Run Differential / Pythag Discussion

[Flash- bd]

A majority of "experts" will tell you the O's winning record will not last for long, and point to the O's -54 run differential. These "experts" assume runs differential is a leading indicator as only 4 teams with a negative run differential have every made the playoffs. But believing that is nonsense- the o's have as winning record for the simple fact that for a majority of the time, they score more runs than there opponents.

Analysts like to pretend they are smart because it's there job. But I did some homework and it shows that without Arrieta and Matusz, the Orioles have a +8 run differential. Since Arrieta and Matusz are not longer on the team, the +8 run differential should be a better indicator of future succes.

In short, I looked at each start Arrieta and Matusz made this year, and what the score was at the time the left the game for the runs differential that day, then got a total for all the games they started. I did not count Orioles runs scored after the starter left. So for example, if Arrieta pitched at home and left after 5.2 innings behind 5-1, that is a -4 runs differential. Pretty basic stuff. When I totaled the season total for both Arrieta and Matusz, I got a -62 runs differential (amazingly, each had -31). Neither pitcher had a positive runs differential for a whole month, so one could actually argue that the O's were a bit late to send them to AAA in July. But that's another subject. With Arrieta and Matusz gone, the outlook definitely improved.

Another good reason for improved runs differential is that some O's hitters are well below their seaon averages - Hardy, Weiters and Reynolds to name a few. If these hitters move back towards their season averages (which is expected), they O's will score more runs. Especially so since the leadoff hitter problem has been solved.

All you doubters need to wake up and climb back on the bandwagon. Start going to games. The O's are showing no signs of slipping and these next two months should be quite entertaining.

sfosfan

Oh. My. God.

So you excluded the Orioles 4 and 5 starters' from their run differential, got a number that was slightly above average (but still not educible from our current record) and think you have explained on whole why the O's run differential is a "lie". Do you have any idea how good the Angels run differential might be if we excluded their 4 and 5 starters?

This has got to stop, people. For your own sake...sounds like you put a decent amount of time into this.

[Ross]

the o's have as winning record for the simple fact that for a majority of the time, they score more runs than there opponents.

sfosfan

This says it all to me, plain and simple. I know in several games Buck has put in Gregg since we were already getting slammed so bad and it couldn't do us any (more) harm.

[Frobby]

Useful point, but aren't there at least 5 threads going now on the general topic of whether the run differential means anything? And, we still have one spot in our rotation where the results have not gotten any better since Arrieta and Matusz were demoted. Let's hope we continue to get good pitching from Gonzo and Tillman.

[Can_of_corn]

Not much of a twist. Closest thing to a twist there is the -1 RD when Hammel is on the mound. I think it is telling that only two of the O's starters have a positive RD.

So do you expect Johnson to come in and pitch to a positive RD? Do you expect Gonzalez to stay at or improve his -3 RD or do you hope that he does?

[Can_of_corn]

Analysts are smart because they know the difference between "there" and "their".

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They%27re

[Pickles]

It's worth noting in the last three weeks the O's are 12-7, with a +3 run differential. So even after improving their rotation they're still outperforming their pythag fairly signifigantly.

[sfosfan]

Oh. My. God.

So you excluded the Orioles 4 and 5 starters' from their run differential, got a number that was slightly above average (but still not educible from our current record) and think you have explained on whole why the O's run differential is a "lie". Do you have any idea how good the Angels run differential might be if we excluded their 4 and 5 starters?

Sorry to not be clear, but the "Big Lie" is that Runs Differential is not a LEADING indicator of future success. Not that the O's didn't deserve the -54 runs differential, but rather it's an overused stat from a bunch of high paid blowhards on espn, mlb network, etc... The whole point was that the O's starters were obviously the weak link, and that has improved significantly with Gonzlez and Tillman. Not saying you can count on two rookies (Tillman not technically one anymore though) to carry you to the promised land, but it's working right now. And yes, any team that removes it's two worst starters will improve their runs differential, but (and I should have pointed this out more clearly in the original post), how many can replace them with AAA talent and have such a drastic change? But to stay on topic, the so called "experts" are totally clueless when predicting future success. My bad for not making that perfectly clear initially.

sfosfan

sfosfan

[sfosfan]

Nice! I actually just posted a similar analysis, but not on as in depth a basis as yours. But at the end of the day, it shows the same thing. Those that led to the massive run differential are no longer starting pitchers for the Orioles, and we must evaluate it on a looking forward basis. Now, that's not to say that Steve Johnson and Miguel Gonzalez will be a whole lot better, but they sure can't be worse!

Exactly. But yes, they could be worse- see Zach Britton's stats. Zach did not pitch well enough to earn a spot, and certainly not well enough to be called up before Steve Johnson. But Johnson was hurt a bit, so that put Zach here.

sfosfan

[sfosfan]

Good to see these threads joined!

sfosfan

[Dark Helmet]

Analysts are smart because they know the difference between "there" and "their".

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They%27re

I think you are giving john kruk and Harold Reynolds too much credit.

[mcinww0]

Interesting point, thanks for the research. I think the whole issue of run differential is a little bit over blown- is it an indicator? yes. Is it the only indicator? no.

Run differential tells us a lot about what HAS happened, but not a ton about what WILL happen. Think about the most important factors for our continued success:

Will Gonzo and Tillman keep it up?

Will Hammel return to form and be effective?

How will Steve Johnson do? Will we have any options if he doesn't pitch well?

Will Wieters, Hardy and Reynolds pick it up over the last 2 months to match their numbers from 2011?

Will the defense improve?

Will the bullpen continue to be a rock of stability for us or will the arms wear down over the last month before help arrives in the form of expanded rosters?

Run differential can tell us absolutely nothing about these essential questions.

[Can_of_corn]

I think you are giving john kruk and Harold Reynolds too much credit.

They're talking about run differential and team's Pythagorean?

[Loophole]

No one here is saying that the Orioles can't improve over the rest of the season -- and by "improve" I mean "start winning games with a reasonably positive run differential." Obviously, if you improve what you have, replace the bad parts with good parts, the run diff will follow. No one here who is worried about our pythag is arguing that we can't get better and work off of our previous luck. We're saying that if the team doesn't improve in tangible ways, then we can't trust the luck to hold up. Or prevent an 11 game losing streak like our friends in Cleveland.

The thing is, every other contending team (theoretically) improves as the season goes on too. They all try to cut their Arrietas and their Matuszes and find success through trades or promotions. We've got to improve better than them. Gonzo and Tillman MIGHT be a start, but they've been succeeding for about as long as Arrieta was, and it's a bit silly how quickly OHers will jump to crown new saviors. I hardly remember '97 -- all I really know is losing, and I've taught myself to never trust shiny new toys until they become grizzled veteran toys.

Anyway, this point about improvement would hold more weight if the O's were actually bucking the one-run trend of late, but they haven't been. Now, I love all O's wins equally, but I can't help but cringe a little every time we end up winning by one run. And that's been happening more often now than it was before, it seems.

[Dark Helmet]

They're talking about run differential and team's Pythagorean?

Um, was supposed to be a joke. Im not getting in the middle of the chest bumping.

[Can_of_corn]

Um, was supposed to be a joke. Im not getting in the middle of the chest bumping.

I was just using it as an opportunity to use "They're" in this thread.