Blue Jays Hot Stove Thread

[itsgametime]

A young player that has a hot spring, remains hot to start the season, is one of the better hitters on the team is sent down...

Where he struggles to hit minor league pitching.

If he was really "one of the better hitters on the team" and not someone who had a handful of hits to start the year then he wouldn't have put up a sub .600 OPS in the minors.

Yes he struggled.  What's your point?

 

[Bender]

A young player that has a hot spring, remains hot to start the season, is one of the better hitters on the team is sent down...

Where he struggles to hit minor league pitching.

If he was really "one of the better hitters on the team" and not someone who had a handful of hits to start the year then he wouldn't have put up a sub .600 OPS in the minors.

Yes he struggled.  What's your point?

I think he's made his point repeatedly lol.

 

[Kin]

A young player that has a hot spring, remains hot to start the season, is one of the better hitters on the team is sent down...

Where he struggles to hit minor league pitching.

If he was really "one of the better hitters on the team" and not someone who had a handful of hits to start the year then he wouldn't have put up a sub .600 OPS in the minors.

Yes he struggled.  What's your point?

I think it's made pretty clear in the second paragraph. He wasn't a "good hitter" because good hitters don't have sub .600 OPS in the minors. He had a handful of lucky games to start the season but the team brass knew he still wasn't a  MLB calibre hitter.

They sent him down to work on his hitting, he was atrocious in the minors so eventually they reached a conclusion that he wasn't much of a prospect and decided to instead favour guys who'd proven to be able to hit professional pitching.

Again, think they're wrong all you want but it's not like they're bucking some sort of conventional wisdom by not thinking a 24 year old with 2700 minor league at bats could all of a sudden become a good major league hitter.

 

[itsgametime]

A young player that has a hot spring, remains hot to start the season, is one of the better hitters on the team is sent down...

Where he struggles to hit minor league pitching.

If he was really "one of the better hitters on the team" and not someone who had a handful of hits to start the year then he wouldn't have put up a sub .600 OPS in the minors.

Yes he struggled.  What's your point?

I think it's made pretty clear in the second paragraph. He wasn't a "good hitter" because good hitters don't have sub .600 OPS in the minors. He had a handful of lucky games to start the season but the team brass knew he still wasn't a  MLB calibre hitter.

You seriously just said it was luck?  laughable.

They sent him down to work on his hitting, he was atrocious in the minors so eventually they reached a conclusion that he wasn't much of a prospect and decided to instead favour guys who'd proven to be able to hit professional pitching.

Show me one article where it says they sent him down to work on his hitting.

Again, think they're wrong all you want but it's not like they're bucking some sort of conventional wisdom by not thinking a 24 year old with 2700 minor league at bats could all of a sudden become a good major league hitter.

April/March
Socrates Brito: .310 OPS
Alen Hanson: .419 OPS
Urena : .740 OPS

 

[Kin]

You seriously just said it was luck?  laughable.

If his .333 average over 24 at-bats to start the season was a reflection of his actual abilities as a hitter as opposed to the deviations that can occur by random chance in a tiny sample size then he'd have been able to hit within 120 points of that in the Minors. He wasn't, so, yeah. Luck.

Show me one article where it says they sent him down to work on his hitting.

I think I'd probably stick with the fact that he proved himself fairly incapable of hitting minor league pitching over the year. 

 

[itsgametime]

You seriously just said it was luck?  laughable.

If his .333 average over 24 at-bats to start the season was a reflection of his actual abilities as a hitter as opposed to the deviations that can occur by random chance in a tiny sample size then he'd have been able to hit within 120 points of that in the Minors. He wasn't, so, yeah. Luck.

Send him down because he can't hit minor league pitching?  Come on.  Send him down to work on hitting because he's struggling to hit MLB pitching - absolutely.  We do know the Jays continued to struggle hitting all year and finish with one of the worst records in franchise history (bottom 5). 

I think it may have been a turning point in the kids career - unfortunately in the wrong direction - Atkins just messed up. 

Show me one article where it says they sent him down to work on his hitting.

I think I'd probably stick with the fact that he proved himself fairly incapable of hitting minor league pitching over the year.

What were his minor league numbers over those 2000+ AB's?

 

[Kin]

Send him down because he can't hit minor league pitching?

No, send him down because he's not a good hitter. Something he proved conclusively with his inability to hit minor league pitching.

Seriously. You, right now, are arguing that a guy who couldn't OPS .600 in the minor leagues would have been a good major league hitter. 

