Pickles
-
Posts
5682 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
He really did. He looked exactly like the same guy from last year, which is obviously great news.
-
1 minute ago, DirtyBird said:
He'd make a better case for himself if he were hitting in AAA
He's got an .866 OPS after a torrid Spring Training.
How do you define "hitting?"
-
3 minutes ago, RZNJ said:
They won’t be able to get Kjerstad AB’s as it is. Stowers makes no sense whatsoever.
I'd let Stowers bat against LHP tbh.
But for me it's more about throwing the guy a bone. Yeah, he might only be up a week, and get 4 at-bats, but he's on the 40, and he's not the kind of prospect I'm worried about interrupting his development etc.
-
16 minutes ago, SilverRocket said:
McKenna is on the 40. It had to be either McKenna or Stowers.
Should have been Stowers.
-
1
-
-
Just now, btdart20 said:
It's a video game reference. But can't even picture the game.
Nintendo Hockey
-
5 minutes ago, Frobby said:
Suppose you have three players in an organization who play the same position. Player A is +10 runs on offense but -10 runs on defense. Player B is -10 runs on offense but +10 runs on defense. Player C is average on both offense and defense. Which player would you choose to be on your team? And is your answer different depending on which position we’re talking about?
Apart from your preference, do you think the Orioles have a preference?
For purposes of my questions, no copping out by saying it depends who else is on the team.
1) The answer to which player I would prefer would be heavily dependent on the rest of my roster.
2) Setting it so it is run neutral kind of takes the O's preference out of it. So long as it is run neutral the O's aren't likely to have a preference. Saying that, I do believe they value defense highly.
3) And obviously, the Orioles, like many others, value up the middle defense more than corner defense.
-
1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:
There is a difference between can’t learn and learning more at this level.
Holliday has rarely been challenged in the minors and he was always young and sometimes very young, for his level.
Im not opposed to sending him down although I would wait a little while longer but unless you feel he’s really getting damaged between the ears, I think sending him down is more of a ceremonial thing than something that will make a difference in his season and ultimately career.
I just feel he’s at the level of his development where learning at this level is better for him.
So when I say he has nothing left to prove, that’s kind of what I mean. Yea, in the literal sense he doesn’t have much to prove but he’s so advanced that he stands to better off up here imo.
But if he continues to look bad and guessing at pitches than maybe all he needs is the mental reset and I think that’s all sending him down will truly accomplish.
That's fine. That's a take with the appropriate amount of subtlety.
The silly rhetorical questions, "How can he learn to hit ML pitching in AAA?" devised to produce a foregone conclusion have no such subtlety.
-
3 minutes ago, Malike said:
If it has nothing to do with Holliday, why is it in this thread and why did you reply to my post that was about Holliday?
Because the claim is he can't learn anything in AAA.
That's a stupid claim- about Holliday or anyone else for that matter.
-
2 minutes ago, Malike said:
Not surprised you don't see the difference. GRod giving up 8 runs in 2 innings directly impacts the team. Holliday going 0-4 does not. There are 8 other guys scoring nearly 6 runs a game. Holliday is not costing the team losses.
This has nothing to do with Holliday.
I took issue with the idea that guys can't learn and improve at AAA.
I'm not surprised you can't see the difference.
-
19 minutes ago, Malike said:
It's not an apples-to-apples thing with pitchers. They can go down and work on mechanical issues and the results do not matter. If they are getting torched on the ML team, it causes losses. Holliday is not causing the team to lose.
There are no mechanical aspects to hitting?
-
2 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:
How did Grayson adjust to major league hitters by being sent down to face minor league hitters?
Exactly. It's such a moronic talking point.
If you can't learn and improve in AAA, why does it even exist then?
-
2 minutes ago, RZNJ said:
Yeah, but not his blood.
Well, I for one am very happy that we have Burnes. And I'm glad Elias runs this organization and not the consensus of this board.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Roll Tide said:
Like @Frobbysaid
“ Assuming 33 starts, he’s on pace for 194 innings at a 2.76 ERA. I think we’d all sign for that in blood. “
So if his kRate is 9.0 that’s certainly be happy.
Frobby's always talking about signing for things in blood. LOL.
-
2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:
That was Cowser and Ortiz.
It was still too much.
-
24 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
1-30 is worse than 6-30 but both still suck. So yes, there are levels to it but either way, the player is still sh!tty.
The thing is, talent is different. When you are a middling prospect, you worry about a 1-30. You doubt the guy and you say, maybe they need more seasoning.
But when that player is one of the top 10 prospects of the last decade and comes from a family lead by a high level ML player that he can bounce stuff off of, you worry a hell of a lot less.
I meant to say Holliday in my prior post BTW.
You can't just give a cursory node to bad isn't equal, but still bad' bad.
Those gradations of bad mean quite a lot in a case like this imo.
Cowser looked the worst out of all of them when he first came up, and he still was a significant level upon what Holliday has done so far.
Go look at the batted ball stats posted above. They're awful. They make Hays, who has been terrible this season, look like Babe Ruth.
Holliday is striking out over 50% of the time, and he's hit like one ball well in 30+ PAs. Cowser was at least walking last season.
