The start of the decline

[mweb]

But its not like we didn't recover because we lost those games...We didn't recover because we just weren't good.

Yep, and those games aren't like these games at all. These games were lost because of some mental mistakes along with some errors, the 2005 example was just us getting out classed.

[Fairfax Bird]

There have been times in the past where the O's have started off hot and then suddenly, you check the paper and they are 10 games below .500. You can't quite put your finger on where it went wrong.

Well this Oakland series will be it for this year. Two awful performances in back to back games. We played so well against Toronto and then mail it in against an Oakland team that isn't that good.

Just remember these two games come July 31 when we are wondering what players the O's are going to trade for the "future".

And just as there are those "we are going to the playoffs" there are those "the season is over" posts. As far as they go, this one is pretty good.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Again, you're confusing a collapse with a regression to the norm. Teams that are roughly .500 teams will have stretches where they play above .500, maybe even monthlong stretches. They'll also have opposite stretches where they play below .500 for weeks at a time. Teams don't just rotate wins and losses for the entire year, they ride hot and cold streaks that last for fairly significant amounts of time.

Yes but there is a difference between regressing simply because you were outplayed and regressing because you played like an awful team.

[Crazysilver03]

Yes but there is a difference between regressing simply because you were outplayed and regressing because you played like an awful team.

If you are a decent team that played like an awful team (i.e. the Orioles these 2 games), then regression to the mean will occur and the Orioles will get better.

[mweb]

Not too sure if the archives go back that far but I'm sure if you looked at the boards when we were 11-7 people were quite giddy. Probably the same people that have been giving me a hard time on this thread. And yes, I think those four games right there maybe didn't shut the door on the season entirely, but was the proverbial pebble that started the avalanche that I referenced a few posts back.

Actually most of the people that are giving you a hard time, including myself, are the one's that don't get all giddy because of an 11-7 start. We have our expectations for the season, tinker with that a little due to certain developments, but stay pretty consistent rather than drastically change our tune due to a few good or bad games.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Usually, unless one has clairvoiyent abilities, in a situation like this we would need to be in the middle of the decline before the start is obvious.

Hell, sometimes it isn't obvious at all. Did the 2005 season REALLY start to decline when Bedard and Lopez got hurt in May? Or was it after the sold-out Rockies' series in June? Or was it when Ryan gave up the walk-off to Ortiz in July?

It is WAY to early to be making judgements like this; it's like saying that Bedard is not going to have a good season because he has struggled early, or that Markakis will have a sophomore slump season because he is batting .240 with a 4:1 K:BB ratio.

We can easily win one or both of the Sox games, then win seven or eight in the at-Cleveland, at-Detroit, Cleveland, and Tampa series'. Then we're 19-15 (or better) going into Fenway on May 11, likely with first place on the line. Would we still be in decline then?

We made a lot of mistakes last night, and apparently today. However, two losses in games we should have won means nothing as of right now, other then in showing certain places this team needs to improve.

Maybe in a couple weeks, we will look back and say this is where the problems started. Then again, maybe in a couple weeks, we will look back and say this is where the problems ended.

[Guest juliofanatic]

I can't believe we're worried about the o's ending up below .500...as if we've been .500 for the past ten years and suddenly we're watching them self-destruct. I'm personally numb to the concept of being in fourth place and coming up below .500. I also would much rather watch Mora and Patterson screw us out of two wins than Omar Daal, Chris Richard, or my user name's namesake providing me with yet another reason to nap through the baseball season.

I want the o's to win a boat load and be in the playoffs, but i'm expecting a return to contention next year and i refuse to cry because the A's beat us in a two game series.

Juliofanatic is back!!

[Pedro Cerrano]

Usually, unless one has clairvoiyent abilities, in a situation like this we would need to be in the middle of the decline before the start is obvious.

Hell, sometimes it isn't obvious at all. Did the 2005 season REALLY start to decline when Bedard and Lopez got hurt in May? Or was it after the sold-out Rockies' series in June? Or was it when Ryan gave up the walk-off to Ortiz in July?

