Jump to content

Joey Rickard

weams

By weams
in Orioles Talk

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 355
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

terps19
terps19

Yeah his minor league numbers suck... I mean in 2015 he only hit .321 OBP .427 and OPS .874 with 23 steals- I mean thats just horrible.  His career minor league

Can_of_corn
Can_of_corn

If you factor in his age at the various levels his minor league stats look less impressive.

Babypowder Hangout Veteran Council

Babypowder

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, CP0861 said:

I never made the general statement or argument "age doesn't matter" as you are trying to imply.  You're either twisting my words, or you're completely misinterpreting them.  I was specifically referring to Rickard when I said "I don't care about his age".  He's 25.  Is that too old to improve?  Is he washed up?  No room for progression?  

Rickard 86 wRC+ last year....ok...is that really bad, or is it simply between average and below average?  Wouldn't bad (poor) be 75 or below? You referenced the stat......don't make up your own scale for the rating. 

Rickard fell into the same part of the scale as Schoop last year, right?  Therefore, Schoop was bad too, right?   

Average is 100. Schoop had a 97 wRC+, just 3 percent below average. Schoop was not good, but not Rickard bad. 14 percent below average is quit a bit below average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CP0861 Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

CP0861

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Babypowder said:

Average is 100. Schoop had a 97 wRC+, just 3 percent below average. Schoop was not good, but not Rickard bad. 14 percent below average is quit a bit below average.

below average, and between "below average" and "average".  In the same range as Schoop, right?  If the numbers fall in ranges, they are in the same range, are they not?  11% apart.

 

Ratings wRC wRC+
Excellent 105 160
Great 90 140
Above Average 75 115
Average 65 100
Below Average 60 80
Poor 50 75
Awful 40 60

 

Edited by CP0861
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babypowder Hangout Veteran Council

Babypowder

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CP0861 said:

Actually....no, it's not.  Not per fangraphs.

Below average = 80.   So......86 is above below average.

 

Ratings wRC wRC+
Excellent 105 160
Great 90 140
Above Average 75 115
Average 65 100
Below Average 60 80
Poor 50 75
Awful 40 60

 

Well, I read that like a grading scale. 80-99 being "Below Average". Unless we want to make some weird in between ratings. I don't think you can call anything within 35 percentage points "average".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CP0861 Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

CP0861

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Babypowder said:

Well, I read that like a grading scale. 80-99 being "Below Average". Unless we want to make some weird in between ratings. I don't think you can call anything within 35 percentage points "average".

sure, I don't disagree with them both falling in the "belove average" range.  I was initially responding to someone who said Rickard was "bad" and I asked the question, was he bad - which I'd think would be poor at 75 or below - or was he simply "below" average, as Schoop was last year.  He brought up the stat (which works within that scale), I was simply asking him to clarify "bad". 

Edited by CP0861
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babypowder Hangout Veteran Council

Babypowder

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, CP0861 said:

sure, I don't disagree with them both falling in the "belove average range".  I was initially responding to someone who said Rickard was "bad" and I asked the question, was he bad - which I'd think would be poor at 75 or below - or was he simply "below" average, as Schoop was last year.  He brought up the stat (which works within that scale), I was simply asking him to clarify "bad". 

I would agree with the "bad" assessment, also. Rickard is a corner outfielder while Schoop is a middle infielder. They cannot be compared by wRC+ like this. Rickard's 86 wRC+ (if qualified) would rank him 5th worst in major league baseball (51st) among qualified outfielders. Schoop's 97 ranked him 15th among 2nd basemen, which is actually much worst than I expected. Second basemen are good right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, CP0861 said:

sure, I don't disagree with them both falling in the "belove average" range.  I was initially responding to someone who said Rickard was "bad" and I asked the question, was he bad - which I'd think would be poor at 75 or below - or was he simply "below" average, as Schoop was last year.  He brought up the stat (which works within that scale), I was simply asking him to clarify "bad". 

Or you can just go with may standard response when things don't make sense to me.

Bad data. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DirtyBird Hangout Grand Counsel

DirtyBird

Posted
Posted (edited)

The debate about whether to qualify Rickard as "good" or "bad" is pointless.

The real discussion should be about whether it is better for the organization to place him in AAA this season in order to keep Santander and/or Tavarez, or should he make the team?

Who brings the most to this season's team? 

Edited by DirtyBird
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ArtVanDelay Hangout Grand Counsel

ArtVanDelay

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, CP0861 said:

below average, and between "below average" and "average".  In the same range as Schoop, right?  If the numbers fall in ranges, they are in the same range, are they not?  11% apart.

