Jump to content

Any chance that the O’s are in on Ha-Seong Kim


Roll Tide

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Ten million people in South Korea have the name Kim.  That's 20% of the population.

 

 

44 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Ten million people in South Korea have the name Kim.  That's 20% of the population.

 

How many MLB baseball players in history have been named HS Kim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

 

How many MLB baseball players in history have been named HS Kim?

What difference does that make?

Players have only recently gone from the KBO to MLB.  You are very unlikely to be named HS Kim if you do not come from Korea.

The idea that multiple players from South Korea might be named Kim and have the same initials shouldn't be surprising.

Here is the list, not a huge amount of name variance, for instance, every name listed starts with a consonant, of which Hangul only has 14. 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/bio/South-Korea_born.shtml

Multiple David Johnsons is more notable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What difference does that make?

Players have only recently gone from the KBO to MLB.  You are very unlikely to be named HS Kim if you do not come from Korea.

The idea that multiple players from South Korea might be named Kim and have the same initials shouldn't be surprising.

Here is the list, not a huge amount of name variance, for instance, every name listed starts with a consonant, of which Hangul only has 14. 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/bio/South-Korea_born.shtml

Multiple David Johnsons is more notable.

You are being obstinant as usual over a trivial point. All I said is it would be statistically improbable given the number of HS Kim's in MLB previously. I think it's time I put you on ignore along with atomic. Have an excellent day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What difference does that make?

Players have only recently gone from the KBO to MLB.  You are very unlikely to be named HS Kim if you do not come from Korea.

The idea that multiple players from South Korea might be named Kim and have the same initials shouldn't be surprising.

Here is the list, not a huge amount of name variance, for instance, every name listed starts with a consonant, of which Hangul only has 14. 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/bio/South-Korea_born.shtml

Multiple David Johnsons is more notable.

About 1.5% of people in the US have the last name Johnson.   About 2.4% of US males have the First name David.   So, figure .00036 chance that an American male is named David Johnson.    Sounds small, but with 165 mm American males, there are probably 59,000 David Johnsons roaming around the US today.   It’s certainly one of the most common names, but not that common.    The odds that two players in Orioles history would have that name are extremely small.    I don’t know how many players have played for the Orioles, but it’s probably under 2,000.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a little further down this rabbit hole, about 19,000 players have played in MLB and about 110 (.0058) have had the last name Johnson.   That’s a much lower percentage (less than half) than the percentage of the general population named Johnson.   Part of the reason would be all the foreign players, probably none of whom are named Johnson.   Not sure what explains the rest.   

Back to regular life now.   
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Philip said:

He seems Interesting, but I would remind that our current cache of players includes a vast surplus of 1B/DH types, followed by a plentitude of outfielders. Why would we want another?

Because he plays SS and 3B.

Or have you scouted him and are sure he can't play there in MLB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, tarheeloriole said:

range in the sense of what we would be willing to spend in a hypothetical world where we would be willing to sign a player above league minimum I guess

Not really I suppose. Maybe 800k to a million. Tops. Like I said Iglesias is the big signing and Trey doesn't get to stay if he wants 4. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

We know Peter never participated in the posting player process.


Any chance Elias can get the approval and can justify the investment in this guy. Looks to be the next good Korean ball player and he’s only 25. This is the kind of player that I’d want them to take a chance on. And we have a hole at 3B.
 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/10/ha-seong-kim-shortstop-posted-kiwoom-heroes-kbo-mlb.html

Let's put it this way. If the team is really making coaching decisions based off money, they are not in on a Korean free agent.

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

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...