What makes Basallo so untouchable?

[btdart20]

5 minutes ago, CP0861 said:

Wow! Now that's a fine break down! Much appreciated!!

??  That's what people mean when they say age matters. Not just based on a SSS snapshot of 1 year either.

It's not that Basallo's superhuman for 2024.  It's contextualizing what his 2024 stats mean when you account for some type of developmental curve based on age.  The odds may prove wrong for any specific data point (i.e. Basallo), but historic norms of development mean something too. 

You were putting the burden of truth on those defending historic norms.  In reality, those who don't buy the norms should prove their point.  When that's not done, people pick nits...  

[now]

32 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

The kid is special. At age 20, Gunnar put up an 826 OPS across A, A+, AA. At age 18, Basallo put up a 953 OPS across A, A+, AA.

The money quote. More rep!

[CP0861]

3 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

??  That's what people mean when they say age matters. Not just based on a SSS snapshot of 1 year either.

It's not that Basallo's superhuman for 2024.  It's contextualizing what his 2024 stats mean when you account for some type of developmental curve based on age.  The odds may prove wrong for any specific data point (i.e. Basallo), but historic norms of development mean something too. 

You were putting the burden of truth on those defending historic norms.  In reality, those who don't buy the norms should prove their point.  When that's not done, people pick nits...  

Whatever man....lol. Big difference (at least to me) between broadly saying "age matters" and breaking it down like he did. Apples and cannon balls.

 

 

 

 

[Spakman]

41 minutes ago, CP0861 said:

I want them ALL to do well. I have no ill will towards any Oriole or prospect. Lifelong fan and current plan holder. I want EVERYTHING to work out in our favor.

I know little to nothing about Basallo except for what I read online and what I can glean from his stats, which is obviously not the whole story/picture. Hence the original post full of questions about him.

Sorry you seem bothered by it all, but do you have any thoughts to share on Basallo? Or any responses to any of the 6 questions I asked in the original post? Or did you just get it all of your chest with that single, insightful comment?

 

Why should I share any thoughts? Many people have shared the same thoughts that I and and most talent evaluators have. You have made it more than clear that you don’t care, so why argue with you. You already have your mind made up about him.  You act like you want somebody to change your mind but you really just want to have a descending opinion and argue.

[interloper]

25 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

??  That's what people mean when they say age matters. Not just based on a SSS snapshot of 1 year either.

It's not that Basallo's superhuman for 2024.  It's contextualizing what his 2024 stats mean when you account for some type of developmental curve based on age.  The odds may prove wrong for any specific data point (i.e. Basallo), but historic norms of development mean something too. 

You were putting the burden of truth on those defending historic norms.  In reality, those who don't buy the norms should prove their point.  When that's not done, people pick nits...  

You are criticizing a guy for saying thank you and understanding everyone's point. He posted a genuine OP that contained some skepticism but also asked for help while saying "don't kill me". 

Predictably, he got absolutely killed for it. 

I will also note that Tony himself posted some skepticism earlier in the year during Basallo's struggles, and when I brought out the age thing like everyone did in this thread, I got roundly admonished. I deserved it because I did it in a snarky way that I should not have, and apologized. But the point is, it has gone both ways on this board with re: to Basallo. He's a prospect and not a sure thing, like any prospect. It's fine to ask questions, it's a message board. 

Edited Monday at 20:22 by interloper

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, LookitsPuck said:

Basallo is currently ranked 69th in OPS at AA, which includes stats from people that are no longer at that level (including those that were demoted, promoted, etc.). 

