How many rookies in the lineup is too many to win?

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

I think it should be about going for the WS every year.   I think Elias can do that and still develop the guys you talked about.

The goal should be playoffs every year. You don’t know what happens when you get there.

[Pickles]

21 minutes ago, maybenxtyr said:

There's a pretty decent chance that if they returned the same exact team as the 2023 one, that they would not come anywhere close to 101 wins.

 

Staggering rookie debuts will work to some extent, but they are in a sticky situation because so many seem ready at one time because of the tanking period.

Define anywhere close.

They could trot the same lineup out there next year and 95 wins should be the expectation.

[Sports Guy]

21 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Define anywhere close.

They could trot the same lineup out there next year and 95 wins should be the expectation.

What lineup is that?  You mean a lineup where Mateo, Frazier and Urias get a lot of bats? Like all of that?

Edited November 6, 2023 by Sports Guy

[btdart20]

Factors:
Playoff odds - Can we run a lower win probability during the regular season allowing the rookies time to adjust?  Or does every game need max win probability?  Baseball is a marathon in the regular season and a sprint through the playoffs.  In 2023, we paced ourselves and likely surprised ourselves in the end  I wonder if Stowers, Cowser, or Ortiz would have been given a longer leash had we known we'd finish with 101 wins?  Or been comfortable with "only" 95 wins?  "Every game matters" and "Games in April matter as much as games in September" is only true when it actually matters.  I doubt the SigBot projects 90+ wins (much less 100+ wins) heading into 2023.  But I bet the win total heading into 2024 will be higher as will the probability of making the playoffs.

Team build - Do we have enough stars to create a margin for the stars-to-be?  20+ WAR from Adley/Gunnar/Grayson/Bradish will go a long way to helping the RIP.  But no position can be void of talent.  Every position needs to be league-average or better to be a contender.  This is where some are concerned about losing Santander or why some want to sign a MOO.

Rookie success probability - How are we defining success?  If we don't care how long it takes (i.e. the adjustment period) because we're comfortable with our playoff odds, then it only matters how these guys finish the season in the second half.  What are the odds of successfully being average or higher?  If we believe Jackson Holliday is a top 10 hitter AND this study is reliable, then he has a 40% chance of posting a 1.5 fWAR or higher.  If we believe Mayo is a top-30 bat, then he's got a 34% chance of posting a 1.5 fWAR.  Ortiz/HK/Cowser a top 50 = 34%.  Etc.

Updating the study on the success and failure rates of top prospects - Royals Review

(Truth be told, I'm not sold on the study but it's a step in the right direction.  And I think some of the scouting analytics and tools used today are better predictors than what they had nearly 10 years ago when the original study was done or even 5 years ago when the follow-up was done.)

Other team options - how low/high is the floor for X position?  We've spoken about this one plenty but we gave Frazier 455 PAs (0.3), Mateo 350 PAs (0.5), and Urias 396 PAs (0.8). 

The amount of MLB ready rookies the O's have isn't normal by any stretch.  Not saying they'll all succeed, but they are ready to take a few cuts.

I wonder if Elias/GMs have some type of decision tree/rule of thumb about only X # of rookies within their first 200(?) PAs or 50(?) IP at the MLB level?  Feels like 2-3 rookies would be normal.

For added context, Gunnar's probability would have been 40% per the previous study.  But the team context wasn't as good as it will be heading into 2024.  This also means we don't "need" the next round to be as successful as we needed Gunnar.  It's a bit of a circular argument and could cause the Rookie Integration Plan decision tree to speed up in 2024.  At least as long as the pipeline has a high-ceiling rookie chambered for the next shot!

[Pickles]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

What lineup is that?  You mean a lineup where Mateo, Frazier and Urias get a lot of bats? Like all of that?

Yeah like that if they wanted to. They probably have better options this year but doesn't change the fact that no major changes are required for this team to compete for the AL East.

[24fps]

4 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Yeah like that if they wanted to. They probably have better options this year but doesn't change the fact that no major changes are required for this team to compete for the AL East.

