Roch clarifies AM's "O's will be judged more on wins and losses" comment

[Sports Guy]

I know you have been very weary of the double talk from our FO over the past couple years. Making strong statements in the paper and either backing away from them later or not following through.

What to you feel when you read comments like that?

I am not Tony but to me it says, we don't expect to finish last.

The problem is, I think we can finish 4th but that's not meaningful improvement in the standings.

I doubt we can finish third.

So, which is it? Meaningful improvement in wins or in the standings?

Because to be 3rd or better, we need to be an 85+ win team to have a chance at that...The Orioles aren't that right now.

[AgentOrange]

I am not Tony but to me it says, we don't expect top finish last.

The problem is, I think we can finish 4th but that's not meaningful improvement in the standings.

I doubt we can finish third.

So, which is it? Meaningful improvement in wins or in the standings?

Because to be 3rd or better, we need to be an 85+ win team to have a chance at that...The Orioles aren't that right now.

I agree. There is a difference.

Wins is more important, IMO. You can use that more statistically when evaluating your team. And if the Wins improve, they have to come from somewhere. Hopefully it is the AL East.

[24fps]

You are an outlier...likely to be disregarded.

I personally just want to enjoy watching the team a little more than last year...and I enjoyed it immensely. Maybe I'm easy.

If you enjoyed watching the team last year then perhaps it's you who is the outlier, but enough gratuitous name-calling and cheap shots.

Roch's blog entry yesterday touches on the most important issue of the off season - how much concrete support can we get from a front office we have reason to trust for the first time in a long while.

Chances are that Roch's blurb was nothing more than a casual update during a traditionally slow news week. My worry is that it instead marks the beginning of this year's campaign aimed at lowering expectations, and while you might be easy, I want no part of it.

I'm certainly guilty of reading too much into things at times, but "significant improvement" is a subjective standard, and one that we all are entitled to be wary of. I haven't seen anyone on here mention a number higher than 85 wins in 2010, and most of us would be agreeable to 81. AM still has work to do to reach even that modest goal, and a lot of us are more than happy to judge his progress on more objective terms as he is on record believing is now appropriate.

A year from now wins and losses will be too simple a metric to tell the entire story of the 2010 Orioles, but IMO it should be the most important one to consider. As always, it will remain the only metric required to determine who makes it to the post season, a place the O's won't be visiting once again. Vague mumblings about "rebuilding years" and "market conditions" are no longer remotely sufficient to make that reality palatable.

[Arthur_Bryant]

I am not Tony but to me it says, we don't expect to finish last.

The problem is, I think we can finish 4th but that's not meaningful improvement in the standings.

I doubt we can finish third.

So, which is it? Meaningful improvement in wins or in the standings?

Because to be 3rd or better, we need to be an 85+ win team to have a chance at that...The Orioles aren't that right now.

At the risk of being troublesome... The standings almost always include a W-L record and a "GB" column.

So I'm not sure that Roch's remark clarifies much, especially since it was probably just a throwaway line at the end of a column.

[JDubs]

If you enjoyed watching the team last year then perhaps it's you who is the outlier, but enough gratuitous name-calling and cheap shots.

Winning really needn't be everything. I didn't fall in love with the O's when I was a kid because they were good. I fell in love with the game, the players, and the organization. Winning is merely icing. Egregious losing is unpleasant, but I won't let it make me forget what attracted me in the first place.

If that makes me an outlier, then so be it.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Winning really needn't be everything. I didn't fall in love with the O's when I was a kid because they were good. I fell in love with the game, the players, and the organization. Winning is merely icing. Egregious losing is unpleasant, but I won't let it make me forget what attracted me in the first place.

If that makes me an outlier, then so be it.

There's a reason Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book about us

[24fps]

Winning really needn't be everything. I didn't fall in love with the O's when I was a kid because they were good. I fell in love with the game, the players, and the organization. Winning is merely icing. Egregious losing is unpleasant, but I won't let it make me forget what attracted me in the first place.

If that makes me an outlier, then so be it.

Your motives for being an Orioles fan are all well and good and they make you precisely as special as all the rest of us. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but evidently what separates you from most of the rest of us is an apparent willingness to uncritically accept whatever the FO hands out. To each his own. They keep score for a reason, the same reason they update the standings every day.

BTW, when it come to handing out neg rep, you might want to try acquiring some positive rep of your own if you want there to be any impact.

[Old#5fan]

I love it when such arbitary goals are thrown out there as in "meaningful' step forward in the standings or wins and losses with no numbers mentioned. What a joke. Either you have a goal of winning at least 10 more games or hitting 500 or whatever, you need to establish it and not make it some unknown moving target.

This crap is really getting old.

[Frobby]

I love it when such arbitary goals are throw out there as in "meaningful' step forward in the standings or wins and losses with no numbers mentioned. What a joke. Either you have a goal of winning at least 10 more games or hitting 500 or whatever, you need to establish it and not make it some unknown moving target.

This crap is really getting old.

