Latest Roch ...

[RShack]

OK, but what makes you think he will put up a decent OBP? Last year his OBP in Baltimore was an even .300 -- and that was with him hitting over his head at .290 BA. His career OBP in the minors is .299. All signs point to a sub-.300 OBP in the majors.

Sorry for not being clear. I never said I expected it. He's never been all that great at taking walks. Dunno if anybody ever taught him how. However, when he was 21 at AA, his OBP was .070 higher than his BA. The next year when he was 22, his BA in AA went up by 25 points but his BB's went way down. Then, if you look at all his AB's in AAA and ML combined, he's had a grand total of 1 measly walk. That's not right. It all makes me think he was just trying too hard.

I don't know what the O's are thinking. However, I bet they were thinking something when they gave him a shirt with a single-digit on it. I also bet that, back when they had the big org meeting, everybody from Bowie and Norfolk was chiming in about what they think might be fixable about him (and what they think isn't fixable). But I wasn't there, so I really don't know. I was just musing about things that they *might* be thinking, in addition to the one thing vatech hypothesized. Now, if he does play great-D, and if he does manage to have a decent OBP, then I would be happy with him. But notice that both of those two clauses have an "if" in them.

However, I just don't care much about LH's OPS. Everybody talks about how much better complicated stats are, and I agree with that up to a point, but then people turn around and use plain-ole OPS to judge everybody and everything, as if Moses brought it down from the mountain. I think that's just dumb. I think for a guy like LH, OPS is completely beside the point. It's like judging a little car than handles like a go-kart based on it's horsepower: it's using a valid measure for inappropriate purposes. IMO, if you wanna monitor how LH is doing, OBP is the thing to watch. I think you're jumping the gun when you say that "all signs point to a sub-.300 OBP in the majors". I don't think that's true at all. I think he's still a kid who has had his ups and downs, and while he's never indicated that he's gonna be a good hitter, I think your conclusion is unfounded if you really look at the whole picture. I agree that your prediction is certainly a possible outcome, I'm not dismissing it, but I think you're jumping to that conclusion way too fast.

[wildcard]

Wasting a year in what capacity? McPhail has a 3 season timetable before he thinks they'll even compete again. This is one of the reasons why. You can't guarantee instant impact ML return for every player you trade away. If they do anything before 2010 (the year we make contact) it'll be catching lightning in a bottle.

Young players can and often do take several years of playing at the major league level to reach the playing ability that a contending team would want. That is one reason that the O's need to get their SS in place.

The second is, we do not know if the first guy that is tried will work out. The O's may have to replace him. Therefore spending a year with LH at SS is not something that I would do. The O's have the talent to do better.

[RShack]

It's dangerous for you to draw this conclusion based on 139 innings of play at SS. I will grant you that he looked very good in those games.

Well, first off, I don't think it takes a huge sample size to tell if somebody can play a position. Hitting is different. Hell, the whole world made up their mind about Brooks based mainly on what he did to the Reds in the '70 WS. And, while I agree that a WS is way too small a sample (ref: Baltimore's own Ron Swoboda ;-), I just don't believe it takes a huge sample to tell about a guy in the field. And, while I didn't have a huge sample, it wasn't just a couple games either. While I don't expect you to trust my opinion, I trust my opinion, and what I saw was a guy who looked a whole lot better than "OK". What I saw was a guy who looked like a damn good SS, a guy who looked like he knew what he was doing and was able to do it. To me, it's not just about how many E's he did or didn't make, it was how he looked while he went about his business. FWIW, my eyes told me "that's Luis Aparicio right there, plus some... too bad he can't steal bases."

Second off, I don't think they're making up their mind based on my sample size. They've had various guys watching him play for a lot more games than we saw on TV.

[El Gordo]

Well, first off, I don't think it takes a huge sample size to tell if somebody can play a position. Hitting is different. Hell, the whole world made up their mind about Brooks based mainly on what he did to the Reds in the '70 WS. And, while I agree that a WS is way too small a sample (ref: Baltimore's own Ron Swoboda ;-), I just don't believe it takes a huge sample to tell about a guy in the field. And, while I didn't have a huge sample, it wasn't just a couple games either. While I don't expect you to trust my opinion, I trust my opinion, and what I saw was a guy who looked a whole lot better than "OK". What I saw was a guy who looked like a damn good SS, a guy who looked like he knew what he was doing and was able to do it. To me, it's not just about how many E's he did or didn't make, it was how he looked while he went about his business. FWIW, my eyes told me "that's Luis Aparicio right there, plus some... too bad he can't steal bases."

Second off, I don't think they're making up their mind based on my sample size. They've had various guys watching him play for a lot more games than we saw on TV.

They may even have the MiL defensive stats to support what their eyes are telling them.:002_sbiggrin:

[The Wedge]

Young players can and often do take several years of playing at the major league level to reach the playing ability that a contending team would want. That is one reason that the O's need to get their SS in place.

The second is, we do not know if the first guy that is tried will work out. The O's may have to replace him. Therefore spending a year with LH at SS is not something that I would do. The O's have the talent to do better.

I know it's not the greatest of examples considering the player he was, but the O's won a WS with a sophomore SS.

[NewMarketSean]

Sorry for not being clear. I never said I expected it. He's never been all that great at taking walks. Dunno if anybody ever taught him how. However, when he was 21 at AA, his OBP was .070 higher than his BA. But if you look at all his AB's in AAA and ML combined, he's had a grand total of 1 measly walk. That's not right. It makes me think he was just trying too hard.

I don't know what the O's are thinking. However, I bet they were thinking something when they gave him a shirt with a single-digit on it. I also bet that, back when they had the big org meeting, everybody from Bowie and Norfolk was chiming in about what they think might be fixable about him (and what they think isn't fixable). But I wasn't there, so I really don't know. I was just musing about things that they *might* be thinking, in addition to the one thing vatech hypothesized. Now, if he does play great-D, and if he does manage to have a decent OBP, then I would be happy with him. But notice that both of those two clauses have an "if" in them.

However, I just don't care much about LH's OPS. Everybody talks about how much better complicated stats are, and I agree with that up to a point, but then people turn around and use plain-ole OPS to judge everybody and everything, as if Moses brought it down from the mountain. I think that's just dumb. I think for a guy like LH, OPS is completely beside the point. It's like judging a little car than handles like a go-kart based on it's horsepower: it's using a valid measure for inappropriate purposes. IMO, if you wanna monitor how LH is doing, OBP is the thing to watch. I think you're jumping the gun when you say that "all signs point to a sub-.300 OBP in the majors". I don't think that's true at all. I think he's still a kid who has had his ups and downs, and while he's never indicated that he's gonna be a good hitter, I think your conclusion is unfounded if you really look at the whole picture. I agree that your prediction is certainly a possible outcome, I'm not dismissing it, but I think you're jumping to that conclusion way too fast.

Rshack, what percentage do stats play into your evaluation of a player? You're talking about the "big picture" and saying that people who only look at stats are "jumping to conclusions."

IMO, the people who are looking at stats and forming an opinion of LH are not "jumping to conclusions." They are looking at hard evidence. You spend too much time in abstract gray areas.

And how often do players who have no patience at the plate turn into Kevin Youkilis? And besides, LH is not going to start taking more walks while Crowley is here. It's just not the way he goes about being an HC.

So I think the answer is right there. Stats tell you that LH is not going to improve in taking walks, and the HC is not going to help him change his approach at the plate.

LH played well above his head in 69 AB's last year and will be lucky to maintain an OBP above .300.

[TinCup]

Is this yet another thread spinning wildly off track, focusing on Luis Hernandez?????

Please tell me this is not the case.

LH is quickly becoming the new John Stephens.

[NewMarketSean]

I wonder if the same people who stick up for LH are the same people who are sick of Cust, Terrero, House and Knott talk.

[RShack]

Rshack, what percentage do stats play into your evaluation of a player? You're talking about the "big picture" and saying that people who only look at stats are "jumping to conclusions."

IMO, the people who are looking at stats and forming an opinion of LH are not "jumping to conclusions." They are looking at hard evidence. You spend too much time in abstract gray areas.

And how often do players who have no patience at the plate turn into Kevin Youkilis? And besides, LH is not going to start taking more walks while Crowley is here. It's just not the way he goes about being an HC.

So I think the answer is right there. Stats tell you that LH is not going to improve in taking walks, and the HC is not going to help him change his approach at the plate.

LH played well above his head in 69 AB's last year and will be lucky to maintain an OBP above .300.

Well, if you're really asking any questions in there, I'd be happy to answer them. My guess is that you're really making a statement about your opinion, and aren't really asking any questions, so I won't bother. Especially since some of the things you pretended to ask have already been answered in previous posts. But if you do have any real questions, I don't mind answering them.

