Buster Olney says O's win 56 games

[Jagwar]

This logic is flawed after the first week. For the first few games everyone is on the same schedule, so #1 vs. #1, #2 vs. #2, etc., but after a rain out or day off, it is soon #4 vs. #3, #4 vs. #5. The rotations get shuffled out of order. Plus, there is too much stock placed in the idea that a team lines up its best 5 in order, when a majority of the teams line them up L-R-L-R-L/R to keep pitchers separated, so right away it might not even be the true #1 vs. true #1.

My point was that the O's traded away a #1 without replacing him. That means that the entire rotation is being asked to perform one slot better than they really are.

I agree totally with Obannon. Let's see what happens when they actually play the games.

[mefogus]

I think we'll be closer to 70 than 56.

I think we will be closer to 56 than 66.

-m

[Eddie_Ripken]

I'd rather watch this year's team win 56 games than to watch the teams of the past 10 years win 66 games.

Olney probably spent the majority of his time figuring out who would win that one more game between the MFY and Red Sux.

[Guest JChav]

My concern is that there seems to be way too much optimism for guys like Loewen and Cabrera to win 12-15 games. What makes anyone think that possibility is anything but a longshot?

Another thing... losing a #1 like Bedard means that everyone in the rotation pops up a rung in the rotation ladder. That means that essentially the O's #2 starter faces opponents' #1, and so on throughout the rotation for the whole season. That means that the O's starters all have to outperform a "better" rotation slot for 162 games.[/Quote]

This team survived with the likes of Jose Mercedes, Rodrigo Lopez, and Sidney Ponson going up against No. 1's with more than 56 wins to show for it. Not to mention along with Jeff Conine as the star hitter. Why would this squad be the one to hit the century mark in losses?

[obannon35]

This team survived with the likes of Jose Mercedes, Rodrigo Lopez, and Sidney Ponson going up against No. 1's with more than 56 wins to show for it. Not to mention along with Jeff Conine as the star hitter. Why would this squad be the one to hit the century mark in losses?

Buster Olney is an L7 weenie.:002_scool:

[Number5]

This team survived with the likes of Jose Mercedes, Rodrigo Lopez, and Sidney Ponson going up against No. 1's with more than 56 wins to show for it. Not to mention along with Jeff Conine as the star hitter. Why would this squad be the one to hit the century mark in losses?

We have hit the century mark. Don't forget about 1988. Once is enough, though!

[Jagwar]

This team survived with the likes of Jose Mercedes, Rodrigo Lopez, and Sidney Ponson going up against No. 1's with more than 56 wins to show for it. Not to mention along with Jeff Conine as the star hitter. Why would this squad be the one to hit the century mark in losses?

It wasn't this team. That was then, this is now.

I'm only saying that it isn't far fetched for Olney to think that a team that loses Tejada, Bedard and potentially Roberts is expected to perform worse than last year.

[Jagwar]

We have hit the century mark. Don't forget about 1988. Once is enough, though!

Definitely

And who among the media thought that the 1989 team would play as well as it did, coming within a wild pitch (sort of) of reaching the playoffs?

[TyCobb]

Isn't a AAA team worth 45 games in the MLB? So we are only 10 games above a AAA team? I find that ridiculous. IMO we are better than last season with the moves we made.

[health55]

Baltimore fans will have more fun watching the Orioles win 70 games than Boston fans will have watching the Red Sox stumble to 86 wins.

Just my opinion.

[Mackus]

Isn't a AAA team worth 45 games in the MLB? So we are only 10 games above a AAA team? I find that ridiculous. IMO we are better than last season with the moves we made.

Unless the young pitching and Adam Jones far exceed reasonable expectations, theres very little chance we're better than last year, IMO.

66 wins is a reasonable expectation. 56 wins is a bit low, but not ridiculous.

[Hazmat]

A lot of baseball experts were predicting a disastrous season for the Nats last year. I believe they entered the season with John Patterson as their projected #1. They ended up winning 73 games. In my opinion, we have a much better roster on our team than what the Nats had going into 2007.

[ChrisAF79]

A lot of baseball experts were predicting a disastrous season for the Nats last year. I believe they entered the season with John Patterson as their projected #1. They ended up winning 73 games. In my opinion, we have a much better roster on our team than what the Nats had going into 2007.

True. But the NL East is a far cry from the AL East.

[olehippi]

The Vegas number is way more reasonable IMHO. I don't see us losing that many more games this year than last. I think people way overestimate Tejada's contribution to this team, and overestimate the impact of starting pitchers as well. Bedard was good, but he wasn't solely responsible for a 13 game swing between seasons even in combination with Tejada.

(We won 69 last year, right?)

Say what? Would love to hear you explain this statement....especially the starting pitchers part since it flies in the face of a proven baseball dynamic.

[obannon35]

Definitely

And who among the media thought that the 1989 team would play as well as it did, coming within a wild pitch (sort of) of reaching the playoffs?

Curse that nail that Harnisch stepped on.....now that you referenced this I'm gonna have to go right home and watch my '89 Why Not tape.