Pickles
-
Posts
5857 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
6 minutes ago, Frobby said:
I think Mateo has more range than Urias, and maybe the stronger arm. If they’re both on the field, I prefer Urias at 2B, Mateo at SS. I’m not sure if Mateo will hit well enough to stay on the field though.
What's that particular Mendoza line look like for you?
In the absence of signing a better option, as long as he kept his OPS above .680 I'd keep running him out there.
-
19 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Is this the BBR list? That’s not really an in depth, good list if so.
It is the BBR list.
I concede that the way they formulate these comp lists is not perfect. It's just an old Bill James formula and is heavily dependent on counting stats.
-
32 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
He’s Mancini
2 hours ago, ChosenOne21 said:My favorite comp for Ryan Mountcastle is a more athletic Mark Trumbo. They're both low-plate discipline high-power hitters. Trumbo had a career .249/.302/.459 line, while Mountcastle is at .270/.324/.492. Take out Mountcastle's hot 2020 and you get .255/.309/.487
In the minors, Trumbo hit .275/.330/.478. Mountcastle hit .295/.328/.471
I do think Mountcastle will have the better career when all is said and done, but he doesn't have his decline years dragging down his career averages yet either. Although Trumbo's best season was his age 30 campaign with us where he hit 47 homers and OPS'd .850That was what prompted me to make this thread.
If Mountcastle's comp list had been full of names like Mancini and Trumbo I wouldn't have found it noteworthy.
Instead his list is full of guys with 30-40-50 WAR careers.
It seems to suggest there might be some upside to Mountcastle that is somewhat hidden.
-
1 hour ago, Frobby said:
ZiPS says Mountcastle’s closest comp is Wil Cordero. Don’t ask me why. They don’t seem remotely similar.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cordewi01.shtmlI fully concede that this comp list is not what I would have predicted. I don't claim that it is predictive.
That's actually what makes it interesting.
Of course, I remember when PECOTA pegged Billy Rowell as the new Mickey Mantle.
-
1 hour ago, scOtt said:
And not that it means much... He's a better defender (I think) than Mancini. At least good enough that his bat makes up for it.
Plus 1B is a trash position. Stick most anyone there if they can hit and RM is better than "most anyone."
He'll be fine at first base.
I still think his time in LF was quixotic.
-
2 minutes ago, Just Regular said:
Fangraphs put out the Angels as their first 2022 prospect list this week. LAA is a team we have matched up with a lot, and once again seems like it might be rotation needy when baseball resumes. I had a chuckle at a comment I saw somewhere that Arte Moreno will just have to buy Correa now that they've missed all the stable starters, winning just the risky Syndergaard/Lorenzen gambles.
It does seem like from here they might benefit from Means more before Rendon/Trout too old and Ohtani's free agency, and we might benefit from their #1 prospect Detmers more once Adley/Grayson are old enough. BaseballTradeValues only thinks Detmers is about halfway to Means. I would hope Elias has all the hidden gems from LAA's system he wants already, and ask starting from the top in anything new.
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/top-41-prospects-los-angeles-angels/
That's a garbage system. They don't have the horses to get Means.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Forgive me if this has been posted before, though I'm almost certain it wasn't an individual topic, but Ryan Mountcastle's Most Similar Batters Through Age 24 list is far more impressive than one might think.
1. Albert Belle
2. Paul Goldscmidt
3. Richie Sexton
4. Ike Davis
5. Josh Bell
6. Tim Salmon
7. Frank Howard
8. Willie Stargell
9. Carlos Delgado
10. Adrian Gonzalez
Now similarity scores are largely compiled by counting stats, and the only rate factors considered are batting average and slugging, but that's one Hall of Famer and a whole lot of All-Star games.
If Mountcastle had the median career of the above list that would far exceed my expectations for him.
-
6
-
1
-
8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Lol. Ok. So you think if they changed the rule to 28, that players would be moved along the minors the same way and teams would wait until 24ish to bring them up to the majors? Nothing changes?
Of course changing the rules would change behavior.
That isn't proof that there is widespread service time manipulation.
Again, you have no evidence of it. And all evidence from anecdotal to Frobby's age analysis shows that it isn't widespread.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
I think most players drafted out of college, particularly ones that show they can be future MLers, get this treatment.
Luckily in these negotiations, the Orioles aren’t the only team that matters. There are other teams in mlb that are effected by the CBA.
Then it probably should be pretty easy to give examples.
We are all pretty well-versed in Orioles prospects for the last two decades.
And we have two examples. Out of hundreds of prospects, dozens of whom went on to have ML careers.
It simply isn't a widespread issue.
