SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Recent Posts
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 4, 2022 11:56:34 GMT -5
Was thinking about this last night. I think they're a bit handcuffed by the fact Yorke hasn't shown he's ready for a promotion to Portland. Not that getting SS reps for Lugo and McDonough should ever "block" Mayer, but the fact that Greenville has 3 MIF who should be playing, two of which can't really play elsewhere (i.e., 3B), ties their hands a bit. Maybe they push Lugo to Portland even though he's really tailed off just to make room. Honest question: is it too early for them (Lugo and McDonough) to start learning other/more positions? McDonough already plays a fair bit of outfield, but I would assume the only realistic path to the majors for either of them involves multi-position versatility - is there any harm in having one or both of them play 3b/Rf etc. or is it just about taking time away from positions they already play still need to learn, or not throwing too much at them, etc. ?
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 4, 2022 11:33:56 GMT -5
I think the answer to this question depends a good deal on how a person looks at acquiring prospects and building up a farm system. I see a lot of posts in other threads talking about how trades for prospects were a win or a loss based on how those prospects perform - people are saying the Renfroe/JBJ trade is now a loss because its uncertain how good Binelas and Hamilton are and its unlikely either of them become top-tier prospects. In a vacuum, sure; but I don't think that's how the Sox FO (or most other teams') view prospect acquisition. No matter how much they like a given player, they know that unless that player is a true top talent/top prospect, the odds of them turning into a 'difference maker' in the Majors is low. That's why you acquire a lot of them. If you make 3 trades and bring in 6 mid-tier prospects, and one of them goes on to be an average-to-better player in the majors, that's almost definitely a win. Does it make the trade in which that player was acquired a win, and the other two a loss? In one sense, sure, but from an overall value perspective, probably not, if you understand the attrition rate of prospects.
Put another way, there are three real ways of acquiring top prospects: Draft them as top prospects; Trade for them as top prospects; Acquire them (via draft or trade) as lesser prospects and try to develop them into more. There's a pretty direct correlation between drafting a top prospect and the prior year's record, so a team that wants/needs to be competitive has relatively little chance at this. Trading for top prospects means moving top established players, which is again difficult for competitive teams to do, and also requires having established top-tier talent (who on the Red Sox right now would return a top-20 prospect in the game? Only Devers I assume.) The third option is to acquire 'lesser' prospects and try to develop them, and this takes volume. You need to acquire a lot of these prospects to hit on a few.
Bloom and the Sox FO is clearly taking the 3rd approach, and a number of people think this is the right approach. I agree. If NONE of the prospects they acquire ever go on to have any value (either as trade assets or contributing on the field) to the Red Sox, then it will not have worked, but I will still think it was the right approach. If someone finds no value in the farm system and thinks a high-budget team like the Red Sox should be able to get by solely on FA acquisitions, they won't like The Red Sox' approach. If someone is OK with tanking several years in a row to restock the farm system, they also won't like the Red Sox' approach. For someone who's interested in trying to thread the needle of success and sustainability, the Red Sox approach is probably the right one, and its interesting to watch and see how it plays out.
The reason the Sox aren't 'better' already (since last year? since 2018? I'm not even sure what the timeframe they are being judged on is) is a lack of top Major League talent - see the point about Devers being the only one worth top-prospects. You can blame Bloom for this, you can blame Dombrowski or Cherington or whoever for this, you can blame amateur or professional scouting for this, you can blame it on bad luck, or a lull in the system, or any number of things. If you think that fixing this requires a strong farm system, and aren't interested in following a team tank for multiple years, I'd argue that what the Sox are doing is the right approach. And I think that's a different question than "are the Sox good at evaluating the players they bring in and send out?" because a lot more people than Bloom are involved in player acquisition. Ymmv.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 3, 2022 12:42:03 GMT -5
Why are you so threatened by Bloom? This is what I don't get - fans pretty much universally disagree with their favorite team's front office until after they are gone and a new regime is in charge, so I get criticizing the moves etc. But Bloom has been singled out as a target in a way that is usually reserved for ownership or the Bowden's of the world. Disagreement is fine, if its supported by any kind of reason or even emotion. The anger and insults and name calling just make it hard to take anything else seriously. I am not threatened by him, except in so far as I have a few decades left at best in this world, and I’d like to see another WS win. Or, at this point, 2nd place finish. If, from the organization perspective, you ignore everything that has happened since 2002; or from the Bloom perspective, you ignore what happened in his only full year so far leading the team, I can definitely see why you feel that way.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 3, 2022 12:21:17 GMT -5
