Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wiley, Bandes rocked it at Johnson City this year. I really thought he might get moved up to State College since he was having such a great season. I was impressed with his performance when I’ve seen him play in person a couple of times. Per an internet article from last week, he’s gaining more experience playing in the Venezuelan League of Professional Baseball with the Magellan Navigators during our off season.
https://www.magallanesbbc.com.ve/nota/991/bandes-esta-cumpliendo-un-sueno?platform=hootsuiteGameday link for tonight’s Surprise vs. Scottsdale game:
https://www.mlb.com/gameday/saguaros-vs-scorpions/2017/10/14/527286/#game_state=live,game_tab=,game=527286
Mercado DH, Knizner 1st base.Using Pads’ tiebreaking method Valera wins the tiebreaker. The next round shpuld atart at 46 to keep consistency.
BlackHills, there were 2 ties. Wisdom and Plummer; Valera and Wick.
Whose last vote did you use to break the tie between Vlaera and Wick?BlackHills, I’m not being critical, just curious.
14Ntyquist mentioned earlier that he felt going back to previous rounds to break a tie was maybe not a good idea. I tend to agree. Either leave it at a tie or find another way to break it. PADS is moderating the round, though, so it will ultimately be his decision. I offered a suggestion earlier, but no on commented so it must not have been a viable option. No worries, though; since I am new to the voting this year I am learning and my suggestion may very well indeed have been off base. I am okay if it was and thank you guys for allowing me to participate in the voting process.
Using Pads’ tiebreaking method Valera wins the tiebreaker. The next round shpuld atart at 46 to keep consistency.
BlackHills, there were 2 ties. Wisdom and Plummer; Valera and Wick.
Whose last vote did you use to break the tie between Vlaera and Wick?Speaking of Knizner, the former middle infielder player first base last night for the Surprise Saguaros.
At Johnson City Rookie level in 2016, Knizner played first base 19 games and catcher 21 games. Freshman year an NC State he played 3rd. He learned the position and converted to catcher his sophomore year. He was an All Star middle infielder in high school, but also played first and third, too (as well as being the football team’s starting quarter back and and a punter). I don’t think he has had any middle infield time at NC State or in the minors, though. Perhaps he was playing at first to test potential versatility?
Does anyone know why Nogowski was picked? As a first baseman at Florida State and so far in the minors he hasn’t shown much power for a corner infielder/corner outfielder type. As a professional he has 15 home runs in over 1,000 at bats. 24 years old at AA this season.
Nogowski was picked as a taxi player. He came on board at Springield in late June after playing independent ball ….. and he came on really strong from the onset with the team; out of those 15 HR’s, ten of them were in the last two seasons. He also had several game runs this year at Springfield where his BA was well into the .310 – .330 range and he ended the season with a high OBP and .295 BA., giving him the 2nd highest BA for players who were there more than 50 or so games. I don’t know for sure, I suspect his selection was an opportunity to further develop his bat, make up for the time he lost since he came in later in the season, and see how he would do along side the steeper competition presented at AFL.
The big separator, though, Knizner wasn’t mentioned once when I asked around about a Player of the Year to scouts and coaches. The only two were Mercado and Adolis Garcia.
As I said, go back and reread the weekly Springfield Cardinals updates that you wrote each week. Knizner was listed week after week on your “Who’s Hot List… and not ever once on the “Who’s Not” List.
When the games and the season are over, the stats tell the story of how players have performed… without showing preference or prejudice. That is how I will choose my players of the year. I will let the numbers tell the story, because, bottom line, they are the facts that can’t be disputed, unlike personal opinions. All in all, there were many of players at Springfield who played remarkably. It is my opinion that you missed your mark in calling the player of the year … or maybe you should re-title the article to “Scouts and Coaches Player of the Year”.It was remarkable what Knizner accomplished in his half-season, but he was simply not in Double-A long enough to receive more consideration.
Interestingly enough, my handy date calulator (https://www.timeanddate.com/date/duration.html) determined that Knizner played at Springfield 82 days, but was not at double A long enough for consideration…. yet Arozarena was at Palm Beach for 87 days and was named Palm Beach Player of the Year.
It was remarkable what Knizner accomplished in his half-season, but he was simply not in Double-A long enough to receive more consideration.
Knizner was at Springfield two and a half months. Not long enough?
I saw Springfield play on a regular basis…
I watched every single Springfield game.
While he was up-and-down offensively in the second half, Mercado ….
As I said before, I saw every single game. Go back and look at the game logs AND check the stats. Mercado was up and down offensively…. more down than Knizner the for the second half of the season, for sure. Knizner got off to a slow start the first few weeks at Springfield, but after the first week of July, something caught fire. Stats show his BA, OBP, and Slugging percentage were consistently much higher than Mercardo’s.
Finally, go back and reread the weekly Springfield Cardinals updates that you wrote. Knizner was listed week after week on your “Who’s Hot List… and not ever once on the “Who’s Not” List. Did I imagine that I saw Mercado there once or twice?
However, you know deep down Knizner was the team’s POY.
14Nytquist, I think you got it right there!Both player had a good year, but I think Knizner had the better one!
I think I have the same vote count for rounds 36-40 as Pads:
Denton 26
Martinez 23
Pearce 23
Hurst 22
Oxnevard 18I agree with 14Nyquist…. going back to prior rounds can get sticky, especially when you are going back more than one round.
Why not consider breaking the tie through seniority… i.e., awarding the prospect with the greater amount of time spent in the Milb or the Cardinals organization the higher prospect position? That info would be easy to check and it would keep it less complicated and less time consuming.
