5 minutes ago, bmags said:

People in these discussions focus way too much on “good”, but what if we imagine a system that doesn’t need to replace its CFer with a guy that can only put up a 5 wrc+, a team that could actually internally replace a DH, or had enough depth their fifth starter didn’t need to be Omar despaigne? What if they were just not good enough to be starters but not the worst players in the league?

Thats a big advantage of good scouting and development.

On average, there's about 90-100 2.1+ WAR position players every year. Only about 25% of MLB baseball position players are average or better in regards to relation to replacement level.

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

That still doesn't excuse making a horrible pick that high. 

Jack why do you have to ruin this thread

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

That still doesn't excuse making a horrible pick that high. 

We have reached peak insanity. Like I mentioned earlier, it's like you insisting that Kyle Hendricks sucks against every stat in the world.

2 minutes ago, mqr said:

So where do you get he has to be ichiro to take that high? Those are absolutely absurd expectations. 

Because hitting and speed are his only above average tools. Not striking out is a double edged sword because it usually comes with a low OBP. 

Edited July 25, 20196 yr by Jack Parkman

11 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Madrigal has no power and Vaughn has no positional versatility. 

Madrigal has to be Ichiro to justify picking him where they did. 

Vaughn has to hit .300 with 35 HR every year to justify that picking him where they did. 

Let’s see, you want to pick players that has power AND positional versatility (and good hit tool too, really) and is going to pan out (since you b****ed about 1st round picks not panning out). On top of that, a player who does turn out to be Ichiro or Miggy is a failure. You’re really more delusional than Greg sometimes. 

We know you don’t like Vaughn and Madrigal. Every other post you state it. 

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

On average, there's about 90-100 2.1+ WAR position players every year. Only about 25% of MLB baseball position players are average or better in regards to relation to replacement level.

Didn’t say 2.1 WAR anywhere in my post. Discussed being able to supply depth that isn’t negative. 2.1 WAR would be a starter

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Because hitting and speed are his only above average tools. Not striking out is a double edged sword because it usually comes with a low OBP. 

You’re leaving out the plus glove

2 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

Let’s see, you want to pick players that has power AND positional versatility (and good hit tool too, really) and is going to pan out (since you b****ed about 1st round picks not panning out). On top of that, a player who does turn out to be Ichiro or Miggy is a failure. You’re really more delusional than Greg sometimes. 

 

9 minutes ago, bmags said:

Jack why do you have to ruin this thread

I'm not trying to ruin the thread, I'm trying to have a discussion about draft philosophy. 

8 minutes ago, GermanSoxFan said:

We have reached peak insanity. Like I mentioned earlier, it's like you insisting that Kyle Hendricks sucks against every stat in the world.

The point I'm trying to make is when you pick a guy with limitations on his game like Madrigal and Vaughn have, it is less likely those tools that supposedly make them special must translate to the Majors. The Ichiro thing was intended hyperbole to prove a point. If Madrigal hits .280 with a .315 OBP and no power that isn't an MLB player.  If Vaughn hits .260 with a .320 OBP and 20 HR that isn't either. You're lessening your chances to get a positive MLB profile with guys like that. 

Edited July 25, 20196 yr by Jack Parkman

6 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Because hitting and speed are his only above average tools. Not striking out is a double edged sword because it usually comes with a low OBP. 

How does not striking out come with a low OBP? Maybe if it comes with zero plate discipline but that isn't a problem of madrigals.

5 minutes ago, mqr said:

You’re leaving out the plus glove

Ask Adam Engel how that's working out for him. 

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

Ask Adam Engel how that's working out for him. 

Pretty well, since, you know, he has made it to the majors as a 19th round pick.

11 minutes ago, bmags said:

Jack why do you have to ruin this thread

And cut that sig by 2/3rds. It takes 10 min to scroll through it.

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

How does not striking out come with a low OBP? Maybe if it comes with zero plate discipline but that isn't a problem of madrigals.

It's just math dude. More balls put in play=more outs. It is the point of BABIP. Also, to put the ball in play as much as Madrigal does you have to have poor plate discipline. Pitchers don't throw enough meatballs. 

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

It's just math dude. More balls put in play=more outs. It is the point of BABIP. Also, to put the ball in play as much as Madrigal does you have to have poor plate discipline. Pitchers don't throw enough meatballs. 

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

It's just math dude. More balls put in play=more outs. It is the point of BABIP. Also, to put the ball in play as much as Madrigal does you have to have poor plate discipline. Pitchers don't throw enough meatballs. 

It's math that striking out less leads to a lower OBP? Say what?

You have to have poor plate discipline if you have elite contact skills? Say what again?

Barry Bonds struck out 41 times one year and had a .609 OBP. Barry Bonds broke mathz.

5 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

It's math that striking out less leads to a lower OBP? Say what?

You have to have poor plate discipline if you have elite contact skills? Say what again?

Yes. Pitchers don't make enough mistakes. In order to make contact at an elite rate you have to swing at a metric shit ton of pitcher's pitches. 

Why do you think there has been a push throughout baseball to make striking out acceptable?

As Ks go down so does OBP. 

Edited July 25, 20196 yr by Jack Parkman

This is a big plus on many fronts* if they pluck from an aware organization.  If it's from a backwards organization or another WS lifer, then it's a nothing-ball.

It shows an awareness of current deficiencies plus should bring tangible improvement.

6 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

It's just math dude. More balls put in play=more outs. It is the point of BABIP. Also, to put the ball in play as much as Madrigal does you have to have poor plate discipline. Pitchers don't throw enough meatballs. 

Who gives a rat’s ass about BABIP if it is sustainable with his skill set? 

Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Barry Bonds struck out 41 times one year and had a .609 OBP. Barry Bonds broke mathz.

Barry Bonds was doing Steroids. Try again. 

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

Barry Bonds was doing Steroids. Try again. 

Steroids change the laws of math, you heard it here first.

3 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

Who gives a rat’s ass about BABIP if it is sustainable with his skill set? 

It wouldn't be because the thing that makes a high BABIP sustainable is a high EV. I doubt that a player with as little power as Madrigal is driving the ball with authority often. Go on though. 

Edited July 25, 20196 yr by Jack Parkman

1 minute ago, GermanSoxFan said:

Steroids change the laws of math, you heard it here first.

Bonds on Roids was superhuman. He broke the game.