31 January 2018

Whose WAR is Whose? Duquette vs. MacPhail and others

If you have traveled the provincial lands surrounding Baltimore you get a general feeling that people believe the Orioles' success derives from Dan Duquette riding on Andy MacPhail's coat tails of talent.  You will hear how with the Adam Jones deal or the Chris Davis deal or drafting Manny Machado that the Orioles would have been toiling at the bottom of the Al East instead of being one of the most winningest teams in baseball during the Duquette reign.  However, when one looks at the MacPhail era that feeling seems more like a glass is half full perspective of MacPhail; or, more likely, a glass is half empty view of Duquette.

One of the difficulties is assigning responsibility for a team's well being is that so much falls outside of the control of the general manager.  For instance, you only have so many Billy Beanes who have been the main caretaker of a club for nearly two decades.  Whatever happens with the Athletics, you can place that at the feet of Beane.  With the Orioles, Duquette inherited a franchise that was largely tended by MacPhail with a lingering presence of Mike Flanagan and a wisp of Syd Thrift.  It is a hard line to cut because inheriting those players also means deciding what to do with them.

Below we present the proportion of fWAR by players drafted or acquired by each General Manager:
2012: 29.1 fWAR
2013: 38.2 fWAR
2014: 42.8 fWAR
2015: 32.7 fWAR
2016: 35.3 fWAR
2017: 21.4 fWAR
So what was Duquette handed?  He was handed a team with a strong partial starting squad and gaping wounds at starting pitcher.  MacPhail's group could not figure out how to develop guys like Brian Matusz, Chris Tillman, Zach Britton, and Jake Arrieta.  Duquette's record in continuing their development is mixed, but he knew the area was a weakness and supplemented it as best as he could.  He turned the fading career of Jeremy Guthrie into a solid performance by Jason Hammel and a useful piece in Matt Lindstrom that led to an essential September performance of local product Joe Saunders.  In addition to that, Duquette added on Wei-Yin Chen and Miguel Gonzalez.  Tinkering with Tillman saw his velocity return and his pitchability.  It cannot be denied that 2012's playoff run was built on Duquette's ability to take a ruinous starting rotation and find the pieces to create a passable one.  That was a remarkable accomplishment and it cost the club relatively nothing in terms of money and prospects.  It is perhaps the greatest series of moves he has made while with the Orioles.

In 2013, the MacPhail portion of the club boosted the team into playoff contention with strong performances from Davis, Machado, Jones, and J.J. Hardy.  Duquette once again put together a decent collection of role players headed by Nate McLouth, Ryan Flaherty, Danny Valencia, and Steve Pearce.  The pitching floundered again.  Duquette products in Chen and Gonzalez as well as mid-year pickups Scott Feldman and Bud Norris did well, but not well enough.  Duquette was unable to find solutions for the dearth of talent in the minors, particularly on the pitching end.

In 2014, Duquette reaped all that he had sewn in the years prior with the club pushing strong on the shoulders of Chen, Gausman, and Norris as well as Pearce, Nelson Cruz, David Lough, and Adam Jones (on his first year outside of his team controlled years).  This team ran away with the AL East, but there were some worrying aspects of it.  Long-term, there seemed to be an issue with pitching.  The club did not have a group of high minors arms that looks like significant pieces.  The only one, Eduardo Rodriguez, was traded out for a vanity piece by the name of Andrew Miller.  The team did well to avoid injuries, outside of Manny Machado, and almost made the World Series.  It was a type of performance that would elevate most general mangers to a long term status and a fan favorite.  That said, the minor leagues were in a wreck and a major reason why many analysts, including us, would say, "Yes, but..."

From 2015 through 2017, we see the extinguishing of Flanagan's fingerprints on the Orioles as well as the end of MacPhail touch on the team.  MacPhail's minor league talent will likely all be gone in a couple seasons.  What we are left with is Duquette's decision making.and what we have seen is a cratering of talent.  MacPhail did not produce much minor league talent with an uneven first round history and a pretty dreadful track record past the first round.  Duquette's decision to focus on the MLB squad and decimate talent influx by signing players on Qualifying Offers hurt the talent level on the team.  Additionally, decision making in the early part of the Duquette draft era was not especially fruitful with only the past few drafts resulting in a good influx of position player and relief talent.  Starting pitching remains an issue throughout the organization.

22 comments:

Unknown said...

You left off so many of Andy McPhail’s additions
He drafted Jake Arrieta as you mentioned in the second round,but also Millersville’s own Josh Hader who may be on his way to stardom
DD also in addition to trading away Hader,Rodriguez,and Arietta also traded away the winningest pitcher on the Brewers roster
Andy also drafted Bundy who is on his way to being an excellent starter
The $50,000 signing of Star second baseman Schoop was something special
The trading of Jim Hoey for JJ Hardy solidified the infield
The signing of Koji and then moving him for a home run champion as well as Tommy Hunter was terrific
You did mention the greatest trade in Orioles history by acquiring Tillman and a terrific team leader in Adam Jones
Arrieta,Hader,Bundy,Rodriguez,and the Brewers ace whose name escapes me,along with Gausman or another first round pick would have been a formidable staff
Furthermore,the non plan regarding signing and trading players prior to the end of their contracts is something that benefits the short term but not the long term strength of a franchise

Unknown said...

Correction
I meant to say the greatest trade in Orioles history since his father Lee McPhail acquired Frank Robinson

Boss61 said...

Broadly I would agree with Howard Berman, that Andy MacPhail was the best General Manager since the millenium. He came on the scene and boldly made wise, blockbuster trades, even if they tore down the MLB talent pool in the short run. Right now Duquette has the opportunity to make similar decisions, but has not done so.

Jon Shepherd said...

@Howard - This was an exercise in brevity. I could say more about any of the GMs on the list. My intent was not to provide a full audit, but to give the highlights. But the what ifs that you put forward are hurt by the issue of pitcher development. MacPhail also showed no ability to develop pitchers. His grow the arms cavalry busted almost to a man. The minor league system was in disarray under him and continues to be under Duquette. I have little reason to believe that Davies, Hader (who pretty much everyone thinks he is a good reliever, not a starter), Arrieta (who was infuriated by MacPhail's and Duquette's development), Bergesen, Hernandez, Rich Hill, Tillman, Matusz, Liz, Olson, Patton, and Britton. Two of MacPhail's major issues was his inability to actually grow any arms even though those arms were often highly appraised. Secondarily, he spent a great deal of money on horrible free agent or trade choices such as Millwood, Vlad, Garrett Atkins, etc. MacPhail had major flaws in addition to the good he did. To wave a wand and only look at his accomplishments really detracts from those major failings that we have no good reason to think he could escape. Go back to the Cubs and he did similar things.

Jon Shepherd said...

Also keep in mind that Schoop was a Flanagan move. The money was already allotted and the signing already figured out even though it officially happened about a week and a half after MacPhail signed to be the GM. So that is not a big piece of evidence either, right?

Pip said...

I think Mclouth was claimed off waivers from the Pirates in 2012.
Remember the "it hit the foul pole" non-home run?
Haven't finished reading but so far this is fascinating. Thank you for sharing!
But Dan's biggest failure was in the incredibly foolish decisions he made after 2014. Not just bad in hindsight but at the time and up to this time, and in every category.

Jon Shepherd said...

McLouth was released by the Pirates. No one wanted to pay his salary, so he passed through waivers. The Orioles signed him a week later.

Pip said...

It's most important to consider the bad with the good, and the Orioles, regardless of who the general manager is, seem to have a complete inability to evaluate or develop pitching.
I don't know who is responsible, but it seems to be true regardless of who is the general manager.

Pip said...

Ok. Worked the same, though. And it was in 2012.
I was delighted to have Nate. He was a great guy.

Doug said...

It just aint close. The recent success of the team, such as it is, is based more, much more, on the work of MacPhail than it is DD. The current leadership has been able to add secondary pieces in small doses, but it has also failed over and over again, trading away talent that would be beneficial to the organization now and in the future. DD has been a relative failure.

