Sanity check...

[El Gordo]

Shack,

Paul doesn't even like me but he and I are typing identical posts on this subject. I think you're a little off the reservation on this one man.

First let me state that I think DT is a terrible manager and should be fired yesterday. Lets just get that out of the way. I have a simple unrelated question, perhaps you can answer. If you took the current 25 man roster and projected it out for 162 games, what would be the pythagorean W/L % of that team?

[Frobby]

Shack, true or false:

- Jones is underperforming expectations

- Wieters is underperforming expectations

- Reimold was underperforming expectations before being sent down

- Matusz is underperforming expectations

- Bergesen is underperforming expectations

Now name me one younger player who is exceeding expectations. You can't, because there aren't any. Maybe you can argue that Markakis and Hernandez are meeting expectations, but they certainly aren't exceeding them.

I don't buy your "6 out of 12" analysis. We've lost two offensive players. One, Roberts, is very important and we knew if he went down that would have a big impact. The other, Pie, should have been about the most easy player to lose on the team, being one of five outfielders, and one who was expected to be more of a backup than a starter. There is no way the loss of these two players should have the team underperforming by more than a run a game, as it is.

I haven't even mentioned the underperforming veterans, too many to mention.

Sorry, there is no way I expected the team to be this bad, Roberts missing or not. I don't know if the manager is at fault. Here is what I know -- I am sick of watching this team not only lose, but get worse and worse. Since 2004:

2004 - 78 wins

2005 - 74

2006 - 70

2007 - 69

2008 - 68

2009 - 64

2010 - heading for something epically bad.

At what point do you hold someone accountable?

[Beach Bum]

My sanity check is that the best hope I have for the Orioles is to be competitive. I don’t mean this year or next year but in any given year. Given the economics of the AL East I would like to see the Orioles be competitive most years and maybe be in the playoffs 30% of the time. I would gladly replace the owner, GM and all of the coaches if I thought it would make an impact on the 2010 season. However, I think everyone would agree that 2010 is going to be a very long season no matter what happens with Dave Trembley. My hope for 2010-2011 is that the young players get a clue and we find a way to pick up a couple of hitters at the trade deadline or in the off-season.

[SteveA]

2004 - 78 wins

2005 - 74

2006 - 70

2007 - 69

2008 - 68

2009 - 64

2010 - heading for something epically bad.

At what point do you hold someone accountable?

Has any team in history actually gotten worse 6 consecutive years?

If it has happened, I'll bet the first year they were over .500. It's hard to even comprehend that a LOSING team could get worse each of the next 6 years.

[enchiridion]

It's hard to even comprehend that a LOSING team could get worse each of the next 6 years.

We're amazing!

[RShack]

Shack, true or false:

- Jones is underperforming expectations

- Wieters is underperforming expectations

- Reimold was underperforming expectations before being sent down

- Matusz is underperforming expectations

- Bergesen is underperforming expectations

Now name me one younger player who is exceeding expectations. You can't, because there aren't any. Maybe you can argue that Markakis and Hernandez are meeting expectations, but they certainly aren't exceeding them.

I don't buy your "6 out of 12" analysis.

Well, that's fine. I imagine you read my analysis and didn't like it. In that thread, I responded to questions and comments about it, and by the end, various folks decided it had substantive merit. Even SG thought so, and you know how often he agrees with me. But apparently you did not agree with it. It's fine with me if you don't like it. I think it has merit, and you apparently don't. Well, there's lots of things we agree about but not everything. That's how it goes. I don't think the fact that you don't like it means it's wrong. I don't think it's wrong, I think there's a whole lot that's right about it. But I'm certainly not demanding that you agree with me about that.

Now, regardless of whether you like it or not, I still believe (not just to argue about, but I actually believe) that we lost 6 guys we were counting on to help the team take a step forward: our best 3 BP guys, plus BRob, plus both Felix and Nolan. If you wanna blame Nolan's "issues" on the team's management, that's up to you. To me it might as well be a DL-stay, in the sense that he is not available to the team. (I will leave the sewer rumors to others.) I don't think we've seen the real him, and I don't think that is due to the coaches or the GM. If you think it's due to the coaches or the GM, well, you can think whatever you want.

I agree, and have said several times, that we are getting less than we expected from Wieters, AJ, and Matusz. Personally, I expected Matusz and Bergy to come out fine in the end, but I did not expect both of them to have smooth sailing. I expected Matusz to have smoother sailing than he has, which is why I say he's under-performed my expectations. But as for Bergy, I think he's had some bumps in the road and is by now looking a lot better than he did. I still think that both Matusz and Bergy will be fine in the end. So, again, I think Matt, AJ, and Matusz have under-performed... so far. Their failure to contribute as much as we hoped have been offset by the over-performance of Wiggy, Simon, and Ohman. I'm not saying it's an exact trade-off, but I think it's pretty much a trade-off, more or less. I also do not expect that to last. So, if we see improved performance from Wieters, AJ, and/or Matusz, I expect that improvement in contribution to the team to be offset by the loss of Simon and by both Wiggy and Ohman likely returning to Planet Earth.

