Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 1/22/2010 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    Perhaps I'm wrong, but I grow more convinced with each passing Trea conspiracy/crackpot suggestion, that his beliefs are driven by a lack of actual viewing of Os games. I am suggesting that because Trea doesn't watch the Os on a regular basis, that the lens through which he sees the Orioles is text and sports clips, and that that kind of viewing lends itself to a fragmented understanding of the Orioles and their players/coaches. Further, I believe that because he follows the Os mostly via computer, there is a sense of fiction which surrounds the Os for Trea. If one never watches the Os in real time (or at least the entirety of games, which creates a cohesive viewing), then everything one sees is fragmentary, and in a sense, fictive. The Os becomes parts, not wholes, not anything real or stable, much like fiction. Trea's wild notions are birthed from this viewing of the Os as fiction, and quite frankly, fit better with the creative realm.
  2. 2 points
    This is the point where on MythBusters they throw up the 'busted' graphic.
  3. 2 points
    I don't know. I picture an end-of-the-Cold War scenario, where, having defeated our main rival, the good guys are forced into a never ending war with a decentered and amorphous group of smaller evils. I, for one, don't want to be the one chasing O5F into the hills. Of course, O5F probably thinks of himself as these guys: In the end, this probably isn't about fiction, or lying, or anything other than a poor writer, with no allegiance to journalistic ethos, transcribing something from memory without thinking about how the filter of his subjectivity transforms what he thinks he remembers.
  4. 1 point
    Here's how it works... I'll pick two bands to start out, and the next person picks "a winner" from those two bands and proposes "a challenger". The next person will pick the winner and select a challenger. So on and so forth. First matchup: Love vs. The Zombies
  5. 1 point
    I just published my first article for Suite101.com and thought I'd share it with you guys. They have to be short so it's basically a 600 word introduction to the concept of sabermetrics, but hopefully it's enjoyable. Here it is!
  6. 1 point
    Arizona, last season. Which brings me to another point...one of the reasons we are seeing more indoor teams go farther in the playoffs now is because there are more indoor stadiums around the league.
  7. 1 point
    I don't know what you're getting at. If your only response is "We have no idea of knowing" then why pay attention? Obviously, anyone's take on this is going to be some measure of what likely happened. And any probabilistic take on this is going to be more likely to be accurate if it avoids extremes. So why wouldn't folks look to some middle on this that makes sense? Especially if said middle provides an understandable explanation for how it might have happened? I haven't said that DT is "somewhat guilty" of anything. I have said that one can easily see relatively harmless but somewhat insightful statements being flipped into this kind of article. Poorly. Further, who has made the assumption that the truth is "halfway" between the two? Folks might be saying that neither extreme is likely, but that doesn't mean that they think the truth is "halfway." Maybe they think it's 10% of the way, or 25% of the way. If that's the case, then one can still source the comments for Trembley's true thoughts. Finally, there's not "zero information" about what really happened. We know when the thing occurred, we know where it occurred, we know who attended, and we know some of the subject matter. That's hardly zero information.
  8. 1 point
    I think we could get alot of use out of this picture around here.
  9. 1 point
    Well, I don't know what the hell happened. The only thing that surprises me is that a couple otherwise reasonable posters are making up stories about what "likely" happened based on zero information about what actually did happen, all based on one dubious and unfounded assumption: that the truth must be halfway in between innocence and the guilt that's alleged by some random person who has demonstrated a lack of ethics. Ergo, DT must be "somewhat guilty". This is exactly the kind of so-called thinking that causes media slime jobs to work. Not saying this is a slime job, because I know nothing about what happened. But I am saying that this is exactly how-and-why they work...
  10. 1 point
    He said, "Who is Bill James?", according to an unnamed source.
  11. 1 point
    Was this the conspiracy to which you were referring? Because it sounds like this one below, only the latter is the one catching the grief
  12. 1 point
    I've never seen anything sadder than when I drove around Tiger Stadium in 2001. It's a darned shame to see such a great part of baseball history just go by the wayside. I'd have given anything to have been able to see a game there that day.