Not trading Hill was sinful. Get a lone A-ball lottery ticket, ffs. Instead you’ll get 20 innings from him and let him walk. Why bother? And the boy genius is paying Paxton to pitch soon… so Hill’s replacement is just around the corner, right? Why are you so threatened by Bloom? This is what I don't get - fans pretty much universally disagree with their favorite team's front office until after they are gone and a new regime is in charge, so I get criticizing the moves etc. But Bloom has been singled out as a target in a way that is usually reserved for ownership or the Bowden's of the world. Disagreement is fine, if its supported by any kind of reason or even emotion. The anger and insults and name calling just make it hard to take anything else seriously.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 3, 2022 12:01:49 GMT -5
Obviously this deal doesn’t get made then. I was definitely calling for a 1b. There was much excitement when briefly there was talk of Freeman. Dalbec had a hot streak but… this was predictable. And I have been wise to Franchy from go. The point is, for a team with little present and huge questions next year, getting a maybe-slightly-above average 32-year old 1b — when your top prospect is a 1b penciled in for next year — maybe absolutely no risk, but the gain ought not be overestimated. When one of the exciting parts is “hey, we can release him any time without costing anything,” it says a lot. I’ll say this: you take a great core like 2018, put Hosmer at 1st, and it is huge. You take a team with questions at many positions… not a difference maker. Getting Hosmer makes it much less likely that we have those same question marks at 1b for the next couple of offseasons as we had this past offseason. I would be shocked if this move is a huge difference-maker, but if the Sox go from something like -1 to +1 WAR at 1b next year, that's a very real upgrade - it might not make them competitors by itself, but it takes away one of the things standing in their way (plus, I don't think we should overlook the value in taking the pressure off of Casas to have to be a savior of sorts next year.). And I would argue there is literally no cost to acquiring him (like many others I view this mainly as a Hosmer dump by SD, and Groome for prospects to make the optics look right to both sides.) So yes, anyone who wants to further the narrative that the Sox are incapable of or unwilling to make major improvements will use this move to do so, but it is beyond me how anyone could complain about this (Manfred, not saying you are doing that specifically here, just a general statement.) To build off of one of your points, it also says a lot when “hey, we can release him any time without costing anything” is also the absolute worst possible realistic outcome, with likely some tangible upside.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 18, 2022 13:03:09 GMT -5
Others may not see it but I think he could be the cream of this year's draft class
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jun 20, 2022 8:49:06 GMT -5
This topic has become a microcosm of American society: two sides whose arguments each contain some elements of truth, and each side too concerned with proving the other wrong to get off their high horse and acknowledge it
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 28, 2022 9:54:32 GMT -5
I gave it the night to think about it, and yes, despite the officiating the Celtics could have still have won this game if they had played better than they did - see game 4 against Brooklyn - so in that sense they definitely are deserving of criticism, and I am generally very critical of this Celtics team. However, and I really don't mean to be insulting to anyone here, suggesting that the officiating did not favor Miami and/or was not a huge part of Miami winning is absolutely crazy to me. For long stretches it was simply a game called too tight against both teams, but there were several times when Celtics runs were cut short by sequences of fouls, almost all of which were questionable-at-best, and the Celtics never benefitted from the same treatment.
The first and probably most obvious example was in the middle of the 2nd quarter. The Celtics came out flat to start the game and the Heat didn't, but we've seen this before: the Heat were expending a ton of energy, at a level they wouldn't be able to maintain, and the Celtics were keeping things close enough while they got into their stride. I assume most people who've been watching this series figured the Celtics would start to wear Miami down and eventually even things up and position themselves to pull away. And that's how things played out in the first part of the 2nd quarter - the Celtics cut the lead to 1 and looked like they were poised for a good run as Miami was clearly on their heels. Then, a timeout, and the next 5 calls were all against the Celtics, and all served to either turn the ball over or help Miami retain possession on offense. The only trip up and down the court that didn't end with a foul/Miami basket was a Tatum dunk (and I believe he was fouled on that play, one of several non-calls against the Heat during this stretch.) This was a sudden and major change from how the game had been called up until this point, and the Miami lead is back to 7. At this point the crowd was in riot mode and twitter was blowing up about the calls, and so the next 3 calls went against Miami. Those fouls were questionable-at-best as well and clearly makeup calls, but only one of those three really had any negative impact against Miami (a call against Tucker resulting in a turnover.) So - 5 vs. 3 in fouls doesn't look extreme; Miami was rightfully upset about the calls against them so "ok both teams are mad so it's all the same" - except it wasn't. That sequence broke the Celtics momentum and what looked to be the start of a major run, and gave Miami time to adjust, and the rest of the 2nd was back-and-forth.
