O's trade international bonus pool money for SS Drew Jackson

[Roll Tide]

8 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

I wouldn't bet on that, that implies that each has a 50% chance of being that type of player.

If you think they all are FV 40 prospects which is optimistic IMO (I have a 35 on Wilkerson and I think Valera as well), then each would have something like a 14% chance of being an average player.

So, if you have four FV 40s, you'd expect 0.56 average regulars. Therefore, if they get one starter out of the group, it'd be a significant win. 

 

Edit: Also, RBIs don't affect trade value anymore.

I’m just not a Valera fan , Villar is s much better player... it’s fine to deal him if you can get full value

[Luke-OH]

7 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I’m just not a Valera fan , Villar is s much better player... it’s fine to deal him if you can get full value

Of course, I wasn't talking about Villar except that RBIs don't influence trade value one iota. 

[DrungoHazewood]

59 minutes ago, ArtVanDelay said:

If he can adapt permanently to hitting to all fields and manage a .270 BA, .370 OBP,  and perhaps a 450 SLG he'd be a nice player with 20 stolen bases at the top of the order (1 or 2)

Wouldn't that be like a 5 WAR player?  Let's temper our expectations here a bit. 

Cal Ripken's career numbers were .276/.340/.447 and he stole two bases a year.

I think we should be happy if he has a few years in the .250/.320/.400 range with solid defense and not too many caught stealing.

[Ohfan67]

On 12/13/2018 at 8:11 PM, Roll Tide said:

What I like is that is OBP hovers 100 points over his batting average. 

His strikeouts are a little higher 20-25% of his ABs ...but he's walking at a 12.5 % clip.

If he can adapt permanently to hitting to all fields and manage a .270 BA, .370 OBP,  and perhaps a 450 SLG he'd be a nice player with 20 stolen bases at the top of the order (1 or 2)

Sooo, an .820 OPS with 20 stolen bases? Yeah, that would be a really nice player!!

[Roll Tide]

15 hours ago, Ohfan67 said:

Sooo, an .820 OPS with 20 stolen bases? Yeah, that would be a really nice player!!

I think he has the potential if he hits to all fields. According to the scouting report he tends to be pull happy with the lift approach.

 

[interloper]

Keep in mind Flaherty had much better minor league stats than Jackson. Just to keep expectations in check.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, interloper said:

Keep in mind Flaherty had much better minor league stats than Jackson. Just to keep expectations in check.

You mean Zobrist light?

Folks here love their rule V selections.

[Luke-OH]

On 12/17/2018 at 3:23 PM, Roll Tide said:

I think he has the potential if he hits to all fields. According to the scouting report he tends to be pull happy with the lift approach.

 

The pull happy lift approach is why Drew Jackson started hitting better. He was doing the old Stanford Swing (definition from Baseball Prospectus if you aren’t familiar with the term, “The Stanford Swing is essentially a swing with very little loft that emphasizes hitting the other way and negates power”) when drafted.

An all-fields approach is overrated. I think it’s counter productive for the most common player types. It does work for players with natural loft and all-fields power (small group) and for players with little to no power, plus contact and speed (bigger group but usually 4th OF or Utility IF types).  Jackson has average raw power or a touch better and is far from plus contact, so he doesn’t fit either category. Otherwise, the major of players are better off trying to lift the ball and hit it to the part of the field where their power plays (almost always the pull side).

 

Here is the Baseball Prospectus article I quoted.

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/25467/baseball-proguestus-why-college-bats-disappeared-from-the-top-of-the-draft/

[Hallas]

10 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

The pull happy lift approach is why he started hitting better. He was  when he was doing the old Stanford Swing (definition from Baseball Prospectus if you aren’t familiar with the term, “The Stanford Swing is essentially a swing with very little loft that emphasizes hitting the other way and negates power”) when drafted.

An all-fields approach is overrated. I think it’s counter productive for the most common player types. It does work for players with natural loft and all-fields power (small group) and for players with little to no power, plus contact and speed (bigger group but usually 4th OF or Utility IF types).  Jackson has average raw power or a touch better and is far from plus contact, so he doesn’t fit either category. Otherwise, the major of players are better off trying to lift the ball and hit it to the part of the field where their power plays (almost always the pull side).