  13. 1 point
    Nick's downturn in performance in 2009 was troubling. One partial explanation might be that in 2009 he spent alot less time batting second then in previous years and that over the course of his career he has performed significantly better there. Another part of the explanation might be that in 2009 he faced lefties alot more than in the past, and performed worse against them than previously. %atbats vs Lefties vs Lefties vs Righties2006 24% .286/.333/.378 .293/.356/.4702007 30% .274/.318/.457 .311/.382/.4982008 32% .297/.381/.461 .310/.418/.5052009 40% .262/.305/.376 .314/.376/.507 For perspective, the league average for 2009 was 27% of at bats involved a lefty pitcher. For some reason (luck? make up of staffs in AL East?) the Orioles as a team faced lefties 35% of the time. Even beyond that (late inning pitching changes?) Nick faced lefties 40% of the time last year. Yes, the sample size is large enough to statistically say that Nick faced lefties more often than one would expected by chance when compared against his teammates. Two questions for this upcoming season: (1) Can Nick improve his performance against lefties? (2) Will Nick face lefties less often, perhaps a rate closer to the rest of the league or team?
  14. 1 point
    I am not a communications lawyer, but I am a lawyer, and I am 99.99% sure that the FCC would have no jurisdiction whatsoever to make rules about tape recording an in-person conversation. A phone conversation, maybe. In my experience, state law tends to govern this issue. For example, there was the woman at the Pentagon who recorded her conversation with Monica Lewinsky without telling her, and I'm pretty sure she was prosecuted under state law.
  15. 1 point
    Red ribbon man. It links them all together.
  16. 1 point
    Any false stories on the "Wire" lately?
  17. 1 point
    I intended to positive rep you for it, but forgot. Even if Season 5 was a let down and I hated that plotline.
  18. 1 point
    Nobody got this reference??? Rep to anyone that knows what I'm talking about here.
  19. 1 point
    I just got word from Dave and he said he would have never said such things. Knowing Dave, and considering this guy has no one to back up his story, I think it's highly unlikely he said anything remote to what was reported by the author. If it's a he-said, she-said thing, I'm going to take Dave's word over some guy with questionable ethics. I've also talked with some people off the record who knew the MASN blogger and she said she never heard anything like what was "reported." I think it's time to put to rest the notion by some that Dave was holding court with a bunch of fans and bad mouthing his players and former players.
  20. 1 point
    Not sure you're aware of this, but the bb-ref comps are pretty simplistic. They look at unadjusted numbers or rates, not factoring in park effects, league averages, run context, etc. They don't include height, weight. So you probably need to take them with a grain of salt. Putting up Nick's line in 2009 in OPACY means radically different things than doing that in 1965 Fenway or 1995 Oakland or whatever. I kind of like BB-Pro's comps better, but they're only updated once a year and I believe they fall under their membership only stuff. Prior to 2009 his BP comps were: Rank Hitter Year Score Trend Rank Hitter Year Score Trend1 Steve Kemp 1980 56 11 Lloyd Moseby 1985 35 2 Ben Grieve 2001 56 12 Dwight Evans 1977 35 3 Leon Durham 1983 52 13 Dusty Baker 1975 34 4 K Hernandez 1979 46 14 J.D. Drew 2001 33 5 Terry Puhl 1982 42 15 Rusty Staub 1969 33 6 Carlos May 1973 41 16 Vic Wertz 1950 33 7 Mel Hall 1986 39 17 Gary Matthews 1976 32 8 Dave Winfield 1977 39 18 Chris Chambliss 1974 31 9 Robin Ventura 1993 38 19 Ed Kirkpatrick 1970 31 10 Norm Siebern 1959 36 20 Harold Baines 1984 31 One HOFer in Wnfield, plus a whole bunch of guys who had near-HOF careers like Staub, Hernandez, Ventura, Evans, and Baines.
  21. 1 point
    I took a big hunk out to accommodate, Ton. I'm not a complete fool. Only a small one.
  22. 1 point
    If you're going to troll your opinions, as biased as they have become, to derail every thread, don't put words in the mouths of others. While I don't post as much as most here, I do read this forum enough to know the first "claim" from you isn't true. People are simply attacking the ethics--you know ethics is a term--of printing someone else's words without their knowledge. The truth of the comments notwithstanding, he should have informed DT if he inteneded to publish his words for public viewing. It seems unprofessional to do so otherwise--or something politicians would write in their memoirs. And how exactly is this an Orioles blunder? DT made a mistake, if he said those things, but how can you link this to the organization? Are the White Sox responsible for every idiotic word that seeps from Ozzie's mouth?
