You are viewing the chat in desktop mode. Click here to switch to mobile view.
X
Kiley McDaniel Chat - 1/9/19
powered byJotCast
Prev Page View Full Chat Next Page
AvatarKiley McDaniel
12:59
But I also read an article about hitters knowing this and they talked about swinging differently with a runner on first because of this truth
Reid
1:00
Can you explain the hype around Shrevyn Newton?
AvatarKiley McDaniel
1:00
He's very good and projects to improve? Here's the full report: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/top-25-prospects-new-york-mets/
Fangraphs reader
1:00
Any other J2 names connected to a specific team other than Puason?
AvatarKiley McDaniel
1:01
I've heard Puason with Oakland and Dominguez with the Yankees, both for near the whole pool amount
Miami
1:02
More concerning for Dylan Cease becoming a ML starter- Injury history or development of 3rd pitch?
AvatarKiley McDaniel
1:02
Both? Wrote at length about him after I saw him here: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/should-we-adjust-how-we-evaluate-pitching-...
Kasvot Vaxt
1:02
Is Freddy Tarnok the real deal?
AvatarKiley McDaniel
1:03
I'd wait until this year, but the markers are there for a breakout
Danny
1:03
Soooo is BVW about to get flooded with calls on Vientos, Mauricio, SWR, Newton and Santos now? Or do you think he is conscious that he had a lot of lower level guys with upside and was comfortable trading 1-2 away because of that depth?
AvatarKiley McDaniel
1:03
The teams generally know more than we do about their own players
Every now and then there's a specific instance where we have an edge, but it's rare...for obvious reasons
carrotjuice
1:05
Why does Bumgarner, projected for 2.1 WAR, have $12-15M surplus? Hopes that he can regain his 2016 self?
AvatarKiley McDaniel
1:07
It's an estimate, but 2.1 seems a little light to me. He's making $12 million, so 2.5-3.0 WAR seems a little closer and also what the acquiring team is probably expecting/SF would require to trade a franchise face type. But yes, 2.1 WAR at $12M might be more like $8M, which would be just below Turang, but still a 45 FV type. It's right about that area in a 1-for-1.
Noah Syndergaard
1:08
Giminez is way higher than Alonso on THE BOARD. What happened between end of the year and the Mets list?
AvatarKiley McDaniel
1:08
They both went to the Arizona Fall League and we also talked to more people/got more data
And they're still within 20-30 spots in both instances...in the middle of a top 100 that's a tiny difference
Dan
1:09
Not including international signings, 11 of the Braves' top 12 prospects were drafted in 1st or 2nd rounds and have 45+ FV. Is this fairly common or does this highlight the skill (or luck?) of their scouting department?
AvatarKiley McDaniel
1:09
There's lots of lists where the top is all top 50 overall picks and top 15 July 2 bonuses
Purple Mays Haze
1:09
Steamer600 has Tyler O'Neill as .243 32 HR/ 7 SB with a 108 wRC+ and 2.0 WAR as a 23 year old in his first real year in MLB. Should he not be a no doubt top 25 prospect?
AvatarKiley McDaniel
1:10
Lost eligibility, was around 50th on the list until that happened
I believe he lost eligibility by 1 AB or something very close, though
Kiermaier's Piercing Green Eyes
1:11
Do you have a link to the relevant podcast where you saw Franco at 14?
AvatarKiley McDaniel
cheapskate drifter
1:11
is there a particular reason why baseball seems so more quantifiable compared to other sports?  (or is my premise wrong to begin with)
AvatarKiley McDaniel
1:12
It is, there's a reason Moneyball happened in baseball first. Every interaction is quantified. Think of quantifying two identical runnings backs at the same competitive level where one has the best O-Line in the league and a run heavy offense versus the worst O-Line in the league and a pass heavy offense
That's still hard to quantify
Guest
1:12
When are you and Eric going to do another podcast?
AvatarKiley McDaniel
1:12
Recording today
Beane Machine
1:12
Would you tag Kyler Murray with a “sleeper/breakout candidate” label. (Not in terms of public notoriety but rather baseball ability/performance)
AvatarKiley McDaniel
1:13
He hasn't been super widely scouted (no pro scout has ever seen him) and he's played so little, that we don't know if his instincts/pitch selection may get dramatically better or this is it
Cotty
1:13
Seems like your FV grades are often conservative compared to other publications. Does everyone use the scale the same way you do: pegging it to a future win expectancy?
AvatarKiley McDaniel
1:13
Well the term literally was never used on the internet before we used it
1:14
And I took it from one of the teams I worked for because it was a foundation in WAR
so I'd generally say the way we use it is the most accurate way
We also recalibrate it pretty often as well
And now have a track record of being consistent so a 40+ FV is worth so many millions or whatever
1:18
That's not to say that it's perfect or we're geniuses. We still talk about using other systems or enhancing this one
For instance, a system that calls a prospect 70/high risk is useful in that you know a player's
"upside" is a 70 and it's unlikely
1:19
but that same system would say Jose Ramirez's upside when he was in Double-A was probably 45/medium
Connecting…