Sorry, there is no way I expected the team to be this bad, Roberts missing or not. I don't know if the manager is at fault. Here is what I know -- I am sick of watching this team not only lose, but get worse and worse. Since 2004:

2004 - 78 wins

2005 - 74

2006 - 70

2007 - 69

2008 - 68

2009 - 64

2010 - heading for something epically bad.

Sorry, there is no way I expected the team to have the record it has either. Nobody did. Nobody with any sense, anyway. What has happened is from bizarro world. People pretty much admitted that during the horrible start. People who have simple answers for it now were, at the time, simply amazed. But since the bizzare start ended the team has been playing .400 ball, and that's when opinion solidified among folks who participate here that the thing should be pinned on DT. I don't know who to pin it on, perhaps because that's not what I'm curious about. I just don't like the fact that it's no longer OK to be curious about anything, instead you have to hoist up the "Fire DT" banner or else you're considered the enemy. I think that's nuts. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's what I think. I think the team will improve when it's not 6 good players in the hole. Before that happens, it won't improve for long, no matter who you fire. There might be a little bump, but I see no reason to expect significant sustained improvement until the roster is in better shape.

At what point do you hold someone accountable?

When I own the team. Until then, the idea that I'm in a position to hold anyone accountable is goofy. That's JTrea's job, not mine. See, the thing you gotta realize is that, not only am I not an expert, I don't pretend to be. I just watch the games, and I notice things, and some things make me curious, so I think about them. There is nothing about blaming the manager that makes me curious or interested. Nor do I find it interesting to be an anger-thumper who focuses on blaming somebody else either. I got finished with that way back when the farm system got destroyed and the damn sportswriters ran Eddie out of town, and by now that's been a while. Since then, I pay attention to what interests me. What does interest me is the team and how it can and should perform, and so on. Sadly, that doesn't get discussed much anymore. Whenever you try, and I've tried in a bunch of threads, people insist on bringing the whole thing back to firing DT. Now, maybe you find the eleventy-seventh post about firing the manager oh-so-interesting, but I don't. To me, it is not only b-o-r-i-n-g, it also shows a lack of curiosity and interest in actual baseball.

[ledzepp8]

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

I'm sure you would agree that, outside of Nick, Roberts, and Jones, the players he has had to work with have not been up to par for the most part. This board is full of people that say that we haven't had good hitters, pitchers, free agent signings, etc and then in the next breath say that DT should be able to win with them. We can't have it both ways.

[Sports Guy]

The problem is, as has been pointed out, that you can;t just shy away from the 2-16 start

Shack, you continue to bring up the injuries...and that's valid.

But you know whose not hurt? Markakis, Jones, Wieters, Atkins, Izzy, Miggy, Wiggy, Millwood, guthrie, Reimold(well he is recovering), Matusz, BB, DH, Ohman, etc....

Those guys should have given us a far better record than they have...That's just the way it is.

We should probably be in the 20-25 range..still not good but better and understandable with the schedule and injuries.

[El Gordo]

The problem is, as has been pointed out, that you can;t just shy away from the 2-16 start

Shack, you continue to bring up the injuries...and that's valid.

But you know whose not hurt? Markakis, Jones, Wieters, Atkins, Izzy, Miggy, Wiggy, Millwood, guthrie, Reimold(well he is recovering), Matusz, BB, DH, Ohman, etc....

Those guys should have given us a far better record than they have...That's just the way it is.

We should probably be in the 20-25 range..still not good but better and understandable with the schedule and injuries.

Maybe, but his question which few wish to answer is how much better. What should the current 25 man roster's win % be. more than .400? How much more? 20 wins is far better than 15? and we have lost our closer and his replacements to injury, and as a result have blown 10 saves?

[Sports Guy]

Maybe, but his question which few wish to answer is how much better. What should the current 25 man roster's win % be. more than .400? How much more? 20 wins is far better than 15? and we have lost our closer and his replacements to injury, and as a result have blown 10 saves?

Actually, yes it is. Its not on that historically horrendous pace and we would be looking at getting back Gonzo, BRob and Pie within the next 3 weeks or so.

It wouldn't be pretty but its a huge difference from where we are now.

The Orioles SHOULD be getting above average production(offense plus defense) from CF, RF, C, DH....We should be getting league average-ish production from 3b.

Izzy shouldn't be this horrible with the bat.

And Wiggy has been great and he has replaced BRob and may have never gotten this hot had he not been playing nearly everyday from the start of the year.

Matusz and BB should be giving us better production to go along with the vets.

The pen could still be ok if we had a manager who knew how to manage it.

So yes, there is enough talent here for us to have a much better record(5-10 games better).

[now]

I think Matt, AJ, and Matusz have under-performed... so far. Their failure to contribute as much as we hoped have been offset by the over-performance of Wiggy, Simon, and Ohman.

