Yeah, except for the fact that Stubbs is 7 years younger, plays a completely different position, has a career wRC+ vs. LHP that is 37 points higher, and is a much better baserunner, sure. Extremely apt.Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
It's actually an extremely apt comparison. Except Stubbs K's about 10% more of the time. I guess I'm just not a fan of platoon players.
The Best Catch in 100 Years said:Yeah, except for the fact that Stubbs is 7 years younger, plays a completely different position, has a career wRC+ vs. LHP that is 37 points higher, and is a much better baserunner, sure. Extremely apt.
The Best Catch in 100 Years said:Yeah, except for the fact that Stubbs is 7 years younger, plays a completely different position, has a career wRC+ vs. LHP that is 37 points higher, and is a much better baserunner, sure. Extremely apt.
Where he plays in reality is entirely inconsequential to this exercise. You drafted him, which means he's playing in the MLB in our universe. Period. He doesn't get a single at bat of minor league seasoning ever again, he's playing in the MLB, and he's sitting on the bench most of the time, so he's not even going to get anything approaching regular at bats to try and get acclimated to the MLB. He's fucked.Galway Sox Fan said:This criticism is way over the line.
First off he is eligible. Secondly it is round 19 and its my first non MLB pick. Do I think this kid will produce this season. No. The reason he is my 3rd choice at 2nd base. Do I think he could have a big impact on the team over the next four years. Damn sure I do. He can hit and he can defend. He will start AA this year and IMO will be AAA before the year end if he plays as he previously had. He is probaby a half year behind Mookie Betts in terms of development and if eligible I have no doubts that Mookie would be off the board now. He is about a year behind Ceccini and again if eligible he would have been picked up. Im delighted with the pick at this point of the draft.
This is correct. Your 25 picks are your 25 man roster, with 3 "reserves" basically being injury replacements.The Best Catch in 100 Years said:As far as I can tell our teams don't have AA and AAA? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I've been drafting as if all my players immediately slot into my 25-man roster.
The next four years are irrelevant because he has to contribute NOW. He will not get any opportunity in this draft universe to improve or progress against minor league pitching. You're playing him once a week and pinch hitting him...compared to reality where he will play every day against lower skilled players, allowing him to slowly progress and acclimate. And it's worse because...Galway Sox Fan said:I meant in real life. I think he is closer to being MLB ready than scoops gives him credit for and certainly as close if not closer than those drafted a long time before him.
Thus I feel he will contribute to my team over the next four years.
For arguement sake I would intend using him as an occasional DH. His bat is good enough. Given Iggy is out for c.4 months he would now cover at 2nd base getting at least one game a week over that time while also being available as a late inning hitter. That would not halt his progression any more than those picked ouf of AA previously.
Guys like Kyle Crick you can just throw in the bullpen, and hope that 40 IP of relative garbage ball helps them acclimate. Is it a good strategy? No, not really, but its at least a believable one. They have great stuff, so if you play them in low leverage they won't kill you now, and maybe, just maybe it won't ruin their progression. It's at least defensible..unlike a 2B who is neither a defensive wiz, a speed demon, nor an elite bat, and hence has no reserve role that he can provide value in immediately.The Best Catch in 100 Years said:There were other picks that were bad for similar reasons (Kyle Crick stands out), no one is disputing that. Still, the guy needs to be playing every day at this point in his career, and I would hesitate to give you much credit if he emerges as a productive MLB player over the next four years.
Wrong. Aaron Sanchez is playing in the MLB. The reserve slots are injury replacements, nothing more. You don't get any minor league positions. Everyone you draft is playing in the MLB.Logglobo Vlandignorf said:I had kinda assumed that the three "reserve" slots were defacto minor league positions. Or at least that I could stow Aaron Sanchez in a reserve slot, at the expense of some ML depth. I was assuming this fantasy universe would have some form of player development, and if not he could pitch simulated games or I could loan him to a Korean team for a year.
Is that an exploit that undermines the intentions of the exercise? It seems like a valid strategic choice, not too different from, say, drafting Matt Harvey.
Galway Sox Fan said:Yep I was assuming something like this also.
Its not like he is going to sit on his ass for the next four years.
If you are assuming that then anybody who is in AAA and picked its blocking their development and is a bad pick.
This is all very subjective. Who is to say a kid would not benefit from MLB exposure and the help of being around veterans rather than hitting ridiculous numbers in the minors.
