Adley is in an otherworldly slump right now

[SilverRocket]

42 minutes ago, e16bball said:

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/major-league?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=5&season=2024&month=0&season1=2024&ind=0&team=2&rost=&age=&filter=&players=0
 

If you start there, there is a pull-down tab in the middle of the page labeled “Split.” You can select each particular month from the options in that pull-down menu. 

There might be an easier/cleaner way to do it, but I don’t know of one. This way should get you there until somebody comes through with a better approach!

Thanks! Seems his decisions haven't changed dramatically and he's getting roughly the same % of pitches in the zone, and the contact rate has actually gotten better but it's much weaker contact with lower EV/barrel and lower line drive rate. Line drives and swing+misses have both been turning into popups.

[now]

1 hour ago, Fiver6565 said:

Not sure if you were implying this or not, but my take has nothing to do with Elias being god, and everything to do with people overreacting to relatively small sample sizes of performance like it means someone's career is over.  Players and teams slump.  It doesn't mean the season is over or the player sucks.  I mean Gunnar has had a few bad weeks after STARTING THE ALL STAR GAME AT SHORTSTOP,  yet there was a long-running thread here wondering if we had a 'SS problem', in which a debate began about whether Gunnar needed to move to third base.  I mean, c'mon.  That's not an education opinion, its a ridiculous rant.

Not trying to pick on you or put words in your mouth. It's more about, people should be able to make negative (or positive) evaluations of players or decisions without being dismissed out of hand. But it seems some topics/players are considered by many as off limits or beyond criticism: for example, Adley vs. Witt as 1:1, or Witt vs. Gunnar as a franchise SS. I get the overreaction to SSS part. But when webbrick2010 posts what seems an objective case here, for example, instead of addressing the substance, some just go, you're out to lunch. So what if a poster is "always negative"? They can still make a valid argument worth considering on its merits. So what if a poster is "Pollyanna" (CindyLuvsBrady)? No reason to get upset at them, IMO. Poke fun, maybe. But at least be willing to give credit to a case or point being made that's otherwise reasonable, beyond the personal filter.

[now]

31 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea I agree. The catcher thing was my argument at the time too and I liked Witt a lot.

 Now, with that said, does Bobby Witt turn things around like Adley has?  Adley represents a value off the field that I don’t think can be measured.

Curious what you mean by "off the field." Clubhouse, chemistry, leadership (apart from pitch(er) handling)? And if it can't be measured, then what do you go by? His vibes, your intuition, good press...? The stats case a la Drungo I can wrap my head around. This part I find more mysterious.

[Fiver6565]

5 minutes ago, now said:

Not trying to pick on you or put words in your mouth. It's more about, people should be able to make negative (or positive) evaluations of players or decisions without being dismissed out of hand. But it seems some topics/players are considered by many as off limits or beyond criticism: for example, Adley vs. Witt as 1:1, or Witt vs. Gunnar as a franchise SS. I get the overreaction to SSS part. But when webbrick2010 posts what seems an objective case here, for example, instead of addressing the substance, some just go, you're out to lunch. So what if a poster is "always negative"? They can still make a valid argument worth considering on its merits. So what if a poster is "Pollyanna" (CindyLuvsBrady)? No reason to get upset at them, IMO. Poke fun, maybe. But at least be willing to give credit to a case or point being made that's otherwise reasonable, beyond the personal filter.

My point has never been about one poster or one post, more a general trend.  And without question, I place less value on an opinion from someone who is always negative (or to a lesser, and less common degree, always positive) because they have a default position that xxx sucks, which they only seem to voice during what is typically a brief down period.  Its the extreme nature of these types of opinions that deflects substantive debate and conversation, in my opinion.

And with that I will drop out of this portion of the conversation.  Thanks for your thoughts.

[webbrick2010]

43 minutes ago, Osornot said:

Not a bad argument - btw I have to ask - would you have passed on Skenes?  SPs (limited games/year limited years of career) are worse BEFORE they all break

Don't remember following that draft closely as the O's didn't pick until 17

I would say I'd like to see the O's scout and sign more pitchers in the upper rounds, but as you said they all break

 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

4 hours ago, baltfan said:

Guys slump but I don’t understand not bumping him down in the lineup. 

Adley batting fifth tonight good move with this month long slump.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

18 minutes ago, Fiver6565 said:

What an amazing and reasonable post this is.  Kudos to you.  These are actual numbers proving what I was saying before - players slump.  ALL players slump.  That doesn't mean you play them less, drop them in the order, start questioning your draft decisions/process.  You just ride it out.

There's an overwhelming bias in life towards DOING SOMETHING!!!!  But the truth is that just waiting for things to work themselves out is probably more likely to be the solution.

