Jump to content

Mancini Trade Package


bird watcher

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't know if it's a product of the juiced ball, but there are players who disproportionately benefit (or are hurt) by changes to the playing conditions.  It might be a coincidence.  Sometimes people have career years that happen to fall in favorable conditions.  

Larry Sheets had by far his best year in the juiced ball year, but I doubt the ball was the entire difference between his .921 OPS in '87 and his .645 the next year.  It was probably a combination of a career year, the ball, health, and who knows what.

But I don't think it's hurting Mancini that he's hitting a super bounce ball this year.

Lol.

Why does this board just want to discredit Mancini as much as possible? First of all, everyone is benefiting from the ball this year. And guys who should be murdering it, like Machado, kind of aren't. So that argument seems pretty weak to me.

Secondly, this throws out all of the research folks have done regarding Mancini's legitimate and real changes to his approach/swing. I mean he worked on the flaws and he beat them. That's what we're seeing this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

How about Harold Baines?

I guess he's in the same extended family, although he had gotten MVP votes in four seasons and been in a couple AS games by Mancini's age.  Baines didn't have a bad year (i.e. sub-100 OPS+) from age 22 to 40.  And he never played an inning at first in his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

When you ignore Drungo's post in it's entirety it shows me you are not interested in honest debate.

Again, instead of communicating, you take this weird side angle and deflect it by relating it to Drungo's post. 

I had nothing against that post, in which he acknowledged there were some bad comps. I picked on the Scott/Trumbo comps because they're Orioles and they come up a lot. Frobby had some fair points about Scott's OBP. That's an example of how to have a conversation about something instead of side-swiping me constantly with some flippant quip or deflecting or answering a question with a question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, interloper said:

Lol.

Why does this board just want to discredit Mancini as much as possible? First of all, everyone is benefiting from the ball this year. And guys who should be murdering it, like Machado, kind of aren't. So that argument seems pretty weak to me.

Secondly, this throws out all of the research folks have done regarding Mancini's legitimate and real changes to his approach/swing. I mean he worked on the flaws and he beat them. That's what we're seeing this year. 

I'm not sure why you've taken a throwaway post (which really I hoped people would focus on who the heck George Puccinelli and Butch Schmidt were) and turned it into a quest to redeem Trey Mancini's good name.  I was not making any kind of negative value judgment about Mancini - all the guys on that list, at least the major leaguers, had solid, productive MLB careers.  

I actually thought I'd get much more flack for comparing Trey to Don Baylor and Bobby Bonilla than Trumbo and Scott.  I assumed Trumbo and Scott were pretty non-controversial.  I almost didn't even include Trumbo because you could argue the Trey Mancini of the 2010s is Trey Mancini.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, interloper said:

Lol.

Why does this board just want to discredit Mancini as much as possible? First of all, everyone is benefiting from the ball this year. And guys who should be murdering it, like Machado, kind of aren't. So that argument seems pretty weak to me.

Secondly, this throws out all of the research folks have done regarding Mancini's legitimate and real changes to his approach/swing. I mean he worked on the flaws and he beat them. That's what we're seeing this year. 

I just want to see more of it.   Mancini carried a .900+ OPS through July 8 in 2017, then he fell off pretty significantly in the second half.   So, for me his strong first half this year doesn’t prove that he’s going to be able to sustain it this time.   I hear you about swing changes, etc., but I still want to see him actually sustain his success.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm not sure why you've taken a throwaway post (which really I hoped people would focus on who the heck George Puccinelli and Butch Schmidt were) and turned it into a quest to redeem Trey Mancini's good name.  I was not making any kind of negative value judgment about Mancini - all the guys on that list, at least the major leaguers, had solid, productive MLB careers.  

I actually thought I'd get much more flack for comparing Trey to Don Baylor and Bobby Bonilla than Trumbo and Scott.  I assumed Trumbo and Scott were pretty non-controversial.  I almost didn't even include Trumbo because you could argue the Trey Mancini of the 2010s is Trey Mancini.

Mark Trumbo has never had an OBP above .317 in any season of his career. He has never hit above .268 in a season. Mancini has already eclipsed both of those marks in 2 of his 3 years in the big leagues. He should reach 2+ WAR this year and has already matched Trumbo's second-best WAR total in a season of 2.3. 

