Words to describe the NBA Draft Lottery:
Publicity Stunt
A Joke
Superfluous
Fundamentally Flawed
Moronic
Marketing Gimmick
Unnecessary Diversion
Ratings Grabber
Waste of Time
Unfair
There are many more nasty words that I could write about the NBA Draft Lottery, but I'll spare you from reading them. I despise everything about the NBA Draft Lottery (just like I do for the Wizards name) and refuse to accept any of the reasons people give for it's existence.
The team with the worst record should always have the 1st pick (just my opinion). The "tanking" argument is flawed. Do people honestly think the Charlotte Bobcats were tanking at the end of last season? They have absolutely no talent on their roster and were rarely competitive in games throughout the entire season. 7 total wins in 66 games is beyond awful. The Bobcats deserve the chance to draft the best player in the draft. Their fans need a reason to attend games. Anthony Davis would be that reason.
My Lottery Prediction for the Bullets: 3rd Pick
In this scenario, Bullets management would have to settle for Michael Kidd-Gilchrist with the 3rd pick in the draft and lose out on the Bradley Beal (taken with the 2nd pick by some other team). The team really needs a quality 3 point shooter and Beal is the best one in this draft. I really want to see a Bullets team that can shoot the 3 and open up space for John Wall to dominate off the dribble. Beal could be that player, so consider me 100% in the #BealCamp, especially if the Bullets luck into the 2nd pick* during this deplorable NBA Draft Lottery.
*1st Pick is not even a remote possibility for the Bullets in my opinion. No need to torment myself by thinking it could happen.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
The Reim-Time Timeline: Rebuttal
Before reading this post, please check out The Reim-Time Timeline
article by Zach Wilt over at BaltimoreSportsReport.com
(@BalSportsReport). This post is a rebuttal to the evidence he provided
to support his claim that Reimold can not stay healthy enough to hold a
roster spot.
^games on Orioles 25 man roster
*based on research from online sources
September 18th to October 4th, 2009:
I would not count these "games missed" against Reimold. The key point to remember here is that the Orioles shut him down. The season was essentially over (since all the Orioles were trying to do was not lose 100 games). It was better to get Reimold into surgery to repair the Achilles Tendon, rather than play 16 meaningless games. He had already proven he could be a valuable MLB player, as he was leading all AL rookies in homers, on-base percentage (.365), slugging percentage (.466), walks (47) and total bases (167).
April 7th to September 1st, 2010:
Recovery time for a torn Achilles' Tendon ranges from 6 to 12 weeks, but rehabilitation back to 100% strength usually takes at least a year. I think Reimold, as well as the Orioles, rushed him back. There are certain injuries that must be dealt with in a more cautious manner. Tommy John surgery is one of the injuries that comes to mind when talking about pitchers.
When it is determined that a pitcher needs Tommy John surgery, the team has to accept the loss of that player for an entire year. The recovery and rehabilitation from this major surgery can be slow and tedious. Major League Baseball teams do not rush pitchers back that have had Tommy John surgery. When pitchers are ready to come back from Tommy John surgery, their inning and pitch counts are limited while being increased incrementally over a full season. Their progress is moderated closely by training staffs as to avoid overwork and stress.
My opinion is that an Achilles' Tendon surgery should be the same category as Tommy John surgery. If one puts Achilles' Tendon in that category, then Reimold should not have been playing every game immediately. An incremental increase in number of games played would have put Reimold back at 100% in September of 2010. Orioles should have accepted that he would not be 100% healthy until September. Yes, it is an injury, but it was a nasty one just like a pitcher tearing an elbow ligament, and most wouldn't hold it against a pitcher if they missed a year due to it.
September 1st to October 1st, 2010:
Reimold played 10 games over 35 days. There were some good games in there, but the lack of playing time did not provide Reimold with many opportunities to showcase his skills. It should also be noted that 10 games is an extremely small sample - no judgement should be made based on 33 at-bats.
April 1st to May 20th, 2011:
Reimold was sent to Norfolk due to the fact that he had one option left and Felix Pie did not have any options left. If my memory serves me correctly, both Reimold and Pie had underwhelming spring training numbers. I have never put a lot of faith in spring training numbers. Most teams are experiencing with all types of pitchers during spring training games. And many position players are working to improve skills such as bunting, hitting opposite field, etc during split-squad games. Reimold's demotion to the AAA Norfolk Tides after spring training was a business decision. There were no injury concerns or problems for Reimold at the end of spring training.
May 20th to Sept 28th, 2011:
My research (and watching games) shows that only a handful of these games were due to injury. The rest of the games missed were the result of the manager's decision (#bucklogic) to play inferior players over Reimold (despite his consistent OPS above .800 for most of the season).
Final Rebuttal Thoughts:
Even though it may seem like Reimold has missed a lot of playing time, very few of the missed games were the result of injury. This neck problem is the first injury that has caused him to a miss significant number of games*. If Reimold comes back from this neck issue by the middle of June and continues to produce at a high level for the rest of the 2012 season, then I will consider his recovery a win-win for the fans and the games he missed will be a small price to pay for long term success. If he gets injured again and misses another 30 games, then I will start to agree with Zach about Reimold's inability to stay heathly long enough to hold a spot.
*Reimold played throughout 2010 (in almost every game) for the Norfolk Tides even though the Orioles should have been more cautious while he rehabilitated from Achilles Tendon surgery.
The Real Issue:
Currently, the point could made that Reimold needs to be more consistent. He has had flashes of great play (2011) and spans of terrible play (2010). I point to his great play during the second half of 2011 as reflection of his potential and a sign that his play will continue to improve. He produced a 1.5 WAR in 87 games played and had one of the most clutch hits in Orioles history in Game 162.
My outlook for his 2012 season was very optimistic. I still have high hopes for the rest of his 2012 season. He started off the season at a very high level and had already produced 0.6 WAR in 16 games. The man has battled back from terrible injuries in past and suspect he will beat this neck problem as well. I still believe that the Orioles need Reimold every game at an above-average level if they want to have a chance at the playoffs in 2012.
| Games | Games | Games Missed | |
| Time Frames | on O's^ | Missed | Due to Injury* |
| Sept 18th to Oct 4th, 2009 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| April 7th to Sept 1st, 2010 | 33 | 4 | 0 |
| Sept 1st to Oct 1st, 2010 | 30 | 17 | 0 |
| April 1st to May 20th, 2011 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| May 20th to Sept 28th, 2011 | 120 | 32 | 5 |
*based on research from online sources
September 18th to October 4th, 2009:
I would not count these "games missed" against Reimold. The key point to remember here is that the Orioles shut him down. The season was essentially over (since all the Orioles were trying to do was not lose 100 games). It was better to get Reimold into surgery to repair the Achilles Tendon, rather than play 16 meaningless games. He had already proven he could be a valuable MLB player, as he was leading all AL rookies in homers, on-base percentage (.365), slugging percentage (.466), walks (47) and total bases (167).
April 7th to September 1st, 2010:
Recovery time for a torn Achilles' Tendon ranges from 6 to 12 weeks, but rehabilitation back to 100% strength usually takes at least a year. I think Reimold, as well as the Orioles, rushed him back. There are certain injuries that must be dealt with in a more cautious manner. Tommy John surgery is one of the injuries that comes to mind when talking about pitchers.
When it is determined that a pitcher needs Tommy John surgery, the team has to accept the loss of that player for an entire year. The recovery and rehabilitation from this major surgery can be slow and tedious. Major League Baseball teams do not rush pitchers back that have had Tommy John surgery. When pitchers are ready to come back from Tommy John surgery, their inning and pitch counts are limited while being increased incrementally over a full season. Their progress is moderated closely by training staffs as to avoid overwork and stress.
My opinion is that an Achilles' Tendon surgery should be the same category as Tommy John surgery. If one puts Achilles' Tendon in that category, then Reimold should not have been playing every game immediately. An incremental increase in number of games played would have put Reimold back at 100% in September of 2010. Orioles should have accepted that he would not be 100% healthy until September. Yes, it is an injury, but it was a nasty one just like a pitcher tearing an elbow ligament, and most wouldn't hold it against a pitcher if they missed a year due to it.
September 1st to October 1st, 2010:
Reimold played 10 games over 35 days. There were some good games in there, but the lack of playing time did not provide Reimold with many opportunities to showcase his skills. It should also be noted that 10 games is an extremely small sample - no judgement should be made based on 33 at-bats.
April 1st to May 20th, 2011:
Reimold was sent to Norfolk due to the fact that he had one option left and Felix Pie did not have any options left. If my memory serves me correctly, both Reimold and Pie had underwhelming spring training numbers. I have never put a lot of faith in spring training numbers. Most teams are experiencing with all types of pitchers during spring training games. And many position players are working to improve skills such as bunting, hitting opposite field, etc during split-squad games. Reimold's demotion to the AAA Norfolk Tides after spring training was a business decision. There were no injury concerns or problems for Reimold at the end of spring training.
