They made a determination after 9 PA about Yoan Moncada last year. That's extreme, though.
Devers called up to Majors
- Thread starter DeadlySplitter
- Start date
Huh? He had 20 in which he struck out 12 times looking completely lost. Agree it's still a sss, but I don't exactly think they're comparable.
On video or pitchFX, there's probably plenty to analyze in those 12 ABs. But there's nothing to be made of a 12 AB stretch based purely on the results (as in, that he's 2 for those 12).
Indeed: We ought not lose sight of the fact that statistics are but one form of analysis, lest we become what the SABR haters think we already are.
No, but they're bothering to analyze them. If he'd said something with some scouting input (swing changes, pressing, pitchers throwing away when they weren't before, anything really) that could be something reasonable to discuss. He cited 2 for 12 in a vacuum as meaningful.
I was referring to the last 9 in which he struck out. In his first 11, he was 4/10 with a double and a walk.
edit: And I don't think they are comparable at all. Moncada set the record for most K's in a row, after all.
Also, lets be fair, Moncada basically looked like that, at the moment, that he couldn't hit major league pitching. They never decided that he would never be able to do that, just that he wasn't helping the team at that moment. Then he was the centerpiece for an ace. Right now, Devers just has to look better than the internal options. That continues to be a low bar to clear.
In his first 7 games Devers hit .429/.500/.714/1.214. Is that what people expected his career line to be? He followed that up with (now) .200/.294/.400/.694.
All I did was ask if they have figured out how to pitch to them. It is not unheard of for new players to come in with a bang, then slow down when weaknesses are discovered. You have a 20-year-old kid who came to the majors with 320 PA at Double-A and 38 PA at Triple-A and you people on this board ready to put him in the Hall of Fame.
I don't think you come up and just go into a slump in game eight of your career; I think there may be more to it and I asked how he would adjust. Maybe the adrenaline has worn off. Maybe he has been overwhelmed by the inflow of major-league-level data. I don't know but the people in this thread blathering about 12 ABs being SSS should also be aware that 32 ABs he got in his first seven games is also small sample size.
You make some good points, but this is not one of them--or at least, if it is, it requires more explanation. Why is a player any less likely to go into a slump in game 8 of his career than game 800? (Defining "slump", for this purpose, as a random negative fluctuation in hitting performance not occasioned by any discernable external circumstance.)
Because I think a more likely explanation is that opposing clubs have figured out how to pitch more effectively to that player, especially with a player with very limited time above A-ball. How many PA did Devers have in AA/AAA against MLB-ready/MLB-quality pitchers for the opposing clubs to scout?
I would think a variance in luck or a variance in pitchers approach to a hitter are equally likely. If an experienced hitter hits poorly in four games, do you think the league has now figured him out? Could be, but that would seem extremely unlikely. The chance increases with a younger player, but still has to be balanced against the fact that shit just happens sometimes.
Does a guy starting his MLB career off at 20/21yo really have the same aging and peak production curve as the average "prime years" player though?
Never been able to dig up a good study that directly tackles that, but on the surface I've generally always came to the "earlier start = earlier peak" conclusion for guys falling notably ahead of the average starting age. Or at least those that didn't end up being HoFers.
Last edited:
This in spades. The larger the sample the more stats tells the story, the smaller the sample the more scouting tells the story. Teams still employ those guys, or so I hear. But how would we know, we've never had a poster graduate to ML scout as far as I recall.
My initial stab at that answer would be "yes" but qualified by the fact that many of the ~20 year old callups that we tend to think of (Rodriguez, Trout, et al.) hit an absurdly high peak early in their careers and pretty much sustain that. But there are plenty of famous early callups who peaked in their traditional prime years, like Griffey, Adam Jones, Shawn Green...
What relevance do most of these guys have, who were 24+ and without the same pedigree, with Devers? Most of those guys were never expected to be more than what they ended up as, never mind ever considered a top 20 prospect in the game. Why stop at April, by the way? Following your parameters, Devers wouldn't even make the list, and doesn't that eliminate a lot of players like Betts who were mid to late season additions and burned through their rookie status prior to their first full season?
I can appreciate your effort on this, but Fangraphs actually posted a really good article with relevant comparisons for Devers.
