The Baltimore Orioles Thread (merged)

[Saxmania]

If you want me to provide a link showing there is a positive correlation between winning percentage and payroll over a long period of time in MLB, I will do so. Really this is all that matters, as long as there is a correlation, year to year observances of which team makes the playoffs will not change the fact that money=winning in MLB.

No, you're wrong. The key correlation is between payroll and playoff appearances, because that's what determines who can win the World Series. As you've said yourself, the playoffs are a crapshoot, therefore getting there is the key metric.

And the average payroll rank of teams who made the playoffs over the last 10 years? In the National League, it's 11th. And in the American League, including that awful, unbalancing AL East? It's 11th.

In other words, the average payroll rank of teams who made the playoffs over the last decade is slightly above average. When you consider that some of the low-payroll teams like BAL, PIT and KC aren't even trying to win, that's a LOT of competitive balance.

I'm sorry, that was unfair. When you consider that some of the low-payroll teams like PIT and KC aren't even trying to win, and some of the medium-payroll teams like BAL are laughably bad at it . . .

As for the Rays unseating the Yankees, I didn't say there was a 0% chance.

You said there was less than a 1 in 100 chance, and they did it within 2 years of your prediction. They could also do it again this year. Doesn't that suggest that your prediction was pretty awful? And doesn't that suggest that you, in common with Peter Angelos, don't understand the business of baseball?

Obviously the Rays are doing better than I expected, but they will soon lose free agents, will not have high draft picks, and gravitate towards the basement again.

Obviously your predictions are pretty bad, so I'll ignore that one. Eventually they'll get bad, sure, but every team eventually gets bad. That's like saying that 'at some point I'll roll double 1s on a pair of dice'. Well, eventually, sure.

I cite the Yankees because they are by far the highest payroll team and they have had a good record as a result.

So you only cite the exception, and I'm citing the whole of MLB. Which says that the average payroll rank of playoff teams this decade is 11th, slightly above average.

Of 40 playoff teams in the American League over the past decade, 11 have been from the bottom third of payroll rankings. 14 out of 40 have been in the bottom half of payroll rankings.

Does that sound like competitive imbalance to you?

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[Saxmania]

Large-payroll teams have a mild advantage in the playoffs, according to my notes. Average World Series winner had a payroll ranking of 9th, as opposed to 11th to reach the playoffs. But this is a tiny sample size (10 WS), and just one different result would have completely changed the average ranking, so probably not significant.

Actually, does anyone know where to get MLB payroll rankings by team for 1990-1999? I can only see them from 1998 on Google.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

Actually, does anyone know where to get MLB payroll rankings by team for 1990-1999? I can only see them from 1998 on Google.

USA Today has payrolls back to 1988.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/b...aspx?year=2010

[Saxmania]

USA Today has payrolls back to 1988.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/b...aspx?year=2010

Cheers, mate!

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[Yankeeah]

http://deadspin.com/5594634/last-nig...as-that-sounds

Watch the video of the kid running on the field. Every cop and security office at that game should be fired. They made no attempt to actually subdue the kid.

[Saxmania]

Well, bobby, again the facts conspire against your fact-free opinions.

From 2000-2009, with 8 playoff teams from 30, the average payroll ranking needed to get into the postseason was 11th (10.8, to be precise, and I know you'd like me to be).

From 1995-1999, with 8 playoff teams from 28 (30 from 1997), the average payroll ranking needed to get into the postseason was 8th (7.8, to be precise).

In other words, it was easier for medium- and low- payroll teams to make the playoffs, and therefore have a chance of winning the World Series, in the last decade compared to the 1990s, when the Orioles were actually successful at times, and you claim there was 'more competitive balance'.

And how about that World Series? From 2000-2009, the average payroll ranking needed to win the World Series was 9th (8.6). From 1995-1999, it was 3rd (2.8)!

Despite larger differences in payroll, it is now easier for teams that are not large spenders to compete for the World Series and play deep into October. I'm not sure exactly what the reason is - it might be better drafting, use of sabermetrics (the Athletics help skew the numbers in the 2000s; they made the playoffs 5 times with payrolls in the bottom third), or something else.

But the idea that it is now harder for small-market teams to complete in MLB than it was in the 1990s is a LIE. Not an opinion. A lie.

