Orioles

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Orioles

    Any love for their coach out there?  I've heard a lot of bad things said about him over the years.  The Same things people are saying about BV.  Funny how winning is the only thing that shuts the critics up.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Orioles

     

    +1
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru'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.
     


    when we're out, i'll take the small market team over the big boys
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

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



    and beating the yanks and rangers

    ditto in the nl re teh dodgers and nationals
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to MikeNagy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.
     

    +1

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

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



    and beating the yanks and rangers

    ditto in the nl re teh dodgers and nationals

     

    [/QUOTE]

    To be fair, the nationals were a bottom rung team for a long time until this yr. As a result of all their premium draft picks, They have some great young players. This is similar to the way TB was built. (Albeit a higher budget of late)
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    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)
     



    " I believe the 4 leafed clover is spelled SHOWALTER"

    i belive i said that...and belive that too...
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    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)
     



    " I believe the 4 leafed clover is spelled SHOWALTER"

    i belive i said that...and belive that too...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    yes you did; i missed it before
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to nhstevens comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to nhstevens comment:

    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)
     



    " I believe the 4 leafed clover is spelled SHOWALTER"

    i belive i said that...and belive that too...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    yes you did; i missed it before

     

    [/QUOTE]

    we're on teh same page :)
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

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



    and beating the yanks and rangers

    ditto in the nl re teh dodgers and nationals

     

    [/QUOTE]

    To be fair, the nationals were a bottom rung team for a long time until this yr. As a result of all their premium draft picks, They have some great young players. This is similar to the way TB was built. (Albeit a higher budget of late)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    yes they were an also-ran. and one can root for them based on that. i was referering to teams that cant sign a player for top $ (which if we are out, i can root for to knock the yankees, rangers, dodgrs etc out).

    i should give wash a break (they are not that high yet in salary - but they did grab teh pitcher i wanted so badly for us.) , but after seeing a couple of their big ticket signings, i feel more compassion for the a's etc.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

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



    Also good for vowels in general...
     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Orioles

    Being a NYY fan, I don't often say this, but they had no business winning that game yesterday. The rookie Phelps impressed me with his grit, and was lucky with all those DPs. Perhaps the Law of Averages was catching up to the Os, in contrast to injuries finally taking their toll on the Yanks. I will give credit to that terrific PA Jeter had in the 7th; otherwise they lost that critical game. The Os amazing 1 run streak was stopped, by a team lousy in 1 run games.


    Luck in reverse.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    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. 



    Absolutely the W-L record for the team is the bottom line.  It really doesn't matter how they win the games.  That said, to me, they are not a good team.  They are below average in pretty much every area, save for their BP.  Even with that, their BP is just above league average in save %.

    Some of their wins might be attributable to a good BP or to some Showalter magic, but that's not enough to explain their record with their negative run differential or their record in one run games.   They are getting lucky.  Even Showalter himself said there is likely some truth to that, although he wouldn't go into the clubhouse and tell his players that.
     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Orioles

    In response to expitch's comment:

    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....



    I have never said that math tells the whole story.  Quite the contrary, actually.  And yes, I have watched the Orioles play several times.

    The BP can be credited for some of those extra wins in close games, but it doesn't account for that many extra wins.  Good teams will tend to have a slightly better winning % in close games, but either way you slice it up, a 24-7 record in one run games is an anomaly.  Especially when the team is mediocre in just about every aspect.  The Os have a winning  % of .387 in games decided by 3 runs or more. That is not a sign of a good team.

    How much of a fluke is the Orioles record?
    Since 1901, only 4 teams have posted a bigger positive gap between expected wins and actual wins.  Just take a look at the run differentials of teams this year versus records and standings and see what sticks out.

    When was the last time a team had a 774 winning % over a season in one run games?
    Well, never.  At least since 1901 when they started keeping track of such things.  It just doesn't happen.  It's a fluke.

    The closest winning % in one run games is .750 more than 30 years ago, in a strike shortened season.  After that, you have to go back to 1908 when Pittsburgh was .733 in one run games.

     Are the Indians a good team?  They sport the 2nd best record in the majors this season in one run games at 16-8, or a .667% .

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Orioles



    The O's or Rays might win the AL East and the Yankees might not make playoffs.   LOL

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

    Re: Orioles

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to expitch's comment:

    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....



    I have never said that math tells the whole story.  Quite the contrary, actually.  And yes, I have watched the Orioles play several times.

    The BP can be credited for some of those extra wins in close games, but it doesn't account for that many extra wins.  Good teams will tend to have a slightly better winning % in close games, but either way you slice it up, a 24-7 record in one run games is an anomaly.  Especially when the team is mediocre in just about every aspect.  The Os have a winning  % of .387 in games decided by 3 runs or more. That is not a sign of a good team.

    How much of a fluke is the Orioles record?
    Since 1901, only 4 teams have posted a bigger positive gap between expected wins and actual wins.  Just take a look at the run differentials of teams this year versus records and standings and see what sticks out.

