Jump to content
MurphDogg

Orioles make an offer to Yasiel Puig. UPDATE: Puig to sign with Braves Tests POSITIVE for COVID 19

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, interloper said:

Agreed, not exactly efficient. I'm guessing they made a pretty lowball offer with that in mind. It's one thing to spend $3 mil on a shortstop when there's no heir apparent, it's another to spend that on a COF who you have plenty of, arguably.

How do we have plenty....they’ve been practicing with holes in the outfield. The guy would’ve been their best offensive player

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Roll Tide said:

How do we have plenty....they’ve been practicing with holes in the outfield. The guy would’ve been their best offensive player

He had an OPS+ of 100 last year.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

He had an OPS+ of 100 last year.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

But tonight, in the land of the skunks, the man with half a nose is king. Sing the song, boys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sanfran327 said:

But tonight, in the land of the skunks, the man with half a nose is king. Sing the song, boys!

That’s one of my favorite movies.

Don Rickles is amazing in it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Enjoy Terror said:

Oh stop. They are literally practicing with ghost outfielders because they don't have anyone to play the position.

To be honest, any team that is comfortable putting Mark Trumbo in the outfield shouldn’t complain about the Dwight Smith Juniors of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ScGO's said:

Stop? Puig takes 200-250 ABs away from the others.  Why is Hayes, Santander, Stewart, Mountcastle, Diaz, Williams, Smith Jr, Wilkerson, Velasquez not enough?  I'd even give McKenna some hacks.  Signing Puig is a Duquette Era move, not blaming Dan as he was handcuffed, but this is suppose to be a different team with a different, more pragmatic and proactive approach, than the team Dan had.

Clap clap clap clap 👏 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Enjoy Terror said:

Evidently it's a 2020 Braves move who just won 97 games, and have a young outfield of Acuna, Riley, and if not Nick Markakis then top prospect Cristian Pache. Oh and don't forget Inciarte and Ozuna.

But sure, keep telling me that Smith, Williams, and Wilkerson are suddenly in line for storied Orioles careers because we didn't sign Puig.

That’s a straw man.

The reasons against signing Puig weren’t because he’s not better than the guys we have.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Really? When was that? OBP and the Os being mostly part at it has been discussed most of the time I’ve been here. It was a reason I was pissed when they gave Villar away for dumpster fodder and passed on A Martin and drafted Kjerstad.

Onbase percentage was first a major league stat in 1984.

But in the pre-internet era, you really couldn't get the onbase percentage of a player until the final season stats were compiled and printed in a postseason book that came out during the winter.   During the season, you could only get player stats for all the players from a publication such as the Sporting News, and I don't believe they listed players onbase percentage.   Walks were not in box scores until some point in the early 90s.

Now teams could subscribe to a pay service from a company like Elias that could provide them with onbase percentage, but there was no way for the average fan who didn't pay for that service to know the onbase percentage of players around the league.   Not until January or so when they bought the publication that had detailed stats for last year that included little used stats like onbase percentage.

Even after that stuff became available on the internet and newspaper box scores started including walks, most fans / reporters /  broadcasters paid little percentage to onbase percentage.   It would get mentioned every once in a while.   Probably some forward thinking GMs paid a lot of attention to it, and the relatively small community of  early Sabermetricians (people who read Bill James Abestract every year or the early Baseball Prospectus) started paying attention to it in the mid 90s.

So yeah, there was a time when onbase percentage was little know to all but a very small number of people.   The Sunday paper would list all the stats for hitters with enough at bats, ordered by batting average.   They'd list average, RBIs, HRs.    You would see leaderboards for those stats plus doubles, triples, and a few others.   If you subscribed to the Sporting News you would see more, but I'm not sure if you would see the onbase percentage for every player.   You might have seen a walk total for every player so if you had a calculator you could compute the OBP yourself.

  • Upvote 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Onbase percentage was first a major league stat in 1984.

But in the pre-internet era, you really couldn't get the onbase percentage of a player until the final season stats were compiled and printed in a postseason book that came out during the winter.   During the season, you could only get player stats for all the players from a publication such as the Sporting News, and I don't believe they listed players onbase percentage.   Walks were not in box scores until some point in the early 90s.

Now teams could subscribe to a pay service from a company like Elias that could provide them with onbase percentage, but there was no way for the average fan who didn't pay for that service to know the onbase percentage of players around the league.   Not until January or so when they bought the publication that had detailed stats for last year that included little used stats like onbase percentage.

Even after that stuff became available on the internet and newspaper box scores started including walks, most fans / reporters /  broadcasters paid little percentage to onbase percentage.   It would get mentioned every once in a while.   Probably some forward thinking GMs paid a lot of attention to it, and the relatively small community of  early Sabermetricians (people who read Bill James Abestract every year or the early Baseball Prospectus) started paying attention to it in the mid 90s.

So yeah, there was a time when onbase percentage was little know to all but a very small number of people.   The Sunday paper would list all the stats for hitters with enough at bats, ordered by batting average.   They'd list average, RBIs, HRs.    You would see leaderboards for those stats plus doubles, triples, and a few others.   If you subscribed to the Sporting News you would see more, but I'm not sure if you would see the onbase percentage for every player.   You might have seen a walk total for every player so if you had a calculator you could compute the OBP yourself.

I realize I’m not the average fan, but OBP was a stat I was well aware of long before 1984.     And while it’s not exact, if you just calculated H+BB/AB+BB you’d be within 5 points of OBP more than 90% of the time.  

I wrote a paper in college (1979 graduate) that discussed how tesm BA, OBP and  SLG correlated with runs scored.    And I still remember the professor commented that there were people out there writing much more sophisticated analyses than the one I’d done.   Ouch!
 

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frobby said:

I realize I’m not the average fan, but OBP was a stat I was well aware of long before 1984.     And while it’s not exact, if you just calculated H+BB/AB+BB you’d be within 5 points of OBP more than 90% of the time.  

I wrote a paper in college (1979 graduate) that discussed how tesm BA, OBP and  SLG correlated with runs scored.    And I still remember the professor commented that there were people out there writing much more sophisticated analyses than the one I’d done.   Ouch!
 

 

I was fixated on GWRBI at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I was fixated on GWRBI at the time.

For the years it was an official stat, Eddie Murray was the all-time AL leader.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

Really? When was that? OBP and the Os being mostly part at it has been discussed most of the time I’ve been here. It was a reason I was pissed when they gave Villar away for dumpster fodder and passed on A Martin and drafted Kjerstad.

Early 90’s. Never saw a graphic on TV and the stats only came in the Sunday paper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteveA said:

Onbase percentage was first a major league stat in 1984.

But in the pre-internet era, you really couldn't get the onbase percentage of a player until the final season stats were compiled and printed in a postseason book that came out during the winter.   During the season, you could only get player stats for all the players from a publication such as the Sporting News, and I don't believe they listed players onbase percentage.   Walks were not in box scores until some point in the early 90s.

Now teams could subscribe to a pay service from a company like Elias that could provide them with onbase percentage, but there was no way for the average fan who didn't pay for that service to know the onbase percentage of players around the league.   Not until January or so when they bought the publication that had detailed stats for last year that included little used stats like onbase percentage.

Even after that stuff became available on the internet and newspaper box scores started including walks, most fans / reporters /  broadcasters paid little percentage to onbase percentage.   It would get mentioned every once in a while.   Probably some forward thinking GMs paid a lot of attention to it, and the relatively small community of  early Sabermetricians (people who read Bill James Abestract every year or the early Baseball Prospectus) started paying attention to it in the mid 90s.

So yeah, there was a time when onbase percentage was little know to all but a very small number of people.   The Sunday paper would list all the stats for hitters with enough at bats, ordered by batting average.   They'd list average, RBIs, HRs.    You would see leaderboards for those stats plus doubles, triples, and a few others.   If you subscribed to the Sporting News you would see more, but I'm not sure if you would see the onbase percentage for every player.   You might have seen a walk total for every player so if you had a calculator you could compute the OBP yourself.

You covered it well here. 

Back then  a .290 hitter with a .315 OBP was the superior player to a .268 hitter with a .380 OBP who had the same power. 

All about BA, HR, RBI. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I realize I’m not the average fan, but OBP was a stat I was well aware of long before 1984.     And while it’s not exact, if you just calculated H+BB/AB+BB you’d be within 5 points of OBP more than 90% of the time.  

I wrote a paper in college (1979 graduate) that discussed how tesm BA, OBP and  SLG correlated with runs scored.    And I still remember the professor commented that there were people out there writing much more sophisticated analyses than the one I’d done.   Ouch!
 

 

And yet 23 years later Moneyball was based on the OBP and SLG strategy. 

You were way ahead of your time.

Your professor sounds like an ass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

Early 90’s. Never saw a graphic on TV and the stats only came in the Sunday paper. 

Batting average, RBI, and Homers were the key back then. 
 

but, I was aware of OBP as well. Although I never wrote a paper on it.

one of my favorite Orioles back then  had a .343 career OBP. He was a fast player and getting on base was a big part of his game....Can you guess who?

Leadoff hitter, played CF, nickname was The Bee!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • As a kid of the 1970's, my hatred of the Yankees is well ingrained by now.  I happily vote WS where the Skanks lost pretty high.  Not higher than those our Orioles won, perhaps, but no Yankee win would occur before either of those two criteria are met.  And then there is every other team in the league to consider ahead of any NY win.  I don't think a Yankee win would even occur in my list... Sadly, it looks like Scott Van Pelt only had one measly vote.
    • It was 2nd division starter or utility guy, right? And with a 50 ceiling. That's a ML player who, best case, is a good starter on a good team or likely is still a guy with some value to a ML team. Especially if he can hold his own in the outfield. My take here is that: 1) Tony's understandably being conservative in general on this list because he hasn't seen a lot of these guys for a full year. 2) He's going by what he's heard. 3) There are guys lower on this list that are a bit farther away but who have higher potential. 4) Vavra, based on Tony and rankings from other sites with some credibility, has some potential to be a real contributor to the ML team within 2 years. I actually think Tony's grade is pretty accurate based on the feedback, but whether he should be ranked over Baumler, Mayo, Rom, Smith, Hall, Wells, Bradish, Stowers, Hernaiz, Haskin and others is up for debate and, ultimately, not really important. Heck, at least one site has him at 7. They must think he's decent. All those guys have risk and they all have had a big layoff from baseball, or at least from being seen. Vavra got put here because he's closer, he has produced on the field, and thus has somewhat lower risk, is my guess.
    • I think there’s very little journalism in sports, although there can be some very good sports writing. I think the very title indicates that this is just off-season fluff.
    • Yes, that place is good. But it used to be a barbecue place (maybe 20 or 25 years ago).   It was really good then.   I think it was called the Blind Pig. When I go to Tech for football games (about 6 weekends every fall since 1992, until this year), I cut across from 340 to 81 on Rt 7 and I stopped at the Blind Pig many a time, and got a pulled pork sandwich. Then The Blind Pig went out of business and was a tobacco store or something. Now it's tacos and I've stopped there once I think.
    • Don’t you remember, in 2012, Nate Mclouth hit a ball that grazed the foul pole for a Home run, but it was called foul. it would have changed the game, though it might not have changed the outcome. 
    • Folks tend to be overly generous with player comps.  
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...