How does this benefit Chicago?

1) Payroll shrinks by $1.2 million (Singleton's 1.4 minus MLB minimum).

Singleton is a very usable outfielder and that is probably more than Harris will ever be.

Another clueless move by the Orioles brainless duality. Foundationless teams should be trading veterans with (some) value for prospects close to beginning ML careers, not the other way around. My understanding regarding Willie Harris's abilities indicate that he's the same type of player as Singleton, but younger, and more versatile. I'd much rather see what potential Harris would bring to the diamond than see the "same old song and dance" from Chris Singleton. Instead of "sucking" more now to suck less in 2004, maybe the Orioles will now morph back into the St. Louis Browns. If Angelos and Thrift were dogs, they should be taken to the backyard and shot.

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

With all due respect to the above comments, this to me is a real <so what, who cares?</i> trade.

I have never seen Harris play. From everything I have read, the Baltimore farm system is barren. Mr. Harris is their 8th best prospect which essentially means he wouldn't be a prospect for most of the other teams. Singleton is not an impact player we all agree but he is usable. It seems to me, the only plus Harris has over Singleton is that he is 6 years younger. Great. Will he ever make the bigs? That is questionable. My cousin is 23. Is he a better option than Singleton? The fact that he is not a baseball player only slightly diminishes his value to a big league club than that of Harris. IMO, Chicago gave Singleton away to save money.

Rich,

I agree. I find the responses here to be a touch too self-assured and all-knowing. Apparently, the entire Baltimore organization (coaches, minor league officials) passed off on this trade. From what I saw of Willie Harris last year he didn't look like much of a prospect to me. Singleton is 29, but so what? What's the significance? Brady Anderson never had a good year in the majors until he was 28. Big deal. I'm not saying Singleton is a Brady Anderson by any stretch, but maybe we should give him a chance. The guy did a lot to boost his batting average toward the end of last season, and he's a definite defensive upgrade for the Orioles. Baltimore's minor league system is MOST stocked at center field and second base, so I don't see what they are going to lose with Harris. If they were trading a young catcher for Singleton, I might have a problem. But Willie Harris?

Singleton = Mora

David N.,

Is that a sabermetric argument? :)

Plus they don't look to be moving Hairston off 2B anytime soon.

By the way, trevise and others, assuming the Expos morph into a DC franchise in 2003, how many Orioles fans would switch leagues and allegiances?

Meldrick,

We had a "discussion" here that touched on this point in general. It's my belief that if another franchise is based in Northern Virginia, the effect on the Orioles would be minimal. Having lived in Northern Virginia all of my life up until September, 2000, my experience is that the Orioles get little support from that area. However, basing a franchise in DC could have a significant impact upon the Orioles fan base residing in southern Montgomery County and western Prince Georges County in the Washington area suburbs of Maryland. As David N. stated in that thread, Angelos and the Orioles are probably more concerned to the impact pertaining to corporate suite leases than individual fans. I don't think we can know the impact unless we know which corporations have suite leases at Camden Yards, where they are based, and whether their focus is on Washington, Baltimore or both. David N seems to be of the belief that a significant majority of these corporations are based in Washington and would bail on the Orioles if there was a Washington/NoVA franchise.

I personally think that most of the Orioles fan base would remain intact, while a minority may support both franchises. For myself, a Washington area NL team would have little impact on me as I'm now in southern Arizona. I would probably go see a Washington area team play in Phoenix against the Diamondbacks, but I would still remain an Orioles fan as I have been over the past 30+ years. Or since Bob "FREAKIN" Short absconded with the Senators in 1971. ;-) ...

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

Fish, both are correct. Singleton made the $315k last year and avoided arbitration at $1.4 this year, I do believe.

Think of it this way. Paying Singleton $1.4 saves the Orioles about $5-6M the could have spent on Kenny Lofton. They get a good defensive CF 13% above league average RF last year. Mora is hurt right now and may not be capable of playing his "exciting brand of baseball" in the first few months next season. It was Cordova who was the mistake, likely cutting into Jay Gibbons' time in LF/DH. I don't think Singleton is blocking any prospects, he's a "proven veteran"- meaning he isn't going to be a total flop like Kingsale or Matos or whomever else they would throw out there.

He's no leadoff hitter. He's no star. But, he's not a bad player at the price. You are all acting like the Orioles traded a top prospect for him, are paying him $5M a season, or are blocking a top prospect with him. None of the above. He's relatively cheap. He's adequate. He prevents Kenny Lofton from coming to town. And there's nobody else capable of playing the position for at least a year or two.

I think Singleton will be a better player than Mora over the next 3 years. I also think he is better than replacement level, but below average.

In response to Trevise's point -- I live in DC and work at a large DC law firm. My firm does have a bunch of seats at Camden Yards, and I'm pretty sure that if a DC got a team the firm wouldn't bother to keep the Os tickets. As for me, I'm an orioles fan, so I'll continue to go to a few Os games per year. Actually, if we get a team in DC I'll probably go to a lot more MLB games overall; I'll still go to a few Os games every year and I'd probably end up going to a bunch of Senators/expos/etc. games as well.

Voros...

Bigbie is not a good prospect. There are probably a hundred like him floating around. The chances of him becoming a productive regular are very small indeed. Singleton on the other hand has a much better chance to be a near-average outfielder for the next 3 or 4 years because he's already proven himself to be a competent big league centerfielder.

Bigbie has proven himself to be a mediocre minor league hitter - he needs to improve a great deal just to get to the point where Singleton is now.

I think you overvalue the bird in the bush versus the bird in hand. If you were talking about a REAL prospect, like Vernon Wells, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you.

The Orioles organisation has access to information about Bigbie that you and I don't, but what we do have access to doesn't paint a pretty picture.

But Robert, when you're a 63-win team, the bird in the bush *is* better than the one in the hand. Singleton is not average; he's bad. Now if I'm the Mets and I hope to contend and I have Jay DL Payton as my primary centerfielder, maybe that's okay. But if I'm the Orioles, Singleton is worthless to me. Singleton has ranged from mediocre to miserable and is 29.

I don't _like_ Bigbie (or Harris, or Matos, or Reed, or whatever other stiff the Orioles are claiming to be a prospect), but what good is Singleton? Are the Orioles contenders now? Are they going to be during the useful life of Singleton? And I still don't see the difference between Mora and Singleton.

I'm not sure who the CF on the current Ken Phelps All-Star Team is, but that's who the Orioles needed.

Singleton may get better.

The chances of that happenening are at least as good as any of the guys you mentioned doing the same.

I'm not saying it's a good move, but the amount of money they are paying Singleton is really nothing for Angelos.

Mora is OLDER than Singleton, isn't better and is probably worse.

It's the Cordova signing that was really the hopeless one.

Robert

This trade really doesn't matter. The Orioles stink and will still stink whether Singleton plays or not.

I've seen Bigbie play on a few occasions. I feel quite confident and comfortable predicting that he'll never hit .270/.350/.425. As I've mentioned on previous threads, playing a young player doesn't really help you if the young player doesn't have any talent.

The Orioles should just go cheap and plow their money into their farm system. On second thought, this only helps if you have talent evaluators who have a clue.

Until the Peter Angelos finally realizes that he needs a competent GM at the helm who actually gets to make *all* decisions, the Orioles will be mired in mediocrity.

Oriole fans have my sympathy.

I agree with Jim.

The Orioles need players like Adam Dunn, Sean Burroughs or Hank Blalock.

Not much to add except that if Singleton puts up his career 750ish OPS in full-time duty, then (based on 2001 numbers) the O's would move from 12th in the AL to 9th in the AL. Some question as to whether he can do it full-time, but I notice that although he's had very few AB's against LH over the last 4 years (approx. 201 PA), his numbers are better (OPS over 800). His walk rate is also much better (16 per 201 vs. 61 per 1215).

And this is nothing but a reminder of how small differences can be in baseball, but his OPS last year as a CF was 796, which would be quite fine. It was his 2 singles in 22 AB at LF, RF, and PH that brought his OPS for the season down 34 points. So basically the difference between Singleton and a good but not great CF is about 8 o-fers over the course of a season (after adjusting for his limited playing time).

Peter Angelos isn't willing to spend significant money over the long haul on players who "do" represent upgrades over what he has.

I think Peter A has shown a willingness to spend akin to that of a drunken sailor. His trouble is that his choices haven't been as sound as that sailor's. He needs to learn what it took King George years to figure out: hiring good people and staying out of the way works best. Syd needs to be replaced and the whole organization needs a massive airing out, and he needs to sit on his hands and keep his mouth shut while the new guy works.

I think Peter A has shown a willingness to spend akin to that of a drunken sailor. His trouble is that his choices haven't been as sound as that sailor's. He needs to learn what it took King George years to figure out: hiring good people and staying out of the way works best. Syd needs to be replaced and the whole organization needs a massive airing out, and he needs to sit on his hands and keep his mouth shut while the new guy works.

