Filmstudy
-
Posts
538 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Filmstudy
-
-
Rebuilding means the question must be asked for each player...Can he contribute to the next Orioles champion (or contender if you like). Villar will probably be at least 31 when the Orioles next contend (assumes 2022 or later). At that point, he won't be nearly as good a player and he's just an average player right now (.500 162WAA this season).
I think part of the misunderstanding of Villar's value is in difficulty of using WAR arising from its arbitrary replacement level. The 1.7 WAR means only that a team that would otherwise play .294 ball would improve by 1.7 wins given his contributions to date. An otherwise .500 team would not improve at all with Villar (per 162WAA). BTW, in terms of 162 WAA, Mancini and Villar are virtually identical (Villar .500, Mancini .499) and both are 28, but since Villar plays on the left side of the defensive spectrum and the Orioles have a logjam of LF/RF/DH/1B, it probably makes more sense to keep Villar of the 2.
-
8 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:
Let's say you view Mancini as a 3 win/year player over the length of his team control (10 wins).
If the O's can get 8 wins of projected future value isn't that worth more than 10 wins when they are not going to be competitive?
I agree entirely with the notion that wins later are worth more than wins now or in 2020, so I think 10 for 8 would make sense and 10 for 10 would be terrific.
However, I think there is some overvaluation of Mancini here (meaning in the thread i general, not from @Can_of_corn who I believe asked a hypothetical question. He's a likable player, but he has a decent but unspectacular OBP, plays on the far right of the defensive spectrum where the Orioles have accumulated a logjam of players, and has negative defensive value. What's worse, his OPS is his strongest category and most of that 1) comes from slugging and 2) isn't park adjusted. WAA162 provides a better estimate of Mancini's value and by that metric, adding Trey to an otherwise .500 team makes them a .498 team over 162 games. He's also 27 now, so it's optimistic to project future growth as an offensive player from this local high.
Mancini is inexpensive, which I'd love in a sport like football with a hard cap, but I don't like the idea of his salary ballooning with arbitration on a bad team while his value depreciates and he holds a spot which could be used to test some of the logjam players.
He could play a supporting role on a champion, but not a lead role.
For the Orioles, I don't believe there is hope he'll do either before the sand runs out.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Number5 said:
Is there a reason that you think he is older?
Not in his case specifically, but it's a due diligence item for prospects born outside the US.
If you saw Brooks play, then you know about all the BS with ages from the Dominican Republic that messed up expectations for a generation of position players.
My original post was a legitimate question, not an accusation.
-
I did not read through all 20 pages of responses here, but I have 1 major question with the trade;
How certain are the Orioles of Diaz's age?At 21, the deal looks decent with a couple of OBP prospects with power. However, if Diaz were really 23, he'd be a hell of a lot less of a prospect.
Does anyone know if the media has questioned the Orioles on this topic?
-
Sent Hardy on Jones' single with one out.
Didn't send Stubbs on Manny's fly, which was the second out of the inning.
I don't know about either of those decisions. With 1st and 3rd and one out (if Hardy is held) chances of scoring are 63%. With bases loaded and two out (after Manny's fly), chances of scoring are 32%. Throw in the speed of the two runners involved, I think both decisions were bad (even though Hardy was almost safe).
I can guess how you get to 32%, although it seems low if you're estimating Davis' OBP vs. that pitcher plus the residual chance of a WP, PB, E, etc.
How are you estimating the 63%?
-
Dickerson is really the most aggressive 3B coach I have ever seen. I mean, he's aggressive for little league. Most of the time, I like it. I was not surprised he sent Hardy. And given how poorly we get runners home, I don't have a problem with it. Surprised he held Stubbs later in the game.
The best we ever had was of course Cal Sr. But I remember thinking Demarlo Hale was excellent. The worst.... hands down... Tom Treblehorn.
We used to call him "Cautious Cal" in the 1980s.
In fact, when I say Stubbs held at 3rd, I thought Dickerson was channeling Cal Ripken circa 9/22/92 when Cal held Brady at 3B on a shallow fly to Devon White.
-
I think Scully is the very best. When we played LAD I listened to him over Gary and Palmer. His stories are more interesting than watching NL baseball. But then I remember Red Barber and Ernie Harwell. You probably wouldn't care for them either.
I heard Scully do broadcasts 30 years ago and he was outstanding, but he's made concessions to age. Chuck Thompson was outstanding and we heard some of the same things happen to him as well as he got older. It won't ever diminish who either was in his prime.
I have heard Harwell's call of the 9th inning of Wilhelm's no-no, but I don't believe I have ever heard a recording of Red Barber doing a game.
-
Interesting and good stats, but I just don't see the W total getting there this season. You have too many head to head in a 3 horse race. In the past it's generally been a 1 horse or 2 horse race if I'm remembering correctly.
I'm with you. I think there is less than a 50% chance the division will have 2 teams win 93 games this season. I'd say it's more like 30% that there will be 2 teams with 94 wins.
So while the winning team may have 97, the 2nd place team is likely to have 92 or fewer, which is **close** to saying 93 wins is what it will take to win the division. It's not exactly the same, because the teams play each other, so 97 wins (say) reduces the chance of another team getting 93.
-
Listening to Vin Scully monolog his way through a broadcast with stories of a haunted hotel David Price stayed at in Scranton that don't have a punchline. It's a little like the following Jack Handy:
I remember we were all horrified to see Grandpa up on the roof with his Superman cape on. "Get down!" yelled Uncle Lou. "Don't move!" screamed Grandma. But Grandpa wouldn't listen. He walked to the edge of the roof and stuck out his arms, like he was going to fly. I forget what happened after that.
Don't get me wrong, it's remarkable Scully can do what he does at age 88. But on a non-age-adjusted basis, he's not a very good baseball announcer.
-
Only a game behind the Cubs now for the best record in baseball, but there is lots of competition.
-
1
-
-
If you are addicted to schaudenfreude, please take a read of Girardi's post-game press conference.
-
Wow, unreal 9th inning in the Bronx. To summarize:
--Yankees led 6-5 when the inning started at 10:36 PM in a heavy rain.
--Chapman walked the first hitter, then went 3-1 on the 2nd.
--Girardi asked the umps to stop the game, which they did.
--Rain delay lasted 3:35.
--Play resumed at approximately 2:15 AM with Yates replacing Chapman.
--Yates struck out the first batter then surrendered HBP, HBP, 2-run single, HBP, BB, 2-run single for a 9-6 lead.
--Yankees go down in the bottom of the 9th without scoring.
--Game ended at 2:45 AM on Ellsbury's flyout to left with 2 runners on, so the 9th inning took 4:09 of elapsed time to complete.
-
1
-
-
Couldn't tell from the video. Have to trust Palmer, which I don't always.
I thought at the time the ball was clearly not triple. It was played too quickly on the bounce off the door. If Bradley had to chase it down, it could have been 3. The way to tell with better certainty is to time from contact until pickup.
It would be fair to say that Manny didn't know the ball would be picked up cleanly as he was jogging around first, so the effort was sub par.
-
How many consecutive strikes? I can see it had to be at least 33!
-
The stock would have to be issued with a specific number of shares available right? Along with the inability to be diluted in future days. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense.
So, if they offered 4.9M shares, "par value" would be $1 per share at the IPO but the price could go up or down from there depending on whether people thought he was a good investment or not. If 490K shares, than par would be $10 per share. And so on. The share price could go up or down depending on whether the price was looking promising or not but ultimately the payments for the shares would have to basically be dividends earned from salary drawn over many years. If someone wanted to sell their shares, it would be based on the future earning power at that moment. Ultimately, the value will
go to zero because the future dividends will be zero, but that could take 50 or more years.
If they can re-offer shares and/or change the dividend structure of how the shareholders receive their pro-rated distributions of the earnings, it wouldn't make sense to me. I suppose it is possible the company has some sort of profit built in how many shares are offered by inflating them slightly against par value, but that wouldn't necessarily work. Buyers could just discount and not buy until the share cost reached par at IPO. I'd guess the host company is making their profit from a service fee at dividend distribution time. In other words, 1M gets released to the shareholders, the company takes 3-5% (or who knows I am guessing) and distributes the rest equitably amongst the shareholders. I'd also guess this is spelled out in the fine print. Am I missing something or does everyone agree?
I come from an actuarial pricing background, not a securities background, but the interesting inputs/assumptions are:
--derivation method for the future valuations and cash flows
--discount rate
--tax treatment of player income and dividends (is there double taxation)
--Method by which Fantex can make money, including any elements that are not guaranteed
--covenants and recourse of the investors
--Who is the guarantor in the event Fantex fails?
If anyone has access to "fine print" I would love to review.
-
Can one buy short options?
You think like me. So many times I've wanted to do that on a futures wager where only 1 side is available.
I can also recall thinking the same thing about a number of rookie cards when those were the rage in the 1980s. I recall wanting shorts on Pete Incaviglia and Pat Dodson. That said, I still have 800 Stan Javier cards sitting in my closet that will be part of my estate.
-
At first, I thought he signed an extension but seems he got a lump sum of $4.91M for 10% of future earnings. I never heard of this thing before, pretty interesting idea. Article reads that he is less likely to sign an extension now since he locked in some early cash
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Franco, Schoop, McHugh, Duffey, Solarte trade future earnings for up-front pay. Get details: <a href="https://t.co/45yUxmTzCy">https://t.co/45yUxmTzCy</a> <a href="https://t.co/HyQJAsabat">pic.twitter.com/HyQJAsabat</a></p>— MLB Trade Rumors (@mlbtraderumors) <a href="
">April 28, 2016</a></blockquote><script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Very interesting. I wonder which investors are underwriting this risk and how the shares are paid off (article is not clear). I also wonder if the IRS has bought into this concept (whose IT rate is used? Is there double taxation?).
-
The problem is no one is doing anything to begin to fix the problem. They say umpires are evaluated, but they are clearly not or they are evaluated by incompetent people. Holding umpires accountable for calling games
like this is the answer. Proper evaluation and putting only the highest rated umpires behind the plate will fix the problem. Letting managers and players rate umpires after every game based on their strike calling will help
fix the problem. I find it baffling that so few people even touch on any realistic solutions. There will be no electronic strike zone any time soon if ever. MLB has caused this problem by making umpires unaccountable and
untouchable and as a result, they don't care about their performance because they know they will still have a job the next day regardless of how they do and no one can say crap to them because they're umpires and
MLB says they are always right even when they're wrong. That is the problem. Players and managers should rate performance after every game and then, we'll have the best umpires behind the plate and umpire performance
overall will improve. It's about accountability and right now, umpires have been absolved of every last bit of it.
I think the problem is not evaluation by players and managers. That's like tabulating votes on a hotline to answer the question "Is life fair?"
This screams out for electronic evaluation, even if an electronic strike zone is not employed. That will give feedback to the pitches missed that, when paired with video, will help umpires reduce the number of calls they miss.
An electronic strike zone is inevitable in time, but I expect there will always be a home plate umpire as backup to make a call if the system fails. It's an attractive option to speed up play, because there will no longer be any target for argument. And I don't think any sport in which replay is now used is suffering any significant backlash from the process, so we have electronically assisted officiating in just about every sport.
-
That was the worst strike zone I have seen in a very long time. Chuck Meriwether comes to mind.
-
1
-
Anatomy of our 12-11 run
in Orioles Talk
Posted
On June 27th, the Orioles had a 3-25 record in games decided by 5+ runs. Since then, they are 8-6 in such games.
The stretch began with the most lopsided consecutive shutout wins in MLB history on 6/28-29 and included the longest streak of consecutive multi-HR games in MLB history.
Fans of the 1916 Giants could probably relate, but they are all gone now.