88 wins.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Don’t forget the schedule eases up after this stretch. Getting a win today is huge.

Then the next 7 games while NY plays mediocre to poor teams is huge. 

But they play down to the competition! 

[Safelykept]

17 minutes ago, bpilktree67 said:

Red Sox have 37 games left.  but it doesn’t change fact they gonna need lot of things to fall there way.  The Orioles would have to play .371 in that scenario with is basically playing at Rockies level rest of way.  That seems near impossible unless GRod and Efflin both miss entire rest of year.  

Grod and Eflin are just as likely to not be back as to be back. What if Boston goes on bigger heater than22-14. Remember the 1974 O's were 8 games out with 34 to play( went 28-6) including 10 in a row to put them 1 game out just 10 games later. 7 and a half is lot until its not

[Sports Guy]

21 minutes ago, Safelykept said:

Grod and Eflin are just as likely to not be back as to be back

Nothing about their situation and the info we have says this is remotely accurate.

[Safelykept]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Nothing about their situation and the info we have says this is remotely accurate.

Other than the way its gone for us this year. And remember we are putting forth a narrative based upon potentially missing info. I mean, honestly based off this Front office Secret Service narrative, does any body on this site truly know the extent oftheir injuries. i hope I'm wrong, and I want Danny back too, but I'm looking at my watch and saying. Gee it's getting late

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Safelykept said:

Other than the way its gone for us this year. And remember we are putting forth a narrative based upon potentially missing info. I mean, honestly based off this Front office Secret Service narrative, does any body on this site truly know the extent oftheir injuries. i hope I'm wrong, and I want Danny back too, but I'm looking at my watch and saying. Gee it's getting late

We have known since they went on the IL that mid September was the likely best case. But every indication is that they will be back.

Setbacks can happen and guys can heal slower but to say the chances are the same is just not accurate based off of any info out there and info we know.

[Safelykept]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

We have known since they went on the IL that mid September was the likely best case. But every indication is that they will be back.

Setbacks can happen and guys can heal slower but to say the chances are the same is just not accurate based off of any info out there and info we know.

SG again youre a big time poster here. All I'm saying is based upon this year ( one disaster right after the other) Its likely to be more. Thers an old saying , when youre not going to win, youre not going win. I,m not throwing in the towel, but the storm clouds keep getting bigger. Hell Hyde managed that game last night like he had a 5 an BP

[foxfield]

14 hours ago, terpoh said:

You do realize that we have played .450 ball for the past 53 games. Over 1/3 of a full season. If we play .450 ball the rest of the way we would win 16 more games (89 wins). It’s not that far fetched, and in fact I’d argue it should be expected that we will not win 90. Hope we do, but it would take playing much better baseball than we have since mid June. And we are more decimated by injuries now. Not sure 53 games is a “down period”

But you are making your own point.  Even today if the Orioles play .450 ball they are going to win 90 games.  It has to get much worse for the Orioles to miss the playoffs or the Red Sox have to get much hotter.  Can the Orioles miss out.  Of course.

But that is unlikely and too many are simply caught up in a funk.  You can argue all you want that they should not win 90.  It is possible you are right.  I am comfortable that you're overly focused on negative facts and overlooking positives.  

[Tony-OH]

10 hours ago, SteveA said:

Actualy there was an 8-13 stretch that contained TWO 5 game losing streaks early in this 50+ game everyone talks about, and we have consistently been a .500 or slightly above team since.   

Now ".500 or slightly above" is not great, and we need to be better.   But eveyrone pointing at the "under .500 for 50+ games" over and over again, is deceptive.   We had a horrible stretch before the break where we were 8-13 with two 5 game losing streaks, which accounts for all of the "under-500-ness" of the entire 53 game period and then some.

• We are 17-15 since that stretch ended (16-15 since the All Star Break over a month ago)
• We haven't lost more than 2 games in a row since before the All Star Break, not one single time.
• We haven't been swept since early July during that 8-13 stretch.
• We have only lost ONE series in the month of August so far

Note that I am not saying our recent stretch of .500-ish is good enough.  We are going to have to do better to win the division.  But anyone who is going out of their way to glom that 8-13 stretch from late June / early July onto any snapshot of the season to try to make a point about the team, is deliberaely going out of their way to paint a negative picture.   We have been a .500ish or slightly better team for over a month now, but all the glass half empty folks find a need to start counting in late June to be sure to include that really bad stretch so they can make their dramatic point about how bad we are.  They are cherry picking the worst possible stretch to try to make their sky is falling point when the really bad segment of that stretch is the farthest removed in time.