-
45 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
He hasn’t provided any evidence for what I’m talking about because there is none.
Can you name the Orioles prospects this has happened to?
AR and Wieters. So one guy a decade.
Most? Lol.
-
6 minutes ago, Frobby said:
How so? I don’t think it affects many players at all.
You have provided the evidence yourself.
There is no slowrolling of players through the MiLs to game their service time.
It happens in extremely rare and unique circumstances.
-
40 minutes ago, Absltgreek said:
How have you "not heard the groundswell"? Service time manipulation has been a loud/major topic for years now around the league. That's not to take one side or another, but to deny this is a major issue and has been, is naive.
Writers write about it. Some. Kris Bryant was angry enough to file a grievance.
But this is not a major issue for the Union. Because the Union- smart guys that they are- realize any arbitrary system will lead to certain manipulations.
-
1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:
The biggest issue for the players, or at least one of the biggest, is that a majority of the players are getting squeezed out and aren’t able to find takers for their salaries.
The thought is that a lot of these guys are hitting free agency too late into their careers and it’s hurting their earnings potential.
The groundswell is more of the idea of needing to fix a system that causes this and part of that issue is service time. Allowing guys to get to free agency sooner should allow these guys to get paid earlier. Even just 2 years is a massive difference.
You are so focused on the idea that this doesn’t effect many players but you are ignoring the bigger picture…and the bigger picture is that they want guys to become free agents sooner. Service timE manipulation is part of this and, btw, just the idea of holding guys back is part of it.
It doesn’t have to be the blatant, call up a guy in late April to get the extra year. It’s the general overall point of keeping guys in the minors too long overall. It’s not necessary for so many players but service time is the Main reason it’s being done.
Again, I think these are two separate issue.
Getting guys to FA earlier should obviously be a major goal of the Union. I understand that.
You can do that by lowering club control over players.
That's a different issue that service time manipulation. Because, again, that doesn't affect many players. Frobby's provided the numbers: There's no evidence that there is widespread slowrolling guys through the MiLs. It just isn't happening, except in extremely rare cases.
-
2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:
You may not care about it but that is the crux of the issue for the players. They, rightfully so, don’t feel the system should be gamed so that a player can lose a year of FA.
How many players? I haven't heard some broad groundswell from the players about this issue. I haven't heard it- except for here- mentioned as some big contention in the collective bargaining going on now.
How arbitration is allotted and determined is a much, much larger issue.
I repeat, the manipulation that goes on affects very few players and those players are among the best compensated in the game.
The union would be foolish to prioritize those players at the expense of the other couple hundred of players it represents.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:
Apart from the fact that I was vocal in my estimation that they were also gaming Mountcastle's clock?
I still see no reason that Mountcastle (coming off a AAA MVP) shouldn't have been a September callup in 2019.
Of course you still refuse to acknowledge the actual issue being discussed. NO ONE cares that Rutschman or Bryant spend a few weeks in the minors. We care that those two weeks delays their free agency by a year. It might make a huge difference in Rutschman's career earnings if he's 30 or 31 when he hits free agency.
I also despise the whole idea that "these guys are going to make a killing in FA anyway". What they may or may not make later doesn't make it right. It's just a terrible mindset that screams of sour grapes.
Oh, because I don't care about the bolded at all. Particularly when the "solutions" to the "problem" lead to more opportunities for mischief- as has been laid out quite well.
And to be clear, you're compulsive need to be quite "vocal" in these matters doesn't mean you're Cesar Chavez; it just means you're compulsive.
-
7 minutes ago, Frobby said:
Interesting to think how setting an age limit would fit with the fact that some families choose to hold their kids back a year in school so that they’ll be better able to compete in sports. So you could have two kids drafted out of HS the same year, one a full year or more younger than the other, and the older kid gets to be a FA a year sooner even though drafted at the same time. I guess no matter what you do, there will be some anomalies.
Your last sentence has been my point all along: No matter what you do there will be "manipulation."
Throwing out the current system, and introducing a new system, with frankly more opportunities for manipulation, doesn't seem worth it to me. Again, the "problem" is that prospects like Rutschman and Bryant spend a few more weeks in the MiLs isn't really a "problem."
The system I laid out above with teams maintaining control for a certain number of years is likewise rife with opportunities for manipulation. In this case, by the players. What's stopping guys from spending a season at a community college, being classified as a college guy, and then getting to FA earlier? Nothing.
You also made a point obliquely. The only guys these manipulations affect are the very cream of the crop: Or exactly the guys who are going to make a killing in FA anyway- and have made millions in bonuses already (in most cases.)
