353 replies to this topic

[RShack]

Excellent example of how paying more attention to second-order stats than to baseball can lead you to the wrong conclusion... like, for example, letting Reynolds go so we can get Swisher... which would be a horrible decision...

[JeremyStrain]

Excellent example of how paying more attention to second-order stats than to baseball can lead you to the wrong conclusion... like, for example, letting Reynolds go so we can get Swisher... which would be a horrible decision...

Jon and I have slightly disagreeing conclusions on Reynolds. I think he's an average 1b because of that slow first step he thinks he is a bit worse. I would decline the option and take him to arbitration offering 7.5m. If you lose I dont think it'll be a ton and you can trade him later. I like him pretty well at 1b though and think he will get back to his avg. 805 OPS this season which would have made him overall a top 10 1b based on overall numbers.

I don't think he's the long-term answer but he's enough of one that you can focus on other holes first and try to upgrade him after those are done and extensions are signed.

[RShack]

Jon and I have slightly disagreeing conclusions on Reynolds. I think he's an average 1b because of that slow first step he thinks he is a bit worse. I would decline the option and take him to arbitration offering 7.5m. If you lose I dont think it'll be a ton and you can trade him later. I like him pretty well at 1b though and think he will get back to his avg. 805 OPS this season which would have made him overall a top 10 1b based on overall numbers.

I don't think he's the long-term answer but he's enough of one that you can focus on other holes first and try to upgrade him after those are done and extensions are signed.

Maybe you can enlighten me about his 1st-step issue. (This is not snark, this is sincere.)

Until I see some evidence that seems compelling, I have a hard time believing that he is average or worse than that. If he has a 1st-step shortcoming, then that might be the diff between being good vs. great, but there is too much about how he played over there in the last half that was more-than-good for me to believe that it demotes him to being just average. He's quick and has mostly good hands. He's great on thrown balls. He displayed good range on more than several occasions (not sure how his range looks overall though... and half the time he did display range, somebody said he should've stayed home at let Andino get it).

All in all, I think he's not neutral at 1B, he adds positive value there, and if you think he can return to knocking the cover off the ball more than he did this year, then he's a good choice for the next couple whiles. I think the O's should be looking for guys who are not ready to play 1B yet but would be ready maybe 3 or 4 years from now (assuming that Reynolds can be fine there for 2 or 3 years).

We agree that the O's should reach a compromise $-figure with him.

[SportsGuy]

The defensive stats say his range is below average Shack.

[JeremyStrain]

Maybe you can enlighten me about his 1st-step issue. (This is not snark, this is sincere.)

Until I see some evidence that seems compelling, I have a hard time believing that he is average or worse than that. If he has a 1st-step shortcoming, then that might be the diff between being good vs. great, but there is too much about how he played over there in the last half that was more-than-good for me to believe that it demotes him to being just average. He's quick and has mostly good hands. He's great on thrown balls. He displayed good range on more than several occasions (not sure how his range looks overall though... and half the time he did display range, somebody said he should've stayed home at let Andino get it).

All in all, I think he's not neutral at 1B, he adds positive value there, and if you think he can return to knocking the cover off the ball more than he did this year, then he's a good choice for the next couple whiles. I think the O's should be looking for guys who are not ready to play 1B yet but would be ready maybe 3 or 4 years from now (assuming that Reynolds can be fine there for 2 or 3 years).

We agree that the O's should reach a compromise $-figure with him.

Yeah I know, I can tell your snark from your genuine questions, no worries.

It's a scouting thing, so you won't see any evidence per say, especially since defensive metrics aren't worth very much at all. Basically, that first step is your reaction speed, which as you know at 1st and 3rd is extremely important since you are closest to the ball and the ball comes the hardest when pulled to those spots. You have a split second when the ball leaves the bat to take a step or two and make a play on a ball, that's about all you get. With Mark, his first step/reaction is a bit slow, so it means he has less range than other 1B. To make an analogy that they need to find a way to track...say a ball is hit to first, and Tex (GG 1B) can get to it if it's within 10 feet of him, Mark is a bit slower, so he might only get to a ball that's within 6 feet. It will show up on the scorecards as a hit, since there is no way to track individual player zones accurately.

