National Media Read This!

[LookinUp]

Bluedog, I think your point is worthy but incomplete. I think a lot of things are going on, including the miracle that we've found starting pitching mid-season. We've improved 3B, 1B and LF drastically defensively. I might be crazy, but I feel like we're playing much more disciplined baseball in general. Our ABs aren't nearly as horrendous as they were early in the season. We're not making bone headed base running plays or defensive plays at the pace we were under Trembley for example. Couple all of that with my opinion that the competition just isn't as good as their reputations.

I feel like this team is keeping the ball in the ballpark and getting timely hits offensively. This has all been a process rather than a matter of 2 or 3 moves.

Your bottom line might be correct though. We may very well be better than we're perceived to be. In the last month+ we've played the Yankees, Rays, Tigers, Red Sox, Jays, the hot Mariners and now the White Sox and were as good or better than the other team in all of those series. At some point it's not a fluke. There's something substantial happening here. I hope we can sustain it.

[bluedog]

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.

Dude I didn't give you neg rep. Trying READING the negative rep note. Someone else did that for you, apparently because they felt you deserved it. Or would you like me to do the research on who gave you neg rep for you?

But hey, don't actually own up to the fact that some objective reader of the thread felt you were worthy of neg rep. I mean that would mean you'd have to modify your world view to include the possibility that your not infallible.

[Ampontan]

What does cutting deadweight starters have to do with getting lucky in one-run games?

What is this "lucky" word you use?

Luck in baseball is when a swinging bunt rolls fair or foul at the last minute. Luck in baseball is when the ball hits the top of the wall and bounces in or out.

The Orioles' record in one run games is a statistical anomaly, and the people who sometimes tend to place more emphasis on the spreadsheet than what happens on the field have no other term for this than luck.

All of those one-run games were determined by performance on the field. That includes the 17 inning game, when our emergency pitcher outperformed their emergency pitcher.

[bluedog]

Bluedog, I think your point is worthy but incomplete.

Cheers. I appreciate that my theory could be incomplete (or entirely wrong). But it sure seems like the media doesn't have any clue how well the team is pitching.

I feels like the O's could get to 95 wins and the media would still be ignoring the quality of the pitching in favor of our record in one run games. Eventually someone has to notice what guys like Chen, Tillman and Gonzalez are doing right?

[Loophole]

Dude I didn't give you neg rep. Trying READING the negative rep note. Someone else did that for you, apparently because they felt you deserved it. Or would you like me to do the research on who gave you neg rep for you?

But hey, don't actually own up to the fact that some objective reader of the thread felt you were worthy of neg rep. I mean that would mean you'd have to modify your world view to include the possibility that your not infallible.

Actually, I can't see who gives me rep because I'm not a plus member.

Your implication that those of us asking you to back up your own research with an actual complete data set are asking you to do our work for us is definitely making me laugh.

[bluedog]

Actually, I can't see who gives me rep because I'm not a plus member.

Your implication that those of us asking you to back up your own research with an actual complete data set are asking you to do our work for us is definitely making me laugh.

Still didn't add anything baseball related to the discussion. Ignored the fact you accused me of neg repping you without any evidence. Still haven't addressed any of my actual points in the topic.

I now have ample evidence which I've researched extensively that interacting with you further in this (or any other thread) will be without value! Actually say something about baseball and I'll respond.

[Loophole]

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.

Um, it discusses baseball just as much as the post it quoted.

And I'm not sure you have a great memory if you don't think I've been addressing baseball.

This is ridiculous. In the time since you started this thread you could've spent the time to do a similar study of the other AL teams in contention, removing their worst starters and seeing what their records look like with their replacements. Instead you've spent this time whining about how everyone is victimizing you for pointing out the fact that your data is incomplete and that it isn't our job to complete it. I'm done here until you actually do the work and give us something of meaning to discuss.

[Barnaby Graves]

What is this "lucky" word you use?

Luck in baseball is when a swinging bunt rolls fair or foul at the last minute. Luck in baseball is when the ball hits the top of the wall and bounces in or out.

The Orioles' record in one run games is a statistical anomaly, and the people who sometimes tend to place more emphasis on the spreadsheet than what happens on the field have no other term for this than luck.

All of those one-run games were determined by performance on the field. That includes the 17 inning game, when our emergency pitcher outperformed their emergency pitcher.

Guy hits a hard line drive straight into the glove of the centerfielder playing no doubles defense. The next guy, playing against the same defense, drops a bloop into shallow center. Who had the better contact with the ball (read: skill/performance)? Whose average actually goes up?

It is luck sometimes. Luck happens and affects performance.

[JimDH]

Generally I don't care what the national media thinks. But wow. I hate to think what they might think when they read this dreadful thread. gee wiz guys.

[bluedog]

Um, it discusses baseball just as much as the post it quoted.

And I'm not sure you have a great memory if you don't think I've been addressing baseball.

This is ridiculous. In the time since you started this thread you could've spent the time to do a similar study of the other AL teams in contention, removing their worst starters and seeing what their records look like with their replacements. Instead you've spent this time whining about how everyone is victimizing you for pointing out the fact that your data is incomplete and that it isn't our job to complete it. I'm done here until you actually do the work and give us something of meaning to discuss.

Okay I will try this again, ignoring everything that's come before.

My intent in this thead, whether or not I did a good job of communicating it, was to suggest that the national media is ignoring the quality of the O's current pitching staff in determining why the O's are winning games.

To that end, I removed Arrieta / Hunter / Matusz from the team's stats because those three pitchers stats had a very significant impact on the O's overall pitchign stats (which the media has repeatedly referenced in articles and interviews as being an indication of why the O's should not maintain their winning ways). I removed those three pitcher's stats not because I wanted to cherry pick the worst starter's stats, but because they have all been replaced in the rotation with other pitchers.

Without those stats, the O's current staff is pitching extremely well statistically speaking. They are winning games (which is an indication of quality of pitching despite your comments earlier - more wins for starters generally equates to longer starts, lower ERA and better overall performance, especially when the pitcher is on a team with a below average offense) and they have outstanding peripheral stats.

To compare how the O's are currently doing, you wouldn't simply remove the three worst starters from other teams, you would instead evaluate the actual stats of the pitchers who are on the team right now. I doesn't take hours of analysis to determine that the O's current staff is doing better than most of the other teams in the AL in almost every category.

I'd be very interested in your response to this, assuming its focused on baseball and not on some analysis of my personality, my need for attention or my level of maturity. Can you handle that?

[Malike]

Gotta love the mob mentality, it exudes class.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[bluedog]

Gotta love the mob mentality, it exudes class.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Heh. All I was trying to say was the O's current pitching staff is better than the teams season long stats would indicate and that the national media might want to look into this when evaluating why the O's are winning.

I had no idea what I was starting.

[Malike]

Heh. All I was trying to say was the O's current pitching staff is better than the teams season long stats would indicate and that the national media might want to look into this when evaluating why the O's are winning.

I had no idea what I was starting.

Eh, it has turned into an I'm smarter than you pissing match. You have to know by now, there are several posters who sit and lurk, and wait to pounce to show their internet forum superiority.

[bluedog]

Eh, it has turned into an I'm smarter than you pissing match. You have to know by now, there are several posters who sit and lurk, and wait to pounce to show their internet forum superiority.

I'm just sorry I started a thread that lured them out. I had kinda hoped it might turn into a positive discussion of how the O's are actually better than people believe.

[Flosman]

You know what would be great. Us making the WS and winning it in 7 games with 4 one run wins and 3 blowout losses. Oh the articles through the winter would be gold I tell you, just gold, lol.