I think there are some reasons that MacPhail doesn't put a number out there. First, major injuries sometimes happen during the course of a season that affect expectations. Second, if you set goals too low, you have trouble getting the fan base excited for the season, and if you set them too high, then you set everyone up for disappointment. Third, while the number of wins is clearly going to start becoming more important now, we still have to keep one eye on how the team is developing, and sometimes maximizing development opportunities will be more important than maximizing wins. You could still see MacPhail making a deadline deal that hurts the team for 2010, but is good long term; and in the second half you could see guys like Snyder and Bell start to play even if they aren't going to be better than Atkins and whoever is manning 1B in the short term.

With all that said, I sort of have a number in mind as the minimum that would not be a huge disappointment to me -- 75 wins. That would be an 11-game improvement and the best the team has done since 2004. I think the O's can do better than that, especially if they upgrade 1B, but 75 is probably 2-3 games below where I think the talent level of the team is right now, and anything below that would tell me that another manager might get more out of this team that Trembley has.

[Old#5fan]

I think there are some reasons that MacPhail doesn't put a number out there. First, major injuries sometimes happen during the course of a season that affect expectations. Second, if you set goals too low, you have trouble getting the fan base excited for the season, and if you set them too high, then you set everyone up for disappointment. Third, while the number of wins is clearly going to start becoming more important now, we still have to keep one eye on how the team is developing, and sometimes maximizing development opportunities will be more important than maximizing wins. You could still see MacPhail making a deadline deal that hurts the team for 2010, but is good long term; and in the second half you could see guys like Snyder and Bell start to play even if they aren't going to be better than Atkins and whoever is manning 1B in the short term.

With all that said, I sort of have a number in mind as the minimum that would not be a huge disappointment to me -- 75 wins. That would be an 11-game improvement and the best the team has done since 2004. I think the O's can do better than that, especially if they upgrade 1B, but 75 is probably 2-3 games below where I think the talent level of the team is right now, and anything below that would tell me that another manager might get more out of this team that Trembley has.

Good post but I also think he doesn't want to mention any numbers because he has to be aware of the talent increasing (not decreasing) within the division on teams that the Orioles must ultimately compete. Even more so, he has to realize he hasn't done enough to fill the glaring talent holes on this team by gaining bonifide star quality talent. The key question is will he ever do that? Some here think he is just waiting until next year or whatever. I am a huge doubter that he is doing that. I personally don't think he will ever do it.

[CSB Jack]

I am not Tony but to me it says, we don't expect to finish last.

The problem is, I think we can finish 4th but that's not meaningful improvement in the standings.

I doubt we can finish third.

So, which is it? Meaningful improvement in wins or in the standings?

Because to be 3rd or better, we need to be an 85+ win team to have a chance at that...The Orioles aren't that right now.

Would you consider it a disappointment if the Orioles finish 83-81 and in fourth place in the AL East? In 2009 they not only finished fifth in the division, they were last in the AL and 28 of 30 in MLB. So they could show what I consider to be "meaningful improvement in the standings" by finishing around .500 and move to the middle of the pack in the league and MLB standings without moving too many slots up in the division. Which is actually what I am looking for from 2010.

For me personally if they move to third in the division because Toronto and Tampa Bay both go in the tank but the Orioles only win 75 games and finish in the bottom fifth of the league and MLB standings that would still be a disappointing finish.

[Frobby]

Would you consider it a disappointment if the Orioles finish 83-81 and in fourth place in the AL East?

I assume you mean 82-80, as there are only 162 games in a season. I certainly would not be disappointed with any record over .500. That's obviously not our ultimate goal, but for a team that has been under .500 for 12 years in a row and which won only 64 games last year, it would be a huge stride in the right direction.

[DrungoHazewood]

At the risk of being troublesome... The standings almost always include a W-L record and a "GB" column.

So I'm not sure that Roch's remark clarifies much, especially since it was probably just a throwaway line at the end of a column.

I take meaningful improvement in the standings to mean a lot more wins than last year, no matter where that might place the O's in the AL East.

[Frobby]

Good post but I also think he doesn't want to mention any numbers because he has to be aware of the talent increasing (not decreasing) within the division on teams that the Orioles must ultimately compete. Even more so, he has to realize he hasn't done enough to fill the glaring talent holes on this team by gaining bonifide star quality talent. The key question is will he ever do that? Some here think he is just waiting until next year or whatever. I am a huge doubter that he is doing that. I personally don't think he will ever do it.

I think it depends how many "glaring holes" we have. Right now, we have too many to fill with outside talent. In a year, maybe we think we only have 1-2 "glaring holes" and then it becomes realistic to fill them with star-level store-bought talent.

I think by the end of 2010 we know a lot more about our rotation and the corner infielders. Let's say Matusz, Bergesen and Tillman all pitch well, and Bell and Snyder both have promising debuts. Then it might be realistic to go find a no. 1-2 starter and a very good SS and hope to contend in 2011. But if a bunch of those guys bomb, it may not make sense.

[Old#5fan]

I take meaningful improvement in the standings to mean a lot more wins than last year, no matter where that might place the O's in the AL East.

What is "a lot more wins?" :confused:For a statistical guru that is about as vague as stating nothing.:laughlol: