723 replies to this topic

[Mackus]

His BABIP is a whopping .212 so don't think he's just getting unlucky.

You're doing it backwards.

Low BABIP means you are getting unlucky.
High BABIP means you are getting lucky.

Of course that's generalized. If you're not hitting the ball hard then you're gonna have a low BABIP. I don't know how Rutschman measures up in that regard.

[russsnyder]

You're doing it backwards.

Low BABIP means you are getting unlucky.
High BABIP means you are getting lucky.

Of course that's generalized. If you're not hitting the ball hard then you're gonna have a low BABIP. I don't know how Rutschman measures up in that regard.

I'll make it real easy for everyone.

Although it's early,Rutschman's performance at the plate has been disappointing thus far. (This is confirmed by every measurable known to man. Including some that are considered archaic by modern day baseball analytics.) Hopefully, the baseball Gods will show mercy and his luck changes sooner than later.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

You're doing it backwards.

Low BABIP means you are getting unlucky.
High BABIP means you are getting lucky.

Of course that's generalized. If you're not hitting the ball hard then you're gonna have a low BABIP. I don't know how Rutschman measures up in that regard.

Well I get that. A BABIP of .212 tells me he isn't hitting the ball well. And my eye test says the same. He IS having good at bats in seeing a good number of pitches but he isn't doing anything with them.

 

Hope that changes today!

[Mike B]

Not an important stat, no. Not for any defender.

30 years ago when there were no better stats to look at, they were the best indicator we had for defense (as a function of chances). But now they simply aren't.

Errors are not important??  Tell that to the pitchers who are on the mound,   The game has not changed as much as some think.  Errors lose games and shorten the innings the pitchers go.  In today's game where starters are leaving after 85 pitches, IMO errors are a big deal.

[mweb08]

Errors are not important?? Tell that to the pitchers who are on the mound, The game has not changed as much as some think. Errors lose games and shorten the innings the pitchers go. In today's game where starters are leaving after 85 pitches, IMO errors are a big deal.

It's important when defenders fail to convert makeable outs or contribute with another player to blow a defensive play. Errors aren't that great at capturing that though. For example, think of a misjudged flyball, or a SS that doesn't get to a ball because of a poor jump and meh range, or all the times a 1B does or does not save a throwing error. Plus the subjectivity of the official scorer makes errors a less reliable stat.

[russsnyder]

It's important when defenders fail to convert makeable outs the or contribute with another player to blow a defensive play. Errors aren't that great at capturing that though. For example, think of a misjudged flyball, or a SS that doesn't get to a ball because of a poor jump and meh range, or all the times a 1B does or does not save a throwing error. Plus the subjectivity of the official scorer makes errors a less reliable stat.

Most errors are charged on what most official scorers would call judge as a routine play. I generally think official scorers in this era are more lenient in charging errors in the past. I still think error are still valuable as a measurable at this point in time.

Also, I do think that it's past time to have "team errors" as a designation. Two glaring examples would be when a catcher throws to second and no one covers. The catcher should not get an error, but he will be charged. The other example of a teM error would be if an outfielder hits a runner in his back while trying to throw him out. That should be a team error as well.

[russsnyder]

Errors are not important?? Tell that to the pitchers who are on the mound, The game has not changed as much as some think. Errors lose games and shorten the innings the pitchers go. In today's game where starters are leaving after 85 pitches, IMO errors are a big deal.

I think you make a really good point about errors extending innings and pitch counts in this era. Also, I think it's safe to say that you have to make plays to win games. Poor defensive teams make errors and generally are on the wrong side of .500.

[Mackus]

Errors are not important??  Tell that to the pitchers who are on the mound,   The game has not changed as much as some think.  Errors lose games and shorten the innings the pitchers go.  In today's game where starters are leaving after 85 pitches, IMO errors are a big deal.

 

One error can be important at the time.

 

Viewing error totals at the end of the year isn't important.  Or at least, its a very inaccurate way to judge overall defense.

[Mackus]

Poor defensive teams make errors and generally are on the wrong side of .500.

 

I would agree that there is a good correlation between being a good-fielding team and winning games.  However, there isn't a lot of correlation between not making errors and actually fielding well at a team level.  Scorers don't call anything errors.  And way more importantly, at least an order of magnitude more plays are made or missed without an error being charged. 

 

Every team every year is between a 975 and 990 fielding percentage, often even tighter bunched than that, and its really hard to distinguish anything in between in terms of who is good and who is bad.  

 

Fielding good is very important.  Judging which team fields well by who makes the fewest errors is a very bad attempt at judging who fields well.

[russsnyder]

I would agree that there is a good correlation between being a good-fielding team and winning games. However, there isn't a lot of correlation between not making errors and actually fielding well at a team level. Scorers don't call anything errors. And way more importantly, at least an order of magnitude more plays are made or missed without an error being charged.

Every team every year is between a 975 and 990 fielding percentage, often even tighter bunched than that, and its really hard to distinguish anything in between in terms of who is good and who is bad.

Fielding good is very important. Judging which team fields well by who makes the fewest errors is a very bad attempt at judging who fields well.

I think you make some good points.

I also get that the more range a fielder has, the higher the likelihood that player has more errors than a fielder with less range.

I do disagree a bit about judging teams based on the number of errors they make. I do think the better fielding teams (i.e.the ones that make routine plays more consistently) will generally make fewer errors over the course of a season.

Now, if only Adley can hit a three run homer he'd have more RBI's than errors....

Lol.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

All stats need to be viewed in an overall context. Don't think anybody disagrees with that. But I suspect that good defensive teams make a lot fewer errors than poor defensive teams.

 

The whole range issue gets interesting in this regards. Who is actually the more valuable defensive player. Freddie who has incredible range and makes a lot of highlight reel plays but also makes a lot of errors on what should be routine plays. Or JJ who doesn't have the range of flashy play ability that Freddie does but he is just stellar on the routine plays?

 

But I digress. Sorry to derail a thread about Adley into a more generic discussion about defense.

[makoman]

All stats need to be viewed in an overall context. Don't think anybody disagrees with that. But I suspect that good defensive teams make a lot fewer errors than poor defensive teams.

 

The whole range issue gets interesting in this regards. Who is actually the more valuable defensive player. Freddie who has incredible range and makes a lot of highlight reel plays but also makes a lot of errors on what should be routine plays. Or JJ who doesn't have the range of flashy play ability that Freddie does but he is just stellar on the routine plays?

 

But I digress. Sorry to derail a thread about Adley into a more generic discussion about defense.

Outs Above Average tries to do that. My very basic understanding of it: if a play should be made 90% of the time and you make it you get 0.10. If you miss it you get -0.90. Add them all up over the season and you can tell who's good. So you will get credit for making the non-routine plays and get rightly hurt for missing the easy plays.

 

Of course someone (or the model) has to decide what % to give every play. I believe they use lots of variables, things like how far the fielder had to go, how far he had to throw, who is running. So I have no idea how accurate it really is but it has promise.

 

Saying errors aren't important isn't quite right, but they are not as telling as something like OAA would be, if OAA is accurate.

 

Sorry to continue to derail.

[Slidemaster]

I'm not making any judgements about his longterm career prognosis, but I will say that it would be the most Orioles thing ever to have the number 1 prospect in all of baseball and have him become a league average or worse player.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Lol

[russsnyder]

I'm not making any judgements about his longterm career prognosis, but I will say that it would be the most Orioles thing ever to have the number 1 prospect in all of baseball and have him become a league average or worse player.

There's Chicken Little weighing in on Adley!

For some odd reason, I can believe that you are rooting for the career arc that you have described.

[Slidemaster]

There's Chicken Little weighing in on Adley!

For some odd reason, I can believe that you are rooting for the career arc that you have described.

I don't think he's as bad as he's looked. It would be hard to believe.

But (and I keep saying this) banking on these prospects being saviors just because they're highly touted is a fool's errand. The Orioles have an astounding record of highly touted prospects turning to ash at the MLB level, and while I think Adley's floor is a serviceable, league average catcher (as in a top 15 guy), looking at farm system rankings and believing that winning teams are just around the corner without seeing the performance is a recipe for disappointment.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I don't think he's as bad as he's looked. It would be hard to believe.

But (and I keep saying this) that banking on these prospects being saviors just because they're highly touted is a fool's errand. The Orioles have an astounding record of highly touted prospects turning to ash at the MLB level, and while I think Adley's floor is a serviceable, league average catcher (as in a top 15 guy), looking at farm system rankings and believing that winning teams are just around the corner without seeing the performance is a recipe for disappointment.

 

The primary prospects don't have to hit their ceilings. They just need to not flame. 

 

Wieters and that crew being an example.  He didn't hit his ceiling. He was productive.  The O's were productive. 

The O's don't need Adley to become an MVP.   

[Slidemaster]

The primary prospects don't have to hit their ceilings. They just need to not flame.

Wieters and that crew being an example. He didn't hit his ceiling. He was productive. The O's were productive.

The O's don't need Adley to become an MVP.

Perhaps not, but he needs to be good. And if he's not going to have MVP caliber seasons, someone on the team is going to need to. I can't remember the last world series winner that didn't have at least one (and usually several) players having MVP type seasons.

[dude]

The primary prospects don't have to hit their ceilings. They just need to not flame. 

 

Wieters and that crew being an example.  He didn't hit his ceiling. He was productive.  The O's were productive. 

The O's don't need Adley to become an MVP.   

 

Chris, I have no issues with the team that's emerging in terms of looking ahead.  I'd argue you don't need anything special out of Adley or don't even need Cowser or Kjerstad, to compete...

 

....but if you aren't getting elite performance out of the only thing you get when you throw away a season, why would you ever throw away a season?

 

It's not the players fault and if it's unfair to heap expectations on them, ok....but they are THE ONLY THING that you get when you decide to "rebuild".  

 

You don't need to lose to get Wieters, Gardner and Burnitz.  Period.

 

You need HoF level performance to justify the thought of throwing away a season.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Building this way increases the odds of building a team that can compete and have a sustainable window.

Drafting is a component. Getting any individual players in drafts isn't the point.

The Os have organization depth. They have limited payroll obligations. They now have a core to build around. We will see what they do with that, and that should be the determination of if building this way was worthwhile.