Who has more trade value, Urias or Mateo?

[Ridgway22]

8 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think the amount by which banning the shift is going to increase the importance of range is very overrated.  You are going to see guys’ range tested no matter where you put them on the field.   But, no point in arguing about it.   We’ll see what happens next year.  

Been pondering this point, and while I haven't quite convinced myself, I think banning the shift WILL increase the importance of infielders range. In simple terms, spray charts show where a hitter is most likely to hit a ground ball or low liner. With the shift, you can cluster defenders in this area. The most common example is the SS/3b playing "rover" against left handed pull hitters. Absent the ability to populate the area with an additional defender, the range of the 2b in this example becomes more important. But as you say, we'll see what happens.

[Aristotelian]

10 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think the amount by which banning the shift is going to increase the importance of range is very overrated.  You are going to see guys’ range tested no matter where you put them on the field.   But, no point in arguing about it.   We’ll see what happens next year.  

I think the bigger effect could be the impact on the hitters. I think you could see Rutschman and Mullins get a nice boost in BA as they are LHB's who usually faced extreme shifts. The O's were #10 in MLB in pull rate.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Ridgway22 said:

Been pondering this point, and while I haven't quite convinced myself, I think banning the shift WILL increase the importance of infielders range. In simple terms, spray charts show where a hitter is most likely to hit a ground ball or low liner. With the shift, you can cluster defenders in this area. The most common example is the SS/3b playing "rover" against left handed pull hitters. Absent the ability to populate the area with an additional defender, the range of the 2b in this example becomes more important. But as you say, we'll see what happens.

I’m not saying the effect will be zero.   I just don’t think it will be very significant. Mind you, I’m talking about the number of plays where the infielder’s range is a significant factor in the outcome of the play.  I don’t think that will change much.  I do think there will be a noticeable number of balls hit in spots where no fielder could possibly get to the ball.   

[Sports Guy]

49 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

For what it's worth, the Trade Simulator agrees with you. They have Urias as 9.1, Mateo as 3.2. I think a lot of teams wouldn't even consider Mateo because of the bat. 

That said, I would also incline to trading Urias and keeping Mateo - assuming we get competitive value for him - because Gunnar is ready to take over 3B now and Holiday is a bit further off. Mateo could also have a role as a utility guy/pinch runner even with Gunnar or Holiday at SS, whereas Urias appears to be a one trick pony at 3B. 

Yea I can see that.  It really just depends on what the team does. 

[Pickles]

It's a good question, and there's no right or wrong answer.  I personally think Urias would have more value- the longer track record, and  much higher offensive floor, would support that.

But I really think it depends on the acquiring team.  I have little doubt some team would prefer Mateo.

[Moose Milligan]

I think the one that's more valuable is Urias.  He can hit a little.

[Roll Tide]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

I think the one that's more valuable is Urias.  He can hit a little.

I think it’s Mateo….not as consistent at the plate but he flashed at times this year. Of the two, if we are only keeping 1, I hope it’s him as I think he’s on the verge of putting it all together.

[Ridgway22]

52 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’m not saying the effect will be zero.   I just don’t think it will be very significant. Mind you, I’m talking about the number of plays where the infielder’s range is a significant factor in the outcome of the play.  I don’t think that will change much.  I do think there will be a noticeable number of balls hit in spots where no fielder could possibly get to the ball.   

These are key points. If no-shift results in an additional hit in 1 of 100 plays,  a .250 hitter becomes .260. If 1 of 20 plays, a .250 hitter is at .300. Of course, some players are subject to more extreme shifts than others, so the effect on individual hitters will be interesting.

[Sports Guy]

2 hours ago, btdart20 said:

Would Mateo and Urias get it done for Lopez or Cabrera?  I doubt it.  But if so, that's my preference.  Mateo/Urias/Hays for Lopez+ or Cabrera+?  I'd do that before Mullins too (since replacing Mullins would be tougher within opportunity cost budgeting).  But as others have said too, not sure Elias and co. have the appetite for a complete reboot of a high caliber IF defense.  I'd still gird my loins and trust the system we have in place that has identified and/or developed the skills needed in the IF.

It could.  Mullins is the most valuable player in that trade by WAR and service time.  Cabrera probably  has the most value in terms of potential and service time. 
 

Urias has been worth more WAR than Lopez, as has Mullins.  So yea, I could see it but it just depends on the Marlins evaluations of those guys.

[Hank Scorpio]

Urias is more valuable, I believe. 

I am very confident in the organization's ability to evaluate current & future value. 

YES I SAID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Ridgway22 said:

Been pondering this point, and while I haven't quite convinced myself, I think banning the shift WILL increase the importance of infielders range. In simple terms, spray charts show where a hitter is most likely to hit a ground ball or low liner. With the shift, you can cluster defenders in this area. The most common example is the SS/3b playing "rover" against left handed pull hitters. Absent the ability to populate the area with an additional defender, the range of the 2b in this example becomes more important. But as you say, we'll see what happens.

Isn't the likely case over the medium term that teams will shift priorities somewhat towards better fielders in general to cover the extra area, thereby depressing the relative value of those who are already in the game? 

In other words, Mateo is a 10 in a world where the average player is a five.  With no shifts teams may prioritize fielding skill over hitting to some degree, so Mateo would be a 10 in a world where the average is now 5.5. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

I think the one that's more valuable is Urias.  He can hit a little.

But value is in runs, or wins.  Doesn't matter if those runs come from fielding, baserunning, hitting, pitching, framing. Lenn Sakata was a better hitter than Mark Belanger, but Belanger was a far superior player.

Mateo had a little better year than Urias this year, but Urias has a little bit more of a track record.

[Moose Milligan]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

But value is in runs, or wins.  Doesn't matter if those runs come from fielding, baserunning, hitting, pitching, framing. Lenn Sakata was a better hitter than Mark Belanger, but Belanger was a far superior player.

Mateo had a little better year than Urias this year, but Urias has a little bit more of a track record.

I didn't know what you looked like until now.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

I didn't know what you looked like until now.

 

C'mon, Moose!  We've met, and you know Jonah Hill has jowls that weigh more than I do!

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

C'mon, Moose!  We've met, and you know Jonah Hill has jowls that weigh more than I do!

You are petite but not that petite.