May 20th to Sept 28th, 2011:
My research (and watching games) shows that only a handful of these games were due to injury. The rest of the games missed were the result of the manager's decision (#bucklogic) to play inferior players over Reimold (despite his consistent OPS above .800 for most of the season).
Final Rebuttal Thoughts:
Even though it may seem like Reimold has missed a lot of playing time, very few of the missed games were the result of injury. This neck problem is the first injury that has caused him to a miss significant number of games*. If Reimold comes back from this neck issue by the middle of June and continues to produce at a high level for the rest of the 2012 season, then I will consider his recovery a win-win for the fans and the games he missed will be a small price to pay for long term success. If he gets injured again and misses another 30 games, then I will start to agree with Zach about Reimold's inability to stay heathly long enough to hold a spot.
*Reimold played throughout 2010 (in almost every game) for the Norfolk Tides even though the Orioles should have been more cautious while he rehabilitated from Achilles Tendon surgery.
The Real Issue:
Currently, the point could made that Reimold needs to be more consistent. He has had flashes of great play (2011) and spans of terrible play (2010). I point to his great play during the second half of 2011 as reflection of his potential and a sign that his play will continue to improve. He produced a 1.5 WAR in 87 games played and had one of the most clutch hits in Orioles history in Game 162.
My outlook for his 2012 season was very optimistic. I still have high hopes for the rest of his 2012 season. He started off the season at a very high level and had already produced 0.6 WAR in 16 games. The man has battled back from terrible injuries in past and suspect he will beat this neck problem as well. I still believe that the Orioles need Reimold every game at an above-average level if they want to have a chance at the playoffs in 2012.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Strength of Schedule (Orioles): 2005 vs 2012
Lots of talk in the twitter world about how the Orioles fan base should stay calm and not get overly excited about their good play through the first quarter of the season. I was trying to find a way to justify that this Orioles team is not like the 2005 team that went 25-13 through their first 38 games.
I started to consider the Orioles opponents thus far in the 2012 season to date and it feels like the Orioles have played a lot of games against high quality opponents (Texas, Yankees, Red Sox, Rays). I pulled the records of the 2005 Orioles' opponents through the first 38 games of the 2005 season as a starting point and compiled the results to generate a Strength of Schedule (SOS) factor:
*Factor is the % of Games Against divided by the Opponent Winning % (basic SOS). Please correct me if I have over-simplified this calculation.
If my math is correct, the 2005 Orioles Strength of Schedule through 38 games was .4894.
I pulled the same data for the 2012 Orioles, and to my enjoyment, I learned that they have played a slightly more difficult schedule than the 2005 Orioles after 38 games:
After 38 games, the 2012 Orioles Strength of Schedule is .5058.
How much better is .5058 than .4894? Probably not that much, but it is nice to see that the numbers do show (even if only slightly) that the Orioles have played a tougher schedule after 38 games than the 2005 Orioles. As a viewer, it sure has felt like the Orioles were playing a great opponent every night.
This small finding is another reason to be optimistic as the season goes forward. The Orioles know they can compete and beat the best teams in the American League. Let's just hope it continues all summer long.
I started to consider the Orioles opponents thus far in the 2012 season to date and it feels like the Orioles have played a lot of games against high quality opponents (Texas, Yankees, Red Sox, Rays). I pulled the records of the 2005 Orioles' opponents through the first 38 games of the 2005 season as a starting point and compiled the results to generate a Strength of Schedule (SOS) factor:
| 2005 | Games | Wins | Loses | % of Games Agst | Opp Winning % | Factor* |
| yankees | 6 | 21 | 19 | 0.16 | 0.53 | 0.0829 |
| devil rays | 6 | 14 | 26 | 0.16 | 0.35 | 0.0553 |
| blue jays | 6 | 21 | 18 | 0.16 | 0.54 | 0.0850 |
| red sox | 4 | 23 | 16 | 0.11 | 0.59 | 0.0621 |
| royals | 4 | 11 | 28 | 0.11 | 0.28 | 0.0297 |
| white sox | 4 | 28 | 12 | 0.11 | 0.70 | 0.0737 |
| oakland | 3 | 15 | 24 | 0.08 | 0.38 | 0.0304 |
| twins | 3 | 21 | 16 | 0.08 | 0.57 | 0.0448 |
| tigers | 2 | 18 | 19 | 0.05 | 0.49 | 0.0256 |
| Totals/Avgs | 38 | 19.1 | 19.8 | 1.00 | 0.49 | 0.4894 |
*Factor is the % of Games Against divided by the Opponent Winning % (basic SOS). Please correct me if I have over-simplified this calculation.
If my math is correct, the 2005 Orioles Strength of Schedule through 38 games was .4894.
I pulled the same data for the 2012 Orioles, and to my enjoyment, I learned that they have played a slightly more difficult schedule than the 2005 Orioles after 38 games:
| 2012 | Games | Wins | Loses | % of Games Agst | Opp Winning % | Factor* |
| yankees | 8 | 20 | 17 | 0.21 | 0.54 | 0.1138 |
| blue jays | 6 | 20 | 18 | 0.16 | 0.53 | 0.0831 |
| white sox | 4 | 17 | 21 | 0.11 | 0.45 | 0.0471 |
| rangers | 4 | 24 | 14 | 0.11 | 0.63 | 0.0665 |
| oakland | 3 | 19 | 19 | 0.08 | 0.50 | 0.0395 |
| rays | 3 | 24 | 14 | 0.08 | 0.63 | 0.0499 |
| red sox | 3 | 17 | 20 | 0.08 | 0.46 | 0.0363 |
| twins | 3 | 11 | 26 | 0.08 | 0.30 | 0.0235 |
| angels | 3 | 17 | 21 | 0.08 | 0.45 | 0.0353 |
| royals | 1 | 15 | 21 | 0.03 | 0.42 | 0.0110 |
| Totals/Avgs | 38 | 18.4 | 19.1 | 1.00 | 0.49 | 0.5058 |
After 38 games, the 2012 Orioles Strength of Schedule is .5058.
How much better is .5058 than .4894? Probably not that much, but it is nice to see that the numbers do show (even if only slightly) that the Orioles have played a tougher schedule after 38 games than the 2005 Orioles. As a viewer, it sure has felt like the Orioles were playing a great opponent every night.
This small finding is another reason to be optimistic as the season goes forward. The Orioles know they can compete and beat the best teams in the American League. Let's just hope it continues all summer long.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Starting Rotations (IP/GS): 2011 vs 2012 Orioles
Through 37 games of the season, it appears that the Orioles' starting rotation is substantially better than the 2011 version. How much better? I'm not totally sure, but there is one pitching metric where improvement is undeniable: IP/GS (innings pitched per start)
*Projected based on the premise that the production level from the first 37 games is maintained for the entire season.
**Rays, Angels, Yankees, Mariners, Rangers had the Top 5 starting rotations based on runs scored against per game. 4 of those 5 made the playoffs.
The starting rotation of the 2011 Orioles was not good in the IP/GS category:
*also going with the general assumption that the starting pitchers are allowing less runs and pitching more efficiently if they are pitching into the 7th inning.
I would have even more confidence in the Orioles' playoff hopes if the IP/GS was a little higher. I'm hoping the return of Zach Britton will bring the rotation up to an elite level (6.1-6.2 range) in the IP/GS statistic.
Hoping for the best, expecting the worse, but this starting rotation has an opportunity to maintain respectability and could surprise the MLB community even more as the dog days of summer approach.
I'll continue to say it until it becomes untrue...
This Orioles team is different...they know how to win and expect to win every game.
| 2012 Orioles Starting Pitchers | GS | IP | IP/GS |
| Jason Hammel | 7 | 43.2 | 6.2 |
| Wei-Yin Chen | 7 | 44.0 | 6.3 |
| Jake Arrieta | 8 | 48.1 | 6.0 |
| Brian Matusz | 7 | 37.2 | 5.3 |
| Tommy Hunter | 7 | 42.0 | 6.0 |
| Dana Eveland | 1 | 6.0 | 6.0 |
| 2012 Orioles Rotation (current totals) | 37 | 220.5 | 6.0 |
| 2012 Orioles Rotation (projected totals*) | 162 | 965.4 | 6.0 |
| 2011 Top 5** AL Rotations (based on R/G) | 162 | 1014.1 | 6.3 |
| 2011 Orioles Starting Rotation | 162 | 874.8 | 5.4 |
**Rays, Angels, Yankees, Mariners, Rangers had the Top 5 starting rotations based on runs scored against per game. 4 of those 5 made the playoffs.
The starting rotation of the 2011 Orioles was not good in the IP/GS category:
- In 2011, the Top 5 rotations in the AL managed to record an average of 19 outs per start (6 innings, one out).
- In 2011, the Orioles starting rotation managed to record an average of 16 outs per start (5 innings, one out)
- an entire inning less than the contenders
- 140 more innings thrown by the Orioles bullpen than the bullpens of the Top 5 starting rotations (average)
- the equivalent of 15 complete games
- The Top 5 rotations in the AL have managed to record an average of 19 outs per start (6 innings, one out).