Old Pete

hey Alex, don't go putting words in my mouth! :-) That Singleton put up a 796 OPS as a CF doesn't mean anything in my mind. He put up a 762 OPS for the year and that's what matters. Looks to me like he'll give the O's slightly below average offense and average or better defense (for what it's worth, DM gave him very high defensive ratings going into last season). That's not such a bad thing. Is it worth the extra million $ vs. some of the O's other pathetic options? I think that's too close to call and it'll come down to what Harris can do.

Alex is basically right.

Chris Singleton, in his 3-year major league career, hasn't been much below a major league average hitter for his position.

1999 OBP .328, SLG .490 (league CF: OBP .346, SLG .427)

Nate..

Batting average declines as a player ages but power and walks increase. If Singleton can increase his walks and power over the next few years and maintain his speed he'll be a good player.

Bill James called it old player skills versus young players skills. He speculated that guys with young player skills tend to age well and Singleton has young player skills.

As long as he's able to handle playing centerfield he'll be useful.

Looking at his minor league numbers from his pre-1999 is pretty lame. The guy's had about 1500 plate appearances in the majors and he's proven he can hit almost as well as a league average centerfielder.

And what's this stuff about "because he's exceeded expectations based on his minor league numbers therefore he has more downside risk". Where does that come from? Care to show me any proof?

Perhaps it just means that it's true that he's a hardworker and has made himself better. If true then I expect him to do better in the near future than a lazier guy who put up great numbers in the minors but hasn't fulfilled his potential because he didn't put in the work.

White Sox environment factors (overall run scoring): 1999 = 0.965, 2000 = 1.049, 2001 = 1.029

He's been helped a little but not a lot.

The Chi-Sox made this move to make room for something better (Rowand/Borchard)....The O's made this move because someone else's used furniture(Singleton)looks better than what they have(Mora/Matos).

The White Sox are moving foward.

Let's roast the O's for this one...yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

First off, let me state that I'm not particularly biased against this trade, I simply think that it won't do any good. If it wasn't for the Orioles ham fisted ignorance, they would have planned a "reasonable approach" going into the off season. They don't have a "foundation" type player either on the 40 man or within their minor league system. What they do have on the roster is relatively young "Major League average" pitching, (i.e.: Johnson and Ponson) with the potential of "more of the same" in the minors. (Bedard, Stahl, Riley, Stephens) On or before November 5th, they should have been talking to teams (i.e.: Texas) in an effort to acquire a high end prospect (like Pena or Blalock) that could serve as a "foundation" over the next 6 or so years for some of the above listed pitching. Free agent signings serve no purpose unless they can get an entire "all-star" team of them, which would be the only thing that would help short term, while having a egregious long term effect. And trades such as this one does nothing to help them compete and eventually contend. Well, it's too late for that this off season. Maybe next year...

Until they comprehend the concept of team building on the Major League level, properly evaluating amateur level talent and instructing such talent at the minor league level, they will continue morphing into the franchise that begat them. Can anyone say St. Louis Browns? I knew you could!

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

Please, don't call me a Singleton apologist. But his numbers and defensive rep (are good defensive numbers available for free anywhere on the web?) suggest that he's worthy of being a starting CF. At worst, he's a 4th OF. If Harris' ceiling is a utility player, then this is at worst a trade of a utility prospect for an established 4th OF who's hardly ancient which even if it doesn't significantly improve the O's still isn't a bad trade. [and from the Sox perspective, they didn't need Singleton]

Still, that said, I tend to side more with Voros in this argument. In the O's situation, I'd rather gamble on the young guy who might surprise us and turn into something pretty good than go with the proven mediocrity. Thrift's comment that Singleton has only been around 3 years so he can expect to improve suggests he's viewed as another of the O's "kids" and that they may not understand what they're getting.

But I think we tend to overestimate the availability of hitting talent. I brought this up in the Roger Cedeno signing thread, but maybe it's worth mentioning again. According to ESPN's sortable stats, in the entire major leagues, there were only 78 qualified (3.1 PA per team game) batters that posted an OPS over 800. There were only another 25 who posted between 750 and 800. There were 156 qualified batters overall. So Singleton is roughly around the 2/3 point.

Of those 78 800+ OPS hitters, 35 were OF (if you include Pujols, Burks and Ramirez, but not Conine or Chipper or LoDuca). Another 14 between 750 and 800. So, shockingly enough, that would put Singleton among the top 50 full-time OF offensively (out of 71 full-time OF). There were 18 qualified CF, and Singleton would rank about 12th-13th.

Take those together, and it suggests that he's right on the border between the middle and bottom third of hitters. He may not be great, but with 30 CF slots out there, it's hard to argue that he doesn't deserve one of them (or at least 2/3 of one of them)

OK, OPS isn't perfect, but it's easy to find. And no I didn't park adjust which would likely push Singleton lower in the rankings (at least he'd be below Terrence Long).

Now it's true, I'm overstating his case (maybe I am an apologist). After all, part of the reason there were only 71 qualified OF is because it's not that hard to find a couple guys to split a position and give you that sort of borderline production. But still, it's a little hard to believe that there are a sufficient number of underemployed CF's out there such that Singleton would be the 31st best option for a starting CF. And even if there are, he'd still be a perfectly good 4th OF that you traded a utility prospect for.

As I said, whether the extra 20-30 points of OPS and better than average defense he might give you is worth the extra $1.2 million vs. a minimum player is a tougher question. But based on talent alone, it looks like Chris Singleton is a starting CF. (if you'd asked me that yesterday, I'd have given you a completely different answer)

Someone mentioned being able to flip him for something better since he's a starting CF. You never know, but he didn't bring much in this trade, the Sox have apparently been offering him all summer without any better offers than this, and his numbers aren't that much different than Michael Tucker's (though he's a much better CF option) who didn't exactly bring a big haul last year at the deadline. Or Dave Martinez for another older comparison. So seems like most of baseball is more in agreement with the anti-Singleton crowd.

Exhibit A: Where does this "as a CF" burru-chittah come from?

It came from me and when I brought it up I specifically said it didn't mean anything other than an example of how 22 crappy AB's can make a guy go from "good" to "not good". Alex then seemed to try to make more of it and I responded that that's not what I was saying. So who now is being selective in their interpretation?

Only 84 of 156 qualified batters slugged over 450 last season. Crappy indeed.

Chris Singleton is an ordained minister.

Nate,

ITALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLICCCCCCCCCSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

My original post's intent was to say that Chicago traded away a servicable player for a player they'll probably never use. If they simply wanted to save money, fine. I think it is questionable because the Sox figure to be the favorite in the AL Central and they just gave away a trading chip. I say that they gave him away because Harris is essentially a non-prospect. BA has him rated eighth in a terrible system. Other publications don't even have him in the Orioles top ten.

A lot of people are bashing Singleton. Why? Nobody is claiming he is a star. But what would you rather have: A servicable major leaguer who will hit around .300 and play decent defense or a 23 year old minor leaguer who will be lucky to get a cup of coffee?

Noah, please read what I actually write. I have made clear three times now (the original post, my follow-up to Alex, my first follow-up to you) that I am not ignoring those 22 AB's. I AM POINTING OUT THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SINGLETON'S 762 OPS AND AN 800 OPS IN HIS 350+ PA'S COMES DOWN TO 22 CRAPPY PA'S. That is not nearly as big a difference as you like to pretend it is.

Perhaps I can make this clearer. Singleton's 2001 #'s were 331 OBP and 431 SLG. Let's pretend he gets 600 PA's. Given his low walk rate, that would be about 570 AB's. So in 600 PA's, he'd reach base approximately 198 times and put up about 246 total bases. A 350/450 player, given the same number of PA's (and for argument's sake AB's) would reach base 210 times and put up 257 total bases.

So, the difference between Singleton and that CF is 12 times on base and 11 total bases over an entire season or about an extra single every 14-15 games. "40 points" of OPS is a single every 14-15 games. That's not a big difference. THAT'S MY POINT. Oh it's a difference, given the choice of the two, you'd rather have those extra singles -- but really, is that the difference between good and worthless?

And in what universe is a CF with an 800 OPS not "good"? And yes 84 (where'd that come from) is more than half of 156 ... so 45%+ of the full-time ML starters are "crappy"? I assume almost all bench players are crappy too. So about 70-80% of all major league hitters are "crappy"? Here's the neat part, if you believe that, it only points out the difficulty of landing "good" ones which explains why teams often have to "settle" for minor upgrades like Singleton.

And if I'm not mistaken, there is evidence that for players with the same OBP, the one with the higher BA is the more productive one because singles are more productive than walks. Take our mythical 800 OPS CF, but instead of 30 walks we'll give him 80 walks, leaving him with 520 AB's (and a 250 BA by the way). If he's still 350/450, he'd still reach base 210 times, but his total bases would be just 234, and that's nearly identical in value to Singleton.

If you want to convince me this is a bad trade Noah, then (1) show me Singleton isn't worthy of starting CF job; (2) he's not better than what the O's have; and (3) explain why a starting CF isn't worth a utility prospect. I mean geez, if Harris is at best gonna be one of those bench-sitters, then he must be really crappy. Barring a major upgrade from Harris, the only way the O's can come out behind on this is if Singleton craps out and Harris becomes as good a player as Singleton is. But if Singleton is as worthless as some seem to think he is, then the O's haven't lost anything have they?