What were his minor league numbers over those 2000+ AB's?

I feel like you're just as capable of reading Baseball Reference as I am.

 

[itsgametime]

Send him down because he can't hit minor league pitching?

No, send him down because he's not a good hitter. Something he proved conclusively with his inability to hit minor league pitching.

Seriously. You, right now, are arguing that a guy who couldn't OPS .600 in the minor leagues would have been a good major league hitter. 

What were his minor league numbers over those 2000+ AB's?

I feel like you're just as capable of reading Baseball Reference as I am.

You are so stuck on his minor league numbers.  He had a career minors BA of .270 and he carried that over to the majors so....

I'm questioning Atkins judgement and his ability to asses talent.  He chose to go with Brito and Hanson over Urena and said this about Brito "there's incredible incredible upside and potential with him".

 

[Kin]

You are so stuck on his minor league numbers.

Yes. Because believe it or not there is no better indicator of whether or not someone will be a successful major league hitter.

He had a career minors BA of .270

His average by level:

Rookie Ball: .320
A: .266
High A: .286
AA: .251
AAA: .250

Those are the numbers of someone who can't hit minor league pitching, let alone major league pitching(Although OPS is much more meaningful than batting average but whatever at this point)

Urena's relatively ok 2018 hitting numbers were mainly the result of an unsustainable .424 BABIP so, again, pretty clearly the result of luck instead of any actual hitting ability which his subsequent stints in the minors confirmed.

I'm questioning Atkins judgement and his ability to asses talent.  He chose to go with Brito and Hanson over Urena and said this about Brito "there's incredible incredible upside and potential with him".

I'm not really invested in what decision Atkins made for his bench depth last year as opposed to what this conversation started being about(which was Urena vs. Drury or Fisher) but I think it's pretty clear that the decision was keeping Hansen around as the bench  INF while sending Urena to Buffalo where he could get at-bats and actual playing time while the team tried to develop him. Neither Urena or Hansen were going to get time over Galvis or Sogard so it was probably in the team's best interests to send the better prospect down.

 

[Beowulf]

When I saw all the new posts in this thread I was excited to read about some new development/rumour...not to scroll through two pages on Richard Urena!?

Absolutely be a critic of Atkins if you want to Empire, but this seems like a poor choice of hill to die on, for the countless reasons that Nik and others have brought up.

 

[itsgametime]

You are so stuck on his minor league numbers.

Yes. Because believe it or not there is no better indicator of whether or not someone will be a successful major league hitter.

Absolute statements like that don't work in baseball.  I think your looking at results and trying to fit them indto your argument.  2 examples below prove your belief is incorrect:

According to you:
Reese McGuire should not be in the majors because he can't hit minor league pitching
Derek Fisher should be in the major because he can hit minor league pitching

Using your belief system you would be wrong on both counts; and those are only 2 examples from the same team let alone checking all 30 MLB teams

He had a career minors BA of .270

His average by level:

Rookie Ball: .320
A: .266
High A: .286
AA: .251
AAA: .250

Those are the numbers of someone who can't hit minor league pitching, let alone major league pitching(Although OPS is much more meaningful than batting average but whatever at this point)

Urena's relatively ok 2018 hitting numbers were mainly the result of an unsustainable .424 BABIP so, again, pretty clearly the result of luck instead of any actual hitting ability which his subsequent stints in the minors confirmed.

I'm questioning Atkins judgement and his ability to asses talent.  He chose to go with Brito and Hanson over Urena and said this about Brito "there's incredible incredible upside and potential with him".

I'm not really invested in what decision Atkins made for his bench depth last year as opposed to what this conversation started being about(which was Urena vs. Drury or Fisher) but I think it's pretty clear that the decision was keeping Hansen around as the bench  INF while sending Urena to Buffalo where he could get at-bats and actual playing time while the team tried to develop him. Neither Urena or Hansen were going to get time over Galvis or Sogard so it was probably in the team's best interests to send the better prospect down.

 

[Kin]

Absolute statements like that don't work in baseball.

Sure they do. Baseball is the most quantifiable of the sports and the sport where absolute statements based on quantifiable facts are the most likely to be applicable.

