Style points

[Frobby]

One thing I read on the board a lot is that our offense is too one-dimensional. I have a philosophical question: would you prefer an offense that scored about the same number of runs as the present one, but hit fewer homers and was better at small ball?

It's not like our offense has been bad. Here is where we have ranked in the AL in runs scored, OPS+ and homers the last five years:

2012: 8, 9, 2

2013: 4, 7, 1

2014: 6, 4, 1

2015: 7, 12, 3

2016: 7, 9, 1

There are two ways you could look at it. Runs scored would say we've been slightly above average, though not elite. OPS+ would say we've been slightly below average. The main difference is the effect of playing in OPACY and other hitter-friendly stadiums in the AL East. But any way you look at it, we're sort of an average offensive team that hits a lot of homers.

So my question is, would you be any happier if our offense was in about the same spot in runs scored/OPS+ but had fewer homers, a higher OBP, less strikeouts, more walks and more stolen bases and sac flies?

Personally, I am agnostic on the issue. I just want to score runs, however they are scored. Style points don't matter a lot to me.

What is your take? Again, my question assumes that total runs scored doesn't change, just the way we score them changes. Would you like it better?

[LookitsPuck]

Runs are runs.

But I'd rather have a dynamic offense that can do something other than hit homers.

[clapdiddy]

Runs are runs.

But I'd rather have a dynamic offense that can do something other than hit homers.

Agree with this. With our ability to hit homers, more people on base will result in more runs, anyway. I'd like to see a couple of guys who can get on base a little more.

[JR Oriole]

Good post. Yes, I would like it better....a lot better. Now, there may be a sort of recency bias to this but it felt like in August and September we never had many people on base and we were always behind 0-2 in the count. It felt very demoralizing as a fan and who knows what impact it had on the pitchers or the other players. There were just so many innings where we had no traffic on the basepaths and the innings would end after 6 pitches. I want the opposing pitcher to always feel pressure and be very uncomfortable, which is what happens when there are people on base. This leads to pitchers making mistakes. We did not make pitchers uncomfortable in this regard.

I think we have scored 1 run in the first inning since Sept. 18. That is horrible and it was mainly because we never had people on base. Solo homers surrendered feels a lot like giving up a 20 yard field goal....the offense scored but the defense won the battle and that often times feels like a loss for the offense and I felt like we lost a lot always going for homers. At the end of the day runs are runs, but I would love to see a much better approach to hitting resulting in more baserunners even if it means fewer homers - this would translate much better to postseason play.

[Phantom]

Good post.

I remember the days when we hit less homers and played more small ball. People would just complain about our lack of situation hitting.

[MDK02]

I think when it comes to playoff baseball or in close games, you want guys to get on base. The more players on base, the more pressure is put on the pitcher and stress can be the difference in a pitcher hitting or missing his target.

In the post season, rarely do you see a team go off for 3-5 homeruns in a game and that is what we would have needed in order to make a deep run.

[CanadianOriole]

I don't care how the runs are scored - but we need to score more runs. We were basically band on the AL average for runs scored while playing half our games in Camden Yards. We narrowly outscore the Minnesota Twins. We have too many talented hitters in the heart of our order to be that mediocre overall offensively. We know the hidden benefits of patience, pitch selection, and high OBP. Other than Kim - we don't have anyone that plays like that. Given my druthers - I'd like to see a patient, OBP focused offense. But ultimately, I don't care how they score more runs - just score more runs. We're going to drag around at least 2 of the Ubaldo/Miley/Gallardo threesome next year - we would be well served to be top 4 in the AL in runs scored.

[Here!]

For me, watching a rally is a lot more fun than seeing a single home run. Everyone points to the "3 run homer" as the way the Orioles got things done decades ago. They think it was all about home runs. But they neglect to realize that a 3 run homer means that 2 guys were already on base. I'd love to know what percentage of our home runs this season were solo.

[Camden_yardbird]

Season stats are great. Which strategy is more resilient against say starting pitchers in the top 25 in ERA?

[TINSTAAPP]

One thing I read on the board a lot is that our offense is too one-dimensional. I have a philosophical question: would you prefer an offense that scored about the same number of runs as the present one, but hit fewer homers and was better at small ball?

