Jung hasn't even gotten on base yet this year lol

Can Walcott play 3rd? goodness. Jung is just so off I don't know how you fix that

Wonder if they pull the plog on Joc in the next couple weeks and replace him with Canha? He had a nice spring

Hello Win Column!

bmac_aggie18 said:

---

Wonder if they pull the plog on Joc in the next couple weeks and replace him with Canha? He had a nice spring

---

It would likely be Osuna for Joc. Canha could replace Jung though

Super Aggie 64 said:

---

Hello Win Column!

---

These come a lot easier when you get 6 quality innings from your starter. Good work Leiter.

Roland *****t said:

---

Can Walcott play 3rd? goodness. Jung is just so off I don't know how you fix that

---

Walcott with one arm in a sling right now might still be more competitive than Jung.

duck79 said:

---

Roland *****t said:

---

Can Walcott play 3rd? goodness. Jung is just so off I don't know how you fix that

---

Walcott with one arm in a sling right now might still be more competitive than Jung.

---

LOL I forgot about that. But you make a good point also haha.

FPTR.

Josh Jung is too high a draft choice and former All Star to bench this quickly.

But he'd better come around quickly. He's too injury prone to stomach this bad a performance at the plate.

While I don't disagree with the principle, I think we have seen enough negative from Jung to sort of know what he is, what he is not and what he is going to be.

He's a career 0.250/0.295/0.422/0.717/103+ stat line. He's quite literally replacement level. The only thing really keeping him in this lineup, and probably will until the summer time, is his defensive ability at third and the fact that we really don't have anyone else who profiles as a third baseman. Josh Smith could be he's a much better profile for a middle infielder. Zeke Duran could but he's a ton of swing and miss and average at best defense at third. At least with Jung you know you're getting a plus defender.

I had high hopes for Jung after the 2022 and 2023 seasons, an then again after the playoffs in 2024, but to me I just don't think he's got a quick enough bat or good enough eye at the plate to truly stick outside of being a rotational piece.

Interesting tidbit-heard Stickells say in the postgame the Evo had a mechanical adjustment for Leiter after the first inning that helped him settle in. Love how Evo is so in tune with the game even in his off days and how much his mentorship has helped grow this pitching staff.

Tksymm7 said:

---

Jung has a leash about as long as Pederson's imo

---

Josh is 28, has played 2 full seasons in the big leagues where he put up 2.4 and 1.4 WAR playing passable defense at 3rd base. He's under club control for 3 more years.

Joc is 33 and has looked completely inept as a Ranger. He's a below average defender that is a free agent after this year.

The two aren't even in the same stratosphere as far as how much leash they have.

That's awesome.

What I mean by that is I think they both have until midsummer to show a pulse at the plate, and if they haven't by then they will not be playing much for this team. Joc they'll just cut and probably not blink twice at. They aren't cutting Josh Jung clearly, but he won't be in the lineup consistently if he continues this path he's been on for a good while now.

Jung's baseball savant page looks a whole heckuva a lot like and is trending in the direction like guys they've moved off of recently.

I think you're putting far too much emphasis on 4 games of the season.

Texas' main question with Josh is if he can stay healthy.

AggieEP said:

---

BCSWguru said:

---

The ABS is good so far. Will say I am not a huge fan of these balls that catch 1mm of the zone or missing the zone by that much getting overturned. I realize technically the calls are made correct, but blaming the umpire for missing these terribly close calls will have a long term negative effect I'm sure. I do like it will expose the Bucknor and West and Hernandez of the lot. Those guys suck(ed).

---

I think for an overturn making a ball a strike the standard should be that at least 20% of the ball should clip the zone. As enforced right now, the strike zone just expanded by 3 inches in all directions.

The standard for a strike to be a ball on overturn is 100% of the ball outside the zone, I think for the inverse 100% of the ball inside the zone would be too extreme, but 20% feels fair to both the pitcher and the hitter.

---

I want to revisit this now that there isn't a game on.

You're asking for a threshold of at least 20% of the ball being in the zoneto be called a strike. Therefore if only 19% of the ball is in the zone, then it should be called a ball.

To put numbers to that, a standard MLB baseball is 2.94 inches in diameter. By your logic, if the ball is at least .588 inches in the zone, it's a strike. But if it's only .585 inches (19.9%) in the zone, it's a ball. You're talking about three thousandths of an inch. That is what you are suggesting MLB could implement, correct? After seeing those numbers, do you still believe that is a viable option?

I think if a ball is in the zone in any way, it's a strike. If it's not, then it's a ball.

No matter where you draw the line, there will always be calls +/- millimeters of that line and you will have to just accept it. So how about the line just be what the strike zone is.

None of this really matters. The rule has generally if any part of the ball goes through the strike zone. They're just applying that to the ABS system. It's frankly a whole lot cleaner way of handling it than trying to calculate what percentage of the ball went through the strike zone.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/48356489/report-mariners-minor-leaguer-colt-emerson-reach-95m-extension

Mariners give a record contract to a player who has 0 MLB service time. Interesting strategy, as they see him as their long term SS when Crawford is gone after this year. Guy has strong numbers across several years and levels and had a good ST, but this seems like a really risky way of doing business.

That seems like a terrible idea and a really annoying precedent.

There's nothing that really jumps off the page to me with that guy. He's been good, yes, at the minor league level. We've seen time and time again how big of a jump it is from AAA. That's a big risk on a guy who hasn't seen real MLB action. Hope it works out for them.

Does anyone else think that with blue cities passing huge taxes for millionaires that free agent players will not want to go to those cites? States like New York. California , Oregon and Washington are at the top of the list.

Doubtful

My immediate reaction was "no," based on the long history of free agents spurning the Rangers and Mavs, despite no state income tax. But maybe recent history suggests things are changing.

Seager and Semien signed with us from California teams, deGrom from NY, and Eovaldi from Boston. Klay Thompson wanted to leave LA for Dallas. Obviously there are other factors surrounding all of these decisions, but the very recent success may indicate a change.

That being said, the Dodgers and Mets have still been cleaning up in free agency despite the economic directions those places are going having been apparent.

Sebastian Walcott is rated higher than this guy.

Kristian Campbell signed with the Red Sox last year before opening day and looks like a huge flop so far. I get it for the player, but as team you better be ready to eat all of it.

Vessel said:

---

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/48356489/report-mariners-minor-leaguer-colt-emerson-reach-95m-extension

Mariners give a record contract to a player who has 0 MLB service time. Interesting strategy, as they see him as their long term SS when Crawford is gone after this year. Guy has strong numbers across several years and levels and had a good ST, but this seems like a really risky way of doing business.

---

This is genuinely a ridiculous idea. The amount of top prospects who have busted is still insanely high. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the only benefit is that you can avoid arbitration by doing this.

Yeah, the benefit is probably that if the player is a massive success, then you have a $20-$30 million player for about $10 million for an extended period of time.

I think the sweet spot for all parties is when a player has 2-4 years of MLB service time. I think you know what a guy is going to be during that period, and if you are a good or even a great player, you can still make big big dollars. See Bobby Whitt Jr. as the perfect example. He came up with the Royals, they knew they had a stud on their hands, and decided to give up a boat load of money (but not top dollar) with about 2 full years of MLB service time under his belt. Win win for everyone imo.

Vessel said:

---

Yeah, the benefit is probably that if the player is a massive success, then you have a $20-$30 million player for about $10 million for an extended period of time.

---

But it seems like you never do. If a guy is getting grossly underpaid, it seems like the team always renegotiates to keep him happy and make him more likely to stay as a FA.

I agree, I was just making the case for doing it from the team perspective. Something the Mariners have gives them an indication that he won't flop. And that actually is one of the smarter teams when it comes to the developmental side, so they have a bit more benefit of the doubt than most.

thegoodolag15 said:

---

Vessel said:

---

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/48356489/report-mariners-minor-leaguer-colt-emerson-reach-95m-extension

Mariners give a record contract to a player who has 0 MLB service time. Interesting strategy, as they see him as their long term SS when Crawford is gone after this year. Guy has strong numbers across several years and levels and had a good ST, but this seems like a really risky way of doing business.

---

This is genuinely a ridiculous idea. The amount of top prospects who have busted is still insanely high. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the only benefit is that you can avoid arbitration by doing this.

---

I agree, this is a high risk move by the Mariners. Over the years, there have been plenty of "can't miss" projects who just couldn't get it done at the MLB level. As another poster said, you give these deals out after they have at least 1 or 2 years of MLB experience under their belt and they have at least proven they belong.

Jung gets the night off tonight. Duran at 3B. Joc is the DH, so we get to see if he can get a hit tonight.
DeGrom pitching.

Burger has clearly turned himself around. He went through a lot personally last year, and I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He's also a lot younger.
Pederson, IMO, still looks lost at the plate, still looks fat & out of shape…basically looks like the same guy he was last season. I'm standing by my prediction that he won't last the season, probably not long past April.

Jung has had a horrible start to the year, but he just lost his mom to cancer a few weeks ago. Just sad all the way around.