|
Post by TheCoronaManCometh on Jun 25, 2018 16:49:56 GMT -5
I question the idea of a revolving starting lineup, because since streaks aren't predictive, you have to really base your lineup around larger sample sizes. Hence the reason why Swanson still starts over say Culberson or Camargo. I don't disagree with that premise, but what large sample size shows that Dansby deserves to be our starting SS EVERY day?
Go back over the last 5 weeks and compare Dansby's numbers to Culberson and Camargo. Five weeks is not a huge sample size, but it is big enough to be significant. If we were talking a week or two, that's different. But it's been a significant period now.
[ Well Culbersons sample size is large enough to know that you shouldn’t be starting him every day for a significant length of time. Swanson and Camargo, though, have very small sample sizes and with that you have to make your decision based off of potential, that’s why Swanson gets the nod over Camargo. In order for Camargo to get the nod over Swanson, he would really have to blow away his former expectations and also Swanson’s; he hasn’t done that yet. That’s my take on it.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 25, 2018 18:09:45 GMT -5
I don't disagree with that premise, but what large sample size shows that Dansby deserves to be our starting SS EVERY day?
Go back over the last 5 weeks and compare Dansby's numbers to Culberson and Camargo. Five weeks is not a huge sample size, but it is big enough to be significant. If we were talking a week or two, that's different. But it's been a significant period now.
[ Well Culbersons sample size is large enough to know that you shouldn’t be starting him every day for a significant length of time. Swanson and Camargo, though, have very small sample sizes and with that you have to make your decision based off of potential, that’s why Swanson gets the nod over Camargo. In order for Camargo to get the nod over Swanson, he would really have to blow away his former expectations and also Swanson’s; he hasn’t done that yet. That’s my take on it. Culberson has 584 big league career PA's. Dansby has 952. Camargo has 454.
I was surprised to see that Charlie actually had one season where he hit .293 with Colorado in 104 PA's.
Over the last month, basically playing every day, Culberson has an .872 OPS. He's also 9 for his last 29 right now, has hits in 7 of his last 8 games, and had a big 2 RBI hit yesterday.
We've had two off days in the last week, so it's not like he needs a breather. He's been a significant contributor offensively for a month. Using long term potential or large sample sizes or not, a guy should be playing when he's hitting this well. To make matters more ridiculous, he's sitting tonight now for Danny Santana.
Dansby has a career wRC+ of 78 and a career OPS of .685. Camargo has a career wRC+ of 109 and a career OPS of .790.
This season alone Camargo has a wRC+ of 118 and Dansby's is 89. And we lose nothing defensively, to say the least, when Camargo plays SS.
That's extremely significant, even though the sample sizes are not real large.
You can use the word "potential," but I'd prefer to use the word "expectations" when comparing Dansby and Camargo. Dansby was expected to be worlds better. When I watch the two play, I see at least as much potential in Camargo, and in the meantime, he's actually playing well in the field and with the bat. That should matter since we're competing.
|
|
|
Post by Drkirby on Jun 25, 2018 18:55:51 GMT -5
[ Well Culbersons sample size is large enough to know that you shouldn’t be starting him every day for a significant length of time. Swanson and Camargo, though, have very small sample sizes and with that you have to make your decision based off of potential, that’s why Swanson gets the nod over Camargo. In order for Camargo to get the nod over Swanson, he would really have to blow away his former expectations and also Swanson’s; he hasn’t done that yet. That’s my take on it. Culberson has 584 big league career PA's. Dansby has 952. Camargo has 454.
I was surprised to see that Charlie actually had one season where he hit .293 with Colorado in 104 PA's.
Over the last month, basically playing every day, Culberson has an .872 OPS. He's also 9 for his last 29 right now, has hits in 7 of his last 8 games, and had a big 2 RBI hit yesterday.
We've had two off days in the last week, so it's not like he needs a breather. He's been a significant contributor offensively for a month. Using long term potential or large sample sizes or not, a guy should be playing when he's hitting this well. To make matters more ridiculous, he's sitting tonight now for Danny Santana.
Dansby has a career wRC+ of 78 and a career OPS of .685. Camargo has a career wRC+ of 109 and a career OPS of .790.
This season alone Camargo has a wRC+ of 118 and Dansby's is 89. And we lose nothing defensively, to say the least, when Camargo plays SS.
That's extremely significant, even though the sample sizes are not real large.
You can use the word "potential," but I'd prefer to use the word "expectations" when comparing Dansby and Camargo. Dansby was expected to be worlds better. When I watch the two play, I see at least as much potential in Camargo, and in the meantime, he's actually playing well in the field and with the bat. That should matter since we're competing.
Your comment about dansby expected to be better by a wide margin by nearly everyone draws me again back to my kelly Johnson vs. Martin Prado comparison
|
|
|
Post by Drkirby on Jun 25, 2018 18:57:36 GMT -5
Expectations and prospect hype only take you so far, ask Jason Heyward, Andy Marte and so many others. Like that time Booby compared heyward to hank aaron...sigh
|
|
peteorr
Drafted
I am the best player in Phillies franchise history.
Posts: 383
Likes: 61
|
Post by peteorr on Jun 25, 2018 22:33:39 GMT -5
This conversation goes way back to the old bored and most everyone probably already knows how I feel about Swanson playing or not. To put it short, major league results at some point have to take precedent over draft position and scouting reports.
I agree with Uckery that Camargo could be better than Swanson long term given the major league sample size that we currently have. At the very least, Camargo should be starting while he is producing at the plate. Acuna will soon be back from injury. Culberson had an .876 OPS in June and has an .848 OPS in June. Continuing to give Culberson playing time while he's hitting well makes some sense.
|
|
|
Post by keystone61 on Jun 26, 2018 9:38:01 GMT -5
I really don't hesitate to say that Camargo is probably better long-term than Swanson, I really don't, at least not offensively. Hell, his defense may well be better, too. I'm really starting to think that Dansby just doesn't have what it takes to be a truly successful major league player. He has 70 more at-bats than Camargo this year already, and he has one less homer and 3 fewer RBIs, in spite of a hot start. Dansby is a good shortstop with good speed (speed is the only edge he has on Camargo), and he plays hard, but he just can't hit with any consistency at all. That's kinda important.
|
|
|
Post by Drkirby on Jun 26, 2018 9:42:07 GMT -5
I really don't hesitate to say that Camargo is probably better long-term than Swanson, I really don't, at least not offensively. Hell, his defense may well be better, too. I'm really starting to think that Dansby just doesn't have what it takes to be a truly successful major league player. He has 70 more at-bats than Camargo this year already, and he has one less homer and 3 fewer RBIs, in spite of a hot start. Dansby is a good shortstop with good speed (speed is the only edge he has on Camargo), and he plays hard, but he just can't hit with any consistency at all. That's kinda important. Not to mention Camargo started miserably
|
|
|
Post by Drkirby on Jun 26, 2018 9:43:17 GMT -5
Here’s one for you armchair Experts. Ozzie Albies or Ronald Acuna on an equal team friendly 10 year deal. (Use your imagination) which would you sign if both were willing and you could only choose one?
|
|
|
Post by keystone61 on Jun 26, 2018 10:06:32 GMT -5
Here’s one for you armchair Experts. Ozzie Albies or Ronald Acuna on an equal team friendly 10 year deal. (Use your imagination) which would you sign if both were willing and you could only choose one? With all due respect, this is not a fair question. We've seen very, very little of Juna with only 117AB, while The Great and Powerful Oz has 552 AB. That's a BIG difference. Check with me again next year about this time.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 26, 2018 10:36:05 GMT -5
One distinction I’d like to make—I’m not giving up on Dansby or saying the Braves should give up on him. I just don’t think he should be playing every single day when others are doing quite a bit better. I don’t think we have to decide right now, just give these guys equal opportunity when they are playing well and he’s slumping. I don’t think it would hurt his development one bit if he sat twice a week or so. If it did then he’s a snowflake.
|
|
|
Post by Drkirby on Jun 26, 2018 10:54:50 GMT -5
One distinction I’d like to make—I’m not giving up on Dansby or saying the Braves should give up on him. I just don’t think he should be playing every single day when others are doing quite a bit better. I don’t think we have to decide right now, just give these guys equal opportunity when they are playing well and he’s slumping. I don’t think it would hurt his development one bit if he sat twice a week or so. If it did then he’s a snowflake. I do get the Culberson has maxed his potential argument though
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 26, 2018 12:11:46 GMT -5
One distinction I’d like to make—I’m not giving up on Dansby or saying the Braves should give up on him. I just don’t think he should be playing every single day when others are doing quite a bit better. I don’t think we have to decide right now, just give these guys equal opportunity when they are playing well and he’s slumping. I don’t think it would hurt his development one bit if he sat twice a week or so. If it did then he’s a snowflake. I do get the Culberson has maxed his potential argument though I completely do too. And I get that Dansby could end up being a far better player over his career than Camargo.
|
|
Cheaters2
Low A Farmhand
Is really CheatersRus
All Seeing
Posts: 762
Likes: 55
|
Post by Cheaters2 on Jun 26, 2018 19:51:26 GMT -5
When discussing Dansby and Johan we have people who believe Dansby should get the Nod over Johan because of what the scouts their potential should be. My question is can you really give any substance to that? they both took very different paths to where they are today. Swanson always had access to the best training and coaching growing up. camargo probably not so much. when Swanson was drafted he was evaluated as a 21yr old when they did Johan's original evaluation he was much younger and once players hit the minors those evaluations don't change much.plus Johan has grown into his body a little later than Swanson. if they were both re-evaluated at age 23 what would they rate? would Swanson still rate a 60 hit? /
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 26, 2018 20:14:24 GMT -5
When discussing Dansby and Johan we have people who believe Dansby should get the Nod over Johan because of what the scouts their potential should be. My question is can you really give any substance to that? they both took very different paths to where they are today. Swanson always had access to the best training and coaching growing up. camargo probably not so much. when Swanson was drafted he was evaluated as a 21yr old when they did Johan's original evaluation he was much younger and once players hit the minors those evaluations don't change much.plus Johan has grown into his body a little later than Swanson. if they were both re-evaluated at age 23 what would they rate? would Swanson still rate a 60 hit?/ Not if major league quality breaking balls were part of the equation.
|
|
Cheaters2
Low A Farmhand
Is really CheatersRus
All Seeing
Posts: 762
Likes: 55
|
Post by Cheaters2 on Jun 27, 2018 1:41:25 GMT -5
When discussing Dansby and Johan we have people who believe Dansby should get the Nod over Johan because of what the scouts their potential should be. My question is can you really give any substance to that? they both took very different paths to where they are today. Swanson always had access to the best training and coaching growing up. camargo probably not so much. when Swanson was drafted he was evaluated as a 21yr old when they did Johan's original evaluation he was much younger and once players hit the minors those evaluations don't change much.plus Johan has grown into his body a little later than Swanson. if they were both re-evaluated at age 23 what would they rate? would Swanson still rate a 60 hit?/ Not if major league quality breaking balls were part of the equation. but Harper would still rate a 100 hit cuz he's the bestest ever
|
|