Elias makes two things clear; 1st base and Irvin

[RZNJ]

17 minutes ago, deward said:

I still come back to the question - was it too right-hand friendly in 2012-2017? In 2014 when they were arguably the best team in baseball? In 1997? Seems to me that it was only too right-hand friendly when they were trying to run out pitching staffs full of sub-par talent. I don't see a few more wins a year happening just because of the park.

One possible benefit is the development of their own young pitchers.   It's hard or impossible to quantify.   The left field wall could be a bit of a security blanket that allows young pitchers to pitch with a little more confidence and get their feet under them at the major league level compared to the old dimensions.   Certainly, the franchise's track record of developing pitching at the ML level has been pretty poor.    Maybe coincidentally, we saw two young pithcers (Kremer and Bradish) come up and do well last year.

Edited February 6, 2023 by RZNJ

[Frobby]

20 minutes ago, deward said:

I still come back to the question - was it too right-hand friendly in 2012-2017? In 2014 when they were arguably the best team in baseball? In 1997? Seems to me that it was only too right-hand friendly when they were trying to run out pitching staffs full of sub-par talent. I don't see a few more wins a year happening just because of the park.

I think it boils down to whether you believe that (1) free agent pitchers were avoiding signing here because they were concerned that their ERAs would be inflated and hurt their future value, and (2) pitchers were getting into bad habits pitching half their games in OPACY (e.g., nibbling) and those habits carried over into road games.   Of course, the bad habits argument could just as easily work the other way, i.e., pitchers will rely too much on the big LF dimensions and will be unable to adjust on the road.   

[Yardball85]

22 hours ago, emmett16 said:

I’ve already been hammered on this a bit, but I think Profar fits nicely.  If we are trying to win, prospect development be damned, and are looking to maximize flexibility I think he works well.  I don’t really care about the money, but I think I’d balk at a 2 year deal.  He is an actual lead-off hitter, switch hitter, above avg. back up 1b & can play OF.  I think he makes the team better.  Not ideal or a GameChanger but makes the 2023 team better. 

I don't mind Profar the player, and if the Orioles hadn't signed Frazier, he could have been a solid addition to play infield/outfield and start five times a week.  However, signing Frazier, IMO, took all of those innings and at bats from a putative Profar option.

[interloper]

Re: the 1B thing. Let's say someone like Diaz makes the team out of ST. How exactly do we envision him being used? I mentioned this in my Vavra thread, but I don't see a reality in which Mountcastle is strictly platooned, as he'd be getting the minority of ABs facing lefties. Obviously, Mountcastle is going to be the starter on most days against both righties and lefties.

So, as much as I kind of like Diaz as a depth acquisition and his power potential/defense profile... wouldn't he just rot on the bench? And he's out of options, so that binds up your flexibility a little. I just can't really see how a lefty 1B backup would be used, at least until there's an injury. 

[HakunaSakata]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I think it boils down to whether you believe that (1) free agent pitchers were avoiding signing here because they were concerned that their ERAs would be inflated and hurt their future value, and (2) pitchers were getting into bad habits pitching half their games in OPACY (e.g., nibbling) and those habits carried over into road games.   Of course, the bad habits argument could just as easily work the other way, i.e., pitchers will rely too much on the big LF dimensions and will be unable to adjust on the road.   

If the Orioles had signed a notable free agent pitcher this offseason I would have given some credence to number one. But they didn't, and that makes me think that the problem lies more with ownership not being willing to pay pitchers fair market value than it does with pitchers not wanting to sign with the Orioles.

[LTO's]

5 minutes ago, HakunaSakata said:

If the Orioles had signed a notable free agent pitcher this offseason I would have given some credence to number one. But they didn't, and that makes me think that the problem lies more with ownership not being willing to pay pitchers fair market value than it does with pitchers not wanting to sign with the Orioles.

It's pretty notable that they signed one that choose them over a divisional rival even though the money was the same.  

[deward]

2 minutes ago, LTO's said:

It's pretty notable that they signed one that choose them over a divisional rival even though the money was the same.  

