Joey Rickard

[Can_of_corn]

Rickard's baseball age for the 2016 season was 25 not 24.  His actual age when he debuted is not considered.

[Babypowder]

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.

[CP0861]

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

 

[Babypowder]

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".

[CP0861]

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". 

[Babypowder]

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.

[weams]

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. 

[DirtyBird]

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? 

[ArtVanDelay]

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.

[weams]

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. 

[OFFNY]

o

 

(vs. D-RAYS, 6/30)

 

NUMBER 3

 

JOSEPH MARK RICKARD

JOSEPH MARK RICKARD

JOSEPH MARK RICKARD

JOSEPH MARK RICKARD

JOSEPH MARK RICKARD

JOSEPH MARK RICKARD

JOSEPH MARK RICKARD

 

o

[ChinMusic]

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

[OFFNY]

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

[weams]

 

[DirtyBird]

15 minutes ago, weams said:

 

 

Looks like he just misplayed how it was going to come off the wall.