Pickles
-
Posts
5900 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
This team has been an aggressive baserunning team in general. Yes, it's the steals with Mateo and Mullins, but they consistently take the extra base and pressure the defense. Nobody ever starts one of these threads after somebody takes an extra base.
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
Per usual, you are wrong. I was fine with him as he upset UTI guy and I was even fine with him as the starting SS over some of the vet options mentioned on here, like a Galvis type guy.
Actually you were wrong. You were vociferously against him getting an everyday chance at SS. It was part of your DeJong fetish.
That would have been a colossal mistake. Per usual. Worse and more expensive. The Sports Guy special.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, RZNJ said:
If only we could be paying Paul DeJong 6M or some portion of that to be our SS (and 9M next year) with Mateo as a bench player, this team would have a much better vibe. Oh well!
Oh, I believe the position at the time was Mateo didn't even deserve a roster spot.
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:
And this would be the reaction from Boras (Gunnar's agent) if you offered 10/$50M today. Even last year it seems unlikely unless you offered put an opt out in the contract.
He's be a fool to laugh at that offer.
Unless he thinks Gunnar is going to be clearly better than Manny Machado, very unlikely imo.
-
Can't vote, but no.
Maybe Gunnar.
-
I didn't hear that comment, and I haven't noticed this aspect of Mateo's running style, but I will make a point to take note in the future.
-
21 minutes ago, Frobby said:
It’s not related to Adley’s base performance. It’s just the cumulative impact on the team’s chances of winning as the result of each at bat, given the game situation. For example, Adley’s most impactful at bat was on July 4, one out in the bottom of the ninth, runner on 1st, losing 6-5. At that moment, based on all like situations in baseball history, the Orioles had a 10% (.10) chance of winning that game. Adley hit a game-tying double. As a result, following that play the O’s now had a 61% (.61) chance of winning the game. So, Adley’s WPA for that at bat was .510 (.61 - .10).
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
-
To clarify, this is calculated in relation to their actual performance? Meaning Rutschman has been worth 1.5 extra wins beyond his base production due to "clutchness", correct?
-
RM deserves his share of criticism, but the OP's is not based in reality.
RM has incredible plate coverage and a very, very quick bat.
His problem is he makes bad swing decisions constantly, even when he's hitting well.
His plate coverage and bat speed have always allowed him to get away with it. And even here, it's not like he's a bad hitter, just not what you want at 1b.
-
Good share!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:
18 is still a fantasy imo. Not as improbable as 24 but far from likely imo.
That said, yes I make the trade. Of that 35 WAR, I would bet on him getting around 30 of it the next 5 years.
So, Trout at 5-7 WAR per year Vs those guys getting 4-5 WAR a year? Yes, I take Trout because of the possibility he could pop an 8-10 WAR year.
But i mean, you dress up a hypothetical anyway you want.
I also question whether you will want to pay arb3 money to Hays anyway, so I could see him not even being part of the team in 2025 if not traded before then.
He just projected those guys at 6 WAR a year. Not 4-5. At least debate honestly.
You can do your "4th outfielder" shtick all you want, but 18 WAR for those guys is pretty close to the median.
-
4 minutes ago, Hallas said:
I'm also going to add this about Mullins and Hays: I think their offensive performance in 2022 is extremely difficult to grade because I don't think their performance is being correctly weighted by park effects. This is especially true for Hays, who bears the brunt of flyouts due to the wall. Typically you use a 3 year rolling average for park effects, but since this is the first season with the new dimensions and they are going from one of the friendliest hitters parks to one of the unfriendliest, it's really unlikely that any reasonable method for determining park effects is effectively capturing how hard a place OPACY is to hit now. Mullins has a wRC+ of 110, despite having a wOBA of only .321, and I think that might be underselling him.
But hey, if you don't trade the first fruits of a hard fought rebuild just as they're entering their primes for a 32 year old with a degenerative spinal condition and a 300 million dollar contract through their late 30s, are you really even alive?
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
I don’t care about 2020. Why are you even talking about it? The focus should be 2021 and 2022 to get a feel of what they are going forward.
The last two years reflects better on my boys. And they're 26 and 27. Their performance isn't going anywhere.
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
Well first of all, fWAR doesn't have them that high.
Secondly, a huge portion of that WAR was based off of a 6 WAR (btw, fWAR had Mullins higher than bWAR last year). If you don’t believe in Mullins being that good going forward(and you said you didn’t), that absolutely makes it hard to see them being worth 16 WAR.
Hays has never been worth 3 WAR. In fact, he only has 1 2 WAR season, although he is well within range of doing that this year.
You are basically giving them their realistic best case scenarios and then saying it’s extremely likely they hit that.
So yea, we are just far apart on this and at this point, just going in circles.
BWAR had him at 3 last year. He has a chance to get there this year.