The list of 18-20 year callups with similar minor league records is towards the bottom of the article. There are a handful of players who didn't turn out (Delmon Young, Ruben Sierra, Ruben Tejada, Jose Lopez, Fernando Martinez). But most of them have turned out to be all-stars at the very least and first ballot hall of famers at best.
I think that it is definitely wrong to call it a slump, but more importantly, I think that there is no evidence presented here to suggest that this has to do with pitchers learning his weaknesses after such a small number of games.
When he first came up, he had a BABIP of almost .500 for the first week, despite an average batted ball profile. Now it's closer to .300, and he is no longer having a 50% HR/FB rate. The answer appears to be much simpler than people are trying to make it out to be. He came up, and just happened to get really lucky on balls in play over his first 8 games or so, then that luck normalized, and now he's 'slumping.'
When he first came up, he had a BABIP of almost .500 for the first week, despite an average batted ball profile. Now it's closer to .300, and he is no longer having a 50% HR/FB rate. The answer appears to be much simpler than people are trying to make it out to be. He came up, and just happened to get really lucky on balls in play over his first 8 games or so, then that luck normalized, and now he's 'slumping.'
I wasn't attacking you, merely questioning why they were in discussion with Devers.
Is there any evidence that he is being pitched differently? One of the things people pointed out was that he was hitting away pitches well. Has he been struggling with stuff on the inside? This seems like the sort of thing that could be analyzed.
To me it looks like Griffey "peaked" earlier in that respect (age 23).
My initial point being that while it's fun/sexy to look at really young guys (especially with us having a # of them lately) and get carried away while drawing the overall "has the potential to get even better way latter on" conclusion, it also strikes me as the least conservative one you can pull out of that supporting data.
My surface guess on Devers here would be that he peaks at the earlier age and hits his plateau within the cost control time frame, and after which is more likely to see some degree of decline once beyond that point then anything else.
Indeed it can -- and because only 12 at-bats are being dissected, we could examine all the plate appearances. I did that during a dull moment yesterday, and concluded that pitchers are mostly still working Devers low and outside. In several at-bats Devers swung at the 2nd or 3rd pitch, and grounded out. Pitchers had the best results by changing speeds (sinker, followed by splitter; or vice versa). Shields and Pelfrey both gave Devers some problems.
Whiff rates remain low, but one swinging strikeout came on a pitch up and in. The other strikeout was looking.
Devers had problems against Rodon, but he wasn't alone -- Rodon tallied 11 K's. In his first at-bat, Devers missed a 95 mph fastball for strike 3.
In the second at-bat, Devers singled on an outside slider, pulling it to right-centerfield.
In the third at-bat, Devers grounds out on an outside slider.
In his fourth at-bat, Devers strikes out against Tyler Clippard: two changeups off the plate away, followed by a fastball up and in.
Rather than posting the other 7 at-bats, I think we can extend our generalizations a little bit further from the first 37 at-bats.
1) Devers' power didn't go away just because he hasn't hit his fourth home run yet.
2) Devers will take a walk, and doesn't chase really bad pitches.
3) Devers is not all oppo, all the time -- he can pull the ball.
4) Devers is not perfect.
Griffey was HOF great until he was 30. Sure the ultimate peak might have been 23, but his last 4 seasons with Seattle (ages 26-29) are one of the great 4 year runs in the history of the sport.
well I thought so until I looked up Bonds in his pre-steroid Pittsburgh and early SF years when he had a TEN year run when he was better than Griffey by a large margin.
Is his 2.17 GB/AO ratio at this early stage a concern?Indeed it can -- and because only 12 at-bats are being dissected, we could examine all the plate appearances. I did that during a dull moment yesterday, and concluded that pitchers are mostly still working Devers low and outside. In several at-bats Devers swung at the 2nd or 3rd pitch, and grounded out. Pitchers had the best results by changing speeds (sinker, followed by splitter; or vice versa). Shields and Pelfrey both gave Devers some problems.
Whiff rates remain low, but one swinging strikeout came on a pitch up and in. The other strikeout was looking.
Devers had problems against Rodon, but he wasn't alone -- Rodon tallied 11 K's. In his first at-bat, Devers missed a 95 mph fastball for strike 3.
