Tim Kurkjian: Arrieta and Matusz looking good

[Frobby]

Yep, I think Grich (who always impressed me) made a significant difference over Davey Johnson and the others were still at/near the top of their game defensively in those years. Of course we also had guys like Baylor, Singleton and Lee may who as I recall weren't very good.

I am only exaggerating a little when I say that with Blair in CF, it really didn't matter who was in the corners. He was that rangy. Baylor wasn't too bad a defender, except he had a poor arm. Singleton was a step slow, but had good hands and a very good arm. In '73-74 you had Bumbry in LF and Coggins in RF a good bit of the time, and with Blair that was an extremely rangy OF.

[LookinUp]

This argument is silly. atomic just likes to make exaggerated statements to make a point. The point is often valid, but he exaggerates it to the point of ridiculousness to try and get the point across and it just looks stupid. Like when he predicted a 50 win season at best in 2012 last month.

Really? What an idiotic prediction.

[atomic]

Really? What an idiotic prediction.

What do you think 49? Actually I meant in the 50's. It is possible. More likely than a .500 season that DD predicted.

[Frobby]

What do you think 49? Actually I meant in the 50's. It is possible. More likely than a .500 season that DD predicted.

I'd say it is more likely that the O's finish at .500 or better than it is that they win fewer than 60 games. I'd also say my chances of winning the lottery are better than my chances of being the first lawyer on the moon.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I am only exaggerating a little when I say that with Blair in CF, it really didn't matter who was in the corners. He was that rangy. Baylor wasn't too bad a defender, except he had a poor arm. Singleton was a step slow, but had good hands and a very good arm. In '73-74 you had Bumbry in LF and Coggins in RF a good bit of the time, and with Blair that was an extremely rangy OF.

Yeah, Singleton did have a great arm in RF. I really liked that guy as a hitter back then. Very underrated hitter imo. I was looking at Blair's stats in bref and his TZ (not the greatest stat) was about plus 25 during those years. Consider that's compared to pretty good defensive CF's of that era and it's even more amazing. Been a lot of years, but I mainly recall him playing in shallow and taking away singles and going back and still being able to get balls pretty easily. The stats are limited, but I agree those 4 guys (Grich being the most questionable) may have been the best to ever play the game at their respective positions.....not to mention being on the same team. Pretty amazing when you think about it.

[DrungoHazewood]

What do you think 49? Actually I meant in the 50's. It is possible. More likely than a .500 season that DD predicted.

I'd say it is more likely that the O's finish at .500 or better than it is that they win fewer than 60 games. I'd also say my chances of winning the lottery are better than my chances of being the first lawyer on the moon.

I think their mid-range projection is around 71, 72 wins or thereabouts. So given a nice bell curve distribution you'd have roughly equal chances of 63 wins and 81 wins, or 55 wins and 89. Or 100 wins and 44.

[CA-ORIOLE]

What do you think 49? Actually I meant in the 50's. It is possible. More likely than a .500 season that DD predicted.

It's pretty hard to win less than 60 games. That said, 100 losses is certainly possible. Lets hope the young pitchers do better and the right guys (young ones under team control) show improvement and one or two of these crossroad guys show something at the ML level with some playing time. That's what it's about this year. I'm pretty sure DD didn't predict a .500 record. I think he said it was a goal.....and that was just political BS that he's obligated to throw out there.

[Remember The Alomar]

I was not suggestive about someones sexual preference. If you found something negative in that statement then it is probably because you are homophobic. So don't put your issues on to me.

"We gave George Orwell a severe concussion and made him post on an Orioles message board. Let's see if anyone notices."

[EddieMurrayfan]

There is also no excuse for you putting your nose into someone else's business but that hasn't stopped you from crying about it either.

His schtick deserved the attack it got. You have an issue with that? Oh well.

When you start bringing out "back in the good ol days" crap, especially in the manner he did/does it, the age stuff is going to end up being brought up and rightfully so.

There are plenty of older posters, yourself included, that don't have to resort to those types of comments to get across a good point.

Why did his schtick deserve an attack> Because you said so?

He is not not the only poster on this thread making idiotic statements!

You guys that have to always put somebody in their place remind me of a bunch of ladies sitting around playing bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[El Gordo]

I was 8 when I saw my first Orioles game in 73.. I was certainly old enough to remember the players on the team. Grant Jackson was my favorite player.

I was 9 years old when I saw my first O's game in '55. Ray Moore was on the mound, Jim Pyburn was at 3B, Willy Miranda was at SS, and Chuck Diering was in CF. Willy and Gus Triandos were my favorite players and that team won 57. Ah yes, the good old days when they really knew how to play the game the right way.

[ccbird]

This thread is Exhibit A in why this place is going to hell in a handbasket.

[ccbird]

This stuff has been going on forever. Don't get nostalgic on us and think that the Hangout was Utopia years ago. It's the same as it ever was. I have fond thoughts of the first time SportsGuy called something I said, idiotic. And we've always had posters saying idiotic things. Nothing new here.

This is true. I guess it's because I've actually spent more time than usual in the O's section the last few weeks. It's a good reminder why I stopped opening so many threads over here.