    When was the last time a team had a 774 winning % over a season in one run games?
    Well, never.  At least since 1901 when they started keeping track of such things.  It just doesn't happen.  It's a fluke.

    The closest winning % in one run games is .750 more than 30 years ago, in a strike shortened season.  After that, you have to go back to 1908 when Pittsburgh was .733 in one run games.

     Are the Indians a good team?  They sport the 2nd best record in the majors this season in one run games at 16-8, or a .667% .

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No, the Indians are not a good team. They are 56 and 78. You are what your record says you are. If you can go into your chief rival's stadium and win two games handily and almost sweep them, I think that you have a good team.

    I understand what you say about luck, but to be sustained by luck over the course of a season, would require supernatural forces to be at work.

    I hardly think Sholwalter tells his team in the clubhouse that they need to get their stats up. He tells them to do what it takes to win.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Orioles

    In response to prknsdnld's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:

    Go O's! Harness was one season off. Does he see the future? lol  Let's hope they take the Yankees down!


      Typical loser fashion. Your team blows, so as long as the arch rival fails, things are ok. But what are you doing talking about the Orioles on this board? Doesn't that violate your own rules ??

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's the sour grape thing. Chnmging the subject some, I looked at Reynold's lifetime stats, incl defense. Strange, strange player. Makes Adam Dunn look like Rod Carew. And after being a horrible butcher at 3B (FPCT there - 897, 850 the last 2 seasons), he's been Don Mattingly. 

    In the series, Reynolds HRs were titanic, especially the 1st (LF 2nd deck, very rare since it's recessed) and the 3rd (May have been out of the original YS, even rarer, about 22 in 50 yrs)


    Girardi manages one of his worst games today. He half admitted it today after the lousy last 2 IP by Hughes; he sometimes waits a batter too late, like he did with Burnett; and there were plenty of arms in the BP today.

    Also, why the heck has Jeter at his age only missed 3 games? Small wonder his BA has taken a nosedive. Still, at .317, it's hard to complain.

    Yankees are lucky the Os didn'ty sweep.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to MikeNagy's comment:
    [QUOTE]
    No, the Indians are not a good team. They are 56 and 78. You are what your record says you are. If you can go into your chief rival's stadium and win two games handily and almost sweep them, I think that you have a good team.

    I understand what you say about luck, but to be sustained by luck over the course of a season, would require supernatural forces to be at work.

    I hardly think Sholwalter tells his team in the clubhouse that they need to get their stats up. He tells them to do what it takes to win.[/QUOTE]

    First of all, let me say that I am not saying that the Orioles don't deserve to go to the playoffs if they get there.    As I've said before, it doesn't matter how they're winning the games.  I'm just saying that they are not as good, or perhaps I should say that they are not performing as well, as their record indicates. 

    They have gotten where they are largely by luck.  I'm not talking supernatural forces or some kind of voodoo magic luck, although Showalter did say that the baseball gods were smiling on them.  :-)    I'm talking about lucky in the sense of defying the statistical odds.  I should also mention that I do think the Os have played better ball the past 3 weeks or so.

    If the Indians do not have a good team, and yet are "finding a way" to win the close games, how are they doing it?  Is it luck in their case but not in the Os case?

    What about the Rays?  Are they a good team?  They have almost the same overall record as the Os.  They have, by most accounts, one of the best managers in the game.  They have the best BP in the league in terms of ERA.  They are much better than the Os in terms of defense, baserunning, and starting pitching.  They have young, hungry players.  Why aren't they winning one run games?  They are 19-24, BTW.   

     
  22. 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:

    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....



    I have never said that math tells the whole story.  Quite the contrary, actually.  And yes, I have watched the Orioles play several times.

    The BP can be credited for some of those extra wins in close games, but it doesn't account for that many extra wins.  Good teams will tend to have a slightly better winning % in close games, but either way you slice it up, a 24-7 record in one run games is an anomaly.  Especially when the team is mediocre in just about every aspect.  The Os have a winning  % of .387 in games decided by 3 runs or more. That is not a sign of a good team.

    How much of a fluke is the Orioles record?
    Since 1901, only 4 teams have posted a bigger positive gap between expected wins and actual wins.  Just take a look at the run differentials of teams this year versus records and standings and see what sticks out.

    When was the last time a team had a 774 winning % over a season in one run games?
    Well, never.  At least since 1901 when they started keeping track of such things.  It just doesn't happen.  It's a fluke.

    The closest winning % in one run games is .750 more than 30 years ago, in a strike shortened season.  After that, you have to go back to 1908 when Pittsburgh was .733 in one run games.

     Are the Indians a good team?  They sport the 2nd best record in the majors this season in one run games at 16-8, or a .667% .

