Olerud363

Probably they'll be put in double a, but if they do well they will be inline for a quick call-up after service time date has passed. Given what they did with Kirk, they are evaluating based on age and year despite the missing minor league season. So Manoah and SWR will be treated almost as if they did have minor league year last year.

It really sucks that there was no minor league season. How do we evaluate where Manoah and Woods-Richardson are??

That's Dimitri His borther was Delmon. He weighed 295. He hit .300 with 15 homers in a full season basically. I think Vladdy is better than Dimitri so I see him at .325 with 25 homers, Paul O'Neil level. As a side note when I was searching for the picture it seems Dimitri lost a lot weight eventually.

I am sure he has already spent time trying to learn to hit flyballs. Reading between the lines they fiddled with his swing a couple of times (late last year and late this year) and both times he slumped and got frustrated. I think I heard he adjusted his hands much of September but went back to his old way the final week (and he got hot). I think he could be fine even without becoming an flyball hitter. Soto has a high ground ball rate too. I think the biggest difference between them are their swing rates. Vlad has to let a few more pitches on the corner go by even if the call doesn't always go his way... wait for his pitch and avoid the -25 degree 90 mph choppers and keep with -5 to +25 110 mph bullets.

Vlad = Paul O'Neil I've come to realize Vlad looks like a fat right handed hitter but identifies as a tall left handed line drive doubles hitter in the mold of O'Neill or John Olerud (look at Vladdy stats vs young O'Neill/Olerud stats) 25ish doubles, 16 home runs, .260ish average -- is it young Olerud? Young O'Neill ? Or Young Vladdy?? When Vladdy accepts his identity as a tall left handed, skinny, sweet swinging white guy he'll reach his potential as a batting title and double title contender with 22 homers.

Project 2022 - Assign each player a 1998 Yankee and get high performance team to mold the player into the 1998 Yankee counterpart using advanced high performance strategies and tools. Bo = Jeter Vlad = Paul O'Neil Kirk = Posado Biggio = Chuck Knobloch Gurriel = Bernie Williams (not really) Teoscar = Darryl Strawberry Rowdy = Tino? Ryu = David Wells Pearson = David Cone Romano = Rivera Got a lot of them covered.

I guess it depends who else are options If Groshans is obviously better sure but him at short and Bo at third Just don't John McDonald it... like if Bo can be a 4 WAR guy even with average D, and we a 3 WAR guy for third don't decrease the team WAR by putting Bo at third and John McDonald (-0.4 WAR in 2006, 1 WAR in 2007) at short.

A good organization won't move Bo off of short stop after 70 mlb games. They'd wait to see what happened over his first full season. This doesn't seem to be a Russ Adams situation. Bo passes the fangraphs test (fangraphs recognized the Russ Adams problem) Bo passes the eye test (casuals recognized the Russ Adams problem) Bo passes the old announcer test (old announcers recognized the Russ Adams problem) I never heard of the Bo problem until yesterday. Good organization wouldn't make a decision based on 1 game. I don't consume everything Blue Jays though. If this Bo problem was a thing before yesterday I'll take it more seriously.

This is pretty silly. What is "short ball" anyway? Good young core. Young pitching is closer then anyone thinks (Manoah and Richardson would be knocking on the door if there was a minor league season). Nate Pearson has as good of an arm as anyone. And when the time comes in the next couple of years in a key playoff game with everything on the line and only one small move needed to move the critical run into scoring position... I have no doubt we have a manager with the balls to call for the bunt against all sabermetric ******** wisdom

His fangraphs stats look fine I'm no scout but don't remember seeing anything too worrisome during the season. Looked like a short stop to me. Don't remember Buck Martinez, Kieth Hernandez or the Yankees crew bringing up anything about his defense (and I think at least the latter two would of). 2 plays today (unless there were more when I tuned out) 1. He didn't see the second basemen was covering because he was coming in from an odd angle... looked like he should of thrown to second, but for some reason didn't then made a pathetic throw to first. Haven't see throws like that routinely. 2. Bobbled a very routine grounder... the weird thing was instead of picking up and throwing a bullet.. his throw was late and off. Not aware that has any issues with the arm... so I would say 2 rushed plays and nothing to worry about. What do I know. Get the real scouts to have some input.

