How do the 2015-16 O's compare to the 1998-99 O's?

[Frobby]

I've been mulling over whether our mediocre 2015 season foreshadows that 2016 will be a repeat of 1999 when the O's finished 78-84.

The reason I got on this idea was that in 1997, the O's won 97 games and went wire-to-wire to win the AL East. The next year they plummeted, finishing 79-83. Rather than starting a rebuild, the O's tried to remain competitive in 1999, but again finished under .500 at 78-84.

2015 has certain parallels to 1998. In 1998 the O's won 18 fewer games than the year before. In 2015, the O's finished 17 games lower than the year before. So, it's natural to worry that history may repeat itself, with 2016 looking like 1999.

I think the biggest difference I see is that although the 2016 team won't be particularly young, it's much younger than the 1999 Orioles. Those Orioles averaged 32.6 on offense, 29.3 on the pitching side. 7 of the 10 most-used hitters were 33 or older, and two others were 30 or older. Only catcher Charles Johnson was under 30.

The 2016 team will have only one of its top 10 position players who is 33 or older, and that's JJ Hardy, who is exactly 33. There will be quite a few guys in the 30-32 bracket (Reimold is 32 and Jones, Davis, Wieters and Joseph will be 30). Manny and Schoop are still quite young, and Kim is 28. Overall, it's not a bad age profile -- yet.

The other big difference is that the 1999 team was replacing a couple of all-stars in Palmeiro and Alomar with a combination of Belle, DeShields and Clark. The 2016 O's have brought back Davis and Wieters, not to mention O'Day. So, it's a more cohesive team.

Putting that stuff aside, the 2016 Orioles are managed by Buck, whereas the 1999 O's were managed by Ray Miller.

Overall, there are some reasons to think the 2016 Orioles can avoid the fate of the 1999 O's. I have to say, though, that I am worried that if the O's simply tread water this year, as they did in 1999, management will repeat the mistakes of 1999 and be slow to admit that some rebuilding is in order.

[TINSTAAPP]

They don't. This team has a lot more young talent for one. Those late '90s teams didn't have a Machado, Schoop or Gausman. Heck, they didn't even have a young player as talented as Dylan Bundy. Plus all of the top veterans on this team (Wieters, Davis, Jones) will all be 29 or 30 years old on Opening Day. They are in the middle of their prime while the top players in the late '90s teams were all in their mid 30s. I'll also throw in the fact that I don't see a team as strong as the late 90s Yankees or even the late 90s Red Sox in the division right now.

[Tx Oriole]

They don't. This team has a lot more young talent for one. Those late '90s teams didn't have a Machado, Schoop or Gausman. Heck, they didn't even have a young player as talented as Dylan Bundy. Plus all of the top veterans on this team (Wieters, Davis, Jones) will all be 29 or 30 years old on Opening Day. They are in the middle of their prime while the top players in the late '90s teams were all in their mid 30s. I'll also throw in the fact that I don't see a team as strong as the late 90s Yankees or even the late 90s Red Sox in the division right now.

Hope you are right.

[Redskins Rick]

They don't. This team has a lot more young talent for one. Those late '90s teams didn't have a Machado, Schoop or Gausman. Heck, they didn't even have a young player as talented as Dylan Bundy. Plus all of the top veterans on this team (Wieters, Davis, Jones) will all be 29 or 30 years old on Opening Day. They are in the middle of their prime while the top players in the late '90s teams were all in their mid 30s. I'll also throw in the fact that I don't see a team as strong as the late 90s Yankees or even the late 90s Red Sox in the division right now.

Whoa, Mussina was 29 in 98, and in 99 he went 18-7 and was in his prime and he was 2nd in Cy Young voting in 99.

Ponson was only 22 .

Dont forgot Matt Riley, he was a stud lefty, and #1 prospect in the system, that might have been a dude, but quite a few scouts thought he had talent.

Jerry Hairston was also only 22 and he might not have been a stud, but he turned into a 16 year MLB veteran.

