Orioles sign Vlad

[wildcard]

Small sample size with statistical noise. Fortunate in 1-run games.

Are you confident that the 34-23 under Buck was a true representation of how the team will play under Buck? If so, I assume you think they will start off better than 34-23 in their first 57 games, given all the improvements? Care to make a friendly wager on that?

So you are saying 1/3 of the season is too small to be meaningful. I also guess that you are saying that you could not have predicted it in terms of WAR.

Have you considered that the ability to manager a team well might be a contributing factor to winning 1 run games?

[Birds of B'more]

Small sample size with statistical noise. Fortunate in 1-run games.

Are you confident that the 34-23 under Buck was a true representation of how the team will play under Buck? If so, I assume you think they will start off better than 34-23 in their first 57 games, given all the improvements? Care to make a friendly wager on that?

If I may interject.....put a gun to my head and force me to be honest, and I'll say no, I don't think 34-23 is sustainable even with the additions. But what you or I believe doesn't mean squat. It's what MacPhail, Buck, Angelos and the players themselves believe. And if they believe it can't happen, then it never will. But if they all believe it can happen, and that 34-23 wasn't an aberration, then they at least have a fighting chance.

[Malike]

Haha. Right, my MO is to duck questions. I wonder if this would be your response if anyone else typed the post. Maybe Frobby.

Here's a napkin -- you've got some Drungo on your chin...

I was speaking in general, but since you want to play dirty lately, I guess I'll go ahead and entertain you.

You came to this board as an amateur talent evaluator, you had great unbiased opinions and you contributed greatly to the site. You got a job as a scout for some organization and you went from a great contributor to a biased, snarky, obnoxious poster. Congrats to you for your accomplishments, but you have not shown the ability to give an unbiased opinion on anything now that you have some self conceived notion that you are important.

Go back and take a look at my post history. I don't post a lot, but this is most likely the first time I've praised Drungo, or any poster, so you can keep your napkin.

Why don't you tell us which organization you are working for? Is it some super secret, or do you not want to receive criticism for the terrible moves that are/were made.

Play nice now, Stotle. You aren't nearly as important as you think you are.

[mweb]

One misconception -- the $8 million doesn't have to be on amateur talent. It could be towards better minor league facilities, paying for players to get better off-season training, neutritionists at all levels, sit in an interest earning account to be spent on the proverbial "big ticket" item. Yeah, i beat the amateur talent drum, but there are lots of things BAL could spend $8M on.

As an aside, Crawdaddy emailed me and said the 2 wins was a rough estimate. When he crunched the numbers it was closer to a 0.8 win increase with Vlad.

Yes, of course. I didn't mean to pigeon-hole your position down to amateur talent vs Vlad; although, I still take the former if that were the case.

.8 sounds more likely to me.

The point was based on your comment on how much two wins would mean for the O's though, and I think that point would have made a lot more sense in the past than it does right now. Or it would have made a lot more sense if they were sacrificing future payroll flexibility on an aging player(or one that will be declining midway through a long deal). Neither is the case here.

2 wins do have decent value at this point imo.

Now again, I would rather spend 8 million on amateur talent and some of the other things you mention rather than on 2 estimated wins, but again, that's not to say that 2 wins are inconsequential. While 2 wins could potentially payoff in a playoff birth, or at least contention, spending it on the aforementioned things is more likely to help the team reach that goal, and multiple times for that matter.

However, as I mentioned before, I'm not sure how realistic this either/or is. There's a decent chance that PA would not be willing to spend the Vlad money, or at least much of it on the things you mention.

[mweb]

Could you explain how you got from 86 wins to 91 wins with a 2 win addition of Vlad?

You don't. If a team is projected to win 86 games, there is a reasonable chance they actually win 91.

[wildcard]

You don't. If a team is projected to win 86 games, there is a reasonable chance they actually win 91.

I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. What I think you are saying is the a team good enough to jump from 66 wins to 86 could also jump as far as to win 91. Your thought there really don't have anything to do with Vlad. Is that right?

[Stotle]

I was speaking in general, but since you want to play dirty lately, I guess I'll go ahead and entertain you.

You came to this board as an amateur talent evaluator, you had great unbiased opinions and you contributed greatly to the site. You got a job as a scout for some organization and you went from a great contributor to a biased, snarky, obnoxious poster. Congrats to you for your accomplishments, but you have not shown the ability to give an unbiased opinion on anything now that you have some self conceived notion that you are important.

