The O's crash of 2018. Who's to blame?

[now]

12 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

 Who is responsible?   Everyone involved in any of the decision making since 2012. 

Sure but this ain't Nuremburg. If word came from the top (as DD says) to go for it with the aging core, then the decisions to implement that vision aren't so much their fault: just carrying out orders. 

[now]

6 hours ago, foxfield said:

 

Not the reason by any means.  But more than just some ordinary clubhouse spat.

I do not claim to be the first to make the association, but I have been pretty faithful to say that something changed in the clubhouse and it never got better.  The post above is from December.

re. the pies...

Here's what O'Day says:

"And last year was just, I have no idea what hit us, but something hit us pretty hard."

http://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2018/08/valera-and-oday-with-opposite-new-opportunities.html

[tntoriole]

12 minutes ago, now said:

Sure but this ain't Nuremburg. If word came from the top (as DD says) to go for it with the aging core, then the decisions to implement that vision aren't so much their fault: just carrying out orders. 

You are right.  It isn’t.  So, I would just like to hear it from Dan at some point...Were you just a puppet the whole time or did you ever actually express an opinion to Mr. Angelos? 

[Catch 8]

3 hours ago, CheeryO said:

Look up his stats.  This is Machado's best season with the bat -- by a decent margin.  First season he's ever had an OPS above .900; first season his average is above .300; and first season his OBP is flirting with .400.  It's pretty easily his best season offensively.  Defensively it's another story.  I always thought Machado was rather overrated -- until this season.

Certainly, offensively.  But he had a really special year with the glove when he wont the Platinum and still put up very good numbers.  That year is hard to beat, IMO.  2 webgems a night.

A hotdog? Yes.  Overrated? Nooooo.

[CheeryO]

19 hours ago, Catch 8 said:

Certainly, offensively.  But he had a really special year with the glove when he wont the Platinum and still put up very good numbers.  That year is hard to beat, IMO.  2 webgems a night.

A hotdog? Yes.  Overrated? Nooooo.

When I say overrated I mean relative to kind of money that's being talked about to sign him.  I used to think anyone who flirts with $30 million a year for 10 plus years for Manny would regret it.  I still kind of do.  Manny is special, but it's unlikely he's Mike Trout or A-Rod special.  I still kind of suspect he's probably more on the level of Adrian Beltre or Joe Mauer special.

[24fps]

On 8/1/2018 at 6:28 AM, Natty said:

Worst team in mlb. Less than .300 winning pct. Bad hitting, bad pitching, bad fielding. 

Who is to blame. Is it DD, Buck, Peter, Brady, our hitting and pitching coaches, or a combination of everyone? 

Maybe the problem is systemic so it's not a "who" but a "what".  But nevermind, you can't burn a "what" at the stake, and finding a scapegoat is sooo much more satisfying in that case.  Carry on...

[weams]

 

[weams]

On 8/1/2018 at 11:02 AM, Natty said:

It almost looks like the fire sale was a salary dump to compensate for Davis money.

That makes so much sense. In three years, they will have almost paid for it. But they certainly won't be running in the negative or putting any ownership stake back into the team for a while. 

[Frobby]

18 hours ago, CheeryO said:

When I say overrated I mean relative to kind of money that's being talked about to sign him.  I used to think anyone who flirts with $30 million a year for 10 plus years for Manny would regret it.  I still kind of do.  Manny is special, but it's unlikely he's Mike Trout or A-Rod special.  I still kind of suspect he's probably more on the level of Adrian Beltre or Joe Mauer special.

Per Fangraphs, Beltre was worth $289.5 mm from age 26 through 35, at FA market prices at the time.   There’s been significant inflation since 2005 when Beltre was first a free agent.   At today’s prices, the 44.9 fWAR he put up in that ten year period would be worth about $360 mm.    So, Manny doesn’t have to be Trout to justify $30 mm/yr for a decade.    

Just for some more context, Beltre was worth 25.3 fWAR before he hit free agency, whereas Manny’s been worth 28.1, at the same age. So I like Manny’s chances of exceeding Beltre’s 44.9 fWAR over the next decade.

[weams]

I guess it could be Roger.

Let's ask Keith.

[CheeryO]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Per Fangraphs, Beltre was worth $289.5 mm from age 26 through 35, at FA market prices at the time.   There’s been significant inflation since 2005 when Beltre was first a free agent.   At today’s prices, the 44.9 fWAR he put up in that ten year period would be worth about $360 mm.    So, Manny doesn’t have to be Trout to justify $30 mm/yr for a decade.    

Just for some more context, Beltre was worth 25.3 fWAR before he hit free agency, whereas Manny’s been worth 28.1, at the same age. So I like Manny’s chances of exceeding Beltre’s 44.9 fWAR over the next decade.

Oh no, not this argument again.  You're judging what someone was worth according to WAR -- as estimated by Fangraphs.  Nobody pays a salary based on WAR value and they never will.  But, for the sake of argument, just by taking a cursory glance at what the players actually make, if someone pays $10 million for their first WAR, it doesn't mean they pay $10 million per WAR for each 1 WAR thereafter.  If you use WAR as a basis for figuring out salary, then you'll discover quickly, like in many businesses and areas of economic study, that the rate changes as the units increase (or decrease, whatever the case may be).  It's similar to the theory of Economies of Scale, but in this case we're talking about salary per unit of productivity rather than cost per unit of productivity.  WAR was created to determine value on the field; it has nothing to do with what the players actually make.  Fangraphs should stay away from this stuff because their understanding of numbers has nothing to do with the business of sports.