And here's a question for you Noah -- if a student finishes in the 35th percentile of his class at Harvard, is he dumb?

If Singleton is the criterion for the Crapdoza line,then the ChiSox who have 2 CFers waiting in the wings who by most accounts will be crapless,they had little choice but to put forth their crap removal plan and found a suitable dump in Baltimore in which to take their old used crap off their hands.

I originally posted because I thought Gary's comment made little sense from a big picture sense. Sure Singleton is a serviceable player. But they have Rowand who they would rather use which puts a 1.4 million dollar player on the bench. That immediately reduces the bargaining power the Sox may have as a trading chip. Why? Because other teams already know that they would rather trade for a prospect than pay him a million when they can't use him much. Gary's comment seemed like market denial. I think Singleton probably could fetch another "seasoned veteran" in trade, but it would still be a player the White Sox would not prefer over Rowand and would still cost close to a million bucks. Singleton is certainly not going to fetch an Adam Dunn in a trade. Nobody makes Lary Anderson for Jeff Bagwell trades anymore. Knowing that Gary is a Red Sox fan he probably wishes other teams will be that stupid, but those chances are slim.

But I can't blame the Orioles for upgrading from god-awful to mediocre. The Orioles could have put Harris in CF this year, but I don't see anyone calling him a can't miss prospect. If you place every one of your bets on long-shots, you will probably still lose money even though one may come through once in a while. And the Orioles are so bereft of prospects, I don't think they can just plug in what they have and expect to improve. If Singleton plays very well, they may trade him for a better prospect than Harris. If he stays on his current level, he is at least an improvement over what they had and he'll help them avoid becoming a 100-loss embarassment (maybe just a 92-loss bore). If he sucks, they cut him loose and lost a player they didn't think too highly of anyway.

For the White Sox, what is the downside? The worst that can happen is they traded a player they weren't going to use and had little market value for a player they can't use. At best they traded a player they weren't going to use and had little market value for a player that becomes a very good starter for years to come. To me, that is exactly what you do with the Chris Singletons of the world.

Why has a thread about Chris Singleton gotten 77 comments?

Alex,

Consolidating a few responses:

Repoz: While Singleton is certainly a better CF than Mora,

How is that certain?

Steve Cameron: If Singleton plays as he's shown he can and plays full-time, he is tradeable, since teams are always looking for guys who can play CF and hit some.

Uh, he was just traded. For nothing. Clearly, teams aren't looking for guys who play like Singleton.

And finally,

Walt: ut I think we tend to overestimate the availability of hitting talent. I brought this up in the Roger Cedeno signing thread, but maybe it's worth mentioning again. According to ESPN's sortable stats, in the entire major leagues, there were only 78 qualified (3.1 PA per team game) batters that posted an OPS over 800. There were only another 25 who posted between 750 and 800. There were 156 qualified batters overall. So Singleton is roughly around the 2/3 point.

He's around the 2/3 point of people who got 500 PAs. Why limit it to qualifiers? Especially given that Singleton himself wasn't a qualifier, that's a little disingenuous, don't you think? While we obviously don't want a player with 12 ABs, why are (frinstance) J.D. Drew and Marty Cordova, who had more PAs than Singleton, not reasonable comparisons also?

The reason this thread has gone on so long is because the anti-Singleton crowd has overreached. In calling Singleton "crappy" it feels like their argument is more rhetorical than sabermetrical. Yet many of these people are the same people who tout sabermetrics as "the search for objective knowledge about baseball" and profess to evaluate all major league transactions only under the cold, hard scrutiny of established theory.

There are all sorts of arguments, and all sorts of ways of divying up the stats to reach desired conclusions. The fact is this: Either Willie Harris will have more career value from here on out, or Chris Singleton will have more career value. You can't "project" what is going to happen and therefore assume that your conclusions will be impregnable. Chris Singleton is not a projection. He is a major league baseball player, a 29-year-old man who is going to try to help his baseball team win games. Several hundred times next year, he is going to walk up to the plate with a piece of wood in his hands and try to hit a baseball in such a way that he will help his team win those games. We don't know what is going to happen. Frankly, I get sick and tired of people who've crunched a few numbers trying to reduce unknown future baseball events to foregone conclusions, or who think every baseball decision should be made solely on the basis of what a calculator says. That approach may be right or it may be wrong, but either way, it's joyless.

There's more than one way to look at a problem. The Orioles are derided (as they probably should be) for lacking creativity in their personnel decisions, but yet the positions I see advocated by the usual suspects on this forum, time and time again, are often themselves lacking in creativity or inspiration, and are dogmatic, knee-jerk reactions that have been rehearsed over a thousand past personnel decisions, and shall be parroted a thousand more times in our future. Meanwhile, baseball games will be played, and only the outcomes of those games will determine whether this was, in the end, a good or bad trade. To say otherwise, to suggest that this is a bad trade regardless of those outcomes because the rationale behind the decision did not conform to someone's pet theory, is to imply that those theories are invulnerable. When they are right, they are right, and when they are wrong, they are still right.

Don't you think maybe taking a flyer on someone like Chad Hermansen might be a better idea than Singleton?

Although I saw Chad Hermansen play in the AFL this past fall and wasn't too impressed, I have to agree with Voros on this. "You" can't win big always taking the "safe bet." The Orioles will simply not improve until they take some chances. Look around and see what "fallen" prospects are available then take a flyer on them. Play some of the prospects in their own minor league system. Fill in the gaps with some of the KPAST's Voros mentioned up thread. On the way to knocking on the 1962 Mets door, maybe a couple of gambles pay off big. I'd rather be going in that direction with 20 to 25 year olds than with 30 year olds. After all, sometimes the devil you don't know is better than the devil you do.

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

Yet many of these people are the same people who tout sabermetrics as "the search for objective knowledge about baseball" and profess to evaluate all major league transactions only under the cold, hard scrutiny of established theory.

David J.,

I certainly hope you're not including me in that group. The only "law" I believe in is Murphy's Law and the only theory I'm espousing is that "desperate times call for desperate measures." If the Orioles are going to be "crappy," I'd prefer it to be "crappy" now with a chance of being less "crappy" later rather than more "crappy" later. See my post directly above this one....

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

David J,

Nate...

Your arguments don't address the basic points I was trying to make.

The old-player/young player skills thing works when you have players of relatively equal overall ability. Singleton is an average or slightly below average CF and his skills set suggest that he won't be especially susceptible to rapid decline.

Singleton's home road splits don't mean squat. They aren't especially large and splits like that are always much more subject to random fluctuation than overall numbers.

The guy is what he is, why do you feel the need to trash him?

Voros...

Bigbie is big-time crap right now. Even if things go incredibly well for him, in 5 years he will be exactly where Singleton is right now.

Let's say that the Orioles might contend in 4 years. Singleton will 33 and there are a number of centerfielders who have not declined between ages 29 and 33. Singleton might very well be an average CF in 4 years and so he would be a significant help to a pennent contender.

So yes, Singleton has a shot (maybe 10-25%) at being a productive player for a pennant contender in 4 years. Bigbie probably has less of a shot at doing that because right now he is crap and to pull himself up to Singleton's level he has to work incredibly hard.

Just because Singleton managed to do it doesn't mean that Bigbie is likely to - after all, they are different people.

David Nieporent...

Singleton is slightly below average or an average CF (take a look at the data I presented). If it is true that he is above average defensively then he is basically an average CF. Please do not call him crappy and don't tell me that Melvin Mora is just as good without providing some data.

Let's reserve "crappy" for the guys who are in the bottom 10% of starters at each position.

Voros...

Your argument about a young player being potentially more valuable than an older one because of the uncertainly in projecting him is valid, but I wouldn't apply it to Bigbie.

Instead, I would apply it to players who have actually shown that they have the potential to be quality major leaguers. I would say that Bigbie has only a tiny chance to be that, mostly because he is a bad hitter and is not a good defensive CF (as such his batting stats are not directly comparable to Singleton's).

Are you the same guy who said that the Jays should trade Vernon Wells (a guy who is a REAL prospect) because he's unlikely to fulfil his potential? There is a guy who could very well be an all-star centerfielder. Vernon Wells is a year younger than Bigbie.

The Orioles just acquired a player who is arguably their best position player for someone who will almost certainly never amount to more than a spare-part. That's supposed to be a bad move?

There are 3 outfield spots available. If Bigbie really is better than what he's shown so far then he isn't blocked, is he? Whoever of Bigbie, Matos, Raines etc steps forward there are two spots available for them. You make it sound like it's either Singleton or Bigbie. There's enough work for 4 guys to play the outfield. Raines could use some more seasoning in triple-A. There will likely be injuries so you can always find playing time for every reasonable prospect on your 40 man roster.

I think the best long-term strategy is accumulating as much talent as you can because you can never tell which player(s) will step it up a notch.

Rapscallion...

Name some players around Vernon Wells' age that can play CF as well as him (defensively) who have had better stats at AAA.

Throwing out one statline, with no context provided is not analysis.

Bigbie's numbers are pitiful when compared to Wells' (age for age). So what does that make Bigbie? AAA fodder?