What Mark does have are exceptional hands (better than Tex) which is what makes for those great scoops at 1st, and any ball he can get his glove to, he can make a play on. He's also got a great arm (strength) but it's not very accurate, and coupled with the slow reaction time, he would rush throws from 3rd trying to make up for it and voila, more errors. He will dive on balls and smother balls, looking like an exceptional sportscenter like play fairly regularly, but a really GOOD defensive 1B would have made those plays routinely because they would have broken for that ball a couple split seconds before Mark does. A below average 1B will have the same kind of reaction speed as Mark, but they don't have the hands to make the plays on the ball diving and smothering like he can. He's pretty good to getting to pop ups and covers decent ground there, it's just the hard hit balls and line drives that eat him up. If it's a dribbler, or a slow roller he can get to plenty of balls, but if it's decently hit (which most to 1B are pulled hard and fast) it's dicey. For me, I was always really good defensively, and people would ask me all the time what do I do, but no matter how hard the ball was hit (and lots of times I would hear that it was smoked) it seemed like slow motion to me, like it was very ho-hum, move right here, glove goes there, scoop aaaaaaand out. I just had better reaction speed than most, I would try to teach kids and other younger players about positioning, what to look for in a batter or his stance so you know to be alert, but the actual execution part of it is a tool, you can't teach that.

A Gold Glove 1B will have the quick first step, the hands, AND the arm. Mark has 2/3 and his hands are some of the best in the game, which makes up for a little bit of the reaction speed problem, and why I call him average. I think with a little more work and comfort he will eek up into above average range, but I think ultimately that reaction speed keeps him from really being elite.

[BobPhelan]

I would decline the option, offer him a 2/13 contract, and go to arbitration if that doesn't work.

[bnickle]

Yes, people focused too much on his ability to pick throws at 1B and general footwork around the bag. There is no doubt he was very good in those regards but his pure fielding of batted balls was average to below average.

Overall, I'll happily take the arbitration route with Reynolds. I'm fine committing 8-9 mil to him for a year and leaving it at that. No need to let him FA but also no need to lock him up beyond next year as well.

[RShack]

I would decline the option, offer him a 2/13 contract, and go to arbitration if that doesn't work.

There's no good reason to not negotiate with him. Saying, "Here: take it or else" isn't negotiating.

If I was him, I'd want a 1-year contract on that basis, not a 2-year one. For him to take a 2-year one, that's like him saying he doesn't expect to have a good year next year. I think a 2-year deal would have to give him more per year than a 1-year deal... but what do I know?, I've never been a GM...

Regardless, this is why you gotta negotiate: to find something that both parties feel is fair enough to live with. It's not about beating the other guy, it's about finding the basis for something both sides think is OK-enough...

[RShack]

Yeah I know, I can tell your snark from your genuine questions, no worries.

It's a scouting thing, so you won't see any evidence per say, especially since defensive metrics aren't worth very much at all. Basically, that first step is your reaction speed, which as you know at 1st and 3rd is extremely important since you are closest to the ball and the ball comes the hardest when pulled to those spots. You have a split second when the ball leaves the bat to take a step or two and make a play on a ball, that's about all you get. With Mark, his first step/reaction is a bit slow, so it means he has less range than other 1B. To make an analogy that they need to find a way to track...say a ball is hit to first, and Tex (GG 1B) can get to it if it's within 10 feet of him, Mark is a bit slower, so he might only get to a ball that's within 6 feet. It will show up on the scorecards as a hit, since there is no way to track individual player zones accurately.

What Mark does have are exceptional hands (better than Tex) which is what makes for those great scoops at 1st, and any ball he can get his glove to, he can make a play on. He's also got a great arm (strength) but it's not very accurate, and coupled with the slow reaction time, he would rush throws from 3rd trying to make up for it and voila, more errors. He will dive on balls and smother balls, looking like an exceptional sportscenter like play fairly regularly, but a really GOOD defensive 1B would have made those plays routinely because they would have broken for that ball a couple split seconds before Mark does. A below average 1B will have the same kind of reaction speed as Mark, but they don't have the hands to make the plays on the ball diving and smothering like he can. He's pretty good to getting to pop ups and covers decent ground there, it's just the hard hit balls and line drives that eat him up. If it's a dribbler, or a slow roller he can get to plenty of balls, but if it's decently hit (which most to 1B are pulled hard and fast) it's dicey. For me, I was always really good defensively, and people would ask me all the time what do I do, but no matter how hard the ball was hit (and lots of times I would hear that it was smoked) it seemed like slow motion to me, like it was very ho-hum, move right here, glove goes there, scoop aaaaaaand out. I just had better reaction speed than most, I would try to teach kids and other younger players about positioning, what to look for in a batter or his stance so you know to be alert, but the actual execution part of it is a tool, you can't teach that.

A Gold Glove 1B will have the quick first step, the hands, AND the arm. Mark has 2/3 and his hands are some of the best in the game, which makes up for a little bit of the reaction speed problem, and why I call him average. I think with a little more work and comfort he will eek up into above average range, but I think ultimately that reaction speed keeps him from really being elite.

Interesting...

I agree that "elite" would mean that he's strong in all respects.

I'm not sure we're using "average" to mean the same thing. I kinda suspect we're not, but I'm not sure about that.

I think there's a big zone of "good" that is more than "average" but less than "elite". I don't think being less-than-elite means he drops down to average. I think there's room for "good" and "very good" in between average and elite.

I agree that scouting has value, I don't believe in blowing that off. I don't know enough about it to know who's best at noticing what, or how many trusted opinions you need, or anything like that. This is not a disguised dig at you, it's just saying that I don't know about the details of it. All I know for sure is that I wish we could get Jim Russo on the phone but it's been several years since he had one.

I also agree that it could be helpful if we had stats at this micro level. I bet somebody does, it's just that we don't know about it. I get confused about which D-rating system is which, but the one that makes the most sense to me is whichever one has trained raters watching video and scoring each play, combined with video processing that tracks exactly where the ball went. I am completely confident that you can select and train raters to do that kind of scoring properly. (I don't know anything about how they do it, so I'm not vouching for their method of training, but I do know that you can train raters to provide accurate and reliable results.) Whichever outfit is doing that, they're doing it to make money, and they're not making money by telling us everything. I bet they have raters providing exactly the info we need for something like this 1st-step issue. I bet they know exactly how many GB's Tex gets to that Reynolds doesn't, exactly how many good-hands plays Reynolds makes that Tex doesn't, and exactly how many hits are taken away by each guy making saves on poorly thrown balls. That's the only way I can figure that they're making money, by selling that info to teams. If we could chip in a zillion bucks, they'd tell us too... but we can't, so they don't.

To know what's right, we need to know how much weight to give each aspect, and the info they have could help tell us. Without the precise info we don't have, we can at least BS about this part. With Reynolds, you've said that his hands are great but his 1st-step isn't. When it comes to these two things, there are issues about the degree of goodness. It's not like either factor is just a binary "good/bad" judgement, it's a matter of degree. It's not as simple as "How much does 1st-step cost?" vs. "How much do good hands save?"... it's a matter of how much *his* 1st-step and *his* good hands matter. So, one thing we'd need to have is some kind of rating for each one.

But even if we don't have that, even if we just look at each factor in general, there's still the matter of how much each trait counts. I don't know what the right answer is, but here's my guess: At 1B, my guess is that good hands are worth more, just because of the importance of catching thrown balls. Good hands help on hit balls within reach *and* they also help on thrown balls... good hands matter on thrown balls in a way that a quick 1st-step doesn't matter as much. So, even in the most general terms, I would think that we might think of it as a slow 1st-step being a minus on hit balls and not mattering much on thrown balls, but good hands being a plus on hit balls and a plus on thrown balls. If you look at it that way, then he's got 2 plusses and 1 minus and winds up as a net plus.

I know it's not that simple, but this gets to the heart of why I suspect we're using "average" in different ways. This might not be right, but it sounds to me like you're looking at categories of skill goodness. His inaccurate arm doesn't matter much at 1B. His first step does, and it's not good. His hands do count, and they are good. So, that tallies up to one plus and one minus. But does that mean he's just average in overall goodness? To know the answer, we'd need to have all that data from rating plays, info that is not available to us. Without that info, my hunch is to say the good things about him at 1B matter on both hit balls *and* thrown balls, and outweigh the 1st-step issue which matters mainly on hit balls. I agree that a slow 1st-step would take away an elite rating, but I don't see how that would drop him down to average. Seems to me that he's in between. I think he can be less than elite about his 1st-step and still end up being "very good".

Question: Do you think his 1st-step is bad? Or do you think it's just not-good?

[RShack]

The defensive stats say his range is below average Shack.

I don't blow off D-stats mindlessly, but I am not convinced that they portray a trustworthy picture of a given guy's goodness. In particular, I have no confidence that they can give us a trustworthy answer about whether his range costs more than his other D-attributes contribute. I don't know how to digest what they say his range is... is it a big deal or not, etc...

[SportsGuy]

I don't blow off D-stats mindlessly, but I am not convinced that they portray a trustworthy picture of a given guy's goodness. In particular, I have no confidence that they can give us a trustworthy answer about whether his range costs more than his other D-attributes contribute. I don't know how to digest what they say his range is... is it a big deal or not, etc...

Ok that's fine...but then don't ask for evidence.

The only evidence we have are stats and if you don't believe in def stats(which is fine), then don't ask for them. It makes it look like that you just don't like them because they disagree with what you think is right.

[JeremyStrain]

Interesting...

I agree that "elite" would mean that he's strong in all respects.

I'm not sure we're using "average" to mean the same thing. I kinda suspect we're not, but I'm not sure about that.

I think there's a big zone of "good" that is more than "average" but less than "elite". I don't think being less-than-elite means he drops down to average. I think there's room for "good" and "very good" in between average and elite.

I agree that scouting has value, I don't believe in blowing that off. I don't know enough about it to know who's best at noticing what, or how many trusted opinions you need, or anything like that. This is not a disguised dig at you, it's just saying that I don't know about the details of it. All I know for sure is that I wish we could get Jim Russo on the phone but it's been several years since he had one.

I also agree that it could be helpful if we had stats at this micro level. I bet somebody does, it's just that we don't know about it. I get confused about which D-rating system is which, but the one that makes the most sense to me is whichever one has trained raters watching video and scoring each play, combined with video processing that tracks exactly where the ball went. I am completely confident that you can select and train raters to do that kind of scoring properly. (I don't know anything about how they do it, so I'm not vouching for their method of training, but I do know that you can train raters to provide accurate and reliable results.) Whichever outfit is doing that, they're doing it to make money, and they're not making money by telling us everything. I bet they have raters providing exactly the info we need for something like this 1st-step issue. I bet they know exactly how many GB's Tex gets to that Reynolds doesn't, exactly how many good-hands plays Reynolds makes that Tex doesn't, and exactly how many hits are taken away by each guy making saves on poorly thrown balls. That's the only way I can figure that they're making money, by selling that info to teams. If we could chip in a zillion bucks, they'd tell us too... but we can't, so they don't.

To know what's right, we need to know how much weight to give each aspect, and the info they have could help tell us. Without the precise info we don't have, we can at least BS about this part. With Reynolds, you've said that his hands are great but his 1st-step isn't. When it comes to these two things, there are issues about the degree of goodness. It's not like either factor is just a binary "good/bad" judgement, it's a matter of degree. It's not as simple as "How much does 1st-step cost?" vs. "How much do good hands save?"... it's a matter of how much *his* 1st-step and *his* good hands matter. So, one thing we'd need to have is some kind of rating for each one.

