Jump to content

Are we actually 27-14 with the highest runs/game in the AL?


Frobby

Recommended Posts

Just now, Pickles said:

You're no better.  LOL.

Never claimed to be.

Not much sense in a "great post, I agree" response, though.

I think there's a fine line between being negative and criticism/second guessing moves that can be blurry at times.  IMO, negativity is like "This team sucks," "We're dead," "this game is over, we can't win".  

Criticism is more along the lines of "Hyde did a terrible job of managing, here's why..." or "Elias shouldn't have made that move, instead he should have done..."

In the middle, the blurry part is like "Mullins sucks, he's hitting .105 for his past 20 games and they need to put Cowser in CF for a bit."  It comes across as harsh/negative cause someone is saying Mullins sucks but it's also stating why he does.  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

I think some people are misinterpreting my OP.  I’m not telling anyone how to be a fan.  I’m just pointing out that (1) for every present negative, there’s a counterweighting positive, and on balance, the positive is winning hands down as reflected in the W-L record, and (2) the current negatives won’t last forever, just like hot streaks don’t last forever.   

I’m surprised that nobody mentioned in six pages that we seem to be getting a whole lot of luck. We’re not blowing teams away, winning 12 to nothing or eight to one. We often winning on what appears to be a lucky fluke. We’re not hitting well,( although we’re pitching and defending well)

It just seems like we’re not overpowering anybody, and we should.

This makes it much easier to complain about personnel decisions or manager choices.

There’s a psychological condition called “the imposter complex,” which is when someone doesn’t give himself credit for his skill, constantly second-guessing his ability and being afraid that he will be found out for the charlatan that he is.

it’s quite possible that there’s a little bit of that going on here, and the weaknesses that were seeing are “proof that were really not that good and we’ve got to do something right away or we will be found out as imposters”

This is a good team, but sometimes it seems as if we’re also a very lucky team, and we’re all worried about what happens when the luck goes away.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, interloper said:

I do this a good amount actually - I think it's good every now and then! 

I actually force myself to do it now just so I can't be accused of being 100% contrarian.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Never claimed to be.

Not much sense in a "great post, I agree" response, though.

I think there's a fine line between being negative and criticism/second guessing moves that can be blurry at times.  IMO, negativity is like "This team sucks," "We're dead," "this game is over, we can't win".  

Criticism is more along the lines of "Hyde did a terrible job of managing, here's why..." or "Elias shouldn't have made that move, instead he should have done..."

In the middle, the blurry part is like "Mullins sucks, he's hitting .105 for his past 20 games and they need to put Cowser in CF for a bit."  It comes across as harsh/negative cause someone is saying Mullins sucks but it's also stating why he does.  

 

Agreed.

But "numbers" "evidence" whatever can always be twisted to make whatever argument you want to make, and people mostly want to make negative arguments regarding the O's chances or the performance of the players or management.  

When was the last time the team was playing poorly and you saw a thread about how the underlying numbers were actually encouraging?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pickles said:

Agreed.

But "numbers" "evidence" whatever can always be twisted to make whatever argument you want to make, and people mostly want to make negative arguments regarding the O's chances or the performance of the players or management.  

When was the last time the team was playing poorly and you saw a thread about how the underlying numbers were actually encouraging?

Off the top of my head, it's hard to recall specific details.  But I've seen posts on here about O'Hearn's underlying numbers and how he's not a mirage, for example.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

Off the top of my head, it's hard to recall specific details.  But I've seen posts on here about O'Hearn's underlying numbers and how he's not a mirage, for example.  

 

I think individual posters will have favorite players where things like that will happen.  Cowser, for instance, has been getting some of that treatment during his recent struggles.

I was very positive about the state of the rebuild as it was happening.  But that became an increasingly unpopular position as it continued, despite it looking better and better as it progressed.

And I think a lot of it stems from unrealistic expectations.  And that's kind of the thing I don't get.  We're the Baltimore Orioles.  We're on pace to win 100 games for the second consecutive year.  This is as good as it gets.  

What in the last 40 years suggest we shouldn't be absolutely thrilled with being in this position?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Philip said:

I’m surprised that nobody mentioned in six pages that we seem to be getting a whole lot of luck. We’re not blowing teams away, winning 12 to nothing or eight to one. We often winning on what appears to be a lucky fluke.

Nobody mentioned it because it’s an utterly false narrative.  The team has a Pythagorean record based on runs scored and allowed of 26-15, compared to their actual record of 27-14.  That’s a minimal amount of luck.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

I think individual posters will have favorite players where things like that will happen.  Cowser, for instance, has been getting some of that treatment during his recent struggles.

I was very positive about the state of the rebuild as it was happening.  But that became an increasingly unpopular position as it continued, despite it looking better and better as it progressed.

And I think a lot of it stems from unrealistic expectations.  And that's kind of the thing I don't get.  We're the Baltimore Orioles.  We're on pace to win 100 games for the second consecutive year.  This is as good as it gets.  

What in the last 40 years suggest we shouldn't be absolutely thrilled with being in this position?

I agree individual posters have favorite players.  In regard to Cowser specifically, I think more...experienced posters on here realize that he's young and he needs some time to get out of his slump.  But to your point, people like him and want to see him do well, too.  He's a bit of a fan favorite already.

I'm not sure what your points were on the rebuild but there were discussions about the right way/wrong way to go about doing it, when exactly people felt this team was ready to contend, what prospects to call up and when.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who thinks Elias has done an overall bad job, but there have always been disagreements on roster decisions, signings, etc that might cross the line into the negative territory.

