Jump to content
jamalshw

Dwight Smith Jr worth a look?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

With a dead ball.

And opponents and teammates who have never seen a gym, probably have nutritional deficiencies and a few cases of the consumption, and average 5' 8", 152 lbs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smith and Means are two of the Top 8 AL rookies in Fangraphs WAR to date - I guess until Vlad heats up we can enjoy tweaking Blue Jays rivals about having the better Rookie of the Year candidate a quarter of the way through the year.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OrioleDog said:

Smith and Means are two of the Top 8 AL rookies in Fangraphs WAR to date - I guess until Vlad heats up we can enjoy tweaking Blue Jays rivals about having the better Rookie of the Year candidate a quarter of the way through the year.

Smith had 35 games with Blue Jays last season, not to mention 12 games the year before.

How does he still qualify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OrioleDog said:

Smith and Means are two of the Top 8 AL rookies in Fangraphs WAR to date - I guess until Vlad heats up we can enjoy tweaking Blue Jays rivals about having the better Rookie of the Year candidate a quarter of the way through the year.

According to bb-ref Smith exceeded the rookie eligibility limits last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

Does anyone on the O's have a quicker bat? Seems to make a lot of hard contact without striking out too much. I know a Red Sox fan who has him on his fantasy team. He could be worth something.

 

His EV is 6th on the team at 87.8 MPH which is slightly below MLB average this year (89mph). He would be 12th on the team for the Yankees.

His hard hit% is 36.7% which is below average and 7th on the team if you add in Steve Wilkerson.

His xBA though is .277 which is second only to Manicini's .290 which suggests he has hit the ball often in angles and velocities that are successful.

It will be interesting to see if he keeps outperforming his statcast information like he has his minor league stats. He's really an interesting case to watch.

 

 

Share this post


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

According to bb-ref Smith exceeded the rookie eligibility limits last year.

Fangraphs still lists him in their rookie sub-leaderboard, but it may just be AB-driven.  He had a lot of major league days in 2017-2018, but did not surpass the 130 AB's that is the first litmus test in my brain.  I don't have command of the ways you can exhaust via service time only, but know they exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, OrioleDog said:

Fangraphs still lists him in their rookie sub-leaderboard, but it may just be AB-driven.  He had a lot of major league days in 2017-2018, but did not surpass the 130 AB's that is the first litmus test in my brain.  I don't have command of the ways you can exhaust via service time only, but know they exist.

its a combo of AB and how many roster days

Quote

The current standard of 130 at bats, 50 innings pitched or 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club (excluding time in military service or on the injury list) before September 1 was adopted in 1971.[1][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_Rookie_of_the_Year_Award

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Yea... but... I don't really believe it.  This is where WAR needs a slope of history adjustment.  A really aggressive one.  

Keefe had his 20-win season in 1883.  In the American Association.  In a 98-game schedule.

He threw 619 innings and completed all 68 of his starts.  The AA was the new, upstart league that only began play in 1882.  So it was a 2nd-year expansion league, in an era where all of the things we associate with MLB were either non-existent or very primitive.  I'm guessing the New York Metropolitans were a team that had existed as an independent team prior to 1882, then just joined the new league.  

Keefe's 20-win season happened on a team that finished in 4th place in this proto-major league.  Think about that.  They went 54-42, but had a 20-win-above-replacement pitcher on the staff.  That's saying that if Keefe had been hit by a train on opening day the Mets would have finished about 34-62, going from a .560 team to a .350 team on the basis of one player.

I think we need to take a step back and remember what pitching was in 1883.  It was pretty early in the transition from the 1860s model of tossing the ball up and letting the batter put it in play, to the modern pitcher who's actively trying to get everyone out himself.  You still couldn't throw overhand.  You were throwing from a spot on flat ground about 50' from the plate.  Obviously if you could throw 619 innings in a 98-game schedule "max effort" wasn't even the faintest glimmer in anyone's mind.  Keefe was relying quite heavily on his defense, far more than any modern pitcher, although he did have more strikeouts than any other team.  He allowed 78 unearned runs, or more than one per start.

