This is one of the worst teams ever

[OriolesMagic83]

I don't see this year's team as one of the worst teams ever.  I believe they are very poorly managed, have a poorly constructed roster, and almost universally underperformed.  Some of the early 2000's Orioles teams were putrid.  I struggle to see how they didn't lose 100+ games several years in a row.  Yes, this year's team is bad, but they aren't all time awful. 

You get made fun of if you put emphasis on wins for a starting pitcher on this site.  I don't believe wins matter much for a really bad team.  Imagine if this year's team over performed and finished with around 70 wins.  The front office/owner might believe that a couple of additions, prospects graduating to the majors would make the team a playoff team. The team motto seemed to be "lets get to .500" as if something magical would happen if the team reached a .500 record.   This happened multiple times in the early 2000's, IMO.  If the O's are bad, I believe its better that they are spectacularly bad, so the front office/ownership realizes that a complete rebuild is needed. 

[tntoriole]

9 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

I don't see this year's team as one of the worst teams ever.  I believe they are very poorly managed, have a poorly constructed roster, and almost universally underperformed.  Some of the early 2000's Orioles teams were putrid.  I struggle to see how they didn't lose 100+ games several years in a row.  Yes, this year's team is bad, but they aren't all time awful. 

You get made fun of if you put emphasis on wins for a starting pitcher on this site.  I don't believe wins matter much for a really bad team.  Imagine if this year's team over performed and finished with around 70 wins.  The front office/owner might believe that a couple of additions, prospects graduating to the majors would make the team a playoff team. The team motto seemed to be "lets get to .500" as if something magical would happen if the team reached a .500 record.   This happened multiple times in the early 2000's, IMO.  If the O's are bad, I believe its better that they are spectacularly bad, so the front office/ownership realizes that a complete rebuild is needed. 

This team winning 70 wins would not be "over performing."   Unless you mean that me getting a date with Penelope Cruz would be "over performing"....as opposed to "impossible"...which is the more accurate description.  

[Frobby]

14 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I appreciate that. 

The 1899 Spiders should probably have a pretty big asterisk.  They existed in the era of big monopolies, and baseball was no exception - the 12 team National League was the only major league for about eight years.  The 1890s saw the rise of syndicate baseball, which not only led to a 20-134 team, but also the dissolution of the National League Orioles.  The same people owned both the Spiders and the St. Louis Cardinals.  They saw St. Louis as the bigger market and transferred all of the best players there.  Almost like if the Orioles and the Norfolk Tides played in the same league.  It was an unholy arrangement, with one team always fearing the smallest bit of success would lead to the transfer of anyone good to the stronger team.

The Orioles (with the full consent of HOF manager Ned Hanlon) got into bed with the Brooklyn Superbas/Trollydodgers, and most of the Orioles HOFers were transferred to Brooklyn.  Hanlon included.  John McGraw and Wilbert Robinson begged out of the deal, citing their ownership in a local bar/bowling alley called The Diamond.  McGraw also somehow acquired Iron Man McGinnity and by the sheer force of his will managed the mostly decimated team into 4th place in '99.  Louisville and Pittsburgh had a similar arrangement, and because Pittsburgh drew a little better in the 1890s they still have a MLB team and Louisville doesn't.

But in the winter of ''99-1900 the NL came to their senses, banned ownership in more than one team, and contracted the Orioles, the Spiders, Washington and Louisville.

I actually did post that point about the Cleveland Spiders as an homage to you.    You haven’t been around much this summer, but I knew you would have mentioned it!

[Frobby]

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 2:27 PM, O's84 said:

Technically we can still have a worse record than the 62 Mets if we lose every game left in the seasons because we play 162 games compared to the 160 games  of the 62 Mets (40-122 is of course worse than 40-120).  Not that that will happen obviously.

We've now won 41 games, so not worse than the Mets!    Woo hoo!   Now chasing the Tigers.....

[Redskins Rick]

On 8/31/2018 at 5:56 PM, DrungoHazewood said:

I appreciate that. 

The 1899 Spiders should probably have a pretty big asterisk.  They existed in the era of big monopolies, and baseball was no exception - the 12 team National League was the only major league for about eight years.  The 1890s saw the rise of syndicate baseball, which not only led to a 20-134 team, but also the dissolution of the National League Orioles.  The same people owned both the Spiders and the St. Louis Cardinals.  They saw St. Louis as the bigger market and transferred all of the best players there.  Almost like if the Orioles and the Norfolk Tides played in the same league.  It was an unholy arrangement, with one team always fearing the smallest bit of success would lead to the transfer of anyone good to the stronger team.