It doesn't make sense that 53 games of 25-28 is somehow indicative of "who we are now" than 32 games of 17-15, not when the worst play was back in late June / early July.   Why, because it's a bigger sample size?   OK, let's go back 14 games further, where we are 35-32 our last 67.    

No, we have to cherry pick the sample of games starting exactly after our record peaked on June 21, and measure everything from there, to paint he worst possible statisitcal picture, to support the fact that huge chunks of the sky are landing on our heads.

 

As a obvious attack on my post, I feel a need to respond.

50 games is not cherry picking any more than your stretches of .500ish over 32 games. So before you get too high on high horse, realize you are doing the EXACT same thing. The 50 game mark was chosen because it's a nice round number. If I had picked 47 games or 52 games you'd have a better point, bur you're all fired up for whatever reason.

But let's pull the string a little more. Honestly, unless you're reading comprehensionally challenged, at no point did I suggest this was a below ,500 team. Personally, I believe this is .500ish team that has been decimated by recent injuries. 

The team is not a 100-win team and we should no longer expect them to win 2 of 3. of series because this bullpen is a dumpster fire, partially due to injuries of Coulombe and Webb. Starting pitchers are dropping faster than temperatures in December.

Saying that, this team will make the playoffs, and how healthy they are and how well they are playing will decide how far they go. 

But to attack people as cherry picking is really being dishonest when all you did was the same thing to give you rosy picture view. The fact that you did it so condescendingly is pretty disrespectful, especially for a long time Hangouter. 

 

[SteveA]

5 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

As a obvious attack on my post, I feel a need to respond.

50 games is not cherry picking any more than your stretches of .500ish over 32 games. So before you get too high on high horse, realize you are doing the EXACT same thing. The 50 game mark was chosen because it's a nice round number. If I had picked 47 games or 52 games you'd have a better point, bur you're all fired up for whatever reason.

But let's pull the string a little more. Honestly, unless you're reading comprehensionally challenged, at no point did I suggest this was a below ,500 team. Personally, I believe this is .500ish team that has been decimated by recent injuries. 

The team is not a 100-win team and we should no longer expect them to win 2 of 3. of series because this bullpen is a dumpster fire, partially due to injuries of Coulombe and Webb. Starting pitchers are dropping faster than temperatures in December.

Saying that, this team will make the playoffs, and how healthy they are and how well they are playing will decide how far they go. 

But to attack people as cherry picking is really being dishonest when all you did was the same thing to give you rosy picture view. The fact that you did it so condescendingly is pretty disrespectful, especially for a long time Hangouter. 

 

I still say choosing 50, where the first 21 are really bad, and the next 29 are slightly over .500, and saying this is a reflection of what the team is right now , a sub-.500 team -- is cherry picking.

And it wasn't specifically an attack on just  your post.   It was on all the posts, including yours, that keep bringing up 23-27, or 24-28, and saying that proves something about the current team.   You are far from the only one doing that.   I heard it so many times that I finally felt the need to break down that 50 games and see that the worst part of it was all over a month ago.   A 21 game stretch where we were 5 under .500 and had two 5 game losing streaks, that ended July 12.   And we haven't had a single losing streak longer 2 games in the 32 games since.   Maybe you really did just choose 50 because it was a round number and didn't deliberately cherry pick it, but I still think it any attempt to use that 50 games as some sort of indicator of the current state of the team is misleading.

[Tony-OH]

1 minute ago, SteveA said:

I still say choosing 50, where the first 21 are really bad, and the next 29 are slightly over .500, and saying this is a reflection of what the team is right now , a sub-.500 team -- is cherry picking.

And it wasn't specifically an attack on just  your post.   It was on all the posts, including yours, that keep bringing up 23-27, or 24-28, and saying that proves something about the current team.   You are far from the only one doing that.   I heard it so many times that I finally felt the need to break down that 50 games and see that the worst part of it was all over a month ago.   A 21 game stretch where we were 5 under .500 and had two 5 game losing streaks, that ended July 12.   And we haven't had a single losing streak longer 2 games in the 32 games since.   Maybe you really did just choose 50 because it was a round number and didn't deliberately cherry pick it, but I still think it any attempt to use that 50 games as some sort of indicator of the current state of the team is misleading.

That's fine, it's your right not to like that number of games, but you went an cherry picked a group of games that fit your point as well. 

We actually don't disagree all that much on the state of the Orioles. 

I've seen the posts from people who think the Orioles are terrible, but whether they pick a certain amount of games or not, the fact is the team has played .500 ball for a long time now. 

That's who they are RIGHT NOW. Does that mean that's who they will be in late September? Nope. 

In the end, all past performance tells us is the past. But, we can look at our current rotation (with Eflin out) and bullpen and have questions on how good this team can be without getting healthier. If Eflin, Rodriguez, Coulombe and Webb come back and are successful I'll feel a lot better about this team's chances in October.

[Moshagge3]

I think people are underestimating how difficult and rare it is to win 100 games and how much luck goes into it. The Blue Jays as a franchise have never won 100 games. The Rangers have never won 100 games. There is a reason the projection systems almost never project anyone to win 100 games. We got to see the 100th win and the division-clinching game on the same night last year, something that not many fanbases get to experience. Achievement unlocked.

So, yeah, this year I'm in "survive and advance" mode. Get to the finish line, get some guys back, win some series.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Moshagge3 said:

I think people are underestimating how difficult and rare it is to win 100 games and how much luck goes into it. The Blue Jays as a franchise have never won 100 games. The Rangers have never won 100 games. There is a reason the projection systems almost never project anyone to win 100 games. We got to see the 100th win and the division-clinching game on the same night last year, something that not many fanbases get to experience. Achievement unlocked.

So, yeah, this year I'm in "survive and advance" mode. Get to the finish line, get some guys back, win some series.

I said similar stuff during the offseason and was just labeled negative.

Even without the injuries, even with a more talented team, the 2024 team was unlikely to win as many games.

 

[foxfield]

2 minutes ago, Moshagge3 said:

I think people are underestimating how difficult and rare it is to win 100 games and how much luck goes into it. The Blue Jays as a franchise have never won 100 games. The Rangers have never won 100 games. There is a reason the projection systems almost never project anyone to win 100 games. We got to see the 100th win and the division-clinching game on the same night last year, something that not many fanbases get to experience. Achievement unlocked.

So, yeah, this year I'm in "survive and advance" mode. Get to the finish line, get some guys back, win some series.

Excellent point.

 

26 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

That's fine, it's your right not to like that number of games, but you went an cherry picked a group of games that fit your point as well. 

We actually don't disagree all that much on the state of the Orioles. 

I've seen the posts from people who think the Orioles are terrible, but whether they pick a certain amount of games or not, the fact is the team has played .500 ball for a long time now. 

That's who they are RIGHT NOW. Does that mean that's who they will be in late September? Nope. 

In the end, all past performance tells us is the past. But, we can look at our current rotation (with Eflin out) and bullpen and have questions on how good this team can be without getting healthier. If Eflin, Rodriguez, Coulombe and Webb come back and are successful I'll feel a lot better about this team's chances in October.

I agree with you Tony in the sense that I don't think you and @SteveA are that far off.  I think parts of your posts come across more similar to those, who as you point out above, see the Orioles are terrible.  That simply is a poor take and I read your earlier posts as coming close to agreeing with some of those.

This team can miss the playoffs or win the World Series.  But to do anything in October it is going to need improvement from where it is.  Whether you look at the last 15 games or last 50.  The really good news is that there is still a ton of talent on this ball club.  A couple of good breaks wouldn't hurt either....lol. 

[Ohfan67]

56 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I said similar stuff during the offseason and was just labeled negative.

Unfortunately, being realistic is often kind of equal to being negative.  And you often a really realistic guy! 

[terpoh]

3 hours ago, foxfield said:

But you are making your own point.  Even today if the Orioles play .450 ball they are going to win 90 games.  It has to get much worse for the Orioles to miss the playoffs or the Red Sox have to get much hotter.  Can the Orioles miss out.  Of course.

But that is unlikely and too many are simply caught up in a funk.  You can argue all you want that they should not win 90.  It is possible you are right.  I am comfortable that you're overly focused on negative facts and overlooking positives.  

My point was that .450 would NOT win 90.. not that it would.