Jump to content

chasfh

What Will Become of Nicholas Castellanos?

How will the Tigers deal with Nicholas Castellanos?  

37 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. How will the Tigers deal with Nicholas Castellanos?

    • Trade him.
      21
    • Tender him a Qualifying Offer after the season, which he will accept.
      2
    • Tender him a Qualifying Offer after the season, which he will decline.
      3
    • Extend him for multiple seasons.
      0
    • Non-tender him after the season (aka let him walk).
      11
    • Other. (Explain in comments.)
      0
  2. 2. Suppose Castellanos is tendered a qualifying offer after the season and he declines it? Then what?

    • Will be re-signed afterward by the Tigers.
      3
    • Will be signed by another team before the 2020 draft.
      10
    • Will be signed by another team after the 2020 draft.
      24
  3. 3. If the Tigers do trade Castellanos, what kind of return will they get, based on what you think a player of his level should get?

    • Return equal to expectations.
      8
    • Higher return than expected.
      0
    • Lower return than expected.
      29

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 07/12/2019 at 04:59 AM

Recommended Posts

I mean, part of the reason the Tigers parted with Suarez was they were committed to Iglesias and Castellanos.

Nick was guaranteed a spot on the 2014 team and he has been an everyday player for 6 seasons.  He had a few good seasons and a couple of poor ones as well.  At no time do I recall the Tigers ever consider removing from a starting role, even in his poorer seasons.

To the extent they moved him around the field, well, it was because he struggled defensively.  I am sure the Tigers would have preferred him to lock down 3b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I mean, part of the reason the Tigers parted with Suarez was they were committed to Iglesias and Castellanos.

Times, attitudes and teams needs change over time.

They also thought they had depth at the middle infield position.  They had Eugenio Suarez, Danny Worth, Hernan Perez, and Dixon Machado and they thought they would all become similar players.  

They also just drafted Willy Adames and thought that he would become the SS of the future, so the plan was to keep Iglesias until Adames was ready while using Suarez, Worth, Perez, and Machado as utility players and trade bait.  Plans changed and Suarez become an all-star.  Blame Tiger scouts for not noticing Saurez' potential or give a lot of credit to the Reds for player development.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I will always maintain the Tigers committed to Castellanos for 5 years and once it was clear he was a good but not elite hitter with little to no defensive value paired with the team going through a rebuild, they decided he wasn't part of their long term plans

also agree. Nick doesn't profile for the team Avila thinks he is trying to build. You can make a good argument that Al may be wrong in undervaluing hitting in the OF too much, or that Nick is not as bad defensively as they believe, but there should be no surprise in why the Tigers were not interesting in keeping him  - esp after he nixed trying 1B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

They also thought they had depth at the middle infield position.  They had Eugenio Suarez, Danny Worth, Hernan Perez, and Dixon Machado and they thought they would all become similar players.  

They also just drafted Willy Adames and thought that he would become the SS of the future, so the plan was to keep Iglesias until Adames was ready while using Suarez, Worth, Perez, and Machado as utility players and trade bait.  Plans changed and Suarez become and all-star.  Blame Tiger scouts for not noticing Saurez' potential or give a lot of credit to the Reds for player development.  

Hence, 'part of the reason'.

The overall point I am making is the Tigers committed to Nick rather than considering other internal options 5 years ago onward, so I disagree with the premise that the Tigers were not committed to Nick. 

I think they were committed for a pretty long time and realized he didn't fit into their rebuild window / plan and moved him for prospects rather than lose him to free agency.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even had Nick stayed, he'd still be about to become a high-priced free agent looking for years, and the Tigers are simply not in the market for that kind of player at this moment. I suspect that even if Nick were better than he is—say a 130 career OPS+ hitter rather than low 110s—they would still have let him go because he'd be commanding even more years at even more money at that level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I will always maintain the Tigers committed to Castellanos for 5 years and once it was clear he was a good but not elite hitter with little to no defensive value paired with the team going through a rebuild, they decided he wasn't part of their long term plans

Ding ding ding...!

