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

[Fan4Life]

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?

I think so. And also why you might be inclined to think the O's will perform better in the second half.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

Since 1901 there have been nine teams who have been outscored by at least 54 runs and had a winning record. Of those teams the 2012 O's have the best winning percentage.

Move that line up to -33 and there are 32 teams with a winning record. None of those 32 teams won more than 85 games.

There have been 70 teams with a run differential between -49 and -59. 8 of the 70 had winning records. None with more than 85 wins.

79 teams have had a run differential between -28 and -38. 21 of the 79 had winning records, none with more than 86 wins.

Any way you look at it, even if it were valid to throw out the Texas series, having a run differential of -20-something or worse and winning the number of games it'll take to make the playoffs in 2012 is essentially unprecedented in baseball history.

[BRobinsonfan]

On the contrary, I think it is a fantastic way of looking at this team because it forces us into helpful granular analysis to figure out how the Orioles have managed to distribute a pretty terrible run differential into positive outcomes. This Orioles team may be the best argument for the validity of the pythag as an analytical tool.

One of the reasons why baseball statistics are so awesome is because of the heavy component of uncertainty inherent in nearly all aspects of the game. Outliers, to me, are a strong argument for the necessity of statistics - without the statistics we wouldn't really even know that the Orioles are doing something differently.

It's impossible for me to give you enough positive rep.

[Lucky Jim]

Hoosiers posted this in the other thread:

I've been trying to temper my overall enthusiasm for the season because this team seems so unlikely to keep up the pace - so I am just enjoying the ride one day at a time.

Our team competes - every night. I understand all teams are competing, but our margin of victory/margin for error is so little that we are battling every night - as there have been so few easy wins.

Which made me think: the Orioles this year are, essentially, Steve Trachsel.

[DrungoHazewood]

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?

No, but then you're operating under the assumption that everything else will stay the same and their replacements will be much better. That's one possible outcome, sure.

[El Gordo]

Whoever said pythag is destiny?

The people who point to the pythag to say it's virtually impossible for the O's to continue winng. It's not impossible, and it's not even highly unlikely, IMO. 3 SP whose team W/L % was sub .500. have been replaced with 2 SP whose team W/L % is above .600, to go with Chen, above .600 and Hunter above .500. So if they continue to pitch as they have done we should improve.

[osfan83]

I do think personnel changes should be considered. For example if the 1988 Orioles were outscored by 100 runs (just making that up) should we expect the 2012 Orioles to also be outscored by 100 runs? Well of course not, all the players are different for both us and the teams we play. So if half our starting rotation is responsible of most of our lopsided games, and those players are no longer playing, why should we expect the guys who took there place will perform the same as the guys who were demoted?

So I'm saying....if we continued to get outscored on a regular basis, we will not win that many games.......but just because guys who are no longer on the team performed poorly, does not mean new guys on the team will perform the same way.

[Fan4Life]

No, but then you're operating under the assumption that everything else will stay the same and their replacements will be much better. That's one possible outcome, sure.

I agree it's quite possible for regression from anyone... and everyone... but when looking at the players we have, and their historical averages, who out performed themselves in the first half?

[DrungoHazewood]

Hoosiers posted this in the other thread:

Which made me think: the Orioles this year are, essentially, Steve Trachsel.

I was typing up a response to one of Dark Helmet's posts that referenced Steve Traschel and the year he had 103 ERA+ with one of the uglier K:BB ratios in recent memory. But it got unwieldy and I deleted it.

Until just now I had forgotten he actually turned into a pumpkin after the Rocky Cherry/Scott Moore trade, and not the next year.

[DrungoHazewood]

I agree it's quite possible for regression from anyone... and everyone... but when looking at the players we have, and their historical averages, who out performed themselves in the first half?

Basically the entire bullpen. Or at least multiple members of the pen overachieved, and nobody really stunk. Jones is also having a career year that included nearly a 1.000 OPS through May.

[hoosiers]

That's right. Making observations and trying to get to the bottom of why things happen is exactly the same as wanting to tear down all the ballparks and replace them with slide rules. I mean, really?

Frankly, I don't see you trying to get to the bottom of why things happen with regard to this team - AT ALL. No effort to explain why this team is actually winning.

Only a 'does not compute' smirk that our w-l record doesn't fit historical patterns based on the teams statistics. I am not trying to be callous or mocking or anything of that nature.

I mostly see the word "outlier" and, while I truly love math and statistics, I find this explanation and the similar ones that accompany it regarding our luckiness to be unsatisfactory - as in that explanation is not good enough.

[BRobinsonfan]

The people who point to the pythag to say it's virtually impossible for the O's to continue winng. It's not impossible, and it's not even highly unlikely, IMO. 3 SP whose team W/L % was sub .500. have been replaced with 2 SP whose team W/L % is above .600, to go with Chen, above .600 and Hunter above .500. So if they continue to pitch as they have dome we should improve.

I apologize, I must have missed these posts.

It's clearly highly unlikely if our run differential stays the same but not "virtually impossible."

[osfan83]

Isn't this great!!! We are arguing over why the O's are in playoff contention in August! Much better than the usual "blow it up or not" argument we have this time of year!

[Lucky Jim]

I apologize, I must have missed these posts.

It's clearly highly unlikely but not "virtually impossible."

I think it's probablyl from the headline of the article. It's a complete misstatement, though, and hasn't been adopted by anyone on this board (and in fact doesn't really reflect what the article says).

[Lucky Jim]

Frankly, I don't see you trying to get to the bottom of why things happen with regard to this team - AT ALL. No effort to explain why this team is actually winning.

Only a 'does not compute' smirk that our w-l record doesn't fit historical patterns based on the teams statistics. I am not trying to be callous or mocking or anything of that nature.

I mostly see the word "outlier" and, while I truly love math and statistics, I find this explanation and the similar ones that accompany it regarding our luckiness to be unsatisfactory - as in that explanation is not good enough.

It's been discussed repeatedly in numerous threads. I don't think he needs to reiterate what 'we know' and what 'we can't explain' in every thread, let alone every post.

If you're not trying to be callous or mocking, why refer to what Drungo has done as a smirk? I've never known Drungo to be that way.