Jump to content

Anthony Santander 2024


DirtyBird

Recommended Posts

I would offer QO (of course) and I think the best case scenario honestly is that he takes it. If he ends up falling off a cliff, it's only a one year thing and we can work around that. Unless he really falls off the rest of the year he's probably going to reject it and hope for the type of deal that's been throw around (4-85). If that's the case, I have faith with Elias and our internal options there is a suitable replacement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, e16bball said:

I’m not so sure about that. He’s 2 for his last 30 (.221 OPS), and he checks in for the year at a 92 wRC+. Which is pretty weak compared to Cowser’s 111 wRC+. He doesn’t hold a candle to Cowser defensively, either, so he’s got a long ways to go to catch him.

I will agree with you, though, that if it’s at all close, Langford (and Mason Miller) will get it over Cowser. They’ve had far more national profile than Cowser has, so they’ll surely get the nod if it’s a judgment call.

Appreciate the correction. I didn’t check current stats, more fool I, but Langford always seemed to be doing something good for the Rangers  when I checked in, and had tremendous pre-season hype.

For a time I thought Luis Gil had it wrapped up, but he’s come back to earth, too. Maybe Miller is the current front runner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

If I understand the odds correctly the markets seem to think Langford is a strong favorite with >50% chance of getting ROY. Cowser is running third with around 10-20% chance. He needs to pick it up quick. 

Hope he can but I have to be realistic 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2024 at 11:56 AM, baltfan said:

Adam Jones swung at everything and his game was based on his legs.  Wieters was a catcher.  Davis is your best argument, but he also was a bit of a head case. 

The entire history of MLB players are the best argument.  Some beat the odds, the vast majority don’t, and which ones will are pure guesswork.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2024 at 11:56 AM, baltfan said:

Adam Jones swung at everything and his game was based on his legs.  Wieters was a catcher.  Davis is your best argument, but he also was a bit of a head case. 

The entire history of MLB players are the best argument.  Some beat the odds, the vast majority don’t, and which ones will are pure guesswork.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The entire history of MLB players are the best argument.  Some beat the odds, the vast majority don’t, and which ones will are pure guesswork.  

Not pure guesswork, using PEDs pretty clearly gives you an advantage in combating aging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, OriolesUpAndDowns said:

Switch hitters with power such are a luxury.  
 

 

Not according to the internet pro's on here.  In their opinion he is as bad....or should I say as average as...Nelson Cruz. Before he signed with the Mariners.    And then went crazy.

Edited by OnlyOneOriole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OriolesUpAndDowns said:

Is it just me or does Santander look like he is moving a little slower?

I was at the game tonight and he just looked a little awkward when running.  

I pointed it out twice in the game thread that he looked lazy going after balls (first the gapper and second a popup that landed foul.  Perhaps he is banged up, or perhaps upset with how things are going. I guess we'll see

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2024 at 2:03 PM, Can_of_corn said:

Not pure guesswork, using PEDs pretty clearly gives you an advantage in combating aging.

Is there field data to support this? I know there are studies that suggest reasons why it might—plus there are all the anecdotal cases like Barry Bonds. But seems like there are just as many reasons to think that f’ing with your endocrine system would shorten your career. Have the Russians published any longitudinal data?

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

    • I had been considering making the trip but it unfortunately didn't work out this season with a lot of other travel obligations I ended up having. I went to Fenway for the first time to see the O's back in 2019 and absolutely loved it.  Hope everyone making the trip has a blast!
    • Nice to see he's putting the increase in ticket prices to good use! 
    • I learned just now that the Library of Congress has a new David M. Rubenstein Treasures Gallery, so named in recognition of a $10 mm gift by Rubenstein.  Looks pretty cool, too.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/09/03/library-of-congress-exhibit/
    • He’s really having a rough year.  Three trips to the IL plus an illness that zapped him badly at the beginning of the year.  I’d say there’s a good chance he’s getting non-tendered this offseason.  But hopefully he can recover from this latest setback and contribute to the Phillies during the postseason.
    • It’s kind of amazing, but Bowman has thrown 207.2 innings in his career, while Perez has thrown 207.1.   Perez has allowed fewer hits (183/188), fewer runs (101/105), fewer homers (15/18) and has struck out more batters (191/167).   The only place where Bowman has the advantage is walks (108/75).  Perez is five years younger.   I prefer Perez every day and twice on Sunday.  
    • I don't want to hijack this thread but for those that are interested: Underestimating the Fog (Bill James)-or the original title-The Problem of Distinguishing Between Transient and Persistent Phenomena When Dealing with Variables from a Statistically Unstable Platform.  https://sabr.org/research/article/underestimating-the-fog/ Excerpt: " Dick Cramer, in the clutch-hitting study, did the same thing, and catcher-ERA studies, which look for consistency in catcher’s impact on ERAs, do the same thing; they compare one comparison offshoot with a second comparison offshoot. It is a comparison of two comparison offshoots. When you do that, the result embodies not just all of the randomness in two original statistics, but all of the randomness in four original statistics. Unless you have extremely stable “original elements” — original statistics stabilized by hundreds of thousands of trials — then the result is, for all practical purposes, just random numbers. We ran astray because we have been assuming that random data is proof of nothingness, when in reality random data proves nothing. In essence, starting with Dick Cramer’s article, Cramer argued, “I did an analysis which should have identified clutch hitters, if clutch hitting exists. I got random data; therefore, clutch hitters don’t exist.” Cramer was using random data as proof of nothingness — and I did the same, many times, and many other people also have done the same. But I’m saying now that’s not right; random data proves nothing — and it cannot be used as proof of nothingness. Why? Because whenever you do a study, if your study completely fails, you will get random data. Therefore, when you get random data, all you may conclude is that your study has failed. Cramer’s study may have failed to identify clutch hitters because clutch hitters don’t exist — as he concluded — or it may have failed to identify clutch hitters because the method doesn’t work — as I now believe. We don’t know. All we can say is that the study has failed. Dealing now with the nine conclusions listed near the start of the article, which were: -Clutch hitters don’t exist. -Pitchers have no ability to win, which is distinct from an ability to prevent runs. -Winning or losing close games is luck. -Catchers have little or no impact on a pitcher’s ERA. -A pitcher has little or no control over his hits/innings ratio, other than by striking batters out and allowing home runs. -Base running has no persistent impact on a team’s runs scored, other than by base stealing. -Batters have no individual tendency to hit well or hit poorly against left-handed pitching. -Batters don’t get hot and cold. -One hitter does not “protect” another in a hitting lineup. On [1), it is my opinion that this should be regarded as an open question. While Dick Cramer is a friend of mine, and I have tremendous respect for his work, I am convinced that, even if clutch-hitting skill did exist and was extremely important, this analysis would still reach the conclusion that it did, simply because it is not possible to detect consistency in clutch hitting by the use of this method." He goes on to question the other conclusions.  It's a very interesting read. Here is Birnbaum's response:  https://sabr.org/journal/article/response-to-mapping-the-fog/  
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...