Luis...........Ouch!!!!

[Hank Scorpio]

No kidding.

I didn't watch today's game because I was in the car. However, my TIVO grabbed it. The OAK radio guys didn't make a big deal LH's "big fielding blunder", all they said was that the runner did a good job of taking out BRob. But after seeing all the hysteria around here, I couldn't imagine what kind of egregious fielding catastrophe I would see. I figured it must make Bucknor's gaffe look like nothing. I couldn't wait (in a fearful kind of way) to see what it was.

Imagine my surprise when I actually looked. It was your basic ground ball. He was at DP depth, and moved sideways to get in front of the ball. He didn't charge it because he had the runner crossing in front of him and if he had charged directly towards it, he would've been screened from the ball by the runner. So, he moved laterally to track the ball and he took it on a normal hop. All that was *fine*. Jeez, people, if you're gonna criticize him for something, at least criticize him for the right dang thing: BRob had to reach up for the ball. That reaching up is what interfered with BRob's rhythm for a perfectly normal leap-and-throw relay. That's the only thing that wasn't right, everything else was fine. I also looked to see the shots of DT and the other guys looking at him like they were steamed. Guess what? On the MASN feed, there were no such shots. None. Not a single one.

I've watched it 5 times, and I know exactly what most of the hysteria is about: While Thorne said exactly what the OAK radio guys said about the runner's good slide, stupid Buck followed that by emphatically saying something that's emphatically wrong *again*, just like he did the other day, getting people all worked up about something that didn't even happen. This time, right after the play, Buck said that LH "kinda went back and let the ball take him further away from the field"... then he repeated as he was narrating the replay: "you can see how Hernandez backed up". Which is completely wrong. You cannot see LH back up, because he did not back up. Given what was going on with the runner crossing in front of him, he did exactly the right thing: he kept the ball in view and fielded it cleanly after it went by the runner. The only thing that "went back" was when he moved his *left foot* back about a foot as he was fielding the ball... because he was doing 2 things correctly at the same time: fielding the ball while turning his body so he'd be in the right position to make the throw to 2B. Saying that LH backed up was just another flat-out-wrong thing coming out of Buck's mouth. Now, I suppose you could say that LH was suppose to charge the ball (and lose sight of the ball with the runner crossing right in front of him)... so he could then try to short-hop it while running towards the on deck circle (so he would then have to throw back against his momentum to get the force at 2B)... if you really believe that. Personally, I think you can criticize LH for his throw being high, and you can give credit to the runner. But the rest of this noise about his D on that play is a bunch of malarkey. You guys don't even know enough about what happened on that play to complain about the right thing. (I'm not gonna erase this game just yet, so if somebody has a question or observation about it, I can go back and look.)

Meanwhile, LH got on base 3 times out of 5 (as did Nick; only Millar got on 4 times). He kept the 8th-inning rally going with a 2-out hit, and he scored the go-ahead run. The guys in the dugout sure were happy to crowd around him after that. Yep, later on he did get picked off. No doubt about that. No excuse for it either. Meanwhile, for the year, his OBP is 32 points higher than AJ's, 36 higher than Payton's, and 70 points higher than Ramon's. Tell you what, let's hang him.

I swear to God, every time the team goes through a rough patch of losing a few games, people around start prowling around like an angry gang, looking for somebody to beat up for it. The fact of the matter is that lately the O's got no hitting and several guys failed to play perfectly, and they still damn near won each of the games. And the reason they still damn near won each of the games is because of the pitching-and-defense. That's a fact whether you like it or not. As for losing this game, there's lots of little reasons why. It was a team loss, just like most losses are But let's not worry about that, let's just look for a a little guy so we can take him out back and beat the crap out of him... right? To borrow a word from another poster, I think that is pathetic.

Even king lollipopper himself Jim Hunter mentioned Hernandez' bad defense post game. Not to mention him getting picked off 1st base in the 8th inning. The kid is just not major league quality.

Then again, hardly anybody is playing like they are these days.

[Dr. FLK]

I swear to God, every time the team goes through a rough patch of losing a few games, people around start prowling around like an angry gang, looking for somebody to beat up for it. The fact of the matter is that lately the O's got no hitting and several guys failed to play perfectly, and they still damn near won each of the games. And the reason they still damn near won each of the games is because of the pitching-and-defense. That's a fact whether you like it or not. As for losing this game, there's lots of little reasons why. It was a team loss, just like most losses are But let's not worry about that, let's just look for a a little guy so we can take him out back and beat the crap out of him... right? To borrow a word from another poster, I think that is pathetic.

Do you know why they "damn near won" those games? Pitching and defense. Do you know why they "didn't win" those games? Because they CANNOT HIT. This isn't hockey...we don't have 37 columns in the standings (W - L - DNW). They all go in the same L column. And, when you don't score runs, it really doesn't matter how swell you fielded some grounders.

So, continue acting surprised that people don't want LH on a ML roster. We only don't want him here because we lost to Oakland. No one wanted him gone before season started. This is all just reactionary fans being crazy, and you are clearly above that.

[utvolzac]

At what cost? What are you willing to give up in order to go outside the organization to improve the team in a year when we don't expect to contend? Hu, Nelson, and Andrus are the best options IMO. What do you think they would cost and can we afford that now.

I think SS is important enough that you take the risk. Other than drafting a SS this year (and waiting 3 years for them to develop), we are going to have to go outside the organization for a short stop anyway.

Nobody likes to part with young pitching, but to get talent you need to give talent. If it costs us a young pitcher like Albers to get a LONG TERM SOLUTION at short stop, then that is the price you have to pay IMO.

Unless we can pick up a young SS in a Roberts trade, although then we need to find a 2Bman.

[Mackus]

Come on SG, you know that in real baseball -as opposed to fantasy leagues- that a run prevented is worth more than a run scored.

But two runs scored is worth more that one run prevented.

And I have no idea how you can honestly say Hernandez has been a positive on defense. Bynum might not be as good, but its not like we're replacing a stud defensive player. Hernandez certainly has not lived up to his billing.

We may be a slightly worse defensive team overall with Bynum instead of Hernandez, but we'll be a much better team overall with Bynum in there, and thats all that really matters.

[DrungoHazewood]

The Orioles entered today's frustrating loss in extra inning in Oakland LEADING ALL OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL in defensive efficiency.

Despite some memorable mistakes that all teams composed of human beings are going to commit, Trembley's club has succeeded in being respectable overall when the bulk of national "experts" and OH posters assumed they would be 100 loss bad.

Mark my words, if they turn over the starting shortstop role to Freddie Bynum, this team will get worse in a hurry. (And I like Freddie Bynum...just not as a starting shortstop)

You keep saying this, but it doesn't necessarily make it true. The O's are leading the majors in DE, but that's just one measure. They're mid-pack in RZR. Not only that, but shortstop defense is no more than 1/6th or or 1/7th of that. Hernandez obviously hasn't been Mark Belanger, or even Adam Everett. He's been a serviceable defensive shortstop, that's all. If you replace 60% of his innings with Freddy Bynum or Alex Cintron, leaving Hernandez or Fahey or somebody for late inning defense, you're going to get a tiny tick downward in DE or RZR. Not a catastrophic one.

And on the other side of the ball you just might get a shortstop who can post a .675 or .725 OPS, instead of one with a .560 and makes a fair number of boneheaded plays.

[Dr. FLK]

But two runs scored is worth more that one run prevented.

And I have no idea how you can honestly say Hernandez has been a positive on defense. Bynum might not be as good, but its not like we're replacing a stud defensive player. Hernandez certainly has not lived up to his billing.

We may be a slightly worse defensive team overall with Bynum instead of Hernandez, but we'll be a much better team overall with Bynum in there, and thats all that really matters.

People now have it in their head that LH is a fantastic defensive SS. The myth has been perpetuated, IMO, due to disbelief that he can be as bad as people say. "He is so terrible offensively that he must be amazing defensively."

[McNulty]

Why did we get rid of Chris Gomez? He is EXACTLY what this team needs for the next year or two.

[Mackus]

Why did we get rid of Chris Gomez? He is EXACTLY what this team needs for the next year or two.

Gomez as a full time starter wouldn't be any better that Bynum as a full time starter or Cintron.

Gomez' value is that he can play a variety of positions, play them well defensively, and he can come off the bench cold and not be a detriment with the bat.

If you start him for the full season, you'll see much worse numbers than you see from him in his short stints.

He's about as good as a utility guy as there is in the game, but we don't need a utility guy (especially not a mid-30's one), we need a starting SS.

That said, I'd still rather see Gomez getting the innings there than anybody we have other than Bynum, and I'd only prefer Bynum because I think Bynum can eventually become a player like Gomez.

[bldblck&orange]

I liked how the broadcasters called his botched double play not a major league caliber play and he should have been able to make that if he deserved to be in the bigs. Ouch!

[DrungoHazewood]

Come on SG, you know that in real baseball -as opposed to fantasy leagues- that a run prevented is worth more than a run scored.

