|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Jan 6, 2016 12:36:20 GMT -5
Not that it means anything at all, but Dave Cameron did drop a reference to a Bradley/Soler swap in his latest fangraphs chat when asked about what the Cubs options for CF could be.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Jan 6, 2016 11:46:15 GMT -5
Tessie was also a song ripped from a popular musical in the early 1900's about a woman singing to a beloved parakeet lol.
Without Dropkick, no one would even care.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Jan 6, 2016 11:39:49 GMT -5
Yes it's corny and dopey. But maybe it puts a smile on a little girls face who comes to the park, in a sport where females are criminally underrepresented outside pink hats and other accessories. I think stating that females are criminally underrepresented is hyperbole of the highest order. The fact is that the demographic of the baseball fan is still very male. Any business needs to sell to their key demographic, and as of yet, woman are still on the periphery. I don't have a problem with Tessie, but your trying to create an issue, when there really isn't one. I'm not trying to create an issue at all. I'm saying it's good that little girls get to have fun at the ballpark. The more involved they are from a young age in the sport is great. That's a positive. I swear, grown men crybabying about mascots is just the absolute dregs of fandom.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Jan 5, 2016 18:06:30 GMT -5
Any chance to get dates included for when the scouting reports were written? Every once in a while I look into a player and am left wondering when the scouting bio was written. Two weeks ago? Two seasons ago? Something simple that would help the reader a lot, and also would probably help the site realize when a player bio needs updating.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Jan 5, 2016 15:05:21 GMT -5
For anyone bellyaching about this remember that you're a grown man/woman capable of rational thought.
It's a mascot. It's meant for children who come to the ballpark. The same with the wave. It doesn't take away anything from the name or your nostalgia or whatever other old man "I hate change" prejudices you have.
Yes it's corny and dopey. But maybe it puts a smile on a little girls face who comes to the park, in a sport where females are criminally underrepresented outside pink hats and other accessories.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Jan 4, 2016 16:16:37 GMT -5
I agree Chapman is by far a superior pitcher than Warren or Wilson. Not here to argue that. The NYY were like 60-3 with a lead after the 6th inning last year. I guess they can improve on that, or it can go the other way just as well, bad calls, broken bat singles, ect. While overall the Yankees are a better team this year, I just don't see THAT much of an upgrade. With Warren as the "6th" man in Chicago, your right as most 6th men get plenty of starts. You're actually kinda arguing against your own point. "or it can go the other way just as well..." is true even if they made no changes and kept what they had. In fact, it was likely going to be worse, just due to averages and regression to norm, etc, because of how good they were last year. They've added an elite closer, so even if they go something like 60-5 this year (technically worse) but Chapman is his usual self, you can still understand how that's probably an improvement on what they resonably would've been.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Jan 4, 2016 12:27:23 GMT -5
I don't think the Dodgers would be hugely interested in Castillo, especially if they're trying to dump Ethier's contract. So that talk probably doesn't make a huge amount of sense.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Jan 4, 2016 12:22:48 GMT -5
Soxprospects: Where the best reliever in baseball is somehow not an upgrade
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Jan 2, 2016 21:05:28 GMT -5
I'm definitely more concerned about Bogaerts taking a (relative) step back when trying to introduce more power this season than with Mookie potentially facing fewer inside/pullable pitches. Nothing against Bogaerts at all, and I haven't read up or heard much regarding this, but does anybody else feel like Betts is almost a purer hitter, than Xander is? I feel like Xander's lows and slumps could be (and have been) significantly worse than Mookie's could be. Mookie did start off relatively slow and slumped at times, but I distinctly recall a ton of line drives and flies simply not falling in. For Xander, we've seen (in 2014) how bad it is when he tries to do too much and pull everything. I hope Xander steadily progresses and doesn't try to rapidly become more powerful this season, and I hope Mookie can walk a bit more. He doesn't have to hit more homers, but I do hope Xander does. If they both end up as being 15-20 homer guys, with Mookie having a higher AVG and OBP, but Xander a better SLG, I won't be disappointed. But I don't know how likely it is that Xander ever becomes "that" 30 homer guy. I've always been a little hazy on what "pure hitter" even means. There's always seems to be a big of a negative connotation to it power-wise. I would say Xander is mentally a better hitter (uses entire field, seems to have more of a plan/approach) and Mookie is potentially a more athletic hitter. But even those descriptions are sort of purposefully vague.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Jan 2, 2016 15:09:45 GMT -5
So, after I screamed NO at the top of my lungs upon first thinking about Ethier, I started to wonder more about him in the event of a midseason trade if Rusney/JBJ are struggling mightily or someone incurs an injury. The money is extremely prohibitive, essentially 2/38 with the buyout, but given the dodgers use of him, he might come cheap[er] prospect/player wise, and the dodgers would probably send some cash our way as well.
