Pickles

I like the doubling down of the "investment" in Camden. The stadium was supposed to bring a massive economic boon to the city. It didn't. No problem. Just spend more money and make the stadium a "year round live/work/play/entertainment destination." That will solve it.

Yeah, I'm fine with that. Nobody wants to have a SS hit like Mateo even if we acknowledge that his glove has a ton of value. I think where people differ is the timeline.

I can almost guarantee it isn't true as a blanket statement. I find it odd that a lot of the same people who have said "You can't build strictly through the farm system" have simultaneously the least amount of doubt concerning the prospects' transition to the majors. I hate to be Nostradamus: But some of those prospects, and yes even top 100 guys, are going to wash out.

This is High Boomery.

Yeah, I'm worried a hell of a lot more about how this affects Elias' status than I am about some potential FA.

Palmer's been watching and closely involved in Major League Baseball for sixty years now. I think he has some authority on this issue and he's hardly just some "broadcaster." And it's not like it's just the two of us. There's been plenty of ink spilled this summer over how well Mateo's playing SS in a broad array of publications.

Not to be contrarian, but things can always get worse.

If I was on an island here you might have a point. But it's not just me. It's Jim Freaking Palmer too. And we're hardly alone. And you can dismiss Palmer as exaggerating but I don't. Palmer watched JJ Hardy win 3 gold gloves in a row just a few years ago for us, and while he was highly complimentary of his defense, he didn't say the things about Hardy that he is saying about Mateo.

I've written about it before but I think you run into the limitations of what you CAN know and extrapolating out past that is dangerous.

That's a shame. He bounced back from the shoulder issues last year, but it makes you question his role/health going into next season. Which is a real shame, because I was probably his biggest advocate for getting to start this year, and he certainly showed himself well in the opportunity.

To answer the OP's question: No, we don't need a TOR. However, we NEED to replace the innings Lyles threw for us this year, and it would be nice to upgrade the quality of those innings at the same time. But his 170 innings are 60 more than anybody else has thrown for us this year. If they deny his option, then they better have a plan for those innings.

Hey, I consistently doubt defensive metrics.

Or maybe your stats aren't Gospel.

I watch the Rangers fairly consistently, and of course, watch all the teams the Orioles play. I've also watched baseball 35 years now. I've seen 2 Orioles shortstops win 5 gold gloves between them. I saw those guys every day too. Mateo is having a better season than either of them did.

Sure, it's kind of a silly premise tbh. It's like saying, sure the 6'2" 220 lb guy is likely to have more power, but I'd take the 4'10" 115 lb guy if he hits for more power. Well, sure, of course you would.

I refuse to believe there are 6-7 shortstops who have been more valuable defensively than Jorge Mateo this year.

For the record, he threw a 93 mph "changeup" to strike out Trey Mancini. Does everyone else agree with the classification of that pitch?

So as I typed the last response, Mateo made another beautiful play in the top of the 7th against the Astros. And again, Palmer said it's basically impossible to play shortstop better than Mateo is currently, and again made reference to Aparicio, Belanger, and Ripken. Oh, and for anybody wondering why having a tall/long first basemen matters, go look at the stretch Mountcastle made on the play and tell me if a 5'10" guy makes that play.

So will every other SS. That's the point. Mateo has elite range. He's going to get to a lot more balls than the other guys because they're all going to be restricted. If all the statistics show they should be 15 feet to the right, and they're all going to line up at the same spot, the guy with the most range is going to be able to cover more of those 15+ feet and make more plays. If they can all position themselves optimally, the guy's range has value, but not nearly as much. This is my prediction. I can't prove it, but I think this will be shown to be true. Edit: Here's the video.

I think banning the shift is going to increase the value of range. Players who can go get the ball, as opposed to being positioned there in advance, will have more value.

Well, yeah, but presumably major league front offices and managers are playing their best players the most. The reason Hays has more ABs than McKenna for instance is because he's a better option. I won't dispute your take on Hays. I'm higher on him than you are, but I don'tn think your take is unreasonable, just that's it's extremely pessimistic.

So he's basically the 2-3rd best outfielder on a major league roster.

I'm not sure anyone commented on this post, but I'd like to. I think the general consensus, and one I share, is that the shift ban will enhance the value of elite middle infield defenders, such as Mateo.

Hell, Mateo's speed has probably already "declined" from his absolute peak. As you know, playing SS is about a lot more than straight line speed, and while Mateo possesses that in spades, he also possesses all the other skills required.

I'm defining elite as a global top 20 prospect. There was just a study cited in a thread around here recently that found elite prospects, as such defined, busted about half the time, and that "non-elite" prospects, guys ranked 20-100, which as you point out is still a good prospect, busted 70% of the time. I know we all like a lot of our prospects. But the fact is, the majority of them aren't going to work out. It's why I'm in no hurry to jettison young cheap and productive major leaguers, players who have led to us winning this year, and just handing jobs to prospects because the prospects are "better." Show me.