  I think your looking at results and trying to fit them indto your argument.  2 examples below prove your belief is incorrect:

According to you:
Reese McGuire should not be in the majors because he can't hit minor league pitching
Derek Fisher should be in the major because he can hit minor league pitching

Using your belief system you would be wrong on both counts; and those are only 2 examples from the same team let alone checking all 30 MLB teams

So this is just about complete nonsense. What I said is that hitting in the minor leagues is the single best indicator(and I hope I don't need to explain that "best" doesn't mean absolute) of whether or not someone will be a good hitter in the major leagues, not "hitting in the minor leagues is the only factor in whether or not someone should be a major leaguer". There are lots of first basemen who are better hitters than any SS but those SS earn their spots with their defensive abilities. Likewise, McGuire is in the major leagues because of his defensive position/abilities. Fisher, who so far hasn't proven he can hit major league pitching, doesn't factor into this at all.

None of this is applicable to the Urena situation.

 

[itsgametime]

When I saw all the new posts in this thread I was excited to read about some new development/rumour...not to scroll through two pages on Richard Urena!?

Absolutely be a critic of Atkins if you want to Empire, but this seems like a poor choice of hill to die on, for the countless reasons that Nik and others have brought up.

On the surface it may look like a poor choice but Atkins thought process on most - if not every - major league move is the same.  Go down the list - Hanson, McKinney, Fisher, Brito....and it goes on and on. 

His drafting record is really good but it's been the complete opposite with MLB moves.  He's proven to be poor at assessing MLB talent this was just another example.

 

[itsgametime]

Absolute statements like that don't work in baseball.

Sure they do. Baseball is the most quantifiable of the sports and the sport where absolute statements based on quantifiable facts are the most likely to be applicable.

Making a statement is not quantifying anything though.  It's just your opinion which is fine.

  I think your looking at results and trying to fit them indto your argument.  2 examples below prove your belief is incorrect:

According to you:
Reese McGuire should not be in the majors because he can't hit minor league pitching
Derek Fisher should be in the major because he can hit minor league pitching

Using your belief system you would be wrong on both counts; and those are only 2 examples from the same team let alone checking all 30 MLB teams

So this is just about complete nonsense. What I said is that hitting in the minor leagues is the single best indicator(and I hope I don't need to explain that "best" doesn't mean absolute) of whether or not someone will be a good hitter in the major leagues, not "hitting in the minor leagues is the only factor in whether or not someone should be a major leaguer". There are lots of first basemen who are better hitters than any SS but those SS earn their spots with their defensive abilities. Likewise, McGuire is in the major leagues because of his defensive position/abilities. Fisher, who so far hasn't proven he can hit major league pitching, doesn't factor into this at all.

None of this is applicable to the Urena situation.

Complete nonsense?  ok. 

The examples I showed you stand and they are very clear, you can chose to call them nonsense if you want....and I have another one below. 

McGuire is in the majors for his bat,  Jansen for his work behind the plate although they were drafted for the opposite reasons, McGuire for his glove and Jansen for his bat.  Not sure what your basing that off but McGuire has proved to be the better hitter and Jansen the better defender.  It's why top prospects require patience and an opportunity to show their stuff.  Urena, Jansen, McGuire were all in the top 100.  Yet another example with Jansen, he's proven to be a really good defender although that's not what got him to the majors.

Both would have never gotten to the majors using your "indicator".  So now 4 examples that goes against your statement "there's no better indicator..."

I would have gone with "a" or "one" indicator, that would have been more accurate

 

[Kin]

It's just your opinion which is fine.

It's emphatically not. If you know of a better indicator for being a good major league hitter than being a good minor league hitter, you're certainly welcome to suggest one and let it stand up to statistical scrutiny. 

The examples I showed you stand and they are very clear, you can chose to call them nonsense if you want...

Which I will because it's a clear indication that you aren't able to understand what I said.

McGuire is in the majors for his bat,  Jansen for his work behind the plate although they were drafted for the opposite reasons, McGuire for his glove and Jansen for his bat.

None of these are factual statements.

  Not sure what your basing that off but McGuire has proved to be the better hitter and Jansen the better defender.  It's why top prospects require patience and an opportunity to show their stuff.  Urena, Jansen, McGuire were all in the top 100.  Yet another example with Jansen, he's proven to be a really good defender although that's not what got him to the majors.

Both would have never gotten to the majors using your "indicator".

I think you've either stayed up too late or are just flailing around because you're no longer even writing coherent sentences.

 

[Andy007]

Mind boggling conversation. And I thought pledging to be done with the team simply because they cut Ryan freakin Tepera was bad.....

 

[itsgametime]

It's just your opinion which is fine.

It's emphatically not. If you know of a better indicator for being a good major league hitter than being a good minor league hitter, you're certainly welcome to suggest one and let it stand up to statistical scrutiny. 

"Emphatically not"?  Ok.

There are numerous factors and variables, minor league numbers is only a factor, none are absolute.

The examples I showed you stand and they are very clear, you can chose to call them nonsense if you want...

Which I will because it's a clear indication that you aren't able to understand what I said.

Ok but not sure what you base that on.

McGuire is in the majors for his bat,  Jansen for his work behind the plate although they were drafted for the opposite reasons, McGuire for his glove and Jansen for his bat.

None of these are factual statements.

Yes it is factual.

Reese McGuire Career WAR 1.3 OPS+ 133
Danny Jansen Career WAR 1.7  OPS+ 79

Both are major league competent catchers but for different reasons.  McGuire has stuck due to his bat and to a lesser extent his glove, Jansen due to his receiving skills only atm.  Now things could change but as of now McGuire is the more gifted hitter while Jansen is a slightly better receiver.

Reese McGuire Career Minor league OPS .672. The Pirates gave up on him.
Danny Jansen Career Minor League OPS .777

MLB Pipeline Scouting Grades
Reese McGuire
Hit: 50 | Power: 35 | Run: 45 | Arm: 55 | Field: 60 | Overall: 40
"...a gifted defensive catcher out of Washington, at No. 14."
"Defense will always be the driving force behind McGuire's game."

Danny Jansen
Hit: 55 | Power: 45 | Run: 30 | Arm: 50 | Field: 50 | Overall: 55
"That Jansen makes a lot of contact, understands the strike zone and recognizes pitches well highlights his upside as an offensive-oriented catcher"

  Not sure what your basing that off but McGuire has proved to be the better hitter and Jansen the better defender.  It's why top prospects require patience and an opportunity to show their stuff.  Urena, Jansen, McGuire were all in the top 100.  Yet another example with Jansen, he's proven to be a really good defender although that's not what got him to the majors.

Both would have never gotten to the majors using your "indicator".

I think you've either stayed up too late or are just flailing around because you're no longer even writing coherent sentences.

Which sentence was not coherent?  I will try and re-word

 

[Bender]

It's just your opinion which is fine.

It's emphatically not. If you know of a better indicator for being a good major league hitter than being a good minor league hitter, you're certainly welcome to suggest one and let it stand up to statistical scrutiny. 

"Emphatically not"?  Ok.

There are numerous factors and variables, minor league numbers is only a factor, none are absolute.

The examples I showed you stand and they are very clear, you can chose to call them nonsense if you want...

Which I will because it's a clear indication that you aren't able to understand what I said.

McGuire is in the majors for his bat,  Jansen for his work behind the plate although they were drafted for the opposite reasons, McGuire for his glove and Jansen for his bat.

None of these are factual statements.

  Not sure what your basing that off but McGuire has proved to be the better hitter and Jansen the better defender.  It's why top prospects require patience and an opportunity to show their stuff.  Urena, Jansen, McGuire were all in the top 100.  Yet another example with Jansen, he's proven to be a really good defender although that's not what got him to the majors.

Both would have never gotten to the majors using your "indicator".

I think you've either stayed up too late or are just flailing around because you're no longer even writing coherent sentences.

Which sentence was not coherent?  I will try and re-word

I think anyone reading this thread have already made up their minds based on the arguments presented. Can we move on?

 

[Kin]

There are numerous factors and variables, minor league numbers is only a factor, none are absolute.

Right. So that's why I said:

What I said is that hitting in the minor leagues is the single best indicator(and I hope I don't need to explain that "best" doesn't mean absolute)

Now, clearly I did need to explain that to you as all of your subsequent posts seemed to entirely misunderstand that very basic premise. Likewise, saying that minor league hitting numbers are the best indicator we have of successful major league hitting does not, repeat does not, conclusively say who should or who shouldn't be in the majors so all of your "examples" are just nonsense.

 

[itsgametime]

There are numerous factors and variables, minor league numbers is only a factor, none are absolute.

Right. So that's why I said:

What I said is that hitting in the minor leagues is the single best indicator(and I hope I don't need to explain that "best" doesn't mean absolute)

Now, clearly I did need to explain that to you as all of your subsequent posts seemed to entirely misunderstand that very basic premise. Likewise, saying that minor league hitting numbers are the best indicator we have of successful major league hitting does not, repeat does not, conclusively say who should or who shouldn't be in the majors so all of your "examples" are just nonsense.

You are just ignoring what I posted but that's on you.