Jump to content

The Westburg and Cowser dilemma


Sanity Check

Recommended Posts

Many of us would love to see Westburg and Cowser at the major league level to see how their talents translate to the next level.  I would love to see what they could do before we might consider trading them away for roster upgrades.  BUT.....

.....Here's the dilemma I see, and would love to get thoughts on.  We (the Orioles and the Hangout) were very high on Kyle Stowers, but I have to think his value was higher when he was putting up numbers in Norfolk than it is now, after not being very successful in his brief taste of the majors.

So, my questions...because I don't want to assume everyone agrees.  If you're another organization looking at Kyle Stowers for example, do you think his value is less now because of his struggles at the MLB level??

And secondly, are Westburg and Cowser more valuable now because of what they've done to this point in the minor leagues, or do we risk promoting them and having them struggle, and diminishing their immediate value in a trade scenario? (Keeping in mind both Stowers and Henderson's struggles, and the fact that Joey Ortiz also did not "light it up" in his brief stay in Baltimore....and yes, I know he only had limited opportunities, but he looked "okay" with the bat, not like someone you couldn't take out of the lineup....after all, he had been batting 4th a lot at Norfolk).

Do we promote these guys and risk potentially de-valuing them?  Thoughts?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you don’t hesitate to bring them up for that reason.  Other teams know that rookies sometimes struggle, and they have scouts capable of watching these guys play in the minors and identifying the weaknesses that will probably be exploited more by major league pitchers.  So, I don’t think you really hurt their value if you bring them up and they struggle. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think you don’t hesitate to bring them up for that reason.  Other teams know that rookies sometimes struggle, and they have scouts capable of watching these guys play in the minors and identifying the weaknesses that will probably be exploited more by major league pitchers.  So, I don’t think you really hurt their value if you bring them up and they struggle. 

Did Stower's struggles that we witnessed cause you any concern about whether he can hang at the major league level as anything more than a McKenna role, if that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is not the point of the thread, but I don't get all the Cowser/Stowers comparisons. I never thought Stowers would be more than a role player. I expect Cowser to be a cornerstone of the team for years. I just don't think they should bring him up until he can play ever day.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

Did Stower's struggles that we witnessed cause you any concern about whether he can hang at the major league level as anything more than a McKenna role, if that?

It shouldn't.

 

Does the 33 or so AB's mean more for his future than the 90+ from 2022?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

Did Stower's struggles that we witnessed cause you any concern about whether he can hang at the major league level as anything more than a McKenna role, if that?

It caused me concern about Hyder’s ability to find consistent playing time for more than 9 guys. Obviously there was some concern over Stowers poor start, but it doesn’t outweigh last year in Baltimore and his minor league career.  This would be a suboptimal reason to not bring up Westburg and Cowser. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

Did Stower's struggles that we witnessed cause you any concern about whether he can hang at the major league level as anything more than a McKenna role, if that?

I had reservations about Stowers before we brought him up.   My opinion of him hasn’t really changed.  I still think he’s got a decent shot at being a starting major league OFer.   It’s not a sure thing and it never was.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, orioles22 said:

I know this is not the point of the thread, but I don't get all the Cowser/Stowers comparisons. I never thought Stowers would be more than a role player. I expect Cowser to be a cornerstone of the team for years. I just don't think they should bring him up until he can play ever day.

After seeing him in action, I now have my doubts Stowers will even be a role player. Maybe the pro scouts already knew this but his stock has fallen IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stowers needs to go to a team where he can play everyday. 

He could be a guy that gives you a 750-820 OPS with a higher slugging and lower OBP.  Very similar to guys like Hays and Santander in terms of production imo.

But he needs to play and be left alone and see if he can develop.

He certainly may be nothing long term, as most players are but there isn’t much indication of that in his pro career outside of the SSS this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think you don’t hesitate to bring them up for that reason.  Other teams know that rookies sometimes struggle, and they have scouts capable of watching these guys play in the minors and identifying the weaknesses that will probably be exploited more by major league pitchers.  So, I don’t think you really hurt their value if you bring them up and they struggle. 

I am a fan of Westburg and Cowser. The problem is it is extremely unlikely that Cowser outperforms Mullins and Hays. Both of these are mid-career players in their prime. It's more likely that Coswer outperforms Santander, but its still unlikely. 

 

The same thing applies to Westburg. It's unlikely hes better than what we have right now. Although I'd take a hard look at what Mountcastle is offering right now, but I dont think this organization wants him to play 1B.

 

Being a competitive team we are no longer prioritizing on the job training. I understand that shiny new Norfolk and Bowie toys are more exciting than the monotony of running out the same guys everyday. But here is the thing, none of these toys are better than what we have right now. It took Mullins, Santander, Hays, Frazier, Urias, etc. Years to become effective MLB players.

Edited by Mr-splash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr-splash said:

I am a fan of Westburg and Cowser. The problem is it is extremely unlikely that Cowser outperforms Mullins and Hays. Both of these are mid-career players in their prime. It's more likely that Coswer outperforms Santander, but its still unlikely. 

 

The same thing applies to Westburg. It's unlikely hes better than what we have right now. Although I'd take a hard look at what Mountcastle is offering right now, but I dont think this organization wants him to play 1B.

 

Being a competitive team we are no longer prioritizing on the job training. I understand that shiny new Norfolk and Bowie toys are more exciting than the monotony of running out the same guys everyday. But here is the thing, none of these toys are better than what we have right now. It took Mullins, Santander, Hays, Frazier, Urias, etc. Years to become effective MLB players.

I think in Cowser's case they would look at an alignment of CC -LF, Mullins -CF and Hays -RF. Then Santander could be a fill in RF, DH and 1B on occasion. That scenario would have Cowser needing to be better than McKenna and Vavra for it to be effective. I think that's doable, and Hays may be better suited for RF considering he has an excellent arm.

 

Westburg is a different story. They seem content on having Frazier play at 2B most days. Now, if they eventually pull the plug on Mateo then that could open up a whole different infield alignment that could open up a path for Westburg.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sanity Check said:

Many of us would love to see Westburg and Cowser at the major league level to see how their talents translate to the next level.  I would love to see what they could do before we might consider trading them away for roster upgrades.  BUT.....

.....Here's the dilemma I see, and would love to get thoughts on.  We (the Orioles and the Hangout) were very high on Kyle Stowers, but I have to think his value was higher when he was putting up numbers in Norfolk than it is now, after not being very successful in his brief taste of the majors.

So, my questions...because I don't want to assume everyone agrees.  If you're another organization looking at Kyle Stowers for example, do you think his value is less now because of his struggles at the MLB level??

And secondly, are Westburg and Cowser more valuable now because of what they've done to this point in the minor leagues, or do we risk promoting them and having them struggle, and diminishing their immediate value in a trade scenario? (Keeping in mind both Stowers and Henderson's struggles, and the fact that Joey Ortiz also did not "light it up" in his brief stay in Baltimore....and yes, I know he only had limited opportunities, but he looked "okay" with the bat, not like someone you couldn't take out of the lineup....after all, he had been batting 4th a lot at Norfolk).

Do we promote these guys and risk potentially de-valuing them?  Thoughts?? 

Your dilemma is based on trade value.  And since I don't see the O's trading Cowser or Westburg any time this season I am not worried about it.

The players that will be traded or gone in the next year are Frazier, Santander, Gibson,  Givens and Mateo is edging in that direction.

Frazier, Gibson, Givens will be FA after the season.   Santander will be in his walk year next year and the O's are probably not signing him to a long term extension.   Mateo though a great defender has slumped badly for two years in a row.   With Henderson and Ortiz on the team and Holliday progressing fast I don't think Mateo is here next year.

Of the prospects Stowers because he is not as good as Mullins, Hays, Cowser or Kjerstad could be tradable.    Norby and Prieto are hitters that  are not great defenders.   I could see them traded.

I feel good about Wells, Kremer, Bradish and Gibson for the rest of the season.   GRod was sent down but he did not die.    He will be back after a reset.  Voth, Irvin, Watkins, Rom could help over the rest of season when needed.  Hall is still here and is could be promoted if he just shows some consistency.

I expect the same thing to happen at the trade deadline that has happened in the past.   The O's talk about getting a better starter.   But when it comes down to executing a trade they will not want to give  up what it required to get a top starter.

The O's have the 2nd best record is the MLB and they are still getting better.  

 

Edited by wildcard
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sanity Check said:

Many of us would love to see Westburg and Cowser at the major league level to see how their talents translate to the next level.  I would love to see what they could do before we might consider trading them away for roster upgrades.  BUT.....

.....Here's the dilemma I see, and would love to get thoughts on.  We (the Orioles and the Hangout) were very high on Kyle Stowers, but I have to think his value was higher when he was putting up numbers in Norfolk than it is now, after not being very successful in his brief taste of the majors.

So, my questions...because I don't want to assume everyone agrees.  If you're another organization looking at Kyle Stowers for example, do you think his value is less now because of his struggles at the MLB level??

And secondly, are Westburg and Cowser more valuable now because of what they've done to this point in the minor leagues, or do we risk promoting them and having them struggle, and diminishing their immediate value in a trade scenario? (Keeping in mind both Stowers and Henderson's struggles, and the fact that Joey Ortiz also did not "light it up" in his brief stay in Baltimore....and yes, I know he only had limited opportunities, but he looked "okay" with the bat, not like someone you couldn't take out of the lineup....after all, he had been batting 4th a lot at Norfolk).

Do we promote these guys and risk potentially de-valuing them?  Thoughts?? 

This is interesting but in fairness I think you are looking at this wrong. 
 

This isn’t a dilemma it’s the product of acquiring and developing talent in a system that has been full of no name place holders for years. 
 

I think Stowers is a future starter in the majors. I think Westburg is too and Cowser has an even higher ceiling. 
 

They have value regardless of struggles and their positions here or elsewhere are not guaranteed. The Orioles will decide if these guys can displace Hays or Santander or whoever and I expect we will see some of these guys getting more of a chance to prove their worth in the second half. 
 

But again this isn’t a dilemma. It’s the result of a process that was intentional and we are watching it work out in real time. 
 

Enjoy it. And see how it works out. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there has been a big trade for a TOR in the past where the prospects coming back were rated highly but say hitting .175 in their big league callup.  I can’t recall. 
 

Routine trades yeah.. but a big time mega deal swap for a TOR.. well fan base PR and thus ownership are in the mix big time with that type of deal and they may have more heartburn if the guy coming back has been struggling at the big league level.  Even if it is not a problem for the GM/staff. 

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

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...