Blue Jays 2022 - 103-59 franchise records for wins Bo Bichette quote - "The guys are really down as are the fans, I mean what is this ********... I love Pearson, and he might win the Cy Young with a 150 innings... but really man?? 150 innings?? I don't care if he struck out 250 in 150 innings... the ******** the front office is pulling is ridiculous... 103 wins but it means nothing to us... Sure Pearson is healthy and lights out but he's not a real man, this isn't real baseball... and don't get me started about the Rowdy/J.D. Davis platoon... combined they were the best DH in the league, but it ruined our swagger... hard to be confident when your brothers are sitting half the time. The fans are demoralized, we are demoralized and we need to stop the ********."

Just saying that using advanced stats doesn't mean you are robotic. Let's say next year Shoemaker is a 3-4 inning pitcher no matter what (not sure how they fill all the innings but let's say that's the case). Hypothetically let's say it works. He comes in, with the stare, with the beard, blows away guys for 3 innings, followed by Pearson or Ray, who are nasty in 3 innings. And say there are fans. Will the fans - cheer and clap and enjoy these guys blowing away people in 3 innings?? If they see Ray coming in for the fourth and know he's going to kick ass will there be electricity. Or will the fans say - "This is robotic" I've been saying this for a while... what matters is whether it works or not. If it works it will be fun. If the Jays are winning they'lll get 3 million, and they'll be used to guys like Ray coming in middle innings... if it works they'll love it.

In Vlad, Bo, Biggio, Gurriel, Grichuk, Hernandez, Kirk, Ryu this team has a lot of name recognition and personality. I mean Kirk showed up and he's already very recognizable... unique guy obviously. Point is ... this team lacks personality?? Also will Pearson have more personality if he becomes the next Aaron Sanchez?? Or if he becomes a 4-5 inning piggy back guy who has mind blowing numbers in 145 innings and does it for 4 years?? Will Shoemaker have more personality being a 10-12 guy or being a 9-4 guy if he can perform better being used less??

I don't use a phone, arguments like these need a high powered work station to write the pycode that will prove Grant wrong. I rarely go outside anyway but now I probably won't see the sun for months as I am in the midst of writing a huge simulation which pits historical teams of different quality against each other in 3, 5, 7 and even 9 game series. It is fun. Maybe I'll have the 93 Jays play the 61 Yankees in one the simulations. What percentage of the time do you think the Jays will win if they win the first game of the series?

And... another mistake in your favor... The coin is biased. One team is better than the other. It doesn't matter that much, but it biases the problem again in your favor. Every little approximation you make is always in your favor. Funny how that happens.

This is crazy. Every mistake is in your favor. Even your 116 estimate is off... that is for 7 game series, when over half the series are 5 game So we would expect (4*120+3*116)/7 = 118.3 I did some simulations and I think the standard deviation for repeated trials of 175 games is about 5.5... So if that's true, 126/175 is not statistically significant I don't think. The 95 % confidence interval of the true value (118.3) is about 107.5 to 129... Maybe I made a mistake... I just ran the numbers pretty quick, and most of the time was spent trying to figure out why I wasn't getting 116 wins / 175 (because your number was biased to 7 game series).

As I predicted Grant's statistic was wrong... and it just happened to be wrong in his direction Originally he said the team winning game 1, wins 124-39. In fact it is now reported by Grant (still without evidence) as 126-49... big difference, Next: I predict Grant's percentage might be right but I wonder if he can provide a link to his data? I'd be interested to see it. I kind of wonder if it is based on this https://time.com/4972537/baseball-playoffs-first-round/ Same percentages but half the sample size... perhaps another little "mistake" that just happens to be in Grant's favor.

