Jump to content

Schoenfield's ESPN Sweet Spot featuring the O's today

isestrex

By isestrex
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

Mondo Trasho Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

Mondo Trasho

Posted
Posted

I can accept certain positions based on "statistical analysis". I can accept it that people think the Yankees will hold us off. I can accept it if they think the A's, Angels, Rays, White Sox, or Detroit will hold us off for two WC spots. I don't think I can accept the prediction that we will totally collapse and finish with 70-75 wins. I don't think the on-field evidence supports this. Maybe if this game was played by automatons in a clean room it would be reasonable, but not in real life.

Last year we had probably the worst team in recent memory win the super bowl. Why is baseball suddenly immune to surprises and "luck teams"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Lucky Jim Hangout Grand Counsel

Lucky Jim

Posted
Posted
I can accept certain positions based on "statistical analysis". I can accept it that people think the Yankees will hold us off. I can accept it if they think the A's, Angels, Rays, White Sox, or Detroit will hold us off for two WC spots. I don't think I can accept the prediction that we will totally collapse and finish with 70-75 wins. I don't think the on-field evidence supports this. Maybe if this game was played by automatons in a clean room it would be reasonable, but not in real life.

Last year we had probably the worst team in recent memory win the super bowl. Why is baseball suddenly immune to surprises and "luck teams"?

Who has said either of these? Can you cite to a single post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mondo Trasho Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

Mondo Trasho

Posted
Posted
Who has said either of these? Can you cite to a single post?

Referring to ESPN, et al. Not anyone here specifically. They did give the Red Sox better odds at postseason play than us. I don't care what the "stats" say, nobody reasonable can make that argument.

And there's a general tone of "no the O's can't" rather than a tone of "the probably won't, but it's possible". Which is fine, makes it all the more sweeter when pull it off. I remember how many people dismissed GMU's chances against UConn 6 and a half years ago. Look how that turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LookinUp Hangout Grand Counsel

LookinUp

Posted
Posted
Referring to ESPN, et al. Not anyone here specifically. They did give the Red Sox better odds at postseason play than us. I don't care what the "stats" say, nobody reasonable can make that argument.

I bet even SI would concede that their ridiculous rankings are based only on math and not on real life. Hopefully the O's sweep the Sox next week so we can change those odds once and for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lucky Jim Hangout Grand Counsel

Lucky Jim

Posted
Posted
I remember how many people dismissed GMU's chances against UConn 6 and a half years ago. Look how that turned out.

Not the same at all. It would be equivalent to dismissing GMU's chances against UConn in, like, a best of 25 series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MemorialStadKid All-Star

MemorialStadKid

Posted
Posted
I think throwing around stats puts the fun in everything. What takes the fun out is the subset of fans who think their old-school way of looking at the game is the only approved method. Don't think too hard, might learn something you don't like.

I've never argued for stats to be discounted or taken less seriously as means of understanding the intricacies of the game. I believe that the cold adherence to statistical analyses will ignore things like desire and intestinal fortitude. There is no formula for that.

The world of statistical sports analysis is necessary for a variety of reasons. Although I have a friend who thinks that the increased emphasis on numbers in baseball and other sports is related to the exponential growth of sports betting (he also believes that fantasy sports are the gateway drug to sports betting), but who knows?

MSK

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mondo Trasho Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

Mondo Trasho

Posted
Posted
Not the same at all. It would be equivalent to dismissing GMU's chances against UConn in, like, a best of 25 series.

Well they did have to play a whole season to get to that point. It wasn't like they rolled up to the Verizon center one day and challenged them to a pick up game.

Regardless, my point is four and a half months of play and they're still here. The stats can't explain that, the stats say they shouldn't be here right now. So, why would I take stock in seemingly flawed statistical analysis regarding this particular team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
Referring to ESPN, et al. Not anyone here specifically. They did give the Red Sox better odds at postseason play than us. I don't care what the "stats" say, nobody reasonable can make that argument.

Sure they can. It's absolutely reasonable to think that the Red Sox are a better team than the Orioles and slightly more likely to get to the postseason. Just because we want something very badly doesn't mean we can ignore the odds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SilentJames Hangout Veteran Council

SilentJames

Posted
Posted

A pythag isn't destiny and no one has ever argued that it is.

I agree with you, but I also wish to say this. It is NOT destiny. But many people have treated it like destiny's next door neighbor. If pythag ISN'T destiny then it would constantly be brought up as the tap-root reason for the Orioles inevitable collapse.

I agree that it isn't destiny and that sometimes, numbers can be misleading if looked at the wrong way.

Its a lot like WAR, yes it says a lot but WAR gets misused and overused a lot. I think pytahg is quickly becoming this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mondo Trasho Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

Mondo Trasho

Posted
Posted
Sure they can. It's absolutely reasonable to think that the Red Sox are a better team than the Orioles and slightly more likely to get to the postseason. Just because we want something very badly doesn't mean we can ignore the odds.

Boston has been flat all season save for a few small stretches. They're us in 1998. Seemingly talented, but just can't get anywhere. Sometimes looking good on paper doesn't mean success on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan4Life Hangout Veteran Council

Fan4Life

Posted
Posted
Sure they can. It's absolutely reasonable to think that the Red Sox are a better team than the Orioles and slightly more likely to get to the postseason. Just because we want something very badly doesn't mean we can ignore the odds.

