhere in the "A" range would receive four grade points per credit hour (PPCH). In the +/- system, an "A" would still be worth four PPCH, but an "A-minus" is worth 3.7 PPCH. MSU's definition of grades can be viewed here.
Apparently the change was approved in June 20, 2008 because MSU wanted to follow what they call "the majority of colleges and universities in the country which have established Plus/Minus Grading as a best practice." I am unsure of the validity of that statement but I will assume for the sake of this post that it's true. According to the article, the system will be reevaluated in two years.
I am not writing to say +/- grading is a bad idea, although as a student, I am sad that 70 percent and 79 percent are no longer equal to each other. On the contrary, I think the grading style has its merits especially because its enhanced attention to detail will provide a more accurate measure of a student's academic performance.
However, I have a couple of concerns. First, this change raises questions about the calculation and accuracy of composite GPAs for non-freshmen. Second, the university created a possible nightmarish situation when it gave instructors the option of grading "the old way" if they choose. Changing to +/- grading must be applied universally or not at all.
My first problem is with how the new method would blend with the old method of calculating grade point average. Obviously the two cannot be blended together on a transcript; such a calculation would be terribly skewed and an inaccurate representation of any student's work.
Fortunately, this question seems to have been answered. I posed the question to a former instructor of mine earlier today who informed me that grades prior to this semester will be factored independent of +/- grades going forward. "I am almost certain that is true," he wrote. I sure hope he is right, because handling that any other way would be totally irrational.
My second (and more significant) problem is that MSU -- for some reason, I'm sure -- gave instructors the option of grading on the old scale if they choose to do so. This one is a big issue because it creates the possibility that not everybody will grade on the same scale. As such, this decision is detrimental to the integrity of a college transcript from MSU.
The obvious solution to this problem is to require all instructors to use the +/- system before it's too late. Failing that, the university has a couple of options that will rectify this scenario; neither of which are particularly appealing.
First, if the instructor I wrote to is correct and grades prior to this semester will be factored separately, classes that do not use +/- could be worked into the GPA for prior semesters. However, that would falsely influence the prior body of work by mixing two entirely different systems together. This is akin to assuming Albert Pujols would have hit just as well in 1932 as he does today. Different eras must be considered apart from one another.
The other option is to basically do nothing and allow class grades scored "the old way" to mix with the +/- era. I consider this some kind of integration from hell. If the +/- system says 90 percent is an A-minus but an instructor decides a 90 percent is an A, straight-up, that again falsely influences the student's total body of work.
The bottom line to me is that universality must accompany such a drastic change of course. The instructor of the opinion writing class chose to use +/- this semester. His reasons for doing so bothered me, though. As he stated in class, a student who receives an 80 percent should not get the same grade as another who gets an 88. It was "unfair," as he called it.
I can see his line of reasoning; it's always seemed a little strange to me too. But calling it "unfair" is not an argument that can hold water. It was perfectly fair because everybody was evaluated under the same set of standards. Were those standards perfect? No. But at least they were applied across the board by every instructor with no exceptions.
Adding +/- to grades will probably have a positive impact for 2009-2010 freshmen if the system stays in place their entire college careers. However, it could negatively affect non-freshmen because the accuracy of their transcripts could be in jeopardy. Measures to protect against that must be taken, preferably by requiring every instructor to use +/- in their grading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
