Jump to content

2027 is our year!


Griffey

Recommended Posts

The question is what would any of us prefer...

 

One WS win in the ‘20s with the rest being non competitive (hovering around .500 most years but not making the playoffs) or...

No WS win but let’s say 4 years of making the playoffs and 3 additional years of playing over .500 in the ‘20s....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, oriole said:

The question is what would any of us prefer...

 

One WS win in the ‘20s with the rest being non competitive (hovering around .500 most years but not making the playoffs) or...

No WS win but let’s say 4 years of making the playoffs and 3 additional years of playing over .500 in the ‘20s....

 

 

I'll take a WS win, please.  I don't care about much else.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oriole said:

The question is what would any of us prefer...

 

One WS win in the ‘20s with the rest being non competitive (hovering around .500 most years but not making the playoffs) or...

No WS win but let’s say 4 years of making the playoffs and 3 additional years of playing over .500 in the ‘20s....

 

 

WS win.  No question. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, oriole said:

The question is what would any of us prefer...

 

One WS win in the ‘20s with the rest being non competitive (hovering around .500 most years but not making the playoffs) or...

No WS win but let’s say 4 years of making the playoffs and 3 additional years of playing over .500 in the ‘20s....

We’ve had this question a few times over the years.   Most posters say they’d prefer the WS win.   Most of them have never experienced one.   

Me, I’d prefer the regularly competitive team.   I’ve experienced three WS wins, and they were great, but I get more enjoyment from being in pennant races year after year.    A season is far more enjoyable when your team is in the race than when it’s not.   Having that sense of urgency and excitement on a regular basis is better to me than having one year of ultimate thrill surrounded by many years of mediocrity.  
 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

We’ve had this question a few times over the years.   Most posters say they’d prefer the WS win.   Most of them have never experienced one.   

Me, I’d prefer the regularly competitive team.   I’ve experienced three WS wins, and they were great, but I get more enjoyment from being in pennant races year after year.    A season is far more enjoyable when your team is in the race than when it’s not.   Having that sense of urgency and excitement on a regular basis is better to me than having one year of ultimate thrill surrounded by many years of mediocrity.  
 

 

I think we skew old enough here that a lot of us remember '83.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think we skew old enough here that a lot of us remember '83.

Well, not Moose or ArtVanDelay.   But, you are right.   I always think of myself as very old compared to many of our posters, but someone could be 15 years younger than me and still remember the ‘83 Series win pretty well.    

I’ll say this: the way you experience a WS win when you are a 9-year old newbie fan is very different from the way you experience it as a 26-year old who’s been following a team for 18 years.   I was fortunate to have both of those experiences plus experiencing one as a 13-year old who’d been a very die-hard fan for four years.    They were all great, but each was different.   And I do think that experiencing one as an older fan after a 37+ year dry spell might be better than any of those.    I hope to find out!

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Well, not Moose or ArtVanDelay.   But, you are right.   I always think of myself as very old compared to many of our posters, but someone could be 15 years younger than me and still remember the ‘83 Series win pretty well.    

I’ll say this: the way you experience a WS win when you are a 9-year old newbie fan is very different from the way you experience it as a 26-year old who’s been following a team for 18 years.   I was fortunate to have both of those experiences plus experiencing one as a 13-year old who’d been a very die-hard fan for four years.    They were all great, but each was different.   And I do think that experiencing one as an older fan after a 37+ year dry spell might be better than any of those.    I hope to find out!

 

I was pretty young in '83 and just figured the team would keep on winning.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Frobby said:

We’ve had this question a few times over the years.   Most posters say they’d prefer the WS win.   Most of them have never experienced one.   

Me, I’d prefer the regularly competitive team.   I’ve experienced three WS wins, and they were great, but I get more enjoyment from being in pennant races year after year.    A season is far more enjoyable when your team is in the race than when it’s not.   Having that sense of urgency and excitement on a regular basis is better to me than having one year of ultimate thrill surrounded by many years of mediocrity.  
 

 

It’s a toss up for me. Of course if possible I’d choose the best of both options lol a World Series win plus a few years of playoff baseball sprinkled in. 
 

I was born in ‘86 and grew up in the south rooting for David Justice and Fred McGriff on the Braves but even then I always knew Baltimore was my home team even if I couldn’t watch them (family’s from Baltimore). But anyways, I sort of know the feeling of a WS win though at 9 years old it’s not nearly the same I’d imagine it to be if I saw the O’s win one in 2027. I’m way more invested now than I was as a child. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
    • Not bad, but Mullins needs to be at Centerfield for his range, glove, and defensive ability. Top teir premium defense cannot be underestimated. Kjerstad will be on the bench. I think the question is whether Slater or Cowser plays. I would prefer Ramirez over Slater if they need another right handed bat. Sig needs to look at Adleys recent sample sizes vs LHP before making him DH. McCann is catching for Burnes and hitting the left handed pitcher. He's also on a hot streak.
    • I’m slightly (irrationally, I admit, there’s no factual basis for what I’m about to say) worried that Gunnar is going to view this as the “Gunnar vs. Bobby” show and press hard at the plate and in the field leading to bad at bats and unforced errors. 
    • Sounds like getting your heart broken by big league ballplayers is a personal problem. Learn and adjust accordingly. These guys usually aren’t trying to be role models and he played in an era where a lot of players were on the gas. Was I surprised? Yeah, a little bit.  No one likes to admit Jose Canseco was the most honest one up there that day and was telling the truth the entire time.    
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...