PDA

View Full Version : Breaking: Orioles relevant again


A. Cavatica
09-04-2012, 11:35 PM
I used to like the O's of the Earl Weaver era (well, except for Tito Landrum). But then they simply ceased to matter.

Until tonight, when they caught the Yankees for the AL East lead.

Even though it means there's an unexpected team in the WC chase, I'm happy to see it.

A. Cavatica
09-04-2012, 11:39 PM
I should add that they are somehow 76-59 despite being outscored by 19 runs.

Lip Man 1
09-04-2012, 11:51 PM
Why you defy the odds and win something like 13 or 14 consecutive one run games even the Orioles can have a good season.

Let's see what they do next year when that type of 'luck' changes (and statistically it has to...)

And that goes for Oakland too. Don't they have something like 14 walk off wins?

Lip

WhiteSox5187
09-04-2012, 11:55 PM
Why you defy the odds and win something like 13 or 14 consecutive one run games even the Orioles can have a good season.

Let's see what they do next year when that type of 'luck' changes (and statistically it has to...)

And that goes for Oakland too. Don't they have something like 14 walk off wins?

Lip

Their luck doesn't have to change this year.

Lip Man 1
09-05-2012, 12:07 AM
5187:

My definition of "relevant" is something that has some staying power to it. Not a one shot wonder.

Jeremy Lin comes to mind.

Lip

MUsoxfan
09-05-2012, 12:30 AM
5187:

My definition of "relevant" is something that has some staying power to it. Not a one shot wonder.

Jeremy Lin comes to mind.

Lip

My definition of relevant is being in the playoff hunt in September. People are talking about the O's and the A's. They're relevant

palehozenychicty
09-05-2012, 12:45 AM
5187:

My definition of "relevant" is something that has some staying power to it. Not a one shot wonder.

Jeremy Lin comes to mind.

Lip

As a White Sox fan, it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

PKalltheway
09-05-2012, 01:21 AM
5187:

My definition of "relevant" is something that has some staying power to it. Not a one shot wonder.

Jeremy Lin comes to mind.

Lip
The Baltimore Orioles are tied for first place with the New York Yankees on September 4th, and you think that isn't relevant?

CHISOXFAN13
09-05-2012, 01:45 AM
5187:

My definition of "relevant" is something that has some staying power to it. Not a one shot wonder.

Jeremy Lin comes to mind.

Lip

I don't give two ****s about next year and I'm sure orioles fans don't right now either. They have a legitimate shot to win a division title and more.

DSpivack
09-05-2012, 02:20 AM
Man I hope the O's win the division. And it would be even better if Tampa overtook them for second place and someone else wins the other wild card.

guillensdisciple
09-05-2012, 02:34 AM
Man I hope the O's win the division. And it would be even better if Tampa overtook them for second place and someone else wins the other wild card.

Baltimore, rays, a's, angels?

soxfan2504
09-05-2012, 03:53 AM
Why you defy the odds and win something like 13 or 14 consecutive one run games even the Orioles can have a good season.

Let's see what they do next year when that type of 'luck' changes (and statistically it has to...)

And that goes for Oakland too. Don't they have something like 14 walk off wins?

Lip

Good teams make their own luck. Players and teams that are clutch are generally those that can keep anxiety from holding them back. Clutchness disappears when you let anxiety get to you in important situations in any line of work. The perfect (and probably most extreme) example about which I speak is in the Twins performance in the playoffs during the last decade against the Yankee$. http://network.yardbarker.com/mlb/article_external/torii_hunter_says_the_twins_were_psyched_out_again st_the_yankees_in_the_playoffs/10449931

Robots don't play Major League Baseball. Humans do. Highly skilled humans, yes, but they're still human.

LITTLE NELL
09-05-2012, 07:17 AM
Where would they be without the Sox, 6-2 against us.

aryzner
09-05-2012, 08:27 AM
Robots don't play Major League Baseball. Humans do. Highly skilled humans, yes, but they're still human.

I cannot wait for the day!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Base_Wars_cover.jpg

doublem23
09-05-2012, 08:48 AM
Of the Orioles and A's, I'd think the A's are much better built to last unless, of course, Billy Beane starts chipping away at his own roster. The Orioles are very likely experiencing a fluke year, but hell, the 2000 season was a fluke for the Sox and that year was fun as hell. How great would it be that in Bud's 1st year of trying to make it impossible for the Sawx and Yankees to miss the postseason, they both have tee times the 1st weekend of October?

Lip Man 1
09-05-2012, 09:49 AM
Pale:

Last I looked the Sox have never gone 15 straight losing seasons have they?

But then again I'm an idiot and might not be able to read the record book properly.

It would be wonderful for both the Yankees and Red Sox to not make the postseason but for me it wouldn't be as meaningful if the Sox pissed away their chance because they simply collapsed against certain clubs.

