Do we actually need a TOR starter?

[tntoriole]

5 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I kind of love these threads that ask "do we need X to contend" or "the Orioles will never win a World Series without Y".  Because you almost never have to have any one particular thing to win.  Or even to win the World Series.  So I take these kind of things as a challenge to find a team without that who did win.  TOR is pretty easy, lots of teams have won well over 90 games and even had postseason success with a best pitcher who looks like someone's #3.

You'll sometimes hear fans say you have to be very strong up the middle to win, you have to have a top shortstop to win. The 1968 Tigers won the World Series. The player who played the most innings at short for them was Ray Oyler, who hit .135/.213/.186, good for a .399 OPS.  Their backup was Tommy Matchick, who had a .534 OPS. Their 3rd SS was Dick Tracewski, who hit .156. It was so ugly that they took their starting center fielder, Mickey Stanley, and put him at short the last week of the season and through the World Series.  Stanley had never played a single inning at short in his professional career up to that point, not even in them minors. No innings at 3B or 2B, either.  It would be like the Orioles moving Austin Hays to short today, and they go on to win the Series.  

So whenever someone asks if the Orioles absolutely have to do some thing or they can't win the answer is almost certainly no.

Winner post of the week!!!

For those of us who have seen Oriole and other teams win World Series for over 50 years, this is spot on!! 

The Tigers played the Cardinals in the World Series in 1968 and Dal Maxvill played 152 games at SS with an OPS of .618 and 1 HR. 

TOR would be useful but not essential.  Verlander was top of his game in 2014 and of course we beat him. When Os had Palmer, McNally, Cuellar and Dobson all winning twenty, there was no dropoff from 1-4 that season.  Pennant winners have deep depth of pitching usually. 
 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2022 by tntoriole

[Fiver6565]

i don't think it takes away from the overall point, but wasn't 1968 the year offense was so down, they lowered the mound?  So probably not the best example, though again, it doesn't really change the overall point.  Teams for decades carried bats like that (especially at SS).  You don't see it as often anymore - heck even our own Mateo is still somewhat maligned on this board for putting up a .650 OPS while playing GG-level defense.  Not that we're about to win the WS....

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, Fiver6565 said:

i don't think it takes away from the overall point, but wasn't 1968 the year offense was so down, they lowered the mound?  So probably not the best example, though again, it doesn't really change the overall point.  Teams for decades carried bats like that (especially at SS).  You don't see it as often anymore - heck even our own Mateo is still somewhat maligned on this board for putting up a .650 OPS while playing GG-level defense.  Not that we're about to win the WS....

Exactly right.  The leaguwide OPS in 1968 was .641 in the NL, .637 in the AL.

[tntoriole]

10 minutes ago, Fiver6565 said:

i don't think it takes away from the overall point, but wasn't 1968 the year offense was so down, they lowered the mound?  So probably not the best example, though again, it doesn't really change the overall point.  Teams for decades carried bats like that (especially at SS).  You don't see it as often anymore - heck even our own Mateo is still somewhat maligned on this board for putting up a .650 OPS while playing GG-level defense.  Not that we're about to win the WS....

And, case in point, Mark Belanger played and started at ss for a number of winning Os teams with a career OPS of .580

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, maybenxtyr said:

He's been a pleasant surprise for sure. The only thing I'd like to see is if he can perhaps go a little longer when he's pitching well. Maybe that's something that can be worked on during the off season and spring.

I think we make at least one pickup of a proven quality MLB starter by free agency or trade, and we go into next year with a rotaiton of Rodriguez, Bradish, Wells, Kremer, and proven-quality-MLB-starter.    Voth would be #6 which means unless someone is hurt he is in the pen, but what are the odds that your top 5 stay 100% healthy?   I think he gets his chance to pitch for the 2023 contending Orioles.

Meanwhile, we have DL Hall in Norfolk trying to figure things out, Means recuperating for a 2nd half return, and Povich movinng his way up through the ranks.

[eddie83]

2 hours ago, wildcard said:

Voth gets very little respect on this board.   For the O's 15 starts 2.85 ERA, 1.19 WHIP.

 

It’s not about a lack of respect it’s a lack of resume. He has thrown well, can he repeat it?

[Chaka Garcia]

Who would the team realistically get as TOR? Guys like Rodon, DeGromm and Verlander will cost 30-35 plus per year.

if we go the trade route, are you willing trade the prospects that Seattle gave up to get their no 1 starter? Would you be happy with that type of starter from Cincinnati ?

[sportsfan8703]

If we’re trying to win the division and not just a WC then yes we need a Verlander type. It’s going to be expensive, and I think we’d lose a draft pick too. I say keep our inventory of prospects for now. 
 

Also, if we’re going for the division we need a vet bat like JD Martinez, and an upgrade at backup C. 

[DrungoHazewood]

15 hours ago, Fiver6565 said:

i don't think it takes away from the overall point, but wasn't 1968 the year offense was so down, they lowered the mound?  So probably not the best example, though again, it doesn't really change the overall point.  Teams for decades carried bats like that (especially at SS).  You don't see it as often anymore - heck even our own Mateo is still somewhat maligned on this board for putting up a .650 OPS while playing GG-level defense.  Not that we're about to win the WS....

Yes, it was one of the lowest offensive years in the live-ball era.  But Oyler still had a 20 OPS+, which adjusts for that offensive context. For reference, Mark Belanger's lowest OPS+ in 200 or more PA was 32.  Oyler's is the worst batting performance in 100 or more games since WWII, and he got a ring.

[Chelsea_Phil]

10 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Yes, it was one of the lowest offensive years in the live-ball era.  But Oyler still had a 20 OPS+, which adjusts for that offensive context. For reference, Mark Belanger's lowest OPS+ in 200 or more PA was 32.  Oyler's is the worst batting performance in 100 or more games since WWII, and he got a ring.

Moreso than our own Crush Davis?

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, Chelsea_Phil said:

Moreso than our own Crush Davis?

Yep.  By a good bit, too.  Davis' lowest OPS+ was 49.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Chelsea_Phil said:

Moreso than our own Crush Davis?

Davis' 2018 season was the 121st-worst hitting season of the 2000-present era (min 200 PAs).  Third-worst in that timeframe among players who qualified for the batting title.

Even if you limit things to batting title qualifiers that '18 season is 32nd-worst since 1900, and not even the worst Orioles season of all time (1988 Billy Ripken, 48 OPS+).

The only thing that unusual about Davis' season was that he kept playing.  Lots and lots of players have hit worse than him, but most didn't have anything like his track record or contract so when they hit .150 for a month they got benched, sent to the minors, or released.

[btdart20]

22 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I kind of love these threads that ask "do we need X to contend" or "the Orioles will never win a World Series without Y".  Because you almost never have to have any one particular thing to win.  Or even to win the World Series.  So I take these kind of things as a challenge to find a team without that who did win.  TOR is pretty easy, lots of teams have won well over 90 games and even had postseason success with a best pitcher who looks like someone's #3.

You'll sometimes hear fans say you have to be very strong up the middle to win, you have to have a top shortstop to win. The 1968 Tigers won the World Series. The player who played the most innings at short for them was Ray Oyler, who hit .135/.213/.186, good for a .399 OPS.  Their backup was Tommy Matchick, who had a .534 OPS. Their 3rd SS was Dick Tracewski, who hit .156. It was so ugly that they took their starting center fielder, Mickey Stanley, and put him at short the last week of the season and through the World Series.  Stanley had never played a single inning at short in his professional career up to that point, not even in them minors. No innings at 3B or 2B, either.  It would be like the Orioles moving Austin Hays to short today, and they go on to win the Series.  

So whenever someone asks if the Orioles absolutely have to do some thing or they can't win the answer is almost certainly no.

And yet there are general trends that distinguish good teams from above average/average/bad ones.  No, there is no single way to build a championship team but there are 'true-isms' that tend to frame the narrative.  The teams/players you shared are (essentially) exceptions that prove the rule.  

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, btdart20 said:

And yet there are general trends that distinguish good teams from above average/average/bad ones.  No, there is no single way to build a championship team but there are 'true-isms' that tend to frame the narrative.  The teams/players you shared are (essentially) exceptions that prove the rule.  

Here’s my truism.  Good teams score more runs than they allow their  opponents to score.  Beyond that, there are no best ways to build a team.  

[Chelsea_Phil]

On 9/26/2022 at 11:33 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

I kind of love these threads that ask "do we need X to contend" or "the Orioles will never win a World Series without Y".  Because you almost never have to have any one particular thing to win.  Or even to win the World Series.  So I take these kind of things as a challenge to find a team without that who did win.  TOR is pretty easy, lots of teams have won well over 90 games and even had postseason success with a best pitcher who looks like someone's #3.

You'll sometimes hear fans say you have to be very strong up the middle to win, you have to have a top shortstop to win. The 1968 Tigers won the World Series. The player who played the most innings at short for them was Ray Oyler, who hit .135/.213/.186, good for a .399 OPS.  Their backup was Tommy Matchick, who had a .534 OPS. Their 3rd SS was Dick Tracewski, who hit .156. It was so ugly that they took their starting center fielder, Mickey Stanley, and put him at short the last week of the season and through the World Series.  Stanley had never played a single inning at short in his professional career up to that point, not even in them minors. No innings at 3B or 2B, either.  It would be like the Orioles moving Austin Hays to short today, and they go on to win the Series.  

So whenever someone asks if the Orioles absolutely have to do some thing or they can't win the answer is almost certainly no.

As I am too lazy to look it up, how did Stanley do playing SS in the 68 WS?