Sanity check...

[El Gordo]

Yeah, real cute.

The reality is many people have pointed out the O's slightly better play since the start. Yet, here's RShack being Orange Colored Glasses hero again by taking it to a level to say that overall, since everything bad happened, since we lost valuable players, we're not doing too bad. It would take the players and/or the manager trying to steal your wives for you & RShack to get angry or "insane" towards the O's. When EVERYONE on the planet sees things for what they are, and you and your partner keep denying the obvious, maybe it's not "us" who need the sanity check.

Sorry, but this is complete gibberish and I'm not married.

[ChaosLex]

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.

Check and mate.

[The Rick]

I didn't say he was not a long term solution. I said I didn't know. They mean different things. I might know, if I had seen DT manage a team that was healthy, and had a decent #3 and #4 hitter and a bullpen. I would fire him if after he gets BRob, Pie and Gonzo back, they are healthy, but the team continues to lose. Or he loses the clubhouse, which ever came first.

Right, because his .425 winning % in nearly 250 games isn't enough for you to evaluate him.

[The Rick]

Sorry, but this is coplete gibberish and I'm not married.

Stage 1 - Denial.

[El Gordo]

You're making an awful lot of assumptions here. So it's impossible to blow a save unless you're hiding an injury?

Given their past record, would you expect JJ, and Gonzo, to blow 5 of 5 saves, or the presence of BRob in the lineup, to have no positive effect on the W/L record duriung an 18 game stretch? It is safe to assume, that in an 18 game stretch, a healthy BRob, Gonzo, andJ J would have resulted in a far better record thaN 2-16. Given the difficulty of the schedule and the SSS, their injuries had a signifoicant negative impact on the record. DT had nothing to do with that.

[The Rick]

Given their past record, would you expect JJ, and Gonzo, to blow 5 of 5 saves, or the presence of BRob in the lineup, to have no positive effect on the W/L record duriung an 18 game stretch? It is safe to assume, that in an 18 game stretch, a healthy BRob, Gonzo, andJ J would have resulted in a far better record thaN 2-16. Given the difficulty of the schedule and the SSS, their injuries had a signifoicant negative impact on the record. DT had nothing to do with that.

No it's not. I've actually had my eyes open when watching this team for the past several years. There's always an excuse and a way to rationalize failure if you look hard enough.

What does the difficulty of the schedule have to do with it? We're 3-11 in our last 14 against mediocre competition.

[now]

Just to shed some light on the question of underperformance for the offense...

Recently we have seen the preseason projections summarized. From that chart I took the low-ball estimates, to compare to current actual OPS:

Name	LowEst	ActualWigg'n	0.750 	0.934Scott	0.808	0.840Mark'is	0.843	0.839Wieters	0.773	0.674Izturis	0.620 	0.545Reimold	0.785	0.639Jones	0.773	0.656Lugo	0.669	0.496Atkins	0.715 	0.555Tatum	0.550 	0.472Tejada	0.750 	0.667

Regarding the offense, the facts are in plain sight: Wigginton is overperforming, Scott and Markakis are doing about what is expected, and all the rest - 8 of 11 players, including 6 regulars - are significantly underperforming. Remember the standard for comparison here is already the lowest of the half-dozen rating systems used to begin the season, and the underperformance for all of these guys is 75-150 points of OPS below that "worst case" scenario.

[Old#5fan]

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...

IThe 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.

I started to get what you were trying to point out but you lost me when you said disregard the 2-16 start and the team isn't underperforming. How in the HELL can you DO THAT? They were UNDERPERFORMING OUT THE YING YANG DURING the 2-16 start weren't they???? IN FACT that degree of :eek:UNDERPERFORMING to go 2-16 is why they are BURIED right now!

Why should we ignore or disegard the 2-16 UNDERPERFORMING BEYOND BELIEF start as if it should be a non-consideration?:scratchchinhmm:

I sure as hell don't get that aspect of your post. Otherwise, I sort of get it.

[Orioles West]

I'm not sure I completely agree with the original post, but some semblance of sanity is fine among all those who have understandably jumped ship.

As I've often said, it would have been interesting to see what DT could have done with an actual MLB roster. I don't know that he has ever had a true closer, but I liked how George Sherrill at least battled every time out.

I just don't think DT is going to be around to have a full, healthy team with enough talent to compete in the AL East during his tenure. He is the scapegoat, I get that. I imagine AM knows he needed to get DT more help and that is the only reason he still has the job today.

All that said, I don't think the folks with pitchforks and torches are going to do much better burning it all back to the ground again either. I know why the angry mob is there, I've nearly grabbed a virtual pitchfork myself a few times.

I don't know all the answers, but I still like the young foundation being built. I don't know if AM has any budget constraints for getting this team some help. I don't know if ownership is as devastated as they should be about the start of the season. But I do know, we're not as far away as some folks think from getting it turned around.

Without many answers, I do agree with Roch and Moose when they suggest SOMEthing needs to be done to spark the hope that club house needs to accomplish some positives THIS season. Be it a trade, or a new staff, new anything that gives the team some help, I'm all for it.

-Don

[PaulFolk]

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?

This, Shack, is where your theory completely falls apart.

You can't just take out the 2-16 start and say "It's done, it's in the past, so let's just start measuring from the time that streak was over." That makes no sense. You can't just randomly exclude an 18-game sample (which accounts for 35% of the games the O's have played this year). Why in the world would this not be tallied into the equation?

That's like asking, "Other than the 36 games the Orioles have lost this year, what have they really done wrong?"

[SteveA]

This, Shack, is where your theory completely falls apart.

You can't just take out the 2-16 start and say "It's done, it's in the past, so let's just start measuring from the time that streak was over." That makes no sense. You can't just randomly exclude an 18-game sample (which accounts for 35% of the games the O's have played this year). Why in the world would this not be tallied into the equation?

That's like asking, "Other than the 36 games the Orioles have lost this year, what have they really done wrong?"

Especially since we are 3-11 in our last 14. With 3 coming up vs the Yankees. So we may are in the midst of another 18 game stretch that will be somewhere between 3-15 and 7-11, and very likely closer to the first. So even if you do buy the ridiculous logic of throwing away the 2-16 start, we're in hte middle of a nother swoon that is nearly as bad.

[Frobby]

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.

That is the most tortured rationale I have ever seen. Am I supposed to be happy that the team has played .394 baseball after having one of the worst 18-game starts in baseball history?

[ChaosLex]

Am I allowed to disregard the next 9 games against the MFY's and Sux as well?

[RShack]

You can't just take out the 2-16 start and say "It's done, it's in the past, so let's just start measuring from the time that streak was over." That makes no sense. You can't just randomly exclude an 18-game sample (which accounts for 35% of the games the O's have played this year). Why in the world would this not be tallied into the equation?

It depends on what you want an "equation" for. If what you want is a basis for passing judgment on the team, or on the manager, or the GM, or on whatever, for the year as a whole, well, that's fine. But I'm just talking about what is reasonable to expect of the team as it actually is. And, once that horrible start happened, and was in the books, there is no way that a .500 team minus half of its good players could come up with a decent overall winning percentage by now. It was impossible.

The one and only point of looking at things after the amazingly-horrible start ended is to come up with a decent-sized post-trauma time window to just see what kind of team we actually have, and to see if all the claims about how it's way under-performing are really true. Over the last 30-some games, I don't think it is true. I don't see what about this is so hard to understand. The main reason people don't seem to wanna do that is that all they wanna do is build a case against DT, or AM, or whoever. Well, fine, you have your case. But so what? Once that 2-16 start happened, the team would have had to go on a .636 tear for 30-some to get to the kind of record people are demanding to see, and there's no way in hell that could've happened, I don't care who the dang manager was. It's reached the point around here where the only accetable topic of conversation is to amass evidence against DT. If you say you're curious about what the team can do, curious about what kind of performance level you think is reasonable to expect of it, nobody will let that happen. Instead, they bring it back to how they wanna fire the manager. So, maybe it really is firedavetrembley.com, because nothing else can be discussed.

[TonySoprano]

It is completely illogical to do the following:

[*]Look at the record for the last 33 games and just give a complete pass to the 2-16 start. There is just no rational explanation for that. The games are gone but they count.

[*]Look at the record over the past 33 games w/o looking at the opponents being played. If we were playing just great teams, .425 might be a fine record with the guys that are hurt. If we were playing poor teams, .425 might be an awful record.

Damn straight.