DrungoHazewood

Eight men out is pretty good. Never seen the original Angels in the Outfield, and the new one is almost so bad it's funny (but not quite).

Just make sure they don't stand pat and pass on an Eduardo Rodriguez or Josh Hader.

Arguably the best baseball movie ever. Field of Dreams celebrates cheaters, The Natural completely changed the story from the book. The Sandlot is right up there with Major League and the Bad News Bears.

Remember when the Orioles traded six years of Eduardo Rodriguez for 27 innings of Andrew Miller? They lost that trade 15-1. That's what I don't want them to be on the wrong side of this year, not when the very likely case is they don't even get a wildcard birth. At least the 2014 Orioles were a 96-win team with a real shot. I get that its unlikely Mancini and/or Santander brings back a piece. But then remember that Bud Norris cost Josh "534 Ks in 312 innings" Hader and additional stuff. Lost that trade about 12-1.

I certainly believe that the Orioles are capable of having a 68-game span where they're a bit above .500 when things break right.

Both Fangraphs and bb-ref lay out all the components. For bb-ref it's in that second box labeled Player Value--Batting. Santander is five runs above average in batting compared to all the batters in MLB. Which makes sense, as he has a 113 OPS+, or that he's about 13% better than average. Really good hitters are 130, 150 or higher. He's a -1 baserunner taking into account both stealing, caught, and advancements on the bases. He's 0 on double play frequency, right on average for his 6 GIDP in 341 PA. He's a -1 fielder by DRS. His positional adjustment for his combination of RF/LF/DH is -3, which makes sense. Those are on the easier side of the defensive spectrum. For 341 PAs the difference between average and replacement level (of .294, which both Fangraphs and bb-ref use) is 12 runs. Add all that up and you get 5-1+0-1-3+12 = 12 runs above replacement. In the '22 Orioles context a win is a touch over 10 runs, so that works out to 1.1 WAR. Fangraphs would be similar. The main difference for non-pitchers is they use Statcast OAA for the fielding component. Which actually isn't a difference in this case, since he's a -1 defender by OAA, too. .294 was chosen as replacement level because that works out to essentially the worst winning percentage a MLB team can be. The 2018 Orioles had a .290 winning percentage in one of the worst years in modern baseball history. It reasonable to say that a player who is a .294 winning percentage player is one who is kind of floating around AAA, the waiver wire, DFAs. You can find .294 players and acquire them for free, more-or-less. Every March when spring rosters are being culled there are .300 winning percentage players available for the taking. So that's the zero value point in baseball. You're measuring how much value a player has above talent that can usually or often be acquired for nothing. You don't measure from zero, because the talent that gets you from zero to replacement level is also worth about nothing. The Orioles just claimed Louis Head, a 32-year-old Marlins reliever who has a 7.23 ERA this year. They didn't pay anything for him, he was available on waivers for nothing. Louis Head is far better than any number of guys who're in A ball. Those A ball guys are .200 or .100 MLB players. But there's no value in the difference between Head and them, except that you'd never claim the A ball guys but they're also not paying any more for Head. He's the zero point. You can also measure from average if you'd like. Sometimes that's useful. But you have to remember that an average MLB player is still a very good and valuable player who teams will pay substantial amounts of money for. Jordan Lyles has a 92 ERA+, he's been a below-average player throughout his career, but because there's value in the distance from replacement level to below-average he's being paid $7M this year.

How would Joe Musgrove and his agent look at a team that refused to upgrade for 2023 and beyond because they had a 10% shot at the 2022 wildcard? Especially if the likely case happens and even keeping Mancini and Santander the Orioles win 78 or 82 games or something and are eight or ten games out of the last wildcard?

Luckily we don't have to look at the unrealistically optimistic scenario.

Mancini is 30 and has been worth an average of 2.4 wins per 162 games so far in his career. A reasonable estimate of his value over the next three years is something like 2.5, 2, and 1.5 wins, not three per year.

How much of a chance? Because right now, with everything going their way for month, they're sitting on about 8%. In other words, a 92% chance of not making it.

Definitely make the trade if the alternative is signing Mancini for the next three years for $36M to be a DH/1B. The Orioles should only rarely sign anyone to a contract past age 30, with the determining factor being if they're so good at 30 that even a half a win to a win decline a year makes the contract still worth it. Also that they don't end up with a contract that theoretically breaks even on value but the player is likely average or worse through much of the deal. Who cares if 3/36 is only paying for four wins, if you've locked in a player who you expect to be worth 1.5 wins a year? You can find average players on one-year deals all the time.

