Jump to content

Has our competitive window closed???


DocJJ

Recommended Posts

I think it's all in the way it is presented. To me there is a big difference between:

" This team faces many challenges this off season, and in my opinion, it is unlikely that we will make the post season in 2016"

and

" This team is doomed! No moves will be made to upgrade the team this off season, and nobody will play any better than they did in 2015. Get ready for another long stretch of losing!"

The main message of the original post and the mid-thread follow up was not "We're doomed!"

It was "We need to rebuild!"

There's a huge difference between complaining and wallowing in misery ("We're doomed!") and advocating for a change in direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply
In 2012, the Orioles were 46-44 after 90 games.

They had just gone 7-17 over their previous 24 games.

Their starting pitching was in such tatters and were so desperate that they called up Tommy Hunter from AAA-Norfolk to try to stop the bleeding. In fact, our ace starter at the time (Jason Hammel) had just gone down with a knee injury that required surgery, which would subsequently sideline him for at least the next 7 weeks.

At that point, almost every Oriole fan on the planet (myself included) was fearing a repetition of what happened in 2005, when the Orioles were in 1st place until late June, and then went 32-60 over their final 90 games to finish at 74-88. At that point, all I cared about was the Orioles rebounding enough to eke out a winning season (83-79, 84-77, 85-77, etc.) to break the 14 consecutive season losing streak, and start to change the mindset and reputation of loserdom that the Orioles' franchise was suffering from at the time.

Tommy Hunter pitched 7 innings of 1-run ball to get the Orioles the W that they so desperately needed, the Orioles went on to win their next 4 games to push their record to 51-44, and they never dipped back below 3 games over .500 the rest of the way.

I'm not asserting that the 2015 Orioles had a good chance to wind up doing what the 2012 Orioles did (win 93 games, and claim a playoff berth) in June or July, and I did not think that they would myself. The circumstances surrounding the 2012 Orioles and the 2015 Orioles were different, and in hindsight, one could point out the reasons why the 2012 Orioles finished at 93-69, and the 2015 Orioles at 81-81. Rather, I am pointing out a recent example of "knowing" what would happen before it happened not turning out the way that most people (myself included) expected them to.

There are many other universes where the '12 Orioles won 66 games, and some where the 2015 Orioles win the World Series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many variables. Down a run in the 8th, wind blowing out gives you a 2 run homer for the win....the next day the wind is blowing in, and that exact same hit falls short and you lose.

The next week you are down in the 9th, but the closer on the other team has a sore arm from pitching in the series before you got to town, you take advantage of that and score two in the 9th to win. The next night, the same situation, the closer is healthy and you lose.

Before people started seriously studying baseball the assumption was that 162 or 154 games was more than enough time for everything to even out. So a pitcher who went 6-16 with a 2.98 ERA clearly was lacking in some quality that his teammate who went 14-8, 4.02 had. But we now know that a full year isn't anything like enough time for everything in baseball to even out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article quoting Tom Tango:

So even if God himself told you that the Orioles had a true talent of 90 wins you'd still have 6.4 wins of uncertainty in their actual record. Since God is never so forthcoming, you'll always have 8, 10, 12 or more wins of uncertainty about how good a team actually is.

I hope that Tom Tango didn't assert that that the variance that he couldn't explain with his available metrics was "luck", rather it is "unexplained variance, of which some is luck and some of which is a failure of the existing metrics to measure a relevant causal factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that Tom Tango didn't assert that that the variance that he couldn't explain with his available metrics was "luck", rather it is "unexplained variance, of which some is luck and some of which is a failure of the existing metrics to measure a relevant causal factor.

I think it's human nature to search for causal factors everywhere, even when there are none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...