This happened, a little less-blatantly but still obvious, at least 3 more times (I'm not going to go through them in detail because nobody wants to read that) and wasn't an isolated "bad luck" sequence. I'm fine with holding the Celtics accountable: they did a lot wrong, should have been better, and can't control the officiating so all they can do IS try to be better - I get it. I don't want the team making statements like I just did, and many others here have. That said, as fans...again, I don't mean this as an insult to anybody and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but its mind-blowing to me that someone could have watched this game and not think the officiating was one-sided and a significant part of the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 24, 2022 18:07:45 GMT -5
You all had some good points and reasons to be luke warm on him but I am going all in type 40/10 season with a 70% comp rate and 4500+ yards. Which along with a great run game, as umass points out, will make the Pats very tough on that side of the ball. What I see is a guy who excels in the over the shoulder throws because he is so accurate and has great touch, that will lead to a better deep game with Parker and Thornton on the outside. Not only that but remember what Bourne said a few months ago, that Mac didn't even get starter reps during training camp. He was getting reps with the 2nd team until he destroyed the Giants during a practice and won the job. From an admittedly non-exhaustive analysis, here's what looks to be the full list of active quarterbacks who have had a season where they hit all of those numbers: --- Rodgers came close in 2020. Brees did it once and came close a second time. If Jones hit 3/4 of each those numbers we should be beyond thrilled, and I say that as a huge believer in him.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 17, 2022 14:12:21 GMT -5
Honest question, are you saying "game power" only means "ability to hit home runs in the major leagues" or just that the scouting report here is only referencing what the player is expected to do in the majors? I take 0 issues with the scouting report here and was not trying to say it was incorrect, so if referencing that was a bad example/in poor taste I apologize, it was just easily available. To restate what I was trying to say: Prior to this year, Northcut seemed like he had the potential to be a power hitter but wasn't getting to the power all that often in games, and had a somewhat poor approach at the plate. Now he is showing he *can* get to that power in games (this is what I always understood game power to mean, the ability to tap into raw power in a game situation,) and his approach is outrageously bad. I think there is slightly more optimism for the second version, as he has at least shown he can get to his power in game situations, and he was likely going to have to improve his approach either way. Put another another way, I'd rather trade for an A-ball player with a .250/.300/.660 line than an A-ball player with a .260/.350/.510 line, given that both of them project to hit for low average with a poor approach at the ML level anyway. First, I completely get where you're coming from so don't worry about caveating, etc. You're fine and I understood what you meant. Tried hard to make sure I didn't sound like I was being defensive, so apologies if I still failed there! The easiest, most general response is that scouting reports here are all projecting what a player will be in MLB. We're not concerned with projecting what kind of player a guy is going to be in, say, Greenville. So yeah, when we're talking about any tool, we mean in MLB. On Northcut, it is certainly better that he's getting to his power in games than not, right? But when you're projecting a guy, you need to look at how he's doing that. If he's hunting for a specific pitch that he can hit out of the park, and damn the torpedoes what happens if he doesn't get it, that approach will lead to gaudy HR totals in the South Atlantic League but he's going to get eaten alive in MLB, where pitchers simply won't give him that pitch, if not sooner. To analogize, consider all the handwringing we did about Bobby Dalbec at the same level. He struck out at a 31% rate and was "only" slugging .573 when he got bumped up, with 27 2B and 26 HR in 100 G. Now, you do need to goose that up a bit for the Carolina League, which suppresses power, but let's still say he wasn't hitting as many HR as Northcut. But Northcut is now at a 37% (and climbing) K rate. And Dalbec was hitting .256 with a .372 OBP (60 BB). Northcut is hitting .250 with a .300 OBP because he's only walked 5 times. Now, consider what Dalbec, with the superior approach, is going through in MLB. Using your slash lines, the only comp for the "other player" I can find for this year is Wil Dalton (.258/.368/.516), but that's a SSS from an older dude. But last year, this is pretty funny - there was a guy who hit .261/.352/.513 in Low-A (thanks in large part to a .368/.409/.772 September). You'll never guess who. Thanks for the reply and clarification - sounds like the way we're looking at things is more aligned that I originally thought, just maybe from two different perspectives. I'm seeing it as "well, the scouting report indicated his approach was going to have to change anyway, that's still true, but look, at least the power is there now!" And I think your response would be "yeah, but look *how* far away from any sort of sustainable approach he is having to go to get to that power." Point well taken if that's the case, and I don't see this as necessitating a change in prospect status or anything, just a thought that maybe a passable approach is easier to teach than useable power is - no idea if that's actually true. For the record, my slash line comps were both Northcut, last year (as I think you realized) and this year, just rounded to easy numbers. Without going down a whole other rabbit hole, its an interesting meeting of scouting and stats - in a vacuum Northcut's line from last year is more balanced and the player I'd bet on going forward, but introduce a scouting report that says he has a poor approach either way, and suddenly the second one becomes a lot more appealing to me (obvious caveat that there are better stats for analyzing a player than triple slash, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 15, 2022 23:38:14 GMT -5