[Scribo]

Well, first off, I don't think it takes a huge sample size to tell if somebody can play a position. Hitting is different. .

I'm not getting into the LH controversy, but I do think that this is a good observation in general. Success in the field doesn't happen by chance, and therefore can be consistently repeated. Going deep into the hole to throw out a fast runner isn't a fluke; you have to have good range and a strong arm to do it, and it almost never happens by accident.

But even poor hitters can have hot streaks and look great for a while, therefore the need for a substantial sample size.

[Sports Guy]

Well, if you're really asking any questions in there, I'd be happy to answer them. My guess is that you're really making a statement about your opinion, and aren't really asking any questions, so I won't bother. Especially since some of the things you pretended to ask have already been answered in previous posts. But if you do have any real questions, I don't mind answering them.

Seems pretty obvious to me what he is asking...How much weight do you put on stats and why do people who look at stats get put into a category of jumping to conclusions.

History is on the side of those who use stats as a good evaluation tool.

[RShack]

Seems pretty obvious to me what he is asking...How much weight do you put on stats and why do people who look at stats get put into a category of jumping to conclusions.

History is on the side of those who use stats as a good evaluation tool.

But I never did that. I said that I think Frobby jumped to a conclusion about LH's ML OBP that is a premature conclusion based on my view of LH's stats. My opinion is based on looking at his MiL stats too, and in some detail. So, sorry for busting your knee-jerk reaction, but both sides of this are based on looking at stats. In general, I think it's how you look at stats that makes a difference. In this case, Frobby and I were looking at stats and seeing similar-but-still-different things.

Now, I would never lump Frobby into any category except into the category "guys who are reasonable and fair-minded". But that doesn't mean he's always right either.

As for history, well, let me put my tongue in my cheek here and point out that history tells us the O's go to post-season more often with no-hit SS's than they do with SS's who have a good OPS ;-)

[Fan4Life]

But I never did that. What I said that I think Frobby jumped to a conclusion about LH's ML OBP that is a premature conclusion based on my view of LH's stats. My opinion is based on looking at his MiL stats too, and in some detail. So, sorry for busting your knee-jerk reaction, but both sides of this are based on looking at stats. It's how you look at stats that makes a difference.

Now, I would never lump Frobby into any category except into the category "guys who are reasonable and fair-minded". But that doesn't mean he's always right either.

As for history, well, let me put my tongue in my cheek here and point out that history tells us the O's go to post-season more often with no-hit SS's than they do with SS's who have a good OPS ;-)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen where you're promoting LH based on offensive capabilities. In fact, you've seem to be bally-hooing his defensive skills with a side comment that you thought his OBP could increase because of the reasons you stated. And all of this is not to say that he should be our starting SS but that in a worst case scenario, he ain't all bad. Is that a fair synopsis?

[66-70-83-??]

Speaking of stats, what sticks out with LH is that at the higher levels he has played at (AAA, MLB) he has combined for 175 at-bats with only ONE BB.

[Sports Guy]

But I never did that. I said that I think Frobby jumped to a conclusion about LH's ML OBP that is a premature conclusion based on my view of LH's stats. My opinion is based on looking at his MiL stats too, and in some detail. So, sorry for busting your knee-jerk reaction, but both sides of this are based on looking at stats. In general, I think it's how you look at stats that makes a difference. In this case, Frobby and I were looking at stats and seeing similar-but-still-different things.

Now, I would never lump Frobby into any category except into the category "guys who are reasonable and fair-minded". But that doesn't mean he's always right either.

As for history, well, let me put my tongue in my cheek here and point out that history tells us the O's go to post-season more often with no-hit SS's than they do with SS's who have a good OPS ;-)

This is such a terrible argument but you obviously don't get why it is so whatever. And way to side step the whole history thing....You are banking on something that rarely happens in the history of the game..Good for you..Keep holding out hope that a rare occurance is going to happen!

As for LH's walk totals...In 2005(the year i assume you are referring too), he had 41 walks in 415 ab's in AA.

In his other 1863 professional at bats, he has 98 walks.

So, in 18% of his professional at bats, he had a decent, albeit not great walk rate....In the other 82% of his at bats, it has been pathetic.

Again, you are going for the reach and holding out hope on the tiny chance he can be somewhat ok. That is a horrendous way to evaluate someone or to decide if they should get a chance or not.