Joe Sheehan

[Baltoravensrule]

Cheap shots on the O's? Why even take the time. We have been horrible for so long now. But if you are going to take the shots you might as well get your info right and not forget about a large portion of our pitching staff (thats under 30) and a 24 year old potential all star in Markakis.

[Ruzious]

Let’s cut to the chase. Among current Orioles, Markakis, Jones and Radhames Liz should be regulars when this team is good again. Some of the arms—Guthrie, Olson, Albers—might be contributing. That’s it. That’s the list.

Those are the only ones that might be contributing. What about Johnson, Cabrera, Sarfate, Bierd (sp?), and a guy named Sherrill? I'm not even including Ray - who might be contributing. And Roberts and Scott in the lineup - nobody knows that they won't be here.

[Mu'ayyidSaafir]

The only thing I strongly disagree with is his belief that Trembley will be fired before the Orioles win again. I think MacPhail has completely realistic expectations about this year's team and next year's team. If he didn't think that Trembley is the guy to weather the Orioles through a couple more stinkbomb seasons he wouldn't be here. I guess maybe if the Orioles landed Teixeira and a SS this offseason he might start holding him to a higher standard, but overall I would say Trembley has a very long, if not infinite leash through 2009.

[66-70-83-??]

Does he bring up the young arms that may be on the way or a guy like Wieters. I could write an article regarding the Yankees or Tigers and say the same thing.

Of course not. Don't expect Sheehan to be fair. It seems like he often comes to conclusions first- then looks for the info to *prove* his point while ignoring other important info.

And as to the second objection…here’s a list.

30

24

36

31

36

22

30

32

35

24

That’s the top 10 for the Orioles in plate appearances, by age

This doesn't make his point that the Orioles are an old team. He left off an important part of the team.

If he was intellectually honest and/or fair- he would have also shown this list-

27

29

27

24

25

24

31

27

33

27

That is the top 10 pitchers by IP.

To the last, well, chemistry is a made-up concept used to make bad teams feel better about themselves in March and explain away overperformance or underperformance in August by people who are frightened by math. As much as players and managers and GMs and beat writers love, love, love to talk about the importance of chemistry, talent is what matters.

Anything he can't prove with BP's stats doesn't exist in his world.

Yeah- what do players, managers, GM's and beat writers know about baseball?

[DrungoHazewood]

Of course not. Don't expect Sheehan to be fair. It seems like he often comes to conclusions first- then looks for the info to *prove* his point while ignoring other important info.

This doesn't make his point that the Orioles are an old team. He left off an important part of the team.

If he was intellectually honest and/or fair- he would have also shown this list-

27

29

27

24

25

24

31

27

33

27

That is the top 10 pitchers by IP.

Anything he can't prove with BP's stats doesn't exist in his world.

Yeah- what do players, managers, GM's and beat writers know about baseball?

It looks to me like you're just as biased as you claim he is.

A guy says something that you disagree with, and that paints your favorite team in an uncomplimentary light and your first response is saying he's not objective, and then you finish off with a cheap shot about BP's stats.

You apparently missed the part of the article where he talked about the pitching:

The Orioles’ pitching staff is a bit younger than the lineup, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a lot of long-term contributors there. Jeremy Guthrie is 29 and might be a #3 starter. Daniel Cabrera’s rates have been going backwards for two years. Both pitchers’ ERAs have nowhere to go but up. Garrett Olson, quoting Kevin Goldstein here, is a “back of the rotation left-hander.”

If the O's are really rebuilding right then maybe O's fans won't have to shoot the messenger anymore.

[66-70-83-??]

It looks to me like you're just as biased as you claim he is.

A guy says something that you disagree with, and that paints your favorite team in an uncomplimentary light and your first response is saying he's not objective, and then you finish off with a cheap shot about BP's stats.

You apparently missed the part of the article where he talked about the pitching:

If the O's are really rebuilding right then maybe O's fans won't have to shoot the messenger anymore.

He just glosses over the pitching staff. He doesn't present the numbers in a list because it doesn't fit the conclusion that he reached-

the Orioles have been outscored and have a going-nowhere roster full of overpaid thirtysomethings for something like the ninth year in a row.

The Orioles are the 8th youngest team in MLB right now. That fact completely contradicts him. The O's have the 12th best record in MLB and the 22nd highest payroll. Putting the Orioles in the proper context with all other mlb teams makes it look pretty silly to bash the Orioles for being old, overpaid, underacheiving.

