Bob Reed

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 470 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: 2020 Cardinals Game #37 – Thu, Sept. 10 vs. Tigers Game 2 DH #139627
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    That makes 3 games the Cards have lost where at some point very late they were 92% or better to win the game. Twice they’ve lost after holding a 3-run lead in the next-to-last inning, and once with a 2-run lead in the final frame. I have often seen entire 162-game Cardinal seasons where those three things did not happen.

    It feels like the worst baserunning and worst bullpenning keep happening only when it matters the very most. And it feels that way because that’s exactly the way it is. Between the managerial malfeasance and unsightly fundamentals, I’m done with this team for the year. See you all next season.

    in reply to: Our Younger OFers #139412
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    “It would be a much more valid age comparison to measure Carlson again high school-drafted players. For example, Matt Carpenter wasn’t even drafted until he was 23 years old!”

    This is a fair point. And in fact I did consider only comparing Dylan to high school draftees. But if I had done so (while using exclusively familiar Redbirds and ex-Birds) the sample size would’ve been awfully small.

    And more importantly, by using only high school draftees the average age of the MLB hitting breakthroughs would have actually gone UP by a year, from just over 25 to slightly over 26. High schoolers:

    Edmonds 25
    Fowler 25
    Yadi 26
    Pham 29

    ——————————-

    Your point about Tommy Edman on the other hand warrants zero rebuttal, Brian. Very well said.

    If there are cold Carlson doubters out there, I would offer that Kyle Tucker is a young player with an almost identical career trajectory and prospect profile to Dylan Carlson. Their skillsets, their national prospect rankings in the upper minors, and their AA/AAA track records — all incredibly similar. And Tucker also floundered badly at age 21 in his first taste of The Show.

    K.T. 72 PA’s .141 average, .439 OPS
    D.C. 79 PA’s .162 average, .458 OPS

    At 22 Tucker was solid over another small sample size, and now at 23 he’s playing full time and doing this:

    .272/.327/.570 for a 135 OPS+.

    I don’t think it’s greedy to expect something quite similar from Dylan Carlson in a couple of years.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by AvatarBob Reed.
    in reply to: Our Younger OFers #139381
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    To put the 21-year-old Carlson’s struggles into a context, here’s the age at which each of the following Redbirds first posted at least a 100 OPS+ (min. 200 AB’s):

    Miller 23
    DeJong 23
    Edman 24
    Bader 24
    Goldschmidt 24
    Fowler 25
    Yadi 26
    Carpenter 26
    Wong 26

    And how about some former Cardinals:

    Jon Jay 25
    Jim Edmonds 25
    Allen Craig 26
    David Freese 27
    Tommy Pham 29

    Baseball has seen a rash of spectacular phenoms over the past few years, but even the eventual star players aren’t usually successful MLB hitters at age 21. I won’t worry about Dylan Carlson unless he’s still struggling at age 23.

    in reply to: 2020 Cardinals Game #32 – Sun, Sept. 6 at Cubs #139048
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    “So, after tonight, 9 of Bader’s 12 hits have gone for extra bases. Shildt ought to be raging mad about that.”

    ——————————

    I dunno how Shildt will react. But it’s his job to know this and to use it: Harry Bader has always been an entirely different hitter when permitted to start a ballgame. These career splits don’t even include this evening’s sweet 3-for-3 performance:

    As starter (just under 900 PA’s)… .244 avg. and .750 OPS
    As sub (just over 100 PA’s)… .135 avg. and .432 OPS

    I don’t know what’s happening in Shildt’s head this year, but he’s been making counterintuitive and counterproductive decisions all season. The Bader nonsense of the past two weeks was merely the most inexcusable — not unlike his benching Bader for a then-useless Fowler back in 2018. And inserting Gallegos to start the 9th inning tonight with a 4-run lead was (once again) truly bizarre and contradicts basic managerial competency.

    Gio pitched yesterday. And he may be needed tomorrow in a much, much tighter situation than tonight’s zero-leverage appearance. Does today’s usage perhaps mean that Shildt is re-installing the remarkably inconsistent Andrew Miller as closer? Heaven help us if that’s the case.

    But even if Miller is anointed closer again, that’s no excuse for using one of the team’s two best relievers on zero days rest with a big 9th-inning cushion. Especially not with a game tomorrow and two more on Tuesday. You start the 9th with a mop-up man, and if he gets into trouble you can bring in the top reliever. It’s what every manager does, all the time, over and over. Not that tricky.

