TT: The most productive Oriole in their history could surprise you!

[mdbdotcom]

A few interesting tidbits on Dauer. In 1977 he went a combined 1 for 41 in April and May and then had something like a .935 OPS in June. He was a consistent 2 WAR player for 6 years and was the starting 2B on the 1979 and 1983 WS teams. One season he struck out only 19 times in over 600 plate appearances. He was slow and had no power but he had a decent ML career.

He was also part of an odd platoon setup in'82, when he played 60-ish games at 3B, with Sakata playing 2B those games. When Dauer didn't play 3B, Glenn Gulliver and Floyd Rayford did. That team won four games in a row and moved into a tie for first place the day before the season ended.

[mdbdotcom]

Don't think I don't remember that. We had a 4 game series with Milwaukee who was in first. Now, without checking the facts, going by memory, we swepped a DH on Friday, won on Saturday, setting up the final game with a matchup of Jim Palmer against Don Sutton. Palmer had had a resurgence that year going something like 16-4, coincidentally the record during his breakout/comeback year in 1969. It looked like a great chance for the Orioles on a Sunday afternoon. And Palmer ......... got rocked. Yount went deep once or twice off him and he had nothing and got knocked out early and the Orioles lost in a rout. They made up for it the next year but that was basically Jim Palmer's last hurrah as THE Jim Palmer.

Palmer said the two home runs to Yount didn't matter, because they were solo shots, but we lost 10-2. But after the game we had this.

[video=youtube;D13-QS5eQMM]

[theobird]

Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember Bobby Grich well. Or fortunately, depending on how you look at that. Lol. Inerestingly, I compare Schoop to Bobby Grich in a lot of ways. Both very good defensively, both fearless big strong guys who turn the DP ball with authority. Both RH hitters with a lot of pop. It hurt me badly when Bobby Grich left via Free Agency, he was one hell of an Oriole player. Later, when I would see him in an Angels uniform it stung. And a great guy too! He signed my O's hat in Chicago for me, walked right over behind the dugout and signed my hat! Right after Boog Powell, Booby Grich is one of my all time fav's.

[mdbdotcom]

Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember Bobby Grich well. Or fortunately, depending on how you look at that. Lol. Inerestingly, I compare Schoop to Bobby Grich in a lot of ways. Both very good defensively, both fearless big strong guys who turn the DP ball with authority. Both RH hitters with a lot of pop. It hurt me badly when Bobby Grich left via Free Agency, he was one hell of an Oriole player. Later, when I would see him in an Angels uniform it stung. And a great guy too! He signed my O's hat in Chicago for me, walked right over behind the dugout and signed my hat! Right after Boog Powell, Booby Grich is one of my all time fav's.

Missed a bunch of games with the Angels after hurting his back while moving a window AC unit at home. Still, a great player.

[Frobby]

Right. It's then numbers/stats vs. the eye test.

Really, it boils down to how you are defining "productive". If you are only talking about offensive contributions, and not considering the position that they played, then Murray was more productive than Grich. But if you factor in either (1) offensive production relative to the positions they played, or (2) defensive production, then Grich wins. From an offensive standpoint, even factoring in position, Frank tops either of them. But factor in defense then Grich still wins.

I had a look at how Cal would compare if you just looked at his first 5-6 years instead of his whole career including his decline phase. Grich still wins on a WAR/game basis.

[Number5]

A few interesting tidbits on Dauer. In 1977 he went a combined 1 for 41 in April and May and then had something like a .935 OPS in June. He was a consistent 2 WAR player for 6 years and was the starting 2B on the 1979 and 1983 WS teams. One season he struck out only 19 times in over 600 plate appearances. He was slow and had no power but he had a decent ML career.

IIRC, Dauer was the number 1 star on a great USC team that included Fred Lynn.

[Superbee83]

Really, it boils down to how you are defining "productive". If you are only talking about offensive contributions, and not considering the position that they played, then Murray was more productive than Grich. But if you factor in either (1) offensive production relative to the positions they played, or (2) defensive production, then Grich wins. From an offensive standpoint, even factoring in position, Frank tops either of them. But factor in defense then Grich still wins.

I had a look at how Cal would compare if you just looked at his first 5-6 years instead of his whole career including his decline phase. Grich still wins on a WAR/game basis.

I don't disagree with any of this, but from my viewpoint Murray was the most offensively productive Oriole. He produced over a longer period of time than either Grich or Frank and he was quite frankly the most clutch offensive player I have ever seen. This is purely my opinion and is based on my eye test.They are all great players and I think that Grich deserves serious consideration for the Veteran's Commitee of the Hall of Fame.

[Frobby]

I don't disagree with any of this, but from my viewpoint Murray was the most offensively productive Oriole. He produced over a longer period of time than either Grich or Frank and he was quite frankly the most clutch offensive player I have ever seen. This is purely my opinion and is based on my eye test.They are all great players and I think that Grich deserves serious consideration for the Veteran's Commitee of the Hall of Fame.

Please understand that if I were doing my list of all-time favorite Orioles, Frank would be 1a and Eddie would be 1b. They are easily my two favorites head and shoulders over everyone else.

That said, comparing the offensive contributions of the two is a little bit apples and oranges. Eddie was an Oriole twice as long, including his entire 20's, and played almost every game during that time. Frank was here for six years in his 30's and Earl rested him frequently as he aged. Frank played on better teams so Earl didn't need to lean on him as heavily as he did Eddie. All that said, Frank had an OPS+ of 169 over his six years; Eddie never had a season over 160. Frank averaged 6.1 oWAR per season in his six years; Eddie had one season where his oWAR reached 6.1. These numbers are influenced by the eras in which they played -- Frank's first three years in Baltimore were three of the lowest run-scoring environments in baseball history.

Both Eddie and Frank were incredibly clutch. But Frank was basically the same great player regardless of the situation, whereas Eddie actually was able to raise his game in clutch situations while being merely above average in non-clutch situations.

[Can_of_corn]

Please understand that if I were doing my list of all-time favorite Orioles, Frank would be 1a and Eddie would be 1b. They are easily my two favorites head and shoulders over everyone else.

That said, comparing the offensive contributions of the two is a little bit apples and oranges. Eddie was an Oriole twice as long, including his entire 20's, and played almost every game during that time. Frank was here for six years in his 30's and Earl rested him frequently as he aged. Frank played on better teams so Earl didn't need to lean on him as heavily as he did Eddie. All that said, Frank had an OPS+ of 169 over his six years; Eddie never had a season over 160. Frank averaged 6.1 oWAR per season in his six years; Eddie had one season where his oWAR reached 6.1. These numbers are influenced by the eras in which they played -- Frank's first three years in Baltimore were three of the lowest run-scoring environments in baseball history.

Both Eddie and Frank were incredibly clutch. But Frank was basically the same great player regardless of the situation, whereas Eddie actually was able to raise his game in clutch situations while being merely above average in non-clutch situations.

That has always been a dubious achievement to me.

[wildcard]

I think you are misunderstanding my point. Of course I think that Frank was the greatest player ever to wear an Orioles uniform, the single most important player on the 1966-71 Orioles, and the best leader the team ever had. But with all that said, I think it is misleading to suggest that Frank was the sole reason the team went to 4 World Series in 6 years. I think it is fairly likely that, even without Frank, the O's would have won several pennants/division titles in that span, and perhaps a World Series or two. Those teams were that good.

While I don't think anyone is trying to say Frank was the sole reason for the O's success in their golden year. And that is what that period was in O's history. However, I don't think the O's make it to the WS in 1966 without Frank. He was the one that taught them to win. The straw the stirred their glass. And in the years Frank was hurt the O's were not near as good. That tells us how important he was to those teams. And when he was traded the team was not as good.

[Frobby]

While I don't think anyone is trying to say Frank was the sole reason for the O's success in their golden year. And that is what that period was in O's history. However, I don't think the O's make it to the WS in 1966 without Frank. He was the one that taught them to win. The straw the stirred their glass. And in the years Frank was hurt the O's were not near as good. That tells us how important he was to those teams. And when he was traded the team was not as good.

A couple of points:

1. The Orioles won 97 games in 1964 and 94 in 1965. It's not like they needed to learn how to win. They just needed to win a little more. They won 97 games in 1966, same as in 1964. But the Yankees were no longer a power by '66, do 97 wins was enough to win the pennant.

2. In 1967, Frank was possibly on his way to a second triple crown when he got hurt on June 27. But do you know what the Orioles' record was at the time? 32-36. Their struggles that year were largely unrelated to Frank's injury. Palmer got hurt and McNally, Barber and Bunker all missed time with sore arms and/or were ineffective. Boog Powell had a terrible year. That's only a partial list.

3. Frank was never quite the same player after his concussion. He rebounded quite a bit in 1969-71 but he was nowhere near the same player he was in 1966 and the first half of 1967 before his injury.

4. Some huge things that happened between 1967 and 1969 were (1) trading for Don Buford, who was the perfect leadoff hitter for that team, (2) trading for Mike Cuellar, (3) Earl Weaver becoming the manager, (4) Jim Palmer getting healthy and returning better than ever, (5) Dave McNally having his best years, and (6) Boog Powell having his best years.

Again, I'm not discounting Frank's contributions, but I think it is easy to oversimplify a dynamic confluence of various thing that led to the O's going to the World Series four times in six years.

[weams]

A couple of points:

1. The Orioles won 97 games in 1964 and 94 in 1965. It's not like they needed to learn how to win. They just needed to win a little more. They won 97 games in 1966, same as in 1964. But the Yankees were no longer a power by '66, do 97 wins was enough to win the pennant.

2. In 1967, Frank was possibly on his way to a second triple crown when he got hurt on June 27. But do you know what the Orioles' record was at the time? 32-36. Their struggles that year were largely unrelated to Frank's injury. Palmer got hurt and McNally, Barber and Bunker all missed time with sore arms and/or were ineffective. Boog Powell had a terrible year. That's only a partial list.

3. Frank was never quite the same player after his concussion. He rebounded quite a bit in 1969-71 but he was nowhere near the same player he was in 1966 and the first half of 1967 before his injury.

4. Some huge things that happened between 1967 and 1969 were (1) trading for Don Buford, who was the perfect leadoff hitter for that team, (2) trading for Mike Cuellar, (3) Earl Weaver becoming the manager, (4) Jim Palmer getting healthy and returning better than ever, (5) Dave McNally having his best years, and (6) Boog Powell having his best years.

Again, I'm not discounting Frank's contributions, but I think it is easy to oversimplify a dynamic confluence of various thing that led to the O's going to the World Series four times in six years.

Brooks Robinson and Jim Palmer and Dave McNally and Mike Cuellar had a lot to do with those later teams being great.

[Prayin4Reign]

I was devastated when the O's lost Grich.

Me too. Moreso than any player that ever left us, even Ed-die.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Same here. I was 15 and thoroughly PO'd. Losing Jackson didn't mean anything to me...he never felt like a real Oriole. But Grich, yeah that stung. They had moved Davey Johnson to make room for Grich. Didn't matter that he didn't go to the Yankees, the Red Sox or whoever...it only mattered that he had spurned the O's. But again...I was 15. Losing Mussina wasn't even close to that...for me.

[Prayin4Reign]

http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/71bf380f#sdendnote7anc

(From a Sporting News 1972 article)

In spite of his offensive struggles with Baltimore, Grich remained confident. Pitcher Dave McNally even remarked about how sorry he felt for Harry Dalton, the team?s general manager: ?When the time comes for Harry to tell Bobby he?s going to Rochester, I?d advise him to have someone else in the room. Grich is liable to start throwing punches.? Writer Phil Jackman recounted that Frank Robinson came by when Grich was talking about hitting and remarked: ?What does a rookie like you know about hitting?? Grich replied to Robinson: ?Tell you something, pal. I?ll be hitting for ten years around here after you?re gone.?

[wildcard]

I think there is one aspect of Frank that is being overlooked. He ran the clubhouse. He kept everyone in line. You didn't cross Frank. Everything I heard or read at the time and all the books written about those teams say the Frank led the teams. You gave 100% all they time or you had to deal with Frank.

Weaver was a disciplinarian an was effective but in many way these teams grew into a veteran group. Frank as the team leader made sure even the veterans did their part. He was very strong willed.

Stats just do not describe what Frank meant to those great teams. Is all part of his production and what he meant as a player.