Still think this team didn't choke under pressure?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, sportsfan8703 said:

We’ve been dead in the water for two months since the league figured us out. I don’t think there’s been many Pollyannas.
 

You can know your team is dead in the water and still root for them. They’re still playing. 162 is a long season to just stop watching and rooting.

I’m 41. Give me this dead in the water team that made the playoffs versus the dark periods I’ve seen. 

At least I'm not going to hear about how we shouldn't even question Elias this offseason.

Maybe we won't get a thread about making him the highest paid front office guy ever with a lifetime contract.

[sportsfan8703]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

At least I'm not going to hear about how we shouldn't even question Elias this offseason.

Maybe we won't get a thread about making him the highest paid front office guy ever with a lifetime contract.

Well nobody should ever be above being questioned. At worst, it keeps you challenged and sharp. 

[Just Regular]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

At least I'm not going to hear about how we shouldn't even question Elias this offseason.

Maybe we won't get a thread about making him the highest paid front office guy ever with a lifetime contract.

As if he didn't sell himself high and get that done with John Angelos.     The man runs a tight ship.

[Chromehill]

It can be debated from an analytical perspective if it is better to offensively focus on hitting homeruns or playing small ball or a combination of both.  It cannot be debated that this team offensively is horrible at the fundamentals in pressure situations.  

The most basic fundamental in hitting a baseball is getting a good pitch to hit.  This team, routinely swings at horrible pitches, other teams have figured that out and that is what they see, willingly chasing pitches 6 inches outside or below the knees.  

Until their inability to lay off of bad switches is corrected, they will struggle offensively.  

Having a team of free swinging homerun hitters will not be successful.  They need to add guys who are willing to work the count, take a walk.  They need more speed, and some guys who can play small ball.

In the lose to KC, they could not get a sac fly when needed.  They could not hit behind the runner.  They were not willing to bunt to advance a runner.  

I don't care what the analytics say, when you strike out, nothing good can happen.  You can't advance the runner via hitting behind a runner, no sac fly, no chance of an error.  All you can say is they didn't hit into a double play.  With analytics, sometimes numbers are just numbers and the nerd analyzing them doesn't understand the context.  

Please give me some 70's baseball.  

 

 

[ThomasTomasz]

4 minutes ago, Chromehill said:

It can be debated from an analytical perspective if it is better to offensively focus on hitting homeruns or playing small ball or a combination of both.  It cannot be debated that this team offensively is horrible at the fundamentals in pressure situations.  

The most basic fundamental in hitting a baseball is getting a good pitch to hit.  This team, routinely swings at horrible pitches, other teams have figured that out and that is what they see, willingly chasing pitches 6 inches outside or below the knees.  

Until their inability to lay off of bad switches is corrected, they will struggle offensively.  

Having a team of free swinging homerun hitters will not be successful.  They need to add guys who are willing to work the count, take a walk.  They need more speed, and some guys who can play small ball.

In the lose to KC, they could not get a sac fly when needed.  They could not hit behind the runner.  They were not willing to bunt to advance a runner.  

I don't care what the analytics say, when you strike out, nothing good can happen.  You can't advance the runner via hitting behind a runner, no sac fly, no chance of an error.  All you can say is they didn't hit into a double play.  With analytics, sometimes numbers are just numbers and the nerd analyzing them doesn't understand the context.  

Please give me some 70's baseball.  

 

 

100%, if I could give you a reaction to this post, I’d give you a lot.  

But I will say, like I said last night, that the three outcomes will win games in the regular season, but you aren’t winning them in the playoffs.  It is a completely different beast, against better, more talented competition.  

It is why I would try to see what it would take from the Padres to get me Luis Arraez in the worst way.  And if I can’t get Arraez, I am looking for other players with a similar skill set, that can get the ball in play, don’t strike out a lot, and I am also implementing a lot more bat-to-ball learning and coaching during spring training next year.  

 

[baltfan]

10 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Agreed. The whole approach at one point was to swing at pitches you can do damage on and take or foul of those that you can't. Somewhere that turned into swing from your heels with upper cut swings and hope to hit home runs.

Also, if you are teaching everyone in the minors to take the exact same approach it is easy for other teams to exploit you if they find a problem with the approach.  Teams seemed to have figured the Orioles out in the second half of the season.

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, baltfan said:

Also, if you are teaching everyone in the minors to take the exact same approach it is easy for other teams to exploit you if they find a problem with the approach.  Teams seemed to have figured the Orioles out in the second half of the season.

If you have a sound approach who cares if they "figured it out".  If the approach is sound it works anyway.

Swinging at pitches you can drive and taking borderline pitches you can't drive isn't particularly exploitable.

Throwing strikes at the edges of the strike zone in areas that the hitter is weak against is pitching 101.

The problem isn't their stated approach, it's the execution.

[Bemorewins]

1 hour ago, survivedc said:

This “spare parts” argument is easily the most overstated critique of the Elias era. Every team does it, and frankly, I think the few that we have have generally performed well.

There’s nothing wrong with it and it should be used. But IMO it is a wholly inappropriate strategy to be the centerpiece strategy for talent acquisition for a team vying for a WS.

In 23 our main acquisitions were Flaherty and Fuji. Neither performed very well before arriving, neither were in high demand, and both were we can “fix” then kind of moves.

In 24’ we did better with actually acquiring 2 good to very good players in Burnes and Eflin. But then there were a bunch of “we can fix them” spare/failed parts from other team acquisitions (Kimbrel, Soto, Dominguez, Jimenez, and the absolute worst of all Rodgers). 

We had real holes to fill and with only 2 of the 9 did we fill with players who weren’t of the spare parts/misfit toys variety. That is not going to get it done and is certainly not good enough for a team trying to win a ring. (If that is the true goal).

[Tony-OH]

10 hours ago, EddeeEddee said:

I like Tony's posts and frequently agree with him, but I don't really get this thread. 

Would I be a polyanna for believing in the starting pitching, the bullpen and Hyde's management of each?  Yeah, I probably would think of someone who always apologizes and makes excuses for Hyde's bullpen management, for example, as a bit of a polyanna.  Except the pitching was excellent the past two games.  I was ready to scream when Hyde pulled Eflin -- except the bullpen pretty much did their job.  3 runs over two full games was all the scoring allowed.  So, regarding the pitching the polyannas were pretty much proved right -- at least for two playoff games and maybe several series back into the season.

Am I a polyanna for believing this team should be able to hit?  This I'm less convinced on.  I think most people -- even the pessimists and cynics -- thought this team could and would hit well.  Especially because they did hit last season and the first half of this season overall.  And because of all the touted prospects making their way up.  I can't call the fans who believed in the young hitters polyannas -- except for maybe some of those who still believe we would have been better off starting Mayo over Urias.  But is that guy a polyanna or just odd?  

Criticizing Elias for the team's failure to hit may be valid, but I think someone has to make a strong case for it.  And even the hitting coaches or other coaches -- if they are such crap then why so much initial success?  Did they fail to help the hitters adjust once they started to struggle?  Maybe so but I think there needs to be a pretty strong argument for it -- something other than they don't know what they're doing.  

 

Obviously I was little upset last night, but none of those reasons would be considered a pollyanna. 

I was certainly venting with this thread, though I stand by my concerns.

[baltfan]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If you have a sound approach who cares if they "figured it out".  If the approach is sound it works anyway.

Swinging at pitches you can drive and taking borderline pitches you can't drive isn't particularly exploitable.

Throwing strikes at the edges of the strike zone in areas that the hitter is weak against is pitching 101.

The problem isn't their stated approach, it's the execution.

The approach also has to do with how you handle two strike counts and what the shape of your swing is.  The Orioles have been exploited by the high fastball and have let themselves get in bad counts by considering pitches that are bad to hit in the minors but good to hit in the majors pitches that they shouldn't swing at.  When they tried to adjust, they swung at tons of stuff outside of the zone.  In the NFL, what is "open" is not the same as in college.  The same is true of what is a good pitch to hit in the majors vs. the minors.  When you literally have an app that is teaching players what they should and shouldn't swing at, teams are going to be able to exploit this if the app is wrong for the majors.  That doesn't mean an app is a bad idea.  It just means that if the development team is wrong, it is easy to exploit.

[oriolediehard]

It started in 2019 when we picked Adley over Witt.  The media had Adley the top pick and we got fooled.  Witt is heck of a clutch hitter.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, baltfan said:

The approach also has to do with how you handle two strike counts and what the shape of your swing is.  The Orioles have been exploited by the high fastball and have let themselves get in bad counts by considering pitches that are bad to hit in the minors but good to hit in the majors pitches that they shouldn't swing at.  When they tried to adjust, they swung at tons of stuff outside of the zone.  In the NFL, what is "open" is not the same as in college.  The same is true of what is a good pitch to hit in the majors vs. the minors.  When you literally have an app that is teaching players what they should and shouldn't swing at, teams are going to be able to exploit this if the app is wrong for the majors.  That doesn't mean an app is a bad idea.  It just means that if the development team is wrong, it is easy to exploit.

I think that falls under execution.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, oriolediehard said:

It started in 2019 when we picked Adley over Witt.  The media had Adley the top pick and we got fooled.  Witt is heck of a clutch hitter.

I was bashed a lot for saying Witt was the guy we should take/should have taken.
 

The Os have done a good job at the top of the draft…but they could have done even better than they did.

Edited 2 hours ago by Sports Guy

[baltfan]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think that falls under execution.

No, it doesn't.  They are executing the swings they were taught and swinging at the pitches they were taught to swing at.  It's like the QB looking at the WR who is "open" in the NFL, not thinking he is open, and getting sacked because he doesn't throw it.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, baltfan said:

No, it doesn't.  They are executing the swings they were taught and swinging at the pitches they were taught to swing at.  It's like the QB looking at the WR who is "open" in the NFL, not thinking he is open, and getting sacked because he doesn't throw it.

I think they are swinging at pitches they were not taught to swing at.  You can't tell me that Cowser was instructed to swing at the pitch that broke his hand.

I also think they are taking pitches that not borderline strikes and falling behind in the count.

I also think that the difference between the ABS system and actual umps is part of the issue and that probably needs to be addressed in some fashion.