The Baltimore Orioles Thread (merged)

[BronxByTheBay]

Bobby, what are the titles and authors of those baseball books you're basing your arguments on? I'm going to the library later and intend to check a few out.

[YankeePride1967]

Bobby, what are the titles and authors of those baseball books you're basing your arguments on? I'm going to the library later and intend to check a few out.

I believe one was by the Jerky Boys titled "101 Pranks".

[ryanm1058123]

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P...2.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[Norman]

I don't understand what drives you. It seems that you are consistently losing your debates but you tirelessly run out the same flawed arguments time after time. If people keep shutting you down, why bother?

he did this for years on the Baltimore site...you guys are just his next victims...thanks by the way!

[bobby jr]

Not hardly. Let's review.

You said "SuperBowl ratings have skyrocketed" in recent years. This is completely wrong. Either you said that despite having absolutely no knowledge of the facts, which would be completely foolish, or you knew what has actually happened to SuperBowl ratings, and you said something you know to be untrue, which would be lying. It's quite clearly one or the other.

You then said the "SuperBowl is watched by far more people than the WS. And it used to be the other way around." This is completely wrong. Either you said that not knowing the facts - foolish - or you know the facts and deliberately said something untrue - lying.

You then said " The 1968 World Series had better ratings than either the 1967 or 1968 Super Bowl." Yet again, this was shown to be completely wrong. You either didn't know what you were talking about - foolish - or knew as said something untrue anyway - lying.

You further said that the above quote, (which let's not forget, was untrue anyway), "shows that my original statement was correct. Baseball used to get better ratings for the World Series than the NFL did for the Super Bowl." You conveniently ignored that your original statement referred to recent years. Either you couldn't even remember your original point, which let's face it, would be monumentally foolish, or you knew it didn't support your original point, but tried to claim it did, which might not be technically lying, but it's certainly intellectually dishonest.

Finally, your statement about the 1967 and 1968 Super Bowls, (which let's not forget, was untrue anyway), was dealing with Super Bowls I and II. No one in their right mind would compare the popularity of a brand new event with the national pastime that's been around for well over 50 years. Either it truly didn't occur to you that you were making an astonishingly meaningless comparison - foolish - or you knew it, but presented it anyway as somehow supportive of your argument - again, not quite lying, but certainly intellectually dishonest.


This same breakdown could be made of just about any of your posts. Pretty much any assertion you make or alleged fact you present is quickly shown by someone else here to be utterly false. Post after post is filled with factual claims that are simply untrue. Either you flat out don't know a thing about what you post about, or you have knowledge of your subjects and instead choose to ignore the truth and post falsehoods. That makes you either a fool or a liar.

Now I have no particular opinion which it is. I have no desire to ascribe malice to you. But there really are only two alternatives to describe your posts - nonsense or falsehoods.


The unintentional comedy meter did indeed just break. Beyond repair.

Your interpretation of "recent years" is obviously different from mine. Perhaps you have not been around as long as I have. Apparently you didn't read my post earlier today. I already stated that I had made a mistake about the 1968 World Series having higher ratings than the 1968 Super Bowl. As I said, I was tired last night when I posted and apparently misread the charts. I have no problem with admitting when I make a mistake, and moving on. Perhaps you have a problem with the fact that mistakes are human. But to say that everything I post is subsequently proven to be false, that is just absurd. If I were to have the time to go back to the beginning of this thread and pull up all the facts I have put forth, the great majority of them are true and as such could not be "shown to be utterly false". Once again, the main point of comparing the Super Bowl and World Series ratings was to show that the Super Bowl ratings have been pulling away from the World Series ratings. That is a fact and the World Series ratings dropping is a large part of the equation.

[Bob Saccomano]

Your interpretation of "recent years" is obviously different from mine. Perhaps you have not been around as long as I have. Apparently you didn't read my post earlier today. I already stated that I had made a mistake about the 1968 World Series having higher ratings than the 1968 Super Bowl. As I said, I was tired last night when I posted and apparently misread the charts. I have no problem with admitting when I make a mistake, and moving on. Perhaps you have a problem with the fact that mistakes are human. But to say that everything I post is subsequently proven to be false, that is just absurd. If I were to have the time to go back to the beginning of this thread and pull up all the facts I have put forth, the great majority of them are true and as such could not be "shown to be utterly false". Once again, the main point of comparing the Super Bowl and World Series ratings was to show that the Super Bowl ratings have been pulling away from the World Series ratings. That is a fact and the World Series ratings dropping is a large part of the equation.

It's still an apples-to-oranges argument. If the Super Bowl were a best of seven series, its ratings would drop. If the World Series were a one game affair, ratings would rise. It's an intellectually dishonest argument to make, but even if we assume that it's true, your assertion is that ratings decline, ergo people hate the Yankees in the postseason. That's completely unreasonable. Correlation does not prove causation, bobby, and that's exactly what you're trying to do here. Present facts (which are tainted) and then ascribe explanations to them, with little basis to those claims.

Here's some food for thought: when the Yankees go on the road, the stadiums they play in are almost totally sold out. Even when they're not, they're packed to significantly greater capacity. So where's the notion that people hate watching the Yankees play come from? Either the fans from disparate parts of baseball America want to see the Yankees because they're part of the country's largest fanbase, or they want to come to the stadium to boo the Evil Empire. Either way, people want to see the Yankees.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

Your interpretation of "recent years" is obviously different from mine. Once again, the main point of comparing the Super Bowl and World Series ratings was to show that the Super Bowl ratings have been pulling away from the World Series ratings. That is a fact and the World Series ratings dropping is a large part of the equation.

More of bobby's falsehoods. Your very point was that the NFL was succeeding where mlb fails "Because the NFL has what MLB so desparatly needs, a hard salary cap." Now you claim that changes in tv ratings going back almost 40 years somehow support this claim. Of course, changes going back that far have nothing whatsoever to do with a salary cap, since surely even you know enough to know that it came along much later. Again, we see my point borne out. Either you're utterly clueless about your own point, or you're intentionally misrepresenting evidence. There simply aren't any options left - you continue to post either out of ignorance and foolishness or out of dishonesty. I remain open to either selection, though your continuing misrepresentations certainly lend weight to one side.

[Jersey Yankee]

Like BBtB, I too would like to know of the titles of the books that bobby jr has been reading. Let's hear 'em.

It's interesting that this whole thing about payroll and division have come into bobby's argument. If so, then why is Toronto in 2nd place right now? They just beat Detroit 2 out of 3, and the loss was a 4-3 game. How does a team with a low payroll beat the Red Sox of all teams, for 2nd place in the AL East?

I'm not going to delve much into the Super Bowl thing. There are just too many factors for that to even become relevant, and I doubt that the ads were what they are now. However, I remember there being lots of ads back then, from what I remember my schoolteachers mentioning (have never been a big NFL fan).

[bobby jr]

It's still an apples-to-oranges argument. If the Super Bowl were a best of seven series, its ratings would drop. If the World Series were a one game affair, ratings would rise. It's an intellectually dishonest argument to make, but even if we assume that it's true, your assertion is that ratings decline, ergo people hate the Yankees in the postseason. That's completely unreasonable. Correlation does not prove causation, bobby, and that's exactly what you're trying to do here. Present facts (which are tainted) and then ascribe explanations to them, with little basis to those claims.

Here's some food for thought: when the Yankees go on the road, the stadiums they play in are almost totally sold out. Even when they're not, they're packed to significantly greater capacity. So where's the notion that people hate watching the Yankees play come from? Either the fans from disparate parts of baseball America want to see the Yankees because they're part of the country's largest fanbase, or they want to come to the stadium to boo the Evil Empire. Either way, people want to see the Yankees.

Yes the Yankees have a lot of fans nationally and also fans of other teams probably would rather buy tickets to see their home team battle the Yankees rather than say the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. But this is ignoring the fact that have the Yankees dominate also causes decreased attendance.

The Toronto Blue Jays used to draw much better when they won the division, over 4 million per year. Their attendance has dropped dramatically since those days. The Orioles attendance too. If not for the Yankees domination, both Baltimore and Toronto would get far higher home attendance. And not just when we played the Yankees either, for all teams.

Now here is an interesting article, two years old, but still relevant. I have been pointing out how popular the Super Bowl now is compared to the World Series, and that this is likely because of the even playing field in the NFL. Mr. Dickey draws similar conclusions.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...PG8T520CT1.DTL



Yankees show how much baseball needs a salary cap




"With George Steinbrenner scooping up Alex Rodriguez, can there be any doubt that baseball needs a salary cap? Pro football long ago passed baseball in popularity, and one of the most important reasons is that fans know there's a level playing field in football, which there emphatically is not in baseball. "

....They, too, realized the whole league had to be strong.
Contrast that with baseball, where the Yankees' owners have bought their way to success, from the time Jake Ruppert bought Babe Ruth in 1920 to the present. "

[bobby jr]

Like BBtB, I too would like to know of the titles of the books that bobby jr has been reading. Let's hear 'em.

It's interesting that this whole thing about payroll and division have come into bobby's argument. If so, then why is Toronto in 2nd place right now? They just beat Detroit 2 out of 3, and the loss was a 4-3 game. How does a team with a low payroll beat the Red Sox of all teams, for 2nd place in the AL East?

I'm not going to delve much into the Super Bowl thing. There are just too many factors for that to even become relevant, and I doubt that the ads were what they are now. However, I remember there being lots of ads back then, from what I remember my schoolteachers mentioning (have never been a big NFL fan).

As for which books I've read about the economics of baseball, there is Andrew Zimbalist's "May The Best Team Win", and also MoneyBall, both excellent resources.
I'd highly recommend them.

A lot of good it has done Toronto. They still can't compete with the Yankees in salary or performance, they are out of the playoffs again. And now the Blue Jays are losing money too. They were far better off financially before they bought their big money players and still can only hope to finish a distance 2nd.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn...c.php?t=127283

Blue Jays expected to lose at least $22 million this season

Posted: September 12, 2006

Associated Press

"TORONTO -- The Toronto Blue Jays are expected to lose at least $22 million this year, according to a top executive with the team's parent company....

The Blue Jays almost broke even last year, but the team added $20 million to its payroll this season by signing free agents A.J. Burnett, B.J. Ryan and Bengie Molina and trading for Troy Glaus and Lyle Overbay"

[Jersey Yankee]

As for which books I've read about the economics of baseball, there is Andrew Zimbalist's "May The Best Team Win", and also MoneyBall, both excellent resources.
I'd highly recommend them.

A lot of good it has done Toronto. They still can't compete with the Yankees in salary or performance, they are out of the playoffs again. And now the Blue Jays are losing money too. They were far better off financially before they bought their big money players and still can only hope to finish a distance 2nd.

So bobby, how much have other teams lost this year? People have said the same about the Yanks.

You keep shifting subjects around. The Blue Jays are doing much better than the Orioles. They have about the same payroll. How isn't payroll affecting them, when they play in the same AL East as the Yanks and Red Sox?

Are the Baltimore Orioles losing money? Please show their profit margin, so that the exact same rules could be applied to both teams (Toronto and Baltimore).

Thanks.

[nnysiny]

congratulations to Daniel Cabrera for pitching a no-hitter tonight. its the second of the year

[nnysiny]

oops, jinxed

[ryanm1058123]

How long until bobby says that this will turn around Daniel Cabrera and the Orioles for good?

[kan_t]

How long until bobby says that this will turn around Daniel Cabrera and the Orioles for good?

Orioles, no until their owner is another one.

Cabrera, yes. His stuff is just nasty. I think he can turns it around next season.

[bobby jr]

How sweet it is! A 1 hitter. Cabrera shows excellent potential, and I think Mazzone has done some good work with him.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9		R	H	E
BAL (69 - 90)	2	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	2		7	14	3		Final
NYY (96 - 63)	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0		1	1	0
W: D. Cabrera (9-10) L: D. Rasner (3-1) A 1 hitter!

[ryanm1058123]

bobby, your thoughts on Mazzone's work on Rodrigo Lopez and Bruce Chen?

[bobby jr]

bobby, your thoughts on Mazzone's work on Rodrigo Lopez and Bruce Chen?

Mazzone can't work miracles in one year. But Cabrera and Bedard, there is definitely a good 1-2 punch there for next year. And Mazzone is starting to show the results. Remember that both Angelos and Steinbrenner tried to get him.

[dpinzow]

Cabrera's been very hit and miss, but can be great when he's on.

Bedard and Loewen look pretty good for the long term. Baltimore should have pulled that Tejada for Oswalt deal...a rotation of Oswalt, Bedard and Loewen would make Baltimore a competitor for the forseeable future.

[cmaff05]

Actually, Loewen has been pretty awful against everybody but the Yanks. Cabrera has been pretty awful against anybody but the Yanks. And Hayden Penn has just been awful.

Mazzone's work is paying off well.

[dpinzow]

Actually, Loewen has been pretty awful against everybody but the Yanks. Cabrera has been pretty awful against anybody but the Yanks. And Hayden Penn has just been awful.

Mazzone's work is paying off well.

I actually rate Loewen a little higher than Cabrera. He's a young lefty with fewer control issues. He looks a lot like Erik Bedard when he first came up.

That being said, Baltimore doesn't nearly have enough without a guy like Oswalt or Ervin Santana in their rotation (both were available for Tejada, and in Anaheim's case, the O's would have gotten another blue-chip prospect).

[cmaff05]

I really don't think Ervin Santana is an ace of a staff.

[dpinzow]

I really don't think Ervin Santana is an ace of a staff.

He's only 23 years old.

He's 15-8, with an ERA a little high for an ace (4.43), but has very good stuff. Ervin Santana has great potential to be an ace.

[cmaff05]

He's only 23 years old.

He's 15-8, with an ERA a little high for an ace (4.43), but has very good stuff. Ervin Santana has great potential to be an ace.

Daniel Cabrera has the potential to be an ace. Kris Benson has the potential to be an ace (although that ship sailed a long time ago). They need a proven ace to anchor that staff. Not just some guy with very good stuff who is a work in progress.

[hellonewman]

Mazzone can't work miracles in one year. But Cabrera and Bedard, there is definitely a good 1-2 punch there for next year. And Mazzone is starting to show the results. Remember that both Angelos and Steinbrenner tried to get him.

But the Orioles have no chance to compete under the current system, so it doesn't matter.