Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Last night I watched most of the MLB Network telecast of the Orioles/Pirates game and the Pirate commentators said something that made me wonder. They said that while winning a ST game is essentially meaningless there is one aspect that is important and that is building confidence in a team (especially a young team) that they can win games on a regular basis. As such, they said it would be a help in that regard for the Orioles to win their 2nd game of the Grapefruit season.

I think they are probably right on this and it makes me wonder how a young team like the Orioles can be confident of winning when they haven't done so? In fact, they haven't had a winning season in over a dozen years and how do they over come this confidence factor barrier that would seem inherent to losing teams?

Maybe I missed it but I don't recall this being discusssed much here as a topic or even a concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Last night I watched most of the MLB Network telecast of the Orioles/Pirates game and the Pirate commentators said something that made me wonder. They said that while winning a ST game is essentially meaningless there is one aspect that is important and that is building confidence in a team (especially a young team) that they can win games on a regular basis. As such, they said it would be a help in that regard for the Orioles to win their 2nd game of the Grapefruit season.

I think they are probably right on this and it makes me wonder how a young team like the Orioles can be confident of winning when they haven't done so? In fact, they haven't had a winning season in over a dozen years and how do they over come this confidence factor barrier that would seem inherent to losing teams?

Maybe I missed it but I don't recall this being discusssed much here as a topic or even a concern.

Wieters, Matusz, Jones, Tillman, Riemold, etc haven't lost much either. Why would they not be confident that they can win? Because Steve Kline and Sammy Sosa couldn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it matters somewhat. Not so much right now, but you'd like to finish spring training by winning your share of games over the last 2-3 weeks.

Most of our young players had winning experiences in the minors at Frederick and Bowie, and each of the vets we acquired has been a key part of a playoff team in the past, so I'm not too worried that the team's confidence will be fragile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the Yankees on MLB network this past weekend and the announcers asked Ghirardi how important it was to win games. He said he likes to win the games, have people used to winning. He also said that its more important to make sure things are done correctly at the end of the games - moving runners over, etc.

I don't think Matt Wieters and co are particulary concerned with being 2-6 - its not like any of those guys are in at the end of the game anyway. If the team goes 0-7 in the last week of ST - I'd be more concerned.

Also, all these young guys were on very successful teams in the minors. Last year was really their first time to experience losing.

So my opinion - yes its important to win some games in ST, but in the first 10 games, it doesn't make an ounce of difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is actually some pretty reasonable analysis by the OP. But I think it's more like momentum. Big wins at big times can create more momentum than beating the KC Royals 10 times.

Momentum is a tricky tricky thing and there is no good way to say when it will strike, help or hurt, see the Orioles run a few summers ago before Tejada/Pameiro/Sosagate.

But I don't think they go in thinking about the win. Bergeson wants to work on his location. Milwood his changeup. Matusz his fastball. They all have something they want to get out of a ST game that might not be winning but could lead to winning.

Once the regular season starts I think this analysis is a lot more meaningful because I think most guys would sacrifice part of their game to win and thus the losing really starts to take its toll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last night I watched most of the MLB Network telecast of the Orioles/Pirates game and the Pirate commentators said something that made me wonder. They said that while winning a ST game is essentially meaningless there is one aspect that is important and that is building confidence in a team (especially a young team) that they can win games on a regular basis. As such, they said it would be a help in that regard for the Orioles to win their 2nd game of the Grapefruit season.

I think they are probably right on this and it makes me wonder how a young team like the Orioles can be confident of winning when they haven't done so? In fact, they haven't had a winning season in over a dozen years and how do they over come this confidence factor barrier that would seem inherent to losing teams?Maybe I missed it but I don't recall this being discusssed much here as a topic or even a concern.

I actually agree with this, but hope you don't get alot of flak b/c of who you are. There certainly has been a culture of losing here for a while, but alot of the guys on this team haven't been a part of that. Hopefully, guys like Bergy, Wieters, Reimold etc. will not be affected by this culture and can help establish a new culture of believing in yourself and expecting to win. That said, the more talent you have on your team the less that things like this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: if you were asked to predict the Orioles record for 2010 what type of information would you want? An estimate of the talent of the team, probably. Maybe some information about opposing teams, sure. How far down on the list would "what was their record from March 1 - March 11 in spring training games?" be. Pretty far down, I hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: if you were asked to predict the Orioles record for 2010 what type of information would you want? An estimate of the talent of the team, probably. Maybe some information about opposing teams, sure. How far down on the list would "what was their record from March 1 - March 11 in spring training games?" be. Pretty far down, I hope.

I agree that it's not the first thing that you look at, but it's also difficult to analyze b/c it can't be measured? At least in some way, the confidence that players have contributes to their play on the field. How many games does that difference make? Who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: if you were asked to predict the Orioles record for 2010 what type of information would you want? An estimate of the talent of the team, probably. Maybe some information about opposing teams, sure. How far down on the list would "what was their record from March 1 - March 11 in spring training games?" be. Pretty far down, I hope.

I agree with you 100 percent if this was a veteran team that was used to winning - see Yankees, NY or Red Sox, Boston. However, on a young team I must admit I do worry a bit about confidence being a factor upon giving it some thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there's really any correlation, much less causation, to winning preseason exhibition games and winning regular season games. Especially since large parts of the games are being played by minor leaguers and the objectives are different, especially for pitchers. The 2008 Detroit Lions went 4-0 in the preseason and using hindsight I would argue that they didn't exactly "learn how to win" or "build momentum." Spring training is about getting back into the rhythm of baseball, working on a new pitch or maybe learning a new position, and evaluating players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there's really any correlation, much less causation, to winning preseason exhibition games and winning regular season games. Especially since large parts of the games are being played by minor leaguers and the objectives are different, especially for pitchers. The 2008 Detroit Lions went 4-0 in the preseason and using hindsight I would argue that they didn't exactly "learn how to win" or "build momentum." Spring training is about getting back into the rhythm of baseball, working on a new pitch or maybe learning a new position, and evaluating players.

So the regular season is where they need to build the confidence by winning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused the O's corrected themselves after you pointed out to them that if they played like they did in the first game they would have no chance in the regular season. The young guys have all followed instruction and shouldn't win another game all ST, meaning they are a lock to win atleast 125+ regular season games. I mean how can you lose with all of the slumps out of the way in ST. Now your saying this is all wrong also. You are hard to follow on what ST games really mean???:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the regular season is where they need to build the confidence by winning?

Why do you think that our players lack confidence? I haven't seen any interviews with players that denote a lack of confidence. I haven't heard Brian Matusz or Chris Tillman or Matt Wieters say "Aw shucks, I'm not sure if I'm able to compete and this level. I've never won anything in my career, why would I be able to start now?"

I think this team is very confident in their abilities, from what I've read. I don't think their psyches are so fragile that a few spring training losses are going to prevent the growth of our young players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • A lot of teams (likely driven by analytics) are putting their best overall hitter at 2 (like the Yankees batting Soto 2, and the Dodgers batting Shohei 2) to maximize ABs while guaranteeing that a high-OBP guy is batting in front of him to give him opportunities with men on base.  That's probably what we want.  It seems logical considering how thoroughly debunked small-ball in the first inning has been.  Rutschman at 3 is fine.
    • Realistically I think Adley as the leadoff guy is the best lineup for us but if he has trouble batting leadoff in half the games because he can't get his catcher's gear off fast enough then I get it.   Cowser has continued to be incredibly patient, and if Adley can't be our leadoff guy then Cowser is probably our next best option.  Of course Cowser also hits a lot of bombs, so it'd be interesting if he goes on another heater.   If Cowser gets off the schneid then Cowser leadoff and Gunnar at 2 could be incredibly potent.  I don't think Cowser is actually playing that badly, he's just been running into some bad luck.  And he's starting to wake up a little bit anyway.
    • Agreed, appreciate the stats. Gunnar isn't a leadoff hitter - he's a prototypical #3 hitter or cleanup hitter. Hyde writes poor lineups, and Gunnar hitting leadoff has been one of the consistent problems with the offense this season. Gunnar hitting mostly solo shots is both a consequence and reflection of this offense's flaws - the O's have too many low-OBP hitters in the lineup (hitting in less-than-optimal spots for the most part) and are too reliant on solo homers to generate runs. At least Hyde has started hitting Westburg leadoff against LHP, which is progress, but Hyde is way too stubborn and too slow to make the correct adjustments. He's very similar to Buck Showalter in that respect.  Anyway, I look forward to Hyde waking up and moving Gunnar down to #3/#4 against RHP.  
    • While the return on the Tettleton trade wasn't ideal, 1: I don't think you can really expect a 30 year old catcher to put up a career year and then follow it up with another one, and 2: we had Chris Hoiles who played quite well for us following Tettleton's departure.  If we had forward thinking GMs we probably would split them at C and give them DH/1B/OF games on their non catching days, which is what Detroit did with Tettleton to prolong his career after 1992.  (He was basically the same hitter from 1993-1995 but he stopped catching with regularity so his WAR was much lower.)   The Davis trade was so completely undefensible on every level, not the least of which because we already had a player who was at least as good as Davis was on the team, but he didn't fit the stereotypical batting profile of a 1B.  At least today teams wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a 10 HR first baseman if he's got an OBP of .400.
    • The Glenn Davis trade was so bad it overshadowed another really bad trade in team history. The Orioles traded Mickey Tettleton that same offseason for Jeff Robinson in part because Tettleton had an off year in 1990 with a .223 batting average and a .381 slugging percentage. Except Tettleton drew 116 walks making his OBP .376 and his OPS+ was 116. Jeff Robinson was coming off a 5.96 ERA in 145 innings pitched. I have no idea what the team was thinking with this trade. Robinson did manage to lower his ERA in 1991 to 5.18 his only Orioles season. There's no way this trade is made today in the age of analytics. Tettleton meanwhile put up 171 home runs and an .859 OPS for the remainder of his career. 😬 Just a bad trade that doesn't get talked about enough thanks to Glenn Davis.
    • Your best POWER hitter should get the most at bats with men on base. Gunnar is third on the team in OB%, but far and away the leader in SLG%. Heck, right now he has the highest SLG% in the AL. Yet he has the fewest ABs with men on base of any of our regulars. Batting him leadoff gives Gunnar more opportunities to hit HRs and score runs, but fewer opportunities to drive in runs. 75% of Henderson's HRs have been hit with the base empty. Compare that to Ohtani (62%), Tucker (60%), Ozuna (57%), Naylor (50%), or Judge (46%). 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...