- The Orioles' starting rotation through 37 games in 2012 is averaging 18 outs per start (6 innings).
- 2/3 of an inning more per game than in 2011.
- 90 less innings thrown by the bullpen than in 2011.
- the equivalent of 10 complete games
*also going with the general assumption that the starting pitchers are allowing less runs and pitching more efficiently if they are pitching into the 7th inning.
I would have even more confidence in the Orioles' playoff hopes if the IP/GS was a little higher. I'm hoping the return of Zach Britton will bring the rotation up to an elite level (6.1-6.2 range) in the IP/GS statistic.
Hoping for the best, expecting the worse, but this starting rotation has an opportunity to maintain respectability and could surprise the MLB community even more as the dog days of summer approach.
I'll continue to say it until it becomes untrue...
This Orioles team is different...they know how to win and expect to win every game.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Arrieta and Matusz: BABIP Concerns
There has been a lot of positive talk about Jake Arrieta's start to the 2012 season, and not so much positive talk about the beginning of Brian Matusz's season. After last night's win against the Yankees, I was shocked to see that Matusz's ERA was down to 4.67 (respectable for the AL bEast). And then I remembered that I saw Arrieta's ERA on the television screen after his last, and rather disappointing start: 4.45.
I found this to be a shocking considering the praise Arrieta has received so far this year, yet Matusz has been on the front end of a lot of negativity despite being nearly as productive on the mound. Obviously, ERA is not the best judge of one's pitching ability. I only brought up their ERA's because they lead to this question:
Are Jake Arrieta and Brian Matusz producing at the same level through 5 starts* in 2012?
*small sample, yes, but still worth a look
The short answer is No, they have not been producing at the same level. Arrieta has been worth 0.2 WAR more through 5 starts. Over an entire season of starts, that would result in about a 1.0 WAR difference between them. But WAR does not predict the future or account for "luck" (BABIP)...
The BABIP data suggests that one of these pitchers has been luckier than the other. I'm going to make the big assumption that Matusz is back to his former 2010 self (positive thoughts people) for predictive purposes. When Matusz was on top of his game in 2010, he sported a BABIP of .292, which is common during his successful stretches. Matusz's BABIP in 2012 through 5 starts is .322. I do not truly understand all of the advanced metrics and how one effects another, but let's say his luck improves and his BABIP gets down to the .290 range. He'll likely see a drop in the other advanced pitching metrics, start pitching a little deeper into games, and have more quality starts*.
Jake Arrieta, on the other hand, has been extremely lucky with his .235 BABIP. His career BABIP is typically in the .280 range. If his luck takes a turn for the worse and approaches .280, his advanced metrics will not look like those of top rotational pitcher. His current level of production would not be sustainable with a higher BABIP, and he would probably have an ERA in the 5.0 range when the 2012 season is over.
I do not mean to shed gloom and doom on Jake Arrieta. I just think the Orioles faithful needs to watch the advanced metrics closely with Arrieta and Matusz before judging them. My bold prediction is that Brian Matusz will have better numbers and be more productive then Jake Arrieta by the end of the year. I hope Jake proves me wrong and wins 15 games, but I think Matusz is going to surprise his doubters and win between 13 and 15 games with ERA in the 3.9-4.1 range.
*Side Note: The Quality Start statistic is poor barometer for success in my opinion. I like the idea of a Quality Start being at least 7 innings pitched with 3 or fewer earned runs. I think an even better statistic would be a High Quality Start: at least 7 innings with 2 or fewer earned runs.
I found this to be a shocking considering the praise Arrieta has received so far this year, yet Matusz has been on the front end of a lot of negativity despite being nearly as productive on the mound. Obviously, ERA is not the best judge of one's pitching ability. I only brought up their ERA's because they lead to this question:
Are Jake Arrieta and Brian Matusz producing at the same level through 5 starts* in 2012?
*small sample, yes, but still worth a look
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The BABIP data suggests that one of these pitchers has been luckier than the other. I'm going to make the big assumption that Matusz is back to his former 2010 self (positive thoughts people) for predictive purposes. When Matusz was on top of his game in 2010, he sported a BABIP of .292, which is common during his successful stretches. Matusz's BABIP in 2012 through 5 starts is .322. I do not truly understand all of the advanced metrics and how one effects another, but let's say his luck improves and his BABIP gets down to the .290 range. He'll likely see a drop in the other advanced pitching metrics, start pitching a little deeper into games, and have more quality starts*.
Jake Arrieta, on the other hand, has been extremely lucky with his .235 BABIP. His career BABIP is typically in the .280 range. If his luck takes a turn for the worse and approaches .280, his advanced metrics will not look like those of top rotational pitcher. His current level of production would not be sustainable with a higher BABIP, and he would probably have an ERA in the 5.0 range when the 2012 season is over.
I do not mean to shed gloom and doom on Jake Arrieta. I just think the Orioles faithful needs to watch the advanced metrics closely with Arrieta and Matusz before judging them. My bold prediction is that Brian Matusz will have better numbers and be more productive then Jake Arrieta by the end of the year. I hope Jake proves me wrong and wins 15 games, but I think Matusz is going to surprise his doubters and win between 13 and 15 games with ERA in the 3.9-4.1 range.
*Side Note: The Quality Start statistic is poor barometer for success in my opinion. I like the idea of a Quality Start being at least 7 innings pitched with 3 or fewer earned runs. I think an even better statistic would be a High Quality Start: at least 7 innings with 2 or fewer earned runs.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
The Dylan Bundy Situation
Let me start off by saying I'm no expert on the topic of baseball prospect development. I'm just going to throw my two cents out there and see if anybody agrees with me since this topic has been hotly debated recently.
@CamdenDepot (Jon Shepard) and @masnSteve (Steve Melewski) have had quite a little twitter war today about how to handle Dylan Bundy's development and his non-existent promotion from Delmarva to Frederick.
I'm not entirely sure that the viewpoint Steve is broadcasting is truly his own. I think it's more a reflection of what Orioles management is feeding him. This is understandable considering his job is to be a newspaper/beat/fact reporter for MASN that follows the Orioles. The best way for him to get access to the Orioles players and management is to keep them happy by writing exactly what they tell him (and leaving out his opinions as much as possible). Regardless, he has to be accountable for his words, whether they are his or those of Orioles management.
Jon, on the other hand, has been voicing an educated opinion on the Bundy situation that is based on his past and current prospect development research and general knowledge of baseball. If you have ever read his minor league prospects posts on CamdenDepot, then you probably know his knowledge on this topic is supported by research and is well-respected in the baseball community.
My best attempt at transcribing the twitter war/conversation (order may be a little off):
Steve: "Lost in fan hysteria about possible Bundy promotion, they like him working on his changeup at a level where he can do that & have success."
Jon: "and somehow Frederick is way too hard for using his changeup? Not based on the reports I have been given."
Steve: "He can it develop better in a 6-man with two side sessions with a pitching coach he is clicking with."
Jon: "no rush, but absurd to think he cannot develop a change above Delmarva. Bad argument."
Steve: "Sure Bundy can get Carolina Lg hitters out now. Not the point. They are teaching him a changeup to get AL hitters out someday."
Jon: "you do not have to be in Frederick, but it is NOT keeping him from Frederick. That is the point."
Steve: "I know we are hearing from the same "critics" now on Bundy that are now saying Matusz was rushed. But hey, let's make that mistake again."
Steve: "The extra side session and less advanced hitters to do it against. Improve that pitch, then move up."
Jon: "pitch already plays and your other arguments (learning to be a pro) sounds more glad handy and a bit contradictory."
There were other tweets mixed in at the end that deal with name calling and such, but they are not important to the discussion at hand. I think there are positives on both sides of the argument. There really is no need to rush Bundy right now (Steve's point), but Bundy's opponents in Sally League can't even touch his pitches (Jon's point). So what's the solution? It's not my call but I think the Orioles should...
Move Dylan Bundy to Frederick (Carolina League) now.
@CamdenDepot (Jon Shepard) and @masnSteve (Steve Melewski) have had quite a little twitter war today about how to handle Dylan Bundy's development and his non-existent promotion from Delmarva to Frederick.
I'm not entirely sure that the viewpoint Steve is broadcasting is truly his own. I think it's more a reflection of what Orioles management is feeding him. This is understandable considering his job is to be a newspaper/beat/fact reporter for MASN that follows the Orioles. The best way for him to get access to the Orioles players and management is to keep them happy by writing exactly what they tell him (and leaving out his opinions as much as possible). Regardless, he has to be accountable for his words, whether they are his or those of Orioles management.
Jon, on the other hand, has been voicing an educated opinion on the Bundy situation that is based on his past and current prospect development research and general knowledge of baseball. If you have ever read his minor league prospects posts on CamdenDepot, then you probably know his knowledge on this topic is supported by research and is well-respected in the baseball community.
