Decision 2010: Win Now or Rendon Later?

[Sports Guy]

I completely disagree with this. I think telling a team to tank for 5 games because they aren't good enough on their own and they have to hope for the #1 pick to be competitive would pretty much destroy most of our young players.

I'm all for winning with our current players, not purposely hoping they'll lose so that we have a CHANCE at a prospect that MIGHT make a huge impact.

No one is saying to purposely lose.

The Orioles have a tough second half schedule...With injuries, young players fading and guys hopefully traded, playing 420 ball the rest of the season would be pretty good. That is a 69 win team. Not great but considering what we started out at, that would be a big improvement and, as I said, if you incorporate the last 17 games, that would have us at 450 ball, which is a 74 win team and getting us closer to where we thought we would be.

Tanking the season isn't what anyone is saying.

I am hoping that the Orioles play better in the second half than they have all season. I am hoping for improvement across the board. However, with what we have and with what our schedule looks like, we realistically can't EXPECT anything more than a 500ish second half record and if you are asking me, would I rather win 4-6 more games or get the first pick, I want the first pick.

Those extra wins are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

[Sanfran327]

On what planet is 64% to 36% close?

Two and a half hours ago, it was only separated by 20 or so votes.

Also, considering the topic of the poll, I would have thought that the 'Win Now' option would have been 80%+.

Thanks.

[Sports Guy]

I do think they can go about .500. If the young guys keep learning and pitching as they are currently. If the team can continue to average 4.2 runs a game instead of 3.2. If the bullpen can continue to be a strength.

This is textbook Tampa when they turned the corner. A weak offense, above average starting pitching and a great bullpen.

This team is 10-7 in their last 17 games. And a couple of those Detroit games were within reach. I don't think this team is as bad as they look right now. And bringing back Gonzo, Roberts, Pie are all good signs for improvement. But without them and even without Scott (our second best OPS guy) the offense has some life. And so does our team and so does our win loss record.

I like the momentum and the attitude a lot better than the wins themselves. But I think they are playing a direct role. Until I see otherwise, I want to see the heart, the hustle and the hard work. And I can only hope it pays off in wins because then the guys will keep doing it. Hard work that results in losses results in jaded players that don't progress.

A few more wins might mean AJ thinks that he doesn't have to work as hard to carry the offense and he takes maybe .5 more PPA. It means Nick feels a bit more comfortable with the OBP of the team and starts turning on the ball more. Wieters doesn't feel like it's all pressure on him and his offense. These guys need something to believe in, and as a fan it's easy to believe in Rendon as the future. But for players...they might need more motivation to stay on top of things, IMO.

This is a huge reach.

[Sports Guy]

If we are playing "what ifs"... what if the O's ended up going 55-37 over their their last 92 games because Wieters, Pie and the young pitching staff starts to perform like we all envisioned at the beginning of the season. Would you rather have that happen or draft at #1?

Are we playing what ifs? I already addressed if we could get very close to 500 and have a huge run in the second half that we would all prefer that.

But if you are going to answer this question, you should be doing it logically.

As I said, the question isn't...would you prefer us to win 50 of the next 74 games or get the #1 pick. That's a no brainer.

But if you look at it realistically, this team isn't likely to be able to win more than half of their remaining games.

So, we are talking about a difference of just a handful of wins, give or take.

That's meaningless. 60 wins or 65 wins..Either way, you suck. But we can suck with the #1 pick and show good improvement in the second half.

You can have it both ways.

[Sanfran327]

No one is saying to purposely lose.

The Orioles have a tough second half schedule...With injuries, young players fading and guys hopefully traded, playing 420 ball the rest of the season would be pretty good. That is a 69 win team. Not great but considering what we started out at, that would be a big improvement and, as I said, if you incorporate the last 17 games, that would have us at 450 ball, which is a 74 win team and getting us closer to where we thought we would be.

Tanking the season isn't what anyone is saying.

