At the AS Break, O's pitching tied for 4th in AL Team ERA

[Phantom]

What numbers are you looking at? I see AL league average as 4.09 ERA (American League) and Orioles at 3.83 (5th place in AL).

He was talking about starters, not all pitchers.

[Frobby]

What numbers are you looking at? I see AL league average as 4.09 ERA (American League) and Orioles at 3.83 (5th place in AL).

I'm looking at this: http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/pitching/split/127/league/al This is just for the starting pitchers. But the overall ERA for all AL pitchers (starters and relievers) is 3.94, not 4.09. http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/pitching/year/2014/seasontype/2/league/al

[Frobby]

The pitching is improved but not good enough to beat Oakland at present. If winning the World Series is the goal the O's pitching in not good enough. If all you are shooting for is to win the division then it should hold up especially with Gausman solidly in the rotation now.

Personally, I think the O's need one more TOR starter.

There's no telling what might happen in a short series. Oakland is a better team than the Orioles in multiple respects. They have a +145 run differential, and ours in +26. That's not close and one pitcher isn't going to change that.

[wildcard]

There's no telling what might happen in a short series. Oakland is a better team than the Orioles in multiple respects. They have a +145 run differential, and ours in +26. That's not close and one pitcher isn't going to change that.

In the playoffs pitchers often dominate. They are the best place to make a difference.

[Frobby]

In the playoffs pitchers often dominate. They are the best place to make a difference.

I don't disagree with you. But the A's have three pitchers who have an ERA better than any of our starters. I guess my point is that the odds will favor Oakland whether we pick up a no. 1 starter or not. Our odds would improve, but (1) we'd still be underdogs even if we pick up an ace, and (2) we'll still have a chance in a short series even if we don't pick up an ace.

[DrungoHazewood]

In the playoffs pitchers often dominate. They are the best place to make a difference.

Except when they don't. There is no significant correlation between ace-centric teams and playoff success. There is no secret sauce.

[wildcard]

I don't disagree with you. But the A's have three pitchers who have an ERA better than any of our starters. I guess my point is that the odds will favor Oakland whether we pick up a no. 1 starter or not. Our odds would improve, but (1) we'd still be underdogs even if we pick up an ace, and (2) we'll still have a chance in a short series even if we don't pick up an ace.

The important part of what you just wrote is "Our odds improve" if "we pick up a no. 1 starter".

[wildcard]

Except when they don't. There is no significant correlation between ace-centric teams and playoff success. There is no secret sauce.

I have always believed that the better pitching win in the playoffs. It has often been said by Buck and others that great pitching will overcome great hitting.

[Phantom]

I have always believed that the better pitching win in the playoffs. It has often been said by Buck and others that great pitching will overcome great hitting.

I don't understand. You basically just choose to believe this, even if you know it isn't true?

[wildcard]

I don't understand. You basically just choose to believe this, even if you know it isn't true?

I believe it to be true.

[Frobby]

The important part of what you just wrote is "Our odds improve" if "we pick up a no. 1 starter".

Newsflash: other teams don't give you a no. 1 starter for free. So, the question becomes, how much are you willing to give up to get one to improve our odds, especially if Oakland would be favored even if we acquired a no.1 starter?

[Phantom]

Newsflash: other teams don't give you a no. 1 starter for free. So, the question becomes, how much are you willing to give up to get one to improve our odds, especially if Oakland would be favored even if we acquired a no.1 starter?

Additionally, can we improve the team in more in other way(s) by giving up less.

[wildcard]

Newsflash: other teams don't give you a no. 1 starter for free. So, the question becomes, how much are you willing to give up to get one to improve our odds, especially if Oakland would be favored even if we acquired a no.1 starter?

I am not saying it can be done, but that is what I think needs to happen for the O's to get to the WS.

I am on record as saying the trade I would like to see is:

Bundy, Harvey or EdRod (pick one)

Schoop

Gonzalez, Chen, Norris (pick one)

Alvarez or Yastrzemski (pick one)

For Chris Sale.

That is my starting point in negotiations.

If it can't be done then I am fine with going with what the O's have but I hope DD in trying for a deal like this.

[Frobby]

I am not saying it can be done, but that is what I think needs to happen for the O's to get to the WS.

I am on record as saying the trade I would like to see is:

Bundy, Harvey or EdRod (pick one)

Schoop

Gonzalez, Chen, Norris (pick one)

Alvarez or Yastrzemski (pick one)

For Chris Sale.

That is my starting point in negotiations.

If it can't be done then I am fine with going with what the O's have but I hope DD in trying for a deal like this.

I'm just saying that even if you made this trade, our odds of getting to the WS would only be about 25%.

[wildcard]

I'm just saying that even if you made this trade, our odds of getting to the WS would only be about 25%.

I will take Sale, Gausman and Tillman in the playoffs. I think that is a strong position.