Where will the O's player leadership come from in 2023?

[forphase1]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

 

Some people dismiss this stuff.  I don’t.  Too many players and coaches have said it matters.  

I don't know any ex MLB players, but I do know some ex NFL players and coaches.  Trust me, much of what is said is complete  bs when it comes to this stuff, at least in football.  I'd assume baseball is similar.  But seriously, when a reporter asks a Adley what it means to him to have a Chrinos around or a Mateo how Odor helps him, what are they supposed to say?  They can't say the bat really helps the team or that Chirinos is playing great defense.   So they fall back on tired platitudes about leadership and club house presence.  

Yes,  I'm sure in some rare occurances they legitimately teach something to a youngster that they didn't already know.   Or helped with a particular MLB routine.  But overall the actual impact on the won loss record is negligible and isn't something that should be given much,  if any,  consideration in determining who we sign or the makeup of the roster. 

[Frobby]

On 11/16/2022 at 10:31 PM, forphase1 said:

I don't know any ex MLB players, but I do know some ex NFL players and coaches.  Trust me, much of what is said is complete  bs when it comes to this stuff, at least in football.  I'd assume baseball is similar.  But seriously, when a reporter asks a Adley what it means to him to have a Chrinos around or a Mateo how Odor helps him, what are they supposed to say?  They can't say the bat really helps the team or that Chirinos is playing great defense.   So they fall back on tired platitudes about leadership and club house presence.  

Yes,  I'm sure in some rare occurances they legitimately teach something to a youngster that they didn't already know.   Or helped with a particular MLB routine.  But overall the actual impact on the won loss record is negligible and isn't something that should be given much,  if any,  consideration in determining who we sign or the makeup of the roster. 

I’m sure there are some platitudes but I believe in the value of player mentors.  I’ll only say that playing ability generally is the most important thing.  Given the choice between a very good player who isn’t much of a mentor, and a mediocre player who’s a good mentor, you’re going to want the better player.   Hopefully you can find guys who are both good players and can be good mentors.   

[forphase1]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’m sure there are some platitudes but I believe in the value of player mentors.  I’ll only say that playing ability generally is the most important thing.  Given the choice between a very good player who isn’t much of a mentor, and a mediocre player who’s a good mentor, you’re going to want the better player.   Hopefully you can find guys who are both good players and can be good mentors.   

Sure, I'm not against the 'intangibles' per se.  What I'm against is having a guy who is simply not good at his job and yet he's kept around simply for the 'mentoring', clubhouse presence, creating a winning culture, etc etc.  Again, I believe most of that to just be fluff and feel good stuff, as what else positive can you say really?  Now sure, if we are choosing between player A and player B, and both are roughly equal in what we expect them to produce on the field, if then you want to take the better clubhouse guy, then fine, that can certainly be a small factor in things.  But to bring in player C, who is clearly inferior on the field/bat to players A and B simply because of 'leadership' or some other fairy dust type thing is silly.  

[Frobby]

13 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Sure, I'm not against the 'intangibles' per se.  What I'm against is having a guy who is simply not good at his job and yet he's kept around simply for the 'mentoring', clubhouse presence, creating a winning culture, etc etc.  Again, I believe most of that to just be fluff and feel good stuff, as what else positive can you say really?  Now sure, if we are choosing between player A and player B, and both are roughly equal in what we expect them to produce on the field, if then you want to take the better clubhouse guy, then fine, that can certainly be a small factor in things.  But to bring in player C, who is clearly inferior on the field/bat to players A and B simply because of 'leadership' or some other fairy dust type thing is silly.  

Yeah, I mostly agree with this.  There might be exceptions on the negative side, i.e., good players who are complete jerks in the clubhouse.   But I think most players are pretty good teammates and can be decent mentors once they have the requisite experience.  Honestly, a young player probably will put more credence in what a good veteran player does than in what a mediocre one does.  

[DrungoHazewood]

I hear Rougned Odor is available and he's cheap.  Plus he's clutch.