 

edit: here is the article I quoted, https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/25467/baseball-proguestus-why-college-bats-disappeared-from-the-top-of-the-draft/

Is an all-fields approach overrated in a league that shifts like 40% of the time?  I would have thought that this approach would swing back into favor.  Or is hitting it out of the park still the best way to go, shift and all?

[DrungoHazewood]

13 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

The pull happy lift approach is why he started hitting better. He was  when he was doing the old Stanford Swing (definition from Baseball Prospectus if you aren’t familiar with the term, “The Stanford Swing is essentially a swing with very little loft that emphasizes hitting the other way and negates power”) when drafted.

An all-fields approach is overrated. I think it’s counter productive for the most common player types. It does work for players with natural loft and all-fields power (small group) and for players with little to no power, plus contact and speed (bigger group but usually 4th OF or Utility IF types).  Jackson has average raw power or a touch better and is far from plus contact, so he doesn’t fit either category. Otherwise, the major of players are better off trying to lift the ball and hit it to the part of the field where their power plays (almost always the pull side).

 

edit: here is the article I quoted, https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/25467/baseball-proguestus-why-college-bats-disappeared-from-the-top-of-the-draft/

So what they're saying is that Major League Baseball has evolved into a three true outcomes sport where scouts almost exclusively focus on the ability to drive the ball in the air.  Anything outside of that niche, say smaller players who work the count and put the ball in play, are seen as projects who'll need to learn to drive and loft the ball at the expense of contact and on-base skills if they have any chance of fitting in and making the Majors.

It's no wonder that MLB seems loathe to try to fix the never-ending games with 20 strikeouts and the right fielder picking flowers: Anyone who doesn't fit into that game is seen as having no value.

If it were me I'd order that ball winding machine's tension turned down about five notches, and in 10 years coaches will be beating the bushes looking for The Stanford Swing.  In 1915 The Stanford Swing was called "hitting".

[Luke-OH]

2 hours ago, Hallas said:

Is an all-fields approach overrated in a league that shifts like 40% of the time?  I would have thought that this approach would swing back into favor.  Or is hitting it out of the park still the best way to go, shift and all?

The mechanics of pulling the ball on the ground (or rolling over as it’s called) are different than hitting the ball in the air to the pull side. They don’t always go hand in hand. 

[Luke-OH]

On 12/18/2018 at 7:58 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

So what they're saying is that Major League Baseball has evolved into a three true outcomes sport where scouts almost exclusively focus on the ability to drive the ball in the air.  Anything outside of that niche, say smaller players who work the count and put the ball in play, are seen as projects who'll need to learn to drive and loft the ball at the expense of contact and on-base skills if they have any chance of fitting in and making the Majors.

It's no wonder that MLB seems loathe to try to fix the never-ending games with 20 strikeouts and the right fielder picking flowers: Anyone who doesn't fit into that game is seen as having no value.

If it were me I'd order that ball winding machine's tension turned down about five notches, and in 10 years coaches will be beating the bushes looking for The Stanford Swing.  In 1915 The Stanford Swing was called "hitting".

 

Here’s a simplistic look at a couple cohorts of players out of a population of 214 MLB hitters who had 400+ PA in 2018. 

The population as a whole had a 107 wRC+. This makes sense, because part time players (<400 PA are lessor hitters, so it makes sense that players who got a lot of playing time to be better than league average).

The first cohort is players who pulled the ball more than one standard deviation above the mean. The number came out to about 46% or greater pull rate. Those players had on average a 112.5 wRC+.

The next cohort is players who have a true flyball rate (flyballs-IFFB as a percentage of balls in play) of at least one standard deviation above the mean. Those players had on average a 120 wRC+.

The last cohort I looked at (I’ll probably dive deeper later on) was players who pulled the ball at least one standard deviation less than the mean. These players had on average a 100.4 wRC+.

I didn’t do true flyball rate one standard deviation or less than the mean, but anecdotally, looking at the data, that might be the worst cohort of the bunch.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

5 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

I’m not saying I prefer the game one way or another, I’m just speaking to the reality of what produces value. (I know you were talking about the article and not my statement)

Here’s a simplistic look at a couple cohorts of players out of a population of 214 hitters who had 400+ PA in 2018. 

