Goldstein on the Os

[HowAboutThat]

I think it’s reasonable to ask why the pitching has been so bad this year, but also why Lowther got so little opportunity before he was injured, why Wells has gotten so little opportunity. The injuries are probably not surprising giving last season, but when they were healthy why weren’t they up here instead of down there? And once up why didn’t they stay up?

Why isn’t management being more creative with their usage? I’ve said often if you’ve got a guy who’s only good for 60 pictures, then pair him with someone else who’s only good for 40 or 50 pitches. But that’s another issue.

And another article, if there’s anybody with enough skill to write it.

[OriolesMagic83]

3 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I wasn't being confrontational at all.  

Its just not in your DNA. 

[HowAboutThat]

Writing for a national publication doesn’t necessarily make someone a journalist, although it does make them “lucky.” Every single day Roch Thanks whatever God he worships for the job he has.

I think investigating why our pitchers this season have been so bad, when several of them were expected to be better than they were, a great deal better than they were, is a very valid goal. Actually, if we made a list of the top five performances by rookies, today’s would be the best, and I think one by Zimmerman would be number two, but I think both of Watkins successful starts might be three and four( or 4-5) which indicates Just how bad the cavalry has been. Investigating why would be really interesting.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Philip

[Tryptamine]

Just about every single time an article gets posted here, someone goes on a rant about how it's terrible, it's lazy, the writer hates the Orioles, they don't know what they're talking about, etc. Not every article,  especially national articles,  need or want incredibly in depth analysis. 

As far as an article about why the pitching is bad, the average baseball fan isn't nearly educated enough in advanced statistics to understand it, nor do most want to. You have to remember that 95+% of fans idea of advanced stats are OPS and whip, so taking the time to write these advanced articles that 5% of readers will even bother with is a waste of time.

[Il BuonO]

14 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

Just about every single time an article gets posted here, someone goes on a rant about how it's terrible, it's lazy, the writer hates the Orioles, they don't know what they're talking about, etc. Not every article,  especially national articles,  need or want incredibly in depth analysis. 

As far as an article about why the pitching is bad, the average baseball fan isn't nearly educated enough in advanced statistics to understand it, nor do most want to. You have to remember that 95+% of fans idea of advanced stats are OPS and whip, so taking the time to write these advanced articles that 5% of readers will even bother with is a waste of time.

Agreed. My dad is an Angels fan, so he knows mainly about the Orioles from what I tell him. But he would have read this article and found it helpful.

National writers aren’t tailoring their pieces to Orioles’ fans.

[sevastras]

3 hours ago, Philip said:

Every single day Roch Thanks whatever God he worships for the job he has.

He better, he sucks.  

[tntoriole]

19 hours ago, SteveA said:

Seems like there is a built in assumption that there is some sort of cap on how much a team can improve season to season.   They talk about the Orioles improving by 20 games, and still being well under .500.

Yeah, so?

This year's win total is artificially low due to slow rolling prospects, and not spending money on stopgaps.   I don't think there is some sort of artificial limit on how much we could jump in one season if we brought up a bunch of good players and started spending money on free agents and made trades.   We improved by 35 games from 1988 to 1989, and the 1988 team actually had some big money (for the time) players on its payroll.   Imagine if that 1988 team had been stripped bare of Eddie, Lynn, and others in exchange for some good minor league talent.  It might have won even fewer games, and if any of the guys they got for Eddie or Lynn did well in 1989 that team might have won more.   Even a 40 game improvement wouldn't have been out of the question.

That being said, the basic premise that there isn't enough pitching in our system is certainly true, and compounded by the fact that the pitching we brought up this year was a complete failure which makes you have to worry about this regime's ability to get the most out of pitchers.   Anyone who isn't concerned about that is wearing orange colored glasses.

Yes even as recently as 2011-2012 going from 69-93 to 93-69

 

I am also increasingly appreciative of the job Buck did in changing the culture and attitude. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, tntoriole said:

Yes even as recently as 2011-2012 going from 69-93 to 93-69

 

I am also increasingly appreciative of the job Buck did in changing the culture and attitude. 

Yes, that terrible culture and attitude we had in 2011 back before Buck.....wait a second.....

[tntoriole]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Yes, that terrible culture and attitude we had in 2011 back before Buck.....wait a second.....

No I know .. in 2011 ..it takes time 

[Sports Guy]

I don't think attitude or culture is a problem right now.  

[Oriole1940]

One problem is that playing in a very tough division in a small ball park it takes extra talented players, esp. pitchers to excel over the long term here, and some will not even attempt that task.  A few over the loooong term will, of course do good here.

[HowAboutThat]

12 hours ago, Tryptamine said:

Just about every single time an article gets posted here, someone goes on a rant about how it's terrible, it's lazy, the writer hates the Orioles, they don't know what they're talking about, etc. Not every article,  especially national articles,  need or want incredibly in depth analysis. 

As far as an article about why the pitching is bad, the average baseball fan isn't nearly educated enough in advanced statistics to understand it, nor do most want to. You have to remember that 95+% of fans idea of advanced stats are OPS and whip, so taking the time to write these advanced articles that 5% of readers will even bother with is a waste of time.

That is the difference between a journalist and a writer. A writer just compiles information that is available to anybody. A journalist digs deeper to get details that aren’t easily available, or explores conclusions or suggestions that wouldn’t necessarily occur to the average reader, or might seem controversial, and expresses himself in a skilled way. What’s the difference, after all, between Britt or Roch or Connolly, and you or me? Nothing. But Jon Shepard was both a brilliant, beautiful writer and a brilliant baseball analyst and I miss him greatly. It seems like you’re saying that because 95% of the fans won’t understand anything advanced, that, therefore nothing advanced should be written, And the very fact that a site like Fangraphs exists is adequate rebuttal to that contention.

This particular article explores nothing new. I would be extremely interested in an article that delves deeply into the problems of our pitching. Why have so many(all of them, in fact) of our hopeful pitching prospects failed? We’re they ever really hopeful prospects, or just a sop to a thirsty fan base? Have they really failed, after all? Who is responsible? Should they stop throwing a cutter? Why?

An article like that might well have a few things I wouldn’t immediately understand, but that would be more worthwhile than generic stuff that could be written by anyone.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Philip

[Tony-OH]

21 hours 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. 

Looks on point to me.

[Barnaby Graves]

You guys could fight about anything lol

Anyway I personally didn't get much out of this article but I don't think it's written for people on this board, as pointed out by some of you.

What I would like to see is a more analytical article about the pitching that could explore why some of the guys we bring up struggle.  Something that goes into the swing rates these guys get, spin rates, pitch velocity and mix, batted ball types, etc, and tries to draw a conclusion.  Fangraphs has the data, they're a data-oriented place, that would be interesting to me.  But that said, I don't know if there's a lot of people out there who want to spend an hour analyzing Dean Kremer and writing about it.

Other than you guys of course.