My best attempt at transcribing the twitter war/conversation (order may be a little off):
Steve: "Lost in fan hysteria about possible Bundy promotion, they like him working on his changeup at a level where he can do that & have success."
Jon: "and somehow Frederick is way too hard for using his changeup? Not based on the reports I have been given."
Steve: "He can it develop better in a 6-man with two side sessions with a pitching coach he is clicking with."
Jon: "no rush, but absurd to think he cannot develop a change above Delmarva. Bad argument."
Steve: "Sure Bundy can get Carolina Lg hitters out now. Not the point. They are teaching him a changeup to get AL hitters out someday."
Jon: "you do not have to be in Frederick, but it is NOT keeping him from Frederick. That is the point."
Steve: "I know we are hearing from the same "critics" now on Bundy that are now saying Matusz was rushed. But hey, let's make that mistake again."
Steve: "The extra side session and less advanced hitters to do it against. Improve that pitch, then move up."
Jon: "pitch already plays and your other arguments (learning to be a pro) sounds more glad handy and a bit contradictory."
My two cents:
There were other tweets mixed in at the end that deal with name calling and such, but they are not important to the discussion at hand. I think there are positives on both sides of the argument. There really is no need to rush Bundy right now (Steve's point), but Bundy's opponents in Sally League can't even touch his pitches (Jon's point). So what's the solution? It's not my call but I think the Orioles should...
Move Dylan Bundy to Frederick (Carolina League) now.
- When you really think about it, Frederick and Delmarva are not that different from a travel and life-style standpoint, so the "learning to be a pro" argument can be thrown out. He'll still ride buses, and pitch every 5th or 6th day in lackluster A-ball environments/stadiums.
- Based on what I have read in the past, Bundy's opponents in Frederick will not be so much better than in Delmarva that he can't work on his changeup. My hope would be that maybe the Carolina League players could at least get a few hits and allow Bundy to work on all aspects of his game. Aspects of his game that he hasn't and probably won't ever be able to use in Delmarva include holding runners, pick-off moves, higher pitch counts (per inning or entire game), fielding bunts, situational pitching (RISP), etc.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Reimold Leaderboard Status
If Reimold had had 4 more plate appearances as of today^, he would qualify for the MLB batting leader-boards...
He would be 2nd* in the American League and 4th in Major League Baseball in Slugging Percentage (.783) and OPS (1.166).
End of Discussion**: Reimold should be starting every game for the Orioles in some capacity. But he probably shouldn't be batting lead-off. I prefer to see him in the 2nd, 5th, or 6th spot, since those spots usually result in more at-bats with runners in scoring position.
^Neck Spasms have forced him to miss 3 of the last 4 games.
*behind only Josh Hamilton
**I realize these are small samples and he is unlikely to continue at this rate, but the potential for production is apparent and undeniable.
He would be 2nd* in the American League and 4th in Major League Baseball in Slugging Percentage (.783) and OPS (1.166).
End of Discussion**: Reimold should be starting every game for the Orioles in some capacity. But he probably shouldn't be batting lead-off. I prefer to see him in the 2nd, 5th, or 6th spot, since those spots usually result in more at-bats with runners in scoring position.
^Neck Spasms have forced him to miss 3 of the last 4 games.
*behind only Josh Hamilton
**I realize these are small samples and he is unlikely to continue at this rate, but the potential for production is apparent and undeniable.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Orioles Lead-Off Hitter: Nick Markakis
My last post detailed the problems with the traditional idea of a lead-off hitter. I reserved my opinion on who I thought should be the Orioles' lead-off until now so I would have some 2012 data* to back up my claims.
*The Orioles have only played 14 games as of today, so this sample is probably a little small. 100 plate appearances is preferable, but data from 2011 can be used to validate any small sample size issues. I'll try to revisit after the Orioles have played 25 and 50 games.
My opinion is that the lead-off hitter should be the team's most proficient player at getting on-base. In statistical terms, that would be the player with the highest on-base percentage (OBP). For my selection of the Orioles lead-off hitter, I will use prior year data** for justification.
**Current year could, and probably should be used after 25 games.
Without any further ado, I give you my pick for the Orioles' everyday lead-off hitter: Nick Markakis. Probably not much of a shocker to those of you that follow the Orioles on a daily basis. It just makes visual (actually watching the games) and statistical (not just AVG, HRs, and RBIs) sense...
Visual: For all of 2011 and most of 2012, Markakis has made a habit of lacing singles to left field when pitched away. He does this without regard for the current game situation. It doesn't matter if the bases are empty in the 1st inning or if there is a man on first with two outs in the 9th inning and the Orioles are down by one, Markakis will try to slap the outside pitch to left field for a single. The opposing pitchers know he does this and will continue to pitch him on the outside corner to avoid having Markakis get an extra-base hit. So what does all of that mean? It means that Markakis should not be batting 3rd in the Orioles lineup. The 3rd spot is generally reserved for the team's most productive player at creating runs (wRC+), which is not Markakis on the Orioles. Enough of my opinions, here are the numbers:
*As of April 21st
Markakis was clearly the Orioles most proficient player at getting on-base in 2011, but his 2011 wOBA and wRC+ would be in the bottom 3rd of the Orioles 2012 typical lineup. A high OBP player that has a low wOBA and WRC+ should not be hitting in the 3rd spot. Markakis was average (at best) at producing runs in 2011 (wRC+ of 107) and the trend is continuing in 2012 (wRC+ of 95). The Orioles need to accept the fact that Markakis is not a run producer.
The best way to use Markakis is to put him in the lead-off spot and maximum his talent for getting on-base (since a lead-off hitters primary job is to get on-base). His OBP is down a little in 2012, but 14 games is a small sample, so I will not judge him yet. It's likely he'll have the top OBP on the Orioles by the end of the year.
Memo to the Orioles Management: Force Buck to put Markakis in the lead-off spot and get over the fact that you gave Markakis too much money. It's time to make the best of an expensive contract. Speaking of bad contracts, please release Kevin Gregg while you are at it.
Added Discussion:
See below for my proposed 2012 Orioles lineup. Let me know what you think. I don't think there is one right answer for the Orioles lineup (except that Markakis should be leading off in all of them).
Based on 2011 end of year statistics (and the 14 games in 2012), this is the starting lineup I would like to see in 90% of the Orioles games...
*The Orioles have only played 14 games as of today, so this sample is probably a little small. 100 plate appearances is preferable, but data from 2011 can be used to validate any small sample size issues. I'll try to revisit after the Orioles have played 25 and 50 games.
My opinion is that the lead-off hitter should be the team's most proficient player at getting on-base. In statistical terms, that would be the player with the highest on-base percentage (OBP). For my selection of the Orioles lead-off hitter, I will use prior year data** for justification.
**Current year could, and probably should be used after 25 games.
Without any further ado, I give you my pick for the Orioles' everyday lead-off hitter: Nick Markakis. Probably not much of a shocker to those of you that follow the Orioles on a daily basis. It just makes visual (actually watching the games) and statistical (not just AVG, HRs, and RBIs) sense...
Visual: For all of 2011 and most of 2012, Markakis has made a habit of lacing singles to left field when pitched away. He does this without regard for the current game situation. It doesn't matter if the bases are empty in the 1st inning or if there is a man on first with two outs in the 9th inning and the Orioles are down by one, Markakis will try to slap the outside pitch to left field for a single. The opposing pitchers know he does this and will continue to pitch him on the outside corner to avoid having Markakis get an extra-base hit. So what does all of that mean? It means that Markakis should not be batting 3rd in the Orioles lineup. The 3rd spot is generally reserved for the team's most productive player at creating runs (wRC+), which is not Markakis on the Orioles. Enough of my opinions, here are the numbers:
| 2011 | 2012* | |||||
| Typical Lineup | OBP | wOBA | wRC+ | OBP | wOBA | wRC+ |
| Reimold | .328 | .341 | 112 | .383 | .500 | 217 |
| Hardy | .310 | .343 | 113 | .283 | .288 | 76 |
| Markakis | .351 | .334 | 107 | .323 | .317 | 95 |
| Jones | .319 | .339 | 110 | .333 | .416 | 161 |
| Wieters | .328 | .339 | 110 | .380 | .412 | 159 |
| Betemit | .343 | .340 | 112 | .171 | .218 | 29 |
| Reynolds | .323 | .348 | 116 | .286 | .241 | 45 |
| Davis | .305 | .309 | 89 | .348 | .371 | 131 |
| Andino | .327 | .305 | 87 | .321 | .325 | 100 |
Markakis was clearly the Orioles most proficient player at getting on-base in 2011, but his 2011 wOBA and wRC+ would be in the bottom 3rd of the Orioles 2012 typical lineup. A high OBP player that has a low wOBA and WRC+ should not be hitting in the 3rd spot. Markakis was average (at best) at producing runs in 2011 (wRC+ of 107) and the trend is continuing in 2012 (wRC+ of 95). The Orioles need to accept the fact that Markakis is not a run producer.
The best way to use Markakis is to put him in the lead-off spot and maximum his talent for getting on-base (since a lead-off hitters primary job is to get on-base). His OBP is down a little in 2012, but 14 games is a small sample, so I will not judge him yet. It's likely he'll have the top OBP on the Orioles by the end of the year.
Memo to the Orioles Management: Force Buck to put Markakis in the lead-off spot and get over the fact that you gave Markakis too much money. It's time to make the best of an expensive contract. Speaking of bad contracts, please release Kevin Gregg while you are at it.
Added Discussion:
See below for my proposed 2012 Orioles lineup. Let me know what you think. I don't think there is one right answer for the Orioles lineup (except that Markakis should be leading off in all of them).
Based on 2011 end of year statistics (and the 14 games in 2012), this is the starting lineup I would like to see in 90% of the Orioles games...
| Markakis |
| Jones |
| Hardy |
| Wieters |
| Reimold |
| Davis |
| Reynolds |
| Betemit |
| Andino |
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Batting Order Discussion: Leadoff Hitter
What makes a MLB player a "great" leadoff hitter? I use quotations around the word "great" because there are varing opinions out there as to what a leadoff hitter should be. Listed below are statements that I typically hear from casual baseball fans when they talk about the qualities of a "great" leadoff hitter:
Leadoff hitter must be fast.
In my opinion, must be fast is the weakest reason one could have for wanting a player in the leadoff spot. I'll concede that it is important for a leadoff to have some speed, but I don't believe that they need to be fast or have elite speed to help the team win. Granted, it's never good to have a really fast player bat behind a really slow player. But then again, there's only 90 feet between bases, so the chances of the fast player catching the slow player are pretty slim if you consider all factors. One can actually quantify the speed of an individual player with a stopwatch, but that metric does not measure the player's ability to help the team win. Ultimately, I feel as though the "must be fast to be a leadoff hitter" statement should be ignored because it is not speed alone that gets a player on-base, it's a combination of many things; hits and walks are the first things that come to mind.
Leadoff hitter is not a power hitter.
This one is very easy debunk. I give you the names, home run totals, and stolen base totals of leadoff hitters for three playoff-caliber MLB teams in 2011...
Jacoby Ellsbury: 32 HRs, 39 SBs
Jimmy Rollins: 16 HRs, 30 SBs
Ian Kinsler: 32 HRs, 30 SBs
I know it's hard for some fans to process this, but it's okay for a leadoff hitter to have power. All three of these players excel at getting on-base, stealing bases, and creating runs. Just because they have power doesn't mean they shouldn't be the leadoff hitter - I see it was a bonus. They play for three high-quality teams that consistently win games, so "wasting those home runs" (as people tend to say) in the leadoff spot does not seem to be hurting those teams in the most important column: the win column.
Leadoff hitter has a high batting average.
This one is a little tricky. The best leadoff hitters in MLB usually have a high batting average (AVG), but in my opinion, the player's on-base percentage (OBP) and wOBA is the more releveant statistic. I'm not saying a leadoff hitter shouldn't or can't have a high batting average. I'm just saying that OBP and wOBA are better predictors of whether a player will be more beneficial to their team in the leadoff spot. Which of these two players is the better leadoff hitter in your mind?
Player A: .255 AVG in 2011
Player B: .297 AVG in 2011
If AVG was the only information you were given, you would have to pick Player B. No brainer. And this is why I have a problem with fans stating that a leadoff hitter should have a high batting average. Batting average only tells one part of the story and fans need to start looking beyond that limited statistic if they want to truly understand the modern game of baseball. Player A is Derek Jeter. Player B is Ian Kinsler. Both ended 2011 with a .355 OBP, so in my opinion, they are both performing the job (getting on-base) of a leadoff hitter at the same level. The wOBA statistis takes the numbers to a new level and measures a hitter's total offensive value. See FanGraphs for the real and detailed explanation of wOBA. Kinsler had a wOBA of .370 and Jeter a .332 wOBA. It is clear that Kinsler was a more productive and efficient leadoff hitter despite his .255 AVG. I envision a future where televised baseball games no longer display or speak of batting average. Probably never going to happen in my lifetime.
In my next post, I will divulge and justify my pick for the Orioles opening day leadoff hitter...
Any guesses?
For any Wizards fans viewing this page...go check out my good friend's new blog (he's more consistent with posting than me) ... Live From the Phone Booth
- Leadoff hitter must be fast.
- Leadoff hitter is not a power hitter.
- Leadoff hitter has a high batting average.
Leadoff hitter must be fast.
In my opinion, must be fast is the weakest reason one could have for wanting a player in the leadoff spot. I'll concede that it is important for a leadoff to have some speed, but I don't believe that they need to be fast or have elite speed to help the team win. Granted, it's never good to have a really fast player bat behind a really slow player. But then again, there's only 90 feet between bases, so the chances of the fast player catching the slow player are pretty slim if you consider all factors. One can actually quantify the speed of an individual player with a stopwatch, but that metric does not measure the player's ability to help the team win. Ultimately, I feel as though the "must be fast to be a leadoff hitter" statement should be ignored because it is not speed alone that gets a player on-base, it's a combination of many things; hits and walks are the first things that come to mind.
Leadoff hitter is not a power hitter.
This one is very easy debunk. I give you the names, home run totals, and stolen base totals of leadoff hitters for three playoff-caliber MLB teams in 2011...
Jacoby Ellsbury: 32 HRs, 39 SBs
Jimmy Rollins: 16 HRs, 30 SBs
Ian Kinsler: 32 HRs, 30 SBs
I know it's hard for some fans to process this, but it's okay for a leadoff hitter to have power. All three of these players excel at getting on-base, stealing bases, and creating runs. Just because they have power doesn't mean they shouldn't be the leadoff hitter - I see it was a bonus. They play for three high-quality teams that consistently win games, so "wasting those home runs" (as people tend to say) in the leadoff spot does not seem to be hurting those teams in the most important column: the win column.
Leadoff hitter has a high batting average.
This one is a little tricky. The best leadoff hitters in MLB usually have a high batting average (AVG), but in my opinion, the player's on-base percentage (OBP) and wOBA is the more releveant statistic. I'm not saying a leadoff hitter shouldn't or can't have a high batting average. I'm just saying that OBP and wOBA are better predictors of whether a player will be more beneficial to their team in the leadoff spot. Which of these two players is the better leadoff hitter in your mind?
Player A: .255 AVG in 2011
Player B: .297 AVG in 2011
If AVG was the only information you were given, you would have to pick Player B. No brainer. And this is why I have a problem with fans stating that a leadoff hitter should have a high batting average. Batting average only tells one part of the story and fans need to start looking beyond that limited statistic if they want to truly understand the modern game of baseball. Player A is Derek Jeter. Player B is Ian Kinsler. Both ended 2011 with a .355 OBP, so in my opinion, they are both performing the job (getting on-base) of a leadoff hitter at the same level. The wOBA statistis takes the numbers to a new level and measures a hitter's total offensive value. See FanGraphs for the real and detailed explanation of wOBA. Kinsler had a wOBA of .370 and Jeter a .332 wOBA. It is clear that Kinsler was a more productive and efficient leadoff hitter despite his .255 AVG. I envision a future where televised baseball games no longer display or speak of batting average. Probably never going to happen in my lifetime.
In my next post, I will divulge and justify my pick for the Orioles opening day leadoff hitter...
Any guesses?
For any Wizards fans viewing this page...go check out my good friend's new blog (he's more consistent with posting than me) ... Live From the Phone Booth
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
#bullets
At some point in the middle of the Wizard's debacle last night, I came to the conclusion/realization that I'm done with the #wizards twitter hashtag and the "Wizards" name. I started using the #bullets hashtag for all of my tweets. I see the #bullets hashtag as an opportunity/starting point for a movement to bring back the Bullets name. I say screw the Wizards name and everything it tried to stand for*.
*The name change attempted to distance the franchise from the gun violence that existed in DC during the 1980's. People, governments, and politics can decrease crime rates, not a professional basketball team's name change.
After this post, I will no longer use the name Wizards to describe the NBA franchise in Washington, D.C. I ask you to join me in this quest to eliminate the Wizards name from the internet stratosphere. One way or another, the Bullets name will reappear...
I implore allWizards Bullets fans to use the #bullets hash tag for all related posts, tweets, and opinions about the NBA's Washington D.C. franchise.
Justification isn't really necessary since Irene Pollin has already given her blessing for the switch back to the Bullets name...
Bullets Bullets Bullets
I found Leonsis' response to Irene Pollin's comments lackluster and similar to that of a DC politician...
#bullets
*The name change attempted to distance the franchise from the gun violence that existed in DC during the 1980's. People, governments, and politics can decrease crime rates, not a professional basketball team's name change.
After this post, I will no longer use the name Wizards to describe the NBA franchise in Washington, D.C. I ask you to join me in this quest to eliminate the Wizards name from the internet stratosphere. One way or another, the Bullets name will reappear...
I implore all
Justification isn't really necessary since Irene Pollin has already given her blessing for the switch back to the Bullets name...
