Failure to Develop or Sign OBP

[BohKnowsBmore]

The O's have a very good Chance to improve their OBP from the catcher's position next year.

This is based in zero fact. This year, league average OBP from the catcher position is .283. Wieters has never had a season lower than that in his entire career. Comments like this show a complete ignorance to what typical offense looks like from the catcher position. Wieters hasn't lived up to the unreasonably high expectations he had coming up, but I think some of the criticism comes from this lack of perspective.

[Ohfan67]

For those Orioles teams, you could say events leading back to 1954 were still impacting results in the 1970s, and the development of players like Belanger and Powell had a long tail of impact.

So yes, the events when Davis was 14, Manny was 7, and Duquette was with another organization all had and in some cases are still having a significant impact on the trend.

I don't believe that. Peter Angelos is about the only consistent thing in the last 16 years. There has been no "organizational emphasis" over the last 16 years on pretty much anything. That and the Orioles stunk for the many of those 16 years. And there's noise in the data. In 2004, for example, the Orioles were 7th in baseball in OBP. In many years they were about average (even during years they really stunk).

Compare 15 or 20 years of consistently good teams with 16 years of mainly bad teams and you shouldn't be surprised that the good teams did most everything better than the bad teams. The '60's and '70's Orioles teams, on average, produced better results in pretty much every meaningful category than the Orioles teams of the last 16 years. Is that really philosophy or just good teams versus bad teams?

I will say that under DD and the Orioles the Orioles seem to be focused on defense, bullpen, and power. I think it's partly an economic model, partly Buck's ability to use a pen very effectively, and the way DD thinks games can be won in Camden Yards (based on statements DD made in interviews). It's also the way things worked out given the personnel they had to use.

The philosophy business is often baloney in my opinion, especially in today's game. Baseball organizations don't have the ability to pick and choose among as many athletes, control athletes for years, etc., that they did in the good ole Orioles days. What passes for organizational "philosophy" these days is pretty much smoke and mirrors and the luck of the draw in my opinion. The modern version of it is moneyball and the Oakland Athletics. There was a ton of focus on Billy Beane and his philosophy of getting OBP on the cheap. I think most every fan and reporter/writer would talk about that organization's "philosophy" in those terms and pretty much ignore that those teams had three incredible starting pitchers that were way more important to team success than the Scott Hatteburg's of the world. Anyway, I think managers, general managers, baseball writers, and fans often sort of make up the organizational philosophy of modern successful teams to fit what the team's players can do well. And even then sometimes the most important things are ignored because they are not as fun to discuss.

[Aglets]

O's have the 2nd best OBP in the AL.

Wonder how good they'd be if they could develop or sign it. :scratchchinhmm:

[Filmstudy]

I don't believe that. Peter Angelos is about the only consistent thing in the last 16 years. There has been no "organizational emphasis" over the last 16 years on pretty much anything. That and the Orioles stunk for the many of those 16 years. And there's noise in the data. In 2004, for example, the Orioles were 7th in baseball in OBP. In many years they were about average (even during years they really stunk).

Compare 15 or 20 years of consistently good teams with 16 years of mainly bad teams and you shouldn't be surprised that the good teams did most everything better than the bad teams. The '60's and '70's Orioles teams, on average, produced better results in pretty much every meaningful category than the Orioles teams of the last 16 years. Is that really philosophy or just good teams versus bad teams?

I will say that under DD and the Orioles the Orioles seem to be focused on defense, bullpen, and power. I think it's partly an economic model, partly Buck's ability to use a pen very effectively, and the way DD thinks games can be won in Camden Yards (based on statements DD made in interviews). It's also the way things worked out given the personnel they had to use.

The philosophy business is often baloney in my opinion, especially in today's game. Baseball organizations don't have the ability to pick and choose among as many athletes, control athletes for years, etc., that they did in the good ole Orioles days. What passes for organizational "philosophy" these days is pretty much smoke and mirrors and the luck of the draw in my opinion. The modern version of it is moneyball and the Oakland Athletics. There was a ton of focus on Billy Beane and his philosophy of getting OBP on the cheap. I think most every fan and reporter/writer would talk about that organization's "philosophy" in those terms and pretty much ignore that those teams had three incredible starting pitchers that were way more important to team success than the Scott Hatteburg's of the world. Anyway, I think managers, general managers, baseball writers, and fans often sort of make up the organizational philosophy of modern successful teams to fit what the team's players can do well. And even then sometimes the most important things are ignored because they are not as fun to discuss.

I don't know why you think organizational philosophy is more subject to luck of the draw today. With more free flow of players through free agency and more options to sign players from a larger population base overall (US and international), I'd say it's clearly far more important.

And you are right, those great Orioles teams were better in an awful lot of ways, but they had varying levels of power (and never as high as the 2012-16 Orioles) in a ballpark where power was the way to win (much harder to string together hits in a pitchers park). But if you look at just the last 4 years, when the team has been good, they've finished 7th, 14th, 13th, 13th in the AL in walks.

[Crazysilver03]

The trends are partially a function of players, but much more a function of organizational emphasis, with the direction of Weaver, outwalked their opponents every single season. Players came and went, but Weaver liked pitchers with low walk rates and batters who liked to take ball 4, the front office continued to acquire players who walked, and the organization regularly developed prospects with high walk rates.

For those Orioles teams, you could say events leading back to 1954 were still impacting results in the 1970s, and the development of players like Belanger and Powell had a long tail of impact.

So yes, the events when Davis was 14, Manny was 7, and Duquette was with another organization all had and in some cases are still having a significant impact on the trend.

Not really. Completely different personnel. Both players and coaches. Philosophy has changed over the 16 years.

[brianod]

The single biggest determinant in getting a hit is getting a good pitch to hit. If that pitch comes with no strikes or one strike, so be it. Not only am I skeptical about the emphasis of walking, it seems much less manly to walk than to swagger to the plate and hit one deep. I mean, which opposing team is intimidated by a guy that walks a lot? How many guys flip that bat after a walk? It seems like timidity, "oh boy, I hope the next pitch isn't a strike so I can walk". Wouldn't you rather have our hitters hoping for a strike so they can mash? Wouldn't you want them thinking aggressively if they do get a pitch to hit? I'm half kidding but not kidding in the sense that if you put an organizational emphasis on walking, aren't you teaching your hitters to be less aggressive and if so, is that necessarily good?

[Frobby]

Bump....I was just looking at the guys Elias has drafted.   

Correa .323 OBP

Bregman .394 OBP

Kemp .351 OBP

White .354 OBP

There are some other guys who haven’t hit yet, but it does appear our new GM will draft guys with the ability to get on base.   

[ScGO's]

I've been dreaming of an OBP focused team for years.  Last player to draw over 100 walks in a season for O's?  Albert Belle, 1999.  Markakis had 99 in 2008.

[Satyr3206]

16 minutes ago, ScGO's said:

I've been dreaming of an OBP focused team for years.  Last player to draw over 100 walks in a season for O's?  Albert Belle, 1999.  Markakis had 99 in 2008.

Besides OBP, that's sad that in all that time no one had better strike zone awareness. As a former Coach, it has to start early in a players development.

[Satyr3206]

On 5/16/2016 at 3:41 PM, brianod said:

The single biggest determinant in getting a hit is getting a good pitch to hit. If that pitch comes with no strikes or one strike, so be it. Not only am I skeptical about the emphasis of walking, it seems much less manly to walk than to swagger to the plate and hit one deep. I mean, which opposing team is intimidated by a guy that walks a lot? How many guys flip that bat after a walk? It seems like timidity, "oh boy, I hope the next pitch isn't a strike so I can walk". Wouldn't you rather have our hitters hoping for a strike so they can mash? Wouldn't you want them thinking aggressively if they do get a pitch to hit? I'm half kidding but not kidding in the sense that if you put an organizational emphasis on walking, aren't you teaching your hitters to be less aggressive and if so, is that necessarily good?

I keep referring back to Ted Williams and his thoughts on hitting. One of the main reasons for getting a good pitch to hit is the simple fact that physically, most hitters can't hit balls with any type of authority or consistency.

[weams]

Don't lunge.