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

[Tony-OH]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

Ok.  I might have missed it earlier but I'm not sure I saw a clear definition of what a "bounce back" player is.  As an example, was anyone expecting Rougned Odor to bounce back to his 2016 levels?  Or did we all kind of shrug our shoulders and say "Yeah, he's probably going to be lucky to OPS .650?

I saw you mention 250 at bats in the majors but I didn't see you mention what else counted as a bounce back candidate.  Did they have to reach a certain level here that they did playing somewhere else?

Cause if so, you're correct, they haven't been able to do it.  But I'm not sure that should really be a focal point of building this team, either.  

Let's just say a bounce back guy is a guy who was once an established major league player who had started to fail and then was signed by the Orioles.

Odor, Aguilar and Frazier are probably the three obvious guys. Franco, Galvis and Iglesias were other similar guys but they really weren't coming off terrible years. 

My biggest point was to show that people should not just assume the Orioles have a "sophisticated evaluation system" that allows them to identify players that will rebound. 

Odor did not but he ended up with 472 PAs on a team that contended for a playoff spot until the last few weeks of the season. The evaluation system brought in Aguilar and then he was given PAs over a rookie prospects who smashed left-handed pitching in the minors during a playoff stretch run.

Now the system is bringing in a 31-year old 2B/OF who slowed dramatically last year and has 1-3 percentile hard hit, EV, barrel %s. 

At this point, we will see whether that system is as sophisticated as some assume. 

For me personally, the proof is in the results at the major league level and ultimately in the standings.

[Tony-OH]

16 minutes ago, interloper said:

Bingo. 

We can have confidence they are doing just as good as anyone else evaluating potential bounceback candidates because we know they have analysts and scouts doing good work, led by one of the best in the business in Sig. We can have confidence their process is sophisticated. 

The results so far at the major league level show otherwise, but you are welcome to believe anything you like. 

This all goes back to either believing in results/stats/analytics available or hope and belief.

I hope you're right, but until I see the results of this sophistication at the major league level, I'm skeptical. 

 

 

 

[Sports Guy]

Is being lucky also “sophisticated”?

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:

Let's just say a bounce back guy is a guy who was once an established major league player who had started to fail and then was signed by the Orioles.

Odor, Aguilar and Frazier are probably the three obvious guys. Franco, Galvis and Iglesias were other similar guys but they really weren't coming off terrible years. 

My biggest point was to show that people should not just assume the Orioles have a "sophisticated evaluation system" that allows them to identify players that will rebound. 

Odor did not but he ended up with 472 PAs on a team that contended for a playoff spot until the last few weeks of the season. The evaluation system brought in Aguilar and then he was given PAs over a rookie prospects who smashed left-handed pitching in the minors during a playoff stretch run.

Now the system is bringing in a 31-year old 2B/OF who slowed dramatically last year and has 1-3 percentile hard hit, EV, barrel %s. 

At this point, we will see whether that system is as sophisticated as some assume. 

For me personally, the proof is in the results at the major league level and ultimately in the standings.

Okay. 

But again, I don't think the Orioles or anyone really expected Odor to "bounce back."  He hasn't had more than 1.0 WAR (baseball reference WAR) since 2018 when he was at 2.5.  He's been in the negative each year since then except one year where he was 0.3

So I get where you're coming from to a certain extent but I think Odor was brought in as a placeholder of sorts, maybe a guy who could run into a fastball every so often and not be completely helpless on defense.  And that whole pesky veteranosity thing, clubhouse guy....his teammates loved him, there's no doubt about that.  

I think they were trying to see if they could capture lightning in a bottle with Jesus Aguilar and, again, see if he could run into a fastball every once in awhile.  Yeah, it was a bad signing but, IIRC, they were in a funk and looking for a spark.  I'll agree that Aguilar wasn't the guy to give it to them.

In other words, I don't think the Orioles ever advertised that they have a sophisticated system to get guys to "bounce back."  I don't think Elias would ever really claim that. 

In a game where there's risk in every move that you make, I would argue that the "bounce back" player who hasn't had a good season in 2+ years is arguably the riskiest proposition of them all.  And quite frankly, I'm doubtful there's such a "system" or a "program" in place for guys like that here.  All you can really do is bring them in, have the coaches work with them, show them tape from when they were successful and see if they can get back to that.  But for a lot of reasons they can't and that's why they're winding up in situations like Odor and Aguilar found themselves in last year. 

I mean, the history of baseball landscape is littered with guys who had a few good seasons and couldn't replicate it anywhere else.  To say that the Orioles are bad at rejuvenating careers is a bit of an strange flex.  I'm not trying to be antagonistic or disrespectful, mind you, but I don't really see a strategy such as this as being a focal point to building a winning team.  The focal point for Elias has been -and probably will always be- building a great system to continue to bring talent through the system via draft and the international market.  And, hopefully, being able to spend some smart money in free agency.

His goal isn't to rejuvenate players who were once established and have fallen off.    

[sportsfan8703]

1 hour ago, RZNJ said:

Was Aguilar a bounceback candidate?  They got him midseason for nothing.  There was nothing sophisticated about that. They took a shot.  Didn't work.  Odor was a warm body that hit 30 homers recently.  

I'd hope there's a little more than taking a shot when you spend 8M on a player.   I think it's apples and oranges when comparing Odor and Aguilar to Frazier.  I don't know why they are confident about Frazier. I hope they have good reasons.  But, I don't think the same confidence and reasoning were applied to Odor and Aguilar. 

I think Odor gave them exactly what they thought he would. Aguilar filled an immediate need and while he didn’t hit, he did our OPS Mancini down the stretch. 
 

In the last two seasons we’ve picked up Mateo, Urias, Perez, and Voth off of waivers. Tyler Wells and Santander were rule 5 guys. They count somewhat. 

[Spy Fox]

44 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Ok, so tell me the major league hitting talent Elias has acquired that got better with the Orioles. Major league being they have at least 250 major league PAs under their belt when acquired.

I'll gladly concede if proven wrong. But really, your heart is telling you Elias and company are good at this aspect of evaluation, not the results.

I looked through the 2019-22 seasons to see how many batters acquired by Elias qualified for this 250 prior PA threshold and to see whether they improved, regressed, or stayed about the same as their recent seasons (specifically as hitters). I believe this is the full list:

Did worse, but not much sample size: Keon Broxton, Bryan Holaday, Brett Phillips, Chris Owings, Jesus Aguilar

Did better, but not much sample size: Jose Iglesias

Did about the same: Freddy Galvis, Pat Valaika, Rougned Odor

Did worse in a significant sample size: Robinson Chirinos, Maikel Franco

Did better in a significant sample size: Pedro Severino

So, Severino is the biggest success story. But also the least prior PAs in the sample-- a .560 OPS in 282 PAs with Washington over 4 years, he put up a .712 OPS in 938 PAs with Baltimore over 3 years. 

What I get from this is that the O's haven't had much success in this department, but also that you could never expect much success from this group of names, and Elias just hasn't signed that many experienced MLB players to major roles. I see Franco as the biggest failure here as a guy that was hoped to be a starter who utterly underperformed his priors. The Odor failure wasn't his performance (it was about as expected) but in keeping him in the lineup when others were ready enough to take over. 

[Frobby]

Just now, Tony-OH said:

The results so far at the major league level show otherwise, but you are welcome to believe anything you like. 

This all goes back to either believing in results/stats/analytics available or hope and belief.

I hope you're right, but until I see the results of this sophistication at the major league level, I'm skeptical. 

Here’s my question, Tony.  Taking Frazier as an example, do you think the Orioles didn’t know that his sprint speed dropped last year when they signed him?   Do you think they don’t know what his EV and barrel % are?  Do you think the O’s would have signed him for $8 mm if they thought it was probable that his performance wouldn’t bounce back?

I submit: of course they knew those data points, and I do not believe they would have signed Frazier for $8 mm if they thought a season as bad or worse than last year was the most likely outcome.  Therefore, they must have other reasons to believe that a bounce back is likely.  (I note in passing that even his bad 2022 was worth 0.9 rWAR compared to Odor’s -0.4, so he’s an upgrade over Odor even if he repeats 2022.)   And those reasons probably involve inputs that we don’t have access to, both in terms of numerical data and other information.   That’s why I say it’s a more sophisticated decision making process than a poster here can make based on the limited information we have available    Again, it doesn’t mean they’ll be right.   All these things are something of a crapshoot but you make the best judgments you can.

 

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Here’s my question, Tony.  Taking Frazier as an example, do you think the Orioles didn’t know that his sprint speed dropped last year when they signed him?   Do you think they don’t know what his EV and barrel % are?  Do you think the O’s would have signed him for $8 mm if they thought it was probable that his performance wouldn’t bounce back?

I submit: of course they knew those data points, and I do not believe they would have signed Frazier for $8 mm if they thought a season as bad or worse than last year was the most likely outcome.  Therefore, they must have other reasons to believe that a bounce back is likely.  (I note in passing that even his bad 2022 was worth 0.9 rWAR compared to Odor’s -0.4, so he’s an upgrade over Odor even if he repeats 2022.)   And those reasons probably involve inputs that we don’t have access to, both in terms of numerical data and other information.   That’s why I say it’s a more sophisticated decision making process than a poster here can make based on the limited information we have available    Again, it doesn’t mean they’ll be right.   All these things are something of a crapshoot but you make the best judgments you can.

 

Sure..but the scary part is their judgement lead to them saying pay this guy 8M and, more importantly, take at bats away from the same young players you have fought so hard to acquire and been so proud to have.

No matter what their reasoning is, it’s extremely flawed and ass backwards to what they have done and said in public.

Zero justification whether they think they can “fix him” or not.

[Aristotelian]

47 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Ok, so tell me the major league hitting talent Elias has acquired that got better with the Orioles. Major league being they have at least 250 major league PAs under their belt when acquired.

I'll gladly concede if proven wrong. But really, your heart is telling you Elias and company are good at this aspect of evaluation, not the results.

OK, the OP was not specific to hitting. Urias and Mateo are solid overall MLB players although I would say the majority of their production is from defense, especially Mateo. Overall you are looking at 9 WAR at zero cost. That is solid. They are clearly good at drafting. I see no reason why that would not extend to MLB but my claim was overall evaluation. 

As for major league talent, as I said, acquiring true major league talent hasn't been tried. Urias and Mateo were more AAAA types from a different phase of the rebuild - "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks." Odor and Franco were placeholders who cost nothing and produced nothing. Frazier is the first position player we have acquired who has been a consistent starter on other teams and is being paid to produce positive WAR. So we will see if it works. 

I would also not make any claims about "sophistication". I think they are just playing that segment of the market and taking what's available. It looks like they are assessing Frazier more on his career norms than the last year and projecting him somewhere in between. Fangraphs and all the projection algorithms have him about the same. 

[owknows]

I have offered the observation (to little fanfare, and more than a little hostility) that there is a certain vicarious thrill for a GM that goes along with dusting off a piece out of the dumpster based on "something you saw that you think can be corrected"... and having that work out well. It makes you look like a genius. And when you have a few successes (I'd count several pitchers and several position players in that list)... it maybe becomes a little addictive.

And maybe you do a little more of that than you should... even at the expense of the advancement and development of some of your better drafting decisions.

That's my armchair psychology for the situation. I can't really explain Odor, Aguilar, Phillips, and Frazier any other way.

[jabba72]

2 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Their "sophistication" came up with Odor all year last year and Aguilar down the stretch. In the past they tried Pat Valaika, Kelvin Gutiérrez, and Maikel Franco as bounceback guys, so I think it's fair at this point to question their "sophistication" of judging bounce back candidates at the major league level. 

Now maybe Frazier will be different. Heck, we all hope he is because none of us want him to fail, but I think the argument that the Orioles know more than us may be true, but we have some results that tell us that they're missing more than hitting in this area. 

No system is perfect when looking for cheap production. I didnt like signing Odor last year because of his struggles at Yankee Stadium. He ended up being worse than most probably guessed. Im a bit let down that they went 8m for Frazier. 

I do like Elias and Sig but I dont like this signing. And Gibson at 35 years old looks risky too.

This hasnt been a very productive offseason.

[owknows]

7 minutes ago, jabba72 said:

No system is perfect when looking for cheap production. I didnt like signing Odor last year because of his struggles at Yankee Stadium. He ended up being worse than most probably guessed. Im a bit let down that they went 8m for Frazier. 

I do like Elias and Sig but I dont like this signing. And Gibson at 35 years old looks risky too.

This hasnt been a very productive offseason.

I didn't fault the organization for trying and failing with Odor.

I wasn't a fan of the move, but I was fine with them taking a shot.

My problem with the organization was their painful decision to run him out there game after game after game after it was clear that he was awful...  then making press rationalizations about his clutch performance and his "veteranosity".... while at bats were taken from people that were actually producing, and needed the development time to establish themselves for THIS year.

 

[RZNJ]

33 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Sure..but the scary part is their judgement lead to them saying pay this guy 8M and, more importantly, take at bats away from the same young players you have fought so hard to acquire and been so proud to have.

No matter what their reasoning is, it’s extremely flawed and ass backwards to what they have done and said in public.

Zero justification whether they think they can “fix him” or not.

You're pure gold sometimes.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, RZNJ said:

You're pure gold sometimes.

So, you think it’s fine that they blocked young bats with this guy?  Perfectly ok with that?  This is a yes or no question. 

[RZNJ]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

So, you think it’s fine that they blocked young bats with this guy?  Perfectly ok with that?  This is a yes or no question. 

No.  I don't think it's fine.  BTW, If I asked you for a yes or no I bet there have been plenty of times when you wouldn't have played that game.   I can remember giving you hypotheticals that required a yes or no and you didn't like it one bit.   I don't like it if they blocked Westburg but the offseason isn't over.   You said "not matter what" their reasoning is extremely flawed.

 

Suppose they:

Scenario #1

1. Trade Urias and others for a #3 pitcher or better

2. Use Westburg at 3B/SS/2B with most of his time at 2B

3. This eases the pressure on Westburg.  He's not just handed a job.   The better he plays, the more time he gets.

 

Scenario #2

1. Trade Westburg and others for a #3 pitcher or better

2. Now Urias is the backup at 3B/SS/2B

3. Joey Ortiz percolates more at Norfolk ready to replace Mateo or Frazier.    Norby percolates at Norfolk as well.