What’s your early over/under on 67.5 wins in 2021?

[Can_of_corn]

5 hours ago, Frobby said:

And the calculus changes depending on the competitive position of the team.  

Fundamentally, I think Can_of_corn’s position is grounded on his sense of what is fair to the player, plus his belief that it is better for players to be challenged even if they struggle at bit, rather than coast at a less challenging level.    He’s not disagreeing about what’s in the financial interest of the team, he just doesn’t like it from either a fairness or development standpoint.
 

I also think the financial gains, particularly with fringe top 100 guys, is going to be marginal. 

1. Player has to have a career long enough for control to matter
2. Player has to stay with the organization or be part of a trade in which their remaining service time will increase the return.
3. Team has to fail to come to terms on an extension with the player.
4. Team has to value the last year of control.
5. The next CBA has to not tear all this apart.

I look at someone like Schoop, holding him back and getting an extra year wouldn't have changed anything.  Would the O's have been damaged if they had let Wieters start the year in Baltimore?

[DrungoHazewood]

16 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I also think the financial gains, particularly with fringe top 100 guys, is going to be marginal. 

1. Player has to have a career long enough for control to matter
2. Player has to stay with the organization or be part of a trade in which their remaining service time will increase the return.
3. Team has to fail to come to terms on an extension with the player.
4. Team has to value the last year of control.
5. The next CBA has to not tear all this apart.

I look at someone like Schoop, holding him back and getting an extra year wouldn't have changed anything.  Would the O's have been damaged if they had let Wieters start the year in Baltimore?

In the end you do the math and figure out the discounted odds of those things happening and you assign a monetary value to that, then you ask the question "would you like that amount of money in the budget 4, 5, 6 years from now, or not?"  You don't care, you think it's negligible, a lot of teams disagree.

[Frobby]

16 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I also think the financial gains, particularly with fringe top 100 guys, is going to be marginal. 

1. Player has to have a career long enough for control to matter
2. Player has to stay with the organization or be part of a trade in which their remaining service time will increase the return.
3. Team has to fail to come to terms on an extension with the player.
4. Team has to value the last year of control.
5. The next CBA has to not tear all this apart.

I look at someone like Schoop, holding him back and getting an extra year wouldn't have changed anything.  Would the O's have been damaged if they had let Wieters start the year in Baltimore?

As to item 3, I think a lot of times the terms of an extension will be affected by the player’s service time situation.    A guy with 2.030 years of service (Sept. call up) has a lot more leverage than a guy with 1.114 (late May call up short of Super 2), even though the team has about an equal feel for their long term potential at that point.

One project I have in mind for this long offseason is studying this subject a little more.    I do think you are right that there are lots of ways these plans can go off the rails.    

[drjohnnyfeva]

I voted under.  I think they play about .400 in 2021.  That's a decrease from 2020, but I still think it represents progress. 

Playing a shortened season was an advantage to win percentage this year, imo.  I think they played well sometimes, but there were also some real stinkers.  A full season is a different animal.  They've gained about .040 in the winning percentage since 2018 until this year.  I took 21 wins this year.  That would have been a 0.025 increase over 2019's .333 winning percentage.  I was conservative with that pick.  I'll follow that again for next year.  I think they play .400 ball, so that represents 64.8 wins.  I'll guess 65 wins.  I think that's improvement despite a dip in the winning percentage when the full schedule comes back into play. 

Anything significantly greater than that, like .430 ball ( 69.66 wins) or higher, I think is an indication that what we saw in 2020 was the beginning of the turning around of this team and not just an illusion cast by a shortened season.

[Can_of_corn]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

In the end you do the math and figure out the discounted odds of those things happening and you assign a monetary value to that, then you ask the question "would you like that amount of money in the budget 4, 5, 6 years from now, or not?"  You don't care, you think it's negligible, a lot of teams disagree.

A lot of teams?

I don't think a lot of teams engage in this type of manipulation for players that are not very highly regarded.

 

[Can_of_corn]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

As to item 3, I think a lot of times the terms of an extension will be affected by the player’s service time situation.    A guy with 2.030 years of service (Sept. call up) has a lot more leverage than a guy with 1.114 (late May call up short of Super 2), even though the team has about an equal feel for their long term potential at that point.

One project I have in mind for this long offseason is studying this subject a little more.    I do think you are right that there are lots of ways these plans can go off the rails.    

I think it would be hard to prove one way or the other.

