|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 12, 2016 19:18:24 GMT -5
Sam Travis is a trade piece also. The type of team we would be trading might not care that much about getting someone back this year. They may want a young guy who is cost controlled who might be a stud. Sam Travis is an excellent trade piece. It's highly unlikely any team is going to trade for a guy who tore his ACL in late May. The risk involved there will drive his trade value down significantly. While he's not a player whose legs are his calling card, the Red Sox would be selling low on him given the injury status. I just don't think it's likely that he (or Brian Johnson, for that matter) are going anywhere given their diminished value. Anyway, let's get back to having the Andrew Benintendi thread be about Andrew Benintendi! My two cents: start playing him in left field on Thursday, yes? YES!
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 12, 2016 20:34:34 GMT -5
It's highly unlikely any team is going to trade for a guy who tore his ACL in late May. The risk involved there will drive his trade value down significantly. While he's not a player whose legs are his calling card, the Red Sox would be selling low on him given the injury status. I just don't think it's likely that he (or Brian Johnson, for that matter) are going anywhere given their diminished value. Anyway, let's get back to having the Andrew Benintendi thread be about Andrew Benintendi! My two cents: start playing him in left field on Thursday, yes? YES! The motion is seconded, and passed. Passed, Dave. Dave?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 12, 2016 20:45:30 GMT -5
So, ZiPS and Steamer has him as just under a 3.0 WAR player from 2017-2021 with a 2.2 first year and a 3.5 fifth year - essentially a Denard Span/Michael Brantley/Brett Gardner WAR type outfielder. Not bad, but based on the comments here, I would've thought he would be projected to be more like a 5.50 WARish Andrew McCutcheon type over those first five years. Let the rebellion begin. Andrew McCutchen didn't project to be Andrew McCutchen. So we only cite the projections when they say what we want them to say, or McCutchen is a pure outlier?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 12, 2016 20:47:24 GMT -5
Andrew McCutchen didn't project to be Andrew McCutchen. So we only cite the projections when they say what we want them to say, or McCutchen is a pure outlier? How many prospects are ever projected for more than 4 WAR? Not Xander, JBJ or Mookie either.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 12, 2016 21:04:25 GMT -5
Andrew McCutchen didn't project to be Andrew McCutchen. So we only cite the projections when they say what we want them to say, or McCutchen is a pure outlier? Almost by definition, the best players in the league are outliers.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 12, 2016 21:29:50 GMT -5
So we only cite the projections when they say what we want them to say, or McCutchen is a pure outlier? Almost by definition, the best players in the league are outliers. By performance, sure. But if they're predicted to be above average or stars and they reach those predictions, within that rubric they are within the norms of their particular expectations. So outliers with respect to their peers but right in line with their projections. Personally I have a hard time with ZiPS or any system making five year projections/predictions on players with very small data samplings and no MLB experience. But ZiPS has a good track record. In fact, many here cite ZiPS projections declaratively even though other small datat sets may be employed in some of their output data (a single season or less of an individual's MLB performance, strength of schedule going forward, projected wins in a seasons, etc). Citing those systems and giving them authority for one or more examples but discounting the same systems for another small sample projection lends credence to neither point. In a way it becomes a sort of manifestation of the gell-mann effect. www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-youI say all this also not sure whether to believe the ZiPS/Steamer projections on Benintendi also because I've never seen him play in person. But I've used ZiPS before, which is overwhelmingly accurate with position players within its margins of error (with a few outliers of course). I just have no evidence Benintendi is such an outlier when compared to the ZiPS projections, while so many here seem to be confident he is.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 12, 2016 21:52:39 GMT -5
It should not really be a surprise that Benintendi projects to be more of a solid above-average regular than a potential superstar. Compared to, say, Moncada, he's always been the higher-floor, lower-ceiling prospect, with a well-rounded tool set but no particular standout tool (maybe the hit tool, but it's more 60/65 than 70+).
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 12, 2016 22:07:41 GMT -5
Andrew McCutchen didn't project to be Andrew McCutchen. So we only cite the projections when they say what we want them to say, or McCutchen is a pure outlier? Projections are highly skewed towards a mean. They essentially never predict greatness. That's the nature of projections: weighted heavily towards a most likely outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 13, 2016 0:05:42 GMT -5
The motion is seconded, and passed. Passed, Dave. Dave? There was no discussion and I wanted to amend the motion. The team doesn't play till Friday so he'd be alone out there... and lonely.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 13, 2016 3:44:49 GMT -5
Anyway, let's get back to having the Andrew Benintendi thread be about Andrew Benintendi! My two cents: start playing him in left field on Thursday, yes? I assume you meant in Portland while most of the people responding to you were thinking Boston, but either way good job keeping it ambiguous for those extra likes.