Wieters: 168 AB

Jones: 207 AB

Matusz: 54.2 IP

Wiggy: 170 AB

Simon: 12.1 IP

Ohman: 16.2 IP

Your math doesn't compute here. Wieters = Wiggy, but "overachievers" Ohman and Simon together have half the innings of Matusz. And I'm not sure you can call Simon with his 1.54 WHIP an overachiever; the 6 out of 7 saves is good but quite a small sample size.

Well, that's fine. I imagine you read my analysis I just watch the games, and I notice things, and some things make me curious, so I think about them. There is nothing about blaming the manager that makes me curious or interested. ... What does interest me is the team and how it can and should perform, and so on. Sadly, that doesn't get discussed much anymore. Whenever you try, and I've tried in a bunch of threads, people insist on bringing the whole thing back to firing DT. Now, maybe you find the eleventy-seventh post about firing the manager oh-so-interesting, but I don't. To me, it is not only b-o-r-i-n-g, it also shows a lack of curiosity and interest in actual baseball.

Um, are you really saying that "actual baseball" doesn't include the role of the manager? As fans we can evaluate the players but not decision making from the dugout? Sure, it's your personal choice, whatever. But why is the manager off limits? Granted, there's no statistical "proof" of blame on the manager. But as Bill James alluded in that PDF article ("Underestimating the Fog") about "lineup protection" and other sabre-myths, absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. It seems that in sticking up for Trembley you are buying into the fallacy that James points out which says "that the absence of proof is proof" (i.e., of DT's freedom from responsibility here). Your point about "we're playing about what we should expect" has some merit if you assume and accept that nearly everyone on the field is underperforming. The question remains, why are they all underperforming (again)? To answer this question should imply looking at all the factors, not first shutting some in a closet and then looking at the rest.

[RShack]

Um, are you really saying that "actual baseball" doesn't include the role of the manager?

Of course I'm not saying that. Second guessing the manager is half of what the manager is for, and managers are famous for getting fired. So, blaming stuff on the manager is completely normal. What I'm saying is that "actual baseball" means a helluva lot more than turning every attempt to evaluate the team's performance into yet another harangue about firing the manager.

Without contributions from BRob, Pie, Nolan, JJ, Koji, and Gonzo, and given who has replaced them on the roster, what level of winning percentage do you think the team should have had over the last 33 games?

[RShack]

The problem is, as has been pointed out, that you can;t just shy away from the 2-16 .

It's not like taking a look at the record from Date-X is some foreign idea. If they fire DT, people are gonna start the W-L counter fresh for whoever might replace him. People do the same thing with the same manager for the 2 halves of the season. Breaking the season down into two chunks is completely normal, people do it all the time, and they do it from arbitrary dates too. People do it for teams, and people do it for individual players. People talk about how AJ did great last year for the first chunk, and then did lousy for the second chunk. People talk about how Bergy wasn't so hot for the first chunk of last year, and then came on great in the second chunk. People did the same thing with Breezy when he was here. Whenever Wieters starts hitting, people are gonna pick an arbitrary date and divide his season into 2 chunks too, you know they will. It's a completely normal thing to do, it happens all the time. So, I don't see why it's so crazy to say that we had an absolutely horrible first 18 days to the season, that's the first chunk, and now let's look at how that compares to the chunk since then. People are acting like I'm committing some crime against baseball for breaking things into two chunks when, in reality, people subdivide the season into two arbitrary chunks all the time. All I'm asking is, once that 2-16 happened and was in the books, once we got that far into the season with that record in the books, what were reasonable expectations between then and now with 6 of our good players not even playing? People are acting like it's a crazy question to ask, but it's not, it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Asking a first-chunk vs. a second-chunk question is a completely normal thing to do. I think people are freaking out about it mainly because it doesn't fit with all the blame-it-on-DT hysteria that says everything is getting worse and it's his fault.

[now]

Without contributions from BRob, Pie, Nolan, JJ, Koji, and Gonzo, and given who has replaced them on the roster, what level of winning percentage do you think the team should have had over the last 33 games?

a) same as they do plus a few extra wins for better bullpen management

b) same as above plus a few extra wins if players were meeting expectations

c) same as above plus a few extra wins if players weren't depressed over embarking ever deeper in a historically bad season.

Seeing as c) would contribute to b), I would guess 2 extra wins for a) and 3 more for b)/c). Instead of 13-20 (.394), I'd say 18-15 (.545). Sounds optimistic, but it was the easier part of the schedule.

[now]

Without contributions from BRob, Pie, Nolan, JJ, Koji, and Gonzo, and given who has replaced them on the roster, what level of winning percentage do you think the team should have had over the last 33 games?

a) same as they do plus a few extra wins for better bullpen management

b) same as above plus a few extra wins if players were meeting expectations

c) same as above plus a few extra wins if players weren't depressed over embarking ever deeper in a historically bad season.

Seeing as c) would contribute to b), I would guess 2-3 extra wins for a) and 2-3 more for b)/c). So instead of 13-20 (.394), I'd say roughly 18-15 (.545). Sounds optimistic, but it was the easier part of the schedule.