Posnanski Orioles Preview

[Sanfran327]

14 hours ago, Frobby said:

Highly unlikely, but you never really know for sure.   That’s why they play the games.   

When you look back on 2012, it really boils down to pitching.   They allowed 155 fewer runs than the year before, and the bullpen was really good at protecting leads.    The team outperformed its Pythagorean record by a lot, and the biggest reason for that was a truly stellar bullpen performance.   

Last year’s pitching was below average but not awful (allowed 4.90 runs/game compared to 5.31 for that 2011 team).    The bullpen last year was much better than the 2011 bullpen.   So, I don’t think we can pick up as many games as in 2012 purely through pitching improvements, even if a lot of things went right.    We’d need to see significant improvement on offense as well.   I could kind of dream on it if Mancini made a full comeback, Hays and Santander stayed healthy all year, and Mountcastle approximated his 2020 performance over a full season.   

I’ll be watching, one way or the other.    This is the most interesting team they’ve had since things fell apart, in terms of individual players to watch.    


 

I agree with your "ifs", which are not outlandish. Mancini, Hays, Santander, and Moutcastle are potentially 4 potent bats. Add Rutchman to that and you upgrade everything.

I think a bigger difference between 2012 and 2021 is the rest of the division. We took advantage of down years from the rest of the division in 2012 and 2014. I don't think we have that luxury right now.

[BohKnowsBmore]

42 minutes ago, Sanfran327 said:

I agree with your "ifs", which are not outlandish. Mancini, Hays, Santander, and Moutcastle are potentially 4 potent bats. Add Rutchman to that and you upgrade everything.

I think a bigger difference between 2012 and 2021 is the rest of the division. We took advantage of down years from the rest of the division in 2012 and 2014. I don't think we have that luxury right now.

It's a little tiresome that when we are successful it's because of a "down year" in the division. The AL East has always been celebrated as a tough division, even when the O's and Rays were both picking in the top-5/10 range annually.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

It's a little tiresome that when we are successful it's because of a "down year" in the division. The AL East has always been celebrated as a tough division, even when the O's and Rays were both picking in the top-5/10 range annually.

It’s tiresome to point out a fact?  The Yankees and Red Sox were clearly down in those years.

Now, the Os being better had something to do with that but they clearly benefitted from a time where those organizations weren’t up to their normal standards.

[Sanfran327]

Just now, BohKnowsBmore said:

It's a little tiresome that when we are successful it's because of a "down year" in the division. The AL East has always been celebrated as a tough division, even when the O's and Rays were both picking in the top-5/10 range annually.

It's not a dig, just a fact. Boston, usually a juggernaut, was reloading and won 69 games in 2012. Toronto just 73. But we did fend off a 90-win Rays team. New York won the division with 95 wins to our 93.

In 2014, the rest of the division was just mediocre (in large part because we pounded them). We cruised to a 96-win division title, while the Yankees, Jays, Rays, and Sox won 84, 83, 77, and 71 games, respectively. 

[Sanfran327]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

It’s tiresome to point out a fact?  The Yankees and Red Sox were clearly down in those years.

Now, the Os being better had something to do with that but they clearly benefitted from a time where those organizations weren’t up to their normal standards.

I think we benefited moreso in 2012 than 2014. The 2012 team was good, but the 2014 team was legitimately great. I'll never get over that ALCS.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Sanfran327 said:

I think a bigger difference between 2012 and 2021 is the rest of the division. We took advantage of down years from the rest of the division in 2012 and 2014. I don't think we have that luxury right now.

Certainly true of 2014.    

[BohKnowsBmore]

41 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

It’s tiresome to point out a fact?  The Yankees and Red Sox were clearly down in those years.

Now, the Os being better had something to do with that but they clearly benefitted from a time where those organizations weren’t up to their normal standards.

Ok, but then why isn't the reverse true? For all of the 2000s, why weren't the Yankees and Red Sox successes qualified with the fact that they got to beat up on the lowly Rays and Orioles?

