The O's "Bombs Away" offense

[.500_OR_BETTER]

It can't be worse than last year's - right?

Honestly this is the real key. Give us league average D and pitching and this is a .500+ team, easily.

:rofl:

[NewMarketSean]

It can't be worse than last year's - right?

Dude, we say that every year. It can always get worse and usually does. Look at the pitching from 2010-2011.

[Enjoy Terror]

Where the heck is Luke Scott coming from? I don't see any reason to pencil him in; he's not an Oriole at the moment and doesn't figure into our plans at all.

[NewMarketSean]

Where the heck is Luke Scott coming from? I don't see any reason to pencil him in; he's not an Oriole at the moment and doesn't figure into our plans at all.

Things like reality don't stop wildcard's optimism.

[MrOrange82]

:rofl:

I too smirked at that comment until I thought about it for a second. The O's were around league average in re: offense, so it's not far-fetched to think they'd be a .500 team with average pitching and defense.

Of course, the team's pitching and defense are both atrocious, so SJ's point is akin to saying "the O's would probably play .500 ball if they had unicorns patrolling the outfield."

If's, but's, candies...nuts.

[DrungoHazewood]

The Yankee led the American league with 222 homers last year. That was 12 more than the Rangers. If the young guys in the O's lineup start to feed of each other its possible the O's could hit 238 next year. How would you like the young O's to lead the league in homers.

12 for Antonelli - He hits for a 355-360 OBP which keeps him in the lineup for 600 at bats

18 for Nick

28 for Jones. He keep improving

27 for Scott. Luke says he will be a beast by ST. Let say he is right.

44 for Reynolds. Mark hit 37 in a new league where he didn't know the pitchers. Now he returns to the potential he has already achieved in AZ. How does a 892 OPS sound for a 1st baseman?

24 for Wieters. Keeping improving

30 for Hardy. Probably the hardest to achieve again.

21 for Davis. He did this is 2009 when he got 390 at bats. We will not enjoy his 300 OBP but he could stroke the homers.

26 for Reimold. Just double his at bats and his homers.

4 for Andino.

4 for Teagarden

This does pretty well to define a best-case scenario for this team. Yes, if everything comes together, several players have peak seasons, and none of these guys have an off year or an injury this could happen. So the likely case is under 200.

Of course it only happens if these guys start believing in themselves. Whether they do this well or not there should be a lot of homers hit next year, especially if they re-sign a healthy Scott.

I think "believing in themselves" is important. Just after ability to play baseball, health, training, coaching, available information, scouting, home cooking, sleep schedules due to newborns and toddlers, and about even with at bat music selections, the new OPACY announcer, and El Nina-related wind patterns.

[MrOrange82]

Things like reality don't stop wildcard's optimism.

I think the worst element of the Scott talk is the fact that, prior to last winter's acquisitions of Vlad and DLee (a winter during which Reimold, for many posters, held little value outside of a bench role, and Roberts was penciled in to...actually play baseball), Scott was already counted as a productive member of a team that could, given the just-mentioned additions, play close to .500.

Now the O's have no Vlad. They have no DLee. In fact, they've made no additions at all that are worthy of excitement, and yet Scott coming back might solidify the offense, Reimold might put up a good OBP as an everyday (or close to everyday) player, and Antonelli might do the same (though he's had zero success at the ML level, and a spotty MiL track record).

Such is life as an Orioles fan.

[weams]

I think the worst element of the Scott talk is the fact that, prior to last winter's acquisitions of Vlad and DLee (a winter during which Reimold, for many posters, held little value outside of a bench role, and Roberts was penciled in to...actually play baseball), Scott was already counted as a productive member of a team that could, given the just-mentioned additions, play close to .500.

Now the O's have no Vlad. They have no DLee. In fact, they've made no additions at all that are worthy of excitement, and yet Scott coming back might solidify the offense, Reimold might put up a good OBP as an everyday (or close to everyday) player, and Antonelli might do the same (though he's had zero success at the ML level, and a spotty MiL track record).

Such is life as an Orioles fan.

We could get DLee and Vlad Back.

[Enjoy Terror]

Don't worry guys, we also have Fielder to help.

[MrOrange82]

We could get DLee and Vlad Back.

Throw in a time machine, and I'm game.

Point is that those guys were viewed last winter as necessary additions, along with the preexisting Luke Scott, to make the offense legitimate/solid across the board. Now we're basically left with the same offense that we had prior to last winter (except worse, because BRob looks like a no-go), and yet the conversation is taking an odd, "it might be pretty good" turn regardless.

[33rdst]

This does pretty well to define a best-case scenario for this team. Yes, if everything comes together, several players have peak seasons, and none of these guys have an off year or an injury this could happen. So the likely case is under 200.

I think "believing in themselves" is important. Just after ability to play baseball, health, training, coaching, available information, scouting, home cooking, sleep schedules due to newborns and toddlers, and about even with at bat music selections, the new OPACY announcer, and El Nina-related wind patterns.

You are one of the most knowledgeable and funniest posters on this board. El Nina? Hilarious. But I have to take some issue with the way you and others under value "confidence" as an important variable in player performance.

One of the arguments many sabremetricians make about people using terms like belief and confidence is that it's hard to measure. But you have to agree that statisticians, particularly those engaged in econometric research or sociological research, place a lot of value on a subjects self reporting or "anecdotal evidence".

Athletes, across sports, invariably speak of the effect things like confidence and belief have had on their performance. In golf, for example, players are trained to think positively about impending shots to help them execute the fundamentals better. Golfers talk about the value of this all of the time.

"Soft' information is not as sexy as the hard information we get from things like OBP, OPS, WAR etc but it is nonetheless valuable and relevant IMO.

[Frobby]

Throw in a time machine, and I'm game.

Point is that those guys were viewed last winter as necessary additions, along with the preexisting Luke Scott, to make the offense legitimate/solid across the board. Now we're basically left with the same offense that we had prior to last winter (except worse, because BRob looks like a no-go), and yet the conversation is taking an odd, "it might be pretty good" turn regardless.

First of all, I doubt anyone is quite as optimistic about the 2012 offense as they were, going into the season, about the 2011 offense.

Still, the fact is that the 2011 offense managed to be league average and improve by 95 runs, despite disappointing contributions from Lee and Vlad, injuries to Scott and Roberts, and a career-worst performance from Nick. In fact, in August and September, after trading Lee and jettisoning Felix Pie, the offense was pretty significantly above average, even with Scott and Roberts out. So, for that reason, it is reasonable to think that the 2012 offense could be a bit better than league average if it gets a few breaks. That is no certainty, but it isn't far-fetched, either.

That said, any chance for significant improvement in the W-L record in 2012 rests on the pitching and defense, not the offense.

[Shoeless Joe]

High OBP + Higher Homer totals + No Pitching, Still Equals less than a .500 record

[MrOrange82]

First of all, I doubt anyone is quite as optimistic about the 2012 offense as they were, going into the season, about the 2011 offense.

Still, the fact is that the 2011 offense managed to be league average and improve by 95 runs, despite disappointing contributions from Lee and Vlad, injuries to Scott and Roberts, and a career-worst performance from Nick. In fact, in August and September, after trading Lee and jettisoning Felix Pie, the offense was pretty significantly above average, even with Scott and Roberts out. So, for that reason, it is reasonable to think that the 2012 offense could be a bit better than league average if it gets a few breaks. That is no certainty, but it isn't far-fetched, either.

That said, any chance for significant improvement in the W-L record in 2012 rests on the pitching and defense, not the offense.

It would be marginally better with a healthy Scott. IF Scott is re-signed. But then again, despite the fact that Vlad's performance last year was incredibly underwhelming, he hit .290 with 13 HR and 63 RBI. And his OPS was a hair above league average. So...he's gone. That production does need to be replaced. Can Reimold do it? Maybe, but he's a gigantic question mark. Does Antonelli represent an upgrade over Andino? I say "not likely," but whatever. You and I agree that pitching/defense will define the Orioles' success/failure next season...I just think it's a tad ridiculous to talk about how much the offense can improve when it's basically reverted to an arguably slightly-worse-off position than the one it occupied at the beginning of last season.

[Frobby]

High OBP + Higher Homer totals + No Pitching, Still Equals less than a .500 record

So what is your point? Should we just go the entire winter without discussing what the team should do on offense?