Jump to content

The O's at 20% of the season gone.


wildcard

Recommended Posts

Of course we all know that what the O's have done so far is Not Good Enough to be a playoff team.

Just multiple the numbers by 5 and you are close to the pace the O's are on.

76-86 record - Yuck

Hitting 210 homers. Doesn't sound like the O's miss Cruz with those numbers. The O's had 211 homer last year.

755 run scored. That would be an increase of 50 runs over 2014.

The offense is not the problem. No new news here. Just confirming what most of us realize.

Pitching and defense is not good enough.

The O's made 87 errors last year. They are on a pace to make 110 this year. That has to get better for them to have a chance at the playoffs.

Runs allowed: 2014 -593; projected 2015 - 730

It will not be pretty if this continues.

Homers and RBI projections:

Davis 40 HR, 105 RBI

Jones 30 HR, 115 RBI

Paredes 25 HR, 90 RBI

Manny 30 HR, 80 RBI

Wins for the pitchers

Gonzalez 20

Ubaldo 15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I guess I'll put this here instead of starting a new thread.

Last year:

54-7 when allowing 2 runs or less

34-33 when allowing 3-5 runs

8-26 when allowing 6 runs or more

This year:

9-2 when allowing 2 runs or less

5-6 when allowing 3-5 runs

1-9 when allowing 6 runs or more

That paints a pretty complex picture. On the one hand, we are pitching fewer excellent games and more lousy games, for sure. On the other hand, last year we managed to win a higher percentage of games in each of the three categories. The team is 3-6 in one run games and hasn't done well coming from behind (2-13 when trailing after 5 innings, 1-14 trailing after 6).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The O's made 87 errors last year. They are on a pace to make 110 this year. That has to get better for them to have a chance at the playoffs.

Can we please, please, PLEASE never use the error stat ever again? It has virtually no correlation with fielding ability, and thus, measures nothing meaningful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we please, please, PLEASE never use the error stat ever again? It has virtually no correlation with fielding ability, and thus, measures nothing meaningful.

It's not as good as some other more advanced metrics, but an increase of 23 errors would most definitely be significant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD has shown that if we are in contention he will make moves. Our whole run last year was based on pitching. Once Tillman gets back to his old self that will help big time. Hopefully Bud doesn't kill us too much or Gausman can pitch like he did last year for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD has shown that if we are in contention he will make moves. Our whole run last year was based on pitching. Once Tillman gets back to his old self that will help big time. Hopefully Bud doesn't kill us too much or Gausman can pitch like he did last year for us.

I agree, DD will pull the trigger to help this team, "IF" the right deal comes across his desk.

I am probably in the minority here, but I think Bud will bounce back and find his mojo again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we please, please, PLEASE never use the error stat ever again? It has virtually no correlation with fielding ability, and thus, measures nothing meaningful.

Sure, why rely on the obvious when some obscure stat that has to be explained to a rocket scientist will suffice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not as good as some other more advanced metrics, but an increase of 23 errors would most definitely be significant.

Significant how? Without context it tells you nothing of meaning whatsoever. You could easily have a better fielding team that committed 23 more errors. Hell, that's a few balls a month that a slower defender with good hands doesn't get to (gee...I wonder if we lost any of those?) that a new faster defender "muffs".

Errors are almost completely meaningless when assessing a teams defensive skill. There are a ton of better, but still imperfect, ways to measure defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain errors to me, and what does or does not constitute one...

My problem with "errors" is the official scorer.

Sometimes I do NOT agree with them. And to change an error to a hit a day after the game is just wrong. Like the Snider error from several games back.

Just my opinion.

Had to edit to add one word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain errors to me, and what does or does not constitute one...

No. You know what an error is. Everyone does. All it measures is opportunities missed due to physical error, but when:

1) you're comparing team errors from one year to the next, and

2) most of the members on that team are the same, and

3) the current number of errors projects to be much higher than the year before, then

4) you know that the players on the team aren't performing as well as they did the previous year.

In this case, it has nothing to do with ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Significant how? Without context it tells you nothing of meaning whatsoever. You could easily have a better fielding team that committed 23 more errors. Hell, that's a few balls a month that a slower defender with good hands doesn't get to (gee...I wonder if we lost any of those?) that a new faster defender "muffs".

Errors are almost completely meaningless when assessing a teams defensive skill. There are a ton of better, but still imperfect, ways to measure defense.

Are you saying that Manny's 8 errors don't bother you?

I agree with your point, errors don't tell us everything, but they tell us something. If you think there are better metrics out there, go ahead and pull them together and see if they give us a different picture of the team's defensive performance. Otherwise, be polite and thank the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we please, please, PLEASE never use the error stat ever again? It has virtually no correlation with fielding ability, and thus, measures nothing meaningful.

While we're at it, can we stop using numbers through 1/5th of the season and multiplying by five to get what the team/player is "on pace for"? If a guy has an established level of 30 homers a year and has 13 homers in 32 games he's not on a pace for 66 homers!! It's overwhelmingly likely he's just playing over his head or getting better than normal results over a short span of games, and will hit something like (13 + (30/162 * 130)) = 37 homers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...