Anyone else cheering for the O's to lose?

[Mashed Potatoes]

You are making my point for me.

I WAS making an extreme characterization, because one of those is the basis of his whole argument here. Until he realizes that, there will be no chance for movement on this impasse.

You're claiming that your post was a caricature of an argument...

One pick in general can make a huge difference, but it doesn't matter whether it is one pick higher or lower, and it can change drastically from year to year.

yet here you revert back to that caricature as your real argument.

[Sports Guy]

We aren't getting the number one pick, and even if that pick has a 50% chance, all the others are worse enough to make it not matter which we get, until we know who we are getting and how they turn out.

I presented a scenario where we could possibly have the #1 pick.

If you trust Jordan, than you should trust him to take the #1 player in his board...The only way you can guarantee that is by getting the #1 pick.

So, last week of this season...We need 4 losses to get the #1 pick...Do you want us to lose those 4 games?

[Mashed Potatoes]

He is saying that because I would have rooted for the Orioles to win that series against the Yankees, despite knowing nothing about the future (which is where his points are flawed to the point of irrelevance) I am a bad fan.

However, if my rooting interest has no affect anyway, then his whole argument is moot.

I thought his entire point was based on the fact that hindsight was on our side.

As for Sean, if ones rooting interest doesn't matter, then what is his reasoning for being negative to the point of not posting when the team wins, and reveling in the losses, which you yourself are claiming? He is truly a terrible fan, and I have never seen evidence to the contrary.

But Sean is like him, which was what I was referring to.

Rooting interest matters in terms of what a fan should be, not in terms of Orioles wins and losses.

My bad, I thought you were referring to SG not Sean in that point.

[mweb]

We aren't getting the number one pick, and even if that pick has a 50% chance, all the others are worse enough to make it not matter which we get, until we know who we are getting and how they turn out.

I know we aren't getting the #1 pick, I was specifically replying to a O's119 post about the #1 pick.

[BaltimoreTerp]

You're claiming that your post was a caricature of an argument...

yet here you revert back to that caricature as your real argument.

Sigh.

No.

My response to SG about his scenario was a caricature of his argument to show him how flawed it was.

As for the second part, you were saying one position in the draft HIGHER can make a difference. I was saying that one position either way can make a difference, and that can chance from year to year.

That means we don't know whether or not losing a couple extra games is worth doing for nine months, until we see who we will have available at our spot to choose from, nor until years in the future until we see how those picks turn out.

[mweb]

Well... what is the success rate? I provided the evidence.

Do you have a BP subscription? If so, go here.

If not, I'll do some copying and pasting for you.

[Sports Guy]

I know we aren't getting the #1 pick, I was specifically replying to a O's119 post about the #1 pick.

We are only 7 wins ahead of Tampa with 6 games left head to head...No guarantee there.

BTW, there are 9 teams(including us) who have somewhere between 57-59 wins...We could end up with the #2 pick or the #11 pick.

So, this is a real scenario....Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 70 wins means the #2 pick and 75 wins means the #7 pick.

What would you guys root for?

[mweb]

We are only 7 wins ahead of Tampa with 6 games left head to head...No guarantee there.

BTW, there are 9 teams(including us) who have somwhere between 57-59 wins...We could end up with the #2 pick or the #11 pick.

So, this is a real scenario....Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 70 wins means the #2 pick and 75 wins means the #7 pick.

What would you guys root for?

Yeah, it's possible, just doubtful. I'll take 70.

[JoeOrsulak]

We are only 7 wins ahead of Tampa with 6 games left head to head...No guarantee there.

BTW, there are 9 teams(including us) who have somewhere between 57-59 wins...We could end up with the #2 pick or the #11 pick.

So, this is a real scenario....Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 70 wins means the #2 pick and 75 wins means the #7 pick.

What would you guys root for?

thank you for reiterating the thought SG. all these teams are bunched up, so a couple wins here and there means a huge difference. that is the whole premise of me posting the thread.

[JoeOrsulak]

Yeah, it's possible, just doubtful. I'll take 70.

But there is Justin Smoak at #2 who would look very nice as a O.

Two very strong college positional players. Exactly what the O's need.

[Sports Guy]

thank you for reiterating the thought SG. all these teams are bunched up, so a couple wins here and there means a huge difference. that is the whole premise of me posting the thread.

