now

Granular!

Coggins, Bumbry, Baylor and Blair were all outfielders on the team in 1973-74 (Coggins traded for Singleton for '75 season)

Today Melewski in his column points out that Bowie's current record (.598) surpasses previous highs of .592 in 1994 and 2008. Those dates seem significant as they predate our last windows of playoff contention, beginning in 1996 and 2012. So the 1994 Bowie team foreshadowed an Orioles playoff team by 2 years, and the 2008 team foreshadowed the 2012 playoff team by 4 years. I don't know our farm rankings then but they were certainly well below our current top rank. So does this mean Bowie's high achievers indicate Baltimore playoffs in 2-4 years? Sounds good to me...

This. I recall the old radio commercial with Brooks: "Does it bother you when you strike out with the bases loaded?" "Nah, that doesn't bother me." "Well does it bother you when..." "No, I don't mind that." (What really bothered him was not getting low rates on car insurance). Back on topic, it doesn't bother me that we're losing with no talent, or that it's taking years to rebuild, or that Elias is refusing to go down the road we suffered from 1998 through 2011, of blowing budget and prospects on the stopgap of "trades and free agents" just to win 75 games instead of 60 (further diminishing draft returns in the process). The real pain is to see such bad results, during a long rebuild, in the bargain basement market (where Duquette excelled) and upper minors (espec. pitchers, as Tony notes). Which casts doubt on the whole project moving forward.

That data shows so clearly that if you're not drafting #1 overall, it hardly matters. With the notable exception of #20, which also clearly shows the shortcomings of small sample size. Data is so important to guide decision making... except when it isn't.

Now Tate has joined Fry and Scott in the probably overworked category. Fry and Scott are poster boys for Non-Seller's Remorse. Since being taken off the trading block it sure makes a fan wish we'd gotten the proverbial bag 'o balls (or a 16-yr-old DR prospect) for each of them.

Gotta say, this thread ranks near the top in L/P (laughs per post).

This. It dovetails with some of the other insights on this board about risks and future reward. The approach seems to follow three hypotheses or observations of existing data: 1. Batters are more likely to stay healthy. And of these, athletic tools and contact skills play up. 2. College performers are more likely to have MLB success. 3. Quantity trumps quality (see Rays and the Morton decision), partly because again the health risk is spread out (not all value in a few golden eggs).

B for just Because I trust the plan. I know that's a toxic phrase around here but the previous Plan was to draft pitchers and that didn't work out so here we are. At risk of broken-record, I'm on record for supporting the lower risk strategy of picking bats. It will be an extremely interesting case study to follow up on the Elias vs. LAA/D strategies (Position vs. Pitchers) over the next few years following this draft. College over HS also follows the pattern of taking lower risk, closer to finished product. I like picking short-term progress to MLB-ready (college, senior, polished bats). I like going contact over loft (see B. McDonald's recent comments about the shifting balance: high loft > high heat > more contact). I like the data point of BBs > K's for hitters, and high K/H ratios for pitchers. B is also for Bottom line, wait and see. Also, all the slot talk and calculations are Beyond me, which is fine, since it gets back to Bottom line anyway. Grow the Bats!

Hard to argue with the simple math of the position player philosophy. Factor in the much greater risk of injury, and your top pitching prospects effectively can be downgraded 50 percent. Later, just trade from your stockpile of hitting prospects to get a proven healthy pitcher. Or go the Houston FA route. Or tap the DR pipeline.

Interesting to see this approach. I'm impressed by the use of a single number (FV) to compare all players, and intrigued at attaching a dollar figure to that. It offers a window to future budget expectations (though as in the case of Kjerstad, big assumptions can skew the picture considerably when they pan out differently).

I agree it's a minefield, almost impossible to avoid when the entire situation is politicized, and MLB is squarely on one side, in your face with their allegiance. So it's a thankless job for Weams or Tony or anyone to moderate. Virtually every comment referring to COVID, masks, or vaccines will be controversial, even though they have been embedded in the baseball environment. So we all just need to be aware to keep on topic of "baseball" as much as we can, and keep our disagreements there.

“Anybody can play. The note is only 20 percent. The attitude of the motherfu**er who plays it is 80 percent.” -- Miles Davis

I see very little said in this thread about the bullpen, but to me that's what deserves at least equal blame for this string of losses. It's been touted as good and it was for a while... maybe now overtaxed and overexposed from poor starters. Still, remember it was the team's strength in the 2012-16 era of contention. Looking at player pedigrees on Fangraphs' Roster Resource, it's telling that most of our workhorse relievers came off the scrap heap: Lakins, Sulser, Plutko, Valdez, Armstrong, Wells. What else can we expect from such a crew? It's what Replacement value means. It makes a good story when it works out, for a while, but usually these guys end up like Cinderella at midnight.

And smart.

The problem is, you need a bunch of guys in the lineup who can/will do it (hit singles, passing the baton), not just one. Think 2002 Angels. Otherwise your Gwynn/Boggs/Carew just gets stranded on base.

Seems pretty obvious the league has figured him out. Like, forget swinging for the fences. Just wait for a changeup over the plate, and stroke it for a base hit. Repeat. BTW what's the story on Chris Holt?

Just DFA already, time to move on.

Where's his lost twin, Austin Wynns? Sisco used to have a nice looking swing (when he made good contact). Now, he looks as bad as any hitter I've ever seen.

Ah, there had to be somebody. Even Nunez in 2019 with 31 HR had a 0.5 WAR in 599 PA. Edit: Actually Kingman had a decent year the only year ('79) he hit 40 (48). You must be thinking of '82, when he hit .204, 37 HR, 0.1 WAR.

Last year trying to cover the gaps in live baseball and watching oldies, I was shocked by how often good hitters, even in non-bunt situations, bunted or tried to. I think Clemente in the 1960 series, for example. How things have changed. Or, if this is another "year of the pitcher," maybe not so much.

My short take on the above is, it sounds like you are pining for the regime of Showalter and Duquette.

I wasn't going to respond but can't pass up this quote from Sports Guy on another thread, so will leave it at that:

Who is this rube?

Jack is Al's son.