Is the Orioles evaluation process for bounce back players "sophisticated"?

[btdart20]

10 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Odor is clearly a guy the Orioles thought would bounce back and he did not. Aguilar is clearly a guy they thought would help them hit left-handed pitching in a playoff run over a rookie who mashed the in the minors, he did not. 

That's twice we have guys who were bad that the Orioles picked up and guess what, they were bad.

Odor at league minimum counts as a guy they clearly thought would bounce back?  Nah.  I don't buy it.

Aguilar and Phillips are unique.  And I can agree that's how they were presented because they were "acquisitions" during a "playoff run".  At least from the fan perspective.  Did Elias really think they were assets?  Or only in a "content creator" sort of way?  Phillips seems like a hedge/buying time to make a decision around trading/keeping Mullins.  He didn't get many PAs, so I think it's safe to set him aside.

Aguilar is the one that makes me question the models.  IIRC - His EV was solid against FBs only and they thought the LHH 1B was worth the dice roll (and that's all it really cost, so not quite the same type of conviction buy that category 1 players are).  But terrible against everything else.  Which likely meant he was just keying on FB.  But pitchers knew Aguilar couldn't hit anything else either regardless of team adjustments.

I suspect the models give veterans a less risky floor (known history, prospect hit/miss rate, adjustment periods, etc.).  Which also helps explain the Frazier signing as a "stop loss" to lock in the gains from 2022 (i.e. Houston had a breakout, then a regression season, then really took off).  That seems like the piece of the puzzle that needs further refinement.

[Aristotelian]

46 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Last year the Orioles were in "win now" mode from about mid-August on. Elias acquired Phillips in August, brought up Vavra and Stowers, then signed Aguilar for September to hit against lefties when he hadn't hit all year and he had a prospect who mashed them in the minors despite batting left-handed. 

So the only thing we have to go by when the Orioles are contention was to sit Vavra and Stowers and play Odor and Aguilar. That was their evaluations during that time. 

During August-October, the Orioles went:
18-9 (.667) when Vavra started
12-11 (.521) when Stowers started
19-21 (.475) when Odor starter
5-7 (.417) when Aguilar started.

Now, obviously wins and losses when a player starts is not the be all end all to value, but it does highlight the team players better with Vavra and Stowers in the lineup then with Orioles veteran choices when they were in "contention."



 

 

They should have been in win now mode. But they traded Lopez and did not make any major acquisitions. I'm not sure what they were trying to do, but no "win now" team is going to stake their playoff chances on Aguilar and Phillips. I think thought they had the best chance of producing for zero cost and commitment, which is different than expecting them to bounce back. 

[Too Tall]

Lots of interesting discussion. Took me a while to catch up.

 I keep thinking, what sample size is needed to draw a reliable conclusion that any evaluation process validates its worth? When can you truly label any evaluation process, sophisticated? I'm asking because I think these questions are relevant to this discussion and I do not profess to know the answers.

If Frazier has a bounce back season, does that validate this process? How many successful bounce back candidates equal a sophisticated evaluation process?

My answer to the question posed is I have no idea. I'll judge the Orioles by how they do

 

 

[brvn52]

I think the level of effort into finding bounce back players has changed. Previously, the O's tried Hail Mary attempts on minimum salary guys like Ruiz, Valaika, etc. Their more 'expensive' signings were on guys like Iglesias, who was here for defensive value. They also took fliers on guys like Mateo, who hit. But all of them were no risk, with a lottery ticket of upside. This is pure speculation - but boom/bust guys make the most sense in a tank. We don't need a 1.5 WAR 3B (over a replacement level 3B) when we're winning 50 games. 

Things are changing. Elias said before 2022 we'd invest some funds on the ML roster. That was mainly into Lyles, who did improve. Things worked out immensely in the pen with several guys. 

This year, there's been multi-million dollar investments in Gibson, Frazier, and McCann. All are coming off 'down' seasons.

I think the O's level of success at reclamation projects from 2018-2021 can't really be compared to now. We will see. But this trio is the first big investment Elias & co. has made into something like this. And I think we need to wait and see.

Plus, at this point, what choice do we have but to trust the process?

[Too Tall]

on the field in 2023!

[HakunaSakata]

There ain't nuthin' sophistimicated in shoppin' for players at Walmart, hon. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

A 100% agree. Most of my argument is exactly just that, their system is not really that "sophisticated." Not that they are terrible at anything, just that they don't deserve "faith or hope" that they have some kind of sophisticated evaluations system when it comes to identifying major league "bounce back" position players.