Would you like to see my data? I put it all in Excel nicely for you.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[False1]

There are 15 hitters in all of baseball with higher batting averages than the Orioles' winning percentage.

11 of them are in the AL

Haha... nice observation.

[False1]

As for the Rays unseating the Yankees, I didn't say there was a 0% chance.

What chance do the Tampa Bay Devil Rays ever have of unseating the Yankees as AL East champions. Between 0 and 1%.

So you're saying there's a chance....

[Saxmania]

Oh, bobby, I also had another fact I thought you'd love.

From the expansion of the playoffs to the present day, only two teams have always done so with a payroll in the top 2 in MLB. (I.e. they made the playoffs one or more times, but never with a payroll in the bottom 28 of the league - I know that's a convoluted measure).

Those two teams? The New York Yankees, and the Baltimore Orioles. You're welcome!

Oh, and in the last 20 years, every team has made the postseason at least once except for KC and Montreal/Washington. And Montreal would have made it in 1994 except for the strike. So, 29 out of 30 teams qualified for the postseason in the last two decades.

I don't know. Is that better, worse, or the same than sports with a salary cap?

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[C4v]

http://deadspin.com/5594634/last-nig...as-that-sounds

Watch the video of the kid running on the field. Every cop and security office at that game should be fired. They made no attempt to actually subdue the kid.

Wow. Those cops suck just as bad as the orioles do

[Saxmania]

Wow. Those cops suck just as bad as the orioles do

Some of the comments on that article are pretty good.

His punishment? Season tickets.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

http://deadspin.com/5594634/last-nig...as-that-sounds

Watch the video of the kid running on the field. Every cop and security office at that game should be fired. They made no attempt to actually subdue the kid.

Speaking of the other video, man, that's a bad blown call by the ump. And similar to the infamous Galarraga call, the ref is right there. Hard to imagine how he missed it.

[West Texas]

Wow. Those cops suck just as bad as the orioles do

That kid is going to the can overnight, but at least he earned it.

[35Knucklecurve]

That kid is going to the can overnight, but at least he earned it.

The commentators were quick to point out that "the idiot" stopped when the umpire told him to. I couldn't help but think, "This is a new all-time low......a fan can pick up the "stop sign", but the players are clueless when it comes to running the bases.

[False1]

Wow. Those cops suck just as bad as the orioles do

They shoulda tazed him, straight up Philly style.

[Rice14]

Excellent work Saxmania.

Bobby, let me throw out something else here for you to digest. Did it ever occur to you that the payroll/winning correlation works the other way as well? In other words, teams that win games, make the playoffs, and have good players often sell more tickets, generate higher local TV ratings (which results in fatter contracts), and get more corporate sponsorships?

Teams that are good tend to make money, and teams that stink tend not to. (Unless you're the Marlins and you just pocket it).

I'm certainly not saying that market size isn't an advantage and that the Yankees don't have a big edge, but it's not all about market size. Some teams are run well and some aren't. Flip their front offices and maybe the Pirates become the Twins, or the Reds become the Cardinals.

Once again I'll point out that a little over a decade ago, the Orioles actually made more and spent more than the Red Sox. Since then, maybe one team has just been run much better--what do you think?

[DaSh 1s]

Brian Roberts was activated today.

[Yankee Tripper]

Brian Roberts was activated today.

The O's are saved!

[roblyo33]

Brian Roberts was activated today.

I'm a big Brian Roberts fan but, I doubt even he can make a difference with this putrid team.

[DaSh 1s]

The O's are saved!

Attendance is boosted!!!

[ny]

I'm a big Brian Roberts fan but, I doubt even he can make a difference with this putrid team.

He hasn't in the past, the o's have never finished above 500 during his career.

[NelsonMuntz]

@ Wigginton's ejection/tirade last night.

[NelsonMuntz]

Well, bobby, again the facts conspire against your fact-free opinions.

From 2000-2009, with 8 playoff teams from 30, the average payroll ranking needed to get into the postseason was 11th (10.8, to be precise, and I know you'd like me to be).

From 1995-1999, with 8 playoff teams from 28 (30 from 1997), the average payroll ranking needed to get into the postseason was 8th (7.8, to be precise).

In other words, it was easier for medium- and low- payroll teams to make the playoffs, and therefore have a chance of winning the World Series, in the last decade compared to the 1990s, when the Orioles were actually successful at times, and you claim there was 'more competitive balance'.

And how about that World Series? From 2000-2009, the average payroll ranking needed to win the World Series was 9th (8.6). From 1995-1999, it was 3rd (2.8)!

Despite larger differences in payroll, it is now easier for teams that are not large spenders to compete for the World Series and play deep into October. I'm not sure exactly what the reason is - it might be better drafting, use of sabermetrics (the Athletics help skew the numbers in the 2000s; they made the playoffs 5 times with payrolls in the bottom third), or something else.

But the idea that it is now harder for small-market teams to complete in MLB than it was in the 1990s is a LIE. Not an opinion. A lie.

Would you like to see my data? I put it all in Excel nicely for you.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

I guarantee you will never, ever, get a response to this post.

[Saxmania]

I guarantee you will never, ever, get a response to this post.

It's comforting that there are some certainties in life, in a way. Reassures one as to the fundamental rigor of a universe that can appear chaotic.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[bobby jr]

Excellent work Saxmania.

Bobby, let me throw out something else here for you to digest. Did it ever occur to you that the payroll/winning correlation works the other way as well? In other words, teams that win games, make the playoffs, and have good players often sell more tickets, generate higher local TV ratings (which results in fatter contracts), and get more corporate sponsorships?

Teams that are good tend to make money, and teams that stink tend not to. (Unless you're the Marlins and you just pocket it).

I'm certainly not saying that market size isn't an advantage and that the Yankees don't have a big edge, but it's not all about market size. Some teams are run well and some aren't. Flip their front offices and maybe the Pirates become the Twins, or the Reds become the Cardinals.

Once again I'll point out that a little over a decade ago, the Orioles actually made more and spent more than the Red Sox. Since then, maybe one team has just been run much better--what do you think?

Well Angelos tried to outspend Steinbrenner for awhile but he later admitted this approach was wrong. The Red Sox are much more of a national team than they were a decade ago, and they can afford to spend more these days.
The Red Sox fans didn't take over Camden Yards in 2000 the way they do in 2010. It is certainly true that their having a winning team for so long has contributed to this but I don't think Red Sox nation would long survive if there were a salary cap and the Sox were brought back to the field.

[bobby jr]

I guarantee you will never, ever, get a response to this post.

My response is that if someone wants a response from me they should not write statements in bold type such as "is a LIE. Not an opinion. A lie." I like to discuss in on a mature, rational, and polite level, and respond to those posters who are similarly inclined.

[Ram Man]

The Red Sox are much more of a national team than they were a decade ago, and they can afford to spend more these days.
The Red Sox fans didn't take over Camden Yards in 2000 the way they do in 2010.

Perhaps that has something to do with winning two World Series in the past decade?

[NelsonMuntz]

My response is that if someone wants a response from me they should not write statements in bold type such as "is a LIE. Not an opinion. A lie." I like to discuss in on a mature, rational, and polite level, and respond to those posters who are similarly inclined.

In other words, Saxmania just schooled you.

[ruthianblast]

My response is that if someone wants a response from me they should not write statements in bold type such as "is a LIE. Not an opinion. A lie." I like to discuss in on a mature, rational, and polite level, and respond to those posters who are similarly inclined.

But you are stating an opinion that has been proven false by Sax.

Bobby, I understand you have problems facing up to the fact that Orioles suck, it's ok, everyone has personal issues to get through. Camden Yards only has 1210 seats less than Yankee stadium; if Angelos were to field a competent team that consistently won and competed for the playoffs and the world series irrelevant of market size they would be much better.

Angelos consciously decides not to spend the money to get the talent and free agents to win and therefore the franchise fails, is terrible and will continue to be terrible so long as the owner treats the team as an investment instead of an opportunity to win.

Blame your owner and his reluctance to spend; not market size. Stadiums only hold 50,000; and they all reside in areas where there are greater than 1 million people within 50 miles. That should be enough; otherwise there wouldn't be a capacity of 49,000+ and would be more like hockey arenas of 25,000.

[Jax Teller]

Giving this forum bobby jr is the equivalent of the pilgrims giving small pox to the native americans.

[pleasepassthesoup]

Well Angelos tried to outspend Steinbrenner for awhile but he later admitted this approach was wrong.

What's the point in citing this, since it means that Angelos apparently disagrees with you? The approach of trying to outspend other teams is a bad one? So salary isn't the chief determining factor in the ability to build a good team? According to you, outspending Steinbrenner was the only option he had to field a good team.

[Saxmania]

My response is that if someone wants a response from me they should not write statements in bold type such as "is a LIE. Not an opinion. A lie." I like to discuss in on a mature, rational, and polite level, and respond to those posters who are similarly inclined.

Hmm. Is it mature, rational, or polite to accuse people of 'high school debating tactics' or to consistently ignore the facts that have been placed in front of you in order to re-state an opinion which insults fans of a team for the purposes of angering those fans further?

You made a verifiable statement. That statement has been demonstrated - by plenty of forumers - to be false. Yet you keep making it. If I went to an Orioles forum and posted, at irregular intervals for eight years, that the Orioles have never won the World Series and that their fans are all morons for thinking that they have, would you describe me as interested in mature, rational, and polite conversation?

Because, when you say that competitive balance has gotten worse and that the Yankees are to blame, that's a rough equivalent.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[bobby jr]

@ Wigginton's ejection/tirade last night.

3 day suspension? This seems like a rather extreme punishment . Also the umpire blew the call.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/spor...egame_sus.html

Ty Wigginton has been suspended three games and fined $2,500 for his actions Thursday night in the Orioles' 5-0 loss to the Minnesota Twins.
"Shocked, surprised," Wigginton said when learning of disciplinary action.
Wigginton will appeal the suspension, allowing him to play tonight against the Twins.

On Thursday, Wigginton ran screaming at first base umpire Gary Darling over a blown
call at first and was face-to-face, chest-to-chest before Orioles manager Juan Samuel could intervene..."

[ny]

This seems like a rather extreme punishment .

No playing in Baltimore is extreme punishment but at least he gets a break from wearing that uniform

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

3 day suspension? This seems like a rather extreme punishment .

I agree. He made contact, and you have to be thrown out for that, but it was extremely incidental contact. He was arguing vehemently and brushed up against him. It wasn't a real chest bump or other serious contact. Getting thrown out of one game seems like enough to me. I'm curious to see what happens on appeal, though rotoworld pointed out that the O's might prefer he not appeal, since he's obvious trade bait, and he'd be more appealing if he doesn't have any forced days off in his future.

Also the umpire blew the call.

Clearly, though that's irrelevant to any suspension.

[teknetic]

Looks like they got rid of stadium security.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ce_1279929748

[Chacon]

Looks like they got rid of stadium security.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ce_1279929748

Love how it was the home plate ump who got him to stop ahahaha

[bobby jr]

Looked like he had made his escape when he hopped the fence and ran up the ramp, looked like someone stopped him from running out the exit then he went back down on the field.

The cops didn't make much of an effort to run him down, they certainly let him run around a long time.

[hellonewman]

O's vs. Original Mets:

1964 Mets 53-109, .327
2010 O's, 31-65, .323
1963 Mets 51-111, .314
1965 Mets 50-112, .308
1962 Mets 40-120, .250

[bobby jr]

I agree. He made contact, and you have to be thrown out for that, but it was extremely incidental contact. He was arguing vehemently and brushed up against him. It wasn't a real chest bump or other serious contact. Getting thrown out of one game seems like enough to me. I'm curious to see what happens on appeal, though rotoworld pointed out that the O's might prefer he not appeal, since he's obvious trade bait, and he'd be more appealing if he doesn't have any forced days off in his future.


Clearly, though that's irrelevant to any suspension.

Well if the runner had been safe at first then Wiggington's outburst would have been less excusable. It's natural to be upset when the ball is there long before the runner, you tag him, and the umpire calls him safe.

The link to the video is below. The Wiggington incident, also Samuel making like Earl Weaver.

http://deadspin.com/5594634/last-nig...as-that-sounds

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

Well if the runner had been safe at first then Wiggington's outburst would have been less excusable. It's natural to be upset when the ball is there long before the runner, you tag him, and the umpire calls him safe.

I don't disagree, but I think that should be irrelevant to the question of suspension. Good call or bad call, you can only go so far with an ump. I don't think he went so far to warrant a suspension, but the reason for his outburst doesn't make a difference.

[hellonewman]

O's vs. Original Mets:

1964 Mets 53-109, .327
2010 O's, 31-66, .320
1963 Mets 51-111, .314
1965 Mets 50-112, .308
1962 Mets 40-120, .250

[bobby jr]

O's vs. Original Mets:

1964 Mets 53-109, .327
2010 O's, 31-66, .320
1963 Mets 51-111, .314
1965 Mets 50-112, .308
1962 Mets 40-120, .250

Don't really see the point of this unless you believe the O's will finish lower than .250. Since they are 70 points above that it is unlikely they will come near the Mets record.

[YankeePride1967]

The fact that it's even a comparison to these teams shows how pathetic the Orioles have become as a franchise.

[bobby jr]

Until free agency caused an unequal playing field,, all teams went through down periods. Not true any longer, the Yankees will never again have a losing record under the current system. But that doesn't change the past which shows things were different at one time....

1908 New York Highlanders 51-103 .331
1912 New York Highlanders 50-102 .329
1966 New York Yankees 70-89 .440 10th place (26.5 games behind Orioles)
1967 New York Yankees 72-90 .444

[YankeePride1967]

Another fallacy yet again. There was NEVER a level playing field. Never. Yanks had more money to spend then, but like the Orioles of the past dozen years, ran a poor organization.

[Saxmania]

Until free agency caused an unequal playing field,, all teams went through down periods. Not true any longer, the Yankees will never again have a losing record under the current system.

If you know the future, why do you keep believing Peter Angelos when he says that this year's edition of the Orioles is going to be good? Every. Single. Year.

Also, why were you so wrong about the Rays being unable to compete?

Also, all the other things you're wrong about?

But hey, if you believe that free agency creates an uneven playing field, we need to take away the Orioles' wire-to-wire AL East crown. It was achieved under free agency, after all - and Baltimore spent heavily. Back when, as has been proven, payroll had more of an impact on success than today.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[Ram Man]

1908 New York Highlanders 51-103 .331
1912 New York Highlanders 50-102 .329
1966 New York Yankees 70-89 .440 10th place (26.5 games behind Orioles)
1967 New York Yankees 72-90 .444

Is that the best you can do? Even the worst of these clubs did better than the Orioles have done so far this year.

[ring403]

Until free agency caused an unequal playing field,, all teams went through down periods. Not true any longer, the Yankees will never again have a losing record under the current system. But that doesn't change the past which shows things were different at one time....

1908 New York Highlanders 51-103 .331
1912 New York Highlanders 50-102 .329
1966 New York Yankees 70-89 .440 10th place (26.5 games behind Orioles)
1967 New York Yankees 72-90 .444

That's a stunning omission of multiple decades of Yankee dominance of baseball, prior to the dawn of free agency.
Quite a job of cherry-picking. It obviously took you some time and effort to research, even if it only serves to weaken your already flimsy case, bobby. Kudos.

[bobby jr]

If you know the future, why do you keep believing Peter Angelos when he says that this year's edition of the Orioles is going to be good? Every. Single. Year.

Also, why were you so wrong about the Rays being unable to compete?

Also, all the other things you're wrong about?

But hey, if you believe that free agency creates an uneven playing field, we need to take away the Orioles' wire-to-wire AL East crown. It was achieved under free agency, after all - and Baltimore spent heavily. Back when, as has been proven, payroll had more of an impact on success than today.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

Seems to me that you have a selective memory about things I was wrong about and things I was right about.

Anyway I didn't like the way the Orioles teams of the last 90's went about buying free agents. I would have preferred they won with their own players.
I still supported the team because they were my hometown club. But I would have treasured the '70 and '66 WS Champion Orioles more than if the late 90's Orioles had won the WS.

Incidentally the Orioles period of dominance is sometimes overlooked because they lost two 7 game World Series they could have easily won. They had a better team than Pittsburgh in both '71 and '79.
If they had won those 7th games, the Orioles would be World Champions in '66.'70, '71, '79, and '83. That's five years out of 18 they either won the World Series or went to the seventh game of the WS.

Free agency and team payroll were not as important in determining who won in the late '70's as it is today. Fat chance of seeing a 1979 Pittsburgh-Baltimore WS these days.