[Sports Guy]

Just now, BohKnowsBmore said:

Ok, but then why isn't the reverse true? For all of the 2000s, why weren't the Yankees and Red Sox successes qualified with the fact that they got to beat up on the lowly Rays and Orioles?

Well, they were.  Obviously those teams being terrible lead to a lot of wins for them.

 

[BohKnowsBmore]

41 minutes ago, Sanfran327 said:

It's not a dig, just a fact. Boston, usually a juggernaut, was reloading and won 69 games in 2012. Toronto just 73. But we did fend off a 90-win Rays team. New York won the division with 95 wins to our 93.

In 2014, the rest of the division was just mediocre (in large part because we pounded them). We cruised to a 96-win division title, while the Yankees, Jays, Rays, and Sox won 84, 83, 77, and 71 games, respectively. 

Three teams winning 90+ games sounds like a pretty good, competitive division.

No division met that criteria in 2019. In 2018, only one did, the AL East. No divisions met that criteria in 2016 or 2017. In 2015, only one did, the NL Central.

[BohKnowsBmore]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, they were.  Obviously those teams being terrible lead to a lot of wins for them.

 

That's simply not true (that people qualified those teams' success over that period), though, if we're saying that 2012 and 2014 were uniquely down years for the division that allowed the Orioles to be successful. Wins/losses are a zero-sum game. As one team wins more, other teams must collectively lose less. If you anchor to the notion that all is right with the world when the Yankees and Red Sox are winning, then sure, you can make the argument that the O's are only winning because those teams are worse.

I'm not suggesting that the Red Sox being down didn't help us generally, but I think that's something that's a bit of a general condition for being the team that leads your division. Obviously a different quality of franchise, but instructive I think... Some people argue that the Patriots were so good for so long because the AFC East was a bad division, evidenced by the fact that the Pats often didn't have any other playoff teams in their division. Well, they have a hand in creating that condition (they were conistently taking the AFCE playoff spot).

[Frobby]

40 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

That's simply not true (that people qualified those teams' success over that period), though, if we're saying that 2012 and 2014 were uniquely down years for the division that allowed the Orioles to be successful. Wins/losses are a zero-sum game. As one team wins more, other teams must collectively lose less. If you anchor to the notion that all is right with the world when the Yankees and Red Sox are winning, then sure, you can make the argument that the O's are only winning because those teams are worse.

I'm not suggesting that the Red Sox being down didn't help us generally, but I think that's something that's a bit of a general condition for being the team that leads your division. Obviously a different quality of franchise, but instructive I think... Some people argue that the Patriots were so good for so long because the AFC East was a bad division, evidenced by the fact that the Pats often didn't have any other playoff teams in their division. Well, they have a hand in creating that condition (they were conistently taking the AFCE playoff spot).

Look, this is easy enough.  Total wins in the AL East, by year:

2010 431

2011 428

2012 420

2013 433

2014 411

2015 419

2016 423

2017 415

2018 418

2019 404

2014 was undoubtedly a weak year for the AL East.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Look, this is easy enough.  Total wins in the AL East, by year:

2010 431

2011 428

2012 420

2013 433

2014 411

2015 419

2016 423

2017 415

2018 418

2019 404

2014 was undoubtedly a weak year for the AL East.

Here’s how many games the other AL East teams won each year when NOT playing the Orioles:

2010 315

2011 313

2012 296

2013 308

2014 286

2015 299

2016 298

2017 301

2018 318

2019 298

Note: 288 wins would be .500 against all teams other than Baltimore.   So, 2014 was the only year in ten that the rest of the AL East was under .500 when not playing the O’s.    

[BohKnowsBmore]

21 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Here’s how many games the other AL East teams won each year when NOT playing the Orioles:

2010 315

2011 313

2012 296

2013 308

2014 286

2015 299

2016 298

2017 301

2018 318

2019 298

Note: 288 wins would be .500 against all teams other than Baltimore.   So, 2014 was the only year in ten that the rest of the AL East was under .500 when not playing the O’s.    