So, there are 22 teams who are *older* than the Orioles, 16 teams with a worse record, 21 teams with a higher payroll.......

But only in Sheehan's world (and yours apparently) does that qualify as "overpaid", "going nowhere", and "roster full of thirtysomethings".

Sheehan has never been accused of being objective. He has *favorites* who can do no wrong (Beane for ex.) and others who can do nothing right. Anyone who has read him for years knows that.

[DrungoHazewood]

The Orioles are the 8th youngest team in MLB right now. That fact completely contradicts him. The O's have the 12th best record in MLB and the 22nd highest payroll. Putting the Orioles in the proper context with all other mlb teams makes it look pretty silly to bash the Orioles for being old, overpaid, underacheiving.

Where did he say they were underachieving? In fact, he said this:

There’s a rebuilding going on, but it’s going to take a long time to produce anything of value. That the current group of players is overachieving is completely useless in determining what will come of the process.

It's hard to argue that players like Huff, Millar, Payton, Hernandez and Trachsel are young or underpaid.

So, there are 22 teams who are *older* than the Orioles, 16 teams with a worse record, 21 teams with a higher payroll.......

But only in Sheehan's world (and yours apparently) does that qualify as "overpaid", "going nowhere", and "roster full of thirtysomethings".

Seven of the ten Orioles with 100+ plate appearances are over the age of 30. Luke Scott and Brian Roberts are the only ones who're at all likely to be around the next time the O's win 90 games.

The Orioles are righting the ship, but they have a long way to go.

Sheehan has never been accused of being objective. He has *favorites* who can do no wrong (Beane for ex.) and others who can do nothing right. Anyone who has read him for years knows that.

Nobody is completely objective. But I think you've mistaken disagreeing with you with being unabashedly biased.

[dkdc]

But only in Sheehan's world (and yours apparently) does that qualify as "overpaid", "going nowhere", and "roster full of thirtysomethings".

That last phrase was my main beef with the original article: "the Orioles have been outscored and have a going-nowhere roster full of overpaid thirtysomethings for something like the ninth year in a row."

These are 9 'thirtysomethings' on the roster (Scott and Salazar turn 30 later this month):

Ramon

Millar

Roberts

Mora

Huff

Payton

Sherrill

Walker

Bradford

I'm not sure 36% of the roster qualifies as a roster full of thirtysomethings.

And overpaid thirtysomethings?

Scratch Roberts and Sherrill for sure. Millar, Bradford, and Walker are borderline. I feel comfortable calling Payton, Ramon, Huff, and Mora overpaid, but that's only 16% of the roster.

[Camden_yardbird]

That last section looked pretty unprofessional to me. Regardless of facts being correct or not it was not well written and not in line with what any journalism that even first year journalism students would be writing.

[Ruzious]

Seven of the ten Orioles with 100+ plate appearances are over the age of 30. Luke Scott and Brian Roberts are the only ones who're at all likely to be around the next time the O's win 90 games.

The Orioles are righting the ship, but they have a long way to go.

Nobody is completely objective. But I think you've mistaken disagreeing with you with being unabashedly biased.

Your general points are all correct imo, and I'm possibly nitpicking, but Scott (29 till later this month), Roberts (30), Markakis, and Jones are all 30 or younger.

[TyCobb]

I think the O's are getting on the right path. Mora is the only 30+ player on this team that can't be traded. Beside Mora we don't have any long term contracts for players who are not performing. My feeling is by August 1st we will be having a very young and fun exicting team to watch.

[Jericho]

That last phrase was my main beef with the original article: "the Orioles have been outscored and have a going-nowhere roster full of overpaid thirtysomethings for something like the ninth year in a row."

These are 9 'thirtysomethings' on the roster (Scott and Salazar turn 30 later this month):

Ramon

Millar

Roberts

Mora

Huff

Payton

Sherrill

Walker

Bradford

I'm not sure 36% of the roster qualifies as a roster full of thirtysomethings.

And overpaid thirtysomethings?

Scratch Roberts and Sherrill for sure. Millar, Bradford, and Walker are borderline. I feel comfortable calling Payton, Ramon, Huff, and Mora overpaid, but that's only 16% of the roster.

I'd address two points in one post. One is the youth of the roster and the other is the youth of the pitching staff.

