MLB Pipeline: Austin Martin

[DrungoHazewood]

23 minutes ago, Number5 said:

So, if I understand you correctly, there is absolutely nothing that this player could possibly have done to make you think he's a worthy choice here.  He has performed at a tremendous level wherever he's been for several years, but it must be all smoke and mirrors, coupled with pure luck over a particular small sample size.  Sorry, but you haven't shown me any reason whatsoever to agree with you that he isn't the player he seems to be.  You asserted that his home park in college was the sole reason for his numbers, yet his performance away from that environment shouldn't be considered either, because the Cape Cod League's season doesn't last 749 games.  You are certainly welcome to your feeling that something tells you that Gonzales isn't for real, but your feeling alone doesn't convince me to agree with you.

I am trusting Elias here.  I'd be happy with any of Tork, Martin, Lacy, or Gonzales.  I don't see any valid reason to eliminate Gonzales from that discussion.  It comes down to what the Orioles' baseball people think, which is OK by me.

No, you don't understand me correctly.  Or I don't think so.  All I'm saying is that Gonzales, by virtue of playing in a completely loopy environment, gives us less information to go on.  So he's inherently more risky.  Some of that risk is mitigated by the combination of scouting reports and college summer ball.  But not as much as a bunch of games played in a place where there are five runs scored a game instead of 10.

[Number5]

15 minutes ago, Orioles1954 said:

I haven't followed this thread but what happened to Emerson Hancock?

I'm sure the Orioles have done their due diligence on Hancock.  I think he's almost sure to go in the top 10.  As Corn said, it seems like he dropped just a bit in the eyes of many after a good, but not great, start to the college season, especially his K rate.  I wouldn't storm the warehouse with pitch forks and torches if the Orioles took him at #2, but I like the other 4 guys better, based on what limited information I've seen.

[DrungoHazewood]

44 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

If you're @wildcard42 games is equivalent to, like, 5 years of stats.  

In wildcard's universe Bob Milacki was inducted into the Hall of Fame during the 1988-89 offseason.

[wildcard]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

In wildcard's universe Bob Milacki was inducted into the Hall of Fame during the 1988-89 offseason.

How would you know anything about my universe.  You live in your own.

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, wildcard said:

How would you know anything about my universe.  You live in your own.

Lighten up, buttercup.  It's a joke.

[wildcard]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

Lighten up, buttercup.  It's a joke.

Sounded like an insult to me.

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

Sounded like an insult to me.

Did you not hold Bob Milacki in high regard?  

[Number5]

18 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

No, you don't understand me correctly.  Or I don't think so.  All I'm saying is that Gonzales, by virtue of playing in a completely loopy environment, gives us less information to go on.  So he's inherently more risky.  Some of that risk is mitigated by the combination of scouting reports and college summer ball.  But not as much as a bunch of games played in a place where there are five runs scored a game instead of 10.

So there is something he could have possibly done that would have enabled you to consider him as a viable pick?  It sure doesn't sound like it.  Hey, I'm fine with you having the opinion that the Orioles should never, ever select a player whose home park was a hitters park.  I wouldn't share your opinion, but I certainly wouldn't begrudge you for holding it.  it's just that you aren't giving me any real reason to not consider this player, as I'm not predisposed to eliminate any player based solely on geography.  It would be entirely different, to my way of thinking, if there were any evidence whatsoever that he couldn't hit in a less hitter-friendly environment.  But there isn't.  When faced with those conditions, he's performed.  The guy has unquestionably stood out from all of the other players playing in the exact same environment, in my view, whether that be in New Mexico or Massachusetts.

[DrungoHazewood]

9 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Sounded like an insult to me.

Oh come on.  Your thing is to advocate for sweeping decisions to be made on 18 at bats.  After like 20 years we can kid you about it.  I'm sure you can come up with some kind of thing about random players from 1878 to make fun of me.

[Can_of_corn]

22 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I'm sure the Orioles have done their due diligence on Hancock.  I think he's almost sure to go in the top 10.  As Corn said, it seems like he dropped just a bit in the eyes of many after a good, but not great, start to the college season, especially his K rate.  I wouldn't storm the warehouse with pitch forks and torches if the Orioles took him at #2, but I like the other 4 guys better, based on what limited information I've seen.

I'd expect some slot savings if he is the pick.

[DrungoHazewood]

7 minutes ago, Number5 said:

So there is something he could have possibly done that would have enabled you to consider him as a viable pick?  It sure doesn't sound like it.  Hey, I'm fine with you having the opinion that the Orioles should never, ever select a player whose home park was a hitters park.  I wouldn't share your opinion, but I certainly wouldn't begrudge you for holding it.  it's just that you aren't giving me any real reason to not consider this player, as I'm not predisposed to eliminate any player based solely on geography.  It would be entirely different, to my way of thinking, if there were any evidence whatsoever that he couldn't hit in a less hitter-friendly environment.  But there isn't.  When faced with those conditions, he's performed.  The guy has unquestionably stood out from all of the other players playing in the exact same environment, in my view, whether that be in New Mexico or Massachusetts.