|
|
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979
|
Post by dd on Jul 13, 2016 10:09:56 GMT -5
Anyway, let's get back to having the Andrew Benintendi thread be about Andrew Benintendi! My two cents: start playing him in left field on Thursday, yes? I assume you meant in Portland while most of the people responding to you were thinking Boston, but either way good job keeping it ambiguous for those extra likes. Boston doesn't play until Friday either. :-)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 13, 2016 11:22:56 GMT -5
So, ZiPS and Steamer has him as just under a 3.0 WAR player from 2017-2021 with a 2.2 first year and a 3.5 fifth year - essentially a Denard Span/Michael Brantley/Brett Gardner WAR type outfielder. Not bad, but based on the comments here, I would've thought he would be projected to be more like a 5.50 WARish Andrew McCutcheon type over those first five years. Let the rebellion begin. Moncada peaks at 3.6 at age 26 in ZiPS. Telson has already explained the nature of that beast, but I'll add that ZiPS doesn't know about the long adjustment period that Benny had in AA that has driven down his numbers, perhaps without much predictive value ... or about Moncada's tools. It's just taking stat lines at face value.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 13, 2016 14:10:33 GMT -5
The motion is seconded, and passed. Passed, Dave. Dave? There was no discussion and I wanted to amend the motion. The team doesn't play till Friday so he'd be alone out there... and lonely. He can use it as prep time. Maybe meditate...get a little Zen.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 13, 2016 15:11:01 GMT -5
If a projection system says your prospect that has never played above AA is going to be a 3 WAR big leaguer you should be thrilled.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 13, 2016 20:35:25 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure there is some kind of scouting blended into ZiPS.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 14, 2016 10:09:14 GMT -5
If a projection system says your prospect that has never played above AA is going to be a 3 WAR big leaguer you should be thrilled. Which is why, in general, I don't like projection system that forecast how minor league players will perform in MLB. The data sets, and step up in performance levels from AA to AAA to MLB don't make for an effective set of variables.
|
|
|
Post by shorething on Jul 14, 2016 10:23:03 GMT -5
Are you familiar with Davenport Translations? If not I recommend reading about it and then decide for yourself how appropriate the DT projections might be.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 14, 2016 10:34:15 GMT -5
Even if is a Brett Gardner that would be a huge improvement ober what they have now in left especially since he can be platooned with Young.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 14, 2016 10:54:14 GMT -5
Even if is a Brett Gardner that would be a huge improvement ober what they have now in left especially since he can be platooned with Young. I completely agree, Brett Gardner at his peak was a hell of a ball player. I would think at this point Benintendi could be similar to Gardner in BA and OBP with some more pop in his bat and less steals.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,831
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 14, 2016 10:56:06 GMT -5
Gardner was a slap hitter for years. Benintendi will never be that. Gardner will be a better baserunner and peak defender though. They're different players honestly. Some vague similarities and both small lefties, but that's about it.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,673
|
Post by gerry on Jul 14, 2016 11:51:59 GMT -5
Gardner was a slap hitter for years. Benintendi will never be that. Gardner will be a better baserunner and peak defender though. They're different players honestly. Some vague similarities and both small lefties, but that's about it. Agree that comps limp like analogies, but Fenway's LF should both enhance Benny's range and arm, as well as his power for 81 games. He has speed and baseball instincts and adds to that OF a 3rd CF who can hit and also run. I often wished we had Gardner in the Sox OF. Benny will more than fulfill that wish.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,984
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 14, 2016 13:47:04 GMT -5
Smallish (6', 170) LHH LF Mike Greenwell has not been mentioned, has he? At 21 came up for 31 PA of .323.382 .742. 1.124, then in 1986 had 40 PA of .314.400.371.771, before going 1 for 5 plus a walk in the 1986 post-season.
Great 1987, great 1988 (non-steroid MVP), then downhill due to injuries and tiny brain. Never a good LF ("like a man trying to find a ringing phone in a dark hotel room")
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 14, 2016 14:01:25 GMT -5
Are you familiar with Davenport Translations? If not I recommend reading about it and then decide for yourself how appropriate the DT projections might be. I've been citing his Peak Translations for a long time. Clay's the only person who has ever really tackled in depth the question of projections from the minors. His peak translation from his Salem line is a .294 TAv -- by comparison, at BP right now Xander is .294 and Betts is .292 (Clay has them at .301 and .296, but BP has a higher park factor for Fenway), and their peak projections are .311 and .303. Benny's projection from AA is .278, but I don't think his early struggles there have much predictive value (just as Mookie's first month at Greenville didn't). Moncada is .303. For comparison, Machado is at .310 and JBJ at .305. Who's second in the system to Moncada? Why, that would be Doc Ock at .302. Travis at .284, Chavis at .275, Longhi at .274, and Dubon at .258 are also all having seasons that translate to MLB starters.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Aug 22, 2016 21:45:41 GMT -5
Did I miss something? Is it Drew now? Or does Farrell just call people things regardless of their desire.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 22, 2016 22:16:20 GMT -5
The catch benintendi made tonight was amazing.
Price owes him one for sure!
|
|