Voros,

Where is the evidence to suggest that a 29-year-old cannot also improve significantly? Is that based on a generic study of age progression which is blind to the biases that such a study would entail?

For instance, what is the difference in age progression between a 29-year-old with several years major league experience and a 29-year-old with only a few years experience? Aside from the averages, what are the ranges: that is, how is the bell curve for future performance of a 29-year-old shaped?

Finally, how can you use the basic principle of uncertainty to conclude that Bigbie is the "far" better choice than Singleton? Are you saying that your theory is simply that one should always go with younger players, regardless of who those younger players are? Where is the evidence to suggest that works?

Did you even see Larry Bigbie play last year? Did you see what garbage he was? It would be OFFENSIVE to use a player so obviously not ready for the major leagues in an everyday major league lineup. It's an insult to the paying customer. If anybody wants to see a Double-A baseball player, they can quite easily drive down to Bowie and watch him play. And if he proves himself worthy of an everyday spot in the lineup, I can guarantee you that Chris Singleton and his $1.4 million contract are not going to stop him.

Vernon Wells is a legitimate prospect because by all accounts he is an excellent defensive centerfielder who has proven that he can handle AAA at a young age.

There are very few similar or better centerfielders around who are the same age as Vernon. Such scarcity tells me that he is a prospect.

Is he a prospect like Andruw Jones or Ken Griffey Jr were? No. But if you look at the guys who currently play CF in the majors, very few have had better numbers in the minors at the same age than Vernon Wells.

For example, Mike Cameron, at Wells' current age (23), had just completed a fine AA campaign (i.e. had never played AAA ball or above except for a couple of cups of coffee in the majors). Not to mention late bloomers like Chris Singleton.

Does this prove that Vernon will be a quality major league player? Of course not. But it indicates that he is, in fact, a legit prospect.

I should also mention that Syracuse is not an easy place to hit as far as AAA ballparks go.

"Prospect" is impossible to define in an objective sense, but the way it is used by baseball people means that Vernon Wells is a "real" prospect and Larry Bigbie isn't.

In my opinion, Vernon needs to play a full season in the majors in 2002. He may not be a star right away, but if he is able to make the proper adjustments he will be a quality player.

Robert,

Hate to have to hit and run, but I do, so here's one quick point:

The Orioles just acquired a player who is arguably their best position player for someone who will almost certainly never amount to more than a spare-part. That's supposed to be a bad move?

It's supposed to be a bad move not because Harris is worth more than Singleton, but because Singleton is not part of any plan by the Orioles to build a contender. Rapscallion is right about your rhetorical technique -- you demand evidence from everybody else, but throw out statements like "Singleton has a 10-25% chance of being productive in 4 years" without any.

And as for speaking of Bigbie's track record, I agree -- it's unimpressive. Now go look at Singleton's at the same age.

There are 3 outfield spots available. If Bigbie really is better than what he's shown so far then he isn't blocked, is he? Whoever of Bigbie, Matos, Raines etc steps forward there are two spots available for them. You make it sound like it's either Singleton or Bigbie. There's enough work for 4 guys to play the outfield. Raines could use some more seasoning in triple-A. There will likely be injuries so you can always find playing time for every reasonable prospect on your 40 man roster.

No, there aren't three outfield spots available. Marty Cordova, being their major free agent signing, signed to a multiyear deal, has one of the spots. Jay Gibbons damn well better have the other full time. That pretty much leaves one. Not three. And then Chris Richard comes back in July. Did you forget him? Not that he's anything to write home about, but he's yet another player competing for playing time.

And you and David J both say, essentially, that if Bigbie proves he deserves it, then there will be playing time available and that Singleton wouldn't block him. How exactly is Bigbie supposed to do that if Singleton is playing and he isn't? Or is he supposed to prove it by playing well in AAA? In which case the Orioles will look at Singleton's empty .280 average and say, "Well, we know minor league stats are meaningless, and Singleton's a .300 hitter."

I don't want to be guilty of the "argument from authority" fallacy, but if Singleton is really (a) cheap, (b) an average hitter and (c) a good defensive player, then that sounds pretty valuable. Care to explain why the Orioles got him for "someone who will almost certainly never amount to more than a spare-part"? Is it only you and Syd Thrift who see this value in him?

The problem is that no team has ever gotten better by playing bad young players. You need to play good young players, unfortunately, the Orioles don't have any of those. People talk about three-year plans. The only way the Orioles are going to contend three years from now is if they dive headfirst into the free agent market and get some real players. They don't have many on the major league roster now, and they aren't waiting in the wings, either. The major-league ready, potentially good young player the Orioles have is already on their roster and likely to play full time. His name is Jay Gibbons.

For better or for worse, I see the Orioles trying to make incremental improvements. Marty Cordova and Chris Singleton are not going to help them win a championship, but they might help them win more games. You have a better chance of signing impact free agents with a 75-win team than with a 60-win team.

My sense is that Mike Hargrove has a pretty good handle now on which young players can play in the majors and which ones can't. Larry Bigbie can't, at least not yet. The only place on the internet you are going to find anyone talking about Larry Bigbie as a viable solution in center field is this forum. But if Bigbie should light up AAA, I can pretty much guarantee you that he'll get his shot. Singleton, Cordova, and Gibbons are not an untouchable trio of superstars. With this team being as bad as it is, the Orioles are going to play all sorts of people and use lots of lineups. There is not one player on the entire team that I can guarantee you will start all season. Competition is wide open. Any young player worthy of a look will get a look. After all, Bigbie got some playing time last year and he hardly even deserved it.

The question I would still like answered is this:

Are we saying Chris Singleton can't improve, because of his age? One poster compared Singleton improving to winning the lottery, but that's just silly. Plainly the odds are far, far better than that. I agree that there is a better chance for Bigbie to improve. But if Bigbie does improve, he might get himself to Chris Singleton level. If Singleton improves, he moves himself beyond Chris Singleton level. For an extra $1 million dollars, the Orioles get that chance, plus they get the publicity (however meager) of signing a player whose name is recognized by much of the baseball public.

I like Chris Singleton. He's not very good, but he does certain things reasonably well, and seems to have a good attitude. He didn't come expensively, and he's not, at least at this point, blocking any legitimate major league prospect. If the time arises when he does block a legitimate prospect, his salary and skills set should make him relatively easy to package in a trade to another team, or to move into a reduced role with the Orioles.

Nate...

Singleton had an unexpectedly good year in 1999, a very poor one is 2000 and one in between 2001. How is that evidence of decline?

It's probably nothing more than random fluctuation (perhaps coupled with various injuries). I wasn't the one who started separating out his good years and bad years and looking for trends by splitting the data into small pieces. Why don't we let someone well-versed in statistics, like Voros, tell us if Singleton's record shows "strong evidence" of decline.

Players' stolen base totals and success rates go up and down all the time. A nagging leg injury could drag down basestealing numbers. The next year, with healthy legs, the player can bounce back.

You can play this game with virtually any basestealer, but here it is with Steve Finley:

91: 34 SB 18 CS, 92: 44-9, 93: 19-6, 94: 13-7 (strike-shortened).

Well, Finley was 29 that season and it sure looked like he was losing his speed. Both his success rate and attempt frequency were much lower in 93/94 than in 91/92.

95: 36-12, 96: 22-8.

The game you are playing here is that you are taking Singleton's rookie year, which was obviously a lucky fluke, and comparing his subsequent seasons to it - finding declining trends all over the place. What has really happened is that Singleton had a bad year in 2000 and basically rebounded to what we can presume (based on his entire career, which is the largest sample of data we have in his case) to be close to his true current level of ability in 2001.

Here is some news - hitters' OPS at home is better than their OPS on the road - it's called the Home Field Advantage. Did you adjust your "splits" for this fact? Did you adjust for the fact that Comiskey has favored hitters the last two years in the first place? No.

Yes it is true that parks affect hitters differently. But did you in fact establish that Singleton had a higher than normal home-road split? Did you determine that all types of lefties are affected in the same way? Did you take a look at how Camden Yards treats righties and lefties? The O's are moving their fences in for 2002, have you estimated the effect that that is likely to have on Chris Singleton?

I do not wish to get into all that because it's not an area that I'm especially skilled in, nor particularly interested in.

You curiously left out his 1999 splits. Here they are for your consumption: home .306 OBP, .452 SLG; road .346 OBP .523 SLG.

That's why looking at one-year splits is less enlightening than looking at 2-year splits, which is not as meaningful as looking at 3-year splits. There are sample size issues. He played for the White Sox from 1999 to 2001 (which happens to represent his entire major league career to date) so why not look at his home/road split for all three years together.

Home:

658 ab, 193 h, 38 doubles, 9 triples, 14 homers, 32 steals, 10 caught, 38 walks, 1 HBP, 85 K, avg=.293, slg=.442, obp*=.333

Road:

741 ab, 203 h, 36 doubles, 7 triples, 21 homers, 22 steals, 13 caught, 39 walks, 2 HBP, 106 K, avg=.274, slg=.426, obp*=.312

I didn't have access to his Sac Fly splits, so I used a simplified version of OBP (H+W+HBP)/(AB+W+HBP)

Taking into account normal HFA, Singleton's 3-year home/road splits are pretty much what we'd expect.

