Jump to content

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

Ooooooohhhh!!!!

By Ooooooohhhh!!!!
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

CA-ORIOLE Hangout Grand Counsel

CA-ORIOLE

Posted
Posted
If nobody thinks it, then why do we discuss it so much? Why do so many pundits at ESPN and Sports Illustrated, etc., continue to use it as a way of saying that teams are playing above their heads, or can be expected to do much better or worse than they've been doing, etc.?

Here's another example:

The offense averages 4 runs per game.

The bullpen is perfection (0.00 ERA).

4 starters average 3 runs per game, and each goes 32-0. They account for 384 runs allowed.

1 starter averages 8 runs per game, and he goes 0-34. He accounts for 272 runs allowed.

That's good for a record of 128-34, and 648 runs scored to 656 runs allowed.

Which pythag would have as an expected record of 80-82, not even a .500 season.

So you've got a fairly average offense, 4 starters who can win every game, and 1 starter who is pretty poor, and anybody with a brain can see that this is a recipe for winning something like 80% of your games. But pythag has it has not even a .500 record.

I've got a million of these. There are really an infinite number of ways that a team can drastically over- or under-perform their pythag that the pythag is just a meaningless experiment that doesn't give any worthwhile incite. And yet we continue to talk about it at great length. Why?

You're asking me why do ESPN and other sports networks report crap? Why do you think people come here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Lucky Jim Hangout Grand Counsel

Lucky Jim

Posted
Posted
If nobody thinks it, then why do we discuss it so much? Why do so many pundits at ESPN and Sports Illustrated, etc., continue to use it as a way of saying that teams are playing above their heads, or can be expected to do much better or worse than they've been doing, etc.?

Here's another example:

The offense averages 4 runs per game.

The bullpen is perfection (0.00 ERA).

4 starters average 3 runs per game, and each goes 32-0. They account for 384 runs allowed.

1 starter averages 8 runs per game, and he goes 0-34. He accounts for 272 runs allowed.

That's good for a record of 128-34, and 648 runs scored to 656 runs allowed.

Which pythag would have as an expected record of 80-82, not even a .500 season.

So you've got a fairly average offense, 4 starters who can win every game, and 1 starter who is pretty poor, and anybody with a brain can see that this is a recipe for winning something like 80% of your games. But pythag has it has not even a .500 record.

I've got a million of these. There are really an infinite number of ways that a team can drastically over- or under-perform their pythag that the pythag is just a meaningless experiment that doesn't give any worthwhile incite. And yet we continue to talk about it at great length. Why?

I don't think anyone's really acknowledging your hypotheticals because no one thinks finding absurd outliers really tells us anything interesting. Sorry. As for how/why Pythag gets used, well, a few thoughts:

1. It's a way of measuring how the team got to this point that attempts to see through any possible inflation in W-L. It's a hedge.

2. One of the reasons pythag is applied prospectively is the relatively safe-but-not-certain likelihood that a team will not significantly improve their run differential even through roster manipulation, because finding wholesale changes is quite difficult (scarcity/cost prohibition). In other words, if 98% of the team stays the same, even trading Mark Reynolds for Albert Pujols isn't going to change much about a team w/ a run differential of -50. Why is this not certain? Well, the Orioles have replaced LF, 3B and 3/5s of their rotation. That's a big deal. Removing catastrophic performance is a start. Of course, the O's also got fortunate in that the replacements - guys with no track record of MLB success (or at least recent - McLouth) - haven't been catastrophic themselves. Better, they've been pretty good. That's a whole different kind of luck - though you make that kind of luck more likely when you do what DD has done, which is hoard relatively low-cost bodies.

I think one of the main issues is simply the refusal of folks to understand that no one is writing a death sentence on OH because of pythag. It's simply one input. The O's run differential has gotten better in August. They may still be out-performing it a bit, but they're better. That's huge. And it's been accomplished at very limited cost. That's near brilliant. That's not to stay that Tillman, Gonzo, McLouth, Machado et al. will keep it up. But it's been great so far.

As for one-run games and bullpen, I'll take ours against any out there head-to-head. And that's all that really matters as these games get more and more leveraged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lucky Jim Hangout Grand Counsel

Lucky Jim

Posted
Posted
Pythag is like GDP in economics: a useful barometer of measurement but should not be the end all be all.

Bingo.

A good article in the Miami Herald: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/29/2974342/rounding-third-orioles-keep-defying.html

So what gives?

Well, the easy answer is that the Orioles have won almost every close contest they have played, going 24-6 in one-run games. It's a mark that would be the best of any team since 1901. And of the top 10 one-run records from 1996 to 2011, eight of those teams made the postseason, a place the Orioles haven't been since 1997, also their last year above .500.

Should they reach the postseason having scored less runs than their opponents, the Orioles would be the first team to do so since the Arizona Diamondbacks in 2007. The D-backs were minus-20 that season and still won the NL West.

Of course, though, those same Diamondbacks led the majors that season with a 32-20 record in one-run contests.

Although, given the way the Orioles have played of late, it's no longer a lock that they end the year in the red.

Following a loss to Oakland on July 28, the Orioles fell to 52-49 and 8 1/2 games back of the Yankees in the division. With a run differential of minus-63, most assumed they would quickly fall by the wayside.

Well, Buck Showalter's crew has gone 19-8 since, while outscoring the opposition by 24 runs.

As a side note, our pythag from July 29 on is 16-12. Instead, we're 19-9. In other words, we've been good and a little bit "lucky". Who's going to argue with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TiredofLosing20 Major Leaguer

TiredofLosing20

Posted
Posted

As I read thru your post.. All I can think is this:

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

The point here is pretty simple and goes to this line from your post....

So why waste our time on it while some other, far more wondrous process, some other way of winning is unfolding before us?

I do not want future decisions about this team to be made with some expectation that we can count on "some other way of winning"

And, I wouldn't want this team to have to reproduce their current win/loss record with the current run differential. That's really it.. That is all I am using the Pyth for. Not to necessarily predict the future. It is a mathematical way of saying I don't want to rely on a team that ranks 9th in runs scored, 8th in runs allowed and last in fielding to win 90 games. It's another way of saying that I am not sold that the team is built to win 80% of their 1 run games. The bullpen is fantastic and have clearly been a key to winning those games.. great.. But there is a fine line between the bullpen winning one 1 run games because we had the lead, and keeping them in 1 run losses

As I have caveated 400 times, Rosters change, the predictive nature is limited largely because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jabba72 Veteran All-Star

jabba72

Posted
Posted

I'm on board and think the O's could now be a playoff team. Like others are saying here, the new and improved rotation (for now) is definitely an upgrade over Arrieta, Matusz and Hunter. The question now is how long will Gonzalez, Chen, Tillman and Britton be effective? 10 years hopefully. Also Machado and Mclouth are shoring up the defense on the left side. All the team needs now is a solid 2B (maybe 1B too) and I like the lineup as is. Who would have thought McLouth would win the LF job over Avery and Hoes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...