Roch: Duquette confirms no Fielder, Reynolds to 1B?

[Jimbo81]

DD didn't really say No or Yes when he answered the Fielder question.

...and the MFY's really weren't interested in TBag until...

[TonySoprano]

DD didn't really say No or Yes when he answered the Fielder question.

Please... don't.

There goes Hank "pouring water on that."

For Peace - We have a power-hitting first baseman, right?" Duquette said

[sbauer]

The new CBA says we are. A team that struggles to draw 10k to their games... that's pretty telling right there that the Orioles market isn't real big.

It tells us that the Orioles have been awful for 14 years. You can't put all of the blame on market size. People are just not interested in watching a losing product every year. Can't say that I blame them. Even some of the most dedicated fans on here have become pretty disgusted with this franchise recently.

[CA-ORIOLE]

So who's gonna start the Trea farewell thread?

[Flacco Machado]

He said he "poured water on that one". Didn't say if it was cold or hot.

Just another year of posturing through the media. We, as fans, fall for it every year. Remember, this is the man that signed Manny Ramirez, at the time, to one of the biggest contacts in baseball history. And, he was very close to acquiring A-Rod and his contract before the Yanks got him.

I think we are going after Fielder.

[TonySoprano]

So who's gonna start the Trea farewell thread?

I said before it should be Milligan

[El Gordo]

He said he "poured water on that one". Didn't say if it was cold or hot.

Just another year of posturing through the media. We, as fans, fall for it every year. Remember, this is the man that signed Manny Ramirez, at the time, to one of the biggest contacts in baseball history. And, he was very close to acquiring A-Rod and his contract before the Yanks got him.

I think we are going after Fielder.

I think we are letting the market percolate, re: Fielder.

[clapdiddy]

I think we are letting the market percolate, re: Fielder.

I agree with this. I think we are going to wait and see how many teams are bidding on him and if the market is not very high we may enter into discussions.

I don't think that we will hear anything about it, though.

[DrungoHazewood]

I mean this all depends on options. But Reynolds shouldn't be limited to just 3b or just 1b yet in the process. We have a good handle on what he looks like in both and can make assessments on individual spots accordingly.

As for SSS, he did have about 100 points higher in fielding percentage at 1b. The question is does that increase stem from eliminating his arm from the equation. Not really sure where to find the number of throwing errors vs fielding, but based on my memory he was genuinely bad at both. But he did have less errors in more chances at 1b. Maybe it helps him stay on his toes more because he's involved there. Has he said he's more comfortable at one or the other?

The average MLB first baseman fields .994, the average MLB third baseman fields .954. Reynolds' career fielding percentage at first is .982 and at third is .930. Most of Reynolds' "improvement" is the fact that first baseman field a lot of much easier chances. But even at first his fielding percentage is significantly below average.

Tiny sample warning, but Reynolds' career UZR and total zone ratings at first are actually worse than his numbers at third.

[Austin]

How anyone can read these quotes by Duquette plainly stating that we aren't going after a power hitting first baseman and still delude themselves into thinking we're going after Fielder is beyond me. The only way he comes here is if his price drops dramatically, and I just don't see that happening.

[Hank Scorpio]

He said he "poured water on that one". Didn't say if it was cold or hot.

Just another year of posturing through the media. We, as fans, fall for it every year. Remember, this is the man that signed Manny Ramirez, at the time, to one of the biggest contacts in baseball history. And, he was very close to acquiring A-Rod and his contract before the Yanks got him.

I think we are going after Fielder.

Uh... you realize he did those things in Boston, right?

[CA-ORIOLE]

Right...the median is definitely a better way to measure that, totally agree. The point is somewhat still relevant though. Reynolds in many more chances was much closer to the median at 1b at 987, than 897 at 3b. A 100 point change in fielding percentage from any position to another though is one worth nothing. I mean we're talking about night and day different between those two, and I only meant to accentuate that point.

I guess you have to account for a variety of factors which includes people throwing to you, number of chances, reduction in throws, are less balls hit to 1bs than 3bs? I wonder what his fielding percentage was on plays hit to him? And was it higher at 1b because he was more comfortable because he was more involved.

I wasn't trying to say use that number to put him at 1b, just wondering if there were other factors that led to the vast improvement, and/or was there really an improvement at all.

I follow you. First is less complicated he won't have to make throws/be rushed etc. He'd likely be better defensively at first than third. I think that's pretty clear. The only issue is where is he more valuable considering positional adjustments/comparative performance etc. I prefer him at first or DH. I think he has the skills to be fairly good there if they give him time to learn the nuances of first base. The FP% last year might look ok but the advanced metrics didn't. The statistical samle size at first base doesn't mean much of anything imo.

[Sports Guy]

Your logic seems circular, sir. SSS so move him back to third before we can get a larger sample size. If you are going to fall back on SSS as you argument, then you should be willing to see more than a SSS to prove your point. Otherwise, your SSS argument seems more like a convenient excuse than a reasoned argument.

You do know that he played third before 2011, right?

[Austin]

Remember, this is the man that signed Manny Ramirez, at the time, to one of the biggest contacts in baseball history. And, he was very close to acquiring A-Rod and his contract before the Yanks got him.

That's all well and good, except he did that in Boston where he didn't have a "flat payroll" of ~$85 million and Peter Angelos looming over his shoulder.

[DrungoHazewood]

Not sure Attendance is the right metric to determine market size. If the Yankees suck for three years in a row and their attendance drops off significantly, are then then considered mid-market. Conversely if the Royals beginning selling out every night are they considered large market?

I think market is size of possible fans, number of teams competing for those fans, other revenue generating opportunities (ads, sports networks etc). And given those metrics, my belief is that this team is mid to small.

When baseball people talk about market, they're not talking about number of people in the area and how much money they have. They're talking about how well the current franchise in the area does at getting that money in their pockets.

Thank goodness MASN is a separate business entity from the O's and it owns the majority of its large market neighbor, according to the CBA, team's TV rights...

O's are a very large market team if you count MASN...like Chicago large.

You keep saying the O's are a huge market team, but that doesn't make it any more true. They O's could, potentially, be a large-ish market team and have much higher revenues if they did much better on the field and marketed better and got more money out of the Nats' part of MASN.

But they haven't done any of that. They have piddling revenues compared to the Sox and Yanks. Or the Cubs or the Angels.

And teams (or any business for that matter, at least one without a gov't loan) don't go blow truckloads of cash they don't have based on what their revenue streams might be like in five years if everything goes right.

Right...the median is definitely a better way to measure that, totally agree. The point is somewhat still relevant though. Reynolds in many more chances was much closer to the median at 1b at 987, than 897 at 3b. A 100 point change in fielding percentage from any position to another though is one worth nothing. I mean we're talking about night and day different between those two, and I only meant to accentuate that point.

I guess you have to account for a variety of factors which includes people throwing to you, number of chances, reduction in throws, are less balls hit to 1bs than 3bs? I wonder what his fielding percentage was on plays hit to him? And was it higher at 1b because he was more comfortable because he was more involved.

I wasn't trying to say use that number to put him at 1b, just wondering if there were other factors that led to the vast improvement, and/or was there really an improvement at all.

As I said before, Reynolds' isn't a better first baseman. At least not by the available data. UZR and TZ and +/- all show he's farther below average at first than at third. SSS caveats apply.