2B: Villar/Sogard/Perez

[tmwiese55]

Sure, could happen that way too. But the logic would be that the unknown would have a higher chance of that than the one who's already tried multiple times. Kind of like the do the same but expect different results saying. But yea, like you said, it's their job to scout this stuff so kind of have to trust them a bit on it. That said, it's tough to trust them as guy after does poorly at hitting.

[bill hAll Star]

Sure, could happen that way too. But the logic would be that the unknown would have a higher chance of that than the one who's already tried multiple times. But yea, like you said, it's their job to scout this stuff so kind of have to trust them a bit on it.

 

The unknown does not always have the greater chance. I, sitting at my desk right now, am an unknown to MLB baseball.

 

There are guys like Jurickson Profar that keep getting a chance as a "maybe he'll finally put it all together" that are still scuffling, but I think the payoff is higher when giving the higher talent or perceived player get his chance.

 

Now, in this case, we're talking about the difference between once "OK" prospects (except Franklin, who was once rated highly, but it's pretty obvious he's not getting there) vs. a guy that is putting up numbers that was never expected to be here and doesn't seem to have MLB skill as your 24th roster guy that may be forced to start at 2B/SS but should be your last guy off the bench, but it still may stand.

[tmwiese55]

I'm not sure what you're really arguing. It's all a risk/chance type game to a degree so nothing is for sure. So saying not always a greater chance, of course, nothing of this is an exact science.

 

Here's the logic and I don't know it's that arguable really:

 

Guy 1: given 3-4 chances and already failed each time. Chances are he is what he is. Usually that guy is older too so again, not much chance of improvement or 'late bloomer'

Guy 2: Hasn't been given a chance yet. So, you never know. Roll the dice, see what happens, chances are he ends up lust like the other guy but who knows maybe you catch lightning in a bottle.

 

And in this case, these guys are all roughly the same level, scouted about the same, etc. There isn't a clear gap like there would be comparing Orf vs you or me sitting at our desk.

 

That's all it is. And sure it's their job to scout and use their expertise. But lately that expertise sure hasn't been good...

[bill hAll Star]

I'm not sure what you're really arguing. It's all a risk/chance type game to a degree so nothing is for sure. So saying not always a greater chance, of course, nothing of this is an exact science.

 

Here's the logic and I don't know it's that arguable really:

 

Guy 1: given 3-4 chances and already failed each time. Chances are he is what he is. Usually that guy is older too so again, not much chance of improvement or 'late bloomer'

Guy 2: Hasn't been given a chance yet. So, you never know. Roll the dice, see what happens, chances are he ends up lust like the other guy but who knows maybe you catch lightning in a bottle.

 

And in this case, these guys are all roughly the same level, scouted about the same, etc. There isn't a clear gap like there would be comparing Orf vs you or me sitting at our desk.

 

That's all it is. And sure it's their job to scout and use their expertise. But lately that expertise sure hasn't been good...

 

The issue is that you can "catch lightning in a bottle" with anyone. See: Sogard, Eric 2017.

 

Me sitting at my desk was obviously an extreme example. That said, Orf's projection is far behind the rest.

 

I'm trying to explain how hard/impossible it is for someone like Orf to succeed in the majors.

 

Orf can get grit points for tough at bats and putting the ball in play all he wants, he's not going to be standing on base very often due to the fact that he has no power and not great speed. MLB pitchers will throw it right at him and the outfield will be standing halfway into the infield. There's nowhere to put it.

 

He won't be hitting in a cavernous field where fielders have a gigantic outfield to cover and breaking balls don't break anymore while the ball also flies farther. He'll be facing MLB shifts, MLB fielders, MLB pitching, and generally standard field conditions (unless he comes up tomorrow through Sunday).

 

So while Orf is an unknown, you do the best to project what you think, because we have 100 "unknowns" in our minors system. I played high school ball and was a decent hitter. I'm sure Stearns and his team would project me to an .030 batting average with a .050 OBP, but you never know, right? I could catch lightning in a bottle and out-hit Eric Sogard.

 

They must think that Franklin/Sogard/Saladino have slightly better tools to put up a .650-.700 OPS in the majors and have better positional flexibility than what they think Orf would be.

 

For a (probably better) comparable to Orf, check out Ivan De Jesus. Got a few cups of coffee in his mid-20s and stunk but always hit well in the minors. Finally got a full chance at ages 28 and 29 and was bad. He's now back hitting in the extreme hitter's environment of Colorado Springs and looking like Prime Ichiro, just like Orf.

 

Or take a look at Nick Buss if you want to see inflated older prospect PCL batting averages in practice.

[tmwiese55]

It's like you're literally ignoring the whole point and everything I said just to argue and basically say anything could happen, of course. Thanks.

[bill hAll Star]

It's like you're literally ignoring the whole point and everything I said just to argue and basically say anything could happen, of course. Thanks.

 

Your point is literally "anything could happen."

[tmwiese55]

It's like you're literally ignoring the whole point and everything I said just to argue and basically say anything could happen, of course. Thanks.

 

Your point is literally "anything could happen."

 

Nope, it's that the other guys haven't had a chance yet therefor you don't know what will happen whereas the other guys have had 3-4 cracks already so you know what you have. And your point is to say you don't know that, anything can happen, the other guys could be good too and none of this is known for sure. While ignoring the main point that they've already had multiple chances, the repeating same thing different result etc...

[bill hAll Star]

It's like you're literally ignoring the whole point and everything I said just to argue and basically say anything could happen, of course. Thanks.

 

Your point is literally "anything could happen."

 

Nope, it's that the other guys haven't had a chance yet therefor you don't know what will happen whereas the other guys have had 3-4 cracks already so you know what you have. And your point is to say you don't know that, anything can happen, the other guys could be good too. While ignoring the main point that they've already had multiple chances, and the repeating same thing different result saying...

 

No, my point is that if you asked many scouts or GMs, they'd probably project Nate Orf to be no better than Sogard, Franklin, Saladino and be pretty confident about it.

 

So potentially knowing that you have a .650 OPS hitter with slight, slight upside and positional flexibility is better than having a guy that you are extremely certain will cap out as a .650 OPS hitter and has less positional flexibility.

[coolhandluke121]

They should give me a chance. I haven't played organized baseball since 5th grade, but I've never been given a chance to see if I can hit major league pitching. Technically you don't know that I'd suck, whereas you do know that Franklin and Sogard suck, so why not gamble on something that actually has a chance of working out?

[bill hAll Star]

They should give me a chance. I haven't played organized baseball since 5th grade, but I've never been given a chance to see if I can hit major league pitching. Technically you don't know that I'd suck, whereas you do know that Franklin and Sogard suck, so why not gamble on something that actually has a chance of working out?

 

That was exactly my extreme example I gave him, but it was written off.

 

It sounds like a stupid example to give, but it's still relevant. The idea that "we don't know, these other guys stink so try something new" could be applied on everyone.

[tmwiese55]

Nope, it's that the other guys haven't had a chance yet therefor you don't know what will happen whereas the other guys have had 3-4 cracks already so you know what you have. And your point is to say you don't know that, anything can happen, the other guys could be good too. While ignoring the main point that they've already had multiple chances, and the repeating same thing different result saying...

 

No, my point is that if you asked many scouts or GMs, they'd probably project Nate Orf to be no better than Sogard, Franklin, Saladino and be pretty confident about it.

 

So potentially knowing that you have a .650 OPS hitter with slight, slight upside and positional flexibility is better than having a guy that you are extremely certain will cap out as a .650 OPS hitter and has less positional flexibility.

 

 

 

Which I acknowledged too. Some of it you do have some of it where you just have to trust the experts as it's their job. Even though so far that expertise has been very bad for a while now here. Yet you're arguing. I'm merely saying the logic of why people are saying give Orf a crack is the reason I'm saying, and you're somehow arguing it.

 

Is it right, who knows, but that's the logic. You know what you have in those older castoffs, you don't in these other guys, give it a shot.

 

Now repeat the same thing and that the old guys might do better, we don't know, which we don't because none of this exact. Even though I said the same thing. I mean, I don't know why we bother on a site like this if you're stance is the team is smarter than us and just accept. Generally speaking of course that's true, but the whole point of the site is to have a little discussion and you're apparent point is that they're the scout so they're right so what are we talking about. Welp, might as well just fold up the site.

[tmwiese55]

They should give me a chance. I haven't played organized baseball since 5th grade, but I've never been given a chance to see if I can hit major league pitching. Technically you don't know that I'd suck, whereas you do know that Franklin and Sogard suck, so why not gamble on something that actually has a chance of working out?

 

That was exactly my extreme example I gave him, but it was written off.

 

It sounds like a stupid example to give, but it's still relevant. The idea that "we don't know, these other guys stink so try something new" could be applied on everyone.

 

And so clearly refuted already in another post. These guys are all about the same thing. You're not comparing or choosing them between me or you. But continue to be that obtuse on it to try and be funny. It contributes a lot. Thanks.

[bill hAll Star]

Now repeat the same thing and that the old guys might do better, we don't know, which we don't because none of this exact. Even though I said the same thing. I mean, I don't know why we bother on a site like this if you're stance is the team is smarter than us and just accept. Generally speaking of course that's true, but the whole point of the site is to have a little discussion and you're apparent point is that they're the scout so they're right so what are we talking about. Welp, might as well just fold up the site.

 

Orf is has literally been passed on TWICE by the entire league when exposed for the taking. I'm sure if someone believed in him, they'd have called Stearns, offered a bag of baseballs and some Kirk Nieuwenhuis-type player and they'd have a deal. All 30 teams are likely "smarter" than us in this one.

 

Yes, the site is here to have discussion. We're having it. You can have your opinion but we'll obviously because we disagree in some senses.

 

It's hard to find anyone with the profile that Orf has that has succeeded in the majors. Even Tommy La Stella showed more power in the minors. I'm just trying to explain what I think most of baseball sees in him.

[MrTPlush]

I know we are desperate for better hitting, but Nate Orf? Come on guys. He didn’t hit till getting to Colorado. Heck he is 28 I’d expect him to hit anywhere in AAA. The only other place he put up really good stats was as a 23 year old in rookie ball. Players like him and half our filler in AAA puts up MVP numbers. You are kidding yourself if you think he can hit better than current options. The odds are stupidly low. He is MiLB roster filler.

[bill hAll Star]

They should give me a chance. I haven't played organized baseball since 5th grade, but I've never been given a chance to see if I can hit major league pitching. Technically you don't know that I'd suck, whereas you do know that Franklin and Sogard suck, so why not gamble on something that actually has a chance of working out?

 

That was exactly my extreme example I gave him, but it was written off.

 

It sounds like a stupid example to give, but it's still relevant. The idea that "we don't know, these other guys stink so try something new" could be applied on everyone.

 

And so clearly refuted already in another post. These guys are all about the same thing. You're not comparing or choosing them between me or you. But continue to be that obtuse on it to try and be funny. It contributes a lot. Thanks.

 

It's not to be funny, but fine.

 

OK, replace me or CHL21 with someone that is a projected career AA or AAA player. They might be a better option than Sogard, Saladino, and Franklin and we know that Sogard, Franklin, and Saladino stink...so try them, right?

 

I guess my whole point of contention here is that Orf may literally be getting consideration here because he plays in Colorado Springs.

 

If we were in the International League and Orf had a .780 OPS at age 28 with a solid .270/.340 avg/OBP, his name may never be brought up as an option. That's barely over what his road stats are. But because he has inflated CS numbers, it appears that he's turned into this hitting machine that could bring that to the majors. I think he's a .280/.340 career minor league guy under normal circumstances that given his lack of power is very likely to put up a .240/.290 line with no power in the majors.

[tmwiese55]

Haven't Franklin and Sogard been cut and passed over several times too. Chances are they're all AAAA players. I merely stated the logic as to why some would rather give a new guy a shot vs trotting out guys who've had 4 shots and failed every time. I get both ways, generally lean towards trying a new guy. But you're basically saying they're right and that's it, don't question it. Which would kill all discussion here because you could say it about everything.

 

Chances are you're ending up with next to no hitting from any of them. For this specific example, from what I read here is that Orf would be better at IF D and can play SS better. If I'm getting that scouting report wrong, I apologize. Plus IMO, being righty should be an advantage to because it's opposite of what Villar is good at. So those things combined with what I said about trying something new while knowing none are likely to hit well I'd have gone that route.

[coolhandluke121]

They should give me a chance. I haven't played organized baseball since 5th grade, but I've never been given a chance to see if I can hit major league pitching. Technically you don't know that I'd suck, whereas you do know that Franklin and Sogard suck, so why not gamble on something that actually has a chance of working out?

 

That was exactly my extreme example I gave him, but it was written off.

 

It sounds like a stupid example to give, but it's still relevant. The idea that "we don't know, these other guys stink so try something new" could be applied on everyone.

 

And so clearly refuted already in another post. These guys are all about the same thing. You're not comparing or choosing them between me or you. But continue to be that obtuse on it to try and be funny. It contributes a lot. Thanks.

