Jump to content

Dan Connolly: What Constitutes A Successful Season For The Orioles?

PressBoxOnline

By PressBoxOnline
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply
jamalshw All-Star

jamalshw

Posted
Posted

This team has exceeded expectations at the beginning of the year, but I don't think that's the best basis for success or failure. For me it comes down to the following:

In 2012, success was merely finishing over .500, they exceeded that, made the postseason and advanced to a series.

In 2014, they succeeded as they got to the ALCS which was further than in 2012 and showed progress after a step backwards the year before.

In 2016 I'm not going to say we need to replicate the thought process in 2014 and make it to the World Series to be successful, but I do think that it's more than just being in the hunt in mid-September. I think the season is a disappointment if we don't make it to the postseason. Given where we were at the beginning of the year, i'd still qualify it a success if we're a one-and-done wildcard team, but for where we are right now, I'd like at least a series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eddie83 Hangout Grand Counsel

eddie83

Posted
Posted
That would still make it a 1-1-1 series. You aren't giving the home team two in a row to start the series right? And that means off days for travel.

I don't see where the current WC is different than the old days where you would have the occasional one game playoff. Nobody cried that those were not best of three.

If they ever did a 3 game WC series the higher seed would have to have home field all 3 games. Way too much travel. Just imagine if say San Fran and the Mets are the 2 WC teams in NL, imagine that travel. Plus teams end the regular season all from different locations.

One game playoffs do offer a ton of excitement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LookitsPuck Hangout Grand Counsel

LookitsPuck

Posted
Posted
That would still make it a 1-1-1 series. You aren't giving the home team two in a row to start the series right? And that means off days for travel.

I don't see where the current WC is different than the old days where you would have the occasional one game playoff. Nobody cried that those were not best of three.

"The old days"....what old days? I'm talking about the now. If you award WC teams before with a 5 game ALDS set and now take that away...pit the 2 against each other with 1 game...it's poor. Especially when you have lesser teams winning a division.

As for the makeup of the 3 game series? I'd be okay with 2 games at home to start for the #1 WC and game 3 for the #2 WC. There are ways to work around it.

Either way, less games during the regular season is a good thing. More playoff games is a good thing.

Most teams that are out of the playoff hunt would appreciate less games. Less chance for injury. Less punting the remainder of the season, etc.

Owners, fans would dig 3 games for the WC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
"The old days"....what old days? I'm talking about the now. If you award WC teams before with a 5 game ALDS set and now take that away...pit the 2 against each other with 1 game...it's poor. Especially when you have lesser teams winning a division.

As for the makeup of the 3 game series? I'd be okay with 2 games at home to start for the #1 WC and game 3 for the #2 WC. There are ways to work around it.

Either way, less games during the regular season is a good thing. More playoff games is a good thing.

Most teams that are out of the playoff hunt would appreciate less games. Less chance for injury. Less punting the remainder of the season, etc.

Owners, fans would dig 3 games for the WC.

So you would be OK with a best of three series when one of the team's fans don't get to see a home game?

I wouldn't be. If you go three than you have to either it be 1-2-1 or, and this is outside the box, 2-1-1. Let the second wildcard get game one but the first wildcard gets the home game for a game three if needed.

As for you speaking to fans, I think everything I had read says that the majority of fans like the one game. I know I do.

I don't like the idea of the division winners sitting for five days.

You don't want to be one and done?

Win your division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LookitsPuck Hangout Grand Counsel

LookitsPuck

Posted
Posted
So you would be OK with a best of three series when one of the team's fans don't get to see a home game?

I wouldn't be. If you go three than you have to either it be 1-2-1 or, and this is outside the box, 2-1-1. Let the second wildcard get game one but the first wildcard gets the home game for a game three if needed.

As for you speaking to fans, I think everything I had read says that the majority of fans like the one game. I know I do.

I don't like the idea of the division winners sitting for five days.

You don't want to be one and done?

Win your division.

If the point of the Wild Card is to get more teams in the playoffs and get more fans watching/buying, then have more games. It's about the fans. Baseball is entertainment.

The problem with the division is you can often have scenarios where a wild card winner (or both) are better than the division leaders. This also brings up the argument to have balanced schedules, but I digress...

I'd like to read about the "majority of fans like the one game". Is this vs. a 3 game set? Do they like the idea of not being able to attend a playoff game unless they travel elsewhere for it?

