Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Madrigal Mystery Tour

Luis Robert

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DirtySox said:

It's worth posting/reading his thoughts on this. I might not agree with it, but the logic isn't terrible.

 

This is horrible logic imo. It's lazy logic from a very intelligent person in the industry. 

Scouts are stubborn. FG was lower on Robert and they will hold firm on this grade. It's really that simple. 

I can point to many low k guys that struggled as well. This isnt the 1980's. 

Why do they comp him to Brinson and not George Springer? I can answer that... because it doesnt fit their narrative. He's probably more similar to Springer than he is brinson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mqr said:

I think he just chose a weird way to say Robert has flaws that are covered by being too talented for his level. 

Also Brinson has elite speed too. 

If you're too talented for your level at 21 years old and that level is AAA how in the shit does that logic lead someone to conclude that they won't be good in the big leagues? Amazing circular logic by a very intelligent baseball man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

If you're too talented for your level at 21 years old and that level is AAA how in the shit does that logic lead someone to conclude that they won't be good in the big leagues? Amazing circular logic by a very intelligent baseball man.

Because his flaws are the most common reason the prospects fail at the MLB level, lack of contact.

I dont necessarily agree but I understand his point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

This is horrible logic imo. It's lazy logic from a very intelligent person in the industry. 

Scouts are stubborn. FG was lower on Robert and they will hold firm on this grade. It's really that simple. 

I can point to many low k guys that struggled as well. This isnt the 1980's. 

Why do they comp him to Brinson and not George Springer? I can answer that... because it doesnt fit their narrative. He's probably more similar to Springer than he is brinson.

We can close the book on this one because that is really the crux of it.  Fangraphs' other projection system for prospects, KATOH, one that is entirely SABER based (or is supposed to be) had Brinson as the #9 prospect in MLB in 2018.  Nobody saw his epic crater coming.  To use  Brinson as a comp for Robert just seems like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole for the sake of a pre-formed narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

We can close the book on this one because that is really the crux of it.  Fangraphs' other projection system for prospects, KATOH, one that is entirely SABER based (or is supposed to be) had Brinson as the #9 prospect in MLB in 2018.  Nobody saw his epic crater coming.  To use  Brinson as a comp for Robert just seems like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole for the sake of a pre-formed narrative.

Just as an FYI, scouts in nature have to be stubborn. If they shift there thoughts and opinions too often it takes away their credibility in evaluation and makes them too reactionary. I get it, FG just doesnt nees to be that way since they arent advising a team on anything 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Because his flaws are the most common reason the prospects fail at the MLB level, lack of contact.

I dont necessarily agree but I understand his point.

Maybe 20 years ago. 

Lack of contact may slow development slightly now but it is WAY less a reason for prospects to fail than it used to be. See guys like Joey Gallo who are much more extreme as an example. Or george springer. Or kris bryant. All huge contact issues as prospects who destroyed baseballs. All adjusted because they were elite athletes and have excelled.

Edited by Look at Ray Ray Run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No chance.

They traded like 20+ WAR for 1.5 WAR and the I'll take it to the grave that Chapman is NOT why the Cubs won.

If they don't trade for Chapman, they don't win with that pen (minus a hiccup or two from him all post-season).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, soxfan2014 said:

If they don't trade for Chapman, they don't win with that pen (minus a hiccup or two from him all post-season).

Cool. They could have acquired another closer for less? Or offered less? 

People act like Chapman was unhittable or that the Cubs couldnt have given up someone else. It's just wrong. The cubs gave up a guy every bit as good as Tatis and they got like 30 innings from a closer in return. It was an awful trade. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Cool. They could have acquired another closer for less? Or offered less? 

People act like Chapman was unhittable or that the Cubs couldnt have given up someone else. It's just wrong. The cubs gave up a guy every bit as good as Tatis and they got like 30 innings from a closer in return. It was an awful trade. 

Maybe they tried? Who really knows. All that matters (for their fans; it's kind of about perspective) is they traded for Chapman and won a World Series breaking a 108-year drought. If this happens to us in 3 years (minus the long drought part), I won't really care what we traded.

It's ok to disagree and have different opinions.

Edited by soxfan2014
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, soxfan2014 said:

Maybe they tried? Who really knows. All that matters (for their fans) is they traded for Chapman and won a World Series breaking a 108-year drought. If this happens to us in 3 years (minus the long drought part), I won't really care what we traded.

It's ok to disagree.

The Cubs would have had a better chance at winning a World Series then next 5 years than they have now after the trade. I'll never understand why people give a closer who almost blew the World Seried but was bailed out the credit for winning a world series. A freaking closer. 

Theres no scenario in baseball where 1 WAR today is worth more than 20+ WAR over the next 5 seasons in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The Cubs would have had a better chance at winning a World Series then next 5 years than they have now after the trade. I'll never understand why people give a closer who almost blew the World Seried but was bailed out the credit for winning a world series. A freaking closer. 

Theres no scenario in baseball where 1 WAR today is worth more than 20+ WAR over the next 5 seasons in my opinion. 

Dude you are arguing a point that nobody disagrees with.   Everyone understands the value difference between 30 IP of Chapman vs 6 years of Torres.  Everybody on planet Earth understands that.  Everyone.  

They had an opportunity to end a 108 yr drought in a down year.  They pulled out all the stops.  They got it done.  Maybe both sides won the trade

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

Dude you are arguing a point that nobody disagrees with.   Everyone understands the value difference between 30 IP of Chapman vs 6 years of Torres.  Everybody on planet Earth understands that.  Everyone.  

