another orioles all-tiime lineup please!

[neeneecuss]

i couldn't find the original post, so can you please make me a new orioles all-time lineup please? that's all-time lineup, not all-time roster! thanks!

[J W]

Hmmm, ok. Browns not included:

1) L - Brady Anderson (CF) - .256/.362/.425
2) B - Ken Singleton (RF) - .282/.388/.436
3) R - Frank Robinson (LF) - .294/.389/.537
4) B - Eddie Murray (1B) - .287/.359/.476
5) L - Boog Powell (DH) - .266/.361/.462
6) R - Cal Ripken Jr. (SS) - .276/.340/.447
7) B - Mickey Tettleton (C) - .241/.369/.449
8) R - Davey Johnson (2B) - .261/.340/.404
9) R - Brooks Robinson (3B) - .267/.322/.401

Remember most of those numbers were pre-juiced era. Also I didn't consider defense quite as much since you're talking lineup only (otherwise I think Blair would take CF). Tettleton is a stretch but he was part of the "why not?" Orioles in '89 and played three seasons with the team. Chris Hoiles is more of the all-time hitting Oriole catcher, but he's right-handed and I didn't want to load the bottom of the order with righties.

Three switch-hitters in the lineup too!

[J W]

Also, I know Roberto Alomar played three seasons with the team but he has even less of a case than Tettleton has to be called an "all-time Oriole".

And Miguel Tejada has an OPS+ of two whopping points higher than Cal Ripken Jr (114-112). If Miggy keeps playing that number might end up below Ripken's.

[Orioles '66]

Hmmm, ok. Browns not included:

1) L - Brady Anderson (CF) - .256/.362/.425
2) B - Ken Singleton (RF) - .282/.388/.436
3) R - Frank Robinson (LF) - .294/.389/.537
4) B - Eddie Murray (1B) - .287/.359/.476
5) L - Boog Powell (DH) - .266/.361/.462
6) R - Cal Ripken Jr. (SS) - .276/.340/.447
7) B - Mickey Tettleton (C) - .241/.369/.449
8) R - Davey Johnson (2B) - .261/.340/.404
9) R - Brooks Robinson (3B) - .267/.322/.401

Remember most of those numbers were pre-juiced era. Also I didn't consider defense quite as much since you're talking lineup only (otherwise I think Blair would take CF). Tettleton is a stretch but he was part of the "why not?" Orioles in '89 and played three seasons with the team. Chris Hoiles is more of the all-time hitting Oriole catcher, but he's right-handed and I didn't want to load the bottom of the order with righties.

Three switch-hitters in the lineup too!

Dang, I hate numbers.

Here's the ones I'd replaced based only on memory.
No numbers, please.
CF Paul Blair
C Rick Dempsey or Gus Triandos

I might have to do some researching, however, for RF.
It seems to me I had someone else above Singy.
He was horrible defensively.

And I love how you solved the Boog and Eddie 1B situation by placing
one of them @ DH. Of course, Boog never DH'd as I can recall.
Both were good defensively @ 1B. Boog was actually quicker in his
younger days, too.
Belanger would be the backup SS.

I certainly don't get the Tettleton and Anderson picks. Scratching my head on those.

[Orioles '66]

Okay, get rid of Singleton and Anderson and somehow throw in
OF's Bumbry, Buford and Baylor or Blair.
I know Bumbry and Blair mostly played in Center.
Buford and Baylor played the corners, I think.
Then there's the Lowenstien/Roenicke deal in LF.
I don't care which you pick among these, but I'd take any of them over Anderson and Singleton any day.
And if it weren't for Eddie and Boog, Diamond Jim would be the next choice @ 1B.

[J W]

neeneecuss was looking for an "all-time lineup not all-time roster" so I was considering offense only '66. Otherwise I'd absolutely go with Blair (already mentioned in my post). Blair wasn't the hitter Anderson was, and Anderson gives us a leadoff hitter we'd otherwise be missing.

Triandos is a righty like Hoiles and Hoiles was the better hitter of the two (but only because of his two best seasons). Tettleton gives us the option of batting LH at the bottom of the order.

Good catch on Powell; he only DHed six games in his career. Murray DHed many more than that, but he was the gold glover out there for the first half of his career.

[Erik Bedard]

I'd take Triandos over Tettleton, if only because Tettleton played just the three seasons. Singleton is good in right. You really can't go wrong with Anderson or Blair, if you count defense, than Blair is the choice, if not, then Anderson. Buford might also deserve a spot, but I would never put him on ahead of FRobby or Singleton.

[Orioles '66]

I'd take Triandos over Tettleton, if only because Tettleton played just the three seasons. Singleton is good in right. You really can't go wrong with Anderson or Blair, if you count defense, than Blair is the choice, if not, then Anderson. Buford might also deserve a spot, but I would never put him on ahead of FRobby or Singleton.

I've got a serious problem w/ Brady Anderson and Kenny Singleton.
Anderson is a 99% probablility steroids-user, and had only 1 super year.
Paul Blair was much better IMHO, and it was Pauly who caught the last out in the '66 World Series, after which we followed him to the Orioles dugout from the CF bleachers. Quite the memories. And Paul was as a good a hiiter as he was defensively. Remember it was the bean ball that basically ended his hitting career, but until then he was a major force w/ the bat.
And I'd really take Buford, Baylor and even Lo Lo or Gary w/ the BAT in the line-up over Singleton ANY DAY!
Kenny is/was OverRated!

