How the overachieving O's keep trumping the projections

[mobico]

Interesting read!

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18740637/how-baltimore-orioles-keep-trumping-projections

[CheeryO]

Nice article

[brianod]

"PECOTA has never thought the Orioles were particularly good. In a sense, it hasn't been that far off. The offense has been what it expected. The starters have been what it expected. The bullpen has been very good, but bullpens are inherently unpredictable, and it's probably prudent to avoid projecting any bullpen will carry a mediocre team to the playoffs.

In another sense, though -- the sense that matters a great deal more -- the Orioles have obviously been a very good team, because they've won. They didn't get lucky; they performed better in the closest moments. They might not have been projectable, but they weren't flukes."

My take:

The obvious flaw in statistical analysis is that it doesn't take into account the human element. The same analysis that predicts the O's finishing with 70+ wins also says that great managers only mean 2-4 games difference per year. Obviously, both are wrong.  The constant in all this is Buck.  It is short sighted to sum up his in game moves and determine his value. His in game moves are probably slightly better than average and sometimes, he drives me nuts with obvious mistakes. His value comes from his leadership abilities. It is no small feat to manage the huge egos of a major league team over a nine month time frame. The players on this team enjoy playing with each other.  They players enjoy playing for Buck and often put the team ahead of their personal interests. In today's baseball, that isn't unusual, that is extraordinary. So, while Buck drives me nuts at times, I think what we have witnessed over the last five years is an extraordinary job of managing people.

[Spy Fox]

38 minutes ago, brianod said:

My take:

The obvious flaw in statistical analysis is that it doesn't take into account the human element. The same analysis that predicts the O's finishing with 70+ wins also says that great managers only mean 2-4 games difference per year. Obviously, both are wrong.  The constant in all this is Buck.  It is short sighted to sum up his in game moves and determine his value. His in game moves are probably slightly better than average and sometimes, he drives me nuts with obvious mistakes. His value comes from his leadership abilities. It is no small feat to manage the huge egos of a major league team over a nine month time frame. The players on this team enjoy playing with each other.  They players enjoy playing for Buck and often put the team ahead of their personal interests. In today's baseball, that isn't unusual, that is extraordinary. So, while Buck drives me nuts at times, I think what we have witnessed over the last five years is an extraordinary job of managing people.

I'm not sure it's obvious that Buck is worth more than 2-4 games a year. I think Buck is a very good manager, probably one of the best, and that he deserves a lot of the credit for the team's success over the past few years. And he might be the single person who deserves the most credit, because I agree that team culture matters. But the game is so complex that it would take a ton of research to parse out exactly how much each manager adds to a team--which is why it's one of those questions the stats have trouble with. For every good decision that Buck makes, in-game or otherwise, you have to remember that other managers might have done the same thing a majority of the time. 

[FuManchu]

This logic might be flawed but FWIW...

Since 2012 I calculated out the Orioles record going into the 6th inning under the following situations as:

1. Ahead: 298-61 (83.0%)
2. Tied: 64-45 (58.7%)
3. Trailing: 81-260 (23.8%)

I calculated out the overall AL record going into the 6th over the same period as:

1. Ahead: 4,237-890 (82.6%)
2. Tied: 893-885 (50.2%)
3. Trailing 925-4,150 (18.2%)

Applying the AL average wining percentage to the Orioles totals would yield the following number of wins

1. Ahead: 296.7 (359*.826)
2. Tied: 54.7 (109*.502) 
3. Behind: 62.2 (341*.182)

So the Orioles outperformed the AL average by the following:

1. Ahead: 1.3 wins (298-296.7)
2. Tied:  9.3 wins (64-54.7)
3. Trailing: 18.2 wins (81-62.2)

[Frobby]

Good stuff!   I'd be interested in that same analysis after the 6th and 7th innings, too.   I feel like the 6th inning has usually been a weak spot for us because our starters don't go deep in games and that's the one spot where you might see a weaker member of our bullpen even in a tight game.  

[FlipTheBird]

Fun little read from Sam Miller at ESPN.com. Takes a look at how the O's have routinely defied projection systems.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18740637/how-baltimore-orioles-keep-trumping-projections

A highlight from the end that I think is very fair:

"In another sense, though -- the sense that matters a great deal more -- the Orioles have obviously been a very good team, because they've won. They didn't get lucky; they performed better in the closest moments. They might not have been projectable, but they weren't flukes."

[Ridgway22]

On 2/28/2017 at 7:12 AM, FuManchu said:

This logic might be flawed but FWIW...

Since 2012 I calculated out the Orioles record going into the 6th inning under the following situations as:

1. Ahead: 298-61 (83.0%)
2. Tied: 64-45 (58.7%)
3. Trailing: 81-260 (23.8%)

I calculated out the overall AL record going into the 6th over the same period as:

1. Ahead: 4,237-890 (82.6%)
2. Tied: 893-885 (50.2%)
3. Trailing 925-4,150 (18.2%)

Applying the AL average wining percentage to the Orioles totals would yield the following number of wins

1. Ahead: 296.7 (359*.826)
2. Tied: 54.7 (109*.502) 
3. Behind: 62.2 (341*.182)

So the Orioles outperformed the AL average by the following:

1. Ahead: 1.3 wins (298-296.7)
2. Tied:  9.3 wins (64-54.7)
3. Trailing: 18.2 wins (81-62.2)

This is an awesome post. Thanks. Brings life to the data.