Chris Davis 2019 and beyond

[wildbillhiccup]

51 minutes ago, atomic said:

He has raised his WAR on the season to -0.5  WAR from -1.2 WAR.  I think that is a positive.

He now has better WAR than the following position players:

Martin -1.4 WAR

Mullins -0.7 WAR

Wilkerson -0.7 WAR

If he keeps hitting he will be a head of 

Dwight Smith Jr -0.4 WAR

Broxton -0.1 WAR

Soon enough.  At this point there are players that need to be released before even considering releasing Davis.  

Releasing Davis would send a message though. As long as he's still here he's a sad reminder of the mistakes of the past. He's the lone sheet of hideous dry wall left standing after they burned down the house. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

11 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

Releasing Davis would send a message though. As long as he's still here he's a sad reminder of the mistakes of the past. He's the lone sheet of hideous dry wall left standing after they burned down the house. 

What would the message be and who would receive it?

[wildbillhiccup]

7 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

What would the message be and who would receive it?

The end of a terrible era of not building the team the right way (i.e., for sustained success)?

[BohKnowsBmore]

2 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

The end of a terrible era of not building the team the right way (i.e., for sustained success)?

You still haven't identified who would be the target of said message.  Also, I am struggling to see a meaningful outcome from the message once sent.

I would like our FO moving forward to make moves that have clearly defined outcomes/goals, not just doing things because they feel good and send some amorphous, undefined message.

[wildbillhiccup]

4 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

You still haven't identified who would be the target of said message.  Also, I am struggling to see a meaningful outcome from the message once sent.

I would like our FO moving forward to make moves that have clearly defined outcomes/goals, not just doing things because they feel good and send some amorphous, undefined message.

From a practical standpoint. 

1) Davis is a waste of a roster spot that could be filled by A) a more versatile player or B) another bullpen arm. 

2) Davis is impeding the development of potential younger players at 1B. Short term Mancini and longer term possibly Mouncastle. Some combination of of Mancini, Mouncastle, and Sisco (when he isn't catching) should be rotated between 1B and DH. That's what the team would be doing if they weren't dealing with Davis' albatross of a contract. 

[NedFromYork]

Davis' 90 MPH fastball coming out of high school was 91% percentile, 84 MPH was class average for prospects.  Immediately after the season they should convert him to a reliever and see if he can develop enough to have some value at some point.  That's if they can't agree to a buyout.

[foxfield]

3 hours ago, foxfield said:

At the break, Davis is being used more selectively, and is hitting about 21 points higher than last year, arriving at the break hitting .189 after walloping a .168 in 2018.  On the downside, he is striking out more, over 43% of his at bats end in K.  So...his batting average on balls in play is nearly .300.  Over the last week, it is .667.

Davis is done, I don't think he is going anywhere soon, but it aint because he just had a good week.  He is still producing negative WAR.  And as Frobby points out above, it would take something more to show that something is different.  Davis hasn't hit for 2 months in years.  Enjoy the fireworks when they come, and let's hope simply for enough talent to rise that Davis cannot he kept.  

 

2 hours ago, atomic said:

He has raised his WAR on the season to -0.5  WAR from -1.2 WAR.  I think that is a positive.

He now has better WAR than the following position players:

Martin -1.4 WAR

Mullins -0.7 WAR

Wilkerson -0.7 WAR

If he keeps hitting he will be a head of 

Dwight Smith Jr -0.4 WAR

Broxton -0.1 WAR

Soon enough.  At this point there are players that need to be released before even considering releasing Davis.  

 

2 hours ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

A week of batted-ball data isn't particularly telling of anything, good or bad.

I don't think I disagree with anything either of you state.  And Im not sure if there is a difference on what those things mean either.  Of course, what Davis has done in the last week to 10 days going into the break is positive.  Both for him and for the Orioles.  He is still a sub replacement level player.  I stated before the season that I hoped Davis would be released early.  It's pretty clear now, that aside from money, there are plenty of players who stink on this club.  Trumbo being out has given them more space and I simply stated above that I don't think Davis is going anywhere soon, but that I don't think his last ten days have moved that needle.  I think Davis is what he is...a streaky player who is no longer capable of putting up numbers that will justify his contract.  That is not earth shattering or ground breaking opinion.  He is almost three years in at sub replacement level.  A good week is just that.  As Bohknows states, that is not particularly telling of anything good or bad.  My point was that over his good week, his BABIP was .667 which is clearly unsustainable.  The week of good news is just that...good news.  The reality is that 2.5 years of harder data suggests also, that it is not going to last.

