Peter Keating: O's Rebound a Mirage

[LookinUp]

This is a very interesting point. I wonder if any research has been done on it.

But in general, regression always wins. And when it doesn't, it's rarely predictable, and the infinite times when people justify a player's career year with "well, he dropped 30 pounds in the offseason" or "he's rebuilt his batting stance" or "he's bonding with his manager" and then, as always, ALWAYS, they regress back the next year and we never hear any accountability. People like narratives, and that's fine, except when you're performing analysis.

Hopefully I haven't missed the posts in this thread where this is already said, since I haven't read it all.

I agree with this point. I think the better way to say what I said earlier is, if the average HR% on FBs is 9-12%

1) The O's under Trembley/Samuel seem to have been above that, with a regression likely ending up somewhere toward the top end of that range, and

2) The O's under Buck are likley to be at a better place in that range, over time.

The conclusion (or is it assumption) I'd draw is that, while regression to the mean range is pretty much a statistical lock, the O's are still likely to see some improvement over where they were and would have regressed to, assuming Buck is the type of influence I'm assuming he has.

In the context of this thread and the conclusions the author is drawing, I think that means that we won't continue to be this good, but that we also likely won't be as bad as we were.

[Redgrape]

Mean regression is what sabermatricians use as the basis for most analysis. Variance (positive or negative) is termed "luck" - a very connotative word that does not sit well with most of us...instead would be better off saying "randomness."

But, with pitchers like Guthrie and bergesen who have outperformed their FIPs, it seems like FIP is not reflective of the reality we see play out over the course of the season. Fangraphs had a piece on Guthrie that essentially concluded the same thing (ie he is "lucky") but when that standard deviation event is skewed in the same direction multiple seasons, seems like there may be a fundamental flaw with FIPs universality.

This is actually a common misconception about randomness and luck. Although it is improbable that a pitcher (such as Guthrie) would outplay his FiP for consecutive seasons, it actually is probable that a pitcher in the MLB would experience this statistical anomaly. This is because there are hundreds samples (pitchers), and even if there is a small chance that a pitcher would outperform his FIP for three consecutive seasons, it's actually likely that a few pitchers will because the sample is large (hundreds of pitchers). There will also be a good chance that there will be a few pitchers who will be really unlucky.

There's also a chance that anything could happen, every pitcher could be unlucky or every pitcher could be lucky one season. Probabilities are just kind of crazy.

I'm guessing FIP has a solid mathematical formula behind it, so it's probably correct. That being said, it could be flawed but it's not because one pitcher seems to defy it.

[accinfo]

The BB/9 for the young pitchers has also improved rapidly under Buck, and that should not be overlooked or written off as "luck":

Matusz 3.7 vs. 2.2

Arrieta 5.7 vs. 2.9

Bergesen 2.8 vs. 2.6

Agreed 100%.

[weams]

Anyone have Insider access that can summarize this article?

http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/blog?name=keating_peter&id=5600953

They say whipping a horse has no positive effect on it's performance.

[mikezpen]

The author of that article perhaps forgot to consider the fact that a lot of fly balls aren't going over the fence now because the Orioles starters are setting up the betters better and getting better location.

While they still may be a fly ball staff (except for Bergy) and giving up a lot of fly balls, maybe they're just pitching better and the opponents aren't cranking the ball as they did earlier.And that ain't something that's "luck" and beyond the manager's control.

[Arthur_Bryant]

The author of that article perhaps forgot to consider the fact that a lot of fly balls aren't going over the fence now because the Orioles starters are setting up the betters better and getting better location.

While they still may be a fly ball staff (except for Bergy) and giving up a lot of fly balls, maybe they're just pitching better and the opponents aren't cranking the ball as they did earlier.And that ain't something that's "luck" and beyond the manager's control.

I hope everyone who is dissing this article understands that they are legally and morally responsible if the Red Sox crank out five or six tonight.

[Ooooooohhhh!!!!]

The BB/9 for the young pitchers has also improved rapidly under Buck, and that should not be overlooked or written off as "luck":

Matusz 3.7 vs. 2.2

Arrieta 5.7 vs. 2.9

Bergesen 2.8 vs. 2.6

Walks are not considered "luck". They are one of the elements that a player can control and are considered a skill. If a pitcher's BB/9 is trending down you would say that he is showing an improved skills set, not that he is lucky.

A portion of the O's improvement is due to a better BB/9 rate. Another piece is due to "luck".

We see it all the time where line drives are caught for outs and weak dribblers or flares to the outfield go for hits. Right now we're seeing a combo of better skills and better luck and it makes for an impressive improvement.

[mikezpen]

I hope everyone who is dissing this article understands that they are legally and morally responsible if the Red Sox crank out five or six tonight.