It is WAY to early to be making judgements like this; it's like saying that Bedard is not going to have a good season because he has struggled early, or that Markakis will have a sophomore slump season because he is batting .240 with a 4:1 K:BB ratio.

We can easily win one or both of the Sox games, then win seven or eight in the at-Cleveland, at-Detroit, Cleveland, and Tampa series'. Then we're 19-15 (or better) going into Fenway on May 11, likely with first place on the line. Would we still be in decline then?

We made a lot of mistakes last night, and apparently today. However, two losses in games we should have won means nothing as of right now, other then in showing certain places this team needs to improve.

Maybe in a couple weeks, we will look back and say this is where the problems started. Then again, maybe in a couple weeks, we will look back and say this is where the problems ended.

Really? Really?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Really? Really?

Well, we know YOU don't think they do, because you have already written the season off.

But we still have a team that has, as a whole, been pitching well and scoring enough runs to win more often then not.

Notice how I didn't say we WILL win those games, just that we CAN. Do you believe otherwise?

[The Wedge]

Really? Really?

It's why they play the games.

Sure they can win them. They can also lose them. Would I put money on the win column? No.

But that's kinda unfair, I'm not really a betting kind of person.

But if I were, I still wouldn't.

[section34]

I'm not and i am not even saying you are wrong about some of your points.

It is just hilarious...The way this board changes day to day amazes me.

Everyone here pretty much acknowledges that we are a 75-85 win team...Guys, here is a news flash for you...THAT IS AVERAGE!

When you are just average, you have your ups and downs.

Why is everyone so dramatic with these ups and downs?

Because we can control games like yesterday and today. We're an avg team if we play stupid. We could be an above avg team if we played smart. Why should we and the players and the coaches and the FO accept the rediculous mistakes we make and simply say "heck, we're an avg team so its ok to lose games we can control"?

[section34]

This statement is so unbelievably untrue. Do you really think this is true? Would you like me to dig up 15-20 examples of play-off teams losing like this over the past couple years? The Yanks blew a 4-5 run lead in the 9th just this past weekend.

I am just amazed by some of the things I read here after a couple losses where we didn't play well.

We lose this way much more than playoff teams do...does that clear it up for you? Because i'll pull more examples of us doing this than other teams. The Yanks didn't botch a slow rolling, lyup ground ball with the bases laoded and 2-out the other night.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Because we can control games like yesterday and today. We're an avg team if we play stupid. We could be an above avg team if we played smart. Why should we and the players and the coaches and the FO accept the rediculous mistakes we make and simply say "heck, we're an avg team so its ok to lose games we can control"?

What about the eighteen games previous to the last two?

We weren't making these mistakes, and no one was talking about mental mistakes as issues for this team?

Do the last two games mean more then the previous eighteen?

This goes both ways: you don't want to allow yourself to become complacent over mistakes, but you also don't want to allow two bad games to ruin the vast majority of the games that have been played, and overshadow the good in the season so far.

[OregonBird]

Looks like the birds have "normalized" and come back down to earth. For every 5 games they win, they'll lose 5 or 6. A .500 team give or take.

No the sky isn't falling, but like it was said, they aren't as good as they had been playing and aren't as bad as they are playing.

[SilentJames]

Looks like the birds have "normalized" and come back down to earth. For every 5 games they win, they'll lose 5 or 6. A .500 team give or take.

No the sky isn't falling, but like it was said, they aren't as good as they had been playing and aren't as bad as they are playing.

There is truth to this. tHey will play better. Thae starters will start going deeper, the hitter WILL get their clutch hits, it is a marathon not a sprint yadda yadda yadda....

All that is true, but I HATE losing streaks. four gamers are going to happen, they are easy to bouce back from. You start getting into the 5-6 game streak territory than you are digging yourself a hole at that point.

We tattooed Sowers last year and he has been tattooed this year with our ace on the mound. Got to win tomorrow.