They had an opportunity to end a 108 yr drought in a down year.  They pulled out all the stops.  They got it done.  Maybe both sides won the trade

Right. No one is disagreeing with the value of an every day player for close to 7 full years over 3 months of a closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

The Cano trade has a great chance to be their Tatis Jr for James Shields trade.  It was a desperate move selling low and buying high.  Every single Mariners fan that watched Cano and Diaz in 2018 could have predicted massive regression.  One is at an age 2B, even HOF ones, fall of a fucking cliff historically.  The other is a closer with great stuff but command issues and a relativity short MLB track record.

Now the Mets are in a position where they almost have to trade Thor this deadline.  Just to get back a Kelenic type prospect.  

Be glad we aren't Mets fans, we got that going for us.  They are much, much worse off than  when the Sox started their rebuild.

I don't agree. Diaz was just 25 years old and was coming off a 38% k-Bb rate so even with some babip and homer regression he would have been fantastic. In fact even this year his k-bb did regress a lot but still is a strong high 20s, what hurt him most was a 400 babip (bad luck) and a huge homer spike (probably partially luck but also some command regression by him, i.e throwing more down the pipe).

If not for the cano money kelenic for diaz is a fantastic trade for the mets considering what other ace closers who were older and had less control like Chapman, miller and kimbrel have cost in trades. Those guys all commanded a higher top100 headliner and a pretty solid second piece too. The mariners wouldn't have done it hadn't the mets have eaten the cano money.

Now of course there is risk in that trade but that is what an ace closer costs on the market.

Edited by dominik-keul@gmx.de

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Maybe 20 years ago. 

Lack of contact may slow development slightly now but it is WAY less a reason for prospects to fail than it used to be. See guys like Joey Gallo who are much more extreme as an example. Or george springer. Or kris bryant. All huge contact issues as prospects who destroyed baseballs. All adjusted because they were elite athletes and have excelled.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/batting/_/maxage/26/sort/strikeouts/order/true/minpa/225

Tons of young players here with huge strikeout numbers but still highly valued or high OPS/bWAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Maybe 20 years ago. 

Lack of contact may slow development slightly now but it is WAY less a reason for prospects to fail than it used to be. See guys like Joey Gallo who are much more extreme as an example. Or george springer. Or kris bryant. All huge contact issues as prospects who destroyed baseballs. All adjusted because they were elite athletes and have excelled.

Don't forget Moncada/Baez too...they have pretty extreme miss but can just barrel it when they do make contact. And all the players we both mentioned are top 20 in baseball in WAR....and Springer would be higher if it weren't for injury.

Despite all of this, I get where Kiley is coming from, which gives me pause when I look at Luis' BB%.  Springer in MILB was always above 10%, usually around 15%.  Luis Robert has never been above 8%, usually hovering around 5%.  Brinson had similar issues.  If pitch recognition is the issue, which is what Kiley eludes to, then that could cause LuBob to struggle because I anticipate he will get the Eloy slider treatment once he gets up here.  Why throw him a FB when LuBob will chase sliders all day.  Luis hasn't had to make that adjustment in AAA yet because he appears to be an extraordinary mistake hitter (meaning he doesn't miss them often).  Big league pitchers make less mistakes, but he will feast on lesser pitchers (which all great hitters do).  It will be how he adjusts to good/great pitchers that don't make as many mistakes.  LuBob obviously has the physical skills (which could be among best in MLB), Kiley is just debating if he can adjust to good pitching which is impossible to predict.

I for one am excited to see him get the chance to see what he can do and hope he can adjust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ThatBallHitDeep_WAYBack said:

So the Blue Jays said F service time and brought up Bichette (#8 MLB Pipeline Prospect)

They did the same with Cavan Biggio in late May , Now they have the 3 headed monster of sons of ex major leaguers playing for them, Bichette, Biggio and Guerrero, Jr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

They did the same with Cavan Biggio in late May , Now they have the 3 headed monster of sons of ex major leaguers playing for them, Bichette, Biggio and Guerrero, Jr.

For once, mlb twitter got it right 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2019 at 10:25 AM, BFirebird said:

.....which gives me pause when I look at Luis' BB%.  Springer in MILB was always above 10%, usually around 15%.  Luis Robert has never been above 8%, usually hovering around 5%.  

I for one am excited to see him get the chance to see what he can do and hope he can adjust.

The good news is, every promotion Robert has seen in the minors, his K rate dropped. ~23% in WS  ~20% in Birmingham and ~19% in Charlotte. [ based on my rough box score math ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

For once, mlb twitter got it right 

 

I wonder if this indicative of some org strategy to target blood, or if it's mostly just coincidence  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mqr said:

I wonder if this indicative of some org strategy to target blood, or if it's mostly just coincidence  

I mean.... if the SOx org strat is to collect Manny Machado's workout posse, why can't the Blue Jays collect the offspring of hall of famers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mqr said:

I wonder if this indicative of some org strategy to target blood, or if it's mostly just coincidence  

You have to think it is more coincidental but at the same time when those guys were available to draft, they probably said "this kids bloodline should not be overlooked"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like with basketball you've got to figure kids who have pro athletes as parents have to have an edge in things like conditioning, nutrition, the ability to hire personal coaches and so forth. Genetics play a part so I get the idea of drafting those kids regardless of the sport. Plus in most cases they've been around the pro game all their lives and that's a big deal too as far as the mental part of things from the locker room to the playing field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mqr said:

I wonder if this indicative of some org strategy to target blood, or if it's mostly just coincidence  

They also have Jeff Conine's son in rookie ball. It's actually not a bad strategy if you are in a position where the choice is son of ex MLB player or someone else, Tatis jr. for example. SUre some flop, that's always the case, but if they are considered a top talent  then why not ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×