    Put your best players in the starting lineup.
    Use your best relievers in important situations.

    The importance of these dictums is of course magnified in a shortened season, and Mike Shildt has done a shabby job of following those guidelines this year. If he had done better, the club would have two more wins. Maybe three wins, depending how hot Bader would have been during his “time out” or whatever it was.

    And perhaps more importantly the players would know that (as much as is practicable) their team is being run like a meritocracy.

    I apologize to anyone who finds my tone overly unpleasant. You should see my posts before I remove the exclamation points and profanity.

    in reply to: The mystery of Harrison Bader #138282
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    Thanks for the responses, everybody!

    To get one thing out of the way, the Birds are 4-4 since Bader’s benching, so there hasn’t been some mystical winning transformation. (And Dylan Carlson’s OPS has gone from .501 to .498, so nothing’s happening there, either.)

    ——————————

    “Bader has the 4th highest position player bWAR on the team and the highest OF bWAR on the team.”

    “Forsch, the answer is that Edman, Carlson and Fowler are higher priority players for the team to play in the OF right now. I get that you don’t like the answer, but that seems to be the way it is.”

    Well this raises a painfully obvious question. If those others are “higher priority players” when Bader has a .945 OPS, then how is Harrison Bader supposed to ever earn a full-time CF job? On the Cards in 2020, a .945 OPS translates to a 158 OPS+. Harrison Bader with a 158 OPS+ is Willie Mays. It’s that simple, honest.

    For his career Willie had a 156 OPS+. So Bader, at the moment when he was benched, was Willie Mays. Career Mays, not prime Mays. But Mays nonetheless. So Bader apparently needs to be better than Willie Mays to safely secure Mike Shildt’s starting CF role. Best of luck with that, Harry.

    Here’s the thing about earning a full-time starting role: performance is supposed to win out. For instance, Brad Miller came to St. Louis for a couple million bucks to be a bench player, but obviously earned full-time status with his play. And that’s great! That’s how baseball works, or is supposed to work. Playing Brad Miller every day was clearly best for the team, so that’s what Shildt did. He adjusted to circumstances.

    Tremendous defender Harrison Bader on the other hand got scorching hot at the plate, hitting just like he did in both A-ball and AA-ball, whacking the horsehide with authority, and was immediately benched. That’s NOT how baseball works, except in the Bizarro World.

    ——————————-

    Someone asked if Bader is the same player that he was from 2017-2019. Well first let’s briefly examine what kind of player he was from 2017-2019. I’m talking 2017-19 on the whole, without breaking it down into individual seasons. According to both Baseball-Reference and Fangraphs he was an elite CF defender with a slightly below average bat. In other words, a vaguely Terry Moore/Curt Flood type Redbird centerfielder. A little less hitting and maybe a bit better glove than his CF predecessors.

    Okay, but what is that worth? Does that describe a starter on a playoff contender? Per both B-Ref and Fangraphs Bader was worth 5.6 WAR from 2017-19, in 925 plate appearances. Therefore, from 2017-2019 per 600 trips to the plate Bader was worth 3.6 WAR. According to each of the two most respected publicly available sources. So, yes, that’s quite clearly a starter on a playoff contender.

    But I’ll play devil’s advocate, since it seems that some fans, and the StL manager dislike Bader for whatever reasons. (Too many Elvis gyrations was it, cranny? 😉 ) Despite having zero supporting evidence I’ll assume that both of those websites were radically wrong, and Bader was substantially less valuable than they say. Like, let’s say half as valuable. I’ll assume that he needed to markedly improve as a hitter in 2020 to secure a starting spot in center field.

    Well, if he’s benched you’ll never find out if he’s truly improving as a hitter. Bader turned 26 in June, and players develop in the mid-20’s all the time, or even later. Terry Moore was a bad hitter until he was 26. Yadi wasn’t a league average hitter until he was 26, and wasn’t good until he was 28. Ozzie was annually a poor hitter until he was 29. With an exceptional defender, the manager owes it to the team to find out if the player will develop as a batter.

    ——————————-

    Summing up. In a season where the importance of every single game is massively magnified, on August 26th a terrific defender with a .945 OPS was benched in favor of a highly touted prospect with a lesser glove and a .501 OPS. Then when the prospect continued to flounder at the plate, he was benched for Tommy Edman and Lane Thomas. If there is no injury explanation, that series of decisions isn’t just incompetent. It’s clinically insane. I’m not saying the manager was insane. Just the decision. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

    in reply to: 2020 Cardinals Game #25 – Sun, Aug. 30 vs. Indians #137761
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    “I cant condone having a pitcher that is nearing 40 throwing 122 pitches. Makes no sense.”

    ———————–

    Under ordinary circumstances I would very likely agree with you about the pitch count, CC, birthday boy or not. I mean, Adam was dreadful immediately after his 126-pitch effort last season — the only game last year when he threw 110+ pitches. In his next start he was dreadful, and despite having two extra days of rest before that outing.

    But in this game, he was rolling at the end. Waino still hit 91 MPH in the 9th inning, and he needed very few pitches over the last 3-4 innings. Moreover, he was twirling in a relatively low-stress environment with a comfy lead over those final frames.

    And there’s something else I rarely (basically never) see mentioned by other conservative-minded pitch count trackers like myself. And that is the primacy of pitches-per-inning. I can’t help thinking that 122 pitches spread out over 9 innings and 2 1/2 hours might be less taxing physically than say 110 pitches over 6 innings and 45 fewer minutes.

    —————————–

    All things considered, I see 122 tosses as a gray area decision on this particular day. At 115 I’d have had zero concern. And at 127 or so I’d have started to get upset.

    I apologize if it feels like we’re piling on, CC. In general, I absolutely believe in erring on caution’s side with the pitch counts. (I think Shildt’s sole powerful virtue as a manager is that he feels the same way that we do. Usually.)

    in reply to: Derek Shore joins The Joplin Globe #136942
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    Health and wealth to you, Mr. Shore. You will be very hard to replace.

    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    Thanks for the response, Brian. I couldn’t agree more with your assessment — with the caveat of, say, roughly 10 or 12 days before using pitchers as normal. (And it’s already been 5 days since Opening Day II, the sequel.)

    And obviously if John Gant was NOT going to be available the next day, it makes using him with a 5-run lead and nobody on base even MORE inexcusable. Really, really inexcusable.

    It feels like Shildt honestly believes that Andrew Miller is better than John Gant and Gio Gallegos. And in a sane, smart world there’s no way that should be happening.

    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    “If Shildt is holding firm to no pitching two days in a row, then he needs to spread those three out.”

    No use of relievers two days in a row? Is this straight conjecture, jj, or has there been a Redbird public statement to imply this is the case?

    Because if there has been such a public statement, that mindset feels entirely backwards to me. Given the unique circumstances of the Cardinal 2020 season, it seems this is the year to be more flexible strategically than ever before — not wedded to narrow pre-determined limits.

    John Gant on zero days rest last year? He held batters to a .200 slugging percentage. Not batting average. Slugging.

    Gio Gallegos on zero days rest last year (just 22 plate appearances, mind you) limited hitters to a .190 slugging%.

    Those guys are pretty clearly the best two arms in the bullpen, and therefore it’s axiomatic that they be deployed in the highest leverage situations possible. Not just when it’s “their turn to pitch.”

    As for Shildt and Andrew Miller, I don’t know if that Claude Rains get-up is cutting off the oxygen to our manager’s brain, but someone needs to tell him this is 2020 and not 2017. Andrew Miller isn’t very good any more. He just isn’t.

    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    “I am interested to see how home vs road records are this season compared to others. Will not having fans make a difference?”

    I looked at this very topic a couple of days ago, CC! (Not for public consumption, just for fun.)

    Last year 24 teams had better home than road records, 5 were worse at home, and one the same.

    This year, big difference, It’s 14 better at home, 12 better away, and 4 the same. Of course, we’re talking micro-samples in 2020.

    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    “I Think Shildt saw Miller as the better option with Schwarber and Heyward. But not sure why he let him face Hoerner.”

    You’re probably right, Mike. So let’s examine Shildt’s logic.

    Miller allowed lefties a .667 OPS last year. Not bad.
    Gallegos permitted them a .518 OPS. Spectacular.

    So if that was Shildt’s reasoning, it was not defensible in my opinion.

    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    Before today, Gant + Gallegos:

    7.2 innings, 1 hit allowed, 1 walk allowed, and 12 strikeouts. Clearly the best two bullpen arms, right?

    So who comes into a tied game in the top of the last inning? Andrew “paycheck” Miller.

    And finally, after three base hits, NOW the idiot manager brings in Gallegos to try and escape an almost impossible jam. Nice going, Shildt.

    Career as Cardinal:
    Andrew Miller 58.1 IP and a 4.32 ERA
    Gio Gallegos 78 IP and a 2.19 ERA

    So how on earth does Miller rate the high-leverage role over Gallegos?

    And Gant? Oh yeah, he was used with a 5-run lead and the bases empty in game 1. Mike Shildt couldn’t have done more to lose game 2 if he’d been operating as a Cub-employed double agent.

    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    Thanks, Brian. Been storing my venom.

    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    “Dunno. On the broadcast, they speculated that by getting Gant out of there, maybe be could come back in G2.”

    Interesting speculation. But the real question of course, is why on earth waste Gant with a 5-run lead and the bases empty? I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts they’ll wish they had him available for game 2.

    And no, we do NOT want to use a reliever in both ends of a doubleheader. Stupid, stupid idea. Particularly with the 3-batter minimum. And most particularly with Gant, who we may recall was overused by Shildt early last year, and so useless in the second half and September that he was left off the playoff roster.

    Shildt deserves credit for bringing in Gomber to face Happ very early in the game. Full marks for that move. But his usage of Gant, both today and two days ago verges on managerial malfeasance.

    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    “Man, we have some guys with some odd names.”

    Yup. Just more political pandering from the Redbird front office. (As everyone knows of course, Nabil Crismatt is only on the team because he’s an anagram for “BLM antiracist.”)

    But seriously folks, game 2 was lost when Shildt pulled Gant from game 1. Gant was fantastic, fanning 3 of 4 batters and requiring just 13 pitches to do so.

    But Shildt pulled him. After those 13 pitches. And inserted Gallegos — who should have and would have been available for the high-leverage sixth inning of game 2. That would have been nice, wouldn’t it? To have Gallegos available?

    (In case anyone is interested, Gant threw between 27 and 37 pitches on 11 occasions last year, and only once did he allow a run in his next outing. So obviously he can throw A LOT more pitches, with no lingering after effects.)

    Leaving Webb in did lose the game — but it was largely lost before it even began. Stupid managers make knuckleheaded decisions that have ripple effects like a turd tossed in a reflecting pool.

    in reply to: Agreement on salaries/service time/contracts #129535
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    Baseball attracted about 68.5 million fans in 2019 after drawing nearly 80 million a dozen years earlier.’
    ‘the average age of baseball viewers is 57, with only 7% of viewers under 18.’

    This means that the value of MLB franchises is on its way to tanking, so it really doesn’t matter if there is a long strike, or not. The owners have gotten themselves caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. If there’s any chance at all of saving the value of an MLB franchise, something drastic is going to have to happen.

    ———————————-

    In 2019 MLB owners made more money than in 2018.
    In 2018 MLB owners made more money than in 2017.
    In 2017 MLB owners made more money than in 2016.
    And so on, and so on, and so on, for as far back as you want to go.

    Here’s a link to the revenue numbers over the past 15 years:https://www.statista.com/statistics/193466/total-league-revenue-of-the-mlb-since-2005/

    Revenues in 2007, when the attendance record was set, were roughly 5.5 billion dollars.
    Revenues in 2019 were approximately 10.4 billion dollars.

    Not only have revenues steadily increased, but the players’ share has been trending downward over the past 15-20 years or so. There’s no day of reckoning coming for anyone in the sport. Not the players, and certainly not the owners.

    Minor league teams are in some trouble. Not major league ones. Quite the contrary.

    in reply to: COVID19 Virus vs Baseball #125023
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    Not advocating or criticizing any specific public policies here. Just offering a few numbers for perspective.

    The concern in California and pretty much everywhere else in our fair nation is that the virus could reach a 50% or higher infection rate. This today from the Los Angeles Times:

    “Governor Newsom on Thursday also asked Congress for $1 billion in federal funds to support the state’s medical response to the novel coronavirus, which he said he expects will infect more than half of all Californians.” (Emphasis mine.)

    ——————————–

    According to the very informative worldometers website, the current U.S. population is 331,002,651. Half of that is 165,501,326.

    As of this morning there were 13,789 confirmed infected Americans. Subtract 13,789 from 165,501,326 and you have 165,487,537.

    Yesterday there were 4,530 new American cases.
    At a rate of 4,530 new cases per day, to reach a total of 165,487,537 infected would take 36,531 days. Basically one century.

    ———————————-

    But maybe the disease has not crested here. It’s entirely possible if not probable that the worst is to come in the United States. So let’s look at a country that has almost certainly already seen its worst.

    Let’s look at the virus’ country of origin, China. The population density of China is about four times that of the United States. The virus began there of course, therefore no doctors or public officials knew what they were dealing with for awhile.

    In China, despite the relatively high population density and the initial paucity of knowledge, infections over the past few weeks have now slowed to…well yesterday there were 39 newly infected. In the entire country. A country of more than 1,400,000,000 people.

    How long will it take for 50% of China to be infected? Well, when I started typing this post 50% of the Chinese population equaled 719,661,888. And so far there are 80,967 infected. That means China must have 719,580,921 more infections to reach the 50% threshold.

    At 39 new cases per day it will take 50,550 years for China to get there. (For simplicity I left out leap years. Forgive me.)

    ————————————-

    Again, a 50% infection rate is what Governor Newsom expects — and therefore, at current rates, a few hundred thousand coronavirus deaths in California. Newsom is entitled to his terrors and opinions.

    Based on everything that we know at this point, everything that has actually happened in our country and across the globe, why on earth would anyone agree with him?

    —————————————–

    At the risk of being rude, I very likely won’t return to this topic to even check for responses. What’s there to respond to, anyway? It’s just some numbers. Numbers that seem to be somehow overlooked in every news report I read or watch.

    Take it easy, folks. Hope to talk to you all if and when baseball returns in 2020.

    in reply to: Andrew Miller injury #124576
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    in reply to: 2020 Spring Training Game(s) Thread #124447
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    Looking at the 2018 and ’19 numbers, roughly 40-50 at-bats on average, and 15-20 innings for starting twirlers, Rat.

    in reply to: The Outfield and Fowler #124395
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    “Matheny benched Fowler, not Shildt. Fowler started 15 of 17 before the foot injury, once Shildt took over, and appeared in all 17.”

    This is correct, of course. Matheny benched Fowler in 2018, not Shildt. In fact Shildt has never shown any inclination by word or deed toward treating Fowler remotely close to the same as everyone else. “Defer to Dex” has been Mike Shildt’s unspoken managerial mantra from Day One as boss.

    Recapping. In 2018, Mike Matheny had Fowler in the starting lineup for 48 of the first 64 games. At the end of the 64th game, which took place on June 11, Delicate Dexter was hitting a hateful .173/.276/.286. So finally, mercifully, Matheny benched him on June 12 in favor of Harrison Bader.

    Fowler started just 11 of the next 29 games. Then Matheny was fired, and Shildt immediately & inexplicably restored Fowler to the starting lineup despite a still-abysmal slash line of .174/.270/.285 — incredibly, despite several better outfield choices, Shildt played the floundering Fowler even more frequently than Matheny had over the first two months of the season. (With Fowler now dementedly cemented by Shildt into the starting lineup, the front office wound up having to trade Tommy Pham for 50 cents on the dollar in order to get Bader back into the everyday eight.)

    ——————————————-

    Mike Shildt has done an excellent job with the Redbird rotation during his year-and-a-half tenure, and has been solid with the pen as well. But he’s been plain bad with the everyday lineups, just awful. Right now for example he’s scratching his head raw trying to figure out whether DeJong or Goldschmidt should bat cleanup in 2020. Here are some career numbers for both:

    Goldy, bases empty, has a career OPS just 67 points higher than DeJong’s (.854 to .787).
    Goldy with men on base however, 208 points higher than DeJong (.990 to .782).
    And Goldy with RISP, 310 points above DeJong (1.004 to .694).

    But I digress. From all we have seen, Mike Shildt lacks the guts or brains or both to bench Fowler himself. Shildt’s Dexter devotion says to me that the only way the Cards will play their best outfield with Shildt as manager, is when Fowler is retired or released. I see that release happening in June or July of this year, when the front office takes Shildt’s favorite toy away from him.

    in reply to: 2020 Spring Training Game(s) Thread #124109
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    Gotcha, GC. Thanks for the response(s).

    in reply to: 2020 Spring Training Game(s) Thread #124102
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    “My 3 favorite Cardinals: Edman, Carlson & Schrock are all again having an excellent day and Spring.”

    Okay, that’s twice now that you’ve brought it up, GC.
    So I’ll do you a favor and take the bait. Why on earth Schrock?

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by AvatarBob Reed.
    in reply to: Outfield Dilemma … #124034
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    “I know nothing about Carlson’s arm, but could it be that it is not strong but it is very accurate?”

    I can’t speak to the particular qualities of Carlson’s throwing arm, Forschy, but there’s this snippet from Monday’s McLaughlin/Mozeliak mini-podcast:

    Dan: “What is his (Carlson’s) best position, or is there one?”

    Mo: “If you’re asking me long term, because of his arm strength and his power you could naturally see him profile into the right field position long term.”

    The Carlson material starts at the 3:07 mark. Link: https://www.scoopswithdannymac.com/mondays-with-mo-march-2-2020/

    in reply to: MLB Pipeline Prospect Rankings #124030
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    Pipeline seems to like Herrera much more than they did just a few months ago when they omitted him from their top 25 Arizona Fall League prospects. Better late than not at all, I guess. I feel compelled to say something about the silly following quote, though, from Pipeline’s Ivan Herrera capsule:

    “Scouts are increasingly bullish about Herrera’s power potential, with some seeing him as a future 15-plus homer threat who also hits for average and gets on base at a high clip.”

    The latter portion is very nice, and makes perfect sense given Herrera’s elite three-year professional track record. But Ivan just hit 8 homers in 69 games for Peoria at age 18. Only a loon or a liar could watch an 18-year-old boy pop 8 homers in fewer than 70 Midwest League games and conclude that, golly, he “might” have as much as “15-plus” homer power in the majors. The plausible potential is 25-30 per 600 PA’s, period. (Especially so, if MLB keeps the jumpyball.)

    But don’t listen to me. How about an entirely objective analysis?
    The Davenport Peak MLB Translation for Ivan’s Peoria campaign is in fact a robust one home run per 22 at-bats, or 25 longballs per 550 AB’s. Moreover, that’s based on Herrera’s being translated by Clay Davenport as a 19-year-old rather than 18-year-old, since Herrera is a June baby, not July, and July 1 is of course the current arbitrary cutoff for “baseball age.” (Ye Olde Tymers may recall that in the 1980’s the prospect age cutoff was June 1, not July, for whatever it’s worth.)

    And speaking of Ivan the Terrific, he and fellow 19-year-old Nolan Gorman are having a pretty nice Spring Training so far. Even looks pretty good compared to last year’s “breakout” performance by then-20-year-old Dylan Carlson.

    2019 Dylan Carlson .250/.353/.364 with a .38 BB/K ratio.
    2020 Gorman + Herrera .310/.344/.483 with a .40 BB/K tally.

    Carlson of course may have faced somewhat tougher pitching last spring. But then, Ivan and Nolan are still teenagers, each presently more than half a year younger than Dylan was at this time last year. (Don’t know how anyone with a grasp of the importance of prospect ages has either kid outside their top 50 overall prospects, much less where Keith Law ranked them [82 and 97]). Incredibly, despite his caution Law is somehow the high man nationally on Herrera.

    in reply to: Outfield Dilemma … #123964
    AvatarBob Reed
    Participant

    Free

    “B-Ref developed a spring training stat that measures the quality of opponent based on the level played the previous year, where 1 is rookie ball and 10 is MLB.”

    “Through play yesterday, Dylan Carlson’s quality of opponent was 6.8 or below AA (7).”

    ———————————–

    Thanks for alerting us to that function at B-Ref, Brian. Pretty darn cool. Let’s see how some others stacked up, before play today.

    Carlson 1.193 OPS, versus 6.8 quality
    Fowler .192 OPS, versus 8.4
    O’Neill 1.240, versus 7.1
    Ozuna .091, versus 7.9 (Yeah, that’s a zero not an eight at the start of his OPS. He’s hitless.)

    So basically Carlson & O’Neill have dominated Double-A level twirlers while Fowler & Ozuna have been humiliated by Triple-A quality pitching. In sample sizes smaller than a Coronavirus, of course.

    Also, Carlson/O’Neill had 9 walks against 8 strikeouts. (THIS is what I like best, for sure.)
    Fowler/Ozuna had walked twice and fanned 11 times, through Monday.

    Then today Fowler and Ozuna each went hitless, with two Ozuna whiffs. Carlson was 1-3 with no walks or K’s.

    At any rate, veterans like Fowler and Ozuna won’t (and shouldn’t) be judged until their final 25 or 30 trips to the plate in Spring Training. But it sure is nice to see the young outfielders doing exactly what we want them to do at the plate.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 470 total)

First-hand news and commentary on the St. Louis Cardinals™ and their minor league system for 20 years