Jump to content

78 wins


Sports Guy

Recommended Posts

And four more the rest of the way to a winning record for 2022. I felt (and said)  it could be done when they still had to win 6 of 16. Just when the team seems to have bottomed out vs. Tigers, they do some surprising things, Lyles and Bradish turn in those stellar starts. Can't count them out. I just want to see 82 wins. I picked them for 76 at the start of the season, so they've already exceeded my expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I want to get to 82+ badly.  Hopefully with as much “+” as possible.  The “Why Not” O’s improved their win total by 35 games.  This team probably won’t match that, but hopefully they can come close.  

I’m with you on the +. Psychologically, 83–79 would feel almost immeasurably better than 82–80. I’d love to see them get back to the high-water mark, which would be 86–76. That would be a lasting reminder that we righted ship after a rough September stretch and finished an exciting year strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the 20 teams that have lost 110 games in a season since 1900:

[code]                                                                                                                                                         
Rk    Season Team Lg   L  GP  W   L  WL%  ERA   G  CG SHO SV     IP    H    R   ER  HR  BB IBB   SO HBP BK WP   BF ERA+  FIP  WHIP   H9 HR9 BB9 SO9 SO/BB
1       1962  NYM NL 120 161 40 120 .250 5.04 161  43   4 10 1430.0 1577  948  801 192 571  28  772  71  5 71 6365   82 4.63 1.502  9.9 1.2 3.6 4.9  1.35
2       2003  DET AL 119 162 43 119 .265 5.32 162   3   0 27 1438.2 1616  928  850 195 557  35  764  52  5 52 6376   81 5.00 1.510 10.1 1.2 3.5 4.8  1.37
3       1916  PHA AL 117 154 36 117 .235 3.92 154  94  11  3 1343.2 1311  776  585  26     715  575  53  4 53 5653   73 3.43 1.508  8.8 0.2 4.8 3.9  0.80
4       2018  BAL AL 115 162 47 115 .290 5.19 162   2   0 28 1431.0 1552  892  825 234 589  29 1203  81  8 81 6340   83 5.01 1.496  9.8 1.5 3.7 7.6  2.04
5       1935  BSN NL 115 153 38 115 .248 4.93 153  54   6  5 1330.0 1645  852  729  81 404  37  355  14  2 14 5969   77 4.38 1.541 11.1 0.5 2.7 2.4  0.88
6       2019  DET AL 114 161 47 114 .292 5.26 161   0   0 31 1433.0 1555  915  837 250 536  24 1368  66  7 66 6341   91 4.83 1.459  9.8 1.6 3.4 8.6  2.55
7       1904  WSH AL 113 157 38 113 .252 3.62 157 137   7  3 1359.2 1487  743  547  19     347  533  39  2 39 5739   74 2.67 1.349  9.8 0.1 2.3 3.5  1.54
8       1965  NYM NL 112 164 50 112 .309 4.06 164  29   6 14 1454.2 1462  752  656 147 498  29  776  53  7 53 6232   87 3.90 1.347  9.0 0.9 3.1 4.8  1.56
9       1952  PIT NL 112 155 42 112 .273 4.65 155  42   4  8 1363.2 1395  793  704 132 625  44  564  30  5 30 5992   86 4.26 1.481  9.2 0.9 4.1 3.7  0.90
10      2013  HOU AL 111 162 51 111 .315 4.79 162   2   1 32 1440.0 1530  848  767 191 616  32 1084  61  6 61 6370   85 4.68 1.490  9.6 1.2 3.9 6.8  1.76
11      2004  ARI NL 111 162 51 111 .315 4.98 162   5   2 33 1436.0 1480  899  795 197 668  79 1153  71  8 71 6418   92 4.77 1.496  9.3 1.2 4.2 7.2  1.73
12      1963  NYM NL 111 162 51 111 .315 4.12 162  42   5 12 1427.2 1452  774  654 162 529  26  806  57 20 57 6208   84 4.06 1.388  9.2 1.0 3.3 5.1  1.52
13      1941  PHI NL 111 155 43 111 .279 4.50 155  35   4  9 1372.1 1499  793  686  79 606  46  552  35  1 35 6114   82 3.68 1.534  9.8 0.5 4.0 3.6  0.91
14      1939  SLB AL 111 156 43 111 .279 6.01 156  56   3  4 1371.1 1724 1035  916 133 739  36  516  32  3 32 6474   81 4.79 1.796 11.3 0.9 4.9 3.4  0.70
15      1932  BOS AL 111 154 43 111 .279 5.02 154  42   2  6 1362.0 1574  911  759  79 612  24  365  27  7 27 6200   89 4.42 1.605 10.4 0.5 4.0 2.4  0.60
16      2021  ARI NL 110 162 52 110 .321 5.15 162   3   3 22 1417.0 1480  893  811 232 555  45 1238  43  7 43 6270   83 4.82 1.436  9.4 1.5 3.5 7.9  2.23
17      2021  BAL AL 110 162 52 110 .321 5.85 162   1   1 26 1402.0 1518  956  911 258 563  12 1234  88  7 88 6252   78 5.19 1.484  9.7 1.7 3.6 7.9  2.19
18      1969  MON NL 110 162 52 110 .321 4.33 162  26   8 21 1426.0 1429  791  686 145 702  76  973  64  9 64 6307   85 4.08 1.494  9.0 0.9 4.4 6.1  1.39
19      1969  SDP NL 110 162 52 110 .321 4.24 162  16   5 25 1422.2 1454  746  670 113 592  86  764  65  5 65 6214   84 3.85 1.438  9.2 0.7 3.7 4.8  1.29
20      1909  WSH AL 110 156 42 110 .276 3.04 156  99  10  2 1374.2 1288  655  464  12     424  653  51  0 51 5691   81 2.42 1.245  8.4 0.1 2.8 4.3  1.54

