Orioles

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Orioles

    6 of their next 9 are against the Yankees.  A good stretch, and the AL East could have a new leader.

    I wonder how many sportswriters predicted the Orioles to be in this position last March.

    (OK, I know how many. 0)
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Orioles

    harness picked them as the surprise team of 2011.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

    Re: Orioles





    Moon, is it 2011?    
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

    Re: Orioles

    .426 ball and 28 games out, yes harness was right on the money with that one.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to Orioles:

    6 of their next 9 are against the Yankees.  A good stretch, and the AL East could have a new leader.

    I wonder how many sportswriters predicted the Orioles to be in this position last March.

    (OK, I know how many. 0)




    i rememebr some of our fans laughing  in ridicule at the o's and showalter even when they were doing so well this year. i respected showalter, knew he would try and do it the right way, and was like, "wait and see"...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Orioles

    Go O's! Harness was one season off. Does he see the future? lol  Let's hope they take the Yankees down!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from never1954. Show never1954's posts

    Re: Orioles

    didn't they finish last year pretty strong?  They smoked the RS if memory serves....an indicator for this year?   I only wish the RS were battling but as the saying goes...my favorite teams are the RS and anyone beating the Yankees.....
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Orioles

    The Os having a record as good as they have is an anomaly.   Their record defies their level of performance.

    I don't like the Os, but that said, I'll root for anyone over the Yankees.
     
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Orioles

    It is good for baseball to have the O's and A's competing down the stretch.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MikeNagy. Show MikeNagy's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    The Os having a record as good as they have is an anomaly.   Their record defies their level of performance.

    I don't like the Os, but that said, I'll root for anyone over the Yankees.
     



    They come through and win when they need to.  I think your record defines your performance, Kimmi. I'll take a team that knows how to win any day, over one that compiles great overall stats.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250's posts

    Re: Orioles

    It is very surprising to see the Orioles competing this season.  They are winning a lot of close games.  It will be interesting to see how they do in the playoffs. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Soxdog67. Show Soxdog67's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to Orioles:

    It is good for baseball to have the O's and A's competing down the stretch.



    As a fan of the B's and C's I agree it is a good thing. However, while catching some Z's I had a dream that the J's were also in contention, but then I woke up.


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to MikeNagy's comment:

    They come through and win when they need to.  I think your record defines your performance, Kimmi. I'll take a team that knows how to win any day, over one that compiles great overall stats.

     

    Of course the bottom line is your record.  It doesn't matter how you get a win, what matters is that you got the win.  

    However, you're not going to convince me that their .800 winning % in one run games and the fact that they are 12 games better than their Pythagorean W-L record isn't largely due to flukiness.  As I've said before, the Os should be the poster children for the slogan "Better lucky than good."
     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MikeNagy. Show MikeNagy's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MikeNagy's comment:

    They come through and win when they need to.  I think your record defines your performance, Kimmi. I'll take a team that knows how to win any day, over one that compiles great overall stats.

     

    Of course the bottom line is your record.  It doesn't matter how you get a win, what matters is that you got the win.  

    However, you're not going to convince me that their .800 winning % in one run games and the fact that they are 12 games better than their Pythagorean W-L record isn't largely due to flukiness.  As I've said before, the Os should be the poster children for the slogan "Better lucky than good."
     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    At least they have been consistently fluky.



    I think that luck has a way of evening out over the course of a 162 game season. I think it is more timely hitting and pitching. You make a lot of your own luck.

    If were to go all the way, I guess they would have to put an asterisk next to them in the record books, and say they were lucky.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to notin's comment:

    6 of their next 9 are against the Yankees.  A good stretch, and the AL East could have a new leader.

    I wonder how many sportswriters predicted the Orioles to be in this position last March.

