Fangraphs: Orioles most underprojected team over the last five years

[Frobby]

Jeff Sullivan did an analysis yesterday of the teams who had been the most overprojected and underprojected over the last ten years and five years. Interestingly, over the ten year period, the O's were right in the middle of the pack, at -1. But:

What if we just looked at the last five years?

Now the Orioles show up. And while the Orioles are at +26 wins over five years, they're actually at +44 wins over three years. There's been nothing quite like their 2012.

Sullivan then did some analysis that showed that outperforming projections in Year X is basically uncorrelated to beating projections in Year X + 1. He then commented:

Of course, this probably comes off like a shot at the Orioles. It's not intended that way; I'm just following the numbers. Because the Orioles have been better than expected for three years in a row, for the most part, consensus is mounting that there’s just something special about them. And I'm totally willing to concede that it's possible, but it doesn't have to be 0% signal or 100% signal. It can be signal and noise, and I don't think the Orioles should bet on consistently overachieving by several wins. In recent history, it's been a difficult thing to pull off.

The Angels did it, right until they stopped. The Giants have done it, but not in the odd years. The Marlins had those back-to-back years I showed you above. Take the 2008 – 2010 Twins: they overachieved by a combined 31 wins, then they underachieved by 21 in 2011 alone. I'll remind you of the earlier White Sox example. This isn't me being stubborn; this is me just not finding enough precedent. It's difficult to believe the Orioles have just figured something amazing out. It's not impossible, but they might well be the first.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/10-years-of-team-performance-10-years-of-team-projections/

[hoosiers]

What the Os have been doing for several years? I can think of six areas that have differentiated the Os during this time - superior defense, quality depth all around, healthy and deep starting pitching especially in 2014 with few very poor WAR efforts at the back of the rotation, no major negative WAR performances, a strong bullpen, and Buck Showalter. As I type, perhaps another factor is that not one salary has dominated the payroll such that one costly injury or poor performance is a major obstacle.

The Os have been built not necessarily to dominate teams, but more to be competitive in EVERY game IMO with good not great starting pitching 1 to 5, strong bullpen and strong defense. IMO, this type of construction eliminates extended losing streaks and easily lost games because one or two of the players on the 25 man roster stink.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on what has distinguished the team for several years. Not sure if there are elements of a secret sauce in there, but there are a lot of good characteristics to field a team very likely to compete.

[Larry18]

Fangraphs has blown the Orioles win projection by 87 over a 10 year period. Just because you over estimated their win projection by 43 over a 7 year period doesn't balance under projecting their win total by 44 over the past three years. It means that Fangraphs win projection system doesn't come close to what actually happens. They need to stop this kind of false analysis.

[wildcard]

What the Os have been doing for several years? I can think of six areas that have differentiated the Os during this time - superior defense, quality depth all around, healthy and deep starting pitching especially in 2014 with few very poor WAR efforts at the back of the rotation, no major negative WAR performances, a strong bullpen, and Buck Showalter. As I type, perhaps another factor is that not one salary has dominated the payroll such that one costly injury or poor performance is a major obstacle.

The Os have been built not necessarily to dominate teams, but more to be competitive in EVERY game IMO with good not great starting pitching 1 to 5, strong bullpen and strong defense. IMO, this type of construction eliminates extended losing streaks and easily lost games because one or two of the players on the 25 man roster stink.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on what has distinguished the team for several years. Not sure if there are elements of a secret sauce in there, but there are a lot of good characteristics to field a team very likely to compete.

Good analysis. You pointed out a lot of elements that have made the O's successful. I would add that the O's have good enough teams to stay competitive until mid season and then add players cheaply in July and August. This combined with playing teams that are out of the race allow the O's to increase their record.

[Frobby]

There's a thread about this article in the MLB section, that I hadn't seen before posting this one: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/146573-Fangraphs-10-Years-of-Team-Perforamce-Projections?p=3737959#post3737959

[Ven6]

In a nutshell,

1) our pitchers don't K enough people (doesn't FIP always hate us? I'm sure projection systems love it.)

2) our defense is superior (always hard to measure, quantify the effects of)

3) our OBP is always low (Again, projection systems probably rely on it, while our ballpark might require a different approach)

4) we got Buck (no projections count on the Buck effect)

So, we are always under projected.

And I'll take it.

[FanAddict]

What the Os have been doing for several years? I can think of six areas that have differentiated the Os during this time - superior defense, quality depth all around, healthy and deep starting pitching especially in 2014 with few very poor WAR efforts at the back of the rotation, no major negative WAR performances, a strong bullpen, and Buck Showalter. As I type, perhaps another factor is that not one salary has dominated the payroll such that one costly injury or poor performance is a major obstacle.