The Orioles (with the full consent of HOF manager Ned Hanlon) got into bed with the Brooklyn Superbas/Trollydodgers, and most of the Orioles HOFers were transferred to Brooklyn.  Hanlon included.  John McGraw and Wilbert Robinson begged out of the deal, citing their ownership in a local bar/bowling alley called The Diamond.  McGraw also somehow acquired Iron Man McGinnity and by the sheer force of his will managed the mostly decimated team into 4th place in '99.  Louisville and Pittsburgh had a similar arrangement, and because Pittsburgh drew a little better in the 1890s they still have a MLB team and Louisville doesn't.

But in the winter of ''99-1900 the NL came to their senses, banned ownership in more than one team, and contracted the Orioles, the Spiders, Washington and Louisville.

Nice seeing you, my friend.

[JR Oriole]

On 8/31/2018 at 6:36 PM, OriolesMagic83 said:

I don't see this year's team as one of the worst teams ever.  I believe they are very poorly managed, have a poorly constructed roster, and almost universally underperformed.  Some of the early 2000's Orioles teams were putrid.  I struggle to see how they didn't lose 100+ games several years in a row.  Yes, this year's team is bad, but they aren't all time awful. 

You get made fun of if you put emphasis on wins for a starting pitcher on this site.  I don't believe wins matter much for a really bad team.  Imagine if this year's team over performed and finished with around 70 wins.  The front office/owner might believe that a couple of additions, prospects graduating to the majors would make the team a playoff team. The team motto seemed to be "lets get to .500" as if something magical would happen if the team reached a .500 record.   This happened multiple times in the early 2000's, IMO.  If the O's are bad, I believe its better that they are spectacularly bad, so the front office/ownership realizes that a complete rebuild is needed. 

This team is not one of the worst teams ever...especially not if you look at the roster before Manny left.  But what they are guilty of is an all-time underperformance of record versus projected record based on roster.  76 wins was around the projected win total.  They might not win 46.  That my friends is utterly pathetic.  No team should ever win less than 30% of its games no matter how bad the roster.  The fact that this team will do it with a roster that should have at least won 45% is remarkably bad. 

[Frobby]

This seems like as good a place as any to note that last year’s September collapse started on Thursday, Sept. 7.    Over the last 162 games, the Orioles are 45-117.

[LocoChris]

43 minutes ago, JR Oriole said:

This team is not one of the worst teams ever...especially not if you look at the roster before Manny left.  But what they are guilty of is an all-time underperformance of record versus projected record based on roster.  76 wins was around the projected win total.  They might not win 46.  That my friends is utterly pathetic.  No team should ever win less than 30% of its games no matter how bad the roster.  The fact that this team will do it with a roster that should have at least won 45% is remarkably bad. 

Usually when a team underperforms this badly, you get rid of the manager. Baffles my mind how anyone wants Buck back. He’s clearly lost the clubhouse and commands no respect anymore. 

[Redskins Rick]

2 minutes ago, Roy Firestone said:

Anyone think we will get to 50 wins?

Can we count ST games?

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, Roy Firestone said:

Anyone think we will get to 50 wins?

It is unlikely.    We haven’t won more than 9 games in any month this season, and we’d need 9 wins in 22 games to reach 50.    I said 47-48 a while ago and I’m sticking with that.

[JR Oriole]

2 hours ago, LocoChris said:

Usually when a team underperforms this badly, you get rid of the manager. Baffles my mind how anyone wants Buck back. He’s clearly lost the clubhouse and commands no respect anymore. 

I spent much of the summer infuriated that we had made no changes....awful hitting and awful pitching but the hitting and pitching coaches were not fired.  Buck was kept on out of respect even though he was leading an absolutely awful team....and perhaps because people thought changing the manager and coaches wouldn't help.  Meanwhile, bringing him on in 2010 had immediate benefits and we closed 34-23.  St. Louis fired Matheny and have been much better ever since....now fighting for a playoff position.  

Sometimes the voice just gets old and people need to hear a new voice.  This needs to happen immediately after the season is over.  Nobody should be spared from this debacle. 

[LocoChris]

1 hour ago, JR Oriole said:

I spent much of the summer infuriated that we had made no changes....awful hitting and awful pitching but the hitting and pitching coaches were not fired.  Buck was kept on out of respect even though he was leading an absolutely awful team....and perhaps because people thought changing the manager and coaches wouldn't help.  Meanwhile, bringing him on in 2010 had immediate benefits and we closed 34-23.  St. Louis fired Matheny and have been much better ever since....now fighting for a playoff position.  

Sometimes the voice just gets old and people need to hear a new voice.  This needs to happen immediately after the season is over.  Nobody should be spared from this debacle. 

If they wanted to show respect to Buck they should have fired him and not tacked on a bunch of losses to his record. IMO it was more of an FU to Buck than anything. His record with the O's is now below .500.

[weams]

 

[OriolesMagic83]

On 9/6/2018 at 11:21 AM, Roy Firestone said:

Anyone think we will get to 50 wins?

45 might be a stretch the way the O's are playing.

[Going Underground]

2 minutes ago, weams said:

 

And might not even have Buck Lightyear."We will lose to infinity and beyond."