Jump to content

Cameron Maybin in CF


Recommended Posts

I would say I'm fairly knowledgeable, yet I could actually imagine Stanton being better in the short terma nd perhaps the longterm. If Maybin's bat proves to be as useless as it was at the beginning of last year, it doesn't take a whole lot to be better than awful. And with Maybin and his sometimes lack of ability to hit the ball solidly, he's guilty until he proves himself innocent.

 

But the real problem is that it simply would not be best for Stanton to be up here right now when he still needs to hone skills in the minors. In fact, Maybin is probably the most obvious example of what bringing prospects up early can do. Both Maybin and Miller were tremendously rushed by Detroit on talent that they were supposed to have but simply hadn't displayed enough of in the minor leagues to show that they were capable of holding their own at the major league level. While the stagnation of both players may have happened regardless, them trying to learn skills in the majors that they should have had time to learn in the minors can't have done them any favors.

 

 

Here's what I find silly about this line of thinking:

 

I think we can all agree Maybin's biggest problem is making contact.

 

Mike Stanton struck out more often in the minors than Maybin.

 

And yet you think Stanton will have less problems making contact when he faces major league pitching?

 

That doesn't add up.

To me his biggest problem is his extremely high ground ball rate.

 

With his speed that should work for him. It does make me wonder if he'll ever meet his power potential though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that gets hit with authority during a Maybin AB is the catcher's glove when he swings and misses.

 

That's Maybin's biggest problem.

 

 

So his biggest problem is contact.

 

Nope, I said its that when he does hit the ball it is only with the power of a 13 year old.

 

 

I agree. right now how he just looks really lost and i think some of that blame should go on Pressley. He cant afford to have that long swing if he doesn't have much power. he needs a short quick swing just to make contact and use his speed thats the kind of hitter he is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we ought to let all of our players have enough playing time before we declare anything about them this year. A bigger sample size is warranted before we jump to conclusions. I realize that Maybin has a (very mediocre) history at the MLB level, but he did well in AAA last season and during his September call up. Let's give him at least 100 at bats and then evaluate him more closely.

 

I also agree with a couple of the other posters that he was facing a very tough pitcher in Santana. It's not like he looked foolish against average major league pitching. Many (good) hitters have struck out multiple times in one game against Santana. Shoot, even the great Hanley has struck out 3 times in one game (against mediocre pitching, if I recall correctly).

 

Relax. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite thing about opening day (besides Publix Chicken Tender subs) is people who are so starved for baseball that they take every little thing and blow it completely out of proportion.

 

If this game had happened in May nobody would have any comments beyond "Gaby had a bad day". We all assume that opening day has to be indicative of some larger truth, because of how much importance we put on it. But it's just one game, no different than any other. I'm no more worried about anyone than I was yesterday.

 

 

 

Sorry, but I'm kinda worried that our 1B is not stretching for balls from our infielders. That is nothing like Josh Johnson struggling...not even like Maybin having a bad day. That was just bad, and it's a fundamental thing that he did consistently wrong, today.

 

Let's start a collection for Gaby to take Yoga classes. Gym membership at Porky's gym start at $180, they have yoga & pilates classes on the weekends.

 

But seriouly, you need 3 data points to draw a line, one off game doesn't mean much...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point about the stretching thing - however far he stretches, you have to multiply by about .9, because the speed of sound is 768 mph and the throw is coming at about 1/10th of that. So, since on a play close enough where it may actually make a difference, the umpire will be looking at the base and listening for the ball.

 

In that case, whatever time a 3 foot stretch saves, 1/10th of that is lost in the longer time it will take for the sound to travel to the umpire.

 

So if my 1/5th of a step difference estimate was fair, then it should actually be less than 1/5th of a step difference (more like .18 steps), and that's an extremely small difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he should go back to doing whatever it was he did when he was awesome last September.

 

 

 

I agree, he's great in September.

 

 

 

I can't tell if you're trying to be snide or not.

 

 

 

Me? Absolutely not.

September has historically been his best month by far, in his young major league career.

 

I still don't know if you're being snide :mis2 :whistle :lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what little research I did (if anyone wants to correct me on this, feel free if I'm wrong), reaction times for auditory and visual cues are around 160-190 milliseconds, or .16-.19 seconds.

 

I think it's safe to say the tangible effects of the stretch by your calculations (which seem right to me) are largely imperceptible to the human brain.

 

If you want to make an argument about how not stretching leaves him more susceptible to bad hops and all that, there's merit to that. I just don't think it makes a tangible impact on the runner being safe or out.

 

 

I'm going to assume you've never picked up a baseball in your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what little research I did (if anyone wants to correct me on this, feel free if I'm wrong), reaction times for auditory and visual cues are around 160-190 milliseconds, or .16-.19 seconds.

 

I think it's safe to say the tangible effects of the stretch by your calculations (which seem right to me) are largely imperceptible to the human brain.

 

If you want to make an argument about how not stretching leaves him more susceptible to bad hops and all that, there's merit to that. I just don't think it makes a tangible impact on the runner being safe or out.

 

 

I'm going to assume you've never picked up a baseball in your life.

 

 

That's snide!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think auto-stretching limits your flexibility/mobility/general fielding or catching ability for that play.

 

If appropriate, you can certainly stretch in a particular direction. But auto-stretching makes it more difficult to catch the ball than otherwise. Even regarding hops; I don't see any logic as to why it's more likely that you get an "in-between hop" if you are stretching vs. not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what little research I did (if anyone wants to correct me on this, feel free if I'm wrong), reaction times for auditory and visual cues are around 160-190 milliseconds, or .16-.19 seconds.

 

I think it's safe to say the tangible effects of the stretch by your calculations (which seem right to me) are largely imperceptible to the human brain.

 

If you want to make an argument about how not stretching leaves him more susceptible to bad hops and all that, there's merit to that. I just don't think it makes a tangible impact on the runner being safe or out.

 

 

I'm going to assume you've never picked up a baseball in your life.

 

 

That's snide!

 

The point may be valid. 16 hundreths of a second is about forever in a reaction-time situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to assume you've never picked up a baseball in your life.

 

 

I'm going to assume that due to your lack of tact, you have very few friends.

 

In fact, you just lost one :(

 

Also, good post. Thanks for adding to the discussion. If I promise to pick up a baseball while I post, will you try to actually add something constructive to a discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point may be valid. 16 hundreths of a second is about forever in a reaction-time situation.

 

 

The 16 hundredths of a second is not referring to the amount of time difference, but the limit of reaction time to visual stimulus.

 

The difference between the stretched catch and non-stretched catch is not .16 seconds, but rather something like .025-.03 seconds. That is, for all intents and purposes, nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doing some rough calculations myself, I think stretching makes a considerably small difference. I wouldn't quite say it's negligible (it's pretty damn close though) but it's certainly nothing for Tommy Hutton to have a heart attack over.

 

A lot of assumptions need to be made that are pulled out of thin air (velocity and distance of throw change dramatically). Also, throws don't follow the path of a straight axis. Having said that, I agree with the estimate that we are talking about a 0.027 second difference in the ball's arrival time to the glove (I assumed the gap was closed by 1 meter). Remember that theoretically this advantage would be negated if the ball were thrown from a distance one meter furthur away (that is assuming the extra distance does not affect the throw's accuracy). That's how microscale the difference is.

 

I don't like conceptualizing this in terms of "steps" because that's far too arbitrary for me to accept. If you were to consider an approximate velocity of a player trucking down the line and extrapolate the "lost" 0.027 seconds, he might arrive about six inches short of the bag.

 

What is more telling is that the infielder could compensate for the shorter distance by throwing the ball with an initial velocity of about 2 mph faster. To me, that isn't entirely negligible, but I would wager that the time required to physically field and throw the ball would easily mask this.

 

Also, the lag in mental perception due to persistence of vision is something that I would dismiss on account of being irrelevant. The observer is solely responsible for determining which occurs first: ball reaches glove or foot hits base. Both events are subjected to the same lag caused by persistence of vision and flux of neural impulsives. In other words, it does not matter whether or not these events are cognitively deciphered fractions of a second after they occur. However, they do shed some light on how small the increment of time actually is. In that respect, I fully agree with this observation.

 

If I were a manager and my first baseman told me that he was more comfortable not stretching, I would tell him not to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stretching to either side of the bag to snag badly off-target throws is what it's about.

 

Cutting 1 or 2 or 3 feet (depending on how off-target the throw is) off the total distance of the throw isn't capable of making a difference more than 1 or 2% of the time, if that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stretching to either side of the bag to snag badly off-target throws is what it's about.

 

Cutting 1 or 2 or 3 feet (depending on how off-target the throw is) off the total distance of the throw isn't capable of making a difference more than 1 or 2% of the time, if that.

