Give Sisco another Chance

[Sessh]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm going to say making an out after you already reached base is worse than making an out before reaching base.

So, it's better to not get on base at all? Well, okay.... if you say so. Maybe you advanced a runner from first to third with your hit before being picked off. Provided there isn't two outs, better to strikeout instead, though? It's just so defeatist to me.. and boring to watch.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Frobby said:

Seems to me it’s pretty much the same.   

 

Just now, Sessh said:

So, it's better to not get on base at all? Well, okay.... if you say so. Maybe you advanced a runner from first to third with your hit before being picked off. Provided there isn't two outs, better to strikeout instead, though? It's just so defeatist to me.. and boring to watch.

You average batter has an OBP of 323.  That means more than two out of three times they don't make it to first base.  That's the hard part of not making outs.  To give that up to me is the greater sin.

[makoman]

55 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The break even point is closer to 70%.    It changes a little based on the offensive environment at the time.    High scoring era with lots of homers ==> break even point is higher.    Low scoring era with fewer homers ==> break even point is lower.    But it’s always been closer to 70% than 80%.

I believe it’s very much correlated with HR rate. I do think it’s still low 70s even today  

Back to Sisco, the 2019 Orioles are so bad at giving up homers that his personal break even # is probably one of the highest in history. Outs are even more precious when any batter might hit one out! Hopefully in a few years both (1) the O’s HR rate has gone way down, and (2) AR is getting the bulk of time behind the plate. 

[Sessh]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You average batter has an OBP of 323.  That means more than two out of three times they don't make it to first base.  That's the hard part of not making outs.  To give that up to me is the greater sin.

Fair enough, that's a valid point. One could also use that as a reason to be more aggressive when you get chances even if that means it fails. A stolen base also, at least temporarily, removes the possibility of an easy double play. A DP ball to second after a steal likely leads to one out and a runner on third instead of two outs and the bases empty.

[mdbdotcom]

Three guys I'd rather have than a good base stealer:

1. The guy who gets 20 more extra base hits
2. The guy who saves 10 more runs in the field
3. The guy who isn't good at stealing bases but is an expert at going first to third

[Can_of_corn]

Just grabbed my copy of The Book

Leadoff guy of an inning, so no one on base, no outs.

RE 0 outs, no one on base- .356

RE 1 out, no one on base- .182

ER 0 outs, runner on first- .704

So a strikeout to lead off an inning lowers run expectancy by .174 runs.  A lone baserunner getting picked off with no outs lowers run expectancy by .522 runs.

 

So yea, I'm going with it being worse.

[Sessh]

2 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

Three guys I'd rather have than a good base stealer:

1. The guy who gets 20 more extra base hits
2. The guy who saves 10 more runs in the field
3. The guy who isn't good at stealing bases but is an expert at going first to third

Being a base stealer alone won't get you anywhere. It's a supplementary skill that will likely make the rest of your game better since being a base stealer suggests a player that will have a quick first move which is especially useful for an outfielder. It would also guarantee the first-to-third thing on your list. I'm not sure why it has to be either/or, though. I'd rather have #1 or #2 that could steal bases as opposed to one that couldn't on the presupposition that this kind of speed improves other aspects of their game.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Being a base stealer alone won't get you anywhere. It's a supplementary skill that will likely make the rest of your game better since being a base stealer suggests a player that will have a quick first move which is especially useful for an outfielder. It would also guarantee the first-to-third thing on your list. I'm not sure why it has to be either/or, though. I'd rather have #1 or #2 that could steal bases as opposed to one that couldn't on the presupposition that this kind of speed improves other aspects of their game.

You can be a good basestealer and not be that fast.  Roberts wasn't that fast.

[Sessh]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Just grabbed my copy of The Book

Leadoff guy of an inning, so no one on base, no outs.

RE 0 outs, no one on base- .356

RE 1 out, no one on base- .182

ER 0 outs, runner on first- .704

So a strikeout to lead off an inning lowers run expectancy by .174 runs.  A lone baserunner getting picked off with no outs lowers run expectancy by .522 runs.