But even if we don't have that, even if we just look at each factor in general, there's still the matter of how much each trait counts. I don't know what the right answer is, but here's my guess: At 1B, my guess is that good hands are worth more, just because of the importance of catching thrown balls. Good hands help on hit balls within reach *and* they also help on thrown balls... good hands matter on thrown balls in a way that a quick 1st-step doesn't matter as much. So, even in the most general terms, I would think that we might think of it as a slow 1st-step being a minus on hit balls and not mattering much on thrown balls, but good hands being a plus on hit balls and a plus on thrown balls. If you look at it that way, then he's got 2 plusses and 1 minus and winds up as a net plus.

I know it's not that simple, but this gets to the heart of why I suspect we're using "average" in different ways. This might not be right, but it sounds to me like you're looking at categories of skill goodness. His inaccurate arm doesn't matter much at 1B. His first step does, and it's not good. His hands do count, and they are good. So, that tallies up to one plus and one minus. But does that mean he's just average in overall goodness? To know the answer, we'd need to have all that data from rating plays, info that is not available to us. Without that info, my hunch is to say the good things about him at 1B matter on both hit balls *and* thrown balls, and outweigh the 1st-step issue which matters mainly on hit balls. I agree that a slow 1st-step would take away an elite rating, but I don't see how that would drop him down to average. Seems to me that he's in between. I think he can be less than elite about his 1st-step and still end up being "very good".

Question: Do you think his 1st-step is bad? Or do you think it's just not-good?

His first step is flat out bad and it's such an important part of the defensive picture that it is enough to drop him down to average. There is another rating in between of above average that would be more what you are thinking but the first step is so bad and it's so important that I just can't call him better than average.

[SportsGuy]

I think people get/got too wrapped up in his diving back end scoops where he left the toe on the bag.

It's a very athletic play but there is a reason you don't see first baseman doing it all that often.

[Mackus]

I think I'd have to agree to a much lower base 2-year deal with him before offering him arbitration. If we can't agree to a 2/$10M type deal, then I definitely decline offering him arbitration and let him see what he can get elsewhere. I think he'd likely end up back here on a 1-year deal in that scenario.

But needing to pay him $9M through arbitration is a lot. I think he can be a 2-3 WAR type player and be worth that type of contract, but he also could very easily be a 0-1 WAR player if he struggles at the plate again and be worth less than half of that and more importantly be a major liability as a first baseman with a weak bat.

I am fairly confident that he can return to being a productive offensive player, I just am only willing to take that chance for about $5M a year or so (maybe a bit more on a 1-year deal, $6-7M). Not for $9-10M on a one-year deal like he'd probably get through arbitration.

[mweb08]

They declined the option.

[SportsGuy]

They declined the option.

That was smart...you had to do this.

Now, whats the next step I wonder.

[Mackus]

Well that's obviously expected.

The non-tender deadline isn't until November 30th, so that would be the longest the team can wait to make the next important decision.

I really feel like they will sign him to a deal for 2013 well before that deadline. They'll wanna know if he is there guy or if they need to look elsewhere before December. I expect they will start negotiating with him pretty soon here. Hopefully can get him to a 1- or maybe even 2-year for about $5M per year.

[JeremyStrain]

That was smart...you had to do this.

Now, whats the next step I wonder.

Try to sign him to a cheaper deal and if not you go to arbitration. He won't win a ton of money there. You don't let him walk for nothing.

[SammyBirdland]

Britt Ghiroli/MLBTR:

The Orioles have declined their 2013 option for Mark Reynolds, MLB.com's Brittany Ghiroli reports (on Twitter). The infielder obtains a $500K buyout instead of an $11MM salary.

Reynolds remains under team control via the arbitration process. The Orioles have until November 30th to decide whether to tender him a contract for 2013. If the Orioles offer Reynolds arbitration, he'd get approximately $8.9MM in the estimation of MLBTR contributor Matt Swartz.

https://twitter.com/... ... 7038097409
http://www.mlbtrader... ... nolds.html

[SportsGuy]

Try to sign him to a cheaper deal and if not you go to arbitration. He won't win a ton of money there. You don't let him walk for nothing.

I like Reynolds and do feel he will be a good player next year...but can you get his production for less?

Would you rather him for 8ish million or Blanks for 1 million at most, provided he is healthy?