Did you even look at the data I presented comparing Singleton's 1999-2001 numbers to an AL average CF? You sure didn't comment on them. It should be apparent to you that Singleton has hit a bit worse (all of it in the OBP department) than an average AL CF during his time in the big-leagues.

If Chris is an above-average defensive CF then he is essentially an average CF overall. 29 year-old centerfielders do decline as a group, but I doubt if the expected one-year decline for this type of player is very steep. It would not be a shock to find out in 4 years that a 33 year-old Singleton is a better player than the 29 year-old was.

David J,

He may be better as a 33-year-old, but I'd say it's more likely he'll be worse.

Now that we've beaten this horse to death and then some, how do you all feel about Williams w.r.t. this trade?

Good: cleared a roster space (is Harris on the 40-man?)

David N.

Sure I occasionally throw numbers like that out, but there have been plenty of average 29 years old outfielders who were still around 4 years later and were able to help a pennant contender.

My problem is with people who state categorically that Singleton can't help the O's win a pennant down the road. Cordova wasn't any better than Singleton when he was 29 (and he sure couldn't play center). He turned 32 last year, helping the Indians win their division.

The problem isn't Singleton, it's Cordova. And guess what, David, you can trade surplus outfielders - it can be done.

The Mets acquired Anvil Vaughn not long ago when they had Todd Zeile and his monster contract already stationed at 1B. Guess what - Zeile isn't a member of the Mets anymore.

The Orioles don't have any decent outfield prospects, other than maybe Raines Jr - and I think he could use at least a half season of AAA. Gibbons has a chance to be a fine hitter but he will NEVER be a regular outfielder on a competetive ballclub - he's horrible defensively. He's 1B/DH material. At this point he should be playing ahead of Conine and Segui.

If Bigbie works very hard, he will turn out to be another Chris Singleton. He should spend this year at AAA. But if he does take a quantum leap forward then he should form an OF with Singleton and Richard when he comes back. I'd give long odds on that happening.

For now, the best thing will be to take a look at Matos, who is probably a better prospect that Bigbie and give Mora the 4th outfielder job (I'd actally let Mora and Cordova share time until Richard is ready, but that is not likely to happen). Bigbie and Raines should start in AAA.

If Matos isn't doing the job, call up one of Bigbie and Raines (whoever is doing better) mid-season and unload Cordova. I'm assuming here that there are no major injuries, but of course there are likely to be one or two as the season rolls along.

Chris Richard is a fine player, but he's not an asset in CF. When he comes back, with Cordova hopefully traded, the outfield (perhaps on opening day 2003) will be Raines (or Matos) in left, Richard in right and Singleton in center with Matos or Mora (did I mention he was older than Singleton?) or whoever else picking up table scraps as a 4th outfielder. That has a chance to be at least a decent outfield in 2003 and 2004.

Of course by then, if a hot prospect comes along or they acquire a very good outfielder via trade, you can move either Singleton or Richard, or go with a platoon/DH rotation with 4 outfielders plus Gibbons sharing time in the 3 outfield spots plus the DH spot.

In any case, someone is going to get injured at some point so you need surplus talent around (most contending teams have it).

The O's have very little talent in the system and it's going to take several years of patient talent accumulation to make them a contending team. Singleton is a talent upgrade and that means that it's a step, however small, in the right direction.

David N...

The thing about Singleton is that he beat the odds. Outfielders that hit like he did when he was 22, 23 and 24 years old almost never become viable major league players. He beat those odds and he's had 1500 PA in the majors to show that he is at least an adequate centerfielder.

Bigbie is obviously in a similar position to where Singleton was at that age but it's still very unlikely for anyone with his credentials to become what Singleton has become. The fact that Singleton has in fact done so (in effect he's already won the lottery) doesn't mean that Bigbie has a good chance to do the same.

It's the bird in hand versus the bird in bush thing again.

By the way, I think the role that the ChiSox gave Singleton is one he's suited to, and so the Orioles ought to give him a similar role.

These type of arguments always remind me of Sammy Sosa.

In 1989, the White Sox traded their best hitter (Baines) for him. The Sox were going nowhere fast, seemed like a good move at the time for a can't miss prospect. He was a decent player (average anyway) the rest of 1989.

In 1990, the Sox actually were a compeitive team. But not because of Sosa. In fact, Sosa was their worst regular player!

In 1991, the Sox were good again. And Sosa was their worst player by far. When you suck 2 years in a row in comparison to Ozzie Guillen and Dan Pasqua, you won't last long.

So the Sox moved him. Three years later he's a star.

But he still cost them division titles in 1990 and 1991. I know because I was there and he clearly did. They would have been better off with Baines. They had no way of knowing their other young players would develop so quickly. Call it an accident or call it luck. Most likely, just a quicker payoff than they projected on some players and a much later payoff on Sosa than they projected. Either way, you really can't place blame anywhere.

If only the Sox wouldn't have had Sosa for the years he sucked. Looking back, maybe they gave him the playing time too soon. Even though the projections on him at the time were "can't miss", he missed while he was given the chance. They probably would have been better off playing an average veteran.

The Sox took a gamble and lost. Right guy, wrong time. Just like the lottery. And as David Nieporent pointed out, just because a long-shot pays off once in a while, it doesn't make it a sound strategy all the time. And Sosa wasn't supposed to be a long-shot! (And indeed isn't.) Likewise, just because a long-shot doesn't pay off it doesn't make it a bad strategy all the time. I think the expression is don't put all your eggs in one basket. With the young pitching and a few young position players already, the O's are probably better off filling the remaining spots with a couple average veterans than a few more young question marks.

In all likelihood, bringing up a player has no effect on his long-term development. He will hit his stride when he hits his stride and bringing him up or keeping him down will not affect it. Short-term, it will affect his numbers and it will affect the team's Win/Loss record.

Voros' 20 simulations showed that Singleton would be better than Bigbie in 13 out of the 20 simulations. Sounds like an obvious choice to me. Let Bigbie play another year in AAA. Then when Voros runs 20 simulations using the actual 2002 data in the mix, Bigbie may beat out Singleton for 2003. Right now, Singleton is better.

The Expos put good young prospects into the major-league lineup all the time. And they have nothing to show for it, even though their track record on finding good young players is very good. Clearly there shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule. You can't do everything right away.

Anyway, it does point out that these types of deals are where the heart and soul of sabremetrics is, which is neat.

In over 100 at bats last season, Bigbie batted .229/.318/.321. I just thought that we should mention this is the player being proposed as a potential regular center fielder for the Orioles next season. Meanwhile, after the All-Star break last year, Singleton batted .318/.356/.491. Bigbie's poor performance might be excused if he was some stud prospect. He's not.

Take your pick. If you think the potential rewards for playing...ahem...Larry Bigbie now justify using a player that is clearly not ready for the major leagues, on the off chance that he might one day achieve the impossible dream of .275/.340/.430, well, best of luck. Either way, such decisions are not the stuff of which championships are made.

evad...

I was thinking about Syracuse in comparison to a lot of those Pacific Coast parks at altitude - where you expect a guy to put up big numbers in AAA and have to take a lot of air out when you do your MLEs.

Vernon is a prospect. When you have a guy who could be Devo on defense, who has the potential to hit for average and some power and who doesn't have a big hole in his swing (not especially high K totals) you have to give him 500+ PA in the majors to see what he can do.

I think he'll be a better player than Devo was. Just a gut feeling. I think it's an asset to have great D in center and I don't mind if Vernon struggles at the plate this year.

I think Vernon will play a lot this year. Until they can trade Mondesi they'll rotate the 4 outfielders through the DH spot. I don't think Phelps will be with the team the first half (that's why they got Tom Wilson). Wells will play CF most days with Cruz playing there the rest of the time and playing LF or RF when Stewart (who will be the main DH) and Mondesi are DHing or resting. Latham will mop up the rest of the playing time.

When Mondesi is traded they might bring up Phelps as a C/DH with the 3 remaining outfielders being spelled by Latham.

Gross won't be ready this year so I wouldn't worry about finding space for him until the spring of 2003.

Alex Escobar moved through the Mets system much slower than Vernon moved through the Jays' - when Vernon was playing in AAA in 2000 (after playing 57 games at AAA/majors the year before), Escobar had his first season of AA. In truth, Vernon has always been the better prospect of the two and still is.

I definitely don't like your option 3 because none of those guys will have the speed to play center. Cruz is pretty much a liability in center and he figures to be even moreso in a few years.

David N...

You know as well as I do that sample size matters. Looking at 1500 plate appearances is better than looking at 1000 which is better than looking at 500 which is better than looking at 100 PA in a month when the player is hot or cold. Ignoring Singleton's 1999 is just as bad as ignoring his 2000 season.

This whole spotting trends stuff for a player who's been in the bigs for 3 years is so flimsy that it's not really worth discussing.

From the very beginning I have been looking at his whole major league career. It's much easier to look at what Singleton has done in his career to this point than to try to predict what he will do over the next three years.

The ChiSox wisely dealt Singleton now and got something for him,albeit it's Ernie Riles nephew Willie Harris,before he fell to 3rd on the White Sox CF depth chart (Rowand,Borchard)within the next year.

This discussion has turned into a pointless pissing contest. I'm resigning from it. (I wonder what Chris Singleton would think of his future performance being obsessed over to this degree.) I'm writing all the names of the people who have called him "crappy" and "bad" down in a book. If he plays well in Baltimore, I'll hold each of you accountable.

Conversely, if Larry Bigbie or Willie Harris ever becomes a superior player to Chris Singleton, I fully expect that David N. and Voros and Nate should come knocking on my door to tell me what an idiot I am.

Good day, gentleman.

I can't believe that a Chris Singleton for Willie Harris trade has generated this much commentary. Barry Bonds for Rey Ordonez wouldn't have gone on this long.

Anyway, I wanted to add this: I had glanced over the minor league careers of both guys, but I hadn't sat down and ran the numbers side-by-side. I wasn't a big fan of Bigbie's before I did this -- and I'm still not. I thought Voros was being a little absolutist in his claims. But having done the comparison, I'm convinced he's right and the Singleton defenders are even more wrong than I thought before. Whether you compare them by performance at a given age or by performance at a given level, either way Bigbie comes out ahead. Singleton's minor league career stunk.

At age 20, Singleton was in A ball, hitting 322/406. Bigbie was still in college.

David Jones:

Nate..

Why don't you put your statistical training to good use instead of presenting substandard "analysis" of Chris Singleton's career. You claim to be interested in "sabermetric" style projections and yet you haven't provided one for Chris Singleton 2002.

Show me this research on isolated power and batting average. Link to it. At least summarize the findings in some detail.

Flukes count in both directions. I can't figure out why you would think that Singleton's real ability is somewhere between 2000 and 2001 rather than somewhere near the average of 1999 to 2001 inclusive.

When you originally presented your home/road splits, why didn't you include 1999 and why didn't you adjust for the HFA in the first place? Was it carelessness or an attempt to mislead? Or was it some other reason?

Why don't you give me a Voros-style projection for Singleton in 2002 and then give a high and low range on his OBP and SLG? 1999 was a fluke, 2000 was a fluke and 2001 was a fluke. Everything and nothing is a fluke, it's all just data and the more of them we have the better off we are. That's why trying to discern trends in a guy who's only played 3 years of major league baseball is pointless.

What is wrong in thinking that Singleton is a 750 OPS performer, since his lifetime OPS is exactly 753?

I think Camden Yards will still favor pitchers this year, even with the fences moving in, so I expect Singleton to perform at less than 750, maybe a 730.

You were the one who claimed that Chris Singleton was "replacement level". Have you defined this term? There is no way a slightly below average centerfielder is "replacement level" and if you think one is then you are full of it and I don't care how much statistical training you've had.

You've made arguments along the lines of "Singleton's numbers declined in the second half of 1999", but look at August and September of 2001 - Singleton turned into Willie Mays! All that is just normal fluctuation and you know it.

Here are the facts as I understand them.

1) Chris Singleton is not very old.

David N...

To repeat once again, Chris Singleton has already hit the jackpot. He's one of the few outfielders who've exceeded their minor league performance by a large margin. Players who hit like Chris in the minors almost NEVER become even adequate major league outfielders. 1500 PA says that he has.

Players with minor league numbers like Bigbie RARELY become productive major leaguers. He might do it, but the odds are against him. Singleton has already done it.

We also have to consider position here. Bigbie is not a CF and is likely never to be good enough defensively to play the position in the majors. He's a corner outfielder - as such the batting standards are higher for him than for Singleton.

Voros...

"Singleton has close to 10 full professional seasons. If you line them all up, you'll see the one season that looks completely out of line is that 1999 season. Everything else looks like it came from the same player."

You are wrong. In 1997 Singleton had an OBP of .343 and an SLG of .474 for AA Shreveport (I've heard it's a fairly tough place to hit). He had a very poor 1998 an excellent 1999, a poor 2000 and a decent 2001.

If you were doing a projection for his 1999 season based on his career up to and including 1998, what would it be? Would it be presumptuous to say that Chris's 2001 season was a lot better than you would have expected based on his minor league performance?

Voros... Bigbie has had 173 AB above AA ball in his career. They were all last year and he had a combined .326 OBP and .358 slugging pct. He's proven he can hit at AA level, so why not give him a half season at AAA? Matos/Mora, Singleton and Cordova can be your outfield with Richard pushing one of those guys out when he comes back. If Bigbie or Raines dominate AAA you can push out one of the two of Matos/Mora/Cordova that survived the last cut.

Did you ever stop and think about which of these young Orioles prospects can handle centerfield defensively and hit well enough to hold the position? IMO the likely answer is none of them, which is why Singleton is potentially useful to the Os.

The odds are very very long on Bigbie, Matos and Raines all developing into quality players in one season and the Orioles should consider themselves lucky if one of them does. So, however you want to slice it, Singleton will be useful if he can play like he did in Chicago.

I think that your analysis of the Orioles situation is a reasonable one. What I object to is the idea that a team like the Orioles HAS TO play the kids NOW. I don't see it. We don't know how the situation will develop so a reasonable course of action might call for some hedging. Singleton brings much needed organisational depth and contrary to what some have suggested he isn't "replacement level". A lot of the guys you like to point to as being freely available can't play centerfield as well (defensively) as Singleton. If the other outfielders in the organisation fail to develop or someone gets hurt, Singleton would be a good guy to have in there when you eventually start to put a competitive ballclub together.

Switching gears....yes, Toronto might contend but it isn't likely. As far as 2002 is concerned it's a time to see how the kids develop. And Fullmer's replacement will be a combination of Stewart, Latham, Wells, Mondesi and Cruz. It's going to be a DH merry-go-round for the Jays this year. Fullmer was a marginal DH so when you look at the likely production they are going to get from that quintet you probably get back most of what you lose by having Wells in the lineup and you gain better D in center and occasionally left.

The Fullmer trade was designed to give Wells PAs and see what the kid has in him.

The correct strategy IMO is to try to build a team that can win 95-100 games in 2003 or 2004 instead of trying to squeak a wildcard in 2002.

Nate...

I'd still like to see an upper and lower range for Singleton's 2002.

The batting average wasn't going .300, .260, .225 or anything like that. Most of Singleton's numbers were up in 2001 versus 2000.

Your projections put greater weight on more recent years, do they not? By all means use the data from 4, 5 and 6 years ago and put the appropriate weight on them too.

The minor league data are much more difficult to interpret, since we know less about the parks and are less certain about the quality of opposition.

"So let me be more succinct: I sure as hell don't want Chris Singleton to be the starting center fielder on my favorite ballclub."

As long as your favorite team in not the Orioles. For them he's the best option in CF right now and that's basically all that counts.

So let me be more succinct: I sure as hell don't want Chris Singleton to be the starting center fielder on my favorite ballclub.

This is all well and good, but it appears that Chris Singleton will apparently be the "starting center fielder" on my favorite team. Nothing against him personally, he may be a fine 4th outfielder on a club contending for a playoff spot or a championship. I just don't see where he helps move the Orioles over the 63 wins they had last season. With that as the case, I would rather see Matos, Bigbie or Raines, Jr. in centerfield. With one of them, they may improve enough by the time the Orioles are able to contend again to be an average or better player or, at least a useful UT/4th outfielder type. By that time, Singleton will be relegated to history's circular file. Too bad Camden Yards is made up of brick and concrete. This is a team that should be watched through the knotholes in wood planks.

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

Boy,do we all feel foolish.......Could be wrong ,but I think Kenny Lofton just signed with ChiSox.

Voros...

It's too bad you didn't do one for 1999.

Have you factored in likelihood of injury into your valuations? It seems that Singleton hasn't been on the disabled list the last 3 years (unless I missed something); I'm sure some of those other guys have. And a guy who is on the disabled list has a value of zero.

As well, you are comparing him to the starters, but let's look at how the average CF performed in the AL last year: .334 OBP (18 points higher than your projection for Chris) and .426 SLG (5 points higher than your projection for Chris).

I don't see a really large difference between the middle of your pack and Singleton, if we give Singleton a little credit for defense over guys like T Long (centerfielder by default) and Erstad. I'd also question Winn, since your projection exceeds his career OPS by about 50 points and he'll be turning 28 this year. I don't think he'll be the regular CF - the Fishies will give some of his p.t. to Tyner. Lofton looks to me like he's ready to fall off a cliff, yet you've got him pretty high up there - perhaps there's a major quirk in your system? Or has Cleveland been an extreme pitchers' park these last few years?

I mean no disrespect, it's just that some of your projections look a bit curious.

If you could run your numbers for the other Baltimore regulars I can see how they stack up against 2001 league average at their positions.

Segui is old so I know you're not talking about him when you dream of a glorious Orioles future. Fordyce has a horrible throwing arm, starts about half the games and he'll soon be 32 so there isn't much hope for him to be a part of the Orioles renaissance either. Batista is an enigma: so good at times but can go through stretches when he looks horrible. I'll agree he's got the potential to be very good. I'll also give you Chris Richard, but he won't be available for a good chunk of the season.

