Orioles make an offer to Yasiel Puig. UPDATE: Puig to sign with Braves Tests POSITIVE for COVID 19

[Roll Tide]

17 minutes ago, interloper said:

Agreed, not exactly efficient. I'm guessing they made a pretty lowball offer with that in mind. It's one thing to spend $3 mil on a shortstop when there's no heir apparent, it's another to spend that on a COF who you have plenty of, arguably.

How do we have plenty....they’ve been practicing with holes in the outfield. The guy would’ve been their best offensive player

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Roll Tide said:

How do we have plenty....they’ve been practicing with holes in the outfield. The guy would’ve been their best offensive player

He had an OPS+ of 100 last year.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

[Sanfran327]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

He had an OPS+ of 100 last year.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

But tonight, in the land of the skunks, the man with half a nose is king. Sing the song, boys!

[Enjoy Terror]

10 minutes ago, Sanfran327 said:

But tonight, in the land of the skunks, the man with half a nose is king. Sing the song, boys!

That’s one of my favorite movies.

Don Rickles is amazing in it.

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, Enjoy Terror said:

Oh stop. They are literally practicing with ghost outfielders because they don't have anyone to play the position.

To be honest, any team that is comfortable putting Mark Trumbo in the outfield shouldn’t complain about the Dwight Smith Juniors of the world.

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, ScGO's said:

Stop? Puig takes 200-250 ABs away from the others.  Why is Hayes, Santander, Stewart, Mountcastle, Diaz, Williams, Smith Jr, Wilkerson, Velasquez not enough?  I'd even give McKenna some hacks.  Signing Puig is a Duquette Era move, not blaming Dan as he was handcuffed, but this is suppose to be a different team with a different, more pragmatic and proactive approach, than the team Dan had.

Clap clap clap clap  

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, Enjoy Terror said:

Evidently it's a 2020 Braves move who just won 97 games, and have a young outfield of Acuna, Riley, and if not Nick Markakis then top prospect Cristian Pache. Oh and don't forget Inciarte and Ozuna.

But sure, keep telling me that Smith, Williams, and Wilkerson are suddenly in line for storied Orioles careers because we didn't sign Puig.

That’s a straw man.

The reasons against signing Puig weren’t because he’s not better than the guys we have.

 

[SteveA]

59 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Really? When was that? OBP and the Os being mostly part at it has been discussed most of the time I’ve been here. It was a reason I was pissed when they gave Villar away for dumpster fodder and passed on A Martin and drafted Kjerstad.

Onbase percentage was first a major league stat in 1984.

But in the pre-internet era, you really couldn't get the onbase percentage of a player until the final season stats were compiled and printed in a postseason book that came out during the winter.   During the season, you could only get player stats for all the players from a publication such as the Sporting News, and I don't believe they listed players onbase percentage.   Walks were not in box scores until some point in the early 90s.

Now teams could subscribe to a pay service from a company like Elias that could provide them with onbase percentage, but there was no way for the average fan who didn't pay for that service to know the onbase percentage of players around the league.   Not until January or so when they bought the publication that had detailed stats for last year that included little used stats like onbase percentage.

Even after that stuff became available on the internet and newspaper box scores started including walks, most fans / reporters /  broadcasters paid little percentage to onbase percentage.   It would get mentioned every once in a while.   Probably some forward thinking GMs paid a lot of attention to it, and the relatively small community of  early Sabermetricians (people who read Bill James Abestract every year or the early Baseball Prospectus) started paying attention to it in the mid 90s.

So yeah, there was a time when onbase percentage was little know to all but a very small number of people.   The Sunday paper would list all the stats for hitters with enough at bats, ordered by batting average.   They'd list average, RBIs, HRs.    You would see leaderboards for those stats plus doubles, triples, and a few others.   If you subscribed to the Sporting News you would see more, but I'm not sure if you would see the onbase percentage for every player.   You might have seen a walk total for every player so if you had a calculator you could compute the OBP yourself.

[Frobby]

34 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Onbase percentage was first a major league stat in 1984.

But in the pre-internet era, you really couldn't get the onbase percentage of a player until the final season stats were compiled and printed in a postseason book that came out during the winter.   During the season, you could only get player stats for all the players from a publication such as the Sporting News, and I don't believe they listed players onbase percentage.   Walks were not in box scores until some point in the early 90s.

Now teams could subscribe to a pay service from a company like Elias that could provide them with onbase percentage, but there was no way for the average fan who didn't pay for that service to know the onbase percentage of players around the league.   Not until January or so when they bought the publication that had detailed stats for last year that included little used stats like onbase percentage.

