Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

Article: Orioles Provide Hope for the Hopeless

  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,085 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 10:02 PM

You can view the page at http://www.twinsdail...or-the-Hopeless

#2 frightwig

frightwig

    Member

  • Members
  • 59 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 10:58 PM

Do the Twins really figure to have much money to spend this winter? I had the opposite impression, given that the club already owes $68M to 9 players (including 2, Blackburn and Nishioka, who may not be on the 2013 roster), before Terry Ryan even settles any arbitration cases and accounts for the serfs in the organization. If the payroll budget drops again, as many expect, he might have enough money to buy or trade for a mid-price starting pitcher. He'll probably take a flyer on another budget-line veteran to fill a rotation spot, too. Maybe he'll flip Span for one or two young arms.... But I'll be kind of surprised if he does much more than that.

#3 DPJ

DPJ

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 636 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:45 AM

The O's are where they are cause of blind luck. Are they a better team now then they were a year ago...yes. But to make it seem like the O's have build some type of blueprint for succees is just wrong.

They have a horseshoe up their ass that has little to no chance of continuing into 2013 and beyond.

#4 mnjon

mnjon

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:54 AM

The O's are where they are cause of blind luck. Are they a better team now then they were a year ago...yes. But to make it seem like the O's have build some type of blueprint for succees is just wrong.

They have a horseshoe up their ass that has little to no chance of continuing into 2013 and beyond.


I'm pretty sure a lot of people would have said the same thing about the '87 and even the '91 Twins. Not saying that the Orioles are going to win the World Series, but if they do, it doesn't take away any of the meaning just because they aren't contending the next year.

#5 DPJ

DPJ

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 636 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:59 AM

I'm pretty sure a lot of people would have said the same thing about the '87 and even the '91 Twins. Not saying that the Orioles are going to win the World Series, but if they do, it doesn't take away any of the meaning just because they aren't contending the next year.


What in the helll does that have to do with what I just said?

Nick laid out this post that the O's have given bad teams hope for a quick turnaround and that's not true. The O's are winning games with pixie dust and a horseshoe up Showalter's ass. Hell the ****ing Red Sox have a better run differential then the mighty O's. If the O's win the World Series this season, well god bless em and good for them. But what the O's have going right now isn't a formula for succees over the longterm, it's nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Edited by DPJ, 12 September 2012 - 07:02 AM.


#6 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 07:58 AM

There is no such thing as sustained luck. The 87 Twins had a negative run differential. They found ways to win when they needed to. What the Orioles are doing now as a formula for success is not for the long term. Nowhere in the article does it say it is for the long term. Right now I really doubt that many Twins fans are concerned about the long term success as much as they are avoiding another decade of failure. Small and mid sized market teams need to have continued player development and not have their stars signed to long term contracts have issues.

#7 mnjon

mnjon

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 08:14 AM

I'm pretty sure a lot of people would have said the same thing about the '87 and even the '91 Twins. Not saying that the Orioles are going to win the World Series, but if they do, it doesn't take away any of the meaning just because they aren't contending the next year.


What in the helll does that have to do with what I just said?

Nick laid out this post that the O's have given bad teams hope for a quick turnaround and that's not true. The O's are winning games with pixie dust and a horseshoe up Showalter's ass. Hell the ****ing Red Sox have a better run differential then the mighty O's. If the O's win the World Series this season, well god bless em and good for them. But what the O's have going right now isn't a formula for succees over the longterm, it's nothing but smoke and mirrors.


Just like you so eloquently put, "They have a horseshoe up their ass that has little to no chance of continuing into 2013 and beyond." Nick's isn't saying they have a blueprint for success for years to come. He never says this is sustainable. He's merely saying that you don't need to have the Dodgers or Angels money and statistical talent to have a great season. The Orioles may be so good/lucky that they can win the World Series. He doesn't say one way or another if they will continue to thrive. He's just saying they have a chance, and although they have the negative run differential, I'd say a decent chance at getting to the World Series. I'd gladly take that. Based on your argument, I'm guessing that you're more content with the decade of playoffs without even one AL Pennant. That's fine if that's what you are content with, but a large portion of the fan base would probably rather have another Championship than years of nothing more than playoff contention. They may not care if it's sustainable. I'm happy with the way the Twins performed between '02 and '10 but I wouldn't want that to be our peak long term. It's not like I want the Twins to end up like the Cubs or anything. :-P

#8 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,234 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 08:16 AM

Hope is not a strategy. Sure there is hope, but you can always hope. I want an actual strategy to be executed.

#9 DPJ

DPJ

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 636 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 08:31 AM

He's just saying they have a chance, and although they have the negative run differential, I'd say a decent chance at getting to the World Series. I'd gladly take that. Based on your argument, I'm guessing that you're more content with the decade of playoffs without even one AL Pennant. That's fine if that's what you are content with, but a large portion of the fan base would probably rather have another Championship than years of nothing more than playoff contention. They may not care if it's sustainable. I'm happy with the way the Twins performed between '02 and '10 but I wouldn't want that to be our peak long term. It's not like I want the Twins to end up like the Cubs or anything. :-P


They have a chance based off nothing more then blind ass backwards luck. Would Nick have written this same article if the O's were 68-73 as there pythagorean says they should be...ofcourse not. He wrote cause the O's went from one of the worst teams in the league to contending. The only problem is they're contending off nothing but luck. "Be like the O's" how the hell is a team suppose like a team that's winning based off nothing but luck?

As for the Twins failures in the postseason, ask anyone on BYTO how I felt about those losses.

#10 THE DFC

THE DFC

    Member

  • Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 09:31 AM

I appreciate a lot of the local sentiment that wants to grasp at straws to continue to roll forward with the Mauer/Morneau/Span/Willingham grouping, but the truth of the matter is that magically putting together a rotation that will make us competitive next season is like banking on hitting your number in one spin in roulette.

We have a very intriguing wave of young players on its way. A far smarter model to follow would be the Nationals and the Rays who are building around young talent. If we can trade Span, Morneau, Willingham, etc. to fill in the gaps of this young talent, I'm all for it versus trying to roll a Yahtzee next season and running the risk of any of the aforementioned 3's value going in the toilet via injury.

Play the odds and play the long-term game. It makes far more sense.

#11 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,085 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:12 AM

The only problem is they're contending off nothing but luck.


The central point of this article, which apparently whizzed right over your head, is that the Orioles were able to make substantial enough improvements on their formerly league-worst pitching staff to hold their own in the tough AL East, and without expending a whole lot of money or resources in the process.

You're correct that the Twins probably couldn't compete in the AL East next year. Good job.

#12 DPJ

DPJ

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 636 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:33 AM

The central point of this article, which apparently whizzed right over your head, is that the Orioles were able to make substantial enough improvements on their formerly league-worst pitching staff to hold their own in the tough AL East, and without expending a whole lot of money or resources in the process.

You're correct that the Twins probably couldn't compete in the AL East next year. Good job.



And if you read my posts you'll see that I said the O's are better then they were a year ago. They made some good moves that made them a better team. But you devoted the first chunk of your article to the O's contending and being in the think of the AL East race, but if they were 68-73 (as they should be) you don't write this article.

If you wouldn't have mentioned contending and quick turn arounds then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

#13 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,085 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:49 AM

And if you read my posts you'll see that I said the O's are better then they were a year ago. They made some good moves that made them a better team. But you devoted the first chunk of your article to the O's contending and being in the think of the AL East race, but if they were 68-73 (as they should be) you don't write this article.

If you wouldn't have mentioned contending and quick turn arounds then I wouldn't have a problem with it.


Do you deny that the Twins would have a chance to turn around and contend if they have a league-average pitching staff next year? If not, why are you even arguing? They don't need the same amount of luck that the O's have experienced to compete in the AL Central.

#14 DPJ

DPJ

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 636 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:57 AM

Do you deny that the Twins would have a chance to turn around and contend if they have a league-average pitching staff next year? If not, why are you even arguing? They don't need the same amount of luck that the O's have experienced to compete in the AL Central.


No I don't think the Twins would contend for the division with a league average pitching staff.

#15 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,839 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 11:00 AM

Do you deny that the Twins would have a chance to turn around and contend if they have a league-average pitching staff next year? If not, why are you even arguing? They don't need the same amount of luck that the O's have experienced to compete in the AL Central.


No I don't think the Twins would contend for the division with a league average pitching staff.


The Sox and Tigers are doing just that...

Pitching ERA: Tigers 4th, Sox 9th, Twins 13th.

Hitting...

Runs Scored: Sox 5th, Twins 6th, Tigers 8th.

And it's not as if the Sox and Tigers are going to get any better next season. Neither one has a young roster, much of a farm, or money left to spend.

#16 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,085 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 11:12 AM

No I don't think the Twins would contend for the division with a league average pitching staff.

