Jump to content

It Was Inevitable: 81-81


25 Nuggets

Recommended Posts

That-is-the-sound-of-inev-009.jpg

"That is the sound of inevitability."

It could not be more appropriate for this team to finish .500 on the dot. I've been calling this for three months now. Every time the team stretched to 4-5 games over .500, they shot themselves in the foot. Every time they fell 4-5 games under .500, they made gut check and clawed back. The team OPS+ hovered around 100 for most of the season and so did team ERA+. They have a positive run differential, but at the end of the season, not by that much.

The Wild Card mark to reach ended up being 86-87 wins (depending on the Houston game), like many of us thought. I'm not sure how to take it yet. What about all of you? Did this team overachieve based on lack of talent/health, underachieve based on previous seasons, or is this what the team was from the start? Is it worth giving everyone a mulligan for a year? Did this constitute meaningful baseball in September?

It was... OUR DESTINY.

:vader:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will be under .500 next year as we are back to the good ole cheap ass Angelos days.

Don't expect another possible playoff contender for another 5-10 years.

I knew last year when we lost Cruz,Miller,etc. it was gonna be this type of year. I said cellar very early

this year if you look at my June posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will be under .500 next year as we are back to the good ole cheap ass Angelos days.

Don't expect another possible playoff contender for another 5-10 years.

I knew last year when we lost Cruz,Miller,etc. it was gonna be this type of year. I said cellar very early

this year if you look at my June posts.

So you were wrong then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That-is-the-sound-of-inev-009.jpg

"That is the sound of inevitability."

It could not be more appropriate for this team to finish .500 on the dot. I've been calling this for three months now. Every time the team stretched to 4-5 games over .500, they shot themselves in the foot. Every time they fell 4-5 games under .500, they made gut check and clawed back. The team OPS+ hovered around 100 for most of the season and so did team ERA+. They have a positive run differential, but at the end of the season, not by that much.

The Wild Card mark to reach ended up being 86-87 wins (depending on the Houston game), like many of us thought. I'm not sure how to take it yet. What about all of you? Did this team overachieve based on lack of talent/health, underachieve based on previous seasons, or is this what the team was from the start? Is it worth giving everyone a mulligan for a year? Did this constitute meaningful baseball in September?

It was... OUR DESTINY.

:vader:

I don't see it as destiny at all. IMO you make your own destiny and losing all those tight games with the Twins wasn't any type of pre ordained destination whatsoever had we won all those games we would have been ok. The reason I believe we didn't was poor in game management action (or lack thereof ) by Buck. His not pulling his infield in closer when Britton is pitching against a team of speedy contact hitters was just flat out dumb and lost a number of games they should have won! It made no sense at all how he didn't manage that better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it as destiny at all. IMO you make your own destiny and losing all those tight games with the Twins wasn't any type of pre ordained destination whatsoever had we won all those games we would have been ok. The reason I believe we didn't was poor in game management action (or lack thereof ) by Buck. His not pulling his infield in closer when Britton is pitching against a team of speedy contact hitters was just flat out dumb and lost a number of games they should have won! It made no sense at all how he didn't manage that better!

For the record Old#5fan, I'm not being serious about the destiny thing. But the questions are in earnest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



  • Posts

    • Yeah, I agree something like this might happen some day, but only if the union comes around to believing MLB is on shaky financial footing -- if and when that ever happens. I don't like the idea of voiding a players' contract then and there, but perhaps performing below a certain level would trigger some contract years in the future to automatically become option years.  Something along those lines. It's hard to imagine deals like this today, except possibly here and there for players who are known to be very inconsistent.  As long as baseball is considered financially healthy I'm sure the union would push back strongly against deals like this, especially in large numbers.
    • Thank you. I knew there was something bogus about that post. I saw Cal play SS. And Gunnar is no Cal at SS. Not even close. And this is coming from a big fan of Gunnar. I would like to see him play a traditional power position. Call me old fashioned. He’s hurting the team at SS. 
    • Interesting.  We live in a data obsessed world now but it's not the answer to everything.  There should be a mix.  
    • Tobias Myers for the brewers tonight: 6 innings 4H -1ER 1BB 11 Ks. not bad at all!
    • I doubt solid MLB pitchers can be acquired just by trading position players the vast majority of the time.  Look at how we acquired Bradish and Povich -- by trading solid (at the time anyway) MLB level pitchers.  In those trades we were on the other end, but we forced teams to trade good young pitchers for Bundy and Lopez respectively.  Now we did acquire McDermott and Seth Johnson by trading Trey Mancini.  So it does happen that pitching can sometimes be acquired trading only a position player, but Mancini had had a strong major league career to that point.  My point is I don't think you can expect to acquire pitching only by trading position players -- but if you can it may need to be a strong veteran that is not easy to part with. Perhaps we could acquire Tarik Skubal for just Jackson Holliday -- or Holliday plus one or two other strong position prospects.  But that would be a whole other level of a blockbuster trade. Also, I'm not sure how we can say the system is bereft of homegrown minor league pitching talent and then complain that we traded Baumeister and Chace -- two homegrown minor league pitchers that everyone here seems to agree are talented.  We can criticize the trade, but clearly there was and probably still are some desirable arms in the system that we'd rather not trade.  No, none of the ones Elias drafted have made it to the bigs yet, but maybe those two would have been among the first.    
    • Seth Johnson on the Phillies' "philosophy": Orioles are data driven, Phillies are more "old school". I don't get much out of this but it's a data point. https://www.nbcsportsphiladelphia.com/mlb/philadelphia-phillies/seth-johnson-mlb-debut-phillies-orioles-trade/613582/ “I think the big thing is that Baltimore is very data-based,” he said. “Here’s a nice blend of the numbers and baseball strategy. Kind of old school. And I’ve been really enjoying it so far. For me, it’s kind of simplified everything. Concentrating on basic concepts like moving the fastball around. Not worrying about pitch shapes all the time. Just going out here and trying to pitch.”
    • If we have room, why wouldn't we add Pham and Van Loon just to have available depth in AAA (whether or not they are at risk of being taken)? 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...