Goldstein on the Os

[Pickles]

40 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I thought it was a pretty good article.  If anyone out there gives a **** to learn about what the Orioles are up to, this would give anyone who would bother to look a rundown as to what's going on.  

It was fair in regards to pitching prospects, recapping what we've discussed about G-Rod, Hall having issues and setbacks and practically everyone else.  It was also nice to see Acevedo get a mention.

The summary, IMO, was well done:

It's not wrong. 

And actually, I'll come back to this.

I think it is wrong.

To describe the hole as "self-dug" is completely inaccurate.

[DrungoHazewood]

38 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I mean I guess I have a higher standard.  I'll grant that it isn't the lazy, kneejerk reactions to "tanking" we've gotten the last couple weeks, but I find the conclusions to extremely thin and obvious.

The basic premise of the article is the O's are historically bad; the farm system is good and help is on the way; the team should soon be "respectable" and no longer historically bad; but to really compete at a championship level they'll need more than they have in house, particularly on the mound, and will have to go to trades and the FA market to get it.

I mean, is any of that news to anybody on this board?  Could not a couple hundred people have written that?  And are the conclusions particularly insightful?

Aren't most of the readers of the column, on Fangraphs, not Orioles fans who would know all this stuff from memory?  Aren't most fans pretty focused on their own team and don't really give a hoot about that other team that's 36-85 or whatever?  What can you tell me about the current state of the... say... Pirates rebuilding efforts?  Or the Rockies? I don't have the slightest idea, and might be interested in an article like this about them.

[Aristotelian]

I wouldn't call Ramon Urias "above average". I would agree that infield is a black hole offensively, but that contradicts the previous statement. 

[Pickles]

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

Aren't most of the readers of the column, on Fangraphs, not Orioles fans who would know all this stuff from memory?  Aren't most fans pretty focused on their own team and don't really give a hoot about that other team that's 36-85 or whatever?  What can you tell me about the current state of the... say... Pirates rebuilding efforts?  Or the Rockies? I don't have the slightest idea, and might be interested in an article like this about them.

Everybody's free to their opinions.  If you think this was "good" journalism, that's your right.

I'll update you on the Pirates rebuilding efforts with the same depth Goldstein covered the O's:

They're bad.  They have some prospects.  They'll be better soon.  But to really compete, they'll need more.

Now, please go spread the word of what a great writer I am.

[Sports Guy]

LOL...Why do people take this stuff so personally?  I really don't get it.

[Moose Milligan]

24 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Honestly, national pubs like Baseball Prospectus, Fangraphs, and the Athletic regularly do better than this, imo.

I mean again, the thesis is just so thin as to be basically meaningless: The O's are bad; they'll get better; but they have work to get real good.

I mean, no crap.  You could literally say that about any bad team.

The only real analysis in the article was on the pitching and it went no deeper than "It's terrible.  In a historical way."  And it is the weakness of a good farm system.

Again, tell me something I don't know?

How about an analysis of Why.  Why is the pitching historically terrible?

But that would require thinking.  And that quality left journalism long ago.

Well IIRC, it was a fangraphs article, one of the national publications that regularly do better than...this, which is a fangraphs article.

Why is the pitching historically terrible?  Because they're giving up runs at a historically terrible rate.  That doesn't require much thinking.  

Again, you're missing the point.  This article isn't for you.  You already know all of this stuff.  This article is for the Seattle Mariners diehard who doesn't know what's going on with the Orioles and would be curious as to what's going on with them.  

 

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

Well IIRC, it was a fangraphs article, one of the national publications that regularly do better than...this, which is a fangraphs article.

Why is the pitching historically terrible?  Because they're giving up runs at a historically terrible rate.  That doesn't require much thinking.  

Again, you're missing the point.  This article isn't for you.  You already know all of this stuff.  This article is for the Seattle Mariners diehard who doesn't know what's going on with the Orioles and would be curious as to what's going on with them.  

 

See, that's the depth of the analysis provided.  Which is the problem.

Now, I'm no sabermatician, or a mathmetician, or a baseball journalist, and I don't have that much free time, and what free time I do have, I am extremely lazy with- but, I do propose a professional with the time on his hands could dig into the pitching data, and come up with some kind of analysis that would offer a fresh perspective.

Something far more interesting than "They pitching is historically terrible because they're giving up runs at a historical rate."  That isn't analysis.

And I get that the article isn't "for" me.  And it isn't "for" us on this board.

That's exactly why I'm surprised some on the board are praising it, as if it something that we all don't already know.

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

See, that's the depth of the analysis provided.  Which is the problem.

Now, I'm no sabermatician, or a mathmetician, or a baseball journalist, and I don't have that much free time, and what free time I do have, I am extremely lazy with- but, I do propose a professional with the time on his hands could dig into the pitching data, and come up with some kind of analysis that would offer a fresh perspective.

Something far more interesting than "They pitching is historically terrible because they're giving up runs at a historical rate."  That isn't analysis.

And I get that the article isn't "for" me.  And it isn't "for" us on this board.

That's exactly why I'm surprised some on the board are praising it, as if it something that we all don't already know.

Well I don't think the author was looking to reach a specific word count.

I'm not praising the article, I think it's pretty solid.  With a good conclusion.  Can't rely on the farm system to get the team where it needs to be.  Nothing wrong with that.

[Sports Guy]

25 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Well I don't think the author was looking to reach a specific word count.

I'm not praising the article, I think it's pretty solid.  With a good conclusion.  Can't rely on the farm system to get the team where it needs to be.  Nothing wrong with that.

And yet some here seem to think that they can…and people in the Twitterverse seem to get upset that people don’t see 5 home grown starters, 7 home grown relievers and 9 home grown position players all leading to a WS.  
 

If there is any critique of that or any negativity towards the team, it’s like the biggest deal ever.  I just don’t get it.

I personally see this as a very well balanced article explaining things pretty well.

 

[Moose Milligan]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

And yet some here seem to think that they can…and people in the Twitterverse seem to get upset that people don’t see 5 home grown starters, 7 home grown relievers and 9 home grown position players all leading to a WS.  
 

If there is any critique of that or any negativity towards the team, it’s like the biggest deal ever.  I just don’t get it.

I personally see this as a very well balanced article explaining things pretty well.

 

I don't think there's ever been a WS winning team with 5 home grown starters.  Even going back to the days before free agency.  

You can't have a team built of only your own draft picks and international signings.  It's just impossible.  

[DrungoHazewood]

43 minutes ago, Pickles said:

See, that's the depth of the analysis provided.  Which is the problem.

Now, I'm no sabermatician, or a mathmetician, or a baseball journalist, and I don't have that much free time, and what free time I do have, I am extremely lazy with- but, I do propose a professional with the time on his hands could dig into the pitching data, and come up with some kind of analysis that would offer a fresh perspective.

Something far more interesting than "They pitching is historically terrible because they're giving up runs at a historical rate."  That isn't analysis.

And I get that the article isn't "for" me.  And it isn't "for" us on this board.

That's exactly why I'm surprised some on the board are praising it, as if it something that we all don't already know.

I hope I'm not so narcissistic as to think everything that isn't targeted at me is trash.

[Frobby]

It’s a very fair article, and the conclusion has been stated by many posters here: the farm system alone won’t bring us back to contention.   We’ll have to spend money, and get good bang for our buck when we do, in order to be contenders, or even respectable in the shorter run.   

[Ripken]

Obvious stuff is obvious but it may have been new and interesting for the casual fan, so all good.  

On the other hand, we scored 31 runs while taking two of three this series so maybe they should start writing "you suck" articles about the Halos.  

[LTO's]

I don't disagree with pretty much anything in this article as it pertains to the Orioles even though it wasn't all that enlightening. What I find really annoying is a guy who has a career because of the tanking in Houston seemingly distancing himself from that and acting like it's travesty to baseball. Just like Olney who has multiple tweets going after DD and co. for not trading Manny/Britton earlier and trying to compete in 2018. Rosenthal is largely the same in how he covered the Astros, Cubs, Braves etc as they made the playoffs.  Constant fawning over once dreadful clubs toppling the big market giants. There are people who have always been staunchly anti-tanking/rebuilding or whatever you want to call it. Most people going after the Os in the media are not those people. The condescension from these people who clearly don't hold these principles too strongly is just so tiresome at this point. 

[Yardball85]

1 hour ago, Aristotelian said:

I wouldn't call Ramon Urias "above average". I would agree that infield is a black hole offensively, but that contradicts the previous statement. 

I mean, we don't really know what Urias is.  But a .785 OPS over 213 at bats and 1.4 WAR isn't necessarily below average is it?