O'S may return to the GG defense of the 70's

[wildcard]

My style? You mean being right?

How many projections have you made about this year's team that were remotely accurate?

To even mention this defense with any hint of what the 70s team was is disrespectful to those players and quite frankly, it is one of the dumber comps you will ever see on this site.

Not for the players that are watching the games or the fans for that matter. Anyone that is watching should be pleased with the comparison.

[crawjo]

Just my two cents:

While I agree the Hardy's arm strength is not in Miggy's category he is more accurate. His throws get to first from the hole sometimes on the bounce but beat the runner. His range is not as good as Andrus but he is has above average range IMO. Its is his consistency that makes him a GG caliber SS. If he gets to the ball he makes the play 99% of the time. At least this year.

Adam Jones has not been quite as good since he hurt his chest. He plays hurt a lot and the way he throws his body into walls and drives for ball he is playing banged up a lot. That is why I think some people don't give him the credit he is due. That and the fact he used to play too shallow. I think that has been corrected this year.

Markakis judges balls with the best of them. He always seems in position to make the play. Yes he drives a lot. Sometimes that is the only way for him to make the play. He doesn't have CFer speed but he has decent speed for a RFer. Runners mostly respect his arm. If they don't he makes them pay for it. He is a real heads up player.

Just my opinion, but I don't see how Hardy has great range. He handles the balls hit in his area and has an accurate arm, but it's not a strong arm and his range looks below average to me.

Jones takes bad routes and gets bad jumps on the ball, fairly consistently. I don't know how Diamond Mind can call him above average. Then again, Strat-o-matic used to say that Derek Jeter was an elite defender, with the best range in the game.

But really, if the O's defenders are as good as you say they are, then the Orioles pitching staff has to be the worst in the history of the planet, because they keep giving up a high number of base hits in the field.

[crawjo]

Just looking at the defensive WAR numbers (not as good as UZR probably, but anyway), and it seems to confirm my impressions.

Wieters is an excellent defender, +9 runs. Hardy is a little above average, +2 runs. Markakis is exactly average. Jones is horrifically below average, and so was Reynolds at third base.

Wieters is the only player on this team who should be considered for a Gold Glove Award. If Jones wins another one it will be a very bad thing because it will make something that is a big weakness for us appear to be a strength, and that makes the problem much more difficult to solve.

[El Gordo]

Reread the OP. I said O's may return to GG not the have returned. I say the combination could give the O's the edge. Not it has or it will.

Nothing wrong with recognizing that the defense is playing well. Not just well but very well. The few games that Reynolds has played first and Andino as played 3rd have been such an improvement it should be noted.

Did you notice the O's have won 8 of 12? The defense has played an important role.

To compare these players' defense(and they are playing well) to the O's D of the 70's in any way is ludicrous. :rolleyestf::rofl:

[crawjo]

Reread the OP. I said O's may return to GG not the have returned. I say the combination could give the O's the edge. Not it has or it will.

Nothing wrong with recognizing that the defense is playing well. Not just well but very well. The few games that Reynolds has played first and Andino as played 3rd have been such an improvement it should be noted.

Did you notice the O's have won 8 of 12? The defense has played an important role.

The problem is that you are comparing a below average defense to one of the best defenses in the history of baseball. It would be like looking at our lineup and saying, well, we COULD become the 1927 Yankees.

[Frobby]

Just my two cents:

While I agree the Hardy's arm strength is not in Miggy's category he is more accurate. His throws get to first from the hole sometimes on the bounce but beat the runner. His range is not as good as Andrus but he is has above average range IMO. Its is his consistency that makes him a GG caliber SS. If he gets to the ball he makes the play 99% of the time. At least this year.

Adam Jones has not been quite as good since he hurt his chest. He plays hurt a lot and the way he throws his body into walls and drives for ball he is playing banged up a lot. That is why I think some people don't give him the credit he is due. That and the fact he used to play too shallow. I think that has been corrected this year.

Markakis judges balls with the best of them. He always seems in position to make the play. Yes he drives a lot. Sometimes that is the only way for him to make the play. He doesn't have CFer speed but he has decent speed for a RFer. Runners mostly respect his arm. If they don't he makes them pay for it. He is a real heads up player.

Hardy is good, not great. He is very mistake free, and his range is fine, but it's not outstanding. I do not think he is any better than Izzy was the last two years; in fact, I'd say the 2009 version of Izzy was a little better than Hardy, because his range was better. Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled to have the guy. But Mark Belanger had way, way more range than Hardy. It's not close.

I don't have huge problems with Jones's range. He makes too many careless plays for my taste. He just doesn't concentrate 100% of the time out there. And again, he's not in the same universe as Paul Blair.

Nick's my favorite player, and in my mind he's a very good, smooth RF. His arm is both strong and accurate and he gets rid of the ball very fluidly. He is great and playing hops off the wall. He has become more reserved on balls hit in front of him over the years. He's good, but not as good as a few years ago.