    (OK, I know how many. 0)



    Not many notin I'm sure and they could just be this years "flash in the pan" like the Rockies in 07.  Who really knows?  Either way they deserve the taste for success after a lot of tough years as our door mat. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MikeNagy's comment:

    They come through and win when they need to.  I think your record defines your performance, Kimmi. I'll take a team that knows how to win any day, over one that compiles great overall stats.

     

    Of course the bottom line is your record.  It doesn't matter how you get a win, what matters is that you got the win.  

    However, you're not going to convince me that their .800 winning % in one run games and the fact that they are 12 games better than their Pythagorean W-L record isn't largely due to flukiness.  As I've said before, the Os should be the poster children for the slogan "Better lucky than good."
     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't think it's all luck. A little, maybe. IMO, an example of  Luck is when you stroke a routine groundball out, it hits a pebble, and becomes a single.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Orioles

    I believe the 4 leafed clover is spelled SHOWALTER.


    Another Lucky Charm is Jim Johnson.

    And a together clubhouse. (According to a recent Showalter interview)
     
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MikeNagy's comment:

    They come through and win when they need to.  I think your record defines your performance, Kimmi. I'll take a team that knows how to win any day, over one that compiles great overall stats.

     

    Of course the bottom line is your record.  It doesn't matter how you get a win, what matters is that you got the win.  

    However, you're not going to convince me that their .800 winning % in one run games and the fact that they are 12 games better than their Pythagorean W-L record isn't largely due to flukiness.  As I've said before, the Os should be the poster children for the slogan "Better lucky than good."
    Around baseball and elsewhere there has long been been a saying, attributed to Branch Rickey:
    "Luck is the residue of design."  
    The Orioles make things happen when they have to. 
     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Orioles

    When I say the Os are lucky, I'm not talking about luck in the traditional sense, ie four leaf clover type of luck.  My point is that, IMO, it's a fallacy to say that good teams find a way to win those close games.  Good teams are the ones that are going to consistently outscore their opponents by a wider margin.

    That fact of the matter is, while there are some exceptions, wins and losses in one run games tend to even out over the course of the season.   It doesn't matter how good or bad a team is, they are likely to be around .500 in close games, due to randomness, luck, whatever you want to call it.

    There are so many factors that can affect the outcome of any game, but they are more likely to be the difference between winning and losing when you're talking about a one run game.  One bad ball or strike call, a ball that is smoked but happens to be smoked right at a defender, a broken bat blooper that drops in, an untimely error by the opposing team, or even a ground ball taking a bad bounce.   Because of all of these factors and others, all teams, no matter how good or how bad they are, are statistically likely to win about the same number of one run games as they lose.

    The Os being 18 games over .500 in one run games is not a sign that they are good, or that they know how to win the close games.  It's a sign that they have been "lucky". 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    When I say the Os are lucky, I'm not talking about luck in the traditional sense, ie four leaf clover type of luck.  My point is that, IMO, it's a fallacy to say that good teams find a way to win those close games.  Good teams are the ones that are going to consistently outscore their opponents by a wider margin.

    That fact of the matter is, while there are some exceptions, wins and losses in one run games tend to even out over the course of the season.   It doesn't matter how good or bad a team is, they are likely to be around .500 in close games, due to randomness, luck, whatever you want to call it.

    There are so many factors that can affect the outcome of any game, but they are more likely to be the difference between winning and losing when you're talking about a one run game.  One bad ball or strike call, a ball that is smoked but happens to be smoked right at a defender, a broken bat blooper that drops in, an untimely error by the opposing team, or even a ground ball taking a bad bounce.   Because of all of these factors and others, all teams, no matter how good or how bad they are, are statistically likely to win about the same number of one run games as they lose.

    The Os being 18 games over .500 in one run games is not a sign that they are good, or that they know how to win the close games.  It's a sign that they have been "lucky". 


