Would you trade Santander, Mountcastle and one of Stowers or Norby for George Kirby and maybe a decent AAA pitcher?
-
Who's Online 36 Members, 0 Anonymous, 280 Guests (See full list)
- Cheetos
- Paul in Virginia
- Getz
- Frobby
- SemperFi
- tsqd
- Sports Guy
- e16bball
- GBO'sFan
- Osornot
- terpoh
- 86this
- Pushmonkey
- DrinkinWithFermi
- Big Mac
- winston24
- Triple Crown
- oh-wee-ohs
- MurphDogg
- Hallas
- Safelykept
- ChipTait
- Wish
- RavensNOsGuy
- Morgan423
- Can_of_corn
- badmamajama
- oriole
- truespectra
- thegardner
- ShoelesJoe
- FlaO'sFan
- casadeozo
- 2022Beach
- emmett16
- DocJJ
Orioles News and Information |
|
Daily Organizational Boxscores |
Orioles Prospect Information |
Statistics |
-
Posts
-
It’s kind of amazing, but Bowman has thrown 207.2 innings in his career, while Perez has thrown 207.1. Perez has allowed fewer hits (183/188), fewer runs (101/105), fewer homers (15/18) and has struck out more batters (191/167). The only place where Bowman has the advantage is walks (108/75). Perez is five years younger. I prefer Perez every day and twice on Sunday. -
I don't want to hijack this thread but for those that are interested: Underestimating the Fog (Bill James)-or the original title-The Problem of Distinguishing Between Transient and Persistent Phenomena When Dealing with Variables from a Statistically Unstable Platform. https://sabr.org/research/article/underestimating-the-fog/ Excerpt: " Dick Cramer, in the clutch-hitting study, did the same thing, and catcher-ERA studies, which look for consistency in catcher’s impact on ERAs, do the same thing; they compare one comparison offshoot with a second comparison offshoot. It is a comparison of two comparison offshoots. When you do that, the result embodies not just all of the randomness in two original statistics, but all of the randomness in four original statistics. Unless you have extremely stable “original elements” — original statistics stabilized by hundreds of thousands of trials — then the result is, for all practical purposes, just random numbers. We ran astray because we have been assuming that random data is proof of nothingness, when in reality random data proves nothing. In essence, starting with Dick Cramer’s article, Cramer argued, “I did an analysis which should have identified clutch hitters, if clutch hitting exists. I got random data; therefore, clutch hitters don’t exist.” Cramer was using random data as proof of nothingness — and I did the same, many times, and many other people also have done the same. But I’m saying now that’s not right; random data proves nothing — and it cannot be used as proof of nothingness. Why? Because whenever you do a study, if your study completely fails, you will get random data. Therefore, when you get random data, all you may conclude is that your study has failed. Cramer’s study may have failed to identify clutch hitters because clutch hitters don’t exist — as he concluded — or it may have failed to identify clutch hitters because the method doesn’t work — as I now believe. We don’t know. All we can say is that the study has failed. Dealing now with the nine conclusions listed near the start of the article, which were: -Clutch hitters don’t exist. -Pitchers have no ability to win, which is distinct from an ability to prevent runs. -Winning or losing close games is luck. -Catchers have little or no impact on a pitcher’s ERA. -A pitcher has little or no control over his hits/innings ratio, other than by striking batters out and allowing home runs. -Base running has no persistent impact on a team’s runs scored, other than by base stealing. -Batters have no individual tendency to hit well or hit poorly against left-handed pitching. -Batters don’t get hot and cold. -One hitter does not “protect” another in a hitting lineup. On [1), it is my opinion that this should be regarded as an open question. While Dick Cramer is a friend of mine, and I have tremendous respect for his work, I am convinced that, even if clutch-hitting skill did exist and was extremely important, this analysis would still reach the conclusion that it did, simply because it is not possible to detect consistency in clutch hitting by the use of this method." He goes on to question the other conclusions. It's a very interesting read. Here is Birnbaum's response: https://sabr.org/journal/article/response-to-mapping-the-fog/ -
Yeah, this is sort of what I see. He’s not a true relief ace or anything, but he’s pretty good for the most part. Not a bum. He’s given up 24 ERs this season. Almost half of those (11) came in a one-week span from 7/29 to 8/6, which also encompassed the trade. He had a 29.45 ERA over those 6 appearances. 2 of his 3 HRs allowed are during that week, as are (oddly enough) both of his SBs allowed. Outside of that one horrific week, it’s a 2.68 ERA for the season. Sure, everybody looks better if you take out their worst week — but that’s pretty good performance over the other 95% of the season. -
Just drilling down on our schedule vs the Yankees’ the rest of the way. Series by series, BAL then NYY: TBR 3, at CHC 3 at BOS 3, KCR 3 at DET 3, BOS 4 SFG 3, at SEA 3 DET 3, at OAK 3 at NYY 3, BAL 3 at MIN 3, PIT 3 It’s interesting that whenever the O’s are at home, the Yankees are on the road and vice versa. The Yankees have the marginally easier schedule and 3 fewer road games. Looks to me like the Yankees are likely to miss Paul Skenes when they play the final series of the season.
-
-
-
The 5 hits allowed are what cost him. 2 points deducted for each hit.
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.