MacPhail:"this week we would put the finishing touches on" the roster."

[Frobby]

Ha! You're right. But that's not really what I meant. And I agree that IF is 4 different kinds of guys, not different flavors of similar guys like the OF and the P'ing is.

Here's what I meant: We gotta count on some kid-P's coming thru, or else we're screwed regardless. If we do count on that, then we're looking good for both the P'ing and the OF. We're covered up the middle and at the corner-OF spots too. The 2 big holes are at CI, and AM seems to think he's got that covered with Snyder and Bell. So, it's just a matter of timing, like the P'ing is.

Here's what we know: As-is, we're very likely to be noticeably better at W's than last year, and we're on the verge of being way, way better. The only thing we're arguing about, really, is how much we should invest in temp spare parts before our CI's show up. Now, it's fine to argue about that, I'm not saying we shouldn't argue about it. But let's at least admit that that's all we're really arguing about...

We are arguing about whether we should have potential offensive black holes in 3 of 9 spots in the lineup in 2010. Izzy is an offensive black hole, that's a given, and one black hole can be OK if your other 8 spots are solid, especially when we are talking about a premier defensive SS. But three black holes is a problem, at least in 2010.

I agree that this is a short-term 2010 issue, not a long term issue. However, 2010 is the year in front of us, and I don't want to give away a whole bunch of games this year because our lineup has gaping holes, when it's not necessary. This team would have a decent chance of finishing over .500 if we had near league average production at 1B and 3B. Being in the bottom 2-3 spots in the league in those spots, in addition to SS, makes that very difficult to achieve. I realize we can expect improvement at several other spots, but our offense was 40 runs below average last year, and I don't think we make that up by getting worse at two spots where we already were very weak last year. Although it is only a short term issue, it's an issue we could have dealt with much more effectively, IMO.

I'm not going to get any more hysterical that this post, because we're still waiting to see what Andy does. But I don't like this direction much.

[RShack]

We are arguing about whether we should have potential offensive black holes in 3 of 9 spots in the lineup in 2010. Izzy is an offensive black hole, that's a given, and one black hole can be OK if your other 8 spots are solid, especially when we are talking about a premier defensive SS. But three black holes is a problem, at least in 2010.

I agree that this is a short-term 2010 issue, not a long term issue. However, 2010 is the year in front of us, and I don't want to give away a whole bunch of games this year because our lineup has gaping holes, when it's not necessary. This team would have a decent chance of finishing over .500 if we had near league average production at 1B and 3B. Being in the bottom 2-3 spots in the league in those spots, in addition to SS, makes that very difficult to achieve. I realize we can expect improvement at several other spots, but our offense was 40 runs below average last year, and I don't think we make that up by getting worse at two spots where we already were very weak last year. Although it is only a short term issue, it's an issue we could have dealt with much more effectively, IMO.

I'm not going to get any more hysterical that this post, because we're still waiting to see what Andy does. But I don't like this direction much.

Well, you basically restated the same problem: It's still about what we do for spare parts at CI. I agree that the hitting is a big issue there, which is why we're waiting and need spare parts to begin with. The reason Snyder is getting AAA time is not because he can't keep his foot on the bag, it's about how he hits. Same thing with Bell at 3B: he's not at Norfolk because he can't pick up a bunt.

I don't see how the latest AM news changes anything about how many gaping black holes we have. The issue with the 2 named 3B candidates isn't about black holes in the lineup. Crede's issue is his back, he's not a black hole. He's not great, but he's not a black hole. We just don't know if he can get out of bed for enough of the season. Miggi's not a black hole either. The only real black hole candidate is Atkins, and we already knew he had one of those jobs the minute AM signed him. So, what we're arguing about is the diff between whoever the 3B guy is vs. whoever you think we could've had at 1B from the meager list of 1B-guys. The issue of how many black holes there are comes does to how Atkins does, and that's true regardless of who we get.

[EL_Coyote]

...As-is, we're very likely to be noticeably better at W's than last year, and we're on the verge of being way, way better...

I want to agree with that part of your post. However Winning more than 75 games in 2010 would be going beyond expectations.

80+ wins and going beyond .500 on the year just seems unlikely and might ultimately prove a poor statement on the team's current talent level. Basically I don't think they can do it.

Long term answers at 1B, 3B, SS and LF still need to be found. That coupled with our pitching staff still has a ways to go. Perhaps the long term solutions already exist within the organization. I just wouldn't suggest counting on it.

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't be excited about 2010. Just asking everyone to temper their expectations.