Go back and take a look at my post history. I don't post a lot, but this is most likely the first time I've praised Drungo, or any poster, so you can keep your napkin.

Why don't you tell us which organization you are working for? Is it some super secret, or do you not want to receive criticism for the terrible moves that are/were made.

Play nice now, Stotle. You aren't nearly as important as you think you are.

I don't think I'm important at all. I responded to "I'm not surprised there was no response." I've never had issue with you. I had an issue with your phrase -- I found it disrespectful, and particularly disrespectful in light of the fact that I think Drungo's points, while valid, had equally valid counters.

Some posters (including the owner of the site) are aware of who I work with. It's not a super secret but I also do not advertise it. In any event, I am so far down the ladder that I could hardly take credit for any moves, good or bad. The final decisions are well out of my hands. Further, it's hard to get an ego about something you do on the side as a hobby, and have no real interest in pursuing as a career. It'd be like strutting around because you shot an 82 on the golf course last weekend or acting chippy because your hot rod placed 5th at the Bakersfield car show yesterday. It's just not that important.

Sorry you don't think much of my recent posting. I'd contend I'm pretty even handed, responding in like. In fact, I'm pretty sure you'd say we've never had a run in before I responded to your post last night, right?

EDIT -- Also, honestly, what is my bias? I'd like to correct it if it is indeed there. I don't consider myself vested in any particular issue. I've supported certain O's prospects way more than the average board member and been very critical of management as well. I don't think I really come down consistently as pro or con anything. I'd appreciate your feedback -- even if it needs to be laced with vitriol for whatever reason.

[Stotle]

Yes, of course. I didn't mean to pigeon-hole your position down to amateur talent vs Vlad; although, I still take the former if that were the case.

.8 sounds more likely to me.

The point was based on your comment on how much two wins would mean for the O's though, and I think that point would have made a lot more sense in the past than it does right now. Or it would have made a lot more sense if they were sacrificing future payroll flexibility on an aging player(or one that will be declining midway through a long deal). Neither is the case here.

2 wins do have decent value at this point imo.

Now again, I would rather spend 8 million on amateur talent and some of the other things you mention rather than on 2 estimated wins, but again, that's not to say that 2 wins are inconsequential. While 2 wins could potentially payoff in a playoff birth, or at least contention, spending it on the aforementioned things is more likely to help the team reach that goal, and multiple times for that matter.

However, as I mentioned before, I'm not sure how realistic this either/or is. There's a decent chance that PA would not be willing to spend the Vlad money, or at least much of it on the things you mention.

Okay, I definitely think this is valid. If you believe BAL is a potential mid-80s win team, then 2 wins can be valuable enough to spend for. I personally don't think they are a mid-80s team unless EVERYTHING breaks right, and given the injury risks and age of some of the key pieces, as well as the developmental risk of others, it seems more likely they flirt in the 76-81 win range.

I think your last paragraph is fair, as well. But it's hard for me to swallow an opinion based on speculation. And if it is true that BAL simply isn't allowed to put money into development or scouting, I doubt there is any long term hope for the franchise. I'd prefer to think better days may still be ahead.

[Stotle]

If I may interject.....put a gun to my head and force me to be honest' date=' and I'll say no, I don't think 34-23 is sustainable even with the additions. But what you or I believe doesn't mean squat. It's what MacPhail, Buck, Angelos and the players themselves believe. And if they believe it can't happen, then it never will. But if they all believe it can happen, and that 34-23 wasn't an aberration, then they at least have a fighting chance.[/quote']

I think there is something to going about preparation the right way -- that means having a meaningful and vested interest in preparing to perform every day throughout the season. I'm not sure a team can will itself to that kind of winning percentage, though.

[mweb]

I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. What I think you are saying is the a team good enough to jump from 66 wins to 86 could also jump as far as to win 91. Your thought there really don't have anything to do with Vlad. Is that right?

The thought is that a team that's 50% projection is to win 86 games has a reasonable chance to win 91 games.

That has nothing to do with Vlad. Vlad comes in with Stotle's post that Vlad is expected to improve the O's by 2 wins (I think less, and Stotle/Crawdaddy has adjusted to .8), but that 2 wins is not really meaningful to the O's.

I think 2 wins is pretty meaningful if one projects the O's to be about an 85 win team because if more things go right for the O's than wrong, there's a decent chance those 2 wins secure a playoff spot or at least keep the team in contention til the last week of the season.

