Trevino: "You know, both sides make me a little uncomfortable, to be honest. On one hand, I'm coming off the best season - by far - of my life... and I want to celebrate that, you know? I saw the ball good both with a glove and a bat and really just got in a groove... and now some egg head is coming in and telling me that was a 'one off'? Because of something called BABIP (editor's note: and many other reasons, correlating his performance in prior seasons in rate capacities across different categories relative to his output from last season)? Whatever, man - he's not a "baseball guy" - why can't it just be that I turned a corner? I know my team, the fans of Halifax and myself believe that - who is he to say otherwise?"
Trevino: "On the other side, we've got this other guy putting a ton of expectations on me and throwing me into the spotlight really without my consent. I mean, every AB I get is going to be examined so much differently now. Even if I *think* I am going to continue to produce like I did last year, asking somebody to set their career best year as a baseline is a lot of pressure, man. What happens if I get, say, half my production of last year. That's still really good, you know? But now with this undue attention I'm going to be looked at like a failure or something."
For those unaware, the debate Mr. Trevino speaks of started out with a lamenting that he was the 8th best SS in the league (referent to the state of the league's SS, not Trevino himself) by the GM of the Huntsville Phantoms, Kyle Stever, and grew pretty radically (and entertainingly) into an entire debate about how to project a player's future production with fellow JLM GM, Ron Collins of the Yellow Springs Nine. On one side, Stever presented a few of, what he has dubbed, 'rate stats' to show why he felt last season was an outlier. On the other side, Collins suggested an alternative theory based on his myriad years of experience in baseball - that comparing last year's stats (even at a rate level) to prior year's was moot because he had grown as a player. In both cases that is probably a gross over-simplification, but instead of wasting space here, I'll direct you to here, here and here for your reading pleasure to get a better feel for each position.
Regardless, the debate has now morphed into something entirely new - and, afaik, unprecedented in the MBBA-verse - a bet.
Ron: "...
Francisco Catazara vs. Jessie Stewart
...
If the two of them (Trevino and Medina) score 5 WAR or more between them from 2027-2028 then I am officially "Right" and shall always and thereafter be known as such. Otherwise, it's business as usual for Kyle.
"Something that, perhaps, irks Trevino most of all.
Trevino: "This is my livelihood, man. I've got kids, a family - I'm trying to provide for them. And now I'm in a contract year and not only getting bad-mouthed by some stat-nerd, but I'm now also some kind of pawn in a game? Man, they don't even know what they're doing to me, you know? This isn't a game - it's life. I feel like I'm in a Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy movie or something, man. Whatever. I guess all I can do is go out and prove the haters wrong."
When asked for comments about Trevino's concerns about their dealings, Stever put it simply (whilst also doubling down on his tepid opinion of the player):
Stever: "When did plug and play guys become such primadonnas?"