Of course we all should hope it does.  My position on Davis has softened considerably.  Yes he is no longer deserving of a roster spot in MLB, but the Orioles have several guys that applies to and that is why I ended above by saying I simply choose now to enjoy the good moments when they appear, and hope that Elias and Sig can change things enough to bring us enough talent that this is no longer an issue.  That time isn't now.  But that doesn't mean that Davis isn't done as a productive player.  He is, and there is significant data that backs that up.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, osfan83 said:

Here's how I view MLB, as 1 company with 30 different departments/divisions. So a player being able to pick where they work is somewhat like working for IBM and telling them what city you want to work in. I'm not saying players shouldn't have some freedoms on where they live, but I work for a big company and can't say "Hey Boss I'm tired of working in Harrisburg, move me to San Diego next month". Well I guess I can say it, but small chance of it happening.

They Yankees can't survive unless they have competitive teams to play. Coke will be just fine if Pepsi goes belly up.....The Yankees will suffer if the Red Sox, Rays, Cubs, Dodgers and Orioles go out of business.  

The difference is that for Coke, Pepsi and RC and Red Bull and a bunch of other soda companies exist, and provide competitive market forces to keep Coke from doing crazy or manipulative stuff.  If Coke charges $6 a can, and changes the forumula to include radioactive Xenon isotopes people will go buy Pepsi.  For a baseball player or a baseball fan there's not really any other option.  If you want baseball that's not affiliated with MLB you have to drop down to indy leagues that draw 3,000 fans a game at $8 a head, and pay players $1500 a month.

Major League Baseball has a near-monopoly.  They regularly use that to leverage cities and taxpayers to build them $500M or $1B stadiums that are nice-to-haves, not needs.  They leverage their monopoly to have a draft, so that amateur players can't pick where they play unless they want to make $1500 a month.  They leverage their monopoly so that they keep players from free agency until most of them are nearing 30.  They know that they're the only game in town, and can threaten to move to Montreal to get whatever they want.

If someone in Congress ever got a real burr under their saddle about MLB they could revoke the anti-trust exemption, and then invoke the anti-trust statutes to break up MLB into competing leagues. I think the least MLB can do is let the players have some say in their place of employment and salary at least once in their careers.

Oh, and I think the Yanks would be just fine competing in a league with just five other teams.  They'd still have $600M in annual revenues, maybe more if they didn't have luxury taxes and revenue sharing.  The Yanks have no reason to care if the Orioles or Royals or Padres go out of business.

[DrungoHazewood]

16 hours ago, Maverick Hiker said:

To make it simpler and preserve the historical tradition of the game, , why not just change the rulebook to say there must be two fielders on each side of 2nd base.  Also  no infielder can play deep into the outfield, and no outfielder can play the infield. 

King Kelly used to regularly play 5th infielder when he was listed as an outfielder in the box score.  He'd likely pick where exactly he positioned himself by where he thought it likeliest the batter would hit the ball.  We're not entirely sure of all the details here since it was in the 1880s, but there's plenty of circumstantial evidence from the statistical record.

Is there a date where you'd suggest baseball's historical traditions were sacrosanct?  Probably in between the King Kelly shifting, and the Ted Williams shift?  So... 1920 or 1930?

Baseball doesn't mess with the rules much.  It would truly be a backwards-looking un-innovation to start changing them to quash creative strategy in the name of keeping everything the same as it was in 1930.  And if we're going to do that there are a lot of other massive changes we'll have to undo.  Deaden the ball about 50%.  Enforce complete games.  Eliminate these radical games after the sun's gone down.  Devote a roster spot to third catchers.  Maybe bring back the bonus baby rule, where amateur kid over a certain bonus level has to stay on the MLB roster for a few years instead of going to the minors.  And if we're talking 1920, well, affiliated minor leagues are an affront to the traditions of small town American pennant races.

[osfan83]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The difference is that for Coke, Pepsi and RC and Red Bull and a bunch of other soda companies exist, and provide competitive market forces to keep Coke from doing crazy or manipulative stuff.  If Coke charges $6 a can, and changes the forumula to include radioactive Xenon isotopes people will go buy Pepsi.  For a baseball player or a baseball fan there's not really any other option.  If you want baseball that's not affiliated with MLB you have to drop down to indy leagues that draw 3,000 fans a game at $8 a head, and pay players $1500 a month.

Major League Baseball has a near-monopoly.  They regularly use that to leverage cities and taxpayers to build them $500M or $1B stadiums that are nice-to-haves, not needs.  They leverage their monopoly to have a draft, so that amateur players can't pick where they play unless they want to make $1500 a month.  They leverage their monopoly so that they keep players from free agency until most of them are nearing 30.  They know that they're the only game in town, and can threaten to move to Montreal to get whatever they want.