This is just wrong. First, there is no minor league option for anyone taken in this draft. Travis is on the 25 man roster, he's playing in the MLB, and the MLB only going forward in this draft universe. He never gets to see the minors again. Secondly, most of the minor league picks are defensible. Let's take Vazquez. Is his bat ready? No, almost certainly not. However, he's probably an above average defensive catcher right now, perhaps well above average. He could almost certainly be a backup catcher immediately with that skill set, and he'll get some ABs. Sure he'd probably be better off in the minors getting everyday ABs, but he provides a skillset in his defense that is immediately useful, and given he's already proven himself capable of handling a full season of AA pitching, his bat doesn't need as much seasoning as a guy like Travis who has a total of 214 ABs above Low A! There's similar rationale for most of the pitchers taken, as I explained above with Crick, as you can argue that their stuff will play up in the bullpen and that they can handle some low leverage innings and maybe an occasional spot start.Galway Sox Fan said:Ill just have agree to diagree with you on this point.
Take Vazquez for example. He qualifies for inclusion by virtue of a solitary at bat in AAA. He will spend all of next season at AAA to develop. He has been picked as a back up catcher here. He will not get the development he needs. Yet his pick was lauded as a great pick up at the time with many disappointed to have missed out on him. There was no question of his development been stalled. There are numerous other examples. You say that the others that have picked are ready to step in. Who says thst they are? Who says that they will succeed? Or would succeed more than Travis if was to be ro be given a go now.
Pfffff....terrisus said:I know I keep saying it, but, I'm going to enjoy the next few years, while most teams here are developing, while mine is winning multiple World Series.
3/17/2014: Ventura was named the Royals' fifth starter Monday night, beating out Danny Duffy for the gig, the Kansas City Star's Andy McCullough reports.
Would you also say Mike Carp is one of the best twenty or so hitters in baseball? Now. I mean right now. Right now.Eck said:
I don't really care what the age difference is, it's actually kind of sad that Stubbs is 7 years younger and is virtually [REDACTED]. Stubbs is a better baserunner, I'll give you that. Last year their OPS, wOBA, wRC+ and BABIP were nearly identical. The fact that Stubbs is an OF sub and [REDACTED] is mainly IF doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. Their career numbers don't mean much either when you're talking about who the players are now. Right now. They're almost identical.
Suck it Eck!Comment From Rodrigo
Biggest bust for the Dodgers this season?
Steve Adams: Does Brandon League still count? If not, Alex Guerrero. Reports on him have not been good at all.
The Best Catch in 100 Years said:Would you also say Mike Carp is one of the best twenty or so hitters in baseball? Now. I mean right now. Right now.
MakMan44 said:
Suck it Eck!
I'm lazy, what can I say.Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
All you had to do was look at the rest of my rotation.
My point is that last season's numbers, particularly for a part-time player with a long track record, don't tell anything close to the whole story of what kind of player he is now (no matter how many times you type the word "now").Eck said:
Take it easy man. I'm not sure what your point is?
Scoops Bolling said:If it's not already clear, I really don't like people taking these young guys who have no business playing in the MLB. I've criticized a few picks already for it (Travis is far from the first one I've made this same argument about), and I'm just going to get more vocal as this goes on. So let me state it this way:
For this draft, everyone you pick is playing in the MLB next year, and every year thereafter. You must plan on these guys never playing in another game of minor league baseball again. You are throwing them straight in the fire. If you can't come up with a good reason why your pick could survive at the MLB level and produce something of value, then be prepared to explain how they aren't going to be a sub-replacement level player...because that's how I'll evaluate them.
The Best Catch in 100 Years said:My point is that last season's numbers, particularly for a part-time player with a long track record, don't tell anything close to the whole story of what kind of player he is now (no matter how many times you type the word "now").
Nah, that was pretty funny actually.Logglobo Vlandignorf said:
Plus, I can always start Sanchez against Mak's team to get some mL experience (rimshot) (just kidding Mak your team has a bold and respectable strategy that enriches the discussion surrounding this thought experiment).
The Best Catch in 100 Years said:Edit: and, of course, by the same "logic" whereby [REDACTED] and Stubbs are the same player (applied a bit better in this case), Mike Carp is one of the best twenty-five hitters in baseball.
