Scalious
-
Posts
132 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Scalious
-
-
1 hour ago, OrioleDog said:
On Milwaukee, I wonder if its metro area is deemed far flung enough to get Racine and Kenosha, and if some of the northernmost Illinois counties colored Cubs don't also have a healthy subsection of Brewers fans. That is an impressive outlier in the chart!
It's kind of easy to imagine Chicago's Metro Area reach eclipsing Milwaukee's in the borderlands, ala DC/Philadelphia squishing Baltimore. Friends and family anywhere between DC and Boston I am fond of joking we all live in the Eastern North America mega city. It's the normal I grew up in but was a little bit of a revelation when I learned its one of the most densely populated regions on Earth.
Brewers rise to popularity is all Mark Attanasio and his aggressive marketing. You can go anywhere in the state and find some partnership with brewers promotion. Some that lead to tickets.
Most of the things to do in Wisconsin are outdoors and require driving. You are going to bored off your butt if you rely on entertaining yourself with things that are within walking distance or a cheap cap ride unless you live in downtown Madison. Which is way more expensive then just living on the outskirts and paying for gas.
I live in the Madison area and driving to a brewers game is a pretty common thing. Even if you are not much of a baseball fan, because it's about the atmosphere.
-
WAR is a figure that samples every single MLB player. FA is only a selection of those players. With a selection of teams trying to build a competitive roster. With a finite # of roster slots.
Top comment makes it simple. One 4WAR player> Four 1WAR players. In theory replacement level should compensate or that. Yet a team trying to win usually has more assets then league average. So their functional replacement level is greater then 0.
-
12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
I don't agree with your reasoning. I don't think injury insurance and the chances of a drug suspension factor into team's decisions in a meaningful way. If they did the Angels wouldn't have paid to get rid of Josh Hamilton. He was the most likely player to be hit with a drug suspension since Steve Howe.
Was he not in the last year of his deal? Says they only were on the hook for 26.4. You rarely see anyone cut ties with more than 1 year left. (Jose Reyes and his Domestic Abuse + Pablo Sandoval)
We agree in it does not play a factor in them playing out the entire length of the deal. Once they reach that final year.(Which is what I alluded to i thought?)
Edit: Admit the reasoning could be wrong, but not cutting ties before the final year has been rather true
-
The chances of collecting on insurance if he gets hurt or a positive drug test. Reason's MLB teams don't cut loose their wastes of space unless it's the last year of a deal. (usually)
Guys like Gil Meche and Ryan Dempster were in good standing with their Org when they left early. Dempster got a nice ring right before that. As a competitor. Davis retiring is admitting defeat and I don't see that happening. (before even considering the $$$) Even if he's been rather apathetic about improving himself.
-
8 minutes ago, weams said:
So pay him more thanks obligated?
How do you figure?
-
5 hours ago, Roll Tide said:
Tannehill looked awful against the Patriots. I expect him to fare no better against us! Brown has been good but he will have to deal with Humphrey.
I expect them to scheme for Henry
The Patriots intentionally locked out the passing game. Bend don't break philosophy. For as much as he ran them over. Only had 2 scoring drives the whole game.
If you start stacking the box? Deep shots in the passing game will be had. The passing threat is what opened up the running game for the Titians this year.. You don't want to fall into the trap that Henry is the only threat..
Patriots had the right idea, their front 7 and offense just did not execute.
-
Would have preferred we did a deal like Jimmy Nelson then Jose Iglesias.
High risk/high upside, over high floor low ceiling. Maybe it's too early to be hoping those type of deals?
-
Id prefer stacking my odds to 2-3 years and sucking the rest. Over being good but not great for 10 years. Yet I'd prefer being great most of the decade over either
The Dodgers were a great, they just didn't come up with the hardware. Results=/=Process.
It's misleading to look at total wins for a decade because a long valley with sharp small peak has a better chance of getting the hardware over someone who kept being competitive, but never had a notable peak. You need sharps peaks to win a game with 29 other competitors.
-
26 minutes ago, Frobby said:
Why? Could be a very good ROI for all we know.
*likely*
The value of IFA money drops every single time someone is taken off the market. Just like increases every time someone is added. The value of that dollar is significantly less then it was in July and August. It only usually pays off to save when a Moncada or Lobo type jumps in late.
This time of year the IFA markets supply/demand favors the player mostly. Think advising him to wait until July is bad. More money in July and 100's of more players that are competing for that money. If he's not a cut above, he's not getting a big share like he could right now because teams have nothing better to spend it on.
Yes. He "could", but its highly unlikely for a player that has inserted himself into the market this late and scouts didn't really know about. Or at least rumors.
-
11 hours ago, Frobby said:
See, I don’t agree with your philosophy. Just because you have $4.5 mm available to spend doesn’t mean you spend it on an asset you think is really worth only $1 mm. Let’s say the Orioles think this guy is on the level of Doran Turchin (our 2018 14th round pick). You don’t toss $4.5 mm at a guy like that just because you can and you have nobody else in the international market to spend it on. Now if you think the guy is a Kyle Stowers level talent or better, maybe you do. Stowers only got an $884 k signing bonus, but presumably he would get more in an uncapped market with no slotting. Not sure he’d be worth $4.5 mm, but maybe.
No matter how you spend that money at this point. You are not going to get the ROI you want.
-
I didn't really get the VVM hype back then. He was not a teenager anymore. He didn't have noteable power projections, nor a frame to grow into. You gotta be a MI prospect with that profile IMO. (or at least an unquestionably elite defensive CF)
Yet he was an OF.
-
1
-
-
On 1/2/2020 at 11:08 AM, atomic said:
Like I have told you many of time the Astro's upped their offer at the deadline. So they made significant effort to sign him even after finding out about his genetic disorder.
But that is all immaterial in regards to my point. They made two #1 overall picks that most likely will never make the majors. So you can throw two seasons and end up with nothing to show for it.
They needed his bonus slot to sign Jacob Nix. Aiken not signing lost them 2 players, + any sort of flexibility to give over-slot to someone else later that declined to sign.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Frobby said:
This begs the question, who has actually earned $50 mm through his arbitration years? Of the top of my head, Nolan Arenado did ($61 mm) as a Super-2 who had 4 Arb-eligible years. Anthony s Rendon just missed ($49.7 mm), also as a Super-2. Mookie Betts ($30 mm through Arb-2) certainly will. Bryce Harper ($48.9 mm), a Super-2, fell short. Ryan Howard, who broke the record for first-time arbitration as a Super-2, earned $64 mm through his 4 arb years. Mike Trout (not a Super-2) was several million short despite racking up about 25 WAR before he was even eligible for arbitration. Acuna as a Super-2 will earn about $56 mm through his Arb years.
In other words, I think the White Sox are way out on a limb with Luis Robert. Pretty far out there with Jimenez ($43 mm guarantee), too.
Chris Sale 5/32 + 2 Options (2013)
Jose Quintina 5/21 + 2 Options (2014)
Adam Eaton 6/23 + 2 Options (2015)
Tim Anderson 6/25 + 2 Options (2017)
Eloy Jimenez 6/43 + 2 Options (2019)
I'm not saying in a vaccum this is right idea, but getting 7-8 years of control for key players is a formula that has been working for them. The first 3 they traded away and got prospects spoils. Which i'm damn sure those tacked on year/years helped trade value.
Why are they giving away MORE money, now? Well the CBA is ending in 2021. Robert would not be hit that until afterwards. It probably didn't help that Robert and Eloy were highly rated prospects. Terms of leverage. (Though, so was Sale)
-
More about help for our pitchers, not winning games, per say
-
24 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:
I completely understand that, but do you really think a GM that is shedding salary for shedding salary sake is going to take on added money now?
What makes you think Elias can do anything but shed salary? Elias had an asset and gave it away for nothing over $4-$5 million at most. Any Gm that is forced to make move like that, or even chooses to make moves like this, is not going to just arbitrarily start taking on risky deals that will cause him to pay more now.
I understand why some GMs are doing this, but most are doing this while they are fielding a competitive club, not in the early years of a rebuild. Why do you think Elias and the Orioles want to pay $16 million over the next two years (using a 6yr-$50 million contract suggested earlier) for a CF when they could have been paying him a little more than $1 million?
The next few years is going to be all about shedding salary and hoping the young players coming up through the system develop. If and when the team is good, and an impact player like Rutchsman is a star, I could see them doing so but I don't think Hays is the guy you do that at this stage of his career and definitely not at this point in the Orioles rebuild.
It can increase trade value if the player works out. The idea is to add options and extend the years of control. Or the nip arb salary inflation in the bud before it happens (like with Altuve) They are calculated risks where the downside isn't going to set you back. These contacts are never that big for that to be an issue.
If Hays does good this year. It can make some sense to lock up an up the middle talent.
Doesn't need to be 50M here and it wouldn't be.
-
Just now, Can_of_corn said:
I count two. It is a six year deal with two options.
Holding him down for 3 weeks gets them a year. So I guess it's technically 1 year and 1 month. This does make it easier for the team to compete this year. So it made sense.
-
4 minutes ago, Frobby said:
It’s almost impossible to make that in arbitration. You have to be a Mookie Betts level performer.
The trade off for the team is suppose to be taking away FA years. That is added value to the team, and harmful the player. As the age you come out in FA really matters for how big of a deal you get..
In this deal, they are only getting 1 though, and he will get 88M for 4 Years of Arb and 1 FA year if he's worth the options. Around 17M per. Agreed it's not really that team friendly.
-
1 minute ago, interloper said:
My first thought is I'd definitely be fine to pay Hays 6/$50. It's only $8/yr.
Do I think Elias will? I think they definitely want to see if he can stay healthy, but you don't make these deals after a guy does well in his first full ML season, you make them before then.
These kinds of deals are the kinds of things I hope Elias eventually does (or, if you prefer to speculate, gets approval to do). Right now it's an unknown. Duquette didn't get any done, so my hopes are low. There are probably other players where it makes more sense than Hays also (Mountcastle, etc).
Players don't make anything noteale unti arb. Its not 6/50. It's really more like paying 48 Mil for 4 years of arb (12 Per average). Or 16M per with 3 years of Arb. (Not to mention its very hard to make a ton in arb 1, even when you are good)
Roberts was going to have 4 years of arbitration, but if they held him in april. They would have had him for 7 years. So the 50M only cover 3 years. So a 16m per year value roughly. At the benefit of 2 option years.. He only surrendered 1 year of FA. Which he would get 88M.
-
Perfromance data is the easiest to "mine". So that's what most public domain models focus on. The data the Orioles used to asses him was likely far more advanced.
Was only asseting that "Big fish in a little pond" data is just not useful in figuring out if that fish can survive a lake. He was several degrees better then his peers, but his peers are so far removed from the challenges a MLB player faces and he's not a teenager that has tons of growth left to achieve.
-
I'm coming from an angle of math and probability. Not talent grading. Purly a critique of grading statically performance. Not saying it's garbage. Just has flaws.
1.) Using Logistic regression's is going to be less accurate the higher WAR probability you project. Since the sample size shrinks. Decent at capturing probability of making the majors, but is rather terrible at capturing a players upside.
Griffin is ranked 628th on this list purely on odds of making the majors. That seems more reasonable then his odds of being a 10+ WAR being top 100
2.) Relative to league means nothing if their is no challenge. The purpose of the metric "age" is a proxy metric for a players maturation. So you can scale the appropriate challenge level to the player in understanding if the data means something.
He has him in the top 10 in college stats. He doesn't make it clear he is dividing college performance by conference in the article i read. He mostly just broke down how he does it for the minors.
-
4 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:
It’s mostly from his college numbers, this model takes college performance into effect.
Don't know if that is any better for an non premium college conference.
-
4 hours ago, Luke-OH said:
Gotcha. Good call starting a thread.
And just so everyone knows, I didn’t mean it was “just a statistical projection” in a dismissive way. This is probably the best publicly available system with Katoh gone dark.
Feel like a statistical model worth it's weight would just fade numbers in short season for college players. Rom makes sense for being a 19 year old in full season. McLarty numbers should just really be N/A right now. IMO
-
Is there any reason for the Yankees to believe Mancini is much of an upgrade over Voit?
Rays are always dumpster diving when it comes to finding 1B options. Sure, they would take Mancini off the O's hands. Only if they are not giving up much value.
Rangers or Blue Jays seem like the best fit ATM. Problem is neither of them are "all in". Blue Jays took a flier on Shaw.
Mancini could represent an upgrade for teams. It's marginalize by lower opportunity cost. Doesn't help that he has not put together back to back solid seasons. Might have better luck later in the year when injuries start happening.
-
2 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:
Here’s a good Mountcastle example, who would feel comfortable offering Mancini an extension right now?
Start doing the math, it doesn’t look good for a 1B/DH. Starts to look like Chris Davis 2.0.
Pre Arb deals are nothing like Post Arb and FA deals. Pre-Arb deals are very trade-able unless they never show anything (Like Singleton). Gyroko and Craig Allen were traded. Key was they showed at least something in the majors.
Chris Davis is un-tradeble and it makes sense. Convince someone to "take a chance" on an over 30 dude making 20M per..or a mid-20's player making way less.
Better to wait a year when they are not an elite talent. If you see them as apart of the future. Lock them up before they hit arb 1.
Per Capita Team Attendance
in Orioles Talk
Posted
Correct. Less metro areas means less traffic congestion.