Jump to content

Santander may odd man out in 2021 or 2022


ofan239

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, joelala said:

Missed the throw, I was cooking, I’ll have to find it.  He’s certainly a very good defender and I love the way he plays but that style of play may be a detriment to his body; he has proven he cannot stay on the field. I think .260 is a more realistic expectation, but sure, if he can stay healthy he’s a good player worthy of playing time. But he can’t stay healthy, so it’s moot to me. 
 

 

His ability to stay on the field is a concern, but I think it’s premature to say he has “proven” he can’t stay on the field.   I’d say it in the converse: he hasn’t proven that he can stay on the field.    Yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is too good of both a talented hitter and fielder to write him off.  Yes he has had more than his share of injuries but this last one he took a fastball of his ribs and they broke.  I put that in the category of being unlucky more that being injury prone.  If your rib is broken it is difficult to play.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’m sort of playing devil’s advocate.   But with more and more balls being hit in the air, the old assumptions about which positions are most important defensively could shift.   

I also think that you don’t need as much range as you used to to play a position because of shifts.  If a right hand hitter is up you have three guys usually on the left side of infield or lefty up you are over on right side with three infielders.    The shortstop doesn’t have to cover up the middle as much with these shifts so is closer to third base side.  It will also be intersting if the approach to hitting chances as it use to be go up the middle and it was a hit now it is an easy grounder to one of the shifted infielders playing behind second.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

His ability to stay on the field is a concern, but I think it’s premature to say he has “proven” he can’t stay on the field.   I’d say it in the converse: he hasn’t proven that he can stay on the field.    Yet.

That’s fair, I’ll accept that converse. Next season should tell us a lot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Frobby said:

His ability to stay on the field is a concern, but I think it’s premature to say he has “proven” he can’t stay on the field.   I’d say it in the converse: he hasn’t proven that he can stay on the field.    Yet.

I don't know if there's anything you can prove about staying healthy or injured unless you have a chronic problem that keeps coming back.  Paul Molitor's career is a good example.  Games he missed from his 2nd season on: 20, 51, 55, 2, 10, 149, 20, 57, 44, 8, 7, 59, 4, 4, 2, 0, 14, 1, 27, 36.  He was injured all the time in his 20s, then was as durable as just about anyone from 34-39.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't know if there's anything you can prove about staying healthy or injured unless you have a chronic problem that keeps coming back.  Paul Molitor's career is a good example.  Games he missed from his 2nd season on: 20, 51, 55, 2, 10, 149, 20, 57, 44, 8, 7, 59, 4, 4, 2, 0, 14, 1, 27, 36.  He was injured all the time in his 20s, then was as durable as just about anyone from 34-39.

Sure but that’s obviously an outlier.

Most athletes don’t frequently stay injured in their 20s and then, all of a sudden, become durable in their 30s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Sure but that’s obviously an outlier.

Most athletes don’t frequently stay injured in their 20s and then, all of a sudden, become durable in their 30s.

Seems like this is an opinion as much as a fact, but I don’t know.

I *feel* like a lot of guys work through injury issues and eventually stabilize as relatively healthy. I also feel like many never get over the injuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Seems like this is an opinion as much as a fact, but I don’t know.

I *feel* like a lot of guys work through injury issues and eventually stabilize as relatively healthy. I also feel like many never get over the injuries.

I don’t have data in front of me but I think it’s fairly obvious.  Remember, I said athletes.  Their bodies are so essential to them and when they start to break down, it’s hard to turn that around and be good enough to compete at this level as you get older.  Your skills diminish as you get older as it is.

Baseball may be a little different because it’s not a physical sport but football and basketball are.  
 

But I would bet most guys who just keeping hurt over and over also don’t end up staying in the league either.  Their injuries take a lot out of them and they can’t perform at that professional level anymore.  Not to mention, the pain to play through starts to become too much.

 

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

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...