 

What's obtuse is thinking that Orf is any more likely to perform above his talent level than Sogard or Franklin. He's probably less likely to. Saying you know Sogard and Franklin are going to be terrible next month but you don't know if Orf will be is not valid scouting. It's hot air.

[bill hAll Star]

Haven't Franklin and Sogard been cut and passed over several times too. Chances are they're all AAAA players. I merely stated the logic as to why some would rather give a new guy a shot vs trotting out guys who've had 4 shots and failed every time. I get both ways, generally lean towards trying a new guy. But you're basically saying they're right and that's it, don't question it. Which would kill all discussion here because you could say it about everything.

 

Chances are you're ending up with next to no hitting from any of them. For this specific example, from what I read here is that Orf would be better at IF D and can play SS better. If I'm getting that scouting report wrong, I apologize. Plus IMO, being righty should be an advantage to because it's opposite of what Villar is good at. So those things combined with what I said about trying something new while knowing none are likely to hit well I'd have gone that route.

 

I would actually give Orf a chance, as strange as that sounds. I wouldn't hate it.

 

I just don't understand why it is imperative that we do if we think he's even worse than the options we have.

 

Just asking, if Orf was hitting .280/.350/.420 in his 3rd season at AAA playing for the Indianapolis Indians at age 28 with 3 homers on the entire season, would you even be discussing him right now?

[tmwiese55]

Sigh... carry on.

[And That]

He didn’t hit till getting to Colorado.

He's been an above- to well-above- average hitter every year except for 2016, when he was about average for his league(s).

 

Whether you want to look at wRC+: https://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa579765&position=2B

 

Or WARP: https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/card/103573/nathan-orf (5.2 WARP in 2015!)

[tmwiese55]

We knew Drake sucked right? Would you have preferred giving him a month like we did or going with Houser/Williams or literally anyone else on the fring of MLB right away? I know which I would have done.

[bill hAll Star]

We knew Drake sucked right? Would you have preferred giving him a month like we did or going with Houser/Williams or literally anyone else on the fring of MLB right away? I know which I would have done.

 

That's different. Houser and Williams are projected major league talent.

[bill hAll Star]

He didn’t hit till getting to Colorado.

He's been an above- to well-above- average hitter every year except for 2016, when he was about average for his league(s).

 

Whether you want to look at wRC+: https://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa579765&position=2B

 

Or WARP: https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/card/103573/nathan-orf (5.2 WARP in 2015!)

 

He was also one of the older players at each level.

 

Saladino put up great wRC+ numbers the past few years at AAA when he was "older" for those leagues and also at AA once he matured into it. He struggled earlier on but he was also in his early 20s.

 

Sogard and Franklin also put up good wRC+es at younger ages.

 

There is context to this instead of just plugging wRC+ in.

[tmwiese55]

We knew Drake sucked right? Would you have preferred giving him a month like we did or going with Houser/Williams or literally anyone else on the fring of MLB right away? I know which I would have done.

 

That's different. Houser and Williams are projected major league talent.

 

It lays out the logic perfectly though. Our coaches/scouts said Drake projected better so why would you question it? They should go that route then. Turns out they were wrong.

 

Again, I'm just saying the logic of knowing who sucks and trying something else rather than repeating the same thing and hoping it'll be different this time. Is it just a bit of fandom and stuff you can only really say because we don't have all the info/scouting/expertise. Yea probably, but that's the whole point of the board. But in a lot of cases, it's true in all kinds of things in life and in many sports. Basically, sometimes just gotta try something new. And sometimes guys just continue to beat projections/expectations in all sports if given shots.

[bill hAll Star]

We knew Drake sucked right? Would you have preferred giving him a month like we did or going with Houser/Williams or literally anyone else on the fring of MLB right away? I know which I would have done.

 

That's different. Houser and Williams are projected major league talent.

 

It lays out the logic perfectly though. Our coaches/scouts said Drake projected better so why would you question it? They should go that route then. Turns out they were wrong.

 

Lol, you can convince yourself it's logic.

 

Instead, the scouts/coaches projected Drake to be a better fit given Drake's standing on the MLB roster compared to Houser/Williams, both of which had just progressed to the MLB level.

 

Both Houser and Williams project to guys that could stick in the majors. Orf does not. That's a difference.

 

Houser and Williams are like Hiura in this case. We can be pretty sure that Hiura is better than Sogard, Villar, etc. but it won't be until 2019.