 

So yea, I'm going with it being worse.

Considering that there are more strikeouts per month than there are hits (at least last year there were), that really adds up. It's a worse product. For better or worse, stuff happens when guys are on base. More guys need to get on base. Again, it's a "let's not try because we might fail" approach, but having more strikeouts than hits is okay. The game needs to be made more exciting if there's to be any hope of bringing in new fans.

[Sessh]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You can be a good basestealer and not be that fast.  Roberts wasn't that fast.

Roberts mastered that jumping lead of his. I haven't seen anyone do it better than he did.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Considering that there are more strikeouts per month than there are hits (at least last year there were), that really adds up. It's a worse product. For better or worse, stuff happens when guys are on base. More guys need to get on base. Again, it's a "let's not try because we might fail" approach, but having more strikeouts than hits is okay. The game needs to be made more exciting if there's to be any hope of bringing in new fans.

I don't like guys getting picked off of first because it does more to lessen my team's chances of winning.  I find it a better product when they score runs.

If you find Villar getting picked off to be a better product than I am glad for you that he is on the team.

[Sessh]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't like guys getting picked off of first because it does more to lessen my team's chances of winning.  I find it a better product when they score runs.

If you find Villar getting picked off to be a better product than I am glad for you that he is on the team.

Well, obviously I would rather he not get picked off, but if I had to choose between Villar striking out and Villar getting on base and then getting picked off, I go with the latter. At least there's some entertainment value and at least he got on base and it's even better if there were guys on base ahead of him because maybe someone scores or advances a base or two before he gets picked off.

Of course, maybe I wouldn't feel that way if we were actually good, but I don't think we'd have any Villar's on the team if we were good and we wouldn't be making so many air-headed outs on the bases either. Anything is better than a strikeout especially when there's more of them than there are hits over the course of a season these days. Fortunately, there aren't many players who make as many mistakes on the bases as Villar does.

I find it a better product when they score runs, too. I also find it a better product when I see the team being aggressive and taking chances trying to create scoring opportunities (ie; manufacturing runs), but there should be a balance between patience and aggressiveness. Too much of either can be a bad thing.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sessh said:

Well, obviously I would rather he not get picked off, but if I had to choose between Villar striking out and Villar getting on base and then getting picked off, I go with the latter. At least there's some entertainment value and at least he got on base and it's even better if there were guys on base ahead of him because maybe someone scores or advances a base or two before he gets picked off.

Of course, maybe I wouldn't feel that way if we were actually good, but I don't think we'd have any Villar's on the team if we were good and we wouldn't be making so many air-headed outs on the bases either. Anything is better than a strikeout especially when there's more of them than there are hits over the course of a season these days. Fortunately, there aren't many players who make as many mistakes on the bases as Villar does.

I find it a better product when they score runs, too. I also find it a better product when I see the team being aggressive and taking chances trying to create scoring opportunities (ie; manufacturing runs), but there should be a balance between patience and aggressiveness. Too much of either can be a bad thing.

I'll take a strikeout over a non-run scoring weak ground ball double play any day of the week.

[Sessh]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'll take a strikeout over a non-run scoring weak ground ball double play any day of the week.

Point taken. :)

[Philip]

4 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

I don't think Sisco is going to get any better at throwing out runners because his velocities on his throws are pretty low overall so it's not all footwork and release like we thought.

I prefer Severino overall and think he's got a nice chance to have a nice long career behind the plate, even if it will mostly be in a backup or platoon role. Sisco's bat has improved enough that I'd like to see if he's able to add to his versatility so they can find a way to get him in the lineup. 

I could be wrong, but I don't think Sisco will be a longterm major league catcher unless a team is willing to overlook the flaws in his defensive game. Good, contending teams tend to want good defensive catchers.

Ok that’s exactly my own thought. Thanks!