Average age of players above Basallo: 24

He's the youngest. But here's the breakdown of those above him (minimum 50 PA):

• 20: 3
• 21: 9
• 22: 10
• 23: 10
• 24: 11
• 25: 15
• 26: 7
• 27: 1
• 28: 2

OPS by age group for everybody that qualifies in PA (at least 50): (ref: https://milbtracker.com/hitter-stats?levels[0]=AA&sort=ops&sort_direction=desc&org=&timeframe=2024&min_walk_percentage=0&max_strike_out_percentage=100&paginate=50&page=1)

AGE OPS

18	0.544
19	0.800
20	0.747
21	0.734
22	0.701
23	0.677
24	0.664
25	0.682
26	0.682
27	0.620
28	0.686
29	0.652
30	0.588
31	0.676

Breakdown by age:

AGE COUNT PERCENTAGE 18 1 0.22% 19 1 0.22% 20 7 1.56% 21 31 6.92% 22 55 12.28% 23 83 18.53% 24 86 19.20% 25 88 19.64% 26 51 11.38% 27 21 4.69% 28 7 1.56% 29 11 2.46% 30 3 0.67% 31 3 0.67%

I mean, 90% of the league is aged 21-27 with 60% of the league being aged 23-25. 

Basallo is putting up a comparable OPS to the upper echelon of hitters overall. And is OPSing better than *every age group* on average! 

The kid is special. At age 20, Gunnar put up an 826 OPS across A, A+, AA. At age 18, Basallo put up a 953 OPS across A, A+, AA.

Drop the mic and walk off. Well done.

[Tony-OH]

31 minutes ago, interloper said:

You are criticizing a guy for saying thank you and understanding everyone's point. He posted a genuine OP that contained some skepticism but also asked for help while saying "don't kill me". 

Predictably, he got absolutely killed for it. 

I will also note that Tony himself posted some skepticism earlier in the year during Basallo's struggles, and when I brought out the age thing like everyone did in this thread, I got roundly admonished. I deserved it because I did it in a snarky way that I should not have, and apologized. But the point is, it has gone both ways on this board with re: to Basallo. He's a prospect and not a sure thing, like any prospect. It's fine to ask questions, it's a message board. 

Huh? I did no such thing. I may have pointed out his poor start like I point out lots of things, but at no point, and I mean no point, not even in the furthest of miscommunications could anyone decipher that I posted some skepticism over Basallo. What I pointed out was how unbalanced at the plate he was early in the season. He was. I didn't state anything other than that. 

I was an early adopter of him as a prospect, I knew his age and his elbow injury coming into this season, and I know that catching takes toll. You are sounded mistaken or misinformed or misremembering. I've said since last year that he very well may be the best prospect in the system, bar none. His upside with the bat is immense with only Mayo having similar upside for power. 

And you think you are the one who brought up his age like everyone else did not know? Ridiculous.

[Roll Tide]

5 hours ago, CP0861 said:

I know he's been mentioned repeatedly as untouchable and he's very highly regarded. I get all that.

But why exactly?

I know he's still a little young for AA, but do his numbers in the minors thus far scream untouchable?

He's a big kid - is he elite defensively behind the plate? Is he expected to put up Frank Thomas type numbers some day?

Just thinking out loud...don't kill me. But with Adley locked up for 3 years beyond this year and with Mayo looking like a nice, studly 1b option (at least imo), along with the other young bats that we have, where exactly does he fit in the next year or two?

Also, we literally have no rotation next year. GRod (the #3 to start 2024) becomes the ace with who behind him?

If Basallo is a piece that gets the Orioles an ace with years of control, how do they say no?

 

I wouldn’t say no

[LookitsPuck]

Thanks for the kudos, all!

Last year, at A+, Basallo slugged .688 w/ an OPS of 1.131. At the age of 18. 

That OPS put him 5th overall (minimum 50 PA). The names ahead of him (in parenthesis are prospect rankings for 2024):

• Xavier Isaac (#43 prospect overall) - 19 years old
• Aaron Palensky - 24 years old
• Jonathan Clase - 21 years old
• Agustin Ramirez - 21 years old

That's it.

Behind him were names like: Drew Gilbert (#39), Wyatt Langford (#6 before season started, 21 y/o), Junior Caminero (#2), Colson Montgomery (#9), Matt Shaw (#40), James Wood (#3), Jett Williams (#31)...I can keep going. 

https://milbtracker.com/hitter-stats?levels[0]=A%2B&sort=ops&sort_direction=desc&org=&timeframe=2023&min_walk_percentage=0&max_strike_out_percentage=100&paginate=612

[interloper]

29 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Huh? I did no such thing. I may have pointed out his poor start like I point out lots of things, but at no point, and I mean no point, not even in the furthest of miscommunications could anyone decipher that I posted some skepticism over Basallo. What I pointed out was how unbalanced at the plate he was early in the season. He was. I didn't state anything other than that. 