Even after that stuff became available on the internet and newspaper box scores started including walks, most fans / reporters /  broadcasters paid little percentage to onbase percentage.   It would get mentioned every once in a while.   Probably some forward thinking GMs paid a lot of attention to it, and the relatively small community of  early Sabermetricians (people who read Bill James Abestract every year or the early Baseball Prospectus) started paying attention to it in the mid 90s.

So yeah, there was a time when onbase percentage was little know to all but a very small number of people.   The Sunday paper would list all the stats for hitters with enough at bats, ordered by batting average.   They'd list average, RBIs, HRs.    You would see leaderboards for those stats plus doubles, triples, and a few others.   If you subscribed to the Sporting News you would see more, but I'm not sure if you would see the onbase percentage for every player.   You might have seen a walk total for every player so if you had a calculator you could compute the OBP yourself.

I realize I’m not the average fan, but OBP was a stat I was well aware of long before 1984.     And while it’s not exact, if you just calculated H+BB/AB+BB you’d be within 5 points of OBP more than 90% of the time.  

I wrote a paper in college (1979 graduate) that discussed how tesm BA, OBP and  SLG correlated with runs scored.    And I still remember the professor commented that there were people out there writing much more sophisticated analyses than the one I’d done.   Ouch!
 

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Frobby said:

I realize I’m not the average fan, but OBP was a stat I was well aware of long before 1984.     And while it’s not exact, if you just calculated H+BB/AB+BB you’d be within 5 points of OBP more than 90% of the time.  

I wrote a paper in college (1979 graduate) that discussed how tesm BA, OBP and  SLG correlated with runs scored.    And I still remember the professor commented that there were people out there writing much more sophisticated analyses than the one I’d done.   Ouch!
 

 

I was fixated on GWRBI at the time.

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I was fixated on GWRBI at the time.

For the years it was an official stat, Eddie Murray was the all-time AL leader.   

[eddie83]

2 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

Really? When was that? OBP and the Os being mostly part at it has been discussed most of the time I’ve been here. It was a reason I was pissed when they gave Villar away for dumpster fodder and passed on A Martin and drafted Kjerstad.

Early 90’s. Never saw a graphic on TV and the stats only came in the Sunday paper. 

[eddie83]

1 hour ago, SteveA said:

Onbase percentage was first a major league stat in 1984.

But in the pre-internet era, you really couldn't get the onbase percentage of a player until the final season stats were compiled and printed in a postseason book that came out during the winter.   During the season, you could only get player stats for all the players from a publication such as the Sporting News, and I don't believe they listed players onbase percentage.   Walks were not in box scores until some point in the early 90s.

Now teams could subscribe to a pay service from a company like Elias that could provide them with onbase percentage, but there was no way for the average fan who didn't pay for that service to know the onbase percentage of players around the league.   Not until January or so when they bought the publication that had detailed stats for last year that included little used stats like onbase percentage.

Even after that stuff became available on the internet and newspaper box scores started including walks, most fans / reporters /  broadcasters paid little percentage to onbase percentage.   It would get mentioned every once in a while.   Probably some forward thinking GMs paid a lot of attention to it, and the relatively small community of  early Sabermetricians (people who read Bill James Abestract every year or the early Baseball Prospectus) started paying attention to it in the mid 90s.

So yeah, there was a time when onbase percentage was little know to all but a very small number of people.   The Sunday paper would list all the stats for hitters with enough at bats, ordered by batting average.   They'd list average, RBIs, HRs.    You would see leaderboards for those stats plus doubles, triples, and a few others.   If you subscribed to the Sporting News you would see more, but I'm not sure if you would see the onbase percentage for every player.   You might have seen a walk total for every player so if you had a calculator you could compute the OBP yourself.

You covered it well here. 

Back then  a .290 hitter with a .315 OBP was the superior player to a .268 hitter with a .380 OBP who had the same power. 

All about BA, HR, RBI. 

[eddie83]

25 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I realize I’m not the average fan, but OBP was a stat I was well aware of long before 1984.     And while it’s not exact, if you just calculated H+BB/AB+BB you’d be within 5 points of OBP more than 90% of the time.  

I wrote a paper in college (1979 graduate) that discussed how tesm BA, OBP and  SLG correlated with runs scored.    And I still remember the professor commented that there were people out there writing much more sophisticated analyses than the one I’d done.   Ouch!
 

 

And yet 23 years later Moneyball was based on the OBP and SLG strategy. 

You were way ahead of your time.

Your professor sounds like an ass. 

[Roll Tide]

28 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

Early 90’s. Never saw a graphic on TV and the stats only came in the Sunday paper. 

Batting average, RBI, and Homers were the key back then. 
 

but, I was aware of OBP as well. Although I never wrote a paper on it.

one of my favorite Orioles back then  had a .343 career OBP. He was a fast player and getting on base was a big part of his game....Can you guess who?

Leadoff hitter, played CF, nickname was The Bee!