Sheehan made the point of 7 of the top 9 O's hitters being over 30. He doesn't make a similar breakdown of the pitching staff, but it's not fair to compare the Oriole with the 7th most innings pitched to the Oriole with the 7th most plate appearances. The hitter will be much more important. A successful team has nine (or 8 in the NL) good starters, a good starting staff going 4-5 deep, and good closer. The bullpen arms and bench are the least important part of the puzzle. You can't compare a decent bullpen arm to a bona fide starting 2B. The 2B is always more valuable. So the reliance of the age of the hitters is appropriate. You could look at the starters and see if the O's are particularly young in that area. And they are younger at pitching, than hitting. But young doesn't equal good. Luis Hernandez is young.

Which brings us to the argument that the Orioles ARE young. Well maybe in overall age of the roster. But in the important roles, the everyday players, the starting 5, and the closer, the Orioles are quite old. And that's the problem. And that's the argument Sheehan makes. Having some young bench players and some young bullpen arms doesn't change the fact the bulk of the difference makers on this team are old.

Some may argue that the Orioles have good young players in the system. Well, you can argue that of any team. All teams have good young players in the system. And the point of the article focuses on the major league roster, not the minors. Could some of the O's minor leaguers develop? Sure. But don't count them as guarantees. How many people thought Matt Riley or Hayden Penn or even guys like Daniel Cabrera, Adam Loewen, or Sidney Ponson would be a mainstay of the rotation for years. And none of those guys has really accomplished much. Many here have written off Cabrera at times, and while there's still the potential to succeed for some young guys, the fact remains that none of them have made the leap to bona fide big league starter. I can't tell you what the future holds for Arrieta, Erbe, Tillman, Matusz, and so forth. But remember that it's no guarantee these guys become successful mainstays of the O's.

This goes the same for guys like Albers, Sarfate, Johnson, Bierd and what not. Even a good couple months doesn't make them sure fire bets in two years. Sarfate got released by the Brewers and dumped by the Astros in a multi-player package. It's not like he's destined for success. Maybe he finds it, but then again maybe he doesn't. The O's should be giving guys like him a shot, but for everyone that works, 2-3 probably fail. We'll see how they all fall out in a few years.

[ledzepp8]

That wasn't really the point of his article. It was a response to all the angry fan mail he got over the Bonds article.

But the angry mail was in response to his "going-nowhere roster full of overpaid thirtysomethings for something like the ninth year in a row" comment. A shot he took at the Orioles in the same article in which he was advocating the signing of Barry Bonds. His comments about certain guys not being around when the team is good is completely irrelevant to why he was wrong about his "thirtysomethings" comment. He was wrong about that and like the other poster said, the same could be said about the Yankees or Tigers or Mariners or whomever isn't doing well at this time.

[mweb]

Evreything about Schmuck is accurate, the shot at the O's at the end was uncalled for but other than him forgetting about Nick Markakis, not inaccurate.

Yeah, besides the last shot at the O's, which wasn't nearly as off base as some on here like to believe, I thought that was a great article. I'd give Sheehan positive rep if he was on here.

[Leitch]

But the angry mail was in response to his "going-nowhere roster full of overpaid thirtysomethings for something like the ninth year in a row" comment. A shot he took at the Orioles in the same article in which he was advocating the signing of Barry Bonds. His comments about certain guys not being around when the team is good is completely irrelevant to why he was wrong about his "thirtysomethings" comment. He was wrong about that and like the other poster said, the same could be said about the Yankees or Tigers or Mariners or whomever isn't doing well at this time.

The Unfiltered piece was about Barry Bonds, not the Orioles. His remark about Dave Trembley and the 2008 Orioles was wrong only in that Markakis is a hell of a ballplayer, and it all was in response to Peter Shmuck being all Peter Shmuck about Barry Bonds's recliner and big screen TV and Dave Trembley's brand of Clubhouse Chemistry. The article wasn't advocating that the Orioles sign Barry Bonds per se, it was advocating that Peter Shmuck should shut his face about Barry Bonds's value.

This team does give most of its plate appearances to 30+ guys. Yes, that could be said of a other teams, but Peter Shmuck wasn't talking about those other teams, he was using the Chemistry thing to take a swipe at Bonds, as if there was any team couldn't use a DH/LF who hit .276/.480/.565 last year, much less the Orioles, and as if whatever clubhouse chemistry we've got going early on is anything more than a nice sidebar for the fans. If a columnist for The Detroit Free Press wrote that article he'd be busting on the Tigers.

Barry Bonds and his treatment in the media is clearly Sheehan's pet peeve and the Orioles are an easy target, hence the snark, but he is mostly on point.