I was an early adopter of him as a prospect, I knew his age and his elbow injury coming into this season, and I know that catching takes toll. You are sounded mistaken or misinformed or misremembering. I've said since last year that he very well may be the best prospect in the system, bar none. His upside with the bat is immense with only Mayo having similar upside for power. 

And you think you are the one who brought up his age like everyone else did not know? Ridiculous.

Sheesh. Once again, I do not mean any offense Tony, and this was in no way a personal shot at you. "Skepticism" was I guess not the best choice of noun here. My apologies. And I am not suggesting you weren't aware of his age or upside. Of course not. Nor am I trying to take any credit for pointing out his age. I never said that and I'm not sure how you're taking that from what I wrote. 

Just a side note: I feel like I've been getting a lot of downvotes from you lately, and I even tried really hard to explain that I was in the wrong with the Basallo post I referenced, and was right to get a slap on the wrist. I'm not sure where I went wrong of late, but I hope I can get out of the doghouse at some point. I feel like my posts are being written one way and read another way that I'm not intending, so maybe I need to evaluate how I'm wording things. 

Edited Monday at 21:10 by interloper

[Tony-OH]

2 minutes ago, interloper said:

Sheesh. Once again, I do not mean any offense Tony, and this was in no way a personal shot at you. "Skepticism" was apparently too harsh of an adjective here. My apologies. And I am not suggesting you weren't aware of his age or upside. Of course not. Nor am I trying to take any credit for pointing out his age. I never said that and I'm not sure how you're taking that from what I wrote. 

Just a side note: I feel like I've been getting a lot of downvotes from you lately, and I even tried really hard to explain that I was in the wrong with the Basallo post I referenced, and was right to get a slap on the wrist. I'm not sure where I went wrong of late, but I hope I can get out of the doghouse at some point. I feel like my posts are being written one way and read another way that I'm not intending, so maybe I need to evaluate how I'm wording things. 

You literally said I showed some skepticism over Basallo and that you pointed out his age and got "shouted down." Neither of which is true statement which is why I gave you the down vote (which I rarely do). 

I would hope you would accurately depict what I wrote in the future vs using not just a "too harsh" of an adjective in "skepticism," but using the wrong word at all. If you are going to suggest I said something about a prospect, I just ask that your accurate depict what I said. Your original statement made it sound like I suddenly questioned Basallo after his slow start.

I give out information on prospects and sometimes it's to point out their struggles. I pointed out how unbalanced Basallo was early i the season and how he did not look like that last year. That was a true statement. I did not follow that up with questioning him as a prospect or being skeptical of his prospect status.

Oh, and BTW, I've given you upvotes of late as well. I don't hold grudges and typically give an upvote shortly after giving a down vote, which I only give when I'm misquoted or the post is against our rules significantly. 

 

[interloper]

4 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

You literally said I showed some skepticism over Basallo and that you pointed out his age and got "shouted down." Neither of which is true statement which is why I gave you the down vote (which I rarely do). 

I would hope you would accurately depict what I wrote in the future vs using not just a "too harsh" of an adjective in "skepticism," but using the wrong word at all. If you are going to suggest I said something about a prospect, I just ask that your accurate depict what I said. Your original statement made it sound like I suddenly questioned Basallo after his slow start.

I give out information on prospects and sometimes it's to point out their struggles. I pointed out how unbalanced Basallo was early i the season and how he did not look like that last year. That was a true statement. I did not follow that up with questioning him as a prospect or being skeptical of his prospect status.

Oh, and BTW, I've given you upvotes of late as well. I don't hold grudges and typically give an upvote shortly after giving a down vote, which I only give when I'm misquoted or the post is against our rules significantly. 