Well, that's the problem. This team has never tried to build their offense a different way even though they've been plagued by inconsistent all-or-nothing offenses. When's the last time this team ranked in the top 5 in the AL in walks? The Orioles have always had lineups filled with guys who swing at the first good pitch and try to hit the ball out of the ballpark instead of finding and developing guys who work the count and get on base so they don't have to hit a ton of homeruns in order to score runs.

[Cousin Eddie]

The final numbers for the offense look fine, but it seems like it's too much of 12 runs one game and 0 the next. Sure, you've averaged 6 runs a game, but you're 1-1, where if you actually scored 6 in each game, you're likely 2-0. I don't know, that's probably flawed somehow, but it does seem like the offense is too one dimensional. They can't score if they don't hit homeruns.

[Frobby]

For me, watching a rally is a lot more fun than seeing a single home run. Everyone points to the "3 run homer" as the way the Orioles got things done decades ago. They think it was all about home runs. But they neglect to realize that a 3 run homer means that 2 guys were already on base. I'd love to know what percentage of our home runs this season were solo.

60.1%. League average: 60.0%. So we hit an average percentage of solo homers.

[TouchemAll]

One thing I read on the board a lot is that our offense is too one-dimensional. I have a philosophical question: would you prefer an offense that scored about the same number of runs as the present one, but hit fewer homers and was better at small ball?

It's not like our offense has been bad. Here is where we have ranked in the AL in runs scored, OPS+ and homers the last five years:

2012: 8, 9, 2

2013: 4, 7, 1

2014: 6, 4, 1

2015: 7, 12, 3

2016: 7, 9, 1

There are two ways you could look at it. Runs scored would say we've been slightly above average, though not elite. OPS+ would say we've been slightly below average. The main difference is the effect of playing in OPACY and other hitter-friendly stadiums in the AL East. But any way you look at it, we're sort of an average offensive team that hits a lot of homers.

So my question is, would you be any happier if our offense was in about the same spot in runs scored/OPS+ but had fewer homers, a higher OBP, less strikeouts, more walks and more stolen bases and sac flies?

Personally, I am agnostic on the issue. I just want to score runs, however they are scored. Style points don't matter a lot to me.

What is your take? Again, my question assumes that total runs scored doesn't change, just the way we score them changes. Would you like it better?

I don't know guys like Davis down the stretch really hurt this offense.

[Aristotelian]

I don't think it is a matter of "style" points. What I want is an offense that can score in a variety of ways, consistently, in a variety of situations. An all-or-nothing offense may have the highest probability of scoring 10 runs but a low probability of scoring 1 run in any given inning. I would not totally give up on a HR-based strategy but it would nice to have some different ways of scoring, so yes, I think it is at least theoretically possible to win more games with lower overall run production if you could guarantee the run production would be more consistent.

[pastorfan]

One thing I read on the board a lot is that our offense is too one-dimensional. I have a philosophical question: would you prefer an offense that scored about the same number of runs as the present one, but hit fewer homers and was better at small ball?

It's not like our offense has been bad. Here is where we have ranked in the AL in runs scored, OPS+ and homers the last five years:

2012: 8, 9, 2

2013: 4, 7, 1

2014: 6, 4, 1

2015: 7, 12, 3

2016: 7, 9, 1

There are two ways you could look at it. Runs scored would say we've been slightly above average, though not elite. OPS+ would say we've been slightly below average. The main difference is the effect of playing in OPACY and other hitter-friendly stadiums in the AL East. But any way you look at it, we're sort of an average offensive team that hits a lot of homers.

So my question is, would you be any happier if our offense was in about the same spot in runs scored/OPS+ but had fewer homers, a higher OBP, less strikeouts, more walks and more stolen bases and sac flies?

Personally, I am agnostic on the issue. I just want to score runs, however they are scored. Style points don't matter a lot to me.

What is your take? Again, my question assumes that total runs scored doesn't change, just the way we score them changes. Would you like it better?

Yes, assuming that the defense is much better. You are saving runs on defense.