I hope Frazier tears it up and we can say, "Damn, that Orioles evaluation system really is quite "sophisticated."

BTW, I think McCann has a better chance of rebounding. He spent most of last year hurt which accounts for his drop his production even though his EVs stayed good.

I want to be real clear about the context of what I said:

 “I think the O’s are sophisticated enough to make better judgments than you and I about who is likely to bounce back.  That doesn’t mean they’ll always be correct.”

I didn’t say they were more sophisticated than other teams.  I’m talkIng about you, me, and the other folks who post here.   And if you don’t think they have information we don’t have that factors into their decisions, I just don’t know what to say to that.

 

 

[SilverRocket]

1 hour ago, btdart20 said:

Category 1 are the actual 'bounce back' candidates in context

IMO, only Lyles was a true attempt at a "bounce back" prior to Frazier (and he didn't fit the parameters of the OP). I brought in the idea of context as a way of saying that the rest of the guys brought in aren't comparable.

...

Category 2 - "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"

The Mateo/Urias/Gutierrez/Odor/Aguilar/Franco-types

...

Comparing category 1 guys with category 2 guys will lead to faulty results.  Including category 2 guys with category 1 guys in trend analysis will lead to faulty results.

I largely agree with this. While I don't think the categories are entirely separate, with the second set, the standard for succeeding is way lower than the first. You can keep taking flyers on minimum-salary guys and if you hit on 10% of them, that's fine. And with that low a % needed to come out ahead, hitting in 0 of 8 vs 1 of 8 is going to be full of noise, but hitting in 1 of 8 would basically be a success. But if you pay $5+ million for someone, then you really need to hit on over half of those. And Lyles has been the only real test so far. I would say he was a hit but he also didn't really outperform his salary... it was a fair deal.

So I wouldn't say the evaluation process is necessarily good or bad so far. I really don't think we have the sample size to properly judge, and Frazier is the next real test.

[Sports Guy]

How about we try a method of just acquiring  good players and not worry about trying to find someone that we can fix?

[maybenxtyr]

As other's have shown, the Orioles don't appear to have a system that is any better than any other team. They actually have a not so good track record for finding a position player that may rebound.

 

When I think of a team that plucks guys up that could rebound I always think about NY.

 

Matt Carpenter was an abysmal player, but last season was his best since 2018. 

DJ LeMahieu was another player that experienced a resurgence in NY.

 

I don't know if they're really any better than anyone else but as I said, they always seem to bring guys back from the dead.

 

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, maybenxtyr said:

As other's have shown, the Orioles don't appear to have a system that is any better than any other team. They actually have a not so good track record for finding a position player that may rebound.

 

When I think of a team that plucks guys up that could rebound I always think about NY.

 

Matt Carpenter was an abysmal player, but last season was his best since 2018. 

DJ LeMahieu was another player that experienced a resurgence in NY.

 

I don't know if they're really any better than anyone else but as I said, they always seem to bring guys back from the dead.

 

I do think they have good systems.  It also helps to be surrounded by good teammates.  

[HandsomeQuack]

1 hour ago, btdart20 said:

Category 1 are the actual 'bounce back' candidates in context

IMO, only Lyles was a true attempt at a "bounce back" prior to Frazier (and he didn't fit the parameters of the OP). I brought in the idea of context as a way of saying that the rest of the guys brought in aren't comparable.

The only other guy who comes close to being a 'bounce back' candidate of the sort that Frazier represents is Iglesias.  His 1yr/$3m contract pales, while his bounce back surpassed expectations. 

We have a max of 2 FA acquisitions who we can chart a trend from.  Frazier will be the 3rd.

Category 2 - "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"

The Mateo/Urias/Gutierrez/Odor/Aguilar/Franco-types are in the "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" category.  If the point is grading how successful we are with the rest (waiver wires and league minimum FAs), then that's a different category in my mind.  They are little more than lottery tickets and seat warmers.  I have no clue what the league average waiver wire, Rule 5, or the league minimum FAs success rate is.  (I have no idea how to find that data other than manually digging or behind some industry paywall with the rest of this elusive "sophisticated" data.)   

Unless someone does the digging league wide, I don't see how saying we've done well/we've done poorly is anything beyond speculation.  Mr. Recency Bias likes our guys!

Comparing category 1 guys with category 2 guys will lead to faulty results.  Including category 2 guys with category 1 guys in trend analysis will lead to faulty results.

I agree with this, but even Lyles is somewhat of a category 2 guy since the team had no intentions to be good last year and his purpose was solely to eat innings and be nice to the younger guys. Yes, he was (relatively) expensive, but I don't think Elias was going to be fussed about whether his ERA was under 5.

This season is Elias's chance to make a good first impression as it relates to using FA and low level trades to plug wholes on a "competitive" team.

[Daddy-O's]

38 minutes ago, brvn52 said:

I think the level of effort into finding bounce back players has changed. Previously, the O's tried Hail Mary attempts on minimum salary guys like Ruiz, Valaika, etc. Their more 'expensive' signings were on guys like Iglesias, who was here for defensive value. They also took fliers on guys like Mateo, who hit. But all of them were no risk, with a lottery ticket of upside. This is pure speculation - but boom/bust guys make the most sense in a tank. We don't need a 1.5 WAR 3B (over a replacement level 3B) when we're winning 50 games. 

Things are changing. Elias said before 2022 we'd invest some funds on the ML roster. That was mainly into Lyles, who did improve. Things worked out immensely in the pen with several guys. 

This year, there's been multi-million dollar investments in Gibson, Frazier, and McCann. All are coming off 'down' seasons.

I think the O's level of success at reclamation projects from 2018-2021 can't really be compared to now. We will see. But this trio is the first big investment Elias & co. has made into something like this. And I think we need to wait and see.

Plus, at this point, what choice do we have but to trust the process?

It's not really an investment if its a one year contract.

[owknows]

37 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I want to be real clear about the context of what I said:

 “I think the O’s are sophisticated enough to make better judgments than you and I about who is likely to bounce back.  That doesn’t mean they’ll always be correct.”

I didn’t say they were more sophisticated than other teams.  I’m talkIng about you, me, and the other folks who post here.   And if you don’t think they have information we don’t have that factors into their decisions, I just don’t know what to say to that.

I think most rational people would concede that the Orioles front office has more information than fans and laymen when it comes to current and prospective players.

Sophistication however, is often more than information. It is steeped in clever nuance, foresight, vision, and objectivity.

It is certainly conceivable that even without as much information as the Orioles front office... one of the armchair GMs here or elsewhere could in any given situation provide a greater degree of decision making sophistication.

 

[btdart20]

47 minutes ago, Too Tall said:

Lots of interesting discussion. Took me a while to catch up.

 I keep thinking, what sample size is needed to draw a reliable conclusion that any evaluation process validates its worth? When can you truly label any evaluation process, sophisticated? I'm asking because I think these questions are relevant to this discussion and I do not profess to know the answers.

If Frazier has a bounce back season, does that validate this process? How many successful bounce back candidates equal a sophisticated evaluation process?

My answer to the question posed is I have no idea. I'll judge the Orioles by how they do

 

There's a 'rule of 30' or 'rule of 40' for a swag.  But it depends on the population size and how the variables are controlled.  And since the variables are so volatile, it's tough to come to any type of statistical definitive.  We have a much bigger sample of how 'sophisticated' the selection system is by looking at the dime a dozen guys, but we've got to compare them to the other dime a dozen guys.  Not the guys who have some other type of proven market value.

Sophisticated is a relative word.  Relative to other systems.  I don't know if our system is any more sophisticated than the next team's or even those who have moved toward more of the advanced expected factors.  I lean toward that it's more sophisticated than pre-Elias.  At least if player feedback (as compared to other teams they have been on) is any indication.  But so are other teams' systems.

If Frazier has a bounce back season it does not validate the process.  It's just a checkpoint along the journey.  A few others and maybe we can start saying yes/no with a higher level of confidence.  But there are so many other variables.

When people talk about process, it's a valid concern.  But what's to say us fans aren't playing checkers while the front offices/player agents around the league are playing 3D chess?

20 minutes ago, HandsomeQuack said:

I agree with this, but even Lyles is somewhat of a category 2 guy since the team had no intentions to be good last year and his purpose was solely to eat innings and be nice to the younger guys. Yes, he was (relatively) expensive, but I don't think Elias was going to be fussed about whether his ERA was under 5.

This season is Elias's chance to make a good first impression as it relates to using FA and low level trades to plug wholes on a "competitive" team.

Agreed about Elias/Lyles.  

Your second point is the biggest factor in how us fans are responding.  We have an expectation for where the team is regarding talent and budget.  And that expectation isn't being met in the off-season so far.  And it's also a signal (or at least it's easy to see it as such) for future budgets...  A bit of our souls die when we consider what that means for the next few years...