DrungoHazewood

I know there's a certain simplicity and clarity to that, I understand why people like that cutoff. But I think it's a little lazy to say 1903 is modern while 1897 is some weird, black-and-white past where nothing really counts. There are legitimate (but mostly, in my opinion unpersuasive) arguments for setting the back-end of real or modern baseball to 1871, 1876, 1893, 1900, 1901, 1920, 1948 and probably several others. I'm comfortable with no set date, and the acknowledgment that the game has significantly evolved with little relief throughout the past 150+ years.

No doubt, but official MLB records count everything from 1876 on in the NL, AL, AA, UA, PL, FL and now the Negro Leagues as "Major" and some sources add in the NA. Yea, I'm being a little nit-picky, but people say ever/never all the time when the official MLB records clearly contradict that. A little like yesterday someone posted on Twitter that Smoky Joe Wood was one of just 13 pitchers to win 30 games in a season. Well, sure, if you start history in 1900. Which seems a little silly because, for example, Cy Young was basically the same pitcher from 1890-99 as he was from 1900-1911 but we're only going to count half his career as real? There were 159 pitcher-seasons with 30+ wins, but 21 of them after 1900. I certainly keep in the back of my mind the idea that the game has changed over time and records are less relevant to today the further back you go. But baseball in 1912 had far more in common with baseball in 1895 than it does baseball in the 21st century.

In 1875 the Boston Red Stockings went 71-8. There were 13 total teams in the NA that year, but several like the Keokuk Westerns and the St. Louis Red Stockings dropped out or just didn't play a full schedule, probably because they were losing money. But the Bostons still beat all of them, including going 1-0 against both Keokuk and the St. Louis Red Stockings (not to be confused with the St. Louis Brown Stockings in the same league).

This has been a great, fun team and an awesome year. So many likeable players. But mainly because of where my life is right now and the fact that I have so many competing things going on like teenage kids and their activities I doubt that this year will eclipse the 1989 and 2012ers. I just can't or don't watch every game like I did long ago. I certainly follow most games on the phone or the radio or whatever, but not quite the engagement like when I was younger. But if I were 25 or 30 now I'm guessing it would be the top of the heap, especially if there's a good run in October.

Not only did the Blue Jays beat the Orioles to this, the record is not even true. From 1871-1875 the National Association was the only professional league, and most of those years most of those teams won a game against each other team. From 1876-1881 and again from 1892-1900 the National League was the only Major League game in town and almost all of those years almost every team beat every other team at least once. So, at best, this record would have to be post-1900 and shared with the Blue Jays along with several other teams that will do this in the next few weeks.

I really dislike challenge systems in all sports. You eventually get to the point where you have to accept a terribly blown call because the manager used up his challenges previously. I don't understand why they don't a) have a buzzer to immediately tell the ump if it's a strike, and b) for calls in the field a 5th ump in the booth watching the game and with access to replays that just tells the field umps if they're wrong.

Isn't it obvious that Bautista angered Dionysus with his empyrean velocity, resulting in the god smiting him?

So triples by the Orioles at OPACY since 2017: 4, 5, 16, 3, 8, 9, 13. Opponents at OPACY: 8, 15, 11, 5, 10, 6, 10 If there's an obvious trend there I'm not seeing it. Most triples go to CF/RC/RF. The wall probably increases triples by two a season.

I don't know that I'd be against them having so much confidence that they metamorphosize into some kind of invincible and superhuman god-beast.

Hubris.

Camden Yards is balanced. It hasn't fallen over yet.

You know who had the best regular season record in MLB in 1966? The Baltimore Orioles. Although you could make a good case that the Dodgers were the better team, or at least had a lot more of a track record. The Dodgers rotation included Koufax (27-9, 1.73), Drysdale (only 13-16 but 273 innings), Osteen (17-14, 2.84), Don Sutton (12-12, 2.99), and reliever/future O's manager Phil Regan (14-1, 1.62 with 21 saves). The Orioles had Dave McNally (13-6, 3.17, led team with 213 IP), Palmer (15-10, 3.46), and nobody else won more than 10 or saved 20.

For the sake of argument, let's say the Braves have a 66% chance of winning any postseason series. That's almost certainly high, but let's just go with that. They need to win the NLDS, the NLCS, and the World Series. Combining probabilities, that's more-or-less a (0.66)^3, or a 29% chance at winning the whole thing. Or, from a different perspective, a 71% chance someone else wins.

For much of Harbor Park's history going back to the days the Tides were affiliated with the Mets, a decent rule of thumb was that how you hit in Norfolk wasn't going to be too terribly different from how you hit in the Majors. But now it's more like a standard park, and before you get into too much detail you can knock 100 OPS points of those Norfolk numbers. And for pitchers the reverse was true. If you didn't have a 3.00 ERA or better in Norfolk back in the day you could be pretty sure you were getting the stuffing beat out of you at OPACY. Now it's not so extreme.

Tony can obviously answer for himself, but what do you mean? Where would Mancini in 2016 rank as an all-time Orioles prospect? If that's the question he certainly wouldn't be in the top 50. Maybe not top 100. He first came up at the age of 24, so he spent quite a while in the minors, even considering his 3-year college career. He was never a BA/BP top 100 prospect. Drafted in the 8th round. He was limited to playing 1B, meaning he had to hit very well to be a productive MLB player. His 2015 season split between Frederick and Bowie was very good, hitting a combined .342/.375/.563, but he was already 23 and didn't crack any top prospect lists. And while the Orioles have had long periods with a very unproductive farm system, they've also had times where they produced ridiculous amounts of young talent. For example, they were so loaded in the early 70s that Don Baylor had a 1.011 OPS at AAA Rochester at the age of 21 and got sent back there the next year. The same year Bobby Grich hit .383 in AAA at 21 and the next year played 130 games back in AAA. And then consider that the very recent/current Orioles have had three consensus #1 overall prospects in Rutschman, Henderson, and Holliday, and Mancini was never a top 100. But I guess I'm getting ahead of myself... was that what you meant?

I'm reasonably certain that this aspect of the waiver process has been the same since the 1800s. Edit: While the waiver process was first invented in 1885, it appears that the reverse order of claims by record was instituted in 1921. Reference: section 13.3.2 from Peter Morris' A Game of Inches. Prior to this there were varying ways to determine where the player ended up if claimed by multiple teams, including letting the player choose. Also, prior to about 1950 waivers only applied to the league the player was in. So if the Browns waived a player it went through the AL in reverse order and if not claimed he became a free agent, and only then an NL team could sign him.

Actually, you could argue that Angelos' lack of investment in player payroll was a sincere attempt to make the team's record worse so that they could move up in the waiver order and acquire these players, but it just didn't work out this time.

If you're talking about my ISTP homer post, one where the OFer loses ball in sun, it richochets off his head, ends up 50 feet away in the RF corner. Exactly what I'm talking about. I want to see someone smoke a ball up the RC gap, it rolls to the 480' sign and the batter just beats the throw home.

Uhh... that the Orioles have the best record in the league and have the last pick in the waiver process and the players were all gone before they got to their spot?

I don't care what the numbers say, the Wall is right and just and decent, and every park needs to 400' to a gap and nearly 500' somewhere. Sometime in my life I want to see a Major League inside-the-park homer that doesn't involve a wacky bounce, someone falling down, or the ball becoming lodged in a passing marsupial's pocket.

I came here just for this. But to be fair, if Cease was on the Orioles with their coaching and Walltimore there's a decent chance his ERA would be under 5.00. That's a regular TOR ace, right there. Also, he wouldn't have to face the Orioles.

Another thing that probably merits more investigation is the flattening of the differences between positions. In 1980 there was a 130 point OPS spread between 1B and SS. In 2023 that's about 70 points. I don't know how well that holds up or changes over time, but if there's less difference between positions that probably means less advantage for PHing a backup 1B/3B/LF/DH for your shorstop or 2B. Especially when that .775 OPSing bench player is really a .675 PHer.

Major League pinch hitters in 2023 are slashing .214/.303/.325. Frazier is almost exactly a league-average PHer. With the death of almost all pitchers hitting I have to wonder if pinch hitting is also going the way of the dodo. There's always been a pinch hitting penalty (along with the smaller DH penalty), in that PHers always hit worse than players who've been in the game and in the field. A typical .750 OPS hitter is more like a .650 when pinch hitting. I'd guess that in most situations outside of LH vs LH with a big platoon split, or maybe bringing in a good starter on an off day, you're really not gaining anything by pinch hitting.

The problem wasn't mainly Pujols. It was an inability to develop and acquire a baseball team. Pick a year from Trout's prime... 2017. That year they had 7 of 9 starters (per bb-ref) with OPS+es under 100. Their top four bench players had OPS+es of 94, 87, 73 and 56. They had the best player in the world and finished 11th in runs scored. Their innings pitched leader had an ERA of 4.92, their #3 a 5.35, and got a total of 33 starts from pitchers with an ERA under 4.00. Bud Norris was their closer. 6th in the league in runs allowed in a pitcher's park, with one of the higher payrolls in baseball. And they were the 2nd-oldest team in the AL. Pujols was a symptom. They are Ishtar - get some stars, throw them out there and watch the magic happen!

Hey, I remember the '79 team just barely and in the right light I bet I could pass for 43. Okay, 45.