[Can_of_corn]

12 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I hear Rougned Odor is available and he's cheap.  Plus he's clutch.

He's a fighter.

[forphase1]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Yeah, I mostly agree with this.  There might be exceptions on the negative side, i.e., good players who are complete jerks in the clubhouse.   But I think most players are pretty good teammates and can be decent mentors once they have the requisite experience.  Honestly, a young player probably will put more credence in what a good veteran player does than in what a mediocre one does.  

For sure.  It's funny at times, like I fully do think there can be 'cancers', those players who create such a negative environment around them that it DOES actually hurt the team as guys aren't as focused or prepared or whatever due to all the distractions.  But I'm not sure I agree with the opposite, that someone can really make folks play better due to their presence in the clubhouse.  I guess it's like 'clutch' for me.  I'm a firm non-believer when it comes to clutch.  I don't think player X suddenly becomes a better hitter or can see the ball better just because its a big game situation or whatever.  Now maybe they can be a bit more selective and try to do things a bit more differently, like hitting the ball in the air for a sac fly or something, but that's just situational baseball, and not a superhuman talent in pressure situations.  Almost all clutch numbers are simply a matter of SSS.  Give me a .250 hitter who happens to hit .333 in 'clutch' situations, I'd highly wager than in the next 10 clutch situations he's much more likely to get a hit a 1/4 of the time versus the 1/3rd of the time his clutch numbers would suggest.  That said, I DO think that some players crumble under the pressure and perform WORSE in clutch situation.  Call it pressing or expanding the zone or whatever, some just don't have the mental makeup to perform in high pressure situations.  For me, at most, clutch is the ability to still perform to your best capabilities even in high pressure situations.  But a player who is already giving 100% effort can't suddenly give 110% effort (I know we use it as a cliché' but it isn't really possible to give more than 100% ability) just because it's the bottom of the 9th, 2 outs and a runner on 3rd.  

Sorry for the tangent on clutch, didn't mean to go down that rabbit hole.  

[Can_of_corn]

If a player consistently performs better in "clutch" situations I wonder why he doesn't do it all the time?

Does his focus wonder?

[Frobby]

38 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If a player consistently performs better in "clutch" situations I wonder why he doesn't do it all the time?

Does his focus wonder?

It may boil down to being mentally stronger than most pitchers in that situation.  If it exists.  Honestly, in all my years watching baseball I’ve only seen two players who seemed to be noticeably better in clutch situations over a large sample: Eddie Murray and George Brett.  I’m sure there are some others, but those two really seemed to psyche out the pitchers who faced them in big situations.   

[DrungoHazewood]

42 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If a player consistently performs better in "clutch" situations I wonder why he doesn't do it all the time?

Does his focus wonder?

The world sim uses a Gaussian distribution of clutch and non-clutch ability and two aren't correlated, so sometimes the Matrix just works it out that way.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It may boil down to being mentally stronger than most pitchers in that situation.  If it exists.  Honestly, in all my years watching baseball I’ve only seen two players who seemed to be noticeably better in clutch situations over a large sample: Eddie Murray and George Brett.  I’m sure there are some others, but those two really seemed to psyche out the pitchers who faced them in big situations.   

You wouldn't have Ortiz on that list?

[wildcard]

9 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It may boil down to being mentally stronger than most pitchers in that situation.  If it exists.  Honestly, in all my years watching baseball I’ve only seen two players who seemed to be noticeably better in clutch situations over a large sample: Eddie Murray and George Brett.  I’m sure there are some others, but those two really seemed to psyche out the pitchers who faced them in big situations.   

Frank

[wildcard]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You wouldn't have Ortiz on that list?

Did you ever see Ortiz in a rage destroy a phone.  Why do you think that happened?

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Frank

I wasn't alive when he was an Oriole and four year old me didn't catch many Indian games.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, wildcard said:

Did you ever see Ortiz in a rage destroy a phone.  Why do you think that happened?

Someone inquiring if he wants to get extended coverage on his car?