Unknown said...

Dumpster moves will never create greatness, hate to say it, but McPhail gets it.

Matt Kremnitzer said...

Gets what?

Matt Kremnitzer said...

Look at the data above. If you want to ignore Duquette's successes and MacPhail's failures, OK. But it's much closer than many people think.

Anonymous said...

I love how people think the guys running a winning team are failures and the guys running losing teams are successes. One of the main things to consider is that each GM came along under different circumstances and managed those specific circumstances. The only thing I really blame DD for is not signing Machado to a long term extension when he had a knee injury - that would have produced the best contract value. But I know the O's are particularly injury risk-averse. I didn't like either the Jimenez or Gallardo signings, but there was not much choice at the time.

BTW, anybody see the article at MLB.com touting Ariel Miranda as a potential breakout ace? LOL

Jon Shepherd said...

It is really difficult for me to look at this and say that MacPhail is the one you want running it. The terrible choices in doling out contracts are awful. He subscribed to the proven veteran hypothesis that they stabilize the team. They don't. He also was full on with the concept of grow the arms and buy the bats. As much as he said that, he actually never accomplished either. Yes, he got Hardy for nothing. He keeled over Bavasi in the Beware deal. And that really is actually it. You can put Chris Davis at his feet, but do you really think they saw that ability in Davis? I think folks are suspending a lot of disbelief. I think if people said MacPhail and Duquette were run of the mill average GMs then I can see that as a viable position. It is hard to see MacPhail as more than that and Duquette as less.

Pip said...

To be honest, I don't really consider McPhail at all, because he left before I started seriously following the team. However it is very easy to judge Dan on what he has done and find him to be overall a failure. He made our biggest need worse, repeatedly. He weakened the farm by trading away both draft picks and prospects in BAD trades.He signed BAD players to expensive contracts Roger mentioned Ariel Miranda. I'm not sure he would've been successful here, and I'm not sure he won't be successful in Seattle, but Miley certainly wasn't worth the difference in cost. After all,if you're gonna have someone terrible, it's best to have someone terrible at league minimum.
That was a terrible trade, not because Miranda was so valuable but because Miley was both terrible and ridiculously expensive.
The team was bad because the pitching was bad, and that is Dan's doing, and the outfield defense was horrible, which is also Dan's doing.
Everyone talks about how we don't walk and we don't steal and we can't run the bases. Well it's not magic, Dan isn't getting guys with those qualities. That is his job

Jon Shepherd said...

Miley? He was not expensive and the Orioles increased overall spending during that time, so eh I don't see the point. Miranda was someone no one saw as anything special. He had the ability to be a Miley, but no one saw beyond that. Miley was effectively a gamble for a team that was desperate for bullpen stability and unwilling to deal anyone of considerable worth. Miley really isn't much of a ding. If you want to lean on bad pitching decisions then you have Jimenez and Gallardo. So please stop trying to grease everything into your thesis.

Jon Shepherd said...

Rotation stability. Not bullpen.

Pip said...

Saying that Miley wasn't as bad as Gallardo or Ubaldo isn't saying much even if it's true.
And I stand by my comment that whether Miranda himself could have been a contributor, Miley was a 9 million dollar fiasco.
I have no problem with trading Miranda, (although I do think he-and Bridwell for that matter- deserved more of an audition.)
However, acquiring Miley was a bad decision, and not just in hindsight.
I'm not manipulating anything, and I mildly resent the suggestion.
Miley was BAD. He was bad before we got him and bad after we got him.

Jon Shepherd said...

I am not saying you are manipulating things. I think you think this stuff. What I am saying is that I think you have biases that impact your conclusion.

Was Miley worse than Gallardo or Jimenez? Miley came to the organization with an expectation of being a backend workhorse arm. He was earning in high singles for something that would be worth low doubles on the open market. Miranda was valued as a low singles pitcher so that is why the trade was even. It was not seen as a major move and the grumbling associated with it was that the club was not getting a great arm when they needed one. They were falling behind in the arms race. But, that is what you get when you don't have the depth in your system to deal it out. What then happened to Miley was far worse than anyone imagined. You can say something similar to Jimenez. It looked like it could blow up, but it was a reasonable get. Gallardo looked injured and cost a first round pick, so that was a major misstep and one that was foreseeable. To think that the Miley situation was foreseeable runs counter to what we knew at the time.

And, no, Wade Miley was not bad at the time of the trade. He was performing at a backend rotation level.

Jon Shepherd said...

And I think I owe you why I think you are biased in your conclusion. Your words express a conviction that Duquette is terrible. I find the amplitude of your conclusion to be quite extreme and not reflective of what we know publicly and what I know privately. Having experienced leadership with other GMs and other processes, it is difficult for me to see how a reasonable and rationale systematic analysis of his tenure can lead one to an extreme dismissal of his ability to be a GM.

In that end, I think you are an intelligent and earnest participant in this discussion, so I do not think you are manipulating data, but that your conclusions are unconsciously predetermined.

Pip said...

Jon, I appreciate your answer, and I suppose an explanation for my intensity is in order.
Sports are by definition charged with emotion, we love to win, hate to lose, and we hate nothing more than watching the bus sail off the cliff when there are so many ways to avoid it.
Sports are designed to evoke emotion. And that's good.
I did not even know Dan existed until I started following the Orioles in 2012. I had nothing against him. I had no opinion at all.
Watching him over the years however, he has increasingly done things that are questionable and turned out bad and avoided doing things that were advisable, or at least prudent.
He earned my animosity, and I can justify it.
As I have said, his moves are too contradictory to reflect ownership directive.
Releasing Gonzalez or trading Webb and Matusz(and draft picks) to save a paltry amount is contradicted by trading for Miley and Signing Gallardo and Jiminez.
You are quite correct in that I cannot compare general managers, I can only look at what Dan has done vs some other high-profile guys like Luhnow/Epstein/Dipoto/Preller/Daniels, all guys whom I follow.
Last year, with a desperate need for pitching Dan ignored Charlie Morton, who inexpensively signed with the Astros and was splendid.
Dan CAN move quickly: he swooped in and signed Cruz and Castillo. But he ignores pitching.
A GM's job is to ancitipate needs and fill them. Regardless of how hard he may have tried, he hasn't succeeded, and success is the measure.
I have no problem with the lottery ticket guys he did acquire: Asher, Aquino, Nuno Ynoa, etc, they were all low-price gambles, and they all failed(Bleier was fine in the pen)but I don't fault him at all for taking the chance.
At the same time, however, I do not give him credit for Brad Brach, who was a lottery ticket that did pay off. Lottery tickets are just that:you get no blame for those that fail, but neither do you get credit for those who succeed. And I don't fault either the Davis or Trumbo signings which were apparently commands from on high. Not do I fault him for the international market issue.
I fault him for not being proactive, I fault him for bad trades, although I also give him credit for good trades. However, the beneficial effect of his good trades does not last as long as the detrimental effect of his bad ones. Dan has made no Bedard trades.
Mainly I fault him for having neither a short nor long-term plan, nor any kind of apparent philosophy.
If the ownership demands that he be competitive, thats an ongoing demand, and not a surprise, and he should have been planning for this season three or four years ago, but he was not.
He offers useless platitudes which are so condescending that it is insulting that he thinks we see them as anything else.
You said yourself that he either traded for Beckham over Buck's objections, or did not tell Buck at all( I don't recall which)and he signed Alvarez knowing it would force Trumbo into the outfield where Trumbo produced one of history's worst 47-home run seasons by WAR.
The problems the Orioles have had over the recent seasons are due to Dan's actions or non-actions.
I believe in honest assessment and I do think I'm not discounting Dan's accomplishments. I am certainly not trying to.
But I honestly think they are few and that almost major move has been a failure that should have been anticipated.
I very much appreciate your kind response and I thank you for reading this, if you made it all the way through.