Ryan McKenna as a 4th Outfielder

[btdart20]

2 hours ago, DirtyBird said:

He needs more AB's.

I'll pile on here too...  

He's a good 4th OF.  He's not a starting OF for a competitive team.  And that's in isolation.  That doesn't mean Stowers is necessarily a starting OF on a competitive team, it just means we know McKenna isn't.  This is a position of organizational depth.  We can't block talent (and maximize player value) at COF.  We are raising the bar with our positional battles and expectations across the board.

[DirtyBird]

7 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

I'll pile on here too...  

He's a good 4th OF.  He's not a starting OF for a competitive team.  And that's in isolation.  That doesn't mean Stowers is necessarily a starting OF on a competitive team, it just means we know McKenna isn't.  This is a position of organizational depth.  We can't block talent (and maximize player value) at COF.  We are raising the bar with our positional battles and expectations across the board.

McKenna has 300 career plate appearances, only 100 this season. That is 60 PA's less than both Chirnos and Nevin. I didn't say he should be a starting OF. I said he should be getting more plate appearances.

[Pickles]

4 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

McKenna has 300 career plate appearances, only 100 this season. That is 60 PA's less than both Chirnos and Nevin. I didn't say he should be a starting OF. I said he should be getting more plate appearances.

Who's opportunities do you want to minimize for that to happen?

Mullins?  Hays?  Santander?  Stowers?

[forphase1]

6 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

McKenna has 300 career plate appearances, only 100 this season. That is 60 PA's less than both Chirnos and Nevin. I didn't say he should be a starting OF. I said he should be getting more plate appearances.

But why?  And who do you justify taking at bats from to ensure he gets them?  He's just not good enough with the bat to really justify sitting Mullins, Hays or Santander to give him those at bats.  

[DirtyBird]

Just now, forphase1 said:

But why?  And who do you justify taking at bats from to ensure he gets them?  He's just not good enough with the bat to really justify sitting Mullins, Hays or Santander to give him those at bats.  

Why? Because he contributes with his speed and defense. And you can't expect a guy to contribute at the plate when they rarely get reps.

Yes, I would definitely take some AB's from Santander and even Mancini to get McKenna more AB's and have our best defense on the field.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

8 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

Why? Because he contributes with his speed and defense. And you can't expect a guy to contribute at the plate when they rarely get reps.

Yes, I would definitely take some AB's from Santander and even Mancini to get McKenna more AB's and have our best defense on the field.

McKenna made a huge catch in the ninth inning during last Saturday's victory against the Yankees that prevented a possible late rally. 

I'm a fan of McKenna and it's nice to see him hit enough (SSS not withstanding) that he's become a real asset to the team. 

Edited July 26, 2022 by OsFanSinceThe80s

[forphase1]

1 minute ago, DirtyBird said:

Why? Because he contributes with his speed and defense. And you can't expect a guy to contribute at the plate when they rarely get reps.

Yes, I would definitely take some AB's from Santander and even Mancini to get McKenna more AB's and have our best defense on the field.

McKenna has an OPS of .662 this year.  Santander is .752 while Mancini is .749.  Our lineup is already weak in places, especially with guys like Mateo (.616 OPS) and (.650 OPS) regularly in the lineup.  And you are suggesting taking out two of our few players that are around .750+ and replacing them with a .662 bat more often?  Again, why?!?!  His speed and defense aren't worth sacrificing 100 points of OPS just to get him in the lineup more often.  Speed and defense are great, but too many field and speed guys with no bats makes a weak lineup.  If we had a few .800+ OPS guys in the lineup (and yes, even this year there are about 50 of them at the moment), then maybe we could afford to have another weak hitting guy regularly in the lineup.  Otherwise we can't afford to sit Mancini or Santander on a regular basis to get McKenna more plate appearances.  

[forphase1]

Just now, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

McKenna made a huge catch in the ninth inning during last Saturday's victory against the Yankees that prevented a possible late rally. 

Sure, and he's a GREAT late innings defensive replacement, pinch runner, and giving guys an occasional night off.  But he's not good enough to actively try finding him additional at bats as the expense of better hitters.  

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

3 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Sure, and he's a GREAT late innings defensive replacement, pinch runner, and giving guys an occasional night off.  But he's not good enough to actively try finding him additional at bats as the expense of better hitters.  

That's why there's a decent chance McKenna eventually gets squeezed out in the future as more prospects make it out of the farm system. 

[DirtyBird]

2 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

McKenna has an OPS of .662 this year.  Santander is .752 while Mancini is .749.  Our lineup is already weak in places, especially with guys like Mateo (.616 OPS) and (.650 OPS) regularly in the lineup.  And you are suggesting taking out two of our few players that are around .750+ and replacing them with a .662 bat more often?  Again, why?!?!  His speed and defense aren't worth sacrificing 100 points of OPS just to get him in the lineup more often.  Speed and defense are great, but too many field and speed guys with no bats makes a weak lineup.  If we had a few .800+ OPS guys in the lineup (and yes, even this year there are about 50 of them at the moment), then maybe we could afford to have another weak hitting guy regularly in the lineup.  Otherwise we can't afford to sit Mancini or Santander on a regular basis to get McKenna more plate appearances.  

Mancini's OPS over the last 28 days is .640 and that includes close to as many plate appearances as McKenna has all season.

[Tony-OH]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

First of all, I like McKenna as a defensive replacement and pinch runner.  He’s filled a useful role on this team.

However, I fear his improved offensive slash line, in a pretty small sample, Is illusory.   His strikeout rate (36.5%) is basically unchanged from last year, but his BABIP has shot up from .311 last year to .412 this year.   His .290 wOBA greatly exceeds his .232 xWOBA, which is actually quite a bit worse than last year’s .281.   So, it appears he’s been quite lucky this year and that’s why his numbers are better.   Last year he was a little unlucky.   

So, I think he’s basically the same player as last year, just with somewhat better luck on balls in play.   

PS - Tony posted similar thoughts as I was typing this.  

 

Great minds and all that.

[forphase1]

4 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

Mancini's OPS over the last 28 days is .640 and that includes close to as many plate appearances as McKenna has all season.

Wait, you are using the fact that over the past 28 days Mancini has been ICE COLD, yet during that time he is STILL OPSing just .020 less than McKenna has for the season as a valid point to play McKenna more?  Talk about a stretch.  If anything that shows just how poor McKenna is with the bat, and that he shouldn't get more plate appearances.  He's great as a defensive replacement, pinch runner and to give guys a day or two to rest/heal from nagging injuries, etc.  But Hyde should not actively try to get him more at bats over better hitters.    

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, DirtyBird said:

Who has better AAA numbers?

Aside from the season where McKenna struggled at AA, he has been better than Stowers in MiL at a younger age.

Are you going on record that McKenna will be a better major leaguer than Stowers?

Let's talk about the age thing. First, we all know that Stowers missed a year do to COVID plus he's a college guy vs a high school guy like McKenna so you can't go apples to apples here.

As for you comment that "outside of AA" Mckenna has been better, that's like saying, "Besides the shooting, how was the play Miss Lincoln?" 

McKenna had 817 PAs in AA and put up a .234/.327/.357/.684 OPS at 21 and 22 years old. Stowers put up a .283/.377/.561/.938 in 276 PAs at 23-years old a year after taking a year off because of COVID. 

McKenna has just 176 PAs in AAA where he's done well, but he's had 301 PAs at the major league level now where he's slashed .209/.299/.297/.595.

Stowers has now put up a .258/.356/.507/.863 line in 417 AAA PAs. 

As a hitter, they are not even in same universe when it comes to EV and hard hit % and I'll say that without even knowing Stowers' numbers in AAA. 

Now, McKenna no doubt gets the nod for speed and defense between the two, but Stowers can play CF if he needed to and won't kill a team. While Stowers is going to come with a high K total, he gets to his game power way more than McKenna does and he can hit good velocity, something McKenna can't.      

While Stowers is probably going to struggle when he first come up, once he makes the adjustments, he's going to be a solid every day outfielder or a great power hitting 4th outfielder at worse. 
 

[DirtyBird]

1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:

Are you going on record that McKenna will be a better major leaguer than Stowers?

Let's talk about the age thing. First, we all know that Stowers missed a year do to COVID plus he's a college guy vs a high school guy like McKenna so you can't go apples to apples here.

As for you comment that "outside of AA" Mckenna has been better, that's like saying, "Besides the shooting, how was the play Miss Lincoln?" 

McKenna had 817 PAs in AA and put up a .234/.327/.357/.684 OPS at 21 and 22 years old. Stowers put up a .283/.377/.561/.938 in 276 PAs at 23-years old a year after taking a year off because of COVID. 

McKenna has just 176 PAs in AAA where he's done well, but he's had 301 PAs at the major league level now where he's slashed .209/.299/.297/.595.

Stowers has now put up a .258/.356/.507/.863 line in 417 AAA PAs. 

As a hitter, they are not even in same universe when it comes to EV and hard hit % and I'll say that without even knowing Stowers' numbers in AAA. 

Now, McKenna no doubt gets the nod for speed and defense between the two, but Stowers can play CF if he needed to and won't kill a team. While Stowers is going to come with a high K total, he gets to his game power way more than McKenna does and he can hit good velocity, something McKenna can't.      

While Stowers is probably going to struggle when he first come up, once he makes the adjustments, he's going to be a solid every day outfielder or a great power hitting 4th outfielder at worse. 
 

No. I'm going on record that right now McKenna should be getting about 50% more plate appearances than he is currently getting.

[Tony-OH]

1 minute ago, DirtyBird said:

No. I'm going on record that right now McKenna should be getting about 50% more plate appearances than he is currently getting.

Yikes. Ok, that's an opinion I do not share, but who's PAs do you take away from?