Gunnar Henderson 2022

[Aristotelian]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

There are lots of things a team looks for that has zero to do with stats.  Do you think Norby and Mayo just got promoted because they were tearing the cover off the ball?

No, they were looking for other things…defense, maturity, how are you approaching at bats, what pitches are you swinging at, etc…there are tons of things.

Ok, that makes sense. However, they may also just want to see them for a certain number of ABs. I have no idea if Norby and Mayo hit any particular markers or if they simply planned to promote them at this time of year and see how they do.

[Frobby]

15 hours ago, RZNJ said:

He sounds really, really mature and cerebral when it comes to baseball and probably just in general. 

https://www.mlb.com/news/gunnar-henderson-hits-for-cycle-at-triple-a

Found these bits interesting:

“In Double-A, it was kind of sporadic facing lefties, and we didn't really face them very consistently,” Henderson said. “Then last week, we faced six in a row. So I felt like that was a huge week for me to be able to find those cues. And towards the end of the week, I started hitting them a lot better. Even today, just going back to the cues that I figured out last week. I’d say I’m starting to swing it a lot better against lefties, starting to feel really comfortable from both sides.”

* * *

“I feel like I expected and that I can do this,” Henderson said. “During alternate site training in 2020, I got to face these types of pitchers. Did that for a month and a half, two months, and I was able to have success there. So, I felt like all the work I put in this offseason really helped me prepare for this. I just felt like I was ready and put myself in the right positions.”

[Can_of_corn]

Nice to see him mention the alternative site training in 2020.

I think putting him in with those older players probably did him a lot of good.

[Sports Guy]

17 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Nice to see him mention the alternative site training in 2020.

I think putting him in with those older players probably did him a lot of good.

I had mentioned that before too.  I did like that and I do think it mattered that he equipped himself so well.  Some posters poo poo’Ed that but I think it’s all valuable and important.

[RZNJ]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

I had mentioned that before too.  I did like that and I do think it mattered that he equipped himself so well.  Some posters poo poo’Ed that but I think it’s all valuable and important.

Some might say that he acquitted himself quite well also.

[Hallas]

On 6/29/2022 at 11:31 AM, Sports Guy said:

Why would a GM think a 20 year old kid who is completely dominating the upper minors, walking a lot, not K’ing much, etc…would be completely unplayable?

If you think GMs call up players and believe when they call them up that they are going to fail, you are clueless.

So no, it shouldn’t enter into their minds that they are going to be awful players.

What they should be gaging is, what are we looking for to determine if a player is ready or not and if they hit those markers, we bring them up.

And I love how people keep talking about his age as if that should be something against him.  It’s just a foolish thought.  Plenty of guys have come up at his age and done well or, at least, held their own.

Are you implying that teams shouldn't consider service-time manipulations when evaluating whether to promote a player to the majors?  Because that's where you lose me.  Because the typical aging curve has a hitter peaking at around 25-27, if you wanted to maximize a player's value during cost controlled years you would wait till a player is at least 22 before promoting them to the majors.  In reality, teams adjust for current needs versus the possibility of future production, so players can be promoted younger than that, but typically only if they meet a significantly higher bar versus if they were 22 or 23.  Furthermore, you almost always take advantage of any additional years by holding them back for a few months at the beginning of the season, if that's applicable.  It's not really fair to the players, but it is what it is.

Obviously this is a bit less of an issue now because of the draft pick compensation for players brought up at the beginning of the year, but I'm sure some of it still comes into play.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Hallas said:

Are you implying that teams shouldn't consider service-time manipulations when evaluating whether to promote a player to the majors?  Because that's where you lose me.  Because the typical aging curve has a hitter peaking at around 25-27, if you wanted to maximize a player's value during cost controlled years you would wait till a player is at least 22 before promoting them to the majors.  In reality, teams adjust for current needs versus the possibility of future production, so players can be promoted younger than that, but typically only if they meet a significantly higher bar versus if they were 22 or 23.  Furthermore, you almost always take advantage of any additional years by holding them back for a few months at the beginning of the season, if that's applicable.  It's not really fair to the players, but it is what it is.

Obviously this is a bit less of an issue now because of the draft pick compensation for players brought up at the beginning of the year, but I'm sure some of it still comes into play.

No, I’m not even remotely suggesting that.

[Hallas]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

No, I’m not even remotely suggesting that.

So just to clarify, you're saying that, if a player is performing, then he should be brought up regardless of age or other factors, unless you have a good non-performance-related reason not to (such as service time?)

[LTO's]

From Keith Law's chat today:

 

Jay

2:37

How much has Gunnar Henderson improved his stock this year? His season, at his age, has been incredible.

 

Keith Law

2:38

I'll put it this way ... he'll figure quite prominently in the midseason rankings update.

[Sports Guy]

38 minutes ago, Hallas said:

So just to clarify, you're saying that, if a player is performing, then he should be brought up regardless of age or other factors, unless you have a good non-performance-related reason not to (such as service time?)

As long as he hits the markers the team is looking for (and they are completely unrealistic), yes he should be brought up.  Plenty of guys have come up and done well at 19-21 years old.  

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

As long as he hits the markers the team is looking for (and they are completely unrealistic), yes he should be brought up.  Plenty of guys have come up and done well at 19-21 years old.  

He’s making as strong a case as I can remember.  But, I’d like to see him continue to make that case for several more weeks.   

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

He’s making as strong a case as I can remember.  But, I’d like to see him continue to make that case for several more weeks.   

Do you think three weeks worth of minor league data is useful?

[Babkins]

Day game off after his twenty-first birthday. Understandable.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Do you think three weeks worth of minor league data is useful?

I think 7-8 weeks is more useful than 3-4, for two reasons.  First, a larger sample reduces the luck factor.   Second, a larger sample helps distinguish hot streaks from a longer term trend.  See Hudson Haskin.  

That said, I think there’s a pretty good chance that Henderson will still be looking very good a month from now.   
 

 

[Frobby]

Angelus Novus: Is there any MILB infielder with better projections than Gunnar Henderson?

12:11

Dan Szymborski: ZiPS now has him better than Volpe, so he’d be the best infield prospect