Do we need a closer?

[btdart20]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It can't?

Isn't that something models should be being used to predict?

It's a computer program.  Maybe even a glorified Excel spreadsheet.  Who knows... 

I'd say it's somewhere between "not quite" and "it depends" on how you're looking at it.  Models cannot anticipate human behavior changes unless it has some type of cutting edge artificial intelligence.  It can predict $1b IF it's within the historic norms or anticipated changes programmed for (like based on projected payroll capacity of other teams, inflation rate of payroll, project WAR/value of players, number of FA, quality of FA, etc.).  But it cannot add "damn the torpedoes, we're blowing through the salary cap regardless of the consequences" shift in human behavior to the parameters unless it's specifically programmed for.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

It's a computer program.  Maybe even a glorified Excel spreadsheet.  Who knows... 

I'd say it's somewhere between "not quite" and "it depends" on how you're looking at it.  Models cannot anticipate human behavior changes unless it has some type of cutting edge artificial intelligence.  It can predict $1b IF it's within the historic norms or anticipated changes programmed for (like based on projected payroll capacity of other teams, inflation rate of payroll, project WAR/value of players, number of FA, quality of FA, etc.).  But it cannot add "damn the torpedoes, we're blowing through the salary cap regardless of the consequences" shift in human behavior to the parameters unless it's specifically programmed for.

I'm not suggesting it should be infallible but isn't things like predicting trends in player compensation something that should be being looked at?

I'm assuming that a whole bunch of owners didn't just all suddenly decide to start spending more money independent of known underlying factors.

[NCRaven]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It can't?

Isn't that something models should be being used to predict?

The decisions to spend far more than has been spent in the past is human behavior, unless you're Harry Seldon, human behavior is very difficult to predict.  And, even then he found mass behavior easier to predict than the actions of an individual or small group of individuals. [Note:  For science fiction fans only.]

[owknows]

3 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

Not sure, Im in agreement with bona fide deals on the table.

Is he kicking the tires, so he can report back that he tried?

There is money to be spent, and they are not spending it.

 

Happens to me all the time.

Me: Why did you buy an electric muffin top remover?

She: I had a 30% off coupon... and it expired tomorrow.

[SteveA]

47 minutes ago, Going Underground said:

Most people I  know, care way more about the Ravens. Mostly Raven talk even on the flagship. Slight buzz about the Orioles when Adley came up. See attendance staying about the same ,unless they get off to a quick start.

The biggest driver for attendance is season ticket sales, and advance sales.   A hot start can help.

I do expect our season ticket base will be higher next year than this year.   Not a lot, but some.   The way to tell will be what is the attendance for a cold, rainy Tuesday night April game vs non desirable opponent.   Last year, those type of games bottomed out around 7000.   I'll bet it's more like 9000 this year.  

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, owknows said:

Happens to me all the time.

Me: Why did you buy an electric muffin top remover?

She: I had a 30% off coupon... and it expired tomorrow.

Also the gas powered ones are extremely loud.  2/10 would not recommend.

[Sanity Check]

4 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I think he has some ownership constraints but I also think a lot of this is what Elias wants.

As in, "I like our guys"

Has a ring to it......

[tabletop]

Elias said the other day he won’t make moves to win in 2023 that could hurt future teams. Last year in a playoff chase he traded the closer and the face of the franchise for prospects. Things like that matter to people in the real world. Why would someone sign a 1 or 2 year deal with the O’s if they care about winning? The GM already showed and has stated he isn’t considering the team an AL East contender in 2023. The only reason to sign a short term deal with the O’s is money.

His moves might look good on Fangraphs or statcast but in the real world what he is doing and saying has and will continue to have consequences until he shows he’s trying to win.

[btdart20]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not suggesting it should be infallible but isn't things like predicting trends in player compensation something that should be being looked at?

I'm assuming that a whole bunch of owners didn't just all suddenly decide to start spending more money independent of known underlying factors.

Compensation trends = sure.  NPV of stock valuation is based on assumptions of what federal lending rates will be.  Asset managers take educated guesses even there.  The same type of thing happens here.  Like we know the MLB payroll trends for teams, what teams are in rebuilds, what teams are in salary cap tax territory, what $/WAR trends are for the last 3-5 years...  

But the second piece is a change in the trends.  To some degree it can be anticipated.  Like we had to know NYY would make a run at Judge and NYM had significant gaps in their rotation.  But TEX signing deGrom, Heaney, and Perez?  I think many assumed LAD, SFG, and PHI would be active in the SS market.  But SDP putting out contracts for Turner and Bogaerts?  It really feels like there was some active bidding on services this year (or 'price enforcing' if nothing else).   While it's a significant apples/oranges comparison:  FG crowd source had Trea Turner down for a $210m 7-year contract.  He got an 11-year $300m deal.  "Collective wisdom" (i.e. the norm) was off the mark by nearly 50%.  Same deal for Bogaerts, deGrom, Nimmo, and Bassitt.  Taillon was almost 100% wrong.  All of the guesses were way too low.  I suspect (like our assumptions) models were making similar assumptions because they missed a key factor(s) of the market.  

[Just Regular]

2 hours ago, btdart20 said:

FG crowd source had Trea Turner down for a $210m 7-year contract.  He got an 11-year $300m deal.  "Collective wisdom" (i.e. the norm) was off the mark by nearly 50%. 

Imagine he'd taken Preller's 350!     As the world keeps creeping past the covid pig in the python, I think some of the juice was the first in-person Winter Meetings since 2019.     GM's are people too.   It happened to synchronize with a fresh CBA.    Mike Elias assures me, It's historic!!

I think Sig would put it like the models are just there to inform the decision, not regulate it.    Its conventional wisdom if your bid is just what the model says, you'll be 3rd.    The No-Limit pots GM's have to play once they pass talent accumulation mode are somewhat about limiting the damage, but practically speaking you cannot complete a championship roster without buying some of the world's greatest ballplayers of demonstrated excellence.

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Just Regular

[jerios55]

20 hours ago, NCRaven said:

The decisions to spend far more than has been spent in the past is human behavior, unless you're Harry Seldon, human behavior is very difficult to predict.  And, even then he found mass behavior easier to predict than the actions of an individual or small group of individuals. [Note:  For science fiction fans only.]

There is info built into the new CBA, info on TV deals and monies coming in the future.

While I agree there is a human element, there are historical trends that can provide some data for future chances.  

A few mid-market teams consistently use X amount of TV/ticket revenue each year.  TV revenue going up Y.  Maintaining the percentage used you can estimate Z increase in spending.  This would generate a range (maybe wide range...), but I think there are tools/predictors that could be created to remove any "shock" factors when big deals come up.

Edited December 14, 2022 by jerios55

[Three Run Homer]

On 12/13/2022 at 10:08 AM, Frobby said:

No, I don’t mean the pitching kind.  I’m perfectly satisfied with Felix Bautista in that role for the foreseeable future.  

I mean the GM kind.  I’m satisfied that the O’s made bona fide multi-year offers to various FA pitchers, but it seems we can’t close a deal.  I see many posters blaming it on the owners, but it’s also possible that Elias just hadn’t figured out when to pull the trigger on a deal.  

Or, maybe he has correctly concluded that the right deal hasn’t come along yet.  

 

Is there reporting that confirms that the O's have made bona-fide offers for pitchers other than Gibson?    I'm sure that Elias has had conversations with agents, but that's different from making an offer.    

[RZNJ]

9 minutes ago, Three Run Homer said:

Is there reporting that confirms that the O's have made bona-fide offers for pitchers other than Gibson?    I'm sure that Elias has had conversations with agents, but that's different from making an offer.    

At one point John Morosi said the Orioles were the front runner for Bassitt.  I don’t know how that happens without making an offer.  Assuming the rumor was true.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

At one point John Morosi said the Orioles were the front runner for Bassitt.  I don’t know how that happens without making an offer.  Assuming the rumor was true.

He never said they were the front runner.

[RZNJ]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

He never said they were the front runner.

You’re correct. My bad.  Saw the quote pop up somewhere but it was not reliable. Misinterpretation by whoever posted it.