Szymborski: O’s are 20th in WAR lost to injuries

[Frobby]

Before you get too wrapped up in the Orioles having an inordinate number of injuries: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/river-ryan-jazz-chisholm-and-baseballs-most-injured-teams/

Szymborski ranks the O’s 20th in WAR lost to injuries, at 4.70 WAR.  By contrast, the Dodgers are at 13.96.  In our division, the Red Sox are at 9.04 and the Yankees at 6.50.   

Obviously you could argue with the methodology or argue that multiple injuries to the rotation are harder to fill than other types of injuries.  But bottom line, injuries are prevalent around the league and we shouldn’t feel too sorry for ourselves.  
 

[bpilktree67]

The Braves and Dodgers are definitely up there but the Red Sox.  He lists the Red Sox big losses with Whitlock and Giolito who had a 4.8 and 5.15 ERa last year.  Those are big loses.  Heck Kremer has been better then them the last few years and most the people on the board would be happy if he stepped in a pot hole and was injured.   Then he has Story listed as a big loss, the guy is a .226 hitter with .687 OPS for the Red Sox over last three years, Story from 2018 isn’t walking through that door.  Casas was a big loss I will give them that but no way they should be near the top.  

[ChuckS]

56 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Before you get too wrapped up in the Orioles having an inordinate number of injuries: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/river-ryan-jazz-chisholm-and-baseballs-most-injured-teams/

Szymborski ranks the O’s 20th in WAR lost to injuries, at 4.70 WAR.  By contrast, the Dodgers are at 13.96.  In our division, the Red Sox are at 9.04 and the Yankees at 6.50.   

Obviously you could argue with the methodology or argue that multiple injuries to the rotation are harder to fill than other types of injuries.  But bottom line, injuries are prevalent around the league and we shouldn’t feel too sorry for ourselves.  
 

I think you have to look at the methodology or none of it means anything. 

How do they figure the loss of four starters (not including the BP or position roster) only equals 4.70 WAR?  Bradish alone was worth 4.9 WAR in 2023 and looked on his way to being the same pitcher in limited outings this season. 

I don't buy that we are 19th.  Should be much higher on that list. 

Edited August 14 by ChuckS

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, ChuckS said:

I think you have to look at the methodology or none of it means anything. 

How do they figure the loss of four starters (not including the BP or position roster) only equals 4.70 WAR?  Bradish was worth 4.9 WAR in 2023 and looked on his way to being the same pitcher in limited outings this season. 

I don't buy that we are 19th.  Should be much higher on that list. 

Did you read the comments?

Quote

I did a quick total, and I think 4.70 fWAR isn’t all that far off

Westburg ~1.0
Bradish ~2.0
Rodriguez ~0.5
Wells ~0.5
Means ~0.5
Mateo ~0
Coulombe ~0.5

If Bautista is included, then yes, it’s a firm undershoot. But I don’t think he is?

 

[bpilktree67]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Did you read the comments?

 

Yeah it also says Bautista was not included.  Looking at it Lucas Giolito was worth more then Bradish, GRod, and Means combined.  Anything that tells you that you should throw it away.  So that tells me no need to spend anymore time looking at this article.  

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, bpilktree67 said:

Yeah it also says Bautista was not included.  Looking at it Lucas Giolito was worth more then Bradish, GRod, and Means combined.  Anything that tells you that you should throw it away.  So that tells me no need to spend anymore time looking at this article.  

I don't agree so it's wrong.

Great way to look at things.

 

 

[LookitsPuck]

I'm usually in the bWAR camp, but regardless, I think folks need to look at Dan's methodology:

• Calculated a full, healthy WAR projection in ZiPS at the time of their injury
• Pro-rated for the actual missed time so far

Let's look at time actually missed. Last game next to the name (with preseason ZiPS WAR projections):

• Westburg: 7/31 (2.8)
• Bradish: 6/14 (2.3)
• Rodriguez: 7/31 (2.2)
• Wells: 4/12 (1.3)
• Means: 5/22 (0.9)
• Mateo: 7/23 (1.5)
• Coulombe: 6/8 (0.1)

Dan didn't publish the actual ZiPS WAR projection for each player, but if we use the preseason rankings, I reckon ZiPS wasn't high on Coulombe, Means, or Wells. And, well, I can't fault them on Means or Wells because of: injury, use between BP/rotation, and stuff at times. That said, Wells getting hurt was more about damage to the bullpen and less to the rotation (to me, at least).

I think the main issue is that most of the guys injured that really impact the O's were hurt *recently*. Westy, Grayson, Mateo all last appeared in a game within a week or so of one another. Bradish and Coulombe went down 2 months ago. The interesting thing is up until the Coulombe injury, the O's mostly were a healthy bunch. 

So, I think the issue at play here is there isn't a lot to pro-rate here with guys that just got hurt. And ZiPS wasn't overly high on the guys that lost most of the time to begin with (Means, Wells, Coulombe), so it's no surprise the number is lower.

This really is about the quantity of injuries to O's starters and the fact that so many rookies or poorly performing veterans are trying to step in their shoes.

[Uli2001]

Injuries are up around MLB, which has watered down the league. There is no dominant team this year, and there may not be in most years going forward. Together with the dumb refusal to use technology, this may spell the beginning of a long decline for the sport (or, the continuation of the decline, I should say).

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Uli2001 said:

Injuries are up around MLB, which has watered down the league. There is no dominant team this year, and there may not be in most years going forward. Together with the dumb refusal to use technology, this may spell the beginning of a long decline for the sport (or, the continuation of the decline, I should say).

Quote

The MLB has seen its total league revenue grow steadily since the turn of the century. Despite the inevitable hit during the coronavirus pandemic, revenues exceeded 11 billion U.S. dollars for the first time in 2024.

Folks have been declaring MLB to be in decline for decades.

[LookitsPuck]

5 minutes ago, Uli2001 said:

Injuries are up around MLB, which has watered down the league. There is no dominant team this year, and there may not be in most years going forward. Together with the dumb refusal to use technology, this may spell the beginning of a long decline for the sport (or, the continuation of the decline, I should say).

Not accordingly to MLB which has an increase in attendance, a decrease in average age (which means younger folks like some of the improvements), and viewership is up. 

[Baltimorecuse]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Before you get too wrapped up in the Orioles having an inordinate number of injuries: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/river-ryan-jazz-chisholm-and-baseballs-most-injured-teams/

Szymborski ranks the O’s 20th in WAR lost to injuries, at 4.70 WAR.  By contrast, the Dodgers are at 13.96.  In our division, the Red Sox are at 9.04 and the Yankees at 6.50.   

Obviously you could argue with the methodology or argue that multiple injuries to the rotation are harder to fill than other types of injuries.  But bottom line, injuries are prevalent around the league and we shouldn’t feel too sorry for ourselves.  
 

In every professionaI sport I foIIow injuries aIways pIay an outsized roIe.  

[Uli2001]

3 hours ago, LookitsPuck said:

Not accordingly to MLB which has an increase in attendance, a decrease in average age (which means younger folks like some of the improvements), and viewership is up. 

If these data are self-reported, I would take it with a grain of salt. Baseball went from the national pastime to a distant third, and maybe fourth sport in popularity. And MLB has itself to blame. It took years and years to institute a pitch clock. And now it appears that it will be another decade before they institute electronic balls and strikes.

[survivedc]

8 minutes ago, Uli2001 said:

If these data are self-reported, I would take it with a grain of salt. Baseball went from the national pastime to a distant third, and maybe fourth sport in popularity. And MLB has itself to blame. It took years and years to institute a pitch clock. And now it appears that it will be another decade before they institute electronic balls and strikes.

You must not follow the news. 

[Grt 2BA FL Gator]

This is interesting and a bit sobering.

I’m not quite sure what I make of it.

I still think the narrative of Oriole pitching getting ambushed is legit. Perhaps every team has their own narrative is what this gets at? I do find 20th a bit hard to believe and undervalues Bradish’s production alone. Albeit maybe it tempered bradish’s production due to the preseason injury. 

[Moose Milligan]

6 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't agree so it's wrong.

Great way to look at things.

 

 

Isn’t that where we are nowadays?