Are the Orioles a legitimate playoff contender (Going into Spring training)?

[SilverRocket]

This will be a high variance team that can make people look smart or moronic, but I think the average case will be solid. I vote yes for 40% to still be in the hunt on Sep 1st. Not a favorite to make the playoffs, but 40% is a reasonable number and imo a fine definition for "contender".

The offseason transactions were depth moves but that's important. A lot of the losses from the rebuild were from running out below-replacement players, and having the depth to swap in and out is going to come in handy when some players don't work out.

[sevastras]

2 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

This is the kind of stuff irritates me to no end.

Why, because it doesn't match whatever the heck is in your head as to what a contender means? It's a simple thread with a criteria that I clearly defined (so people could vote WITHIN the criteria) that was meant to spark conversation. It matches just fine. Just because it doesn't match whatever criteria you have in your head for whatever a contender means doesn't mean it doesn't match.

You want to make Foxfield's version of what it means to be contender, have at it, but I don't appreciate you telling me my criteria and header doesn't match. 

Was this thread called, what do you think makes a team a contender? Was this thread called tell me why my header and questions don't match? Nope. 

Now you could have come in here  and said "I have a different criteria that I use ...." and that would have been fine, but trying to squat on my criteria in my thread is great way to piss me off.

Especially when your "criteria" not a criteria, but something you just made up that includes "improved pitching" "lack of regression" and "much stronger offensive performance." 

Please, tell us 'ol criteria master, how do you determined what improved pitching and "much" stronger offensive performances means? Your comments don't match your concern over my completely made up "40% chance" on September 1st.

Yet, we can look at Fan Graphs playoff odds on September 1st and use my criteria now can't we?

If you plan to come at me in my thread, at least come at me with better criteria. And before you say my heading and criteria doesn't match, make sure you understand the definition of the word of criteria.

 

 

Your board, your rules. However, if we all responded in the manner above, you wouldn’t be happy with the results.

[Sports Guy]

16 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

So with acquisitions, development,  additional depth and momentum (confidence) from the previous year, why would they not contend this year?  

1) Health

2) Guys who overachieved turn back into pumpkins.

3) Luck

4) Improvement of other teams around them.

[emmett16]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

1) Health

2) Guys who overachieved turn back into pumpkins.

3) Luck

4) Improvement of other teams around them.

Fair points.

1. I think the depth acquired helps supplement potential health problems.

2. see #1

3. Hard to quantify and could go both ways.  But sure, they had some luck last year.

4. I think this is the main argument.  Will our acquired depth and development of existing players be able to keep up with acquisitions of our rivals?  That's why they play the games. 

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

Fair points.

1. I think the depth acquired helps supplement potential health problems.

2. see #1

3. Hard to quantify and could go both ways.  But sure, they had some luck last year.

4. I think this is the main argument.  Will our acquired depth and development of existing players be able to keep up with acquisitions of our rivals?  That's why they play the games. 

I think you are greatly overrating the “depth” we acquired. 
 

The team has to replace Lyles, Lopez and Mancini. 
 

Not likely they are far exceeding those guys with what they acquired.

[emmett16]

10 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I think you are greatly overrating the “depth” we acquired. 
 

The team has to replace Lyles, Lopez and Mancini. 
 

Not likely they are far exceeding those guys with what they acquired.

I should have just written depth.  The acquisitions were OK (by no means good) but the depth comes from existing players in the system.  We have candidates to step in at multiple positions.  

 

I'd wager Gibson is better than Lyles.  I think Lopez falls into the 'luck' and/or 'pumpkin" category and a replacement is likely within.

 

Mancini's production can be replaced with a solid performance by Stowers and an uptick performance by Mountcastle. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by emmett16

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

I should have just written depth.  The acquisitions were OK (by no means good) but the depth comes from existing players in the system.  We have candidates to step in at multiple positions.  

 

I'd wager Gibson is better than Lyles.  I think Lopez falls into the 'luck' category and a replacement is likely within.

 

Mancini's production can be replaced with a solid performance by Stowers and an uptick performance by Mountcastle. 

Gibson could be better but odds are he won’t be.

Lopez may have been flukey (I don’t think he was) but the bottom line is that he had great numbers and the need to be replaced.

And yes, those guys could do that..or maybe Stowers doesn’t get enough of a chance and Frazier gets way too many at bats and sucks as bad as we all assume he will offensively.

There is a difference between being optimistic you see improvement and assuming you will see it.  You are assuming.  
 

I like the big 3 young guys being here all year. That’s my level of optimism. The rest is tbd and how much Hyde and Elias play these guys.

[emmett16]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Gibson could be better but odds are he won’t be.

Lopez may have been flukey (I don’t think he was) but the bottom line is that he had great numbers and the need to be replaced.

And yes, those guys could do that..or maybe Stowers doesn’t get enough of a chance and Frazier gets way too many at bats and sucks as bad as we all assume he will offensively.

There is a difference between being optimistic you see improvement and assuming you will see it.  You are assuming.  
 

I like the big 3 young guys being here all year. That’s my level of optimism. The rest is tbd and how much Hyde and Elias play these guys.

I think the industry consensus is that Gibson should be better than Lyles.  Remains to be seen.

If Frazier is terrible AND Stowers is terrible, there are others behind them to step up and take a shot.

I agree that I am assuming improvement.  I have seen improvement throughout the system for the last 3 years, so I don't see any reason not to expect the same this year.  

The big 3 PLUS Stowers, Westburg, Ortiz, Cowser, and Hall will all get their shot.  I'd say we get lucky on 1 out of 5. 

 

Edited February 18, 2023 by emmett16

[Sports Guy]

15 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

I think the industry consensus is that Gibson should be better than Lyles.  Remains to be seen.

If Frazier is terrible AND Stowers is terrible, there are others behind them to step up and take a shot.

I agree that I am assuming improvement.  I have seen improvement throughout the system for the last 3 years, so I don't see any reason not to expect the same this year.  

The big 3 PLUS Stowers, Westburg, Ortiz, Cowser, and Hall will all get their shot.  I'd say we get lucky on 1 out of 5. 

 

There is no industry consensus that Gibson should be better than Lyles in 2022. Gibson has been worse in 5 of his 10 seasons.

[emmett16]

12 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

There is no industry consensus that Gibson should be better than Lyles in 2022. Gibson has been worse in 5 of his 10 seasons.

By your definition of “odds” it should be a straight swap of production and the lose of Lyles is negligible. 

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

By your definition of “odds” it should be a straight swap of production and the lose of Lyles is negligible. 

But it still needs to occur.  Gibson definitely could be worse.

BTw, I don’t expect him to but it’s foolish to think he can’t. I certainly wouldn’t assume better. I would assume similar.

[emmett16]

15 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

But it still needs to occur.  Gibson definitely could be worse.

BTw, I don’t expect him to but it’s foolish to think he can’t. I certainly wouldn’t assume better. I would assume similar.

My guess is that he replaces Lyles.  Not much better, not much worse. 

[eddie83]

I like the odds of the bats being better. This team is built with a ton of under 30 position players plus legit prospects at AAA. Another other part of the answering this question is how good is the competition? If the Orioles are 10 over .500 will they be tied, 2 games out, 4 games back? 
 

Last year they were 10th in AL in ERA from starters and 6th from pen. Ranked 12th in IP from starters and 4th in IP from pen. I can’t see a scenario where they can be competitive without the rotation being better. One way to offset regression and health from pen. They had a 4.35 ERA from rotation.  
 

Kremer and Voth had the best years. Hard for either to match. Lyles did his job of soaking up innings. Bradish had a 4.90 ERA and Zimmerman well over 5. Ultimately the thing that concerns me the most is the lack of an ace to offset below average from say the #5 spot. 

[Brooks The Great]

2 hours ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

No.

They don't have enough starting pitching.

The bullpen is unlikely to repeat 2022.

They are unlikely to have as much good fortune on the injury front as 2022.

They came into the off season needing to add a ToR starter and a MoO bat and they accomplished neither one. 

I hope I'm wrong.

Injuries are why I actually think this year's team is better suited to contend than last year's team. The organization has several prospects who are ready to contribute immediately or very soon in 2023, and if any of a few projected starters - Frazier, Mateo, and Hays in particular - go down with an injury, the team would very likely improve with the prospect that will replace them on the major league roster (Westburg, Ortiz, Cowser, Kjerstad).

[Frobby]

6 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

But it still needs to occur.  Gibson definitely could be worse.

BTw, I don’t expect him to but it’s foolish to think he can’t. I certainly wouldn’t assume better. I would assume similar.

I think the odds favor him being somewhat better, but there’s a substantial possibility he’s similar or worse.  You can’t really assume he’ll be better.   We just have to see how it plays out.  

ZiPS is interesting here.  Gibson’s 50th percentile projection is for a 4.28 ERA/94 ERA+.  That’s a modest improvement over Lyles’ 4.42/91 last year.  So far, so good.  But when you look at his 80th/20th percentile ERA projections, they’re 4.04/5.26.   That means that he’s got more risk on the downside than he has benefit on the upside.   A bad year could be really bad, but a good year would be just solid, nothing spectacular.