    Stats are not ALWAYS applicable. They are, by definition, generalizations.
    There have been many exceptions. Good teams do not necessarily win consistently by large margins, especially if they rely mainly on pitching, defense, and some speed. There are many examples in baseball history of teams that won more than "their share" of one and two run games. They stay close in games or hold a slim lead or come from behind late -- not only because of a "break." You may not think so, but there is something to teams that "know how to win." I played on one in college. 
    If you are talking about all the games played in baseball history by all the teams, maybe "baseball" has a .500 record in one-run games. Maybe. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to expitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]Stats are not ALWAYS applicable. They are, by definition, generalizations.
    There have been many exceptions. Good teams do not necessarily win consistently by large margins, especially if they rely mainly on pitching, defense, and some speed. There are many examples in baseball history of teams that won more than "their share" of one and two run games. They stay close in games or hold a slim lead or come from behind late -- not only because of a "break." You may not think so, but there is something to teams that "know how to win." I played on one in college. 
    If you are talking about all the games played in baseball history by all the teams, maybe "baseball" has a .500 record in one-run games. Maybe. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course there are always going to be exceptions.  Winning more than a team's share of games is one thing.  Winning as many more of their share of games as the Orioles have won is something else.

    It might be a different story is the Os were actually good, compared to the rest of the league.   But they aren't.   They are near the bottom in the league offensively, they are the worst defensively, they are the worst in baserunning and last in stolen bases, they are below average in pitching, particularly in starting pitching.  Their BP is their one strength.
    They've been outscored by 39 runs.  The Os are not winning games because they are good.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Orioles

    My point is that, IMO, it's a fallacy to say that good teams find a way to win those close games.

    Kimmi, thats your opinion, not fact. I agree that the best teams pummel everyone they play. However, IMO good teams indeed DO find a way to win. Maybe they do it with heart and desire; I don't know. It would be a mistake to say that the Orioles are not a GOOD TEAM this year. They are exactly what their record says they are, and right now they are 73-59 and just three games behind the ALE leading Yankees. I really don't much care what their pitching stat is, or their number of runs scored. Those are secondary statistics to their W-L record. I assure you that when the regular season is over that is what people will look at. For the record, in the past 103 years there have been no less than THIRTY teams that finished the regular season with BELOW AVERAGE ERA+ (ie, below average hitting) and still won rings. No one cared about their ERA+ when they accepted their rings.
    Sorry. The O's ARE a good team this year BECAUSE they find a way to win. 
     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to expitch's comment:
    [QUOTE]Stats are not ALWAYS applicable. They are, by definition, generalizations.
    There have been many exceptions. Good teams do not necessarily win consistently by large margins, especially if they rely mainly on pitching, defense, and some speed. There are many examples in baseball history of teams that won more than "their share" of one and two run games. They stay close in games or hold a slim lead or come from behind late -- not only because of a "break." You may not think so, but there is something to teams that "know how to win." I played on one in college. 
    If you are talking about all the games played in baseball history by all the teams, maybe "baseball" has a .500 record in one-run games. Maybe. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course there are always going to be exceptions.  Winning more than a team's share of games is one thing.  Winning as many more of their share of games as the Orioles have won is something else.

    It might be a different story is the Os were actually good, compared to the rest of the league.   But they aren't.   They are near the bottom in the league offensively, they are the worst defensively, they are the worst in baserunning and last in stolen bases, they are below average in pitching, particularly in starting pitching.  Their BP is their one strength.
    They've been outscored by 39 runs.  The Os are not winning games because they are good.

     

    [/QUOTE]
    All of this just goes to show that math is not only the whole story but at times not even a major part of the story.
    No, it's not. Many teams in the past have won many more than their share of close games.
    Do you actually watch the Orioles play? I have watched them several times just out of curiosity. They do things right.
    The BP is a huge factor in the contemporary game. Because of it, the Orioles hold on to win the tight ones. 
    Maybe if they had Aceves closing....
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Orioles

    An uncharacteristic loss for the O's; they're 24-6 in 1 run games before  today.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share