O's over/under of 64.5 games??

by Slobbity on Mar 5, 2008 11:02 PM EST Comment 26 comments

Have people seen the over/under games that vegas has put on the O's? Seems ridiculously low at 64.5 wins, particularly considering the following:

lowest in MLB (next highest are the Marlins @ 69)

next highest in AL are the Royals and A's tied at 73.5

in the past 6 years, only 13 teams have been below 64.5

I know we are in rebuilding mode, but I think this is really absurd, in fact I will slam my fist on the table and venture to say that taking the over is the sports wager of the century. Although my (yankee fan) colleague disagrees with me - despite the fact that I told him years ago that the Yankees wouldn't win a championship with Mussina on the team.. guy just an overwhelming karma of "pretty good - can't finish" that surrounds all who are around him.

FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Not to steal your thunder,

but there was earlier discussion of this here.

MelMo happy again!!

by zknower on Mar 5, 2008 11:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

ok, wrong expression

I meant to say,

"not to rain on your parade"

"not to piss in your cornflakes"

"not to take the wind out of your sails"

or something like that.

MelMo happy again!!

by zknower on Mar 5, 2008 11:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ahh yes..

i must have missed it - my bad. even more proof that it is absurd.

by Slobbity on Mar 5, 2008 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

64.5 wins

"Seems ridiculously low at 64.5 wins,"

Why? The team is basically the same as last year except Bedard, Tejada, and probably Roberts will be gone. Millar and Mora are likely bets to decline. The OF should be a bit better though. The BP will suck again. I can't see the rotation improving upon last year with Bedard gone. 64.5 sounds about right.

Rocky Cherry, O's pitcher, not John C. McGinley's love child.

by birdman on Mar 6, 2008 1:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I disagree

Agreed that there will be some sort of shortfall due to Bedard, Tejada added minimal value last year - particularly if you consider D-fence, Millar is one of those guys that never decline, they just retire, and Mora should have a better year than last. As for Roberts - the over/under that has been set already builds in the chance of that. And if the BP is anywhere near how bad it was last year I will start crying - c'mon they have to do better than a 5.7 ERA.

by Slobbity on Mar 6, 2008 9:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

Why do they have to? They were putrid the year before, too, and that was without signing three free agents to anchor the pen. This wasn't an isolated thing.

64.5 wins is actually a very reasonable prediction. This team won 69 games last year with Erik Bedard and MIguel Tejada.

On paper, they are really, really terrible. The team's best player (by far) is Nick Markakis. The Red Sox have, what, six or seven guys that will perform at Nick's level?

This sort of thinking -- "We're not THAT bad!" -- has been a pox on the team in the last decade. The organization has built clubs with the theory that they really did a good job, it's just been bad luck! No, the teams suck awful. Everyone in the league has more players that have proven to be good at the major league level (and remain in a position to be good) than the O's.

The bright side is that this team might actually have a future.

Gone but not forgotten...

by SC on Mar 6, 2008 9:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

totally disagree

sc, why do you think the red sox have 6 or 7 guys who perform at markakis' level? he had the 19th best OPS in the AL last year and played pretty damn good defense. the red sox had ortiz, manny, and mike lowell above him in OPS. that's it. and isn't markakis a much better bet to improve than those three guys?

i have no doubt we're going to be bad, but i also think 64.5 games is way too low. we keep talking about losing tejada and losing bedard, but what about the pieces we've gained? jones will easily outhit corey and luke scott/nolan reimold/scott moore/whatever should crush the slop we threw out there last year in left. if jones and markakis take a step forward, as young players should, the offense should be about what it was last year, if not better. not great, but not 64.5 wins bad. oh yeah, tejada's OPS was .799 last year. he sucked and played lousy shortstop. we didn't lose a thing when we made that trade.

the bullpen was nearly historically bad last year, wasn't it? just flat out terrible. i think there's enough talent in there to see improvement, which should somewhat make up for bedard leaving. does loewen step up? does guthrie pitch well again? how about cabrera?

lots of questions of course, but i think we'll be better than anyone realizes. in fact, i'm predicting 75 wins this season. that's right, i said it. young teams always come around a lot quicker than people think.

it's march, i can talk this way if i want.

by joet on Mar 6, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

70 wins is not out of the question,

i can't see 75 though. but, you are right about young teams developing sooner than everybody thinks: remember the 2006 Marlins.

"All I have to say is our partner is going to shock the world because he is none other than THE SHOCKMASTER!"-Sting

by jobe on Mar 6, 2008 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hey I hope you're right

And by six or seven I was including full value, so I meant pitchers and hitters. Markakis is the only guy we have besides maybe Adam Jones who is anything close to a sure bet to perform at a truly high level. As good as Brian Roberts is, he's not that good, you know? Pedroia easily equals Roberts and is younger.

Ortiz
Ramirez
Lowell
Beckett
Youkilis
Drew, maybe
Papelbon (I know, one inning, but he's shutdown)

And then there's Jacoby Ellsbury, Matsuzaka, Pedroia -- they're a team loaded with good players. The bullpen is pretty terrific. They have just as much quality young pitching as we do, and theirs is closer to being ready for the bigs.

I'm not downgrading Markakis, I'm downgrading, you know, the rest of the team, or damn close to all of it, anyway. The Orioles for years have fielded these lame ass teams and someone in their office actually thought they'd done a good job of putting a competitive squad together. At least this year they've cut the shit.

THIS is not a rebuilding season. This is the beginning of rebuilding. This is a forfeit year, for all intents and purposes.

the bullpen was nearly historically bad last year, wasn't it? just flat out terrible.

It was hardly any better the year before, when we all talked about the historically bad bullpen that needed to be salvaged, thus it actually almost kind of made sense for the Orioles to sign three old relievers of marginal value.

Gone but not forgotten...

by SC on Mar 6, 2008 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You don't think

Nick will have a high OPS with all the walks he could get in this lineup?

"All I have to say is our partner is going to shock the world because he is none other than THE SHOCKMASTER!"-Sting

by jobe on Mar 6, 2008 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

WHEN DID I SAY MARKAKIS ISN'T GOOD?

Gone but not forgotten...

by SC on Mar 7, 2008 9:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nick had an .847 OPS last year

He's gonna get less stuff to hit this year so his walks will go up and he could easily have a .900 OPS. Only three regulars on the Red Sox were higher than that, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Manny Ramirez and Mike Lowell, who had a contract year, both have worse numbers.

"All I have to say is our partner is going to shock the world because he is none other than THE SHOCKMASTER!"-Sting

by jobe on Mar 7, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

for the love of God

This is not about Nick Markakis' OPS. Nick Markakis could be better than everyone on the Red Sox and the Orioles would still suck because HE'S THE ONLY PLAYER THEY HAVE (if Roberts is traded or has one of his regular Roberts seasons) that is even in the ballpark with all those guys on Boston's team. Maybe Adam Jones is really good right away. Maybe not.

I'm saying that the rest of the team either sucks or is a giant question mark. I'm not saying anything remotely like "Nick Markakis isn't all that good." Nick Markakis is really good. But you need more than one player to not flirt with losing 100 games. Better-looking teams than this one have done it.

The point is that 64 games is not this absurd dig at the Orioles. They are fucking terrible on paper when stacked up against the rest of the league, and all this "Yeah but!" stuff bewilders me. Why hide from the fact that this team is going to be horrible? And if you really feel all that strong about it, place your bets with the Vegas oddsmakers and feel awesome if they go 66-96, which would be an entire three-game decline from last year's piece of crap team.

"Hope springs eternal" is not part of my plan for this year, because it would be a lie. This is a team designed to be bad in the hopes that it will get better with the experience and the loss of some of the dead weight like Gibbons and Payton and Huff and Millar and Mora. Why people are up in arms over the projection of the Orioles as the worst team in baseball when it's tremendously easy to argue for just that is beyond me. I'm a fan, too, but I'm not going to fool myself. I'm excited for the season to see some of these guys play and maybe get a glimpse of what could be, but we're going to lose a lot of games.

Gone but not forgotten...

by SC on Mar 7, 2008 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously

The O's are a little league team in comparison the RS in 2008. We may have several solid regulars and superstars on our roster, but it's going to take at least 2 seasons of development before that happens. Maybe Jones, Penn, Olson, and other develop a lot faster than predicted but I highly doubt it.

Rocky Cherry, O's pitcher, not John C. McGinley's love child.

by birdman on Mar 7, 2008 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Never said that we were good...

just saying 64.5 is way too low, even with the changes that have been made. never said it was bad luck and never said that the orioles have a bunch of proven players. so why don't you put your money where your mouth.. i'll set it at 65.5 and bet you a 6-pack of beer, a bag of peanuts, and a signed and framed copy of the final standings conceding defeat should they do worse than that.

by Slobbity on Mar 6, 2008 10:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Too low?

I don't think so. I think this team is going to suck something fierce. Honestly, I can't even remember the last time I was so unenthusiastic about Spring Training. I've resigned myself as to how bad I think this team is going to be and the regular season approaching seems more like something to be endured in the hopes of a grander future to come than entertainment. I hope I'm wrong.

"Indeed"

by Jonnypops on Mar 6, 2008 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no one is standing by their statements....

despite saying its not too low. again... i'll take the over on 65.5 and bet a 6-pack of beer, a bag of peanuts, and a signed and framed copy of the final standings conceding defeat.

by Slobbity on Mar 6, 2008 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

It's a Vegas betting line. Did anyone really think the red-hot Giants were 14 point dogs against the Patriots? Like, really?

It's a perfectly reasonable Vegas line. People acting like it's some terrible insult to the try-hard Orioles who are lining up a bunch of old farts, retreads and a few young talents en route to rebuilding are fooling themselves.

Gone but not forgotten...

by SC on Mar 6, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no one is standing by their statements....

Fine, I'll stand by my comments. If the O's win more than 65.5 games, I'll mail you a bag of peanuts. The good shit too, none of that cheap ass stuff you can buy at CVS. I would mail you beer but I don't think that's possible. And I'll happily print out the final standing, admit my defeat, and sign it to you. You can then scan as a jpeg and use it as your avatar if you like. If I win, I want some Popeye's fried chicken. Since you can't mail that, send me a gift certificate. I'll snap a picture while I'm buying my chicken and use it as my avatar.

Rocky Cherry, O's pitcher, not John C. McGinley's love child.

by birdman on Mar 6, 2008 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

consider it done..

so birdman (under) vs. slobbity @ 65.5 games is confirmed with peanuts and signed standings to slobbity OR popeye's to birdman.

by Slobbity on Mar 7, 2008 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you're going down!

Normally I wouldn't like rooting against the O's but 64 win season should insure them the 1 draft pick next year.

Rocky Cherry, O's pitcher, not John C. McGinley's love child.

by birdman on Mar 7, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm taking the under

I think our pitching staff is going to be a disaster (Guthrie proves he was lucky last year, Loewen and DCab continue to be dogged by control, Trachsel was fo shizzle lucky last year and Penn or Olson pitch like a #5). I think we'll be lucky to win sixty.

Librarians are hiding something

by dfa on Mar 6, 2008 1:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

so...

when you say you are taking the under - are you just talking about it or are you in for the beer + peanuts + signed and framed standings bet with me - on 65.5???

otherwise your words mean nothing.

by Slobbity on Mar 6, 2008 1:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

re:

I said under on the Vegas 66 line. I'm inclined to say under on 64.5. The pitching is most likely going to be painful to watch. Loewen and Cabrera are the BB brothers. Guthrie isn't going to match last year. Trax... enough said. And who knows for the last spot. I read the O's were 19-9 in games Bedard started. Let's asssume a 10 game swing is accurate, and the O's won 69?

The wildcard is whether the team reverts to the heartless bunch of assholes we've seen for many a second half of the season (and even into May, like under Perlozzo). Maybe the young team will continue to plow on and stay motivated by the fact they have nothing to lose and only a future to gain. They better, or I'm not watching.

"This is Birdland"

by drj on Mar 6, 2008 1:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

heard that one before

"Indeed"

by Jonnypops on Mar 6, 2008 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

Different wording and consolidated here.

I still have a sour taste in my mouth about going to a game at Fenway last year. It was the day before the Mother's Day meltdown. A game that Trax started (I got tickets from a buddy, I didn't choose to see him) and Leicester had to be pulled with an injury (fake or not, I dunno). The O's gave up in that game. It was a one run game until Perlozzo let Leicester get creamed. The kid got out of one inning in relief of Trax (the 6th?) and was in trouble in the next. He was pleading to come out, as I'll assume his arm was hurting. Perlozzo was standing at the railing ignoring him and every single player, save one, was sitting on there ass looking disinterested. The only guy reacting was Walker. He was standing at the bullpen fence watching the action, kicking the dirt, muttering something. Anyhow, after the game is blown open and Leicester is slumping his shoulder, Perlozzo finally comes out. Leicester goes to the dugout and not a single player moved.

I vowed never to waste my time and money the rest of the season on the heartless assholes after that game. I canceled plans to go to a game with the family (we usually try to get together once a season). I still went home, but we went nowhere near the stadium. I'll wipe the slate clean now, but they better play hard and give a damn.

"This is Birdland"

by drj on Mar 6, 2008 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs