Ben Clemens explains why Fangraphs rates the O’s playoff odds so low

[Frobby]

10 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

 

Now if Fangraphs had to give out betting odds on their low percentage, I bet we'd see a little more realistic odds for a team a few games out. This reeks of them trying to cover their butts for a system that is really unable to accurately access surprise breakout teams like the 2022 Orioles.

I don’t see them covering their butts at all.  They’re just explaining how they get to their numbers.  You are right of course that projections based purely on stats and past performance can’t account for things like mastering a new pitch, etc.  that’s why we have hope that Fangraphs’ projections will be too pessimistic.  But we’ve certainly seen plenty of past cases where a player seemed to have a breakout for a few months or even a full season and then subsequent months or seasons showed it was just one of those fluky things that happen in baseball.   So, we will see.  That’s what makes it fun.  

Edited September 1, 2022 by Frobby

[RZNJ]

28 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't get that at all.

They are saying we reran the numbers using the most current data and this is what out data tells us is likely to happen.

And then they state that they might be wrong.

I think anyone having fault in their statement is being overly defensive.

If this was the Tigers you'd probably be nodding along with their explanation.

I'm not predicting the pitching will continue to be good.  It could fall apart but it hasn't so far.   They admit that the pitchers on the Orioles staff don't have a good history and any system wouldn't have predicted anything like what they've done this year.   What's to disagree with there?

They are betting/predicting that those same pitchers are more likely to regress to closer to their prior performance than to continue at the current performance.   Again, what's to argue with there?    That's certainly possible.    But to me, it's the same as saying we were wrong so far but we believe in the system more than we do in the actual performance to date. (which is fine)

I didn't say I had a fault with their system.   It's based on numbers, mathematics, statistcal probabilites.    So far those have all been wrong.   We'll see if they continue to be wrong.   That's one of the great things about baseball.    It's hard to predict.

 

[yark14]

Fangraphs can f off.

[Hank Scorpio]

8 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Not to be too flip about this, but everyone thinks their favorite team is the one who won't regress to career numbers.  And most people are wrong.

But any projection system can't just ignore past performance or it's going to be wrong more than it's right.  A typical system will do like Marcels, which is something like (3 x this year) + (2 x last year) + (the year prior) all divided by six.  Although they probably tweak that because this year is really only 5/6ths of this year so they'd do well to not rate it quite as highly.

I think that this year, it's been really easy to get sucked into "Hey, we've got the magic formula" due to turnarounds in guys like Watkins, Voth, etc... hell, you could argue Lyles to a degree. 

The player development system up and down the line has improved to a jaw dropping degree IMO. Just goes to show you how prehistoric the previous regimes were. One could argue different players, etc... but guys like Voth, Akin, Watkins, Perez are all pitching well above their heads for the better part of the year. So to me that begs the question: Are they pitching well above their heads or have they been altered into beasts? 

Likely the truth is mostly the former than the latter, but I do think there is some validity to the latter as well. 

[baltimoreO's22]

17 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

That's misrepresenting what happened.

How do you figure?

[interloper]

Frankly, (and this is in no way a slight to Fangraphs and their excellent work) I just don't care. 

I'm having too much fun to worry about this, all models like this are pretty broken, and therefore the conversation about it just feels like empty calories. 

[JR Oriole]

I find it interesting that the Fangraphs models have had us winning between 80 - 82 games for essentially the last month.  And they currently have us finishing 14-19, which would be the 6th worst projected record in the majors to close the season.  So let's say we go 9-9 in our next 18 games and we are at 77-70.  Do they have us finishing 5-10?  Or does the model finally adjust to project the elusive 83rd win?  It must.  

I should look back to see the Fangraphs projections of the 2018 Orioles throughout the season, given their model's emphasis on historical stats. There is no way in hell based on the actual talent level of that team and the historical performances of the individuals on that team that they should have ever come close to the record they ended with.  

[Daddy-O's]

I was glad to see FG's explanation, I had just assumed they weighted Buster Olney's opinion higher than the other models. 

[Hallas]

1 hour ago, JR Oriole said:

I find it interesting that the Fangraphs models have had us winning between 80 - 82 games for essentially the last month.  And they currently have us finishing 14-19, which would be the 6th worst projected record in the majors to close the season.  So let's say we go 9-9 in our next 18 games and we are at 77-70.  Do they have us finishing 5-10?  Or does the model finally adjust to project the elusive 83rd win?  It must.  

I should look back to see the Fangraphs projections of the 2018 Orioles throughout the season, given their model's emphasis on historical stats. There is no way in hell based on the actual talent level of that team and the historical performances of the individuals on that team that they should have ever come close to the record they ended with.  

This late in the year you're going to see the delta on wins rapidly increase.  The 2012 Orioles were in a similar situation except they had about 10 more wins and that's pretty much what happened.  By September the projections had a playoff spot locked in for the O's on the strength of their past wins.

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, yark14 said:

Fangraphs can f off.

This is where I'm at.  Every time I go there, I just can't stand it.  I dunno if it's the colors they use on their page but I can't stand Fangraphs.  I understand the work that they do, I understand they're nerds, that's all good and well.  But there's something about the writing there that rubs me the wrong way.  So yes, they can F off indeed.

1 hour ago, interloper said:

Frankly, (and this is in no way a slight to Fangraphs and their excellent work) I just don't care. 

I'm having too much fun to worry about this, all models like this are pretty broken, and therefore the conversation about it just feels like empty calories. 

I'm with this, too.  It's a lot of fun and I couldn't give a Frenchman's **** about what Fangraphs predictions are for the final month of the season.  I mean, I get it, they're in the prediction business because that gets fans riled up and gives us something to chew on but whatever.  I side with @Tony-OHon this, they can talk all about their projections all they want, and that's fine.  But they can't take that pesky human element into account, the thing that drives all of the stat nerds crazy, the variable that they'll never be able to account for.  That's what makes this whole thing fun.  

[Sports Guy]

Rutschman with an appearance:

 

[Fiver6565]

My only issue with the projection explanation is this part of Clemens' quote:

 

but I think systems are right to be skeptical that an entire unit can continue to show a heretofore unseen level of performance.”

 

Doesn't the fact that the entire unit is showing this progression, mean something?  This isn't 1 or 2 players playing over their heads, its basically the entire staff  (or the majority of it).  That should provide some sort of legitimacy to the way they are playing.

 

End of the day, I'm like Han Solo in this instance anyway - never tell me the odds!

[byrdz]

They had the Astros 2015 playoff odds at 13.5% and they made the playoffs.

I can only deduce from this that the Orioles will win the WS in two more years. 

[wildcard]

I think Fangraph's explains pretty well that their projection are based on "That’s because we bake in pre-2022 performance in making projections, "

If that is their method its not hard to see why they think the O's odds of making the playoffs are very low.   They haven't been in the playoffs in years.   And in fact the O's odds should not be as high as the teams in front of them in the standings.

I think the disconnect is with how low Fangraphs odds are for the O's.   The O's have a better chance than Fangraphs is projected based on where they are in the standings and how they are playing.  And as Tony says the development and coaching methods being employed.

Will the O's make the playoffs?  We don't know but the odds seem much higher than the single digits that Fangraphs projects.

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by wildcard

[crowmst3k!]

2 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

I've seen pitchers with new and improved pitches, better use of their repertoires, and he ability to attack hitters in the most conducive way of having success. 

Not to mention the vastly more pitcher-friendly Camden Yards.