My analysis will be just as brilliant, regardless...:laughlol:

[Sports Guy]

There is no question as to whether the O's have been a .600+ team since August 3rd. It has. There can be not debate about it. It is there in black and white.

The question of why is relevant. The question of can the keep doing it is a good one. But we can't say this is not a 600+ team since August 3rd because it is. Period. End of debate.

Do you think this is a 600 team, as is, next year over 162 games?

Lets start a poll about this.

[Sports Guy]

You told me back in May that there was no chance in hell that the Reds make the playoffs.

You have advocated countless times for Alex Gordon, who has a .738 career OPS in nearly 1,500 AB, about the same numbers as the great Willy Aybar.

I won't mention other SG favorites Brandon Wood (.475 career OPS, 13/141 BB/K) and Casey Kotchman (.719 OPS in over 2,000 AB).

Nobody knows what will happen in the future. "Peripherals" change just like anything else. I've always thought if you just look for high OPS and low ERA, you'll probably to o.k.

This post screams someone that doesn't understand the application and importance of stats.

To think they are always right and 100% perfect is idiotic.

And ignoring them and not understanding them is equally idiotic.

[Frobby]

This is not a .630 team because we can't expect them to stay healthy all year.

The reason the players are successful buntingis that Buck only asks the guys that can bunt to bunt. Jones, Izzy. I haven't seem Wieters be asked to bunt. Nor Wiggy or Luke.

The pitching staff has pitched to a 3.57 ERA since Aug 1st. If everyone stayed healthy all year including all defensive players they may well be able to achieve that over a year. But of course that does not happen. Nor will some pitchers be back next year like Millwood.

I'm not saying that the pitchers will sustain such low BABIPs next year. Those will likely go up, sure. Hope that doesn't insult you.

But what else is there in the article? The FB/HR ratios have come down, but they are still above the league average of about 7.5%. The defense has improved because we have an actual major league 2B now. The stats during the current run, outside of BABIP, are not unsustainable.

The BB/9 for the young pitchers has also improved rapidly under Buck, and that should not be overlooked or written off as "luck":

Matusz 3.7 vs. 2.2

Arrieta 5.7 vs. 2.9

Bergesen 2.8 vs. 2.6

We expected these young pitchers to be good, so why is everyone so surprised and cautious when they actually start to pitch up to expectations? This should be what we expect. This fanbase seems to have really low expectations for its team!

I don't think that not expecting our starting pitchers to perform over a full season as they have in the last 2 months means that we have "low expectations" for them.

Brad Bergesen has a 2.29 ERA since Buck arrived. Is it "low expectations" if I don't think he can do that for a full season?

Brian Matusz has a 2.57 ERA since Buck arrived. Is it "low expectations" if I don't think he can do that for a full season?

Jeremy Guthrie has a 3.29 ERA since Buck arrived. Is it "low expectations" if I don't think he can do that for a full season?

Jake Arrieta has a 3.78 ERA since Buck arrived. Is it "low expectations" if I don't think he can do that for a full season?

By the way, it won't shock me if one of the four, maybe even two, come somewhere close to these numbers in 2011. But the odds are strongly against them, and the odds that all four come close to those numbers are absolutely astronomical. And health is not relevant. I don't care if they're healthy all year.

Let's say I expect the four to have a collective 3.75 ERA next year. Would you call that "low expectations?" I wouldn't. But it's about three-quarters of a run higher than what they've done since Buck arrived. And that will be significant in W-L consequences.

[SrMeowMeow]

Yeah, I was gonna keep arguing, but everything's been said. At this point, people who are unconvinced are just leaning on their assumptions and aren't going to be convinced one way or another. No need to fight a battle that's already won.

[Bradysburns]

So, basically he thinks that the Orioles pitchers have been lucky and that when their luck regresses next year, so too will the record.

The writer makes some interesting points but they are all academic. I think baseball sometimes comes down to the intangibles. Buck seems to bring out that magic. Where this writer sees a mirage, I see guys doing the little things right... At the right time. For example... A reliever might give up ten runs in one inning of a game that was already a laugher. But the next night he will get that crucial out at just the right time and save the game.

We call that Oriole magic. And it appears to be back.

[hoosiers]

Yeah, I was gonna keep arguing, but everything's been said. At this point, people who are unconvinced are just leaning on their assumptions and aren't going to be convinced one way or another. No need to fight a battle that's already won.

Or at least until the statisticians change their minds about their stats.

Hugging BABIP as a reliable predictor is an interesting limb to fall from.

[SrMeowMeow]

Or at least until the statisticians change their minds about their stats.

Hugging BABIP as a reliable predictor is an interesting limb to fall from.

What do you mean?