My bad Joe...Got so caught up in the other bs, i didn;t even read your opening post.

Did anyone actually answer you or did they jump on you for the title and started crying?(i didn't read the first several pages)

[Mashed Potatoes]

Sigh.

No.

My response to SG about his scenario was a caricature of his argument to show him how flawed it was.

As for the second part, you were saying one position in the draft HIGHER can make a difference. I was saying that one position either way can make a difference, and that can chance from year to year.

That means we don't know whether or not losing a couple extra games is worth doing for nine months, until we see who we will have available at our spot to choose from, nor until years in the future until we see how those picks turn out.

We never know for sure how much one spot is worth until a decade afterwards. I'm saying regardless of what happens it is meaningful to get the best player you can based on your rankings at the moment.

I don't care if you know diddly squat about the draft, who will be available, what's the financial status of the teams below you, signability issues, etc. You will always improve your chances to get the player you want if you draft higher.

[JoeOrsulak]

My bad Joe...Got so caught up in the other bs, i didn;t even read your opening post.

Did anyone actually answer you or did they jump on you for the title and started crying?(i didn't read the first several pages)

No big deal. Appreciate you reiterating my point.

Pretty much a lot of jumping on me for not being a "fan" and not knowing what it means to lose etc...

I am not advocating every year, but this year a couple loses here and there could make a huge difference for two reasons:

- so many teams bunched up

- two stud college positional players available (I don't see players dropping in the draft ala Wieters next year. See owners saying if teams like the O's and Nats aren't going to abide to the "slotting rules" we won't.)

will add your point

- winning a couple more games might sway the FO that the team isn't that bad and just needs a couple band aids: giving big contracts to players like A. Jones and Scott Linebrink. we have gone with this band aid approach for at least the last 9 years and it hasn't worked.

[mweb]

Well... what is the success rate? I provided the evidence.

So either you've read the evidence I've provided and just don't want to say you were off on this, or you're just assuming that my link proves my point. Either way, here's some info from BP and Rany Jazayerli, note that there's some charts that I can't paste:

"The first thing that stands out is that the #1 overall selection is significantly more valuable than the picks that come after it, even the picks that come immediately after it."

"The typical #1 overall pick is worth more than 46 WARP in the first 15 years of his career; no other draft slot comes within even 10 wins of that total."

"Draft Rule #1: The greatest difference in value between consecutive draft picks is the difference between the first and second picks in a draft."

[oriole_way]

I would love it if the Orioles were able to draft a prospect like Alvarez.

However, thinking that if the Orioles lost enough games to acquire the right to select Alvarez #1 will lead to a promised land is flawed, even if Alvarez is the next Arod or Pujols.

When an organization is on their way to a 10th consecutive losing season, it signifies that the organization is bad, and that its problems run deep. Drafting the next Albert Pujols might help that organization somewhat, but it won't suddenly lead to multiple playoff appearances by itself. Until changes for the better in the organization are made, the end results will assuredly not change.

However, if the organization is good, it likely won't be in a position to draft Alvarez #1 overall, but it still takes advantages of opportunities that present themselves. And that organization will likely continue to excel over the long haul.

For example, did anyone know that the Red Sox drafted Alvarez out of high school in 2005 in the 14th round and offerred him a significant signing bonus? Sure, Alvarez turned them down, but does it surprise anyone that the Red Sox took a shot? And while the Red Sox won't be in a position to draft Alvarez next year, they will probably try to sign the next Alvarez coming out of hs. And maybe they get him this time.

This is just a small point, but my argument is that a good organization tries to take advantages of all opportunities that present themselves (and I'm not talking about just the draft). If the Orioles start doing that, then they will turn this thing around and they won't need to jockey for the #1-2 draft slot.

Some people have mentioned Texiera as a comparable example to the possibility of drafting Alvarez.

In retrospect, would I have preferred that the Orioles lose that last series to the Yankees and have been able to sign Texiera?

You betcha. No doubt about it.

But would having Tex as an Oriole have appreciably changed the outcome of the last 9-10 years?

I seriously doubt it.

In fact, even if having Tex as an Oriole might have meant that we would have had a few more wins, then we likely never have the opportunity to draft Markakis or Wieters or Rowell. Which in turn means, that we would basically still be stuck where we are now.