[Aristotelian]

They don't. This team has a lot more young talent for one. Those late '90s teams didn't have a Machado, Schoop or Gausman. Heck, they didn't even have a young player as talented as Dylan Bundy. Plus all of the top veterans on this team (Wieters, Davis, Jones) will all be 29 or 30 years old on Opening Day. They are in the middle of their prime while the top players in the late '90s teams were all in their mid 30s. I'll also throw in the fact that I don't see a team as strong as the late 90s Yankees or even the late 90s Red Sox in the division right now.

The '98 team had a huge advantage over '16, which is two legitimate top-of-the-rotation SPs in Mussina and Erickson, plus Key. That team had huge holes, but also some strengths over the '16 team.

The guys who drove up the average age were actually still doing pretty well - Cal and Brady were in decline for sure, but Baines (39) still put up .819, Eric Davis (36) .970, and Palmeiro (33) .945.

We are definitely younger and still better set up to rebuild if it comes to that than we were in '98. You also look at the '98 Rochester Red Wings and it is pretty clear that our farm system was a total mess at that point.

The other thing we have along with Buck is a cohesive group around the leadership of Adam Jones. While Cal was the consummate professional, he never struck me as having that kind of leadership that rubs off on other players. The core of the '16 team has been together since 2012 and before, but '98 was Cal and Mussina and a bunch of veterans brought in from other teams. One of my absolute darkest moments as an O's fan was the Yankees brawl when Benitez drilled Tino. At that moment I really felt that I could not root for the team. I can't imagine anything like that happening with the current group, no matter how bad it gets.

[25 Nuggets]

The other thing we have along with Buck is a cohesive group around the leadership of Adam Jones. While Cal was the consummate professional, he never struck me as having that kind of leadership that rubs off on other players. The core of the '16 team has been together since 2012 and before, but '98 was Cal and Mussina and a bunch of veterans brought in from other teams. One of my absolute darkest moments as an O's fan was the Yankees brawl when Benitez drilled Tino. At that moment I really felt that I could not root for the team. I can't imagine anything like that happening with the current group, no matter how bad it gets.

You were a better man than I was. The Yankee hate was strong with me. Still pissed off at Benitez for starting it though, what a knucklehead.

[Ohfan67]

Oh Frobby. Your post was incredibly painful to read. What horrible, frustrating days. Those seasons are such painful memories!

While I don't think the 2016 Orioles are likely to make the playoffs, I think the teams are very, very different. The team/organization was basically imploding. Johnson was fired/resigned after being named manager of the year at the end of '97, the '98 team was a depressing mix of underperforming and ancient bandaids (Joe Carter signing as an example), and, to me, the whole feel of the team and organization was much different heading into 1999. The Orioles have relatively little money sunk into even aging players, much less downright old players. '99 felt like the O's were rapidly sliding off a cliff. The 2016 Orioles have a great manager, one of the best young players in the game, and relatively little money tied up in long-term contracts. I think the wins and losses may be the same, but to me the organization seems in much better shape.

[Ohfan67]

And the Albert Belle signing was so, so depressing. He was one of, if not THE vilest person in baseball at the time. I couldn't believe the Orioles signed him. I honestly felt like throwing up when I heard the news. I would much rather root for a losing team than watch someone like Belle wear an Orioles uniform. Again, to me the teams are very different. I guess the current team's future is a bit uncertain. That '99 team felt like the Orioles were on the highway to hell.

[Ohfan67]

The '98 team had a huge advantage over '16, which is two legitimate top-of-the-rotation SPs in Mussina and Erickson, plus Key. That team had huge holes, but also some strengths over the '16 team.

The guys who drove up the average age were actually still doing pretty well - Cal and Brady were in decline for sure, but Baines (39) still put up .819, Eric Davis (36) .970, and Palmeiro (33) .945.