Adding in Mudville and brianpnoonan’s previous round votes, I have the tally at Denton 31, Pearce 28, Hurst 26, Martinez 23, and Oxnevad 18.
Pads, I counted votes listed here for those who have their #36-40 listed … plus the votes for Mudville and Brianpnoonan from the prior round, as you mentioned you have done. I am getting the same totals for Pearce, Hurst, and Oxnavrad, but different numbers for Denton and Martinez. I did not see your choices listed, so perhaps that accounts for the discrepancy.
If you look at BlackHills Cards numbers for Denton, he has 18. Add in 4 for Sooner’s vote and that takes him to 22. If you then add Mudville’s 5, that takes him to 27. {I did not see a vote for Denton from brianpnoonan.) I see in post #35584 you mentioned moving Yepez ahead of Denton, so perhaps that takes him to the 31 vote total you’ve listed if you placed him at the 37 slot?
Based on BlackHillsCard’s 15 votes for Martinez, if you add Sooner’s 5, that takes it to 20. Then, if you go back to page 12 and look at Wiley’s absentee vote that he requested be counted because he is traveling (his vote was for Pearce, Hurst, Kruczynski, Martinez, and Sheriff), that would be 20 + 2 = 22, which is one off from the 23 you have listed above. (I didn’t see a vote for Martinez from Brian.)
Without the votes for your rankings included, I believe the current top 5 vote tally for this round is as follows: Pearce 28, Denton, 27, Hurst 26, Martinez 22, and Oxnevard 18.
If I am incorrect, please let me know.
Please note that I am very appreciative of Pads and the time and effort that he has put forth in running things. I would probably not have even commented, but the suggestion that we end the vote for the current round (at a little over 24 hours into the round) slightly ruffled my feathers. The intent of my comments has been to suggest ways to keep things consistent, fair, and to improve the process in the future. I have tried to do so in a manner that states facts without questioning anyone else’s opinions or casting blame. My sincere apologies are offered should I have offended anyone.
When a voter goes into different threads and posts there while ignoring this thread for days, dragging out the voting it’s ridiculous. And I’ve seen a few of these voters doing it. That’s the point. How do have time to post in other threads wand not vote here for days? Saying these guys are busy is disengenurous.
Did you mean disingenuous, which means not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does? Some people have mentioned that they ARE busy. Perhaps that makes the argument above MOOT.
When the voting was changed from single prospect to groups of 5 prospects, Pads announced that it would change before the voting for prospects 5-10 started. Pads made it clear from the get-go that the rules would be changing for future rounds. I had no problem when that change took place because the change was announced. I chimed in when someone suggested voting be closed for this current round when the vote had been open for the round for a little less than 24 hours. I am standing by my original opinion which stated that suggesting that the voting should end in the middle of a voting round, when a precedent has been set, is wrong.
I repeat, my major concern regarding the closing of a voting round at 24 hours, when a precedent has been set for a longer time frame, is that it is unfair to both PROSPECTS AND PARTICIPANTS to change the rules mid-stream.
It is my continued opinion that maintaining consistency in the voting process AND announcing a specified window of time for voting will ensure that the process is fair and equitable for all. I hope that this will be considered for next year’s voting process.
I will comment no more regarding the issue. Let’s get back to talking about the exciting prospects the Cardinals have in their future AND continuing the voting process in a manner that is professional and fair.
I can live with what rules are set but I would think the moderator needs some flexibility.
Sooner, I agree with you 100 percent. Pads has graciously volunteered to be in change and his effort and time are greatly appreciated. I thank him profusely for that hard work!
One way to guarantee flexibility would be to begin a round with a statement such as this: Voting for prospects #x through #y will begin at midnight on a certain date and end at a certain time on a future date. This sort of exclaimer at the beginning of voting would make the voting window time frame clear for all. Those votes posted during the window of opportunity would be counted, those outside of it would not count. There would be flexibility in counting and posting final results without irregularity in the process.“Saying” that 24 hours is a short time frame is not “bogus”. “Saying” that 24 hours is too short a time frame is an opinion. Each participant should be respectfully afforded the opportunity to share his or her own opinion as long as he or she follows rules of civility and of the website itself.
My opinion, stated in simpler terms for those who may not have gotten it the first time, is this: To make the voting period longer or shorter mid way thorough the voting process at someone’s whim is unfair to the prospects AND the participants.
Irregularity and/or changes in time frames for voting when a precedent has been set could give the impression that the voting is being manipulated, which, in turn, decreases the validity of the results. If we started with a plan, then stick with it … or at least announce that a change will be taking place in the time frame at the start of a round instead of midway through it.I have to weigh in on if the voting should be called. Quite frankly, it has bothered me from the get go that there was not a set time frame stated for the voting to take place; for example, a specific voting window of 48 or 72 hours in which voting would be allowed. As the has voting progressed, it seems that a precedent was being set that the window would be three days. Okay, I can live with that… and I have tried to make sure I have followed the rules and voted within the window. However, back a few rounds ago, the statement was made that the voting was not going to be called until some folks who had not yet voted chimed in… and the voting went beyond the three day frame that had been established. I thought it a bit odd that the precedent was being ignored to accommodate someone who had not bothered to vote within the time frame that had been unofficially established, especially since waiting for someone to weigh in knocked some prospects to lower positions than what they would have been in IF the 72 hour time frame for voting had been observed. To call the vote after a little more than 24 hours when a precedent of 3 days has been set is leaving me shaking my head. For future rounds, I would suggest that the time frame in which votes will be solicited be made clear at the start of the round and not randomly declared.
