One key to Orioles success

[ArtVanDelay]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Because it sounds better!

I prefer 0 out RBI.

[Baltimorecuse]

25 minutes ago, ArtVanDelay said:

Why are 2-out RBI more important than other RBI?

You need a base hit or a bases loaded walk.  It's not more important.  It's just more difficult.  

This snark doesn't answer my question at all.  

Edited August 18, 2023 by Baltimorecuse

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Baltimorecuse said:

You need a base hit or a bases loaded walk.  It's not more important.  It's just more difficult.  

But what about the sac flies?  Roy is in shambles!

Also you get an RBI for a bases loaded HBP.

[yark14]

7 hours ago, brucewayne said:

Timely hitting, situational baseball and a lockdown back end of the bullpen. How are the Os doing it? There is the answer. 

Things tend to work out better and more consistently when a team doesn't have any major weaknesses.  Simple.

[Baltimorecuse]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

But what about the sac flies?  Roy is in shambles!

Also you get an RBI for a bases loaded HBP.

Sac flies don't work with two outs.  Walks and HBP are basically the same thing.  Your snark is making you look foolish.  Baseball has variables that mathematical models can't describe because first you have to identify the variable.  It has nothing to do with the accuracy and power of math, but statistics are dependent on having the right variables and weight put on those variables.  

What I object to is when people try to end every argument with a stat.  Some of those stats are really off the wall.  

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

Sac flies don't work with two outs.  Walks and HBP are basically the same thing.  Your snark is making you look foolish.  Baseball has variables that mathematical models can't describe because first you have to identify the variable.  It has nothing to do with the accuracy and power of math, but statistics are dependent on having the right variables and weight put on those variables.  

What I object to is when people try to end every argument with a stat.  Some of those stats are really off the wall.  

None of them are off the wall. Your ignorance to understanding them or just plain not caring doesn’t make them off the wall. It just means you don’t find them relevant, which doesn’t actually mean anything.

Where stats can become an issue is how you use them and how you interpret them.

You seemed to be acting like the pythag record stuff is dumb. That’s fine. Winning is what matters, not a theoretical record based off of stats.

The problem with what you are saying is that you are choosing to ignore why it’s important to discuss it.

It’s very simplistic. Score as much as possible and give up as little as possible. There is nothing predictive or even usually sustainable in 1 run w/l record year to year. We saw this with the Os in 2012 vs 2013.

However, when you score a lot of runs and you give up few runs, that is usually a damn good indication of good you are.

The mark of a good team isn’t that they win a lot of games 2-1…it’s that they win a lot of games 7-1. 
 

The Braves are the best team in the sport by a wide margin. You can take away Olson’s league leading 43 homers and they would still lead the majors in homers.  They may end up out scoring opponents by over 275 runs at the pace they are going. That’s a great team.

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

Sac flies don't work with two outs.  Walks and HBP are basically the same thing.  Your snark is making you look foolish.  Baseball has variables that mathematical models can't describe because first you have to identify the variable.  It has nothing to do with the accuracy and power of math, but statistics are dependent on having the right variables and weight put on those variables.  

What I object to is when people try to end every argument with a stat.  Some of those stats are really off the wall.  

If you had a sense of humor you could have figured out the sac fly reference was a joke.

As for the HBP, I figured you would appreciate the factual correction.

Part of the strength of this community is how we help educate each other.

 

[Baltimorecuse]

15 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

None of them are off the wall. Your ignorance to understanding them or just plain not caring doesn’t make them off the wall. It just means you don’t find them relevant, which doesn’t actually mean anything.

Where stats can become an issue is how you use them and how you interpret them.

You seemed to be acting like the pythag record stuff is dumb. That’s fine. Winning is what matters, not a theoretical record based off of stats.

The problem with what you are saying is that you are choosing to ignore why it’s important to discuss it.

It’s very simplistic. Score as much as possible and give up as little as possible. There is nothing predictive or even usually sustainable in 1 run w/l record year to year. We saw this with the Os in 2012 vs 2013.

However, when you score a lot of runs and you give up few runs, that is usually a damn good indication of good you are.

The mark of a good team isn’t that they win a lot of games 2-1…it’s that they win a lot of games 7-1. 
 

The Braves are the best team in the sport by a wide margin. You can take away Olson’s league leading 43 homers and they would still lead the majors in homers.  They may end up out scoring opponents by over 275 runs at the pace they are going. That’s a great team.

None of them are off the wall. Your ignorance to understanding them or just plain not caring doesn’t make them off the wall. It just means you don’t find them relevant, which doesn’t actually mean anything.

Nice try.  Show me the stat that explains the O's record.  No one needs overblown formulas to explain the Braves, Dodgers, Rangers and Rays.  Good old ERA and slugging does that.  At the opposite extreme the same numbers explain the A's, Rockies, and Royals.

You can't find any stat to show why our record is up there with theirs.  

 

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Baltimorecuse

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Baltimorecuse said:

None of them are off the wall. Your ignorance to understanding them or just plain not caring doesn’t make them off the wall. It just means you don’t find them relevant, which doesn’t actually mean anything.

Nice try.  Show me the stat that explains the O's record.  No one needs overblown formulas to explain the Braves, Dodgers, Rangers and Rays.  Good old ERA and slugging does that.  At the opposite extreme the same numbers explain the A's, Rockies, and Royals.

You can't find any stat to show why our record is up there with theirs.  

 

 

Once again no one on the "Stat side" is even suggesting that any formula can magically explain things.

That's purely a fabrication of the Luddite side.

[Sports Guy]

10 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

None of them are off the wall. Your ignorance to understanding them or just plain not caring doesn’t make them off the wall. It just means you don’t find them relevant, which doesn’t actually mean anything.

Nice try.  Show me the stat that explains the O's record.  No one needs overblown formulas to explain the Braves, Dodgers, Rangers and Rays.  Good old ERA and slugging does that.  At the opposite extreme the same numbers explain the A's, Rockies, and Royals.

You can't find any stat to show why our record is up there with theirs.  

 

 

And?

[Baltimorecuse]

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If you had a sense of humor you could have figured out the sac fly reference was a joke.

As for the HBP, I figured you would appreciate the factual correction.

Part of the strength of this community is how we help educate each other.

 

Since you started attacking me the first time I posted here I guess I'm overly defensive.  If I said the sun came up this morning you'd explain it's not coming up but rather the Earth's rotation.  I worship Newton and Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.  I despise formulas that don't work.  It has nothing to do with my love for science and math.  

However, if I've misjudged a brotherly interest as snark, I apologize.  I don't really see a reason for pissin' contests on sports boards.  

 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Baltimorecuse said:

Since you started attacking me the first time I posted here I guess I'm overly defensive.  If I said the sun came up this morning you'd explain it's not coming up but rather the Earth's rotation.  I worship Newton and Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.  I despise formulas that don't work.  It has nothing to do with my love for science and math.  

However, if I've misjudged a brotherly interest as snark, I apologize.  I don't really see a reason for pissin' contests on sports boards.  

 

I don't "attack posters" I "attack" posts.

 

 

[Baltimorecuse]

1 hour ago, yark14 said:

Things tend to work out better and more consistently when a team doesn't have any major weaknesses.  Simple.

But that either has to show up in the stats or the stats are missing something.  I don't see why that is so hard to understand.  We have a very average bullpen as Frobby pointed out earlier. Our pitching is close to league average.  Our OPS is nothing special.  

 

 

[Baltimorecuse]

24 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Once again no one on the "Stat side" is even suggesting that any formula can magically explain things.

That's purely a fabrication of the Luddite side.

The Luddites weren't against progress although that has become the meme.  They were losing their whole way of life to weaving machines.  They didn't have unemployment insurance in England.  

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Baltimorecuse said:

The Luddites weren't against progress although that has become the meme.  They were losing their whole way of life to weaving machines.  They didn't have unemployment insurance in England.  

I wasn't calling you a literal Luddite, I was using it in the modern sense.