Which of these would constitute a successful decade (choose as many as you like)?

[Can_of_corn]

22 hours ago, Frobby said:

I don’t consider having the 4th worst record of any team in baseball a successful decade.    Compared the the prior decade, it was way better, but that’s a super low bar.     

The Royals went 758-862 but got a ring and a second WS appearance.  Does their postseason success outweigh their overall poor performance?

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The Royals went 758-862 but got a ring and a second WS appearance.  Does their postseason success outweigh their overall poor performance?

It’s a great question.   I’d certainly prefer their decade to ours.    We did have one more winning season than the Royals and one more playoff appearance, but I’d certainly say a WS win and another pennant (albeit during an 89-win season) trumps that.   
 

Now take the two winningest teams of the decade, the Yankees (921 wins) and the Dodgers (919).     The Yankees made the playoffs 7 times and the ALCS 4 times but never even made it to the WS.    The Dodgers lost two WS and two NLCS while winning 7 straight division titles.     Were they more or less successful than the Royals?     Which profile would you rather have for the Orioles over the next decade?

I think part of the answer depends on your philosophy and how much you follow baseball during the regular season, and part depends on what your past experience has been as a fan.     My guess is most Yankee fans feel the last decade was severely disappointing.     I’d bet most Dodgers fans think their last decade was successful yet mildly disappointing at the same time.     

For me, I’d certainly prefer a Dodgers-type decade for the O’s in the 2020’s, compared to a Royals-type decade.     Having a good team to follow during the regular season means a lot to me, and I’d prefer many successful regular seasons with some decent postseason success (but no ring) to a mostly losing decade with one ring.     But I might feel differently if I hadn’t already experienced the O’s winning three rings.     

Just to be clear, my question isn’t intended to address the past decade, or some general abstract team.     It’s about the Orioles, in the 2020’s, given everything that’s happened in the past.

 

 

[Scalious]

Id prefer stacking my odds to 2-3 years and sucking the rest. Over being good but not great for 10 years. Yet I'd prefer being great most of the decade over either

The Dodgers were a great, they just didn't come up with the hardware. Results=/=Process.

It's misleading to look at total wins for a decade because a long valley with sharp small peak has a better chance of getting the hardware over someone who kept being competitive, but never had a notable peak. You need sharps peaks to win a game with 29 other competitors.

Edited January 5, 2020 by Scalious

[Can_of_corn]

I'm much more worried about continual regular season success than I am a world series title.  The playoffs are a crap shoot.  Just this year the Nationals were very nearly one and done. 

Win a bunch of regular season games, make the playoffs as often as possible and roll the dice once you get there.

[Mr. Chewbacca Jr.]

I don't think the unabashed tanking they are doing right now can be justified unless the O's make it to the World Series before the decade is over.

A team can't purposefully lose over 100 games for multiple years and expect a fanbase to be happy with a couple playoff appearances. The return has to match the investment.

[foxfield]

On 1/4/2020 at 8:38 AM, Frobby said:

I don’t consider having the 4th worst record of any team in baseball a successful decade.    Compared the the prior decade, it was way better, but that’s a super low bar.     

Yes, this is true, but the last decade was also the Oriole version of Dicken's A Tale of Two Cities.  Which of course opens with the, It was the best of times it was the worst of times.  

 

It is hard to believe that a team that had the best record in the AL for a 5 year stretch, ended with the 4th worst record in all of baseball over the 10 year period.  That IS what happened, right?

[Frobby]

13 minutes ago, foxfield said:

Yes, this is true, but the last decade was also the Oriole version of Dicken's A Tale of Two Cities.  Which of course opens with the, It was the best of times it was the worst of times.  

 

It is hard to believe that a team that had the best record in the AL for a 5 year stretch, ended with the 4th worst record in all of baseball over the 10 year period.  That IS what happened, right?

That’s what happened.     The “other” five years were quite abysmal: 66, 69, 75, 47 and 54 wins, a total of 94 wins under .500 in those years (or 188, depending on how you count them).    The good years were 39 (or 78) wins over .500.
 

 

[Moose Milligan]

A World Series win.  

Probably would settle for 4+ postseason appearances and a .500+ winning record for the decade, though.

[interloper]

Did we think 2010-2019 was a successful decade because of 3 playoffs appearances? Ehhhh, like almost. 

So I think they have to beat that with 4 and ideally go deep in a couple of those. 

A world series any time in the next 10 years is absolutely an automatic success. That's what it's all about and not many teams get to the WS more than once in a decade.

[Spy Fox]

I voted for 

• Winning a World Series, regardless of how we do the other years
• Making the World Series at least once, with other playoff appearances
• Making the playoffs at least four times
• Being in playoff contention most years, with an occasional playoff appearance
• Winning at least one World Series and being serious contenders in other years

Just finishing over .500 isn't good enough if we aren't a real contender, and beating the Yankees is fun but not enough to make a decade successful by itself.

As a fan I have the most fun watching a good team play meaningful games late in the season, so any option that delivers that most of the time is one I'd sign up for, even if we aren't quite reaching championships. That said, winning a world series is such a rare opportunity that it counts for a lot all by itself, which is why I include the first option. And, if we ever reached perennial contender status, that might raise the bar for success further. 

I'll note that a question not addressed by the poll is how people feel about the Wild Card. For example, "Being in playoff contention most years, with an occasional playoff appearance" sound like a success on average, but probably wouldn't feel like a success if all those occasional playoff appearances were Wild Card Game losses. Our peaks should be teams that can win the division some years. 

[foxfield]

On 1/6/2020 at 9:21 AM, Frobby said:

That’s what happened.     The “other” five years were quite abysmal: 66, 69, 75, 47 and 54 wins, a total of 94 wins under .500 in those years (or 188, depending on how you count them).    The good years were 39 (or 78) wins over .500.
 

 

In fairness that seems hard to do, but coming out of the dark 14 years is seems so very Orioles.  Also in fairness all of the options above would seem to indicate a successful decade.  But success now would mean getting to and winning a WS and being serious contenders in other years.  Failing to do that would mean rebuild missed.  

I would like to believe that we do not have to become the absolute worst team in the game in order to have a few years of success.  14 years of miserable failure followed by the mirage of being well run for 5 years and then...poof...midnight strikes and the ball is over.  I think you can be successful without hitting your goals.  But you are not likely to exceed your goal...so aim high.  For me, that would be getting to and winning a WS and being serious contenders in other years.