24 minutes ago, Heads22 said:

Eno Sarris has a bit about Yoan up on the Athletic.

https://theathletic.com/487080/2018/08/25/a-beer-a-ballgame-a-bag-of-mail-the-best-beer-bars-yoan-moncada-the-dodgers-the-rockies-an-outfield-of-matt-chapmans-and-more/

Thanks for posting. That was a well written article, as always 

6 hours ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Statistically speaking, the comparison means nothing. I could compare a bunch of random players to show whatever I wanted.

 

If Jose altuve wasextremely similar to moncads it might make a little sensr, but other n that it is useless fluff.

Yep. Comparing Moncada at 23 to Altuve at 23 means very little. For one, Altuve was signed for 15K while Moncada signed for close to 30 million. Altuve was also never anywhere near the #1 overall prospect in baseball. 

If anything, this comparison is a huge indictment of throwing tens of millions of dollars at a single young player from Latin America/Cuba. Signing kids from there is an absolute crapshoot and teams were much wiser to spread their money over 50-75 guys rather than blowing their wad one one guy. 

Also, John Smoltz first 12 mlb starts=ERA+ of 67

Carson Fulmer first 13 mlb starts=ERA+ of 63

See everyone at Carson's Coopertown Induction Ceremony in 20 years! 

 

Edited August 26, 20187 yr by footlongcomiskeydog

8 minutes ago, footlongcomiskeydog said:

Yep. Comparing Moncada at 23 to Altuve at 23 means very little. For one, Altuve was signed for 15K while Moncada signed for close to 30 million. Altuve was also never anywhere near the #1 overall prospect in baseball. 

If anything, this comparison is a huge indictment of throwing tens of millions of dollars at a single young player from Latin America/Cuba. Signing kids from there is an absolute crapshoot and teams were much wiser to spread their money over 50-75 guys rather than blowing their wad one one guy. 

Also, John Smoltz first 12 mlb starts=ERA+ of 67

Carson Fulmer first 13 mlb starts=ERA+ of 63

See everyone at Carson's Coopertown Induction Ceremony in 15 years! 

 

No, what it means is someone can struggle at age 23 and still end up being great.

Still wondering why you choose to be a Sox fan, or are you going to ignore me again? Honestly, do you like ANYTHING about the organization?

Edited August 26, 20187 yr by soxfan49

8 minutes ago, footlongcomiskeydog said:

Yep. Comparing Moncada at 23 to Altuve at 23 means very little. For one, Altuve was signed for 15K while Moncada signed for close to 30 million. Altuve was also never anywhere near the #1 overall prospect in baseball. 

If anything, this comparison is a huge indictment of throwing tens of millions of dollars at a single young player from Latin America/Cuba. Signing kids from there is an absolute crapshoot and teams were much wiser to spread their money over 50-75 guys rather than blowing their wad one one guy. 

Also, John Smoltz first 12 mlb starts=ERA+ of 67

Carson Fulmer first 13 mlb starts=ERA+ of 63

See everyone at Carson's Coopertown Induction Ceremony in 20 years! 

 

Wait, so guys can improve if they struggle early in their careers? Wow. I know someone who needs to read this post.

4 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

No, what it means is someone can struggle at age 23 and still end up being great.

Still wondering why you choose to be a Sox fan, or are you going to ignore me again? Honestly, do you like ANYTHING about the organization?

Thanks Captain Obvious. 

Players can also struggle at age 23 and be out of baseball within 3 years. 

This organization hasn't made the playoffs in a decade so there hasn't been much to like. I liked watching Sale and Q pitch every 5 days back in the day. 

Right now, I like looking at Eloy and Kopech highlights. I like the giant gold chain that they are passing around when a dude homers. 

 

3 hours ago, Jose Abreu said:

It's an irrelevant question because Moncada doesn't strike out 39% of the time, and if he did (with no improvement) then he would actually end up being a bust. His K-rate is 34%, not 39%, and it will likely decrease as he matures as a hitter. 

You would hope so but this year he has more than doubled his plate appearances over last year and he has dropped from 32% to 34%. It seems to me that he has reduced his SO  rate when they have got him out of the leadoff spot recently. 

40 minutes ago, footlongcomiskeydog said:

Thanks Captain Obvious. 

Players can also struggle at age 23 and be out of baseball within 3 years. 

This organization hasn't made the playoffs in a decade so there hasn't been much to like. I liked watching Sale and Q pitch every 5 days back in the day. 

Right now, I like looking at Eloy and Kopech highlights. I like the giant gold chain that they are passing around when a dude homers. 

 

Clearly it’s not obvious if you read it and said “means very little.”

You like a chain, 1 major leaguer and 1 minor leaguer. That’s all.

I have a better comparison for Moncada's upside now other than Trout: Jose Ramirez. Go look at what he's doing this season and that is what Moncada can become. 

Edited August 26, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

1 hour ago, footlongcomiskeydog said:

Thanks Captain Obvious. 

Players can also struggle at age 23 and be out of baseball within 3 years. 