I do believe I see where you're coming from on unrealistic expectations, sort of.  Expectations are through the roof this year and no one wants to see a team like the San Diego Padres of recent years who, despite being loaded with talent, are not winners.  I think there's still a lot of apprehension about knowing that this team is good after it's been bad for so long.  Almost like a knee jerk reflex.

But you are correct, we should be absolutely thrilled with being here right now.  This is as promising as I can ever remember this team being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Roy Firestone said:

We are facing Seattle' best 3 pitchers...Kirby and Castillo shut us down last year...lets see how we fare against top pitching while we're already in hitting slumps...

Yes sir Mr. Firestone, it’s never easy but what experience these young bats are gaining. Incremental growth against the best will set us up well for the playoffs if we are so lucky. Until then, pitching and defense will hopefully carry us through and maybe we run into a couple early before their arms settle down in a groove. Can’t wait to see what happens either way though my mind and presence will be at the A&M/Arkansas game again tonight following an incredible walk off win by the Ags last night. The SEC West is still in play for my boys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Roy Firestone said:

We are facing Seattle' best 3 pitchers...Kirby and Castillo shut us down last year...lets see how we fare against top pitching while we're already in hitting slumps...

This kind of supports my argument. Even though people say we are a good team, I think that a lot of us don’t really think we are. Yes, Seattle has splendid pitching, but… We do too.

So, instead of saying “oh my God we’re facing a fantastic pitching staff”, why aren’t we saying, “oh my God, THEY are facing a fantastic pitching staff”?

And regardless of flaws in our hitting approach, we are a top offense. Seattle is pretty dreadful at the plate.

That’s the imposter complex; the idea that we’re really not that good and it’s all some kind of a charade. 

Edited by Philip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I agree individual posters have favorite players.  In regard to Cowser specifically, I think more...experienced posters on here realize that he's young and he needs some time to get out of his slump.  But to your point, people like him and want to see him do well, too.  He's a bit of a fan favorite already.

I'm not sure what your points were on the rebuild but there were discussions about the right way/wrong way to go about doing it, when exactly people felt this team was ready to contend, what prospects to call up and when.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who thinks Elias has done an overall bad job, but there have always been disagreements on roster decisions, signings, etc that might cross the line into the negative territory.

I do believe I see where you're coming from on unrealistic expectations, sort of.  Expectations are through the roof this year and no one wants to see a team like the San Diego Padres of recent years who, despite being loaded with talent, are not winners.  I think there's still a lot of apprehension about knowing that this team is good after it's been bad for so long.  Almost like a knee jerk reflex.

But you are correct, we should be absolutely thrilled with being here right now.  This is as promising as I can ever remember this team being.

The only people that have seen the organization in a healthier spot are 60 years old or older.  And I can't believe that is the majority of anywhere near it of posters here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Philip said:

This kind of supports my argument. Even though people say we are a good team, I think that a lot of us don’t really think we are. Yes, Seattle has splendid pitching, but… We do too.

So, instead of saying “oh my God we’re facing a fantastic pitching staff”, why aren’t we saying, “oh my God, THEY are facing a fantastic pitching staff”?

And regardless of flaws in our hitting approach, we are a top offense. Seattle is pretty dreadful at the plate.

That’s the imposter complex; the idea that we’re really not that good and it’s all some kind of a charade. 

You might be reading a bit too much into what he said. This will be another great test for our young bats. Iron sharpens iron!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was browsing the OH and heard a bang on the window of the station I am at, went outside to see what it was and found a dead Oriole bird on the ground. Bad omens, man. Bad omens.

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

    • I mean Tanner Scott at least has a Major League track record. How much do you think Scott will really cost? Also, we have more position players and prospects that we could ever use. I understand maybe not wanting Scott, but I don't understand the logic of not wanting surrender any prospects (even some good ones). We almost have to at some point. Otherwise, you have 25 year old top level prospects like Kjerstad, who is in his prime now and killing it at AAA but has no place on the Big League roster. Stowers is even older and has contributed relatively nothing to the Orioles and is now age 26.
    • Way to avoid the question.  If the O's were in rebuild mode and had Gray Rod in the exact position he is now, what kind of prospect package would you want?  Fans here are notorious for not wanting to give up any good prospects for other team's best players but then want the world for their own less than perfect players.  When Gausman was about to be traded here (way less an impressive pitcher than Gray Rod is now), posters here were convinced that the O's would get 3 top 100 prospects for him.  The O's got none 
    • McDermott has a WHIP of almost 1.5 and has walked 41 batters in 64 and 2/3 innings. I'm not sure how that plays at the Big League level or how anyone could have a lot of confidence that those numbers translate into the kind of shut down backend reliever that we need.
    • I would be not surprised at all if McDermott deloads after the all star break and comes up to use as a reliever a la do hall the last few years. He’s basically tanner Scott without having to give up prospects to get. 
    • I don't want anything for Grayson. We are trying to win and add, not subtract from areas of strength. We can add a a 2/3ish starter for less than Holliday and Kjerstad. We have plenty of players/prospects that we can trade that other teams want. After all, we have the best farm system in the game. Just because the player(s) is/are not the #1 prospect in the sport, it doesn't make him/them spare parts.
    • I'm surprised the O's haven't tried McDermott as a reliever yet.  Some posters have said the O's need 3 relievers.  There is no way the O's are trading for 3 relievers.  They might trade for 1, find one in the minors and claim one off the waiver wire. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...