Jump to content
orpheus100

Last year's team was better

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 

The team is 21-51 now (.292.) In order to finish worse than the 1962 Mets, theyd have to go 19-71 (.211) the rest of the way.   

By the way, the Mets didnt lose 122 games, they lost 120. They only played 160 games that season — presumably a couple of rain-outs that the league didnt bother making up. So, the record that I projected above would be 40-122, worse than the Mets 40-120. If the Os went 41-121, Id argue that that was a slightly better record than 40-120, since the winning percentage would be better (.253 vs. .250.)

 

o

 

Agreed, in regard to the winning percentage.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the 1954 Indians still have the American League record with a .721 winning percentage when they went 111-43.

The 1998 Yankees (114-48) and the 2001 Seattle Mariners (116-46) both had more wins than did that Indians team, but neither had a better winning percentage.

In order to best the 1954 Tribe's winning percentage, an American League team would need to go 117-45 (one win more than the 2001 Mariners.)

 

And the modern (1901 - Present) Major League record ??? That would be the 1906 Cubs, who went 116-36 in the 152 games in which they played that season, good for a .763 winning percentage.

In order to best that, a Major League team would need to go 124-38 over the course of a 162-game season.

 

Incidentally, of the 4 teams that I mentioned in this post, only the 1998 Yankees won the World Series ........ the 1906 Cubs lost the World Series to the White Sox, the 1954 Indians were swept in 4 games by the New York Giants in that year's World Series, and the 2001 Mariners lost to the Yankees in that season's A.L.C.S.

 

o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The team is 21-51 now (.292).    To finish worse than the Mets, they’d have to go 19-71 (.211) the rest of the way.   

By the way, the Mets didn’t lose 122 games, they lost 120.    They only played 160 games — presumably a couple of rainouts that the league didn’t bother making up.    So, the record I projected above would be 40-122, worse than the Mets’ 40-120.    If the O’s went 41-121, I’d argue that was a slightly better record than 40-120 since the winning percentage would be better (.253 vs. .250).   

I hope you are right. They jumped out well and they can't take those wins away but I think it skews the record a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The team is 21-51 now (.292).    To finish worse than the Mets, they’d have to go 19-71 (.211) the rest of the way.   

By the way, the Mets didn’t lose 122 games, they lost 120.    They only played 160 games — presumably a couple of rainouts that the league didn’t bother making up.    So, the record I projected above would be 40-122, worse than the Mets’ 40-120.    If the O’s went 41-121, I’d argue that was a slightly better record than 40-120 since the winning percentage would be better (.253 vs. .250).   

The unstated consideration with all of this is that the 2019 American League is better than the 1962 NL, and dramatically better than the other leagues/teams that AZRon mentioned.  Any futility record would be in the context of their peers.

If you put this year's Orioles in the leagues where Louisville won 29 and 39 games they would rarely lose.  The 1915-16 Philadelphia A's were on par with today's Frederick Keys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, atomic said:

We are much worse though.

By "not worse," I meant our W/L record, which has not been proportional to the decrease in level of talent. Thus, the comment I made about non-linearity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The unstated consideration with all of this is that the 2019 American League is better than the 1962 NL, and dramatically better than the other leagues/teams that AZRon mentioned.  Any futility record would be in the context of their peers.

If you put this year's Orioles in the leagues where Louisville won 29 and 39 games they would rarely lose.  The 1915-16 Philadelphia A's were on par with today's Frederick Keys.

The 2018 Golden State Warriors were better than Jordan's 95-96 Bulls, but Jordan's Bulls are pretty widely considered the best team ever. I think all of history is subjective in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LookinUp said:

The 2018 Golden State Warriors were better than Jordan's 95-96 Bulls, but Jordan's Bulls are pretty widely considered the best team ever. I think all of history is subjective in that regard.

I think the level of play improves as time progresses.  I'm betting the 2019 O's could give most teams from the 20's a serious thrashing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

The 2018 Golden State Warriors were better than Jordan's 95-96 Bulls, but Jordan's Bulls are pretty widely considered the best team ever. I think all of history is subjective in that regard.

A lot of that is impact of the rules at the time. Bulls were built for the NBA in 1996. Steph Curry is not going to be nearly as effective if you force him to play by what was allowed defensively in 1996. And how many points would Jordan score if you weren't allowed to hand check him? Jordan would average 50+ points without breaking a sweat in 2018. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

A lot of that is impact of the rules at the time. Bulls were built for the NBA in 1996. Steph Curry is not going to be nearly as effective if you force him to play by what was allowed defensively in 1996. And how many points would Jordan score if you weren't allowed to hand check him? Jordan would average 50+ points without breaking a sweat in 2018. 

I think you are very mistaken.  If Jordan's style of play were still relevant in today's game someone would be utilizing it.  Jordan made a lot of hay with shots that are not even attempted today.  Take a look at his shot chart from 96-97:

qtfg6a4v8eyy.png

Now look at this shot chart from James Harden.

 

Chart-1-Basic-Shot-Chart.jpg&w=800

 

Analytics in action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think you are very mistaken.  If Jordan's style of play were still relevant in today's game someone would be utilizing it.  Jordan made a lot of hay with shots that are even attempted today.  Take a look at his shot chart from 96-97:

qtfg6a4v8eyy.png

Now look at this shot chart from James Harden.

 

Chart-1-Basic-Shot-Chart.jpg&w=800

And Harden has never gotten the Rockets to the finals with his style of play and insane usage rates. (https://stats.nba.com/players/usage/?sort=USG_PCT&dir=-1&Season=2018-19&SeasonType=Regular Season)

Look at Golden State they more resemble Jordan's Bulls with Green playing the Pippen/Rodman role and the difference being shooting more three pointers with Steph/Clay, etc. As if Jordan wouldn't have been able to modify his game as necessary in the 2019 NBA.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

And Harden has never gotten the Rockets to the finals with his style of play and insane usage rates. (https://stats.nba.com/players/usage/?sort=USG_PCT&dir=-1&Season=2018-19&SeasonType=Regular Season)

Look at Golden State they more resemble Jordan's Bulls with Green playing the Pippen/Rodman role and the difference being shooting more three pointers with Steph/Clay, etc. As if Jordan wouldn't have been able to modify his game as necessary in the 2019 NBA.  

I'm not going to get into an NBA argument with you but I don't see what difference it makes how far Harden's team advances.  Harden is the reigning MVP which is why I used him.

As for the Warriors:

Durant:

durantshotchart1152.jpg

Curry:

grant_r_CurryStephen_ShotChart.jpg

Green:

draymond_1314chart_1152.jpg

I can go on, I don't even watch the NBA and I know the midrange jump shot is dead.  It's dead because it's inefficient. 

 

I'm done on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not going to get into an NBA argument with you but I don't see what difference it makes how far Harden's team advances.  Harden is the reigning MVP which is why I used him.

As for the Warriors:

Durant:

durantshotchart1152.jpg

Curry:

grant_r_CurryStephen_ShotChart.jpg

Green:

draymond_1314chart_1152.jpg

I can go on, I don't even watch the NBA and I know the midrange jump shot is dead.  It's dead because it's inefficient. 

 

I'm done on this topic.

You're not factoring in rules changes over the last 20 years to penalize team defense. Jordan/Pippen/Rodman would be hand checking and making contact on every possession on defense. The Warriors aren't going to score as many points when every shot is contested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This year's team, while occasionally fun to watch -- usually as they're going down to defeat despite some heroics -- reflects a trend in MLB that I find disturbing.

The terrible teams of a century or more ago were playing under completely different circumstances. The 1962 Mets acquired most of their players through an expansion draft. In hindsight they followed a bad strategy of drafting veteran players who were well past their primes, in the hope of putting a decent team on the field right away. When I started following baseball in the late 1950s, I rooted for two bad teams: the Phillies and the Kansas CIty A's. Both lost a lot of games, but certainly in the case of the Phillies they told their fans, and I assume believed, that some promising young players, mixed with veterans held over from the 1950 pennant-winners, could win a lot of games even if the pennant was likely to be out of reach. 

The Orioles are doing something entirely different. They acknowledged last year, belatedly, that they won't be able to compete successfully with their division rivals, and they have decided not to try for a few years. They have adopted approach, which I'll call the Astro Strategy, that I had not seen or heard discussed until the past decade or so: try to amass talent that they hope will be both major-league ready and under team control at around the same time (including the high draft choices that are expected to come with a few years of rotten performance), and try to trade team-controlled talent that doesn't fit that time line for prospects who will. 

And it's not just the Orioles. I believe the Orioles' decision to pursue the Astro Strategy is the result of, in addition to some very bad decisions by ownership and management, the increased stratification of the sport's franchises according to the revenues available to them relative to the revenues of their division rivals. To keep it simple, there are by my count 12 teams that are at a large, and in some cases massive, disadvantage of that sort: the Orioles, Jays and Rays; the Marlins; the A's; the Royals; the Brewers, Pirates and Reds; and the Padres, Rockies and D-Backs. These teams represent 40 percent of MLB teams. In the past ten years they have won just 11 division titles, or 18 percent of those titles (including three in the NL Central before the rise of the Cubs). Only two of them, the Brewers and Rays, are in contention so far this season.

MLB has long provided the distinct advantage that high-revenue teams have had, and it's probably fair to say that it has welcomed it insofar as it has put NY, LA and more recently Boston teams in the post-season. But the ability of the teams listed above to compete regularly seems to be diminishing. There are several possible reasons. The revenue disparity is increasing. What was, and largely remains, a free market for international free agents has taken on increased importance. The high-revenue teams are more competently run, overall and especially the NYYs and Cubs. Virtually every team is committed to developing and using advanced analytics, and it's become harder to gain a competitive edge through innovation or sound management. 

Some of these twelve teams -- or other teams that find themselves in a weak competitive position -- have com, or will come, to terms with the fact that they can't realistically hope to compete with stronger teams, and some can be expected to adopt the Astro Strategy, or some version of it, rather than flounder in mediocrity season after season. The Astro Strategy may be good for those teams, but as those of us who watch the Orioles can attest, it isn't good for the game to have players of limited talent, who know they are on a team destined to lose 100 or more games, playing bad baseball, while division rivals get to beat up on bad teams, sometimes with what seems like less-than-maximum effort, and compile inflated win totals. It all tends to play out before small, sometimes embarrassingly small, crowds. 

I've seen all those things in my years as an Orioles and baseball fan. What I haven;'t seen until recently is teams embracing a strategy with that stuff as its natural consequence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

The Orioles are doing something entirely different. They acknowledged last year, belatedly, that they won't be able to compete successfully with their division rivals, and they have decided not to try for a few years. They have adopted approach: try to amass talent that they hope will be both major-league ready and under team control at around the same time (including the high draft choices that are expected to come with a few years of rotten performance), and try to trade team-controlled talent that doesn't fit that time line for prospects who will. 
...
and some can be expected to adopt the Astro Strategy, or some version of it, rather than flounder in mediocrity season after season. The Astro Strategy may be good for those teams, but as those of us who watch the Orioles can attest, it isn't good for the game to have players of limited talent, who know they are on a team destined to lose 100 or more games, playing bad baseball,
...
I've seen all those things in my years as an Orioles and baseball fan. What I haven;'t seen until recently is teams embracing a strategy with that stuff as its natural consequence. 

The elephant in the room from all of your years of watching baseball is that the O's haven't been to a world series since 1983. For all of the nostalgia, there were many of those years with small crowds and embarrassing performances which didn't net top draft picks but did lose ownership money. That combination of mediocrity and poor financial management can't be good for our long term success, can it? There's a reason this new strategy is being tried.

Quote

To keep it simple, there are by my count 12 teams that are at a large, and in some cases massive, disadvantage of that sort: the Orioles, Jays 

The Blue Jays are right in the middle of the league, but apparently don't have a willing ownership group. The first article is much older than the second, fwiw.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/961412-mlb-power-rankings-all-30-mlb-teams-by-market-size#slide19  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2018/04/11/baseball-team-values-2018/#15d915063fc0

Quote

What was, and largely remains, a free market for international free agents has taken on increased importance. 

I think the international market is more fair to the teams than it maybe has ever been. Certainly more fair than the system that preceded the caps and penalties in place now. Our own Yusniel Diaz was signed for $15.5 million by the Dodgers. That is about twice what the slot amount is for any team nowadays. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

And Harden has never gotten the Rockets to the finals with his style of play and insane usage rates. (https://stats.nba.com/players/usage/?sort=USG_PCT&dir=-1&Season=2018-19&SeasonType=Regular Season)

Look at Golden State they more resemble Jordan's Bulls with Green playing the Pippen/Rodman role and the difference being shooting more three pointers with Steph/Clay, etc. As if Jordan wouldn't have been able to modify his game as necessary in the 2019 NBA.  

Getting off on a major tangent here.    Harden is arguably as good an offensive player right now as Jordan was.    He’s nowhere near as good defensively, not even on the same planet.    And the team around him isn’t as good.     But Golden State plays a better brand of team basketball than Jordan’s Bulls ever did.    For that matter, so did the 80’s Lakers and Celtics.   Mind you, I’m not arguing about which was the best team, just who had the most team-oriented style of play (while being very good).

I will think to my dying day that if you had put the Jordan Bulls teams on the same floor with the prime Magic Lakers or Bird Celtics, they wouldn’t have won all those titles.    It would have been a horse race, with each team winning a few.    Timing is everything.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...