Cafardo: Showalter losing the clubhouse

[weams]

7 hours ago, Enjoy Terror said:

If you think 4.72 ERA is worth having on the team, then yeah.

Hey, that's Miguel Gonzalez line!

[OFFNY]

13 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

You're saying that the club could have turned on him after the loss in the 2016 Wildcard game, but you're also saying that that was not the reason for the team's demise. Then essentially you weren't saying anything at all in the first place, because if the team turning on him was not the reason for the team's demise (or at least a major reason for its demise), then what exactly is/was your point in the 1st place? Why does it matter if the team turned on him if it had little or no effect on their play on the field? As you stated, they are professionals that don't pout and/or drag their feet (of which I agree with), so what exactly is the point of even suggesting that Showalter may have lost the clubhouse in the first place if it hardly effected the team's play on the field?

 

Also, if you want to disregard the team's 22-10 start in the first 32 games of the season as being too small of a sample size to draw any conclusions from in regard to the possibility of them turning on their manager, 139 games is not a small sample size. The Orioles were 71-68 after 139 games this season in spite of historically bad starting pitching, and an overworked bullpen that was missing its best pitcher (Zach Britton) for half of the season due to injury. To me, that (the suggestion that the team may have turned on Showalter after last year's Wildcard game loss) sounds like a near impossibility ...... unless of course, if their turning on him had little or no effect on their play on the field.

o

 

 

12 hours ago, ArtVanDelay said:

 

I haven’t said anything about the team’s demise.  That was you putting words in my mouth.  Does Buck losing the clubhouse automatically equal poor team performance?  The clubhouse couldn’t have been lost until the 140th game because we were 71-68?  That seems very simplistic.  

Are players just going to mope around and mail it in if the manager has lost the clubhouse?  Again, very simplistic.  These guys are playing for their next contract or trying to prove they belong in the majors.  I doubt any of them just stopped trying because of their feelings about Buck.  

So why bring this up in the first place?  Well....I didn’t.   I didn’t write the article or start the thread.  I just put my 2 cents in.  Isn’t that what a message board is for?

 

• o

Yes, that is what a message board is for.

And I explained in detail why your claim of the team turning on Showalter after last year's Wildcard game loss was illogical. 

That is also what a message board is for.

You didn't write the article, but you defended the author of the article and specifically asserted that you could see how the team could have turned on their manager because of one bad decision in a critical playoff game last October ...... of which you still have not explained how this would have manifested itself, and what (if any) impact that it had on the players. 

 

o

[Il BuonO]

22 hours ago, Frobby said:

You're right, I misread his stat line. I've gone back and corrected it, since it only reinforces the point I made.

Your point is he wasn’t an obvious choice? Almost anyone they had was a better choice than Jimenez.

[Townie72]

On 10/9/2017 at 0:19 PM, Can_of_corn said:

 

What if is O'Day who has trade protection? What if it is Davis and his immovable contract? What it is Bundy or Schoop both of which are valuable assets that are under control for longer than Buck is?

Let me start by saying that I think this rumor is pure, unadulterated Bullshxt.

If it's true and if it's Davis, that would be the single greatest act of ingratitude ever. How Buck has kept him in this line up given his level of performance is a mystery even given his good defense. If there is unhappiness with Buck in the clubhouse it's likely Davis's continued awful performance is a source of frustration. CD's contract is a sunk cost. And I agree he has almost zero trade value.

I doubt Schoop is a problem.

Buck isn't the problem. Its woeful starting pitching. sometimes poor defense and some of he worst plate appearances ever.

[weams]

11 minutes ago, Townie72 said:

Let me start by saying that I think this rumor is pure, unadulterated Bullshxt.

If it's true and if it's Davis, that would be the single greatest act of ingratitude ever. How Buck has kept him in this line up given his level of performance is a mystery even given his good defense. If there is unhappiness with Buck in the clubhouse it's likely Davis's continued awful performance is a source of frustration. CD's contract is a sunk cost. And I agree he has almost zero trade value.

I doubt Schoop is a problem.

Buck isn't the problem. Its woeful starting pitching. sometimes poor defense and some of he worst plate appearances ever.

I agree. And Farrell will be out. Not Buck.

[Luke-OH]

13 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

When I first read this, I thought this it was at least a mild exaggeration. Certainly ( I thought), the 1988 Orioles had worse starting pitching than the 2017 Orioles did.

They didn't. In virtually every major category, the 1988 Orioles had better starting pitching than did the 2017 Orioles. The 1987 Orioles (who went 67-95) actually had worse starting pitching than did the 1988 Orioles, but they too had better starting pitching than did this year's Orioles team.

 

Granted that the Orioles' current stadium is more of a hitter's park than was their 1987 and 1988 home-field (Memorial Stadium), but still ........ taking that into consideration, I think that it's a minor phenomenon that this year's team went 75-87.

 

o

The 1988 Orioles did have worse pitching than the 2017 Orioles.  It's just that the MLB average ERA was 3.73 in 1988 and 4.36 in 2017.

Edit: Missed the starting pitching qualifier, 1988 Orioles had better starting pitching, worse overall pitching.

[OFFNY]

13 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

When I first read this, I thought this it was at least a mild exaggeration. Certainly ( I thought), the 1988 Orioles had worse starting pitching than the 2017 Orioles did.

They didn't. In virtually every major category, the 1988 Orioles had better starting pitching than did the 2017 Orioles. The 1987 Orioles (who went 67-95) actually had worse starting pitching than did the 1988 Orioles, but they too had better starting pitching than did this year's Orioles team.

