Jump to content
weams

MLB Pipeline: Austin Martin

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Number5 said:

So, if I understand you correctly, there is absolutely nothing that this player could possibly have done to make you think he's a worthy choice here.  He has performed at a tremendous level wherever he's been for several years, but it must be all smoke and mirrors, coupled with pure luck over a particular small sample size.  Sorry, but you haven't shown me any reason whatsoever to agree with you that he isn't the player he seems to be.  You asserted that his home park in college was the sole reason for his numbers, yet his performance away from that environment shouldn't be considered either, because the Cape Cod League's season doesn't last 749 games.  You are certainly welcome to your feeling that something tells you that Gonzales isn't for real, but your feeling alone doesn't convince me to agree with you.

I am trusting Elias here.  I'd be happy with any of Tork, Martin, Lacy, or Gonzales.  I don't see any valid reason to eliminate Gonzales from that discussion.  It comes down to what the Orioles' baseball people think, which is OK by me.

No, you don't understand me correctly.  Or I don't think so.  All I'm saying is that Gonzales, by virtue of playing in a completely loopy environment, gives us less information to go on.  So he's inherently more risky.  Some of that risk is mitigated by the combination of scouting reports and college summer ball.  But not as much as a bunch of games played in a place where there are five runs scored a game instead of 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Orioles1954 said:

I haven't followed this thread but what happened to Emerson Hancock?

I'm sure the Orioles have done their due diligence on Hancock.  I think he's almost sure to go in the top 10.  As Corn said, it seems like he dropped just a bit in the eyes of many after a good, but not great, start to the college season, especially his K rate.  I wouldn't storm the warehouse with pitch forks and torches if the Orioles took him at #2, but I like the other 4 guys better, based on what limited information I've seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

In wildcard's universe Bob Milacki was inducted into the Hall of Fame during the 1988-89 offseason.

How would you know anything about my universe.  You live in your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

No, you don't understand me correctly.  Or I don't think so.  All I'm saying is that Gonzales, by virtue of playing in a completely loopy environment, gives us less information to go on.  So he's inherently more risky.  Some of that risk is mitigated by the combination of scouting reports and college summer ball.  But not as much as a bunch of games played in a place where there are five runs scored a game instead of 10.

So there is something he could have possibly done that would have enabled you to consider him as a viable pick?  It sure doesn't sound like it.  Hey, I'm fine with you having the opinion that the Orioles should never, ever select a player whose home park was a hitters park.  I wouldn't share your opinion, but I certainly wouldn't begrudge you for holding it.  it's just that you aren't giving me any real reason to not consider this player, as I'm not predisposed to eliminate any player based solely on geography.  It would be entirely different, to my way of thinking, if there were any evidence whatsoever that he couldn't hit in a less hitter-friendly environment.  But there isn't.  When faced with those conditions, he's performed.  The guy has unquestionably stood out from all of the other players playing in the exact same environment, in my view, whether that be in New Mexico or Massachusetts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Sounded like an insult to me.

Oh come on.  Your thing is to advocate for sweeping decisions to be made on 18 at bats.  After like 20 years we can kid you about it.  I'm sure you can come up with some kind of thing about random players from 1878 to make fun of me.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I'm sure the Orioles have done their due diligence on Hancock.  I think he's almost sure to go in the top 10.  As Corn said, it seems like he dropped just a bit in the eyes of many after a good, but not great, start to the college season, especially his K rate.  I wouldn't storm the warehouse with pitch forks and torches if the Orioles took him at #2, but I like the other 4 guys better, based on what limited information I've seen.

I'd expect some slot savings if he is the pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Number5 said:

So there is something he could have possibly done that would have enabled you to consider him as a viable pick?  It sure doesn't sound like it.  Hey, I'm fine with you having the opinion that the Orioles should never, ever select a player whose home park was a hitters park.  I wouldn't share your opinion, but I certainly wouldn't begrudge you for holding it.  it's just that you aren't giving me any real reason to not consider this player, as I'm not predisposed to eliminate any player based solely on geography.  It would be entirely different, to my way of thinking, if there were any evidence whatsoever that he couldn't hit in a less hitter-friendly environment.  But there isn't.  When faced with those conditions, he's performed.  The guy has unquestionably stood out from all of the other players playing in the exact same environment, in my view, whether that be in New Mexico or Massachusetts.

There a difference between a viable pick and a less risky pick.  If the Orioles are that comfortable with Gonzales despite having less solid information to go on, then pick him.  You can be the best player in the world and still be a 1998 Colorado Rockie.  But if you're trading for that guy you are taking on a lot of risk that he's not really the best guy, he just has gaudy Mile High numbers.

