Pretty amazing off season: O's reload

[waroriole]

9 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Why?   It was a good offseason, if the objective was to give us a reasonable shot at a wildcard spot.    In the poll I ran, most people gave it a B — even webbrick2010!

I wouldn’t call a reasonable shot at the wild card a goal we should strive towards. Make a decision about the future of the franchise. 

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, waroriole said:

I wouldn’t call a reasonable shot at the wild card a goal we should strive towards. Make a decision about the future of the franchise. 

So if there’s a great team in your division, you should just give up?     

We play in the same division as the Yankees and the Red Sox.   Pretty often, one or the other of them is great.     We are not going to tank every time that’s true.     

 

[Luke-OH]

13 hours ago, wildcard said:

Cobb and Cashner had 20 more quality starts than Miley and Ubaldo last year in the same number of starts.   

Cobb and Cashner 57 starts, 33 QS

Miley and Ubaldo 57 starts, 13 QS

Huge difference.

I’d be curious if QS have any predictive value.

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

I’d be curious if QS have any predictive value.

Predictive value as to what?

[Luke-OH]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

Predictive value as to what?

Future QS.

[waroriole]

18 minutes ago, Frobby said:

So if there’s a great team in your division, you should just give up?     

We play in the same division as the Yankees and the Red Sox.   Pretty often, one or the other of them is great.     We are not going to tank every time that’s true.     

 

Who said anything about tanking. I’m saying make some trades for the long term, get prospects for the guys we won’t resign, and have a plan that doesn’t involve flying by the seat of your pants. Yes, we were luck that Cobb fell to us. But, where would we be if the market didn’t tank?

[Jagwar]

11 hours ago, Enjoy Terror said:

Team	W	QS	W/QS
Dodgers	104	68	1.53
Astros	101	67	1.51
Marlins	77	54	1.43
Twins	85	62	1.37
Brewers	86	65	1.32
Angels	80	61	1.31
Rockies	87	68	1.28
Reds	68	54	1.26
Mariners	78	62	1.26
Royals	80	64	1.25
Orioles	75	61	1.23
Indians	102	84	1.21
Yankees	91	75	1.21
Cubs	92	77	1.19
Diamondbacks	93	82	1.13
Mets	70	62	1.13
Blue Jays	76	69	1.10
Rays	80	73	1.10
Pirates	75	69	1.09
White Sox	67	63	1.06
Padres	71	67	1.06
Red Sox	93	88	1.06
Cardinals	83	79	1.05
Athletics	75	73	1.03
Phillies	66	65	1.02
Rangers	78	79	0.99
Nationals	97	99	0.98
Braves	72	77	0.94
Tigers	64	72	0.89
Giants	64	82	0.78
	2430	2121	1.15

Last year, on average, one quality start meant 1.15 wins. The data is pretty noisy though. Even teams like the Red Sox and Nats with great offenses were pretty bad at converting quality starts to wins. Nats had a terrible bullpen.

Would there be any sort of double counting in this? For example, you could have two opposing pitchers register a quality start, but only one team gets the win.

[connja]

13 hours ago, 21xxxv said:

Watching Jimenez or Wiley on any team other than the Baltimore Orioles has elevated our chances of realizing a successful season

Neither of them will be pitching.

[Enjoy Terror]

53 minutes ago, Jagwar said:

Would there be any sort of double counting in this? For example, you could have two opposing pitchers register a quality start, but only one team gets the win.

Don’t think so. If we’re just trying to measure how many quality starts it takes to get a win, you’d have to include quality starts that don’t get you a win too.

But again, the methodology is completely flawed. There doesn’t seem to be any direct correlation between wins and quality starts. Just look at the disparity between the Giants and Dodgers.

[Ohfan67]

21 minutes ago, Enjoy Terror said:

Don’t think so. If we’re just trying to measure how many quality starts it takes to get a win, you’d have to include quality starts that don’t get you a win too.

But again, the methodology is completely flawed. There doesn’t seem to be any direct correlation between wins and quality starts. Just look at the disparity between the Giants and Dodgers.

There is. Somewhere in this thread or another recent one someone posted the correlation stats. The correlation is not 1, but it's statistically significant. If I remember correctly it's something like a team is 15 - 30% more likely to win a quality start versus a non-quality start. I don't remember the exact correlation coefficient, but the analysis was recently posted. Maybe you meant strong correlation when you wrote "direct correlation"? It's not a super strong correlation, but they are correlated. 

[weams]

6 hours ago, Ohfan67 said:

There is. Somewhere in this thread or another recent one someone posted the correlation stats. The correlation is not 1, but it's statistically significant. If I remember correctly it's something like a team is 15 - 30% more likely to win a quality start versus a non-quality start. I don't remember the exact correlation coefficient, but the analysis was recently posted. Maybe you meant strong correlation when you wrote "direct correlation"? It's not a super strong correlation, but they are correlated. 

Thanks for this. 

[weams]

George Vecsey in A Year in the Sun (1989) with, "There is no sports event like Opening Day in baseball, the sense of beating back the forces of darkness and the National Football League"

[El Gordo]

On 3/28/2018 at 9:26 AM, Aglets said:

You don't win every game that you get a Quality Start.   I guess the exact percentage might be interesting to research.

Last 7 years team has averaged 14 more W's than QS.

[Frobby]

On 3/28/2018 at 9:26 AM, Aglets said:

You don't win every game that you get a Quality Start.   I guess the exact percentage might be interesting to research.

It’s been researched.    Someone posted that teams have won 68% of their quality starts over the last several years.     And the Orioles did exactly that last year (42/62=67.7%).     

[MagicBird]

On 3/28/2018 at 9:23 AM, Tx Oriole said:

Maybe some want to be optimistic about the team. Have hopes and dreams of the O's in the World Series. 

Maybe so.