Jackson Holliday 2023

[Bemorewins]

35 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I do understand that, but the question is, how much time is sufficient to determine  a player isn’t really being challenged?  A week?  A month?  Two months?  Three?  It’s a matter of judgment, right?   Especially now when teams play the same opponent 6 games in a row.  You could have a run of playing poor-pitching teams for 3 weeks and not really being exposed to the better pitchers in the same league.  (By the way, I haven’t looked to see if that’s at all the case with  Holliday, I’m just making a point.). So, I’m comfortable with the O’s management using their judgment to determine when Holliday needs more of a challenge.  

When you are putting up numbers that are as absurd as his and better than everyone else’s best, that is a good indication that it’s time to face better competition. I don’t want to just see him handle success, but I’m curious (for his development’s sake) how he will handle adversity/failure, as he is assuredly going to have to deal with that in the Big Leagues. Right now A+ is not affording him that opportunity because it is not challenging enough for him. What can he really gain by hitting 400/500/1200? Those are beyond video game numbers.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Bemorewins said:

When you are putting up numbers that are as absurd as his and better than everyone else’s best, that is a good indication that it’s time to face better competition. I don’t want to just see him handle success, but I’m curious (for his development’s sake) how he will handle adversity/failure, as he is assuredly going to have to deal with that in the Big Leagues. Right now A+ is not affording him that opportunity because it is not challenging enough for him. What can he really gain by hitting 400/500/1200? Those are beyond video game numbers.

Don't you think the sample size is still too small to make such a sweeping generalization?

How good did Mateo look in April?  Did that end up being an accurate gauge of him as an offensive player?

I'm super aggressive when it comes to challenging guys but I think the O's can wait a couple of weeks and see if the league makes any adjustments. 

Has he even made a full run through the competition yet?

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Don't you think the sample size is still too small to make such a sweeping generalization?

How good did Mateo look in April?  Did that end up being an accurate gauge of him as an offensive player?

I'm super aggressive when it comes to challenging guys but I think the O's can wait a couple of weeks and see if the league makes any adjustments. 

Has he even made a full run through the competition yet?

The Mateo point is a great one.  And no, of course he hasn’t made a full run though the competition.  He’s played full series against four Sally League teams, and yesterday starts a fifth series.  There are 12 teams in the Sally League, and he surely won’t see all the teams in the league before he’s promoted to AA.  The teams he’s faced are pretty representative: Wilmington has the best ERA in the league, Hudson Valley is 4th, Brooklyn is 5th, Winston-Salem is 10th.  Winston-Salem is the team he really torched last week, to the tune of .609/.679/1.261 for a 1.940 OPS.  Great results against the worst pitching staff he’s faced.  Against the others he OPS’d .910, 1.034 and .880.   This week he’s facing Jersey Shore, currently 7th in the league in ERA.

[Bemorewins]

59 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Don't you think the sample size is still too small to make such a sweeping generalization?

How good did Mateo look in April?  Did that end up being an accurate gauge of him as an offensive player?

I'm super aggressive when it comes to challenging guys but I think the O's can wait a couple of weeks and see if the league makes any adjustments. 

Has he even made a full run through the competition yet?

We have seen Mateo fail enough to know or at least have a reasonable expectation that regression was coming. The difference with Holliday is that we have never seen him fail yet. I'm just a big believer in the philosophy of life that failure teaches you more and helps you to grow more than continuous success does.

As great as Mateo was playing (MVP level in April) it still pales in comparison to what Holliday is currently doing. His current slash line is kind of Ruthian at the moment.

I hear the argument that you are making and appreciate the perspective in terms of "what can a few more weeks hurt?" My retort to that is what can they really help at this point? It's simply a waste of time. I believe that he would be better served for his development to be challenged at the next level. Now if that doesn't happen until next week, the calendar strikes June, or whenever; that's when we can evaluate his next marker for growth.

To the point of him running through more A+ competition, even if his OPS were to drop 200/300 points over any given stretch to what 1.000 or .900 (which would still be phenomenal); it would still be time to move him up.

As someone mentioned earlier, this is not luck or the result of him being very hot (which he is right now); he has been putting up tremendous numbers for over a year now, regardless of competition (including against some Major Leaguers in Spring Training).

I understand that some people want to guard against hype/disappointment. But please just point out one weakness or one single flaw that you see in his game. From every data point that we have to measure him by, the kid just appears to be that special. I can't remember if it was you or another poster who said something to the effect of it not being unprecedented that a 19/20 year old is ready for the Bigs. A few others have done it before him (Griffey Jr., ARod, Trout, Harper, Machado, Soto, etc.) and I'm sure that he will not be the last that we ever see.

[Say O!]

The outputs are certainly off the charts.  Compared to those other 19yr old talents, their physical attributes stand out in terms of advanced athleticism compared to Holliday.  That may play out as 65 across the board for Holliday (no weakness) whereas those guys had at least one 70-80 grade tool.  That’s no knock on Holliday as portends all-star/MVP caliber, most of those other guys are 1st ballot HoF.

[btdart20]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Don't you think the sample size is still too small to make such a sweeping generalization?

 

[Bemorewins]

23 minutes ago, Say O! said:

The outputs are certainly off the charts.  Compared to those other 19yr old talents, their physical attributes stand out in terms of advanced athleticism compared to Holliday.  That may play out as 65 across the board for Holliday (no weakness) whereas those guys had at least one 70-80 grade tool.  That’s no knock on Holliday as portends all-star/MVP caliber, most of those other guys are 1st ballot HoF.

But when you have consistently dominated for more than a year, with astronomical/off the charts results, through various leagues and competitions, like he has to the tune of .360/500/1.111, with very little strikeouts (those are just his minor league numbers that doesn't count last year's high school or Spring Training numbers); one could seriously question the validity of his current 60/65 hit tool assessment. Could it be possible that the growth that he has had over the last year+ and the player that he has become/is becoming has made his earlier scouting profile 'out of date'?

I don't see a 60 hit tool doing this at age 19. I don't want to overhype the kid, but I also don't want to downplay what he is doing/has done because it's not normal. It's not even good. Heck it's not even great. It's off the charts incredible. 

Some people seem to think "he can't be this good" or that his run is some sort of mirage. But how many great players can/have sustained this level for this long and then not been the real deal? You don't get on base 1 out of every 2 times for almost 60 games at ANY LEVEL and not be special. Who else is doing that/has done that? ... I have a clue to that answer, the list is VERY SHORT!

[btdart20]

30 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

But when you have consistently dominated for more than a year

By "more than a year" are you referring to the 55 total games as a professional with no college experience?  I'm not even disagreeing as to whether or not he should be promoted because everything I see says he's ready for the challenge too.  The fact is that statistics tend to stabilize as the sample size grows.  And if we know anything about Elias/Sig, it's that they trust math more than their feelings.

I haven't seen anyone saying "he can't be this good".  He very well can be.  He's checked every box in front of him (and probably some not in front of him).  And maybe that's enough for Elias and Sig to promote him.  But given Sigs interview in the main forum about systems and evidence-based (statistically relevant) analytics, it's really hard to be 100% confident.  As fans, we're very subjective to the zeitgeist of the day.  Yesterday, it why sign Frazier?  (Ha, had to do it!)  Today, it's Jackson is a first ballot HOFer.  Tomorrow, maybe Mountcastle has better aim or Bautista's splitter beats Judge with 2 out in the bottom of the 9th in a 1-run game and both a GOATs!

Take or leave this:  It's fine to be a Stan.  I Stan for Cade Povich and Joey Ortiz.  I pushed for Gunnar's promotion early last year too.  But man, at the end of the day, nothing you or I say will matter because we have no control over that.  It's ok to state your case and leave it at that.

[Aristotelian]

Any reports on his defense? 

[Bemorewins]

8 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

By "more than a year" are you referring to the 55 total games as a professional with no college experience?  I'm not even disagreeing as to whether or not he should be promoted because everything I see says he's ready for the challenge too.  The fact is that statistics tend to stabilize as the sample size grows.  And if we know anything about Elias/Sig, it's that they trust math more than their feelings.

I haven't seen anyone saying "he can't be this good".  He very well can be.  He's checked every box in front of him (and probably some not in front of him).  And maybe that's enough for Elias and Sig to promote him.  But given Sigs interview in the main forum about systems and evidence-based (statistically relevant) analytics, it's really hard to be 100% confident.  As fans, we're very subjective to the zeitgeist of the day.  Yesterday, it why sign Frazier?  (Ha, had to do it!)  Today, it's Jackson is a first ballot HOFer.  Tomorrow, maybe Mountcastle has better aim or Bautista's splitter beats Judge with 2 out in the bottom of the 9th in a 1-run game and both a GOATs!

Take or leave this:  It's fine to be a Stan.  I Stan for Cade Povich and Joey Ortiz.  I pushed for Gunnar's promotion early last year too.  But man, at the end of the day, nothing you or I say will matter because we have no control over that.  It's ok to state your case and leave it at that.

1) I never said Holliday was going to be a first ballot HOFer. That's unknowable and very foolish to assert given how many unpredictable things can happen to derail his success and career like injuries.

2) I don't 'Stan" for anyone like ever. Maybe my wife and kids, but that's about it, if I even do it for them. Everything I said was objective and evidentiary. I talk in terms of what somebody has done, not in what they will do as I have no crystal ball to inform me of that.

3) You can't compare Cade Povich or Joey Ortiz to Jackson Holliday. They are not on the same level as prospects AT ALL.

What the young man has done over his professional career over a 54 game sample size has not been done by very many in the game like ever. From what he has produced, who would be comps for that? Certainly no other Orioles prospect in their almost 70 year history. Again this is not a hot streak of good/great play; this is territory that few ever approach. What that actually means is the question that remains to be answered and probably won't be answered for several years to come.

It could be that he should have never been on that level and his play will tail off the higher the competition ladder he climbs? I would like to find out. But what I want to see me is him to continue to be challenged until he fails. For him to be getting on base over 50% of the time is absurd and I don't see what that is really accomplishing at this point that will actually prepare him for the Major Leagues.

PS - Sigs computer will have to dig very deep to find players who have ever gotten these kind of results. That's why comparing him to other Orioles prospects is like comparing grapefruits to watermelons. They are both fruits and both can be green, other than that very different.

[btdart20]

2 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

1) I never said Holliday was going to be a first ballot HOFer. That's unknowable and very foolish to assert given how many unpredictable things can happen to derail his success and career like injuries.

2) I don't 'Stan" for anyone like ever. Maybe my wife and kids, but that's about it, if I even do it for them. Everything I said was objective and evidentiary. I talk in terms of what somebody has done, not in what they will do as I have no crystal ball to inform me of that.

3) You can't compare Cade Povich or Joey Ortiz to Jackson Holliday. They are not on the same level as prospects AT ALL.

What the young man has done over his professional career over a 54 game sample size has not been done by very many in the game like ever. From what he has produced, who would be comps for that? Certainly no other Orioles prospect in their almost 70 year history. Again this is not a hot streak of good/great play; this is territory that few ever approach. What that actually means is the question that remains to be answered and probably won't be answered for several years to come.

It could be that he should have never been on that level and his play will tail off the higher the competition ladder he climbs? I would like to find out. But what I want to see me is him to continue to be challenged until he fails. For him to be getting on base over 50% of the time is absurd and I don't see what that is really accomplishing at this point that will actually prepare him for the Major Leagues.

PS - Sigs computer will have to dig very deep to find players who have ever gotten these kind of results. That's why comparing him to other Orioles prospects is like comparing grapefruits to watermelons. They are both fruits and both can be green, other than that very different.

1.  That wasn't my intent.  It was a poor/poorly worded example on my part.  Just using hyperbole to represent the excitement.

2.  But yet multiple people mention how sample size matters and you blow it off like it doesn't matter because Jackson is putting up great numbers.  But that's the crux of the matter.  Great numbers mean less in smaller samples (still a wide range of outcomes).  They mean much more in larger samples (both in direction and degree).  Further, there's a case to be made that Jackson hitting whatever magic sample size target means more as a future measuring stick than it does for Jackson himself.  

3.  I didn't compare them.  I said I was a fan of theirs and that I was advocating for them.  

PS - It's fine to celebrate, but sample size still matters.  If not to you, to Sig's computers and Elias' decision making. 

[Bemorewins]

1 hour ago, btdart20 said:

1.  That wasn't my intent.  It was a poor/poorly worded example on my part.  Just using hyperbole to represent the excitement.

2.  But yet multiple people mention how sample size matters and you blow it off like it doesn't matter because Jackson is putting up great numbers.  But that's the crux of the matter.  Great numbers mean less in smaller samples (still a wide range of outcomes).  They mean much more in larger samples (both in direction and degree).  Further, there's a case to be made that Jackson hitting whatever magic sample size target means more as a future measuring stick than it does for Jackson himself.  

3.  I didn't compare them.  I said I was a fan of theirs and that I was advocating for them.  

PS - It's fine to celebrate, but sample size still matters.  If not to you, to Sig's computers and Elias' decision making. 

You are right and I agree with you in that the sample size does matter. I'm just pointing out that the results (even in this 54 game sample) are so outside of the norm, even for the top prospects, that it's worth seriously paying attention too.

I am not the top cheerleader for the Jackson Holliday fan club, as I mentioned in another post, he has several more boxes to check including AA and AAA success. And then the biggest which is Big League results. But right now he is on a trajectory that is rivaled by few. How many other 19 year olds can or have put up those kind of Ruthian numbers at any level/time? 

[Jagwar]

3 for 4 so far tonight. Currently hitting .415

[jabba72]

Fangraphs O's rankings show Holliday with a 60 hit tool, that has to be off at this point. He's playing more like 70-75 to me. It is the lower levels and everything. Still, what he is doing is not something that a 60 hit tool would do. More like 80.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Jagwar said:

3 for 4 so far tonight. Currently hitting .415

Sounds like he's starting to cool off already.