SI Orioles Winter Report Card

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, weams said:

He was stating that Trumbo's hitting was actually better than Carter's walking.

A single is about 30% more valuable than a walk.    But an out has negative value.    Two walks are worth a lot more than a single and an out.    

[weams]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

So he was dealing from a flawed premise.

Not surprising.
He should have stated that to start with, I wouldn't have wasted my time.

Well, I must say, it took me a while to follow where he was arriving at that from. . 

And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God... the genius.

[weams]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

A single is about 30% more valuable than a walk.    But an out has negative value.    Two walks are worth a lot more than a single and an out.    

I've been told this is all true. But as long as hit hits 30% better, it would kinda even out if he walked 100% less. Right?

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, backwardsk said:

Do we weigh all years over a career the same or do we place emphasis on the most recent year?

Was Trumbo a better hitter in 2016? 

You can put some emphasis on the most recent year.  But you do have to also consider a player's age.  I'm pretty confident that the small edge that Trumbo had last year doesn't demonstrably outweigh the similarity in career production.

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, weams said:

I've been told this is all true. But as long as hit hits 30% better, it would kinda even out if he walked 100% less. Right?

I don't understand your example well enough to answer the question.    

[weams]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don't understand your example well enough to answer the question.    

Yeah, I am not sure I do either anymore. Anyway. 

[Since'54]

26 minutes ago, Frobby said:

A single is about 30% more valuable than a walk.    But an out has negative value.    Two walks are worth a lot more than a single and an out.    

I wonder exactly what you are saying here.  I presume that you are asserting that (among other scenarios) if the leadoff batter gets to first on a single,  that he would be 30% more likely to score than if he gets to first on a walk. I imagine this is empirically true since you are saying so.  But why is it?  Because he may be a faster runner and gets more singles because of that?  And subsequently more stolen bases ? Or just generally gets around the bases more efficiently? Or because a single says something about a pitcher's vulnerability to whatever scoring sequence follows that a walk somehow doesn't say?  Or? Or? Or?   A 30% difference is huge and to me counter-intuitive. Wherein does it lie?

[Number5]

7 minutes ago, Since'54 said:

I wonder exactly what you are saying here.  I presume that you are asserting that (among other scenarios) if the leadoff batter gets to first on a single,  that he would be 30% more likely to score than if he gets to first on a walk. I imagine this is empirically true since you are saying so.  But why is it?  Because he may be a faster runner and gets more singles because of that?  And subsequently more stolen bases ? Or just generally gets around the bases more efficiently? Or because a single says something about a pitcher's vulnerability to whatever scoring sequence follows that a walk somehow doesn't say?  Or? Or? Or?   A 30% difference is huge and to me counter-intuitive. Wherein does it lie?

In your example, they are worth the same.  With two outs and a runner on third, the single is worth far more than 30% more.  The 30% more figure is overall.  There are many situations where a single is a greater outcome than a walk.  There are no situations where a walk is a greater outcome than a hit.

[Number5]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

A single is about 30% more valuable than a walk.    But an out has negative value.    Two walks are worth a lot more than a single and an out.    

This doesn't really apply in this case.  These guys have similar OBP.  Carter makes as many outs as Trumbo, and strikes out more as well.  Give me the guy with many more hits. 

Despite the bullying and personal attacks that I've been subjected to for daring to disagree with a self-proclaimed expert, I will never prefer a lesser hitter because he walks enough to bring his OBP up to the level of the better hitter, no matter how flawed someone wants to say my thinking is.  And I would never totally ignore the fact that Carter's inability to play right field is a factor here.

I'm on record as having preferred Saunders.  Once that was no longer a possibility, given the options available, Trumbo was a good signing, IMO, and he came much cheaper than anyone anticipated.  Carter wasn't really even an option for RF vs. LHP, and we already had Mancini if we wanted a RH bat that would strictly DH for us.  Asserting that Carter was as good an option as Trumbo at the time of our signing simply has no merit.

Carter does have one thing going for him, in that he will be a platoon player for the Yankees, and will face mostly left-handed pitchers.  That should improve his numbers somewhat.  I happen to think the Yankees would have been better off either playing Bird everyday, or going ahead and bringing up Austin to platoon with Bird, but Carter's numbers should be more respectable (albeit in fewer plate appearances) than they have been up till now, when he was facing more RHP than LHP.

[backwardsk]

12 minutes ago, Number5 said:

In your example, they are worth the same.  With two outs and a runner on third, the single is worth far more than 30% more.  The 30% more figure is overall.  There are many situations where a single is a greater outcome than a walk.  There are no situations where a walk is a greater outcome than a hit.

What about a guy in first, base hit, runner gets thrown out at third.  Wouldn't a walk be the better outcome?

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, backwardsk said:

What about a guy in first, base hit, runner gets thrown out at third.  Wouldn't a walk be the better outcome?

Not if the runner at second got picked off after the walk.    I was really discussing statistically significant probabilities.  It would be a very difficult case to argue that a walk is preferable to a hit.

[FlipTheBird]

Very fair assessment. The team is, essentially, the same group of guys they ended last season with, more or less. Castillo will probably produce very similar numbers to Wieters.

The Orioles are, naturally, banking a lot on improvement. From Gausman. From Bundy. A bounce back from Miley. The bullpen's even stronger, I think, especially given that they'll presumably get more from at the very least Darren O'Day. 

Like Wildcard says in the original post... I don't think the Orioles are done. I imagine they will add another player or two to the mix before Opening Day. Not game changing regulars... but guys that will contribute.