As for the 2-1 idea and potentially some fans not being able to see a game at home...I'm open to suggestions. This is obviously just discussion. I just hate one and dones. Leave that garbage for football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
If the point of the Wild Card is to get more teams in the playoffs and get more fans watching/buying, then have more games. It's about the fans. Baseball is entertainment.

The problem with the division is you can often have scenarios where a wild card winner (or both) are better than the division leaders. This also brings up the argument to have balanced schedules, but I digress...

I'd like to read about the "majority of fans like the one game". Is this vs. a 3 game set? Do they like the idea of not being able to attend a playoff game unless they travel elsewhere for it?

As for the 2-1 idea and potentially some fans not being able to see a game at home...I'm open to suggestions. This is obviously just discussion. I just hate one and dones. Leave that garbage for football.

It was in regard to being asked if they liked the system currently in place.

As I already said I would abolish the divisions and best four teams make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glenn__davis Hangout Grand Counsel

glenn__davis

Posted
Posted

The 1-game WC playoff is brilliant. It's one of the few good things Bud Selig did:

It keeps more teams in the playoff hunt for longer.

It emphasizes the importance of winning the division.

It produces 2 guaranteed games with Game 7 feels right off the bat.

To answer the question posed by the OP, my answer to this question is always the same - competing in a playoff series makes the season successful. We all want to win the WS, but I think most by this point recognize that the playoffs are a bit of a crapshoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
If they ever did a 3 game WC series the higher seed would have to have home field all 3 games. Way too much travel. Just imagine if say San Fran and the Mets are the 2 WC teams in NL, imagine that travel. Plus teams end the regular season all from different locations.

One game playoffs do offer a ton of excitement.

And the fans of the second seed would be irate.

There is no good solution for a 3 game WC series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
The solution is still better than 1 game. Fans get to watch their team more. It's a win-win for fans and owners.

How is it a win for owners?

You want to shorten the regular season to make room for these games right?

Or am I confusing you with another poster?

Give me two regular season home dates a year over the chance of hosting an additional WC game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing


  • Posts

    • OsFanSinceThe80s
      Snell vs Burnes

      By OsFanSinceThe80s · Posted

      I also went with Burnes because of his better durability. Since 2019 Snell has pitched more then 128 innings in a season one time (180 innings in 2023). While Burnes has pitched over 167 inning or more every season since becoming a full time starter in 2021. Burnes is also two years younger so in theory while a six year contract is riskier it would end at the same age as Snell on a four year deal. I'd be happy with either one, but my preference in Burnes.
    • Aristotelian
      Snell vs Burnes

      By Aristotelian · Posted

      Adding that I would go for Roki over either of them.
    • Aristotelian
      Snell vs Burnes

      By Aristotelian · Posted

      I'd go for Snell. He has true Cy Young stuff. Burnes is really good but his K rate keeps dropping and the years scare me. The box score for his playoff start was solid but he actually gave up a lot of hard contact. I just don't trust him enough to commit all those years and dollars.
    • Spy Fox
      Snell vs Burnes

      By Spy Fox · Posted

      I go Burnes because to me the higher floor is very important with this sort of deal. I feel like Snell's skillset is more on a razor's edge-- if you didn't like how Burnes pitched in August, Snell is almost certainly more prone to stretches of poor performance like that. Even if he is more dominant at other times to balance it out. Plus, the extra length of Burnes' deal is offset a bit by being 2 years younger. 
    • oriolediehard
      Snell vs Burnes

      By oriolediehard · Posted

      Snell is injury prone and Burnes is a tough workhorse.
    • Can_of_corn
      Other teams playoffs game thread

      By Can_of_corn · Posted

      Didn't see the video? The ball went maybe 15 feet before it bounced, it was rolling by the dugout.  It was nothing and the Dodgers look soft. Was he supposed to let the discarded ball stay on the field?
    • Just Regular
      Other teams playoffs game thread

      By Just Regular · Posted

      Rojas pulled from the bases in the 3rd inning after he couldn't manage 2nd to home on a Mookie single (and Ohtani couldn't 1st to 3rd behind him) as the Dodgers try to dig out of 6-1.    Rojas' limited mobility hurt the Dodgers defense on a Bogaerts ground ball where Merrill was too quick going first to second, and Rojas ended up getting no outs on a routine ground ball. Manny with a cagey zigzag baserunning move during the Padres 6-run inning off Buehler, getting into Freeman's throwing lane to put Buehler into the jam. Teoscar grand slam brings it back to 6-5 in the 3rd inning...get your popcorn ready.

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...