Jump to content
NBC Sports EDGE Forums

Trevor Story 2017 Outlook


urban2014
 Share

Recommended Posts

I guess someone who thinks Story is good defensively would also think he has tons of offensive upside too. 

But at this point, the only people who are disappointed in him losing ABs to Valaika are you and pitchers in the NL West. Except the Rockies pitchers of course, who are forced to watch the other teams' shortstops make all kinds of plays every night that Story can't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, Rainyy said:

 

And how is Story, the power-hitting SS, working out for you? Can we really expect a 15+ HR second half? I am just not seeing it. 

I never said it was going well, I just said that there aren't any better options to drop him for if you went the route I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ArcaneCharge said:

Here's the thing: I drafted Story at the beginning of the season so I could get some power from the SS position. The market for power-hitting shortstops is barren. If someone like Gyorko or Owings was available, I'd gladly drop Story for them. But there's just no one available that can fill his role in my lineup, so I'll stick with the upside.

Paul dejong has 8 hr's over the past month, that's who I swapped story for, story has 3. I'm done with the name and going for current production. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fiveohnine said:

I guess someone who thinks Story is good defensively would also think he has tons of offensive upside too. 

But at this point, the only people who are disappointed in him losing ABs to Valaika are you and pitchers in the NL West. Except the Rockies pitchers of course, who are forced to watch the other teams' shortstops make all kinds of plays every night that Story can't. 

It'd be pretty stupid of you to think he doesn't have offensive upside. You can stop talking about his defense. You think Ian Desmond would be better defensively at shortstop, your opinion is invalid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, miasma16 said:

I don't think anybody is expecting much of anything from Story at this point. But your roster is probably in a pretty sorry state if you're forced to play him every day. Dude is on my bench and has upside, as Arcane is alluding to. I think there's a good argument for holding him in plenty of situations. I'm in a 12-teamer and even further in front of second than lbjames is, and he's my bench bat. Nobody comes close to his upside on the wire at the moment. Even I'm on the fence about cutting him loose at this point, but I'm probably going to see how the next week shakes out first.

 

This is fair. I can see situations where he's rosterable. I personally had no room to hold him, even for his upside, but my one fear was that a serious playoff threat would pick him and then he'd go off. Fortunately, Story was picked up by a team basically out of contention so I feel no guilt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, miasma16 said:

It'd be pretty stupid of you to think he doesn't have offensive upside. You can stop talking about his defense. You think Ian Desmond would be better defensively at shortstop, your opinion is invalid. 

No  I said Desmond -was- in fact better, and I proved it.

But I'm glad you've finally agreed with that point and are only now discussing whether Desmond "would" be better now.

Story's only upside doesn't really belong to him. He plays in Coors. 

But that's Valaika and everyone else's upside too. The main difference being that Story strikes out at a 35% clip, which is higher than even some Rockies pitchers. Let alone all their hitters. 

The first couple months of last year is the only reason he's still even on the team. 

And like I said, that's just his bat. As important a position as SS is, he's probably hurting the team even more with his glove. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Fiveohnine said:

 

No  I said Desmond -was- in fact better, and I proved it.

But I'm glad you've finally agreed with that point and are only now discussing whether Desmond "would" be better now.

Story's only upside doesn't really belong to him. He plays in Coors. 

But that's Valaika and everyone else's upside too. The main difference being that Story strikes out at a 35% clip, which is higher than even some Rockies pitchers. Let alone all their hitters. 

The first couple months of last year is the only reason he's still even on the team. 

And like I said, that's just his bat. As important a position as SS is, he's probably hurting the team even more with his glove. 

 

Not that I want to get in the middle of this measuring contest, but how exactly can anyone "prove" Desmond was a better SS than Story?  There's barely any measurable statistics taken on the defensive side of the ball, and those aren't even that accurate.  But Desmond did have a much higher error rate and much lower fielding percentage than Story does.  Desmond rated higher in range-type stats, but those are very subjective at best, and at worst I don't think Story's range is so horrid that one could say he's hurting the team even more with the glove than he does with his bat.

 

I also don't think we need to use any kind of questionable / subjective evidence to show that Story isn't helping the Rockies this year - he's providing plenty of solid proof with his K-rate and lack of counting stats.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian Desmond is probably the worst fundamental SS not named Brad Miller who's played the position the last 5 years. There's a lot of things that advanced metrics don't show with those guys.  Both Miller and Desmond are good athletes.  But both have horrible fundamentals with their footwork.  Neither can consistently make the quick fire throws that the position demands without giving fans souvenirs consistently.  Desmond could play SS.  But he's likely to make his pitchers get 4 outs an inning quite often when they are already at a disadvantage pitching half their games in Coors.  

Edited by Cmilne23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, handyandy86 said:

 

Not that I want to get in the middle of this measuring contest, but how exactly can anyone "prove" Desmond was a better SS than Story?  There's barely any measurable statistics taken on the defensive side of the ball, and those aren't even that accurate.  But Desmond did have a much higher error rate and much lower fielding percentage than Story does.  Desmond rated higher in range-type stats, but those are very subjective at best, and at worst I don't think Story's range is so horrid that one could say he's hurting the team even more with the glove than he does with his bat.

That's a better argument than you made back on page 41, when you said Story was better defensively because we should ignore all of Desmond's UZR/150 except the first few months. 

This time your only failure is the suggestion that UZR doesn't factor in errors. It does. 

9 hours ago, handyandy86 said:

I also don't think we need to use any kind of questionable / subjective evidence to show that Story isn't helping the Rockies this year - he's providing plenty of solid proof with his K-rate and lack of counting stats.  

Ok. We agree. Thanks for repeating what I said though. 

Maybe Story is "swinging with an uppercut", which was your moronic hitting instruction on page 52. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cmilne23 said:

Ian Desmond is probably the worst fundamental SS not named Brad Miller who's played the position the last 5 years. There's a lot of things that advanced metrics don't show with those guys.  Both Miller and Desmond are good athletes.  But both have horrible fundamentals with their footwork.  Neither can consistently make the quick fire throws that the position demands without giving fans souvenirs consistently.  Desmond could play SS.  But he's likely to make his pitchers get 4 outs an inning quite often when they are already at a disadvantage pitching half their games in Coors.  

I can respect that opinion. I just happen to disagree. For what it's worth, I was never relying on UZR and other "advanced metrics" when I initially made the statement back on page 36 that I've watched almost every Nationals game over past several years and I think he was a better SS than Story is.

But after that simple statement, pandemonium ensued this miasma dude accused me of lying that I've watched every Nats pitch of every game and everyone, including myself, started citing fangraphs, which also shows Desmond was much better. It wasn't even close. I'm not even sure if I agree with fangraphs that the difference was that big. But either way, I can tell you for sure that Desmond was clearly better from watching him than Story.

Almost none of Desmond's error issues had to do with fundamentals or physical ability, imo. It was almost all mental/psychological. Every time he'd make an error, they'd be sure to play it on Sportscenter. Now, when they'd interview him about it, he didn't exactly come across like a guy with a perfect SAT score. So I'm not sure how correctable those psychological/mental problems would have been. But it didn't really matter since he went to the Rangers the next year and played CF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2017 at 6:11 AM, Fiveohnine said:

That's a better argument than you made back on page 41, when you said Story was better defensively because we should ignore all of Desmond's UZR/150 except the first few months. 

This time your only failure is the suggestion that UZR doesn't factor in errors. It does.

This is rich. You're explaining advanced defensive statistics to people now, after embarrassing yourself because you couldn't find your way around Fangraphs's defensive stats the first time around?

 

My favorite part is that you don't need advanced metrics to understand that Desmond was a bad defender and would be an even worse defender now. It's common knowledge. You're going to make it to China with that hole you're digging yourself.

Edited by miasma16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, miasma16 said:

This is rich. You're explaining advanced defensive statistics to people now, after embarrassing yourself because you couldn't find your way around Fangraphs's defensive stats the first time around?

 

My favorite part is that you don't need advanced metrics to understand that Desmond was a bad defender and would be an even worse defender now. It's common knowledge. You're going to make it to China with that hole you're digging yourself.

 

It is pretty funny - he's still spouting this same nonsense a full month or two later? Give it up, man!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, miasma16 said:

My favorite part is that you don't need advanced metrics to understand that Desmond was a bad defender and would be an even worse defender now. It's common knowledge. You're going to make it to China with that hole you're digging yourself.

I like how you keep changing the discussion to how good Desmond was, or whether he "would" be better today instead of what I said, which is that he was better than Story. And you were wrong to say that he wasn't, which is why you're now revising your position.

But I'm glad you and your friends have finally given up the statistical argument. You also haven't said anything particularly relevant about his fundamentals on defense, since you probably know even less about real baseball. But either way, stats or real baseball, you have nothing to stand on. You can call that a hole to China or you can call it the truth. There it is.