So, I don't know.  In the context of a league that's the equivalent of an indy league today, with radically different rules, and no scouting or minor leagues or really any kind of the detailed information you'd have today... I guess maybe 20 wins is a decent guess.  But I'd also say that if you put a good modern pitcher in that environment he'd be completely unhittable.  Every game would be a shot at a no hitter or a perfect game.  Imagine Chris Sale pitching mid-level college ball.

Okay, I should have added an emoticon on the end of my post (Like a wink or smiley face).  I know the game was different then (though of course not to the extent that you do) and should have put that in my post to clarify.  I was just pulling a Drungo factoid in jest and didn't make that clear.

Yes, pitchers threw an obscene number of inning then.  Usually there were only a few players who threw them (and some played in the field as well).  For example, in 1876 Chicago White Stockings Al Spalding, the famous sporting good store founder and publisher of the first official rules of baseball, threw 528 IP.  It was a different time.  And of course the competition wasn't near the level it is today in a billion dollar industry.  Wide spread scouting, diversification (African Americans, international signings, etc.), professional training (and through the off season instead of just working another job during the off season), advanced technology, analytics, etc. you name it, bear that out.  If you picked up a player from back then and dropped them into the present their eyes would probably bulge out from seeing the competition these days.  But I also would like to think that on the other hand, part of them would be proud to see how far baseball has come and grown since their pioneering days.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, O's84 said:

 

OK, I should have added an emoticon on the end of my post (Like a wink or smiley face).  I know the game was different then (though of course not to the extent that you do) and should have put that in my post to clarify. I was just pulling a Drungo factoid in jest, and didn't make that clear.

Yes, pitchers threw an obscene number of inning then. Usually, there were only a few players who threw them (and some played in the field as well.) For example, in 1876 Chicago White Stockings Albert Spalding, the famous sporting good store founder and publisher of the first official rules of baseball, threw 528 IP. It was a different time. And of course, the competition wasn't anywhere near the level that it is today in a billion dollar industry. Wide spread scouting, diversification (African Americans, international signings, etc), professional training (and through the off season instead of just working another job during the off season), advanced technology, analytics, etc, you name it, bear that out. If you picked up a player from back then and dropped them into the present, their eyes would probably bulge out from seeing the competition these days. But I also would like to think that on the other hand, part of them would be proud to see how far baseball has come and grown since their pioneering days.

 

o

 

Please don't ........ like Malike, I have always said that a dry sense of humor isn't dry if you have to insert an emoticon, informing the readers that you are being humorous (which makes the humor no longer "dry.")

 

o

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

Please don't ........ like Malike, I have always said that a dry sense of humor isn't dry if you have to insert an emoticon, informing the readers that you are being humorous (which makes the humor no longer "dry.")

 

o

I hear excessive emoticon use is what drove Malike away from the board.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

Please don't ........ like Malike, I have always said that a dry sense of humor isn't dry if you have to insert an emoticon, informing the readers that you are being humorous (which makes the humor no longer "dry.")

 

o

Having a dry sense of humor on a message board --- with people you don't know -- is difficult.  Jonathan Swift didn't need emoticons not just because he was Jonathan Swift, but because he wasn't texting and posting his modest proposals across the internet of things.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

Please don't ........ like Malike, I have always said that a dry sense of humor isn't dry if you have to insert an emoticon, informing the readers that you are being humorous (which makes the humor no longer "dry.")

 

o

 

 

22 minutes ago, CheeryO said:

 

Having a dry sense of humor on a message board --- with people you don't know -- is difficult. Jonathan Swift didn't need emoticons not just because he was Jonathan Swift, but because he wasn't texting and posting his modest proposals across the internet of things.

 

o

 

Only for the most naive readers/posters. In the rare instances when my dry humor goes undetected (and taken serious), I simply as Malike for help. I would never give that up to cater to the few in which it goes over their heads.

 

o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

Only for the most naive readers/posters. In the rare instances when my dry humor goes undetected (and taken serious), I simply as Malike for help. I would never give that up to cater to the few in which it goes over their heads.

 

o

o

 

Those "naive" posters include myself ........ I have had as many things go over my head as anyone else here on the OH. 

 

o

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

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...