Could Mancini simply turn into Trumbo one day? I guess that's possible, sure. But right now they don't seem like remotely the same type of player to me. They play the same positions, and they hit some dingers, but that's it! Mancini will almost certainly demolish Trumbo's career WAR numbers if he puts in full seasons at 1B and hits consistently with power to all fields. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I just want to see more of it.   Mancini carried a .900+ OPS through July 8 in 2017, then he fell off pretty significantly in the second half.   So, for me his strong first half this year doesn’t prove that he’s going to be able to sustain it this time.   I hear you about swing changes, etc., but I still want to see him actually sustain his success.   

Of course. Totally agree. It's early yet both this season and in his career. At the end of the day, though, it's pretty easy to look at the guy and say "yeah, that's definitely not Mark Trumbo". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, interloper said:

Lol.

Why does this board just want to discredit Mancini as much as possible? First of all, everyone is benefiting from the ball this year. And guys who should be murdering it, like Machado, kind of aren't. So that argument seems pretty weak to me.

Secondly, this throws out all of the research folks have done regarding Mancini's legitimate and real changes to his approach/swing. I mean he worked on the flaws and he beat them. That's what we're seeing this year. 

Machado is on a hot streak as he comes to town.Batting average over  400 last seven games. 6 homers  and 16 RBI'S in last 15 games and .OBP over .400.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Going Underground said:

Machado is on a hot streak as he comes to town.Batting average over  400 last seven games. 6 homers  and 16 RBI'S in last 15 games and .OBP over .400.

I'm just sayin. "It's the ball!" is not (always) a great argument for explaining why a ML player is hitting well. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, interloper said:

I'm just sayin. "It's the ball!" is not (always) a great argument for explaining why a ML player is hitting well. 

And the commissioner likes all of baseball to score a lot of runs.  So maybe, just maybe, there is no change to the ball in sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, interloper said:

Mark Trumbo has never had an OBP above .317 in any season of his career. He has never hit above .268 in a season. Mancini has already eclipsed both of those marks in 2 of his 3 years in the big leagues. He should reach 2+ WAR this year and has already matched Trumbo's second-best WAR total in a season of 2.3. 

Could Mancini simply turn into Trumbo one day? I guess that's possible, sure. But right now they don't seem like remotely the same type of player to me. They play the same positions, and they hit some dingers, but that's it! Mancini will almost certainly demolish Trumbo's career WAR numbers if he puts in full seasons at 1B and hits consistently with power to all fields. 

I hope you are correct, I hope he has a 20+ win career.  

Sometimes it's more useful than confusing to look at comparable players.  I did a bb-ref query with the following qualifiers: through age 27, OPS+ between 117-127, less than 1700 PAs, played 1B, LF, RF, and/or DH, total fielding runs =< 0.

46 names popped up.  Josh Bell (the Pittsburgh one).  Mancini.  Corey Dickerson.  Khris Davis.  Yoenis Cespedes.  Josh Willingham.  Erubiel Durazo.  Bubba Trammell.  Brian Daubach.  Sam Horn.  Larry Sheets.  Al Bumbry (?!)  Leon Wagner.  Dick Stuart.  Bob Nieman.  Nick Etten.  Irish Meusel.  Those are the more recognizable names.  I think we and Mancini would be pretty happy with Josh Willingham's career. Or Cespedes'.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, interloper said:

Of course. Totally agree. It's early yet both this season and in his career. At the end of the day, though, it's pretty easy to look at the guy and say "yeah, that's definitely not Mark Trumbo". 

I think you’re taking the term “comp” too literally.   They’re not the exact same player.   But at this point in his career, Trumbo had a 114 OPS+ and had been worth 7.2 rWAR through the end of his age 27 season.    That’s pretty similar even if Trumbo was always a lower OBP guy than Mancini.   And interestingly for purposes of this conversation, Trumbo was traded that offseason, with the Angels receiving Hector Santiago (a very solid starting pitcher) and Tyler Skaggs (who had been a highly regarded pitching prospect) in return.   The Angels also threw minor league pitcher AJ Scheugel into the trade. So, I’d say it’s pretty clear that Trumbo did have significant trade value when he was at the same stage of his career as Mancini.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.




  • Posts

    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
    • Not bad, but Mullins needs to be at Centerfield for his range, glove, and defensive ability. Top teir premium defense cannot be underestimated. Kjerstad will be on the bench. I think the question is whether Slater or Cowser plays. I would prefer Ramirez over Slater if they need another right handed bat. Sig needs to look at Adleys recent sample sizes vs LHP before making him DH. McCann is catching for Burnes and hitting the left handed pitcher. He's also on a hot streak.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...