What there is to like: He went back to mashing righties last year. Still a black hole against lefties. But he's under contract for 2 seasons, as is Chris Young, and they represent a pretty attractive platoon scenario-- Young .972 ops against lefties, Ethier .900 against righties in 2015. His defense has faded, but that would *hopefully* be mitigated by Fenway LF. Also, there's the admittedly probably insignificant idea that him and Pedroia are best buds. Pedroia needs no help being driven, but who knows.
What there is to hate: He's making a crapload of money, and you're essentially paying 21.5 million each season for two years for two halves of a platoon (assuming the dodgers kick in 3-4 mill a year). Injury prone.
So what does everyone think? I started thinking about potential targets in case our boatload of young talent doesn't pan out, and Ethier seemed like a guy that could potentially had for less of a cost than a lot of other guys while still providing some impact offensively. The money is bad, but it's also off the books after 2, and you likely wouldn't have to touch the highly prized prospects.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Jan 1, 2016 20:12:47 GMT -5
Automated projection systems struggle with players without an established major league track record, and I agree that for prospects/young players, they're not super useful. I dunno. They loved Mookie going into last year (and the year before prior to his first callup). I think the problem with Swihart is less an issue with projection systems and more the fact that he's never really put up outstanding offensive numbers at any level. He's a very good prospect (and a decent player right now) because he's a legit catcher with the tools to be a good hitter, but why would anyone project him to be anything close to an average MLB hitter in 2016? His 2nd half did consist of basically a .300/.350/.450 line
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 31, 2015 16:24:03 GMT -5
sounds like Rusney's playing winter ball so that's good
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 31, 2015 15:15:21 GMT -5
Focusing on steamer or zips projections with anything more than a passing glance is probably foolish.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 31, 2015 15:11:45 GMT -5
In the last two years we've watched the Royals essentially play 6 inning games. And people think they need to trade 1 of miller or betances to get value out of chapman?
We can WAR and FIP all we want, but we can't use those stats to explain the pressure that is taken off a manager and other players and starting pitchers to have that kind of pen depth behind them.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 31, 2015 14:25:32 GMT -5
Wilson is better than O'Day? What?
