Schoop - The Blessing.

[BohKnowsBmore]

I give up! You win! You're making my head hurt. You argue we don't know what Schoop will produce because he's unknown. Last I knew Flaherty and Lombo are not known commodities. I wish I could tell you now how many games we would win playing Schoop, or Lombo or Fhalerty at 2nd. There is NO WAY for me or you or anyone else to know that.

My point is, if when Manny comes back and Schoop has shown, has earned the right to play everyday at 2nd. He shouldn't be sent down because of his service clock. This team is in win now mode based on it's signing of Cruz and Ubaldo. You don't then say we are playing for the future and POSSIBLY cost the team wins and a playoff spot when that is what you are playing for.

I am glad to see you agree that in a team game, one player can not win or lose a game. There are many plays during a game that can change the outcome. They all, together, lead to the final outcome. Changing any one or more of them can change said outcome!

This all began with me asking a simple question, one which was not answered. How much does Schoop in our lineup full time improve our record over Flash/Lombo? I just don't understand why it's so certain that sending Schoop down costs us any wins at this point. Coming into tonight Schoop was batting .244. Just ten days ago, he was batting sub-.200. I'm really not sure how anything I'm saying is that crazy or contradictory. You may disagree, but acting like this position is nonsensical is a bit closed-minded IMO. Again, I'm not seeing where anything I'm saying represents me being difficult or contradictory... I don't think one player can cost the team a game on his own, I merely pointed out a time where Schoop hurt the team's chances to win, to help show that he hasn't been a completely positive force to this point to demand staying at the big league level. If he continues to trend upward, then I fully support him staying up. But if it's iffy that he provides more marginal benefit as it relates to winning than other options at this point in his career, then it makes sense to preserve his time as an Oriole if we believe he will have awesome potential.

[mark_beckens]

This all began with me asking a simple question, one which was not answered. How much does Schoop in our lineup full time improve our record over Flash/Lombo? I just don't understand why it's so certain that sending Schoop down costs us any wins at this point. Coming into tonight Schoop was batting .244. Just ten days ago, he was batting sub-.200. I'm really not sure how anything I'm saying is that crazy or contradictory. You may disagree, but acting like this position is nonsensical is a bit closed-minded IMO. Again, I'm not seeing where anything I'm saying represents me being difficult or contradictory... I don't think one player can cost the team a game on his own, I merely pointed out a time where Schoop hurt the team's chances to win, to help show that he hasn't been a completely positive force to this point to demand staying at the big league level. If he continues to trend upward, then I fully support him staying up. But if it's iffy that he provides more marginal benefit as it relates to winning than other options at this point in his career, then it makes sense to preserve his time as an Oriole if we believe he will have awesome potential.

UGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Tell me how many games will playing Flaherty or Lombo cost us wins or win us more then playing Schoop. THIS is where you are effin making my head hurt. You are asking a question that has NO answer. It can NOT be answered with any certainty! I can tell you playing Schoop will be a +5 wins over the other 2. Does it mean ANYTHING? NO! There is NO WAY for me or you or anyone else to know what the outcome would be over 162 games.

[video=youtube_share;VxCx6KIpJVE]

Call Dionne maybe she can answer your question.

[BohKnowsBmore]

UGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Tell me how many games will playing Flaherty or Lombo cost us wins or win us more then playing Schoop. THIS is where you are effin making my head hurt. You are asking a question that has NO answer. It can NOT be answered with any certainty! I can tell you playing Schoop will be a +5 wins over the other 2. Does it mean ANYTHING? NO! There is NO WAY for me or you or anyone else to know what the outcome would be over 162 games.

I don't claim to know that, but I think it's pretty close with it being hard to tell whether schoop or lombo/flash provides more value and contributes more to winning in 2014. You seem convinced that Schoop will clearly contribute more to winning in 2014, that is why I asked the question, not to be difficult.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BohKnowsBmore]

UGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Tell me how many games will playing Flaherty or Lombo cost us wins or win us more then playing Schoop. THIS is where you are effin making my head hurt. You are asking a question that has NO answer. It can NOT be answered with any certainty! I can tell you playing Schoop will be a +5 wins over the other 2. Does it mean ANYTHING? NO! There is NO WAY for me or you or anyone else to know what the outcome would be over 162 games.

[video=youtube_share;VxCx6KIpJVE]

Call Dionne maybe she can answer your question.

I restrained myself from getting angry before but your latest addition to your post has upped things on your end. Now you're simply being an ass. I tried to have a friendly discussion/debate, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards for you. Sorry to annoy you so much. Good day.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mark_beckens]

I don't claim to know that, but I think it's pretty close with it being hard to tell whether schoop or lombo/flash provides more value and contributes more to winning in 2014. You seem convinced that Schoop will clearly contribute more to winning in 2014, that is why I asked the question, not to be difficult.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now you are putting words in my mouth or you haven't been reading everything I wrote.

My point is, if when Manny comes back and Schoop has shown, has earned the right to play everyday at 2nd. He shouldn't be sent down because of his service clock.

[CheeryO]

[video=youtube_share;22ywyatcyea]http://youtu.be/22ywyatcyea

Letters

[Frobby]

Guys, it's a good argument, and both sides have their points. Don't take it so personally. One thing I'll add is that it doesn't take 1/2 a season in the minors to save a year of service time for Schoop. It only requires him to spend three weeks in the minors for that. Half a season likely would prevent him from becoming a Super 2 after the 2016 season, but that's a more minor consideration.

I'm almost always in the "save the extra year of service time" camp, but I'm really wavering on this one. We are contenders, and Schoop is beginning to look like a difference-maker to me. He's got Jones-like bat speed and wrists, but I see some signs that his pitch recognition skills are better. Meanwhile, I had hopes that Flaherty would have a better start with the bat this year than in 2012-13, but he hasn'r looked good. I don't want to spend two months watching him put up a sub-.600 OPS if Schoop can do .700 or better, and I'm beginning to think both those things may happen. Still a couple of weeks to see how things develop before Manny returns, though.

[brooks1083]

Somehow I get a feeling that someone will be ready to make a trip to the DL when Manny comes back. It seems like we are great at scenarios like that. It seems to me like we would have the IF pretty well covered with backups when Manny comes back without Flash.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Flash- bd]

I don't understand at all why Lombardozzi should be considered a better option to Flaherty at 2B. Flaherty even in frustrating seasons where he's started really badly/been in and out of the lineup has put up similar OPS to Lombardozzi, and he's a better defender. And in terms of upside it's not close. I wish Buck would just let Flaherty play. He's responded to consistent playing time the past two seasons.

[Can_of_corn]

I don't understand at all why Lombardozzi should be considered a better option to Flaherty at 2B. Flaherty even in frustrating seasons where he's started really badly/been in and out of the lineup has put up similar OPS to Lombardozzi, and he's a better defender. And in terms of upside it's not close. I wish Buck would just let Flaherty play. He's responded to consistent playing time the past two seasons.

You don't know that.

You have no idea if it was 200 at bats of consistent playing time or just a streaky guy getting hot.

[weams]

[video=youtube_share;22YWYAtcyEA]

[weams]

Somehow I get a feeling that someone will be ready to make a trip to the DL when Manny comes back. It seems like we are great at scenarios like that. It seems to me like we would have the IF pretty well covered with backups when Manny comes back without Flash.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No Orioles go to the DL without being injured.

[weams]

Guys, it's a good argument, and both sides have their points. Don't take it so personally. One thing I'll add is that it doesn't take 1/2 a season in the minors to save a year of service time for Schoop. It only requires him to spend three weeks in the minors for that. Half a season likely would prevent him from becoming a Super 2 after the 2016 season, but that's a more minor consideration.

I'm almost always in the "save the extra year of service time" camp, but I'm really wavering on this one. We are contenders, and Schoop is beginning to look like a difference-maker to me. He's got Jones-like bat speed and wrists, but I see some signs that his pitch recognition skills are better. Meanwhile, I had hopes that Flaherty would have a better start with the bat this year than in 2012-13, but he hasn'r looked good. I don't want to spend two months watching him put up a sub-.600 OPS if Schoop can do .700 or better, and I'm beginning to think both those things may happen. Still a couple of weeks to see how things develop before Manny returns, though.

I'd save the year somehow.

[Can_of_corn]

No Orioles go to the DL without being injured.

I don't believe that to be true.

You think Strop was hurt?

I think teams sometime use the DL for purposes for which it was not intended.

[Flash- bd]

You don't know that.

You have no idea if it was 200 at bats of consistent playing time or just a streaky guy getting hot.

You're right, I certainly can't back that claim that up with objective evidence that holds up to scrutiny. But it's a rather intuitive interpretation--certainly the most intuitive, no? Especially for a guy who's at the very beginning of his ML career and in his first season responded when he got a chance to be a starter, and who in his second season again did so (though after a very poor start, indeed). I think people forget that Flaherty still only has 480 ABs...given that fact, wouldn't the most natural interpretation be that, actually, the slow start last season was a poor streak, and the rest was more indicative of the player's skill? I think so, yet somehow that seems to be a ridiculous idea to most people here. Of course, breaking it into two, neat categories like "poor streak" and "indicative of the player" is obviously rather specious, but the cumulative effect was a .683 OPS--+84 OPS, better than any large-ish sample size/season of Lombardozzi's--in the closest thing he's got to a full season (remember, he was a utility player who barely played for half the season in 2012, and his OPS was terrible, I think sub .500 until he got consistent playing time for a bit in July and August and raised that number significantly).

I really don't think it's particularly close between Flaherty and Lombardozzi, I think people just have a weird kind of dislike for Flaherty, perhaps having to do with the fact that he looks especially aimless at the plate when he's not got things going for him, whereas Lombardozzi gives the impression of being a "professional" hitter, even when producing consistently mediocre results. And I think Buck has been rather impatient--at times imprudent--in Flaherty's case, last year and this year. I know he's not got the age of a young player breaking into the big leagues, but that's essentially what he has been, yet he's not got that treatment at all, despite showing definite promise. And, of course, I know you will point me to the fact that age is not an excludable factor when we're talking about a player's projection, but I do think it also bears mentioning that evidence like that based on correlative data will of course have exceptions. And I think you can make a strong argument based on Flaherty's trajectory that he is one.