Jump to content

Moncada


Buehrle>Wood

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

He is also one you have to watch to get what his impact looks like.  He changes the game just by being in the line up.,

by bWAR, which likes their defense a bit more, Moncada and TA are both at 2.1.  They easily lead the team.  The Sox have a lot of shitty players.  Moncada and TA are not even close to that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

by bWAR, which likes their defense a bit more, Moncada and TA are both at 2.1.  They easily lead the team.  The Sox have a lot of shitty players.  Moncada and TA are not even close to that.

All of this is 100% true.  What is scary is that they are putting up these numbers while raw as hell.  They both have tons of room to grow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2018 at 10:07 PM, ptatc said:

This is why they need to go to the olympic model of blood testing before they enter the sport to get a baseline. That way they do t need to test for anything. They just test to seeif the blood chemistry has changed.

I was under the impression that this is what they do now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

It’s scary that this kid is nearly a 3 WAR player right now despite the offensive flaws he came into the league with.  He’s going to be fucking stud in a year or two no matter how impatient Tom Longo & the others may be.

Where is Moncada nearly a 3 WAR player at? Fangraphs has him at 1.5 on the season.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

In his ~600 ML PAs which equates to about 1 full season, he's put up 2.6 fWAR.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying. Thought we were just talking about this season.

550 at bats and only a 2.6 war is not that impressive really. Albies has almost an equal amount of at bats and is double that in fwar. The Torres kid from NY has 240 at bats and already has close to 2.0fwar. Some real good young blood at second base these days. 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Okay. Thanks for clarifying. Thought we were just talking about this season.

550 at bats and only a 2.6 war is not that impressive really. Albies has almost an equal amount of at bats and is double that in fwar. The Torres kid from NY has 240 at bats and already has close to 2.0fwar. Some real good young blood at second base these days. 

 

You genuinely enjoy being all doom and gloom, don't you?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, [email protected] said:

Okay. Thanks for clarifying. Thought we were just talking about this season.

550 at bats and only a 2.6 war is not that impressive really. Albies has almost an equal amount of at bats and is double that in fwar. The Torres kid from NY has 240 at bats and already has close to 2.0fwar. Some real good young blood at second base these days. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

You genuinely enjoy being all doom and gloom, don't you?


I'm not sure how positively quoting some statistics of some other players = doom and gloom.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chicago White Sox said:

Because those two kids being awesome right out of the gate does NOT mean Moncada hasn't been good so far or won't be a great player with time.

But I don't see that the OP has said he won't be good.  Granted I could have missed that post.  I went back and looked and he's said that the two aforementioned players have performed better this year and he agreed with another poster that Ray Durham would be a reasonable comp and that he won't be as good as Mike Trout (not many will be).  That sure doesn't seem like doom and gloom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Juschill said:

But I don't see that the OP has said he won't be good.  Granted I could have missed that post.  I went back and looked and he's said that the two aforementioned players have performed better this year and he agreed with another poster that Ray Durham would be a reasonable comp and that he won't be as good as Mike Trout (not many will be).  That sure doesn't seem like doom and gloom.

I'd recommend reading his post history, it's literally doom & gloom all the time.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/20/2018 at 9:07 AM, Juschill said:

 


I'm not sure how positively quoting some statistics of some other players = doom and gloom.

Uhh "positively quoted" stats of 2 random players to comparatively say that the actual player being discussed is not as good as said players (and implying he never will be). If it ain't doom and gloom, it's being a pessimist to the fucking extreme for no reason. 

Edited by Chisoxmb35
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Chisoxmb35 said:

Uhh you "positively quoted" stats of 2 random players to comparatively say that the actual player being discussed is not as good as said players (and implying he never will be). If it ain't doom and gloom, it's being a pessimist to the fucking extreme for no reason. 

Please point me to where I quoted stats of two players and made a comparison.  Thanks in advance.  Try reading the entire thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoan Moncada Mahalanobis Comps
Rank Name KATOH+ Proj. WAR Actual WAR
1 Ian Stewart 8.5 3.1
2 Andrew McCutchen 14.3 34.5
3 Melvin Upton 12.6 22.4
4 D’Angelo Jimenez 13.2 7.4
5 Alex Gonzalez 14.0 6.2
6 Bobby Crosby 11.5 8.1
7 Andy Marte 13.8 0.3
8 Grady Sizemore 8.3 29.4
9 Jim Thome 12.0 27.8
10 Sean Burroughs 15.0 5.4

 

I'm sure everyone will love with Jimenez comp, lol...

       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2018 at 2:13 PM, Jose Abreu said:

And it explains why those who don't like him are often older/traditional

I would say the opposite. The "old" stats of 21 HR and 66 BRI from a 2B,would be pretty impressive. However the "new" stats of .315 OBP and  .719 OPS are less than impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2018 at 3:03 PM, Jake said:

I was under the impression that this is what they do now.

In baseball they do blood testing but not the baseline testing. They still look for certain substances but do it through blood testing not urine samples.

In the Olympic format they don't necessarily test for specific substances they just check on how the current blood sample compares to the baseline for that individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

I would say the opposite. The "old" stats of 21 HR and 66 BRI from a 2B,would be pretty impressive. However the "new" stats of .315 OBP and  .719 OPS are less than impressive.

That's true, but I was getting at batting average/errors versus WAR/DRS/range stats 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ptatc said:

In baseball they do blood testing but not the baseline testing. They still look for certain substances but do it through blood testing not urine samples.

In the Olympic format they don't necessarily test for specific substances they just check on how the current blood sample compares to the baseline for that individual.

So the following is something different/less stringent than what you're talking about?

Quote

Also, effective at the beginning of the 2013 season, both the MLB and MLB Players Association have agreed to use a "longitudinal profile program." From the press release:

In addition, beginning in the 2013 season, the parties have authorized the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-accredited Montreal Laboratory to establish a longitudinal profile program, in which a Player's baseline Testosterone/Epitestosterone (T/E) ratio and other data will be maintained by the laboratory, with strict protections for confidentiality, in order to enhance its ability to detect the use of Testosterone and other prohibited substances. The laboratory will automatically conduct Carbon Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (IRMS) analysis on all specimens that vary materially from a Player's baseline values. The laboratory also will increase the number of random IRMS analysis it conducts on specimens. The longitudinal program being implemented by the parties will be one of the most significant programs of its kind in the world.

from https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-introduces-random-unannounced-in-season-hgh-testing/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jake said:

So the following is something different/less stringent than what you're talking about?

from https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-introduces-random-unannounced-in-season-hgh-testing/

The problem is when they start it. I could be wrong but my understanding is that it doesnt start until they enter the union which is not until they reach the MLB. If they come in using PED then they will never test positive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ptatc said:

The problem is when they start it. I could be wrong but my understanding is that it doesnt start until they enter the union which is not until they reach the MLB. If they come in using PED then they will never test positive. 

I always thought it was next to impossible to keep the ratio both steady enough and low enough, but that might be something I heard from some gym dopers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...