Per Connolly: O's intensifying interest in Morales (Roch says he's hearing no)

[weams]

Really makes you wonder who these sources are. Ultimately it's up to Dan.

I am sure that Dan is consulting with Buck. But Dan will make the decision.

[LayzieDES]

Makes you wonder who they are, and why they're employed by the O's. Preferring Cruz to Morales is a serious head-scratcher, IMO.

Well you at least know Buck loves those former Rangers.

[Enjoy Terror]

Kendrys Morales career vs O's: 116PA, .389/.422/.602

Undoubtedly they know he plays well in Camden Yards and don't want him going to someone else.

[LayzieDES]

Kendrys Morales career vs O's: 116PA, .389/.422/.602

Undoubtedly they know he plays well in Camden Yards and don't want him going to someone else.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>while orioles r talking to 2 great hitters, morales & cruz, consider kendrys is career .413 in balt <a href="http://t.co/xhhdzagjXY">http://t.co/xhhdzagjXY</a></p>— Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) <a href="

">February 21, 2014</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Morales may make more sense for Baltimore, too, considering he is a career .413 hitter at Camden Yards, with a 1.177 OPS. Morales also batted .364 with a .972 OPS last year vs. the rest of the A.L. East.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24451418/orioles-mariners-continue-talks-with-kendrys-morales

[waroriole]

This is getting interesting. Would love to get Morales on a 2 year deal.

[weams]

This is getting interesting. Would love to get Morales on a 2 year deal.

I can't imagine that Morales would sign a one with out in Seattle for less than 27. We do have an advantage there.

[Guest]

Kendrys Morales - 1B - Mariners

Mariners general manager Jack Zdruiencik said Friday that the team hasn't shut the door on the possibility of free agent Kendrys Morales returning.

Of course, it just sounds like lip service at this point, as the team already has a glut of first base and designated hitter types in Justin Smoak, Corey Hart and Logan Morrison, and would need to trade one to make that an actual possibility. The Orioles have emerged in recent days as the favorite to sign Morales.

[Enjoy Terror]

Obligatory reference to bad Orioles pitching. Not that he won't hit well in Camden regardless.

Few players hit better against the O's for their career than Morales. I think he's top 5 in OPS for players with over 100PAs. Willingham and Cabrera are like, 1 and 2, IIRC

[CA-ORIOLE]

Lineup protection is only "nonsense" to those that have a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose.

Managers employ lineup protection in order to increase the number of runs the team scores. Improvement of a players rate stats is NOT the goal or purpose of lineup protection. Managers expect players to produce at pretty much the same rate with lineup protection as without, but lineup protection increases the pitches to hit that the top hitters see in keyy game situations, which results in more runs. More plate appearances resulting in batted balls by the team's strongest hitters with runners in scoring position will result in more runs scored, given that the players' rate stats are unaffected. This is obvious to everyone not blinded by statistical fog.

The "studies" claiming to "disprove" lineup protection start with the fallacy that the strategy's purpose is to improve a players rate stats, and when the rate stats remain pretty much equal, they claim that lineup protection doesn't work. These studies ignore runs scored and runs batted in data altogether, which really renders the studies totally useless. Anyone who has, in fact, played the game, however, fully understands the merits of lineup protection... the team scores more runs.

It is interesting that the same people that claim lineup protection doesn't work are the same ones that consider RBI and runs scored to be useless stats. Convenient. Runs scored and runs batted in do not mean what they were once thought to mean as far as individual stats are concerned due to the dependence upon other players in a team's lineup. However, it is that very lineup dependence that results in the increased runs scored and runs batted in statistics that absolutely make the importance of lineup protection evident to everyone that matters. As a result, all managers will continue to employ lineup protection wherever possible, and continue to pitch around unprotected sluggers in their opponents lineup in key game situations.

I've been through this same dance with you a few times already. Lineup protection does not change a players value (i.e weighted average). It may be the case that walks/OBP will be traded for SLG. The value (on aggregate) is the same. Even then, most of this shift is usually a fairly insignificinat differential between OBP/SLG. Sounds like we agree. That is what the studies/parameters on lineup protection are. If you want to call lineup protection something else, then fine. If you want to call lineup protection dancing around home plate, I cant stop you.

As you stated, most of this is applicable to batters in the 3-4-5 slots. Most teams have competent hitters in the 3-4-5 slots. Pitching around the 3-4-5 hitter in a key game situation (usually late in the game) is often done by looking at the matchups (i.e a using a LHP against a LHH instead of a RHH). That is a function of lineup construction imo. In the end, these situations are a likely wash and/or insignificant as pretty much every team does this and/or is susceptible to it. We could get into a whole other debate about the benefits of staggering the batting order with L/R hitters or stacking the lineup against the starter. It's clearly not the standard definition of "lineup protection", which is "improving the performance of the preceeding hitter with a better hitter following him, allowing him more pitches to hit."

if you want to call lineup protection something that isn't a standard definition our outside the parameters of the study, then fine. It sounds like we only have a disagreement about you expanding the definition and semantics of the term.

Probably be better for you to start a new thread, PM me, or dig up one of the old threads on this at this point. No need to derail this one.

[weams]

Buy all the players!

[LayzieDES]

Buy all the players!

[Number5]

I've been through this same dance with you a few times already. Lineup protection does not change a players value (i.e weighted average). It may be the case that walks/OBP will be traded for SLG. The value (on aggregate) is the same. Even then, most of this shift is usually a fairly insignificinat differential between OBP/SLG. Sounds like we agree. That is what the studies/parameters on lineup protection are. If you want to call lineup protection something else, then fine. If you want to call lineup protection dancing around home plate, I cant stop you.

As you stated, most of this is applicable to batters in the 3-4-5 slots. Most teams have competent hitters in the 3-4-5 slots. Pitching around the 3-4-5 hitter in a key game situation (usually late in the game) is often done by looking at the matchups (i.e a using a LHP against a LHH instead of a RHH). That is a function of lineup construction imo. In the end, these situations are a likely wash and/or insignificant as pretty much every team does this and/or is susceptible to it. We could get into a whole other debate about the benefits of staggering the batting order with L/R hitters or stacking the lineup against the starter. It's clearly not the standard definition of "lineup protection", which is "improving the performance of the preceeding hitter with a better hitter following him, allowing him more pitches to hit."

if you want to call lineup protection something that isn't a standard definition our outside the parameters of the study, then fine. It sounds like we only have a disagreement about you expanding the definition and semantics of the term.

Probably be better for you to start a new thread, PM me, or dig up one of the old threads on this at this point. No need to derail this one.

You are, yet again, the one that brought this up and called lineup protection "nonsense." I was replying, yet again, to your lack of understanding of this important baseball strategy that all MLB managers use. If you do not wish to derail threads, I would strongly urge you to cease doing so. Your bizarre attempts to redefine lineup protection into anything other than an offensive strategy that has the sole purpose of scoring more runs will never fly, and should be responded to. Rate stats are unaffected by lineup protection, but that is, again, not what managers are trying to do. They are trying to have their top hitters see more pitches to hit in key situations in order that they score more runs and win games. Period.

[scOtt]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Source: Orioles have intensified their interest in Kendrys Morales since the Jimenez signing: <a href="http://t.co/5PvFCiIn22">http://t.co/5PvFCiIn22</a></p>? Dan Connolly (@danconnollysun) <a href="

">February 21, 2014</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I've been distracted all afternoon, just saw this. If this is true and Dan makes it happen... I think this is THE piece that really finishes this team as a REAL contender!

I've only read the OP yet... I hope the following 13 pages don't say it's already a false rumor.

[weams]

I've been distracted all afternoon, just saw this. If this is true and Dan makes it happen... I think this is THE piece that really finishes this team as a REAL contender!

I've only read the OP yet... I hope the following 13 pages don't say it's already a false rumor.

Nope not false. But evolving.

[weams]

Remember, anything Heyman says is for Boras' advantage.