 

That’s very true, but acting like Moncada has been so bad that he could be out of baseball within 3 years is still just woefully meatheaded analysis, and the type of talk that might be expected from an impatient 12 year old. 

8 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

That’s very true, but acting like Moncada has been so bad that he could be out of baseball within 3 years is still just woefully meatheaded analysis, and the type of talk that might be expected from an impatient 12 year old. 

Crystal ball over here eh. Good news everybody, moncada has a zero percent chance of still being bad in 3 years cause this guy knows things

25 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

That’s very true, but acting like Moncada has been so bad that he could be out of baseball within 3 years is still just woefully meatheaded analysis, and the type of talk that might be expected from an impatient 12 year old. 

It's also a meatheaded analysis to compare his struggles at age 23 to a guy like Altuve. The two players are absolutely nothing alike. Altuve has proven he is one of the best in the game. Moncada hasn't proven anything yet. 

Also, following that logic, why would the Sox give up on a guy like Carson Fulmer as a starter already? Look at his first 13 games started compared to John Smoltz's. Smoltz turned into a great pitcher. Fulmer most certainly can as well, right? 

16 minutes ago, footlongcomiskeydog said:

It's also a meatheaded analysis to compare his struggles at age 23 to a guy like Altuve. The two players are absolutely nothing alike. Altuve has proven he is one of the best in the game. Moncada hasn't proven anything yet. 

Also, following that logic, why would the Sox give up on a guy like Carson Fulmer as a starter already? Look at his first 13 games started compared to John Smoltz's. Smoltz turned into a great pitcher. Fulmer most certainly can as well, right? 

Moncada and Fulmer are apples and oranges. Fulmer could have only dreamed of having the minor league success Moncada has had, and we have 3+ seasons of failure for Fulmer at the AA, AAA, and MLB levels. Moncada was a notch below Eloy at AAA. He can still figure it out. Their track records are completely different. 

Edited August 26, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

1 hour ago, soxfan49 said:

Clearly it’s not obvious if you read it and said “means very little.”

You like a chain, 1 major leaguer and 1 minor leaguer. That’s all.

I also like the  new Revolution bar at the Stadium, the nacho helmet, and paying only $10 park to on Sundays. 

Also, get over yourself, man. You are not the White Sox fandom gestapo and I don't need to prove anything to you. 

34 minutes ago, footlongcomiskeydog said:

It's also a meatheaded analysis to compare his struggles at age 23 to a guy like Altuve. The two players are absolutely nothing alike. Altuve has proven he is one of the best in the game. Moncada hasn't proven anything yet. 

Also, following that logic, why would the Sox give up on a guy like Carson Fulmer as a starter already? Look at his first 13 games started compared to John Smoltz's. Smoltz turned into a great pitcher. Fulmer most certainly can as well, right? 

But perfectly acceptable to use Alen Hansen...

45 minutes ago, footlongcomiskeydog said:

I also like the  new Revolution bar at the Stadium, the nacho helmet, and paying only $10 park to on Sundays. 

Also, get over yourself, man. You are not the White Sox fandom gestapo and I don't need to prove anything to you. 

The whole website is wondering. 

8 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

I have a better comparison for Moncada's upside now other than Trout: Jose Ramirez. Go look at what he's doing this season and that is what Moncada can become. 

Very different hitter though. Ramirez was a high contact low power guy who developed huge power suddenly (anyone suspicious?) while moncada always had power but also contact issues.

9 hours ago, footlongcomiskeydog said:

Yep. Comparing Moncada at 23 to Altuve at 23 means very little. For one, Altuve was signed for 15K while Moncada signed for close to 30 million. Altuve was also never anywhere near the #1 overall prospect in baseball. 

If anything, this comparison is a huge indictment of throwing tens of millions of dollars at a single young player from Latin America/Cuba. Signing kids from there is an absolute crapshoot and teams were much wiser to spread their money over 50-75 guys rather than blowing their wad one one guy. 

Also, John Smoltz first 12 mlb starts=ERA+ of 67

Carson Fulmer first 13 mlb starts=ERA+ of 63

See everyone at Carson's Coopertown Induction Ceremony in 20 years! 

 

The idea is nice but wrong. People use false logic here (also in the draft), yes there are late successes and early busts but stats really show that the high picks perform much better statistically.

 

Yes first overall picks have busted and pujols was a 13th rounder but the vast majority of 10+ round picks and 10k signings never make it past A ball. You just don't have a glass ball to look into thethe future.

I'd like to clarify how I erroneously came up with a 39% strike out rate. I used "at bats" rather than plate appearances. Since I was relating it to batting average, I thought that made sense. If I were relating it to on base %, I would have used plate appearances. At the time of my calculation, he had struck out 179 times in 459 at bats, which is 39%.

If a hitter strikes out 4 times in every 10 at bats, that leaves 6 at bats, for him to accumulate hits, applied to his average. If he has a BABIP of .400, on those 6 at bats, he would get 2.4 hits. That would produce a batting average of .240 for the total 10 at bats (2.4 hits, in 10 at bats). It's not plausible to expect him to have a .400 BABIP, and even then. it would only produce a .240 Average. That was my point.    

I understand that the game has changed and that these very high strike out rates are becoming much more common, and for some, acceptable. It just seems to me that a hitter is going to have to hit a lot of home runs, to justify that kind of strike out rate. That said, I am hopeful that he will get that strike out issue under control. The encouraging thing is that he has taken an awful lot of called 3RD strikes, many on bad umpire calls. Once he learns to swing at those close pitches, when he is in a 2 strike count, that should reduce the strike outs.

 

Edited August 26, 20187 yr by Lillian

12 hours ago, Goober said:

Crystal ball over here eh. Good news everybody, moncada has a zero percent chance of still being bad in 3 years cause this guy knows things

It’s cool to use a crystal ball to assume the worst but not fine to assume the best? Got it

17 hours ago, Lillian said:

I'd like to clarify how I erroneously came up with a 39% strike out rate. I used "at bats" rather than plate appearances. Since I was relating it to batting average, I thought that made sense. If I were relating it to on base %, I would have used plate appearances. At the time of my calculation, he had struck out 179 times in 459 at bats, which is 39%.

If a hitter strikes out 4 times in every 10 at bats, that leaves 6 at bats, for him to accumulate hits, applied to his average. If he has a BABIP of .400, on those 6 at bats, he would get 2.4 hits. That would produce a batting average of .240 for the total 10 at bats (2.4 hits, in 10 at bats). It's not plausible to expect him to have a .400 BABIP, and even then. it would only produce a .240 Average. That was my point.    

I understand that the game has changed and that these very high strike out rates are becoming much more common, and for some, acceptable. It just seems to me that a hitter is going to have to hit a lot of home runs, to justify that kind of strike out rate. That said, I am hopeful that he will get that strike out issue under control. The encouraging thing is that he has taken an awful lot of called 3RD strikes, many on bad umpire calls. Once he learns to swing at those close pitches, when he is in a 2 strike count, that should reduce the strike outs.

 

The reason they changed from AB to PA on K% is that AB misses quite a few PA, plus BB% is required to be calculated on PA.

Wouldn't a better idea be to sit back and watch Moncada over the next few years to see how he adapts instead of trying to predict his future based on false narratives? At just 23 years old playing for a team that's in the development years of a rebuild I don't see how it would be difficult to sit back and watch it all unfold. Unless of course the zombie apocalypse happens sooner than expected.

3 hours ago, BlackSox13 said:

Wouldn't a better idea be to sit back and watch Moncada over the next few years to see how he adapts instead of trying to predict his future based on false narratives? At just 23 years old playing for a team that's in the development years of a rebuild I don't see how it would be difficult to sit back and watch it all unfold. Unless of course the zombie apocalypse happens sooner than expected.

Yes, that is a far more rational approach. And, for those who want to do more than simply observe, constructive suggestions are interesting. Unfortunately, they have little chance of being heard, by those who matter.

19 minutes ago, Lillian said:

Yes, that is a far more rational approach. And, for those who want to do more than simply observe, constructive suggestions are interesting. Unfortunately, they have little chance of being heard, by those who matter.

I just don't understand how some fans can write him off so easily and call him a bust at just 23 years old. This is his first full season. Look how long it took Avi to come around and he never had the tools Yoan has. If anything Avi should have taught us to remain patient, which many of us are doing. 

8 hours ago, BlackSox13 said:

Wouldn't a better idea be to sit back and watch Moncada over the next few years to see how he adapts instead of trying to predict his future based on false narratives? At just 23 years old playing for a team that's in the development years of a rebuild I don't see how it would be difficult to sit back and watch it all unfold. Unless of course the zombie apocalypse happens sooner than expected.

Yes, this would be a saner approach. But many fans want to see the rebuild work so badly they want immediate results from the young players. Some expect these players to explode on the scene and change things immediately. Things are improving, but real change is still not going happen just yet. As for Moncada, all I want is a solid middle infielder. I am not expecting a superstar. And those expectations shouldn't be forced on him just because he was an important part of a large trade.

6 minutes ago, NWINFan said:

Yes, this would be a saner approach. But many fans want to see the rebuild work so badly they want immediate results from the young players. Some expect these players to explode on the scene and change things immediately. Things are improving, but real change is still not going happen just yet. As for Moncada, all I want is a solid middle infielder. I am not expecting a superstar. And those expectations shouldn't be forced on him just because he was an important part of a large trade.

Nobody should expect stardom from any prospect, no matter how highly ranked they are. Even Eloy. A lot of people are expecting him to be a superstar right off the bat and I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed. I expect Eloy to be a solid middle of the order bat similar to Dye or Carlos Lee. Nothing earth shattering, but solid nonetheless. I expect Moncada to be a solid middle infielder with pop, and hopefully he hits for average. If Moncada's doing .255/.340/.790 with 20-25 HR and a bunch of XBH and 25-30 SB, that shouldn't be awful. Just like if Eloy his hitting .275/.330/.825 with 25-30 HR and 90-110 RBI, nobody should be upset with that either. Those are solid MLB players, even if not spectacular. 

Edited August 27, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman