Jump to content

Who is the #13 and#14 prospects?


Tony-OH

Who is the #13 and#14 prospects?  

42 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is the #13 and#14 prospects?

    • Carter Baumler and Terrin Vavra
    • Hudson Haskin and Terrin Vavra
    • Ryan McKenna and Adam Hall
    • Coby Mayo and Carter Baumler
    • Terrin Vavra and Hudson Haskin

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Hall was ranked 17 last year, behind several players who are still on the board and didn’t play in Bowie this summer.   Based on Tony’s comment in another thread that he wasn’t going to change the order of the incumbent players from last year who didn’t play at the alternate site, I think that rules out the McKenna-Hall choice.   

Haskin was picked ahead of Baumler and Mayo, and received a bigger bonus than either of them.   Accordingly, I see no reason either of them would jump Haskin on the list.   

So, that leaves Vavra-Haskin or Haskin-Vavra.   I’ve seen Vavra ranked as high as 7th in our system (per Fangraphs), so I’ll go Vavra-Haskin.

 

I had Vavra In the previous group because of Tony’ enthusiasm, And his pessimism about Diaz. So I think logically he would be in this group. Baumler is fresh out of high school, and he’s what 4-5 years away? I wouldn’t expect him to be so high.

My first reaction was one of the Vavra pairings.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Hall was ranked 17 last year, behind several players who are still on the board and didn’t play in Bowie this summer.   Based on Tony’s comment in another thread that he wasn’t going to change the order of the incumbent players from last year who didn’t play at the alternate site, I think that rules out the McKenna-Hall choice.   

Haskin was picked ahead of Baumler and Mayo, and received a bigger bonus than either of them.   Accordingly, I see no reason either of them would jump Haskin on the list.   

So, that leaves Vavra-Haskin or Haskin-Vavra.   I’ve seen Vavra ranked as high as 7th in our system (per Fangraphs), so I’ll go Vavra-Haskin.

 

Haskin is a sabermetric darling. All the data folks love him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Hall was ranked 17 last year, behind several players who are still on the board and didn’t play in Bowie this summer.   Based on Tony’s comment in another thread that he wasn’t going to change the order of the incumbent players from last year who didn’t play at the alternate site, I think that rules out the McKenna-Hall choice.   

Haskin was picked ahead of Baumler and Mayo, and received a bigger bonus than either of them.   Accordingly, I see no reason either of them would jump Haskin on the list.   

So, that leaves Vavra-Haskin or Haskin-Vavra.   I’ve seen Vavra ranked as high as 7th in our system (per Fangraphs), so I’ll go Vavra-Haskin.

 

IIRC, Mayo and Baumler were thought to be "unsignable" and surely going to college.  The Orioles pulled off a coups by using the savings from the 1.2 slot to draft and sign them.  Therefore, Haskin being drafted before them doesn't really prove that the Orioles necessarily had him rated higher than Mayo or Baumler.  You may be right, but I don't think it is a given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Number5 said:

IIRC, Mayo and Baumler were thought to be "unsignable" and surely going to college.  The Orioles pulled off a coups by using the savings from the 1.2 slot to draft and sign them.  Therefore, Haskin being drafted before them doesn't really prove that the Orioles necessarily had him rated higher than Mayo or Baumler.  You may be right, but I don't think it is a given.

But I also relied on the fact that they paid Haskin more money than them, not just that he was drafted higher.   But it was reasonably close, so not necessarily definitive.  
 

Haskin $1.91mm 

Mayo $1.75 mm

Baumler $1.5 mm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I'd like to see the plate discipline improve with his lack of power, but saying that, I think he's a got a chance to stick at 2B.

I think I remember reports being that he got a lot stronger this year.  With the ML ball being what it is he might hit for an acceptable about of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think I remember reports being that he got a lot stronger this year.  With the ML ball being what it is he might hit for an acceptable about of power.

Unless his stroke changed (which it could have), he was not going hit for much power. Who knows nowadays. Everyone seems to hit for power with the major league super balls.

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...