In the second at-bat, Devers singled on an outside slider, pulling it to right-centerfield.
In the third at-bat, Devers grounds out on an outside slider.
In his fourth at-bat, Devers strikes out against Tyler Clippard: two changeups off the plate away, followed by a fastball up and in.
Rather than posting the other 7 at-bats, I think we can extend our generalizations a little bit further from the first 37 at-bats.
1) Devers' power didn't go away just because he hasn't hit his fourth home run yet.
2) Devers will take a walk, and doesn't chase really bad pitches.
3) Devers is not all oppo, all the time -- he can pull the ball.
4) Devers is not perfect.
Not unless you have reason to believe that GB ratios stabilize very, very early. His batted ball profiles from the minor leagues don't suggest that he'll be killing as many worms as Rusney Castillo.
Two interesting things about Devers' ground balls so far:
1) He's hitting them hard (47.6%), harder than his flies and liners (both 33.3%). That 47.6% would be the hardest percentage in MLB by a full 7 percentage points if he had enough PA to qualify.
2) He's hitting them all over the yard, but primarily up the middle (pull/center/oppo 23.5/47.1/29.4). This too is unusual; again, that 23.5% GB pull rate would be the lowest in MLB, and there are only 11 guys (out of 316) with a rate under 40%. Most ground balls are pulled.
I don't doubt this is more SSS than anything else, but if you had to define the circumstances in which a high GB rate isn't such a bad thing, it would be when you're hitting the crap out of them up the middle.
1) He's hitting them hard (47.6%), harder than his flies and liners (both 33.3%). That 47.6% would be the hardest percentage in MLB by a full 7 percentage points if he had enough PA to qualify.
2) He's hitting them all over the yard, but primarily up the middle (pull/center/oppo 23.5/47.1/29.4). This too is unusual; again, that 23.5% GB pull rate would be the lowest in MLB, and there are only 11 guys (out of 316) with a rate under 40%. Most ground balls are pulled.
I don't doubt this is more SSS than anything else, but if you had to define the circumstances in which a high GB rate isn't such a bad thing, it would be when you're hitting the crap out of them up the middle.
Highlights:
-this is the first year he's opened his stance, previously he was straight-footed but he thinks this helps him keep his front side closed through his swing
-he's not much for comps but has been told he looks like Cano (two points for House JBS9!)
-doesn't really focus on being an oppo-first hitter, just the product of his bat path and how late he lets the ball get in
-doesn't change approach much against LHP, just focuses on keeping his shoulder in a hair longer before pulling the trigger.
IMO Devers didn't come across as the most advanced hitting thinker (compared to say, rookie Boegarts), but he was also going through a translator, and frankly with that kind of torque & hand-eye he doesn't need to be one.
I doubt teams have discovered how to pitch to Devers yet. Damn, it took half a year and 30 HR to discover Judge was vulnerable to being pitched up in the zone with high heat.
Defensive positioning is probably the first thing they start getting right. His BABIP was going to regress in any event.
The worst thing that can happen to Devers is thinking going hitless in a game or two will land him on the bench. Pressure to perform kills more young hitters than anything. Farrell has to give up his Holt love and just play the kid every day regardless of results
Defensive positioning is probably the first thing they start getting right. His BABIP was going to regress in any event.
The worst thing that can happen to Devers is thinking going hitless in a game or two will land him on the bench. Pressure to perform kills more young hitters than anything. Farrell has to give up his Holt love and just play the kid every day regardless of results
You tried this foolishness in the game thread and were rightfully mocked for it. Devers has sat once since he started playing every day. It had nothing to do with not getting a hit or "Holt love." It had to do with giving the kid a chance to catch a breath, maybe work on something in the cage or video room, and get back ready to go Friday night.
Short of a career ending or life threatening injury the worst thing that could happen to devers would be if his career came under the control of people who had no clue what they were talking about.
A)Edit - I misremembered the Judge heat map, he has been getting pitched more in on the hands. I'm not convinced his slump is completely a result of that vs just being a slump though.
B) As E5 stated you made a spectacularly dumb post in the last game thread along these lines but I guess you don't learn too good. Devers was given one game off, there is no indication that it was anything more than that. The kid has gotten and will get a chance to play pretty much every day(he will get a day off now and again) for the rest of the season to show what he has.
Regarding off-days for Devers...something to keep in mind is that minor league schedules are shorter than major league schedules. The travel involved in the minors, while not as luxurious, isn't anywhere near as extensive as it is in the majors. The grind can take its toll on players unprepared for it. His career high games played is last year at 128 games, in the Carolina league. He's at 88 right now all told, with 48 games left not including post-season.
That's not to say that Devers is already at the point of "hitting the wall" but it is a reminder that that point is likely coming. So scheduling him a game off right before a day off is probably a good thing for him in the long run (as it would be with any player). It's silly to read anything into his getting one day off, or to manifest manager-hating fantasies over it. Days off for the kid are a good thing, not something to be avoided at the risk of harming his psyche.
That's not to say that Devers is already at the point of "hitting the wall" but it is a reminder that that point is likely coming. So scheduling him a game off right before a day off is probably a good thing for him in the long run (as it would be with any player). It's silly to read anything into his getting one day off, or to manifest manager-hating fantasies over it. Days off for the kid are a good thing, not something to be avoided at the risk of harming his psyche.
Hell, just look at the resurgence Benintendi's had since getting a couple days off. I think we're in an extremely fortunate situation having Holt, Young and Nunez able to give anyone a couple days off at any point. Hoping they use them extensively down the stretch and avoid hitting a wall at the end like they seemed to last year.
Judge's BABiP was also something like .420 (wooooo!!!!). Granted, he was destroying the ball but even normalized to something on the high side (.320?), he was going to come crashing back to earth. I hope to hell his '17 first half will be the high point of his career.... but he'll likely hover around .850 OPS with a normalized BABiP (I don't know how the hell people actually figure out the ratio of "normalized" OPS to BABiP that I've seen other posters do around these parts). Also.... (thread derailment) how is Judge as a fielder? He seems awfully stiff and unathletic.
Anyhow.... I'm thoroughly enjoying this new Yankee-Red Sox rivalry
The Devers piece is on the MLBNetwork twitter, can't seem to get it to embed from my ipad, but here's the link.
Redsox minor league players get every 5th game off as well. Play 4 games, 5th one off. Some older guys in AAA are excluded from this like Bryce Brentz but their legit prospects always follow this schedule. It's why we get a lot of trade speculation in July when a top prospect sits.
Really? I think he looks pretty fluid and plenty athletic. Especially for a guy his size. All indications are that he's a pretty good defender... at least. Metrics like UZR are far from a stable sample size yet, but there's nothing there that suggests he's bad, and the eye test seems to bear that out.
I probably should have said extreme SSS on my viewing experience. Based that off a total of 4 plays I've seen to RF
I always thought that was one of those things where people rushed to conclusions. Just like the "Madden Curse", to get to the HR derby, you have to have yourself a pretty solid first half to get the attention. Often, that is going to mean some regression in the second half. Especially for a rookie who is playing out of his mind.
Is it possible? Sure, but it reads as superstition to me.
Right. Any time someone has a .426 BABIP going into the derby, they're going to regress on the other side. It's easy to wrap your head around "Oh, he was swinging harder and messed up his mechanics" than "Regression to the mean" though, so people start seeing what they want to see.
One of the talking points during the derby was that Judge was a favorite because his power was so easy, he didn't need to adjust his swing to compete in it. If there are any visible differences in his swing between now and before the break, they are probably more likely the normal adjustments players make all year long as the season wears on and pitchers make adjustments to them.
Players (hitters and pitchers) are constantly tweaking mechanics, approaches, etc to get a leg up. Judge was never quite as good as he looked in the first half, though. Of course, he's not as bad as he looks now, either. His current BABIP since the break is .233. He'll be okay and should settle in as a very good player who can go on MVP level runs for a few weeks at a time, but has some pretty ugly lows here and there as well.
I didn't think hitting the wall was as much of a thing in baseball as it is in basketball. Baseball games, season, minors/majors ~ 140/162. Basketball games, college/pro ~ 33/82. Maybe it is a factor just because of the age of pre-professional kids in any sport though. Thinking a little further, baseball players going from high school to the minors probably see a very significant wall.