[Can_of_corn]

Folks are really underestimating Belanger in this thread. His lifetime defensive numbers at shortstop are right up there with Ozzie Smith. Hardy is nice defensively but Belanger was in another league.

[Lucky Jim]

I'm not particularly worried about Hardy's defense, though it hasn't been spectacular. I hold out hope that the likely regression to offensive norm will be contrasted by a regression to his defensive norm. Other than that, Reynolds has looked fine, Andino has looked fine. But to what end? We've had to sacrifice a ton of offensive value to get there - Reynolds is an average-ish 1B (all told) because of his terrible contact rate and Andino a sub-par 3B (all told).

As others have noted, I think Markakis and Jones are average-ish at best. You can ignore UZR and +/-, but you do so at the cost of some legitimacy. Now, I think there may be something to the idea that OPACY suppresses certain numbers, and I think there may be something to issues w/ the kinds of similarities that need to be drawn between batted balls to make these metrics work, but, while Jones has appeared better to me this year (belying the numbers) and Markakis has seemed solid, neither are noteworthy. They're competent. Fortunately, at least one of them offers above-average production w/ his bat (Jones).

A contending team could very well be built w/ Wieters, Hardy and Jones up the middle. That said, so far at least, in only one case will their value be primarily based on defense. That's not the 1970s O's by any measure.

[wildcard]

Hardy is good, not great. He is very mistake free, and his range is fine, but it's not outstanding. I do not think he is any better than Izzy was the last two years; in fact, I'd say the 2009 version of Izzy was a little better than Hardy, because his range was better. Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled to have the guy. But Mark Belanger had way, way more range than Hardy. It's not close.

I don't have huge problems with Jones's range. He makes too many careless plays for my taste. He just doesn't concentrate 100% of the time out there. And again, he's not in the same universe as Paul Blair.

Nick's my favorite player, and in my mind he's a very good, smooth RF. His arm is both strong and accurate and he gets rid of the ball very fluidly. He is great and playing hops off the wall. He has become more reserved on balls hit in front of him over the years. He's good, but not as good as a few years ago.

Izzy has been a Gold Glove winner. He could have been as good in 2009 as he was when he won the GG. That often happens to players that don't hit much. So to compare Hardy to Izzy if you thought the two were close in performance is a compliment.

[Phil Beckett]

One thing you're forgetting is the 70's orioles played together for years too. being familiar with each other is a big part of the TEAM defense.

I hate going fishing and catching a fish on your first couple of casts and then nothing. I prefer going fishing and it's slow, then getting a fish right before you leave.

My history of being an orioles fan is sadly more like the former. As a kid, I always thought the O's would kick the yankees butts and be in first place usually, and have a stream of really really good players filling in spots left by other really really good players.

Does this make any sense?

[Lucky Jim]

Izzy has been a Gold Glove winner. He could have been as good in 2009 as he was when he won the GG. That often happens to players that don't hit much. So to compare Hardy to Izzy if you thought the two were close in performance is a compliment.

Just to pin down this feat of logical gymnastics:

1. Izzy has won a GG (in 2004).

2. There is some (undefined) chance that Izzy was as good in 2009 as when he won the GG in 2004.

3. This is more probable because Izturis doesn't hit well.

4. Hardy is not quite as good as Izzy who once won a GG and who may have been as good in 2009 as he was when he won a GG (because he doesn't hit much).

5. Therefore, saying Hardy is not as good as Izturis is a compliment.

Now, Izturis was very good in 2009. So, it is a compliment. But this was just an appealing embodiment of how you build your arguments.

[ScottP]

Folks are really underestimating Belanger in this thread. His lifetime defensive numbers at shortstop are right up there with Ozzie Smith. Hardy is nice defensively but Belanger was in another league.

And Smith played on turf; he was great and could swing a decent bat, but I still give Blade the nod in the field, even if he didn't do backflips.

[wildcard]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I didn't say nor do I believe anyone else has said that Hardy is better than Belanger, Jones better than Blair, Reynolds better than Powell, or Andino better than Brooks. My point was that the current team is playing good defense and that may be an asset that helps them if they can keep it up. I brought up the teams of the 70's because that is when the O's used to win GGs. If the current team can play as well as they are now for a whole season they might be GG winners also.

[Phil Beckett]

Wasnt Davey Johnson a gold glover, too?

[Phil Beckett]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I didn't say nor do I believe anyone else has said that Hardy is better than Belanger, Jones better than Blair, Reynolds better than Powell, or Andino better than Brooks. My point was that the current team is playing good defense and that may be an asset that helps them if they can keep it up. I brought up the teams of the 70's because that is when the O's used to win GGs. If the current team can play as well as they are now for a whole season they might be GG winners also.

We had 4 hall of famers on that team right? Or 3.