Author Topic: I, For One, Welcome Our New CF Overlord (The Robles Thread)  (Read 42237 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 25972
Just for curiosity, I looked up some the Nats to see how much minor league ball they had played. Everyone except, for Yost, played 2, 3, or 4 years in the minors, and Yost started playing for the Nats -- at 17 -- during WW2. The he went to war, and MLB took a few years to get reorganized. Remember the story everyone knows: Killer was signed to a bonus at 17, so he had to spend years 18 and 19 on the big league team. Then he went to the minors: 1956, '57, and made AAA in 1958. That season, a coach from the White Sox -- Nats and Chisox shared a team -- suggested that Killebrew get closer to the plate and cover everything. Harmon came back to the Senators in 1959 and hit 42 home runs.

Of the late 1990s Yankees, the best teams I have ever cheered for, I gave you the ages of the core players when they made it. Knobloch was 22. Brosius did not become a regular until he was 28. Chad Curtis came up at 23 as a regular. The DH (1998, just to pick a year) was Strawberry, who came up at 21. Tim Raines, the other DH, became a regular at 21. The rest were fill-ins, like Ricky Ledee and Shane Spencer, who never really became starters.

By the numbers, it seems typical for good players to come up and stick sometime between 21 and 24 years old.

This article says the average is 24.4 years back in 2005-9.  It may be a bit higher now given that more players come from colleges. Just my speculation though.  The top players often debut younger.  Like Soto. Harper. Rendon. Strasburg. 

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/13018/overthinking-it-promoting-prospects/

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 5751
OK. I went through the late '90s Yankees. How old are you?

- Bernie: 22

- O'Neill: 24

- Jeter: 21

- Posada: 25, but it's tougher with catchers

- Tino: 22

- Petitite: 23

"You could look it up", said The Perfesser.

I am old enough to remember games with the late 90's Yankees but I was not yet in high school.

It's best to compare current players to players from their era. In this case, 15 years back is probably pushing the era idea, but still put, late 90s guys aren't playing anymore. I'd say that anything post 2007 is a fair comp to how prospects are cultivated in the today's game. To kind of help prove Slate's point here, remember when the Mets had Carlos Gomez and called him up at 21 and promptly traded him for Johan Santana? He then got dealt by the Twins to Milwaukee for JJ Hardy and was defensively great but never could hit to his potential? Then at age 27 he busted out and started hitting homers and started to become one of the better outfielders in the league.

Point stated, sometimes prospects take much longer time to develop. What really is at question here is wether or not the Nats should stick with Robles and let him put it all together or trade him to restock and try and make a (bad bad idea) run for it this year or restock for next season or more likely 2023.

Online imref

  • Posts: 42957
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Back in the lineup tonight.

Offline welch

  • Posts: 16423
  • The Sweetest Right Handed Swing in 1950s Baseball
I am old enough to remember games with the late 90's Yankees but I was not yet in high school.

It's best to compare current players to players from their era. In this case, 15 years back is probably pushing the era idea, but still put, late 90s guys aren't playing anymore. I'd say that anything post 2007 is a fair comp to how prospects are cultivated in the today's game. To kind of help prove Slate's point here, remember when the Mets had Carlos Gomez and called him up at 21 and promptly traded him for Johan Santana? He then got dealt by the Twins to Milwaukee for JJ Hardy and was defensively great but never could hit to his potential? Then at age 27 he busted out and started hitting homers and started to become one of the better outfielders in the league.

Point stated, sometimes prospects take much longer time to develop. What really is at question here is wether or not the Nats should stick with Robles and let him put it all together or trade him to restock and try and make a (bad bad idea) run for it this year or restock for next season or more likely 2023.

You can look through the 2009 Yankees, if that is recent enough -- I did, and it's the same story. What do you see in the 2019 Nats? Or look through other good teams. Baseball had many levels of minor leagues in 1960, 1970, 1990, and now. If anything, players today get more coaching and earlier.