 

 

1% of the time is a lot, considering the number of potential groundouts/infield singles there are in any given year. Assuming 15 plays at first base (groundouts, beaten out singles, errors on throws, etc.) per game times 162 games ... that's 2,430 chances per year. 1% is 24 plays. In some cases, if it's on a double play ball, that could be the difference between getting out of the inning and prolonging it. Another assumption: let's say that those 24 safe plays result in 12 runs. Or even 7-8 runs (this number definitely would happen).

 

How many games is that? That's 1-2 extra games lost per season if it's 7-8 runs and 2-3 games if it's 12 runs. Not to mention the fact that if the guy doesn't like to stretch it probably means his defense as a whole sucks ass. Add another 2-3 games for overall defense. That's 4-6 games per season. We finished 6 games behind the Phillies last season. That number is not insignificant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts:

1) Can't believe that there is some defensiveness about Sanchez and his failure to stretch for throws ... it's inexcuseable, period. It's like failing to run out a ground ball or pop up.

2) Using Stanton's numbers from the minor league last year do not translate to his current ability to perform. He hit well in spring training and off some very good pitchers. His strikeout rate was a lot lower than some of the Marlin starters. His power potential is a lot higher. Having him in the outfield right now would give the Marlins a better chance of winning.... see the Atlanta Braves and Heyward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts:

1) Can't believe that there is some defensiveness about Sanchez and his failure to stretch for throws ... it's inexcuseable, period. It's like failing to run out a ground ball or pop up.

2) Using Stanton's numbers from the minor league last year do not translate to his current ability to perform. He hit well in spring training and off some very good pitchers. His strikeout rate was a lot lower than some of the Marlin starters. His power potential is a lot higher. Having him in the outfield right now would give the Marlins a better chance of winning.... see the Atlanta Braves and Heyward.

 

 

I almost replied to this post, but then I remembered who you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stretching to either side of the bag to snag badly off-target throws is what it's about.

 

Cutting 1 or 2 or 3 feet (depending on how off-target the throw is) off the total distance of the throw isn't capable of making a difference more than 1 or 2% of the time, if that.

 

 

1% of the time is a lot, considering the number of potential groundouts/infield singles there are in any given year. Assuming 15 plays at first base (groundouts, beaten out singles, errors on throws, etc.) per game times 162 games ... that's 2,430 chances per year. 1% is 24 plays. In some cases, if it's on a double play ball, that could be the difference between getting out of the inning and prolonging it. Another assumption: let's say that those 24 safe plays result in 12 runs. Or even 7-8 runs (this number definitely would happen).

 

How many games is that? That's 1-2 extra games lost per season if it's 7-8 runs and 2-3 games if it's 12 runs. Not to mention the fact that if the guy doesn't like to stretch it probably means his defense as a whole sucks ass. Add another 2-3 games for overall defense. That's 4-6 games per season. We finished 6 games behind the Phillies last season. That number is not insignificant.

 

While I appreciate the effort, I don't think your numbers are even in the right ballpark.

 

Last season our first basemen made 1334 PO. So one percent of that is 13 plays, and I think it's a little silly to to assume all of those will be called safe and not out, assuming it's as bang bang as we are saying. It's more safe to say it's something like half, so let's got with 7 plays a year where an extra runner gets on base.

 

That's something like once every 20 games. It's negligible.

 

(This is all, of course, assuming the 1% number is accurate, something none of us has any way of knowing.)

 

This is all based on assumptions, but I think you are overreacting on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reviewing everything, I think the optimal strategy is to [be ready and willing to] stretch when it seems like it will be a very, very close play.

 

Otherwise, I think the 1st baseman should stand in a sort of ready-position in order to be most ready to adjust to the ball anywhere it might end up.

 

And in the other calculations, you still have to neutralize the missed outs to a degree because of the times the stretch will harm his ability to either catch the ball for an out (due to where it goes as opposed to when it gets there) or harm his ability to catch the ball, period, with this often resulting in an extra base or the runner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts:

1) Can't believe that there is some defensiveness about Sanchez and his failure to stretch for throws ... it's inexcuseable, period. It's like failing to run out a ground ball or pop up.

2) Using Stanton's numbers from the minor league last year do not translate to his current ability to perform. He hit well in spring training and off some very good pitchers. His strikeout rate was a lot lower than some of the Marlin starters. His power potential is a lot higher. Having him in the outfield right now would give the Marlins a better chance of winning.... see the Atlanta Braves and Heyward.

 

In the form of PWG...

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  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.



×
×
  • Create New...