26 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

MASN: A little more on Hays' value and Orioles' defense

https://www.masnspor...alue-to-orioles

[mikezpen]

not a great hitter..275

 

BA only .228 and OBP only .289 final 66 games.

 

.250 in 2022

[BSLChrisStoner]

not a great hitter..275

 

BA only .228 and OBP only .289 final 66 games.

 

.250 in 2022

He was horrible in July, scorching in August, and below average in September. 

Overall, he was productive vs. both LH and RHP. 

 

The defense which was much maligned by people entering '23 (after he played injured the 2nd half of '22) was above average. 

He's a good player.  He's a personal favorite. 

 

Heading into the off-season, I expected him to be traded. 
I'm a bit surprised as we enter January that it hasn't happened. 

Cowser taking his spot makes sense. 

[dude]

Big fan of Hays.  I'll probably be the only person talking about extending him, but it's what I'd do.

 

Per the other threads, I would make the Leadership core of this team Hays, Mullins, Adley and McCann.

 

I prefer Hays in LF where I think his defense plays up in the smaller dimensions, but he did a great job in LH this year.  LF-RF depends (for me) on whether you want Cowser in LF or Kjerstad in RF.  Before his promotion, I leaned into Cowser.  I would now prioritize Kjerstad.

 

Hays-Mullins-Kjerstad as the start point for 2024.

[dude]

Roch goes into McKenna here too.  

 

I was going to bring this up, but the Orioles likely will transition their 4th OFer sooner than later.  I'm ok with McKenna for 2024, but he's probably not your guy (ARB2) in 2025.  I'm not sure he's an everyday OFer, but I think he's a very useful 4th OFer that can doing everything fairly well, where the Orioles might not buy into those costs, some other team likely would.

 

If he agreed to his deal instead of risking non-tender with some promise of being on the Orioles 26, then he's the guy.

 

If a team like the Indians wanted to use him as a 4th OFer with their heavy LHed OF, I'd consider moving him.  Mets were a good option until they just picked up Tyrone Taylor from the Crew.  Other teams make some sense too.

 

I think the next "Ryan McKenna" might be Billy Cook.  Enjoyed reading some stuff from AFL (?) on him.  Kind of McKenna with more power.  He's just AA, so maybe he gets more MiL time, move him around a lot, prepare for that versatile role.  Bring him off the bench some to PH.  Work on everything.

 

...in the meantime between McKenna (if traded) and Cook (some more development)....Bubba Thompson was just released by the Reds.  He's one of the fastest guys in the game and I'm generally good with the OF above working to play 162.  Thompson would be a big speed guy off the bench and defensive replacement for Kjerstad.  Guys like Cowser are your [playing more] depth options for 2024 when needed.

[BobPhelan]

Cook’s development has been fun to watch but he can’t play CF like McKenna. I’d say Haskin is the next McKenna.

[dude]

Cook’s development has been fun to watch but he can’t play CF like McKenna. I’d say Haskin is the next McKenna.

 

I was a little surprised the Orioles didn't protect Haskin and maybe a little more surprised someone didn't select him.  Injuries?  That usually doesn't stop someone, they can just go the Santander route.

 

You have more access to informed perspectives than I do, but I think Haskin (like Stowers) thinks he's going to be (has the tools to be) a starting OFer somewhere.  It's not going to be in Baltimore. Anyone that thinks they have a higher ceiling than their opportunity isn't (at least long term) going to be what I need them to be in their role on this team.

 

I'm sure McKenna would love to be a starting OFer (so this isn't purely about age), but being a 4th OFer in MLB is a really good gig.  Have the awareness to understand what's going to make you valuable to a Team because rosters are a churn.

 

I know you and I think about this differently, but we're going through the infield version of this too. 

[dude]

Orioles top OF assists from 2023.

 

Lot of Hays here.

[RichardZ]

Big fan of Hays.  I'll probably be the only person talking about extending him, but it's what I'd do.
 
Per the other threads, I would make the Leadership core of this team Hays, Mullins, Adley and McCann.
 
I prefer Hays in LF where I think his defense plays up in the smaller dimensions, but he did a great job in LH this year.  LF-RF depends (for me) on whether you want Cowser in LF or Kjerstad in RF.  Before his promotion, I leaned into Cowser.  I would now prioritize Kjerstad.
 
Hays-Mullins-Kjerstad as the start point for 2024.

