Schoenfield: O's Starting to Look Like Team of Destiny

[Moose Milligan]

I've contended all along that's what it's really about. Call it what you want, but if it's something that's not projectable, I'll group it in with "luck". From what research I've read there is no correlation between winning a high percentage of one run games and strong BP performance. If there was I'm sure Buck would executed the strategy long before now.

Dunno. Can't help but think that if the bullpen was, like, our 2006 bullpen we'd have this 1 run game record.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Except the point was wrong. Because we had a pretty much equal contribution to our above-pythag performance from all parts of the season. Including August, where before last night we were 15-8 and should have been 12-11 and after last night are 16-8 and should be 13-11. That's three wins in 24 games. A ration of a pythag win above per 8 games. Which would put us at 20 games above over a whole season.

You should hate to do this because your run differential post was mathematically and logically flawed.

How much does that 12-3 loss to Texas change what our record "should" be in August? I'm legitimately curious here.

[Lucky Jim]

How much does that 12-3 loss to Texas change what our record "should" be? I'm legitimately curious here.

Why would that matter? This idea of "pulling out" the blowouts has never made sense to me. It makes less sense when it's not tied to some idea that we were getting blown out due to Matusz, Arrieta and Hunter.

We actually have two 12-3 losses in August. Of course, we have four wins by more than six runs.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Man I hate to do this, but this is pretty much the point I was trying to make about our run differential last month - and got lambasted for it.

We were good enough to build the record through the first third, we were lucky to stay in it the second third, the last third is really the product of DD, Showalter and the true talent of this team returning.

Yeah, except that's not the central point you were trying to make. Your point (that was refuted) was about run distribution indicating we were better than our pythag. You failed to show anything relevant in that respect.

[hoosiers]

I used "baseline math" to refer to the lens through which Schoenfield was viewing the season - the pythag. That's his baseline. And he's torturing logic. But, sure, cherry-pick anything you want to make irrelevant points. Awesome. Thanks.

Did not mean to upset or cherry-pick. I was under the impression that you chose your words carefully.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Why would that matter? This idea of "pulling out" the blowouts has never made sense to me. It makes less sense when it's not tied to some idea that we were getting blown out due to Matusz, Arrieta and Hunter.

Ok, and claiming that our record "should" be something that it's not because of a blowout like that one is equally preposterous to me. If it somehow had rained that night in Texas and we didn't even play, our entire record in August "should" be completely different. It's just silly.

I could buy into Pythag over a larger sample size (like the entire first half) but now we're using it to piss on our August record when, it appears, our run differential took a huge hit in that one game -- I'd like to know what our Pythag record in August is absent that game.

And, btw, we did get blown out in that game due to Boom Boom who, not surprisingly, isn't in the rotation anymore.

[Lucky Jim]

Did not mean to upset or cherry-pick. I was under the impression that you chose your words carefully.

I did choose my words carefully. I was talking about Schoenfield's math. In a paragraph about Schoenfield's math. It doesn't help to choose one's words carefully if the reader can't be bothered to pay enough attention to follow the conversation.

[Moose Milligan]

Why would that matter? This idea of "pulling out" the blowouts has never made sense to me. It makes less sense when it's not tied to some idea that we were getting blown out due to Matusz, Arrieta and Hunter.

We actually have two 12-3 losses in August. Of course, we have four wins by more than six runs.

I think it's sports fan's nature to make the argument of "Well, if you take out x, y, and z, they could be a."

Which just doesn't seem to belong in the pythag arguments at all.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Dunno. Can't help but think that if the bullpen was, like, our 2006 bullpen we'd have this 1 run game record.

Sure, to some extent that's absolutely true. But isn't the only vaiable and you can't expect the BP to perform overwhelmingly great in high leverage situations going forward. I would liken it to performing great one year in RISP situations (which happens) and out performing run expectations, but isn't projectable going forward.

[Lucky Jim]

Ok, and claiming that our record "should" be something that it's not because of a blowout like that one is equally preposterous to me. If it somehow had rained that night in Texas and we didn't even play, our entire record in August "should" be completely different. It's just silly.

I could buy into Pythag over a larger sample size (like the entire first half) but now we're using it to piss on our August record when, it appears, our run differential took a huge hit in that one game -- I'd like to know what our Pythag record in August is absent that game.

And, btw, we did get blown out in that game due to Boom Boom who, not surprisingly, isn't in the rotation anymore.

I'm not "pissing" on anything. But your logic is "preposterous". If it rained every night we lost, we'd never lose. So what?

[Mizerooskie]

Did you even read my post?

Of course it doesn't take roster change. I specifically pointed that out as an issue. I also stated there are general issues with using it to predict future. But there is clearly a difference between a team that is blowing teams out versus one that wins a historical number of 1 run games. But certainly, ignore it if it contains no value to you.

Yes, I read your post. I was merely expanding on why people have such a (legitimate) problem with pythag. And I completely disagreed with your assertion that it provides context.

I think the Angels are more likely to be a 90 win team next year, and it's got absolutely zilch to do with their relative pythag performance.

[SilentJames]

Yeah, except that's not the central point you were trying to make. Your point (that was refuted) was about run distribution indicating we were better than our pythag. You failed to show anything relevant in that respect.

Honestly, as this stretch of play has continued I think has made my point stronger. All of the sudden that period of time when we were 10-games under .500, and a -720-ish RD, put us in a giant RD hole that we have been slowly digging our way out since the middle of July. That is the only point I was trying to make, that our overall numbers were tainted by a terrible stretch of games.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I'm not "pissing" on anything. But your logic is "preposterous". If it rained every night we lost, we'd never lose. So what?

Can you just answer my question? What's our pythag record absent that game? Asked another way, add a +9 to our August run differential and what's our projected record?

[Fiver]

So a dude on ESPN.com finally writes about the O's - positive, negative, indifferent opinion, who cares - and this thread turns it into a discussion/argument about the Pythagorean record thing? I don't know why I'm surprised. That argument is getting more and more tired to me. I only came into the thread because of the seemingly positive thread title....

As for me I'm just happy to see them get a little attention that isn't devoted to how our attendance sucks or we aren't as good our record, etc. At least they are writing/admitting that we haven't gone away and likely won't be this season. Having read the article, I'll step out now so the Pyth argument can continue.

[Frobby]

I'm done worrying about whether our Pythag for the first 128 games foretells doom over the final 34. We are playing very good baseball right now. Keep doing it, we will win our share of games.

In August, the Orioles have had 13 quality starts, and have won 12 of them. They've also won three games where they didn't get a quality start, by scores of 8-7, 7-5, and 5-3. This team routinely wins when it allows 3 runs or less (51-6). It breaks even when it allows 4-5 runs (13-13). It sturggles when it allows 6 or more runs (7-38). So, if the number of games where the team allows 3 runs or less outnumbers the games where they allow 6 or more, they should be fine.