A fun couple weeks

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, OriolesMagic83 said:

It will be impressive if this year's team finishes with a better record than last year's team when you consider they had Jones, and Machado, Schoop, and Gausman most the year.

Not really.  It is very hard to lose 115 games in a season.

[TommyPickles]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

I believe the correct count is 97-90.

Its interesting, our pitching has alternated between throwing very good games and some real clunkers.   In the 9 wins we allowed a total of 13 runs.    In the 9 losses we allowed 77 runs.   The offense has been a little more consistent, 74 runs in the wins and 23 in the losses.   

Whoops. Some quick mental math...  97-90 it is.

[OFFNY]

o

 

A while back, Frobby stated very simply ......... Winning > Losing.

 

Winning is always greater than losing, regardless of where your team is in the standings.

 

Whether you are rooting for the Orioles to have a higher draft pick, or if you are one of those fans who simply can never root against your favorite team because it is not in your DNA (such as weams), winning always feels better than losing when you see those orange-and--black uniforms take the field ........ that's my rat's ass of an opinion, anyway.

 

o

[LTO's]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

It is very hard to lose 115 games in a season.

Not really. In fact, it was probably the FO's plan.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, LTO's said:

Not really. In fact, it was probably the FO's plan.

Care to give me a list of teams that managed to lose 115 two seasons in a row?

[Enjoy Terror]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Care to give me a list of teams that managed to lose 115 two seasons in a row?

Not sure if historical precedent means much in the new era of tanking baseball games.

[LTO's]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Care to give me a list of teams that managed to lose 115 two seasons in a row?

That's irrelevant to whether it is "difficult" in nature. Had the Orioles traded Cashner earlier or kept Straily and Hess in the rotation they would be on that pace. There's a calculus that goes into how many games the Orioles want to win this year to secure a valuable pick but also develop players they have/have veterans perform to be traded at the deadline for prospects. Just because this trade off may exclude a team from losing 115 and instead something around 105-110, doesn't mean that it would be hard for them to lose that much if they were so inclined.

[jerios55]

23 minutes ago, LTO's said:

Not really. In fact, it was probably the FO's plan.

Well, they aren't currently on pace for 115 losses, so maybe it is hard.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, LTO's said:

That's irrelevant to whether it is "difficult" in nature. Had the Orioles traded Cashner earlier or kept Straily and Hess in the rotation they would be on that pace. There's a calculus that goes into how many games the Orioles want to win this year to secure a valuable pick but also develop players they have/have veterans perform to be traded at the deadline for prospects. Just because this trade off may exclude a team from losing 115 and instead something around 105-110, doesn't mean that it would be hard for them to lose that much if they were so inclined.

 

14 minutes ago, Enjoy Terror said:

Not sure if historical precedent means much in the new era of tanking baseball games.

The Astros sold everything and finished last three years in a row, did they lose 115?  The Nats went back to back #1 picks, did they lose 115?  The Marlins are in their second year of hard core tanking did they lose 115?

It is HARD to lose that many in baseball.  It is a rare feat to lose that many games.
 

At the end of the day you can't tell the players to lose and baseball is baseball and the best team doesn't always win.  Maybe it's a John Means comeing out of nowhere, maybe it's a Cashner having an unlikely bounce-back year.  Something is generally going to happen to enable a team to win some games.

[Moose Milligan]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Not really.  It is very hard to lose 115 games in a season.

Really?  Didn't look so hard last year.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

Really?  Didn't look so hard last year.

They had to undershoot their pythag by eight games.

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

They had to undershoot their pythag by eight games.

For a team of underachievers, not surprising. 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

For a team of underachievers, not surprising. 

A lot of those same "underachievers" finished three games better than their pythag in 2017 and five games better in 2016.

[Moose Milligan]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

A lot of those same "underachievers" finished three games better than their pythag in 2017 and five games better in 2016.

K.

[InsideCoroner]

I just checked last night’s score. Wojciechowski absolutely tore apart the Red Sox “A” lineup last night. That was domination. I’m going to watch this now on mlb.tv.