     

     

    [/QUOTE]
    You denied that the numbers, save for W-L, say it all, then used numbers, and only numbers, then and now, to make your point. Make up your mind.
    The Indians are not a good team. They contrive to lose too many games. Like the Sox.
    You say the Orioles are "not a good team." Someone, no doubt you, could and would say that if he had access only to numbers, save W-L. Frankly, I think that is absurd on its face. It's the ultimate stat fallacy.
    You say "not a good team." I say a good team that has had some luck -- but far from enough to account for the record.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to expitch's comment:

    You denied that the numbers, save for W-L, say it all, then used numbers, and only numbers, then and now, to make your point. Make up your mind.
    The Indians are not a good team. They contrive to lose too many games. Like the Sox.
    You say the Orioles are "not a good team." Someone, no doubt you, could and would say that if he had access only to numbers, save W-L. Frankly, I think that is absurd on its face. It's the ultimate stat fallacy.
    You say "not a good team." I say a good team that has had some luck -- but far from enough to account for the record.



    Actually, in one of my first posts, I mentioned several things that can affect the outcome of a game that are not going to be reflected in the stats - some of the many reasons that the outcomes of one run games are more or less due to luck or randomness.  I posted stats subsequently to support my claim. 
     
    I have no doubt that a good manager can rally the players and get them to perform better.  I also have no doubt that characteristics like heart, confidence, desire, comraderie, team chemisty, etc. can translate into better performances, individually and as a team. 

    I just don't believe that these things would only work in one run games.

    If, for instance, a pitcher can dig deep and make the perfect pitch to strike out a batter to preserve the lead in a one run game, why can't he do the same in a 0-0 game to preserve the tie instead of giving a bases clearing double and putting his team down 0-3? 

    If the Orioles are such a good team, why do they perform so badly in games decided by 3 or more runs?   

    How is it that a bad team like the Indians has such a good record in one run games?

    How is it that a good team like the Rays have such a poor record in one run games?

     

     
  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:

    You denied that the numbers, save for W-L, say it all, then used numbers, and only numbers, then and now, to make your point. Make up your mind.
    The Indians are not a good team. They contrive to lose too many games. Like the Sox.
    You say the Orioles are "not a good team." Someone, no doubt you, could and would say that if he had access only to numbers, save W-L. Frankly, I think that is absurd on its face. It's the ultimate stat fallacy.
    You say "not a good team." I say a good team that has had some luck -- but far from enough to account for the record.



    Actually, in one of my first posts, I mentioned several things that can affect the outcome of a game that are not going to be reflected in the stats - some of the many reasons that the outcomes of one run games are more or less due to luck or randomness.  I posted stats subsequently to support my claim. 
     
    I have no doubt that a good manager can rally the players and get them to perform better.  I also have no doubt that characteristics like heart, confidence, desire, comraderie, team chemisty, etc. can translate into better performances, individually and as a team. 

    I just don't believe that these things would only work in one run games.

    If, for instance, a pitcher can dig deep and make the perfect pitch to strike out a batter to preserve the lead in a one run game, why can't he do the same in a 0-0 game to preserve the tie instead of giving a bases clearing double and putting his team down 0-3? 

    If the Orioles are such a good team, why do they perform so badly in games decided by 3 or more runs?   

    How is it that a bad team like the Indians has such a good record in one run games?

    How is it that a good team like the Rays have such a poor record in one run games?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]
    What you are calling "luck" at a moment in games could in fact be exactly what you say but with a different interpretation. Enough pitchers make the right pitch enough times, and the team wins game. Enough players make the right play enough times, and the team wins games. "But," you say, "it was just good fortune that they made those plays at those times. They would not have made them yesterday, and they won't make them tomorrow. It was lucky that things came together so often at the right time."  Unusual, maybe. Flies in the face of your numbers.  You're still doing baseball as if it were a parlor game. At the end of the season, given your methodology, and with no W-L record, where would you guess the O's to have finished? Told where ( if they don't collapse ) you'd have to rummage through your "data" again, and say, "Well, they must have been very lucky." You could say that without having seen a single game.
    That's, in effect, what you're still doing. 
    I'd rather give the players and the manager credit for doing what they had to do much more
    ( much more ) often than not. And, yes, with a little bit of luck. I've seen this happen on baseball fields. It can and does happen. 
    That's a good team. It may not continue to do it this year. It may  never do it again. But to withhold the label "good team" from the current version and standing of the Orioles is just plain silly. Even perverse.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to prknsdnld's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:

    Go O's! Harness was one season off. Does he see the future? lol  Let's hope they take the Yankees down!


      Typical loser fashion. Your team blows, so as long as the arch rival fails, things are ok. But what are you doing talking about the Orioles on this board? Doesn't that violate your own rules ??

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's really unbelievable that you can say that I only enjoy the Yankees failing when my team is failing. And you're very familiar with my posts. So your post makes no sense.

    You're crying about Orioles posts because they directly affect your team. Get over it. Oh, and nice 2 out of 3 for the O's. Keep 'em coming.

     

Share