Sorry. You haven't proven your point scientifically at all. a) Where did you find your statistic?? Do you have a link? The only thing I could find is this https://time.com/4972537/baseball-playoffs-first-round/. Which is similar to your stat except the sample size is half as small, which is important if we eventually get into doing statistical tests. The teams aren't evenly matched. If they were you'd expect 116 wins yes. However teams aren't evenly matched, better teams will win the 1st game and the series more often, so the true expectation is more than 116. c) Given is 126 (63?) wins even significant using formal statistics?? 175 (or 88) samples don't prove the process is biased. d) You didn't really prove game 1 is the most important compared to other games. What about game 2?? How many series does the winner of game 2 win? (I see now you acknowledged this, but didn't provide numbers)

If you wanted to do this properly you'd have to present every series and the expected number of series wins by the winner of game 1, vs the actual number of series wins by the winner of game 1. That data is totally missing from this discussion. To me the number Grant showed 124-39 seems higher than what you'd expect... so the number could show an effect However 1. Is this number even correct or did Grant hear a different number, then fudge a bit to make his case?? Like maybe the real number was 119-45. 2. If correct is the trend the number shows significant in a statistical sense ?

If you could only win one of game 1 or game 2 which would you choose? Game 1 clearly. It's a fact. I am never one to dispute facts but still... what I would like to see is a) assuming team wins game 1 do they have a better then predicted chance of winning game 2 based on underlying team quality? assuming series is tied 1-1 does the team that won game 1 have a better chance of winning than the team that won game 2? Intuitively I think a) no... no What are the facts though?? Facts matter, it is all we have to defeat the irrational.

OK. 1. Is your number correct?? I mean you can't say "I can't recall exactly"... If it was actually 120-43 that is a huge difference. 2. Is the number way higher then what would be expected given randomly matched teams?? Yes it is, if your number is accurate. 3. Is the number way higher then what would be expected given un-matched teams? One team is often a bit better than the other, that team will win game 1 and the series more often.

The games will be in Prime Time... South Korean Prime Time... At least they can cheer on Ryu at night. (edit: it will be middle of the night South Korean Time, it will prime time in Europe)

Projected to a full season he'd be very close to where Carlos Delgado was in his first full season, 1996. .260ish 25 homers, 90 rbis...

It's pretty rare to see a player with Biggio's plate discipline. Some guys get ptiched around and walk a lot. They aren't trying to pitch around Biggio. Biggio's zone recognition is amazing. Seems like he is a crazy hard worker too. Grichuk has basically returned to his career norms this year. Last year was a down year. There is a lot of talk about him changing his approach, I haven't looked into it much, but the numbers are right around where they always are. His contract is about 10 million a year, and he's playing at about that level, maybe a bit better. I believe the price of 1 win is about 10 million dollars right now. So right now I believe Grichuk is out-performing the contract.. but that is expected at the beginning. Contracts are usually structured to be the same amount of money each year, however since baseball players peak in their late 20s, the assumption is they will out-perfrom the contract in the first years, and under perform in the later years. So some people could argue Grichuk isn't performing enough at the early stage of the contract, given he will almost certainly decline at the end.

He doesn't get on base much. The players that are most "loved" and "hated" at the same time tend to be guys whos traditional stats (avg, hr, rbi especially the latter 2) are decent but don't get on base and/or have mediocre or over-rated defense. Randal fits that formula... however he has good power, and his defense is about average, his WAR (Wins above replacement) is consistently around 2. (WAR - negative is very bad, 0 is minor league level, 2ish is OK, 5ish is a star, 8ish is MVP level) Makes him an acceptable player for a winning team, just not a guy you want to be one of your top 3 stars. The caveat is that a player of Randal's skills could become a problem really fast... if his on base percentage and defense slipped a bit he'd quickly become what we call a negative WAR guy... essentially meaning a random guy from the minors could do as good or better. If you haven't already check out fangraphs.com, it's where many people on the board get the stats they use in their arguments.