Orioles are one of the teams that the Twins have contacted in regards to Justin Morneau

[Frobby]

Yeah, and being "average" is no insult. Don't necessarily agree that Reynolds would be average at first base going forward, but it's certainly in the range of possibilities.

I don't agree with it either. But he probably wouldn't be too far off. Last year there were 33 players who had 300 PA as a first baseman. The median of those guys was a .786 OPS (the mean OPS of all 1B including back-ups was .777). Reynolds was 21st of the 33 at .763. I think he'll do better than that next year, and his defense is pretty good at 1B. So, pretty close to average IMO.

[OrioleMagic79]

I don't agree with it either. But he probably wouldn't be too far off. Last year there were 33 players who had 300 PA as a first baseman. The median of those guys was a .786 OPS (the mean OPS of all 1B including back-ups was .777). Reynolds was 21st of the 33 at .763. I think he'll do better than that next year, and his defense is pretty good at 1B. So, pretty close to average IMO.

OK, well I guess I want better than average from first base...it's supposed to be where a large portion of your offensive production comes from...when we settle for average players at key positions, we will occasionally have a year like last year, occasionally have a terrible year, and most years be right around .500...or AVERAGE...

And for you stat junkies and WAR lovers:

Maybe we can create a stat that is called TWAFH (Team Wins Above Five Hundred), and with each acquisition we make, we can recalculate exactly how many wins we will have by a formula that includes each player's WAR, their likelihood of injury based on their personal history and the danger of the position they play, the calculated depth of your minor league system, measured potential of each player at all levels of the organization, the rate of improvement and/or decline expected based on their height, weight, body type, handedness, race, position, playoff experience, performance in different situations (high vs. low pressure), coaching staff, fan attendance, average weather conditions, rate of rescheduled games, success in extra innings, blend of grass used for the infield and outfield and how the grass seed is expected to perform in the upcoming season, average wood density of the trees used to make the bats, predicted leather quality of the baseballs for the season based on the quality of the grass and feed that the cows are eating this winter, occupational history of all food and merchandise vendors in the stadium and their likelihood of quitting vs. sticking with the job for the duration of the season, and the number of sunny days in each spring training city to determine how it correlates with the team's ability to prepare themselves during spring training and being sure to incorporate differences in forecast for split-squad games and who played in each SS game...

If we do that, then we don't have to bother playing the games...we can just calculate exactly how many TWAFH every team will have this season and we can crown the WS Champion as soon as the offseason is over...

[SrMeowMeow]

That's nice, but the two worst things about Reynolds to me do not include his defense. He strikes out too often (worst out you can make in baseball), and he also grounds into a lot of double plays (second worst out you can make)...

He certainly walks a fair amount, so that lends to the reason for his strikeouts to either not keeping his head down and/or swinging too hard. If he works on keeping his head still and down and then only swings hard in the right situations, hopefully his contact goes up, resulting in more balls in play and more RBIs. The power would go down a bit, but many of the HRs would become doubles, and he would be making more contact and therefore could potentially become quite the doubles hitter...

The defense needs a little work, but he made so much progress in such a short period of time that I would trust he will continue to develop that just by playing and getting reps...the contact is where I want to see an improvement...

The bolded is maybe my favorite line in any post ever. It's rare to see a post bashing high strikeout totals while at the same time drawing attention to the fact that a double play is in fact far worse (even though you somehow reached a different conclusion).

FACT: If you ground out weakly instead of striking out, you are awarded the Purple Heart and your team is credited with scoring a run.

[DrungoHazewood]

The WAR stat goes against the one main standard of proof that must exist in all comparisons/research...it has too many variables at once, making it impossible to compare one player with another...it's the quint-essential "on paper" stat...and as Orioles fans, we should all be well aware from last season about what "on paper" projections are worth...

Like I said, I think it is a worthless stat, because no matter how you crunch the numbers, getting a tally in the left column cannot be explained on a piece of paper before the game starts...too much can happen that is random and can (and will) affect the outcome...

So, what framework do you use to evaluate players? I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's probably eyeballing a bunch of things like BA and RBI and OPS and how good the guy looks in the field, and then forming an opinion.

The only difference between that and WAR is that WAR actually is systematic, unbiased, and relatively consistent in its methodology.

[DrungoHazewood]

OK, well I guess I want better than average from first base...it's supposed to be where a large portion of your offensive production comes from...when we settle for average players at key positions, we will occasionally have a year like last year, occasionally have a terrible year, and most years be right around .500...or AVERAGE...

And for you stat junkies and WAR lovers:

Maybe we can create a stat that is called TWAFH (Team Wins Above Five Hundred), and with each acquisition we make, we can recalculate exactly how many wins we will have by a formula that includes each player's WAR, their likelihood of injury based on their personal history and the danger of the position they play, the calculated depth of your minor league system, measured potential of each player at all levels of the organization, the rate of improvement and/or decline expected based on their height, weight, body type, handedness, race, position, playoff experience, performance in different situations (high vs. low pressure), coaching staff, fan attendance, average weather conditions, rate of rescheduled games, success in extra innings, blend of grass used for the infield and outfield and how the grass seed is expected to perform in the upcoming season, average wood density of the trees used to make the bats, predicted leather quality of the baseballs for the season based on the quality of the grass and feed that the cows are eating this winter, occupational history of all food and merchandise vendors in the stadium and their likelihood of quitting vs. sticking with the job for the duration of the season, and the number of sunny days in each spring training city to determine how it correlates with the team's ability to prepare themselves during spring training and being sure to incorporate differences in forecast for split-squad games and who played in each SS game...

If we do that, then we don't have to bother playing the games...we can just calculate exactly how many TWAFH every team will have this season and we can crown the WS Champion as soon as the offseason is over...

You got me. I hate WAR now, and am going to fall back on the time-tested method of makin' stuff up and combining it all into an opinion by whatever the heck method I want. Much easier than trying to justify a consistent, reasonable framework based on empirical data.

[soxhotcorner14]

So, what framework do you use to evaluate players? I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's probably eyeballing a bunch of things like BA and RBI and OPS and how good the guy looks in the field, and then forming an opinion.

The only difference between that and WAR is that WAR actually is systematic, unbiased, and relatively consistent in its methodology.

And with that approach, who needs anyone to scout players? It's all right there on a stat sheet? The O's can get rid of the entire scouting department and just concentrate on WAR stats. They can use that money saved to get Josh Hamilton!

Bottom line, the eye test is how you judge a player, how he plays in certain scenarios during the game. Is he a gamer? Or is he at the end of the bench praying he doesn't come up to bat? There are several other things to look for and I'm not going to list them all out. But you use stats to back up what you see and then you have enough data to backup your opinions. It's not the other way around. As much as a lot of guys on this site want it to be that way, it will never be that way. You can't judge a player by stats, advanced stats.. etc. If that was the case like I said, you might as well drop all the scouting departments and save the money because it's stat mining is fool proof. :rolleyestf:

[DrungoHazewood]

And with that approach, who needs anyone to scout players? It's all right there on a stat sheet? The O's can get rid of the entire scouting department and just concentrate on WAR stats. They can use that money saved to get Josh Hamilton!

So you're implying that if you have good scouts you should rely on only flawed or simplistic statstical modeling? Why use the best, when you can use other methods we know are even more wrong!

[soxhotcorner14]

So you're implying that if you have good scouts you should rely on only flawed or simplistic statstical modeling? Why use the best, when you can use other methods we know are even more wrong!

You use stats to back up what you see. Then you compile all the data to base your opinion of a guy. Simple as that. There are scouts that don't even use stats. They simply just scout a player to form an opinion. Stats can be skewed in so many ways that they aren't as fool proof as you make them out to be. I haven't heard one manager or baseball person ever say to me or anyone else that they form an opinion of a player solely off stats.

I'll give you a perfect example of what I'm talking about and it involves the very same player that people on this site are going round and round about. Let's take Mark Reynolds last year. Do you think after ****ting the bed almost the entire year that he deserved to get as many at bats as he did? No, simply put Buck went off things he saw in Reynolds and the work he continued to put in to get things rolling. If Buck went solely off stats Reynolds wouldn't get off the bench. These advanced stats do have some value, but they're not solely relied upon by managers, baseball people etc. They are used to form an opinion not base the opinion.

