Jump to content


Plus Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Frobby

  1. 2 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

    I dont put too much stock in what I read in ESPN stories the last few years, they have gone downhill so bad,

    Honesty their lack of respect for the 83 WS team, pretty much mirrors Orioles fandom opinion. How many times have I read on OH, that the 83 WS winners was the worse Oriole team to win a WS?

    The Big Red Machine was pretty impressive machine, sorry, at that time I was just a Senator fan. I wasnt a fan, but still, they had a ton of talent. Some could make a case Sparky was a better manager than Earl.

    If you compare the two teams, which I haven't. I wonder which team has more HOFers on it. I know the Orioles had the better SPers and best 3rd.

    The lack of respect for the 66 team, is most likely due to 21 year old writters that only know what they read and they wasnt around back then, so everything they have seen is better than history.


    To be fair, I think they are judging the quality of the World Series itself, not the quality of the teams playing.   Hence, the ones at the top are 7-game Series, while the ones at the bottom are mostly 4-0 or 4-1 jobs (with one exception being the 1919 Black Sox series, which they rank last because it was thrown).

    Saying that, ESPN ranks 14 other series sweeps as better Series than our ‘66 sweep, and 15 five game series as better than either the ‘70 or ‘83 Series.    The swept Series ranked better than ours include multiple Yankees sweeps.   Screw them.   

    • Upvote 1

  2. 8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

    But we don’t know why he wasn’t at that camp, right?  

    Maybe he had an injury or was exposed to covid or something like that.

    I agree it’s puzzling but I also don’t know that it means the team doesn’t like him.

    He did eventually join the camp, but not until Sept. 4

  3. 1966 ranks 107th of the 115 World Series ever played?   The hell with that!    That series was a huge upset and featured two 1-0 nail biters. 

    1970 ranks 95th?    The great O’s team over the Big Red Machine?   Brooks puts on the best defensive show of all time and this is what we get?

    1983 ranks 84th?    So all three Orioles wins are in the bottom 32 World Series ever played, and worse than every World Series they lost?   Aargggghhh!

    Now for the killer: you have to jump all the way to 36 for Mets vs. Orioles in 1969.    Other than the fact that the Mets were a terrible team before ‘69, what about that series is better than 1983?    They are both 5 game series where the winning team lost the opener and then swept 4 straight.   Screw this!  This is why I hate all New York sports teams so much.    

    1971 — 20th.    

    1979 — 13th.   

    Now, I can’t really argue that, objectively speaking, the two seven game losses to the Pirates weren’t better World Series than the four other 4-5 game Series that the O’s played.  But lord it pains me to see them up so high.   And just to add insult to injury:

    “When Eddie Murray batted in the eighth inning of Game 7, the championship leverage index in the moment was higher than for any other play in history. He flied to the edge of the warning track, and after a slightly awkward break, Dave Parker ran it down. Five more feet and it could have looked a lot like the ball Nelson Cruzmisplayed, for which David Freese got a triple, in 2011.”


    • Upvote 1
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2

  4. FV dropped from 50 to 45 and ceiling dropped from 55 to 50.   That feels a little harsh to me.   But based on the write-up, it seems Tony heard some things about Diaz’s camp that were a bit more negative than what has been stated publicly.   

    I think Diaz is a guy who could exceed his projection if things go right for him.

  5. 5 hours ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

    There have been many worse corner OFs for the O's, Delmon Young, Trumbo, and of course Jack Cust come to mind.

    Hopefully “better than those guys” is not the standard we’re trying to meet.   

  6. One name I haven’t seen listed yet is Hunter Harvey, who is still rookie-eligible.  He was ranked 10th last year. For now I will assume he’s been downgraded after being somewhat less impressive in 2020 than in 2019, but it’s also possible that Tony didn’t realize he was still eligible.   

    The next two on last year’s list were Wells and Rom.   That’s not a pairing here, but Zimmermann did reach the majors and didn’t embarrass himself, so Wells and Zimmermann is possible.   Assuming Tony meant what he said about not shuffling the order of incumbent players who weren’t in Bowie, McKenna-Hall and Hall-Mayo aren’t possibilities since there are several incumbent players ahead of Hall.   

    That leaves Baumler-Mayo or Mayo-Baumler.    The latter seems more likely since Mayo was the higher pick and got the higher bonus.    

    As between Mayo-Baumler and Wells-Zimmermann, I think Tony will go with the younger pairing with more upside.    Wells and Zimmermann are both 5th starter/swingman types.   And my gut tells me that Wells not being invited to Bowie is a bad sign for him.   So I’m going Mayo-Baumler.   

  7. 1 hour ago, Number5 said:

    IIRC, Mayo and Baumler were thought to be "unsignable" and surely going to college.  The Orioles pulled off a coups by using the savings from the 1.2 slot to draft and sign them.  Therefore, Haskin being drafted before them doesn't really prove that the Orioles necessarily had him rated higher than Mayo or Baumler.  You may be right, but I don't think it is a given.

    But I also relied on the fact that they paid Haskin more money than them, not just that he was drafted higher.   But it was reasonably close, so not necessarily definitive.  

    Haskin $1.91mm 

    Mayo $1.75 mm

    Baumler $1.5 mm

  8. 10 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

    Frobby's logic is good, as always.

    I think of Mayo and Baumler as the cream of our class, even above Westburg. That's my own bias based on what I've read, I guess. At this point, accounting for draft slot/bonus is a logical way to do this. Add in that Vavra is much higher rated in other places, is more known for his bat and that he may have some upside on the positional value side, and it argues that he/Haskin is the choice. 

    Even though I explained my vote, I would not be shocked if Tony ranked Mayo and Baumler over Haskin.

  9. 6 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

    Numbers are trending upwards slowly in Maryland, some other states are slowing a larger rise.


    Quite a significant rise nationally over the last five weeks or so.   From 240k new cases a week back up to 390k, which is about where we were in mid-August.   Death increases tend to lag case increases by 2-3 weeks, so unfortunately I think we’ll see deaths start to increase very shortly.    Hope this is just a blip, but with colder weather arriving, it may not be.  

  10. On 10/16/2020 at 3:17 PM, Frobby said:

    I think we know Lowther is 11, since he was going to be 10 before Tony had a change of heart and inserted Akin there.    I’m going with Diaz here purely because he’s the furthest along and has formerly been ranked higher than this.   

    Got that one right.   

  11. 4 hours ago, Philip said:

    Has Adam Hall fallen so far? I thought he was basically our next starting SS?

    Hall was ranked 17 last year, behind several players who are still on the board and didn’t play in Bowie this summer.   Based on Tony’s comment in another thread that he wasn’t going to change the order of the incumbent players from last year who didn’t play at the alternate site, I think that rules out the McKenna-Hall choice.   

    Haskin was picked ahead of Baumler and Mayo, and received a bigger bonus than either of them.   Accordingly, I see no reason either of them would jump Haskin on the list.   

    So, that leaves Vavra-Haskin or Haskin-Vavra.   I’ve seen Vavra ranked as high as 7th in our system (per Fangraphs), so I’ll go Vavra-Haskin.


    • Upvote 3

  12. 4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

    I totally disagree that Mountcastle looked awful out there. Berroa was an awful OFer and he is who we should measure against if we are using the word awful.

    Mountcastle looked like a GGer compared to him.


    The whole idea of “looked awful” is a questionable concept.   If modern metrics have taught us anything, it’s that a guy can look pretty good in the field but actually be below average, or vice versa.   In the OF this has a lot to do with what kind of jump the fielder gets and whether he takes good routes.   Those things are hard to pick up watching on TV and not just focusing on the one player the whole game.  A guy can have OK speed and catch everything he reaches, and yet be below average due to these factors.   Or, a guy can be well above average even if he occasionally drops a ball if these factors play in his favor.   

    The other problem with “looks terrible” is that 1-2 plays can skew your opinion of a player, especially if the memorable play (good or bad) occurs before you’ve seen the player a lot.   

  13. 9 minutes ago, Philip said:

    I appreciate that clarification, but he looked awful. And at baseball savant he’s zero or below zero in everything I checked.

    Zero is average on Baseball Savant.   

    I’m not particularly defending his fielding.   I didn’t watch enough to form a strong opinion one way or the other, and in any event, defensive stats based on 23 games in the outfield have very limited value.    But for whatever value they do have, they don’t support the opinion that Mountcastle shouldn’t carry a glove.   And I don’t think anyone’s opinion should be set in stone based on such a very small sample.   We’ll get a better look next year.   

    • Thanks 1

  14. 6 hours ago, Philip said:

    I checked at fangraphs. The stat might be different at BBR, But I always use FanGraphs

    You are misinterpreting the meaning of the stat.   dWAR (which is just called “Defense” on Fangraphs) is a combination of the positional value (how difficult is the position to play) and then fielding value (whether the player is above or below average at the positions he played)   Mountcastle had a positional value of -1.8 and a fielding value of +0.1, and with rounding that comes to -1.8.   But that number shows he was basically average at the positions he played, he just happened to play positions that are easy.   By the way, positional value also includes games at DH, which are strongly negative.  

    • Upvote 2

  15. 4 hours ago, Philip said:

    The point is that they’re not going to say anything bad about the players. They’re not going to say anything negative about the players, they’re not going to identify problems the players have. They’re going to be enthusiastic and positive or silent. That’s not very useful. And the guys writing the article aren’t going to ask any deep questions.

    Also, you have to take even the positive comments with a large grain of salt. As I said, that’s the nature of the beast and it can’t be any other way, but it is a fool’s errand to look for meaningful commentary in an article like this.

    I don’t disagree, but I still enjoyed reading it and was happy to have it to read.   I don’t mind a shot of blind optimism in the offseason.  

    • Upvote 1

  16. 55 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

    I don’t think that you can project their 2020 stats X 3 or 4. As I mentioned....let’s see Mullins hit consistently for a full season, let’s see if Hayes can stay off the DL, and I’m willing to give Santander a mulligan based solely on the fact that he really hasn’t been injured prior to this season.

    I made it very clear in my post that it was a small sample size and they could regress.    But the simple fact is, they all performed significantly above replacement level in the relatively short time they played.   And, because of their age and experience level, as a group  I like their chances of improving rather than regressing.   That’s not to say that all of them will improve.   But collectively I think the chances of improvement are better than 50/50.

  17. 6 minutes ago, Philip said:

    This is a comment made about possibly bringing up a Rays prospect catcher for next season. Is this comment true and if so, does that accelerate some of our guys?


    “....needs development work in the minors...has not played at AA yet

    Posted  by pgmitchell  on Oct 18, 2020 | 10:38 AM

    He spent all season at the alternate site
    Everything I’ve seen rookies say this year is that it helped them develop faster, if anything, since they’ve been getting 15 ABs of live batting practice against mostly major league pitching every day. And Hernandez has been catching half of those pitches. I think he’ll be just fine.

    Posted  by Brickhaus  on Oct 18, 2020 | 3:04 PM

    Matt Blood didn’t think it accelerated things, more like it kept players from falling behind.   But I’m sure it depends a bit what level the player was at before attending the camp.   Here’s Blood speaking about Rutschman:

    “He got good work in at home, he was able to find ways to get some live experience there, and then he went to Bowie and got exposed to really good pitching for two months. And then he comes here and continues that progression,” Blood said.

    “Is it a full year of development? Probably not. But is it compared to most? I would say he got an above-average development experience. A well above-average development experience compared to most this year. So I’ve been pretty happy with the progress we’ve seen out of him.”



  18. 17 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

    Lowther and Bannon are guys you wouldn't expect on the instructional roster.  Lowther, it seems, missed most of the Bowie camp.  Same thing with Bannon?

    Also, very interesting to see which recent international players are there. Are these the best prospects.  No Prado.  We have Luis Ortiz and Luis Gonzalez from the last J2 period.  Previous years players Cosma, Bellony, Acevedo,Sanchez, and Beriguete.  I missed a couple.  I think it says a little something especially a out Luis Ortiz and Luis Gonzalez. 

    I think some players had visa issues, especially the ones we acquired in trades.   

  19. 22 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

    Actually, if there is a fan base who deserves one, it’s them.  

    The actual fans who show up and root for them deserve it.   The region as a whole really doesn’t.  

  20. 32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

    I think Mountcastle was at .7 or .8 when he was in the outfield.

    He cooled off a lot with the bat in the final two weeks of the season. It kind of went under the radar because his overall numbers were still very good.   .286/.321/.306 over his final 13 games.   Mostly a power outage, nothing that really concerns me.

    • Thanks 1
  • Create New...