I think that's very unlikely to be true.  First of all, the Pythag was 94 for the O's and 100 for the Rays which I think is an accurate reflection of overall quality.  O's health was also very good.  Plus you have to assume that the other four teams will be working to improve during the offseason.  The 2023 Orioles were good but they weren't good enough to simply stand pat.

[Pickles]

25 minutes ago, 24fps said:

I think that's very unlikely to be true.  First of all, the Pythag was 94 for the O's and 100 for the Rays which I think is an accurate reflection of overall quality.  O's health was also very good.  Plus you have to assume that the other four teams will be working to improve during the offseason.  The 2023 Orioles were good but they weren't good enough to simply stand pat.

Yeah, winning 95 games next year should definitiely be enough to at least contend for the AL title.  Furthermore, the O's won't be standing pat.  That's an impossibility for any team.  No man steps into the same river, etc.

They should be getting significantly more production from Westburg and Rodriguez next year.  To name just a few players who should be on the upswing of their performances.

[maybenxtyr]

2 hours ago, Pickles said:

Define anywhere close.

They could trot the same lineup out there next year and 95 wins should be the expectation.

I enjoyed this season as much as the next fan, and I'm not going to diminish their accomplishments by saying that they got lucky...but I don't think the same or similar team wins 90+ games in 2024. 

 

I also believe that Elias and company will do everything that they can to improve going into 2024. I just don't think saying 101 wins matters as much as some people do with regards to 2024. The whole landscape will be different... every team in the East will be looking to catch Baltimore.

[Pickles]

7 minutes ago, maybenxtyr said:

I enjoyed this season as much as the next fan, and I'm not going to diminish their accomplishments by saying that they got lucky...but I don't think the same or similar team wins 90+ games in 2024. 

 

I also believe that Elias and company will do everything that they can to improve going into 2024. I just don't think saying 101 wins matters as much as some people do with regards to 2024. The whole landscape will be different... every team in the East will be looking to catch Baltimore.

Well, I appreciate you feel that way, but there's really no evidence to suggest they weren't at least a mid 90s win team.  And again, the team next year should be more talented than this year's team.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, 24fps said:

I think that's very unlikely to be true.  First of all, the Pythag was 94 for the O's and 100 for the Rays which I think is an accurate reflection of overall quality.  O's health was also very good.  Plus you have to assume that the other four teams will be working to improve during the offseason.  The 2023 Orioles were good but they weren't good enough to simply stand pat.

I agree…that’s not likely to be true especially with Bautista out.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

I agree…that’s not likely to be true especially with Bautista out.

Bautista being out is the big one that hurts.

But we could literally get better performance out of every single infield position next year and I don't think it would be shocking.

If we get a full season of what Rodriguez did down the stretch, that's another huge upgrade.

Well see what they do in the outfield next season, but you'd be the first to argue there will be more talent at least in the outfield next year as opposed to this.

If you wanna say, "The outperformed their pythag a bit and they were more like a mid 90s win team."  

Then I'd agree with that.  

But there doesn't seem to be a very compelling argument to be made about why we would regress much from that mid 90s baseline.

[Sports Guy]

10 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Bautista being out is the big one that hurts.

But we could literally get better performance out of every single infield position next year and I don't think it would be shocking.

If we get a full season of what Rodriguez did down the stretch, that's another huge upgrade.

Well see what they do in the outfield next season, but you'd be the first to argue there will be more talent at least in the outfield next year as opposed to this.

If you wanna say, "The outperformed their pythag a bit and they were more like a mid 90s win team."  

Then I'd agree with that.  

But there doesn't seem to be a very compelling argument to be made about why we would regress much from that mid 90s baseline.

Well, I think they were a 90-95 win team in reality…with Bautista.

I think without him they were more like an 85-90 win team.

You say we could get better production and mention GRod. 100% agree and that would be my expectation.

I would also expect the pen to be worse and that can derail a team. I expect regression from OHearn and Kremer. 
 

I expect improvement from Mullins.

All of that said, the Os were, for the second straight year, very healthy. They also hit very well with RISP, which is not a skill that is generally repeatable.  They also excelled in 1 run games which is another skill that’s not usually repeatable or something you want to count on.  These things are largely luck, which the Os had on their side in 2023, until the playoffs.

So, if the pen is worse, they have more injuries and/or the RISP goes down, the margin for error is gone and that same team from last year isn’t talented enough to overcome that.

This team needs to go into the offseason saying, it’s not likely we do those things, so how do we increase our margin for error.

The goal isn’t to beat teams 3-2…the goal is to beat teams 7-2. The best teams don’t win by 1 run..they win by 5 runs. 
 

So, it’s actually factually false to say there’s no compelling reason for them to not repeat last year. There’s plenty of reason, just as there is reason to say that even if things like that don’t go as planned, other things will get better and could make up for it. Both things are true and only if you want to wear orange colored glasses and mirror Wildcard do you ignore both scenarios.

[maybenxtyr]

35 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Well, I appreciate you feel that way, but there's really no evidence to suggest they weren't at least a mid 90s win team.  And again, the team next year should be more talented than this year's team.

You are absolutely correct that they were a mid 90's win team, and I don't think a +7 vs the expected win total is way out of line. 

 

My biggest concern is people saying basically the same team will repeat a similar performance. There's no Bautista. Cano was basically unhittable through June. Even Mateo was on an absolute tear for a spell. I worry that there were some performances that need to be replaced..

[Can_of_corn]

Wow, one bullpen arm was worth five wins.

And that is with him being hurt part of the season and blowing six saves.

[Frobby]

So, to better answer wildcard's question, I decided to look at every contending team in Orioles history and see which ones gave the most plate appearances to rookie position players.   Here are the top 5:

1.  1960.   The very first Orioles contender gave 1,797 plate appearances to rookies, including 606 to Rookie of the Year Ron Hansen (SS), 464 to ROY runner up Jim Gentile (1B), 594 to starting 2B Marv Breeding, and 113 to 20-year old reserve outfelder Dave Nicholson.  That team finished 89-65 in a 154-game schedule so about the equivalent of a 93-94 win team. in 162 games.

2.  1977.  This team won 97 games while giving 1,450 plate appearances to rookies, including 666 to Rookie of the Year Eddie Murray, 329 to infielder Rich Dauer, 246 to 2nd catcher Dave Skaggs, and 139 to reserve infielder Kiko Garcia.   The other 70 were divided among Larry Harlow, Dave Crisciulo and Mike Dimmel, who retained rookie status.  

3.  1966.  The Orioles' first World Champions won 97 games in the regular season while giving 1,089  PA to rookies, including 541 to starting 2B Davey Johnson, 458 to primary catcher Andy Etchebarren, 58 to backup C Larry Haney, 20 to reserve infielder Mark Belanger and 12 to reserve 1B Mike Epstein.

4. 2023.   The 101 game-winning AL East Champs gave 1,073 PA to rookies, including 622 PA to likely Rookie of the Year Gunnar Henderson, 228 to 2B/3B Jordan Westburg, 77 to OF Colton Cowser, 56 to reserve Terrin Vavra, 34 to infielder Joey Ortiz, 33 to OF Kyle Stowers, 33 to OF/DH Heston Kjerstad, and 23 to reserve 1B Josh Lester.

5. 1965.  This 94-win team gave 1,032 plate appearances to rookies, including 561 plate appearances to Rookie of the Year Curt Blefary, 409 to starting CF Paul Blair, and the remaining 52 were split between Davey Johnson, Andy Etchebarren and Mark Belanger, who retained their rookie status.

I didn't look to see if any of the bad Orioles teams topped these figures, since that wasn't relevant to the question posed by wildcard.

Other teams of note: the 1973 AL East winners featuring Al Bumbry and Rich Coggins (936 PA to rookies), 1982 AL East runner-up team featuring ROY Cal Ripken (922), the 2022 Adley-led Orioles (866), and the 1989 "Why Not" O's featuring rookies such as Craig Worthington, Steve Finley and Chris Hoiles (832).  

The least PA given to rookies by an Orioles contender goes to the 1997 team, which gave out 32 PA to Dave Dellucci, 3 to Melvin Rosario, 3 to Danny Clyburn and 3 to Charlie Greene, for a total of 40.