Wall Street Journal: Slowest MLB team in 50 years

[Creamsicle]

Everyone seems to be arguing that the Orioles are not the slowest team, but I think it's more fun if they are the slowest team. I think we should root for no stolen bases and no triples the rest of the year and lobby for 40 yard dashes before every new series. I think the Orioles may be the slowest team in the majors.

I like this. Last time our team was super-slow we went to two straight ALCSes.

Is Harold Baines out of options??

[Redskins Rick]

This is what happens when a financial paper, tries to write about a sports topic.

[Aristotelian]

Picking up two bases on singles, three bases on doubles. Stretching singles into doubles. Getting to first fast enough to prevent double plays. The Orioles are in fact so good at these things that both B-R and Fangraphs considers them an above average running team. Just because the O's don't have a few players who've deluded themselves and their managers into thinking they're Olympic sprinters (they mention triples but what about outs made stretching a double that couldn't be stretched? they mention bags but what about times getting caught?) that doesn't mean they're "the slowest team in 50 years". They have a few real slow guys and a bunch of average guys who run hard and don't try to get fancy. Nothing noteworthy about it.

Funny thing is we now have all this StatCast data that literally quantifies how fast players run and WSJ completely ignores it. But those numbers are probably too boring to get a sensationalist clickbait title so why would they.

Who reads WSJ for baseball analysis anyway?

Baserunning is a combination of speed and decision making. The metrics you have cited do not indicate speed either.

Just look at our roster. I don't think there is a single guy who is fast for his position. Nothing wrong with that. We all agree that the O's are built for the home run, not manufacturing runs. In fact, the WSJ article, despite its flaws, acknowledges this is a strategic choice by O's and that's what makes it interesting.

The fact that we are historically low in SBs and triples is noteworthy, in my opinion. It doesn't necessarily mean anything bad. Arguably, the stolen base is an outdated concept and the O's are deliberately moving away from it.

[Aristotelian]

Even ignoring the whole rest of MLB, I would say the 2016 Oze are not as slow as the 1996-7-8 Oze.

Alomar > Schoop

Hammonds > Trumbo by a lot

Andereson > Jones

Cal < Machado

Raffy < Davis

Everybody else about the same. I would say overall the '90s team had a bit more overall speed largely due to the difference in RF.

[atomic]

Alomar > Schoop

Hammonds > Trumbo by a lot

Andereson > Jones

Cal < Machado

Raffy < Davis

Everybody else about the same. I would say overall the '90s team had a bit more overall speed largely due to the difference in RF.

1996 team had 29 triples and 76 stolen bases. I would say they were significantly faster.

[Redskins Rick]

1996 team had 29 triples and 76 stolen bases. I would say they were significantly faster.

38 of those SB was because of Anderson and Alomar.

Shocked that BJ, who wasn't the fastest horse in the stable, lead the team with 6 trips. Even Ripken had a triple. Guess it was hard hit balls to the RF corner.

[Aristotelian]

1996 team had 29 triples and 76 stolen bases. I would say they were significantly faster.

Triples and SBs? Don't get the saber guys started again!

[Frobby]

So going first to third on a single is a sign of speed and so is scoring from first on a double but going from home to third on a ball in the gap or rattling around in the corner isn't?

Sure it is. Fast guys hit more triples than slow guys, we all know this. But if an article is going to make a claim that the O's are the slowest team in 50 years, just looking at triples and stolen bases is not a very accurate measure.

[fansince79]

This is what happens when a financial paper, tries to write about a sports topic.

What is surprising is that the stats are historically noteworthy and they might be the first to write about it.

[Redskins Rick]

What is surprising is that the stats are historically noteworthy and they might be the first to write about it.

Its not noteworthy, IMO.

[DrungoHazewood]

Actually...

OPACY is only the 12th worst park for Triples this season.

Busch is a lot worse.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor/_/sort/triplesFactor/order/false

An average AL team has 17 triples. So if Rickard hit two in a week at home the OPACY triples factor might go from .600 to .800.

Anyway... can I manipulate this article to convince the powers-that-be to put the sod area in CF in play to increase triples and ISTP homers? Anyone want to guess where Trumbo would have ended up if he had to leg out that homer that short-hopped the batter's eye? 2B? 3B? Carried off on a stretcher?

[Redskins Rick]

This team leads the MLB in HR, yet, we are going to complain that it doesn't hit enough triples.

[DrungoHazewood]

If you run a correlation between (3b + SB) and runs scored you get 0.04, meaning there is no correlation at all. I think that's the noteworthy takeaway - this particular method of measuring speed has essentially no impact on how many runs a team scores.

[SteveA]

Even ignoring the whole rest of MLB, I would say the 2016 Oze are not as slow as the 1996-7-8 Oze.

Alomar was faster than anyone on this team, I would say.

[sportsfan8703]

Will Machado be the first player ever to go from a 20 SB season to Zero? Without retirement or injury.