Worth noting that it's a divisional rival in a different country. That can also influence the decision if the money is equal.

[deward]

1 hour ago, RZNJ said:

One possible benefit is the development of their own young pitchers.   It's hard or impossible to quantify.   The left field wall could be a bit of a security blanket that allows young pitchers to pitch with a little more confidence and get their feet under them at the major league level compared to the old dimensions.   Certainly, the franchise's track record of developing pitching at the ML level has been pretty poor.    Maybe coincidentally, we saw two young pithcers (Kremer and Bradish) come up and do well last year.

Like you said, really hard to quantify any impact on development of the park, vs coaching or benefit of experience. The park certainly didn't help Zimmerman.

[deward]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I think it boils down to whether you believe that (1) free agent pitchers were avoiding signing here because they were concerned that their ERAs would be inflated and hurt their future value, and (2) pitchers were getting into bad habits pitching half their games in OPACY (e.g., nibbling) and those habits carried over into road games.   Of course, the bad habits argument could just as easily work the other way, i.e., pitchers will rely too much on the big LF dimensions and will be unable to adjust on the road.   

Do we know of a documented case where the O's made or matched the best offer for a guy and he walked away? I may be missing one, but I can't think of any situations like that over the past couple of decades (at least ones that became public). What I do know is that Angelos was always reluctant to offer top money for pitchers, and was notoriously extra cautious when it came to any concerns in their physicals. I also know that, in situations where the team was actually the top bidder (Ubaldo and Cobb being recent-ish examples), the guys signed here. I would say that the jury is very much still out on whether or not the new dimensions will actually make a difference for free agents.

As far as pitching habits, we'd probably need years of data to determine that; even then, it would likely be inconclusive, as the coaching has changed. I can only point to the pitchers that have had success here and ask why it wasn't a problem for them.

[Frobby]

17 minutes ago, deward said:

Do we know of a documented case where the O's made or matched the best offer for a guy and he walked away? I may be missing one, but I can't think of any situations like that over the past couple of decades (at least ones that became public). 

Losing offers rarely become public, so I really don’t know of anything concrete one way or the other.   

[HakunaSakata]

2 hours ago, RZNJ said:

One possible benefit is the development of their own young pitchers.   It's hard or impossible to quantify.   The left field wall could be a bit of a security blanket that allows young pitchers to pitch with a little more confidence and get their feet under them at the major league level compared to the old dimensions.   Certainly, the franchise's track record of developing pitching at the ML level has been pretty poor.    Maybe coincidentally, we saw two young pitchers (Kremer and Bradish) come up and do well last year.

I think I'd buy into that idea a bit more if Elias had taken a more balanced approach to drafting, signing and developing both young pitching and hitting. In looking at our projected starting rotation for 2023, it's hard for me not to think the leftfield modification was just an attempt to cover up mediocre to bad pitching. 

[eddie83]

1 hour ago, deward said:

Like you said, really hard to quantify any impact on development of the park, vs coaching or benefit of experience. The park certainly didn't help Zimmerman.

Zimm allowed 4 HR’s at home in 37.2 IP. Allowed 17 HR’s in 36 IP. SSS but worth mentioning.  

[eddie83]

22 minutes ago, HakunaSakata said:

I think I'd buy into that idea a bit more if Elias had taken a more balanced approach to drafting, signing and developing both young pitching and hitting. In looking at our projected starting rotation for 2023, it's hard for me not to think the leftfield modification was just an attempt to cover up mediocre to bad pitching. 

No doubt they moved left field back for competitive reasons. That said I wouldn’t discount development playing a role in that. 

[LTO's]

It seems like people don't realize that the pitching splits from last year are nowhere near as bad as they think. Home ERA was 3.73 and road ERA was 4.24. That's around the league average H/A splits for pitching.  The pitching just very obviously improved as a whole. The Wall could be part of that. Or it could not be. 

[LTO's]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

No doubt they moved left field back for competitive reasons.

What competitive advantage are the O's receiving relative to their opponent?