When you say "..that the Orioles should never, ever select a player whose home park was a hitters park" you're underselling the case here.  Colorado is a hitter's park.  Fenway is a hitter's park.  Gonzales' hitting environment is twice that of the Rockies.  It's way, way, way beyond any environment that has ever existed in MLB history.  That inherently adds risk to the equation.

This is like an NFL team drafting someone who has only played Arena Football. It's plausible he could be really good, but it's very hard to tell because the context is so out of whack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Oh come on.  Your thing is to advocate for sweeping decisions to be made on 18 at bats.  After like 20 years we can kid you about it.  I'm sure you can come up with some kind of thing about random players from 1878 to make fun of me.

No, 1978 is your thing.  I think I'll leave that to you.   Just when you kid don't make it an insult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

There a difference between a viable pick and a less risky pick.  If the Orioles are that comfortable with Gonzales despite having less solid information to go on, then pick him.  You can be the best player in the world and still be a 1998 Colorado Rockie.  But if you're trading for that guy you are taking on a lot of risk that he's not really the best guy, he just has gaudy Mile High numbers.

When you say "..that the Orioles should never, ever select a player whose home park was a hitters park" you're underselling the case here.  Colorado is a hitter's park.  Fenway is a hitter's park.  Gonzales' hitting environment is twice that of the Rockies.  It's way, way, way beyond any environment that has ever existed in MLB history.  That inherently adds risk to the equation.

This is like an NFL team drafting someone who has only played Arena Football. It's plausible he could be really good, but it's very hard to tell because the context is so out of whack.

The single biggest difference between hitting for the Colorado Rockies and NMSU is the pitching you are facing.  As with every college and high school player ever entering a draft, Gonzales has not been facing major league players.  The numbers he put up, though, were not solely because he was playing in a small park in New Mexico.  At least, there isn't any evidence to support such a claim.  Hitting home runs is not his sole skill.  The smaller dimensions actually detract from doubles and triples, yet he excels in those areas, as well.  Even hit an inside-the-park grand slam.  He makes contact and hits the ball hard all over the ballpark, and runs well.  College career: 89 walks and 79 strikeouts (plus 18 HBP).  Coupled with his high batting average, the guy gets on base.  That is not a park thing.  The altitude is 1300 feet lower than Denver, by the way.  I'm not the one saying "..that the Orioles should never, ever select a player whose home park was a hitters park" …  and if you aren't saying that, what, exactly, are you saying?  The sole argument you have mounted in all of these posts amounts to exactly that, as far as I can see.

I can see that I am somehow being unsuccessful in convincing you that your argument is based solely on geography and it is for certain that you aren't convincing me otherwise.  We will obviously remain in disagreement here.  Hey, I'd be real happy with Tork, Martin, or Lacy, as I said earlier.  I also would have no problem with Elias should he make Gonzales our choice at #2, especially if that can somehow help us have some extra money to sign a guy like Nick Bitsko at  #30.  You clearly think that would be a bad move.  I get that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Number5 said:

 You clearly think that would be a bad move.  I get that.

No I don't.  I don't know if he would be a good or a poor pick because the information is unclear. 

What I'm saying that the error bars in Gonzales' performance are greater than those accompanying Martin or Torkelson because of the obscuring effects of an environment where teams score 10 runs a game.  If the Orioles' projections for Gonzales are good enough that the uncertainty is less relevant, than great, draft him.  But the uncertainty is still there, it doesn't go away.  Of course the offensive environment has a huge impact on his numbers, I don't see why that's even a point of discussion.  But maybe that fact is less important than the scouting reports and other information.

Also, New Mexico State's park isn't small.  It's 345-385-400.  Dimensions aren't everything.  It's altitude, wind and other effects.  Coors has perhaps the largest outfield in MLB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wildcard said:

No, 1978 is your thing.  I think I'll leave that to you.   Just when you kid don't make it an insult.

Just my two cents, but I didn't think it was an insult either, just respectful playfulness to a well known poster with well known posting traits. 