Edited by Fiveohnine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats fiveohnine, you've now made into the rotoworld hall of shame that I have for awful trolls. Have fun hanging out with NYmetsfan5. You two deserve each other. And if somehow you're blinded by this statement. Both you and NYmetsfan5 bring no positive value to the forums. You simply pick a half dozen players each year and rail against them without reason, fact or sensible arguments. You simply want to be in a debate where you're the uninformed minority and rail against the reasoned many. Congrats, you got a rise out of everyone, I hope this fulfills your life sir.

Edited by maguirekm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2017 at 9:11 AM, Fiveohnine said:

That's a better argument than you made back on page 41, when you said Story was better defensively because we should ignore all of Desmond's UZR/150 except the first few months. 

This time your only failure is the suggestion that UZR doesn't factor in errors. It does. 

Ok. We agree. Thanks for repeating what I said though. 

Maybe Story is "swinging with an uppercut", which was your moronic hitting instruction on page 52. 

 

Where did I say UZR doesn't factor in errors?  I didn't even mention UZR.  What I did say is that most defensive measurement systems are just taking qualitative observations and trying to put them into quantitative data, which is very subjective.  UZR takes a lot of factors into account, but how accurate a lot of it is, and how it is weighted is questionable to say the least.

 

I'd also like to see you quote anywhere I said Story swings with an uppercut.  I think the only time I used the word "uppercut" was in hyperbole to make the point that one could alter their swing plane in a drastic enough way to affect their average launch angle.  Your argument was that everyone swings their bat on a 0 degree plane, and the only thing that affects launch angle is where they contact the ball - that is much more moronic.

 

Your reading comprehension is about as good as your ability to interpret advanced stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2017 at 5:30 PM, handyandy86 said:

I'm pretty sure guys like Alonso don't think launch angle is "dumb", who have reserected their careers because of it. 

 

You might not be able to control LA in 5 degree increments as easily, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand if you swing with more of an upper cut you're going to hit more FB, and therefore have a higher LA. 

That's the thing about this board. Anything you post can be "reserected" by pressing a button, even by people who read poorly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fiveohnine said:

That's the thing about this board. Anything you post can be "reserected" by pressing a button, even by people who read poorly.

 

Like I said, "upper cut" was used as hyperbole talking about swing plane adjustments.  Do you really think every player swings in a flat plane and that guys like Alonso are just somehow aiming lower on the ball to hit it in the air more?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Fiveohnine said:

I can respect that opinion. I just happen to disagree. For what it's worth, I was never relying on UZR and other "advanced metrics" when I initially made the statement back on page 36 that I've watched almost every Nationals game over past several years and I think he was a better SS than Story is.

But after that simple statement, pandemonium ensued this miasma dude accused me of lying that I've watched every Nats pitch of every game and everyone, including myself, started citing fangraphs, which also shows Desmond was much better. It wasn't even close. I'm not even sure if I agree with fangraphs that the difference was that big. But either way, I can tell you for sure that Desmond was clearly better from watching him than Story.

Almost none of Desmond's error issues had to do with fundamentals or physical ability, imo. It was almost all mental/psychological. Every time he'd make an error, they'd be sure to play it on Sportscenter. Now, when they'd interview him about it, he didn't exactly come across like a guy with a perfect SAT score. So I'm not sure how correctable those psychological/mental problems would have been. But it didn't really matter since he went to the Rangers the next year and played CF.

 

My thought watching Desmond play SS for the Nats was,  "you can't win a championship with a guy as inconsistent at SS as Desmond.  He's not focused enough."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2017 at 6:11 AM, Fiveohnine said:

That's a better argument than you made back on page 41, when you said Story was better defensively because we should ignore all of Desmond's UZR/150 except the first few months. 

This time your only failure is the suggestion that UZR doesn't factor in errors. It does. 

Ok. We agree. Thanks for repeating what I said though. 

Maybe Story is "swinging with an uppercut", which was your moronic hitting instruction on page 52. 

LOOOOOOOOOL fiveohnine, you're the guy who didn't even understand what the defensive statistics measured or how they were calculated, and used them incorrectly several times in your anti-Story posts, even after a bunch of people called you out about not understanding anything.

And now you're going to write that nonsense?? Nice, just pretend like the first 12 pages of this thread didnt happen, and that nobody remembers that you have no idea wtf you were talking then (or now for that matter)

Edited by cs3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...