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

[Fan4Life]

God I'm sick of hearing about our stupid run differential.

In Roch's blog he says the O's are 9-5 when they commit 2 errors in a game. Not sure how many losses these errors reflect we actually have when doing the statistcal number crunching.

[Lucky Jim]

Not sure how many losses these errors reflect we actually have when doing the statistcal number crunching.

Is this a sentence or the product of some word-generating algorithm? I know you're suspicious of pythag (for whatever reason) but what are you actually saying?

[Mondo Trasho]

In Roch's blog he says the O's are 9-5 when they commit 2 errors in a game. Not sure how many losses these errors reflect we actually have when doing the statistcal number crunching.

Therefore, teams that commit 2 errors in a game will have a good chance of winning. Or so my own model suggests.

[Dark Helmet]

Because it's human nature to ask how. People aren't content to sit back and just accept that stuff happens for unknown reasons.

Agreed. But in cases of sports, most of the time stats are used to say " I told you so ". Seems alot are just waiting for the crash, instead of enjoying the ride. In my case, at work we'll talk about the Orioles. 9 times out of 10, those conversations end along the lines of " this is the Orioles were talking about, eventually they will fall to last place". Maybe this is the year that changes, or maybe not. But at this point of the season, you have to admit this is more than just a hot or lucky start. No matter what the stats say. I just get irked when people say well the yankees are banged up, or the mariners aren't good. Well, the Orioles have had their share of injuries too, and have had basically a replacement player at 2b and lf all year, and have beaten the teams they are supposed too. Isn't thO what good teams are supposed to do?

[Mondo Trasho]

I think the issue is this: if being outscored by 50 means you have a low likelihood of winning many games, why have Orioles won 59 so far? If they are indeed the exception that proves the rule, what sense does it make to assume they will suddenly stop being the exception that proves the rule?

I don't see the difference between winning games in April vs winning games in August and September. Perhaps April games are easier? Is that what explains it? Or is the fact that teams like TB and NY have had injuries helped us?

[Fan4Life]

Is this a sentence or the product of some word-generating algorithm? I know you're suspicious of pythag (for whatever reason) but what are you actually saying?

Just wise-cracking.. I'm not all that suspicious of it... I think you explained yourself quite well. If they play the second half like they did the first half, it's highly unlikely the results would be the same, with regard to wins and losses. Which lead me to ask Drungo how often teams play both halves relatively equally.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I really hate to keep harping on this Texas series but those four games are responsible for -21 of our -54 run differential or close to 40%. Part of that was, like I said, because Texas was on another level at that time (and have since cooled off) but I'd also mention that in the two worst games (14-3 and 10-3) we had two fellas lit up who aren't on the team anymore (Mastuz, 7 ER in 5 IP and Arrieta, 6 ER in 6.1 IP) and thus, shouldn't have much of a say in how we perform going forward, especially because we have, seemingly, two better replacements in Tillman and Gonzalez. I'm not suggesting that Tillman and Gonzalez would have DEFINITELY fared better in those two games but it's possible.

Shouldn't that be taken into account? You can't just throw out "-54 and thus we are probably going to tank" without digging at the numbers deeper.

And if this is completely wrong I apologize for wasting your time.

[DrungoHazewood]

Agreed. But in cases of sports, most of the time stats are used to say " I told you so ". Seems alot are just waiting for the crash, instead of enjoying the ride. In my case, at work we'll talk about the Orioles. 9 times out of 10, those conversations end along the lines of " this is the Orioles were talking about, eventually they will fall to last place". Maybe this is the year that changes, or maybe not. But at this point of the season, you have to admit this is more than just a hot or lucky start. No matter what the stats say. I just get irked when people say well the yankees are banged up, or the mariners aren't good. Well, the Orioles have had their share of injuries too, and have had basically a replacement player at 2b and lf all year, and have beaten the teams they are supposed too. Isn't thO what good teams are supposed to do?

I've said this over and over, but I don't understand why it's so wrong to admit the Orioles are playing over their heads, it's unlikely to continue, but it's a heck of a lot of fun while it lasts.

[Ven6]

I really hate to keep harping on this Texas series but those four games are responsible for -21 of our -54 run differential or close to 40%. Part of that was, like I said, because Texas was on another level at that time (and have since cooled off) but I'd also mention that in the two worst games (14-3 and 10-3) we had two fellas lit up who aren't on the team anymore (Mastuz, 7 ER in 5 IP and Arrieta, 6 ER in 6.1 IP) and thus, shouldn't have much of a say in how we perform going forward, especially because we have, seemingly, two better replacements in Tillman and Gonzalez. I'm not suggesting that Tillman and Gonzalez would have DEFINITELY fared better in those two games but it's possible.

Shouldn't that be taken into account? You can't just throw out "-54 and thus we are probably going to tank" without digging at the numbers deeper.

And if this is completely wrong I apologize for wasting your time.

I'd be curious if you threw out those 4 games, and then also threw out the best 4 games we had in a row. Trim the outliers off and see what we have.

[BRobinsonfan]

I think when people are so focused on the stats, run differentials, Pythagorean W/L stuff and say "this can't last" or "it can't happen", they really miss out on what makes the game so special. Sometimes, just sometimes there is a player or a team that bucks probability/trends/whatever and wins. So far, the Orioles have done this...they've actually done it for so long and so well that it's past luck or a fluke and they just seem to have that knack for pulling it off. It can't be explained. It just needs to be enjoyed.

On the contrary. I love stats and can spend hours immersed in them. But it's precisely this kind of odds beating performance that the Orioles are enjoying now that truly does make the game so special. But it doesn't negate statistics in the least.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I'd be curious if you threw out those 4 games, and then also threw out the best 4 games we had in a row. Trim the outliers off and see what we have.

Yea that's another exercise. If all statistical samples have outliers, maybe take the 10 worst beatings and 10 best beatings and see where we stand after that?

[BRobinsonfan]

Who said it's meaningless? It just isn't destiny. And the O's aren't just lucky. I that were the case why play the games? Just crunch the numbers and run a bunch of simulations.

Whoever said pythag is destiny?

[Dark Helmet]

I've said this over and over, but I don't understand why it's so wrong to admit the Orioles are playing over their heads, it's unlikely to continue, but it's a heck of a lot of fun while it lasts.

For the same reasons its hard for folks to admit this team isn't as bad as predicted. Its a glass half full, half empty situation. There really isn't a right or wrong answer here. Believe what you want, but neither side is going to convince the other.

[Pedro Cerrano]

To go a bit further, what's our pythag if we remove those Arrieta Matusz and Britton starts? None are on the team and they had their fare share of shellackings (the Arrieta start against Philly immediately comes to mind because I was there).

It's impossible for players no longer on the team to have an effect on the team's performance going forward but they've certainly left their mark on the team's current run differential. Is that fair?

[Lucky Jim]

To go a bit further, what's our pythag if we remove those Arrieta Matusz and Britton starts? None are on the team and they had their fare share of shellackings (the Arrieta start against Philly immediately comes to mind because I was there).

It's impossible for players no longer on the team to have an effect on the team's performance going forward but they've certainly left their mark on the team's current run differential. Is that fair?

Any team's run differential looks better when ineffective starters are removed. Any team's run differential looks better when their worst blowouts are removed. What does fairness have to do with it? If those starts are replaced with better starts over the rest of the season, their run differential will change.