Jump to content
Moose Milligan

Orioles Biggest One Hit Wonder of all time...

Recommended Posts

Turning to hitters: SAM BOWENS was also a 1964 rookie flash with his 22 homers and .263/.323/.453/.776, 114 OPS+. I rooted loyally for him during his remaining seasons, during which he barely batted above .200 only once: .210 on the '66 team.

 

         
         
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

I know they won't fall into this, but as a teenager I thought Chito Martinez and Leo Gomez were going to be great

Sort of like Craig Worthington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LA2 said:

Y'all forgotten Jim Hardin! 18-13, 2.51 ERA at age 24 for the '68 O's, his second ML season. Never won more than 6 after that.

And 1964 RoY Wally Bunker: 19-5, 2.69 ERA.

Both were plagued by sore arms.

 

If not for the ridiculously high attrition rate among pitchers they would have to change the rules.  If 90% of pitchers got through their careers healthy the league ERA would be a run or run-and-a-half lower.  The strike zone would have to go back to the belt, or they'd have to juice the ball.

Although I think Wally Bunker wasn't destined for a long and successful career in any case.  His 19-5, 2.69 season came with four K/9.  Even in '64 that was only 2/3rds of league average.  Almost no one is successful starting out striking out 2/3rds of average.  His BABIP was .216.  Completely, utterly unsustainable.  The same year Koufax had a BABIP 30 points higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LA2 said:

Sort of like Craig Worthington.

Worthington was the 1988 IL MVP.  He hit .244/.303/.419 with 16 homers and 73 RBI.   That was a pitcher's league, but that has to be one of the weakest MVP lines I've ever seen.  He was 32nd in the league in OPS.  The voters must have thought he was Brooks with the glove.

It was a little like Mountcastle's MVP where he wasn't nearly the best player in AAA. He just was the (one of the) best real prospect(s) who wasn't called up after a couple hundred ABs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LA2 said:

Y'all forgotten Jim Hardin! 18-13, 2.51 ERA at age 24 for the '68 O's, his second ML season. Never won more than 6 after that.

 

 

His son posts here sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll add Dave Johnson from 1989-90 to the mix. Even if Johnson was slightly below average going by ERA+, he was miles better in that 1.5 year stretch, than the rest of his career when he was absolutely hammered. Plus, I always admired how he gutted out an emergency start against the Blue Jays the final weekend of 1989 season after Pete Harnisch got scratched because he stepped on a nail. 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/johnsda04.shtml

90dwjohnsonud.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I'll add Dave Johnson from 1989-90 to the mix. Even if Johnson was slightly below average going by ERA+, he was miles better in that 1.5 year stretch, than the rest of his career when he was absolutely hammered. Plus, I always admired how he gutted out an emergency start against the Blue Jays the final weekend of 1989 season after Pete Harnisch got scratched because he stepped on a nail. 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/johnsda04.shtml

90dwjohnsonud.jpg

I don't care what anyone says, I like him on the postgame broadcasts.  He's a hardass but for good reason...he had a hard road to the majors and it wasn't easy for him when he got there.  

https://www.mlb.com/news/dave-johnson-unique-orioles-hero

 

Quote

“Billy Ripken told me a story once,” Johnson said, "we were playing the Athletics, the next year, and Dave Henderson was on first base and they were making a pitching change. Billy was wandering over to talk to Dave. He goes to Billy, ‘Hey, who’s pitching tomorrow?’

“Magic,” Billy said.

“Who?”

“Magic Johnson.”

“Who the hell is Magic Johnson?” said Dave Henderson. “What does he got?”

Then Billy said: “The catcher throws down a bunch of fingers, but it all looks the same."

Quote

Johnson used those low expectations as fuel, never hiding from his limitations. He still doesn’t.

“That was my driving force. I needed that. If I didn’t have that, I couldn’t compete at that level,” Johnson said. “At the end of the next year, I remember sitting back in my lounge chair and saying, ‘I made it.’ And I went right in the toilet from there. I lost that edge. My stuff wasn’t good enough. But my stuff combined with ‘I’m coming at ya, this is everything I’ve got, and I’m going to prove to you that I could do this,’ even though deep down inside, I wasn’t sure I could.”

Quote

“A lot of people would look at it in a negative way, like, ‘That guy wasn’t very good.' I know I wasn’t!” Johnson said. “But I pitched parts of five years in the big leagues and you don’t do that by luck. I played 12 years professionally. I did some things that a lot of guys who were a lot more talented than I was didn’t do. I take pride in that. I wear it as a badge of honor, knowing he wasn’t very good, but he did some things he wasn’t supposed to do.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't care what anyone says, I like him on the postgame broadcasts.  He's a hardass but for good reason...he had a hard road to the majors and it wasn't easy for him when he got there.  

https://www.mlb.com/news/dave-johnson-unique-orioles-hero

 

 

I like Dave Johnson on the postgame and on the MASN baseball show. He has always given good insights on the failures (and successes) of Orioles pitchers, especially Gausman when he was an Oriole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2020 at 12:51 PM, InsideCoroner said:

What about Rich Coggins in '73? He hit .319 with an .831 OPS, worth nearly 4 WAR, had a disappointing sophomore season for the Birds (0.2 WAR),  bounced around three teams and was out of baseball by '77.  

I'm amazed it took the 3rd page for someone to mention Coggins.  

Share this post


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

I like Dave Johnson on the postgame and on the MASN baseball show. He has always given good insights on the failures (and successes) of Orioles pitchers, especially Gausman when he was an Oriole. 

Just curious, what was his take on Gausman?

And BTW, re. Johnson, I remembered the truck driver part, but wasn't he also a softball pitcher before--or am I thinking of some other O's pitcher of that era?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

I'll add Dave Johnson from 1989-90 to the mix. Even if Johnson was slightly below average going by ERA+, he was miles better in that 1.5 year stretch, than the rest of his career when he was absolutely hammered. Plus, I always admired how he gutted out an emergency start against the Blue Jays the final weekend of 1989 season after Pete Harnisch got scratched because he stepped on a nail. 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/johnsda04.shtml

90dwjohnsonud.jpg

Dave Johnson was just good enough at exactly the right moment in '89.  People say Pete Rose got more out of his talent than anyone else.  But Johnson threw about 83 mph.  He had nothin'.  If a 29-year old version of Johnson showed up to Orioles spring training this year you'd check Elias' sanity.  He had 26 strikeouts in 89 innings.  And he started the most important game of the 1989 Major League season and almost won the thing.

In his MLB career base stealers were 4-for-17 off him.

Share this post


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

Just curious, what was his take on Gausman?

And BTW, re. Johnson, I remembered the truck driver part, but wasn't he also a softball pitcher before--or am I thinking of some other O's pitcher of that era?

Kevin Hickey.

  • Thanks 1

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






  • Posts

    • No.  He should be.  If you're going to put in a guy like Kirby Puckett who's career was cut short then you have to look at Belle. The differences here are that everyone loved Puckett and he had glaucoma.  Everyone hated Belle and he had a bad hip.  Glaucoma and loss of eyesight in a guy that everyone loves gets sympathy.  A bad hip on a guy that everyone hates gets ignored. Puckett:  .318/.360/.477 for an .837 OPS, 124 OPS+  51.1 WAR.  2,304 hits, 207 homers, 1085 RBI in 7,244 at bats.  Pretty confident that if he played out his career he'd have gotten 3,000 hits.  Also worth mentioning his 6 Gold Gloves.   Belle:  .295/.369/.564 for a .933 OPS, 144 OPS+ 40.1 WAR.  1,726 hits, 381 homers, 1,239 RBI in 5,853 at bats.  Pretty confident that if he played out his career he would have passed 500 homers, maybe approached 600. Belle had 1,391 less at bats and trailed only by 11 WAR.  If I'm doing my math correctly, had Belle been able to have an equal number of at bats, he would have slightly exceeded Puckett's value.   But Belle was a bad guy, threw baseballs at people, terrorized trick or treaters, was surly and didn't like the press.  So the press took joy in letting him drop off the ballot.  Don't get me wrong, I understand it and I'm not saying Belle is a shoe-in by any stretch.  But I feel like there have been less deserving players who have stayed on the ballot longer.  If Belle was an angel, he'd have a different legacy, IMO.
    • The two options are to (1) pay the players to play what you have agreed to pay them in front of no fans or (2) cancel the season. Logically, the only way that paying the players becomes economically infeasible is if it is cheaper to cancel the season completely. Economic feasibility isn't based on maximizing profitability or minimizing losses to the owners by modifying the other portions of the agreement. It is based on the difference between those two binary choices.
    • If this is really what that provision says, I don't see how "economic feasibility" does not include the costs of paying the players.  
    • I don't like the idea of just deciding not to take a pitcher.  Maybe it is because they rank some of the underslot guys higher, but if the strategy is just not take a pitcher generally I think it's unwise. 
    • I can't believe you didn't simulate sitting Means in the simulated spring training when he complained of simulated tightness in his forearm.  Plus, the simulated pitching overall has been abysmal.  
    • You are oversimplifying and you are under the false assumption that owners can unilaterally shorten the season. The owners don't get to decide whether it is cheaper to not play than to play. They have to open the books and prove to the players that they would lose more money not playing than by playing without fans. Only then can the owners cancel the season. Presumably, if the owners were to open the books and convince the players that they would lose more money playing without fans than they would in canceling the season, thereby permitting them the option of canceling the season, players might be interested in sacrificing additional money to have a season, but the owners have not yet done that. The players and owners have a mutual obligation to start the season as soon as possible and to play as many games as possible. That obligation is not discharged by the owners losing money for the season, it is only discharged by the owners proving they would lose more money playing without fans than they would lose if they didn't play at all. The owners almost certain WOULD lose less money with a shorter season (say 40 games vs. 82) and an expanded playoffs, but that would also violate the March agreement, just as trying to renegotiate salary without proving playing without fans is more fiscally damaging than not playing violates the March agreement.
    • Kjerstad at 2 would be a big disappointment to me, under-slot strategy or not. If not Tork, Martin or even Lacy, I'll just shake my head and wait to see who else we get.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...