You know that the Orioles, the dynastic Orioles of the late 60s through the early 80s, basically approached all their problems this way. I challenge anyone to find me a single case of Earl Weaver taking someone out of the lineup because they weren't performing, calling up a guy from Rochester in midseason and making him a starter. I mean besides when he switched Cal to short and called up Glenn Gulliver. From 1968-1982 that was the only time Earl second-guessed the big decisions he made in spring training. They basically never made deadline deals back then, either. It was Earl knew who he wanted on the field in March, and that's who played all year long. Slump? Whatever, Earl knows who's good and who's not, and the good one is going to keep playing until he works it out.

If there'd have been an internet back then, they'd have lost their minds.

[DrungoHazewood]

16 minutes ago, now said:

So what if a poster is "always negative"? They can still make a valid argument worth considering on its merits.

Can they? Or is it more likely that they decided the answer to the question five years ago and spend their time cherry-picking arguments that make that answer look correct?

If you're always negative about the MLB leader in value among catchers over the last three years perhaps your position is unsupportable.

[OnlyOneOriole]

55 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Catchers get beat up, and it leads to off weeks, months, sometimes years. Johnny Bench was the best catcher ever and he had two months with OPSes under .500, and another five in the .500s.

Ted Simmons had an .880 OPS in 1980, then a .638 the next year. He's in the Hall. In '83 he had a .799, then in '84 a .569.

Yogi never really had an off year until he was old. But had eight months of his career with OPSes under .600. He was MVP in '54, but in April he hit .231/.236/.385.

Mike Piazza was the greatest hitting catcher of all time, but had three separate months of 19+ games with an OPS under .550.

Joe Mauer once went 5-for-45 (.111) in a month. Another where he hit .225 with a .546 OPS.

Gary Carter had a month where he hit .134/.192/.179. Another where he hit .117/.172/200. And another where he hit .171/.198/.316.

Carlton Fisk had a whole year where he OPS'd .600, then played 5-6 more good years in the majors. In April of '83 he hit .154. Had two other months where he hit .149.

Pudge Rodriguez had 18 full months, or the equivalent of three entire seasons, where he OPS'd under .600.

All of those guys are Hall of Famers! You could start to look at the solid, long-career catchers and come with, I don't know... Rick Dempsey who once OPS'd .466 over an entire year.

Adley will be just fine. I'm sure he's a little beat up and a little tired, but it'll get better. Only a crank or a malcontent would say the best catcher in baseball over the past three seasons is a huge miss because he's in a slump.

 

Good DD and all very true. 

I don't think anyone is saying that AR is not a very good player.  He is and anyone saying otherwise is just trolling.  I think what some of us are saying is that A) he probably will never be an elite/greatest of all time type of player-which when he got drafted I think a lot of people fell into the hype of believing.  And B) drafting a catcher 1-1 can be problematic just because of the nature of the position.  It can be taxing and wear down a player well before their time.  So is it worth it to draft a catcher first overall?

Which is why I think moving him to fulltime DH or first base (and maybe even a little back up catcher) when SB is ready is to me the smart thing to do.  He isn't that good defensively where he will be missed.  But you could greatly extend his career and improve his hitting playing him at a much less physically demanding position. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, OnlyOneOriole said:

Good DD and all very true. 

I don't think anyone is saying that AR is not a very good player.  He is and anyone saying otherwise is just trolling.  I think what some of us are saying is that A) he probably will never be an elite/greatest of all time type of player-which when he got drafted I think a lot of people fell into the hype of believing.  And B) drafting a catcher 1-1 can be problematic just because of the nature of the position.  It can be taxing and wear down a player well before their time.  So is it worth it to draft a catcher first overall?

Which is why I think moving him to fulltime DH or first base (and maybe even a little back up catcher) when SB is ready is to me the smart thing to do.  He isn't that good defensively where he will be missed.  But you could greatly extend his career and improve his hitting playing him at a much less physically demanding position. 

Who cares if it does?

You only have guaranteed control for the first 6-7 seasons.

What year 8 looks like is irrelevant to the drafting team.

[OnlyOneOriole]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Who cares if it does?

You only have guaranteed control for the first 6-7 seasons.

What year 8 looks like is irrelevant to the drafting team.

True.  But that assumes he doesn't resign with the drafting team.   I think AR is a good enough person, player, and leader where he should be extended and allowed the time to play a different position in a year or 2.  But that will be up to the team brass.  I can't imagine they would think differently. 