  23. 1 point
    It's possible that DT didn't say anything resembling some of the more controversial quotes attributed to him. It's also possible that Sean Kates taped the whole thing and that everything he's attributing to Dave is 100 percent accurate. The only thing we know for sure right now is that Sean Kates is at best a devious jerk. Even if his story is 100 percent correct, he got it in the most dishonest way imaginable. If he's a dishonest person even under the most charitable interpretation, it's not such a stretch to believe that he's just making stuff up out of whole cloth.
  24. 1 point
    Are you trying to find reason with Trea on Trembley? Really? If there is one thing I don't bother responding to in the least bit is a Trea rant on Trembley. Dude hates this guy for some reason and we all know once he has a "thought" in his head he's going to make sure he injects it into every conversation even remotely related. As usual, if we just ignore it he'll realize that very few people are paying attention to him and we all know that attention is what he craves over all.
  25. 1 point
    It shouldn't come as a shock to someone who doesn't like Trembley, wants him fired ASAP, and chooses to believe one or two incidents or rumored incidents outweigh all of the other evidence to the contrary. Like I said, confirmation bias.
  26. 1 point
    Right, because that ONE incident in 3 years defines who Dave Trembley is.
  27. 1 point
    For whatever it's worth, the article is still up at 8:30 this morning, and in the comments section the author says "...I stand by the above as what happened. 100%." And that he's trying to contact Roch and Melewski.
  28. 1 point
    Some of the more opinionated members of O's Hangout should read about Confirmation Bias. Unfortunately, those who most need to read and think about this will learn the least from it, due to (drum roll please) Confirmation Bias. For others, it'll explain a lot of what you read here and elsewhere. My favorite quote from this page: "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." Of course, most people simply have weird beliefs and are not skilled in defending them - but that doesn't change their beliefs. -Larrytt
  29. 1 point
    I'll go with the Zombies, never neard of the Left Banke before but that song did sound cool. Zombies vs. Pretty Things
  30. 1 point
    I saw him give his shoes to a young fan as he drove out of the player lot.
  31. 1 point
    I agree with this in that it's unfair to get hot and bothered about what Trembley reportedly said when the author of the piece doesn't even state what Trembley ACTUALLY said (instead, paraphrasing with no real confirmation avialable to the reader). My issue with the MASN folks is that even when there is actual journalism (see ESPN piece with quotes about BAL's limited involvment in the DPL) they seem to get angry when readers assume an anti-Orioles piece has some validity to it. Honestly. I know the blogs are a more informal way of communicating with their readers, but is it so hard to say something along the lines of "That doesn't seem right -- I'll see if there's anything to it," rather than, "Geez you people need to stop believing everything out on the internet -- YOU'RE GIVING ME A HEADACHE!"
  32. 1 point
    This is a classic example of watching what you say around who. I've had hundreds of conversations with people in the organization where they have spoken "off the cuff," but not in a million years would I ever paraphase someone like that in an "article." First off, it's unprofessional to ever paraphase someone especially in an informal type of setting. Secondly, the classless act was the guy who wrote up this kind of stuff. Talk about a guy who will never be trusted ever again. I have no idea of whether or not Dave said those things to this guy, but what I do know is that is doesn't take a huge leep of faith to say anyone who paraphrazing this kind of stuff certainly would not be above exageration. I've know Dave awhile now and have had some nice "off the record" conversations with him over the years. Dave is a straight shooter in this kind of environment so I would not be surprised if he didn't open up a bit, but at the same time, he's a pretty smart guy so I would be surprised if he actually came out and said Cabrera was a juicer. I'm sure Dave will be alot more careful in the future about who he's talking to once this all hits the fan.
  33. 1 point
    Why not? Many of the network TV affiliates around the country for Baseball teams are not owned by that particular team, and they pocket all of the revenue for the deal minus the fee that the network pays to the team for broadcast rights. That excess revenue is not used to help the baseball team. Since MASN is set up as a company separate from the Orioles, that money theoretically does not have to be allocated to the Orioles bottom line. Outside of the money that MASN has to pay the Orioles (and Nationals) for the right to broadcast games. PGA can do anything he wishes with the revenue from MASN, as it is not directly part of the Orioles income. That said: I'm sure that when the time is right the money from MASN will be used on payroll. The Union will have a VERY flimsy case if they get on the Orioles to spend that money as it is not part of the Orioles gross revenue. On paper, the revenue for the Orioles ball club is probably more or less proportional to their payroll expenses.
  34. 1 point
    Compared to my location, these ladies are a massive improvement.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00

Orioles Information

Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports


2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats

  • Create New...