Lip

Hitmen77
09-05-2012, 10:25 AM
We could see a Baltimore vs. Washington World Series this year.

Chez
09-05-2012, 10:45 AM
Growing up in the pre-free agent era, the Orioles were a juggernaut -- a model franchise. Frank Robinson, Brooks Robinson, Paul Blair, Mark Belanger, Boog Powell, Davey Johnson, Cuellar, Palmer, McNally etc. I think it's great that they are having a magical season. Hopefully, the fans will come back to Camden. I was hoping to see the Pirates in the playoffs again too. New blood in the playoffs is a good thing.

kittle42
09-05-2012, 10:57 AM
Pale:

Last I looked the Sox have never gone 15 straight losing seasons have they?

Yet they're just as irrelevant. Guess that doesn't matter, then.

SI1020
09-05-2012, 11:10 AM
Between 1921-1950 the Sox never had more than 2 winning seasons in a row. They had 7 winning seasons in that time period and consecutive years of losing records from 1927-35 and 1944-50. In the 22 years from 1968-89 the Sox had 6 winning seasons. I've rooted for the Sox for over 5 decades but just can't find it in my heart to rank on any other team except for the Cubs, and only them because of the inter city rivalry, not because they have been hapless too.

asindc
09-05-2012, 11:17 AM
What happens beyond this season accounts for nothing as far as Baltimore making the playoffs this season is concerned. In the present, it does not matter how tarnished its 'brand' is, the only concern is how well they are playing now. Next year is next year. Last year was last year. Neither should factor in the current assessment of the team. Period.

MeteorsSox4367
09-05-2012, 01:01 PM
I don't give two ****s about next year and I'm sure orioles fans don't right now either. They have a legitimate shot to win a division title and more.

The Orioles have been one of my favorite teams since I was a kid and they're being awful recently hasn't been a lot of fun to watch.

I'm thrilled that they're giving the Yankees a run for the division. If the Yankees were to lose the division, that would be awesome and if it's to Baltimore, even better.

It was just disappointing to see small crowds when the Sox were at Camden Yards last week. Great tradition, beautiful ballpark, winning team.

Maybe Baltimore is relevant this season because of the change back to the caps from the 70s and 80s.

tstrike2000
09-05-2012, 01:27 PM
5187:

My definition of "relevant" is something that has some staying power to it. Not a one shot wonder.

Jeremy Lin comes to mind.

Lip

Ouch to Linsanity fans out there.

Paulwny
09-05-2012, 01:35 PM
What happens beyond this season accounts for nothing as far as Baltimore making the playoffs this season is concerned. In the present, it does not matter how tarnished its 'brand' is, the only concern is how well they are playing now. Next year is next year. Last year was last year. Neither should factor in the current assessment of the team. Period.

I agree, the 1959 Sox were 35-15 in one run games. Is anyone here going to claim that they were JUST lucky that year.

doublem23
09-05-2012, 01:38 PM
I agree, the 1959 Sox were 35-15 in one run games. Is anyone here going to claim that they were JUST lucky that year.

Considering there was like a 40-year gap between playoff appearances for the Sox on either side of the 1959 team, I would think that's the only logical conclusion you could make.

WhiteSox5187
09-05-2012, 01:45 PM
Considering there was like a 40-year gap between playoff appearances for the Sox on either side of the 1959 team, I would think that's the only logical conclusion you could make.

The Sox were consistently one of the best teams in the AL from something like 1955 to 1967. It's not like they lost 90 in 1958 and had a fluke year in '59. I bet they were pretty good in one run games in '58, the problem is the Yankees were probably better in most years.

Paulwny
09-05-2012, 01:48 PM
Considering there was like a 40-year gap between playoff appearances for the Sox on either side of the 1959 team, I would think that's the only logical conclusion you could make.

But, the sox team on the field was still competetive for a few years. Don't forget there weren't 3 divisions and multiple play-off teams, only one winner and that was NY.

doublem23
09-05-2012, 01:53 PM
The Sox were consistently one of the best teams in the AL from something like 1955 to 1967. It's not like they lost 90 in 1958 and had a fluke year in '59. I bet they were pretty good in one run games in '58, the problem is the Yankees were probably better in most years.

Sounds like they got lucky then one year and put it all together.

TDog
09-05-2012, 02:01 PM
Pale:

Last I looked the Sox have never gone 15 straight losing seasons have they?

But then again I'm an idiot and might not be able to read the record book properly.

It would be wonderful for both the Yankees and Red Sox to not make the postseason but for me it wouldn't be as meaningful if the Sox pissed away their chance because they simply collapsed against certain clubs.

Lip

The last I checked, they didn't take away the Red Sox 1967 AL pennant because they had losing records the previous nine seasons. Baseball didn't take the World Sereis title away from the 1969 Mets because they had a .323 winning percentage as a franchise coming into the season. The Orioles aren't irrelevant. What you did for the last 15 years is irrelevant if you are winning today.

You called the Orioles garbage at the beginning of the season. People argued you were wrong. You said they would prove to be garbage in September. It's September, and they are in first place.

What you did last year is irrelevant.

You were complaining about the White Sox losing to garbage teams when they were losing to the Orioles early in the season. You were complaining about the White Sox losing to garbage teams on a night when the Tigers were losing to the Indians and the Rangers were losing to the Royals and the Orioles wee moving into a first-place tie with the Yankees. For that matter, the Dodgers were losing to the Padres, and there is a wider difference between the top and bottom teams in the National League.

This isn't 1977 where every team with a winning record can feel good about an inflated win total because the bottom teams are so weak. In 2012, there really are no garbage teams. The top teams have flaws. The bottom teams have more flaws and are less consistent, but they also have up-and-coming players and even some veterans trying to prove themselves.

I was wrong about the A's. I thought they would give teams trouble, but I didn't think they would be this good this year. If they follow their usual pattern and the team is hurt by injuries and trades of current young stars for more prospects, it is irrelevant to how well they are doing this year.

And you were not only wrong about the Oriolesk, but are wrong about the Orioles, and the nature of American League baseball in 2012.

Nellie_Fox
09-05-2012, 02:25 PM
Sounds like they got lucky then one year and put it all together.They were 94-60 in '59. "63, '64, and '65 went 94-68, 98-64 :o:, and 95-67. They finished second in a ten-team league all three of those years. Of course, there were no "playoffs" then. Win the league or go home.

But to say the '59 Sox were just lucky because they never won on either side of that year is just wrong.

doublem23
09-05-2012, 02:28 PM
But to say the '59 Sox were just lucky because they never won on either side of that year is just wrong.

Looks like they were a good team that just got lucky the consistently better one had an off year.

:dunno:

Nothing wrong with being a little lucky, all good teams have to have some luck to win.

SI1020
09-05-2012, 02:52 PM
When I think of the 59 White Sox I am reminded of the late John Houseman and his famous Smith Barney commercial. They earned it. Yes the Yanks had an off year for them and returned to the top of the heap the next 5 years. Cleveland was their biggest competition but they were going to win that pennant in that year no matter what. Lucky? After being the most dominant 1-2 punch in the AL Billy Pierce and Dick Donovan weren't lousy, but they were just so-so, and both were inconsistent. The Sox won anyway. The 1951-67 era is still the high point in Sox history for me. The Yankees were just out of this world good from 51-64 and the Indians were tough in the 50's. No modern day extended playoffs. I'm still mad that they didn't beat the Dodgers. Al Lopez was an excellent manager but his 54 Indians and 59 White Sox both should have won the big prize.

TDog
09-05-2012, 04:41 PM
When I think of the 59 White Sox I am reminded of the late John Houseman and his famous Smith Barney commercial. They earned it. Yes the Yanks had an off year for them and returned to the top of the heap the next 5 years. Cleveland was their biggest competition but they were going to win that pennant in that year no matter what. Lucky? After being the most dominant 1-2 punch in the AL Billy Pierce and Dick Donovan weren't lousy, but they were just so-so, and both were inconsistent. The Sox won anyway. The 1951-67 era is still the high point in Sox history for me. The Yankees were just out of this world good from 51-64 and the Indians were tough in the 50's. No modern day extended playoffs. I'm still mad that they didn't beat the Dodgers. Al Lopez was an excellent manager but his 54 Indians and 59 White Sox both should have won the big prize.

From 1949 throuigh 1960, the only managers to manage teams to the World Series were Casey Stengel and Al Lopez. In his first nine years as a major league manager, Al Lopez twice won AL championships, never finished worse than second, and when he finished second, it was to the Yankees during their most consistent dynastic run. I didn't see any of that, but I read it on the back of his baseball card back in the day.He managed very good teams, knew what to do with them, but was facting baeball's all-time juggernaut franchise every season.

Calling the 1959 White Sox lucky is both accurate and meaningless. Were they lucky in 1959 that the Yankees had an off-season. Yes, they were. Were they unlucky during the 1950s and first four years of the 1960s that they were in the same league with the Yankees during their post-World War II dynasty, which was more consistently strong year-in and year-out than the post World War I dynasty. Yes they were.

The White Sox were a lot more unlucky than lucky.

WhiteSox5187
09-05-2012, 05:17 PM
Looks like they were a good team that just got lucky the consistently better one had an off year.

:dunno:

Nothing wrong with being a little lucky, all good teams have to have some luck to win.

To me a lucky year or a fluke or whatever would be a team like the 1998 Cubs where they had one 90 win season following and preceding a 90 loss season. The '59 White Sox were better than the Yankees that year but that doesn't mean they were lucky or a fluke. They were really, really good and that year they were better than the Yankees.

chisoxfanatic
09-05-2012, 08:10 PM
If they were to win the division, I'd hope they would overtake Texas so we could face the Rangers in the first round provided we win our division.

balke
09-05-2012, 08:23 PM
Mark Teixera is soft. Who misses this much time with a sore calf?

roylestillman
09-06-2012, 10:16 PM
46,000+ at Camden Yards tonight. They are crushing the Yankees in the eighth. Never thought I'd see that park filled again

WhiteSox5187
09-06-2012, 10:25 PM
46,000+ at Camden Yards tonight. They are crushing the Yankees in the eighth. Never thought I'd see that park filled again

They blew a five run lead in the top of the 8th and then came back and scored four in the bottom half. I'd love to see the Orioles some how pull off a sweep and both New York and Boston miss the playoffs.

DSpivack
09-06-2012, 10:36 PM
THey blew a five run lead in the top of the 8th and then came back and scored four in the bottom half. I'd love to see the Orioles some how pull off a sweep and both New York and Boston miss the playoffs.

I forgot about the match-up, so I didn't turn it on until the top of the 8th. Saw the O's blow it, then come right back in the bottom half. Looked like a fun game and a great crowd.

It was also the 17th anniversary of Cal Ripken's 2131 night.

guillensdisciple
09-06-2012, 11:02 PM
Come on birds!!

A. Cavatica
09-06-2012, 11:26 PM
I'd love to meet them in the playoffs and exact some revenge for '83.

palehozenychicty
09-07-2012, 02:09 AM
Pale:

Last I looked the Sox have never gone 15 straight losing seasons have they?

But then again I'm an idiot and might not be able to read the record book properly.

It would be wonderful for both the Yankees and Red Sox to not make the postseason but for me it wouldn't be as meaningful if the Sox pissed away their chance because they simply collapsed against certain clubs.

Lip

No, the Sox were never that bad for that long. But they don't have the same volume of great players over time either.

This franchise never has had a lot of truly great stars like Palmer or Robinson or Ripken or Murray. There's Big Frank and Shoeless Joe, but they have been the exception. Not the rule.

The Birds had a looong stretch of futility. But before that, they had "The Oriole Way".



I just think you could be a little more respectful.

palehozenychicty
09-07-2012, 02:11 AM
The last I checked, they didn't take away the Red Sox 1967 AL pennant because they had losing records the previous nine seasons. Baseball didn't take the World Sereis title away from the 1969 Mets because they had a .323 winning percentage as a franchise coming into the season. The Orioles aren't irrelevant. What you did for the last 15 years is irrelevant if you are winning today.

You called the Orioles garbage at the beginning of the season. People argued you were wrong. You said they would prove to be garbage in September. It's September, and they are in first place.

What you did last year is irrelevant.

You were complaining about the White Sox losing to garbage teams when they were losing to the Orioles early in the season. You were complaining about the White Sox losing to garbage teams on a night when the Tigers were losing to the Indians and the Rangers were losing to the Royals and the Orioles wee moving into a first-place tie with the Yankees. For that matter, the Dodgers were losing to the Padres, and there is a wider difference between the top and bottom teams in the National League.

This isn't 1977 where every team with a winning record can feel good about an inflated win total because the bottom teams are so weak. In 2012, there really are no garbage teams. The top teams have flaws. The bottom teams have more flaws and are less consistent, but they also have up-and-coming players and even some veterans trying to prove themselves.

I was wrong about the A's. I thought they would give teams trouble, but I didn't think they would be this good this year. If they follow their usual pattern and the team is hurt by injuries and trades of current young stars for more prospects, it is irrelevant to how well they are doing this year.

And you were not only wrong about the Oriolesk, but are wrong about the Orioles, and the nature of American League baseball in 2012.

Thank you. A voice of reason.

harwar
09-07-2012, 11:20 AM
46,000+ at Camden Yards tonight. They are crushing the Yankees in the eighth. Never thought I'd see that park filled again


I automatically skip any yankee or red sox game on tv since they force them on us so much, but when i saw that it was orioles-yankees, i had to watch .. what a fun game it was .. the orioles are reminding me of last years rays ..

Thome25
09-07-2012, 12:08 PM
I live in Maryland and work just outside Baltimore.

While I'm not an O's fan, I think it's a great thing for both this area and MLB for baseball to be relevant in Baltimore.

Camden yards has been an empty morgue the last several seasons and it is an easy ticket for fans of the away teams.

Not anymore. It's great to see their fans come out and support the team for this series against the Yanks.

I'd really like to see someone other than the Yankees, Red Sawx, or Rays (with their whiny, *******, crybaby, punkass bitch of a manager Joe Maddon) represent the AL East.