Yes, if you look at the statistics you can make a pretty strong argument that the team underperformed as a whole. The performance of the starting pitchers in '99 was actually pretty similar to the '15 team (considering the different run contexts). I think the '99 team was pretty weak defensively and I think having Ray as the manager probably cost five or even more wins. Not because of specific bone-headed decisions, but because of his overall poor performance, lack of respect from players, doom and gloom, etc.

[Redskins Rick]

And the Albert Belle signing was so, so depressing. He was one of, if not THE vilest person in baseball at the time. I couldn't believe the Orioles signed him. I honestly felt like throwing up when I heard the news. I would much rather root for a losing team than watch someone like Belle wear an Orioles uniform. Again, to me the teams are very different. I guess the current team's future is a bit uncertain. That '99 team felt like the Orioles were on the highway to hell.

Belle made the top ten in unlikeable players list:

1. Ty Cobb

2. John Rocker

3. Albert Belle

4. Cap Anson

5. Carl Mays

6. Roger Clemens

7. Hal Chase

8. Dick Allen

9. Pete Rose

10. Reggie Jackson

Dishonorable mentions: Barry Bonds, Roberto Alomar, Steve Garvey, Carl Everett, Eddie Murray, Jim Bouton, Rickey Henderson

https://espn.go.com/page2/s/leastliked/readers/010815.html

[Aristotelian]

Belle made the top ten in unlikeable players list:

1. Ty Cobb

2. John Rocker

3. Albert Belle

4. Cap Anson

5. Carl Mays

6. Roger Clemens

7. Hal Chase

8. Dick Allen

9. Pete Rose

10. Reggie Jackson

Dishonorable mentions: Barry Bonds, Roberto Alomar, Steve Garvey, Carl Everett, Eddie Murray, Jim Bouton, Rickey Henderson

https://espn.go.com/page2/s/leastliked/readers/010815.html

Eddie Murray?????

How is A-Roid not on this list at least as a dishonorable mention?

[Ohfan67]

Eddie Murray?????

How is A-Roid not on this list at least as a dishonorable mention?

List put together by a small group of sports reporters. I think the list was published in 2001. Arod was well liked by reporters and most fans until about the time he signed with Texas.

[Morgan423]

And the Albert Belle signing was so, so depressing. He was one of, if not THE vilest person in baseball at the time . I couldn't believe the Orioles signed him. I honestly felt like throwing up when I heard the news. I would much rather root for a losing team than watch someone like Belle wear an Orioles uniform. Again, to me the teams are very different. I guess the current team's future is a bit uncertain. That '99 team felt like the Orioles were on the highway to hell.

Well, I guess Lew Ford got drafted that year and wasn't a pro yet, so Albert Belle wins on a technicality.

[Redskins Rick]

Eddie Murray?????

How is A-Roid not on this list at least as a dishonorable mention?

Eddie doesnt deserve to be on this list. Eddie was well liked by his peers, Eddie had very little respect for the media and the talking heads.

[Frobby]

Oh Frobby. Your post was incredibly painful to read. What horrible, frustrating days. Those seasons are such painful memories!

While I don't think the 2016 Orioles are likely to make the playoffs, I think the teams are very, very different. The team/organization was basically imploding. Johnson was fired/resigned after being named manager of the year at the end of '97, the '98 team was a depressing mix of underperforming and ancient bandaids (Joe Carter signing as an example), and, to me, the whole feel of the team and organization was much different heading into 1999. The Orioles have relatively little money sunk into even aging players, much less downright old players. '99 felt like the O's were rapidly sliding off a cliff. The 2016 Orioles have a great manager, one of the best young players in the game, and relatively little money tied up in long-term contracts. I think the wins and losses may be the same, but to me the organization seems in much better shape.

I think you are right, but I am quite sure I went into 1999 thinking the Orioles could be a contender if things broke their way, which is kind've how I feel about the 2016 Orioles.

One thing I'd forgotten about that 1999 team: they had to go 20-11 in September/October to finish at 78-84. That team was under .500 from the third game of the season onwards. That really was a very dismal season.