Jimenez is also trying completely new swing mechanics. I'm fine giving him a little bit of runway to figure that out. Unaware of any similar issue with Northcut. @dcb, the scouting report projects what the player will be in MLB, so no, I wouldn't come close to saying he'd have plus game power. Game power essentially projects how much power a guy will actually hit for (think shorthand for HR/season), whereas raw power is how hard he can hit the ball. I think you may be conflating "game power" with the ability to hit home runs in games versus in BP (something like a pre-2021 Pedro Castellanos thing), which isn't quite it although in some cases (Castellanos) can work that way. What he's doing right now 100% squares with his scouting report - he's got plus raw but doesn't project to hit nearly enough to get to it on the regular. Honest question, are you saying "game power" only means "ability to hit home runs in the major leagues" or just that the scouting report here is only referencing what the player is expected to do in the majors? I take 0 issues with the scouting report here and was not trying to say it was incorrect, so if referencing that was a bad example/in poor taste I apologize, it was just easily available. To restate what I was trying to say: Prior to this year, Northcut seemed like he had the potential to be a power hitter but wasn't getting to the power all that often in games, and had a somewhat poor approach at the plate. Now he is showing he *can* get to that power in games (this is what I always understood game power to mean, the ability to tap into raw power in a game situation,) and his approach is outrageously bad. I think there is slightly more optimism for the second version, as he has at least shown he can get to his power in game situations, and he was likely going to have to improve his approach either way. Put another another way, I'd rather trade for an A-ball player with a .250/.300/.660 line than an A-ball player with a .260/.350/.510 line, given that both of them project to hit for low average with a poor approach at the ML level anyway.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 15, 2022 10:49:33 GMT -5
Re: Northcut, at least he's proving he *can* hit a lot of home runs? I'm obviously hunting for positives here, but I do feel that "Plus-to-better game power, with a fringe-to-below-average at best hit tool and WAY too much swing and miss" (my imaginary scouting report on the new Northcut) is still a better profile to work with than "Potential well below-average hit tool...Will extend out of the zone and has a lot of swing-and-miss in his game...Plus raw power...unlikely power potential will actualize in-game" which are all excerpts from his current scouting profile here. To be clear, I'm not criticizing the scouting here, I think that's exactly who he was and that didn't have much of a future; whereas now he's showing a really valuable in-game skill which at least provides something to work with, even if the odds of building that into a sustainable approach are slim.
Re: Jimenez, I know some people love to pick on him, but I'm actually a bit encouraged by how things are going for him. We've known all along that he was going to have to make more adjustments than the average prospect, and everything I've seen over the last couple of years looks like he's making them. You expect to see ugly stretches as he makes these adjustments, but he seems to make them and be better (at least in a given area) for it. Hoping his current improvements aren't just a short hot streak but rather getting more comfortable with how he's swinging the bat.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 5, 2022 17:56:18 GMT -5
After digging in more, it could just have been his QB sucked with a bad offensive line that didn't give him the time or ability needed. Hence why they used those slant routes were he killed teams. Thornton on one side, Parker on the other. How many teams have the DB to guard that? Opens up the middle and won't allow teams to stack the run. Then throw him in the Z with Parker at the X and let him run those slants. As long as he can quickly learn the offense, he should be good and taking him that high they better have checked that box. That was one of my thoughts after watching video of Thornton, that he consistently outran the QB's arm. Can't say for sure that's all on the QB, but Thornton was routinely having to slow down or outright stop and wait for the ball to come to him. It wasn't just on deep throws either, even those slant routes he was regularly having to reach back and grab passes that were behind him - which I see as a positive both in terms of having the catch radius to bring in those passes, and in that his speed seems to play across the middle of the field as well as down the sideline.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Apr 21, 2022 13:01:31 GMT -5
I come to this site to get updates about baseball, not people's thoughts on covid vaccines. I feel very strongly about covid, and getting vaccinated, but that doesn't mean I can't learn valuable info about baseball, baseball players, etc. from people who feel differently than I do.
