Jump to content

Orioles 2nd round pick - CF Xavier Avery (HS)


Recommended Posts

That's what I'm trying to do internally (in more rudimentary fashion). The equvalent of a Davenport translation for each level through the minors - though less scientific. Discounting some things and trying to figure out areas of improvement.

Right now, pitch selection seems to me Avery's biggest hurdle. The power I'm not worried about.

It's a curious intersection for real scouts between something scientific and instinct. It's quasi-scientific.

People do not have instincts. It would be more about personal bias and pattern recognition to go along with qualitative and, to a lesser, extent quantitative derived applications of the scientific method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply
People do not have instincts. It would be more about personal bias and pattern recognition to go along with qualitative and, to a lesser, extent quantitative derived applications of the scientific method.

Which people label instinct. Do you really want to take this digression?

Should we just go off to our corners and read Blink?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which people label instinct. Do you really want to take this digression?

Should we just go off to our corners and read Blink?

Eh, pop science. He does not describe instincts. It is pattern recognition. For instance, in the situation where he discusses that fire and how he just ordered everyone out of the house. It was not a conscious decision, it was an unconscious one. He saw things that did not match up to the world as he understood it, unconciously recognized danger, and then responded.

That is not an instinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, pop science. He does not describe instincts. It is pattern recognition. For instance, in the situation where he discusses that fire and how he just ordered everyone out of the house. It was not a conscious decision, it was an unconscious one. He saw things that did not match up to the world as he understood it, unconciously recognized danger, and then responded.

That is not an instinct.

You do realize I'm using the generally accepted/common usage of the word instinct, and not some zoological/biological one, right?

in·stinct [ ín stìngkt ]

noun (plural in·stincts)

Definition:

1. strong natural impulse: a powerful impulse that feels natural rather than reasoned

followed his instincts and took to his heels

2. biological drive: an inborn pattern of behavior characteristic of a species and shaped by biological necessities such as survival and reproduction

the survival instinct

3. knack: a natural gift or skill

an instinct for putting people at ease

I imagine you realize too that a sure way to grind any conversation to a halt is to rely on the most narrow definition of a word and exclude all other, including common, usage.

My instinct is to say you do. Though that's not all that carefully reasoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize I'm using the generally accepted/common usage of the word instinct, and not some zoological/biological one, right?

I imagine you realize too that a sure way to grind any conversation to a halt is to rely on the most narrow definition of a word and exclude all other, including common, usage.

My instinct is to say you do. Though that's not all that carefully reasoned.

Very well then. I think it was apparent from my own posts that I was taking a scientific line to it and was further confused when you brought up a popular science book to back you up.

One does not have to read that book to realize people have impulses, but if you are trying to discuss "gut check" responses . . . bringing up anything regarding science as a piece of evidence certainly confuses the term: instinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very well then. I think it was apparent from my own posts that I was taking a scientific line to it and was further confused when you brought up a popular science book to back you up.

One does not have to read that book to realize people have impulses, but if you are trying to discuss "gut check" responses . . . bringing up anything regarding science as a piece of evidence certainly confuses the term: instinct.

I'm pretty sure it only confuses you. When someone says that a decision-making process is partly scientific and partly instinct, the only person who doesn't see this as: reason + gut level read is...probably you.

It's a curious intersection for real scouts between something scientific and instinct. It's quasi-scientific.

If this post confused you, I can't really help you. Not that you need my help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a short-sighted opinion. Kind of like global warming. You can and most have to make projective decisions as we go along . . . a good pick is made by looking at all of the data in front of you and making the right decision. Often the right decision at the moment is not the right decision looking back 5 years from now. I find the 5 years from now approach, though useful, not to be very helpful when you are actually trying to judge talent and make decisions. That is the point, right?

Sure. But I am not talking about Avery in the context of judging talent and making decisions in the "running a scouting department" sense. I'm talking about evaluating Avery in the context of making an "in your face, morons" post. It's too early for that. Fair enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The posts and the rekindling of this thread were to show how silly it is to make bold statements about players who've never played a game of professional baseball.

Fine. It's also silly to make an argument on the other side, as if he's accomplished something.

If you've got your feathers ruffled over the whole thing then, well, too bad. BTW, "In your face!".

Very classy of you. Appreciate the show of respect. I expect it from you though, so it's cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • Apparently the whole point of moving back the leftfield wall was to put the Orioles in a position to justify acquiring / starting mediocre to below average pitchers (Gibson and Irvin). Based on how OPACY ballpark factor is trending I don't see any reason to believe Irvin's success at home won't continue, even if it's to a slightly lesser extent. So worst case scenario you're probably looking at a possible uptick in ERA to the low 4.00s, which certainly isn't going to be enough to get him bumped from the rotation.  #23 - Oriole Park at Camden Yards (Orioles) - 95.3 Overall Park Factor, 86.0 Fly Ball (24th), 83 Home Run (27th) Well, the Orioles moved the left field fence way in before the 2022 season, and it clearly had the desired impact. Both its fly ball and home run park factors reached their lowest points over the past decade, and that 83 home run mark marked its first foray below 100 over that span. Even before the fences came in, this park was one of those that yielded homers, but not all that many runs. It hasn’t posted a higher than average doubles or triples park factor over the last decade. #27 - RingCentral Coliseum (Athletics) - 93.5 Overall Park Factor, 85.9 Fly Ball (25th), 92 Home Run (22nd) First and foremost, this place is a dump. That said, this marks 10 straight years as a pitchers’ park for RingCentral. When you suppress both homers (8 straight years below 100 HR park factor) and singles (10 straight years), there simply aren’t many avenues to behaving as a hitters’ park.
    • The LHH 1B thing makes me wonder how often we’ll be playing the splits…  Not just @ 1B but elsewhere too. Irvin has already earned over the last few years being an ML starter.
    • I guess you mean in the minors.  There are 7-11 realistic starters on the O's major league roster.
    • I didn't post a number but it would have been 10 years starting in 2021.
    • Listened to Elias on MASN Hot Stove last night.   While many things are TBD, two things seem firm. 1)  He wants a left-handed hitter to back up Mountcastle at first.   This is not a revelation to many.  But I needed to hear it from him.  He suggested Santander, Vavra, O'Hearn and said he is still looking.   That means no Westburg backing up 1B.  Time for me to adjust. 2) Cole Irvin is in the rotation.    Its being handed to him.  He does not have to earn it.    I take it that its settled, Irvin will be in rotation on March 30 for the beginning of the season.  His two seasons in the majors and the 180 IP are what seems to matter. His 5.26 ERA outside the Oakland Coliseum does not.   I remain skeptical he can hold the starting spot over Wells and Voth into May.   But I protest too much.  Time to sit back and watch what happens with Irvin.
    • @Can_of_corn What was the proposed deal you said we should have given Gunnar last year and then just called him up?  We should just do that with Jackson Holliday in September. Give him 10/200. 
    • Gibson will probably pitch 50 more IP than Grienke. With more Ks. That’s about it. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...