People love to say that when they are defending their favorite no-hit, all-glove player. But they rarely put it into context. In the context of a team, scoring and allowing 700 or 800 runs a year, it's somewhat important. A team that scores 600 and allows 500 will win about two more games than a team scoring 800 and allowing 700.

The difference between a shortstop who creates 35 runs and saves 20 on defense, and another who creates 60 runs and costs the team 5 on defense is a small fraction of a win. So far down in the noise as to almost be unmeasurable. If Hernandez and Bynum end up being the same player in terms of overall runs the Orioles will win a quarter of a game less with Bynum's offense/defense mix as opposed to Hernandez'.

If Bynum ends up being a better overall player, just with worse defense, (which won't be hard) the O's will win more games with Bynum.

Sometimes I find it helpful to quantify the clichés.

[DrungoHazewood]

Why did we get rid of Chris Gomez? He is EXACTLY what this team needs for the next year or two.

Really? The rebuilding, not contending, focusing on youth 2008 Baltimore Orioles need a 37-year-old utility player with a .600 OPS starting at shortstop?

I'd rather have Luis Hernandez, knowing full well that he's a decent AAA player.

[McNulty]

Gomez' value is that he can play a variety of positions, play them well defensively, and he can come off the bench cold and not be a detriment with the bat.

Really? The rebuilding, not contending, focusing on youth 2008 Baltimore Orioles need a 37-year-old utility player with a .600 OPS starting at shortstop?

I'd rather have Luis Hernandez, knowing full well that he's a decent AAA player.

Absolutely I'd rather have him. He plays well defensively. That's all this team needs currently, until they find a long-term solution. I think we are all in agreement that Hernandez isn't the long term solution, so I'd rather have a stop-gap that can consistently field his position well and play smart baseball then a young kid who makes miscues and has mental lapses all the while hitting below replacement value.

I wasn't proposing that Chris Gomez was the long-term answer, but with a young staff we need a strong defensive SS out there, and I do believe he qualifies. He's cheap, and defensively consistent. All I'm saying is that we should of resigned him as insurance; or at worst a utility guy again.

I doubt you'll find too many people on the OH right now who wouldn't take that over our current situation.

[SVOF]

I was watching a Pirates game the other day and Gomez was at SS. The announcers were talking about his poor range so I don't think he would be good for an everyday SS anymore since he is 37 now. I do like him as a utility man but with his advanced age I can see why the O's didn't re-sign him.

[DrungoHazewood]

Absolutely I'd rather have him. He plays well defensively. That's all this team needs currently, until they find a long-term solution. I think we are all in agreement that Hernandez isn't the long term solution, so I'd rather have a stop-gap that can consistently field his position well and play smart baseball then a young kid who makes miscues and has mental lapses all the while hitting below replacement value.

I wasn't proposing that Chris Gomez was the long-term answer, but with a young staff we need a strong defensive SS out there, and I do believe he qualifies. He's cheap, and defensively consistent. All I'm saying is that we should of resigned him as insurance; or at worst a utility guy again.

I doubt you'll find too many people on the OH right now who wouldn't take that over our current situation.

Gomez is a guy you might feel better about because he makes fewer errors and maybe fewer defensive lapses, but his limited range would probably more than make up for that in actual runs saved.

Since 2005 Gomez has played 33 games at short. Total. In 3+ years. It would be fairly incredible if he was as good a defensive shortstop as a guy who was named best defensive player in the organization by BA last year.

[PoorMike]

I was watching a Pirates game the other day and Gomez was at SS. The announcers were talking about his poor range so I don't think he would be good for an everyday SS anymore since he is 37 now. I do like him as a utility man but with his advanced age I can see why the O's didn't re-sign him.

Not only that, but CG does not have the arm to play short.

I don't blame LH for any of this. He is who he is. He's a waiver claim AA player who is only up here because we had 2 injuries in the infield last year. On ANY other team....ANY...even one with 2 injuries, he wouldn't have been in the majors at all. He played ok for brief stretches last year, taking advantage of the fact that major league pitchers throw more strikes. He got enough bloops and squibbers to hit .290. God love him.

He's not a major league player offensively and he has major league defensive skills but isn't really consistent with them. At some point, a players lack of production puts pressure on other guys (both in the lineup and on the mound) to the point that it hinders their growth. That hurts even in rebuilding. You have to have faith that the other guy can do his job, whether your team is looking for a playoff berth or a glimmer of hope.

We shouldn't go out of our way to trade away young pieces to get a SS, but we should be examining every low cost option that we can at this point, no question.