22 replies to this topic

[BSLSteveBirrer]

So I tried to ask this question in the other Holliday thread but no takers so I'll try a more direct approach.

 

Assumption: Holliday is clearly ready after ST for major league baseball. Its irrelevant what being ready means. Everybody can have their own metrics. Just assume that he's ready per your metrics.

 

Through the month of April the O's will play 29 games and its not too difficult set of opponents. So here's the question. How many more games would you need to project the O's to win with him in the lineup to warrant keeping him on the OD roster.

 

1. Irrelevant to me. If he's ready then he's on the OD roster.

2. 1 or 2 wins better or I would send him down.

3. If its not at least 3 wins better then I am sending him down.

3. Irrelevant to me. I am starting him in AAA no matter what. The extra year of service time is too valuable.

 

I am flip flopping between 2 and 3. April wins count just as much as September wins.

[Ravens2006]

My general belief is that when a guy is likely to help you win games in the majors, bring him up. Don't care about service time games, your job as an organization is to win games now and later, and it's on the org to retain players and/or develop the next wave.

So if they think Holliday's ready and his skills are better than someone else that would otherwise get an opening day roster spot... bring him north and roll on. I go with option 1... if he's ready then he's ready.

[BaltBird 24]

I don't think we're much worse, if not better, with a month or two of Urias.

I'd rather have the extra year of Holiday 6 or 7 years from now.

[mweb08]

I don't think assuming he's ready is great for this exercise because I'd assume many people would then exclude the possibility of him being poor or worse in April, which is a very really possibility imo.

The somewhat random sequencing of hits, great plays, and mistakes as well as the streakiness of players over the small sample of a month can cause a lot of variance in win totals.

So 2 wins is possible due to that, so is negative 2 for that matter.

However, I'd say Holliday is more likely to be roughly on par with Urias/Norby/Mateo in WAR or WPA than 1+ better or worse. 2-3 would be crazy as a projection, but could happen again due to the limited sample. That would project out to 12-18 WAR or WPA for the season while also assuming whoever plays instead is a zero. And I'm actually underselling this because I just did multiplied by 6 with leaves 12 more games unaccounted for. 

[CantonJester]

I can’t believe Holliday within his first 30 days would be a 2 win bump to the O’s IF vs the IF as presently constructed. Maybe a half win. 

[Mackus]

Expecting 3 wins in a month is insane.  Only a few guys in the sport are even worth half that much.  I don't think you can treat this like a math equation if you're comparing something as non-individual as team record.  

 

I think if you think micro, you could probably find an example where Holiday makes a key contribution to some number of wins, or key mistakes in some number of losses.  But I don't think you can just add those up and come up with a X wins better with Holliday than the alternative if we send him down.

[Mackus]

The only team-level comparison I'd consider for a call on Holliday is how much better/worse I think he is compared to the alternatives we would choose if he is demoted (mostly Urias, little bit of Mateo, perhaps something more exciting but also volatile like Norby or Mayo). Right now I think the Holliday advantage is relatively minor, so I'd opt to send him down and (likely) get the extra year of control.  If I thought he was clearly better - say like how I think Westburg is clearly better than Urias right now - then I'd call him up.

 

I'd consider timing of his learning curve a bit too.  If he's gonna struggle for a while whenever he comes up, I'd rather get that out of the way early.  But I'd listen to an argument that you think his adjustment period might be briefer if he were called up later after some more AAA experience.  Not sure I think you can project that, but not sure I think you can't either.

[dude]

Sorry, I didn't see this.  I answered it in the other thread. 

 

I'll remove it there and put it here if you want.

[dude]

2. 1 or 2 wins better or I would send him down.

3. If its not at least 3 wins better then I am sending him down.

 

I'm just curious if you understand what you are saying here.

[dude]

In 1967, Yaz won the MVP with an OPS of 1.040 and a WAR of 12.4.  That is the highest modern (the leaders above Yaz are all late-1800s and early 1900s guys) WAR for any position player.