Now, I'm not sending him down yet- although he wouldn't be up yet either if I was in control. But I said a few days ago I'd give him another 25-50 PAs before I sent him down, if he shows no improvement.
We're only like 8 Abs into that, but he hasn't shown any improvement either.
-
Just now, baltimoriole said:
Remember when CWS fans wanted Cowser, Westburg, + for Dylan Cease? Even if Cease is pitching BBs, he ain’t worth what these guys are turning into.
Remember when the majority of the board didn't want to do that, but just a few weeks later, like gambling addicts, most of the board wanted to do just that?
-
3 minutes ago, dystopia said:
I stand corrected, Hays has 5 hits this year, I thought he had 3. But before the Royals series he was 3 for 41 which is hardly different from 1 for 32 or whatever Holliday is now.
Go look at their walk rate and K rate while you're at it.
-
2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
No it’s not. Playing poorly is playing poorly. Agree that there are levels of it but the talent is the talent and going overboard because of a few bad weeks is stupid. Nothing makes sports fans look dumber than doubting elite talent because of a small sample size and people look really dumb right now.
The mistake people make is thinking development doesn’t happen in the majors. It’s another ridiculous asinine thing about fans.
Holliday has dominated the minors. He has nothing left there to prove and a few awful weeks doesn’t change that. Everyone talks about how confident he is. How his attitude is fine. That’s enough.
But no, the armchair psychologists come out and think they know how he’s thinking or how this will phase them. Meanwhile, those same fans blow Elias every chance they get yet Elias is saying he’s fine, he’s got the right attitude, etc…so, you either trust the guy you go to sleep every night looking at because his poster is on your ceiling or you don’t.
Until he starts doubting himself, proves to be uncoachable or anything like that, you keep him here and you let him work through things.
Well is playing poorly playing poorly or are there levels to it?
Because Gunnar struggled in ways none of the others did, and you can include Cowser on that list.
-
Just now, baltfan said:
I agree he has bad at the plate but he hasn’t been awful in the field. He is 97th percentile and 3 OAA in the field.
That doesn't match the eye test of anybody who has watched him.
-
1 minute ago, dystopia said:
Austin Hays has been just as bad this year.
No, he hasn't.
-
7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
The good news is that it’s April 21st and we aren’t close to the end of the year.
We literally just went through this last year with Gunnar and the year before with Adley…and people still don’t, can’t and won’t learn. It’s really astounding how the same scenarios pop up and there is zero learning from it.
Adley and Gunnar had some initial struggles.
They didn't strike out 50% of their at bats and look bad in the field simultaneously.
It's disingenuous to compare their struggles with Holliday's.
-
44 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:
Do they need to? They have developed a few (Strider who was coming off of injury in the 4th round/Friend traded for but was a first rounder) AND they have the best lineup in baseball. I think they hit over 300 home runs last year (307 to be exact).
I'm not that dogmatic. I am not married to any one singular approach. But I believe that recent history shows that if we want to win a championship, we are going to have to spend. - It could be on shorter term older elite starters like the Astros, extensions to young players like the Braves, impact FA signings and trades like the Rangers. I don't expect that we would be anything like the Dodgers.
By that logic, we've developed Rodriguez and Bradish, and we have an exciting you group of positional talent. So do we need to?
Your last paragraph is perfectly reasonable, and not very different from my position. This team is going to spend more money just by arbitration alone, so yeah, the payroll is going to have to increase. I totally want them to extend select young players. And I totally want them to sign FAs that help the team.
I do not expect them to spend money at the top of the FA market like the Rangers have done, but the Astros have not. I think ultimately a team that makes a lot of sense to emulate is the St. Louis Cardinals. The Cardinals rarely sign big free agents, but they do occasionally target a pending FA, trade for him using prospects, and then extend him. Matt Holliday and Nolan Arenado being examples of that. Those are the biggest splashes I expect the O's to make. And I'm fine with it. Making big, expensive moves is radically overrated by most fans in its relation to actually winning baseball games.
-
Just now, Bemorewins said:
Of corse we need to beat them, along with the Jays, Ray, and Sox because they are all in our division. We actually don't need to be better record wise to secure a wild card birth.
But the Rangers, Braves, and Dodgers are all much better than the Yankees IMO.
How many FA aces did the Braves sign?
-
Just now, Bemorewins said:
Would it have hurt?
The Yankees? IMO, they are not and will not be our main competitors for a World Series. The Rangers, Dodgers, Braves those are the teams who have talent on par with ours. That's who we are going to have to beat.
Yeah, we'll never have to beat the Yankees. Not like they're in our division or anything. Not like they're the most successful franchise in the sport's history. Not like they're in first place as we speak or anything. Nope we don't need to worry about them.
Or, hear me out, we need to beat the Yankees too, and you just want to ignore them because they are proof positive that big splashy acquisitions of "aces" doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of team building.
Kyle Bradish 2024
in Orioles Talk
Posted
I mean, he had 5 Ks in 4 2/3 innings and 61% strike rate. Pretty hard to criticize that.
I don't think anybody is saying that this start is the absolute peak of a Bradish performance, but saying he looked like he did last year because he had the same stuff: The 96 MPH+ fastballs and the two devastating breaking balls.