As for thread, the reading has been great and I think I am leaning mostly to Martin as my preferred choice (or Torkelson if he falls to #2).  Just will be great to see anything baseball related, looking forward to the draft, even truncated as it is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • It seems like that the only possible way that the O’s (or most teams for that matter) can compete is by building an elite farm system.  Given how hard and how slow that process is, I wanted to ask the O’s experts on here a few simple question for discussion:   1. how long would you estimate that it takes for a team to go from a mediocre/poor farm system, to a system that has produced enough major league talent to win in the AL east?  Additionally, how long in your opinion does the pro club need to suck while building the farm. 2. is there a team that you would prefer that the O’s model their approach after?  Is it Tampa?  Toronto? St. Louis?  I think the Tampa model is the most brutally efficient, but I can’t see many people truly being happy with that model in the long haul (getting rid of good players while value is high, rarely spending a dollar in FA). 3. do you like the financial model of baseball as opposed to other professional leagues?  Baseball has always been my favorite sport, but it really seems to favor the larger market teams in the end.  Not that smaller market teams can’t compete, it’s just that every year it seems the larger market teams win.  I know there are some poor large market orgs, but I personally get disinterested when I see how imbalanced the competitive landscape can be at times.  
    • Same chance of getting you a championship in 2022.
    • o   lllllllllllllllllllllll. (vs. MARINERS, 12:35 PM)       llllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll        llllllllllllllllllllll.l (vs. MARINERS, 4:05 PM)     llllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll    o
    • Contracts like Davis really hurts the game overall more than it hurts the individual team. Typically teams that have a bad contract just pick up and move on from the player...meanwhile the fans hold a grudge towards the player. Baltimore is doing a disservice to the game by not releasing him and moving on.
    • Yikes. Here's what the O's gave up in 24 hrs.:     WAR, 1991 ff.     Finley        43.5     Harnisch    17.6     Schilling    80.2     Tettleton    17.9     Total lost: 159.2 Davis        0.2     Robinson    -0.6     Total gained: -0.4         Total, net: 159.6 10 yrs    16 WAR/yr.     16 yrs.    10 WAR/yr.    
    • My wife and I went to Sunday's game with another couple and had a great time. A couple observations: - Bottom line up front is that I'd very much encourage folks to go. We've been relatively cautious during Covid, but really at no point felt cramped or uncomfortable. Certainly some of that is that now most of the folks I was with were fully vaccinated, but there's plenty of space in between seats and really not that many people. Even coming into the stadium and in concession lines, people were generally respectful of distance and it was no issue. I'm sure, anecdotally, there will always be someone messing up, but it wasn't an issue for us. Just wanted to start with that context for those that harbor understandable apprehensions, acknowledging everyone has different circumstances/risk perceptions. - Definitely make sure you read the modified regulations before you go - the issue with purses and parking, as some folks noted above, are definitely present. You've just got to be aware of them and plan (my wife switched out her purse just before leaving the house, and my friend's wife had a borderline-sized purse that got waved through after a little negotiation). I can't speak for parking, as we just did a garage on Pratt. - Mobile ticketing and electronic payments were all fully in use, so do recommend just coming prepared. If you're comfortable with using them, it's no issue, but understand some people aren't as tech savvy. Just a pretty minor planning factor. - Regarding masks, most people were good about wearing them, though clearly some of that slipped when people were sitting at their seats. I did see a few times where ushers enforced the masking at your seat rule, but it didn't seem overly draconian (it wasn't that if your beer left your lips for more than two seconds and your mask wasn't up, ushers would descend on you). Those patrons I observed were mostly compliant when directed (except the stray Phillies fan who decided to be difficult). Although I know some folks aren't crazy about it, to be honest, I've been at work every day for the last year wearing a mask the entire time for 8+ hours, so I'm not especially sympathetic. Little bit of a pain, but won't kill ya for a couple hours. - As others have stated, most but not all concessions appeared to be open. Prices did feel a touch on the steep side, but I'd bet they're comparable to what they were in 2019. The O's clearly haven't moved to the Ravens modified pricing. - Lastly, the bar scene before the game was of course quite different than normal, but still very workable and pleasant. Pickles, Sliders, etc have taken over huge spaces in front of their buildings, with plentiful tables well-spaced out. We got to Sliders at maybe 11:45 before a 1 o'clock game on a Sunday, and we had no issue getting a table. Again, overall would recommend folks go, if you're comfortable. I'll tell you it was absolutely great to get back out there and do something normal after having been cooped up for so long.
    • One last thought. When the reserve clause died in court and all players could become free agents every year, the players union was smart and agreed to a service requirement. It was good for salaries and good for the sport to control supply/demand, even if it seemed like a giveaway by the players. If there was a non-performance clause built into free agent contracts that gave some level of relief to owners, it would benefit salaries and the sport. Small to mid size teams would have more ability to chase top talent because the affect of a bad contract would be less calamitous to their limited payroll means if it was discounted by some percentage for non-performance. Ask Scott Boras if he’d rather have three teams bidding for his client or six. Our very own Albert Belle contract made insuring contracts fairly cost prohibitive (though it kinda seems like we’re keeping Davis on the roster for some reason other than insanity). But that practice of insuring contracts showed that there’s more money to spend on players if you give owners some level of protection from disaster contracts like Davis. Owners used to pay huge amounts to insure contracts before they became cost prohibitive. So if it’s good for competitiveness by allowing smaller teams to be more aggressive, and it’s good for player salaries, and it’s good for owners by protecting their investments, by what principle is a player entitled to the full value of a contract that they have essentially defaulted on for non-performance? 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...