The other guys are pretty much right there will Singleton. Most importantly, he's the club's best centerfielder at the moment. Bigbie and Raines could use some more time at AAA and Richard won't be back for awhile. Gibbons can't play the outfield, Mora is older than Singleton and doesn't have his defensive skills. Anybody else?

And yes I know it's damning with faint praise, but this is the Orioles we're talking about here.

Voros...

That was entirely my point. Doing a 1999 projection for Singleton based on his 98, 97 and 96 MLEs would have missed his actual performance by a fantastically large margin. Not only that, but his major league career performance is probably a lot better than that '99 projection would have been.

It just goes to underscore the fundamental uncertainty of these player projections (no offense intended). If you give me a statement like the following - Chris Singleton is expected to hit X this year. He has a 95% chance to be within X-Y and X+Y (or Z) of that, given a minimum of Q plate appearances - I'd be happy.

Then we could start talking about roster strategy in earnest.

Voros,

Okay, I'm back. Matos, Bigbie, and Raines, Jr., who in the space of this forum have miraculously been transformed from non-prospects to viable regular center fielders, have combined to play in 157 games in the major leagues. In those 157 games, they have put up .221/.291/.332.

In the same time, Singleton has put up .283/.319/.434. In his worst season, Singleton was .254/.301.382, still significantly better than the three-headed monster of Matos, Bigbie, and Raines, Jr.

Voros, I find it interesting that you emphatically ended your last post with "He is a below average center fielder" yet you also provided not one whit of evidence or logic to support that claim, that I can identify.

I have no idea where you got the .650 to .770 range for Bigbie. Did you factor in the "deer in headlights" look that Bigbie carried with him to the big leagues last year? Again I ask, did you actually SEE Larry Bigbie play major league baseball last year? If you did not see him play, then I am afraid that your statistical projections are going to be inadequate to this task.

The point, Voros, that you are continually failing to grasp is that Chris Singleton does not form some sort of immovable blockade on the center field position in Baltimore. (You have also not addressed that Bigbie's defensive skills do not warrant playing center field regularly in the first place.) In their HORRIFIC major league performance Matos and Bigbie have clearly shown that they are not ready to assume a starting position in the major leagues. Raines has had too small a sample size, but his work at AAA Rochester last year was not exactly encouraging. I would agree 100 percent with your position if the Orioles had a minor league center field prospect who had shown at least some proficiency in a past September call-up, or whose minor league stats were so impressive (at the highest levels) as to obviously warrant the opportunity, OR who was regarded as a top organizational prospect, the type of guy around whom the club expects to build its future, and thus whose major league development should be quickly expedited. Matos, Bigbie and Raines fit none of these qualifications. They are fringe prospects who in all likelihood will be consigned to the scrap heap of major leaguers by the time they are 30. However, if they continue to develop in the minor leagues, then, I'll say this again, there is nothing to prevent the Orioles from giving them their opportunity when the time comes. Throughout his days with the Orioles, Mike Hargrove has shown a willingness, even an eagerness, to give young players an opportunity, even when they did not seem particularly deserving of one. (You can talk about Baltimore's recent history of not playing young players, but go ahead and name one young player that they failed to play who proved to be any good later on.)

Anyway, if you have not seen Bigbie play, then I would have to say that your projections are insufficient. (After all, then, why have scouts? Why watch baseball? Why not just crunch numbers?) If you have seen him play, then you came away with a very different impression than I did.

Voros,

Just noticed that you said below average "Starting" Center Fielder. I missed the "starting" in my first read. That makes the statement more reasonable.

David Jones,

Voros...

I never once claimed that Harris, Bigbie, Raines, Matos etc can't exceed their projections. My argument is that those guys could use some more time in AAA. Bigbie and Raines have hardly played above AA ball, so it's not like they've been stuck at AAA or something.

The more information one has the better off one is. By July 1st we will have more info about all of these players. If Singleton plays well (i.e. exceeds expectations) then he's worthwhile having around. In a 3 or 4 years he still might be an excellent 4th outfielder. If the younger players take significant steps forward then it will be certainly be time to find them a starting job.

My contention all along has been that Singleton, being a good defensive centerfielder, is something the Orioles don't have an adequate replacement for at the moment. Cordova was the real mistake, being older and having less positional value. And what about all the older guys that should be traded as soon as an adequate package of talent can be negotiated for in exchange (Bordick, Conine, Segui).

"I agree that the Orioles prospects are not good, but I'd rather take a flyer on a mediocre prospect than a mediocre veteran were I in the Orioles position."

You just keep repeating these kinds of sentiments as if they were your homily. It's not an either/or situation. Yes YOU would rather do that, but the reality is that there are many other viable options, including, I think, those along the lines that David Jones and myself have proposed.

I haven't heard you comment on the basic principle I've espoused which is: when you have incomplete information and don't have a lot of talent to begin with, the best strategy is to accumulate as much talent as you can. Singleton adds outfield talent depth to an organisation that badly needs it, therfore the acquisition is reasonable.

David N...

"Orioles to find a star prospect before they replace a 29-year old guy who's barely above waiver-wire level."

Singleton is better than that because he's played like a near-average or average CF (taking defense into account) and that doesn't fit with the idea that he is barely above waiver-wire level.

Robert,

"And while you'll get no arguments from me that they shouldn't have signed Cordova, they did. They're not trading him, Conine, Segui, and/or Bordick. These players have no value, to anybody other than Thrift. Again, look at the White Sox and Chris Singleton -- what did he fetch?"

Todd Zeile apparently has value to the Colorado Rockies. And if Zeile has value then Conine, Segui and Bordick certainly do too.

Pennant contenders need good 4th outfielders. Singleton, in 4 years has a decent chance to be that or better - maybe not 50/50, but a decent chance.

And I still don't understand how having Singleton on the 40-man roster prevents you from acquiring or developing serious talent along the lines of Adam Dunn. How does it preclude the Os from taking a gamble in one of the other positions? Bigbie isn't going to be a CF so it's not either Bigbie or Singleton. Mora was slated to play center so it's he who was pushed out of a starting job.

I don't see the Orioles as a 60 or 63 win team. I see them as closer to 70 right now. And if they sign a few more players like Singleton, develop a couple of decent pitchers and get some DECENT young players in trades involving a veteran or two, they might hit 81 wins in 2003. At that point, you have a much better chance of attracting a quality free-agent or two to get you the rest of the way.

It's either that kind of scenario or another 4 years of hopelessness - take your pick.

It's hard to see how the Orioles' current collection of young talent is any better than what the Expos had 2 or 3 years ago. They are probably worse. Despite the success of Vlad and Vidro and pitchers liek Vazquez and Armas, the Expos have continued to stink. To be a competitive team you need to plug your holes and the Expos have manifestly failed to do that - playing guys like Tracy Jones, Manny Martinez and Wilton Guerrero and young players who have been miserable like Michael Barrett and Pete Bergeron.

It's precisely players like Singleton that the Expos have lacked and that is the main difference between them and a .500 ballclub.

Read my post again. Carefully. What did I say? Did I try to say that Bigbie should be dismissed simply based on what I have seen? No. Did I specifically point out that Raines, Jr. had not had a large sample size in the major leagues? Yes.

Hargrove is not to be blamed for Pickering. By 2000 (Hargrove's first season) Pickering had taken a major step backwards, and put up terrible numbers in the minors. When a guy is stinking it up in the minors, you don't hand him a major league job.

Your comparison to Alex Rodriguez is invalid. Under the criteria I specifically listed in my last post (which you completely disregarded in YOUR strawman arguments) is that I would play a prospect if either his minor league numbers (in the high levels) warranted it, or if he was regarded as an important organizational prospect who was considered a central piece of the club's future. Clearly, Rodriguez fits this case. So much for your example.

What Robert and I keep saying, and what you seem determined to ignore, is that Singleton is not blocking anybody from continuing their development and assuming a major league position. With the dearth of talent at the big league level, a Bigbie or a Matos will get their chance when they are ready. Bigbie clearly was brought up too soon last year. (Anyway, Bigbie's a corner outfielder. Why won't you acknowledge that?)

And finally, what makes you so defensive of Raines? He played poorly in 23 ML at bats, and he didn't play particularly well in AAA. Indeed, the only reason we're talking about him at all is because his name is RAINES.

I'm also not sure I buy the argument that a player's career is ruined, that he can't become a good major league player, if he's held back too long in the minors. If Pickering is a decent ML player, he'll have plenty of opportunity to prove so. He's still only 25. So, no, Pickering is not an acceptable answer, in that he hasn't yet proved himself to be anything. In his brief major league tryouts prior to this year(which I will readily say were not extensive enough, though I seem to recall he had some injuries) Pickering batted .164/.320/.328. That's only in 61 at bats, but it certainly refutes the claim that he has proved himself to be a good major league player after the Orioles denied him his chance.

David Jones,

Voros...

I agree. If and when Bigbie and Raines show that they can handle AAA (say by mid-July) then they can move on to a major league job.

Maybe you can explain to me how Pete Bergeron has been helped by being given a major league starter' job before he (apparently) was ready for it. I've also heard it said that it's dangerous for a player's development to expose them to a situation where they are likely to fail.

