Sanity check...

[RShack]

I realize that I'm swimming against the tide here, but I think it's about time for people to quit saying crazy things and get a grip. If I had a nickel for every time somebody said the team is under-performing so badly, I'd be in a lot better financial shape than I am these days. Now, it doesn't surprise me that a lot of people are saying that, simply because pretty much nothing surprises me anymore, especially on the internet. But one thing that does surprise me is how many people are saying that who are the kind of folks I would expect to know better.

"What!?!?", you might say, "Know better? Know better than what? Know better than this team is not even playing .300 ball? Are you nuts"?

No, I am not nuts. More to the point, I am not so freaked out that I've lost the ability to do simple arithmetic. And here's what some simple arithmetic tells me...

The team started out with folks expecting it to be something close to a .500 club. Maybe a tad better, maybe a few games worse, but somewhere in there. Then 2 things happened more-or-less together.

1. The team got off to a horrible 2-16 start.

2. The team lost 6 of the 12 guys we had reason to think would help the team take a step forward.

In combination, those two factoids mean that the team got itself in a hole (by which I mean the 2-16 start), and at about the same time it's ability to climb out of that hole was severely compromised (by which I mean that a .500 club minus half of the good players is not a .500 team anymore). I think everybody pretty much agrees with those 2 things: the team has been decimated and is in a big hole.

What people might disagree about is how the team should be doing ever since it got into that 2-16 hole and found itself with a decimated roster. And this is where the arithmetic comes in...

The first thing we need to do is get clear about what level of winning we think is reasonable to expect from a decimated version of a .500 team. Some people have said it should play .400 ball. Other people have said .440 ball. However, most people won't answer the question. I've asked that question again and again, and almost nobody will answer it. Instead, they just change the subject to how the team is under-performing, and how DT has gotta go. Now maybe he does and maybe he doesn't. I don't really know who the manager should be. But none of the manager-stuff answers the question. So, just for purposes of discussion, I'm gonna pick an answer. I'm gonna say .425. Now, if you don't think .425 is a good answer, then come up with your own answer, but for purposes here, .425 is what I'm gonna use. Personally, for a supposedly .500 team that lost all 3 of it's good BP guys, plus both it's LF'ers, plus it's 2B-man and lead-off guy, plus the closer who showed up and came to the semi-rescue when the main 3 BP guys went down, I think .425 is kinda optimistic. But I'll use it anyway...

The second thing you need to do is accept the fact that we do not have a Time Machine. We cannot go back and erase that horrible 2-16 start. It happened. It's in the books, and there is no way to undo it. So, that means we need to ask ourselves what we mean when we say this team is underperforming *after* its 2-16 start, and *after* it lost half of it's good players. This is the question nobody wants to face, they'd rather rip on DT for his BP decisions. But no matter how much people don't wanna answer the question, it's still *the* real question about the team's performance: What is reasonable to expect this team to deliver, in terms of winning percentage, after the 2-16 start and without all the players who aren't even playing?

Let's take .425 as the answer. Since the horrible start, which lasted for 18 games, the team has played a total of another 33 games for a total of 51. Since the horrible start, they've played almost twice as many games than they played during the horrible start. If the team played .425 ball over those 33 games, then it would have won 14 of those games and lost 19 of them. When you add that to the 2-16 start, that gives an overall record of 16-35. And, guess what? That's exactly 1 game worse that what the team record is. So, that means that the team has been playing 1 game worse than .425 ball ever since the horrible start. Now, maybe you think they should be playing better than .425 ball. God only knows why you would think that, but maybe you do. Maybe you think the team should be playing .440 ball. Well, if we use .440 instead of .425, guess how much difference that makes: another 1 measly game. That's right, if the team had been playing .440 ball ever since the terrible start, then its record would be 17-34 instead of 15-36. So, it's fallen 2 W's shy of playing .440 ball. BFD.

Now, perhaps that's not good enough for you. Perhaps you think the team should be playing .450 ball counting *all* the games, including the terrible start. Well, if that's what you think, then I think you're living in la-la land, and here's why. A .450 record over 51 games means a W-L record of 23-28 (which gives you .451). Do you know what it would take to have a .450 record overall *after* that horrible 2-16 start? It would require that the team had gone 21-12 over the last 33 games. That's playing .636 ball. That's a better clip than the overall winning percentage of *every* team in *both* leagues, except for just 1 team. So, if that's what you think, then you're expecting a team that was expected to be roughly a .500 team, and was then decimated by injuries and had a horrible start, to somehow go out and play better than every single MLB team in both leagues except for one. Which is nuts.

So, bottom line: if you wanna see this team for what it is, then you might as well measure things from *after* the crappy 2-16 start. Whatever the overall record is, just subtract 2 from the "W" column and 16 from the "L" column, and see what you get. Because if you don't do that, there is no way you're be able to see the team for what it is. Instead, you'll be insisting that everybody associated with running the team is lousy unless they somehow magically transform a decimated .500 ballclub into the 2nd-best team in MLB. A blind man could see that (assuming he can do arithmetic) and you should be able to see that too. The main reason the team's record is so bad is *not* because it has been way under-performing since that terrible start. It hasn't been. The reason it hasn't been is because, while a few guys have been under-performing, we've also had a few guys over-performing, and they pretty much cancel each other out (more or less). Taken as a whole, the team has not been way under-performing. The main reason that the record is so bad is the 2-16 start that happened over the first 18 days of the season... and by now that's more than a month ago, more than 30 games ago.

Now, I still don't know who the manager should or shouldn't be, but I do know that we should at least face facts, and the facts are that, over the 33 games since the horrible first 18 days of the season, if the O's had won just 4 of the games it lost, then it would have a winning record since the crappy start. Yes, that's right: since the crappy start, the team is just 4 wins shy of playing at *winning pace*, depite having lost 6 or 7 key people. If you think that's "seriously under-performing" for a decimated .500 team, I don't know what to tell you.

[DrungoHazewood]

Do you think that the Baltimore Orioles, as currently constructed, are worse than the 1988 Orioles? Do you think their true talent is roughly on par with the 1962 Mets or the 2003 Tigers?

Because that's the company they're keeping. It's Memorial Day, and they're playing .294 ball, on pace for 47 wins.

I certainly don't think their talent is in that range. Give me all of your horror stories about injuries and Trembley and company having to run a decimated team. But I'll counter that the 2010 Orioles have a whole bunch of players who're far better than replacement-level talent, yet they're playing like a replacement-level team.

This is a team with Millwood, Guthrie, Markakis, Tejada, Izturis, Wieters, Jones, and a fair number of other players who are or should be at least passable major league players. Certainly they should be better than a 100-loss team. But put them together, add in the manager, coaches, scouts, mix around... and you're left with a team on pace for 114 losses.

After you factor in all the injuries they're hugely under-performing.

[SteveA]

I realize that I'm swimming against the tide here, but I think it's about time for people to quit saying crazy things and get a grip. If I had a nickel for every time somebody said the team is under-performing so badly, I'd be in a lot better financial shape than I am these days. Now, it doesn't surprise me that a lot of people are saying that, simply because pretty much nothing surprises me anymore, especially on the internet. But one thing that does surprise me is how many people are saying that who are the kind of folks I would expect to know better.

"What!?!?", you might say, "Know better? Know better than what? Know better than this team is not even playing .300 ball? Are you nuts"?

No, I am not nuts. More to the point, I am not so freaked out that I've lost the ability to do simple arithmetic. And here's what some simple arithmetic tells me...

The team started out with folks expecting it to be something close to a .500 club. Maybe a tad better, maybe a few games worse, but somewhere in there. Then 2 things happened more-or-less together.

1. The team got off to a horrible 2-16 start.

2. The team lost 6 of the 12 guys we had reason to think would help the team take a step forward.

In combination, those two factoids mean that the team got itself in a hole (by which I mean the 2-16 start), and at about the same time it's ability to climb out of that hole was severely compromised (by which I mean that a .500 club minus half of the good players is not a .500 team anymore). I think everybody pretty much agrees with those 2 things: the team has been decimated and is in a big hole.

What people might disagree about is how the team should be doing ever since it got into that 2-16 hole and found itself with a decimated roster. And this is where the arithmetic comes in...

The first thing we need to do is get clear about what level of winning we think is reasonable to expect from a decimated version of a .500 team. Some people have said it should play .400 ball. Other people have said .440 ball. However, most people won't answer the question. I've asked that question again and again, and almost nobody will answer it. Instead, they just change the subject to how the team is under-performing, and how DT has gotta go. Now maybe he does and maybe he doesn't. I don't really know who the manager should be. But none of the manager-stuff answers the question. So, just for purposes of discussion, I'm gonna pick an answer. I'm gonna say .425. Now, if you don't think .425 is a good answer, then come up with your own answer, but for purposes here, .425 is what I'm gonna use. Personally, for a supposedly .500 team that lost all 3 of it's good BP guys, plus both it's LF'ers, plus it's 2B-man and lead-off guy, plus the closer who showed up and came to the semi-rescue when the main 3 BP guys went down, I think .425 is kinda optimistic. But I'll use it anyway...

The second thing you need to do is accept the fact that we do not have a Time Machine. We cannot go back and erase that horrible 2-16 start. It happened. It's in the books, and there is no way to undo it. So, that means we need to ask ourselves what we mean when we say this team is underperforming *after* its 2-16 start, and *after* it lost half of it's good players. This is the question nobody wants to face, they'd rather rip on DT for his BP decisions. But no matter how much people don't wanna answer the question, it's still *the* real question about the team's performance: What is reasonable to expect this team to deliver, in terms of winning percentage, after the 2-16 start and without all the players who aren't even playing?

Let's take .425 as the answer. Since the horrible start, which lasted for 18 games, the team has played a total of another 33 games for a total of 51. Since the horrible start, they've played almost twice as many games than they played during the horrible start. If the team played .425 ball over those 33 games, then it would have won 14 of those games and lost 19 of them. When you add that to the 2-16 start, that gives an overall record of 16-35. And, guess what? That's exactly 1 game worse that what the team record is. So, that means that the team has been playing 1 game worse than .425 ball ever since the horrible start. Now, maybe you think they should be playing better than .425 ball. God only knows why you would think that, but maybe you do. Maybe you think the team should be playing .440 ball. Well, if we use .440 instead of .425, guess how much difference that makes: another 1 measly game. That's right, if the team had been playing .440 ball ever since the terrible start, then its record would be 17-34 instead of 15-36. So, it's fallen 2 W's shy of playing .440 ball. BFD.

Now, perhaps that's not good enough for you. Perhaps you think the team should be playing .450 ball counting *all* the games, including the terrible start. Well, if that's what you think, then I think you're living in la-la land, and here's why. A .450 record over 51 games means a W-L record of 23-28 (which gives you .451). Do you know what it would take to have a .450 record overall *after* that horrible 2-16 start? It would require that the team had gone 21-12 over the last 33 games. That's playing .636 ball. That's a better clip than the overall winning percentage of *every* team in *both* leagues, except for just 1 team. So, if that's what you think, then you're expecting a team that was expected to be roughly a .500 team, and was then decimated by injuries and had a horrible start, to somehow go out and play better than every single MLB team in both leagues except for one. Which is nuts.

So, bottom line: if you wanna see this team for what it is, then you might as well measure things from *after* the crappy 2-16 start. Whatever the overall record is, just subtract 2 from the "W" column and 16 from the "L" column, and see what you get. Because if you don't do that, there is no way you're be able to see the team for what it is. Instead, you'll be insisting that everybody associated with running the team is lousy unless they somehow magically transform a decimated .500 ballclub into the 2nd-best team in MLB. A blind man could see that (assuming he can do arithmetic) and you should be able to see that too. The main reason the team's record is so bad is *not* because it has been way under-performing since that terrible start. It hasn't been. The reason it hasn't been is because, while a few guys have been under-performing, we've also had a few guys over-performing, and they pretty much cancel each other out (more or less). Taken as a whole, the team has not been way under-performing. The main reason that the record is so bad is the 2-16 start that happened over the first 18 days of the season... and by now that's more than a month ago, more than 30 games ago.

Now, I still don't know who the manager should or shouldn't be, but I do know that we should at least face facts, and the facts are that, over the 33 games since the horrible first 18 days of the season, if the O's had won just 4 of the games it lost, then it would have a winning record since the crappy start. Yes, that's right: since the crappy start, the team is just 4 wins shy of playing at *winning pace*, depite having lost 6 or 7 key people. If you think that's "seriously under-performing" for a decimated .500 team, I don't know what to tell you.

You talk about the 2-16 start as being in the past, we can't undo it, etc. OK, fine. But NOW we are in the middle of a 3-11 stretch (with 3 games at NY coming up). And THAT stretch doesn't include any games agaisnt New York, Tampa, or Minnesota (the top 3 teams in the AL).

You really think we should be 3-11 the past 14 games, and you find that completely acceptable?

[DrungoHazewood]

You talk about the 2-16 start as being in the past, we can't undo it, etc. OK, fine. But NOW we are in the middle of a 3-11 stretch (with 3 games at NY coming up). And THAT stretch doesn't include any games agaisnt New York, Tampa, or Minnesota (the top 3 teams in the AL).

You really think we should be 3-11 the past 14 games, and you find that completely acceptable?

I want to know why 2-16, or any other stretch of the season, shouldn't be included in the final grade.

[SilentJames]

After you factor in all the injuries they're hugely under-performing.

That is the thing. I can't think of any time when I saw so many players underperforming at the same time.

This is why DT needs to go now, its not that he has lost the clubhouse or anything, but I am sure the constant worry and questions are wearing on everyone at this point.

[eddie83]

That is the thing. I can't think of any time when I saw so many players underperforming at the same time.

This is why DT needs to go now, its not that he has lost the clubhouse or anything, but I am sure the constant worry and questions are wearing on everyone at this point.

We are 3-12 in our last 15 games that started the night Simon blew the game against Cleveland. Our start of 2-16 started with a tough loss on opening night and at 1-2 we lost the home opener going 1-14 from that point on. I see the same thing year after year, this team has no abilty to bounce back from a tough loss, they consistently go into a funk. They have looked just brutal some games and their lack of focus is alarming. They play with a defeated attitude in my mind. I have to think common sense would say alot of our hitting issues with RISP is mental. Talent aside this teams mental state is pathetic.

[El Gordo]

That is the thing. I can't think of any time when I saw so many players underperforming at the same time.

This is why DT needs to go now, its not that he has lost the clubhouse or anything, but I am sure the constant worry and questions are wearing on everyone at this point.

Right now I would say that Wieters, Jones , Atkins, and Reimold are underperforming. I wouldn't include Matusz in that category just yet. I need to see him struggle in a couple of starts more before I say that about him. Who else? I wouldn't consider 4 players to be that many. The problem is we have no back up for these guys, so we have to keep playing them. That's why we at 3-11 the past 2 weeks. If we has Pie Jones could be on the bench, and BRob, then Wiggi could be on 1B. That would help a good deal. Maybe get us to 5-9 over the last two weeks. Then if you had a bullpen of a healthy Gonzo, Koji, and JJ, who knows? Or maybe the mysterious DT virus would just bring them down as well.

[eddie83]

Right now I would say that Wieters, Jones , Atkins, and Reimold are underperforming. I wouldn't include Matusz in that category just yet. I need to see him struggle in a couple of starts more before I say that about him. Who else? I wouldn't consider 4 players to be that many. The problem is we have no back up for these guys, so we have to keep playing them. That's why we at 3-11 the past 2 weeks. If we has Pie Jones could be on the bench, and BRob, then Wiggi could be on 1B. That would help a good deal. Maybe get us to 5-9 over the last two weeks. Then if you had a bullpen of a healthy Gonzo, Koji, and JJ, who knows? Or maybe the mysterious DT virus would just bring them down as well.

How we play the game though, win or loss in unacceptable. The lack of clubhouse leadership and energy is alarming. We look like the game is over before it starts.

[El Gordo]

How we play the game though, win or loss in unacceptable. The lack of clubhouse leadership and energy is alarming. We look like the game is over before it starts.

You can keep your clubhouse leadership and energy stuff. I'll take a healthy BRob, Pie, Koji, Gonzo, Simon, JJ, and Reimold.

[eddie83]

You can keep your clubhouse leadership and energy stuff. I'll take a healthy BRob, Pie, Koji, Gonzo, Simon, JJ, and Reimold.

You are right but that shouldn't cause a team to be sloppy. These are competitive pro athlets, I don't feel like I am watching a team compete hard.

[RShack]

That is the thing. I can't think of any time when I saw so many players underperforming at the same time.

Of the guys who are actually on the team, Wieters, AJ, and Matusz are under-performing vs. what we expected. Two of them are in their very first season coming out of ST on a big league club. Meanwhile, Wiggy, Simon, and Ohman were all over-performing. Each one of those three were doing way better than there was any reason to expect. That's 3 of each, and they pretty much cancel each other out, more or less.

[The Rick]

I want to know why 2-16, or any other stretch of the season, shouldn't be included in the final grade.

Because it's what helps RShack rationalize and defend this team's putrid performance day in and day out. It's what helps him and his army of 2 or 3 people throw all of their fellow O's fans under the bus for not being sane. Swimming against the tide is being kind. We all know who is the one who needs a sanity check.

[Burg]

I want to know why 2-16, or any other stretch of the season, shouldn't be included in the final grade.

Because if you included it, then Rshack's feeble thesis goes out the window.

This team is in no way as horrible as its record, and for that change must be made and made immediately.

To simply state that the 2-16 start should somehow not be held against the manager is just ridiculous. DT has been on the bench since day one and his team is on pace to win less than 50 games. He must go.

[RShack]

I want to know why 2-16, or any other stretch of the season, shouldn't be included in the final grade.

Because if you included it, then Rshack's feeble thesis goes out the window.

This team is in no way as horrible as its record, and for that change must be made and made immediately.

To simply state that the 2-16 start should somehow not be held against the manager is just ridiculous. DT has been on the bench since day one and his team is on pace to win less than 50 games. He must go.

You can grade the manager however you want.

But there is a basic concept here that evidently is hard for some folks to grasp... namely that I'm not talking about the manager, I'm talking about what is reasonable to expect about the team's performance over the last 30-some games, and whether it has "seriously under-performed" since the first 18 days of the season and since it lost half it's good players.

Now, if you don't wanna talk about that, that's fine, there are lots of threads where you can bash the manager. I just wanna have one little sliver of space where there is room to talk about how the team has been doing after the horrible start. After all, this is the "OH", not "firedavetrembley.com", so there should be a little room for discussing that someplace around here, don't you think? Or is that not allowed?

[El Gordo]

So if DT is responsible for the underperformance of Wieters, Reimold, Matusz, and Jones, oh and Lugo and Atkins as well, why isn't he equally resposible for Wiggi's, Ohman's, CPatt's, Millwood's Guhrie's, Berken's, surprisingly good performance. And Nick's improvement in the BB/K dept. and Miggi's much better than expected glove at 3B? If we expect the new manager to magically improve the performance of the former wouldn't removing DT magically cause the latter to decline?