How far are the O's away from being a winning team?

[MurphDogg]

2 minutes ago, Daddy-O's said:

I was listening to the MLB network the other day and they were talking about the Yankees starting pitching and how they were dominating over the last 6 days.  Then they added of course they are feasting on the lowly Tigers and mediocre Orioles.  I thought yes we have improved to mediocre and I felt good. 

The O's split that 4-game series, so the Yankees weren't exactly feasting.

[Mr. Chewbacca Jr.]

43 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Saying that Elias hasn't done anything is about as short sighted as it gets.  Period.

He hired Hyde.   We have not seen players lofting on the job since he arrived.  The environment that has been created is plus, plus for player development.   He hired Holt and Holmes.   He brought Mejdal with him.  The Analytics, the pitching development equipment and the coaches that tell the players how to use it are top notch at his point.

Means was nobody before Holt got a hold of him. Who do you think taught his change up?  Matt Harvey is turning into a #2 starter from a retread.   Mancini is Mancini and he gets the credit for who he is but Mullins, Santander, Hays, Mountcastle are all developing under Elias development system.   And that is something that Dan Duquette didn't do very  well.  Dan could acquire players with talent but the development was a problem many times over.

The bullpen went from near the bottom when Elias arrived to near the top.  Give credit where credit is due.

Now we see DL Hall, Grayson, Bradish in their first outing doing well.   There should be a lot of hope that these guys are on the majors is 2022.  Adley will be right there with them.  What the O's may need to add are couple of good major league infielders to make the O's a contender in 2022.  

There is a chance this thing comes together faster then projected.  Dan turned MacPhail's players into winners in his first year with the O's after 14 losing season.  When Dan arrived we didn't know he could do that.   Don't sell Elias short.  He's been with two winning organizations in St Louis and Houston.   My guess is he knows what he is doing.

There's not a lot to judge Elias on yet, thanks to the lost year of minor leagues in 2020. Overall though, Elias hasn't really done anything yet that I wouldn't expect any other GM to do in 2021. The young guys at the MLB level who are playing well were all brought in under DD. I think there's a pretty small sample size on Harvey and the bullpen to really crown it as an achievement at this point. His trade record hasn't been particularly inspiring. I'd expect the O's to have a top farm system after having a bunch of top draft picks and emulating the Astros' tanking approach.

Not saying Elias won't turn the O's into a contender, but I don't think we can really call him an above-average GM at this point, just like it'd be unfair to say he's below-average at this point because we don't really have access to any information on how the guys in the minors are developing.

All the player development, analytics, and international outreach stuff is fantastic news - but that's something I'd expect from any team and any GM in 2021. If anything, I think those changes have more to do with the team being free of Peter Angelos' old-school way of running the team and the Angelos sons taking over.

 

 

[HowAboutThat]

18 hours ago, Mr. Chewbacca Jr. said:

There's not a lot to judge Elias on yet, thanks to the lost year of minor leagues in 2020. Overall though, Elias hasn't really done anything yet that I wouldn't expect any other GM to do in 2021. The young guys at the MLB level who are playing well were all brought in under DD. I think there's a pretty small sample size on Harvey and the bullpen to really crown it as an achievement at this point. His trade record hasn't been particularly inspiring. I'd expect the O's to have a top farm system after having a bunch of top draft picks and emulating the Astros' tanking approach.

Not saying Elias won't turn the O's into a contender, but I don't think we can really call him an above-average GM at this point, just like it'd be unfair to say he's below-average at this point because we don't really have access to any information on how the guys in the minors are developing.

All the player development, analytics, and international outreach stuff is fantastic news - but that's something I'd expect from any team and any GM in 2021. If anything, I think those changes have more to do with the team being free of Peter Angelos' old-school way of running the team and the Angelos sons taking over.

 

 

That’s exactly right but there’s more in-depth stuff available.

I don’t know what you meant by “lofting” but Hyde doesn’t appear to be a very good manager. 
Mike has only been here three years, and his draft picks haven’t developed enough yet to be considered, and he has been seeking far-away prospects when trading and we can’t begin to judge them for a long time. He hasn’t made any Parra or Snider trades, though, so that’s a win.
The players Dan brought aboard are really irrelevant to how things are now. Plus, we see only the “successes,” such as they are, and we ignore the Cory Sedlocks and Cadyn Greniers of the DD era.

Mike has a legitimate plan, and he had so much to do when he arrived that it’s no wonder we don’t see a lot of obvious results yet. But we will.

And I’m confident we will never see any Parra trades or Trumbo/Ubaldo contracts again, and that’s a victory right there.

[Aristotelian]

3 hours ago, Philip said:

That’s exactly right but there’s more in-depth stuff available.

I don’t know what you meant by “lofting” but Hyde doesn’t appear to be a very good manager. .

Where are you getting this from? 

[Frobby]

10 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Where are you getting this from? 

Philip is unhappy that Hyde doesn’t manage every game as though it’s game 7 of the World Series, and sometimes lets “maximize the chance of winning today” take a back seat to testing guys out or doing things for the longer term benefit to the team.  

Honestly, I disagree with Hyde’s moves plenty of times, but overall I feel he’s doing an OK job.  
 

[HowAboutThat]

1 hour ago, Aristotelian said:

Where are you getting this from? 

I had a whole reply written out and then I said,”ah forget it.”

Ive made my thoughts clear. Frobby is exaggerating. Hyde’s problems should be apparent and if you think he’s doing a hood job, that’s fine. I have justified my comments and I’ll continue to do so but no reason to state them again.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Philip is unhappy that Hyde doesn’t manage every game as though it’s game 7 of the World Series, and sometimes lets “maximize the chance of winning today” take a back seat to testing guys out or doing things for the longer term benefit to the team.  

Honestly, I disagree with Hyde’s moves plenty of times, but overall I feel he’s doing an OK job. 

I think the average fan (or at least the average fan who posts on a site like this) would grade out their team's manager and GM at about a C-/D+.

Like my Dad, who is a more casual fan, but believes the average professional manager/GM is about one or two brain cells removed from not being able to find their way home at night.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think the average fan (or at least the average fan who posts on a site like this) would grade out their team's manager and GM at about a C-/D+.

Like my Dad, who is a more casual fan, but believes the average professional manager/GM is about one or two brain cells removed from not being able to find their way home at night.

But a C is average so a C- is probably closer to an accurate grade then the folks that just give their GM an A+ after the draft or whatever.

It is an almost universal fact that MLB GMs are really smart and competent compared to the world at large.

[DrungoHazewood]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

But a C is average so a C- is probably closer to an accurate grade then the folks that just give their GM an A+ after the draft or whatever.

It is an almost universal fact that MLB GMs are really smart and competent compared to the world at large.

I don't know if C was ever average, and it's certainly not thought of that way today.  If C was really average than there would be as many people flunking out as there are As.  I'd guess there are 10 times as many As as Fs, and that's how people think when they assign letter grades to something like their GM.  B is thought of as average, C as just barely getting by.

At some point during an elementary school awards ceremony I did some counting and back-of-the-napkin math as they were announcing honor rolls, and determined that approximately 75% of kids in my one of my sons' grade didn't have anything below a B.

[Can_of_corn]

That's a kettle of fish we probably shouldn't get into.

Actual dispersion of grades aside, growing up C was always referred to as "average".

[Frobby]

27 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't know if C was ever average, and it's certainly not thought of that way today.  If C was really average than there would be as many people flunking out as there are As.  I'd guess there are 10 times as many As as Fs, and that's how people think when they assign letter grades to something like their GM.  B is thought of as average, C as just barely getting by.

At some point during an elementary school awards ceremony I did some counting and back-of-the-napkin math as they were announcing honor rolls, and determined that approximately 75% of kids in my one of my sons' grade didn't have anything below a B.

No joke.  I was reading an article grading how the different NFL teams did in the draft.   Washington got a B.   There were 12 teams with a higher grade and then 11 teams that got a B.  Nobody did worse than C-.   So basically, B means average on that scale.   

[owknows]

Quote

How far are the O's away from being a winning team?

 

As of this moment, they are exactly two consecutive wins from being a winning team.

[Hallas]

4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

That's a kettle of fish we probably shouldn't get into.

Actual dispersion of grades aside, growing up C was always referred to as "average".

Depending on when you went to school, a C hasn't ever really been average.  The average GPA in college was about a 2.3 in 1920, and about 3.0 now.  The average high school GPA was about 2.7 in 1990, which tracks reasonably well with colleges at the same time period.  So "average" has ranged between a C+ to a B in the past 90 years.

[Ruzious]

They're say... a Bundy and a Gausman away.  

[Moshagge3]

2 hours ago, Ruzious said:

They're say... a Bundy and a Gausman away.  

Bundy has a 5.03 ERA and hasn't had half his games against the Yankees and Red Sox.