Jump to content

How Much Do You Credit the Elias/Sig Development Methods for the Teams Offense


kidrock

Recommended Posts

Question for the O's faithful here.  How much stock/credit do you put in Elias/Sig's player development approach for some of the young guys on offense who are performing well?  Do you give their "process" a lot of credit for some of the successes with Nunez, Alberto, Santander etc?  Do you feel confident that, after a small sample size of their development process, that they can improve more players?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about those guys but it sure seems like things that had previous been noted as holes in Mountcastle's offensive game we're not there when he came up.

Mullins and Sisco spent time getting instruction and Bowie and came back up looking better at the plate too.

Nunez, Alberto, and Santander all had SOME history of being the kind of hitters they are this year at various levels of the minors.  They just finally got opportunity at the MLB level to play regularly under our new regime.  And they have all impressed.  Don't know if it's just getting the opportunity that has made the difference or the "process".  

Sure seems like two things are going on:

1) Elias & co doing a great job identifying castoffs from other orgs or free agents with potential (Nunez, Alberto, Valaika, Severino, Iglesias)

2) Lots of guys seem to be getting the most out of their abilities under the tutelage of our new regime.

Probably a combination of both, but the results are very good either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They get some credit, but the credit goes to the players really.  Knowledge is not power, its the application of knowledge that is powerful.  Elias and crew may have presented them with data, film, etc, but the players are the ones that put the work in to apply it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SteveA said:

I don't know about those guys but it sure seems like things that had previous been noted as holes in Mountcastle's offensive game we're not there when he came up.

Mullins and Sisco spent time getting instruction and Bowie and came back up looking better at the plate too.

Nunez, Alberto, and Santander all had SOME history of being the kind of hitters they are this year at various levels of the minors.  They just finally got opportunity at the MLB level to play regularly under our new regime.  And they have all impressed.  Don't know if it's just getting the opportunity that has made the difference or the "process".  

Sure seems like two things are going on:

1) Elias & co doing a great job identifying castoffs from other orgs or free agents with potential (Nunez, Alberto, Valaika, Severino, Iglesias)

2) Lots of guys seem to be getting the most out of their abilities under the tutelage of our new regime.

Probably a combination of both, but the results are very good either way.

Stewart.

I'd also say that they have had their share of failed "castoffs".  They've thrown a lot of **** against the wall and it looks like some of it stuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, kidrock said:

Question for the O's faithful here.  How much stock/credit do you put in Elias/Sig's player development approach for some of the young guys on offense who are performing well?  Do you give their "process" a lot of credit for some of the successes with Nunez, Alberto, Santander etc?  Do you feel confident that, after a small sample size of their development process, that they can improve more players?

I've been wondering the same thing and on the pitching side as well, but impossible to quantify what is just natural talent coming through and what is analytical changes to the players game unless they specifically site something they changed with a player.  Regardless, I just hope we keep seeing positive results and start working our way out of this rebuild sooner than later, really been enjoying competitive Orioles games of late. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Stewart.

I'd also say that they have had their share of failed "castoffs".  They've thrown a lot of **** against the wall and it looks like some of it stuck.

That is exactly how I see their approach. The O's comparative advantage the last three years has been near unlimited opportunity to try out random castoffs. Contenders can't carry multiple DFA guys and Rule 5 picks. Teams with rich farm systems have to protect more guys on their 40 Man Rosters. They have gone through a lot of chaff to get to the wheat but they have found some value in the process. 

Certainly the O's developmental people haven't done any harm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, because I'm not sure how many of this year's performances are real.  It can't all be real, you just don't have a group of players all suddenly out-do their career marks by 150 points of OPS.  Well, not legally...

We also don't have many particulars about what might have changed.  Does Mullins say he's hitting better because of something the organization changed in his approach, or is he just hitting better for a few weeks? 

I'm very skeptical of magic changes.  Especially large ones.  The Orioles' OPS+ went from 90 in 2019 to 110 so far in 2020 despite subtracting more talent than they added.  If all of that is real and it's due to a change in approach or technique then Elias' staff is worth their weight in gold.  Or plutonium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, murph said:

I've been wondering the same thing and on the pitching side as well, but impossible to quantify what is just natural talent coming through and what is analytical changes to the players game unless they specifically site something they changed with a player.  Regardless, I just hope we keep seeing positive results and start working our way out of this rebuild sooner than later, really been enjoying competitive Orioles games of late. 

That's exactly what I was thinking as well.  Its hard to tell what is just natural talent and what is the new processes.  I was expecting this team to be far worse and I am encouraged about the team.  I think the only real way to tell is to look over a 5-8 year time horizon really.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

That is exactly how I see their approach. The O's comparative advantage the last three years has been near unlimited opportunity to try out random castoffs. Contenders can't carry multiple DFA guys and Rule 5 picks. Teams with rich farm systems have to protect more guys on their 40 Man Rosters. They have gone through a lot of chaff to get to the wheat but they have found some value in the process. 

Certainly the O's developmental people haven't done any harm. 

Yeah good point.  Being bad has a lot of advantages from a playing time standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't know, because I'm not sure how many of this year's performances are real.  It can't all be real, you just don't have a group of players all suddenly out-do their career marks by 150 points of OPS.  Well, not legally...

We also don't have many particulars about what might have changed.  Does Mullins say he's hitting better because of something the organization changed in his approach, or is he just hitting better for a few weeks? 

I'm very skeptical of magic changes.  Especially large ones.  The Orioles' OPS+ went from 90 in 2019 to 110 so far in 2020 despite subtracting more talent than they added.  If all of that is real and it's due to a change in approach or technique then Elias' staff is worth their weight in gold.  Or plutonium.

Mullins went to an O's recommended hitting coach over the off season and he changed his swing.

The Tigers and Marlins have made similar jumps this season.   Its not jump the O's that are going from really bad to middle of the pack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, you hurt can’t draw conclusions about anything for this season.

The one thing I am enjoying seeing is the attitude of these guys.  They aren’t scared or overwhelmed.  They are well prepared and seem to be ready to be here.

Its a confident group of young players and that is the mindset you want to see.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...