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

[Frobby]

55 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Fry is doing well this year.  He'd probably be the one to replace Valdez.  

Didn't realize Valdez had blown 3 in 11 chances this year.  

We came back to win one of the three, so that one probably didn’t register with you.   That was the April 29 game against the Yankees where Mullins hit a sac fly in extra innings to win the game, so everyone left happy despite the blown save in the 9th.

The first blown save was against Boston on April 10 and came in the top of the 9th.    We didn’t score in the bottom half and then lost in extra innings.   

So, this is the first blown save that resulted in an immediate, walk-off loss.    Those always burn the most.  

 

[Ruzious]

52 minutes ago, Moshagge3 said:

It wasn't me, I don't have the power to give upvotes/downvotes.

Sorry about that.  All I can see is that someone did it - can't tell who.  

[bobmc]

36 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Say what?

During telecast, Holt compared Don Cesar to Doug Jones and Big Ben agreed.  His "dead fish" was elevated close to the surface last night but most of the dead fish I have seen float pretty good.  

[Frobby]

13 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

Sorry about that.  All I can see is that someone did it - can't tell who.  

Yeah, kind of a curious downvote.   I’d agree Bundy has pitched better than his ERA suggests, but bottom line is he’s 0-4 and their team is 2-5 in his outings, so it’s hard to say he/we would be doing any better if he was with us, given that our offense is scoring about .85 fewer runs/game than the Angels are.   

Gausman, on the other hand, is 3-0 with a 1.97 ERA, has thrown at least 6 innings in every start, and has only allowed more than one run one time.   He’s really turned himself around.   And the Giants are 5-2 in his starts 
 

[Ruzious]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Yeah, kind of a curious downvote.   I’d agree Bundy has pitched better than his ERA suggests, but bottom line is he’s 0-4 and their team is 2-5 in his outings, so it’s hard to say he/we would be doing any better if he was with us, given that our offense is scoring about .85 fewer runs/game than the Angels are.   

Gausman, on the other hand, is 3-0 with a 1.97 ERA, has thrown at least 6 innings in every start, and has only allowed more than one run one time.   He’s really turned himself around.   
 

That's fair - especially after a game where we lose when Means pitches.  Heck, Hardluck deGrom has 2 losses.  It almost seems like ya gotta score to win.  Bring up Gunnar!  Settle for Bannon?  Both!    

[Sports Guy]

21 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Yeah, kind of a curious downvote.   I’d agree Bundy has pitched better than his ERA suggests, but bottom line is he’s 0-4 and their team is 2-5 in his outings, so it’s hard to say he/we would be doing any better if he was with us, given that our offense is scoring about .85 fewer runs/game than the Angels are.   

Gausman, on the other hand, is 3-0 with a 1.97 ERA, has thrown at least 6 innings in every start, and has only allowed more than one run one time.   He’s really turned himself around.   And the Giants are 5-2 in his starts 
 

It helps that he is pitching in the NL and in that park.

He had plenty of excellent stretches with the Os too.

[Aristotelian]

43 minutes ago, Moshagge3 said:

Gunnar Henderson is tearing it up. Even if he moves to 3B there's Westburg.

I would feel more comfortable if Gunnar were a sure thing to stick at SS or if either were MLB Top 100. 

[Mooreisbetter27]

12 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I would feel more comfortable if Gunnar were a sure thing to stick at SS or if either were MLB Top 100. 

Well my friend, you'd be happy to know that Gunnar is now 94 on BA's top 100.  

[Aristotelian]

4 minutes ago, Mooreisbetter27 said:

Well my friend, you'd be happy to know that Gunnar is now 94 on BA's top 100.  

Nice! Barely in there but that's great to hear. 

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Aristotelian said:

I would feel more comfortable if Gunnar were a sure thing to stick at SS or if either were MLB Top 100. 

The ranking means nothing.

[Aristotelian]

9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The ranking means nothing.

It does not guarantee anything but I would rather have a higher ranked player than lower. At the very least it means someone thinks your player is better.

[Redskins Rick]

14 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The ranking means nothing.

much like this thread.

[Sports Guy]

30 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

It does not guarantee anything but I would rather have a higher ranked player than lower. At the very least it means someone thinks your player is better.

That definitely mattered in the case of Mancini

[Aristotelian]

15 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

That definitely mattered in the case of Mancini

I mean he is a fine player but he is an .800 OPS 1B/DH. I'm not sure what you think you're proving. I'd definitely rather have young Manny to be our SS of the future. 

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I mean he is a fine player but he is an .800 OPS 1B/DH. I'm not sure what you think you're proving. I'd definitely rather have young Manny to be our SS of the future. 

 

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I mean he is a fine player but he is an .800 OPS 1B/DH. I'm not sure what you think you're proving. I'd definitely rather have young Manny to be our SS of the future. 

I would be willing to bet that Mancini has outperformed at least half go the top 100 guys from the lists when he was in the minors.  Thats the point.

 

The lists mean very little.  They are fun talking points for fans but not much more than that.