Pickles

I can't even remember what I said; I just remember you keep throwing it in my face. But I contend I'm pretty consistent. Mateo as I described above is an above replacement player. Short of signing a legitimate ML FA I would keep running Mateo out there before I reached back into the bag of replacement players.

LOL. That one really landed didn't it?

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.

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.

That 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.

I 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.

He'll be fine at first base. I still think his time in LF was quixotic.

That's a garbage system. They don't have the horses to get Means.

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.

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.

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.

Can you name the Orioles prospects this has happened to? AR and Wieters. So one guy a decade. Most? Lol.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

This I agree with. It would solve service time manipulation but this would radically change the valuation of amateur talent.

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.

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.