Jonathan Villar- Our new 2B?

[LA2]

6 hours ago, bobmc said:

Anyone awake for this play last night?  Surreal?  Sublime?  Actually before the throw home, Villar eluded a tag at second on a steal, somehow, someway, and retreated to first with Gordon chasing.  Valera broke for home and Gordon clutched and threw home late.

 

It was also interesting to see how immediately Villar, once he saw Gordon throw home, quickly reversed and sped toward second. He may have been able to score on Mancini's double even from first base, but starting from second made it easy and a sure thing.

I think Villar's like a cat. He'll get himself into a lot of extra trouble, but has the extra quickness and alertness to escape it often--and sometimes even turn a perilous situation to his advantage. I think it's important that there be multiple smart and quick runners on base really to make the chaos productive.

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, LA2 said:

It was also interesting to see how immediately Villar, once he saw Gordon throwing home, quickly reversed and sped toward second. He may have been able to score on Mancini's double even from first base, but starting from second made it easy and a sure thing.

I think Villar's like a cat. He'll get himself into a lot of extra trouble, but has the extra quickness and alertness to escape it often--and sometimes even turn a perilous situation to his advantage. I think it's important that there be multiple smart and quick runners on base really to make the chaos productive.

Brady was a lot like that.

[LA2]

2 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Brady was a lot like that.

And like Brady (and Buford and Roberts), Villar has some pop too. Not 50-homer pop, but that season was clearly an "anomaly."

[Redskins Rick]

5 minutes ago, LA2 said:

And like Brady (and Buford and Roberts), Villar has some pop too. Not 50-homer pop, but that season was clearly an "anomaly."

The ball was juiced.

Yeah, Buford a bit before my Oriole fandom. But, I did enjoy Roberts, until the last couple of years.

 

[LA2]

24 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

The ball was juiced.

Yeah, Buford a bit before my Oriole fandom. But, I did enjoy Roberts, until the last couple of years.

 

Buford set a completely new standard for what the O's looked for in a leadoff hitter and was an important factor in Weaver's reviving of the team beginning with his hire halfway through the 1968 season. Earl was smart enough to see that Buford was still capable of the great season he had had with the White Sox in 1965 (7 WAR!). Maybe we've done the same with Villar re his 2016 season.

Buford could steal (although his success rate was never that good--career 65.5%), walked a lot, and hit for surprising power.

OBPs for 1969-71: .397, .406, .413. Homers: 11, 17, 19. OPS+: 128, 126, 153. Runs scored: 99 three seasons in a row.

He was the weak link defensively in leftfield (had been mainly an infielder with the White Sox), but still managed to put up WARs of 4.8, 4.5, 5.1 during the World Series years.

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, LA2 said:

Buford set a completely new standard for what the O's looked for in a leadoff hitter and was an important factor in Weaver's reviving of the team beginning with his hire halfway through the 1968 season. Earl was smart enough to see that Buford was still capable of the great season he had had with the White Sox in 1965 (7 WAR!). Maybe we've done the same with Villar re his 2016 season.

Buford could steal (although his success rate was never that good--career 65.5%), walked a lot, and hit for surprising power.

OBPs for 1969-71: .397, .406, .413. Homers: 11, 17, 19. OPS+: 128, 126, 153. Runs scored: 99 three seasons in a row.

He was the weak link defensively in leftfield (had been mainly an infielder with the White Sox), but still managed to put up WARs of 4.8, 4.5, 5.1 during the World Series years.

Highly underrated member of those ‘69-71 teams.   He was a huge spark plug and table-setter for those teams.  Odd fact: he scored 99 runs in each of those three seasons.  

[LA2]

17 hours ago, Frobby said:

Highly underrated member of those ‘69-71 teams.   He was a huge spark plug and table-setter for those teams.  Odd fact: he scored 99 runs in each of those three seasons.  

Haha, you must be just skimming posts--I stated that weird fact in mine!

You're right about how underrated he is. Frank, Brooks, Boog, Davey, Belanger, and Blair (just to mention the position players) were already established with the O's and hadn't stopped the post-1966 slide (there was, of course, Frank's injury). Buford was one of the keys to reigniting the team that dominated the AL over the next few seasons. One of the first things Earl wondered about when he took over was "Why is this guy not starting everyday?!"

