Orioles Roster Review: The Top Nine Orioles

[PressBoxOnline]

Who were the top nine Orioles of 2016? Paul Folkemer takes a look back:

https://www.pressboxonline.com/2016/10/31/2016-orioles-roster-review-part-five-the-top-nine-orioles

[Aristotelian]

I would find a way to put Bundy in the top 9. Maybe over Schoop. Although Schoop put up a solid WAR number, most of that was in the first half and his trend was toward his career norms.

[25 Nuggets]

To put some relevance to this discussion:

- Those nine players made a tick over $68.75 mil this season, or 45.1% of the committed salaries for 2016 (not counting deferrals).

- Eight of the top nine players are signed for next season. Only Trumbo is a free agent.

- Three of those eight players will be on the wrong side of 30 (Brach, Davis, Jones). Conversely, three of those eight players will be on the right side of 26 (Gausman, Machado, Schoop).

We'll see if this group is better or worse in 2017 but it is the majority of the team core, and the salaries for these players vary wildly, which is to be expected from those in pre-arbitration vs those on a free agent salary.

[25 Nuggets]

I would find a way to put Bundy in the top 9. Maybe over Schoop. Although Schoop put up a solid WAR number, most of that was in the first half and his trend was toward his career norms.

Jones had a worse year than Schoop -- you could argue Bundy, Hardy or even Wieters over him.

[PaulFolk]

Jones had a worse year than Schoop -- you could argue Bundy, Hardy or even Wieters over him.

I definitely debated putting Wieters and/or Hardy ahead of Jones. But for me it came down to playing time-- Jones played 152 games to Wieters' 124 and Hardy's 115. So all else being (close to) equal, that was the separator.

[ChuckS]

Their overall numbers aside, I'm holding the streakiness of Jones and Davis against them. They were completely worthless at the plate for large stretches and Jones in particular was pretty bad defensively at one of the three most important positions on the diamond.

Jones and Davis are both outside of my top 9. I'm going to put Hardy over these guys for his defense and consistency at the plate and a bunch of these guys over Davis for the simple fact that Davis would have been much more replacable in the lineup by either Trumbo, Alvarez, or Kim. Bundy was extremely valuable as well. He really solidified our rotation in the second half.

My top 9 most valuable:

1. Machado

2. Britton

3. Tillman

4. Gausman

5. Brach

6. Trumbo

7. Hardy

8. Bundy

9. Kim

------------------

10. Schoop

11. Davis

12. Wieters

13. Jones

14. Alvarez

15. Givens

[weams]

I would find a way to put Bundy in the top 9. Maybe over Schoop. Although Schoop put up a solid WAR number, most of that was in the first half and his trend was toward his career norms.

Bundy did not have a good year. He did regain some of his future value by staying healthy and performing well at certain points.

[Redskins Rick]

Bundy did not have a good year. He did regain some of his future value by staying healthy and performing well at certain points.

I disagree, he had a good year, especially for a rookie.

4.02 with a 1.7 WAR doesn't cause Earthquakes, but its not what I would call a bad year.

[PaulFolk]

Their overall numbers aside, I'm holding the streakiness of Jones and Davis against them. They were completely worthless at the plate for large stretches and Jones in particular was pretty bad defensively at one of the three most important positions on the diamond.

Jones and Davis are both outside of my top 9. I'm going to put Hardy over these guys for his defense and consistency at the plate and a bunch of these guys over Davis for the simple fact that Davis would have been much more replacable in the lineup by either Trumbo, Alvarez, or Kim. Bundy was extremely valuable as well. He really solidified our rotation in the second half.

My top 9 most valuable:

1. Machado

2. Britton

3. Tillman

4. Gausman

5. Brach

6. Trumbo

7. Hardy

8. Bundy

9. Kim

------------------

10. Schoop

11. Davis

12. Wieters

13. Jones

14. Alvarez

15. Givens

Is there any evidence that a "consistent" hitter is more valuable than a streaky one, especially when the streaky hitter puts up much better offensive numbers overall (as Davis did compared to Hardy)? I can see leaving Jones out of the top nine, but Davis? It's a real stretch to say that he wasn't one of the nine best Orioles, unless you're penalizing him for his contract.

Also, I like Kim as much as the next person, but I have a hard time putting him in the top nine because he played a lot less than the other regulars (95 games). That's not his fault, but it makes him less valuable, IMO.

[ChuckS]

Is there any evidence that a "consistent" hitter is more valuable than a streaky one, especially when the streaky hitter puts up much better offensive numbers overall (as Davis did compared to Hardy)? I can see leaving Jones out of the top nine, but Davis? It's a real stretch to say that he wasn't one of the nine best Orioles, unless you're penalizing him for his contract.

Also, I like Kim as much as the next person, but I have a hard time putting him in the top nine because he played a lot less than the other regulars (95 games). That's not his fault, but it makes him less valuable, IMO.

Davis was definitely one of the top 9 Orioles if we are just talking about overall numbers, but I guess I was coming from a "most valuable" standpoint. I can see having him ahead of Hardy with that criteria. But If Trumbo was the everyday first baseman and Kim and Alvarez got a few more starts I think we would have been just as good or better off. All three players finished with higher OPS's than Davis did. So I think he was replaceable where as Hardy and even Jones wasn't. That's not my only criteria (which is why I still have Jones so low), but I think it should figure in.

I rather have a consistent player than someone who just gets hot for stretches, especially when they are hitting in the middle of the lineup. It's like having a lineup that puts up 11 runs in one game and than gets shutdown for the next several. Consistency is better.

[PaulFolk]

Davis was definitely one of the top 9 Orioles if we are just talking about overall numbers, but I guess I was coming from a "most valuable" standpoint. I can see having him ahead of Hardy with that criteria. But If Trumbo was the everyday first baseman and Kim and Alvarez got a few more starts I think we would have been just as good or better off. All three players finished with higher OPS's than Davis did. So I think he was replaceable where as Hardy and even Jones wasn't. That's not my only criteria (which is why I still have Jones so low), but I think it should figure in.

I rather have a consistent player than someone who just gets hot for stretches, especially when they are hitting in the middle of the lineup. It's like having a lineup that puts up 11 runs in one game and than gets shutdown for the next several. Consistency is better.

I'm not sure this is true. Over the course of a season, is a team that consistently scores 3 runs every game going to win more than a team that alternates one run and five runs? (Just to use an extreme example)

[ChuckS]

I'm not sure this is true. Over the course of a season, is a team that consistently scores 3 runs every game going to win more than a team that alternates one run and five runs? (Just to use an extreme example)

What about this example: 5, 5, 5, 5 or 11, 1, 0, 8? I take my chances with the 5's. I think it all depends on the level of inconsistency, which is "extreme" in the case of Jones and Davis.

The inability to make productive outs when Davis' is going through one his stretches can't be ignored either.