Jump to content

Frobby

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    56,512
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    501

Posts posted by Frobby


  1. And yet, House is throwing out runners at a decent rate. Norfolk opponents have (rightly) challenged a guy with a supposedly weak arm, and House has responded pretty well.

    If House's CS% of .231 were extrapolated over a full season**, that would rank him ahead of Pierzynski, Estrada, Barrett and Kendall - and just behind Varitek and Posada.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=9&season=2007&seasonType=2&split=78&sortColumn=catcherCaughtStealingPct

    **Two caveats: 1.) nobody is advocating that he become an everyday catcher; 2.) assume that Migrant Redbird's .231 is correct.

    Two more caveats:

    1. Assumes that major league runners would be no more successful than minor league runners if they challenged House;

    2. At what rate would they attempt to steal?

    I don't claim to have anwers. Presumabaly major league runners are better, but the pitchers also should be better at holding them on.


  2. Here is what Migrant Redbird came up with:

    House: 41 games, 3 errors, 5 passed balls 50 SB's 15 CS, .231 CS%

    Castillo: 28 games, 2 errors, 6 passed balls, 29 SB's 7 CS, .194 CS%

    Whiteside: 14 games, 1 error, 23 SB's, 6 CS, .207 CS%

    Clendenin 4 games, 1 error, 0 passed balls, 9 SB's 0 CS, .000 CS%

    None of those are stellar, but House is certainly no worse than the others.

    One thing I will say is that the runners don't respect House much. 65 SB attempts in 41 games is an awful lot. By comparison, Bako has started 42 games (and played in 47), and runners have only attempted a steal 28 times.


  3. Or that maybe he's not really as bad as the O's think he is?

    *cue 17 pages of the same old argument*

    The thing is, none of us really have any basis to judge how good or bad he is defensively. I haven't seen him play -- have you? I haven't seen and statstics that measure his defensive abilities -- have you? Anyone?


  4. I've always had concerns about his batting average. The Ks are part of the problem, but he doesn't hit many line drives (usually around 12%) and his BABIP has been up and down which could mean that he doesn't always make consistent, hard contact. This year it clearly hasn't been a problem, but the sample size is small.

    Yes, the sample is a little small, but it's encouraging to see him hitting well over .300 this year, both before his oblique injury and after. And if my memory serves, before he was DL'd last year, Reimold was well over .300 at Frederick. His average dropped a lot when he started having his physical problems. I don't think he's a .300 hitter but I think he'll give you .250-.270 early on in his career and a little better later on.


  5. I'd rather see Reimold everyday...

    Me too, and everyone here knows how much I like Fio. But just look at how they have both done at Bowie this year, and it's pretty clear who is the better prospect. I still think Fio can have a productive role as a 4th OF/platoon guy, but Reimold still has the chance to be a real stud.


  6. Really no room for him this year. You know how they are about pushing vets to the bench.

    The only "they" who matter are MacPhail and Trembley. I don't think they have the same attitude as the prior GMs/managers.


  7. This is a good point, but there are other factors. Nick was put in the majors before he was ready and one would be hard pressed to consider those first 200 at-bats of the quality variety. If Nick had been in AA for a half season last year like 28 other franchises would have done with him, that at-bat difference would be 300 or so less. Couple that with Reimold's lost time to injury, and the experience difference, IMO, is a good bit less than you are implying - perhaps by 40% or so. Plus, Reimold's superior numbers have to count for something - no? If Reimold were healthy and hitting like he is now, he would have been on the major league team at least a month ago, IMO.

    I think if Reimold hadn't had injury issues he'd be about a year behind Nick relative to his age. Last year he started off very hot at Frederick, then had plantar fascitis and back problems that really messed him up. But for those problems, I think his 2006 would have looked similar to Nick's 2005 -- 3-4 very good months at Frederick and then 6 good weeks at Bowie, followed by the AFL. Instead he had the equivalent of 3-4 erratic, injury-disrupted months at Frederick, followed by the AFL (where he was solid but not as impressive as Nick had been in 2006). Let's not forget that Nick was very good in the AFL and extremely impressive in 2006 spring training. He wasn't rushed in my opinion, he earned that leap to the majors.

    I do think that if Reimold had been 100% the last 2 years, he's be in the majors by now, though maybe not by this April.


