National Media Read This!

[GoldGlove21]

You're never going to "boil down" the "entire success" of a team playing 162 games. They've won plenty of games where they weren't particularly lucky. But those marginal games, the difference between (as of tonight) 61 wins and 71 wins, yeah, lots of luck to be found there. Jim Johnson had a BABIP 100 points below his career average and a LOB% of 96.2% a few months ago. Pedro Strop, right now, has something like a 4.5 BB/9 and a 3.70 xFIP but has an ERA of 1.56.

Your analysis sucks. You can't just remove a ****-ton of data from a set and then act like you've drawn a useful conclusion.

The national media is not buying into the Orioles mainly because of a negative run differential. It comes up in almost every conversation about the Orioles on a national level. That is in conjuction with the success in one run games (24-6). So the Orioles have played 30 games (24 wins) where the run differential was just +18. That seems like it could alter the run differential numbers a bit.

I am not going to say that the Orioles have not been lucky, but they have been unlucky at times too. Hammel has been hurt for over a month now, Reimold was killing the ball before going down for the year, Arrieta/Hunter/Matusz have pitched poorly throughout the year, and Brian Roberts got hurt after trying to make a come back. The Orioles have been lucky, but it has been tied more to the teams ability to implement a "next man up" philosophy than it does than it does with our record in one run games. How come winning 12-1 is considered skill, but winning 3-2 is considered luck?

[Loophole]

Really? I don't see anyone saying they understand or even are willing to consider the value of what I'm saying. I see a lot of people being very aggressive and rude.

I listened to four different people on ESPN today say that they don't understand why the O's are winning and that when they look at the stats, they see nothing that suggests the O's winning is sustainable.

None of them mentioned how well the O's current starters are pitching. They didn't even suggest it as a possibility. In fact each of them grabbed on to the record in one run games as the only possible explanation.

Watching Chen and now Tillman pitch brilliant games against the White Sox, it seems to me that its a crime that the media doesn't get that the O's pitching is doing great. Not sure why anyone would want to argue with that, but apparently you do.

That's because you're confusing "not agreeing" with "not understanding" and because your stats have no value until you do the research and put them in a context that gives them value.

[turtlebowl]

Bluedog, I understand your point and I am not sure why everyone is attacking it. I have watched all year and it has been a magical run. In past years the O's would replace crap pitchers not performing with crapier pitchers. This year however, with the help of Pixy dust I think, they have assembled a staff that statistically matches up with some of the best in the league.

The national media is still not going to respect us though because even as effective as these guys have been nobody has heard of these guys.

[bluedog]

...now do the same with all the other teams. Back up your stats. Make them mean something.

Really?

1. The O's have 6 starters with winning records currently on their staff.

Yankees - 4

White Sox - 2

Detroit - 2

Oakland - 5

Tampa - 3

Texas - 4

Angels - 2

Interesting that the only other team with as many as 5 is the A's.

2. The O's and the A's are the only two teams in the AL with 5 starters with sub 4.00 ERAs

I can do this all day. How much more statistical evidence do you want?

Why don't you back up your argument with some stats? Show me something that suggest the O's current staff isn't significantly better than most of the other teams in the AL?

[SrMeowMeow]

Angry? Apparently you now have a magic device that translates text into emotions! How special for you!

I will say, I've avoided calling other people names in this thread, which you've gotten to pretty quickly.

Just answer this one question for me. Will you please explain what is wrong with the statement that the current staff is not representative of the overall stats for the season.

Seriously - instead of calling me names and being demeaning (which you've proven you're a master at), try just ONCE to actually address what I'm saying.

It's not our responsibility to like bodily heave your original post into a sensible form so that we can argue against it. Plus, you've already been refuted in this thread.

[bluedog]

That's because you're confusing "not agreeing" with "not understanding" and because your stats have no value until you do the research and put them in a context that gives them value.

So my points are so obvious that an infant can understand them, but they have no value until I spell out the context in irrefutable detail?

Your hopeless.

[SrMeowMeow]

Really?

1. The O's have 6 starters with winning records currently on their staff.

Yankees - 4

White Sox - 2

Detroit - 2

Oakland - 5

Tampa - 3

Texas - 4

Angels - 2

Interesting that the only other team with as many as 5 is the A's.

2. The O's and the A's are the only two teams in the AL with 5 starters with sub 4.00 ERAs

I can do this all day. How much more statistical evidence do you want?

Why don't you back up your argument with some stats? Show me something that suggest the O's current staff isn't significantly better than most of the other teams in the AL?

This is why nobody's taking you seriously. This is the vomityest statistical argument I've ever heard.

1. Wins? Are you kidding?

2. We have like 5 starting pitchers on our staff with <80 IP. Some of them have ERAs under 4.00 or positive W/L records. Are those sample sizes meaningful? No. Are they relevant to your argument, which seems to be that the O's are weighed down by three bad starters and are really a super great team now? No. So: ???

[Barnaby Graves]

So Chen holding one of the best offenses in the majors to one unearned run played so small a part that it's not worth mentioning? I'll bear that in mind. Thanks.

Good lord not only do you have a huge persecution complex but you actually put words in my mouth to fit your narrative.

Lew Ford hadn't hit a home run in 5 years. Nate McLouth has been one of the worst players in baseball over the past 3 years. The fact they were a huge part of last night's victory is incredible. They have nothing to do with Chen.

