The BRob Effect

[webbrick2010]

The O's are now 3-4 Since BRob came back

They are 5-5 for the 10 games he has played this year

They were 7-10 in the 17 games BRob played last year

BRob has never been on the field for a winning team (not even in the minors).

BRob now has .242/.257/.364/.621

The .621 OPS is below Casilla and Flaherty

In the 7 games since his return he has

.142/.181/.272/.453

How long will Buck play BRob before mercifully the plug is pulled on his career.

I really thought the days of giving preferential treatment to washed up veterans were behind the O's

[anrynike]

I'm sure you're going to get torn up for this thread topic, but I do wonder sometimes if the other players get pissed that the moment BRob is finally ready to play, the team drops whoever has been covering for him. I have no idea, they all may love BRob, but it makes me wonder.

[Malike]

So, Flaherty puts that line up for over 2 months and it's fine. Roberts is back for a little over a week and is the reason the O's had a bad week? You never cease to befuddle me with you absolutely ridiculous assertions.

[Burg]

Correlation does not equal causation.

[webbrick2010]

So, Flaherty puts that line up for over 2 months and it's fine. Roberts is back for a little over a week and is the reason the O's had a bad week? You never cease to befuddle me with you absolutely ridiculous assertions.

I made no assertion that BRob has been the cause of the O's recenct uneven play... I simply make the historical reference that the O's have never had a winning record with BRob on the field

Also I certainly understand that his 10 games played is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions from.

However his age and recent injury history make me believe that he is a downgrade to Ryan Flaherty

I expect to bump this thread every 10 games to see:

1. How BRob is doing

2. How the O's are doing with BRob in the lineup

3. See when Buck will finally tell Brian thanks but no thanks

[coolbeans]

The only problem I have with the whole situation is that Flaherty had gotten hot in the week before BRob came back and he was relegated to the bench in the middle of that hot streak. I don't think BRob should have seen the field until Flaherty cooled off. BRob should have DHed until he proved he would put up decent numbers and was a better option than Flaherty. The one issue I have with Buck is that he seems to not recognize when players are on a hot streak. I can't count the times I've noticed a seemingly hot player not in the lineup the game after going 3-4 with 4 RBIs or something similar or simply putting up good numbers for several games. Flaherty is so good in the field and was a big part of the offense for a week or so. You don't take that player out for anything until he cools off.

[SeaBird]

Maybe they're playing Roberts because of his $10M salary as opposed to Flaherty's $490K. The FO says "we're payin' him so we better be playin' him". Get some sort of return on what has been a bust of an investment.

[Tx Oriole]

So, Flaherty puts that line up for over 2 months and it's fine. Roberts is back for a little over a week and is the reason the O's had a bad week? You never cease to befuddle me with you absolutely ridiculous assertions.

I agree with you. This guy is so off center.

[coolbeans]

Maybe they're playing Roberts because of his $10M salary as opposed to Flaherty's $490K. The FO says "we're payin' him so we better be playin' him". Get some sort of return on what has been a bust of an investment.

That would imply they don't care about winning and I doubt Buck would put up with anyone forcing him to play a player. I just think he is loyal to vets that have played well in the past and I can understand wanting to play BRob over Flaherty but at least wait until Flaherty had cooled off. If he goes 0fer for 2 or 3 games in a row, make the switch. That was really my only point.

[ShaneDawg85]

This idiotic assertion again. Having Roberts in the dugout last season sure didn't have a negative effect, when he was by Buck's side most of the time and could talk to anybody he pleased. It hasn't had an effect this season when he did the same thing and Buck speaks so highly of having Roberts with the team. But no, lets pull a small sample size of games from the last three seasons to prove our hidden agenda true. The reality behind it all is, has been, and will be:

Pre-2012: The teams just were not good. Period.

2012: The pitching was disintegrating.

2013: The team isn't hitting.

Brian Roberts has nothing to do with the pitching, and he can only control his own hitting. What this really is all about is you don't like Brian Roberts, for your own personal reasons, and will look for any way to criticize him, including blaming the record and failings of 24 other men and coaching staff on him.

[Malike]

That would imply they don't care about winning and I doubt Buck would put up with anyone forcing him to play a player. I just think he is loyal to vets that have played well in the past and I can understand wanting to play BRob over Flaherty but at least wait until Flaherty had cooled off. If he goes 0fer for 2 or 3 games in a row, make the switch. That was really my only point.

There should be no surprise to anyone that Roberts is starting. Buck said during ST that it was Brians job. They are paying him 10M and he's going to hit as well as Flaherty. There was no misconception when Roberts was ready to return from the DL that he was going to be the starter. It was plainly stated during his rehab.

[oriolesmagic9]

Roberts should be starting. Talk to me if he's still struggling 6 weeks from now.

[webbrick2010]

I hate the whole "we never won with Roberts in the lineup" argument. It's ridiculous. Guess what? We never won with Markakis in the lineup for years until last year when there was a good team around him. We didn't win with Jones and Wieters on the team for a few years.

Okay it's a ridiculous assertion.

It is probably a coincidence with very little correlation to BRobs perfromance that he has never played on a winning team.

However lets just discuss these questions:

1. Is BRob presently our best option at 2B

2. If he continues to not hit, how many games do you give him??

When the season is over will we look back at BRob's return and say he helped or hurt the W/L record??

I don't think his performance over the last four years warranted him being named the starter in July of a pennant race.

I would have told Brian that he would have to play 3 weeks in AAA and prove he can play at a high level.

Just my opinion, should be interesting to see how it plays out.

[MurphDogg]

I made no assertion that BRob has been the cause of the O's recenct uneven play... I simply make the historical reference that the O's have never had a winning record with BRob on the field

Also I certainly understand that his 10 games played is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions from.

And yet you titled the post "The BRob Effect". How mysterious.

[leapinghorsered]

I don't really have a problem with Roberts playing second base because notwithstanding Flaherty's recent hot streak he's been pretty bad.

The problem is Buck's insistence on keeping both Roberts and Flaherty on the roster. If you have to play Roberts then Flaherty has to go down. Absolutely ridiculous that Valencia got sent down with all the left handed pitching the O's had coming up. It created a situation where you have McClouth playing against lefties or Roberts being used as the RH hitting DH, which is absurd.

And, this is just my opinion, but it does feel like the additions of Reimold and Roberts has thrown the team chemistry off. The team was fine without those guys, and I just don't see how either of them adds anything.