Leaders emerge. You don’t designate them. Extending Hays seems like a terrible idea to me. He’s a solid regular but the whole idea of the pipeline is not to pay solid regulars big money. If we want we have Hays for two more seasons. Good chance he’s not even a solid regular by then. With Cowser, Beavers, Bradfield, Horvath, Etzel, Norby as upcoming options over the next two years, we should be able to find a LF. As for leaders, natural leaders will emerge.

[mikezpen]

Orioles' resources better be saved for the key people. Hays isn't.

 

And it's true. He can be replaced.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Leaders emerge. You don’t designate them. Extending Hays seems like a terrible idea to me. He’s a solid regular but the whole idea of the pipeline is not to pay solid regulars big money. If we want we have Hays for two more seasons. Good chance he’s not even a solid regular by then. With Cowser, Beavers, Bradfield, Horvath, Etzel, Norby as upcoming options over the next two years, we should be able to find a LF. As for leaders, natural leaders will emerge.

Yeah. dude is way off the mark...... again.

[dude]

Leaders emerge. You don’t designate them. Extending Hays seems like a terrible idea to me. He’s a solid regular but the whole idea of the pipeline is not to pay solid regulars big money. If we want we have Hays for two more seasons. Good chance he’s not even a solid regular by then. With Cowser, Beavers, Bradfield, Horvath, Etzel, Norby as upcoming options over the next two years, we should be able to find a LF. As for leaders, natural leaders will emerge.

 

This feels like something that someone with no life experience writes.  I'm comfortable discussing it at whatever level you want.  My guess is you don't actually want to.

[RichardZ]

This feels like something that someone with no life experience writes.  I'm comfortable discussing it at whatever level you want.  My guess is you don't actually want to.

You could have just responded to the actual post. You chose to be an a-hole. My life’s experience makes it easy to spot one. You have an awfully high opinion of yourself so don’t bother trying to discuss things on a level I might understand better. LOL

[dude]

Leaders emerge.

 

As for leaders, natural leaders will emerge.

 

OK.  If leaders emerge, they emerge in every situation then, right?  If the same leaders emerge in every situation, then leadership isn't a factor (it's multiplying by 1.0).

 

Have you ever seen a Team, a business, anything, fail because of poor Leadership?  Have you ever been part of an underperforming Organization where Leadership was the issue?  Have you ever been part of a successful Organization whose success was driven by quality Leadership?

 

If "natural leaders emerge" then how does Leadership matter?  ...because if you've seen Leadership matter in Life (Baseball, other) then it's not simply 'emergence'.

 

The Orioles and the WhiteSox had similar Talent levels heading into the 2023 season. The WhiteSox won 61 games and the Orioles won 101.  How did that happen?

 

My answer is you better figure out - and lean into - the factors that generated the irrationally good results.  It's not a Talent issue.  That doesn't mean you can't get better Talent.  You have to pick how you want to execute the roster.  If you think it's just an accumulation of Talent, the 2023 Padres say hello.

 

I said I would make Hays,+,+,+ the Leadership core of the Team.  You came back with a WAR argument  That's not an argument against the possibility that Hays plays a role in the irrational results we saw in 2023.  Go back 25 years just with the Orioles and you can track varying results and if you want to walk through them, I'd argue you can start with impact (good and bad) of Leadership. 

Why didn't "natural leaders" emerge equally in every situation, just for the Orioles, in the last 2-3 decades?

[dude]

Leaders emerge. You don’t designate them. 

 

Actually, teams designate them all other time.  Often they are called "Captain".

 

They aren't the Captain (or the less formal acknowledgment) because they were designated, they are that role because they've already emerged into that role.

 

fwiw, some players are given those roles (at least perceptually) because of their WAR or the size of their contract.  Those things sometimes create a weight towards that players that doesn't actually align with the the actual tools they need for Leadership.  

 

I'm not "designating" Hays the Leaderhip role, I'm suggesting he's already assumed (at least in part) an element of it.  

 

Does that mean other guys couldn't emerge?  Maybe they can.  That's not some guarantee.  Lot's of Teams struggle desperately with results that defy the community perceptions of Talent.

 

What goes into that?  Let's discuss as much as you want....but at least for 2023, the results are in and we might want to consider why a Team that lacked major FA signings or trades and leveraged only "not good enough Talent" (pre-'19), modest signings and the Waiver wire somehow won 101 games. 

[mdrunning]

So Hays is a leader? How exactly did we arrive at that conclusion?

[dude]

So Hays is a leader? How exactly did we arrive at that conclusion?

 

Obviously on the outside, we only get the indicators that are publicly shared, but I don't think it's that hard to watch a number of factors in interviews, demeanor, actions, etc to get a feel for where the Leadership of the team is.  I think we've actually heard some of the same things about Santander and his role.  I'm willing to move on from him to get to the next player, so it's always about choices.

 

At the end of the day, it's my perception (hey, maybe I'm wrong) and I've already said that I understand that I'm on an island with my position.  Not my first island, so no worries.

[BobPhelan]

Dude just knows things, he’s like Tyrion Lannister in that way.

[RichardZ]

Actually, teams designate them all other time.  Often they are called "Captain".
 
They aren't the Captain (or the less formal acknowledgment) because they were designated, they are that role because they've already emerged into that role.
 
fwiw, some players are given those roles (at least perceptually) because of their WAR or the size of their contract.  Those things sometimes create a weight towards that players that doesn't actually align with the the actual tools they need for Leadership.  
 
I'm not "designating" Hays the Leaderhip role, I'm suggesting he's already assumed (at least in part) an element of it.  
 
Does that mean other guys couldn't emerge?  Maybe they can.  That's not some guarantee.  Lot's of Teams struggle desperately with results that defy the community perceptions of Talent.
 
What goes into that?  Let's discuss as much as you want....but at least for 2023, the results are in and we might want to consider why a Team that lacked major FA signings or trades and leveraged only "not good enough Talent" (pre-'19), modest signings and the Waiver wire somehow won 101 games. 

Actually, teams designate them all other time.  Often they are called "Captain".
 
They aren't the Captain (or the less formal acknowledgment) because they were designated, they are that role because they've already emerged into that role.
 
fwiw, some players are given those roles (at least perceptually) because of their WAR or the size of their contract.  Those things sometimes create a weight towards that players that doesn't actually align with the the actual tools they need for Leadership.  
 
I'm not "designating" Hays the Leaderhip role, I'm suggesting he's already assumed (at least in part) an element of it.  
 
Does that mean other guys couldn't emerge?  Maybe they can.  That's not some guarantee.  Lot's of Teams struggle desperately with results that defy the community perceptions of Talent.
 
What goes into that?  Let's discuss as much as you want....but at least for 2023, the results are in and we might want to consider why a Team that lacked major FA signings or trades and leveraged only "not good enough Talent" (pre-'19), modest signings and the Waiver wire somehow won 101 games. 

Obviously on the outside, we only get the indicators that are publicly shared, but I don't think it's that hard to watch a number of factors in interviews, demeanor, actions, etc to get a feel for where the Leadership of the team is.  I think we've actually heard some of the same things about Santander and his role.  I'm willing to move on from him to get to the next player, so it's always about choices.
 
At the end of the day, it's my perception (hey, maybe I'm wrong) and I've already said that I understand that I'm on an island with my position.  Not my first island, so no worries.

.

Right. You have no idea if Rutschman, Hays, Mullins, and McCann are any more leaders on the team than Santander, Henderson, or Urias are. Gibson was probably a leader in some ways last year. Should we have given him a multi year contract and bet on more decent years because of that. This sounds like the Peter Angelos “team favorites” logic.

This doesn’t mean I think team leadership and character are worthless. Elias has done a great job of getting and drafting players who work hard and play hard. However, there is no reason to believe that without the players you mentioned, the team will be without leaders. No doubt, players among Rutschman, Westburg, Kjerstad, will become leaders. You’ve determined Hays is a leader by watching interviews and watching him. That sounds like complete BS to me. Of course, you have the self proclaimed (or is it imagined) that allows you to see things the rest of us don’t.

Hays is an average player, in talent and performance. Saying you would extend him is baseball 101 dumb. First, he’s got two years of service time remaining. It would be beyond idiotic to even discuss extending him now. It’s interesting you mentioned the White Sox. They spent big on a low power, good defensive, high character LF last year. The White Sox couldn’t give away Andrew Benintendi right now. Hays is a free swinging LF with average to below average power and average speed with a plus arm. He’s this far away (puts thumb and index finger very close to each other) from being a journeyman 4th outfielder.

Everyone on this board knows extending Hays is just dumb except for you. A reasonable person would take that in and probably second guess themselves but people, like yourself, just double down. You determined that four players are leaders and need to be kept further based on your “leadership intuition” based on interviews and dugout interactions on TV. Someone here sounds like a clown. I would suggest taking the big red nose, funny orange hair, and big shoes off and just admit that you were talking out the wrong side of your anatomy. But you won’t.

[dude]

This feels like something that someone with no life experience writes.  I'm comfortable discussing it at whatever level you want.  My guess is you don't actually want to.

 

I'll stick with this.