The Os have been built not necessarily to dominate teams, but more to be competitive in EVERY game IMO with good not great starting pitching 1 to 5, strong bullpen and strong defense. IMO, this type of construction eliminates extended losing streaks and easily lost games because one or two of the players on the 25 man roster stink.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on what has distinguished the team for several years. Not sure if there are elements of a secret sauce in there, but there are a lot of good characteristics to field a team very likely to compete.

All those factors you've mentioned speak a lot toward the teams resilience. In my line of work, we use the term "resilience" often to describe the makeup of successful teams. I happen to strongly agree with you that the level to which the O's are resilient translates directly to on-the-field success, regardless of the inability for it to be quantified.

[VeveJones007]

All those factors you've mentioned speak a lot toward the teams resilience. In my line of work, we use the term "resilience" often to describe the makeup of successful teams. I happen to strongly agree with you that the level to which the O's are resilient translates directly to on-the-field success, regardless of the inability for it to be quantified.

While I agree that they are resilient, I have a hard time believing that it's a competitive advantage. I'm in the camp that believes that most guys in MLB are pros who take their jobs seriously.

[FanAddict]

While I agree that they are resilient, I have a hard time believing that it's a competitive advantage. I'm in the camp that believes that most guys in MLB are pros who take their jobs seriously.

Yeah, but it's about more than just "taking your job seriously." It's about all those things Hoosiers mentioned--well distributed SP strength, a versatile BP, great defense top to bottom. I also think it has a lot to do with bench strength, as evidenced by our ability to absorb a loss of our GG catcher and 3b (although one could make a case that some good fortune played into that), and to a much lesser degree, the chemistry that starts with Buck.

This may be my orange bias showing through but I'm a firm believer that Buck, and Dan to a lesser degree, bring a sort of binding energy to the table through their tactics and what they choose to emphasize. I look at what Dan is doing this season with the corner OF's and DH and I think to myself, wow what an interesting approach (excited to see how it works out). Nationally, folks point out that we have sort of been breaking the mold for a couple of years now (predictions wise)and I look back at some of these somewhat anecdotal things I witness as an O's fan and can't help but conclude there is some correlation there.

BTW, I'm a proponent of analytics and you won't find me pounding my head on the table, calling the guys over at Fangraphs idiots for the hand waving that occurs every time O's pitchers outpeform their FIP or expected wins or whatever. As far as whether or not what we have is a unique competitive advantage, without any hard evidence, all we can really do is have a discussion about it. But if we can repeat or exceed the results of last season, the conversation will surely get a lot more interesting.

[waroriole]

While I agree that they are resilient, I have a hard time believing that it's a competitive advantage. I'm in the camp that believes that most guys in MLB are pros who take their jobs seriously.

Apparently, there are levels of seriousness. Look at all the comments new guys make when the come to their first Buck run spring training. Wesley Wright is the latest example.

[Beef Supreme]

Apparently, there are levels of seriousness. Look at all the comments new guys make when the come to their first Buck run spring training. Wesley Wright is the latest example.

^This.

And resiliency, to me, is about being able to handle adversity. It's more than being a professional who takes his job seriously.

[Chavez Ravine]

Despite all the rigmarole that goes into them, I suspect these overall projection systems don't do any better at predicting win totals than your average decently knowledgeable fan. Deviations say more about the deficiencies of the systems in describing baseball (and that fickle fortuna) than they pinpoint fundamental innovations in playing the game/constructing a team. Which is all well and good, since if these systems were all knowing, what would be the fun in it?

[BohKnowsBmore]

Fangraphs has blown the Orioles win projection by 87 over a 10 year period. Just because you over estimated their win projection by 43 over a 7 year period doesn't balance under projecting their win total by 44 over the past three years. It means that Fangraphs win projection system doesn't come close to what actually happens. They need to stop this kind of false analysis.

If I project every team to go 81-81 every season, over a long enough period my variance for every team should approach 0.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frobby]

Apparently, there are levels of seriousness. Look at all the comments new guys make when the come to their first Buck run spring training. Wesley Wright is the latest example.

I don't think it's seriousness, it's the attention Buck focuses on little nuances of the game. Read Roch's blog about the pop-up drill they ran yesterday and you'll see what I mean. The man just has his players so well prepared.

http://m.masn.mobi/school-of-roch/2015/02/wrapping-up-the-eighth-day-of-camp.html

[BohKnowsBmore]

Apparently, there are levels of seriousness. Look at all the comments new guys make when the come to their first Buck run spring training. Wesley Wright is the latest example.

I think we should make it a trinity of DD-buck-AJ. All seem to bring an attitude to the organization that is pervasive from top to bottom.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk