Jump to content

Orioles To Designate Spenser Watkins For Assignment


RVAOsFan

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

I think that might be true but that Ortiz is n the 40 man probably means as much or more. I think ME doesn't want more than 1 rookie struggling at a time on the MLB club. It's Ortiz's time in the barrel, I hope he gets the chance to show his glove plays at all 3 positions at least, even if his bat doesn't so far.

He has already shown the glove plays. He needs real playing time to show the bat does.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

I think that might be true but that Ortiz is n the 40 man probably means as much or more. I think ME doesn't want more than 1 rookie struggling at a time on the MLB club. It's Ortiz's time in the barrel, I hope he gets the chance to show his glove plays at all 3 positions at least, even if his bat doesn't so far.

I think Ortiz would have to be playing a lot more often than he is so far in order to declare that it's his time in the barrel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

He'll get picked up by some random team like the White Sox and throw 7 shutout innings against us next time we face them.

Probably. Then everyone here will lose their minds over it, then Watkins will quietly turn back into a pumpkin after about 15-20 total innings of pitching over his head.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, deward said:

I think Ortiz would have to be playing a lot more often than he is so far in order to declare that it's his time in the barrel.

Well I didn't mean that comment positively. Ortiz will get the same half-assed chance as Vavra and Stowers got. I just hope Ortiz does more with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

I think that might be true but that Ortiz is n the 40 man probably means as much or more. I think ME doesn't want more than 1 rookie struggling at a time on the MLB club. It's Ortiz's time in the barrel, I hope he gets the chance to show his glove plays at all 3 positions at least, even if his bat doesn't so far.

Eh, not sure the difference between a rookie who is struggling (be it Ortiz, Westburg, whoever) versus a 'vet' who is struggling (Mateo).  Given the options, I'd much rather have a struggling rookie who can, at least in theory, get past it like Gunnar seems to have done versus a Mateo who is much less likely to flip whatever magic switch that makes him go from out of the world good to the worst hitter in MLB.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Eh, not sure the difference between a rookie who is struggling (be it Ortiz, Westburg, whoever) versus a 'vet' who is struggling (Mateo).  Given the options, I'd much rather have a struggling rookie who can, at least in theory, get past it like Gunnar seems to have done versus a Mateo who is much less likely to flip whatever magic switch that makes him go from out of the world good to the worst hitter in MLB.  

This is the part of this argument I don’t get. 
 

Mateo has proven, over a lot of pro at bats, that he is a below average hitter.

Frazier is showing that while he can help you at times, he is largely not much more than a replacement player. 

Yet, we are ok with playing them because “”we don’t want several rookies” in the lineup at one time?

How does that make any sense?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

This is the part of this argument I don’t get. 
 

Mateo has proven, over a lot of pro at bats, that he is a below average hitter.

Frazier is showing that while he can help you at times, he is largely not much more than a replacement player. 

Yet, we are ok with playing them because “”we don’t want several rookies” in the lineup at one time?

How does that make any sense?

I can understand the argument or opinion due to the fact that you never quite know what you can expect from a rookie making his debut. Typically you would not want them all in the lineup IF the team has better options. IF being the key to that sentence.

Mateo and Frazier are two players that would make up an interesting bench because of their combination of skills. The Orioles have both Ortiz and Westburg ready to play everyday. Personally, I don't think the team plays worse with both of them in the lineup and you can't even use defense because to me Ortiz = Mateo and Frazier's defense has been below average in just about every defensive metric you want to go by so how much worse can Westburg be?

I like Frazier off the bench (regardless of his contract) because I've seen that he's a good contact hitter, tough guy to K, and a good high leverage guy. Those are things that make him valuable off the bench late in games. Mateo's speed and ability to come in and play SS without losing a beat is valuable as well. 

I could see Frazier pinch-hitting for Ortiz or maybe Westburg against a tough righty late in games is a K is the worse thing that could happen. 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I can understand the argument or opinion due to the fact that you never quite know what you can expect from a rookie making his debut. Typically you would not want them all in the lineup IF the team has better options. IF being the key to that sentence.

Mateo and Frazier are two players that would make up an interesting bench because of their combination of skills. The Orioles have both Ortiz and Westburg ready to play everyday. Personally, I don't think the team plays worse with both of them in the lineup and you can't even use defense because to me Ortiz = Mateo and Frazier's defense has been below average in just about every defensive metric you want to go by so how much worse can Westburg be?

I like Frazier off the bench (regardless of his contract) because I've seen that he's a good contact hitter, tough guy to K, and a good high leverage guy. Those are things that make him valuable off the bench late in games. Mateo's speed and ability to come in and play SS without losing a beat is valuable as well. 

I could see Frazier pinch-hitting for Ortiz or maybe Westburg against a tough righty late in games is a K is the worse thing that could happen. 

 

Agree with all of this.

And Tony you are bringing up what I feel is another good point…this helps the depth.

When we talk about “you can’t start too many rookies” because they will struggle and the current players are already struggling, that’s an awful argument to me.

However, I do think it’s a very good argument to say you would rather have the vets come in off the bench in key, high leverage moments. For Mateo, that could be defense or base running. For Frazier, a key at bat, as you described.

That makes the Os a deeper and better team for all situations imo.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My theory is that Westburg and Cowser stay at Norfolk and rake until the trade deadline and if they're not dealt by then then they get called up.  As long as they don't face ML pitching, then the gamble that they can't adjust stays on the acquiring team.

Farfetched?  Sure, but I'm stumped as to why at least one of them hasn't been called up yet and nothing else makes sense.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I mean, this may be what they say but it’s factually wrong. There is plenty of playing time for both of them if they are actually interested in putting the best and highest upside team out there that they can.

They don’t have to play 6-7 games a Week to justify being up here.

Tell us what allocation of playing time you’d like to see in the next 30 games, roughly speaking.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

This is the part of this argument I don’t get. 
 

Mateo has proven, over a lot of pro at bats, that he is a below average hitter.

Frazier is showing that while he can help you at times, he is largely not much more than a replacement player. 

Yet, we are ok with playing them because “”we don’t want several rookies” in the lineup at one time?

How does that make any sense?

I think the possible answers are blindingly obvious.  

1.  Management thinks more highly of the contributions of Frazier and Mateo than you do.

2.  Management thinks more highly of the potential contributions of Frazier and Mateo going forward than you do.

3.  Management is less confident than you are that Westburg and Ortiz will be able to contribute as much or more than  Mateo and Frazier.

It’s really that simple. 

You like fWAR better than rWAR; it’s fine for you to have that opinion, but they differ significantly and maybe the O’s internal metrics on Frazier and Mateo (which I’m sure they have) are more in line with rWAR, or even exceed it.  And maybe they see things in Westburg’s and Ortiz’s performance that make them think they’re not as good, at least right now.   
 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Is it? I thought it wasn't sure and it might be in late June? Honestly, I'm never good at knowing those dates so it would not surprise me. 

The latest the Super 2 cutoff has ever been is June 15.   It’s not impossible for it to fall later than that, but it’s never happened.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Watkins being DFA tells me is two things:

1) The cut to his finger was so bad that he can not now and may not for some time return to the pitcher he was last season.

2) This year he is using his last option so he will have no option next  season and not be able to move easily between AAA and the Majors.   So he probably gets DFA'd after the season anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, oriolediehard said:

Why is there so much love for Bemboom?  Why to we need 2 extra below .200 hitting catchers?  I don't understand the GM decisions?

Because for a backup catcher Elias values defense  and game calling over offense.

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...