Jump to content

Olney on O’s losing

Sports Guy

By Sports Guy
in Orioles Talk

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 522
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

wildcard
wildcard

Penalizing  teams for losing is not addressing the real problem.  The great disparity between the rich team's resources compared to the smaller market teams is the issue.     The tanking to get high d

Frobby
Frobby

Yeah, I guess they could have gone out and added $40 mm to the payroll, won 70 games instead of 52, and not gotten the chance to draft Holliday.  But I’m happy with the way it played out.  

SteveA
SteveA

After 14 straight losing seasons where every single year, the team made moves that were designed to improve the current seasons team, but rarely did, I was very willing to go with a different approach

DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pickles Hangout Grand Counsel

Pickles

Posted
Posted
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sevastras All-Star

sevastras

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OsFanSinceThe80s Hangout Grand Counsel

OsFanSinceThe80s

Posted
Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Like 1
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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • Bemorewins
      Cedric en fuego!!

      By Bemorewins · Posted

      You do know that Gunnar is hitting .290? Rustchman .300? O'Hearn .283? Westburg .282? Mountcastle .276? Watch the games much?
    • Bemorewins
      Luis Robert

      By Bemorewins · Posted

      @Filmstudy that you for the detail on why you don't believe that Robert is a good fit. I tend to agree. 1. Cedric is finally coming out of his funk. 2. (And I know you don't put much stock into what coaches and FO personnel say publicly based on your excellent Raven's content) But Elias just about stated outright yesterday during his media appearance in Norfolk that all of his interest in acquisitions would be as he called it "on the pitching side".  3. Our offense is already # 1 in the sport as is. However, our pitching has not been very good since we have been forced to go with Suarez, Irvin, and Povich as the #3, 4, 5 options. IMO that combo over a long stretch of time will put a serious strain on the bullpen AND you really would not your chances of defeating multiple teams in the playoffs with any of them getting starts in every round (some times in pivotal/possible elimination games). IMO pitching is the real need/where the weaknesses lie.  4. I just wanted to give a shout out for your devotion to the belief in platoons...lol... But if the O's did acquire Robert by some chance, there is literally less than a ZERO chance that he would be used as a platoon player.
    • Hallas
      Cedric en fuego!!

      By Hallas · Posted

      It's a partially elastic collision, so the EV reduction is going to be a little less than the velocity reduction from a thrown baseball.   I also think that hitters would eventually adjust and there would be more hitters in the mold of Luis Arraez, that focus on hitting soft line drives with a 65 mph bat speed.  Either way the BABIP of a whiff is .000 so I think baseball is better served seeing more batted balls even if BABIP is slightly depressed due to a reduction in EV.  Launch angle is also a large component to BABIP and batters can still square the ball up to maximize their chances.  And since a heavier ball will move less, it should be easier to square it up.
    • Too Tall
      The 2024 Trade Deadline

      By Too Tall · Posted

      Let me know if you get to the North Country, tickets!
    • SemperFi
      Coby Mayo 2024

      By SemperFi · Posted

      He'll be fine, I'm always somewhat skeptical about defensive scouting reports.  I think that ME hasn't given him OF reps-not even in ST which tells me they aren't seriously considering moving him off the dirt.  As @Tony-OH noted he's had 3 errors on his last ~40 games-no one seems to be worried about Hollliday who at 2B has made 10 in the same time period.
    • Hallas
      Cedric en fuego!!

      By Hallas · Posted

      This is dependent on the idea that the amount of energy delivered is somewhat constant.  In practice I think that while there would be some velocity reductions, the limitations are more on the raw velocity, and pitchers would be able to compensate with stronger arm or leg muscles.   My reasoning here is based on NFL combine numbers; a decent number of QBs are able to hit 60+ MPH, while there are like 2 pitchers in all of MLB that are able to exceed 102 MPH (which is what you would need to match the energy of a 60 mph football.)   I do think that it would cause fatigue faster among starters, unless they paced themselves more, so starter velocity would probably go down by theoretical number, while reliver velocity might only go down 1 mph or not at all.   A heavier ball will reduce spin-induced movement too, and will (likely) reduce the amount of spin pitchers can impart (though this has the same caveat as above with pitchers adapting with larger muscles.)  So even if velocity only goes down a little bit the reduced movement should make the ball easier to hit.
    • Ripken
      Nice Roster management: Krook up, Burnes to Paternity list

      By Ripken · Posted

      I'd like to thank Burnes' wife for hanging on until the weekend.  It's less obvious than another pothole.

  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...