Elias: It's on me

[Orioles West]

18 minutes ago, Pickles said:

And that's fine.

I'm not trying to pick on you, because there are literally dozens of posts I could have responded to but didn't, but it seems to me a lot of people are asking for contradictory things.

I don’t feel picked on — I didn’t offer much detail regarding the changes I am hoping for.

If my initial post didn’t sound like it, I do have more patience (at least a little more) than most. It may take more than a minute to get depth in the bullpen or an offense that can adjust in crunch time. I get that.

I’m not in the torches and pitchforks crowd, but the O’s can’t sit on their hands either. That’s closer to where I’m at.

 

[bobmc]

16 minutes ago, Orioles West said:

I don’t feel picked on — I didn’t offer much detail regarding the changes I am hoping for.

If my initial post didn’t sound like it, I do have more patience (at least a little more) than most. It may take more than a minute to get depth in the bullpen or an offense that can adjust in crunch time. I get that.

I’m not in the torches and pitchforks crowd, but the O’s can’t sit on their hands either. That’s closer to where I’m at.

 

So a “Pollyanna” then like me, @wildcard and others (joking of course) 

I’m in your camp but really wonder if Elias/Hyde and Co. can truly“flip the script” as @Just Regular alludes.

[Pickles]

24 minutes ago, Orioles West said:

I don’t feel picked on — I didn’t offer much detail regarding the changes I am hoping for.

If my initial post didn’t sound like it, I do have more patience (at least a little more) than most. It may take more than a minute to get depth in the bullpen or an offense that can adjust in crunch time. I get that.

I’m not in the torches and pitchforks crowd, but the O’s can’t sit on their hands either. That’s closer to where I’m at.

 

I'll be honest, the playoffs didn't put me in a happy mood and reading this board has only made it worse.  The amount of people, many well respected, with over the top, outrageous takes calling guys "losers" and "chokers" etc. is ridiculous imo.  This reads more like a football board than a baseball board, and that's not a compliment.

I'm kind of at a loss for what they should do to be honest.  The 2nd half drop-off imo is mostly explained by the injuries, particularly on the mound, and Adley's inexplicable performance.  If they were to run the team back with some minimal upgrades to the rotation and pen, sans Burnes and Santander, I think that's a team that could/should win 95ish games and compete for the division.  But there's downside there too.  And if you get Adley of the 2nd half, then you might be looking more at 85ish wins and missing the playoffs.

However, I see a lot of schizophrenic and illogical takes on the board.  A lot of people are calling for a "veteran hitter" for the lineup; many of those same people are all too happy to let Santander walk.  Some are calling to not just "hand jobs to young guys;" many of these people were the loudest in demanding more aggressive promoting of prospects.

I'm just generally down on the tenor of the board, and personally, I don't have any crazy strong feelings about what I think the O's should or should not do, which is fairly unusual for me.

[now]

Memo to Mike Elias: For an eloquent antidote to the failures of the recent "Oriole way" of run-killing offense, please see the latest report detailing the success of "Guards Ball." 

Whaddya think? Small sample size, or wave of the future?

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, now said:

Memo to Mike Elias: For an eloquent antidote to the failures of the recent "Oriole way" of run-killing offense, please see the latest report detailing the success of "Guards Ball." 

Whaddya think? Small sample size, or wave of the future?

So I'm looking at the example from the piece you posted.

We've got a Double, an error and an Earl special.  The Guards ball is what, the RBI infield single?

[eddie83]

10 minutes ago, now said:

Memo to Mike Elias: For an eloquent antidote to the failures of the recent "Oriole way" of run-killing offense, please see the latest report detailing the success of "Guards Ball." 

Whaddya think? Small sample size, or wave of the future?

SSS

 

CLE BA was .238. BAL .250. OBP for CLE was .308 and for BAL it was .315. 
 

The Orioles terrible at bats in the playoffs are on the players. 

[Too Tall]

It's baseball the way good teams play it. Been played that way before and will be played that way again and again and hopefully in Baltimore next year and beyond. Not easy to do but quite effective. Man I wish we had a Kwan (hear me Holliday???????)

[Can_of_corn]

18 minutes ago, now said:

Memo to Mike Elias: For an eloquent antidote to the failures of the recent "Oriole way" of run-killing offense, please see the latest report detailing the success of "Guards Ball." 

Whaddya think? Small sample size, or wave of the future?

This is funny.

The Guardians were 12th in HR and 14th in scoring.  I guess their run scoring w/out HR wasn't that great.

Seven of the top 10 teams in HR made the playoffs with AZ being one of the ones that didn't. 

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Pickles said:

I'll be honest, the playoffs didn't put me in a happy mood and reading this board has only made it worse.  The amount of people, many well respected, with over the top, outrageous takes calling guys "losers" and "chokers" etc. is ridiculous imo.  This reads more like a football board than a baseball board, and that's not a compliment.

I'm kind of at a loss for what they should do to be honest.  The 2nd half drop-off imo is mostly explained by the injuries, particularly on the mound, and Adley's inexplicable performance.  If they were to run the team back with some minimal upgrades to the rotation and pen, sans Burnes and Santander, I think that's a team that could/should win 95ish games and compete for the division.  But there's downside there too.  And if you get Adley of the 2nd half, then you might be looking more at 85ish wins and missing the playoffs.

However, I see a lot of schizophrenic and illogical takes on the board.  A lot of people are calling for a "veteran hitter" for the lineup; many of those same people are all too happy to let Santander walk.  Some are calling to not just "hand jobs to young guys;" many of these people were the loudest in demanding more aggressive promoting of prospects.

I'm just generally down on the tenor of the board, and personally, I don't have any crazy strong feelings about what I think the O's should or should not do, which is fairly unusual for me.

I agree with all of this but I also believe you took winning for granted.

You argued with me in the offseason when I said this team could win as low as 88 games. You said no way, they are too talented, etc…you never wanted to take injuries into account. You felt the depth was too good, etc…

Part of the reason you are lost, imo, is because you didn’t feel this scenario existed for this team.

[Pickles]

12 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I agree with all of this but I also believe you took winning for granted.

You argued with me in the offseason when I said this team could win as low as 88 games. You said no way, they are too talented, etc…you never wanted to take injuries into account. You felt the depth was too good, etc…

Part of the reason you are lost, imo, is because you didn’t feel this scenario existed for this team.

I don't remember those conversations.  I pegged them at 90-95 wins in the poll, so there's no way I wouldn't have believed they could win 88 games.  Which of course they didn't, even with the injuries and underperformance.

The biggest thing I remember arguing with you about last off-season was that we didn't need to give Ortiz and Cowser up to get Burnes and it would be foolish to give up them both.  I specifically argued that we didn't need to trade Ortiz as we could find a place for him to play, specifically citing the likelihood of injury.

I really think you're thinking about somebody else.  I'm also not sure why you think you were one of the voices arguing for "depth" as you were willing to lose Mateo and Urias for basically nothing, and they both contributed to this team and were a bulwark against injury/underperformance.  You were willing to trade Cowser and where would we have been without him?

This team's performance this year was well within the boundaries of what I expected, if a bit on the lower end.  The only thing confusing to me about it was what happened to Rutschman.

That said, my "confusion" is what is the best path forward.

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I don't remember those conversations.  I pegged them at 90-95 wins in the poll, so there's no way I wouldn't have believed they could win 88 games.  Which of course they didn't, even with the injuries and underperformance.

The biggest thing I remember arguing with you about last off-season was that we didn't need to give Ortiz and Cowser up to get Burnes and it would be foolish to give up them both.  I specifically argued that we didn't need to trade Ortiz as we could find a place for him to play, specifically citing the likelihood of injury.

I really think you're thinking about somebody else.  I'm also not sure why you think you were one of the voices arguing for "depth" as you were willing to lose Mateo and Urias for basically nothing, and they both contributed to this team and were a bulwark against injury/underperformance.  You were willing to trade Cowser and where would we have been without him?

This team's performance this year was well within the boundaries of what I expected, if a bit on the lower end.  The only thing confusing to me about it was what happened to Rutschman.

That said, my "confusion" is what is the best path forward.

It wasn’t Cowser and Ortiz for Burnes..it was Cease.  And at that time, they did have to give that to get him, clearly.

I never wanted to lose Urias for nothing. And yea, I wanted to trade some of our vets and play the kids…and put more emphasis on the pitching staff. I wanted Hays gone and wanted Mounty gone.
 

And it was definitely you but whatever. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sports Guy

[Pickles]

37 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

It wasn’t Cowser and Ortiz for Burnes..it was Cease.  And at that time, they did have to give that to get him, clearly.

I never wanted to lose Urias for nothing. And yea, I wanted to trade some of our vets and play the kids…and put more emphasis on the pitching staff. I wanted Hays gone and wanted Mounty gone.
 

And it was definitely you but whatever. 

Again, I'm not sure what the point of contention is.

They won 91 games and lost in the Wildcard round.  That puts them smack in the middle of what I forecast as their most likely outcome, though I did hope for more playoff success.  I'm not sure how that is proof I misevaluated anything.

Further, again, lecturing me about the importance of depth, when I'm one of the biggest hoarders on this board, and you're one of the biggest opposite of that, is ironic to say the least.

[Sports Guy]

24 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Again, I'm not sure what the point of contention is.

They won 91 games and lost in the Wildcard round.  That puts them smack in the middle of what I forecast as their most likely outcome, though I did hope for more playoff success.  I'm not sure how that is proof I misevaluated anything.

Further, again, lecturing me about the importance of depth, when I'm one of the biggest hoarders on this board, and you're one of the biggest opposite of that, is ironic to say the least.

My post is coming off the wrong way.

 The OP I quoted seemed like you were “lost for words” about why the team struggled the way they did.

All I’m saying is I think you are like that because you didn’t see the scenarios where this much of a drop off from last year was going to happen.

And btw, the depth (to me at least) wasn’t a good thing.  Depth is good when the players are good. If not, they are just guys blocking better talent.

Edited 2 minutes ago by Sports Guy