Ideally is the key word. Since 2012 there have been a total of 11 player-seasons where a catcher caught 135+ games. About one a year out of 30 teams. Even in the old days Johnny Bench had more years where he caught < 135 than more. Nevertheless, the most likely case is that Mancini declines and is injured more as he ages. So there will be significant chunks where he's not blocking anyone.

You got old fast. You're like 10 years younger than me and you're hanging with dudes who were driving to high school in a '79 conversion van with a motorcycle and unicorn airbrushed on the side.

Probably not? But that's what we're discussing. Do we trade Mancini if something interesting is offered? No, we're not going to get a MLB #16 prospect. But what if they're offered someone more along the lines of Vavra or Rom or something?

Yes. Rutschman could get more PAs at DH if not for the Mountcastle/Mancini combination that can't play anywhere but 1B/DH. Sure, trading Santander would open up a spot for Stowers. But the main point is that there's never a true shortage of talent at that end of the defensive spectrum. It's almost trivial to come up with a player who can hit but can't really field.

Britt Ghrioli says that's what's on the table, trading him for a warm body because everyone hates happiness and good feelings. So it must be true.

She speaks of deflating the clubhouse and alienating the fanbase by trading Mancini, then talks about following the model of the 2011 Orioles. A few points: - The 2011 Orioles traded Derrek Lee at the deadline for basically nothing except some salary relief, then traded Koji Uehara for Chris Davis and Tommy Hunter. Koji was a fan favorite. But Davis and Hunter were productive members of playoff teams for the next three or four years. That was a huge win. Was the clubhouse decimated and the fanbase deflated over that? - Will the clubhouse be deflated and the fanbase alienated when Mancini signs with the Mariners or the Rockies or something in December? Or is she suggesting that they resign him to a high-risk, low-reward contract so that he can spend his decline years blocking Mountcastle, Stowers, Rutschman and others at 1B/DH? - As far as I know Ghrioli is the only one suggesting they trade Mancini for a warm body and salary relief. Presumably to disingenuously boost her argument. It's not been that long since the Orioles' last two "oh my God, how will be ever compete again if we let this 30-something DH/1B walk" contracts in Davis and Trumbo. Have we learned nothing?

The Orioles are not an average team. My guess is that their odds are more like 1-in-50, as the Yanks, Dodgers, Sox, Astros and others are probably closer to 1-in-10 or 1-in-15. Look at the real data. The Rockies, Rangers/Senators, Rays, Brewers/Pilots, Padres and Mariners have never won a World Series. And the newest of those teams have been around 25 years. The Rangers franchise started during the Kennedy administration. I'm 51, so it's very much an open question if the Orioles will win another Series in my lifetime.

I look at it as a work-around for fixing vast revenue disparities. MLB cannot or will not fix the fact that the Yanks bring in $650M and the Rays $225M. So they've randomized the playoffs such that even a 115-win super team has just a 1-in-4 chance of winning it all once October starts.

My takeaway is not that they need to make a big push in a year where the playoffs are very unlikely, but that they need to make sure they don't do anything to jeopardize their more realistic chances in the next few years. Trading talented, cost-controlled assets for 2022 value, or not trading players like Mancini if they can bring back 2023-beyond assets hurt the franchise's odds of overall playoff success.

If they have a solid block of six or eight years of strong playoff contention they have a realistic shot at a title. But still probably less than even odds, even if they're a solid division title contender. Look at the Rays, that's basically the model. Remember, an average MLB team wins the Series once every 30 years.

Their pythag almost exactly matches their real record. They're not over- or under-performing their runs scored and allowed. You could look at that as saying their luck is about dead even.

In one sense being a professional athlete is like being in the military. You know there's a high likelihood that you're moving every few years and you'll have to get adjusted to a new home, new friends, your family gets a new neighborhood and schools, wife is forced to get a new job. Sometimes this just comes out of nowhere. That's just how it works.

That's very Marlins-y. Sign a guy, clearly telling him that he's a key part of the future (despite him being over 30 and a high risk to underperform any extension). Then turn around three months later and say "just kidding, enjoy Milwaukee!" I hope that's not Elias' style.

7.2 K/9 in 2022 is like 4.0 in 1990.