[Erik Bedard]

Singleton is VERY underrated. By no means overrated. There's no way I'd put any of the guys you mentioned on there ahead of him. Baylor is perhaps the closest, but he only had four full years in an Orioles uniform, to Singleton's ten. Buford only has five. Roenicke and Lowenstein were part-timers. It's really not all that close. And none of them has a single season to match Singleton's 1977 or 79.

Again, a very large portion of Blair's value rests in his defense. Counting in defense, I'd put him ahead of Brady without thinking twice. But in offense-only, I have to go with Anderson.

[Orioles '66]

Singleton is VERY underrated. By no means overrated. There's no way I'd put any of the guys you mentioned on there ahead of him. Baylor is perhaps the closest, but he only had four full years in an Orioles uniform, to Singleton's ten. Buford only has five. Roenicke and Lowenstein were part-timers. It's really not all that close. And none of them has a single season to match Singleton's 1977 or 79.

Again, a very large portion of Blair's value rests in his defense. Counting in defense, I'd put him ahead of Brady without thinking twice. But in offense-only, I have to go with Anderson.

No Way, No How Brady Anderson should EVER be seriously considered in an All-Time Baltimore Orioles line-up.
Please be at least 50 years old, before you make such a dramatic decision.
Hopefully, you've seen enough of the Orioles Outfielders.
And, for the life of me, cannot figure out why Mr. Al Bumbry is not getting the much deserved recognition as the premiere CF in Orioles history. This has to be the biggest absolute joke to EVER consider Mr. Anderson over Mr. Bumbry!
Please, tell me you are old enough to understand this.

[Erik Bedard]

I've seen Brady Anderson many times. I've seen enough of Paul Blair to know that he'd by my first choice for All-Time Orioles' CF. However, for all-time Orioles Offensive CF, Blair doesn't really match up with Anderson. Bumbry was better offensively than Blair, but still not as good as Anderson. Anderson had six consecutive years where he was good to great. He had good speed, decent power, and knew how to draw a walk -- essential for a leadoff hitter. Singleton was similar, only much better.

And it's not really a question of age at all. I can be 15 years old and have read enough and seen enough and heard enough to be able to make a fair judgment on this.

[Orioles '66]

I've seen Brady Anderson many times. I've seen enough of Paul Blair to know that he'd by my first choice for All-Time Orioles' CF. However, for all-time Orioles Offensive CF, Blair doesn't really match up with Anderson. Bumbry was better offensively than Blair, but still not as good as Anderson. Anderson had six consecutive years where he was good to great. He had good speed, decent power, and knew how to draw a walk -- essential for a leadoff hitter. Singleton was similar, only much better.

And it's not really a question of age at all. I can be 15 years old and have read enough and seen enough and heard enough to be able to make a fair judgment on this.

I gotta say WRONG, on your last account. Obviously, YOU are too young. Otherwise, you'd have known that Al Bumbry along w/ Rich Coggins, brought up the same season from our glorious minors back then, broke the all-time record w/ Stolen Bases. So, you need to more than read about the Orioles past, you need to live them. So, easily your Brady passion is absolutely a reflection of your youth. You have no idea how good Paul Blair or Al Bumbry were. Both, much better than Brady ever would hope to be, and both without the use of steroids, my friend.

[Erik Bedard]

I'm not by any means a Brady Anderson fan. I think he used steroids (though such claims are incredibly hard to prove, and until they are proven, IMO, the player must be given the benefit of the doubt), and I don't think he was a particularly great baseball player. I do, however, think that he was better than Al Bumbry, though not as good as Paul Blair. Anderson was about as fast as Bumbry, from what I've seen of both of them, and had more power. He was also more adept at drawing a walk.

The "you're too young" argument, while it is somewhat true, in that one who was not alive is far less likely to have watched the players as much as one who was alive, is flawed in that the best measurement of a player's performance, their statistics, endures. And not only is it flawed, it can also possibly be deemed as insulting. I'm not going to take it that way, since I'm not Gary Sheffield, but that could be one interpretation of it.

[leecemark]

--I am plenty old enough to have seen Al Bumbry and he was nothing special. Decent ball player, but if he is on a franchise all time team they are hurting. He couldn't hold a candle to Blair on defense or to Anderson with the bat (Anderson may be better defensively too for that matter).
--I've never really understood the steroid thing for Anderson's fluke HR season either. If he was taking them and they helped him reach such heights why would he stop and return to being the player he had been before? A guy who takes a huge leap forward and stays at that level I can see the suspicion. A single fluke season like Anderson's is probably just that. A season where everything just clicked for him. Those seasons happen sometimes and they did long before PEDs came into the game.

[Orioles '66]

Let me just say this, as I've seen all the Orioles Outfielders perfrom since the early 60's, even though I've followed them since the Mid-50's, Blair and Bumbry EASILY outshine Anderson in ALL facets of the game. So, I'd be very insulted to see Brady's name penciled in, in such an honary line-up card.
I can't believe anyone else with my experience wouldn't agree with me here.

If you truly want the most potent Orioles [Modern Day] line-up, you really have to give this some real SERIOUS thought, not just statistics.

Otherwise, you'd agree all the modern-day players easily out-perfrom the likes of a Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, George Sisler, Luis Aparcio, Brooks and Franks Robinson, Stan Musial, Ted Williams, etc., etc.

Hope you get the pont.

Including Brady, is like saying Brian Roberts is already the BEST 2B that EVER played the position for the Baltimore Orioles. Huh, huh. Hmmmm. Yeah!
Okay, like that's happening. :bowdown: