-
Who's Online 32 Members, 0 Anonymous, 243 Guests (See full list)
- EERinthe804
- Sanfran327
- IPlayGM
- mazarelo
- Spakman
- Matt Bennett
- Greg Pappas
- RZNJ
- Chuck Toedan
- wildcard
- foxfield
- oh-wee-ohs
- DrungoHazewood
- Warehouse
- Mountain Bird
- jozo1
- Can_of_corn
- ravensterpsfan
- Natty
- DirtyBird
- interloper
- DoobyDoo
- Frobby
- UMDTerrapins
- Orioles0615
- CaptainRedbeard
- Too Tall
- Rbiggs2525
- Mendoza Line
- PeteCanes
- TopGunnar
- dcterp
-
Posts
-
By DrungoHazewood · Posted
Isn't is just weird that it took 100+ years to figure that out? Hey, that guy hits a bunch of balls right through the box, maybe we should have the second baseman move over that direction a little? Nah, if we do it so will everybody, and we like .350 hitters even when they're on the other team. It would be like a football game where there's a formation where a WR keeps getting completely open downfield and busting 40 yard plays, and it takes 35 years for defenses to adjust. "It's just how it is! If we cover that guy, then the running back might average five yards a carry!" -
-
By DrungoHazewood · Posted
Yes, I think that would be a solution that just might work. If you doubled the number of MLB teams it might take a decade or two for talent to catch back up. One of the reasons many strategies of 100 or 150 years ago worked was a much lower talent level, and much bigger spread between the best and worst MLB players. Even just going back 50 years or so it's clear to me one of the reasons pitchers could throw 300 innings was a much shallower pool of hitters, or at the very least choices that favored .220 hitting shortstops with no power. But, what do you think the odds are of Major League Baseball expanding to 60 teams in the next decade? 0.001%? 0.0000001%? The owners would look at such a proposal as an idea for how to slash their shared revenues by 50%, and would probably rather spend the last 20 years of their life fighting it in court than let that happen. This is like the discussions I have with soccer fans on promotion/relegation in the US. Great idea, tremendous benefits, works beautifully in the rest of the world, fosters all kinds of local grassroots interest in the sport, punishes tanking. But current owners would rather gouge their eyes out with their thumbnails than implement it here. -
I only watched the first two innings. I didn’t think he’d last much longer because he looked very hittable to that point. I really question the pitch selection to Rorthsveldt on a 1-2 pitch with a man on third and one out. He just swung threw a up in the zone fastball, Suarez’ best pitch. Throw another one same spot, or higher, or in, or even try to bury a changeup low. Anything to try and get a swing and miss. But a two seamer (that’s what they called it) down and away? Credit to Suarez for giving us 5. I don’t really think he’s a starter but he’s getting it done. Why can he hit 97 in the first inning but not in relief? I guess it’s a warmup thing. The 2023-24 Orioles are very good at “winning ugly”. They find a way more often than not. -
I hadn’t heard an up to date report on Gillen’s arm. He’s two years out from that surgery so that’s certainly not good. I like Lindsey too. The only real drawbacks are that he’s a RH hitter and the power projection is questionable but he’s got top of the line speed. I’m really not interested in the hit first college types like Amick. I’d like to see them go HS position player or roll the dice on a Brody Brecht/Jonathan Santucci college pitcher with big stuff and command issues. At #22 and #32 maybe they can do both.
-
By ChosenOne21 · Posted
We've really needed Suarez to step up, and so far he has. He does this a couple more times, I might be a believer. -
Been going downhill ever since Roy started calling for him in the pen. The jinx goes both ways.
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.