The population as a whole had a 107 wRC+. This makes sense, because part time players (<400 PA are lessor hitters, so it makes sense that players who got a lot of playing time to be better than league average).

The first cohort is players who pulled the ball more than one standard deviation above the mean. The number came out to about 46% or greater pull rate. Those players had on average a 112.5 wRC+.

The next cohort is players who have a true flyball rate (flyballs-IFFB as a percentage of balls in play) of at least one standard deviation above the mean. Those players had on average a 120 wRC+.

The last cohort I looked at (I’ll probably dive deeper later on) was players who pulled the ball at least one standard deviation less than the mean. These players had on average a 100.4 wRC+.

I didn’t do true flyball rate one standard deviation or less than the mean, but anecdotally, looking at the data, that might be the worst cohort of the bunch.

 

Oh, I understand, and I'm not taking any issue with what you're saying.  In today's game pulling the ball and hitting in the air generates more value.  In part because we're in a game where there's small or no penalties for striking out, and almost eveyone can hit a ball 375 or 400 ft with some regularity.

I just think this is not a particularly entertaining brand of baseball.  Sports, in general, are more fun when they involve athletic actions, and high-level athletes doing difficult athletic things.  Pitchers striking out 10 guys a game, plus 10 balls into a shift punctuated by three solo homers aren't as fun as fast guys hitting .365 with a ton of triples and steals and bunch of athletic defensive plays.

Sabermetrics figured out that the most efficient ways to create runs were pulling the ball, drawing walks, and being very conservative on the bases.  That's not great entertainment.  It's up to Major League Baseball to make entertaining baseball also make sense from an analytical viewpoint.  Major League Baseball has almost completely declined to even attempt that.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Oh, I understand, and I'm not taking any issue with what you're saying.  In today's game pulling the ball and hitting in the air generates more value.  In part because we're in a game where there's small or no penalties for striking out, and almost eveyone can hit a ball 375 or 400 ft with some regularity.

I just think this is not a particularly entertaining brand of baseball.  Sports, in general, are more fun when they involve athletic actions, and high-level athletes doing difficult athletic things.  Pitchers striking out 10 guys a game, plus 10 balls into a shift punctuated by three solo homers aren't as fun as fast guys hitting .365 with a ton of triples and steals and bunch of athletic defensive plays.

Sabermetrics figured out that the most efficient ways to create runs were pulling the ball, drawing walks, and being very conservative on the bases.  That's not great entertainment.  It's up to Major League Baseball to make entertaining baseball also make sense from an analytical viewpoint.  Major League Baseball has almost completely declined to even attempt that.

They are considering killing the shift, which would address something you cited as a problem.

Personally I consider a strike out more entertaining than a weak ground ball or lazy fly ball.

[Camden_yardbird]

5 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

I’m not saying I prefer the game one way or another, I’m just speaking to the reality of what produces value. (I know you were talking about the article and not my statement)

Here’s a simplistic look at a couple cohorts of players out of a population of 214 hitters who had 400+ PA in 2018. 

The population as a whole had a 107 wRC+. This makes sense, because part time players (<400 PA are lessor hitters, so it makes sense that players who got a lot of playing time to be better than league average).

The first cohort is players who pulled the ball more than one standard deviation above the mean. The number came out to about 46% or greater pull rate. Those players had on average a 112.5 wRC+.

The next cohort is players who have a true flyball rate (flyballs-IFFB as a percentage of balls in play) of at least one standard deviation above the mean. Those players had on average a 120 wRC+.

The last cohort I looked at (I’ll probably dive deeper later on) was players who pulled the ball at least one standard deviation less than the mean. These players had on average a 100.4 wRC+.

I didn’t do true flyball rate one standard deviation or less than the mean, but anecdotally, looking at the data, that might be the worst cohort of the bunch.

 

So what you are saying, in it's most simplistic form, is?

Being good at pulling the ball is good, but not as good as putting it in the air.  But being bad at putting it in the air is worse than being bad at pulling the ball. 

Higher peak, bigger valley. 

So you can develop hitters to be flyball hitters but they better be good at it, because if they are worse you get a worse hitter than those who can pull the ball at even a below average rate (who are incidentally about average).

I could be completely wrong, but I try.