I am hoping that the Orioles play better in the second half than they have all season. I am hoping for improvement across the board. However, with what we have and with what our schedule looks like, we realistically can't EXPECT anything more than a 500ish second half record and if you are asking me, would I rather win 4-6 more games or get the first pick, I want the first pick.

Those extra wins are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

I don't understand everyone's inability to comprehend this. It's pretty much been established that we are a ~65 win team. Could be as high as 70 or as low as 60 depending on trades, injuries, performance, and sheer best/worst case scenario predictions.

If you asked me today whether I'd rather have 60 wins and the #1 pick or 65 wins and the #2, it would be awfully hard to turn down the #1 pick.

[Sports Guy]

I don't understand everyone's inability to comprehend this. It's pretty much been established that we are a ~65 win team. Could be as high as 70 or as low as 60 depending on trades, injuries, performance, and sheer best/worst case scenario predictions.

If you asked me today whether I'd rather have 60 wins and the #1 pick or 65 wins and the #2, it would be awfully hard to turn down the #1 pick.

The thing is, 65 wins probably gives us the 3rd or 4th pick.

[Sanfran327]

The thing is, 65 wins probably gives us the 3rd or 4th pick.

Who do you think finishes 'ahead' of us in that scenario?

Pittsburgh

Houston

Washington??

[Sports Guy]

Who do you think finishes 'ahead' of us in that scenario?

Pittsburgh

Houston

Washington??

Clev, Sea and KC also come into the picture.

[Sanfran327]

Clev, Sea and KC also come into the picture.

Kansas City 39 49 .443 17 18-21 21-28 385 437 -52 Lost 3 6-4

Washington 39 50 .438 17.5 25-21 14-29 366 418 -52 Lost 2 5-5

Chicago Cubs 39 50 .438 17.5 20-23 19-27 359 404 -45 Lost 1 5-5

Houston 36 53 .404 20.5 20-26 16-27 307 430 -123 Lost 1 5-5

Seattle 35 53 .398 21 21-24 14-29 298 377 -79 Lost 1 2-8

Cleveland 34 54 .386 22 17-22 17-32 360 440 -80 Lost 2 3-7

Arizona 34 55 .382 22.5 21-25 13-30 404 504 -100 Lost 1 3-7

Pittsburgh 30 58 .341 26 19-20 11-38 284 478 -194 Lost 6 3-7

Baltimore 29 59 .330 27 16-25 13-34 324 466 -142 Won 4 5-5

This is the bottom tier: all teams within 10 games of dead last.

[glorydays]

Are we playing what ifs? I already addressed if we could get very close to 500 and have a huge run in the second half that we would all prefer that.

But if you are going to answer this question, you should be doing it logically.

As I said, the question isn't...would you prefer us to win 50 of the next 74 games or get the #1 pick. That's a no brainer.

But if you look at it realistically, this team isn't likely to be able to win more than half of their remaining games.

So, we are talking about a difference of just a handful of wins, give or take.

That's meaningless. 60 wins or 65 wins..Either way, you suck. But we can suck with the #1 pick and show good improvement in the second half.

You can have it both ways.

But you know what is also illogical? A 2-16 start. But it happened.

So, just because you say that the team going 55-37 isn't realistic doesn't make it so.

Now, onto your point that 5 wins are meaningless - which I believe is a fair point. But to put into context, you need to see how those wins play out. Are they against the Sox or the Yanks? Do they knock a team out the playoffs? Are they 5 wins by one of the young guys? Are they the difference between Pie playing healthy?

Or are they 5 wins against the Royals, M's or Indians?

[flashjordnk]

This is a huge reach.

Is it? Have you seen the offense lately?

The team has hit much better ever since the day Markakis criticized the team's hitting approach. Since then, the O's have scored 110 runs in 22 games, an average of 5.00 per game. Before then, they were averaging 3.24 runs/game.

Props to Frobby on running those numbers. But...5 runs per game over 22 games.

Is it a huge stretch to say this team has looked a lot more relaxed and as a team are doing a much better job on offense. Did anyone see this coming?