Can you give me any clue why you think letting Bigbie and Raines play at least 70 more games in AAA is a bad idea?

In a perfect world, every worthy player would play one full season at each level (Rookie, A, AA, AAA) and then be provided a fair and reasonable major league opportunity. This pace of development strikes the right balance of allowing the player to hone his skills against a constantly appropriate level of competition, while maintaining a peer-group team environment, and with logical, predictable expectations and standards on everyone's behalf.

However ... last time I checked, the world is rarely perfect. For any number of reasons (surpluses, shortages, injuries, etc. etc.), a team may not be able to maintain this developmental schedule for every player. The question for us to ponder is whether "rushing" a player is likely to be more harmful than "stalling" a player.

My guess is that the answer, in either case, is probably more a function of the psychology of the individual player than it is a physical issue. For some players, the trauma of skipping a level and having to deal with more failure than usual is probably devastating, while others may be emotionally mature enough to truly learn from the experience. Conversely, for some players, the frustration of repeating a level may foster frustration and bad habits, while others may seize the opportunity to focus on broader development.

So my take on whether Bigbie or Raines would suffer/benefit from being thrust ahead/held back is really an individual-dependent case.

My gut tells me that, other things being equal, "rushing" a player is less damaging than "stalling" him. People in general probably learn better when overchallenged rather than underchallenged. And I can think of plenty of cases of players who were put in the majors before they were really ready who eventually developed into stars (Clemente, Pascual, Yount, Sosa, Friend). It's hard for me to think of a player who can be properly said to have been "ruined" by force-feeding.

Steve...

General agreement. However, how can you prove a player was ruined by being rushed? Someone can come along and say that the player wasn't any good in the first place.

What about Mike Caruso, or Brent Gates, or Gary Scott? Caruso was brought to the majors from A ball and had an okay rookie season, He's bombed big-time since then. Similar things happened to Gates, who came out of A ball and had a decent major league rookie campaign but regressed after that.

It's very easy to say that these guys weren't any good in the first place, but we will never really know what would have happened to them if they had been brought along at a slower pace.

Besides which, Bigbie is not a grade A prospect and has hardly played above AA ball. Ditto for Raines. They would not be "stalled" by giving them about 70 or 80 games at AAA.

Ace, your player "who has identical skills to the guy you traded away and is six years younger and over a million dollars cheaper" has never played at the major league level. How can you say he has similar skills? He puts up similar numbers in AA and A ball. That doesn't compare to the majors.

David Jones, Bravo!

David Neieporent said "The right question is whether Singleton fits into an Oriole plan to rebuild and contend. If not, whether he's better than Harris is unimportant." How about this: Is Harris in an Oriole plan to rebuild and contend? Is Harris able to help them now? No and No.

Too many other comments for me to look at for now.

Sometimes it seems all of baseball statistics are a chicken and egg conundrum.

Anyway, somebody said the Orioles won't trade their veteran leaders. Not true. They just won't be smart about how they traded them. But it's also not necessarily true that they never get value for the guys they trade away.

2000 trading deadline

They dealt away Charles Johnson, Mike Bordick, Will Clark, BJ Surhoff, Mike Timlin and Harold Baines. Am I missing anybody?

In return they got a mixed bag of Chris Richard, Fernando Lunar, Leslie Brea, Luis Rivera, Trenidad Hubbard, Brook Fordyce, Melvin Mora. (Am I missing anyone?)

The guy they should have gotten more for was Johnson, but he was on a contract year. The only pickup that looks like a good one was Richard, who is still fairly young and has some pop.

My only point here is that the Orioles have shown a clear willingness to trade away their veterans. They just haven't shown much intelligence in doing so. Part of that, though, is simply because their veterans aren't very good, so they don't have much trade value.

Voros,

You need to reel in some of those unsubstantiated statements.

OF COURSE players who spend longer in AAA are generally going to do worse than players who don't. On average, the precise reason those players are left in the minors longer is BECAUSE they aren't considered good enough to play in the majors.

It seems that in your universe there is essentially no purpose that scouts can serve once a player reaches the minor leagues. At that point, apparently it is simply a matter of a guy putting out a couple of seasons in the low minors, then we plug in the numbers and see what is going to happen. (Oh wait, I forgot, you keep saying we don't know what is going to happen, which is why you have been so generous as to provide a RANGE for what will happen.)

Yet, you wrote that "At best, sending a player back to AAA does no harm." Oh, "AT BEST." So players who go back to the minors for more seasoning have never improved as a result of the experience? I must applaud you for the massive amount of research that you put into reaching that conclusion.

What if Larry Bigbie has a huge hole in his swing that doesn't look so bad in AA, but gets exploited ad infinitum in the majors? What if the Orioles think that Bigbie should work with their Rochester hitting instructor to correct that flaw before he's thrown to the wolves again and gets discouraged?

The problem here is that you are analyzing data as if the data functions independently of everything else. But what determines whether a player is in AAA or the majors is a decision that is made by a human being whose job it is to make such decisions. If the data says that players perform better when they are kept up at the major league level than when they are sent back down to AAA, it's no accident. It means that the people who make those decisions tend to know what they are doing, and put more nuance and more intelligence into their thinking and planning than simply rigidly applying one philosophy to every single prospect that crosses their desk.

Voros, could you specify "David J" when you mean him, please?

David J, I hear that astrology was popular at one time. I guess it must have validity, right? I mean, a scout tells you that a player isn't going to make it, why question it? I mean, who cares how competent these scouts are, right? They're scouts. They must know what they're talking about. Teams wouldn't hire them otherwise.

Nothing like a good Larry Bigbie argument, eh, gentlemen?

I've never seen a group of people (I mean all of us) who needed pitchers and catchers to report in a worse way...

What if the Orioles think that Bigbie should work with their Rochester hitting instructor to correct that flaw before he's thrown to the wolves again and gets discouraged?

David J.,

Rochester has a hitting instructor...? Damn, could fooled me...!

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

Marginal prospects like Bigbie and Raines usually spend at least a 100 or so games in AAA before they are handed starting jobs in the majors.

If we were talking about a really GOOD outfield prospect, who'd already hit well in AAA in 80+ games, I'd say - sure, give him a job now. Nobody has bothered to explain why leaving Bigbie and Raines in AAA for another 3 months is a bad idea.

We are going in circles here, so I'll shut up as soon as someone satisfactory explains it to me.

Voros and David N.,

You guys are right. I am absolutely amazed that baseball managed to move forward for over a century, to scout and play talented players without the saving grace of MLE projection systems to guide them through their ignorance and incompetence.

But seriously, it's awful misanthropic and nihilistic to suggest that people make no positive impact on their jobs, that the human mind is incapable of looking beyond numbers. In fact, it's downright depressing. You guys really do have a religious devotion to these statistical tools. In fact, they don't really seem to be tools at all. They seem to be answers.

I just wanted to add (to Voros and David N.) that I respect the work that you guys do, even if we disagree on this. I just think you guys might be getting too attached to projections of minor league performances, and at any rate, they don't satisfy, I think, the demand that Bigbie et al. be given major league opportunities starting with opening day. I echo Robert's question as to why additional work in AAA (especially for Bigbie and Raines, who have not shown they can play well at that level as of yet) would be so harmful to their development, or so injurious to the Orioles plans for the future.

David N...

Perhaps you are assuming that the Orioles' performance last year represents their true level. I kind of doubt that - teams that lose around a 100 games usually have guys that are having bad years and/or major injury problems.

As it happens, Segui and Bordick were injured last year, meaning that youngsters like Roberts, Mora and Gibbons, not to mention someone like Bigbie were given more playing time than they might have otherwise. These youngsters (or in Mora's case, oldster) clearly were not yet quality major league ballplayers, which probably accounts for some of the Orioles' poor showing.

You and I do not have access to very much information about any of these ballplayers. What if it is the case that the Orioles have determined that Bigbie doesn't have the ability to be a good major league centerfielder. Perhaps they were reacting to that and seeing that they basically had Melvin Mora to play center, and felt that Singleton was a better short and mid-term option.

You seem to imply that Singleton can't possibly be a useful centerfielder in 4 years at age 33 and so his acquisition is pointless. I think that is an unwarranted assumption, since there are outfielders who hit better as 32 and 33 year olds than they did as 27 and 28 year olds.

The odds are not very great of that happening, but neither are they miniscule: it can happen. I wouldn't say that Bigbie has a better shot of being an average corner outfielder in 4 years than Singleton has of being an average CF in 4 years. As I've said, if he works hard, in 4 years he'll be of roughly equal quality to what Singleton is now.

I would never pretend to know what those odds are - nobody knows them. So a good strategy is to increase the number of options at your disposal. Singleton represents a better option in center than they Orioles had last year and will until they trade for, sign or develop someone better.

If the Orioles had a prospect like Aaron Rowand who was ready to try his hand at a big league CF job, then I would say that the Orioles would be crazy to make Singleton their starting CF. That is clearly not the situation at the moment.

Come on people, Chris Singleton deserves, no, demands 200 comments!!! Chop chop!!

With the grade inflation at Harvard, a student in the 35th percentile probably is dumb.