  8. I can't stress this enough - Markakis had slightly worse numbers than Reimold in AA, but was two years younger. Two years of development are a massive difference. Imagine Markakis in Bowie right now. If he wasn't hitting like a better version of Barry Bonds you'd be stunned. Reimold is acutally a month older than Markakis, and Nick has over 1000 quality major league plate appearances.

    Based on their ages, performances, and relative experiences I'd expect Nick to have a major league career at least 50% longer, with other numbers along the same lines.

    I realize this, and I hope I didn't mislead anyone with my earlier posts comparing the stats of Reimold and Markakis. The point I was making was not about whether they would have comparable major league careers. Rather, I was suggesting that Reimold may be about as ready to make the jump to the majors now as Markakis was in 2005, in terms of overall minor league experience and performance.

    In the majors, I expect Reimold to strike out more and hit for more power and a lower average than Markakis. In his first 1000 AB he might hit only .250-.270, but put up 50-60 HR's. Eventually I could see him as a .280 guy who walks a lot and hits 30+ homers -- something this team desperately needs.


  9. In addition to his extreme R/L splits, Fio has demonstrated for 3 straight years that he is an extremely slow starter. His .785 OPS repeating AA is not impressive, but when you consider that his OPS stood at .460 at the end of April, .785 looks pretty darned good.

    In 2005, Fio had that ridiculous early call-up from Frederick to the majors and then really struggled when he went back down, got red hot in July and finished very strong. Most people (including me) attributed his rocky first half to the disruption caused by his call-up.

    In 2006, Fio had foot and leg injuries that caused him to miss significant time in April and May and appeared to hamper him when he played. Once again, he got very hot in July and August, so people (including me) attributed his rocky start to his injuries.

    Well, there are no such justifications in 2007. He started slowly, period. Now he is making up for lost time, but his final numbers just aren't going to be that impressive after such a slow start.

    I think Fio might be a useful platoon player in 2008, but at this point I'd start him at Norfolk to avoid a situation where he's in the majors and hitting .500 OPS in mid-May. Let him prove he's hot vs. AAA pitching before testing him in the majors.


  10. I do not think Liz will be ready to be in the Oriole rotation in April 2008, he still needs to work on his command. However, I'd love to have a look-see in September just to see how he fares vs. big league pitching.


  11. Why is this strange? He became worse as he moved up the ladder...That isn't strange at all.

    Look again. He had better command at AA in 2003 than he did in 2005. His command at AAA got worse from 2003 to 2005 to 2006. The only outlier is that 8.38 BB rate in 19 innings of AAA in 2004, which is a small-sample aberration.


  12. But can that command be that good all the time?

    It seems to me that it never was in the minors.

    It seems unlikely to me that his command can be as good all the time as it was in the first 3 months of this year. But that's a pretty high standard.

    It's interesting to look at his BB rates in the minors, which started off low and went up as the year progressed:

    2003: 2.01 at AA, 2.79 at AAA

    2004: 2.90 at AA, 8.38 at AAA (19 IP)

    2005: 3.23 at AAA

    2006: 3.50 at AAA

    Kind of an odd trend there. I'd say if he can keep his BB rate below 3.00 at the major league level (which implies a certain level of overall command beyond just his BB rate), he will be pretty successful.


  13. At least he went to his grave knowing he'd made it to the Hall of Fame. I'll leave the debate about whether he deserved it for another day. RIP, Scooter.


  14. But what they saw was largely a big fluke.

    And his stuff, at least in terms of his secondary pitches, isn't that great.

    His fastball is a plus pitch.

    I think our assessments of Guthrie's stuff aren't that different. However, it's my view that when Guthrie has command of his fastball down in the zone, hitters have no choice but to sit on that pitch and that makes his secondary pitches much harder to hit.


  15. It is almost as if people ignore his MiL stats, age and flukey numbers(like his BABIP and BB rate) early on.

    I don't think most people ignore it, but they also don't ignore what they saw Guthrie do for 3 months straight, and the kind of stuff that he has.


  16. Sure it is...Markakis has the potential to be a consistent AS caliber guy and a possible HOFer(based off the whole Drungo article and whatnot)...Guthrie, at age 28, will be lucky to have Rlo's career.

    The upside of the 2 isn't even close IMO.

    I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying the upside of the two players is close. I'm saying that even though Markakis has much more upside, judging what Guthrie is capable of based on 2-3 good months is the similar to judging what Markakis is capable of based on his 3 hot months last year.

    I think you are wrong about Guthrie's chances of exceeding RLo's career, though.

×
×
  • Create New...