“I respect my husband’s wishes. I love him very much. I miss him terribly. If the fans want to change it back — hey, why not?” Irene Pollin said recently. “To me, it’s what do the fans want? What’s going to please them? To me, they’re the ones who support, care.”I know what this true DC basketball fan wants and I'm pretty sure the majority of the legit DC basketball fans agree with me. And it's quite simple, get rid of the awful Wizards name and bring back the only correct name for a DC basketball franchise...
Bullets Bullets Bullets
I found Leonsis' response to Irene Pollin's comments lackluster and similar to that of a DC politician...
“The Wizards organization, our fans, our players and our alumni remain extremely excited about the return to red, white and blue and the introduction of our new team marks. Our focus is a commitment to celebrating that change with our fans”.He is definitely avoiding the real issue with those words. Changing the team colors back to red, white, and blue is nice but it seems like a half-baked attempt to sell tickets and please the die-hard DC fans. You want to make some real change and get people back into the Verizon Center, then undo a name change that should have never happened.
#bullets
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Plate Appearances and fWAR: Position Players
If you need a primer on fWAR, please visit the FanGraphs' Sabermetric Library entry for fWAR. I highly recommend FanGraphs, as their Sabermetric Library contains detailed information on many other advanced baseball statistics.
Listed below is the latest data I pulled from FanGraphs for the Orioles active position players (for games played through August 30, 2011):
As if it wasn't apparent in my past posts, I'm a big fan/supporter of the fWAR statistic as a measurement for player production. I wanted to take the statistic one level further though. It may be a simple misunderstanding on my part, but fWAR does not appear to distinguish between a player with 600 plate appearance and one with 100 plate appearances. I read the literature on fWAR and number of plate appearances seems to be inconsequential in the calculation, since it measures a player's contribution/production, not the quality/efficiency level of their play.
I developed a simple calculation that uses Plate Appearances in conjunction with fWAR to determine the quality/efficiency of a player's fWAR. This metric, fWAR(e), determines how many plate appearances it takes for a player to achieve a league average fWAR of 2.0*. As you can see from below (and in the table above), the equation is not complex and quite elementary:
Equation Formula (abbreviated): fWAR(e) = (PA/fWAR)*2 or
Equation Formula (extended): To calculate fWAR(e), divide the player's Plate Appearances by their fWAR, then multiple that number by league average fWAR (2)
Be advised, I'm not trying to change fWAR or create some great new statistic. I'm not a math guru either, so take this all with a grain of salt. Just trying to find new ways to look at the Orioles disappointing season and maybe find a silver lining for next season.
Results:
**One of the fallacies of fWAR(e) is negative fWAR. It destroys the equation - a real statistics guru could probably remedy this situation. Bottom line though, if a player has a negative fWAR after at least 100 plate appearances, the player is unlikely to reach a league average 2.0 fWAR.
Listed below is the latest data I pulled from FanGraphs for the Orioles active position players (for games played through August 30, 2011):
| Player | PA | OBP | OPS | wOBA | wRC+ | fWAR | fWAR(e): (PA/fWAR)*2 |
| J.J. Hardy | 453 | 0.315 | 0.831 | 0.355 | 121 | 3.6 | 252 |
| Matt Wieters | 456 | 0.329 | 0.760 | 0.333 | 106 | 3.4 | 268 |
| Adam Jones | 546 | 0.327 | 0.805 | 0.349 | 117 | 2.9 | 377 |
| Nick Markakis | 597 | 0.342 | 0.742 | 0.328 | 103 | 2.0 | 597 |
| Nolan Reimold | 221 | 0.308 | 0.728 | 0.316 | 95 | 0.6 | 737 |
| Robert Andino | 389 | 0.327 | 0.652 | 0.299 | 83 | 0.7 | 1111 |
| Mark Reynolds | 522 | 0.326 | 0.815 | 0.350 | 118 | 0.8 | 1305 |
| Craig Tatum | 72 | 0.286 | 0.567 | 0.260 | 56 | 0.1 | 1440 |
| Matt Angle | 21 | 0.190 | 0.348 | 0.181 | 2 | -0.1 | N/A |
| Vladimir Guerrero | 471 | 0.306 | 0.695 | 0.304 | 86 | -0.4 | N/A |
| Jake Fox | 58 | 0.276 | 0.683 | 0.299 | 83 | -0.3 | N/A |
| Ryan Adams | 60 | 0.333 | 0.690 | 0.309 | 90 | 0.0 | N/A |
As if it wasn't apparent in my past posts, I'm a big fan/supporter of the fWAR statistic as a measurement for player production. I wanted to take the statistic one level further though. It may be a simple misunderstanding on my part, but fWAR does not appear to distinguish between a player with 600 plate appearance and one with 100 plate appearances. I read the literature on fWAR and number of plate appearances seems to be inconsequential in the calculation, since it measures a player's contribution/production, not the quality/efficiency level of their play.
I developed a simple calculation that uses Plate Appearances in conjunction with fWAR to determine the quality/efficiency of a player's fWAR. This metric, fWAR(e), determines how many plate appearances it takes for a player to achieve a league average fWAR of 2.0*. As you can see from below (and in the table above), the equation is not complex and quite elementary:
Equation Formula (abbreviated): fWAR(e) = (PA/fWAR)*2 or
Equation Formula (extended): To calculate fWAR(e), divide the player's Plate Appearances by their fWAR, then multiple that number by league average fWAR (2)
Be advised, I'm not trying to change fWAR or create some great new statistic. I'm not a math guru either, so take this all with a grain of salt. Just trying to find new ways to look at the Orioles disappointing season and maybe find a silver lining for next season.
Results:
- J.J. Hardy is the highest producing and most efficient position player on the Orioles roster. His fWAR of 3.6 leads the team and his 252 fWAR(e) is the lowest/best. To put his fWAR(e) in perspective, J.J. Hardy can contribute league average production to a team in about 252 plate appearances.
- Andino and Reynolds have not been efficient players in 2011. They require over a season's worth of plate appearances to achieve league average production.
- Hardy, Wieters, and Jones are the only highly efficient position players on the Orioles roster. Highly efficient meaning they will produce over league average in one season's worth of plate appearances (650 PA).
- Markakis is just barely above league average (required 600 PA to achieve league average fWAR of 2.0) and Reimold is just below the league average number.
- Vladimir Guerrero does not even contribute at a replacement level of 0.0 fWAR, so his fWAR(e) cannot be calculated. His fWAR of -0.4 is pathetic and NEGATIVE!!** Vlad was a waste of 8 million dollars.
**One of the fallacies of fWAR(e) is negative fWAR. It destroys the equation - a real statistics guru could probably remedy this situation. Bottom line though, if a player has a negative fWAR after at least 100 plate appearances, the player is unlikely to reach a league average 2.0 fWAR.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Reimold's Clutch Walk-Off Home Run
Orioles won last night 6-4 in 10 innings over the White Sox thanks to Nolan Reimold's Walk-Off Home Run. Follow the link and savor the moment...
Reimold Walk-Off Home Run*
A nice win for the Orioles last night, so no complaints from me today. Hopefully this is the start of a hot streak for Nolan. Looking forward to seeing Reimold and his team high clutch rate** of .95 in the lineup again tonight.
*It's unfortunate that MLB prevents one from embedding a game highlight on a blog.
**Clutch rate measures how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. Next highest clutch rate on team is JJ Hardy at .47.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Buck Logic Failure #3: Over-Usage of Wieters
The title of this post is a little misleading, since the over-usage of Matt Wieters is not completely the fault of Buck Showalter. Andy MacPhail has to shoulder some of the blame as well. Before I tell you why I think MacPhail is to blame for Wieters' diminished plate production, look at Matt's troubling 2011 monthly splits:
Wieters had a great April, but he has been steadily unproductive the past three months. I blame this decreased production on Buck and MacPhail. The lineup flexibiliity of the Orioles was eliminated once Vladimir Guerrero was signed during the off-season - this was a mistake by MacPhail and he should accept the blame. It took away any chance Buck had of resting position players while keeping their bat in the lineup. Because of Vlad's inability to play the field, Buck can only get Wieters into the lineup at catcher. The blame also falls on Buck because he has never benched Vlad in favor of a DH start for Wieters.
Because Vlad plays every game, this is the situation:
Typical Starts by Position breakdown for Wieters WITH Vlad on the roster:
This could be the situation (more rest for Wieters):
Hypothetical Starts by Position breakdown for Wieters WITHOUT Vlad on the roster:
So why does all this starts by position matter? In my opinion, all of this catching is wearing Wieters down, which isn't surprising considering the Baltimore heat/humidity combination and the fact that Wieters is 6'5" (very tall for a catcher). Besides April, Wieters really hasn't produced at the plate. Now granted, he continues to field like a gold-glover each month, but the batting numbers are troubling. Projections for the rest of the year are not likely to favor increased production at the plate.
The root cause of this is Vlad. Without Vlad on the roster, Buck would have been able to use Wieters at DH more in the beginning of the season, thus keeping his "legs" fresh for the last few months of the season. Obviously, this is just my opinion based on some loose numbers, but the eye test hasn't been good either. Wieters has looked tired and possibly a little lazy at the plate during the last few weeks, and I can't blame him considering the heavy work load. He deserves more starts at DH or even an extra day or rest during parts of the season where the Orioles have limited days off. There is no way to prove whether Wieters would be better with more rest, but I highly doubt the extra days off would hurt. A OPS of around .750 (league-average) is possible, and if you combine that with his elite fielding, the Orioles have themselves one of the best catchers in MLB.
The simple truth is that Wieters is being over-used and over-worked as catcher for no reason. A team should not wear down one of it's best players during a losing season. If the Orioles were fighting for a playoff spot, I would play Wieters 5 times a week at catcher, but that isn't the case here. The season is lost, so please release or bench Vlad, and play DH Wieters at least twice a week in an effort to perverse the future.
Side Note: Some of you may want to discount this Wieters' rest theory by saying our backup catcher is bad and wouldn't have made up for Vlad sitting on the bench. The numbers say otherwise. Craig Tatum (O's backup catcher) has produced at the same level as Vlad, in 300 less at-bats. Both players have a fWAR of 0.2, which is incredbile considering Tatum has played in 74 fewer games than Vlad. I'd say the Orioles wasted 8 million dollars on Vlad while putting extra, undue stress on their franchise catcher during a wasted season.
| Month | GP | AB | AVG | OPS | wOBA | wRC+ |
| April | 22 | 73 | 0.260 | 0.826 | 0.361 | 126 |
| May | 24 | 90 | 0.278 | 0.678 | 0.301 | 85 |
| June | 23 | 81 | 0.247 | 0.665 | 0.293 | 79 |
| July | 23 | 85 | 0.235 | 0.685 | 0.301 | 85 |
Wieters had a great April, but he has been steadily unproductive the past three months. I blame this decreased production on Buck and MacPhail. The lineup flexibiliity of the Orioles was eliminated once Vladimir Guerrero was signed during the off-season - this was a mistake by MacPhail and he should accept the blame. It took away any chance Buck had of resting position players while keeping their bat in the lineup. Because of Vlad's inability to play the field, Buck can only get Wieters into the lineup at catcher. The blame also falls on Buck because he has never benched Vlad in favor of a DH start for Wieters.
Because Vlad plays every game, this is the situation:
Typical Starts by Position breakdown for Wieters WITH Vlad on the roster:
| Wieters Slots w/Vlad | Rest | DH | Catcher |
| 7-Game Week | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| 6-Game Week | 1 | 0 | 5 |
This could be the situation (more rest for Wieters):
Hypothetical Starts by Position breakdown for Wieters WITHOUT Vlad on the roster:
| Wieters Slots w/o Vlad | Rest | DH | Catcher |
| 7-Game Week | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| 6-Game Week | 1 | 1 | 4 |
So why does all this starts by position matter? In my opinion, all of this catching is wearing Wieters down, which isn't surprising considering the Baltimore heat/humidity combination and the fact that Wieters is 6'5" (very tall for a catcher). Besides April, Wieters really hasn't produced at the plate. Now granted, he continues to field like a gold-glover each month, but the batting numbers are troubling. Projections for the rest of the year are not likely to favor increased production at the plate.
The root cause of this is Vlad. Without Vlad on the roster, Buck would have been able to use Wieters at DH more in the beginning of the season, thus keeping his "legs" fresh for the last few months of the season. Obviously, this is just my opinion based on some loose numbers, but the eye test hasn't been good either. Wieters has looked tired and possibly a little lazy at the plate during the last few weeks, and I can't blame him considering the heavy work load. He deserves more starts at DH or even an extra day or rest during parts of the season where the Orioles have limited days off. There is no way to prove whether Wieters would be better with more rest, but I highly doubt the extra days off would hurt. A OPS of around .750 (league-average) is possible, and if you combine that with his elite fielding, the Orioles have themselves one of the best catchers in MLB.
The simple truth is that Wieters is being over-used and over-worked as catcher for no reason. A team should not wear down one of it's best players during a losing season. If the Orioles were fighting for a playoff spot, I would play Wieters 5 times a week at catcher, but that isn't the case here. The season is lost, so please release or bench Vlad, and play DH Wieters at least twice a week in an effort to perverse the future.
Side Note: Some of you may want to discount this Wieters' rest theory by saying our backup catcher is bad and wouldn't have made up for Vlad sitting on the bench. The numbers say otherwise. Craig Tatum (O's backup catcher) has produced at the same level as Vlad, in 300 less at-bats. Both players have a fWAR of 0.2, which is incredbile considering Tatum has played in 74 fewer games than Vlad. I'd say the Orioles wasted 8 million dollars on Vlad while putting extra, undue stress on their franchise catcher during a wasted season.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Buck Logic Failure #2: Manager Hypocrisy (Reimold & Davis)
Over the weekend, the Orioles traded away Koji for a back-of-the-rotation starter (Tommy Hunter) and a AAAA first-baseman (Chris Davis). Nothing too significant or concerning about this trade in my mind. Ultimately, I don't see this trade amounting to much in the future. Probably will go down as a friendly gesture by the Orioles to help the Rangers playoff aspirations. But then I saw the reports from Roch and Connolly explaining how the newly acquired first-baseman Chris Davis will receive regular at-bats at first-base and even some starts at third-base and in left-field through the rest of the season. My immediate reaction was OUTRAGE. I cannot understand why a manager would give extended playing time at multiple positions to newcomer Chris Davis, but not extend the same courtesy to the deserving, home-grown Nolan Reimold.
This is another example of #bucklogic: Manager Hypocrisy
Advanced Statistics for Nolan Reimold and Chris Davis (via FanGraphs):
At first glance, the Career numbers are making a case for Reimold being a better player. The one caveat to this is that Reimold is three years older than Davis, and Reimold did not break into the major leagues until the age of 25*. I believe Reimold has earned the right to play every game since he has generated 1.0 fWAR more than Davis in his career with 300 less plate appearances. The disparity in production between the two players is even greater if you take out the 2010 season (fWAR of -0.6 in 131 PA) where Reimold was playing despite still rehabbing from Achilles' Tendon surgery.
*I'm not a huge believer in the wide-spread notion that players peak around the age of 27 and regress each proceeding year; Reimold is likely to disprove that theory.
In regards to the 2011 numbers, few conclusions can be draw from small samples (Reimold has hit better this year). These numbers, at the end of the season, will hopefully shed some light on the future output of Davis and Reimold as Baltimore Orioles. Since Davis will playing everyday in the 5th spot and Reimold will continue to be benched about 3 days a week, I would project both Reimold and Davis to have around 325 plate appearances when season concludes in September. Half of season's plate appearances (325) should help the Orioles identify whether these two players are major league caliber starters or bench-fodder.
I added the Age 25 Season numbers as a place-holder for future analysis. Since 2011 is Davis's Age 25 Season, judgment will have to be withheld until the season is over. I highly doubt Davis and his 0.0 WAR will be able to match Reimold's Age 25 Season output of 1.2 fWAR in the Orioles remaining 57 games.
So I ask again, why have Andy MacPhail and Buck Showalter deemed Chris Davis an everyday player and not Nolan Reimold? It's a loaded question distorted by baseball politics, ignorance, misconceptions, and most importantly, Manager Hypocrisy. Over their brief careers, the statistics bear the truth that Reimold has been the more productive player, yet he is treated like a replacement-level player by his manager. I only ask one thing of Buck Showalter...
If you are going to play Chris Davis every game, then please play the more productive player, Nolan Reimold in every game as well. In my opinion, it is the only fair outcome for the players. Manager Hypocrisy is not a part of The Oriole Way and it will not be tolerated by this die-hard Orioles fan!!
This is another example of #bucklogic: Manager Hypocrisy
Advanced Statistics for Nolan Reimold and Chris Davis (via FanGraphs):
| Career | PA | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | wOBA | wRC+ | fWAR |
| Reimold | 667 | 0.256 | 0.340 | 0.432 | 0.772 | 0.340 | 104 | 0.9 |
| Davis | 957 | 0.247 | 0.299 | 0.453 | 0.752 | 0.322 | 91 | -0.1 |
| 2011 | PA | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | wOBA | wRC+ | fWAR |
| Reimold | 125 | 0.229 | 0.320 | 0.431 | 0.751 | 0.326 | 102 | 0.3 |
| Davis | 85 | 0.238 | 0.282 | 0.388 | 0.670 | 0.296 | 84 | 0.0 |
| Age 25 Season | PA | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | wOBA | wRC+ | fWAR |
| Reimold (2009) | 411 | 0.279 | 0.365 | 0.466 | 0.831 | 0.365 | 118 | 1.2 |
| Davis (2011) | 85 | 0.238 | 0.282 | 0.388 | 0.670 | 0.296 | 84 | 0.0 |
At first glance, the Career numbers are making a case for Reimold being a better player. The one caveat to this is that Reimold is three years older than Davis, and Reimold did not break into the major leagues until the age of 25*. I believe Reimold has earned the right to play every game since he has generated 1.0 fWAR more than Davis in his career with 300 less plate appearances. The disparity in production between the two players is even greater if you take out the 2010 season (fWAR of -0.6 in 131 PA) where Reimold was playing despite still rehabbing from Achilles' Tendon surgery.
*I'm not a huge believer in the wide-spread notion that players peak around the age of 27 and regress each proceeding year; Reimold is likely to disprove that theory.
In regards to the 2011 numbers, few conclusions can be draw from small samples (Reimold has hit better this year). These numbers, at the end of the season, will hopefully shed some light on the future output of Davis and Reimold as Baltimore Orioles. Since Davis will playing everyday in the 5th spot and Reimold will continue to be benched about 3 days a week, I would project both Reimold and Davis to have around 325 plate appearances when season concludes in September. Half of season's plate appearances (325) should help the Orioles identify whether these two players are major league caliber starters or bench-fodder.
I added the Age 25 Season numbers as a place-holder for future analysis. Since 2011 is Davis's Age 25 Season, judgment will have to be withheld until the season is over. I highly doubt Davis and his 0.0 WAR will be able to match Reimold's Age 25 Season output of 1.2 fWAR in the Orioles remaining 57 games.
So I ask again, why have Andy MacPhail and Buck Showalter deemed Chris Davis an everyday player and not Nolan Reimold? It's a loaded question distorted by baseball politics, ignorance, misconceptions, and most importantly, Manager Hypocrisy. Over their brief careers, the statistics bear the truth that Reimold has been the more productive player, yet he is treated like a replacement-level player by his manager. I only ask one thing of Buck Showalter...
If you are going to play Chris Davis every game, then please play the more productive player, Nolan Reimold in every game as well. In my opinion, it is the only fair outcome for the players. Manager Hypocrisy is not a part of The Oriole Way and it will not be tolerated by this die-hard Orioles fan!!
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Buck Logic Failure #1: Veterans over Prospects
So I was all set up to write the concluding piece on my concerns for the
Orioles future, but then I realized that reasons 3 and 4 were overkill.
Reason 3 being the Orioles young pitching regression, not progression. I think it may
be a little early to proclaim the "pitching cavalry" as a
failure. I'm going to hold off my judgment of the Orioles pitching
prospects for at least another year. My 4th reason for concern was the
lack of quality minor league depth in the Oriole system - this is a major concern,
but I don't have the resources to fully analyze this issue. I suggest you
visit Camden Depot and Orioles-Nation for a complete and
accurate breakdown of the Orioles failing farm system.
Lately, I've developed a habitat of placing a #bucklogic hash tag on my tweets whenever I am disappointed with Buck Showalter's managerial decisions. I believe the majority of his actions are devoid of the new-age baseball logic being used by the best baseball managers in MLB. In my opinion, the baseball logic that accompanies winning involves the use of advanced statistics, substance over style, and production over experience. I see a lot of managers making game decisions based on their80's inspired instincts instead of the
new sabermetric statistics developed by Bill James and others. Because of this, I see numerous Old
School managers giving too much playing time to
older, "veteran" players that contribute the same, if not less than young, developing prospects.
Now granted, Old School managing can be very useful for teams like the Yankees and Red Soxs. Those teams are not as concerned with young player development since they can continually sign high-priced, productive free agents each off-season. Their end goal is to win now, and 99% of the time, they are competing for divisions titles and league championships because of their 1st-Tier free agent acquisitions. The Orioles, on the other hand, cannot lure the best players to Camden Yards, so they sign 3rd-Tier free agents to fill lineup holes. Buck Logic #1 is the result...
Buck Logic #1: Veterans (3rd-Tier Free Agents) put in lineup over Talented Prospects (Possible Future Winners)
Playing an aging, overpaid veteran during a losing season over a young prospect is counter-productive to the future success of the Orioles. Okay, yes, the veteran MAY (not this year though) help the Orioles win an additional two or three games, but is 66 wins all that different from 70, or even 75 for that matter? In my opinion, no, placating the fan base will the idea of 81 wins and .500 record is insulting. I want to see the Orioles strive for the playoffs and division titles, not "let's get 81 wins and try again the next year" (2011 unofficial Orioles slogan). Losers talk about achieving a .500 record whereas Winners never accept defeat. I don't believe Buck is a loser, but as you will see below, his decision to constantly play veterans over young players this season is costing the Orioles wins and precious development time.
*Should injury impact should be noted. Finally DL'ed for rest of season last week.
**Former Talented Prospect that is terrible at baseball. Orioles still think he has potential despite every statistical measure stating the opposite.
Lately, I've developed a habitat of placing a #bucklogic hash tag on my tweets whenever I am disappointed with Buck Showalter's managerial decisions. I believe the majority of his actions are devoid of the new-age baseball logic being used by the best baseball managers in MLB. In my opinion, the baseball logic that accompanies winning involves the use of advanced statistics, substance over style, and production over experience. I see a lot of managers making game decisions based on their
Now granted, Old School managing can be very useful for teams like the Yankees and Red Soxs. Those teams are not as concerned with young player development since they can continually sign high-priced, productive free agents each off-season. Their end goal is to win now, and 99% of the time, they are competing for divisions titles and league championships because of their 1st-Tier free agent acquisitions. The Orioles, on the other hand, cannot lure the best players to Camden Yards, so they sign 3rd-Tier free agents to fill lineup holes. Buck Logic #1 is the result...
Buck Logic #1: Veterans (3rd-Tier Free Agents) put in lineup over Talented Prospects (Possible Future Winners)
Playing an aging, overpaid veteran during a losing season over a young prospect is counter-productive to the future success of the Orioles. Okay, yes, the veteran MAY (not this year though) help the Orioles win an additional two or three games, but is 66 wins all that different from 70, or even 75 for that matter? In my opinion, no, placating the fan base will the idea of 81 wins and .500 record is insulting. I want to see the Orioles strive for the playoffs and division titles, not "let's get 81 wins and try again the next year" (2011 unofficial Orioles slogan). Losers talk about achieving a .500 record whereas Winners never accept defeat. I don't believe Buck is a loser, but as you will see below, his decision to constantly play veterans over young players this season is costing the Orioles wins and precious development time.
| 2011 Season Advanced Stats | ||||||
| Annoying Veterans | Position | GP | OPS | wOBA | wRC+ | fWAR |
| Vladimir Guerrero | DH | 84 | 0.695 | 0.307 | 89 | -0.1 |
| Derrek Lee | 1B | 81 | 0.698 | 0.306 | 89 | 0.4 |
| Luke Scott* | LF/DH | 64 | 0.703 | 0.309 | 90 | 0.0 |
| Cesar Izturis | IF | 16 | 0.442 | 0.209 | 22 | 0.1 |
| Talented Prospects | ||||||
| Nolan Reimold | LF/DH | 35 | 0.813 | 0.350 | 119 | 0.5 |
| Brandon Synder | 1B | 6 | 0.720 | 0.345 | 115 | 0.0 |
| Blake Davis | IF | 16 | 0.641 | 0.290 | 78 | 0.2 |
| Ryan Adams | IF | 9 | 0.497 | 0.235 | 40 | -0.3 |
| Felix Pie (just kidding)** | LF/DH | 72 | 0.523 | 0.231 | 37 | -1.8 |
*Should injury impact should be noted. Finally DL'ed for rest of season last week.
**Former Talented Prospect that is terrible at baseball. Orioles still think he has potential despite every statistical measure stating the opposite.
Conclusions:
- Nolan Reimold should start every game at DH or LF. His overall production (fWAR) is 0.5 in 35 games, which is 0.6 better than Vlad's in 84 games and 0.5 better than Scott in 64 games. Reimold's salary for 2011 is ~500k, Vlad's is ~8 million. Orioles could have saved around $7 million and gotten more production by not signing Vlad.
- Brandon Synder should have been given a chance to play 1B more, but signing Lee kept him in AAA. It's a small sample for 2011, but he doesn't seem lost at the plate and is making less than $1 million. Lee's contract is $7.25, so I would take the player for $6 million less and sacrifice a win or two in a "quest for .500" season in order to put more money into international signings and domestic draft prospects.
- According to most news sources, the Orioles will activate Izturis (0.1 fWAR in 16 games) from the DL soon. Izturis is a one year stopgap that adds no value to the team. Cut him and keep playing Blake Davis (0.2 in 16 games). Davis is young, cheap, and has a little upside whereas Izturis is what he is - an average and versatile fielder that bring nothing to plate.
- Most importantly, Felix Pie needs to be cut immediately. I didn't list Matt Angle in the chart, but I don't think his bat and fielding can be worse than Pie's. Every time Pie plays, he is hurting the Orioles more than he is helping. Pie's fWAR of -1.8 is the worse amongst all MLB outfielders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)