Yeah, you could maybe worry that Duquette is now gonna go ahead and make a Glenn Davis (or Erik Bedard) type of blockbuster, overestimating the team's true talent level and assuming the club is just one piece away, but, hell, they didn't even trade for Headley, figuring it was better to bring up Machado and stick him at third.

Teams that play above their pythag never let it cause them to mis-estimate the teams strengths.

Never.

Yes, the O's are a different team now versus April and their recent performance is strong, but I'm not comfortable looking at a month's worth of data to make conclusions about team quality.

FWIW, the Orioles are 91-71 in their last 162 games.

But for some in this community, that isn't enough. They need to be a good team on paper, or else their accomplishments must be denigrated.

Actually, the point is not to denigrate their accomplishments; it's to figure out what their accomplishments actually are, as distinguished from good luck.

Are you arguing that run differential is meaningless in assessing team quality? If not, then what are you taking issue with, exactly?

The Orioles really need a decent 1b, but it's a surprisingly thin position in MLB at the moment. You have an upper tier of Gonzalez, Fielder, Pujols, and Votto, and a second tier of Teixiera, Konerko, Morneau, Goldschmidt, Freeman, Craig, Rizzo, Belt, and maybe a couple others, but that doesn't seem like a great collection of talent.

Being the best team -- being good at all -- is just a way to make it more likely that you'll win the World Series. If you don't win the World Series, it doesn't matter how good you were. If you win the World Series, it doesn't matter that there were better teams than you.

Killing the playoffs and going back to the traditional best record NL team faces best record AL team in World Series would get much closer to the "best team is world champ" ideal.

It would be absolutely horrible, especially the last 2 months of the regular season when one leagues best team has a 7 game lead over #2, and 14 other teams have to play out the string, but it would make the World Series more meaningful, that's for sure.

Possibly, but what I like about what they did (or didn't do) was realistically assess where they were at the time. The concept of 'let's see if we can catch some magic with the last dregs of Jim Thome, but otherwise dance with the ones that brung us' was perfectly okay with me.

Oh, I agree.

Actually, the point is not to denigrate their accomplishments; it's to figure out what their accomplishments actually are, as distinguished from good luck.

If the Orioles (or whoever) win 95 games and their division, and then win the world series, everyone knows what their actual accomplishments are.

FWIW, the Orioles are 91-71 in their last 162 games.

I'm talking about underlying performance that attempts to strip away luck. And you're talking about actual record. Neither view is wrong per se. Just different ways to examine data.

If the Orioles (or whoever) win 95 games and their division, and then win the world series, everyone knows what their actual accomplishments are.

Not everyone, apparently.

sorry, everyone but you

I like how BBTF is pimping "Oriental Brides" to me on the sidebar ad.

Ray and Keith Law against the world. Somehow I'm not surprised.

Are you arguing that run differential is meaningless in assessing team quality? If not, then what are you taking issue with, exactly?

The allegation that "quality" exists apart from team wins in actual games.

More importantly, that we should waste time trying to discern this "accomplishment," which has both the stated and the actual intent of diluting actual accomplishment.

"Accomplishment" for a team reduces to winning actual games on the field. All the noise to the contrary, including the facile notion that modeled wins and winlets are more important and more "real" than actual wins pretty much ruins the baseball season and the baseball off-season. The practitioners and expositors of that kind of garbage are the types of people who, one day, will root for the machines over the people.

Winning the World Series, or even making the playoffs, is an accomplishment. Consoling yourself with the fact that you had an excellent Pythagorean record is not an accomplishment.

Two issues, mostly semantic, occur to me: First of all, it's possible that none of the AL teams this year could convince Keith Law that they were good teams. Compared to the 1998 Yankees, they all suck. By that criterion, it doesn't matter how much winning any of them do. Though it's not really what he's saying (he thinks they're mediocre even against their competition), it's possible the competition is bunched more closely than usual. By analogy, I see a lot of non-good horses win races, because I see a lot of $12,500 claiming races. They win, but they're not exactly Affirmed out there.

And second, winning is often a matter of matchups, not of being abstractly "good." Was Neifi Perez a good hitter? No, he was proverbially, legendarily bad. Was Randy Johnson a good pitcher? Yes. What did Neifi hit lifetime against the Unit? .333. With no walks (that's our Neifi!) but while slugging .619 in 42 PAs; Neifi just beat Johnson, who had a lifetime SLG-against of .353. So what do you say? Perhaps it was aberration. Or perhaps Neifi beat Johnson because there was something he could do against Johnson that very few others could do, and that he could do against very few others. It's weird, but that's sports.