[DrungoHazewood]

So how "otherworldly" is Adley's slump? In July he OPS'd .485*. That's bad, but it looks like that's about the 2900th-worst month anyone's ever had in the majors (min 75 PAs in the month). There have been about 50 players who OPS'd .485 in a month, including Sandy Alomar, Paul Blair, Don Buford, Ken Caminiti, Johnny Evers, Oscar Gamble, Rabbit Maranville, Juan Pierre, Brooks Robinson, and Owen "36 triples" Wilson.

The worst month anyone ever had was arguably Frank O'Rourke, who in June of 1912 went 6-for-73 with one walk and no extra base hits, good for a .201 OPS. Legendary bad hitter Bill Bergen had a .219 OPS in July of 1909. Myles Straw of the Guardians had a .222 OPS (7-for-75, one double, two walks) in August of 2022. Jose Abreu had a .269 OPS in April of this year. HOFer Bill Mazeroski hit .125/.160/.125 in 100 PAs in September of '63.

Old Oriole favorite Mark Reynolds once hit .078/.213/.078 with 31 strikeouts in 64 ABs in September of 2010.

Jackie Bradley Jr hit .082/.148/.164 in May of '21. PED era slugger Greg Vaughn started off 2002 hitting .099 with a .302 OPS in April.

Among Orioles, Jorge Mateo's May of '23 with a .316 OPS appears to be the worst in modern history. Followed by a couple of Mark Belanger months, then an unfortunate JJ Hardy August of 2015 when he hit .157 with a .375 OPS. Rutschman's July is in 56th place. Others ahead of (or behind, depending on persepctive) Rutschman include Cal, Brady, Luis Aparicio (twice), Brooks (twice), Don Baylor, Mike Bordick, Melvin Mora, Ramon Hernandez, and Joe Orsulak.

* It was actually .482, but I'm not going back and fixing that paragraph. Close enough.

[OnlyOneOriole]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

So how "otherworldly" is Adley's slump? In July he OPS'd .485*. That's bad, but it looks like that's about the 2900th-worst month anyone's ever had in the majors (min 75 PAs in the month). There have been about 50 players who OPS'd .485 in a month, including Sandy Alomar, Paul Blair, Don Buford, Ken Caminiti, Johnny Evers, Oscar Gamble, Rabbit Maranville, Juan Pierre, Brooks Robinson, and Owen "36 triples" Wilson.

The worst month anyone ever had was arguably Frank O'Rourke, who in June of 1912 went 6-for-73 with one walk and no extra base hits, good for a .201 OPS. Legendary bad hitter Bill Bergen had a .219 OPS in July of 1909. Myles Straw of the Guardians had a .222 OPS (7-for-75, one double, two walks) in August of 2022. Jose Abreu had a .269 OPS in April of this year. HOFer Bill Mazeroski hit .125/.160/.125 in 100 PAs in September of '63.

Old Oriole favorite Mark Reynolds once hit .078/.213/.078 with 31 strikeouts in 64 ABs in September of 2010.

Jackie Bradley Jr hit .082/.148/.164 in May of '21. PED era slugger Greg Vaughn started off 2002 hitting .099 with a .302 OPS in April.

Among Orioles, Jorge Mateo's May of '23 with a .316 OPS appears to be the worst in modern history. Followed by a couple of Mark Belanger months, then an unfortunate JJ Hardy August of 2015 when he hit .157 with a .375 OPS. Rutschman's July is in 56th place. Others ahead of (or behind, depending on persepctive) Rutschman include Cal, Brady, Luis Aparicio (twice), Brooks (twice), Don Baylor, Mike Bordick, Melvin Mora, Ramon Hernandez, and Joe Orsulak.

* It was actually .482, but I'm not going back and fixing that paragraph. Close enough.

I think it is just because AR was a 1-1 and has set such a high standard in the past that his slump now seems.......odd.

As I said earlier he would have been the one person on the Os I would have picked to not go into such a tailspin for such an extended period of time.  He is just too good in his pitch selection that I didn't think it was possible.

Goes to show you that anything can happen. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, OnlyOneOriole said:

True.  But that assumes he doesn't resign with the drafting team.   I think AR is a good enough person, player, and leader where he should be extended and allowed the time to play a different position in a year or 2.  But that will be up to the team brass.  I can't imagine they would think differently. 

If you re-sign or extend a guy that has nothing to do with drafting him.

Draft picks should be viewed on what happens during the years of team control.

Who cares what round Kimbrel was drafted in?

[Malike]

It feels like most people think we can't have nice things, and if they perform well, it's just a matter of time until the other shoe drops. It's ingrained into O's fans' minds that the guys they have, just aren't good enough and people need to compare them to other players instead of just realizing they are plenty good for this team to win with.

The need to have an explanation for every time a player slumps, instead of just recognizing that all players slump is a fool's errand, and I would assume a frustrating way to live.