[DrungoHazewood]

You use stats to back up what you see. Then you compile all the data to base your opinion of a guy. Simple as that. There are scouts that don't even use stats. They simply just scout a player to form an opinion. Stats can be skewed in so many ways that they aren't as fool proof as you make them out to be. I haven't heard one manager or baseball person ever say to me or anyone else that they form an opinion of a player solely off stats.

Yep, stats are the worst way to evaluate a player besides all of the other ones. If you think stats are skewed, just try on some subjective human opinions.

[CA-ORIOLE]

And with that approach, who needs anyone to scout players? It's all right there on a stat sheet? The O's can get rid of the entire scouting department and just concentrate on WAR stats. They can use that money saved to get Josh Hamilton!

Bottom line, the eye test is how you judge a player, how he plays in certain scenarios during the game. Is he a gamer? Or is he at the end of the bench praying he doesn't come up to bat? There are several other things to look for and I'm not going to list them all out. But you use stats to back up what you see and then you have enough data to backup your opinions. It's not the other way around. As much as a lot of guys on this site want it to be that way, it will never be that way. You can't judge a player by stats, advanced stats.. etc. If that was the case like I said, you might as well drop all the scouting departments and save the money because it's stat mining is fool proof. :rolleyestf:

This is of course, mostly nonsense. Nothing wrong with scouting and it's a critical element for any team, but it's primarily a predictive tool to supplement or enhance statistical data. Lacking statistical data in the case of younger players (or aging ones) it takes on more importance. In many cases scouting is being integrated into statistical data and good scouting is certainly integrating statistical methodologies and systems. The idea that any signficant number of players perform poorly in clutch situations or are/are not "gamers" over the course of a career or extended playing time is almost always a red herring.

[soxhotcorner14]

Yep, stats are the worst way to evaluate a player besides all of the other ones. If you think stats are skewed, just try on some subjective human opinions.

That's exactly why not every human is a player personnel guy, a scout, GM etc. There is a reason they get paid to do what they do.

[DrungoHazewood]

That's exactly why not every human is a player personnel guy, a scout, GM etc. There is a reason they get paid to do what they do.

So you're saying scouts are uniformly unbiased, systematic, and consistent with all of their evaluations?

[CA-ORIOLE]

So you're saying scouts are uniformly unbiased, systematic, and consistent with all of their evaluations?

I'm guessing a few are not.

Bottom line, the eye test is how you judge a player, how he plays in certain scenarios during the game. Is he a gamer? Or is he at the end of the bench praying he doesn't come up to bat?

[soxhotcorner14]

So you're saying scouts are uniformly unbiased, systematic, and consistent with all of their evaluations?

In so many words I'm pretty sure I said stats serve their purpose. It's collected data that helps you form an opinion of an evaluation. Not once did I say stats are not useful. Some scouts/personnel/front office guys use them more than others. And some hardly use them at all. They'd rather watch tape on the guy or see them in person to form an opinion.

Case and point, if Fred Ferriera (sp) solely used stats for evaluation he would of never discovered Miguel Gonzalez toiling around in the Mexican League. If he was throwing up great numbers you mean to tell me 29 other teams missed these stats? Nobody else wanted a pitcher that could almost spot the ball anywhere he wanted? A starting pitcher that gives you a chance to win a game each time he tows the rubber? Baseball isnt solely played on a computer here boys.

[B-more]

In so many words I'm pretty sure I said stats serve their purpose. It's collected data that helps you form an opinion of an evaluation. Not once did I say stats are not useful. Some scouts/personnel/front office guys use them more than others. And some hardly use them at all. They'd rather watch tape on the guy or see them in person to form an opinion.

Case and point, if Fred Ferriera (sp) solely used stats for evaluation he would of never discovered Miguel Gonzalez toiling around in the Mexican League. If he was throwing up great numbers you mean to tell me 29 other teams missed these stats? Nobody else wanted a pitcher that could almost spot the ball anywhere he wanted? A starting pitcher that gives you a chance to win a game each time he tows the rubber? Baseball isnt solely played on a computer here boys.

Didn't DD reduce the pro scouting department because he believed stats could be the better way to evaluate pro players and then based on the stats, can send the scouts to maybe backup what the stats seem to say about the players. Now he believes scouting is more important for players that are not yet pros or in the minor league system and why he pretty much made all the O's scouts amateur scouts and then do pro scouting as needed.