[DrungoHazewood]

21 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

A lot of teams?

I don't think a lot of teams engage in this type of manipulation for players that are not very highly regarded.

 

You don't like the practice, so you would use a term like "only the Orioles".

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

You don't like the practice, so you would use a term like "only the Orioles".

Except I didn't use that term.

The majority of the time that I notice teams gaming service time it is for highly rated prospects.  Is some of that simply the fact that it is more likely to be reported?  Probably. 

Can you think of many examples of apparent service time gaming with guys outside of say the top 50 prospect lists?

 

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Except I didn't use that term.

The majority of the time that I notice teams gaming service time it is for highly rated prospects.  Is some of that simply the fact that it is more likely to be reported?  Probably. 

Can you think of many examples of apparent service time gaming with guys outside of say the top 50 prospect lists?

 

I would bet it happens every year to most teams, especially those non contenders.

But we don’t pay any attention to the #6 rated prospect on the Marlins being left in AAA for a little more time.

Its just smart.  The problem would be if they were ignoring service time.  That would be moronic.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I would bet it happens every year to most teams, especially those non contenders.

But we don’t pay any attention to the #6 rated prospect on the Marlins being left in AAA for a little more time.

Its just smart.  The problem would be if they were ignoring service time.  That would be moronic.

If it happens every year to most teams than examples should be easy to find.

[Sports Guy]

21 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If it happens every year to most teams than examples should be easy to find.

I agree.  Google.com is a wonderful thing.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

I agree.  Google.com is a wonderful thing.

Then use it.  You are the one that is stating it happens.

I think it's "moronic" to build your team around the idea of gaming a D.J. Stewart's service time. 

 

[Just Regular]

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2020-debuts.shtml

My first time poking around the debuts feature - had to toggle the sort from alpha to date

Brady Singer straight made the Royals.  Luis Robert had "figured out what he needed to work on", as had preseason Mountcastle comp Evan White.

Andres Gimenez pulled a 2-fer, surprisingly made the team, then also held his own - he could be a fun one next spring and maybe a super-young FA 5 years out.

Madrigal, Pearson, Adell, Howard, Bohm the Top 50-ish couple weeks wonders - the Cardinals COVID episode muddied the Dylan Carlson water, but he hit cleanup in the playoffs.

Daulton Varsho a medium guy - cases like these when a club treats a medium guy like a Madrigal guy, it tells me something about their internal evaluation.

Wieters of course set up the Matt Wieters Facts brand in his equivalent to Adley's erased 2020, then posted an .890 OPS at AAA for 39 games before his debut.  I'm not sure if many others aside from Posey, Wieters, Bart and cautionary tale/never could hit Zunino are even meh comps for a few times a decade (0.1 generational?) talent.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, OrioleDog said:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2020-debuts.shtml

My first time poking around the debuts feature - had to toggle the sort from alpha to date

Brady Singer straight made the Royals.  Luis Robert had "figured out what he needed to work on", as had preseason Mountcastle comp Evan White.

Andres Gimenez pulled a 2-fer, surprisingly made the team, then also held his own - he could be a fun one next spring and maybe a super-young FA 5 years out.

Madrigal, Pearson, Adell, Howard, Bohm the Top 50-ish couple weeks wonders - the Cardinals COVID episode muddied the Dylan Carlson water, but he hit cleanup in the playoffs.

Daulton Varsho a medium guy - cases like these when a club treats a medium guy like a Madrigal guy, it tells me something about their internal evaluation.

Wieters of course set up the Matt Wieters Facts brand in his equivalent to Adley's erased 2020, then posted an .890 OPS at AAA for 39 games before his debut.  I'm not sure if many others aside from Posey, Wieters, Bart and cautionary tale/never could hit Zunino are even meh comps for a few times a decade (0.1 generational?) talent.

Tatis famously made the Padres OD roster last year with the team coming off a 96 loss season.

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Then use it.  You are the one that is stating it happens.

I think it's "moronic" to build your team around the idea of gaming a D.J. Stewart's service time. 

 

I don’t need to show it.  I’m good knowing that it happens all the time.  It’s always happening and it’s always a discussion around the game.  You either know this and are on purposely being argumentative or you just don’t pay attention to the game.

As for a guy like Stewart, I agree..but no one is gaming service time for him.  

But guys you view as potential significant contributors long term?  Yes, you do that provided that you aren’t a contender.