 

At his craziest levels, Bonds was just under 12 WAR.

 

Your #3 option suggests Holliday is an 18 WAR player.

 

You think Jackson Holliday, at 20 years old with one professional season under his belt is 50% better than the best results of All-Time.

 

Cool.

[mweb08]

The alternative is quite likely better than replacement value as well.

[dude]

Let's see...using silly FG stuff....18 WAR x 11.5M/WAR ....let's go with 18 seasons (not even 40 yet).....carry the one...

 

we should sign Holliday for an 18 year, 3.75B (with a 'B') contract....only 2B more than Rubenstein just paid for part of the Orioles.  Maybe he can buy an island.  Rhode Island.

 

Scott Boras would like to meet with you.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

The only team-level comparison I'd consider for a call on Holliday is how much better/worse I think he is compared to the alternatives we would choose if he is demoted (mostly Urias, little bit of Mateo, perhaps something more exciting but also volatile like Norby or Mayo). Right now I think the Holliday advantage is relatively minor, so I'd opt to send him down and (likely) get the extra year of control. If I thought he was clearly better - say like how I think Westburg is clearly better than Urias right now - then I'd call him up.

I'd consider timing of his learning curve a bit too. If he's gonna struggle for a while whenever he comes up, I'd rather get that out of the way early. But I'd listen to an argument that you think his adjustment period might be briefer if he were called up later after some more AAA experience. Not sure I think you can project that, but not sure I think you can't either.

Your last paragraph is the potential argument here. If you believe there is a learning curve in MLB no matter when it is you come up then letting Jackson get here ASAP has some validity. Hes the top prospect in baseball and his hit tool is a legit 70. The potential is there for him to be a good bit better hitter than Urias or Mateo by July or August. Im not saying Id bet on that but he clearly offers the highest upside this year. Thats the argument for him being in Baltimore ASAP. I think you were making a similar argument for playing Cowser during his early struggles last year. The hope being he would be the best option we had in Sept and Oct vs Hicks or McKenna. Think that was when Ced was out.

[makoman]

The alternative is quite likely better than replacement value as well.

Presumably it means more of Urias, and I think it'd be reasonable to expect something like 0.3-0.4 bWAR over 20 games, even if 2022 is ignored as an outlier 2021 and 2023 were 3.8 over 200 games.

[BaltBird 24]

It's crazy that Barry Bonds had years with 1.379 OPS and 1.381 OPS and yet he never topped Yaz's 12 WAR. He did have a 12.2 OWAR in 2001, but I guess his defense was subpar, bumping him down to 11.6.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Yaz was playing LF in Fenway. He was not more valuable than Bonds. Not that anyone would really argue for Yaz but I need to make sure this is known

[mweb08]

Now let's look further into the future: What's the difference in O's record in 2030 without Holliday instead of with him?

Or push that to 2028 with a trade happening to get some value back.

[CantonJester]

Yaz was playing LF in Fenway. He was not more valuable than Bonds. Not that anyone would really argue for Yaz but I need to make sure this is known

 

Yaz’s 12.4 WAR during the 1967 season in the midst of a pitcher’s era (so extreme they even lowered the mound to get out of it) over Bonds’ (2001 season) 11.9 WAR in the midst of the steroid era in 2001 rightfully tells us what those standout seasons suggest. 

 

IMO, Given the era he did it, Yaz’s ‘67 season is probably a top ten season all time.

[mikezpen]

W/ the possible emergence of Mayo at third and Westberg's early showing, forcing Holliday into the lineup seems less and less of an issue. If the decision was today, I'd send him down.

[DuffMan]

It's crazy that Barry Bonds had years with 1.379 OPS and 1.381 OPS and yet he never topped Yaz's 12 WAR. He did have a 12.2 OWAR in 2001, but I guess his defense was subpar, bumping him down to 11.6.

His oversized neck made it difficult to turn around and track flyballs in the outfield.