Mariners (Woo) vs Red Sox (Crochet): 4/24/25, 1:35pm

[Hitch]

I'm still of the mind that being full-time DH could be playing its part. 

That shot then of him looking frustrated, staring into space... you can clear your mind/get your head on the defence when you're playing the field. But when all you get to do is sit there and think about how you're not hitting...

That's a tough deal

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, jad said:

Devers is my favorite player--probably since I saw him in Portland,  But this DH b.s.?  it's not working.   I'd rather see him traded to anywhere he can play 3B (or first--just get him on the field instead of brooding in the dugout).  He shows no sign of recovering from being jerked around this spring.

 

Let's wait and see him lead the team in batting, again this year.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

A while ago, some were wondering about keeping Duran leading off, due to his slow start. In the past 2 weeks (12 games) he has a .351 OBP- not great but one of the best on the team.

Knee jerk decisions don't work all that often.

I don't consider a decision based on his production since the AS break of last year to be "knee jerk"

[Hitch]

2 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

A while ago, some were wondering about keeping Duran leading off, due to his slow start. In the past 2 weeks (12 games) he has a .351 OBP- not great but one of the best on the team.

Knee jerk decisions don't work all that often.

Agreed. People wanting to trade our cheap, 8 WAR guy is wild.

[jdc69]

Devers has been brilliant with the walks. He may be relying on them too much.

[moonslav59]

2021-2024 OPS Leaders by Season (500+ PAs)

.890 Devers 21

.879 Devers 22

.871 Devers 24 (so vrey long ago!)

.867 JD 21

.863 Bogey 21

.856 Casas 23

.851 Devers 23

4 of the top 7 and some want to trade the bum.

 

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

4 minutes ago, Hitch said:

Agreed. People wanting to trade our cheap, 8 WAR guy is wild.

.

[moonslav59]

4 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

I don't consider a decision based on his production since the AS break of last year to be "knee jerk"

He leads the team in hard hit% since the AS break, and by a healthy margin.

[moonslav59]

Just now, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

Who's a cheap 8 WAR guy?

Duran.

[moonslav59]

That's got to be it for Crochet. Yes, he's human.

Nees a strong pen game, here, and some bats coming alive.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

He leads the team in hard hit% since the AS break, and by a healthy margin.

That's great, he still batted .240 with a .727 OPS

[moonslav59]

14 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

That's great, he still batted .240 with a .727 OPS

Okay, let's assume the sample dates you hand selected are the most important and most predictive of all others, .727 is still 4th best on the team.

(I don't assume that and I don't think Devers will hit .727 from today to the end of the season. For some reason you seem to think players are locked into groundhog day.)

[moonslav59]

Heart attack AB by Raleigh

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Okay, let's assume the sample dates you hand selected are the most important and most predictive of all others, .727 is still 4th best on the team.

(I don't assume that and I don't think Devers will hit .727 from today to the end of the season. For some reason you seem to think players are locked into groundhog day.)

I simply picked a recent adequate sample size.

I believe that what he has done over the last 80 games is a lot more relevant than what he did 3 or 4 yrs ago.

Reminds me of when I worked on Wall St.. There was always that guy that pulled out his W-2 from 1999 as proof of his performance.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

woo has pitched a pretty solid game so far

[moonslav59]

6 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

I simply picked a recent adequate sample size.

I believe that what he has done over the last 80 games is a lot more relevant than what he did 3 or 4 yrs ago.

Reminds me of when I worked on Wall St.. There was always that guy that pulled out his W-2 from 1999 as proof of his performance.

Okay, buy why is last 80 games, more important than the last 100, 150, 300? Because that is the exact time, he start struggling, and it fits your narrative.

Why not pick last 21 games? .810 OPS. Why is 80 more important than 21 or 300?

I know why, to you.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Okay, buy why is last 80 games, more important than the last 100, 150, 300? Because that is the exact time, he start struggling, and it fits your narrative.

Why not pick last 21 games? .810 OPS. Why is 80 more important than 21 or 300?

I know why, to you.

Because 21 games is a small sample size. 300 games doesn't really show recency.

Pretty simple.

[Hitch]

I think you're being a little belligerent here, Moon. He clearly didn't play as well after the ASB. And he's been struggling this year so far too.

He obviously shouldn't be written off, but it's fair to question if there's a problem here. Whether it be, fitness, form or the DH thing.

[moonslav59]

Just now, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

Because 21 games is a small sample size. 300 games doesn't really show recency.

Pretty simple.

But exactly 80 games just happens to be the most important.

Yes, it's pretty simple why you chose that number.

21 shows more recency than 80. So does 50. 60. 70...

300 games is a larger sample size than 80. So does 100, 150, 200...

We all know why you selected 80 games. Doi you use 80 games for all your projections, and where do studies show that precisely 80 games is what is the best predictor of what is to come?

Selecting 80 games is subjective not objective.

Simple. 

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, Hitch said:

I think you're being a little belligerent here, Moon. He clearly didn't play as well after the ASB. And he's been struggling this year so far too.

He obviously shouldn't be written off, but it's fair to question if there's a problem here. Whether it be, fitness, form or the DH thing.

No where have I said he has played well since the AS break. I know he did poorly.

I think it was due to injury.

I'm not sure this year's slow start is due to injury. I don't think he's pouting or brooding, as some have suggested.

I do not think 22 games is a large enough sample size to project doom & gloom, and I'm not sure it should be linked to the second half of last year as some sort of proof he is no longer a good batter.

He was on pace for his career high OPS in mid July, and suddenly I'm supposed to think he is no longer good and should be demoted in the line-up or traded as some want.

It's not belligerence to point out someone is cherry-picking a timeline that fits his narrative.

I am concerned about Devers. 80 games is significant, but no more or less than looking at a few sample sizes, like  21 and 300?

He called a position of mine "nonsense," and it wasn't even something I said, and I'm belligerent?

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

5 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

But exactly 80 games just happens to be the most important.

Yes, it's pretty simple why you chose that number.

21 shows more recency than 80. So does 50. 60. 70...

300 games is a larger sample size than 80. So does 100, 150, 200...

We all know why you selected 80 games. Doi you use 80 games for all your projections, and where do studies show that precisely 80 games is what is the best predictor of what is to come?

Selecting 80 games is subjective not objective.

Simple. 

No, I simply selected the AS break last year.

The number just happened to come out to 80 games for devers. 80 games also just happens to represent roughly half a season.

So, do you really think what someone has done 3yrs ago is more relevant than what they have done recently?

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

9 minutes ago, Hitch said:

I think you're being a little belligerent here, Moon. He clearly didn't play as well after the ASB. And he's been struggling this year so far too.

He obviously shouldn't be written off, but it's fair to question if there's a problem here. Whether it be, fitness, form or the DH thing.

bingo!

[moonslav59]

Man, our offense can look so bad and so many times.

Somehow SEA has just scored 4 runs on 8 BBs.

Here is a game where maybe we can pull it out, depsite being outplayed, but not by going down 1-2-3, just about every inning.

This is so damn frustrating.

[moonslav59]

8 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

No, I simply selected the AS break last year.

The number just happened to come out to 80 games for devers. 80 games also just happens to represent roughly half a season.

So, do you really think what someone has done 3yrs ago is more relevant than what they have done recently?

You would not have picked the AS break, if you didn't know that is when he started struggling. It's been reported over and over. If it was from the start of 2024, you'd be using that sample size, because it would be even more meaningful and about as "recent."

80 games is not the criteria you use for every player and situation, and you know it.

BTW, his OPS since the start of 2024 is .842- best on the team. (164 game sample size- call it his last full season. Wouldn't that be a nice choice of sample size, too?)

Look, I'm guilty of cherry-picking timeframes to make a point, too, butI recognize it and often mentioned that is what I'm doing. I don't pretend this is my criteria I use for all player evaluations or act like it is the agreed upon time fram to judge players by.

This whole topic is gone on too long.

You believe what you want to believe. I do, too.

I'm not writing off Devers over a selected 80 game sample size. I worry it might be indicative of what is to come, but I am far from expecting hi to be a .660 to .727 batter going forward. Are you?

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

5 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

You would not have picked the AS break, if you didn't know that is when he started struggling. It's been reported over and over. If it was from the start of 2024, you'd be using that sample size, because it would be even more meaningful and about as "recent."

80 games is not the criteria you use for every player and situation, and you know it.

BTW, his OPS since the start of 2024 is .842- best on the team. (164 game sample size- call it his last full season. Wouldn't that be a nice choice of sample size, too?)

That's great. I used the sample size that coincides with his injury, as that may indicate the new normal.

But you are more than welcome to hang onto what he did 3yrs ago if that makes you feel better.

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

That's great. I used the sample size that reflects the same time frme as his injury, as that may indicate the new normal.

But you are more than welcome to hang onto what he did 3yrs ago if that makes you feel better.

Couldn't the last 21 games show he is over the injury? Couldn't hitting the ball harder than anyone else, but having bad luck be part of the reason for lower numbers?

I'm not hanging out over 3 years. I mentioned the last 162 games as another possible timeframe.

I have said I am worried about his last 80 games and whether this years poor start is related to the injury. I never said otherwise.

[Hitch]

14 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

No where have I said he has played well since the AS break. I know he did poorly.

I think it was due to injury.

I'm not sure this year's slow start is due to injury. I don't think he's pouting or brooding, as some have suggested.

I do not think 22 games is a large enough sample size to project doom & gloom, and I'm not sure it should be linked to the second half of last year as some sort of proof he is no longer a good batter.

He was on pace for his career high OPS in mid July, and suddenly I'm supposed to think he is no longer good and should be demoted in the line-up or traded as some want.

It's not belligerence to point out someone is cherry-picking a timeline that fits his narrative.

I am concerned about Devers. 80 games is significant, but no more or less than looking at a few sample sizes, like  21 and 300?

He called a position of mine "nonsense," and it wasn't even something I said, and I'm belligerent?

I get where you're coming from, but the ASB is a natural starting point.

I'm with you in that I don't think he's suddenly bad, but something is up. Even today - they're just throwing him fastball after fastball and he just cannot catch up. Pitchers aren't even trying anything else against him.

 

[moonslav59]

25 minutes ago, Hitch said:

I think you're being a little belligerent here, Moon.

Is saying this belligerent?

"But you are more than welcome to hang onto what he did 3yrs ago if that makes you feel better."

[Hitch]

7 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Is saying this belligerent?

"But you are more than welcome to hang onto what he did 3yrs ago if that makes you feel better."

I'm not interested in what either of you are saying to get rises out of each other, I'm just saying the ASB is a natural point to start from if you're worried about Devers right now.

And a lot of people are rightly worried about Devers right now.

 

[iortiz]

Keep lining up sloppy Hamilton.