[Birds of B'more]

I think there is something to going about preparation the right way -- that means having a meaningful and vested interest in preparing to perform every day throughout the season. I'm not sure a team can will itself to that kind of winning percentage, though.

I don't either. But the absence of such will certainly sets a team up for failure. Say what you will about 34-23, but I don't think it was mere coincidence that the statistical noise and luck in 1-run games you cited earlier began the exact same day Buck Showalter arrived.

[Stotle]

So you are saying 1/3 of the season is too small to be meaningful. I also guess that you are saying that you could not have predicted it in terms of WAR.

Have you considered that the ability to manager a team well might be a contributing factor to winning 1 run games?

Well, WAR techincally isn't a predictive stat. It's a rough approximation of how certain performance translates into win shares (I think ). So, the better question I guess would be could you predict the record based on the run expectancy of the team during that time. I'd say the team probably outperformed that expectancy by a fair amount, but I haven't looked it up.

Regarding managing in 1-run games. I will absolutely consider that as soon as you show me evidence that Buck has a history of managing teams above expected win% in 1-run games. Otherwise, yeah, it's just a snippet of the season, with almost half of it in September when the team was playing against expanded rosters and many teams were already eliminated (BAL included). It's great they finished strong -- probably a huge reason BAL went out and made the moves they did -- but I don't for a second believe it was the "true" talent level of the team.

So, I guess we'll see how the first 57 games go in 2011. Should be much easier with all the offensive additions!

[Stotle]

I don't either. But the absence of such will certainly sets a team up for failure. Say what you will about 34-23' date=' but I don't think it was mere coincidence that the statistical noise and luck in 1-run games began the exact same day Buck Showalter arrived.[/quote']

No, it's not coincidence. I think a team will naturally re-focus under new management -- especially when it is a respected baseball mind. I think that combined with some development and some luck turned into a highly impressive and unsustainable last couple months. I don't think it can be maintained over a full season, though the team will obviously be in very good shape if Buck can keep them focused and at task. Preparation is huge.

[Stotle]

I was speaking in general, but since you want to play dirty lately, I guess I'll go ahead and entertain you.

You came to this board as an amateur talent evaluator, you had great unbiased opinions and you contributed greatly to the site. You got a job as a scout for some organization and you went from a great contributor to a biased, snarky, obnoxious poster. Congrats to you for your accomplishments, but you have not shown the ability to give an unbiased opinion on anything now that you have some self conceived notion that you are important.

Go back and take a look at my post history. I don't post a lot, but this is most likely the first time I've praised Drungo, or any poster, so you can keep your napkin.

Why don't you tell us which organization you are working for? Is it some super secret, or do you not want to receive criticism for the terrible moves that are/were made.

Play nice now, Stotle. You aren't nearly as important as you think you are.

As another aside, for all this bluster, I can think of one poster that I've had runs in with that I maybe got personal on an occasion or two. No where near the stuff you are saying above and you are not the only one to take those kinds of shots at me. You can call me snarky if you want, but I never make anything personal if I can help it and I certainly don't attack unless I feel like someone was heavy-handed with me. I also take a lot more guff (from a handful of posters in particular) than I think is warranted. But, at the end of the day, it's a message board and who really cares, eh?

[mweb]

Okay, I definitely think this is valid. If you believe BAL is a potential mid-80s win team, then 2 wins can be valuable enough to spend for. I personally don't think they are a mid-80s team unless EVERYTHING breaks right, and given the injury risks and age of some of the key pieces, as well as the developmental risk of others, it seems more likely they flirt in the 76-81 win range.

I think your last paragraph is fair, as well. But it's hard for me to swallow an opinion based on speculation. And if it is true that BAL simply isn't allowed to put money into development or scouting, I doubt there is any long term hope for the franchise. I'd prefer to think better days may still be ahead.

It's hard for me to imagine this team only being a mid 80's win team if everything breaks right, but perhaps that was hyperbole? I was also using the win totals you provided to make my point.

It's not that they aren't allowed to invest in development, scouting, and signing amateur talent as they spend at least a fair amount on the draft each year and have apparently increased spending a little in the international market. It's that they might not be allowed to spend significant money in that market or that they might not be allowed to go over budget to sign a Dominican amateur while they are allowed to go over budget to sign a big name player like Vlad. I agree that would be concerning if it's the case, but I'm not sure it would be that unusual. Maybe it is in our division, which is of course a problem.