If someone in Congress ever got a real burr under their saddle about MLB they could revoke the anti-trust exemption, and then invoke the anti-trust statutes to break up MLB into competing leagues. I think the least MLB can do is let the players have some say in their place of employment and salary at least once in their careers.

Oh, and I think the Yanks would be just fine competing in a league with just five other teams.  They'd still have $600M in annual revenues, maybe more if they didn't have luxury taxes and revenue sharing.  The Yanks have no reason to care if the Orioles or Royals or Padres go out of business.

if MLB is not one company, and each team is a company unto it's self, can the Yankees decided to leave the MLB and play in a different league? If the Yankees would do just fine playing against fewer teams, maybe they form their own league, demand half of the profits of all the other teams for the privilege of playing against the Yankees. 

[atomic]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The difference is that for Coke, Pepsi and RC and Red Bull and a bunch of other soda companies exist, and provide competitive market forces to keep Coke from doing crazy or manipulative stuff.  If Coke charges $6 a can, and changes the forumula to include radioactive Xenon isotopes people will go buy Pepsi.  For a baseball player or a baseball fan there's not really any other option.  If you want baseball that's not affiliated with MLB you have to drop down to indy leagues that draw 3,000 fans a game at $8 a head, and pay players $1500 a month.

Major League Baseball has a near-monopoly.  They regularly use that to leverage cities and taxpayers to build them $500M or $1B stadiums that are nice-to-haves, not needs.  They leverage their monopoly to have a draft, so that amateur players can't pick where they play unless they want to make $1500 a month.  They leverage their monopoly so that they keep players from free agency until most of them are nearing 30.  They know that they're the only game in town, and can threaten to move to Montreal to get whatever they want.

If someone in Congress ever got a real burr under their saddle about MLB they could revoke the anti-trust exemption, and then invoke the anti-trust statutes to break up MLB into competing leagues. I think the least MLB can do is let the players have some say in their place of employment and salary at least once in their careers.

Oh, and I think the Yanks would be just fine competing in a league with just five other teams.  They'd still have $600M in annual revenues, maybe more if they didn't have luxury taxes and revenue sharing.  The Yanks have no reason to care if the Orioles or Royals or Padres go out of business.

Sure the Yankees have to care if there were only 6 teams in the league as another league would form to compete with them. And there is plenty of competition for baseball.  Football, Soccer, Hockey, Basketball, amusement parks, zoos, art museums, books, tv, movies, video games, the beach.  Entertainment dollars can be spent elsewhere and that is what I am doing.  

I don’t watch but maybe every 7th game or so these days and I am surviving just fine.  

For the players they can play in Japan or Korea.  

[El_Duderino]

6 hours ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

 

So in back-to-back posts you state that he's doing what he does every year AND that he'll never be the player he's been in the past?

If you want me to spell it out...yes in the last four years of epic failure he has had small blips like this. 

[DrungoHazewood]

14 hours ago, atomic said:

Sure the Yankees have to care if there were only 6 teams in the league as another league would form to compete with them. And there is plenty of competition for baseball.  Football, Soccer, Hockey, Basketball, amusement parks, zoos, art museums, books, tv, movies, video games, the beach.  Entertainment dollars can be spent elsewhere and that is what I am doing.  

I don’t watch but maybe every 7th game or so these days and I am surviving just fine.  

For the players they can play in Japan or Korea.  

I'm sure "you can go work in Japan" would go over well in other industries.  Let's say IBM was the only tech company in the US.  If you're a computer or electrical engineer the only place to work is IBM.  Unless you want to go live in Japan and work for Sony...

And other entertainment is great, just so long as you don't care about baseball.  Or your skillset isn't baseball-centric. I'm sure Trey Mancini or Hanser Alberto could drop MLB in an instant and go be an NFL wide receiver or a holding midfielder for Ajax. That's the same as free agency.

[DrungoHazewood]

16 hours ago, atomic said:

Sure the Yankees have to care if there were only 6 teams in the league as another league would form to compete with them. And there is plenty of competition for baseball.  Football, Soccer, Hockey, Basketball, amusement parks, zoos, art museums, books, tv, movies, video games, the beach.  Entertainment dollars can be spent elsewhere and that is what I am doing.  

I don’t watch but maybe every 7th game or so these days and I am surviving just fine.  

For the players they can play in Japan or Korea.  

Cities and states don't seem to have any problem offering up exorbitant sums to make sure they keep their particular form of entertainment from moving away.  Montreal is the only city in my lifetime that said "no thanks, we'll be fine without baseball".  And even they seem to be reconsidering that choice.

[weams]

21 hours ago, wildbillhiccup said:

The end of a terrible era of not building the team the right way (i.e., for sustained success)?

The best record in baseball for five seasons?