You know, I agree with Keith Law now, and I am praying that Selig takes action before they make the playoffs and embarrass the entire league.

Something like double-secret probation.

JETER: What do you intend to do, sir? They've already been punished, the team has Angelos as their owner.

SELIG: They do?

JETER: Yes, sir.

SELIG: Oh....

SELIG: Then as of now, they're on double secret probation!

JETER: Double secret probation, sir?

SELIG: There is a little-known codicil in the MLB Constitution... which gives the Commissioner unlimited power to preserve order...
in time of a potential TV Ratings catastrophe. Find me a way to revoke Baltimore's charter. You live next door.

SELIG: Put Keith Law on it. He's a sneaky little #### just like you, right?

SELIG: The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me!!!!

CUT TO: ORIOLES CLUBHOUSE

SHOWALTER: We're in trouble. The Saber guys said our runs scored versus runs allowed is all wrong.

JJ HARDY: Both of them? Those ######## must have stolen the wrong ####### book!

(flash to Wieters and Thome looking down at Tommy Lasorda's "The Artful Dodger")

(Tense instrumental music)

HARDY: God, look what just creeped in.

SELIG: well, well, well. Looks like somebody forgot there's a rule against alcoholic beverages... in clubhouses on probation.

HARDY: What a tool!

SELIG: What was that?

HARDY: I said...what a shame...that a few bad rookies have to spoil a good time...for everyone by breaking the rules.

SELIG: Put a sock in it... or you'll be out like #### through goose gossage.

HARDY: Yes, sir.

SELIG: Have you boys seen your pythagorean average yet? Have you?

SHOWALTER: I have, sir. It's a little below par--

SELIG: lt's more than a little below par. It stinks! It's the lowest in the league. It's the lowest in MLB history!

SHOWALTER: Well, sir... we're hoping that our stretch run will help our average.

(Markakis Laughs mockingly)

SELIG: Laugh now... because you clowns have been on double secret probation the entire second half.

SHOWALTER: Double secret probation?

SELIG: That means one more slip-up... one more mistake... and this team of yours has had it...
no more playoffs.

LATER:

SHOWALTER walks into the clubhouse

SHOWALTER: Looks like I missed something.

HARDY: You did. Selig just got our latest pythagoreans, we're kicked out of the playoffs.

SHOWALTER: They kicked us out of the playoffs? That makes sense.

WIETERS: What's this lying around ####?

WEI-YIN CHEN: What should we do, moron?

THOME: War's over. Selig dropped the big one.

WIETERS: What? "Over"? Did you say "over"? Nothing's over until we decide it is!

Was it over when the Ichiro homered against us end of July? Hell, no!

HARDY: Ichiro? Wasn't that Cesped--

SHOWALTER: Forget it, he's rolling.

WIETERS: And it ain't over now.'Cause when the going gets tough...

(Patriotic instrumental music)

WIETERS: the tough get going! Who's with me?

WIETERS: Let's go! Come on! What the #### happened to the Orioles l used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts? This could be the greatest year of our lives... but you're gonna let it be the worst.
"We're afraid to go with you, Wieto. We might get in trouble."

WIETERS: (Shouting) Just kiss my ass from now on. Not me! I won't take this! Selig is a dead man! -Jeter: dead! Law --

SHOWALTER: Dead.
Wieto's right. Psychotic... but absolutely right. We got to take these bastards. We could fight them with conventional weapons. That could take years... cost millions of fans. In this case... I think we have to go all out. I think this situation absolutely requires... a really futile and stupid playoff run… be done on Angelo's part.

HARDY: We're just the guys to win it.

WIETERS: Let's win it.

(All shouting) Let's win it!

Hearty applause for 116-118

I would like to jump in and say everything Larry is saying is spot on. Personally I'm surprised we're still having these conversations 10 years into the saber revolution and still getting oh so angry over them.

LOCK THREAD

I don't really understand what people are talking about here. No one is disputing that the Orioles have a good record and are likely to win 90 games and make the playoffs. What Law is talking about is the actual performance of the team thus far and what to expect going forward.

The Orioles have been outscored on the season. Good teams do not get outscored in the aggregate. You don't even need to know anything about baseball to get that. By third order wins, the Orioles have been the 9th best team in the league this year. Going forward I don't really know what to expect - I don't know a lot about the Orioles current roster. It's true that they have Tillman and Manny Machado playing well and Dylan Bundy in the wings, but there are a lot of teams that have promising players. It's not enough for us to think that a team that's played as well as the Mariners this year is suddenly a top team going forward.

Good for Orioles fans, and obviously the only thing that matters is making the playoffs, but anyone getting on Laws case for saying the Orioles are not a good team is either a homer or an idiot.

but anyone getting on Laws case for saying the Orioles are not a good team is either a homer or an idiot.

One has to assume, however, that when you are appearing on a radio show TODAY and say 'This is not a good team'...that you are referring to the club as seen TODAY.

If Keith wants to say 'this is a club that's playing well right now, to be sure, but if they think they have made a move into the upper tier of the American League, I'd disagree.'...I don't think anyone would argue that point.

But when you say 'nothing they could do could convince me they are a good team'...well, that's just moronic, because if they won for another month as they have as of late, well, that's got to look like a team with a solid young pitching staff and a few more-than-decent everyday parts - a good team. No one said 'top team'...that's your language, not Law's or anyone commenting.

VA, awesome....just awesome.

agree,. thread should have been locked at 119

but anyone getting on Laws case for saying the Orioles are not a good team is either a homer or an idiot.

I was getting on Law's case for saying "There’s literally nothing that the Orioles can do to convince me that they are a good team."

I don't really understand what people are talking about here. No one is disputing that the Orioles have a good record and are likely to win 90 games and make the playoffs. What Law is talking about is the actual performance of the team thus far

If they win 90 games and make the playoffs that is the actual performance of the team!

Teams in the Orioles' situation - who have a good year that isn't supported by the underlying stats - generally realize that they still have some work to do and go out and address their remaining issues. To Duquette's credit, he's been doing that all along. Baltimore has been moving players out that aren't doing the job all season - Betemit, Andino, Arrieta, Hunter, moving Matusz from the rotation to the pen, etc.

The question will be whether Duquette lets a successful season blind him to the things that the team still needs to do in the offseason. Obviously, the Orioles need another outfielder and an everyday 2B (I think Hardy probably has some bounce back in him but if not that's a second infield position that will have to be addressed). They'll also have to make some choices in the rotation, and someone needs to step up to be an ace (not sure who that's going to be at the moment, but there is no really clear #1 horse).

The gap between the Orioles and the top teams has narrowed. They're not a great team yet, but they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand either.

-- MWE

What Law is talking about is the actual performance of the team thus far and what to expect going forward.

Law is being criticized because he's doing a poor job of understanding the relationship between the team's performance so far and what that means for them going forward.

Simply looking at the Orioles run differential and calling them a bad team is even less useful than simply looking at their W-L record and calling them a great team. Both are simplistic and lazy analysis, but historically the person who only looks at W-L record will be right more often.

Baltimore has been moving players out that aren't doing the job all season - Betemit, Andino, Arrieta, Hunter, moving Matusz from the rotation to the pen, etc.

Sure, but teams move players out who aren't doing the job regardless of whether they're beating their pythag.

Non saber-cultists are "confused" much less than saber-cultists assume. Much like the Stasi, the cultists are forever on the lookout for baseball thoughtcrimes and that's precisely Law's pose here.

#126,

To salvage some actual baseball talk out of a Orioles 2 pager:

My sense is Duquette isn’t one to rest on his laurels, and judging by his (non-)action at the deadline, he realizes this team is not a juggernaut.

Sitting here right now, only C, RF, and CF are a given for 2013. I think they’d love to move Machado back to SS, but I doubt they want to sell low on Hardy, so my money is on them sticking with Machado/Hardy on the left side of the infield.

They will probably decline Reynolds’ $11 million option, so that leaves them with question marks at 2B, 1B, DH, LF. I think it’s unlikely that they’ll make a run at a big-time free agent, so they’ll probably try to fill 2 of those holes through trade/stopgap, and 2 internally (Reimold/Roberts/McLouth/Davis/Avery/Schoop/Hoes) to round out a roughly league average lineup/defense.

So their fate in 2013 will rest on whether their rotation will continue to be league average, or whether somebody steps up to be that #1 or #2 pitcher. Bundy pitched well in the AA playoffs last night – 1 ER in 6 innings, with 7 Ks and 1 BB.

It's not a guarantee, but teams with winning records despite being outscored have just changed their uniform design.

So now that the Orioles are good, or goodish at least, do they fire him and bring in a guy who will win the Series and get all the credit?

So now that the Orioles are good, or goodish at least, do they fire him and bring in a guy who will win the Series and get all the credit?

Nah, not yet. He has to first trade for Strasburg, sign him to a 7-year extension and then negotiate on film with Josh Hamilton for a 8-year $160m deal.

What's happening here is simple: the Orioles, despite their record, aren't that good, and people are whining about the people who have the gall to point that out.

What's happening here is simple: the Orioles, despite their record, aren't that good, and people are whining about the people who have the gall to point that out.

Not whining about it, merely pointing out how buffoonish they are. (And how they prefer the spreadsheets to actual baseball, but that's been obvious for years.)

so that leaves them with question marks at 2B, 1B, DH, LF. I think it’s unlikely that they’ll make a run at a big-time free agent


Why is that? I would think filling the gap at either 1B, DH or LF could be cured by Hamilton. I don't know if I would do that or not, but I would think they'd at least consider it.

Gonzalez would have made sense for them too. Do they really not have any payroll flexibility?

Do they really not have any payroll flexibility?

They should have some money. Gregg is gone and Reynolds can be. But they might want to pay to keep Joe Saunders.

What's happening here is simple: the Orioles, despite their record, aren't that good, and people are whining about the people who have the gall to point that out.

My point continues to be that they are playing well NOW and outscoring people reasonably well. The team has changed since the earlier part of the season when they were winning more than they should have. It seems unnecessarily rigid to make judgements on the quality of the team with what might be stale data. My point may be wrong but I think it's reasonable. Yours and Law's point may also be reasonable and wrong. There's room here for a lot of give. It seems to me to be an epistemological problem.

Seventy-six and 60 are the only numbers that matter. This time tomorrow they'll either be 77-60 or 76-61 and those will be the only numbers that matter then.

I think part of the issue is people are looking at the team Win stat as if it were the individual pitcher Win stat.

People seem to be trying to look backwards and give projections on the Orioles' win totals for the first 5 months. This is asinine, considering we already know exactly how many games they won. Law has been saying for months that the Orioles aren't good (based on run differential and/or other things) and won't continue to win games, which was a reasonable and logical opinion. But now he's saying that even if they continue to win games, he was right all along because they aren't good according to his own definitions of good - when earlier he was sharing the use of 162-game-season win totals to determine 'good.' He went from saying "they are not good and this will bear out once the full season evens things out" to "even if they don't fall back in the standings I was still right all along."

I have to wonder what the hell is the value or him predicting in May/June that they will be bad if this definition of bad can include the team winning the division, pennant, and world series.

What's happening here is simple: the Orioles, despite their record, aren't that good, and people are whining about the people who have the gall to point that out.

It all depends on what the meanings of the word "are" are, as they say.

Over the last five years, the Orioles have a terrible record, have put lots of terrible players on the field, and have a terrible run differential. Does that mean the Orioles are bad?
Over the last three games, the Orioles have outscored their opponents 20-6 and are playing .666 ball. Does that mean the Orioles are great?

Ordinarily, a single season is a pretty good sample because you're dealing with a roughly uniform set of players. But that's not really true for the 2012 Orioles. I think the second-half team is probably more different from the first-half team than the 2011 Orioles were different from the 2010 Orioles.

I think the second-half team is probably more different from the first-half team than the 2011 Orioles were different from the 2010 Orioles.

Here's how the first half and second half position players break down in terms of percentage of total team plate appearances in each half.

Player: 1st half %
J.J. Hardy: 11.7%
Adam Jones: 11.3%
Matt Wieters: 10.0%
Robert Andino: 9.1%
Chris Davis: 9.0%
Wilson Betemit: 8.3%
Mark Reynolds: 7.3%
Nick Markakis: 7.1%
Endy Chavez: 3.5%
Xavier Avery: 3.2%
Nick Johnson: 3.2%
Ryan Flaherty: 3.2%
Steve Pearce: 2.4%
Brian Roberts: 2.3%
Nolan Reimold: 2.2%
Ronny Paulino: 2.0%
Steve Tolleson: 1.8%
Jim Thome: 0.8%
Luis Exposito: 0.6%
Bill Hall: 0.4%
Joseph Mahoney: 0.1%

Player: 2nd half %
Nick Markakis: 12.1%
Adam Jones: 11.3%
J.J. Hardy: 11.3%
Mark Reynolds: 10.0%
Matt Wieters: 9.5%
Chris Davis: 9.1%
Nate McLouth: 5.9%
Omar Quintanilla: 5.4%
Wilson Betemit: 5.3%
Manny Machado: 4.9%
Robert Andino: 3.7%
Jim Thome: 2.8%
Lew Ford: 2.7%
Taylor Teagarden: 2.2%
Ryan Flaherty: 1.7%
Endy Chavez: 0.9%
Steve Tolleson: 0.7%
Steve Pearce: 0.4%
Joseph Mahoney: 0.1%

Pitchers coming shortly.

What's happening here is simple: the Orioles, despite their record, aren't that good, and people are whining about the people who have the gall to point that out.

People seem to be trying to look backwards and give projections on the Orioles' win totals for the first 5 months. This is asinine, considering we already know exactly how many games they won. Law has been saying for months that the Orioles aren't good (based on run differential and/or other things) and won't continue to win games, which was a reasonable and logical opinion. But now he's saying that even if they continue to win games, he was right all along because they aren't good according to his own definitions of good - when earlier he was sharing the use of 162-game-season win totals to determine 'good.' He went from saying "they are not good and this will bear out once the full season evens things out" to "even if they don't fall back in the standings I was still right all along."

Or IOW "I should have been right, therefore I was right." Law and DiPerna should put that on a T-shirt and sell it on CafePress.

Percentage of innings pitched vs. total team innings broken down by half.

Player: 1st half %
Jason Hammel: 13.7%
Wei-Yin Chen: 13.3%
Jake Arrieta: 13.1%
Brian Matusz: 10.9%
Tommy Hunter: 10.4%
Luis Ayala: 5.2%
Troy Patton: 5.0%
Pedro Strop: 4.9%
Jim Johnson: 4.8%
Darren O'Day: 4.5%
Dana Eveland: 4.1%
Kevin Gregg: 3.1%
Miguel Angel Gonzalez: 2.4%
Matt Lindstrom: 2.3%
Chris Tillman: 1.1%
Stuart Pomeranz: 0.8%
Chris Davis: 0.3%
Jason Berken: 0.1%
Zachary Phillips: 0.1%

Player: 2nd half %
Miguel Angel Gonzalez: 13.3%
Wei-Yin Chen: 13.2%
Chris Tillman: 11.5%
Zachary Britton: 11.3%
Tommy Hunter: 8.9%
Luis Ayala: 5.4%
Pedro Strop: 4.6%
Darren O'Day: 4.3%
Jim Johnson: 4.1%
Kevin Gregg: 4.0%
Matt Lindstrom: 4.0%
Steven Johnson: 3.9%
Troy Patton: 2.9%
Joe Saunders: 2.5%
Miguel Socolovich R.: 2.3%
Brian Matusz: 1.1%
J.C. Romero: 0.9%
Randy Wolf: 0.7%
Jason Hammel: 0.7%
Zachary Phillips: 0.2%
Dana Eveland: 0.1%

My sense is Duquette isn’t one to rest on his laurels, and judging by his (non-)action at the deadline, he realizes this team is not a juggernaut.

I can only base Duquette on his Boston tenure but I think the first half of that statement is generally accurate. I never got a sense that he wasn't trying to improve the team or content with what he had. There were some times I think he would have been better off staying out of the way but that's going to be true of any GM.

#114 I've actually taken a quick look as to whether pythags or actual team record better predicts playoff success. Basically I'v found no evidence that pythags matter at all when looking at the playoffs. Nor did the way Fangraphs did their power rankings.

Actual W/L record did seem to matter though (though it wasn't a great predictor of playoff success).

A more detailed look at this is on my list of things to check.

Why is that? I would think filling the gap at either 1B, DH or LF could be cured by Hamilton. I don't know if I would do that or not, but I would think they'd at least consider it.

Gonzalez would have made sense for them too. Do they really not have any payroll flexibility?

They should have some payroll room, but I don’t think they’ll be in the position to devote $15-25 million to a single player.

They also haven’t been very willing to give out long-term contracts to free agents. I think the last time they signed a free agent for longer than three years was the Tejada contract in 2004. They’ve supposedly made some offers since then (like Teixeira), but it’s questionable whether those were serious offers.