The national media is not buying into the Orioles mainly because of a negative run differential. It comes up in almost every conversation about the Orioles on a national level. That is in conjuction with the success in one run games (24-6). So the Orioles have played 30 games (24 wins) where the run differential was just +18. That seems like it could alter the run differential numbers a bit.

I am not going to say that the Orioles have not been lucky, but they have been unlucky at times too. Hammel has been hurt for over a month now, Reimold was killing the ball before going down for the year, Arrieta/Hunter/Matusz have pitched poorly throughout the year, and Brian Roberts got hurt after trying to make a come back. The Orioles have been lucky, but it has been tied more to the teams ability to implement a "next man up" philosophy than it does than it does with our record in one run games.

They are breaking the record for one-run winning percentage. Shattering it, demolishing it, annihilating it. Every team has injuries, every team has players that come out of nowhere to be ineffective when they were counting on said players to be important members of the team (Carl Crawford). Only one team in history has won 80% of their one-run games (so far).

How come winning 12-1 is considered skill, but winning 3-2 is considered luck?

There's skill in both but there's less room for luck in 12-1. 12-1 is a decisive victory. 12-1 is your hitting, pitching, and defense being clearly better than your opposition's. Maybe you had a few extra lucky hits and maybe they had a few extra at-'em balls but ultimately, your skill was clearly better than theirs.

3-2? The difference between 1-2 and 3-2 could be anything. Could be a bloop between CF, SS, and 2B. Could be a missed call. Could be a home run carried by a thermal or a gust of wind. Could be one baseball that wasn't made to the standards of the other 199 used in the game. Is there skill? Of course. Gotta have a good bullpen for one-run victories. The thing is, when you play 30 games in which you and the other team play with almost the same level of skill (or close to it), it's really amazingly lucky to take 24 of those 30 games. That's why no other team has done this before. Like I said earlier, Pedro Strop's ERA is 2 runs lower than his xFIP. You know, sometimes the ball is just hit in the right spot, and 6 inches to the left would be the wrong spot. There's no shame in it. But it is lucky.

[bluedog]

It's not our responsibility to like bodily heave your original post into a sensible form so that we can argue against it. Plus, you've already been refuted in this thread.

If you spent half the effort actually discussing the topic, we'd have had the potential for a great discussion here.

But your more interested in being mean spirited, rude and derogatory. Hooray for you.

[Flash- bd]

Guys, this has already been done: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/124316-Run-Differential-Pythag-Discussion?highlight=Pythag

See post #14 and following. (It was initially an OP before it was moved into the conglomerated threat)

[Loophole]

Really?

1. The O's have 6 starters with winning records currently on their staff.

Yankees - 4

White Sox - 2

Detroit - 2

Oakland - 5

Tampa - 3

Texas - 4

Angels - 2

Interesting that the only other team with as many as 5 is the A's.

2. The O's and the A's are the only two teams in the AL with 5 starters with sub 4.00 ERAs

I can do this all day. How much more statistical evidence do you want?

Why don't you back up your argument with some stats? Show me something that suggest the O's current staff isn't significantly better than most of the other teams in the AL?

I'm not going to do your work for you because you're the one who started the thread (and demanded the attention of the national media). That's not how this works. You can't put forth a half-researched idea and then tell everyone else to finish it for you.

And individual WL records? Really? That's supposed to convince anyone of anything?

Also, nice to see I got neg-repped with the comment "loser" for this. Nice job.

[Loophole]

So my points are so obvious that an infant can understand them, but they have no value until I spell out the context in irrefutable detail?

Your hopeless.

Yes, "pointless" and "simple" are not mutually exclusive qualities.

[bluedog]

Good lord not only do you have a huge persecution complex but you actually put words in my mouth to fit your narrative.

Lew Ford hadn't hit a home run in 5 years. Nate McLouth has been one of the worst players in baseball over the past 3 years. The fact they were a huge part of last night's victory is incredible. They have nothing to do with Chen.

.

Persecution complex? Hysterical!

Let's get a blow by blow replay here.

I post a thread.

You respond with snide / derogatory comments.

I post again trying to defend my position

You respond with snide / derogatory comments.

I post again trying to defend my position

You respond with snide....well we get the picture.

Then you claim that I'm putting words in your mouth and in the very same sentence you paint me with a "persecution complex".

I'm sitting here laughing at this whole thread. Are you?

[bluedog]

Yes, "pointless" and "simple" are not mutually exclusive qualities.

Another post completely empty of any actual value or meaning.

Please make any attempt at all to discuss baseball instead of semantics.

Do you have any actual point to make regarding the O's pitching and how it relates to the perception on the part of the media that the only possible explanation for the O's winning ways is luck?

I'm not sure you've actually addressed baseball once in this topic.

[Barnaby Graves]

Persecution complex? Hysterical!

Let's get a blow by blow replay here.

I post a thread.

You respond with snide / derogatory comments.

I post again trying to defend my position

You respond with snide / derogatory comments.

I post again trying to defend my position

You respond with snide....well we get the picture.

Then you claim that I'm putting words in your mouth and in the very same sentence you paint me with a "persecution complex".

You did put words in my mouth and you do have a persecution complex.

I'm sitting here laughing at this whole thread. Are you?

Yeah.