DD on the O's CURRENT postseason potential

[Number5]

They probably are, to a degree, subjective. But are they as subjective as a fan's eyes? What we have now is better then what we had five years ago and what we will have in five years will be better yet.

Also you didn't say very strong, you said historically good.

I don't expect you to find many folks that would rate the O's defense lower then "strong".

Yes, and by non-subjective measures, they were. I did not make up that phrase in describing the Orioles' 2013 defense. In any case, prior to the derailment, my point was that the Orioles main issue in 2013. was pitching.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I think that you are missing Frobby's main point that it is about scoring runs. The Orioles scored significantly more runs than the Rays in 2013 (745 to 700). His point about the road games was simply that you can't attribute all of that difference to OPACY. Looking at the two teams, the obvious statistical difference that might account for the run-scoring differential is home runs (O's 212, Rays 165). Just as OBP was being overlooked and undervalued in 2002, perhaps SLG is being undervalued now. Advanced statistics are very nice, but do not always perfectly align with run production. I think that it is important to remember the primary objective is scoring runs, when talking about offense.

The Orioles issue in 2013 was giving up runs, not scoring them. The defense was historically good, so it seems to me that pitching was evidently what dragged the team down.

I did not miss the point at all. Park adjustments count. Park adjusted, the Rays are a better offense. They have been for years, they were last year, and they likely will be again next year. An 8% difference in wRC+ would indicate they scored more runs for their environment. If it were closer then perhaps we could look into other things like clutch hitting etc, but even then I don't see that as much of a predictor. That the Rays underperformed on their road splits last year does not change my mind that they were a better offense than ours last year.

In any case, prior to the derailment, my point was that the Orioles main issue in 2013. was pitching.

My other point is that this isn't really true, or is in fact largely overstated.

[CA-ORIOLE]

To be clear, I was only talking about which team had the better offense last year. Tampa's offense was extremely streaky last year. They averaged 4.93 runs per game from May 1 to July 21 (73 games), then averaged 3.67 runs/game over the final 64 games of the year. .

So was I. I don't care too much about streaks. TB's pitching was awful at the beginning of last year and their offense kept them in it. When their hitting went south in the second half, their pitching was great Some of that was injury related (at least with Price). The streaks kind of worked out for them.

So it's hard for me to divine how good their offense will be this year. Myers may become a beast, and Jennings has a lot of upside. They aren't really a young team, though, with Loney (30), Zobrist (33), Escobar (31), DeJesus (34), Hanigan (32) and Molina (39). Overall I think I still like our offense a little better

Yeah, I agree. I certainly can't say for sure. I'd guess TB, but other than Davis I think we could improve offensively (even if marginally) at almost every position next year.

[weams]

They probably are, to a degree, subjective. But are they as subjective as a fan's eyes? What we have now is better then what we had five years ago and what we will have in five years will be better yet.

Also you didn't say very strong, you said historically good.

I don't expect you to find many folks that would rate the O's defense lower then "strong".

How about historically strong. I mean we did not have a poem written of them, but maybe we can compose a tune?

[MurphDogg]

I did not miss the point at all. Park adjustments count. Park adjusted, the Rays are a better offense. They have been for years, they were last year, and they likely will be again next year. An 8% difference in wRC+ would indicate they scored more runs for their environment. If it were closer then perhaps we could look into other things like clutch hitting etc, but even then I don't see that as much of a predictor. That the Rays underperformed on their road splits last year does not change my mind that they were a better offense than ours last year.

My other point is that this isn't really true, or is in fact largely overstated.

What about park adjustments makes them less flukey than road splits? Both can be affected by small sample size. Road splits are as close as you can get to stadium neutral in the real world (though the Rays road splits are impacted by their playing 9 games at OPACY compared to the O's playing 9 at the Trop).

[weams]

How about historically strong. I mean we did not have a poem written of them, but maybe we can compose a tune?

If we did, how would we account for BRob?

[Can_of_corn]

If we did, how would we account for BRob?

To illustrate small sample size he has to share a stanza with Flaherty.

[weams]

To illustrate small sample size he has to share a stanza with Flaherty.

A Flash in the pan to Wobbly Robby?

[CA-ORIOLE]

What about park adjustments makes them less flukey than road splits? Both can be affected by small sample size. Road splits are as close as you can get to stadium neutral in the real world (though the Rays road splits are impacted by their playing 9 games at OPACY compared to the O's playing 9 at the Trop).

Maybe in a park like Boston or Texas along with players adapted to those respective parks, I could see something like this. I don't see it with Tampa. The Rays weren't affected by adverse road splits the year before, so I'm inclined to believe it was more of a fluke than anything else.

Even with "park hitters", I'm not sure if "a better neutral team" is necessarily a significant factor in the overall argument if the teams are scoring significantly more overall runs at home (and winning more games because of it).

[Frobby]

Yes, and by non-subjective measures, they were. I did not make up that phrase in describing the Orioles' 2013 defense.

Errors are non-subjective? I have to disagree there.

The difference between fielding percentage and a stat like UZR is that we all get to see which plays are scored hits and which are called errors, and we have a sense of how often we agree or disagree with the official scorer's decision. But we don't get to see which plays UZR grades as "could have made" or whatever, so it's just harder to develop a sense of how good it is.

[Can_of_corn]

A Flash in the pan to Wobbly Robby?

Flash!

Bang!

Down he goes!

[Number5]

Errors are non-subjective? I have to disagree there.

The difference between fielding percentage and a stat like UZR is that we all get to see which plays are scored hits and which are called errors, and we have a sense of how often we agree or disagree with the official scorer's decision. But we don't get to see which plays UZR grades as "could have made" or whatever, so it's just harder to develop a sense of how good it is.

Yes, official scoring is subjective. But to a much lesser degree. There really aren't a huge number of plays that have a whole lot of disagreement, and those that do are almost always somewhere along the borderline between a play that "should" be made and one that "could" be made. Since the metrics, by their nature, have many more shades of grey causing differing opinions, the degree of subjectivity is increased. Is it a 70% play or an 85% play? What will it be called next time? Where exactly was the player aligned? Where exactly did it land? Hit/Error is more like Pass/Fail. Most plays have no doubt from anyone whether they are a hit or an error. For the most part, only those plays right along the pass/fail borderline, if you will, come into question. Defensive metrics are more like a 0 to 100 grading scale, and there is a degree of subjectivity that enters into how every single play is evaluated, along the entire range. I believe that fielding metrics have value, and can be a useful tool; but they are far from infallible, IMO, and can hardly be described as being completely accurate.

[Can_of_corn]

Yes, official scoring is subjective. But to a much lesser degree. There really aren't a huge number of plays that have a whole lot of disagreement, and those that do are almost always somewhere along the borderline between a play that "should" be made and one that "could" be made. Since the metrics, by their nature, have many more shades of grey causing differing opinions, the degree of subjectivity is increased. Is it a 70% play or an 85% play? What will it be called next time? Where exactly was the player aligned? Where exactly did it land? Hit/Error is more like Pass/Fail. Most plays have no doubt from anyone whether they are a hit or an error. For the most part, only those plays right along the pass/fail borderline, if you will, come into question. Defensive metrics are more like a 0 to 100 grading scale, and there is a degree of subjectivity that enters into how every single play is evaluated, along the entire range. I believe that fielding metrics have value, and can be a useful tool; but they are far from infallible, IMO, and can hardly be described as being completely accurate.

Right.

But they sure beat the stuffing out of the "eye test".

[Jon]

I think different GM's have different styles and different lingo. Only one team wins a championship every year, so most GM's don't like to promise or predict one, or set that expectation, even though that's clearly the goal. So, when Duquette talks of having a "competitive" team, he may well mean a team that can compete for a championship.

Really, the question should be, "does this team have a good chance to be noticeably better than last year's team?" Right now, I'd say no.

Good post as always. And point taken. Words within quotes are often over-analyzed. I completely agree with this on the surface.

For the record, I think Dan is a good GM. I think that what he has done in spite of his boss is commendable.

But if we are to look less at what he says, and more on what he has done since 2012, is it not a fair and a supportable opinion to have that that what he has done since then is not enough for some fans? Does last year not support the fact that doing little again is not a sound plan in some fans opinions? But it seems that on some level, we're already in agreement here.

I look at what Dan has said as well as what he has done since 2012 and am not happy with the direction of the club. That being said, I'm also of the opinion that what he has done was not how he would have done things, had he had the autonomy to run the club as he saw fit.

It became a 70's catch phrase around here to accuse Duquette of not even speaking the words "World Series" because that was not a goal of the Orioles.

It was obvious that it was just another trolling mechanism and it pops up other places (Roch's Blog. Twitter).

Then the two year window.

I get it, we need to be better and we need to win a World Series. But as you say, there are 30 other teams trying to do that and many of them have access to more revenues than we do.

[video=youtube;CFh5FzXIeBg]

(Government-type-retraction to hide my lack of reading comprehension skills)

Great post! While the prime of Jones, Hardy, Davis, and Wieters just passes us by.

Thank you, kind sir.

[weams]

Out of curiosity, what bridge or underpass do you live under? Me, I like I-83 near the city. Free WI-Fi!

I have not seen too many of the repeating mantras here. Certainly did not match your screen name with any that I recall.

Love Candy. Uncle Buck was best.

I'm between 83 and 81.

Have to check out that wi-fi.