Transmogrified Tiger

I don't know how much this actually plays a part(there was a great article this week about the Giants matchup analysis that is very sophisticated and more like what most teams are doing), but Heyward is 3 for 7 with a BB, 2B, and HR (plus no K's) against Burnes. That's spread out over several years but the most recent was last April and Heyward had a double and a lineout. As with basically all Heyward playing time this year, especially later in the year when Davis is an option and/or Frazier earns an everyday spot in the lineup, they better be right.

Some things that will be interesting to monitor from a lineup perspective - Are they starting Heyward or is he behind others in the pecking order from the get go? - How high are they on Frazier, is he getting a LF/DH start against a tough righty when they don't have to? - Similarly, is Wisdom getting a vote of confidence with the opening day look(especially w/ Villar ramping slowly) or are they going to be more aggressive in platooning? - How much are they going to try to balance approaches within the lineup? Do they care if there's, for example, a Contreras/Happ/Wisdom corridor of similar styles? Do Hoerner/Madrigal hit higher than their overall production would indicate to give that balance?

Just the dumbest pile of rich people around

I've never heard Stephen Nelson's name before, why is this something he would uniquely know

Absolutely not a defense of the Ricketts, but Stroman would be #2 if not for the desire to split him and Hendricks up in the order. Sure, but he shouldn’t even be sniffing the rotation on a large market team. ZiPS sees basically no difference between Steele's expected production and guys like Tony Gonsolin, Nestor Cortes, and Taijuan Walker, all of whom have rotation spots on Top 3 payrolls at the moment. I'm not particularly bullish on Steele and the back of the rotation is one of the weakest spots on the roster, but is it too much to ask to avoid the misleading histrionics? He's the 6th starter on paper and the worst case scenario is he quickly gets dropped for a different placeholder until Miley and Alzolay are back.

Only 3 AAA guys on the 40 man is really interesting

FYI if you're a T-Mobile user, for the next 7 days you can redeem free MLB.tv through their T-Mobile Tuesdays app

FWIW I think it's only 2 or 3 games in that window, with the others in March, the specific schedule hasn't been announced yet. They'd have other openings for the June window and the September window too. Also, I'm not sure a low-intensity friendly against a non-WC team is all that much better for preparation than a competitive game against El Salvador(Grenada, sure that's a walkover).

Nations League draw was this evening: Pretty easy draw for the US, possibly the easiest of the 4 groups along with Mexico's. El Salvador and Grenada should be opponents in the June window.

That's fine, while I'm confident in Hendricks I'm not going to pretend it's a universal lock, and if he's not in your eyes that just furthers the original point that there's a ton of potential good performances but very little certainty. I think this is a common idea in the media/public consciousness but is generally oversold for this particular roster. The players who would make any sense to deal at the deadline would be Miley, Smyly, Simmons, maybe Villar, and the veteran relievers? I guess Contreras too. Point being most of the positive variance potential I see coming from players who are under team control and are less likely to be sold off. Also you can account for the possibility of positive contributions from Davis, Kilian, and any other breakouts(Velazquez? Wicks? Any of 37 relievers?) to mitigate any that you do ship off.

Oh this took too long to write so I'll combine: Suzuki, Contreras/Catcher, Hendricks, Stroman were the 4 I'm most confident in. After that I have measured optimism in Happ, Frazier, Miley, Wisdom, Hoerner, and Madrigal, in no particular order. I agree that star-power is the biggest weakness here, it's why I really wanted them to get Seager or Correa. Having said that, even at the 4.5 level you still see a fair amount of pop up performances. In the last 2 full seasons guys like Tyler O'Neill, Cedric Mullins, Brandon Lowe, Max Kepler, Jeff McNeil, and Ketel Marte have made that jump without being blue chip prospects, to say nothing of more famous player development examples like Muncy and Turner in LA. Not likely and still a big challenge to be a consistent playoff contender though. I also agree that it's more likely than not that this year's win total lags the end of season quality of the roster, but on a team that was unlikely to challenge for a title I think that's a feature more than a bug in how it portends a bigger leap the next year. The main thing would be if it's a 76 win team that ends like an 82 win team or a 66 win team that ends like a 72 win team, I believe it's much more likely to be the former than the latter. Lastly, I know it's a throwaway line but I'd push back on the idea that because there isn't a 5 win stud that the team would be boring even if effective. Some of the most fan favorites are players who aren't necessarily at the tippy top of performance charts(don't have to look any further than Willson for a great example), and in a lot of these cases we're talking about prime aged guys and/or players who would be repeating good performance so you would have less worry about it being unsustainable for 2023. Could they have done more to make 2022 exciting, both in their competitive odds and in the names on the roster? Absolutely. But if Frazier becomes Ginger Schwarber for a few years by ripping 30 bombs from DH I don't think people are going to yawn their way through it because he's not hitting 50.

Maybe said a different way, here's the fWAR per 600 PA of most of the position player group from just last year: Schwindel 5.5 Madrigal 3.6 Wisdom 3.7 Ortega 2.9 Hoerner 2.8 Contreras 2.6 Gomes 2.6 Villar 2.5 Happ 1.5 Plus a few guys who have been at that level more than once in the past in Frazier and Simmons, plus Suzuki. If we got repeat performances from half of that group I'd be very happy, but the conversation here is taking justified pessimism about any individual one of them and assuming that's how it's going to happen for all of them and that's just not a realistic expectation.

Between the position players and the rotation, there is maybe one spot where I would be legitimately shocked if they got a 3+ win performance(5 starter), it's easy for me to see that possibility basically everywhere. There's also at most 4-5 of those places where I would be surprised if they didn't get that 3+ win performance, which means there's like 8 different places where we could look in August and think "that place is taken with a good player" or that same guy might not even be on the roster. So yes if you look at the median outcome for all of these it's going to be uninspiring, but what's more likely instead of having 9 different performances of 1.4-1.7 WAR you get 3 of them that hit nicely, a few that get replaced before they can put in a full season of near replacement level production, and enough bodies of players who deserve a shot that you don't actually get dragged down by the misses.

Wick is a lock for the major league pen and probably a setup role, did you mean someone else? Abbott is a starter who hasn't been able to prevent damage at AAA and doesn't throw all that hard, so he's not a surprise to not get a serious look at the MLB pen with this many options of interest. Rodriguez hasn't been optioned that I can see so he may still get another appearance or two. The only players with 5+ appearances are Effross(pitching very well), Rucker(also pitching very well), and Yardley(NRI they're getting a good look at) so it's not all that disproportionate.

Strumpf is a bat first profile that didn’t do anything at AA but take his walks, so the only thing that’s surprising about him going to AA is his age, which says more about his prospect status than anything.

Would they have Cano playing 2B then? I have a hard time seeing them trading Smith and McNeil at once, even if a Happ/Ortega was coming back. But I'm also lukewarm on McNeil, he turns 30 next week and while I get the buy low possibility and several years of control, it's the type of profile I think you try to grow rather than paying 10 million/year (including the portion of Hosmer) for in a trade. Cano, Gulliorme or Eduardo Escobar at 2B and then Escobar/Davis at 3B. In theory we could be sending out Wisdom, Alcantara or Happ (who maybe can play some IF) in any trade as well. Feels like a 'to what end?' type of thing for the Mets, like yeah I can maybe shuffle it to not have a gaping chasm, but a few days before the season why would they rush to that outcome? Also Alcantara was traded to Arizona after his DFA, Happ has barely played on the IF the last few years(on top of currently rehabbing during ST), and Wisdom would be our own version of 'to what end?'.

Would they have Cano playing 2B then? I have a hard time seeing them trading Smith and McNeil at once, even if a Happ/Ortega was coming back. But I'm also lukewarm on McNeil, he turns 30 next week and while I get the buy low possibility and several years of control, it's the type of profile I think you try to grow rather than paying 10 million/year (including the portion of Hosmer) for in a trade.

I guess this means Conforto is healthy, since who the hell else is available to reallocate those funds to? I really hope Jed pulls the trigger on this though. The most obvious iteration is something like Hosmer + Hassell + Paddack for Mills and a little bit of filler. That said, the Padres still have enough on the farm that you can find worthwhile versions even if Hassell is untouchable. Could also be money for extensions(Cronenworth, Grisham), breathing room for the deadline, or simply an ownership mandate that they have to get under 190 or so. If it were any of those I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like Ortega be the guy instead of Mills, would fit a more present need and can be optioned. There's also the possibility that this is the way to make a Contreras/Campusano deal work for all parties.

Ouch, the 1st place team in group C and 2nd place team in group D will get one day of rest between their final group game and the knockout round. I think that's a Wednesday to Saturday gap, the 30th and the 3rd being the matchdays. Speaking of, good motivation to go for the US to go for the group win, as they get an extra day's rest before the round of 16 compared to the runner up.

good news, no early games

Iran has made the last 2 world cups. In 2014 they finished last in their group, scoring only 1 goal across 3 games(in a dead rubber tie with Bosnia). In 2018 they beat Morocco with a 95th minute own goal, got waxed by Bosnia 3-1, and got a 93rd minute penalty to tie Portugal when they needed a win. 6 games, 1-2-3 record, 3 goals for(dead rubber, own goal, PK) and 6 against. I mentioned up thread how they haven't beaten any of the WC-caliber teams in their own confederation in order to qualify. Their confederation has not faired a ton better. The AFC has never had a team win a knockout round game aside from South Korea's 2002 run as the host. In 2018 only 1 of 5 teams advanced from the group(Japan, who won the Fair play tiebreaker on Senegal). In 2014 it was 0 for 4. This doesn't mean Iran is garbage, they're better than teams the US didn't always handle in the Ocho, and they'll play a defense first style that isn't an ideal match for our weaknesses. But I cannot respect a statistical model that puts them on equal footing in quality with the US.

England made the semis in 2018 and the Euro 2020 finals so I think their current status is pretty deserved. Maybe more to the point, England isn't a great matchup for the US because they use their talent to create defensive solidity first and foremost. In those 2 tournaments England has allowed 10 goals in 14 matches, and the only teams to score more than one were Croatia(needed extra time) and Belgium(low intensity 3rd place game). You can nick a point on them if you too are defensively sound and they aren't having a strong game(they have 23 goals in those 14 but nearly half came v. Panama & Ukraine), but compared to someone like Argentina, Spain, and maybe Belgium, they're tougher to get 3 points from, IMO.

Also, I'm not going to claim to be an expert on Asian soccer, but I'm highly skeptical of the trumpeting of Iran I've seen in a couple places. There are 5 non-Iran teams in AFC ranked in the Top 51(Qatar is 51). Iran had 16 competitive games in this cycle between qualifying and the Asian cup, and only 3 of those games were against those 5, and in those 3 games they were 0-2-1 with 1 goal scored and 6 against. You can only beat who you play and I don't want to say they're unworthy of their spot, but all 3 other teams should be favored to control the game and win against them.

With the non-elite UEFA teams I'm of two minds. On one hand, playing a less talented/accomplished team helps because they're definitionally less good. On the other hand, the US under Berhalter has done well against teams that want to try to have the ball, so if it's not some powerhouse then I don't think we might mind playing a marginally better team that isn't going to sit deep. With that in mind I don't think there's an obvious 'yes please them' or 'no not them', doubly so with all the uncertainty surrounding Ukraine. I guess I would slightly prefer not to play Ukraine, both because I think there's likely a lift they'd get from repping their country this year greater than the average team(probably not dissimilar to the hosts), and also because Wales/Scotland would be intense games for England which would help us in our match with those 2.

Canada avoided E and G, about as good as they could hope for after they missed A