jimmer

I expected this, good for them and good for the kid.

Yes, technically. Kind of like how a player with a full no trade clause requires the player's permission to be traded. Only in this case, it's much more unlikely to happen. I think that the way all that went down with him last year, it comes down to reality that they can't draft him again. But yes, technically, you are right.

I try not to use OPS at all. OPS+ only in general terms only with people who don't want to dive deeper. It's a crude tool, IMO. Like it's something I'd discuss with Joe Blow in a bar, or a family member or such. IMO, the problem with OPS is two fold. One it doesn't weigh OBP properly. It assumes SLG% and OBP are equally valuable, when OBP is worth more, almost twice as much, in creating runs. Second, slg% values hits improperly. Like it thinks a double is worth twice of what a single is when it's not. In other words, it attempts to tell us who the most valuable offensive players are in regards to creating runs by what they do at the plate, but falls short. IMO. I prefer to use wOBA in place of OPS when talking about overall offensive value created by what's done at the plate. I like wRC+ when comparing offensive value across the league. I make no attempt to convince anyone else to do the same, though.

exactly. I was just trying to tell him the difference between the two and then say which one I prefer if I had to just use one.

Overall, it seems that MLB.com puts more emphasis on players closer to the majors than Fangraphs does. Kiley and his team at Fangraphs just look at the overall tools and don't seem to give extra credit to those closer to the majors. So it really depends on what's more important to you. I prefer Fangraphs myself.

The funny thing about WAR is that people think of it as exact number. Like if one guy is a 4.5 and another is a 4.6, the 4.6 guy must be better. The people who make WAR are consistently telling us that's not necessarily true. Like there isn't enough different between a 4.2 WAR guy and a 4.8 WAR guy. Instead, WAR is more meant to put players into pretty much seven categories of value. Scrub, role player, solid starter, good player, all star, superstar, MVP. Fangraphs WAR uses UZR as opposed to B-R that uses DRS. UZR fluctuates from year to year in part because the talent level at each position fluctuates a lot from year to year. It's why small sample sizes (like one season) of UZR and by extension WAR, can't be used to evaluate what a true player's talent is over time even if it is a decent way to tell you what his talent was that specific year.

Apologies to Seth. I didn't see that this thread was meant for people to specifically ask him prospect questions to be answered by him.

So we can let the worst defensive RF in the game that turns 40 this season stay in RF? :-)

I think some forget Plouffe is only 28 and only a year older than Dozier. He still has some quality play in him if we believe he's turned the corner. Now that Plouffe seems to have a real feel for 3B defense, I want to make sure Sano can play 3B before we get rid of Plouffe and make our bad defense even worse. And, again, I know I'm in the minority and might emphasis defense more than most. Having said that, I'm all for using pieces of a really good farm system to get established quality players.

I'm personally not eager to trade Plouffe now that it seems he's put it all together. I believe I'm in the minority on that issue. I believe if he can maintain the value he provided this year as an overall player while staying relatively cheap, he has value we won't receive back in a trade of him AND a good prospect. Is a 3 WAR player (like I believe Plouffe will be around) plus 6 years of cost control talent (the prospect) worth trading for an established LF who we likely have to pay more and may already be declining and not providing much more than 4 (if that) WAR? I'm also not sure trading Rosario for LF would be in our best interests if we believe he can hit well. We can just put him in LF. :-)

I don't think any, but if one was to be traded, I would think Rosario.

In the last five seasons, Santana ERA has been worse than his FIP just once, last year. The others, his ERA was worse. Last season seems to have been an outlier for him with having a lowish FIP and a high ERA (which seemed even weirder having Heyward and Simmons behind him) and I don't think it's repeatable IMO, and for his career, he's likely more of a very high 3/low 4 FIP guy and, with our defense, he's likely looking at an ERA in the low-mid 4s (see the FIP ERA differences for our starters last year). A serviceable pitcher for sure, but likely still having an ERA some will look at at be upset about.