You're also failing to acknowledge they missed 100 games to a pandemic beyond their control.
Your own preferred method of WAR projects them for 17 WAR, and you act like I'm insane for putting their realistic floor at 16, when my preferred WAR system projects them at like 19-20 WAR.
You're simply not being honest. For God's sake you said Hays was a fourth outfielder at best, and Mullins a possible platoon player. Do you understand how far from reality that is?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
Lol..of Course you don’t.
Explain it to me real slow.
The last three years, despite missing over 100 games both due to a global pandemic, they have been worth 16 WAR.
Why is that not reasonable to put as a baseline for what they could do the next three years?
Why does your precious "superior" WAR project them to do exactly that?
I bet all you can do is spew out some stupid emoticon or lol.
-
3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Do you think Mullins is a 5+ WAR guy going forward?
No. I think he's a 3-4 win guy. And I think Hays is 2-3 with some upside to get to Mullins level.
By my measure, they're going to be worth more than 16 WAR over the next three seasons. And I don't see a single good argument as to why that isn't a perfectly fine projection.
-
4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Let me ask you this. Let’s say Trout plays 135 games next year and is worth 7 WAR or more.
Do you think his trade value is high next offseason?
No, not particularly. Probably higher than right now, but I think his trade value right now is pretty much nil.
-
2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
I said from the start it isn't happening.
Oh, no, never in a million years. But that's what makes this place so interesting.
-
7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
The whole basis of your argument is that you think Trout is going to decline and be hurt and these 2 are going to continue to be as good or better than they have the last 2 years.
And that the money spent on Trout is money we don’t have for other things.
I get your argument. It’s not like it’s something that has a lot of depth to it.
As I said, we disagree on the future of the 3 players involved. It’s that simple.
I think our two guys will be as good or better the next three years than they have the last three years, yes, and I see no reason why they wouldn't be.
The last three years they've been worth by season's end roughly 16 WAR.
So if they repeat that, and there's absolutely no reason to think they won't, particularly because they won't be dealing with a global pandemic, the only way this trade makes sense for the O's in the short term is if Trout continues to be an MVP caliber player and begins to play 150 games again.
And long-term it has virtually no chance of working out, unless Trout is more Willie Mays than Ken Griffey.
Objection to this deal does not require one to believe Trout is going to decline and be hurt immediately. It simply requires one to correctly evaluate risk and reward.
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
I don't think that is the type of package they would be looking for. With the team more or less for sale I think a rebuild is more likely than a reload.
This is probably true. It still doesn't make it make sense from the O's perspective.
-
2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Well first of all, Hays and Mullins isn’t a trade I mentioned. That’s all Pickles. I never would have thrown that out because it’s absurd.
And I agree with your last point…and I agree with the idea that the Angels aren’t getting the Juan Soto deal they would want. That’s the tax on his back and contract combo…which is why I said on the first page that he isn’t going anywhere.
But I will say if they want to trade Trout for 60 cents on the dollar, I would make the move.
Well, I only mentioned it because I think the original proposition was Hays, Mullins, Hall, Westburg, and somebody else I believe.
I simply said, correctly, that even just Hays/Mullins for Trout doesn't make sense for the Orioles.
While acknowledging that Hays/Mullins would not be the type of player targeted by the Angels.
-
5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
That’s fine and it’s very fair.
And that’s why this is funny to me. Your process.
I just laid out my thought process in pretty good detail on the previous page. You couldn't be bothered to respond- because it completely destroys your position of course- because you disagreed with my projections, despite the fact they mirror the very source you've been citing and advocating for all discussion.
You're not intellectually honest. You hide behind your stupid emojis, and you don't actually engage in the real discussion because you've taken a knee-jerk, stupid position, but you'll never admit it.
-
Just now, Sports Guy said:
Yep..you sure showed me. You have a crystal ball and hypotheticals.
You have shown me proof of the future. You are amazing.
No, no, no we don't judge outcomes. We judge processes.
-
2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Sure thing.
I'll take that for the concession it is. Maybe we could take this show on the road sports guy.
-
1
-
This is my favorite Oriole team ever
in Orioles Talk
Posted
But these are the kind of decisions that make a rebuild. I said it at the time of the discussions: It's great to sign Manny Machados, but the only real way the Orioles are going to compete is to find Justin Turners. If you don't take advantage of the opportunity cost of letting unproven guys play, you're hindering your turn around. And yes, 9 out of 10 times it doesn't work, or is negligible, but the other 10% of the time is where you butter your bread.
I was for signing Correa as his market began to soften. But other than that Mateo deserved a chance imo. He looked good last year to my eye. I didn't expect a 3-4 win season for sure, but a guy with above average defense with some offensive upside, I saw that.
Anyway we're derailing the thread more than it was.