When I want to learn about covid vaccines, I don't come here, and I hope nobody else does, either. Let's please try to keep this as a resource for baseball and take the other stuff elsewhere. Mods feel free to delete this when needed
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 20, 2022 13:33:48 GMT -5
This allows the Sox to have a conversation with Bogaerts along the lines of: "You're our SS this year. You prepared all winter to be the SS, we never discussed you moving, no question about 2022. If your defense looks good this year..." (and Bogaerts has shown year-to-year defensive improvements in the past) "...and we think its sustainable, we'll do everything we can to keep you in Boston as our SS. If after this year it looks like Story is going to clearly be the better defensive SS going forward, we'll do everything we can to work with you on finding a new position, and try to keep you here in Boston. If that doesn't work for you, we'll do what we can, but that may just mean wishing you luck with your new team."
Bogaerts is an all-time favorite of mine, but given the situation, that's about as good a scenario as I can hope for. I do think Bogaerts wants to stay in Boston, and his comments about changing position seemed much more about not wanting to do it right now than being unwilling to consider and work into it over time. He seems like a reasonable guy and I hope they can come to some sort of agreement to keep him here - but one way or another I'm a lot more optimistic about the RedSox middle infield for the next several years now than I was yesterday. As far as Story's contract, it's slightly more money than I personally would have wanted to give him, but I also see very little downside - if things don't go well Story is still likely to be a good solid player at a slight overpay, not some Sandoval-level disaster.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 18, 2022 13:55:51 GMT -5
I can think of no better or more nostalgic tribute to the end of Jon Lester's career than a final resurgence of the "was Jon Lester an ace?" argument
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 26, 2021 18:05:11 GMT -5
Post by dcb26 on Aug 26, 2021 18:05:11 GMT -5
The Red Sox should be focused on next year. For that reason the closer role isn't important at this point. I'd just as soon see some minor league arms given an opportunity to see if their game plays at the MLB level. Maybe Crawford? He's 25 years old. Time to see what he is. Your commitment to this idea that they should tank the season while literally being in playoff position is the most stubbornly bonkers thing on this site since dmaineah's JBJ loathing.Ironic because the whole time this thread has been going on I've been thinking "this conversation just isn't the same without a handful of posts insisting on Eovaldi as the closer." To make this relevant, My main concern is that Barnes hits the IL to rest and hopefully get back to where he needs to be. Ideally they mix and match in the meantime and see if anyone jumps out as an alternative solution if needed.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 31, 2021 11:37:22 GMT -5
I've always liked Richardson more than he probably warrants (probably because he always seemed to play tough against the Celtics) but he has the ability to do a lot of things well and often felt like he was right on the cusp of something greater. He's still only 27 so I'm a big fan of bringing him in, at worst he seems like a useful player in the bench rotation and has a non-zero chance of being something greater.
That said (and apologies if I'm wrong here, salary cap machinations are not my thing, especially in the NBA) is this more likely a precursor to a bigger trade? If I understand correctly, they used the remainder of a trade exception (which was about to expire?) to bring in Richardson, and that exception couldn't be combined with other salaries to bring in a player with a salary larger than the exception; but Richardson('s salary) could be combined with other players to match salary in a trade, is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 24, 2021 12:06:09 GMT -5
With the exception of Johnson (until the last few years of his career) even those guys aren't 2-pitch (or "fastballs plus 1 other pitch") pitchers though. Each of them threw another pitch or pitches 15+% of the time - they certainly relied primarily on fastballs and a secondary pitch but used tertiary pitches often enough and effectively enough that hitters had to account for them. I almost used Sale as an example of how pitchers who people consider "2-pitch" really do need a 3rd offering - you could make a solid argument that Sale's changeup is his most effective pitch.
I'm sure there are a number of guys who have had careers as starters without a legitimate 3rd offering - Masterson was overall solid for a few years as a starter, and Rich Hill is almost exclusively FB/CB, so I know its not impossible, but pitchers that have sustained success (or that you'd be comfortable penciling in as an important part of the rotation) seem pretty rare. Rare enough that I'm not real sure that what Houck has done in the majors so far outweighs the concern, anyway. To be clear, I want the Sox to give Houck plenty of opportunities to start, I'm hopeful he can do it. If we're trying to set the the 2022 rotation today, though, I'm at least a little concerned if he's one of the top 5.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 24, 2021 9:12:42 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, how many zeroes does Houck need to put up with his present repertoire before you are comfortable? Not meaning to pick on you because that seems to be the general sentiment yet, I'm watching a pitcher totally dominating the opposition going back to last year and continuing now. The Yankees looked helpless except when Houck lost command of his fastballs for a couple of batters then recovered fast. How many hard hit balls did you see ? Honest non-snarky question, how many starters have had sustained success with 2 pitches? With Houck right now it's mostly theoretical no matter which way you lean, and I keep going back and forth. I'd feel a lot better though if he definitely had a legitimate third pitch - and I've seen the analysis that his 2 and 4 seam fastballs play differently enough to serve the same purpose as a traditional fastball and off-speed pitch would; I'm not discounting the possibility, but not sold yet, either. I wrote the above before I saw the post right above this one talking about the 2 and 4 seam fastballs. Maybe I should change the question to "how many starting pitchers have had sustained success with 2 types of fastballs and one other pitch?"
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 2, 2021 14:58:23 GMT -5
I disagree with the idea that the Sox success has come as a complete surprise to Bloom and the FO or that they are caught off guard by potentially being buyers. There were plenty of reasons to believe this year's team could compete for a playoff spot, and nothing Bloom said indicated otherwise to me.
I doubt they expected the Sox record to be *this* good, but if anything I think that takes away some of the pressure to make a move ("if it ain't broke...") compared to a sitiuation where they're a little bit back but in contention for a wild card.
Not saying they shouldn't make a move, I'm skeptical that they can maintain the pace they're on right now or that this is a 100-win team. As plenty of others have noted though, its tough to see an obvious need/trade - I don't think they need to be (or will feel) forced into doing something major.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jun 19, 2021 12:19:23 GMT -5
Games with X extra-base hits: 0: 13 1: 13 2: 1 3: 1 I think this leads to the most interesting stat: Duran has hits in 17 games. He has extra-base hits in all but two of them. Probably stating the obvious, but I wonder if this has to do with him trying to become a power hitter - I mean, clearly its happening because he's trying to become a power hitter, but I wonder if he's focusing even more on hard contact at the expense of overall contact. Put another way, he seems to be succeeding at transforming himself into a power hitter, and once that settles in and becomes his approach rather than something he has to think about, I wonder if this normalizes and slg and k's go down a bit, and maybe ba and obp come up, and the game-to-game numbers become a little more consistent.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jun 6, 2021 11:47:35 GMT -5
Curious if most people think they actually sold low on Benintendi? I know that's the narrative given how he performed the last 1.5-2 years, but is the return they got - a guy with significant unrealized potential (and a questionable chance of realizing any of it) and 4 roughly mid-tier prospects really a bad return for a league-average LF? Baseball isn't most sports where trading 5 nickels for a quarter is automatically a bad return; when you're talking prospects that can be a winning strategy. I didn't love (or hate) the idea of the trade at the time it was made, but seeing the return, I don't know that I agree that they sold low.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jun 6, 2021 8:16:33 GMT -5
We don't need an algorithm to know we got hosed. It was always a bad idea to sell low on Benintendi. And that's not saying he is a star or anything like that. How can you evaluate a trade with so many unknown variables, specifically the three minor league players? Who needs facts when you have opinions?
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 8, 2021 8:28:36 GMT -5
Only best if whomever pitches as the ace of rotation. Taken that high it’s exactly what your expecting. If 2 you g shortstops shoot up. Take the third or 4th that crawls up with them. ( house or Watson) This idea that a pitcher isn't worth drafting at 4 if their likely ceiling isn't "ace" is crazy, getting (for example) a solid #3 from this pick would be just fine. And why does this only seem to apply to pitchers? I don't see too many people putting a HoF ceiling on the position players available either
|
|
|