I guess I just don't see the point. And I believe the only reason it has gotten so much traction here is because it gives some a cudgel to hammer the O's FO with over Rutschman and the "rebuild."
-
1 minute ago, Frobby said:
It’s never going to be 28. We’ve been through this a few times. The major league median debut is at 24+, and it’s never been lower than 22+ even before FA existed. The number of actual years of team control would drop dramatically if the threshold were set at 28, even assuming that teams would push players to the majors faster if that were the rule.
Tying it to age also messes up the amateur talent markets something fierce.
Giving the clubs control for a certain number of years over differing class of amateur talent, is the solution.
The solution to the "problem" of AR debuting 4/19 instead of 4/1.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
Well I think the rules need to be separate for intl and HS kids.
Maybe make it age 26 for them.
Or instead of an age, it’s time from the day they are signed. Like say it’s 8 years from the day you sign. Something like that.
But I can see them just giving a blanket age policy across the board.
I don’t think that’s hurts the college that much, if at all.
Ok, as long as rules were different for HS kids, College Kids, and INTL kids you could avoid devaluing any of them.
But a hard and fast 28 year old FA route, would certainly devalue college kids in the drafting process.
A set number of years of team control after amateur acquisition would make a lot of sense- but only if it could be flexible enough to account for the different classes of amateur talent.
So maybe drafted out of high school team has your rights for 10 years.
Drafted out of college team has your rights 7/8 years.
Signed as an INTL FA team has your rights for 12 years.
Something like that.
But as always, be aware of unintended consequences. I think we'd see a lot more guys follow the Harper path, and a real burgeoning community college baseball scene.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
I guess but really what it is does is stop holding players back when you don’t need to…or it stops them from going to levels that they shouldn’t be at.
Right. It actually addresses the issue at hand- if that issue is getting guys to the MLs sooner.
But it's a real can of worms. And if we're worried about "fairness" how "fair" is to punish college players in the drafting process, which is what would inevitably occur?
-
6 minutes ago, Frobby said:
I think the way I’d phrase it is the goal is to create a system that ends the practice of artificially delaying a player’s debut by a few weeks or months in order to gain an extra year of service time. That isn’t fair to the player. And I agree the current rule probably helps the poorer teams who can’t afford a lot of free agents more than those who can.
I guess I just don't think it's that big of a deal. It affects like one prospect every few years and it would get them to the MLs a few weeks earlier. I don't see the purpose of overhauling the entire system so that Kris Bryant can get to the MLs two weeks earlier, and to FA a season earlier.
I don't care about the FA aspect of it. No, it isn't fair, but I can't cry much for these guys.
-
2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:
The way you get rid of the service time manipulation is by age or something like amount of years within an organization.
If basically a player is a FA after their age 28 season that is what changes things.
This I agree with. It would solve service time manipulation but this would radically change the valuation of amateur talent.
-
2 hours ago, Frobby said:
It’s the former. It will stop teams from getting 6.171 years out of a player before he becomes a free agent. But I think Corn’s proposal is silly and far too extreme for the owners to accept.
How would this be?
1. Players become free agents after 5.081 years of service.
2. No more Super 2.
3. Dramatically raise the minimum salary for players with more than 2.00 years of service and less than 3.00. Say, $1.25 mm.With this, teams wouldn’t have much incentive to game service time. No team is going to keep a ready player down a full half season to try to gain another year of service time, because it would materially hurt team’s chances of competing and cost the player a half year or more of major league experience. If they do, they’re still going to be paying that player $1.25 mm in his third full year.
Ok, so I guess I was speaking at cross purposes, and confused as to what the point of the proposed changes were.
Again, if it's to get guys to FA earlier then it would do that. But, honestly, as a fan of a "poorer" team that really isn't something I'm rooting for.
If it's to get guys to the MLs earlier, it wouldn't really accomplish much of that- in fact, I see scenarios in which it slows guys down.
-
1 hour ago, waroriole said:
He’ll be two weeks later in arriving, but he’ll be a FA a year sooner. That’s the point.
Again, I thought the whole point was bemoaning that worthy guys were wasting time in the MiLs. Not that they should be free agents sooner.
The first point I can care about. The second one not so much.
-
Just now, waroriole said:
When do you think teams will call up players if this rule is changed?
A guy like Rutschman will be two weeks different. As I've laid out.
Do you disagree with that?
Maybe a guy like Franco you could argue would be like 3 months different. But that move was made with arbitration in mind. Do you plan on overhauling the entire arbitration system too?
Questions about Jorge Mateo
in Orioles Talk
Posted
LOL. That one really landed didn't it?