There a difference between a viable pick and a less risky pick.  If the Orioles are that comfortable with Gonzales despite having less solid information to go on, then pick him.  You can be the best player in the world and still be a 1998 Colorado Rockie.  But if you're trading for that guy you are taking on a lot of risk that he's not really the best guy, he just has gaudy Mile High numbers.

When you say "..that the Orioles should never, ever select a player whose home park was a hitters park" you're underselling the case here.  Colorado is a hitter's park.  Fenway is a hitter's park.  Gonzales' hitting environment is twice that of the Rockies.  It's way, way, way beyond any environment that has ever existed in MLB history.  That inherently adds risk to the equation.

This is like an NFL team drafting someone who has only played Arena Football. It's plausible he could be really good, but it's very hard to tell because the context is so out of whack.

[wildcard]

12 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Oh come on.  Your thing is to advocate for sweeping decisions to be made on 18 at bats.  After like 20 years we can kid you about it.  I'm sure you can come up with some kind of thing about random players from 1878 to make fun of me.

No, 1978 is your thing.  I think I'll leave that to you.   Just when you kid don't make it an insult.

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

There a difference between a viable pick and a less risky pick.  If the Orioles are that comfortable with Gonzales despite having less solid information to go on, then pick him.  You can be the best player in the world and still be a 1998 Colorado Rockie.  But if you're trading for that guy you are taking on a lot of risk that he's not really the best guy, he just has gaudy Mile High numbers.

When you say "..that the Orioles should never, ever select a player whose home park was a hitters park" you're underselling the case here.  Colorado is a hitter's park.  Fenway is a hitter's park.  Gonzales' hitting environment is twice that of the Rockies.  It's way, way, way beyond any environment that has ever existed in MLB history.  That inherently adds risk to the equation.

This is like an NFL team drafting someone who has only played Arena Football. It's plausible he could be really good, but it's very hard to tell because the context is so out of whack.

The single biggest difference between hitting for the Colorado Rockies and NMSU is the pitching you are facing.  As with every college and high school player ever entering a draft, Gonzales has not been facing major league players.  The numbers he put up, though, were not solely because he was playing in a small park in New Mexico.  At least, there isn't any evidence to support such a claim.  Hitting home runs is not his sole skill.  The smaller dimensions actually detract from doubles and triples, yet he excels in those areas, as well.  Even hit an inside-the-park grand slam.  He makes contact and hits the ball hard all over the ballpark, and runs well.  College career: 89 walks and 79 strikeouts (plus 18 HBP).  Coupled with his high batting average, the guy gets on base.  That is not a park thing.  The altitude is 1300 feet lower than Denver, by the way.  I'm not the one saying "..that the Orioles should never, ever select a player whose home park was a hitters park" …  and if you aren't saying that, what, exactly, are you saying?  The sole argument you have mounted in all of these posts amounts to exactly that, as far as I can see.

I can see that I am somehow being unsuccessful in convincing you that your argument is based solely on geography and it is for certain that you aren't convincing me otherwise.  We will obviously remain in disagreement here.  Hey, I'd be real happy with Tork, Martin, or Lacy, as I said earlier.  I also would have no problem with Elias should he make Gonzales our choice at #2, especially if that can somehow help us have some extra money to sign a guy like Nick Bitsko at  #30.  You clearly think that would be a bad move.  I get that.

[DrungoHazewood]

32 minutes ago, Number5 said:

 You clearly think that would be a bad move.  I get that.

No I don't.  I don't know if he would be a good or a poor pick because the information is unclear. 

What I'm saying that the error bars in Gonzales' performance are greater than those accompanying Martin or Torkelson because of the obscuring effects of an environment where teams score 10 runs a game.  If the Orioles' projections for Gonzales are good enough that the uncertainty is less relevant, than great, draft him.  But the uncertainty is still there, it doesn't go away.  Of course the offensive environment has a huge impact on his numbers, I don't see why that's even a point of discussion.  But maybe that fact is less important than the scouting reports and other information.

Also, New Mexico State's park isn't small.  It's 345-385-400.  Dimensions aren't everything.  It's altitude, wind and other effects.  Coors has perhaps the largest outfield in MLB.

[murph]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

No, 1978 is your thing.  I think I'll leave that to you.   Just when you kid don't make it an insult.

Just my two cents, but I didn't think it was an insult either, just respectful playfulness to a well known poster with well known posting traits. 

As for thread, the reading has been great and I think I am leaning mostly to Martin as my preferred choice (or Torkelson if he falls to #2).  Just will be great to see anything baseball related, looking forward to the draft, even truncated as it is.