The point is the same: Robles had four years in the minors. He had time in all sorts of baseball training programs. Ignore Robles's age. He was not "brought up too soon". He has never learned to hit. Since 1900, many players have been like Robles: "good field / no hit".

As Robles nose-dives toward a .200 average, how long can the Nats continue to start him in CF?

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 63324
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
In 2019, there were 84 players who achieved 100 PAs or more at age 24 or less. There were 1,285 players in the minors aged 24 or less.

Of those 84, less than half achieved 1 WAR. Of that 84, 38 were capable of putting up a leage average 100 wRC+ or better.

38 out of 1,285 is 2.9%

In 2009, there were 53 in the majors, with 1,159 in the minors. Again, less than half with a WAR over 1, and 19 able to hit league average or better.

So yeah, its pretty freaking rare for a guy 24 or under to come up to the big leagues and be good.

Also, in terms of games played, Robles is just ending his second full season in the big leagues.

Offline welch

  • Posts: 16423
  • The Sweetest Right Handed Swing in 1950s Baseball
Think, young fellow. Some players make it, and most don't.  If they go through four seasons in the minors and three in the majors, and they are hitting .208, they are bad hitters. It is not age -- that's silly. It is experience, and Robles has not made use of his experience. Robles is a good fielder but a light hitter.

Bring up Stevenson and bench Robles.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 63324
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Stevenson sucks and has zero potential. There is no reason to just give up on Robles at this point.

Offline rileyn

  • Posts: 4115
So do we think he was sacrificing today in the 9th, bunting for a hit, or just waving the white flag?  Nice job fighting back from 1-2 to get HBP.

Online imref

  • Posts: 42957
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Robles > Grisham

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 17666
  • babble on
Stevenson just needs to be hit by a pitch every game. 

Offline sixthree175

  • Posts: 2305
  • Born in 1961
Stevenson sucks and has zero potential. There is no reason to just give up on Robles at this point.
It's impossible to know at this point which one of those two bottom-of-the-lineup hitters has more potential.  Taking fielding into consideration, I think both have a high floor and a low ceiling. 

Offline welch

  • Posts: 16423
  • The Sweetest Right Handed Swing in 1950s Baseball
Stevenson sucks and has zero potential. There is no reason to just give up on Robles at this point.

Robles is hitting .206, or a point better than Parra. Stevenson is a mediocre major leaguer, but he's competent. Put Robles in for Stevenson yesterday, and we know that he strikes out, rather than driving in a run. There is always big talk and high hopes that Robles, with this "tool" and that "tool" will be the next Willie Mays, but he is a 9th-inning defensive CF. Robles has a strong arm, so maybe he could learn to pitch. Kenley Jansen did. Otherwise, what MLB team can carry a starting CF who hits below .200?


Online varoadking

  • Posts: 29563
  • King of Goodness
Robles is hitting .206, or a point better than Parra. Stevenson is a mediocre major leaguer, but he's competent. Put Robles in for Stevenson yesterday, and we know that he strikes out, rather than driving in a run. There is always big talk and high hopes that Robles, with this "tool" and that "tool" will be the next Willie Mays, but he is a 9th-inning defensive CF. Robles has a strong arm, so maybe he could learn to pitch. Kenley Jansen did. Otherwise, what MLB team can carry a starting CF who hits below .200?

Not a Robles fan by any means, but he was hit by a pitch last night...

Offline welch

  • Posts: 16423
  • The Sweetest Right Handed Swing in 1950s Baseball
Not a Robles fan by any means, but he was hit by a pitch last night...

Yes, that's his best offensive "tool": getting hit.

Compare Robles to

- Brian Goodwin, first round draft choice who was supposed to be the great CF of the future, but who could not get out of the minors. He was useful in LA in 2019, but nobody thinks he was Micky Mantle. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/goodwbr01.shtml

- MAT: playing a good CF in KC with 32 RBIs and a .245 average. Again, Taylor is a number 8 hitter who will never carry a team, but he is playing better than Robles. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/taylomi02.shtml

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 63324
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Robles is hitting .206, or a point better than Parra. Stevenson is a mediocre major leaguer, but he's competent. Put Robles in for Stevenson yesterday, and we know that he strikes out, rather than driving in a run. There is always big talk and high hopes that Robles, with this "tool" and that "tool" will be the next Willie Mays, but he is a 9th-inning defensive CF. Robles has a strong arm, so maybe he could learn to pitch. Kenley Jansen did. Otherwise, what MLB team can carry a starting CF who hits below .200?


Again, its effectively his second season and he's playing hurt. Dude was highly scouted and highly sought after.

Maybe, just maybe, we should hold off on giving up after a guy's second season of plate appearances. Particularly since we dont have any real OF prospects to take his place.

BTW, the Rays made the WS with their CFer hitting .217 last season.

Online KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 16259
  • pissy DC sports fan
BTW, the Rays made the WS with their CFer hitting .217 last season.

Welch is one of those people who refuses to acknowledge that OBP is a better stat, or really that it exists at all.  He's always quoting BA to the exclusion of any other (superior) hitting stat.

That's really the only way anyone could possibly believe MAT is a better hitter than Robles without being completely out of their mind (career-wise at least, this year I'd give MAT a slight edge because of his pop, but it's mostly a wash).

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39782
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Welch is one of those people who refuses to acknowledge that OBP is a better stat, or really that it exists at all.  He's always quoting BA to the exclusion of any other (superior) hitting stat.

That's really the only way anyone could possibly believe MAT is a better hitter than Robles without being completely out of their mind (career-wise at least, this year I'd give MAT a slight edge because of his pop, but it's mostly a wash).
I agree about obp, but the complete lack of extra base hits from Robles gives MAT a better ops. Haven't looked At wOBA lately.

Offline welch

  • Posts: 16423
  • The Sweetest Right Handed Swing in 1950s Baseball
Average is easier to spot quickly. And a base hit has more chance of driving in a run than does a walk or getting hit by a pitch. Note the 11 RBIs that Robles has this year and the 32 or so that MAT has.

Incidentally, I grew up cheering for Eddie Yost, who finished with a career OBP of about .396. If Robles could do that, then he might be something. Of course, Yost hit .250 or more with some pop in a ballpark that was 405 down the line until the Griffiths brought the fences in to 375 and then all the way in to 350. So when Robles leads the league in walks and hits .250, then maybe his OBP will matter. Until then, Robles is a guy who can't hit. Send him down until he learns.

Online KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 16259
  • pissy DC sports fan
I agree about obp, but the complete lack of extra base hits from Robles gives MAT a better ops. Haven't looked At wOBA lately.

You must have missed where I said MAT has more pop this year.  Still, Robles has a better overall career OPS+.  And he's still younger with more upside.  I'd still take him over MAT in an instant.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39782
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
You must have missed where I said MAT has more pop this year.  Still, Robles has a better overall career OPS+.  And he's still younger with more upside.  I'd still take him over MAT in an instant.
I'm not sure Robles's career OPS+ has stabilized.  HE had a very good first 90-100 PAs, then an acceptable level of production in 2019, but  has tailed in the last 450 PAs. We probably should have some doubt about what looked like a starter and maybe star for years back in November of 2019.

That said, the pining for MAT is a bit much.  Even this year, the best you can say about MAT is he is approaching mediocre in what should be his prime offensive years (or start of his decline).  He's 5 years older, too.   Seriously, a .669 OPS is not good.  it's just better than a .623.  But OPS or OPS+ tends to overweight SLG relative to OBP. 

Welch likes to look at average because a hit can advance runners more and even knock guys in while a walk only moves guys up if they are forced.  True, but that way underweights the downside of making an out.  At a simpler level, MAT is striking out 30+% of the time, so that isn't advancing runners, either.  Robles is K'ing less than 24% of the time.  Stats that weight OBP and type of contact say (wOBA, wRC+), this year, Taylor is somewhat better than Robles, but both are below par. 

Beyond offense, using the eye test, Taylor seems to make better baseball judgments than Robles right now.  I don't recall as many cringe-worthy throws to the wrong base and fewer baserunning blunders. TBH, I think this has folks more annoyed with Robles than anything he does with the bat.

Long post, but my bottom line is the same as Knorr's - In the off-season last year, I'd have stuck with Robles and let MAT walk, and if given the choice the next off-season, I'd still stick with Robles.  That said, MAT will be the only one to sniff the playoffs this year, because the NYY or someone in need of an OF is  dealing for him.


Offline nfotiu

  • Posts: 5045
I'm not sure Robles's career OPS+ has stabilized.  HE had a very good first 90-100 PAs, then an acceptable level of production in 2019, but  has tailed in the last 450 PAs. We probably should have some doubt about what looked like a starter and maybe star for years back in November of 2019.

That said, the pining for MAT is a bit much.  Even this year, the best you can say about MAT is he is approaching mediocre in what should be his prime offensive years (or start of his decline).  He's 5 years older, too.   Seriously, a .669 OPS is not good.  it's just better than a .623.  But OPS or OPS+ tends to overweight SLG relative to OBP. 

Welch likes to look at average because a hit can advance runners more and even knock guys in while a walk only moves guys up if they are forced.  True, but that way underweights the downside of making an out.  At a simpler level, MAT is striking out 30+% of the time, so that isn't advancing runners, either.  Robles is K'ing less than 24% of the time.  Stats that weight OBP and type of contact say (wOBA, wRC+), this year, Taylor is somewhat better than Robles, but both are below par. 

Beyond offense, using the eye test, Taylor seems to make better baseball judgments than Robles right now.  I don't recall as many cringe-worthy throws to the wrong base and fewer baserunning blunders. TBH, I think this has folks more annoyed with Robles than anything he does with the bat.

Long post, but my bottom line is the same as Knorr's - In the off-season last year, I'd have stuck with Robles and let MAT walk, and if given the choice the next off-season, I'd still stick with Robles.  That said, MAT will be the only one to sniff the playoffs this year, because the NYY or someone in need of an OF is  dealing for him.


MAT doesn't bat in front of the pitcher as much as Robles does either.   For whatever reason, Robles seems to have found himself in a lot of weird one-off situations this year where people question his sense for maybe not doing the right thing.   He also got unlucky that he got hurt just as he was finding his swing.    By my eyes, I think he looks better in the field than MAT.   His throws to the wrong base are not that common.   The base running mistakes are probably fixable with some coaching.

Keeping MAT would have been complicated.   It didn't make sense to pay the 3.5 million to keep him under team control.  Once he was a free agent, he was probably going to choose a team that would start him every day.     

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 5751
MAT doesn't bat in front of the pitcher as much as Robles does either.   For whatever reason, Robles seems to have found himself in a lot of weird one-off situations this year where people question his sense for maybe not doing the right thing.   He also got unlucky that he got hurt just as he was finding his swing.    By my eyes, I think he looks better in the field than MAT.   His throws to the wrong base are not that common.   The base running mistakes are probably fixable with some coaching.

Keeping MAT would have been complicated.   It didn't make sense to pay the 3.5 million to keep him under team control.  Once he was a free agent, he was probably going to choose a team that would start him every day.   

If you want to compare the two players, just like you've outlined, it's a value proposition.

YTD, MAT has been worth 0.9 fWAR at 1.75M for the season. YTD Robles has been 0.2 fWAR for 614k. I think the value proposition states that Robles isn't a significant detriment over MAT especially considering MAT gets paid more than double what Robles does.

The reason I backed Slate on this argument is that when evaluating prospects, it's much better to evaluate prospects from the same era. Robles may be a bust, but Minnesota fans said the same thing about Byron Buxton. So many fans said the same thing about Carlos Gomez. Maybe Robles is at best Cameron Maybin, maybe he is closer to Buxton. 2020 was not a year to really evaluate players, and the guy has played hurt. The Nats have really benefitted from players coming up and just playing like stars. Harper, Rendon, Turner, Soto. I think us fans have gotten really jaded to what real prospects are like, and Slate has stated that time and time again.

Prospects today take more time to develop. It really is very rare for players to stick before age 25 if they aren't superstars. Slate is right.

Offline welch

  • Posts: 16423
  • The Sweetest Right Handed Swing in 1950s Baseball
- MAT's $1.75 million is trivial compared to Robles's $614K, with both compared to the team's total salary. Consider how the two play and which is contributing more.

- MAT hits 8th, just like Robles. Nobody thinks Taylor is The Answer to anybody's CF. Taylor failed in Washington, which is why, months ago, I mentioned that Robles hits no better than Taylor.

- Robles was signed and promoted as a big star. As Slateman reminds us, Robles was rated high as a prospect and teams wanted him. He had four years in the minors, about what other good players have had. If it is an age thing, which is nonsense anyway, future stars of all "eras" often show they are stars before they are 25. To believe in "age" is to believe in magic over training.

(- side note: "Different eras" is not persuasive. The Joe Torre Yankee champions played baseball pretty much the same as now. A starter went about six innings, and the Yankees had a 7th inning guy, an 8th inning guy, and a closer. That first year, John Wetteland closed and Mariano Rivera pitched the 8th. Then Rivera closed. All along, they had Jeff Nelson, Mike Stanton, and Ramiro Mendoza, plus some extra relievers. Tonight's Nats organize their pitching staff about the same. Today, the Nats might have more assistants, more roving minor league coaches to teach prospects. I don't know for certain. Still, twenty years ago, a team had roughly the same farm system they do today. Even in 1950, the minor leagues were not so different, but there were B and C league teams rather than rookie leagues and two layers of A-ball. Stars, like Cecil Travis, showed that they would become stars in their early twenties.)

- The point, and it is obvious, is that Victor Robles shows no more sign of being able to hit MLB pitching than MAT has. If anything, Robles is getting worse, or his .255 / 17 homers / .766 OPS for the season masks that pitchers were learning to get him out. They seem to be doing nothing but getting him out by now.

- Send Robles to AAA, or even Harrisburg, until he learns to hit. That's why I mentioned Harmon Killebrew: Killer could not hit during his Bonus Baby seasons, bounced from minors to the Nats, and finally got some coaching in 1958. Came back at 23, in 1959, and was a Hall of Famer from that minute on. See if Robles can be taught. He is certainly learning nothing with the Nats. Rochester is probably a better place because he will meet a few "crafty" experienced pitchers. He might learn to hit breaking balls, and how to out-think a pitcher. Incidentally, Ted Williams, in "The Science of Hitting", says that the key to hitting is thinking, rather than perfect vision or the fastest reflexes.

- It is possible that Robles became a big-time prospect and climbed to the majors with "tools" but without baseball toughness. Billy Beane called it "arrogance" in "Moneyball".  For anyone who has not read the book, Beane was the twin signing with Daryl Strawberry. The two had all the "tools" in the world. When Mookie Wilson got hurt (1986?), Beane was the Mets number 1 prospect CF, followed by Stan Jefferson. Lenny Dykstra was third, and had no "tools". The difference, Beane tells us, is that Dykstra was overconfident to the point of arrogance, a mean kid convinced that pitchers were nothing. Steve Carlton was "that guy over there". Maybe Robles, like Beane, lacks baseball arrogance? (I don't know, so I hope it is a matter of experience with Robles, but baseball is filled with talented guys who cannot compete with the best)

Offline Mattionals

  • Posts: 5751
Ok, I tried but you are convinced. That's ok. I will continue to not be surprised to see Robles given every chance to live up to that pedigree. If Rizzo trades him, I will be floored.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 25972
Ok, I tried but you are convinced. That's ok. I will continue to not be surprised to see Robles given every chance to live up to that pedigree. If Rizzo trades him, I will be floored.
They are not key to sell low but this year was sure a major disappointment