I just think this team as it's functioning right now is showing we're not just a 60 win team.

And I don't think it's a stretch to see a good group of young guys start to gel and put it all together. It's been done before...see the Rays. I'm not sure why it can't happen to the O's.

[Araqnid]

Two and a half hours ago, it was only separated by 20 or so votes.

Also, considering the topic of the poll, I would have thought that the 'Win Now' option would have been 80%+.

Thanks.

Whoops. Should have looked at the timestamp. Just assumed it was always at that level.

I really would have thought that it'd be the other way around, because I feel that there's been a lot of talk about losing to get Rendon in the draft...

[DrungoHazewood]

The whole problem here is that baseball explicitly incentivizes losing. They directly tie worst record to best draft pick, and because they've done this for 40+ years everybody just accepts it as the way God himself intended it.

If you think this kind of discussion is a little crazy, and that leagues shouldn't directly reward tanking, then MLB needs to fix this. A draft lottery like the NBA is one way. I had another suggestion in a thread on the MLB forum a few weeks ago, but the consensus seemed to be that I was out of my mind (it was something along the lines of giving the #1 pick to .500-ish teams, to incentivize winning, but not overly reward teams that have already won).

I'm sure there are other ways to do a draft that don't explicitly reward having the worst record.

And it does matter - the #1 pick is no guarantee, but is clearly the most valuable pick. It's not even close.

[Sanfran327]

The whole problem here is that baseball explicitly incentivizes losing. They directly tie worst record to best draft pick, and because they've done this for 40+ years everybody just accepts it as the way God himself intended it.

If you think this kind of discussion is a little crazy, and that leagues shouldn't directly reward tanking, then MLB needs to fix this. A draft lottery like the NBA is one way. I had another suggestion in a thread on the MLB forum a few weeks ago, but the consensus seemed to be that I was out of my mind (it was something along the lines of giving the #1 pick to .500-ish teams, to incentivize winning, but not overly reward teams that have already won).

I'm sure there are other ways to do a draft that don't explicitly reward having the worst record.

And it does matter - the #1 pick is no guarantee, but is clearly the most valuable pick. It's not even close.

But some teams are just genuinely bad for a variety of reasons. I blame our season on youth, injuries, lack of depth, and lack of intensity from March-May.

I don't think you can penalize teams that have just run into bad luck. Do you think that the Rays purposefully lost games on their run of inteptitude to land #1 picks each year?

EDIT: In addition, because the MLB draft is so different from the NFL and NBA draft (where the #1 pick can and often does make an immediate, franchise-shifting impact) that I don't think baseball teams actually tank their seasons in order to get that top spot. At least not as far out as NFL and NBA teams do.

[El Gordo]

Kansas City 39 49 .443 17 18-21 21-28 385 437 -52 Lost 3 6-4

Washington 39 50 .438 17.5 25-21 14-29 366 418 -52 Lost 2 5-5

Chicago Cubs 39 50 .438 17.5 20-23 19-27 359 404 -45 Lost 1 5-5

Houston 36 53 .404 20.5 20-26 16-27 307 430 -123 Lost 1 5-5

Seattle 35 53 .398 21 21-24 14-29 298 377 -79 Lost 1 2-8

Cleveland 34 54 .386 22 17-22 17-32 360 440 -80 Lost 2 3-7

Arizona 34 55 .382 22.5 21-25 13-30 404 504 -100 Lost 1 3-7

Pittsburgh 30 58 .341 26 19-20 11-38 284 478 -194 Lost 6 3-7

Baltimore 29 59 .330 27 16-25 13-34 324 466 -142 Won 4 5-5

This is the bottom tier: all teams within 10 games of dead last.

Looking at this, it's going to come down to the last week or so of the season. It seems to me Balto, AR, Cleveland, Seattle and Pitt. will be in a dead heat for for last. so a couple of blown saves could be the difference between #1 and #3....:scratchchinhmm: