Fact Or Coincidence?
The Webbed Crusader
injury then won what,4 games afterwards?
Was this just a coincidence or did Matthews prop up an otherwise lousy
line-up, well enough to win games?
Dennis Shea
Every year the same coincidence gets identified--it happened when Segui
was hurt and when Bordick was hurt, for example. No one player has that
much of an effect on a team. The Orioles were a bad team that played
above their head for a few months, then played below their ability for a
few months. That's normal.
David H.
news:3DEB4C33...@adelphia.net...
> Coincidence
>
> Every year the same coincidence gets identified--it happened when Segui
> was hurt and when Bordick was hurt, for example. No one player has that
> much of an effect on a team. The Orioles were a bad team that played
> above their head for a few months, then played below their ability for a
> few months. That's normal.
>
No, Dennis.
The *PITCHING* "......played above their head(s) for a few months...".
The offense sucked since Opening Day.
David H.
Gurky
Fact and coincidence are not mutually exclusive. To the contrary, in
order for a coincidence to exist, it pretty much has to be a fact.
Gurky
Spidey...@webtv.net (The Webbed Crusader) wrote in message news:<16902-3DE...@storefull-2158.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
The Webbed Crusader
Erickson who was very ineffective after the first month or so. Ponson
went almost a year between wins. Johnson took a prat fall in the bullpen
and was mostly ineffective after that.
I'll admit Driscol pitched over his head and maybe Lopez too but at some
point(stretch) the offense did score enough runs to win. And it was
during that stretch that got them to .500 that Matthews started playing
every day.
I'm not going to sit here and say the slide after he was injured was
entirely due to his absense but he did add some spark,speed and hustle
to an otherwise moribund offense.
Check out his AB---extra base hit ratio and I'll bet it as good as
anyone on the team(which isn't saying much I know)
I thought Sid was on drugs when he first got Matthews and said he was a
5 tool player. With the exception of power he wasn't too far off.
nob...@junk.min.net
12/02/02
I think it was a coincidence. Our offense was weak before he went down.
I think the pitching went downhill the last month, and could no longer
hide the weak offense.
Alan
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Please use address al...@min.net to reply via e-mail. ****
Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Shea
David H. wrote:
And, as I implied in referring to Segui, in previous years, the offense
played above their heads for a few months, then when one person went
down, blame was allocated.
Sorry if your usual myopia prevented you from seeing the point.
Dennis Shea
The Webbed Crusader wrote:
I don't understand the fascination with Matthews. At age 27, the
typical peak age for hitters, he produced a whole 300 ABs where he was
just barely above league average for a RF. Yaa Hoo. Who are the
hitters that Matthews career trajectory most closely matches at this
point? Lots of familiar unimpressive names like Tarasco, Shelby,
Devereaux, and Buford the Lesser. He simply wasn't a very good player
and can in no way be responsible for the drop-off.
http://www.orioleshangout.com/2002review/2002osr2.html
http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/matthga02.shtml
David H.
Nice try, Dennis.
You said the team played above their heads.......
The offense s*cked d*ck from Opening Day. Hell from Spring Training.
They won on singles and doubles and great defense.
And, who in the hell can read your mind at the mere mention of Segui?
GOOD PITCHING made the team respectable.
That alone, defines how weak the bats were.
David H.