DrungoHazewood

My mental image of the 1960s is that it was a lot of low scoring pitchers duels with a lot of little shortstops bunting and stealing bases. But the stealing bases part is all wrong. In 1966 the Orioles had the best offense in the league and stole 55 bases all year, caught 41 times. The only teams to steal 100 bases were the White Sox and A's, and both of them were within 0.02 runs of being the worst offenses in the AL. In '66 the average AL team stole four fewer bases than the average AL team in 2019. In 1964 the Orioles were 4th in the majors in steals, but Luis Aparicio was the only player on the team with more than four. Luis led the AL in steals nine straight years, but those included totals of 21, 28, 29, 31, and 40.

McKenna isn't much of a hitter, but he can play a decent center field. His last full year in the minors was at 22 in AA, which is pretty age appropriate for a prospect. And he did have that 1.000 OPS in Frederick at 21. Ryan Ripken has always been old for his level, has never had an OPS over .736 anywhere, even as a 25-year-old in A ball. Career mark of .613. And is strictly a first baseman, which means he'd have to OPS .800 or .850 to even have a fighting chance at the majors. If McKenna is a 40 or 45 level prospect, Ripken is a 20 or 25. There are 75 Ryan Ripkens in the Atlantic League.

You're still talking about Ryan Ripken? He's 27 and has a career OPS in the minors of .613. It's more than a bit puzzling why he's even in AAA at all, much less playing regularly.

I'm fully in favor of it if he rides to the plate on the back of an emu.

The .426 is his 2019 Frederick slugging. This year it's .350.

Current line after his two game slump: .250/.318/.350. He's 27 and has a career minor league OPS of .613. He's a first baseman. Calling him up is nonsense. All of the available evidence says he'd be lucky to play as well as 2019 Chris Davis. I've seen my share of "oh my goodness he's four for 13 he's Babe Ruth!" posts, but this is near peak insanity.

That's why I'm in favor of giving everyone the O's sign to a pro contract 300 plate appearances or 50 innings in the majors. Just in case.

Also, give the fans a bunch of flashcards and have them manage the game. Alright Section 34... do we bunt or swing away? Bunt! Yeaaaahhh!

If we're going to go all St. Paul Saints on the league, then I also want a game where they pick a fan to play RF for an inning, and they bring Chuck Estrada back to pitch an inning at 83.

Just noticed that the IronBirds have the following slash line: .217/.351/.311, with 22 steals and three homers in nine games. Maverick Handley has five steals a zero caught in five games. He's the Rickey of catchers! Maybe we just need to wait a few years...

Launch velocity, line drive rates, etc are up over the last decade+, but BABIP is mostly holding constant. To me that means the shift is working. We know, for example, that without the shift Chris Davis could still (possibly, maybe) hit .200.

No. The Orioles don't need their own Marc Sullivan.

He's apparently still active, is just 36, and during the last full year of baseball (2019) he hit .381/.466/.665 for Leon in Mexico. 2011 Oriole teammate Brandon Snyder is still on the Nats' AAA team. Pedro Florimon is playing for El Paso in the Padres' system. Adam Jones not having a good year so far for Orix. Rick VanDenHurk is pitching for Yakult. Pedro Strop is still in the Cubs' pen. And Chris Davis... I think that's all the remnants of the 2011 Orioles.

Bitcoin. That's safe, right?

I'm tired of the bad-mouthing of Lew Ford. We all know that when Hyde is done they're going to hire Ford as the player-manager at the age of 47 and he's leading the Orioles to glory.

I thought so but don't remember the details.

If Matt Wieters had been a 1:1 he'd be almost exactly an average 1:1. Ben McDonald's career is right at the median for a #1 overall. The expectation of fans is that every 1:1 becomes an inner circle Hall of Famer, but it's really more like a good regular for six or eight years.

If by everyone you mean the kind of people who are both really pessimistic and put full faith in 35 at bat samples as the truth.

I don't think I read it all the way through at any point, but you can skip to parts you're interested in and use it for reference. Especially to win arguments where people say "Hyde's a friggin' idiot, nobody should steal there." Well... here's what the Book says. And the guys who wrote The Book really did their homework.

Blame? The reason we've gotten to shifts and three true outcomes and eight relievers a game is that people decided to follow the information and the facts and the analysis. You get lots of money and fame for winning more, plus you don't get fired as often. It was inevitable. If people don't like the outcomes of discovering the truth, then change the game so that those truths aren't as relevant.

A lot of it is of the form: People in baseball say X. Is X true? Let's look at the facts and find out. For example, is bunting a bad idea? The answer is sometimes it's a very poor thing, often even. But sometimes it's justifiable, and sometimes you should definitely bunt, and here's what those situations are based on analysis. It's arguably the most important book on baseball and baseball strategy in the past 20 years.

Rich Hill. Physical problems. Personal stuff. Looked 100% done in 2009 (7.80 ERA with an average fastball velocity of 88). Still active in 2021 at the age of 41. You just never know.

I think you too quickly dismiss the impact of being a small/mid market team that lost half or 3/4ths of their revenues last season. And that was following two of their lowest-attended seasons since the 1970s. The Angeloses weren't eating cans of cold beans, but the team was/is at least temporarily poor in MLB franchise terms.

On another board someone observed that, yes, velocity is a big part. But fastballs as a percentage of pitches are down quite a lot. Spin rate and 92 mph wipeout breaking balls are probably just as much to blame. I'm not convinced that the mound height is as much a factor as some think. In 1893 they went from flat ground and roughly 56' to a mound and 60' 6" and runs jumped. The ~4' was a much bigger deal than the mound. In '69 they redefined the strike zone along with lowering the mound a bit. And runs were still pretty low until the later 70s. My mostly unscientific guess is that lowering the mound 6" wouldn't produce a noticeable effect. Throwing from flat ground might be like moving the distance back a foot or so. Maybe... but the reaction times would be the same.

For decades I've told everyone who'd listen that batting average doesn't matter nearly so much as OBP and SLG. But it's sad that league averages are in the .230s and no major leaguer has hit .350 since Josh Hamilton a decade ago. If there's anything that would get me to watch more baseball it's someone making a run at .400.