Everyone's Available: Going for It in 2017

Photo Credit: Keith Allison

Considering the Orioles have lost 7 games in a row and now sit in 3rd place of the AL East, this probably isn’t the best time for this post. But since I’ve already started it and the Orioles are by no means out of the race (and I don’t have time for a last minute pivot), I’m going to post it anyway. Following the Jimenez/Wilson induced train wreck of last week’s game against the Minnesota Twins, I was reminded how badly the Orioles need to improve their starting pitching. This is not a new thought for me or most other people who follow the Orioles. In fact, I’m sure that “the Orioles need more starting pitching” is something I’ve thought and/or discussed at some point before or during every season since I started writing about the team. In most of those previous years however, the team has found ways to win with at best an average rotation by having a lights out bullpen. While this year’s bullpen isn’t bad, it has clearly been a step below other Baltimore bullpens in recent years (currently ranked 12th in fWAR), although some of that has been due to Zach Britton’s extended stint(s) on the disabled list. Before we get any further, let’s look at the state of the Orioles’ starting rotation.

Orioles Starting Rotation Rank (2017)

Clearly, the Orioles rotation is not good and could use some reinforcements. And based on what we’ve seen so far, it’s unlikely that those reinforcements are coming from within the organization. On Wednesday, Jon explored the possibility of trading Trey Mancini for Kendall Graveman. Within Jon’s piece, he mentions that the “untouchables” list for 2017 trades may include Hunter Harvey, Chance Sisco, Cody Sedlock, Ryan Mountcastle, and (maybe) Jomar Reyes. While I am on board with the idea trading Mancini as Jon suggests, I would take it one step further and make everyone available in order to get the best starting pitching upgrade possible (note: that doesn’t mean it will be [insert ace pitcher here]).

It’s been a generally accepted notion that things are likely to get bad for the Orioles after the 2018 season. Adam Jones, Manny Machado, Zach Britton, and Brad Brach are all free agents. This is on top of the potential losses of Chris Tillman, Seth Smith, and Wade Miley (if his option is declined) after this season. Additionally, the contracts of Dan Duquette and Buck Showalter end after 2018. Even if the Orioles can bring back Jones, Machado, and Britton, they likely won’t have the payroll flexibility to add the needed role players, and there currently doesn’t look like there will be enough impact talent coming up from the minor leagues to fill the void. It may be a while until the Orioles are as good (or better) as they are right now, so now is the time to push whatever chips they have remaining to the center of the table.

It’s important to remember that when considering trades, quantity does not get you quality, but pairing any of those “untouchable” players (or a couple of them) with Mancini could potentially bring back a starting pitcher of higher value than Kendall Graveman. I agree with Jon that the focus should be on someone who has team control, at least through the 2018 season, as the Orioles plan to (and should) be competitive next year as well. At the moment I’m not sure who that starter might be, and it’s entirely possible that the inclusion of Sisco, Mountcastle, etc. to a Mancini deal may only bring back someone marginally better than Graveman. But they should not be automatically excluded from trade discussions.

Additionally, the potential loss of any of those “untouchable” prospects doesn’t have any bearing on 2018 other than the possibility that they become slightly more valuable as a trade chip next year. All of these players have question marks and in my opinion are better used to help the current MLB club than as foundations for the future.

• Hunter Harvey – High ceiling; has been injured more than he’s played
• Chance Sisco – Great hitter; questions on power and defense
• Cody Sedlock – Mid-rotation ceiling; struggling in High-A Frederick
• Ryan Mountcastle – Good hitter; probably needs to play LF (putting more pressure on his bat)
• Jomar Reyes – Good hitter; probably needs to move to 1B (putting more pressure on his bat)

Sisco is the one guy who could arguably contribute next year, as Welington Castillo’s player option doesn’t necessarily mean that he’ll be back after the 2017 season. Having said that, Sisco’s not off to a great start in AAA either, and he may not be quite ready for the big league club at the start of next season. If the post-2018 landscape continues to look bleak, no one in the minor league system (or Trey Mancini) should be untouchable. And in fact, they should be aggressively shopped to help the 2017 team, preferably for starting pitching.

Obviously, a lot can change in the next two months before the trade deadline. The Orioles could fall completely out of contention and look to sell some pieces in an attempt to re-load for 2018. However, if they stay in contention (and by taking care of business within the AL East so far, they’re in a good spot to do that…despite the recent 7 game losing streak), they should go all in on the 2017 season, and do whatever they need to do to make the major league cub as strong as possible. There appear to be dark times coming after 2018, and those “untouchable” minor league players aren’t likely to prevent that.

The Camden Highball (Episode 8): Get to Know Your Orioles Prospects

On this week's episode of the Camden Highball, Pat and Nate talk about Ubaldo's ejection, Pablo Sandoval's techniques for breaking up the double play, and some small sample size issues for the Baltimore offense.  Following that discussion, they talk to Tucker Blair of the Baseball Prospectus prospect team to get his thoughts on the Orioles minor league system, which players he likes more (or less) than the general consensus, what he sees so far this year in Dylan Bundy, and what happens when you don't wear the proper scouting attire to a game.

Camden Highball (Episode 8): Get to Know Your Orioles Prospects

1:30 - Ubaldo's ejection
4:40 - Schoop hits the DL
7:50 - Small Sample Sizing the offense
14:07 - BP's Tucker Blair joins the show
15:22 - Overall state of the Orioles minor league system
16:53 - Thoughts on Dylan Bundy
23:03 - Christian Walker as the 2016 first baseman?
25:48 - Under the radar Orioles prospect
28:42 - Over-hyped Orioles prospect
29:44 - Quick talk on Hunter Harvey

The Misunderstood Relationship Between Team Chemistry and Sabermetrics

Almost two weeks ago (I was hoping to write about this sooner, but life gets in the way sometimes), Steve Melewski of MASN ruffled some feathers with the following tweet.

Pretty cool per @masnroch that guys like Tillman/Britton watched a kid like Hunter Harvey throw today. Can't put a sabermetric stat on that.
— Steve Melewski (@masnSteve) February 21, 2015

Overall it seemed like an odd statement to make.  Not odd in the sense that some of the major league pitchers decided to watch Hunter Harvey throw his bullpen session, but odd that he appeared to force the topic of team chemistry and sabermetrics into the observation.  It’s entirely likely that the inclusion was only meant to get a reaction, which it did.

CHEMISTRY!

The fact is he’s not incorrect; sabermetrics can’t put a stat on team chemistry*.  However, his tweet implies that sabermetrics completely discounts team chemistry, which is simply not true.  The way that team chemistry relates to production on the field has been studied quite a bit, but it just so happens that it is incredibly difficult to quantify its effect.  So while you can’t put a sabermetric stat on team chemistry, it hasn’t been for a lack of trying.

*He’s also kind of incorrect, as people have actually tried to put a number on team chemistry, although that attempt is not without its own issues.

In particular, Russell Carleton of Baseball Prospectus has tried several times to quantify the impact of chemistry on a team’s production.  He’s examined Brandon McCarthy’s claim that the 2012 Oakland A’s (who won 94 games) would have been a 70 win team without the presence of Brandon Inge and Jonny Gomes** (possibly, but not nearly to the extent McCarthy claimed), whether having a veteran with a good clubhouse presence helps a young player produce better (it doesn’t), and whether players perform better on teams with high personnel turnover or low turnover (some correlation for hitters, but nothing for pitchers, teams, or a team’s performance in close games).

**Inge and Gomes combined for 2.8 WARP in 2012, according to Baseball Prospectus

While those results initially tell us that the effect of team chemistry is minimal or even non-existent, Carleton himself points out that it doesn’t mean that there isn’t some real positive effect of mentoring a young player.  In fact, in one of his non-gory math articles about chemistry, he wonders what “chemistry” actually means, eventually hypothesizing that it may boil down to whether an individual cares enough about his team (and teammates) to not take certain plays off.  However, as Carleton states, that decision to not take certain plays off could also be made out of pure selfishness (for example, playing hard to get a higher paycheck the following year).

Differing opinions about team chemistry aren’t limited to sabermatricians and beat writers, they vary between people within the game itself.  On one hand, there is Los Angeles Dodgers starting pitcher Brandon McCarthy (who has a reputation as a believer in sabermetrics), stating his belief in the unaccounted value provided by Inge and Gomes (mentioned above).  On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have former manager Jim Leyland saying that team chemistry isn’t worth a “hill of beans” (Leyland didn’t actually use the term “hill of beans”, but this is a family website).  In the middle, there’s front office man Jonah Hill Paul DePodesta, who doesn’t doubt its importance, but questions a team’s ability to manufacture it.

The truth is it can be easy to mock the “team chemistry” argument.  It’s only typically talked about before and after the season.  In spring training, EVERYONE has good chemistry.  Ben Lindbergh wrote about that for Baseball Prospectus last year and found that 25 of the 30 MLB teams believed they had great clubhouse chemistry prior to the 2013 season (spoiler alert, not all 25 teams won the world series that year, or even managed a winning record). After the season ends, as Lindbergh states, “chemistry is trotted out to explain success or failure after the fact.”

However, that doesn’t mean team chemistry is irrelevant.  The difficulty is in measuring its effect, especially without everyday access to record the complex interactions that 25 individuals have on a daily basis over the course of a long season.  The ones with the closest type of access are beat writers.  Still, they don’t see everything, and wouldn’t necessarily report on it even if they did, because they require a certain level of trust with the players in order to effectively perform their job.

Melewski’s statement on team chemistry and sabertmetrics wasn’t technically incorrect.  However, it was unnecessary and stated in a manner that encouraged confrontation.  Baseball teams are made up of many unique individuals with different personalities and motives.  Can we be sure that Tillman or Britton weren’t watching Harvey’s bullpen session out concern for their own job security?  Maybe they decided to observe out of sheer curiosity?  I mean, who wouldn’t want to watch a top 30 prospect pitch?  Those may sound like silly questions, but I don’t think they can be completely ruled out.  Team chemistry is an extremely complex concept that has yet to be quantified (and quite possibly it never will).  Watching a teammate throw a bullpen session shouldn’t be touted as definitive evidence that it exists.

------------------------------------------------

Note: While this article mostly used examples from Baseball Prospectus, other websites (such as Fangraphs) have previously looked at the topic as well.  Additionally, past work by Camden Depot’s Jon Shepherd on manager wins added (or subtracted) could be considered an indirect way to measure team chemistry.