No, it's not actually. Living in Alex Gordon country, I get to see him play a lot and followed him rather closely. If you're going to look at Dukes' first fifty games and compare that to Alex's production, you need to look at Alex's first fifty games also. He got off to an absolutely abysmal start, it got so bad, there was talk of sending him down to AAA. Through May (49 games) he was hitting only .185 and if you go into the first four games in June before he had a 4-4 game vs. Cleveland it drops even further .173. He only had 3hrs and 8rbi up to then. Those numbers aren't as good as what Dukes put up. I think a full season is really needed to compare the two. Alex finished the year really strong through the summer and was probably the best hitter in that lineup by the end of the year.
I actually do remember Gordon's first half of the season. I remember seeing him opening day and then see his numbers plummet. Still, I think it's irrelevent to Dukes because Gordon ended up playing a whole year and putting up decent numbers for a rookie. Dukes never even played more than 1/3 of the year.
If you compare the 1/3 of the year, they're comparable, like you said. I will certainly give you that. But there's a reason Dukes didn't play the last 2/3. We all know it and you had to think Gordon would turn it around because of how good he was touted to be. By the end of the year, he improved. We'll see if Dukes can even last a whole year.
I don't see any harm in having Dukes start the year at AAA if he doesn't play well in spring training. What problems does it cause? Other than maybe some chemistry issues or personal issues with players in AAA, I think it's best. Say he does well. Great. Then he deserves to be called up and given a chance.
And if he doesn't play well, we'll know he's still got to figure it out and improve. Like we all know, he's 22. He's got time. What's the rush.
