Jump to content

makoman

Members
  • Content Count

    370
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

142 High-A

About makoman

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 3/18/1979

Personal Information

  • Location
    Forest Hill, MD

Recent Profile Visitors

645 profile views
  1. Yeah, it seems silly, a no brainer. I imagine if CC had stayed with the Indians or Brewers he wouldn’t have “won” this.
  2. Harriet Miers was pushed back due to feelings her appointment was just cronyism, incompetence during meetings with Senators and in particular a lack of any Con Law knowledge, lack of appellate or even litigation experience, and fear by conservatives that she wasn’t going to be anti-Roe enough. She had no redeeming qualities for such a position and wasn’t really a defensible pick. She went to SMU which is like in the 50s, but I don’t recall anyone caring about that at all. Thurgood Marshall went to Howard. Comparable ranking as U of B, in the low 100s. But this whole conversation is just dumb.
  3. Maybe, but the players aren’t exactly known for fighting for the rights of those who aren’t in the union yet. Everyone in the union is already past the service time game.
  4. The point of the model wouldn’t be to pick every good player. The point is to pick them accurately enough to field a good team. If the model misses on the occasional Hader or Boggs that doesn’t mean the model failed. Just like Hader going in the 19th round or Boggs in the 7th doesn’t mean scouts necessarily failed. If the model does better overall then it is a success, even if picks here and there are worse than they could have been. Of course this is going to be incredibly difficult to measure.
  5. I have no idea if projection is model-able. That’s an important point, but I didn’t think he was thinking about the 88 guy who can improve to 96, but more the Moyer type. But yeah I would trust models much more with college kids who are closer to finished products. That may be why we (and the Astros) drafted so college heavy. Picking Hader in the 19th round is exceptional. But that pick isn’t going to work out most of the time. Is it better in the long run to ignore HS kids there and pick Jensen Elliott instead? I don’t know.
  6. I think if you throw 88-90 there isn’t some mystical “it” that’s going to make you a major leaguer. You are going to need plus movement, command, secondaries, or deception, and really some combination of those things. Why can’t a model, which has inputs of things like movement and location and spin, tell us those things? I don’t think moxie is enough to make a straight 88 FB with no command play, so a model with the right inputs gets you most of the way there. A scout can confirm what the model says to finish things off, or help decide who the model looks at to begin with, or break ties in the model, or make makeup adjustments. I don’t think anyone thinks that scouts are obsolete.
  7. Off topic, to put into perspective how things have changed: In 1989 we gave 144 starts to guys with less than 5.5 K/9 (including 75 starts for guys at 2.6/9!). This year we’ve given 1.
  8. Agree. I’m fine locking in till like 31 maybe 32 if needed. You get an extra year or two at an overall decent price with lots of potential excess value. Then go year to year seeing how he’s doing and what position he’s playing. All assuming he indicates in year one he’s going to be a major leaguer that whole time (no reason to expect otherwise so far).
  9. I hope ownership understands the difference between signing an almost 30 year old to a long contract at FA prices, and a young player at a number of years under control extension prices.
  10. The NCAA Tournament TV deal pays the NCAA something like $12 billion from now through 2032.
  11. If people are talking comps, I posted this in another thread about a month ago with no response so I will just repeat it here, updated with Ks. It's not that encouraging. No idea what his scouting report was like, but Francoeur was BA's #14 prospect before his age 21 season so he was highly thought of by somebody despite the lack of walks. I guess he probably didn't reach his ceiling but I wonder what that would have looked like. He ended up with a career 5.0% BB rate in MLB after being 5.7% in the minors prior to age 22. Mountcastle's career BB rate is 4.4%. Jeff Francoeur is an interesting comp. They played at the same level at the same age a lot (but 12 years apart, no clue how the leagues actually compare) and actually had similar production. Age 19, A ball: Franco: 30 BB (5.3%) 68 K (12.0%) in 567 PAs. 769 OPS. Mount: 25 BB (5.1%) 95 K (19.4%) in 489 PAs. 745 OPS. Age 20, A+: Franco: 22 BB (6.0%) 70 K (19.1%) in 367 PAs. 852 OPS. Mount: 14 BB (3.7%) 61 K (16.1%) in 379 PAs. 885 OPS. Age 20, AA: Franco: 0 BB (0%) 14 K (18.4%) in 76 PAs. 539 OPS. Mount: 3 BB (1.9%) 35 K (22.0%) in 159 PAs. 605 OPS. Age 21, AA: Franco: 21 BB (5.7%) 76 K (20.7%) in 367 PAs. 808 OPS. Plus 11 BB (4.0%) 58 K (21.2%) in 274 PAs w/ 884 OPS at MLB Mount: 26 BB (6.1%) 79 K (18.5%) in 426 PAs. 806 OPS. Age 22: Franco (MLB): 23 BB (3.3%) 132 K (19.2%) in 686 PAs. 742 OPS. Mount (AAA): 15 BB (3.4%) 105 K (23.6%) in 444 PAs. 852 OPS. Francoeur had a 12 year career but wasn't very valuable. Three years over 3.0 bWAR, but just 6.7 career (being -4.3 over his last 5 years didn't help that). He also seems to have been a better fielder than people think Mountcastle will be, at least when he was younger.
  12. At least you found out what’s on sale at Weis this week.
×
×
  • Create New...