Pickles
-
Posts
5804 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
5 minutes ago, interloper said:
That's actually kind of an interesting question. A 20-player trade where you get 18 of the Orioles' top 20 prospects. I mean... I dunno you'd be getting Kjerstad, DL Hall, Henderson, Westburg, Baumann. But after those guys it really starts to drop off a cliff with guys like Lowther, Diaz, A. Hall, Bradish, etc.
Obviously I'm leaning "no" here, but a few more studs in the top 20 and it's not nearly the slam dunk it seems like at first.
Anybody acting like it's a slam dunk is just wrong.
-
8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Yep
Let’s put it another way.
Would trade Adley and Grayson for the rest of the Os top 20 prospects?
That's a good thought experiment.
If Hall and Kjerstad were healthy, I'd almost certainly take the bottom 18.
The only thing that even makes me waiver is the fact that Adley seems to be a special prospect.
-
13 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:
Do you think AR was just sitting on the couch and not developing during the missed season last year? I’m sorry, but for the NCAA MVP, Consensus #1 pick, who was viewed as just needing some pro ball tinkering, I don’t think that past year was a “lost” year.
At the end of the day Sisco will have spent less time in years/months/days in the minors than AR. That’s just pure manipulation and what for? I respect that Elias has a plan, but keeping a C down, under these specific circumstances, is just stupid.
This is likewise false. You keep repeating the same falsehood.
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
You have this weird thing going on here in which you have folks talking up how Elias and company use technology and analytics but at the same time discount the value of the development time certain players had last season.
I apologize for the weird thing I do when somebody blatantly says falsehoods. That whole objecting to them thing. It's weird. I know.
-
4 minutes ago, GuidoSarducci said:
I think they should do this at the end of the season, like an inverted playoff to determine who gets the 1st round pick.
Who would watch?
-
1 minute ago, sportsfan8703 said:
That’s why I said in terms of years and not ABs. When it’s all said and done Sisco will have spent less time in days/years than AR. That’s what I meant.
Well, yeah, but that is still also wrong.
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, eddie83 said:
I guess it depends on how you define competitive. I think they will do much more than what they did this year. To what extent? Not sure.
What does it matter?
The whole entreprise is determined by whether they want it or not. Winning is that simple. It's a choice you make.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:To put things into perspective… Chance Sisco is going to end up having spent less time in the minors(in terms of years)and he was a high school SS/C, that when drafted wasn’t even in the MLB top 200. AR meanwhile was the consensus #1 pick and NCAA MVP.
That’s a joke.
Mmmmmm, I'm pretty sure this completely wrong.
Sisco had 1800ish PAs in the MiLs before his ML debut- and many hundred after it as well- and a full five years in the MiLs.
Rutschman has 440 abs and will play the equivalent of one and a half years of MiL games before his debut next spring.
To put things in perspective.
-
7
-
1
-
10 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:
The 2018 team was the worst ever, easily. It certainly wasn't the most talented team ever but they had more talent than what their record ended up. It'd be a hard act to pass.
Yep, 2017 was the indicator. They lied to themselves that they could compete in 2018.
Whenever anyone says chemistry doesn't matter, all you have to do is point toward the 2018 Orioles.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
I think that in a vacuum there is more value than you are suggesting but that value is diminished by the popularity of the strategy.
The O's have pretty much been trying to lose these past three seasons and so far have not secured a 1-1 out of it.
It certainly is different than it was even ten years ago, which again, changes the calculations.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
The draft pool money is a bit overrated because most of it is tied into the higher pick.
And when you look at the lists and you see how little WAR the players towards the end of the first round tend to give you, I think you can imagine that it doesn’t go up in the comp rounds, 2nd round, 3rd round, etc….So essentially you tank for guys who are very unlikely to become anything.
I don’t see how that is a good enough reason to throw away seasons.
No, I wouldn't throw away seasons when I had a legitimate chance to compete for that.
Now in seasons when I didn't, I very well might.
Calling what the Braves did in 2014 vs. what the Orioles are doing in 2021 the same thing is grave disservice.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
Yes but what his list does show is that tanking (especially for several years) is stupid, at least in baseball.
If you don’t get the first pick or 2, there is very little difference the rest of the draft.
There are still issues of bonus pool money. Since that change, I would imagine it makes more sense to "tank."
There are as many kinds of tanks as there have been attempts to rebuild. I wouldn't say anything too concrete about such a general topic.
However, yes, if your plan to rebuild is no more complicated than lose as much as possible for high draft picks, then it is probably going to fail.
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
I guess it depends on your definition of much?
I think it's a pretty minor part of the next CBA which is in turn only part of what the article is talking about.
While I don't think exploiting the current CBA to artificially lower a player's future earning via service time manipulation is as prevalent as some people do, Frobby did do some very nice work that indicates it's more frequent than one player every few years.
I'll be honest, I didn't even read the article. I'm just commenting on the conversation here.
I don't think it's that big of a deal. It happens. In rare situations. Changing the structure of amateur control/hold/reserve clause of the entire system seems a dramatic overreaction to what is a relatively small isse.
-
3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
What are you talking about?
No one, near as I can tell, is saying that.
I don't think anything you said there is accurate.
Well isn't much of the impetus for changing the rules of team control over drafted players to avoid issues like what is happening with Rutschman right now?
-
7 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:
That's why you set up the tracking system and you do that math. So you don't have to believe your eyes, when your eyes aren't just focusing on that one thing and you see other team's players a tiny fraction of the season.
There are obviously massive issues with the "eye" test. Fully acknowledge that.
I like think there are massive issues with the defensive stats, at least those publically available.
This is reminiscent of the conversation about the draft: This is an epistemological question. And I think something that has to be embraced is appreciating that there is a lot we can never know.
-
3 hours ago, GuidoSarducci said:
Well after I posted that I went backed and looked again... and was wrong again. This should be right. Unless I'm losing my mind..
1 31.23 2 14.64 3 10.87 4 8.55 5 7.73 6 6.87 7 4.80 8 9.21 9 10.37 10 11.72 11 1.71 12 13.96 13 11.25 14 9.87 15 3.48 16 10.52 17 9.48 18 2.26 19 5.70 20 24.51 21 4.47 22 9.07 23 6.33 24 2.84 25 0.31 26 1.12 27 -0.06 28 3.67 29 1.93 30 1.27 Ok, this makes more sense. Your original list had almost a negative correlation with drafting high, w the exception of first overall.
-
5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:
It’s interesting because whatever the total WAR was for 2001, 150ish of that came from 3 players…Mauer, Tex and David Wright. Another 15 from Gavin Floyd.
I wonder how normal that is during the years? I suspect that a few players really end up skewing the numbers each year.
This right here.
I've heard Frobby (and this is no criticism of frobby) before mention things like "He had the 17th most WAR out of all people ever picked 23rd overall."
But there's only been 55 23rd overall picks. That's an extremely small sample.
And it introduces issues of median and mean, which he touched on in the OP.
I refuse to throw my hands up in the air and say "It's a crapshoot. We can't analyze it accurately."
However, the real lesson from this analysis should be not only how little we do know, but how much we will never be able to know.
-
Why this insane idea that the entire system needs to be overturned because every few years some top prospect gets his ML debut delayed by a few months?
-
1 minute ago, Frobby said:
I think you are misinterpreting the way rWAR and oWAR work. The reason that Guerrero and Mullins have the same oWAR is that Mullins gets a favorable position adjustment of 1.0 WAR compared to Geurrero. They are not equal offensive players, obviously. Guerrero has an OPS of 1.023 compared to Mullins’ .936; he’s the superior offensive player by a clear margin. But 1.023 for a 1B is equivalent to .936 for a CF precisely because CF is a much more difficult position, so that’s how they end up with the same oWAR. The reason they also tie in rWAR is that the defensive stat used indicates that Mullins is approximately the same amount below average for a CF as Guerrero is for a 1B. You can question whether that star accurately reflects reality, but they are fully taking into account that Mullins plays the much tougher position.
This is my objection. I don't believe it.
-
optimistic, because that's gonna drive me insane to look at.
-
Just by eyeballing it, it looks like even without Adley the O's would tie the Cubs' system for 8th overall per these rankings.
That seems opptomistic.
-
Just now, OsFanSinceThe80s said:
My hope is AR is more of .280 type hitter that racks up doubles and hits around 20 home runs a season.
Without changes to the game, I'm not sure he's a .280 hitter.
I'll be thrilled with Wieters with better plated discipline:
250/350/450
With good defense behind the plate, that is a ~4 win player, depending on how hard you ride them.
-
4 hours ago, NCRaven said:
The average Hall of Famer runs 50-70 WAR. Maybe our expections for AR are running a little high.
Basically, it seems to me, half the board is going to be disappointed if he isn't a HOFer. That's setting yourself up to be disappointed. If he is Wieters with better plate discipline, and has a knack for not getting injured in his peak controllable years, I'll be thrilled.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, GuidoSarducci said:
Here's what I came up with from years 1990 to 1999 based on baseball reference data
Pick Avg rWAR 1 30.72 2 10.25 3 5.39 4 11.92 5 -0.43 6 7.39 7 10.38 8 10.09 9 8.55 10 3.09 11 9.76 12 7.50 13 9.97 14 5.71 15 9.55 16 10.08 17 3.88 18 2.37 19 12.35 20 14.45 21 7.77 22 2.45 23 6.11 24 2.82 25 0.24 26 0.79 27 -0.19 28 4.85 29 1.37 30 -0.22 Note: I just took the raw data. There are some anomalies like players being counted twice (e.g, JD Drew) I''m not sure how that can be dealt with gracefully, however, unless they were picked the same # each time, you could make an argument they should be included.
Thanks for that. That's great work. It's the basis of an article you should publish.
And to Frobby for the link above.
What's amazing about this information provided is that it suggests that outside of the top pick, the first twenty are pretty much a crap shoot. Or at least that's how it played out in the 90s.
One realizes when talking about the MLB amateur draft that there is far more that we can never know than that we can. That's inherently distasteful to the human mind I believe, particularly the type drawn to the analytical world of baseball.
Orioles farm system ranked no. 2
in Orioles Talk
Posted
You get Wieters and Matusz.
I get Tillman, Arrieta, Reimold, Britton, David Hernandez, and Caleb Joseph.
I'm pretty sure I take the second group.