 

Granted that the Orioles' current stadium is more of a hitter's park than was their 1987 and 1988 home-field (Memorial Stadium), but still ........ taking that into consideration, I think that it's a minor phenomenon that this year's team went 75-87.

 

o

 

 

23 minutes ago, phillyOs119 said:

 

The 1988 Orioles did have worse pitching than the 2017 Orioles.  It's just that the MLB average ERA was 3.73 in 1988 and 4.36 in 2017.

 

o

 

Thanks.

The 1988 Orioles starters had a 4.84 ERA when the league average was 3.73.

The 2017 Orioles starters had a 5.70 ERA when the league average was 4.36.

Percentage-wise, the 1988 Orioles' starting pitching was still better when taking the league average into account. More significantly, the difference in the win/loss totals for each team (54-107 for the 1988 team, 75-87 for the 2017 team) is astonishing to me considering their respective starting pitching statistics.

 

Also, the 1987 Orioles (the other team that I cited) had a 5.26 ERA when the league average was 4.46. That team went 65-97, and they also had better starting pitching (even when taking into account the slight difference in league averages of 4.46 to 4.36) than this year's Orioles team did. 

 

o

[POR]

On 10/8/2017 at 11:40 PM, OFFNY said:

o

 

If the team turned on Showalter after that loss in the 2016 Wildcard game, I don't see how they could have started the 2017 season at 22-10 for their first 32 games.

 

 

o

How could the Red Sox have won the division and been 18 games better than the Orioles for Farrell if he lost the clubhouse?

 

 

[Aglets]

3 minutes ago, POR said:

How could the Red Sox have won the division and been 18 games better than the Orioles for Farrell if he lost the clubhouse?

 

 

It's pretty simple.  The Red Sox have better players than we do.  They scored more runs and allowed fewer.

Chris Sale, Rick Porcello, Pomeranz, etc are a lot better than Bundy, Ubaldo, and crew.

[Larry18]

Pedroia was fairly critical of how Farrell handled the Machado dustup. 

 

 

 

[POR]

17 minutes ago, Aglets said:

It's pretty simple.  The Red Sox have better players than we do.  They scored more runs and allowed fewer.

Chris Sale, Rick Porcello, Pomeranz, etc are a lot better than Bundy, Ubaldo, and crew.

Obviously.  My point being that the fact that the Orioles started off good for the first month, does not prove whether or not Buck has lost the clubhouse.

[Aglets]

11 minutes ago, POR said:

Obviously.  My point being that the fact that the Orioles started off good for the first month, does not prove whether or not Buck has lost the clubhouse.

Ah, ok.  I'm still not sure I agree.  It's tough to evaluate a manager in a quantitative way.   I try to look at whether or not teams play at their ability level, below, or above.   I think for Farrell the Red Sox probably played at their ability level, which admittedly, in and of itself does not really tell you much about whether or not he 'lost' the clubhouse.

I think when the O's went 22-10 to start off 2017 they were playing over their heads which to me DOES perhaps suggest that Buck was getting the best out of them.

[POR]

1 hour ago, Aglets said:

Ah, ok.  I'm still not sure I agree.  It's tough to evaluate a manager in a quantitative way.   I try to look at whether or not teams play at their ability level, below, or above.   I think for Farrell the Red Sox probably played at their ability level, which admittedly, in and of itself does not really tell you much about whether or not he 'lost' the clubhouse.

I think when the O's went 22-10 to start off 2017 they were playing over their heads which to me DOES perhaps suggest that Buck was getting the best out of them.

I don't think you judge anything by 20% of the season.    

[Aglets]

37 minutes ago, POR said:

I don't think you judge anything by 20% of the season.    

I think you can start to see some trends after 32 games.

How about after 139 games?  After 86% of the season the O's were 71-68 and still within reach of a wildcard spot.  Again, I think when you consider we had the worst starting rotation in all of MLB that was significantly above their true talent level.

[OFFNY]

On 10/8/2017 at 11:40 PM, OFFNY said:

o

 

If the team turned on Showalter after that loss in the 2016 Wildcard game, I don't see how they could have started the 2017 season at 22-10 for their first 32 games.

 

They had historically bad starting pitching overall, and were still somehow 3 games over .500 as late as September 5th. If anything, the team showed resilience for the first 5/6 of the season in spite of the fact that the starting pitching had often put them into insurmountable holes in the first few innings of many of their games, and that the bullpen subsequently had to pitch more innings than any team in the Majors except for the Reds, the Blue Jays, and the Marlins.

 

After September 5th, the team went a miserable 4-19 over their final 23 games of the season ........ but that was a very long time and many games after last year's Wildcard game loss.

 

o

 

 

3 hours ago, POR said:

 

How could the Red Sox have won the division and been 18 games better than the Orioles for Farrell if he lost the clubhouse?

 

 

 

o

 

When did I say (or agree) that Farrell lost the clubhouse? 

And again, more significantly, how exactly does this manifest itself, and how (if at all) does it this "losing the clubhouse" matter if it has minimal (if any) affect on the team's play on the field?

 

As I stated before (in relation to your small sample size assertion (about 32 games), I also cited the team's 71-68 record with historically bad starting pitching and an overused bullpen that was without their best pitcher (Zach Britton) for half the season. 139 games is not a small sample size. The Red Sox (as Aglets pointed out) have a much better team with much better starting pitching than did the Orioles this season.

 

o