When Buf led off the 1969 Series with a home run off Tom Seaver, I just assumed we were going to keep rolling along as usual. What a shock (listened to the final out on a transistor radio in my school's locker room after practice).

Continuing the idea that he had surprising power combined with great pitch selectivity, I see that Buford had *5* homers and 15 walks in 86 post-season at-bats with the Orioles. Amazing.

 

[now]

5 hours ago, LA2 said:

Buford set a completely new standard for what the O's looked for in a leadoff hitter and was an important factor in Weaver's reviving of the team beginning with his hire halfway through the 1968 season. Earl was smart enough to see that Buford was still capable of the great season he had had with the White Sox in 1965 (7 WAR!). Maybe we've done the same with Villar re his 2016 season.

Buford could steal (although his success rate was never that good--career 65.5%), walked a lot, and hit for surprising power.

OBPs for 1969-71: .397, .406, .413. Homers: 11, 17, 19. OPS+: 128, 126, 153. Runs scored: 99 three seasons in a row.

He was the weak link defensively in leftfield (had been mainly an infielder with the White Sox), but still managed to put up WARs of 4.8, 4.5, 5.1 during the World Series years.

Right, and as an upsetting force on the basepaths, he drove the Orioles nuts before they traded for him from the White Sox. 

[LA2]

11 hours ago, now said:

Right, and as an upsetting force on the basepaths, he drove the Orioles nuts before they traded for him from the White Sox. 

Cool--you remember more than I do. I do recall the Sox had very little going for them aside from a great starting rotation headed by Gary Peters and Joel Horlen. So it makes sense that they had to resort to causing mayhem on the basepaths.

It would be fun to see the Os do that to the AL East, which, aside from Boston, is not very good at throwing out base stealers. We might be able to end Gary Sanchez's career! Our talent is not quite there yet (think, for comparison, of KC 2014-15), but it might be more achievable and affordable than developing more traditional strong offenses.

Since there are bad feelings between Villar and the Brewers, I can't wait until the O's play Milwaukee and he gangs up with Mullins et al to express them. He seems to be the type who would relish the opportunity.

[Ruzious]

23 hours ago, Frobby said:

I thought it was foolish for Villar to try for 2B, and that he was lucky to avoid the tag.    However, great job by him to extend the play and by Valera to react and head home.

A player like Villar - who takes lots of chances - probably won't be nearly as effective on a team that doesn't run as he'd be on a team that has other players that can run.  That's why I think it's a good time to make the team's identity as a running team.  And it'll stop them from being boring as heck.  

[weams]

8 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

A player like Villar - who takes lots of chances - probably won't be nearly as effective on a team that doesn't run as he'd be on a team that has other players that can run.  That's why I think it's a good time to make the team's identity as a running team.  And it'll stop them from being boring as heck.  

What is the level of success in the AL East of "running" teams over the last decade?

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, weams said:

What is the level of success in the AL East of "running" teams over the last decade?

Depends on your definition of a running team, I guess.   But Boston is 2nd in the AL in stolen bases this year, and was 3rd last year.   A team can run and be good at other things at the same time.   

[weams]

Boston has an immense amount of money to acquire multi tool players. 

[Frobby]

17 minutes ago, weams said:

Boston has an immense amount of money to acquire multi tool players. 

Whatever.    Their 3 stolen base leaders were all drafted by them.   Three excellent draft picks — Betts, Benintendi, Bradley.    All drafted in 2011 or later, and better than any position player we’ve drafted in that time.  

Betts - 33.3 WAR

Bradley - 12.8 WAR

Benintendi - 7.1 WAR

Our top position player drafted in that time is Trey Mancini, 2.1 WAR.

[Redskins Rick]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Whatever.    Their 3 stolen base leaders were all drafted by them.   Three excellent draft picks — Betts, Benintendi, Bradley.    All drafted in 2011 or later, and better than any position player we’ve drafted in that time.  

Betts - 33.3 WAR

Bradley - 12.8 WAR

Benintendi - 7.1 WAR

Our top position player drafted in that time is Trey Mancini, 2.1 WAR.

Damn, that is depressing.