You can divide those teams up into a few categories:

(5) The Tankers.  Recent teams, aren't really trying to win today. '18, '21 Orioles. '21 D'backs. '13 Astros. '19 Tigers.
(5) 60s expansion teams. '69 Padres and Expos. '62, '63, '65 Mets.
(7) Prewar poor teams. '16 A's, '04 Senators, '41 Phils, '39 Browns, '09 Senators. Arguably the '32 Sox, '35 Braves.
(3) One-offs.  '03 Tigers, '52 Pirates, '04 D'backs

The Tankers usually take a while to climb out of the hole.  Many of the 60s expansion teams were given few resources to compete. Those prewar teams often had owners who didn't have much wealth outside of baseball, sometimes shared cities and split fanbases, and back then there was no media revenue. The '52 Pirates were a result of Branch Rickey trading everyone before they go too old (IIRC). 

I'm not entirely sure what happened with the '04 D'backs.  They still had Johnson, Finley, Luis Gonzalez, but went from 84 wins to 51 in one year.  The '35 Braves had a HOF manager and signed Babe Ruth, but I think the distraction of old, fat Ruth tanked the season and messed up the clubhouse.

So congrats to the Orioles for escaping this mess as well as they have.  But there are only 20 teams in the last 120 years to have ever lost 110.  And don't forget, up until the early 60s the schedule was eight games shorter so it really took some effort to go 44-110 or worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They need to finish 3-10 rest of the way to get to 81-81. It was 5-10 two nights ago, and it didnt feel like they were playing well enough to get there, but thats baseball for you. For right now I can dream on the odds being in our favor to finish .500 or better.  

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.



  • Posts

    • Oh, I'd love to have one come through our system by being drafted and developed. No doubt at all. 
    • Paging @Tony-OH to the thread.  🤣 I've actually advocated for this in the minors forums...letting other teams draft and try to develop guys to see which have a shot of sticking and which don't.  Essentially let other teams make mistakes in the draft and trade for guys that are still in the lower levels in other systems but you think have a shot.  I do believe that's part of Elias's strategy....as risk adverse as he is, he's not going to take risks on drafting pitching if he views that's the biggest risk in the draft. All I'm saying it'd be nice to have a Skubal come through our system.  Does anyone really disagree with drafting and developing a Cy Young winner or is that something you guys aren't interested in?
    • Oh, I get that. I just think you'd be hard pressed to say year in and year out the Central is anything but a mediocre division.  Typically, the AL East has at least 3 strong teams, with some seasons where 4-5 of them have winning records or close to it.  But it doesn't matter. As said before, I've been saying for weeks prior to the end of the season that the Tigers were a very good team. I just wouldn't trade our org, team, farm, whatever for the Tigers. 
    • Does it matter if they get drafted and developed vs. traded for and developed? Hell, the O's starting rotation was a strength this year. Here's a breakdown of how it was constructed: Burnes - traded for (Elias) Suarez - free agent (Elias) Kremer - traded for (Duquette) Eflin - traded for (Elias) Grayson - drafted (Duquette) Bradish - traded for (Elias) Povich - traded for (Elias) Irvin - traded for (Elias) Tyler Wells - Rule V (Elias) Rogers - traded for (Elias) McDermott - traded for (Elias) Means - drafted (Duquette) I'm excluding Bowman being an opener and getting a starting credit.  But that said, out of all of the starters that the O's used this year, none were drafted by Elias, and only 2 were drafted by the O's (GRod, Means). 8 were acquired via trade (7 by Elias, 1 by Duquette), and 2 via FA or Rule V.  I don't necessarily think that Elias needs to draft starters to build a rotation, but it would be nice to see a couple make it before being traded, TBH.  That said, I don't think the above is sustainable, but the strategy would be sustainable if you have free agency play a bigger part. Look at the Royals. Their best 3 starters weren't drafted by them (Ragans - traded for, Wacha - FA, Lugo - FA). 
    • Unfortunately, it's looking like there is a lot of truth in that statement.  I believe Steve Bisciotti (Ravens owner) once said, he wanted to have a good team every year, get into the playoffs enough, eventually things go your way and win the Super Bowl.  This was in response to playing salary cap games for a few seasons and then eventually having to pay the piper with the dead money and being uncompetitive for a few years. Hopefully the O's can be consistently good and get hot at the end of the season and make a run through the playoffs.  Go back to June 1st and the five best teams in the league were the Orioles, Yankees, Guardians, Phillies and Dodgers.  Two are already out, Guardians fading fast with the Yankees and Dodgers still alive.   A Tigers - Mets World Series would be quite fitting.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...