[weams]

11 minutes ago, CheeryO said:

Oh no, not this argument again.  You're judging what someone was worth according to WAR -- as estimated by Fangraphs.  Nobody pays a salary based on WAR value and they never will.  But, for the sake of argument, just by taking a cursory glance at what the players actually make, if someone pays $10 million for their first WAR, it doesn't mean they pay $10 million per WAR for each 1 WAR thereafter.  If you use WAR as a basis for figuring out salary, then you'll discover quickly, like in many businesses and areas of economic study, that the rate changes as the units increase (or decrease, whatever the case may be).  It's similar to the theory of Economies of Scale, but in this case we're talking about salary per unit of productivity rather than cost per unit of productivity.  WAR was created to determine value on the field; it has nothing to do with what the players actually make.  Fangraphs should stay away from this stuff because their understanding of numbers has nothing to do with the business of sports.

Excellent post. 

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, CheeryO said:

Oh no, not this argument again.  You're judging what someone was worth according to WAR -- as estimated by Fangraphs.  Nobody pays a salary based on WAR value and they never will.  But, for the sake of argument, just by taking a cursory glance at what the players actually make, if someone pays $10 million for their first WAR, it doesn't mean they pay $10 million per WAR for each 1 WAR thereafter.  If you use WAR as a basis for figuring out salary, then you'll discover quickly, like in many businesses and areas of economic study, that the rate changes as the units increase (or decrease, whatever the case may be).  It's similar to the theory of Economies of Scale, but in this case we're talking about salary per unit of productivity rather than cost per unit of productivity.  WAR was created to determine value on the field; it has nothing to do with what the players actually make.  Fangraphs should stay away from this stuff because their understanding of numbers has nothing to do with the business of sports.

I agree that teams don’t pay based on WAR, but I think it does give you an estimate of a player’s market value.    It’s not going to be exact because teams have their own metrics, may weigh different aspects of the game diiffrently, will have different projections about how players may age, etc.    That said, I don’t have another model to use.  

One thing I absolutely won’t do is say “Mike Trout makes $34 mm, Manny is not as good as Mike Trout, therefore Manny will make much less than Mike Trout.”    Mike  Trout’s agent didn’t drive a very hard bargain and Mike Trout didn’t choose to become a free agent.   Mike Trout would be worth way more than $34 mm/yr if he was a free agent today.    And I don’t need WAR to tell me that.   

In any event, it’s all a matter of opinion what Manny will get.   Nobody actually knows.    But I’ll say it will surprise me a lot if he doesn’t get $30 mm/yr.    I’d also say he’ll get at least 10 years, but I don’t know if he actually wants that, so we’ll see.

[Enjoy Terror]

At the end of the day, it’s on the owner. Either he meddled too much or didn’t hire the right people. The blame is on ownership.

And it’s six things they’re to blame for:

1) Poor lineup construction. Extremely inflexible players that log jammed 1B/DH, lack of speed, three true outcome hitters, players playing out of place leading to poor defensive outcomes. Inflexibility in the bullpen with using players in defined roles (ie the closer must close out all games where he is in line for a save), and of course poor starter management— not getting the right guys, leaving them in too long, not long enough.

2) Poor contract decisions. Trumbo and Davis are current examples, Ubaldo was one, Tillman’s most recent contract is another, even going back to Brian Roberts we can see that they’ve made few positive long term contract offers to anyone. Too many “why are we doing this” moments that are objectively awful before the ink dries have undoubtedly wound up being awful. You can throw money at problems as long as it hits the problems and not in the fireplace.

3) Holding them and folding them. In the last few seasons where the Orioles were not good going into August, we were unwise buyers instead of selling. And we were obviously not good— like, a “.500 ballclub in fourth place” not good. On top of this lack of foresight, even if we were All In for the post season, we made moves like trading for Gerardo Parra and that’s it. No great pitcher acquisitions, no big hitters, just rolling the dice on what we have. 

4) Recycling established players for the farm system. Manny Machado marks the first time since Erik Bedard that I can remember us making a major trade for prospects. We don’t do it enough, and when tied with #3 above we really hamstrung our farm system. When we should have been selling, we wasted valuable trading commodities in players coming up into free agency, and even nixed trades to send Britton out to the Astros— don’t you think Colin Moran would look nice at 3B right now?

5) Speaking of which, our heavily documented practice of abstaining from international players has only exacerbated this problem and put us at an extreme disadvantage. I assume Dan has tried to minimize this by looking for Rule V market inefficiencies (which should be applauded rather than criticized, considering the FO’s limitations on acquiring young players),

6) and finally, it should be noted that only recent drafts have produced some decent players for us, and while not everyone can be Manny Machado, and we’re bound to have a Cody Sedlock, poor draft choices like Matt Hobgood that were cost saving, draft punting moves are just unwise if you’re an organization that wants to scrimp elsewhere.

This is mostly my beef with this organization which I assume is coming from the top down starting with PA. I’m glad that the Os are putting on the appearance that these days are behind them and they’re going to join us all in the 21st century world of baseball management.

[Tx Oriole]

On 8/1/2018 at 6:28 AM, Natty said:

Worst team in mlb. Less than .300 winning pct. Bad hitting, bad pitching, bad fielding. 

Who is to blame. Is it DD, Buck, Peter, Brady, our hitting and pitching coaches, or a combination of everyone? 

 I don't care. I hear Peter Angelos may be in ill health. I don't want to point fingers if that's the case. It really doesn't matter now anyway. IMO