 

Ratings wRC wRC+
Excellent 105 160
Great 90 140
Above Average 75 115
Average 65 100
Below Average 60 80
Poor 50 75
Awful 40 60

 

You can live with an 86 wRC+ from a catcher or SS.  Not a corner outfielder that gives little defensive value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
  • Author
Posted
35 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Right.  And if you expect that Rickard is a 86 wrc+ going forward then he still earned a RH platoon spot based on his numbers against LHP's last year.   I certainly don't buy the 86 number as his ceiling.   It could be but I don't think so.

 

BTW, Kim's OPS+ in the 2nd half was 103+.   Rickard's in the first half was 90+  (he didn't really have a 2nd half with 17 AB's).

For argument's sake, let's suppose that Kim is a 103+ player going forward and Rickard is a 90+ player going forward.   Would it be fair to say that under this scenario, and considering defense, that the gap is not that wide?

That's a hypothetical.   Even if you believe that Kim is a 135+ (hist 1st half) and Rickard is worse than 90+, please just answer based on the information given.   I realize that will be hard for some.

Seems reasonable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
OFFNY Hangout Grand Counsel

OFFNY

Posted
Posted
On 6/30/2017 at 11:06 PM, ChinMusic said:

 

Did really need to bump two different zombie Rickard threads for the same game?

 

o

 

I don't need to bump any threads. I bump them because I want to, and because they are relevant.

Considering the game that he had tonight on both defense and offense tonight, I don't see what your problem is with it. The other thread was particularly themed for his defense. This particular "zombie" thread goes all the way back to March. What an inconvenience.

 

o

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • IPlayGM
      Grayson Rodriguez 2024

      By IPlayGM · Posted

      I was curious how GRod would pitch given that huge crowd and electric atmosphere. I feel like he has a tendency to get too amped up and overthrow. Granted I didn’t start watching until inning 3, but he looked absolutely in control and executed his pitches.  Certainly a big step forward as far as I’m concerned.
    • ChosenOne21
      Anthony Santander 2024

      By ChosenOne21 · Posted

      Unless Santander goes on an absolute tear the rest of the season, I don't think he turns down a qualifying offer. And even then, it'd be real easy to look at FA deals for 30-ish year old outfielders who are good regulars but not stars and realize there's a good chance he won't beat a QO in guaranteed money, especially with a QO attached. As much as I'd like the pick, I don't want to gamble 20-30M and another year of stunted opportunity for our young outfielders on Santander turning down a QO.
    • ChosenOne21
      Chayce McDermott 2024

      By ChosenOne21 · Posted

      Yeah, it's getting to the point where I'm not going to cry if McDermott finishes the year in AAA. I'm not against bringing him up necessarily, but he's clearly got more work to do on control/command if he wants to be a good major league starter long-term.
    • drjohnnyfever1
      Anthony Santander 2024

      By drjohnnyfever1 · Posted

      Are there any other qualifications other than signing a contract for 50+M?  A contract of that value spread over 3-4 years would give him a raise and make other teams give some consideration to sign him.  I think that's the only way a QO would work for him.  But I don't think they put him in jeopardy - altho the Orioles could match an offer, I suppose.  I think they value him pretty highly even if he won't command top money. 
    • ChosenOne21
      Keith Law has O's taking Tommy White at #22 in latest mock draft

      By ChosenOne21 · Posted

      I did say "unlikely" before "no matter what." Now that I re-read that though, it's kind of a bizarre sentence so I can see why you interpreted it that way. Of course there's a shot a player taken at 1-22 succeeds. Elias is certainly above average at drafting, possibly well above average, but the odds are still against him here, as they are for pretty much any individual pick he makes. I'm not trying to knock Elias here, just stating the fact that the vast majority of players selected in the back of the first round don't turn into solid regulars and so you shouldn't pass up someone you think is more likely to succeed here to draft "for need." I'm certain someone who will be available at this pick will have an incredible major league career. The odds are against it being whoever we draft though. That's just math.
    • Bahama O's Fan
      Anthony Santander 2024

      By Bahama O's Fan · Posted

      I used to think we had a plethora of outfielders ready to replace the current guys, but not I'm not sure. Cowser is one. Does the FO trust Stowers? Heston is another as far as his bat goes, but how bad is the defense if you have Stowers, Cowser and Heston? How long before Bradfield is ready? Will Norby or Mayo move to the OF? Does that make it any better. If Santander has his typical year, I would give him the QO. So what if you have to pay him large for one year? It's not like our payroll is high right now.  
    • Explosivo
      Colton Cowser 2024

      By Explosivo · Posted

      Or maybe he just is hesitant because he knows it’s best to give up a single than letting it get by you for a triple or inside the park homerun. I highly doubt Cowser gives a crap about WAR. There is nothing in the guy’s demeanor, personality, or anything that suggests he chases stats and places himself above the team. To say otherwise is quite ridiculous at best, and malicious at worst. He is a rookie and he will get more comfortable as he plays. With that comfortability will come trusting his ability more and more. Why even suggest a thing like you are suggesting? Just pathetic quite frankly on your part.

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...