Even if you don't blame Trembley...

[Dr. FLK]

We went 19-36 through July and August when we had our full complement before we went 6-16. The excuses have to stop sometime.

Trembley simply is not a good manager and is not the right guy to take this team to the next level.

Just because he had "our full complement" doesn't mean he had a competent team. This incomplete roster could be taken to "the next level" and still stink.

[DrungoHazewood]

If you had seen his cleanup stats before September, you'd know that he does his best in the #2 spot and not in the #4 spot.

You may not believe that it matters where players bat in the lineup, but over the past two years, players like Millar and Markakis have proven that where they bat does matter IMO.

I know no such thing. Neither do you. You know that in a small sampling of at bats influenced by who knows what he didn't perform quite as well in the #4 spot as in some other spots. That is a long, long, long way from proof that he won't perform as well there in the future.

This is a situation where you can't have a really significant (statistically) sample except in very long careers, so you're essentially cherry picking bad data to desperately try and support your pre-formed conclusion that Trembley can't manage. That should have been blatantly obvious to anyone when you said "ohhh, oohhhh, look at how great he hit that one game he moved back to #2!!"

[Dr. FLK]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=290928130

Guess what Dave? You batted Markakis cleanup for just about the entire month until tonight. Did you even look at his stats in the cleanup role, or do you remember what happened when you put another player that wasn't a cleanup hitter there?

And look what happens when Markakis is returned to a higher spot: 1-2 with a 2B and 3 BBs.

Here's the problem Dave, you may think you are putting players in roles where you think they'll be successful, but you are wrong, and that's why it's time for your tenure as Orioles manager to end.

You don't seem to know your own player's strengths and weaknesses. And that's poor preparation on your part IMO.

Yeah. He definitely should have moved Nick to the 2-hole and put that good power hitter who's perfectly suited for cleanup in the 4-hole. You know...that guy we have...the one who hits all those HR and has that great SLUG%. For some reason, his name is slipping my mind.

Ty Wiggington? No that's not it. Oh, I got it! Luke Scott! No, not him either. I know...MelMo! What, it's not 2004? Nolan Reimold, that's it! Oh wait, he's on the DL? Now I got it for real! Adam Jones! He's an all-st...what? he's hurt too? It must be Michael Aubrey. I mean, he plays 1B...he's obviously a DH.

[geschinger]

Just because he had "our full complement" doesn't mean he had a competent team. This incomplete roster could be taken to "the next level" and still stink.

That's a fair statement but no matter how you want to measure it, even in the context of what he had to work with I don't think many would disagree that the team as a whole underachieved. When the full complement of players was available (even if not a competent team) I think it was fair to expect better than 19-36.

[JTrea81]

Yeah. He definitely should have moved Nick to the 2-hole and put that good power hitter who's perfectly suited for cleanup in the 4-hole. You know...that guy we have...the one who hits all those HR and has that great SLUG%. For some reason, his name is slipping my mind.

Ty Wiggington? No that's not it. Oh, I got it! Luke Scott! No, not him either. I know...MelMo! What, it's not 2004? Nolan Reimold, that's it! Oh wait, he's on the DL? Now I got it for real! Adam Jones! He's an all-st...what? he's hurt too? It must be Michael Aubrey. I mean, he plays 1B...he's obviously a DH.

He's put Luke there before, and did last night. And Luke should have been there all along this month IMO after Reimold and Jones went down.

Why make Nick's stats suffer? Hopefully Markakis will bat #3 or higher for the rest of the season to recover some of his #'s...

[Dr. FLK]

That's a fair statement but no matter how you want to measure it, even in the context of what he had to work with I don't think many would disagree that the team as a whole underachieved. When the full complement of players was available (even if not a competent team) I think it was fair to expect better than 19-36.

So we're going to fire a manager because he went 19-36 when we think he should have been able to go 22-33? IMO, it's hard to criticize the decision making ability of a manager when he doesn't have a full deck to play with. When you have no bench, no bullpen, and an incomplete rotation, your decision making will most likely be different than given a competent team. You have to take more chances on the bases (IMO). You have to use your sub-par bullpen often because the starters can't go deep into games. You can't rest your starting lineup much because you have nothing behind them.

Maybe we could give him a semi-competent roster for once and see what he does with it.

[Dr. FLK]

He's put Luke there before, and did last night. And Luke should have been there all along this month IMO after Reimold and Jones went down.

Why make Nick's stats suffer? Hopefully Markakis will bat #3 or higher for the rest of the season to recover some of his #'s...

You know that Luke has a 558 OPS as a cleanup hitter this year? That's even worse than Markakis. Going by your logic, Scott should bat nowhere but 6th (where he has a 985 OPS).

[PaulFolk]

You know that Luke has a 558 OPS as a cleanup hitter this year? That's even worse than Markakis. Going by your logic, Scott should bat nowhere but 6th (where he has a 985 OPS).

Yep. In fact, if you took each player's highest OPS by batting slot, the ideal lineup would look like this...

1. (nobody)

2. Markakis and Pie

3. Roberts

4. (nobody)

5. Wieters

6. Scott and Wigginton

7. Mora

8. Aubrey

9. Izturis

Small sample sizes be damned, this is the lineup the O's need to use for the rest of the year. They just need to petition MLB to let them bypass a leadoff and cleanup hitter, and occasionally to let them send two batters to the plate at the same time.

[JTrea81]

Yep. In fact, if you took each player's highest OPS by batting slot, the ideal lineup would look like this...

1. (nobody)

2. Markakis and Pie

3. Roberts

4. (nobody)

5. Wieters

6. Scott and Wigginton

7. Mora

8. Aubrey

9. Izturis

Small sample sizes be damned, this is the lineup the O's need to use for the rest of the year. They just need to petition MLB to let them bypass a leadoff and cleanup hitter, and occasionally to let them send two batters to the plate at the same time.

There's no point if you have that many injuries to take the players out of the roles they perform best at. If anything, by taking them out of those roles, you are weakening the entire offense, because you are weakening the slots that you are taking the players out of and putting them in slots where they won't perform as well.

Roberts and Markakis should be batting #1-2 regardless right now with Wieters at #3 and Scott at #4

It doesn't matter who is in the cleanup spot right now really but it does matter who's producing and who isn't. Markakis wasn't producing in the cleanup spot all month, so why continue to play him there and put scrubs in the #2 spot?

What exactly are you gaining?

[geschinger]

So we're going to fire a manager because he went 19-36 when we think he should have been able to go 22-33? IMO, it's hard to criticize the decision making ability of a manager when he doesn't have a full deck to play with. When you have no bench, no bullpen, and an incomplete rotation, your decision making will most likely be different than given a competent team. You have to take more chances on the bases (IMO). You have to use your sub-par bullpen often because the starters can't go deep into games. You can't rest your starting lineup much because you have nothing behind them.

Maybe we could give him a semi-competent roster for once and see what he does with it.

No, I do not want to fire the manager. This offseason we have to hire a manager... I don't know that I've seen enough to say that DT is the guy I'd like the Orioles to hire for 2010. He may be worth bringing back for another year if he's better than the other options.

I don't think he's earned automatically being the guy we hire w/o at least looking at what else is out there, do you?

[Dr. FLK]

There's no point if you have that many injuries to take the players out of the roles they perform best at. If anything, by taking them out of those roles, you are weakening the entire offense, because you are weakening the slots that you are taking the players out of and putting them in slots where they won't perform as well.

Roberts and Markakis should be batting #1-2 regardless right now with Wieters at #3 and Scott at #4

Then why are you taking Brob out of the 3-hole and Luke out of the 6-hole?

[Dr. FLK]

No, I do not want to fire the manager. This offseason we have to hire a manager... I don't know that I've seen enough to say that DT is the guy I'd like the Orioles to hire for 2010. He may be worth bringing back for another year if he's better than the other options.

I don't think he's earned automatically being the guy we hire w/o at least looking at what else is out there, do you?

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure. I think he's earned another year. I don't think I'd ignore all other options. But, I also don't think this organization is in a good spot to go with a new guy. We're in the midst of development, let's go with some continuity for now. Once the roster starts to shape up, maybe it'll become evident that we need a new guy. For now, we have bigger fish to fry and I don't think DT is anywhere near one of the biggest problems.

[DrungoHazewood]

Why make Nick's stats suffer? Hopefully Markakis will bat #3 or higher for the rest of the season to recover some of his #'s...

You really just don't get it, do you? Assuming that a player's numbers will get markedly better batting in a different lineup spot over one week because of some slightly better splits is fantastically absurd. It's almost like you're the stat guy from the 1985 game of the week telecast who just discovered somebody actually keeps these splits, and you're completely blown away by the fact that Wade Boggs is hitting .367 on the third Tuesday of every month.

You might as well just throw statistical analysis out the window make decisions by the seat of your pants if you're going to blatantly misuse the stats. I'd suggest reading this.

[RShack]

As everyone here should certainly be well aware I'm very accepting of any and all types of stats that have some kind of logical and systematic foundation. I'm not as accepting of stuff like the 17-player theory or using ERA as a proxy for team talent.

I realize that your comment about a 17-player theory was just an attempt at a gratuitous insult. However, I am curious about one thing...

As you well know, it's a 15-Player Team theory, not a 17-Player one... (although a 17-Player one might work too, I haven't tried it recently... when I was first thinking about this ages ago, 15 was right, not 17, and my hunch is that more than 8-slots can still be filled by spare parts, but let's not worry about whether the game has changed enough that the number of key slots has increased). My question is whether you accept or reject the notion that looking at the top 15 roles (or 17, if you prefer) can provide a good short-hand way of characterizing which teams are of WS caliber. In my experience it is and, based on the very few times I've compared methods, it actually does a superior job of picking WS teams than PECOTA's stat-formalism has done.

I know you are predisposed to like the appearance of science that reliance on the newer stats provides. And, as you know, while I respect the good work of people who develop them, I also think that relying on those doesn't meet the standards of science, just the pursuit of science, and currently provides a false appearance in which numerical exactitude impersonates value correctness. However, my 15-Player Team theory does not ignore stats, it just places them as input to human judgment about how many key roster slots you're happy with. I don't see how reliance on new stats gets rid of that. For example, you can use all the stats you want, but we nonetheless have legit debates about roster slots anyway, e.g., can a good-glove SS justify a weak bat, does a big bat at one position permit a weak bat at another, etc. You can look at stats all day long, but you're still left with human judgment calls about these things. Otherwise, you could have a PC full of stats be the GM, and nobody with any sense believes you can do that. It's not that I'm dissing stats, I'm not, but I am saying that their proper role is as input to human judgment calls.

So, given that the 15-Player Team theory implicitly relies on stats as input to human judgment, what about it don't you respect? The fact that it focuses on 15 key roster spots and say the others can be filled by spare parts? Or the fact that I've not prescribed a formal method for exactly how you're supposed to use stats in evaluating how happy you are with the 15 key slots? Or both?

Also, what is your preferred method of evaluating which teams are of WS caliber? And what's the track record of that method at being correct?

[RShack]

As everyone here should certainly be well aware I'm very accepting of any and all types of stats that have some kind of logical and systematic foundation. I'm not as accepting of stuff like the 17-player theory or using ERA as a proxy for team talent.

I realize that your comment about a 17-player theory was just an attempt at a gratuitous insult. However, I am curious about one thing...

As you well know, it's a 15-Player Team theory, not a 17-Player one... (although a 17-Player one might work too, I haven't tried it recently... when I was first thinking about this ages ago, 15 was right, not 17, and my hunch is that more than 8-slots can still be filled by spare parts, but let's not worry about whether the game has changed enough that the number of key slots has increased). My question is whether you accept or reject the notion that looking at the top 15 roles (or 17, if you prefer) can provide a good short-hand way of characterizing which teams are of WS caliber. In my experience it is and, based on the very few times I've compared methods, it actually does a superior job of picking WS teams than PECOTA's stat-formalism has done.

I know you are predisposed to like the appearance of science that reliance on the newer stats provides. And, as you know, while I respect the good work of people who develop them, I also think that relying on those doesn't meet the standards of science, just the pursuit of science, and currently provides a false appearance in which numerical exactitude impersonates value correctness. However, my 15-Player Team theory does not ignore stats, it just places them as input to human judgment about how many key roster slots you're happy with. I don't see how reliance on new stats gets rid of that. For example, you can use all the stats you want, but we nonetheless have legit debates about roster slots anyway, e.g., can a good-glove SS justify a weak bat, does a big bat at one position permit a weak bat at another, etc. You can look at stats all day long, but you're still left with human judgment calls about these things. Otherwise, you could have a PC full of stats be the GM, and nobody with any sense believes you can do that. It's not that I'm dissing stats, I'm not, but I am saying that their proper role is as input to human judgment calls.

So, given that the 15-Player Team theory implicitly relies on stats as input to human judgment, what about it don't you respect? The fact that it focuses on 15 key roster spots and say the others can be filled by spare parts? Or the fact that I've not prescribed a formal method for exactly how you're supposed to use stats in evaluating how happy you are with the 15 key slots? Or both?

Also, what is your preferred method of evaluating which teams are of WS caliber? And what's the track record of that method at being correct?

No response?