Olney on O’s losing

[Sports Guy]

13 minutes ago, Pickles said:

He's right.  It was number 2.  And that's what Elias is digging out of: A hole of historical proportions.

Right.  I don’t get why that’s part of his point though.  Teams are put together like sh** all the time.  Things happen, bad luck, off years, etc…why use this as part of your point?  I don’t get the logic there.

[DrungoHazewood]

19 minutes ago, sevastras said:

The 1914 Philadelphia Athletics went 99-53-6 going on to lose the World Series the next 7 years they finished last in the AL with the following records:

43-109-2

36-117-1

55-98-1

52-76-2

36-104

48-106-2

53-100-2

But that was on purpose.  Connie Mack was a very old school owner, in that he didn't have a personal fortune or other businesses to fall back on.  The A's were really his only source of income, and there was no backup revenue.  So when the Federal League came in and started signing AL/NL players to relatively large contracts Mack decided he couldn't or wouldn't compete.  And when he lost several stars he just sold off most of the rest.  By 1916 he had a team that had a few real MLB talents left (Wally Schang, Bullet Joe Bush, Amos Strunk), 41-year-old Nap Lajoie, and a bunch of kids he'd signed off sandlots or bought for pennies from independent minor league teams.  They went from dynasty to perhaps the worst post-1900 MLB team ever in a couple years.

It would be the late 20s before he was able to reconstruct a competitive team, and it was an excellent one.  But then after a number of years of taking it to the Ruth/Gehrig Yanks the Depression hit and once again he had a fire sale and the A's were never really competitive for the rest of his life.

[Pickles]

18 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Right.  I don’t get why that’s part of his point though.  Teams are put together like sh** all the time.  Things happen, bad luck, off years, etc…why use this as part of your point?  I don’t get the logic there.

You've fairly pointed out that counting 2018 as a rebuilding year is just factually wrong.  If he wants to persists in his delusions what can you do?

[eddie83]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

He just tweeted this back to me:

 

Say what?  So he basically dodged the point you were making. 
 

So they went from incompetent to tanking overnight. Covers all the bases. 

[eddie83]

38 minutes ago, Pickles said:

He's right.  It was number 2.  And that's what Elias is digging out of: A hole of historical proportions.

Nice succinct way of saying it. 

[eddie83]

7 minutes ago, Pickles said:

You've fairly pointed out that counting 2018 as a rebuilding year is just factually wrong.  If he wants to persists in his delusions what can you do?

He wants a tidy package instead of a nuanced discussion. 

[sevastras]

9 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

But that was on purpose.  Connie Mack was a very old school owner, in that he didn't have a personal fortune or other businesses to fall back on.  The A's were really his only source of income, and there was no backup revenue.  So when the Federal League came in and started signing AL/NL players to relatively large contracts Mack decided he couldn't or wouldn't compete.  And when he lost several stars he just sold off most of the rest.  By 1916 he had a team that had a few real MLB talents left (Wally Schang, Bullet Joe Bush, Amos Strunk), 41-year-old Nap Lajoie, and a bunch of kids he'd signed off sandlots or bought for pennies from independent minor league teams.  They went from dynasty to perhaps the worst post-1900 MLB team ever in a couple years.

It would be the late 20s before he was able to reconstruct a competitive team, and it was an excellent one.  But then after a number of years of taking it to the Ruth/Gehrig Yanks the Depression hit and once again he had a fire sale and the A's were never really competitive for the rest of his life.

Part of my point was that although the Athletics never lost the arbitrary number of 106, they had a historically bad stretch and were an AL team.

[sevastras]

I just read the article of his in 2015, he said the Phillies were doing exactly what they should be doing by tanking.  What a Dbag

[Sports Guy]

19 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

Say what?  So he basically dodged the point you were making. 
 

So they went from incompetent to tanking overnight. Covers all the bases. 

He also said this:

 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

12 minutes ago, sevastras said:

I just read the article of his in 2015, he said the Phillies were doing exactly what they should be doing by tanking.  What a Dbag

And if the Orioles get into the wildcard in 2023 or at least make it close, you'll see Olney write an article on how Elias has been a success at turning around the Orioles.  And Olney will pretend the diatribe he wrote right now doesn't exist. 

[DrungoHazewood]

8 minutes ago, sevastras said:

Part of my point was that although the Athletics never lost the arbitrary number of 106, they had a historically bad stretch and were an AL team.

Actually, that's an excellent point.  Those A's teams played in 154 game schedules and they used to pretty regularly tie games, so they went seven consecutive years winning 55 games or less, and had three years in that span with .283 or lower winning percentages.  Olney drew the cutoff at 106 losses instead of winning percentage or something else, and limited it to AL, to make it look as bad as possible.  

If you include NL teams you bring in teams like the Phillies who from '36-45 lost 100 games seven times in 10 years in 154 game schedules. From 1919-1948 the Phils probably averaged finishing 30 games out of first place.  The Astros had their '11-13 run.  The Mets averaged 108 losses over their first six years.  In the 50s the Pirates lost 112, 104, 101 out of 154 in consecutive years.

The Blue Jays lost 107, 102, 105 their first three years and were almost as bad in '80-81.  Were the Tigers really trying the years they lost 96, 106, and 119 in consecutive years?

But yea, rebuilding for 3, 4, 5 years in the free agency era for a small market team is an abomination.

[eddie83]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

He also said this:

 

How did that 18 payroll work out ?

[Can_of_corn]

On 8/10/2021 at 6:00 PM, eddie83 said:

There isn’t a Gm in baseball who would have Grayson on this team. 

A.J. Preller

[Pickles]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

A.J. Preller

Preller loves winning 61 games that deeply?

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Preller loves winning 61 games that deeply?

Oh sorry, I read that as "his" team.

I  can not say with confidence that any GM would run Grayson out there when they were handed a team that was built to lose like this one is.