[Frobby]

I don't see how the latest AM news changes anything about how many gaping black holes we have. The issue with the 2 named 3B candidates isn't about black holes in the lineup. Crede's issue is his back, he's not a black hole. He's not great, but he's not a black hole. We just don't know if he can get out of bed for enough of the season. Miggi's not a black hole either. The only real black hole candidate is Atkins, and we already knew he had one of those jobs the minute AM signed him. So, what we're arguing about is the diff between whoever the 3B guy is vs. whoever you think we could've had at 1B from the meager list of 1B-guys. The issue of how many black holes there are comes does to how Atkins does, and that's true regardless of who we get.

I consider Crede a black hole with the bat, because his OBP is just terrible -- .304 career OBP. And I believe OBP is the most important offensive stat there is. That has nothing to do with his back; Crede has always been a very low OBP guy. When healthy, he's Tony Batista with a better glove.

Batista -- .251/.299/.453, 92 OPS+

Crede -- .254/.304/.444, 92 OPS+

If we had a solid hitting 1B I wouldn't care so much, but we don't, and the combination of lousy hitters at both positions, plus SS, is going to retard the rest of the offense considerably IMO.

[RShack]

I consider Crede a black hole with the bat, because his OBP is just terrible -- .304 career OBP. And I believe OBP is the most important offensive stat there is. That has nothing to do with his back; Crede has always been a very low OBP guy. When healthy, he's Tony Batista with a better glove.

Well, it comes down to how you look at .748 OPS. I was assuming that's not-good but not exactly a black hole either. Not sure how it stacks up vs. other 3B-men.

We agree that it's nothing to feel good about it. But when we're looking for a temp spare part on a 1-year deal, that's probably gonna happen anyway.

[Frobby]

Well, it comes down to how you look at .748 OPS. I was assuming that's not-good but not exactly a black hole either.

As I said, it's the OBP that bothers me. As you know, OBP is much more important than SLG. Crede's career wOBA (which weights the various offensive components more correctly) is .320. Last year, 27 3B with more than 300 plate appearances did better than that. Granted, there were several who did worse, among them Melvin Mora. But the guy is a pretty lousy hitter who has just enough pop to distract you from the fact that he rarely gets on base.

[RShack]

As I said, it's the OBP that bothers me. As you know, OBP is much more important than SLG. Crede's career wOBA (which weights the various offensive components more correctly) is .320. Last year, 27 3B with more than 300 plate appearances did better than that. Granted, there were several who did worse, among them Melvin Mora. But the guy is a pretty lousy hitter who has just enough pop to distract you from the fact that he rarely gets on base.

OK, that seems both coherent and fair...

[GoldGlove21]

We are arguing about whether we should have potential offensive black holes in 3 of 9 spots in the lineup in 2010. Izzy is an offensive black hole, that's a given, and one black hole can be OK if your other 8 spots are solid, especially when we are talking about a premier defensive SS. But three black holes is a problem, at least in 2010.

I agree that this is a short-term 2010 issue, not a long term issue. However, 2010 is the year in front of us, and I don't want to give away a whole bunch of games this year because our lineup has gaping holes, when it's not necessary. This team would have a decent chance of finishing over .500 if we had near league average production at 1B and 3B. Being in the bottom 2-3 spots in the league in those spots, in addition to SS, makes that very difficult to achieve. I realize we can expect improvement at several other spots, but our offense was 40 runs below average last year, and I don't think we make that up by getting worse at two spots where we already were very weak last year. Although it is only a short term issue, it's an issue we could have dealt with much more effectively, IMO.

I'm not going to get any more hysterical that this post, because we're still waiting to see what Andy does. But I don't like this direction much.

I feel the exact same way. If the Orioles could have landed say laRoche/Delgado in addition to signing Bedard and moving one of Wiggy or Scott for a solid player, that would have gone a long way towards helping this team IMO.

[Arthur_Bryant]

I want to agree with that part of your post. However Winning more than 75 games in 2010 would be going beyond expectations.

.

Whose expectations? On what basis?

If you take a composite (simple average) of the usual prediction systems, you're looking at a team that scores nearly as many runs as it allows. And that's usually good for about 81 wins.

Of course you could debate the validity of those systems. But to say that 75 games represents the upper limit of expectations is literally not true. Because the informed and presumably unbiased expectations for 80-85 wins are definitely out there.

[El Gordo]

We are arguing about whether we should have potential offensive black holes in 3 of 9 spots in the lineup in 2010. Izzy is an offensive black hole, that's a given, and one black hole can be OK if your other 8 spots are solid, especially when we are talking about a premier defensive SS. But three black holes is a problem, at least in 2010.

I agree that this is a short-term 2010 issue, not a long term issue. However, 2010 is the year in front of us, and I don't want to give away a whole bunch of games this year because our lineup has gaping holes, when it's not necessary. This team would have a decent chance of finishing over .500 if we had near league average production at 1B and 3B. Being in the bottom 2-3 spots in the league in those spots, in addition to SS, makes that very difficult to achieve. I realize we can expect improvement at several other spots, but our offense was 40 runs below average last year, and I don't think we make that up by getting worse at two spots where we already were very weak last year. Although it is only a short term issue, it's an issue we could have dealt with much more effectively, IMO.

I'm not going to get any more hysterical that this post, because we're still waiting to see what Andy does. But I don't like this direction much.

If AM were as convinced as you are that Atkins and Crede or whomever, will be black holes, why do you think he is interested in them? Just because he is cheap? If Atkins can give you just his '08 numbers, he won't be a black hole. And the bottom line is it's Atkins/Snyder at 1B and Crede/Bell at 3B. I don't think they will combine to be black holes, and neither does AM, IMO. If he wasn't confident in Bell and Snyder he would have gone after Figgins and Johnson or LaRoche.

[TyCobb]

As I said, it's the OBP that bothers me. As you know, OBP is much more important than SLG. Crede's career wOBA (which weights the various offensive components more correctly) is .320. Last year, 27 3B with more than 300 plate appearances did better than that. Granted, there were several who did worse, among them Melvin Mora. But the guy is a pretty lousy hitter who has just enough pop to distract you from the fact that he rarely gets on base.

His wOBA against RHP isn't as terrible.

I think we should just platoon him with Wiggy. Keeps his bat from being black hole like and his glove in most games.

[El Gordo]

I consider Crede a black hole with the bat, because his OBP is just terrible -- .304 career OBP. And I believe OBP is the most important offensive stat there is. That has nothing to do with his back; Crede has always been a very low OBP guy. When healthy, he's Tony Batista with a better glove.

Batista -- .251/.299/.453, 92 OPS+

Crede -- .254/.304/.444, 92 OPS+

If we had a solid hitting 1B I wouldn't care so much, but we don't, and the combination of lousy hitters at both positions, plus SS, is going to retard the rest of the offense considerably IMO.

I'd be interested to hear your response to this:http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/crede-flying-under-the-radar-again

[RShack]

I didn't know Crede had a Silver Slugger award... I'm not hinting he will hit now, just saying I didn't realize he had one, that's all... guess I wasn't paying attention.

He interrupted ARod, who had the one before and two after that. Since 2004, it's been Mora, ARod, Crede, ARod, ARod, and Longoria

[Arthur_Bryant]

I'd be interested to hear your response to this:http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/crede-flying-under-the-radar-again

Crede is a very good fielder. He has to be, to make up for his hitting. But between hitting and injuries, he hasn't been worth more than 1.9 wins in any season since 2006, and if that's what he contributes this year, then he won't be much of an improvement over Mora.

Ok, he'll be cheap, and he represents value. This mean zilch to me unless it can be shown that paying him only $2-3MM has allowed the O's to go out and add wins elsewhere. But I don't see that happening.

Bear in mind too that Crede's arrival will push Atkins to 1B, where his value may be less than it would be at 3B. There's a good chance that Atkins and Crede together will be worth no more than two WAR.

That would be horrible, regardless of price.

[El Gordo]

Crede is a very good fielder. He has to be, to make up for his hitting. But between hitting and injuries, he hasn't been worth more than 1.9 wins in any season since 2006, and if that's what he contributes this year, then he won't be much of an improvement over Mora.

Ok, he'll be cheap, and he represents value. This mean zilch to me unless it can be shown that paying him only $2-3MM has allowed the O's to go out and add wins elsewhere. But I don't see that happening.

Bear in mind too that Crede's arrival will push Atkins to 1B, where his value may be less than it would be at 3B. There's a good chance that Atkins and Crede together will be worth no more than two WAR.

That would be horrible, regardless of price.

Crede last year was worth 1 win more than Mora. Atkins at 1B could be worth more at 1B than at 3B because his glove will be les of a liability there. Remember to be an improvement over last years production he need only hit better than a .729 OPS. I doubt AM would have signed him if thats all he thought he could do. We aren't looking for players to get us to the play offs, we are looking for stop gaps for Bell and Snyder. For a team with poor defense, Crede makes a lot of sense. Again I trust the O's medical people on his health concerns