Are they using the cumulative numbers of the season to date to calculate the odds of their future success? If so, I'd be interested in looking at how often teams play the first and second halves of the season fairly equally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SilentJames Hangout Veteran Council

SilentJames

Posted
Posted
Sure they can. It's absolutely reasonable to think that the Red Sox are a better team than the Orioles and slightly more likely to get to the postseason. Just because we want something very badly doesn't mean we can ignore the odds.

But see, the odds and life in this situation are saying different things.

Yes, pythag and run diff say the Sox are more likely to make the playoffs. But when you look at the on-the-field play of the teams I think it is hard to say the Sox are likely to put it all together. The Sox have not been able to get out of second gear all year, and they will need to get on a tear, while getting help from teams above, to get back into this race legitimately.

They may be a good week away from being right in it, but like every other 500 ish team right now, they are one bad week away from being buried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
Well they did have to play a whole season to get to that point. It wasn't like they rolled up to the Verizon center one day and challenged them to a pick up game.

Regardless, my point is four and a half months of play and they're still here. The stats can't explain that, the stats say they shouldn't be here right now. So, why would I take stock in seemingly flawed statistical analysis regarding this particular team?

"The stats", whatever those are, say no such thing. The stats don't talk in black and white, they express probabilities. No solid analysis would ever say that a true talent 72-win team can't win the World Series. It would simply say that is very unlikely. And the Orioles successes have been very unlikely. And (as we've said countless times) they don't get any more likely unless the team starts playing better. But there have been thousands of team-seasons in MLB history, so unlikely occasionally happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • Pickles
      How should we look at FA contracts going forward?

      By Pickles · Posted

      Are their ways to make your team better in October that don't manifest in April-September?
    • tntoriole
      Who Should Be Extension Priority #1?

      By tntoriole · Posted

      Maybe Darth Vader retires before Gunnar hits the market .. this article is a tease .. vague comments by Jim Callis.. still he is 71    https://www.essentiallysports.com/mlb-baseball-news-exclusive-scott-boras-set-to-retire-next-year/
    • UMDTerrapins
      How should we look at FA contracts going forward?

      By UMDTerrapins · Posted

      If he wasn’t a catcher Rutschman would be one of the few exceptions that I’d extend long term. He’s a winner and a natural leader. Otherwise, unless the player is the one driven for long term security and there’s a financial upside/discount for the team, you have to ride them as far as you can and then let ‘em go.    I think Elias has a really difficult job ahead of him in the next year +. Maintaining the same fire/winning culture this team has established while going through a lot of player turnover is going be a challenge for Hyde too. Sorry…..I veered off-subject 
    • Can_of_corn
      How should we look at FA contracts going forward?

      By Can_of_corn · Posted

      While I do agree with you to an extent you can certainly make moves that are more targeted towards winning in the playoffs over making the playoffs. They might not work, but you can make the attempt.
    • Warehouse
      Who Should Be Extension Priority #1?

      By Warehouse · Posted

      I wouldn’t be surprised if Westburg or Cowser (pending a bit more sample size of success) are the first extensions.
    • CaptainRedbeard
      Who Should Be Extension Priority #1?

      By CaptainRedbeard · Posted

      The second question is - what extensions can the Orioles do with guys other than these 4, who are not Boras clients? Don’t want to rehash the “Boras clients don’t extend” debate, but let’s assume whatever they can do with these 4 doesn’t impact the ability to do other extensions.  Grayson: With 5 years of control after this one, it would have to be something like 6 years + a couple option years. Possible, but not super high priority.  Bradish: Entirely TBD on how he returns from injury, and even then a bit of the same question as Grayson with so much control remaining.  Westburg, Cowser and Kjerstad: Lumping them all together because I think it’s similar considerations. At their ages when their years of control expire, I don’t think it really makes sense. All 3 have been phenomenal to start the year but still have significant question marks about their games (really high whiff rates and not great K/BB for Westburg and Cowser, Kjerstad’s defense, chase rate and of course not yet facing MLB yet). Mayo and Basallo: Given their ages they are going to be the best candidates, IMO. However, it’s premature now for obvious reasons, particularly with the major questions about how much defensive value they are going to provide at the MLB level.  Unfortunately I have a hard time seeing any extensions happening in the near future, even if Elias and Rubenstein have all the best intentions of wanting to do them. 
    • Say O!
      How should we look at FA contracts going forward?

      By Say O! · Posted

      My opinion in principle depends on the duration of the FA contract.  For the Orioles as currently constructed, the roster will be inexpensive over next 3 years with most premium guys either pre-arb or early arb years.  That would make me lean toward FA signing of elite SP this upcoming offseason. Now last winter we saw only Nola receive long duration contract at 7yrs (I’m putting Yamamoto & Ohtani in separate category given the JP marketing angle).  The industry seemed reticent to give $$$ and length to the other premium SPs (Snell, Montgomery) but was this Boras driven?  Would the premium SPs be willing to sign 3-4 yr deals at higher AAVs or instead play out essentially one year deals?  Example — would a guy like Burnes go for 4/175M? the market dynamics will be interesting this upcoming offseason with demand (which big market clubs pursuing — Cubs, LAA, SFG, NYY?) and supply (Burnes, Fried as FAs and Montgomery, Snell, Cole as potential opt outs).  As well as Boras negotiating factor.   

  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...