Cameron added Mitchell to IL

[markedman5]

 

[markedman5]

 

[TURBO]

Remember when we thought we had a ton of OF depth?

Now we are relying on waiver wire fodder to fill spots on the roster...

[duewizard]

I don't know how I feel about Mitchell. He's the kind of guy who gets me excited but in 4 years he's spent the majority of his time in the IL and can't get the K% under 30%. He has only played 141 games and is arbitration elligible next year. I don't know how sustainable it is, especially as he ages and the defence and speed nose dive. Wouldn't call him a bust but by now I think he will never live up to his potential

[sveumrules]

1 hour ago, duewizard said:

Wouldn't call him a bust but by now I think he will never live up to his potential

Mitchell was picked 20th and his 3.7 WAR so far is tied with Reid Detmers (pick #10) for 4th among 2020 First Rounders.

Garrett Crochet (6.9 WAR pick #11), Pete Crow-Armstrong (4.1 WAR pick #19), and Jordan Westburg (3.8 WAR pick #30) are the three guys who have been more productive to this point.

Injuries will likely prevent him from ever living up to his true theoretical ceiling, but he's still been one of the more successful picks even with all the missed time.

[Jopal78]

2 hours ago, sveumrules said:

Mitchell was picked 20th and his 3.7 WAR so far is tied with Reid Detmers (pick #10) for 4th among 2020 First Rounders.

Garrett Crochet (6.9 WAR pick #11), Pete Crow-Armstrong (4.1 WAR pick #19), and Jordan Westburg (3.8 WAR pick #30) are the three guys who have been more productive to this point.

Injuries will likely prevent him from ever living up to his true theoretical ceiling, but he's still been one of the more successful picks even with all the missed time.

If WAR without context is your end all be all then sure. 
 

Since debuting in ‘22 Mitchell has played 144 total games. Spencer Torkelson has a lesser career WAR than Mitchell but has played in 200 more games since his debut in ‘22. 
 

Is a player “more productive” based solely on WAR or does availability factor into who’s more productive. 

[sveumrules]

3 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

If WAR without context is your end all be all then sure. 
 

Since debuting in ‘22 Mitchell has played 144 total games. Spencer Torkelson has a lesser career WAR than Mitchell but has played in 200 more games since his debut in ‘22. 
 

Is a player “more productive” based solely on WAR or does availability factor into who’s more productive. 

WAR is a counting stat so playing time is included. BRef has credited Tork and his 1,579 PAs for +53 runs in the replacement column vs only +15 runs for Mitchell and his 443 PAs.

Where Garrett has closed the gap is by being faster (+3 in base running / double play avoidance vs -5 for Tork), a better defender (+12 fielding / positional vs -30 for Tork) and a better hitter (112 OPS+ / +5 batting runs vs 99 OPS+ / -4 batting runs for Tork).

Spencer’s bat is finally coming around to start the season so he’s got plenty of time to make up ground, but Mitchell has provided more value to this point despite playing far less because a 1B/DH hitting for a 99 OPS+ doesn’t really bring anything to the table.

[BrewerFan]

8 hours ago, duewizard said:

I don't know how I feel about Mitchell. He's the kind of guy who gets me excited but in 4 years he's spent the majority of his time in the IL and can't get the K% under 30%. He has only played 141 games and is arbitration elligible next year. I don't know how sustainable it is, especially as he ages and the defence and speed nose dive. Wouldn't call him a bust but by now I think he will never live up to his potential

Yeah, I wanted to be wrong, but... he's just not clicking, swings through the high fastball, can't stay healthy...

Not that I'm saying we should give up on him...he's just not gonna be much more than an injury prone, plus defensive CF who Ks a lot and occasionally runs into one and steals a few bags. 

[BrewerFan]

6 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

If WAR without context is your end all be all then sure. 
 

Since debuting in ‘22 Mitchell has played 144 total games. Spencer Torkelson has a lesser career WAR than Mitchell but has played in 200 more games since his debut in ‘22.

Ok...if Torkelson has a lesser career WAR but has played 200 more games, you realize he's been just THAT MUCH worse, right?

 

6 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

Is a player “more productive” based solely on WAR or does availability factor into who’s more productive. 

Yes. Based on WAR. 

If you have one player who plays in 100 games and he adds 4 games above replacement and another who has less WAR over 300 games, the player who's added more wins is the more valuable one....

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, BrewerFan said:

Ok...if Torkelson has a lesser career WAR but has played 200 more games, you realize he's been just THAT MUCH worse, right?

 

Yes. Based on WAR. 

If you have one player who plays in 100 games and he adds 4 games above replacement and another who has less WAR over 300 games, the player who's added more wins is the more valuable one....

The point is: Mitchell could have a lousy 100 games and his Career WAR would drop. 
 

It’s similar to having three best batting average in the league and not enough bats to qualify for the batting title. 

[duewizard]

14 hours ago, sveumrules said:

Mitchell was picked 20th and his 3.7 WAR so far is tied with Reid Detmers (pick #10) for 4th among 2020 First Rounders.

Garrett Crochet (6.9 WAR pick #11), Pete Crow-Armstrong (4.1 WAR pick #19), and Jordan Westburg (3.8 WAR pick #30) are the three guys who have been more productive to this point.

Injuries will likely prevent him from ever living up to his true theoretical ceiling, but he's still been one of the more successful picks even with all the missed time.

Please don't take this the wrong way but I dont care about he stacks up against 2020 1st rounders in terms of WAR, Great that he is in tied 4th out of 30. Tied in 6th if you consider the entire draft (which I believe is much more appropriate). To me that only shows how much potential the guy has and how much it has been wasted. With his WAR/162 numbers he should actually be closer to 12. I do also prefer fWAR but thats honestly not an issue.

Most of the value he gets comes from baserunning and defense. With his injury history and the way just ageing works, he is in his prime production years and those numbers will start to nosedive in 3-4 years. So the injuries are key because he will never produce at the same level as he does right now and he won't have success in the long term (especially if his hitting degrades more)

[Underachiever]

I’m with you on not caring where he compares to his draft class. He’s not playing teams made up of people in his draft class. He can’t stay healthy, and he strikes out too much. I’ve never been a fan of Mitchell and won’t be until he can stay on the field and produce.
 

The opportunity cost of counting on Mitchell and having him fail is important, too. Keep putting a guy in the middle of your outfield plans and having him underperform due to injury is a loss of potential.

[SoCalBrewfan]

If you are going to complain about comparing him to 2020 first rounders, I think the better complaint is that it's too early to do so effectively; a high school pick from 2020 is still about 22 or 23 and some of them, like, say, Soderstrom from the As, have only started to accumulate WAR. I think it's fair to say that many Brewer fans would take him over Mitchell. Plenty of the HS guys like Nick Yorke or Robert Hassell have seen their stars dim a bit, but still have time to turn things around. Even some college picks like Max Meyer or Kjerstad are just getting established in the majors, and seem like good bets to surpass Mitchell in the long run.

(Though it's always sobering to see how quickly some of those picks looked bad, remember the Cubs and Ed Howard? or Asa Lacy fourth overall?)

[BrewerFan]

10 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

The point is: Mitchell could have a lousy 100 games and his Career WAR would drop. 
 

It’s similar to having three best batting average in the league and not enough bats to qualify for the batting title. 

I don't think it is. 

[Scooterfletcher]

7 hours ago, duewizard said:

Most of the value he gets comes from baserunning and defense. With his injury history and the way just ageing works, he is in his prime production years and those numbers will start to nosedive in 3-4 years. So the injuries are key because he will never produce at the same level as he does right now and he won't have success in the long term (especially if his hitting degrades more)

We control guys for six years.   So if we get 4-5 of the best Mitchell has to offer, that is good value for our first round pick.   Better than most teams.   I don’t necessarily care if he’s not an extension candidate beyond our control years .

[duewizard]

2 hours ago, Scooterfletcher said:

We control guys for six years.   So if we get 4-5 of the best Mitchell has to offer, that is good value for our first round pick.   Better than most teams.   I don’t necessarily care if he’s not an extension candidate beyond our control years .

Exactly my point. We control him for 6 years (a bit more as he was a September call up). This is year number 4. By now he should have played 350-ish games with us. Because of injuries he's played under 162.