Fair points, but that's still a fairly tight band or results.

Years like 2015 (.519), 2016 (.517), and 2019 (.517) are almost statistically indistinguishable from 2012 (.514), for example. The bigger reason for the O's making the postseason in 2012 over those years was clearly that they were a better team than they were in other years.

And even 2014, which you make a good point that the AL East was worse than it was against non-Orioles than in any other year of the decade, the O's won going away, so it wasn't like they squeaked in based on a bad division. The division could have been decently stronger and they still would have made it in all likelihood. It doesn't quite work this way, because stronger teams would make O's wins hard to come by, but if we gave every team in the AL East 6 extra wins against non-Orioles (and non-AL East teams), that would raise the 2014 win % above to .538 and the O's still would have had a six-game cushion.

EDIT - this isn't about whether the other teams were better or worse in a given year, rather, it's about what we should take from that. Your numbers above are inarguable, but not surprising. Teams ebb and flow. Your division opponents will be bad at times, as will your team. Conversely, they and you will be good at times. A worse opponent raises your own odds of being in the postseason. I'm sure you could flip the second set of numbers and make a similar arguments about other teams in our division, that their opponents were worse in years they were particularly good.

Ultimately my only point is that there is no reason to add a parenthetical every time we talk about the O's having success in 2012 and 2014. They didn't go from 69 to 93 wins in 2012 just because the Red Sox were worse.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

That's simply not true (that people qualified those teams' success over that period), though, if we're saying that 2012 and 2014 were uniquely down years for the division that allowed the Orioles to be successful. Wins/losses are a zero-sum game. As one team wins more, other teams must collectively lose less. If you anchor to the notion that all is right with the world when the Yankees and Red Sox are winning, then sure, you can make the argument that the O's are only winning because those teams are worse.

I'm not suggesting that the Red Sox being down didn't help us generally, but I think that's something that's a bit of a general condition for being the team that leads your division. Obviously a different quality of franchise, but instructive I think... Some people argue that the Patriots were so good for so long because the AFC East was a bad division, evidenced by the fact that the Pats often didn't have any other playoff teams in their division. Well, they have a hand in creating that condition (they were conistently taking the AFCE playoff spot).

Well first of all, the media circles jerks about the Yanks and Red Sox, so there’s that.

Secondly, whether people say it or not is irrelevant.  The bottom line is when you have 2 of the worst franchises in the sport in your division, it’s easy to rack up wins.

And, it is mentioned more for the Os because they had some lucky/flukish teams in that 2012-2016 stretch, so when your team has been terrible for years and the team you currently have is good but not great, pointing out what the competition around you is doing is fine to do.  There is nothing wrong with saying the Os took advantage of that time period.  

[SteveA]

3 hours ago, Sanfran327 said:

It's not a dig, just a fact. Boston, usually a juggernaut, was reloading and won 69 games in 2012. Toronto just 73. But we did fend off a 90-win Rays team. New York won the division with 95 wins to our 93.

In 2014, the rest of the division was just mediocre (in large part because we pounded them). We cruised to a 96-win division title, while the Yankees, Jays, Rays, and Sox won 84, 83, 77, and 71 games, respectively. 

Boston had a losing record 3 of the 4 years from 2012 to 2015.   The idea that they were a powerhouse team that had one bad year is wrong.  The outlier year in that 4 year stretch was their championship in 2013.

And I don't think they are all that great this year.   And I think that the starting rotations in New York and Tampa have significant question marks.

If we had a good team, I would look around the division and say no one really scares me at all.  Toronto, NYY, and Tampa will all be good but I don't see them as being in the class of the Dodgers or Padres or A's, and not head and shoulders above a bunch of other teams in MLB (Atlanta, Minnesota, St Louis, White Sox, etc).

The AL East is not some monster division.  It's a good division but the constant talk of how dominant it is needs to be toned down.   It DOES have two (maybe 3 with Toronto?) teams that can outspend everyone else, so it will always be somewhat tough.   But it's not the beast that conventional wisdom seems to make it out to be.