Minor League Week 4 games (5/25 - 5/30/21)

[CATS44]

The Indians inability to develop hitters is due to the fact that they spent years drafting and signing kids who couldn't consistently hit a baseball. They have noticeably changed the profile of what sort of bat they are looking for. The first wave is soon to arrive.

We shall see what happens, but bet on the new kids with contact skills.

Brantley isn't some kind of aberration. He is what good hitters used to be. It used to be an embarrassment to strike out. Now, batters just shrug and saunter back to the dugout.

I find it strange that fans who decry the lack of action in todays game, praise Dunn over Brantley.

Dunn is the problem. Brantley is the answer.

*************

Zimmer isn't any better than what he was. He is merely super lucky in a SSS. He still Ks at the same rate and he still doesn't make solid contact.

 

[mopete12]

The Indians inability to develop hitters is due to the fact that they spent years drafting and signing kids who couldn't consistently hit a baseball. They have noticeably changed the profile of what sort of bat they are looking for. The first wave is soon to arrive.

We shall see what happens, but bet on the new kids with contact skills.

Brantley isn't some kind of aberration. He is what good hitters used to be. It used to be an embarrassment to strike out. Now, batters just shrug and saunter back to the dugout.

I find it strange that fans who decry the lack of action in todays game, praise Dunn over Brantley.

Dunn is the problem. Brantley is the answer.

*************

Zimmer isn't any better than what he was. He is merely super lucky in a SSS. He still Ks at the same rate and he still doesn't make solid contact.

No one praised Dunn over Brantley in regards to action in today’s game. Dunn is objectively slightly better than Brantley using OPS+. That’s a complete straw man.

 

[CATS44]

The mentioning of Dunns OPS+ was certainly a way of saying that Dunn, a true 3 outcome batter, was slightly more valuable of a hitter than Brantley. And Dunn didn't have to hit against this new wave of pitching. He would have been almost helpless.

Anyway, as some often say, the proof is in the pudding.

The best offensive players we have had in the last decade have been Choo, Brantley, Kipnis, Santana, JRam, and Lindor. All began their careers with solid contact skills, and built from there. Only Santana, and to some extent, Kipnis, showed much inclination for power.

Their profiles as young pros looked a lot closer to the kids we have now than those of Bradley, Jones, Zimmer, Frazier, et al.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

The mentioning of Dunns OPS+ was certainly a way of saying that Dunn, a true 3 outcome batter, was slightly more valuable of a hitter than Brantley. And Dunn didn't have to hit against this new wave of pitching. He would have been almost helpless.

Anyway, as some often say, the proof is in the pudding.

The best offensive players we have had in the last decade have been Choo, Brantley, Kipnis, Santana, JRam, and Lindor. All began their careers with solid contact skills, and built from there. Only Santana, and to some extent, Kipnis, showed much inclination for power.

Their profiles as young pros looked a lot closer to the kids we have now than those of Bradley, Jones, Zimmer, Frazier, et al.

I think you're reading into things and finding what you want a bit much.

You're narrowing your analysis to just the Indians, instead of all of baseball, which seems arbitrary.

You're applying characteristics you want.

I don't think it's any surprise that good hitters are good hitters. That's not exactly an earth-shattering revelation.

I also think a few posts back you made some leaps about guys with good bat-to-ball skills being able to place the hits and beat the shift. Those assumptions have been made frequently, and I'm not sure they hold much water. Unless you're Tony Gwynn, I don't think you're placing your hits--and just like a pull-hitter, the defense will position their players based on where you hit the ball the most frequently.

 

[CDAV45]

The mentioning of Dunns OPS+ was certainly a way of saying that Dunn, a true 3 outcome batter, was slightly more valuable of a hitter than Brantley. And Dunn didn't have to hit against this new wave of pitching. He would have been almost helpless.

Anyway, as some often say, the proof is in the pudding.

The best offensive players we have had in the last decade have been Choo, Brantley, Kipnis, Santana, JRam, and Lindor. All began their careers with solid contact skills, and built from there. Only Santana, and to some extent, Kipnis, showed much inclination for power.

Their profiles as young pros looked a lot closer to the kids we have now than those of Bradley, Jones, Zimmer, Frazier, et al.

No, you're twisting things again to suit your argument. I clearly stated that and I quote "Most of us would take Brantley everyday of the week and twice on Sunday over Dunn". The point was to show that the value of a hitter like Dunn may be underestimated in these conversations. Macbdog use the comparison of Brantley to Dunn. I merely pointed out that Dunns' OPS+ was higher than Brantley's.

I'd say your list of hitters in the last decade is pretty accurate. There is one in there though that is more valuable than the rest, and do you know why he's more valuable?

I'm curious how you seem to think that the Indians are suddenly in line with your "drafting hitters" philosophy. I have no idea what you're referring to because they're recent strategies have been influenced more by the monetary amounts allotted for each round and how saving money in the first round can help them sign a more significant players in the rounds after.

All of Bradley, Zimmer, Jones, and Frazier were excellent hitters when drafted. Your use of hindsight has your ideology f'd up.

 

[Gson]

... recent strategies have been influenced more by the monetary amounts allotted for each round and how saving money in the first round can help them sign a more significant players in the rounds after.....

...not to weigh in on an obviously subjective conversation...so I won't, but a piece of your comment InRe the draft strategy:

..a personal pet peeve..

HTF can you get a better player or a more significant player by paying less and drafting later?.. The only example I can come up with is Mike Trout and Randle Grichuk.. otherwise.. I don't see it...

btw.. that's how the Indians ended up with Naquin.. and not Giolito..

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

...not to weigh in on an obviously subjective conversation...so I won't, but a piece of your comment InRe the draft strategy:

..a personal pet peeve..

HTF can you get a better player or a more significant player by paying less and drafting later?.. The only example I can come up with is Mike Trout and Randle Grichuk.. otherwise.. I don't see it...

btw.. that's how the Indians ended up with Naquin.. and not Giolito..

Because the MLB Draft is complex, and isn't like other drafts due to the slots and money associated with it, as well as the high school talent that can opt to go into college instead of into the minor leagues.

If you need an example, Nolan Jones.

 

[CATS44]

No, you're twisting things again to suit your argument. I clearly stated that and I quote "Most of us would take Brantley everyday of the week and twice on Sunday over Dunn". The point was to show that the value of a hitter like Dunn may be underestimated in these conversations. Macbdog use the comparison of Brantley to Dunn. I merely pointed out that Dunns' OPS+ was higher than Brantley's.

I'd say your list of hitters in the last decade is pretty accurate. There is one in there though that is more valuable than the rest, and do you know why he's more valuable?

I'm curious how you seem to think that the Indians are suddenly in line with your "drafting hitters" philosophy. I have no idea what you're referring to because they're recent strategies have been influenced more by the monetary amounts allotted for each round and how saving money in the first round can help them sign a more significant players in the rounds after.

All of Bradley, Zimmer, Jones, and Frazier were excellent hitters when drafted. Your use of hindsight has your ideology f'd up.

This is simply not correct...on several counts.

First, the recent drafting and signing strategy is to bring in kids with plus to elite hit tools...preferably switch hitters.

Freeman, Rocchio, Bracho, Polancios, and several others fit that description, with hit tools that range from 55 to 70. Its is a noticeable trend that has been written about in multiple articles...one of which I quoted earlier. This is esp true with the international signings.

We do draft/sign other types (Jones, Valera), but the focus is kids with quick bats who make contact.

Conversely, past drafting has focused on big bats that can't make contact...Bradleys hit tool was rated 30-35. Zimmers 35-40. Frazier 40-50. Johnson is 40-45. Chang is 35-40.

Only Frazier was considered average, with a projection of being somewhat better than average.

 

[Criznit]

You guys mind moving this off a minor league game thread?

Thanks.