 

Fair enough. As long as you understand my intent was not to depict anything inaccurately or snipe at you or anything like that. I really was just offering an anecdote to defend the OP a bit, who I thought was getting needlessly dunked on. A lot of times I post a thing and then 5 minutes later I change some words that aren't quite right after some thought, so yeah, I just missed the mark on this one in terms of accurately describing things. My bad. 

[Tony-OH]

14 minutes ago, interloper said:

Fair enough. As long as you understand my intent was not to depict anything inaccurately or snipe at you or anything like that. I really was just offering an anecdote to defend the OP a bit, who I thought was getting needlessly dunked on. A lot of times I post a thing and then 5 minutes later I change some words that aren't quite right after some thought, so yeah, I just missed the mark on this one in terms of accurately describing things. My bad. 

Good enough my friend. We move on! 

[spiritof66]

4 hours ago, Bemorewins said:

With a payroll this low and an ownership group with a bankroll this high, I don't know why the Orioles would be unable to outbid higher-revenue teams?

Some of them are into the salary tax threshold currently and some like the Red Sox and Giants are mired in mediocrity with higher payrolls. 

Lastly, you left two teams off your list - The San Diego Padres and the St. Louis Cardinals. They seem to be able to "out bid" sometimes and afford higher payrolls in smaller markets.

I don't know much about the Padres' market.

Those other teams have much higher revenues than the Orioles, enabling them to bid higher. Sure, at any time some of them will  be limited or even disabled by existing payroll obligations, luxury tax concerns, or an unwillingness to spend because they don't think they're competitive. But all of them? The Dodgers are going to tell their fans that they really wanted to sign X to lead their pitching staff, but they got edged out by the Orioles? Maybe.

I don't know much about the Padres' market.

The Cardinals, despite being based in a small city, have two things going for them that give them revenues of a mid- to larger-market  team. (I think comparing revenues over a period of time is a much better way to measure teams' financial wherewithal.)  They are (1) a huge regional market that goes back over a century, with a size and strength that no team other than possibly the Red Sox has been able equal, and (2) the fact that St. Louisans (and people from that area) are crazy about baseball, I believe more so than any other city. St. Louis is a small city, but the Cardinals do not share the characteristics of a small-market team. 

[Bemorewins]

28 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

I don't know much about the Padres' market.

Those other teams have much higher revenues than the Orioles, enabling them to bid higher. Sure, at any time some of them will  be limited or even disabled by existing payroll obligations, luxury tax concerns, or an unwillingness to spend because they don't think they're competitive. But all of them? The Dodgers are going to tell their fans that they really wanted to sign X to lead their pitching staff, but they got edged out by the Orioles? Maybe.

I don't know much about the Padres' market.

The Cardinals, despite being based in a small city, have two things going for them that give them revenues of a mid- to larger-market  team. (I think comparing revenues over a period of time is a much better way to measure teams' financial wherewithal.)  They are (1) a huge regional market that goes back over a century, with a size and strength that no team other than possibly the Red Sox has been able equal, and (2) the fact that St. Louisans (and people from that area) are crazy about baseball, I believe more so than any other city. St. Louis is a small city, but the Cardinals do not share the characteristics of a small-market team. 

I appreciate you taking time to add some subtext to some of the situations.

But again, the Padres didn’t have a community that was “crazy about baseball” until they’re owner starting spending and landing stars. Now the are near the tops in MLB attendance. Hint - they didn’t even sell out regularly when they had one of the greatest hitters ever (Tony Gwynn). But once they started spending seriously and showing their fans that they were seriously investing, it’s amazing how that changed.

The Rangers were rarely a “big club” until recently when their owner started to spend. 

It’s exhausting repeating ad nauseum that ownership matters and the extent to which they are willing to invest in the product to draw/retain attention in the market has a tremendous impact.

So we can just agree to cut it off here before we go around in circles while doing this dance.

Many/most posters here don’t agree that the owner should make serious/meaningful expenditures and would rather worry about nickle and dimming a player out of his few millions while the owner takes in billions. That’s fine. That’s just not for me.