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

    • There are many Yellow Journalistic twists here. Takes a vague suspicion, supposedly from "a lawyer" and spins it in every negative way he can possibly think of. Exactly what you'd expect from the NYDN, NY Post, National Enquirer, etc. etc.
    • Clearly I am failing to get my point across. I'm tired. Have any opinion you want. At the end of the day, you have an opinion, I have facts. My facts state that Elias has dumped one player that became an impact player and he has not acquired any. Does that mean he will never acquire any? No.  Does it mean he missed something of that the technology may not always have the answers, incomplete. I like a lot of what Elias has done in changing things within the organization, but so far his talent evaluations of players he's brought in have not been very good. Grant it, these guys are waiver claims and few of them will turn into anything, but so far he's found middle/long relievers and utility guys or sub par guys they've run out as starters the last two years. I expect things to improve, but what we don't know yet is whether he will be given a budget to help improve the team in the future. Afterall, if they are really making coaching moves based on salary (I still don't believe this) then you can throw away any chances of the team being competitive soon so he will need to build completely from within. My hope was that Elias had the technological and scouting eye to find unearthed talent in other organizations. Instead, he failed to pick up Yaz's potential and the guys he has selected have not shown they are part of a winning future.  Sure, maybe we can give him a pass on Yaz, but he also hired the coaches yet the SF coaches in less then a few weeks found a way to make Yaz an impact player. The man at the top gets credit when things go well, but also must take the blame when they don't.  
    • I know Elias wants to know if he missed something in his evaluation, sure. Why wouldn't he. But I doubt he is losing sleep over this. Yaz was traded on March 23, 2019. At that time, he was a 28 year old OF with average speed, maybe an average arm, below average power for a corner OF that does not play CF. He's 5-10 178 lbs. and was no longer a prospect. He was slowed by injuries, often playing dinged up. Dan Duquette alluded to his injuries in an interview that I saw and stated he had struggled with his progression. He had never really excelled in AAA. He was behind Austin Hays, Yusniel Diaz, Anthony Santander, Ryan McKenna, Cedric Mullins and DJ Stewart for playing time in AA/AAA OF playing time. No one knew that several of these players would struggle with injuries and inconsistency, but they were all much more highly regarded prospects than Yaz. At that time, the only AAA OF he was more highly regarded than was Jaycob Brugman, and he was absolutely terrible. Elias decided to cut bait so that actual prospects could play meaningful innings and get the developmental at bats. No other team even thought so much of him as to take him in the rule 5 draft. Did the Giants know something? No, they just got lucky that this one panned out. They had no idea he would do what he has done, no way.  As far as the technology, it isn't something that will diagnose and fix every swing. It gives you lots of data, and it takes time, more than a few weeks, to work through any changes/adjustments needed. Obviously, Elias and his staff were not impressed with what they saw compared to the other guys. Then, Yaz was traded and something changed over the next few months in AAA for him. Great for him. Maybe he started to make good changes from what he learned from the Elias staff, but it took time to begin to show in games. That is often the case with swing changes, approach adjustments. Maybe it was the Giants who found something. Maybe it was something else, who knows.  Was he going to be the same player in Baltimore, facing the AL East? IDK, I would guess likely not. There have been many examples over they years of players who had impact careers out West and got traded to an Eastern team, only to struggle. Would it have been nice to see him do that here in Baltimore, of course. I just don't see why this has become such a hotly contested thing. Hindsight is easy to see clearly. His tools have never indicated this kind of production. There is not one prospect report that says he would do anything like he is doing.  I know you are pretty positive about Elias and Sig. To point to Elias's failure to produce waiver wire pick ups and minor trades into an impact player is incomplete, honestly, in COVID 2020 crazy season. He has no money to spend, and yet most of the ML team was picked up off waivers and minor league free agency and still competed on most nights. The final record looks worse than it was. I would say his record was excellent in the first half. Santander got hurt and many young players struggled badly. Solid approaches went out the window entirely.  Pedro Severino had an OPS north of .850 in July/August and he began to look like an all star (offensively), but he chased much more in September and his numbers faded badly to .250/.322/.388/.710 Jose Iglesias was an impact signing, despite the injuries and many at bats in the DH role .373/.400/.556/.956 Hanser Alberto is what he is a well below-average defender with little power, and he faded badly in September as well .283/.306/.393/.698 Pat Valaika was very good, I thought, for what his role is. .277/.315/.475/.791 Rio Ruiz is probably not the answer at 3B, but I think he gets one more year to see if he can figure it out .222/.286/.427/.713 Richie Martin will be vastly improved, he reported so much stronger than in 2019 and I think his injury robbed him of a breakout of sorts, the swing looked so much more fluid and quick in Spring camp. Ramon Urias might just make Alberto expendable, and I believe he will hit and produce better overall numbers and play better defense. Obviously, Dwight Smith Jr. was a failure. Early in 2019, he certainly looked like he was a certain upgrade to Yaz. The the injuries in late May, neck and shoulder. He has not been the same since. Most of the resources have gone into minor league and international infrastructure. To criticize Elias for the Yaz trade in hindsight, honestly it's silly. No one batted an eye at the time of the deal. Can we just be happy for the guy and not look for someone to blame? If there is a pattern here, then ok, there's a problem. This one baffles everyone because no one saw this coming. And where would Yaz play in our OF next season? Over Mountcastle, Santander, Hays, Mullins, Mancini...? 
    • Who are the #23 and #24 Prospects?
    • https://www.orioleshangout.com/2020/10/25/20-2020-prospect-kyle-bradish-rhp/
    • Back to the Snell/Fairbanks/Anderson/Castillo even numbered game quartet to try and set up Buehler (and Kershaw?) v. The World Wednesday night. The Dodgers have clearly dented the relief aces, but I don't look for any process change in Game 6. This feels like it should be over 4-1 but for the gods putting their thumbs on the scale last night - an excellent bonus baseball gift.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...