Actually, the part you specifically pointed out early in this thread that I was claiming as a fact was this part 'There's been enough analysis on this to know framing is a real thing and there are catchers better at it than others.' That's a generic comment. That doesn't even talk about the 'framing stats' in any way, just that framing itself is real. Those who have really issues with the actual metrics in framing acknowledge that it's a real thing (which is my first point in that quote). So if it's a real thing, does it not stand to reason that some are better at it than others (which is the second part of that sentence). So basically what I said was a 'fact' (by using the quote you said I was saying is fact) has two parts. The first part is that framing is real. By reading this thread, whether or not it's real isn't up really for debate just whether or not it's measured properly. The second part is that some are better at it than others. Is that the part we don't think is for sure true? Since it seems everyone agrees in the basic idea that framing is a real thing, are there people who aren't convinced there aren't some better at it than others? The problem lies with how well it's actually measured and I never said how it's measured is perfect by any means either in that quote that is being pointed out as me claiming as fact, nor in any subsequent post. And even the biggest SABR people aren't saying it's perfect. I asked the guy who created ZIPs about this yesterday in his Fangraphs chat and he said the same thing. I asked, 'How comfortable are you with saying framing stats are pretty much accurate? For example, strikes saved/given equals runs saved?' He replied, 'I’m comfortable with their value, but there’s still enough that we don’t know that we shouldn’t go crazy about the magnitude.'

I respect Kiley's opinion. Interestingly enough, this afternoon Carson Cistulli, also from Fangraphs,listed this weeks top performances in college. He listed Funkhouser as top pitcher this week and top draft eligible pitcher this week, The note in that article read: 'Finding Kyle Funkhouser‘s name atop the ACC pitching list isn’t a great surprise. The junior right-hander features a promising combination both of arm speed and refinement. He was ranked 10th by Kiley McDaniel in the latter’s way-too-early draft rankings last fall.]'

Astros can't draft Aiken again

I think in about three years we'll all be very happy with how the Twins developed him. I am not the least bit concerned at this point.

Seems if you are really out of shape, it's easier to lose a good chunk. A 6 foot, 200 lb guy might have a hard time losing 40. A 6 foot, 280 lb guy might find it much easier to lose 40 or more if he put forth decent effort.

I'm in my mid 40s and I lost a good chunk of weight last year, more than 40, and I didn't have state of the art equipment and trainers to help me. Sometimes, just good old fashion hard work and sensible eating can do the trick.

And Law had him at like 53 right?

and he missed the first 50 games of the 2014 season.

'Also, nice to see a little pushback on the Red Sox and Braves rankings, especially after Fangraph's gushing.' On the Fangraphs top 200, Atlanta didn't have a single player in the top three tiers of prospects and Boston had two 60s, to go along with zero 65s and zero 70s. Of the two 60s Boston has, they didn't draft one of them (a LHP who tocuhes 96) and the other is Swihart, and offensive catcher slugging in the high 400s. Swihart is the top catching prospect according to ESPN, the 17th prospect according to BAs list in early Feb and Law had him at 10 (with the LHP that touches 96 at #29) Both teams may have a good amount of overall prospects on the list, but does that really show that FANGRAPHS is gushing over both systems? And how prospects before worked out before in an organization doesn't have any effect on how other prospects for the same organization are going to work out. Just like the Cubs having such a huge history of losing doesn't have any affect on any Cubs team going forward. New players, new management, etc.

I like me some Funkhouser. He's nasty!

'Definitely surprising to not see Kohl Stewart on this list, especially when he's as high as 27 overall on one list somewhere.' Where was that?

I think what it tells me is that considering how many players are in the minors, the fact that most of the experts see the same players as being the best ones is a good sign, regardless of the differences in the ranking of those mostly same players. A lot of times, the difference are explained. Some guys put more emphasis on players closer to the majors, some put more on overall potential, some don't consider players who have hit the majors at all, some consider players who have hit the majors and yet still have rookie status, etc. And the fact that, you know, they are actually out all over the country doing the scouting, unlike us. I haven't spent one day on a field scouting even one player in a long time and even when I did, I couldn't compare him to the bunches of minor leagues out there because I was just limited to the minor teams that played in my area. I've watched video of some guys but not all the players in the minors.

Love this post.