Docking Bay 7 in Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge at Walt Disney World and Disneyland is getting new menus for the release of the Mandalorian and Grogu movie. This covers all of the food and drinks coming to a galaxy far, far away and why the once #1 counter service restaurant on both coasts badly needs...
The post Badly Needed New Baby Yoda & Mandalorian Menus Coming to Docking Bay 7 in Star Wars Land appeared first on Disney Tourist Blog.
The airline industry in the United States has fundamentally changed in recent years, and that largely centers around the big airlines earning a significant percentage of their profits from their loyalty programs. Successful loyalty programs require scale, and it makes it harder for the little carriers to compete.
Along those lines, one of the airline industry’s most respected analysts has made an interesting argument that I think is worth covering (thanks to JonNYC for flagging this)…
JetBlue is a uniquely positioned airline in the US market. The carrier isn’t profitable, but it actually has super valuable assets (including its presence at JFK), and it’s also not an ultra low cost carrier. We’ve now seen JetBlue and United launch a partnership, and that’s ramping up slowly, with the goal being for United to get slots at JFK in 2027 at the earliest.
If regulatory hurdles weren’t an issue, I have to imagine that United would acquire JetBlue in a heartbeat (even if United CEO Scott Kirby often dismisses the prospect). That brings us to some commentary from JPMorgan analyst Jamie Baker.
He argues that there’s potential upside for JetBlue from M&A discussions, believing that the current partnership with United is just the tip of the iceberg. Well, of course, that’s something we sort of all knew. But here’s where it gets more interesting…
Baker argues that investors should keep an eye on the ongoing rail M&A developments, where two players with more than 20% market share (Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific), are looking to combine, and would control up to 45% of market share.
Baker and his team think that it’s much more likely that JetBlue will be acquired than file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. He points out that JetBlue and United combined would only have as much domestic market share as American and Delta (around 16%). Meanwhile a JetBlue and Alaska tie-up would result in a mere 7% domestic market share, and a JetBlue and Southwest tie-up would lead to 22% market share.
So as Baker wrote, “to summarize, we think there could be another round of airline consolidation under the current administration (or the next one, perhaps) depending on the outcome in the rail space.”
I agree with Baker 100% here. I’ve written extensively about my thoughts on JetBlue’s prospects, and whether the airline can have an independent future, or if consolidation is the only option. In terms of domestic market share (which is what should matter most from a regulatory standpoint), it seems like consolidation with either Alaska or United should be acceptable, given that United is smaller than American and Delta domestically.
Another key question is overall presence in New York. United of course has a fortress hub at Newark, but has no presence at New York Kennedy, and a very small presence at New York LaGuardia. If you consider those all to be a single market, obviously United also having a significant presence at Kennedy and LaGuardia would be a major issue. But if you view them as independent markets, it would be a different story. Personally, I think having United at Kennedy and with a bigger presence at LaGuardia would only improve the competitive dynamics.
But what matters most is how the government views things. The Trump administration has been sort of tough on consolidation, in some ways, but mostly when it comes to consolidation with foreign firms.
I know everyone likes to say “consolidation is bad for consumers,” but the reality is that at the major airlines, the banks are subsidizing ticket costs, while at the smaller airlines, shareholders are subsidizing ticket costs. The former can continue (as long as there’s no major change to the banking environment), while the latter can’t continue forever. Just look at Spirit.
I know Alaska has its hands full with the Hawaiian merger, but it sure would be interesting to see the airline becoming more of a national player, given its success with loyalty. Alaska also has the advantage of being in the oneworld alliance, so you’d think there would be a lot of upside with the JetBlue hubs on the East Coast.
Earlier this year, there was a ton of talk of a possible acquisition of JetBlue. Then JetBlue and United announced a partnership, which will ramp up over time. While nothing has actually changed in recent months, a respected analyst makes the case that for JetBlue, consolidation is more likely than Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and he thinks we should watch consolidation in the rail industry.
The argument is that JetBlue and United combined would only have as much domestic market share as American or Delta. Meanwhile Alaska can’t be ruled out either…
What do you make of the prospects of more industry consolidation with JetBlue?
If you’ve spent as much time hanging around in taillight bars as I have, I’m pretty sure you’ve encountered these two phrases: “vega’d” and “teecee’d.” They both mean pretty much the same thing, though the former term is more popular among older taillight enthusiasts, and the latter by the youths. The reason they both mean the same thing is because they reference the same deadly sin, a callous victory of perfidy over performance, of cheapness over quality, as expressed in two very different taillights. The common meaning for both terms is something like being lied to, perhaps “gaslit,” or sometimes just a lie in general. The terms come from the Chevy Vega and Scion tC, respectively. Let’s dig into why this is the case.
The reason these cars have lent their names to terms about lies or lying in the Taillight Community is pretty straightforward: both had taillights that, well, lied. Perhaps “lied” isn’t exactly the right word; these taillights were deceptive, let’s say. They both appeared to be things they actually weren’t, and in the case of one, the reason was pretty simple: cheapness. In the case of the other, it’s kind of a mystery.
Let’s start with the older car, the Chevy Vega. I’ve actually written about this before, how the Vega’s 1976 taillight redesign, which had such promise and hope with its amber rear indicators, proved to be a miserable fraud. Yes, the taillight lenses had amber sections that one would reasonably think were for the indicators, when in reality they were just inert dummy sections, without even a provision for a bulb:
Dear lord, that is just shameful. GM’s bean counters couldn’t even spring for two extra bulbs and sockets for the car, a decision they seem to have made well after the taillights were designed. There’s a reason these taillights became synonymous with lies!
Of course, it didn’t take long for most of the remaining Vegas to rust themselves off of the roads and highways, so for younger members of the taillight community, the reference to Vegas when talking about being “vega’d” just didn’t really click, with most of them never having even seen a Vega, let alone its lying rear indicators. The concept of the term was good, but it really needed a new point of reference.
Enter the Scion tC.
Yes, Scion stepped up here, with their attractive little sporty coupé. Built from 2004 to 2016, these appealing little cars were certainly well-known in the Taillight Community, and they had a trait similar to the Vega: a lying taillight.
Now, in the case of the tC, it was just one, not both lights, but that was enough to make the term work. The tC’s lie was in its right-side reverse lamp:
Yes, even though it looked from the outside just like the left side, for some reason Scion decided to cheap out and not include a bulb or socket in the right side reverse light housing. If you don’t believe me or the various confused owners on forums wondering where the hell their other back-up light is, perhaps you’ll believe Scion’s own owner’s manual:
Look at that: note the pointedly singular use of “light” in the upper diagram, then the full-on (if parenthetical) admission of “(left side only)” gives away the whole game. Just one back-up light. Now, this is actually perfectly legal under US law, as the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 108 only requires one white-light reverse/backup lamp:
…and Scion had availed themselves to this mono-lamp requirement before, on the second-gen xB, though they did it then with a great deal more honesty:
See, at least with the xB, there’s no attempt at obfuscation; it’s very clearly just one functional reverse lamp, and there are no confusing other clear sections of taillight that look like they should be reverse lamps, but aren’t, as is the case with the tC.
So the tC’s left taillight is absolutely a liar. I just can’t figure out why.
Was this all just cost-savings? If so, even that doesn’t make sense. There were cheaper Toyotas of the era that somehow managed to have two reverse lights; even the cheapest Scion at the time, the xD, managed to be generous enough to allow for a lavish two bulbs when reversing. So why did the tC only get one? Especially when the taillights looked like they were designed to have one per side?
I thought maybe in European markets, that right side section was used for a rear fog lamp, fitted with a high-intensity red bulb? Maybe, though I’ve yet to confirm that. And, later updates of the tC did include what looked to be a central rear foglamp lens:
…but, from what I have seen online, at least in America this was just a lens and plastic housing (not even a retroreflector) that could have had a bulb socket and bulb, but didn’t. There are instructions on how to actually make it functional, though, if you’re interested.
I guess this will just have to remain one of the great taillight mysteries, but I do think that the Scion tC’s fate as having lying taillights is well-established, and we’ll be hearing about how untrustworthy people have been teeceeing people for years to come.
That’s what you get for being so cheap with your taillights, Toyota.
The post This Is The Secret Shame The Scion TC And The Chevy Vega Shared appeared first on The Autopian.
If you’re planning travel to Dubai anytime soon, your Emirates boarding pass can save you money throughout your trip, thanks to “My Emirates Pass.” This promotion has been offered several times in the past, and it has returned for this summer. We’ve pretty consistently seen this offer in summer, given the temperatures in Dubai that time of year.
With My Emirates Pass, you can save money at hundreds of restaurants, leisure destinations, and retail outlets, across the United Arab Emirates. The discounts vary, though they can be as much as 50%. You can find the full list of partners here.
As you’d expect, there are some terms to be aware of:
Many people living in the UAE are already eligible for big discounts all over the place (for example, Emirates employees can save up to 50% on many things), though if you’re not eligible or are just visiting, this is a fantastic way to save money around the country.
Searching savings opportunities through Emirates’ website is easy:
The choices are extensive, and with each listing you can see how much you can save, and what the limitations are.
My Emirates Pass has been brought back for the summer 2024 season. With this, your Emirates boarding pass can unlock savings at hundreds of businesses in the UAE. If you’re traveling with Emirates to Dubai anytime soon, don’t throw away your boarding pass.
This is a smart promotion — the point of Emirates isn’t just to transport people, but also to get them to visit Dubai. Offering people further savings for visiting certain retailers is a win-win.
Is anyone headed to Dubai, and plan on using My Emirates Pass?
In this video, Nate Mowry interviews Robert McNamara of the Institute for Justice, one of the lawyers representing a group of landowners from Houston who sued Texas for flooding their land with a highway project.
The post The takings clause with Robert McNamara appeared first on SCOTUSblog.
Qatar Airways Privilege Club has just launched a transfer bonus, which could also be useful for collecting other “flavors” of Avios (including with British Airways Executive Club).
Between November 1 and November 10, 2023, Qatar Airways is offering a 30% bonus when you convert select bank points to Privilege Club Avios.
Participating transfer partners include the following:
Ahlibank, Ahli United Bank, ahlibank Oman, Cathay United Bank, CBQ, Citibank, CTBC Bank, Doha Bank, Dukhan Bank, Emirates Islamic, HSBC Hong Kong, HSBC Sri Lanka, HSBC USA, Hyundai Card – AMEX, Kasikorn Bank, Kuwait Finance House, Mashreq, Ping An E-wallet, QIIB, QNB
Of the partners, Citi ThankYou is the only major program in the United States that’s eligible for this offer.
This bonus is being offered on Qatar Airways’ end, meaning you won’t see the bonus reflected directly with partners. Bonus Avios will post within 45 days of the end date of the promotion (though hopefully they post much faster than that).
As of 2022, Qatar Airways Privilege Club adopted Avios as its new rewards currency. This was an exciting development, as it’s possible to transfer Avios at a 1:1 ratio between the various programs that use this rewards currency. That includes Aer Lingus AerClub, British Airways Executive Club, and Iberia Plus.
This means that you could use this offer to indirectly convert Citi ThankYou points into British Airways Avios with a 30% bonus as well. That’s something that will no doubt interest many, but just keep in mind that the bonus won’t post instantly. Therefore this won’t be as useful to some as the other bonuses we’ve seen from transferable points currencies to British Airways.
Qatar Airways Privilege Club is offering a 30% bonus when you convert bank points into Avios. This is a solid opportunity for those with Citi ThankYou points, especially since you could convert these Avios to British Airways Executive Club.
Do you plan on taking advantage of this Privilege Club transfer bonus?
Happy Friday, Autopians! Today we’re looking at two cars I pulled from the Underappreciated Survivors For Sale group on Facebook. They’ve got to be just about the cleanest examples of their breeds left; seriously, wait till you see these things. But first, let’s see how yesterday’s pint-sized pair fared:
Narrow win for the 126P. That would be my choice as well; if I got a kei-sized truck, I think I’d rather have a Hijet with a dump bed on it. And I have always wanted a rear-engine Fiat or Renault, for no good reason.
One of my favorite used car categories is the well-preserved ordinary car. There’s just something about seeing something that should have been beaten to death, junked, and recycled into toasters decades ago still gleaming in the midday sun that makes me smile. They’re not the bargains they once were, but clean survivors are still out there if you look. One of today’s pair is certainly overpriced, at least by my standards, and the other is borderline, but it’s so charming that I still think it’s a good buy. Let’s see if you agree.
Engine/drivetrain: 2.5 liter overhead cam inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Black River Falls, WI
Odometer reading: 84,000 miles
Runs/drives? Great, according to the seller
The Dodge Shadow is one of those cars that instantly places you back in its time when you see it. Once upon a time, Dodge Shadows and Plymouth Sundances were everywhere. But as cheap cars tend to, they got used and abused, and had nearly all disappeared by the end of the decade. They exist now almost exclusively in memory, so when you see one, especially this new-looking, your mind goes back to the days of Bill Clinton and Jurassic Park. And it’s teal, with pink pinstripes. The only way this thing could be more early ’90s is if it were driven by the bass player of the Spin Doctors.
Everyone knew someone who had one of these. An ex-girlfriend of mine drove a Sundance for a while. She really liked it, except for a draft of cold air coming from somewhere under the dashboard in the winter. I told her I had never noticed a draft when I drove it, and she replied, “Yeah, but you’ve never driven it in a skirt, have you?”
Fair point.
Plymouth never got the convertible version; it was strictly available as a Dodge Shadow, in various trim levels. This looks like a mid-level one, with a 2.5 liter version of Chrysler’s long-running four that debuted in the K-car. The 2.5 has a bit more power than the 2.2, and is equipped with balance shafts for a little more refinement. The seller says this one runs and drives like it should, and everything works. It even still has the tonneau cover that fits over the top when it’s down.
And it really is clean. Central Wisconsin isn’t exactly a forgiving environment for cars six months out of the year, and I have a feeling that this one has never seen a single winter. Which is fine, as long as it gets plenty of use the rest of the year.
Engine/drivetrain: 1.6 liter overhead cam inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Sylmar, CA
Odometer reading: 62,000 miles
Runs/drives? Flawlessly, from the sound of it
I try not to make fun of the ads for cars, but one line in this ad jumped out at me: “Disclaimer: Offers from discerning classic/collectible auto enthusiasts will be considered ONLY.” Well, pardon me, but I’m off to play the grand piano. It’s a Mazda 323, dude. Come on. Granted, it’s probably the nicest Mazda 323 anyone has seen since they were in showrooms, but it’s still a mass-produced economy car, not a hand-built Italian exotic or something.
This BF-platform 323 is powered by a 1.6 liter engine making 82 horsepower, but a good chunk of that is sucked away by a three-speed automatic transmission that someone probably paid quite a lot extra for in 1988. The seller says this is a two-owner car, and the original owner was elderly, barely drove it, and kept it in a garage. It has had a recent timing belt service, all fluids changed, and a new battery installed. However, if I were you, I’d check the date codes on the tires; no mention is made of them having been replaced, and they could be twenty years old.
Honestly, I feel a little sorry for this car. Cars like this were meant to have been bought by recent college graduates, proudly driven to their new job at the office park, carried them through all kinds of adventures, taken them on that first date with Mister or Miss Right (and countless Mister and Miss Wrongs), been traded in on a Honda Odyssey after the second kid came along, and gone on to become some teenager’s first car, loved and abused at the same time. Instead, this one did pretty much nothing.
There’s still time to take it to Radwood or something, I suppose, where it would undoubtedly draw a crowd, but I would hope that whoever buys it would take it to an event five states away, and drive it there. This poor car needs some exercise.
I don’t imagine the sellers of either of these cars wants to see them get used like regular cars, but the fact is, they are just regular cars. Time capsules, yes, but just cars. It’s my opinion that all cars should be driven, even the “priceless” ones, and these are certainly not those. The age of gasoline is going away all too quickly; do we want to leave behind pristine examples of vehicles that can no longer be driven anyway, or a bunch of worn-out husks full of awesome memories? Which one of these do you want to use up?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
The post Nicest Ones Left: 1992 Dodge Shadow Convertible vs 1988 Mazda 323 SE Hatchback appeared first on The Autopian.
It has been just over 20 years since the Sept. 11 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people in the worst terrorist attack in modern history. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in yet another legal battle arising from the government’s response to the attacks – specifically, the government’s efforts to block the disclosure of information about its torture program at CIA “black sites.”
In United States v. Zubaydah, the government argues that the information is protected by the “state secrets privilege,” a doctrine that allows the government to withhold information in litigation when disclosing it would compromise national security. A federal appeals court disagreed, reasoning that something can be a “state secret” only if it is a secret – which, the court of appeals concluded, much of the information at issue in this case is not.
Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, known as Abu Zubaydah, is a Palestinian who was mistakenly believed to be a high-level member of al-Qaeda when he was captured in Pakistan in 2002. For four years, the government moved him among so-called black sites operated by the CIA overseas – including, by all accounts, one in Poland. During that time, he was subjected to so-called “enhanced interrogation” techniques that included waterboarding (more than 80 times), sleep deprivation, and over 11 days in a coffin-sized box. In 2006, the government transferred Abu Zubaydah to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he remains to this day.
In 2017, Abu Zubaydah and his lawyers asked a federal judge in Washington state for an order allowing his lawyers to depose and seek documents from two former CIA contractors, James Elmer Mitchell and John Jessen, as part of a criminal investigation in Poland, where Zubaydah says Mitchell and Jessen had supervised his interrogation. The judge initially granted the request for a subpoena, but he later changed his mind and quashed the subpoena after the U.S. government intervened and, in a declaration by then-CIA director Mike Pompeo, asserted the state secrets privilege.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed. The court of appeals agreed that the government had properly asserted the state secrets privilege to shield “much” of the information at issue. But the solution, the court of appeals concluded, is not to quash the entire subpoena, but instead to try to “disentangle nonprivileged from privileged information.” Over the objections of 12 judges, the full court of appeals declined to rehear the case.
The Trump administration went to the Supreme Court in December 2020, asking the justices to weigh in; they agreed to do so in April 2021, and the Biden administration has continued to pursue the appeal.
In its brief on the merits, the federal government stressed that it has already declassified a lot of information regarding the CIA’s detainee program, including “the details of Abu Zubaydah’s treatment while in CIA custody, which included the use of enhanced interrogation techniques.” But it has concluded that the disclosure of some information, such as the locations of “black sites” and the identities of the countries with which the CIA worked, “could not be declassified without risking undue harm to the national security” – even if other sources, including the European Court of Human Rights, have publicly discussed that information. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the government explained, some foreign countries had agreed to cooperate with the CIA as long as the CIA kept those relationships secret. If CIA personnel or contractors, like Mitchell and Jessen, were to publicly confirm the relationships, it would create “a breach of the trust” between the CIA and the foreign governments and would “likely” lead to “serious negative consequences” for the U.S. intelligence community, because foreign governments would be less likely to help the CIA in the future, the government argued.
The 9th Circuit compounded its mistake, the government suggested, when it concluded the disclosure would not result in any harm because Mitchell and Jensen are contractors, rather than CIA employees, so that any information they provided would not come from the “United States.” Mitchell and Jensen obtained the information at issue only because they worked for the CIA, the government emphasized, so their responses would furnish exactly the confirmation or denial that Abu Zubaydah is seeking. And the government can still invoke the privilege even when other sources may have already reported that Poland was the site of a CIA detention facility, the government added.
Even putting aside the state secrets privilege, the government continued, the district court correctly denied Abu Zubyadah’s request for discovery. All of the factors that the Supreme Court’s cases have outlined to guide federal courts in making these kinds of decisions point to denial, the government contended. In particular, the government told the justices, Abu Zubaydah’s efforts to obtain information from Mitchell and Jessen is simply an effort to circumvent limitations in federal law and a U.S. treaty with Poland, which prevent him from being able to obtain the information directly from the CIA.
For his part, Abu Zubaydah agreed that courts should generally defer to the executive branch’s conclusion that disclosing secret information would harm national security. But, he cautioned, that deference does not extend to the question of whether the information itself is secret, or what courts should do when a litigant is seeking both privileged and nonprivileged information. In this case, Abu Zubaydah emphasized, the court of appeals upheld “most” of the government’s privilege claim; it simply ruled that some of the information that Abu Zubaydah seeks was not privileged, including information regarding the conditions in which Abu Zubaydah was held and details about his interrogation.
The reality bears out the lower court’s distinction, Abu Zubaydah contended. He is not seeking confirmation that there was a CIA black site in Poland. Instead, he is seeking information that could help Polish prosecutors to determine “whether a crime was committed under Polish law, such as the details of Abu Zubaydah’s torture in Poland, his medical treatment, and the conditions of his confinement.” The government has already declassified this information; indeed, Mitchell and Jessen have already testified about these details in other proceedings. And in any event, allowing Mitchell and Jessen to testify wouldn’t officially confirm anything, he wrote, because they are CIA contractors and therefore can’t speak for the government. Moreover, Abu Zubaydah has no other access to this information – he is being held incommunicado indefinitely, he stressed, so neither he nor his attorneys can testify about the conditions of his confinement.
Abu Zubaydah urged the court to reject the government’s fall-back argument that, putting aside the claim that the information is shielded by the state secrets privilege, the district court still should have rejected his discovery request anyway. That contention is not properly before the court, Abu Zubaydah posited, because the government did not broach it in its petition for review. However, Abu Zubaydah noted, the district court initially granted Abu Zubaydah’s discovery request based on the same factors that the government now says weigh against him. It agreed to dismiss the request only after the government invoked the state secrets privilege.
The justices are slated to hear another case involving the state secrets privilege, FBI v. Fazaga, next month. Decisions in both cases are likely to follow sometime next year.
This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
The post Justices will consider whether details on post-9/11 CIA black sites are state secrets appeared first on SCOTUSblog.
It’s not uncommon to see airlines paint planes in special liveries, particularly retro liveries that commemorate the carrier’s past. Air Canada has just revealed its latest plane in a retro livery, and I love it.
A brand new Airbus A220-300 is currently in the paint shop in Mirabel, before Air Canada takes delivery of it. The A220 is the sharpest looking narrow body plane to begin with, and I think it looks particularly sharp in Air Canada’s standard new livery, particularly with the A350-style cockpit painting.
Well, Air Canada’s newest A220 (with the registration code C-GNBN) will be commemorating Trans-Canada Air Lines, the predecessor to Air Canada. Seriously, how cool-looking is this plane?!
For those of you who don’t know the history, Trans-Canada Air Lines was founded in 1937, and in 1965 it was renamed Air Canada. So this isn’t even the case of commemorating a takeover, or anything, but rather just a rebranding.
This isn’t the first time Air Canada painted a plane in the Trans-Canada Air Lines retro livery. the airline had painted an Airbus A319 in the livery back in the late 1990s.
Photo credit: NEKskier
For context, since the Trans-Canada Air Lines brand ceased to exist over 55 years ago, below is what a DC-8 looked like at the airline back in 1964, shortly before the rebranding.
Photo credit: Ralf Manteufel
I’m not sure if it comes down to picture quality so many years ago or what, but the livery does look a bit different, and specifically the base paint coat seems to be white rather than silver. Frankly the modern interpretation looks much sharper, in my opinion.
Air Canada’s newest A220-300 will be in a retro livery to commemorate Trans-Canada Air Lines, which is what Air Canada was known as until 1965. I love the look of this jet — when you combine the sleekness of the A220 with this livery, it’s just one-of-a-kind.
Do you love this Air Canada A220 in the Trans-Canada Air Lines livery as much as I do?
The post Gorgeous: Air Canada Airbus A220 In Retro Livery appeared first on One Mile at a Time
After having typically appeared in the hallowed pages of Baseball Think Factory, Dan Szymborski’s ZiPS projections have now been released at FanGraphs for nine years. The exercise continues this offseason. Below are the projections for the Baltimore Orioles.
The 2020 Orioles were hard not to like. There was no reason to think they would be competitive, yet they hung around the edges of the playoff race until a 5–14 finish dropped them out of contention. I won’t lie: It was somewhat satisfying to this Baltimore native to watch the O’s beat out the Mookie Betts-less Red Sox for fourth in the AL East and take their first trip out of the basement since 2016.
It’s doubtful, though, that 2020’s surprising run was the leading edge of something bigger. Anthony Santander’s .261/.315/.575 campaign may have been enough to elevate him over the rest of the team’s deep stable of Quad-A sluggers, but a lot of the winning was due to good years from players like José Iglesias and Tommy Milone, who were never going to be part of the core going forward. What is encouraging is that unlike the Phillies of several years ago, the front office didn’t learn the wrong lesson from the team’s ephemeral success, resisting any July attempt to stockpile random veterans.
The makings of a competent offense are present more so than in recent offseasons, with much fewer negative WAR projections. The larger problem is that there’s just not a lot of star talent in this lineup. Adley Rutschman is the team’s best chance to swim against that current in the short-term, and there’s a great deal of potential remaining in Ryan Mountcastle‘s bat, but other prospects like Heston Kjerstad, Gunnar Henderson, Jordan Westburg, and Terrin Vavra are going to take a little longer. And as great a story as Trey Mancini’s comeback from colon cancer is, by the time the O’s are ready to compete for real in normal seasons, he’s likely going to be in another uniform.
Santander and Austin Hays form two-thirds of a competent outfield, with the mess in left still to sort out. Parting with fringe yet useful players like Renato Núñez and Dwight Smith Jr. is unfortunate, but the O’s need to be looking at higher-upside players such as Yusniel Diaz. Don’t get too excited about him getting Dwight Evans as his top offensive comp — Dewey was a late bloomer — but there’s still potential there, even if it was disappointing that he didn’t find his way onto the 2020 roster.
The low number next to the first basemen on the graphic is largely due to the presence of Chris Davis, whose presence on the roster is getting harder to explain. There’s little justification for him ever getting another plate appearance in Baltimore: His bat isn’t coming back any more than the pit beef sandwich I once lost in the Patapsco River when I slipped on a water taxi.
Hanser Alberto, who wasn’t tendered a contract, was no more likely to contribute to the next good Baltimore team than Nuñez was, but the competent second baseman with a game built mainly around contact is a rarer breed than in the old days, and it was fun to have a little variety. You can’t put Old Bay on everything. I’m hoping the O’s give Ramón Urías, another underdog middle infielder, a similar chance to succeed.
Alex Cobb’s splitter was nasty for the first time in years, and it was enough to give him his best projection in years. No, he’s still not the pitcher that he was with the Rays, but it would be nice to see him put together a few normal, healthy seasons, even if it mainly makes him trade bait. Tanner Scott was terrific last season, and he’s one of two current pitchers with a notably bimodal distribution to his projections (the other is Michael Kopech). In layman’s terms, the computer saw him as having a higher chance either of stardom or being a bust than being just a normal, middling player. If Scott can keep the walk rate in the fours instead of the sixes, as he did in 2020, the former becomes the more likely result. Trying him out as a starter is less crucial now with the O’s looking relatively deep in pitching prospects.
Speaking of those pitching prospects, the loss of the minor league season was a tough one for Baltimore’s farm system. The organization doesn’t have any elite hurlers in the high minors, but they have a plethora of interesting “wait-and-see” guys nearing the majors who lost an entire year of live baseball. We got to see a bit of Keegan Akin and Dean Kremer, but nothing from Zac Lowther, DL Hall, Michael Baumann, or Grayson Rodriguez, a blow for the team.
Whether it’s good news or not that Kevin Smith, acquired from the Mets for Miguel Castro, is projected as the best pitcher on the roster despite topping off at Double-A Binghamton is a philosophical question I’ll leave to you. I faced a mildly angry mob of Mets fans last year when I did not make an official projection for Smith, but ZiPS is a huge fan of his work so far. If he’s as good in Baltimore as the computer expects, the Castro trade will be a highlight of Mike Elias’ tenure.
ZiPS projects only Scott and Paul Fry to be better-than-average among the relief corps. One might actually consider this a good thing; the Orioles have no use for a top bullpen in 2021.
| Player | B | Age | PO | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO | SB | CS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthony Santander | B | 26 | RF | 572 | 536 | 70 | 143 | 35 | 3 | 26 | 92 | 28 | 103 | 3 | 4 |
| Pat Valaika | R | 28 | 2B | 433 | 408 | 64 | 110 | 18 | 2 | 21 | 56 | 21 | 104 | 1 | 4 |
| Trey Mancini | R | 29 | RF | 527 | 481 | 64 | 133 | 25 | 3 | 24 | 77 | 36 | 119 | 1 | 0 |
| Austin Hays | R | 25 | CF | 504 | 473 | 65 | 126 | 22 | 2 | 19 | 64 | 23 | 104 | 8 | 7 |
| Ryan Mountcastle | R | 24 | 1B | 524 | 490 | 61 | 141 | 24 | 2 | 21 | 82 | 26 | 118 | 1 | 1 |
| Renato Nuñez | R | 27 | DH | 570 | 516 | 72 | 129 | 26 | 0 | 31 | 94 | 42 | 152 | 1 | 0 |
| José Rondón | R | 27 | SS | 425 | 396 | 49 | 97 | 20 | 3 | 17 | 57 | 23 | 105 | 6 | 4 |
| Ramón Urías | R | 27 | 2B | 396 | 352 | 49 | 91 | 22 | 1 | 12 | 45 | 30 | 86 | 4 | 3 |
| Hanser Alberto | R | 28 | 2B | 572 | 544 | 69 | 155 | 28 | 2 | 10 | 53 | 14 | 60 | 5 | 2 |
| Adley Rutschman | B | 23 | C | 594 | 536 | 68 | 123 | 29 | 0 | 16 | 70 | 46 | 126 | 6 | 0 |
| Cedric Mullins | B | 26 | CF | 569 | 518 | 64 | 127 | 24 | 6 | 13 | 54 | 35 | 112 | 20 | 6 |
| Rio Ruiz | L | 27 | 3B | 523 | 474 | 59 | 112 | 24 | 2 | 17 | 71 | 44 | 118 | 2 | 3 |
| Chance Sisco | L | 26 | C | 395 | 340 | 45 | 79 | 15 | 0 | 13 | 44 | 38 | 122 | 0 | 1 |
| Yolmer Sánchez | B | 29 | 2B | 524 | 470 | 59 | 120 | 23 | 6 | 7 | 45 | 41 | 100 | 8 | 6 |
| Pedro Severino | R | 27 | C | 399 | 362 | 39 | 87 | 14 | 2 | 12 | 50 | 31 | 86 | 3 | 0 |
| Martin Cervenka | R | 28 | C | 366 | 338 | 36 | 74 | 15 | 1 | 10 | 38 | 21 | 107 | 1 | 0 |
| Austin Wynns | R | 30 | C | 355 | 325 | 38 | 79 | 11 | 0 | 8 | 32 | 23 | 66 | 0 | 0 |
| DJ Stewart | L | 27 | LF | 474 | 407 | 58 | 92 | 19 | 1 | 20 | 67 | 53 | 123 | 7 | 4 |
| Rylan Bannon | R | 25 | 3B | 532 | 478 | 58 | 109 | 23 | 3 | 15 | 56 | 44 | 125 | 5 | 4 |
| Brett Cumberland | B | 26 | C | 370 | 317 | 41 | 61 | 15 | 1 | 11 | 38 | 35 | 122 | 0 | 2 |
| Greg Cullen | L | 24 | 2B | 454 | 400 | 48 | 87 | 16 | 4 | 7 | 34 | 41 | 99 | 1 | 3 |
| Nick Ciuffo | L | 26 | C | 329 | 305 | 31 | 68 | 16 | 1 | 8 | 35 | 20 | 87 | 1 | 1 |
| Ryan McKenna | R | 24 | CF | 575 | 514 | 66 | 120 | 23 | 5 | 12 | 54 | 47 | 141 | 15 | 10 |
| Mason McCoy | R | 26 | SS | 573 | 533 | 56 | 127 | 19 | 7 | 4 | 39 | 33 | 118 | 8 | 3 |
| Andrew Velazquez | B | 26 | CF | 364 | 332 | 42 | 73 | 13 | 4 | 8 | 32 | 25 | 101 | 14 | 6 |
| Bryan Holaday | R | 33 | C | 220 | 199 | 20 | 44 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 24 | 15 | 39 | 1 | 1 |
| Mason Williams | L | 29 | CF | 447 | 414 | 46 | 104 | 14 | 4 | 10 | 40 | 27 | 91 | 6 | 7 |
| Richie Martin Jr. | R | 26 | SS | 440 | 402 | 44 | 89 | 16 | 5 | 8 | 36 | 25 | 107 | 13 | 4 |
| Terrin Vavra | L | 24 | SS | 374 | 325 | 42 | 75 | 14 | 2 | 6 | 28 | 41 | 78 | 11 | 6 |
| Tyler Nevin | R | 24 | 1B | 531 | 476 | 57 | 111 | 21 | 3 | 13 | 47 | 49 | 114 | 5 | 2 |
| Stevie Wilkerson | B | 29 | 2B | 380 | 349 | 39 | 81 | 17 | 1 | 9 | 36 | 22 | 104 | 4 | 4 |
| Yusniel Diaz | R | 24 | RF | 458 | 414 | 53 | 101 | 19 | 5 | 14 | 54 | 41 | 108 | 3 | 8 |
| Chris Shaw | L | 27 | LF | 523 | 483 | 61 | 118 | 24 | 2 | 23 | 77 | 31 | 153 | 1 | 1 |
| Jesmuel Valentín | B | 27 | SS | 420 | 381 | 42 | 83 | 17 | 2 | 8 | 37 | 32 | 105 | 6 | 4 |
| Taylor Davis | R | 31 | C | 367 | 328 | 35 | 78 | 14 | 1 | 6 | 30 | 30 | 57 | 0 | 1 |
| Richard Ureña | B | 25 | SS | 522 | 488 | 45 | 114 | 25 | 4 | 7 | 44 | 23 | 120 | 2 | 2 |
| Malquin Canelo | R | 26 | SS | 494 | 451 | 45 | 94 | 19 | 3 | 6 | 33 | 32 | 150 | 10 | 6 |
| Mark Trumbo | R | 35 | RF | 404 | 378 | 47 | 89 | 16 | 0 | 20 | 58 | 24 | 102 | 1 | 0 |
| Cadyn Grenier | R | 24 | SS | 374 | 337 | 35 | 59 | 15 | 3 | 7 | 30 | 30 | 141 | 4 | 3 |
| Robert Neustrom | L | 24 | RF | 345 | 323 | 31 | 68 | 16 | 1 | 7 | 32 | 18 | 87 | 3 | 3 |
| Ryne Ogren | R | 24 | 2B | 365 | 334 | 31 | 64 | 11 | 1 | 4 | 22 | 23 | 95 | 4 | 1 |
| Chris Davis | L | 35 | 1B | 383 | 343 | 32 | 61 | 12 | 0 | 11 | 41 | 34 | 141 | 1 | 0 |
| Zach Jarrett | R | 26 | RF | 453 | 425 | 42 | 87 | 15 | 2 | 9 | 39 | 21 | 151 | 3 | 3 |
| Ryan Ripken | L | 27 | 1B | 332 | 319 | 26 | 64 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 26 | 10 | 99 | 0 | 1 |
| Player | BA | OBP | SLG | OPS+ | ISO | BABIP | RC/27 | Def | WAR | No. 1 Comp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthony Santander | .267 | .308 | .489 | 112 | .222 | .287 | 5.4 | 3 | 2.0 | George Wright |
| Pat Valaika | .270 | .305 | .478 | 109 | .208 | .314 | 5.2 | 1 | 1.8 | Jeff Kent |
| Trey Mancini | .277 | .332 | .491 | 120 | .214 | .322 | 6.1 | -5 | 1.8 | Rondell White |
| Austin Hays | .266 | .306 | .442 | 100 | .175 | .306 | 4.8 | 3 | 1.8 | Glenn Wilson |
| Ryan Mountcastle | .288 | .324 | .473 | 114 | .186 | .342 | 5.8 | 1 | 1.7 | Delmon Young |
| Renato Nuñez | .250 | .312 | .481 | 112 | .231 | .294 | 5.4 | 0 | 1.7 | Ryan Shealy |
| José Rondón | .245 | .288 | .439 | 94 | .194 | .292 | 4.5 | 4 | 1.6 | Chris Woodward |
| Ramón Urías | .259 | .332 | .429 | 106 | .170 | .311 | 5.1 | 0 | 1.5 | Jim Davenport |
| Hanser Alberto | .285 | .307 | .399 | 91 | .114 | .306 | 4.6 | 4 | 1.5 | Placido Polanco |
| Adley Rutschman | .229 | .291 | .373 | 80 | .144 | .272 | 3.9 | 4 | 1.5 | Mickey Tettleton |
| Cedric Mullins | .245 | .296 | .390 | 85 | .145 | .290 | 4.3 | 5 | 1.3 | Pat Watkins |
| Rio Ruiz | .236 | .301 | .403 | 90 | .167 | .280 | 4.2 | 5 | 1.3 | Fritzie Connally |
| Chance Sisco | .232 | .334 | .391 | 97 | .159 | .322 | 4.5 | -7 | 1.0 | Jarrod Saltalamacchia |
| Yolmer Sánchez | .255 | .320 | .374 | 89 | .119 | .311 | 4.3 | 0 | 0.9 | Mickey Morandini |
| Pedro Severino | .240 | .304 | .390 | 87 | .149 | .284 | 4.3 | -3 | 0.8 | Dan Wilson |
| Martin Cervenka | .219 | .266 | .358 | 68 | .139 | .290 | 3.3 | 7 | 0.7 | Alvin Colina |
| Austin Wynns | .243 | .295 | .351 | 76 | .108 | .283 | 3.7 | 2 | 0.6 | Juan Espino |
| DJ Stewart | .226 | .323 | .425 | 102 | .199 | .273 | 4.8 | -5 | 0.6 | Pat Brady |
| Rylan Bannon | .228 | .298 | .383 | 84 | .155 | .278 | 3.9 | -1 | 0.5 | Mike Bell |
| Brett Cumberland | .192 | .303 | .350 | 78 | .158 | .272 | 3.4 | -1 | 0.5 | Chad Kreuter |
| Greg Cullen | .218 | .308 | .330 | 75 | .113 | .272 | 3.4 | 2 | 0.4 | Doug Saunders |
| Nick Ciuffo | .223 | .268 | .361 | 69 | .138 | .286 | 3.3 | 3 | 0.4 | Eric Helfand |
| Ryan McKenna | .233 | .304 | .368 | 82 | .134 | .299 | 3.8 | -2 | 0.3 | Xavier Paul |
| Mason McCoy | .238 | .284 | .323 | 65 | .084 | .299 | 3.3 | 6 | 0.3 | Anderson Hernandez |
| Andrew Velazquez | .220 | .279 | .355 | 71 | .136 | .291 | 3.5 | 4 | 0.3 | Herm Winningham |
| Bryan Holaday | .221 | .283 | .327 | 66 | .106 | .256 | 3.2 | 3 | 0.3 | Chris Ashby |
| Mason Williams | .251 | .297 | .377 | 82 | .126 | .300 | 3.8 | 0 | 0.2 | Cory Sullivan |
| Richie Martin Jr. | .221 | .278 | .346 | 69 | .124 | .282 | 3.5 | 1 | 0.2 | Luis Bolivar |
| Terrin Vavra | .231 | .315 | .342 | 80 | .111 | .286 | 3.7 | -4 | 0.1 | Sam Khalifa |
| Tyler Nevin | .233 | .308 | .372 | 84 | .139 | .281 | 4.0 | 2 | 0.1 | Kurt Bierek |
| Stevie Wilkerson | .232 | .286 | .364 | 76 | .132 | .305 | 3.5 | 1 | 0.1 | Ron Oester |
| Yusniel Diaz | .244 | .314 | .415 | 97 | .171 | .298 | 4.3 | -4 | 0.0 | Dwight Evans |
| Chris Shaw | .244 | .296 | .445 | 98 | .201 | .309 | 4.7 | -8 | 0.0 | Chris Wakeland |
| Jesmuel Valentín | .218 | .282 | .336 | 68 | .118 | .280 | 3.2 | -1 | -0.2 | Tony Trevino |
| Taylor Davis | .238 | .301 | .341 | 75 | .104 | .272 | 3.6 | -6 | -0.2 | Jerry Grote |
| Richard Ureña | .234 | .267 | .344 | 65 | .111 | .296 | 3.2 | 1 | -0.3 | Don Sparks |
| Malquin Canelo | .208 | .264 | .304 | 55 | .095 | .298 | 2.7 | 4 | -0.5 | Mario Ramirez |
| Mark Trumbo | .235 | .282 | .437 | 92 | .201 | .270 | 4.4 | -9 | -0.6 | Eddie Williams |
| Cadyn Grenier | .175 | .251 | .300 | 50 | .125 | .275 | 2.4 | 2 | -0.7 | Omar Bramasco |
| Robert Neustrom | .211 | .253 | .331 | 58 | .121 | .266 | 2.8 | 0 | -1.3 | Kelcey Mucker |
| Ryne Ogren | .192 | .255 | .266 | 43 | .075 | .255 | 2.3 | -1 | -1.4 | Gil Velazquez |
| Chris Davis | .178 | .256 | .309 | 53 | .131 | .262 | 2.6 | 0 | -1.6 | Larry Biittner |
| Zach Jarrett | .205 | .249 | .313 | 52 | .108 | .294 | 2.6 | 0 | -2.0 | Daniel Carte |
| Ryan Ripken | .201 | .229 | .285 | 39 | .085 | .274 | 2.1 | -1 | -2.3 | Selwyn Langaigne |
| Player | T | Age | W | L | ERA | G | GS | IP | H | ER | HR | BB | SO | FIP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kevin Smith | L | 24 | 9 | 8 | 4.58 | 25 | 25 | 116.0 | 113 | 59 | 17 | 54 | 114 | 4.67 |
| John Means | L | 28 | 9 | 10 | 4.90 | 28 | 25 | 136.0 | 143 | 74 | 26 | 31 | 106 | 4.92 |
| Tanner Scott | L | 26 | 4 | 3 | 3.70 | 64 | 0 | 65.7 | 55 | 27 | 6 | 36 | 80 | 3.76 |
| Keegan Akin | L | 26 | 6 | 7 | 5.00 | 23 | 21 | 99.0 | 103 | 55 | 20 | 40 | 96 | 5.23 |
| Chandler Shepherd | R | 28 | 6 | 7 | 5.15 | 24 | 21 | 117.0 | 133 | 67 | 21 | 37 | 90 | 5.08 |
| Cesar Valdez | R | 36 | 5 | 5 | 5.00 | 16 | 15 | 86.3 | 94 | 48 | 14 | 27 | 61 | 4.95 |
| Paul Fry | L | 28 | 4 | 3 | 4.10 | 61 | 1 | 63.7 | 58 | 29 | 7 | 30 | 68 | 4.12 |
| Alex Cobb | R | 33 | 7 | 8 | 5.27 | 21 | 21 | 114.3 | 128 | 67 | 22 | 32 | 80 | 5.23 |
| Dillon Tate | R | 27 | 4 | 4 | 4.89 | 28 | 10 | 73.7 | 77 | 40 | 10 | 27 | 54 | 4.78 |
| Jorge López | R | 28 | 6 | 6 | 5.08 | 34 | 15 | 106.3 | 111 | 60 | 18 | 40 | 90 | 4.99 |
| Zac Lowther | L | 25 | 8 | 10 | 5.33 | 24 | 24 | 121.7 | 124 | 72 | 23 | 59 | 113 | 5.41 |
| Rob Zastryzny | L | 29 | 4 | 4 | 5.18 | 23 | 14 | 90.3 | 99 | 52 | 16 | 37 | 76 | 5.19 |
| Cole Sulser | R | 31 | 5 | 4 | 4.43 | 50 | 2 | 61.0 | 57 | 30 | 9 | 28 | 65 | 4.44 |
| Hunter Harvey | R | 26 | 4 | 4 | 4.96 | 29 | 9 | 61.7 | 63 | 34 | 11 | 23 | 57 | 4.92 |
| Ashton Goudeau | R | 28 | 4 | 4 | 5.07 | 21 | 11 | 71.0 | 76 | 40 | 13 | 24 | 55 | 5.19 |
| Bruce Zimmermann | L | 26 | 5 | 6 | 5.40 | 20 | 19 | 100.0 | 110 | 60 | 19 | 43 | 82 | 5.48 |
| Dean Kremer | R | 25 | 5 | 7 | 5.46 | 20 | 20 | 97.3 | 104 | 59 | 20 | 45 | 96 | 5.42 |
| Thomas Eshelman | R | 27 | 5 | 7 | 5.45 | 26 | 19 | 119.0 | 137 | 72 | 25 | 32 | 81 | 5.48 |
| Claudio Custodio | R | 30 | 4 | 4 | 5.00 | 31 | 4 | 63.0 | 67 | 35 | 9 | 25 | 46 | 4.91 |
| Kohl Stewart | R | 26 | 6 | 8 | 5.51 | 26 | 20 | 111.0 | 125 | 68 | 18 | 49 | 72 | 5.48 |
| Travis Lakins Sr. | R | 27 | 4 | 4 | 4.93 | 47 | 5 | 65.7 | 69 | 36 | 10 | 32 | 57 | 5.07 |
| Wade LeBlanc | L | 36 | 4 | 5 | 5.54 | 18 | 13 | 91.0 | 102 | 56 | 19 | 25 | 65 | 5.32 |
| Shawn Armstrong | R | 30 | 3 | 2 | 4.58 | 53 | 0 | 55.0 | 51 | 28 | 9 | 25 | 58 | 4.78 |
| Fernando Abad | L | 35 | 3 | 3 | 4.57 | 49 | 0 | 45.3 | 47 | 23 | 8 | 10 | 40 | 4.44 |
| Mac Sceroler | R | 26 | 4 | 5 | 5.65 | 21 | 17 | 86.0 | 93 | 54 | 17 | 38 | 67 | 5.69 |
| Tyler Herb | R | 29 | 6 | 9 | 5.70 | 22 | 21 | 115.3 | 134 | 73 | 22 | 50 | 78 | 5.76 |
| Mickey Jannis | R | 33 | 5 | 7 | 5.72 | 19 | 18 | 107.0 | 125 | 68 | 21 | 40 | 66 | 5.79 |
| Brady Rodgers | R | 30 | 2 | 3 | 5.76 | 15 | 12 | 59.3 | 69 | 38 | 13 | 19 | 38 | 5.86 |
| Branden Kline | R | 29 | 3 | 3 | 4.88 | 42 | 0 | 51.7 | 51 | 28 | 8 | 25 | 48 | 4.90 |
| Asher Wojciechowski | R | 32 | 7 | 9 | 5.74 | 27 | 22 | 116.0 | 129 | 74 | 28 | 42 | 104 | 5.82 |
| Marcos Diplán | R | 24 | 3 | 5 | 5.59 | 35 | 12 | 77.3 | 79 | 48 | 13 | 54 | 74 | 5.74 |
| DL Hall | L | 22 | 3 | 4 | 5.83 | 18 | 16 | 63.3 | 63 | 41 | 11 | 48 | 60 | 6.01 |
| Tyler Wells | R | 26 | 4 | 5 | 5.86 | 13 | 12 | 58.3 | 64 | 38 | 13 | 25 | 48 | 5.92 |
| Zach Muckenhirn | L | 26 | 3 | 3 | 4.95 | 47 | 0 | 60.0 | 59 | 33 | 8 | 33 | 56 | 4.90 |
| Ty Blach | L | 30 | 5 | 7 | 5.76 | 29 | 19 | 120.3 | 144 | 77 | 22 | 39 | 71 | 5.40 |
| Michael Baumann | R | 25 | 7 | 9 | 5.85 | 25 | 23 | 112.3 | 119 | 73 | 22 | 58 | 94 | 5.79 |
| Danny Barnes | R | 31 | 3 | 3 | 5.21 | 47 | 0 | 48.3 | 46 | 28 | 9 | 26 | 51 | 5.17 |
| Isaac Mattson | R | 25 | 5 | 5 | 5.08 | 48 | 0 | 78.0 | 78 | 44 | 12 | 37 | 67 | 5.04 |
| Grayson Rodriguez | R | 21 | 4 | 6 | 6.22 | 16 | 15 | 59.3 | 63 | 41 | 11 | 38 | 41 | 6.33 |
| Tim Naughton | R | 25 | 3 | 4 | 5.33 | 50 | 0 | 52.3 | 51 | 31 | 8 | 34 | 52 | 5.30 |
| Tyler Erwin | L | 26 | 3 | 4 | 5.43 | 43 | 0 | 53.0 | 57 | 32 | 9 | 24 | 42 | 5.33 |
| Cody Sedlock | R | 26 | 3 | 5 | 6.19 | 21 | 16 | 80.0 | 89 | 55 | 16 | 48 | 61 | 6.24 |
| Conner Greene | R | 26 | 5 | 8 | 6.23 | 32 | 17 | 108.3 | 116 | 75 | 19 | 80 | 77 | 6.45 |
| Alexander Wells | L | 24 | 5 | 8 | 6.37 | 23 | 23 | 120.0 | 148 | 85 | 30 | 42 | 73 | 6.44 |
| Player | K/9 | BB/9 | HR/9 | BB% | K% | BABIP | ERA+ | ERA- | WAR | No. 1 Comp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kevin Smith | 8.8 | 4.2 | 1.3 | 10.5% | 22.2% | .298 | 97 | 103 | 1.3 | Mike Miller |
| John Means | 7.0 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 5.4% | 18.3% | .286 | 91 | 110 | 1.1 | Fritz Peterson |
| Tanner Scott | 11.0 | 4.9 | 0.8 | 12.5% | 27.8% | .302 | 120 | 83 | 0.8 | Shane Rawley |
| Keegan Akin | 8.7 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 9.1% | 21.9% | .300 | 89 | 112 | 0.7 | Scott Sauerbeck |
| Chandler Shepherd | 6.9 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 7.1% | 17.4% | .308 | 86 | 116 | 0.6 | Scott Erickson |
| Cesar Valdez | 6.4 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 7.2% | 16.2% | .295 | 89 | 112 | 0.6 | Mel Harder |
| Paul Fry | 9.6 | 4.2 | 1.0 | 10.7% | 24.3% | .300 | 109 | 92 | 0.5 | Carmen Cali |
| Alex Cobb | 6.3 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 6.4% | 16.1% | .294 | 84 | 118 | 0.5 | Bill Lee |
| Dillon Tate | 6.6 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 8.3% | 16.7% | .294 | 91 | 110 | 0.5 | Tommie Sisk |
| Jorge López | 7.6 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 8.5% | 19.2% | .296 | 88 | 114 | 0.5 | Ed Klieman |
| Zac Lowther | 8.4 | 4.4 | 1.7 | 10.8% | 20.7% | .294 | 84 | 120 | 0.5 | Greg Kubes |
| Rob Zastryzny | 7.6 | 3.7 | 1.6 | 9.1% | 18.8% | .306 | 86 | 116 | 0.4 | Chad Zerbe |
| Cole Sulser | 9.6 | 4.1 | 1.3 | 10.5% | 24.4% | .296 | 101 | 99 | 0.4 | Tony Fiore |
| Hunter Harvey | 8.3 | 3.4 | 1.6 | 8.5% | 21.1% | .295 | 90 | 111 | 0.4 | John Urrea |
| Ashton Goudeau | 7.0 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 7.7% | 17.6% | .292 | 88 | 114 | 0.3 | Bill Swaggerty |
| Bruce Zimmermann | 7.4 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 9.5% | 18.1% | .301 | 82 | 121 | 0.3 | Jake Chapman |
| Dean Kremer | 8.9 | 4.2 | 1.8 | 10.3% | 21.9% | .308 | 82 | 123 | 0.2 | Clemente Nunez |
| Thomas Eshelman | 6.1 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 6.1% | 15.5% | .296 | 82 | 122 | 0.2 | Josh Towers |
| Claudio Custodio | 6.6 | 3.6 | 1.3 | 9.0% | 16.5% | .296 | 90 | 111 | 0.2 | Jim Todd |
| Kohl Stewart | 5.8 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 9.7% | 14.3% | .298 | 81 | 124 | 0.2 | Bill Gogolewski |
| Travis Lakins Sr. | 7.8 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 10.8% | 19.2% | .304 | 90 | 111 | 0.2 | Frank Reberger |
| Wade LeBlanc | 6.4 | 2.5 | 1.9 | 6.3% | 16.5% | .292 | 80 | 124 | 0.1 | Mickey Weston |
| Shawn Armstrong | 9.5 | 4.1 | 1.5 | 10.4% | 24.1% | .290 | 97 | 103 | 0.1 | Doug Sisk |
| Fernando Abad | 7.9 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 5.2% | 20.9% | .295 | 98 | 103 | 0.1 | Steve Mingori |
| Mac Sceroler | 7.0 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 9.8% | 17.3% | .291 | 79 | 127 | 0.0 | Troy Chestnut |
| Tyler Herb | 6.1 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 9.5% | 14.8% | .302 | 78 | 128 | 0.0 | Chris Beasley |
| Mickey Jannis | 5.6 | 3.4 | 1.8 | 8.3% | 13.7% | .297 | 78 | 128 | 0.0 | Charlie Robertson |
| Brady Rodgers | 5.8 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 7.2% | 14.4% | .293 | 77 | 129 | -0.1 | Joe Mays |
| Branden Kline | 8.4 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 10.9% | 21.0% | .295 | 91 | 110 | -0.1 | Gary Wagner |
| Asher Wojciechowski | 8.1 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 8.1% | 20.0% | .300 | 78 | 129 | -0.1 | Jaime Navarro |
| Marcos Diplán | 8.6 | 6.3 | 1.5 | 14.8% | 20.3% | .301 | 80 | 125 | -0.1 | Tim Meeks |
| DL Hall | 8.5 | 6.8 | 1.6 | 15.9% | 19.9% | .292 | 76 | 131 | -0.1 | Todd James |
| Tyler Wells | 7.4 | 3.9 | 2.0 | 9.5% | 18.2% | .293 | 76 | 132 | -0.1 | Preston Larrison |
| Zach Muckenhirn | 8.4 | 5.0 | 1.2 | 12.1% | 20.6% | .298 | 90 | 111 | -0.1 | Philip Barzilla |
| Ty Blach | 5.3 | 2.9 | 1.6 | 7.3% | 13.2% | .303 | 77 | 129 | -0.2 | Dave Otto |
| Michael Baumann | 7.5 | 4.6 | 1.8 | 11.3% | 18.3% | .292 | 76 | 131 | -0.2 | Jeff Fulchino |
| Danny Barnes | 9.5 | 4.8 | 1.7 | 12.1% | 23.7% | .289 | 85 | 117 | -0.3 | Craig McMurtry |
| Isaac Mattson | 7.7 | 4.3 | 1.4 | 10.7% | 19.3% | .291 | 88 | 114 | -0.3 | Larry Bearnarth |
| Grayson Rodriguez | 6.2 | 5.8 | 1.7 | 13.7% | 14.7% | .283 | 72 | 140 | -0.3 | Dave Proctor |
| Tim Naughton | 8.9 | 5.8 | 1.4 | 14.1% | 21.6% | .299 | 84 | 120 | -0.4 | Lloyd Allen |
| Tyler Erwin | 7.1 | 4.1 | 1.5 | 10.0% | 17.6% | .298 | 82 | 122 | -0.4 | Danny Zell |
| Cody Sedlock | 6.9 | 5.4 | 1.8 | 12.8% | 16.2% | .297 | 72 | 139 | -0.5 | Rob Purvis |
| Conner Greene | 6.4 | 6.6 | 1.6 | 15.4% | 14.8% | .288 | 71 | 140 | -0.8 | Charlie Zink |
| Alexander Wells | 5.5 | 3.2 | 2.3 | 7.7% | 13.3% | .299 | 70 | 143 | -0.9 | Jason Cromer |
Players are listed with their most recent teams wherever possible. This includes players who are unsigned, players who will miss 2021 due to injury, and players who were released in 2020. So yes, if you see Joe Schmoe, who quit baseball back in August to form a Finnish industrial death metal fourth-wave ska J-pop band, he’s still listed here intentionally.
Both hitters and pitchers are ranked by projected zWAR, which is to say, WAR values as calculated by me, Dan Szymborski, whose surname is spelled with a z. WAR values might differ slightly from those which appear in the full release of ZiPS. Finally, I will advise anyone against — and might karate chop anyone guilty of — merely adding up WAR totals on a depth chart to produce projected team WAR. ZiPS is assuming that the designated hitter will continue in force in 2021; if it does not, there will be widespread minor adjustments across the board come April.
ZiPS is agnostic about future playing time by design. For more information about ZiPS, please refer to this article, or get angry at Dan on Twitter or something.
What we originally hoped would be a months-long refurbishment is seemingly getting out of hand as the Tomorrowland PeopleMover refurbishment has now extended into 2021. According to the internal refurbishment calendar, the Tomorrowland PeopleMover will be closed through January 2, 2021.
Back in July, we reported that the Tomorrowland PeopleMover would be closed for weeks, if not longer, when the general consensus was that it was a day-by-day closure. Since then, the refurbishment date has been extended time and again.
According to our earlier reporting, Disney is working a full replacement of all of the magnetic linear induction motors along the 5400′ track. As you might remember, the attraction was having issues before the parks closed that led to some significant downtime. Reportedly, Disney was trying to replace the motors as they failed, but with lower crowds in the theme parks since they reopened in mid-July, they have opted for a full replacement.
The Tomorrowland PeopleMover didn’t reopen with the rest of Magic Kingdom on July 11th following the COVID-19 closures. The PeopleMover was experiencing issues even before the theme parks closed.
Notice: JavaScript is required for this content.The post Tomorrowland PeopleMover Refurbishment Extended into 2021 at Magic Kingdom appeared first on Blog Mickey - Disney News.