Well they've done it multiple times before so, basically, you're wrong.

In 2009, the Twins won the AL Central with a 4.50 ERA that ranked 11th in the AL.

In 2008, they came one game short of winning the division with a 4.16 ERA that ranked 7th in the AL.

In 2003, they won the division handily with a 4.41 ERA that ranked 7th in the AL.

Three average (or worse) pitching staffs, three contending teams. And that's just in the last ten years. There are plenty of examples outside of the Twins, too.

#17 DPJ

DPJ

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 636 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 11:17 AM


No I don't think the Twins would contend for the division with a league average pitching staff.

Well they've done it multiple times before so, basically, you're wrong.

In 2009, the Twins won the AL Central with a 4.50 ERA that ranked 11th in the AL.

In 2008, they came one game short of winning the division with a 4.16 ERA that ranked 7th in the AL.

In 2003, they won the division handily with a 4.41 ERA that ranked 7th in the AL.

Three average (or worse) pitching staffs, three contending teams. And that's just in the last ten years. There are plenty of examples outside of the Twins, too.


Well that's fantastic Nick, what the hell does that have to do with a 2013 season that none of us know about yet? What's the Tigers & Sox rosters gonna look like. Who's injuries will play huge factor into the division, can Willingham, Mauer, Morneau, Span and others stay healthy? Who and where are these league average pitchers coming from?

That's great that it happened in 2009 and 2003...but what the **** does that have to do with the 2013 season?

#18 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,839 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 11:27 AM

Well that's fantastic Nick, what the hell does that have to do with a 2013 season that none of us know about yet? What's the Tigers & Sox rosters gonna look like. Who's injuries will play huge factor into the division, can Willingham, Mauer, Morneau, Span and others stay healthy? Who and where are these league average pitchers coming from?

That's great that it happened in 2009 and 2003...but what the **** does that have to do with the 2013 season?


I pointed out that the Sox and Tigers are competing with pretty mediocre overall stats. Offensively, the Twins are in the thick of things with other AL Central teams. Their pitching staff has been a complete letdown and is at fault for their 4th/5th place finish.

Do you really think the Sox and Tigers are going to get significantly better next season? Neither one has much in the minors and IIRC, neither will have much money to spend, either.

Injuries can't be predicted but on paper, the Twins can easily compete if they shore up the rotation.

It's a tough thing to do but if it's possible, there is no reason the Twins can't compete in 2013.

#19 DPJ

DPJ

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 636 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 11:33 AM

Do you really think the Sox and Tigers are going to get significantly better next season? Neither one has much in the minors and IIRC, neither will have much money to spend, either.

Injuries can't be predicted but on paper, the Twins can easily compete if they shore up the rotation.

It's a tough thing to do but if it's possible, there is no reason the Twins can't compete in 2013.


Neither of us know what's gonna happen with either teams roster. Maybe Mike [COLOR=#000000]Ilitch loses his mind again and signs everyone, who knows what to expect outta the Sox and Kenny WIlliams.

The point is I don't see how bringing up 2003, 2009 seasons or current stats has to do with this. Do I think it's impossible...no, but do I see it happen...**** no!![/COLOR]

#20 JB_Iowa

JB_Iowa

    Cynical Oldie

  • Members
  • 3,879 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Iowa

Posted 12 September 2012 - 11:34 AM

The Orioles made a change in 2010 that is ignored in this article.

Before the Orioles changed managers, they were 32-73 (.302). Showalter immediately turned that around and the O's went 34-23 (.596) for the remainder of the season.

True, they couldn't sustain it in 2011 but they did improve to 69-93 (.426) overall.

It's true that they went from .426 last year to .560 this year and a good part of that is probably due to the pitching changes -- and LUCK -- that are discussed above.

But I think they are also benefiting from the shake-up they made in 2010. They improved from 2010 to last year and again from 2011 to this year.

Do you think pitching changes ALONE will allow the Twins to make that kind of improvement?

I think some changes in leadership are also necessary.

#21 nokomismod

nokomismod

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 271 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 11:58 AM

[quote name='Brock Beauchamp'][quote name='DPJ'][quote name='Nick Nelson']Do you deny that the Twins would have a chance to turn around and contend if they have a league-average pitching staff next year? If not, why are you even arguing? They don't need the same amount of luck that the O's have experienced to compete in the AL Central.[/QUOTE]

No I don't think the Twins would contend for the division with a league average pitching staff.[/QUOTE]

The Sox and Tigers are doing just that...

Pitching ERA: Tigers 4th, Sox 9th, Twins 13th.

Hitting...

Runs Scored: Sox 5th, Twins 6th, Tigers 8th.

And it's not as if the Sox and Tigers are going to get any better next season. Neither one has a young roster, much of a farm, or money left to spend.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Nick Nelson'][quote name='DPJ']
No I don't think the Twins would contend for the division with a league average pitching staff.[/QUOTE]
Well they've done it multiple times before so, basically, you're wrong.

In 2009, the Twins won the AL Central with a 4.50 ERA that ranked 11th in the AL.

In 2008, they came one game short of winning the division with a 4.16 ERA that ranked 7th in the AL.

In 2003, they won the division handily with a 4.41 ERA that ranked 7th in the AL.

Three average (or worse) pitching staffs, three contending teams. And that's just in the last ten years. There are plenty of examples outside of the Twins, too.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Brock Beauchamp'][quote name='DPJ']Well that's fantastic Nick, what the hell does that have to do with a 2013 season that none of us know about yet? What's the Tigers & Sox rosters gonna look like. Who's injuries will play huge factor into the division, can Willingham, Mauer, Morneau, Span and others stay healthy? Who and where are these league average pitchers coming from?

That's great that it happened in 2009 and 2003...but what the **** does that have to do with the 2013 season?[/QUOTE]

I pointed out that the Sox and Tigers are competing with pretty mediocre overall stats. Offensively, the Twins are in the thick of things with other AL Central teams. Their pitching staff has been a complete letdown and is at fault for their 4th/5th place finish.

Do you really think the Sox and Tigers are going to get significantly better next season? Neither one has much in the minors and IIRC, neither will have much money to spend, either.

Injuries can't be predicted but on paper, the Twins can easily compete if they shore up the rotation.

It's a tough thing to do but if it's possible, there is no reason the Twins can't compete in 2013.[/QUOTE]

If we are trying to base our arguments on statistics, these are both solid examples of how the Twins could compete with a middle of the road rotation next year. TR has some work to do!

#22 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:02 PM

Do you really think the Sox and Tigers are going to get significantly better next season? Neither one has much in the minors and IIRC, neither will have much money to spend, either.

Injuries can't be predicted but on paper, the Twins can easily compete if they shore up the rotation.

It's a tough thing to do but if it's possible, there is no reason the Twins can't compete in 2013.


Neither of us know what's gonna happen with either teams roster. Maybe Mike [COLOR=#000000]Ilitch loses his mind again and signs everyone, who knows what to expect outta the Sox and Kenny WIlliams.

The point is I don't see how bringing up 2003, 2009 seasons or current stats has to do with this. Do I think it's impossible...no, but do I see it happen...**** no!![/COLOR]


If I read your logic correctly I would assume the following. Nothing that anybody does before makes any difference going forward. Don't pay any attention whatsoever to what was done before because you can't replicate those conditions. Past performance and history makes no difference for the future. It is not a well managed team of mediocre talent playing well, it is blind luck that the Orioles will win about 20 more games than last year.
For the Twins going forward then it would not pay for them to sign a stopgap free agent like Willingham to bridge until the next wave of outfielders come up, nor would it have made sense to sign a Floriman or a Deduno to a contract. I don't think a team you would run would be very successful

#23 Blackjack

Blackjack

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 136 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:16 PM

Tough crowd here. Nick writes a generally positive article giving us hope, showing us an example of a team that went from very poor to contending, and he gets a bunch of negative comments.

Just like any forum, you start getting recognized for the quality, or lack of, in your posts. Time to start ignoring the constant bitchers and moaners.

#24 DPJ

DPJ

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 636 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:23 PM

If I read your logic correctly I would assume the following. Nothing that anybody does before makes any difference going forward. Don't pay any attention whatsoever to what was done before because you can't replicate those conditions. Past performance and history makes no difference for the future. It is not a well managed team of mediocre talent playing well, it is blind luck that the Orioles will win about 20 more games than last year.
For the Twins going forward then it would not pay for them to sign a stopgap free agent like Willingham to bridge until the next wave of outfielders come up, nor would it have made sense to sign a Floriman or a Deduno to a contract. I don't think a team you would run would be very successful



What in the hell are you talking about?

Bringing up a few random seasons from the past have no bearing on what's gonna happen in 2013. We don't know what the rosters will look like, the strength of the division, injuries, trades, signings...hell everything. I even said it could happen, but I think it has little to no chance of happening.

Tough crowd here. Nick writes a generally positive article giving us hope, showing us an example of a team that went from very poor to contending, and he gets a bunch of negative comments.


Who's being negative? If he never would have mentioned the word contend, I would have no problem with the article. If he just would have made an article that said "here's how the O's improved there pitching staff" I wouldn't have said a thing.

#25 greengoblinrulz

greengoblinrulz

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,759 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:27 PM

Dont believe the teams can be compared as BALT operates differently.
They actually have their #3 hitter (Markakis) hitting leadoff since its the best baseball move.....MN wont even hit Mauer 2nd.
They will call up hotshot 20 yr old prospects if it helps them win games.....not shot that Rosario/Sano will see any action next yr (bein saved for Futures Gm @ Target Fld)
Understand that you need quality players in middle infield is something MN has never grasped.
Balt takes its star C & actually plays him at his most optimum position where he's won a Gold Glove....MN knows Mauer cant do it anymore.
Balt went out & acquired MLB starters....MN will stay inhouse with Deduno, DeVries, Pavano

#26 mnjon

mnjon

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:49 PM

Bringing up a few random seasons from the past have no bearing on what's gonna happen in 2013. We don't know what the rosters will look like, the strength of the division, injuries, trades, signings...hell everything. I even said it could happen, but I think it has little to no chance of happening.


So you're saying that basically every team will

have a chance based off nothing more then blind ass backwards luck.


#27 DPJ

DPJ

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 636 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 12:59 PM

[quote name='mnjon'][QUOTE]Bringing up a few random seasons from the past have no bearing on what's gonna happen in 2013. We don't know what the rosters will look like, the strength of the division, injuries, trades, signings...hell everything. I even said it could happen, but I think it has little to no chance of happening.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying that basically every team will

[QUOTE]have a chance based off nothing more then blind ass backwards luck.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

No, not at all.

There's a certain amount of luck that goes into every sport, a fluke play winning a big game etc. Being outscored by 20+ runs and somehow being tied with a team that's outscored its opponents by 92 runs. Well that's the very definition of blind-ass luck

#28 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,752 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:09 PM

@DPJ



Your flawed thinking is what I am talking about. You do not seem able to observe that history repeats itself. Teams have won in the past with less than perfect teams. Baltimore this year, the 1987, 2003, and 2009 Twins are examples of that. Baltimore patchedworked a staff this year that allows them the chance to win, just as the Twins have done in those years. In terms of what the other teams do, it is a variable you can't control. They could add like Detroit did last year. It is not working, Did Chicago find stability finally? Don't know. Just as you don't know if the Twins make astute additions that they can't contend. Short term fix while they figure out how to rebuild a pitching pipeline.

a potential 20 plus improvement in games won is a little more than luck.

Edited by old nurse, 12 September 2012 - 01:12 PM.


#29 mnjon

mnjon

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:11 PM

No, not at all.

There's a certain amount of luck that goes into every sport, a fluke play winning a big game etc. Being outscored by 20+ runs and somehow being tied with a team that's outscored its opponents by 92 runs. Well that's the very definition of blind-ass luck


That makes literally no sense.

#30 DPJ

DPJ

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 636 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:15 PM

[quote name='mnjon'][QUOTE]No, not at all.

There's a certain amount of luck that goes into every sport, a fluke play winning a big game etc. Being outscored by 20+ runs and somehow being tied with a team that's outscored its opponents by 92 runs. Well that's the very definition of blind-ass luck[/QUOTE]

That makes literally no sense.[/QUOTE]

Then you're literally a moron.

[quote name='old nurse']@DPJ



Your flawed thinking is what I am talking about. You do not seem able to observe that history repeats itself. Teams have won in the past with less than perfect teams. Baltimore this year, the 1987, 2003, and 2009 Twins are examples of that. Baltimore patchedworked a staff this year that allows them the chance to win, just as the Twins have done in those years. In terms of what the other teams do, it is a variable you can't control. They could add like Detroit did last year. It is not working, Did Chicago find stability finally? Don't know. Just as you don't know if the Twins make astute additions that they can't contend. Short term fix while they figure out how to rebuild a pitching pipeline.[/QUOTE]

What the hell is going on here. I don't care if the O's win the World Series or history repeating it'self. This is a simple thing...the O's are contending with luck. They're a better team then a year ago, but in way should a team that's been outscored by 20 runs being contending for a division. If they win it all, good for them, but they're gonna do it on the heels on one of the luckiest teams ever.