Orioles

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

    Re: Orioles

    In response to expitch's comment:

    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.

     



    I'm not saying that a pitcher making the right pitch or a player making the right play is luck.  That is skill, or heart, or clutch, or whatever you want to call it.   That is not something that is only present in one run games.   That is something that is present in most games for players and teams that possess those attributes.  These attributes do not just magically appear in one run games. 

    Do these players/teams not have the skill or those intangibles in games that are decided by 3+ runs?  If they don't, then  are they really a good team?  If they do, then why are they losing so many games decided by 3+ runs?

    Here are some of the things that I am referring to as luck that can affect the outcome of a game.  These things don't have to occur in the 9th inning.  It might be something that happened in the 1st inning:

    -  a bad strike or ball call    How many ways can that affect a game?  It might be something as obvious as the difference in a run or runs being scored, or something less obvious like causing a pitcher to make extra pitches, thereby not allowing him to get as deep in the game
    - a fly ball that bounces over the fence for a ground rule double versus hitting the top of the fence and staying in play
    - a ball that is smoked but is right at a defender for an out versus a check swing grounder that rolls 30 ft for a hit
    - fan interference
    - a team that has 10 hits strung out throughout the game and scores 0 runs versus a team that has 2 hits the entire game but the hits happen to be in the same inning an result in a run
    - a pitcher making a great pitch and the batter sticking his bat out and getting a bloop hit

    The list goes on.

    Now, how often is it that you go through an entire ball game without one of those lucky or random events occurring?

    In one run games, things like this are huge.  So huge, that the outcome of the game is attributed to luck or randomness more than any skill or lack thereof.   It's often said that if you win a game by 3+ runs, it's skill.  If you win by 1 or 2 runs, it's luck.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Orioles

    Luck, or randomness, is a huge factor in the game of baseball.  The Red Sox lost the World Series in 1946 by a run.  It happened again in 1975.  They lost the 1978 playoff game by a run.  Game 6 in 1986 by a run.  Then in 2004 their luck finally turned as they won Games 4 and 5 of the ALCS by a run each.  In Game 4 Rivera blew a save that would have meant a sweep.  In Game 5 a ball bounced over the fence that might have ended the series if it bounced off the fence instead.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to expitch's comment:

    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.

     



    I'm not saying that a pitcher making the right pitch or a player making the right play is luck.  That is skill, or heart, or clutch, or whatever you want to call it.   That is not something that is only present in one run games.   That is something that is present in most games for players and teams that possess those attributes.  These attributes do not just magically appear in one run games. 

    Do these players/teams not have the skill or those intangibles in games that are decided by 3+ runs?  If they don't, then  are they really a good team?  If they do, then why are they losing so many games decided by 3+ runs?

    Here are some of the things that I am referring to as luck that can affect the outcome of a game.  These things don't have to occur in the 9th inning.  It might be something that happened in the 1st inning:

    -  a bad strike or ball call    How many ways can that affect a game?  It might be something as obvious as the difference in a run or runs being scored, or something less obvious like causing a pitcher to make extra pitches, thereby not allowing him to get as deep in the game
    - a fly ball that bounces over the fence for a ground rule double versus hitting the top of the fence and staying in play
    - a ball that is smoked but is right at a defender for an out versus a check swing grounder that rolls 30 ft for a hit
    - fan interference
    - a team that has 10 hits strung out throughout the game and scores 0 runs versus a team that has 2 hits the entire game but the hits happen to be in the same inning an result in a run
    - a pitcher making a great pitch and the batter sticking his bat out and getting a bloop hit

    The list goes on.

    Now, how often is it that you go through an entire ball game without one of those lucky or random events occurring?

    In one run games, things like this are huge.  So huge, that the outcome of the game is attributed to luck or randomness more than any skill or lack thereof.   It's often said that if you win a game by 3+ runs, it's skill.  If you win by 1 or 2 runs, it's luck.

     

    Often said? By whom. Not by my coach. Not by Stengel. Not that I've seen. More than once. 
    About all of "those things." Show me how many times "those things" favored the Orioles this year. If it was almost every time, we aren't talking randomness but closer to the Hand of God.
     Then I agree that the opposition had no chance. 
    The Orioles are showing, not for the first time in baseball and elsewhere, that a whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. 
    I repeat. Saying a team with the Orioles record is not a good team does not pass the common sense test. But numbers can do that to a person.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Orioles

    Over their last 33 games the Orioles are 23-10 with a differential of +30.  They may be a team that is getting stronger as the season goes on.
     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Orioles

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Over their last 33 games the Orioles are 23-10 with a differential of +30.  They may be a team that is getting stronger as the season goes on.



    Thanks Nut, Maybe they will get their stats up to an acceptable level by the end of the season.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Orioles

    I started several threads on the O's, all were deleted. Glad this one is allowed to stay - wonder why.

    This O's team is doing all the ;little things right and not allowing heartbreak losses to carry over to the next day. I have been impressed since day one with them, although I admit I didn't think they could keep it up all season.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MikeNagy. Show MikeNagy's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to jesseyeric's comment:

    I started several threads on the O's, all were deleted. Glad this one is allowed to stay - wonder why.

    This O's team is doing all the ;little things right and not allowing heartbreak losses to carry over to the next day. I have been impressed since day one with them, although I admit I didn't think they could keep it up all season.



    I was wondering why they left this one alone also. They also have left NHSteven's yankee thread stay up. Maybe they got rid of the outsourced mods with the new forum format? I hope so. The O's definitely look like they are in it for the long haul.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Luck, or randomness, is a huge factor in the game of baseball.  The Red Sox lost the World Series in 1946 by a run.  It happened again in 1975.  They lost the 1978 playoff game by a run.  Game 6 in 1986 by a run.  Then in 2004 their luck finally turned as they won Games 4 and 5 of the ALCS by a run each.  In Game 4 Rivera blew a save that would have meant a sweep.  In Game 5 a ball bounced over the fence that might have ended the series if it bounced off the fence instead.


    In 1946, the man scores from first on a single. In '75, the man fists a single to center. In '78, the man pops a Fenway homer. In '86, the ball skitters between the man's legs. Mo blew the save. These are all plays. They are not that rare in baseball. Mo has blown saves. Are you saying that teams were lucky or unlucky because the plays happened in critical situations. That is not how I would define luck or randomness. The plays happened.  Clark's GR double was a break no doubt. But from then on luck was not involved. The Sox had the Yanks by the short hairs. That sort of thing -- GR doubles and the like -- can happen at any time.
    Teams arrive at a position to win or lose by a run. You cannot discount the ongoing context in which the critical play took place or how the context was established. Teams take it from there, for better or worse. Hits, baserunning, errors, blown saves are part of the game at any time. Why insert them into a "lucky" situation selectively. If we start calling luck what you are calling luck, there could be no end to it. And if luck and randomness play such "huge" roles, why, after 162 games, are not the KC Royals ahead of the Tigers.  Because they have not been as lucky as the Tigers.  Given your notion of huge, we might just as well attribute the standings to chance.
    I don't deny that luck and randomness play a role in baseball. But not nearly as "huge" as you say. And I don't think "luck" was the determining factor in the situations you cite.
    Coaches in all sports warn not to let the other team hang around so that the other team wins on a bad call or break. The hang around part is the key. The context or the situation in which the critical play takes place. You can't just point to that situation and say that luck determined the outcome. That's not how she works.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Orioles

    It was bad luck the year of the strike, and we finished 1/2 GB due to the scheduled make-ups. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to expitch's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Luck, or randomness, is a huge factor in the game of baseball.  The Red Sox lost the World Series in 1946 by a run.  It happened again in 1975.  They lost the 1978 playoff game by a run.  Game 6 in 1986 by a run.  Then in 2004 their luck finally turned as they won Games 4 and 5 of the ALCS by a run each.  In Game 4 Rivera blew a save that would have meant a sweep.  In Game 5 a ball bounced over the fence that might have ended the series if it bounced off the fence instead.


    In 1946, the man scores from first on a single. In '75, the man fists a single to center. In '78, the man pops a Fenway homer. In '86, the ball skitters between the man's legs. Mo blew the save. These are all plays. They are not that rare in baseball. Mo has blown saves. Are you saying that teams were lucky or unlucky because the plays happened in critical situations. That is not how I would define luck or randomness. The plays happened.  Clark's GR double was a break no doubt. But from then on luck was not involved. The Sox had the Yanks by the short hairs. That sort of thing -- GR doubles and the like -- can happen at any time.
    Teams arrive at a position to win or lose by a run. You cannot discount the ongoing context in which the critical play took place or how the context was established. Teams take it from there, for better or worse. Hits, baserunning, errors, blown saves are part of the game at any time. Why insert them into a "lucky" situation selectively. If we start calling luck what you are calling luck, there could be no end to it. And if luck and randomness play such "huge" roles, why, after 162 games, are not the KC Royals ahead of the Tigers.  Because they have not been as lucky as the Tigers.  Given your notion of huge, we might just as well attribute the standings to chance.
    I don't deny that luck and randomness play a role in baseball. But not nearly as "huge" as you say. And I don't think "luck" was the determining factor in the situations you cite.
    Coaches in all sports warn not to let the other team hang around so that the other team wins on a bad call or break. The hang around part is the key. The context or the situation in which the critical play takes place. You can't just point to that situation and say that luck determined the outcome. That's not how she works.



    Luck has a nasty connotation.  Randomness is probably a better word.

    I just think baseball is a game that we see a lot of randomness in, because of the nature of the game.  I don't think it's a bad thing.  It's part of the game's mystique. 

    When a player like Nava or Ciriaco or Podsednick hits .500 for a 10 game stretch, that's randomness.  For some unknown reason the balls were falling in for them instead of being caught.  Then over the next 20 games they're much more likely to hit .200.  Eventually the law of averages catches up to them.

    Many games are decided on a ball going a few inches the right way or the wrong way.  Like I say there's nothing wrong with this, it's not unfair, but the randomness is a fact. 

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

    Re: Orioles

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to expitch's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Luck, or randomness, is a huge factor in the game of baseball.  The Red Sox lost the World Series in 1946 by a run.  It happened again in 1975.  They lost the 1978 playoff game by a run.  Game 6 in 1986 by a run.  Then in 2004 their luck finally turned as they won Games 4 and 5 of the ALCS by a run each.  In Game 4 Rivera blew a save that would have meant a sweep.  In Game 5 a ball bounced over the fence that might have ended the series if it bounced off the fence instead.


    In 1946, the man scores from first on a single. In '75, the man fists a single to center. In '78, the man pops a Fenway homer. In '86, the ball skitters between the man's legs. Mo blew the save. These are all plays. They are not that rare in baseball. Mo has blown saves. Are you saying that teams were lucky or unlucky because the plays happened in critical situations. That is not how I would define luck or randomness. The plays happened.  Clark's GR double was a break no doubt. But from then on luck was not involved. The Sox had the Yanks by the short hairs. That sort of thing -- GR doubles and the like -- can happen at any time.
    Teams arrive at a position to win or lose by a run. You cannot discount the ongoing context in which the critical play took place or how the context was established. Teams take it from there, for better or worse. Hits, baserunning, errors, blown saves are part of the game at any time. Why insert them into a "lucky" situation selectively. If we start calling luck what you are calling luck, there could be no end to it. And if luck and randomness play such "huge" roles, why, after 162 games, are not the KC Royals ahead of the Tigers.  Because they have not been as lucky as the Tigers.  Given your notion of huge, we might just as well attribute the standings to chance.
    I don't deny that luck and randomness play a role in baseball. But not nearly as "huge" as you say. And I don't think "luck" was the determining factor in the situations you cite.
    Coaches in all sports warn not to let the other team hang around so that the other team wins on a bad call or break. The hang around part is the key. The context or the situation in which the critical play takes place. You can't just point to that situation and say that luck determined the outcome. That's not how she works.



    Luck has a nasty connotation.  Randomness is probably a better word.

    I just think baseball is a game that we see a lot of randomness in, because of the nature of the game.  I don't think it's a bad thing.  It's part of the game's mystique. 

    When a player like Nava or Ciriaco or Podsednick hits .500 for a 10 game stretch, that's randomness.  For some unknown reason the balls were falling in for them instead of being caught.  Then over the next 20 games they're much more likely to hit .200.  Eventually the law of averages catches up to them.

    Many games are decided on a ball going a few inches the right way or the wrong way.  Like I say there's nothing wrong with this, it's not unfair, but the randomness is a fact. 

     


    What you say is true but doesn't address my analysis of your citing "luck" in those situations. Or over the course of a season. It isn't " huge," for all the reasons I gave. And it wasn't huge in those situations.
    What you are now saying is nothing more than "baseball is a game of inches." Duh. No cigar.
    I give you a detailed analysis of why you were wrong, and you come back with banalities. No cigar.
    We are delighted that you recognize  that randomness is a fact, and, especially that YOU see nothing wrong with it. What the deuce does this mean?
    The point is that your vastly overplayed your hand on randomness and chance, and have now tried  to finesse your way out of it with ho-hum statements that in no way address my specific critique of your original post.
    Do you still that great baserunning by Slaughter was "luck'? And so on. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Orioles

    There is no luck involved in a team being 16 games over .500. Their run differential is -31 but for the following reasons:

    1. In games decided by 7 or more runs, the Orioles are 3-11. In those games, they were outscored 127-54 (-73).
    2. In games decided by 9 or more runs, the Orioles are 1-6. In those games, they were outscored 81-28.
    3. They win low scoring games and well pitched games (Are you reading softy?). Pitching wins and the Orioles have a good pitching staff.

    For comparison reasons, the Red Sox, 12 games under .500 have a record in games decided by 7 runs or more have a record of 12-7, and have outscored their opponents by a score of 152-129.


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

    Re: Orioles

    In response to expitch's comment:


    What you say is true but doesn't address my analysis of your citing "luck" in those situations. Or over the course of a season. It isn't " huge," for all the reasons I gave. And it wasn't huge in those situations.
    What you are now saying is nothing more than "baseball is a game of inches." Duh. No cigar.
    I give you a detailed analysis of why you were wrong, and you come back with banalities. No cigar.
    We are delighted that you recognize  that randomness is a fact, and, especially that YOU see nothing wrong with it. What the deuce does this mean?
    The point is that your vastly overplayed your hand on randomness and chance, and have now tried  to finesse your way out of it with ho-hum statements that in no way address my specific critique of your original post.
    Do you still that great baserunning by Slaughter was "luck'? And so on. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, well, I've noticed that you have a tendency to get into long-running battles with other posters, and I can see why.  You like to take digs at the other person to get things rolling.  I'm not interested in that, thanks.

    But you didn't refute anything about randomness.  Even if Slaughter did make a great play, how does that refute anything?  We're talking about a 7-game series and hundreds of plays.  It's simplistic to focus on that one play as deciding the outcome.

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

    Re: Orioles

    In response to expitch's comment:

    Often said? By whom. Not by my coach. Not by Stengel. Not that I've seen. More than once. 
    About all of "those things." Show me how many times "those things" favored the Orioles this year. If it was almost every time, we aren't talking randomness but closer to the Hand of God.
     Then I agree that the opposition had no chance. 
    The Orioles are showing, not for the first time in baseball and elsewhere, that a whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. 
    I repeat. Saying a team with the Orioles record is not a good team does not pass the common sense test. But numbers can do that to a person.



    Actually, is almost is "closer to the Hand of God".   It's unexplainable how the O's have such a good record in one run games.  It defies the odds.   It's a fluke.  Again, such a fluke that it's never happened before in the history of the game.

    Sure, teams can be better than the sum of their parts.  But like I've said before, why would it happen in one run games and not in games decides by 3+ runs?   What happens to the Orioles' heart, desire, knowing how to win, etc in the other games?  It just disappears?

    Or maybe they just don't have the talent to overcome the that many runs?

    Explain to me why the Rays have a losing record in 1 run games.

    Explain to me why the Indians  have the 2nd best record in 1 run games.

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

    Re: Orioles

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Over their last 33 games the Orioles are 23-10 with a differential of +30.  They may be a team that is getting stronger as the season goes on.



    Yes, they have been playing much better recently, which I acknowledged in a post here somewhere.  

    Randomness plays a lot larger role in the game of baseball than I think most people realize. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to expitch's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Luck, or randomness, is a huge factor in the game of baseball.  The Red Sox lost the World Series in 1946 by a run.  It happened again in 1975.  They lost the 1978 playoff game by a run.  Game 6 in 1986 by a run.  Then in 2004 their luck finally turned as they won Games 4 and 5 of the ALCS by a run each.  In Game 4 Rivera blew a save that would have meant a sweep.  In Game 5 a ball bounced over the fence that might have ended the series if it bounced off the fence instead.


    In 1946, the man scores from first on a single. In '75, the man fists a single to center. In '78, the man pops a Fenway homer. In '86, the ball skitters between the man's legs. Mo blew the save. These are all plays. They are not that rare in baseball. Mo has blown saves. Are you saying that teams were lucky or unlucky because the plays happened in critical situations. That is not how I would define luck or randomness. The plays happened.  Clark's GR double was a break no doubt. But from then on luck was not involved. The Sox had the Yanks by the short hairs. That sort of thing -- GR doubles and the like -- can happen at any time.
    Teams arrive at a position to win or lose by a run. You cannot discount the ongoing context in which the critical play took place or how the context was established. Teams take it from there, for better or worse. Hits, baserunning, errors, blown saves are part of the game at any time. Why insert them into a "lucky" situation selectively. If we start calling luck what you are calling luck, there could be no end to it. And if luck and randomness play such "huge" roles, why, after 162 games, are not the KC Royals ahead of the Tigers.  Because they have not been as lucky as the Tigers.  Given your notion of huge, we might just as well attribute the standings to chance.
    I don't deny that luck and randomness play a role in baseball. But not nearly as "huge" as you say. And I don't think "luck" was the determining factor in the situations you cite.
    Coaches in all sports warn not to let the other team hang around so that the other team wins on a bad call or break. The hang around part is the key. The context or the situation in which the critical play takes place. You can't just point to that situation and say that luck determined the outcome. That's not how she works.



    You can't just look at the plays that are considered your typical "critical situations".   These "lucky" plays occur throughout the game.  Most of them probably go unnoticed because they aren't considered a critical situation.  But something as simple as a missed strike 3 call  in the first inning can have a huge impact on a game.

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

    Re: Orioles

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to expitch's comment:

     
    What you say is true but doesn't address my analysis of your citing "luck" in those situations. Or over the course of a season. It isn't " huge," for all the reasons I gave. And it wasn't huge in those situations.
    What you are now saying is nothing more than "baseball is a game of inches." Duh. No cigar.
    I give you a detailed analysis of why you were wrong, and you come back with banalities. No cigar.
    We are delighted that you recognize  that randomness is a fact, and, especially that YOU see nothing wrong with it. What the deuce does this mean?
    The point is that your vastly overplayed your hand on randomness and chance, and have now tried  to finesse your way out of it with ho-hum statements that in no way address my specific critique of your original post.
    Do you still that great baserunning by Slaughter was "luck'? And so on. 

     



    Yes, well, I've noticed that you have a tendency to get into long-running battles with other posters, and I can see why.  You like to take digs at the other person to get things rolling.  I'm not interested in that, thanks.

    But you didn't refute anything about randomness.  Even if Slaughter did make a great play, how does that refute anything?  We're talking about a 7-game series and hundreds of plays.  It's simplistic to focus on that one play as deciding the outcome.

     

    But you did exactly that: you cited the Slaughter play that decided the outcome. YOU DID. I filled in the context, which you omitted, as I did on other plays as examples of "luck."
    I refuted your absurd claim that randomness is "huge" in baseball -- and showed why, if it was, the standings could actually be scrambled by a "huge" number of breaks, inches and the stuff you think goes into decisive baseball. You don't know what you are talking about. And you demonstrated in no way your claim for randomness, save for a feeble response about balls that are fair or foul by inches. That's news?  And it has nothing to with the claims you made in your original case or my refutation of it. You do not make a statistical case for the "hugeness" of randomness, or any kind of case. You cited a few instances where you assumed it to be in play. I took care of that. And you had nothing to come back with. Just like the Slaughter play, they were YOUR examples. I did not single out anything. I commented upon them all.
    Right. I get into long arguments that sometimes get chippy. Have you checked out Moon/Softy or Danny/BV , the pro and con Salty threads. I can name more long running combats.
    You got off easy. You made an absurd case and then did not come close to defending it. You said randomness is a fact. Duh. Double duh. You in effect said baseball is a game of inches. Double duh again.  Now you're whining about "digs."  
    I'm still waiting for you to support your original assertion -- the one that got you into trouble -- that randomness is "huge," that is, statistically decisive regularly over 162 games -- in baseball.
    Try to make it, or clam up. So far you've kept making things worse for yourself.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to expitch's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Luck, or randomness, is a huge factor in the game of baseball.  The Red Sox lost the World Series in 1946 by a run.  It happened again in 1975.  They lost the 1978 playoff game by a run.  Game 6 in 1986 by a run.  Then in 2004 their luck finally turned as they won Games 4 and 5 of the ALCS by a run each.  In Game 4 Rivera blew a save that would have meant a sweep.  In Game 5 a ball bounced over the fence that might have ended the series if it bounced off the fence instead.


    In 1946, the man scores from first on a single. In '75, the man fists a single to center. In '78, the man pops a Fenway homer. In '86, the ball skitters between the man's legs. Mo blew the save. These are all plays. They are not that rare in baseball. Mo has blown saves. Are you saying that teams were lucky or unlucky because the plays happened in critical situations. That is not how I would define luck or randomness. The plays happened.  Clark's GR double was a break no doubt. But from then on luck was not involved. The Sox had the Yanks by the short hairs. That sort of thing -- GR doubles and the like -- can happen at any time.
    Teams arrive at a position to win or lose by a run. You cannot discount the ongoing context in which the critical play took place or how the context was established. Teams take it from there, for better or worse. Hits, baserunning, errors, blown saves are part of the game at any time. Why insert them into a "lucky" situation selectively. If we start calling luck what you are calling luck, there could be no end to it. And if luck and randomness play such "huge" roles, why, after 162 games, are not the KC Royals ahead of the Tigers.  Because they have not been as lucky as the Tigers.  Given your notion of huge, we might just as well attribute the standings to chance.
    I don't deny that luck and randomness play a role in baseball. But not nearly as "huge" as you say. And I don't think "luck" was the determining factor in the situations you cite.
    Coaches in all sports warn not to let the other team hang around so that the other team wins on a bad call or break. The hang around part is the key. The context or the situation in which the critical play takes place. You can't just point to that situation and say that luck determined the outcome. That's not how she works.



    You can't just look at the plays that are considered your typical "critical situations".   These "lucky" plays occur throughout the game.  Most of them probably go unnoticed because they aren't considered a critical situation.  But something as simple as a missed strike 3 call  in the first inning can have a huge impact on a game.

     


    They were the other guys examples, not mine. I simply commented upon them.
    It goes without saying that a play at any time can affect the outcome of a game. Who said it could not? Whether it is "lucky" or not could be debatable.  That is not what is being argued. It is a much larger issue.
    Do you agree with him that "randomness" is "huge" in baseball? The way he uses "huge" implies "regularly decisive," or at the very least, "critical to the outcome," often.  And so often as to affect how things finally sort themselves out. Otherwise, what could "huge" possibly mean? Big in one case? That certainly is not what the poster meant. He cited several cases. You seem to lean heavily on stats. Can you make a stat case for the claim that was being made for randomness? Not just in a few cases, but overall?
    If so, I'd like to hear the case.
    I know  what you think that the Orioles are "not a good team." You have had several good rebuttals to that assertion.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Over their last 33 games the Orioles are 23-10 with a differential of +30.  They may be a team that is getting stronger as the season goes on.



    Yes, they have been playing much better recently, which I acknowledged in a post here somewhere.  

    Randomness plays a lot larger role in the game of baseball than I think most people realize. 

     

    Come on, you're a stat man. How large? As close to specifically as you can muster. And stop lecturing "most people."  Fans who follow baseball see how this and that can affect a ballgame. And they certainly know that "luck" and "randomness" are somewhat involved. Now it's up to you to clarify the "somewhat."  
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to expitch's comment:

    But you did exactly that: you cited the Slaughter play that decided the outcome. YOU DID. I filled in the context, which you omitted, as I did on other plays as examples of "luck."
    I refuted your absurd claim that randomness is "huge" in baseball -- and showed why, if it was, the standings could actually be scrambled by a "huge" number of breaks, inches and the stuff you think goes into decisive baseball. You don't know what you are talking about. And you demonstrated in no way your claim for randomness, save for a feeble response about balls that are fair or foul by inches. That's news?  And it has nothing to with the claims you made in your original case or my refutation of it. You do not make a statistical case for the "hugeness" of randomness, or any kind of case. You cited a few instances where you assumed it to be in play. I took care of that. And you had nothing to come back with. Just like the Slaughter play, they were YOUR examples. I did not single out anything. I commented upon them all.
    Right. I get into long arguments that sometimes get chippy. Have you checked out Moon/Softy or Danny/BV , the pro and con Salty threads. I can name more long running combats.
    You got off easy. You made an absurd case and then did not come close to defending it. You said randomness is a fact. Duh. Double duh. You in effect said baseball is a game of inches. Double duh again.  Now you're whining about "digs."  
    I'm still waiting for you to support your original assertion -- the one that got you into trouble -- that randomness is "huge," that is, statistically decisive regularly over 162 games -- in baseball.
    Try to make it, or clam up. So far you've kept making things worse for yourself.



    You need to sharpen your reading skills.  I didn't cite the Slaughter play at all.  All I did was refer to the fact that we lost in the 7th game by a run.  You're the one who focussed on the one play.  You seem to get overexcited and read and type too fast. 

    As far as telling me to clam up, forget that kind of arrogant nonsense.  I post here when I feel like it.  I enjoy it.   It's a message board for shooting the breeze.  My statements about randomness may be contentious or difficult to prove, but so what.  A lot of what we talk about here is just for argument's sake.  You take yourself and your viewpoints much too seriously.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

    Re: Orioles




    Tied for 1st? Looks like it. Sept. 4 2012
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to expitch's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to expitch's comment:

     
    What you say is true but doesn't address my analysis of your citing "luck" in those situations. Or over the course of a season. It isn't " huge," for all the reasons I gave. And it wasn't huge in those situations.
    What you are now saying is nothing more than "baseball is a game of inches." Duh. No cigar.
    I give you a detailed analysis of why you were wrong, and you come back with banalities. No cigar.
    We are delighted that you recognize  that randomness is a fact, and, especially that YOU see nothing wrong with it. What the deuce does this mean?
    The point is that your vastly overplayed your hand on randomness and chance, and have now tried  to finesse your way out of it with ho-hum statements that in no way address my specific critique of your original post.
    Do you still that great baserunning by Slaughter was "luck'? And so on. 

     



    Yes, well, I've noticed that you have a tendency to get into long-running battles with other posters, and I can see why.  You like to take digs at the other person to get things rolling.  I'm not interested in that, thanks.

    But you didn't refute anything about randomness.  Even if Slaughter did make a great play, how does that refute anything?  We're talking about a 7-game series and hundreds of plays.  It's simplistic to focus on that one play as deciding the outcome.

     

    But you did exactly that: you cited the Slaughter play that decided the outcome. YOU DID. I filled in the context, which you omitted, as I did on other plays as examples of "luck."
    I refuted your absurd claim that randomness is "huge" in baseball -- and showed why, if it was, the standings could actually be scrambled by a "huge" number of breaks, inches and the stuff you think goes into decisive baseball. You don't know what you are talking about. And you demonstrated in no way your claim for randomness, save for a feeble response about balls that are fair or foul by inches. That's news?  And it has nothing to with the claims you made in your original case or my refutation of it. You do not make a statistical case for the "hugeness" of randomness, or any kind of case. You cited a few instances where you assumed it to be in play. I took care of that. And you had nothing to come back with. Just like the Slaughter play, they were YOUR examples. I did not single out anything. I commented upon them all.
    Right. I get into long arguments that sometimes get chippy. Have you checked out Moon/Softy or Danny/BV , the pro and con Salty threads. I can name more long running combats.
    You got off easy. You made an absurd case and then did not come close to defending it. You said randomness is a fact. Duh. Double duh. You in effect said baseball is a game of inches. Double duh again.  Now you're whining about "digs."  
    I'm still waiting for you to support your original assertion -- the one that got you into trouble -- that randomness is "huge," that is, statistically decisive regularly over 162 games -- in baseball.
    Try to make it, or clam up. So far you've kept making things worse for yourself.

     



    I hate to break it to you but he isn't in "trouble" and he isn't "making things worse for himself".  He also isn't whining.

    Why do you get so freaked out so easily?

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

    Re: Orioles

     aIn response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to expitch's comment:

    But you did exactly that: you cited the Slaughter play that decided the outcome. YOU DID. I filled in the context, which you omitted, as I did on other plays as examples of "luck."
    I refuted your absurd claim that randomness is "huge" in baseball -- and showed why, if it was, the standings could actually be scrambled by a "huge" number of breaks, inches and the stuff you think goes into decisive baseball. You don't know what you are talking about. And you demonstrated in no way your claim for randomness, save for a feeble response about balls that are fair or foul by inches. That's news?  And it has nothing to with the claims you made in your original case or my refutation of it. You do not make a statistical case for the "hugeness" of randomness, or any kind of case. You cited a few instances where you assumed it to be in play. I took care of that. And you had nothing to come back with. Just like the Slaughter play, they were YOUR examples. I did not single out anything. I commented upon them all.
    Right. I get into long arguments that sometimes get chippy. Have you checked out Moon/Softy or Danny/BV , the pro and con Salty threads. I can name more long running combats.
    You got off easy. You made an absurd case and then did not come close to defending it. You said randomness is a fact. Duh. Double duh. You in effect said baseball is a game of inches. Double duh again.  Now you're whining about "digs."  
    I'm still waiting for you to support your original assertion -- the one that got you into trouble -- that randomness is "huge," that is, statistically decisive regularly over 162 games -- in baseball.
    Try to make it, or clam up. So far you've kept making things worse for yourself.



    You need to sharpen your reading skills.  I didn't cite the Slaughter play at all.  All I did was refer to the fact that we lost in the 7th game by a run.  You're the one who focussed on the one play.  You seem to get overexcited and read and type too fast. 

    As far as telling me to clam up, forget that kind of arrogant nonsense.  I post here when I feel like it.  I enjoy it.   It's a message board for shooting the breeze.  My statements about randomness may be contentious or difficult to prove, but so what.  A lot of what we talk about here is just for argument's sake.  You take yourself and your viewpoints much too seriously.

     

    The comments directed at me are a red herring. You got your clock cleaned and you're helpless to do anything about it. So you end with "so what." The feeblest of all.
    I can read perfectly well. Most of what you say is nonsense. You made reference to SEVERAL events. I took them one at a time -- since you posited "randomness" as the essential factor -- a
    "huge one."  Then, as a coda, not singled out but as a continuing challenge ( since you were still failing to meet mine ), I asked if you thought Slaughter was "lucky."  I could just as well have asked if Morgan was lucky, if X was unlucky, and so on. But why bother. The Slaughter example illustrated the whole shebang.
    You handled exactly none of the points I made. You still haven't. You quit with "so what." That is a long way from the cocksure tone of your original post. It is a weasel exit.
    Next time you speak as if you know what you're talking about, at least make an effort to know what you're talking about. Especially when you declare that something is "huge." And try hard not to use examples that are so easily shot down. You introduced a huge subject, if I may, which you had not thought through, and then did noy know how to escape the thicket you found yourself in.
    This board is a tough neighborhood. If you can't tolerate a few nicks, take a more serene route. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Orioles

    In response to expitch's comment:

     aIn response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to expitch's comment:

    But you did exactly that: you cited the Slaughter play that decided the outcome. YOU DID. I filled in the context, which you omitted, as I did on other plays as examples of "luck."
    I refuted your absurd claim that randomness is "huge" in baseball -- and showed why, if it was, the standings could actually be scrambled by a "huge" number of breaks, inches and the stuff you think goes into decisive baseball. You don't know what you are talking about. And you demonstrated in no way your claim for randomness, save for a feeble response about balls that are fair or foul by inches. That's news?  And it has nothing to with the claims you made in your original case or my refutation of it. You do not make a statistical case for the "hugeness" of randomness, or any kind of case. You cited a few instances where you assumed it to be in play. I took care of that. And you had nothing to come back with. Just like the Slaughter play, they were YOUR examples. I did not single out anything. I commented upon them all.
    Right. I get into long arguments that sometimes get chippy. Have you checked out Moon/Softy or Danny/BV , the pro and con Salty threads. I can name more long running combats.
    You got off easy. You made an absurd case and then did not come close to defending it. You said randomness is a fact. Duh. Double duh. You in effect said baseball is a game of inches. Double duh again.  Now you're whining about "digs."  
    I'm still waiting for you to support your original assertion -- the one that got you into trouble -- that randomness is "huge," that is, statistically decisive regularly over 162 games -- in baseball.
    Try to make it, or clam up. So far you've kept making things worse for yourself.



    You need to sharpen your reading skills.  I didn't cite the Slaughter play at all.  All I did was refer to the fact that we lost in the 7th game by a run.  You're the one who focussed on the one play.  You seem to get overexcited and read and type too fast. 

    As far as telling me to clam up, forget that kind of arrogant nonsense.  I post here when I feel like it.  I enjoy it.   It's a message board for shooting the breeze.  My statements about randomness may be contentious or difficult to prove, but so what.  A lot of what we talk about here is just for argument's sake.  You take yourself and your viewpoints much too seriously.

     

    The comments directed at me are a red herring. You got your clock cleaned and you're helpless to do anything about it. So you end with "so what." The feeblest of all.
    I can read perfectly well. Most of what you say is nonsense. You made reference to SEVERAL events. I took them one at a time -- since you posited "randomness" as the essential factor -- a
    "huge one."  Then, as a coda, not singled out but as a continuing challenge ( since you were still failing to meet mine ), I asked if you thought Slaughter was "lucky."  I could just as well have asked if Morgan was lucky, if X was unlucky, and so on. But why bother. The Slaughter example illustrated the whole shebang.
    You handled exactly none of the points I made. You still haven't. You quit with "so what." That is a long way from the cocksure tone of your original post. It is a weasel exit.
    Next time you speak as if you know what you're talking about, at least make an effort to know what you're talking about. Especially when you declare that something is "huge." And try hard not to use examples that are so easily shot down. You introduced a huge subject, if I may, which you had not thought through, and then did noy know how to escape the thicket you found yourself in.
    This board is a tough neighborhood. If you can't tolerate a few nicks, take a more serene route. 

     



    You drunk man?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share