We have a winner!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tigrrfan said:

In other words ..NickThePrick.

OK 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN reported that Nicholas Castellanos became the third right-handed hitter in MLB history to record at least 55 doubles and 25 homers in a season, joining Hall of Famers Hank Greenberg (1934) and Joe Medwick (1937).

That's just crazy.  Not that Nick did it, but only three right-hand hitters have ever done it.

~K

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubles is one of those stats that is not intuitive to me what a "high" number is... I would have assumed they are more common that HR... but if you asked me the record most 2B I wouldn't know.  

 

Player Doubles[2] Team Season
Earl Webb 67 Boston Red Sox 1931
George H. Burns 64 Cleveland Indians 1926
Joe Medwick 64 St. Louis Cardinals 1936
Hank Greenberg 63 Detroit Tigers 1934
Paul Waner 62 Pittsburgh Pirates 1932
Charlie Gehringer 60 Detroit Tigers 1936
Tris Speaker 59 Cleveland Indians 1923
Chuck Klein 59 Philadelphia Phillies 1930
Todd Helton 59 Colorado Rockies 2000
Billy Herman 57 Chicago Cubs 1935
Billy Herman 57 Chicago Cubs 1936
Carlos Delgado 57 Toronto Blue Jays 2000
Joe Medwick 56 St. Louis Cardinals 1937
George Kell 56 Detroit Tigers 1950
Craig Biggio 56 Houston Astros 1999
Garret Anderson 56 Anaheim Angels 2002
Nomar Garciaparra 56 Boston Red Sox 2002
Brian Roberts 56 Baltimore Orioles 2009
José Ramírez 56 Cleveland Indians 2017
Ed Delahanty 55 Philadelphia Phillies 1899
Gee Walker 55 Detroit Tigers 1936
Lance Berkman 55 Houston Astros 2001
Matt Carpenter 55 St. Louis Cardinals 2013
Nicholas Castellanos 55 Chicago Cubs

20

 

But when you look at the actual data, 46 times players have hit 50 HR.  24 times players have hit 50 2B...

I would never have guessed that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting just how many of the modern era players that have hit 55+ doubles occurred in the 1999-2002 range, with a gap between that and Ramirez/Castellanos in the last couple of years. You only have two players (Carpenter and Roberts) in that interim stretch. I'm curious if there's something underlying there that saw a spike in that occurrence during that very limited stretch of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if Nick gets to 58 it will be the most doubles in a season in 83 years. He still could get to 60 with 30 home runs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Microline133 said:

It's interesting just how many of the modern era players that have hit 55+ doubles occurred in the 1999-2002 range, with a gap between that and Ramirez/Castellanos in the last couple of years. You only have two players (Carpenter and Roberts) in that interim stretch. I'm curious if there's something underlying there that saw a spike in that occurrence during that very limited stretch of time.

Interesting observation.  There were more doubles from 2006-2008 than 1999-2002, so it's not like everybody was hitting doubles in 1999-2002.  It could be the ballparks.  Perhaps it was the perfect storm of the right ballparks during a peak hitting period.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Microline133 said:

It's interesting just how many of the modern era players that have hit 55+ doubles occurred in the 1999-2002 range, with a gap between that and Ramirez/Castellanos in the last couple of years. You only have two players (Carpenter and Roberts) in that interim stretch. I'm curious if there's something underlying there that saw a spike in that occurrence during that very limited stretch of time.

It's because the modern OF can't hit the cut-off man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

What percentage of great hitters are RH?

I'd guess 35% or something.

In Career OPS+, 23 of the top 40  (57.5 percent) were or are righthanded hitters.   Including  guys like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Rogers Hornsby,  Jimmie Foxx, Joe Dimaggio, Frank Robinson, Frank Thomas, Manny Ramirez, Mark McGwire, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Trout, and Miguel Cabrera.   Also 52 of the top 103 (50.4 percent; 103  in the sample because there is an eleven-way tie for 93rd).  In Career OPS, 48 of the top 100 (48 percent, obviously) were  or are righties.   And except for Hank Greenberg, none of them ever hit 25 home runs and 55 doubles in a season.

(Joe Medwick was a great player, but he's not in the Top 100 in OPS or OPS+.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Microline133 said:

It's interesting just how many of the modern era players that have hit 55+ doubles occurred in the 1999-2002 range, with a gap between that and Ramirez/Castellanos in the last couple of years. You only have two players (Carpenter and Roberts) in that interim stretch. I'm curious if there's something underlying there that saw a spike in that occurrence during that very limited stretch of time.

I would think the two factors that change over time would be the ball parks - I'd guess some of the cookie cutter symmetric fields that have been replaced by more complex outfield configs would be more XBH friendly - but maybe the biggest thing would be if there is a shift toward faster OFs as defensive metrics start to be weighed more heavily. More speed in the line-up is going to result in more doubles you would think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, six-hopper said:

In Career OPS+, 23 of the top 40  (57.5 percent) were or are righthanded hitters.   Including  guys like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Rogers Hornsby,  Jimmie Foxx, Joe Dimaggio, Frank Robinson, Frank Thomas, Manny Ramirez, Mark McGwire, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Trout, and Miguel Cabrera.   Also 52 of the top 103 (50.4 percent; 103  in the sample because there is an eleven-way tie for 93rd).  In Career OPS, 48 of the top 100 (48 percent, obviously) were  or are righties.   And except for Hank Greenberg, none of them ever hit 25 home runs and 55 doubles in a season.

(Joe Medwick was a great player, but he's not in the Top 100 in OPS or OPS+.)

Much more than I guessed.

Thanks for doing the legwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, six-hopper said:

In Career OPS+, 23 of the top 40  (57.5 percent) were or are righthanded hitters.   Including  guys like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Rogers Hornsby,  Jimmie Foxx, Joe Dimaggio, Frank Robinson, Frank Thomas, Manny Ramirez, Mark McGwire, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Trout, and Miguel Cabrera.   Also 52 of the top 103 (50.4 percent; 103  in the sample because there is an eleven-way tie for 93rd).  In Career OPS, 48 of the top 100 (48 percent, obviously) were  or are righties.   And except for Hank Greenberg, none of them ever hit 25 home runs and 55 doubles in a season.

(Joe Medwick was a great player, but he's not in the Top 100 in OPS or OPS+.)

Those may be somewhat skewed due to there historically being more RH hitters than LH hitters. 

One recent source claims that only 39% of MLB hitters bat left-handed.  Thus, simple math suggests 61% bat right-handed.

So if historically, 61% of hitters batted right-handed vs 39% batted left-handed .. logic would suggest that there should be approximately 61% right-handed hitters in the top percentiles of those hitting categories.  

Link provided:  https://www.gamesensesports.com/knowledge/2017/3/17/righties-vs-lefties-the-importance-of-handedness-training-in-baseball-hitting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tigrrfan said:

Those may be somewhat skewed due to there historically being more RH hitters than LH hitters. 

One recent source claims that only 39% of MLB hitters bat left-handed.  Thus, simple math suggests 61% bat right-handed.

So if historically, 61% of hitters batted right-handed vs 39% batted left-handed .. logic would suggest that there should be approximately 61% right-handed hitters in the top percentiles of those hitting categories.  

Link provided:  https://www.gamesensesports.com/knowledge/2017/3/17/righties-vs-lefties-the-importance-of-handedness-training-in-baseball-hitting

Logic would only suggest that if there were no advantage to hitting LH.

Most pitchers are RH and batting LH both puts you closer to 1B and your momentum swinging the bat takes you towards 1B.

I'd suggest that is why a disproportionate number of the hitters are LH (relative to the general population) and a disproportionate number of the best hitters are LH (relative to the population of professional baseball players).

EDIT: Some percentage of batters are switch hitters, so I also don't know that it follows that 61% hit RH if 39% hit LH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

For reference, roughly 10% of the population is left-handed.

......and 27% of eccentrics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

For reference, roughly 10% of the population is left-handed.

Also, not all left-handed people bat left-handed.  And vice versa.  

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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...