|
|
|
FIP
Dec 31, 2015 12:12:01 GMT -5
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 31, 2015 12:12:01 GMT -5
Seeing as there is a lot of FIP talk in here, what does everyone think about the legitimacy of FIP? Tomase on the Hot Stove Show remarked how even extremely analytical front offices (dodgers/former Rays execs) kinda laugh at all the FIP talk.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 31, 2015 12:05:44 GMT -5
I think the only real "non-win" for the yankees is the ick factor in Chapman, the player himself. I don't think anyone in the yankee organization is losing sleep over Jagielo or Rookie. They were both listed by Baseball America as part of the 2019 projected team (Rookie as 5th starter). Not great prospects, but guys who projected to be the best available player at their position. They've eliminated the possibility that they exceed expectations and end up good enough to not be supplanted by a veteran acquisition. It's a projection 4 years out haha. Not being mean or anything, but it's sorta a big "who cares." I'm sure at one point Baseball America or some other projection site quibbled between Cecchini and Middlebrooks as the Red Sox third basemen. Jags and Rookie are both "meh" prospects. Sure they might be wroth xx surplus vlaue at some point, but even at their likely ceilings, if they get there, they'll be players a team with a significant payroll can easily replicate through other means.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 31, 2015 9:39:02 GMT -5
What the Yankees traded for the marginal upgrade between Wilson and Chapman, and considering Wilson's longer team control, I don't think this is much of a win for them. Jagielo can't really stay healthy but has been a masher when he plays. Rookie is an up and coming back of rotation/good relief prospect too. I'm not sure why this topic is even worth such a debate. I think the only real "non-win" for the yankees is the ick factor in Chapman, the player himself. I don't think anyone in the yankee organization is losing sleep over Jagielo or Rookie.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 28, 2015 18:31:42 GMT -5
So you essentially think there's only 140-150 high leverage relief innings a season? Yes, and he's right. There are about 100 high-leverage relief appearances per team per season, and there are roughly three times as many low-leverage relief situations as high-leverage relief situations ( link). That's not to suggest that having great relief depth is pointless-- excellent relief performances in medium- and low-leverage situations still matter, and depth is nice in case your top guys get hurt. But there is an element of diminishing returns. I think that element of "diminishing returns" is next to nil in this situation.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 28, 2015 17:26:47 GMT -5
I just don't know that there's enough high leverage situations to use these pitchers in a valuable way. It just seems like a waste unless they trade Miller. So you essentially think there's only 140-150 high leverage relief innings a season?
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 25, 2015 22:24:21 GMT -5
At this point, I'll just ask that if posters have made the same point in the thread already to not just continue to repeat it unless they have something new to contribute. The thoughts of many posters are quite clear by now and really don't need repeating. Question re: podcast -- Did any of your outlooks change after speaking with Alex? Some of his stuff he said elicited responses from you basically consisting of "makes sense" when it seems like opinions you've posted on here sorta differ to a degree. Or is it just because the podcast is really more meant to feature Alex's perspective as opposed to a back and forth discussion?
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 25, 2015 10:40:00 GMT -5
In light of the Cardinals' signing of Mike Leake to a market-value but still absolutely ridiculous 5/$80M contract, I have to say that the Mariners made a pretty solid trade for Miley. I still like it from a Sox perspective, but Seattle got a relative bargain, with a short contract that's about $25M less than market. The upshot of that is that, in getting Elias in return, and with the current incredible depth of cost-controlled SPs, the Sox are in great shape to trade from great strength, be it Buchholz (who is looking more and more like a bargain for a contender), Kelly (I hope not), or one of the young guys. And after the Shelby Miller deal, cheap SP returns on the trade market look to be outstanding. Ehh, I'm not so sure they're going to trade anyone. Wright possibly if he doesn't make the roster, but with Buch and Kelly likely to not go full years, they need some arms back there. Johnson's arm is a question mark too.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 25, 2015 10:33:03 GMT -5
I keep seeing Benintendi listed as part of the core four but I still like Margot better. He's a better defensive CF, he's faster. They both have 50/55 hit potential IMO and I question how much power Benintendi will display vs advanced pitching. He jacked a lot of fastballs on the inner third this yr. re: Margot, I totally fail to see why people think his bat is that strong. He looks like a future platoon bat that won't walk much.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 24, 2015 14:50:47 GMT -5
Glad to hear Alex Speier bring up some points about the Red Sox feeling like Kimbrel might have been "the one game in town" in the latest podcast.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Dec 21, 2015 19:00:47 GMT -5
You keep missing the biggest point that Kimbrel is dominate year in and year out. Go look at the last three years and show me how many guys have been dominate for 3 straight years, it's a very short list my friend. That's the difference from the 10th best guy, they aren't dominate year in and year out. Sure a bunch of guys have good years, but few do it in back to back years and only a couple do it year after year. For the price of one Kimbrel, you could get two other dudes. And even if each one of those other dudes isn't as reliable individually, the odds that they BOTH break down are probably less than the odds of Kimbrel breaking. So with the two guys you have a better chance that at least one is still upright by the end of the season. In other words, I'd rather have two guys who are 70% reliable versus one guy who's 85% reliable. /architects 2015 starting rotation
|
|