Posnanski Orioles Preview

[DrungoHazewood]

11 minutes ago, SteveA said:

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.

Boston is a team with nearly unlimited revenues.  They will sometimes have down periods, but are never more than a year or two from a potential 100-win season.  You have to assume that some of their down years are more-or-less gaming the system in seasons where they don't think they'll be great by retrenching and getting good draft position and saving resources.  Like I think they threw last year to save money and get a higher pick than the Orioles.

That's why I think the draft order should be based primarily on market size, not record.  The concept that they're helping to level the playing field by giving the #4 overall pick to a team with $550M in annual revenues is comical.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Boston is a team with nearly unlimited revenues.  They will sometimes have down periods, but are never more than a year or two from a potential 100-win season.  You have to assume that some of their down years are more-or-less gaming the system in seasons where they don't think they'll be great by retrenching and getting good draft position and saving resources.  Like I think they threw last year to save money and get a higher pick than the Orioles.

That's why I think the draft order should be based primarily on market size, not record.  The concept that they're helping to level the playing field by giving the #4 overall pick to a team with $550M in annual revenues is comical.

They are limited by what ownership will spend and I've been hearing that they are currently not willing to spend like they have in the past.

[DrungoHazewood]

31 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

They are limited by what ownership will spend and I've been hearing that they are currently not willing to spend like they have in the past.

That makes me think of this recent "Hey Bill" question on Bill James site about the effect of salary restrictions/caps, remembering that he was very recently in the employ of these Red Sox:

" I think you underestimate the effects of money in different forms.  Paying $20 million salaries to attract star players is a fools game.   That's what the Angels do; you wind up attracting Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton.  The real effect of money is the money you spend in other ways."

I don't know that the Sox are limiting what they spend in any way but on current player salaries. 

[Just Regular]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

They are limited by what ownership will spend and I've been hearing that they are currently not willing to spend like they have in the past.

Astros, Cubs and Red Sox all have those recent rings (couldn't say if they had Best 5-Year Record in their League), and I think those give cover to re-do those bottom lines on the rolling 7-10 year balance sheet.   We have to beat $300M of Yankees three years out, but the Red Sox really can't pitch and Xander's shortstop clock strikes 30 in the not too distant future.   It'll be tougher if Devers (and Vlad) stay trim.

The 2023-2024 Yankees do already have almost $100M of it committed to Stanton, Hicks, LeMahieu, and then Cole much more productively.   We'll see if Judge gets a Springer-ish AAV, or Voit keeps getting tendered.

I think I think a healed up Chris Sale is more of a trade acquisition possibility than someone tormenting us in 2023.

[Frobby]

5 hours ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

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.

No, they didn’t do that “just because” the Red Sox were worse. But the original point (not made by me) is that it’s easier for a team to make a big leap in a year where the other teams in the division have become relatively weak than it is to do when they’re relatively strong.    That’s all.

And just a technical point about how close those division winning percentages are.   Don’t forget that 76 of 162 games are against divisional opponents and the wining percentage in those games is always going to be .500.    If you look only at the 86 games outside the division, the year to year winning percentage differences are greater.   Roughly speaking, each extra win is equal to .003.