Silent James speaks his Mind

[CA-ORIOLE]

This thread is just disappointing.

Just believing something doesn't make it true. And there has been not one iota of actual work done to demonstrate any fraction of a suggestion that the O's have over-performed their Pythagorean in some sustainable way.

Yes, Sr. MeowMeow there is no Santa Claus.

[Lucky Jim]

1. All good teams don't win 79% of one run games. Why have we?

I mean, why would you look past this to dig for something else?

[Flash- bd]

This thread is just disappointing.

Just believing something doesn't make it true. And there has been not one iota of actual work done to demonstrate any fraction of a suggestion that the O's have over-performed their Pythagorean in some sustainable way.

Yeah, this has gotten to be really farcical at this point. I've seen this same long-winded, dragged out, sisyphean discussion across 4-10 pgs of thread over the last couple days, in at least 3-5 threads. And frankly, it's been done better. You might as well call this The Amazing Spider-Man: an all-too-soon, all-too-similar remake of something that wasn't even very good in the first place, just with a different protagonist.

Refer to this discussion: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/124267-SI-com-Why-the-O-s-Post-Season-Dream-is-all-but-Impossible. I think it's better, if longer.

[SilentJames]

Our record going into the stretch I am talking about.

39-27

That is with a +18 run differential

pytahgorean record

35-31

beating it by four, as I understand it being within three is pretty much standard deviation for pythag.

So before my stretch the Orioles were pretty much right on point with their pythag maybe just a little bit lucky.

Then the stretch happened and our run numbers got completely screwed up and our pytahgorean number went completely out of whack.

That is all I am saying.

If the Orioles are who I think they are, the team should see improvement in their pytahgorean record going forward.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Yeah, this has gotten to be really farcical at this point. I've seen this same long-winded, dragged out, sisyphean discussion across 4-10 pgs of thread over the last couple days, in at least 3-5 threads. And frankly, it's been done better. You might as well call this The Amazing Spider-Man: an all-too-soon, all-too-similar remake of something that wasn't even very good in the first place, just with a different protagonist.

Refer to this discussion: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/124267-SI-com-Why-the-O-s-Post-Season-Dream-is-all-but-Impossible. I think it's better, if longer.

Even if it is better, thank god I didn't spend any time in that one. One was more than enough. I thought this one was gonna kill LJ.

[Flash- bd]

Even if it is better, thank god I didn't spend any time in that one. One was more than enough. I thought this one was gonna kill LJ.

You talking about the new Spiderman or this thread? I know LJ takes his film seriously, but dying for it...that's a little...extreme.

[SilentJames]

In all fairness guys, I just want it known that I didn't post this here. My post was posted here and I felt I needed to defend my reasoning.

If we all disagree thats fine I really didn't ask for my stuff to be placed here like this, not that I am upset but I wouldn't have done it on my own.

[Lucky Jim]

I'm using this site: http://www.had2know.com/sports/pythagorean-expectation-win-percentage-baseball.html

I get two wins. When I use the 32/60 split over those 10 games through your site I get two wins.

For the 6-17 stretch where we were outscored by 72 runs, the expected W-L was 5-18 according to my site's calculation and according to your site's calculation.

In other words, that terrible stretch of baseball wasn't deeply reflected in deviation from the pythag because it largely mirrored the pythag.

You're not bringing down the pythag because your analysis makes no real sense.

In the 87 games NOT identified by SJ, our record is 53-34 in spite of the fact that we scored only 18 more runs than we gave up. Our expected record would be 45-42.

[Moose Milligan]

You talking about the new Spiderman or this thread? I know LJ takes his film seriously, but dying for it...that's a little...extreme.

Well anyone who takes a Spiderman film seriously probably takes themselves really seriously, too.

[Lucky Jim]

In all fairness guys, I just want it known that I didn't post this here. My post was posted here and I felt I needed to defend my reasoning.

If we all disagree thats fine I really didn't ask for my stuff to be placed here like this, not that I am upset but I wouldn't have done it on my own.

You linked it yourself right when you posted it.

[Lucky Jim]

Well anyone who takes a Spiderman film seriously probably takes themselves really seriously, too.

I don't take film very seriously, and I'm not sure I've actually seen a Spiderman movie.

[Flash- bd]

In all fairness guys, I just want it known that I didn't post this here. My post was posted here and I felt I needed to defend my reasoning.

If we all disagree thats fine I really didn't ask for my stuff to be placed here like this, not that I am upset but I wouldn't have done it on my own.

Understandable: I was thinking this and for that reason felt a little conflicted about us all attacking you like this, but then I just reminded myself that the Hangout operates on the principal that all-holds-barred, viscous, eviscerating attacks are okay so long as they're valid (dear higher-ups: this isn't true, I know. Us peons strive not to be viscous. Not caustic, and we abhor vitriol.We love our fellow poster.), and soon proceded on.

It's only natural that someone should want to defend their writing after it's been put up on the web for everyone to see and dissect surgically, so I for one apologize if it's seemed that we were trying to attack you and understand your desire to defend your ideas. Yes, yes, how noble, I know.

I don't take film very seriously, and I'm not sure I've actually seen a Spiderman movie.

Yeah, it was a little bit of a stretch to make the (pretty-shabby-in-the-first-place) joke work. Apologies all around.

[glenn__davis]

My take is that the O's had a relatively sustained period of poor starting pitching, mostly from players who are no longer on the team.

If the current starting staff continues to pitch well, you will see that run differential start to improve.

The pythag theory, like everything else in baseball, is all about the starting pitching.

[SilentJames]

You linked it yourself right when you posted it.

Yes, but I didn't start this thread. I said if anyone wanted to read it that is fine, but I didn't make this new thread with the version of it as the first post. The post I linked to included additional stuff that I had not put in the one that went to MASN.

That is the only reason I went with that.

And YES I HAVE identified those games many times, throughout this thread and in my blog.

I understand that being eight games up is very abnormal, but its not 11 - which it was last night when I wrote this before the victory.

If these scores remain the same, and the Orioles win then the Orioles will only be beating their pythagorean record by eight. Two wins and the pythag has improved by three games already.

Which pretty much proves what I have been saying all along:

The Orioles were not nearly as bad a team as they were during that stretch. That stretch absolutely killed their RA/RS numbers off kilter and as the season continues, if they are truly better than that stretch then the gap should begin to close as the teams normalize.

Isn't it just as likely that the pythagorean record will rise to more closely match our real record than the other way around?

[SilentJames]

My take is that the O's had a relatively sustained period of poor starting pitching, mostly from players who are no longer on the team.

If the current starting staff continues to pitch well, you will see that run differential start to improve.

The pythag theory, like everything else in baseball, is all about the starting pitching.

Thank you - this is really all that I have been trying to say.