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.
Benintendi traded to KC in 3-way deal w/ NYM
|
Post by chr31ter on Feb 14, 2021 14:07:20 GMT -5
So... anyone wanna take some guesses on the identity of the PTBNLs?
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,121
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 14, 2021 14:16:09 GMT -5
Dude, I'm a classical philologist. I'm familiar with etymology but also with rhetoric, including bad rhetorical tricks, and the cheesy tactic of trying to shift the burden of proof, which is why I ignored your first rant on the word "dependable." There is no amount of logorrhea or ad hominem attacks that can make the Jauss' statement that he was a "dependable" left-fielder but he wouldn't put him in centerfield into evidence that he can be a good CF. And your recommendation that I "learn to live with uncertainty" shows an amusing lack of self-knowledge. γνῶθι σεαυτόν. Why are you attacking me? I never said any of what you are attributing to me. I was actually saying what you appear (?) to be saying? I don’t think I had a “first” rant. I honestly don’t know to whom this is addressed. Add: actually, upon checking, I note I came in behind you and am on your side! Huh. Yeah I thought you were Eric!!!!! Sorry!! I'll delete. (I guess I read it first on my phone)
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 14, 2021 14:23:14 GMT -5
Why are you attacking me? I never said any of what you are attributing to me. I was actually saying what you appear (?) to be saying? I don’t think I had a “first” rant. I honestly don’t know to whom this is addressed. Add: actually, upon checking, I note I came in behind you and am on your side! Huh. Yeah I thought you were Eric!!!!! Sorry!! I'll delete. (I guess I read it first on my phone) No worries. It’s all silly. We’ll see in a few weeks who goes where. My guess is that with so many moving pieces even Cora will want to see a lot of lineuos before making final decisions. Can’t we all just get along?
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Feb 14, 2021 14:44:46 GMT -5
So... anyone wanna take some guesses on the identity of the PTBNLs? It'll be hard to pinpoint, but I'd start with lower level guys. For the PTBNL from the Royals, I'd expect them to be true lottery ticket types (back-end or off the Top 30) given that the Royals already gave up Cordero and Khalil Lee. For the Mets, I'd expect someone that's rated in the teens in their system to bridge the gap between Khalil Lee and Winck - Lee is rated 7th now and Winck was rated 26th (MLB Pipeline). Just taking a look at MLB Pipeline's list, a few guys that could fit the bill are Junior Santos (#10), Robert Dominguez (#12), Alexander Ramirez (#14), Freddy Valdez (#15), Joshua Cornielly (#16), Jaylen Palmer (#17) and Jordany Ventura (#20). Probably not worth spending too much time thinking about it though, because we won't know anything until it's announced in June.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 14, 2021 19:36:55 GMT -5
Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Feb 14, 2021 19:41:38 GMT -5
That story makes more definite the conceptual breakdown of the two trades:
Benintendi for Lee, Cordero and two PTBNLs
Then Sox send Lee to Mets for Winchowski and a PTBNL.
On that, as Vermont says above, the Mets BTBNL will make up a lot of value. Arms.
The Lee/Cordero part of the trade is closer to even, so the two Royals PTBN are probably less value - hopefully lower minor higher upside guys still outside of 30s.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Feb 14, 2021 19:41:42 GMT -5
Yeah, Zack Scott already said a few days ago that the Red Sox knew he liked Khalil Lee and therefore acquired Lee and flipped him to the Mets. Clearly Red Sox are banking on getting more value from the Mets knowing how much they value him.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 14, 2021 20:16:29 GMT -5
So, if the Royals are ranked 8-ish slots ahead of the Sox for systems, is it fair to say Lee, their #8, would be somewhere between or after Duran and Jiminez? 6ish in our system?
I guess independent now of Beni, if you are trading your (fleetingly) #6 prospect, you kinda hope that doesn’t turn into 2 guys outside the top-10. 1 inside, 1 outside makes sense, but one of these PTBNLs kinda has to be near where Lee would have slotted, no? So someone like Robert Dominguez? Then a much lower-ranked flyer?
