Jump to content

The 2nd best


Moose Milligan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply
19 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Well if two seasons is long enough I pick Machado for second best at short.

1996 28 BAL AL 153 699 588 132 193 43 4 22 94 17 6 90 65 .328 .411 .527 .938 136 310 14 1 8 12 10 *4D AS,MVP-20,GG,SS
1997 29 BAL AL 112 469 412 64 137 23 2 14 60 9 3 40 43 .333 .390 .500 .890 134 206 10 3 7 7 2 *4/D AS,MVP-22
1998 30 BAL AL 147 657 588 86 166 36 1 14 56 18 5 59 70 .282 .347 .418 .765 100 246 11 2 3 5 3 *4/D AS,GG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, weams said:
1996 28 BAL AL 153 699 588 132 193 43 4 22 94 17 6 90 65 .328 .411 .527 .938 136 310 14 1 8 12 10 *4D AS,MVP-20,GG,SS
1997 29 BAL AL 112 469 412 64 137 23 2 14 60 9 3 40 43 .333 .390 .500 .890 134 206 10 3 7 7 2 *4/D AS,MVP-22
1998 30 BAL AL 147 657 588 86 166 36 1 14 56 18 5 59 70 .282 .347 .418 .765 100 246 11 2 3 5 3 *4/D AS,GG

To each their own, I like Grich. 

3 ASG

4 GG

3 top 20 MVP finishes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dempsey probably needs a little more love in the catcher discussion. Genuinely impressive defensive catcher who wasn't a complete embarrassment with the bat, and three different men won the Cy Young award when he was behind the plate for us, which probably isn't a complete coincidence. The season-by-season numbers have Hoiles as the better overall player, but I don't think Dempsey is as far behind as people might normally think. And Hoiles didn't earn many World Series MVP awards with that career .150 playoff batting average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, El Gordo said:
  1. C Hoiles Wieters
  2. 1B Eddie Boog
  3. 2B Alomar Grich
  4. SS Ripken Belanger
  5. 3B Brooks Manny
  6. LF ???????Buford Baylor?????
  7. CF Blair AJ
  8. RF Frank Singleton
  9. DH Baines Cruz
  10. SP Palmer Mussina
  11. CL Hoyt Willhelm Zach Britton

 

I don't disagree with much of this.  But I gotta find room for Gregg Olson at closer.  

A lot of people seem to forget that Brady spent a significant chunk of time at LF.  He could be there if you wanted to swap out one of Buford/Baylor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

 

I don't disagree with much of this.  But I gotta find room for Gregg Olson at closer.  

A lot of people seem to forget that Brady spent a significant chunk of time at LF.  He could be there if you wanted to swap out one of Buford/Baylor.

I was thinking of Brady for CF

LF really has been kind of pathetic for the O's. Surhoff has to be #1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




  • Posts

    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
    • What if they don’t want to be extended?
    • I don't want the O's to lose much, but I do want there to be a massive streaming deal with Amazon or some other company the O's are left out of.  This blackout nonsense is bullsh!t. 🤬
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...