Logglobo Vlandignorf said:Plus, I can always start Sanchez against Mak's team to get some mL experience (rimshot) (just kidding Mak your team has a bold and respectable strategy that enriches the discussion surrounding this thought experiment).
Just a few points, then I'm probably out of this particular conversation. Hope it's raised some vaguely interesting issues though.Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Geez... I typed it twice. Seriously man. Take it down a notch. I honestly wasn't trying to be a dick.
I'm pretty sure when looking at a players performance, what they did last year should be taken more seriously in context with the rest of their career. What Carp did last year is the main reason he was taken 9 rounds ago.
Stubbs isn't a good player. He's just not. We're talking about a guy who in 2012 was dead last in all of baseball in wRC+ and OBP. The fact that you want to play him in RF, where he's awful and his defense doesn't translate, makes the pick even worse.
Danny_Darwin said:Did Frank ever get a PM?
EDIT: sent one just in case.
The Best Catch in 100 Years said:3. I don't think Stubbs is any great shakes, and his upside is pretty limited, but he's a useful player when you use him correctly, and a very good fit for my team. As I said, I'll platoon him with Parra (who can't really hit LHP), and use him as a pinch runner and 3rd-string pinch hitter (if Valencia and Flores can't face the tough lefty in the later innings). He should also be adequate at any OF position. I needed someone to do these things, and didn't see any other options aside from Rajai Davis (who's a fair bit older) who fit the bill on all these points.
Frank said:Or pubicly massaging, if you pay extra
MakMan44 said:I was looking at Hunter. Not a bad pick but I passed because of his struggles against lefties last year.
Might want to invest in a decent HR tracker for your park thenFrank said:
I'm sending him extended spring training to work on lefty match-ups
NJ_Sox_Fan said:Chase d'Aurnaud - PIT
If this is a four year exercise then this non development arguement just does not stack up.Scoops Bolling said:If it's not already clear, I really don't like people taking these young guys who have no business playing in the MLB. I've criticized a few picks already for it (Travis is far from the first one I've made this same argument about), and I'm just going to get more vocal as this goes on. So let me state it this way:
For this draft, everyone you pick is playing in the MLB next year, and every year thereafter. You must plan on these guys never playing in another game of minor league baseball again. You are throwing them straight in the fire. If you can't come up with a good reason why your pick could survive at the MLB level and produce something of value, then be prepared to explain how they aren't going to be a sub-replacement level player...because that's how I'll evaluate them.
Yeah I realize you're a lot more susceptible to SSS issues when a guy isn't playing that much. Still, seems like he could just as easily exceed my expectations as not live up to them, seeing that I'm just going off his career numbers (last few years weighted more heavily). But truce, yesEck'sSneakyCheese said:
This is fair enough. I just worry your expectations might be a little high offensively, especially given the fact he'll be starting 60-70 games. It's hard to predict platoons since they're starting a lot less.
Good luck with Stubby. Truce?
Non Development Nonsense: Yes, it does. If you take a player who isn't ready for the MLB, and throw him into it, you will screw up his development, and possibly ruin him as a player. Could Travis hypothetically develop despite not getting regular ABs, and despite facing pitching he almost certainly isn't ready to face? Maybe. Could his confidence collapse, and destroy him as a player? Maybe. But the fact of the matter is, he is way less likely to develop in any normal fashion as a bench player facing MLB pitching than he would getting regular ABs in the minors, and he's way more likely to be ruined.Galway Sox Fan said:If this is a four year exercise then this non development arguement just does not stack up.
By your arguement any player who plays AAA or below in real life this year and is in any of our squads is basically written off for the puposes of this exercise.
If a player is in AAA then his team believe that he is not MLB ready so nobodys arguement here should convince us of anything different.
Also no team stands pat for 4 seasons. So picking a team of 28 players that has to remain in place for 4 years has to contain prospects that will add value in 4 years time if not not now so that a team can be competitive each year of this exercise.For me the enjoyable part of this draft was speculating how my team evolves from season to season. This certainly includes expecting player development.
Frank said:I love how you guys are giving Galway so much shit for playing the game "wrong" in your eyes. Now he can play the game right and take players you want.
That's because you believe that your warped 3 catcher roster will somehow magically carry you to a WS win.terrisus said:
Yeah, I've been perfectly fine with so many teams taking so many minor leaguers/guys who still need time to mature - it has left more players for me.