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,121
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 14, 2021 20:23:24 GMT -5
So, if the Royals are ranked 8-ish slots ahead of the Sox for systems, is it fair to say Lee, their #8, would be somewhere between or after Duran and Jiminez? 6ish in our system? I guess independent now of Beni, if you are trading your (fleetingly) #6 prospect, you kinda hope that doesn’t turn into 2 guys outside the top-10. 1 inside, 1 outside makes sense, but one of these PTBNLs kinda has to be near where Lee would have slotted, no? So someone like Robert Dominguez? Then a much lower-ranked flyer? But isn't it the single PTBNL from the Mets who, along with Wink., has to be provide as much value as Lee? Not the two PTBNL from KC?
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Feb 14, 2021 20:26:38 GMT -5
A well placed source has just shared with me the following off-the-record conversation after the podcast:
Chaim: Gents, what do you think about a Benintendi deal if we're able to get back a prospect and an outfielder? Ian: You know, one thing that always frustrated us with the Dombrowski regime was they never focused on getting those lottery-ticket add-ons into the deal. Chaim: OK, we'll see if we can grab a prospect or two lower in the minors. Chris: Also, we could use some more pageviews. That Osich deal really kept us chatting on the message board, how about some more PTBNLs? Chaim: Done
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 14, 2021 20:27:20 GMT -5
So, if the Royals are ranked 8-ish slots ahead of the Sox for systems, is it fair to say Lee, their #8, would be somewhere between or after Duran and Jiminez? 6ish in our system? I guess independent now of Beni, if you are trading your (fleetingly) #6 prospect, you kinda hope that doesn’t turn into 2 guys outside the top-10. 1 inside, 1 outside makes sense, but one of these PTBNLs kinda has to be near where Lee would have slotted, no? So someone like Robert Dominguez? Then a much lower-ranked flyer? But isn't it the single PTBNL from the Mets who, along with Wink., has to be provide as much value as Lee? Not the two PTBNL from KC? Ah. Right. Then... just the top-10 guy. Otherwise, why not just keep a guy who would be a top-10 guy in your system. Still picking someone near Dominguez in the ranks.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 14, 2021 21:06:11 GMT -5
So, if the Royals are ranked 8-ish slots ahead of the Sox for systems, is it fair to say Lee, their #8, would be somewhere between or after Duran and Jiminez? 6ish in our system? I guess independent now of Beni, if you are trading your (fleetingly) #6 prospect, you kinda hope that doesn’t turn into 2 guys outside the top-10. 1 inside, 1 outside makes sense, but one of these PTBNLs kinda has to be near where Lee would have slotted, no? So someone like Robert Dominguez? Then a much lower-ranked flyer? We like seeing prospects ranked, but most scouts look at the value and the slightest disagreement can change the ranking substantially. The below links has them all listed by Fangraph's FV, so it makes it easier to pick-out players. Given the additional information we have received, expecting KC players currently ranked as 40 FV may have been bullish. This cutoff also shows that despite being ranked relatively low as a system, the system's depth is quite good (when looking at 40FV as the cutoff)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 14, 2021 23:28:58 GMT -5
If a player is a special athlete with a great first step, yet has negative defensive value in the majors, he has issues. He likely doesn't read the ball well and doesn't have an advanced baseball IQ. The good thing is those things can improve. Yet Baseball Reference and Fangraphs both agree he's been rather bad given his skills. Run value of plays made in OF according to 3 sources:
DRS: 1, -5, 0, -1 UZR: 1, -4, 0, -1. Statcast: 4, -2, 0, 0
The three metrics need to be weighted to get the best estimate of actual performance. The proper weights are 0, 0, and 1.
DRS and UZR use the same data source, Baseball Info Solutions, who measure hang time for every ball hit in play, plus where it landed, or where the fielder was when they caught it, according to people who watch the video and mark a spot on a diagram. Studies have shown that's riddled with bias.
Statcast uses measured data of the ball's actual, complete trajectory, plus actual data of where the fielder started and ended up, etc.
The thing is, this is in 637 total innings! When you rate a +4 R / 150 fielder as -9 ... do I even have to complete that sentence?
He was +25 R/150 or more in range in 192 innings in CF in 2017.
2018 is really interesting, and misleading. He played 11 of his first 14 games in CF, and was -9 R / 150. That made me wonder whether he was hurt. Naturally, the first thing I looked at was a stat, Bill James' Speed Score (based on 3B, SB attempts, SB%, R / times on base), which had been 6.6 in 2017. Sure enough, it had plummeted to 3.8, which is below MLB average. And that from a guy who was 96th percentile in Sprint Speed the year before! Then I Googled ... and sure thing, he had started the season on the DL with a groin injury.
They moved him to LF and from that point on his Speed Score was 7.1, but he was -11 R / 150. That's not knowing the position. Those games played numbers are earlier in this thread.
Oh, and his first week in LF his Speed Score was 4.2. It went up to 7.1 in his second week out there.
He's only played 58 innings in CF since then, so it's no surprise that he measures at 0 runs saved after rounding. He would have had to be +/- 26 R/150 to have registered as anything but 0 in 2019, and +/-18 in 2020.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 15, 2021 1:14:03 GMT -5
You know what's actually a very poor argument? "You're making very poor arguments" is very poor argument.
You know what an actual good argument would be? Explain for us what "not dependable" versus "dependable" means in OF besides getting good reads off the bat, and give me an example as good as my Munoz one. OK, throwing to the right base is the one other thing you need to learn to do dependably when you shift from CF to LF, and it's ten times as easy to learn and twenty times less important. What did Jauss mean by "dependable" vs. not as a major concern, if he didn't mean reads off the bat? You tell me, and if you can't give me something roughly as convincing, you've got nothing.
Franchy's a fairly obscure player. Jauss was an MLB coach with the Pirates when Franchy was with the Padres, and when you're an MLB coach you don't become an expert on the #13 prospect of a team in another division. He saw Franchy play 3 games in LF in 2018, which he was playing because Margot was in CF. It's perfectly credible that he has no idea that Franchy has played much more CF than LF, and earned raves for his "first-step quickness," which is to say, reads off the bat, from the co-editor of the BA handbook (Kyle Glaser).
Now, if you had a guy who had a reputation for not getting good reads in LF, and you saw him getting good (but not outsanding) reads, you might not recommend a conversion to CF even if he had the tools. Why would you want to put him through that struggle of learning to get a read from a different angle? As I have noted here in the past (using Coco Crisp as an example), it takes several hundred games to do that. You would't want him doing that in MLB. Coco got that chance because he had amazing numbers in LF, and he was average for us his first year ... and then amazing.
That's the only way I can make sense of the words that count that Jauss said. It makes perfect sense if you think the guy has played LF all his life. There's no good reason to believe that Jauss knows that he's actually a CF by trade who got great reads.
If you can't give me a solid alternative explanation for why he said he doesn't project as a LF despite having the tools, you have nothing.
Your two biggest mistakes here are your continued insistence that "first-step quickness" = "reads off the bat," and your thinking that Jauss has less ability than you to judge whether Cordero could be a good centerfielder. 1) "First-step quickness" is a well-known term in many sports. If refers to how explosive your first step is, whether off the blocks in track, with a basketball, when the football is hiked, or when a fielder or base-stealer in baseball starts moving. It's partly a gift, but also something you can improve by training, and there are hundreds of people on the internet offering to improve the first-step quickness of your teen athlete. www.xceler8athletics.com/keys-to-improve-first-step-quickness/ It is not unrelated to running good routes, because it is a part of running good routes, but it's not the same as running good routes. The opposite, in some sense, of "first-step quickness" is "runs better when underway," which is sometimes said of big guys who cannot steal bases but who don't look bad going from first to third, especially in the second-to third part. Statcast says that getting a good "jump" ("feet covered in the correct direction") has three components: 1) "reaction: feet covered in any direction" in first 0-1.5 seconds"' 2) "burst: feet covered in any direction" 1.6-3 seconds and 3) "route: feet covered [measured] against correct route" 0-3 seconds. You can be good at the first two and people say you have first-step quickness, but that says nothing about what routes you take. So there is a huge difference between saying "good first-step quickness" and "good reads off the bat" of "good jumps." baseballsavant.mlb.com/jump?year=2019. So you have one Kyle Glaser quote from BA (from when? 2017? there were many great things said about him in 2017, then 2018 happened) that says he has "first-step quickness" and you are taking it to mean "runs good routes." This is, as I said, a very poor argument. 2) You say that the reason Dave Jauss says "I don’t project him as a center fielder" is that he saw him play 3 games in LF in 2018, and basically does not read handbooks as much as you, and does not know that he has played a lot of CF. Dave Jauss, as I said, "managed Cordero in the Dominican Winter League this year." He knows that Cordero has a "track record in the Dominican of not being a dependable left fielder," which means that he has seen him in the past and has talked to people about him. He has been in baseball since the late 80s. He has managed minor league teams, worked as a scout (helping us win in 2004), run player development, and served several teams as a bench coach (and a bench coach's duties are often to coordinate scouting reports). If you think he does not read, and read BETTER scouting reports than the BA handbook, that is a pretty silly claim. If you are claiming that Dave Jauss cannot look at the way a man plays LF, and tell whether he would be good in CF (which is something teams have literally been paying him to do), that is a very poor argument. I'm not going to argue about this anymore. I barely mentioned good routes in my first post. I never mentioned them at all in the second. I've been talking about reads off the bat. You're arguing against a phantasm who exists only in your mind.
And the actual quote from the Handbook is "exceptional first-step quickness and long strides ... (sprint speed data and ranking) ... Cordero uses that speed to to chase down long flies as an above-average defender in center field."
I know exactly what exceptional first-step quickness means. I also know that in 2017 he was +25 or more R/150 in CF for plays made. I also know that he couldn't do that if he wasn't getting good reads. I also know that most guys who have played CF as much as he had at that point do get good reads. I also know that if he was getting bad reads, you either can't even pick up the first-step quickness because he starts and stops, or he actually isn't using it because he's tentative about which direction to head in. Getting good reads is the skill you need to make first-step quickness in the field evident to an observer.
So, yes, we absolutely know that he got good reads in CF, enough to make his first-step quickness a weapon.
And the only reason I'm asserting that he got (and presumably still gets) good reads in CF is to explain why he hasn't played LF well. I mean, seriously, that a guy with those numbers in CG gets good reads off the bat may be the most uncontroversial thing you could say about MLB fielding, and you are attacking me because they were not explicitly mentioned! Reads off the bat are a learned skill. Essentially nobody can do it at an OF position they are new to. It takes a season or more to get it down. None of this is speculation; it's all facts.
I said that we know that Franchy got good reads in CF and wouldn't be getting good reads in LF, and that's what Jauss had to mean by "dependable." You didn't even address that. You actually didn't respond to my argument at all.
In fact, it seems to me that you haven't even bothered to understand it. You're just looking for anything I say that you might characterize as an error. But you know what? When I read "exceptional first-step quickness," I did know what that meant and I knew immediately that it also meant he had to get good reads off the bat, which was my hypothesis when I looked up the scouting report. It was an "aha!" confirmation, in spades, of what I was already pretty sure had to be true. The whole explanation I just posted for why someone who earns that praise has to be getting good reads is something I discovered as I typed! Because, really, if you don't understand intuitively that a guy who is observed to have exceptional first-step quickness in the field must be getting good reads off the bat, how much baseball have you even watched? Stated that way, isn't it incredibly obvious? I'm pretty sure you actually understand it. But the only way you could devise an attack on me -- not further the discussion, not try to figure out what Jauss actually meant, just to make some kind of argument that I was in some way incorrect, was to blot out of your brain the obvious connection between the thing that was said about Cordero, and the relevant thing that it implied, to the extent that my relating them was a big mistake.
As for your point 2, I agree, without doing research you would absolutely expect that Jauss would be aware that Franchy had a monster defensive trial in CF in 2017 and a great defensive reputation. But the task is at hand is to explain why he would observe that he has the speed and arm to play CF -- but not project him there! Which is really puzzling. The only thing I could come up with, and it makes perfect sense, is if he thought he had been a LF his whole career! In which case, he is slow at learning reads and routes. Leave him at the position he has finally mastered. I then looked into his career and discovered that the entire time Franchy was playing pro ball, Jauss was an MLB coach for the Pirates. Unspecified, bench coach, unspecified thereafter. Major league coaches do not necessarily follow lower-tier prospects on other clubs. They have a ton of stuff to do and it's not part of their job prescription. It's perfectly credible that he doesn't know that Franchy has serious experience in CF already and has excelled there.
And you know what? Nothing in your paragraph on him argues against that.
Dave Jauss, as I said, "managed Cordero in the Dominican Winter League this year." He knows that Cordero has a "track record in the Dominican of not being a dependable left fielder," which means that he has seen him in the past and has talked to people about him.
That's says absolutely nothing about him in CF, or what other Dominican observers know about him. He says "I've got Cordero in LF, what can you tell me?" and they tell him he doesn't get good reads or throws to the wrong base sometimes or other things (if there are any) that would translate to being not "dependable." He has played 7 games in CF down there the previous 2 years, versus 24 in left, so you do have to add that nobody volunteered "he's actually better in CF." That's not unlikely if they know who he already has for CF and that neither guy is going to play anywhere else.
He has been in baseball since the late 80s. He has managed minor league teams, worked as a scout (helping us win in 2004), run player development, and served several teams as a bench coach
All of which is of course irrelevant as what he knows about what Franchy did in 2017.
(and a bench coach's duties are often to coordinate scouting reports)
Of players in the PCL? Or of players on teams you're not playing?
If you think he does not read, and read BETTER scouting reports than the BA handbook, that is a pretty silly claim.
But of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying that he never read a scouting report for Cordero as a CF because he never had Cordero as a CF opponent (which is the case). Which is exactly what you'd expect. "Doesn't always get good reads in LF [= so look for bad ones and be prepared to send your runners]. Arm is good but not accurate if he's at all off-balance, and sometimes tries to force it that way. Oh, BTW, he got very good reads in CF last year." Seriously? [That report entirely made up, of course.]
If you are claiming that Dave Jauss cannot look at the way a man plays LF, and tell whether he would be good in CF (which is something teams have literally been paying him to do), that is a very poor argument.
But Dave Jauss didn't say he wouldn't be good. He said he had both the speed and the arm to play CF! Since when is a guy with those tools not project as a CF (which is what he did say)?
Well, the only one I can come up with is that he (according to Jauss) has trouble learning reads and routes, and at his age, he's not going to do that for a new position after it took him to age 26 to lean LF.
It's a credible hypothesis that explains the puzzling facts perfectly. I believe it's the only hypothesis. And even though I pointed out that you needed to come up with one of your own, not only didn't you attempt to to do so, you didn't even make any relevant points on the question at all.
I am infinitely amused that you think I'm the one who's making such poor arguments that they're not with responding to. It would be a great relief if you would do that all the time. Just ignore me if I'm always wrong, the way I ignore unitspin.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Feb 15, 2021 1:25:11 GMT -5
Its infuriating. Watch Lee finally put it all together. Just value wise Lee is better than anything the Mets agreed to give up and would have probably slotted into the system at 5-7. Even if you don't want him you could easily flip him for a better return.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Feb 15, 2021 2:36:16 GMT -5
I've been watching the responses to this and it's not like this hasn't happened before. Andy Marte, the Renteria trade was hardly in Boston a month before he was swapped out for Crisp and others in a large multi player move over the winter of '06. The Sox might have something they just don't like regarding Hill and maybe the mets value him more, same as it was with marte, who looked up earlier to make sure, but was ranked top 15 by BA several times and 9th when he was dealt to boston. It does all make me think that the Mets will be sending a fairly decent kid back now, while KC probably very low MiLB extreme longshots, or organizational filler. The deal hinges whether or not it's decent now on what they will be getting upcoming from the Mets from what we have learned.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 15, 2021 3:05:37 GMT -5
You know what's actually a very poor argument? "You're making very poor arguments" is very poor argument.
You know what an actual good argument would be? Explain for us what "not dependable" versus "dependable" means in OF besides getting good reads off the bat, and give me an example as good as my Munoz one. OK, throwing to the right base is the one other thing you need to learn to do dependably when you shift from CF to LF, and it's ten times as easy to learn and twenty times less important. What did Jauss mean by "dependable" vs. not as a major concern, if he didn't mean reads off the bat? You tell me, and if you can't give me something roughly as convincing, you've got nothing.
Franchy's a fairly obscure player. Jauss was an MLB coach with the Pirates when Franchy was with the Padres, and when you're an MLB coach you don't become an expert on the #13 prospect of a team in another division. He saw Franchy play 3 games in LF in 2018, which he was playing because Margot was in CF. It's perfectly credible that he has no idea that Franchy has played much more CF than LF, and earned raves for his "first-step quickness," which is to say, reads off the bat, from the co-editor of the BA handbook (Kyle Glaser).
Now, if you had a guy who had a reputation for not getting good reads in LF, and you saw him getting good (but not outsanding) reads, you might not recommend a conversion to CF even if he had the tools. Why would you want to put him through that struggle of learning to get a read from a different angle? As I have noted here in the past (using Coco Crisp as an example), it takes several hundred games to do that. You would't want him doing that in MLB. Coco got that chance because he had amazing numbers in LF, and he was average for us his first year ... and then amazing.
That's the only way I can make sense of the words that count that Jauss said. It makes perfect sense if you think the guy has played LF all his life. There's no good reason to believe that Jauss knows that he's actually a CF by trade who got great reads.
If you can't give me a solid alternative explanation for why he said he doesn't project as a LF despite having the tools, you have nothing.
You are fun sometimes, but man... you get tunnel vision. “Dependable,” from 12th c. French depend-re, “to hang.” Relating to duty or obligation, meaning “sure.” That is... broad. If I say “go to left field!” And you do? That counts as “dependable” in that you are fulfilling your duty. Is that what he means? Doubt it. But since you insist on English lessons, you might consider the degree to which language is ambiguous — and not seek to pin your specific meanings on abstract terms — or at least don’t condescend to people who point out abstract terms, indeed, can be read many ways. Close your pocket calculator and pick up thy Wittgenstein (to paraphrase Carlyle). I couldn’t give a s—t less what the details are of Cordero’s fielding, but, man, your pattern of having a theory then insisting that is the only way to read ambiguous (or often selective) evidence and then treating people who see it differently as stupid is unnecessary. You contribute an interesting perspective. Try a touch of humility. Another English rec: read Keats on Negative Capability.... learning to live with uncertainty. Actually, I made what I thought was a very straightforward interpretation of what "dependable" performance for an OFer might be, and no one has offered an alternative! If someone is not "dependable," and there is no possibility it means "failing to do something entirely," it means they sometimes do the wrong thing rather than the right thing, correct? So, what do OFers sometime just do wrong? They break or run in the wrong direction, or they throw to the wrong base or overthrow the cutoff man. They force an off-balance throw when they should wait a moment longer and make a better one. You could probably make a longer list, but everything you can come up with is about learning to play the position. And getting good reads is easily the most important thing to learn and the toughest, and we have tons of objective evidence that it's a skill that needs to be learned. Durran is tackling it right now, along with learning to run good routes. (A skill which, I think, tends to improve gradually, and doesn't have a sharp demarcation between correct and incorrect, and hence would be a small part of being dependable, at best.)
My actual pattern is:
A) Present a hypothesis that I think is the best way to explain something puzzling, which is often as simple as why the Sox acquired a guy.
B) Argue with such vehemence and with so little qualification that it seems I'm insisting I must be right. But no. I'm just smitten with the hypothesis because it seems to have cool explanatory power. I've never been invested in being personally right. I'm very invested in finding out what's true. (I knew I wanted to be a scientist when I was 4.) There's nothing more exciting than when someone offers a new fact that makes me rethink my hypothesis and brings us closer to the truth.
J) Arguing with seeming certainty and great vehemence is a distinctly Jewish approach, going back to arguments over the Talmud (which was a set of arguments about the Mishna which was a set of arguments about the Torah). The seeming certainty probably comes from arguing over everything, so that instead of saying "According to all the evidence I've looked at, I think it's highly likely that Gonzalez changed his hitting approach dramatically in 2017," you just start with "Gonzalez." That saves 14 words! If you debate 50 things a day, them's a lot of words. As far as vehemence (because you also put your shortened sentence in bold italics), I still sometimes have to explain to my ex-wife / housemate that my godson Eddy (her kid) and I are not angry with one another and that in fact we are enjoying our argument! And Eddy is a convert! (In part because they were really taken with the notion of arguing this way.)
If folks can grasp this rhetorical style, I hope they'll see that it's not an insistence of correctness: its the best idea I have and I'm excited that it explains the often mysterious goings-on of the F.O. The bold italics do not mean this is the truth, it means, this is really cool, check this out, because this explains everything. To a lesser extent, it is also of course a challenge for others to point out a problem with it, or something better.
C) With a few exceptions, I don't think that folks are stupid (and I've got those on ignore). A lot of people, misunderstanding my rhetorical stance (through no fault of their own, I must confess), post replies that go like this this:
You don't know that for certain! (Never said I did. You just assumed that based on my continuous series of forceful, unqualified assertions!)
It might be the case that such-and-such. (Yes, but that doesn't explain a key point of data.) I admit that frustrates me. If that frustration shows in my responses, I apologize.
An example: almost every person who has argued that the Sox will absolutely stay under the tax limit this season, because their set of acquisitions points in that direction, fails to explain the single most important data point: Bloom's statement that they have no mandate to do so. Tell me what you think that means! Tell me why Bloom would say that even if he did have a mandate! When you ignore the data point, you're implying that "maybe there's a reason Bloom said that, that no one is privy to," or "maybe he means something else by 'mandate' than would seem obvious." And that adds what? It just adds the fact that we don't know everything and that therefore the best possible current explanation might be incorrect.
But we always know that. I'm interested in the best explanation of what we know now. And that often leads to further questions to ask; those are the best responses of all.
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Feb 15, 2021 3:43:58 GMT -5
@eric
At risk of looking like an idiot here - what is R/150? Runs saved per 150 games?
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,121
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 15, 2021 6:33:08 GMT -5
Your two biggest mistakes here are your continued insistence that "first-step quickness" = "reads off the bat," and your thinking that Jauss has less ability than you to judge whether Cordero could be a good centerfielder. [...] I'm not going to argue about this anymore. [...]] Getting good reads is the skill you need to make first-step quickness in the field evident to an observer.
Your whole endless post is full of false claims like this. First-step quickness is evident to the observer no matter what direction you run in. You can look at two basketball players play and say "This guy can't guard that guy because he doesn't have first-step quickness." That you would embolden this claim makes it even sadder. Please stop. People said good things about his CF defense in 2017. Then they stopped. None of the statements by Jauss or others that you say are evidence of his suitability for CF are in fact useful evidence for that claim.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,121
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 15, 2021 6:47:19 GMT -5
You are fun sometimes, but man... you get tunnel vision. “Dependable,” from 12th c. French depend-re, “to hang.” Relating to duty or obligation, meaning “sure.” That is... broad. If I say “go to left field!” And you do? That counts as “dependable” in that you are fulfilling your duty. Is that what he means? Doubt it. But since you insist on English lessons, you might consider the degree to which language is ambiguous — and not seek to pin your specific meanings on abstract terms — or at least don’t condescend to people who point out abstract terms, indeed, can be read many ways. Close your pocket calculator and pick up thy Wittgenstein (to paraphrase Carlyle). I couldn’t give a s—t less what the details are of Cordero’s fielding, but, man, your pattern of having a theory then insisting that is the only way to read ambiguous (or often selective) evidence and then treating people who see it differently as stupid is unnecessary. You contribute an interesting perspective. Try a touch of humility. Another English rec: read Keats on Negative Capability.... learning to live with uncertainty. Actually, I made what I thought was a very straightforward interpretation of what "dependable" performance for an OFer might be, and no one has offered an alternative! If someone is not "dependable," and there is no possibility it means "failing to do something entirely," it means they sometimes do the wrong thing rather than the right thing, correct? So, what do OFers sometime just do wrong? They break or run in the wrong direction, or they throw to the wrong base or overthrow the cutoff man. They force an off-balance throw when they should wait a moment longer and make a better one. You could probably make a longer list, but everything you can come up with is about learning to play the position. And getting good reads is easily the most important thing to learn and the toughest, and we have tons of objective evidence that it's a skill that needs to be learned. Durran is tackling it right now, along with learning to run good routes. (A skill which, I think, tends to improve gradually, and doesn't have a sharp demarcation between correct and incorrect, and hence would be a small part of being dependable, at best.)
My actual pattern is:
A) Present a hypothesis that I think is the best way to explain something puzzling, which is often as simple as why the Sox acquired a guy.
B) Argue with such vehemence and with so little qualification that it seems I'm insisting I must be right. But no. I'm just smitten with the hypothesis because it seems to have cool explanatory power. I've never been invested in being personally right. I'm very invested in finding out what's true. (I knew I wanted to be a scientist when I was 4.) There's nothing more exciting than when someone offers a new fact that makes me rethink my hypothesis and brings us closer to the truth.
J) Arguing with seeming certainty and great vehemence is a distinctly Jewish approach, going back to arguments over the Talmud (which was a set of arguments about the Mishna which was a set of arguments about the Torah). The seeming certainty probably comes from arguing over everything, so that instead of saying "According [...] You don't make bad arguments because it's a Jewish tradition. None of the many Jewish scholars in my field, neither my friends whose scholarship or unpublished manuscripts I read, nor those whose arguments I am asked to evaluate by journals and presses, argue like this, or would get away with it if they tried to argue like this. Referees or colleagues would say "These are interesting ideas, but this vehement rhetoric undercuts your argument. No one will publish this." My humble understanding of the Mishnah is that it acknowledges and promotes and validates uncertainty in a way that would be very helpful to you. I do not know why you spoil all your good research by presenting it in this self-defeating way. But thanks for admitting that you know that many of your claims are mostly rhetorical nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 15, 2021 7:48:05 GMT -5
Its infuriating. Watch Lee finally put it all together. Just value wise Lee is better than anything the Mets agreed to give up and would have probably slotted into the system at 5-7. Even if you don't want him you could easily flip him for a better return. That's literally what Bloom did according to this quote. You/We just have no idea what the return will be yet.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Feb 15, 2021 7:50:09 GMT -5
Its infuriating. Watch Lee finally put it all together. Just value wise Lee is better than anything the Mets agreed to give up and would have probably slotted into the system at 5-7. Even if you don't want him you could easily flip him for a better return. That's literally what Bloom did according to this quote. You/We just have no idea what the return will be yet. It just seems like the family guy episode where peter passes on the boat for the mystery box because the box could be a boat. Lee is a legit prospect. Not saying the PTBNL can't be but I'd be highly shocked if any part of this return would slot into the top 5 immediately. Lee probably would have.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Feb 15, 2021 9:01:09 GMT -5
Sounds to me like the Red Sox front office knew that Zach Scott was overly enamored with Lee and might have used that to their advantage. Can only hope it results in a nice over payment from the Mets to the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Feb 15, 2021 9:22:00 GMT -5
That's literally what Bloom did according to this quote. You/We just have no idea what the return will be yet. It just seems like the family guy episode where peter passes on the boat for the mystery box because the box could be a boat. Lee is a legit prospect. Not saying the PTBNL can't be but I'd be highly shocked if any part of this return would slot into the top 5 immediately. Lee probably would have. Not that anyone will change your mind on this, but just want to point out that I don't think Khalil Lee would be a top 5 prospect in the Red Sox system. Just eyeballing the SP list, I would have probably slotted him in at 8-11. Somewhere in that range. Reading up on Lee, he's a high floor/low ceiling guy. Fangraphs on Lee: "He's still young enough to make these and other adjustments, but I have Lee projected as the larger half of a right field platoon rather than a true everyday player." MLB Pipeline on Lee: "Lee could develop into an everyday player if he can clean up his approach and tap into more of his raw power, but he does enough things well in all facets of the game to offer floor value as a fourth outfielder." Lee could wind up being a good big league player, but if Bloom is trying to go for a higher upside play, I'm more than fine with that.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Feb 15, 2021 9:52:42 GMT -5
It just seems like the family guy episode where peter passes on the boat for the mystery box because the box could be a boat. Lee is a legit prospect. Not saying the PTBNL can't be but I'd be highly shocked if any part of this return would slot into the top 5 immediately. Lee probably would have. Not that anyone will change your mind on this, but just want to point out that I don't think Khalil Lee would be a top 5 prospect in the Red Sox system. Just eyeballing the SP list, I would have probably slotted him in at 8-11. Somewhere in that range. Reading up on Lee, he's a high floor/low ceiling guy. Fangraphs on Lee: "He's still young enough to make these and other adjustments, but I have Lee projected as the larger half of a right field platoon rather than a true everyday player." MLB Pipeline on Lee: "Lee could develop into an everyday player if he can clean up his approach and tap into more of his raw power, but he does enough things well in all facets of the game to offer floor value as a fourth outfielder." Lee could wind up being a good big league player, but if Bloom is trying to go for a higher upside play, I'm more than fine with that. I can see that. Lee has his warts but he's also 22 and that ceiling is pretty high. If you aren't going to compete for a few years maybe you focus on cleaning up his approach and refine that raw power. Bloom might be able to get more higher floor but lesser ceiling prospects from NYM but I can't see them coming away with a SP equivalent of Lee. We'll see in May.
|
|
|