Cold Beer: Your 2010 Orioles!

[ExtremeRavens]

Same as the 2009 Orioles…
Same as the 2008 Orioles…
Same as the 2007 Orioles…
Same as the 2006 Orioles…
Same as the 2005 Orioles…
Same as the 2004 Orioles…
Same as the 2003 Orioles…
Same as the 2002 Orioles…
Same as the 2001 Orioles…
Same as the 2000 Orioles…
Same as the 1999 Orioles…
Same as the 1998 Orioles…

View the full article

[vmax]

It was a good game. Yea they couldn't hit with men on base and close the game out.

 

Need help...my 14 year old daughter wants an O's jersey and hat...what player should she wear...maybe somebody popular with the girls?

[cravnravn]

5:30 am this morning and the talk show callers are throwing in the towel..Unbelieveable after 1 game.

[varaven45]

It was a good game. Yea they couldn't hit with men on base and close the game out.

 

Need help...my 14 year old daughter wants an O's jersey and hat...what player should she wear...maybe somebody popular with the girls?

 

Max and Crav,

 

This game epitomized what we have seen for the past 12 years: the Orioles way - playing

just well enough to lose. The O's must lead the league over the past 12 years in "runners (in scoring position)

stranded with less than 2 out".

 

Its only 1 game but this team has the exact same makeup/mindset from the past 12 years.

Its a 70 WIN SEASON !

 

Sorry for venting guys but just tired of the losing.

[dc.]

Max...

 

All the young guys are popular... Jones, Wieters, Markakis... Roberts is still very popular too. I would avoid: Tejada, Izturis, Millwood, Guthrie (any pitcher not named Matusz, Tillman or Bergesen really)

[Spen]

It was a very frustrating game. I know the old rule of thumb is that when the season starts the pitchers are ahead of the batters, but still.

[cravnravn]

I understand your vent Va, we've seen this before with Irsay..Angelos = Irsay theres no way around it, The O's have some decent players on O, but there pitching has suspect, for over 12 years.

[dc.]

No one's expecting glory, crav. Just competitiveness.

 

It was incredibly frustrating last night, but we've all still got our unis on today.

[cravnravn]

No one's expecting glory, crav. Just competitiveness.

 

Thats all I need, to play a meaningful game after the allstar break would be nice eh?

[varaven45]

No one's expecting glory, crav. Just competitiveness.

 

It was incredibly frustrating last night, but we've all still got our unis on today.

 

 

DC,

 

Imagine how Adam " tired of losing" Jones must feel. Must be sick to his stomach.

How can a team fail to score with guys in scoring position with no outs. And twice, if i recall.

And the second time- in the 9th with the top of the lineup coming up.

 

This performance cannot be condoned under any circumstances. If the Manager and players accept losing, then they are who we thought they were.

[dc.]

There were plenty of mistakes. There were just as many on the Rays side and they are supposed to be a very good, very competitive team. Even picked for the series by many. Sometimes you have to win a game like that 3-2... the Rays stranded plenty. It was a team failure. It sucks. I'm not condoning it. But again, woke up this morning and put on my jersey again...

[varaven45]

There were plenty of mistakes. There were just as many on the Rays side and they are supposed to be a very good, very competitive team. Even picked for the series by many. Sometimes you have to win a game like that 3-2... the Rays stranded plenty. It was a team failure. It sucks. I'm not condoning it. But again, woke up this morning and put on my jersey again...

 

Appreciate your perspective DC ! I am glad you dont condone but the Os - mgr and players - cant condone.

 

I remember a few years ago, after a bitter loss by the Tigers, Manager Jim Leyland royally chewed out his players up and down and said he/his team would not condone a loss like that again. He was pissed and vowed the team lackluster performance would not happen again !

 

That team went on a huge winning streak - like 25-5 - over the next month and went on to win Division.

 

In my opinion, we need that attitude to right this ship. Otherwise, we are just biding our time.

[dc.]

I think we certainly need that attitude... but I don't know if we need the method, per say.

 

We're a very young team ... Trembley's gotta walk a fine line between chewing guys out and fostering growth.

 

You're totally right that we shouldn't accept bad losses in that sense. But there's a number of ways to say you don't approve of something and to make the changes.

 

If this were 1997, 1998... hell, even a few years ago in 2005... yeah, you rip them a new one. Teams full of veterans don't need to be coddled.

 

But the likes of Jones, Pie, Reimold, Wieters, Matusz, etc etc... they all need a fair balance of "that was unacceptable" and "a lot went right, so keep it up"

[millz58]

It was a very frustrating game. I know the old rule of thumb is that when the season starts the pitchers are ahead of the batters, but still.

VERY frustrating and ditto to all of the "same as the last 12 years" comments.

 

Here is a Trembley quote which disgusts me, from http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=300406130

 

"We played with a lot of poise, very confident. It just came down to the last three outs and we didn't get it done," Orioles manager Dave Trembley said.

 

"It really doesn't matter what you do the first eight [innings]. You've got a one-run lead going into the ninth. What you've done earlier in the game is a wash," Trembley said. "It comes down to getting those three outs. Whoever gets it first is going to walk away the winner. We didn't get it."

 

So, by WE he means Gonzalez, who is new to the AL and ALeast in particular, so Spen, I don't agree he would be ahead of the batters at the start of the year. And Trembley wants to call him out (even if indirectly) while the issue of 11 RISP stranded over the "other meaningless" innings doesn't merit primary focus? Or how about Millwood with 100 pitches in 5 innings? Or the base running? I was shocked that Albers did well in his limited role. Holy crap... The NHL playoffs aren't even here and I'm already annoyed with the O's. It's gonna be a long few weeks...

[dc.]

I think his point is that good teams win the last inning... if you have a lead in the 9th, you should win. Look at the numbers... teams like the Yanks, Sox, they tend to be 90-0 every year when they enter the 8th/9th with a lead.

 

Just like good football teams hold on to leads in the 4th quarter.

 

There are going to be plenty of 1 and 2 run games... games where we are up just a run for most of the game... there's lots of things that could change that throughout the game, but if you're winning - you're winning. And you have to hold it. Period.

 

I hated hearing Dave Johnson saying "your starter did well... your first three relievers did well... how many times do you think you'll get lucky with a pitcher being able to hold 'em off?"

 

Well, Dave... on a good team? It's not luck. And you proposing that we stretch Johnson or Ohman beyond an inning has it's classic flaws too. Most of these guys are 3-out pitchers and that's it. What's your solution? Because if we left Johnson in for another 2 batters and he gave up the hits, you'd be blaming him for putting Gonzalez in a bad spot.

 

Bottom line: Yes, I expect a pitcher to get 3 outs before giving up 2 runs. Every time.

[millz58]

I think his point is that good teams win the last inning... if you have a lead in the 9th, you should win. Look at the numbers... teams like the Yanks, Sox, they tend to be 90-0 every year when they enter the 8th/9th with a lead.

 

Just like good football teams hold on to leads in the 4th quarter.

 

There are going to be plenty of 1 and 2 run games... games where we are up just a run for most of the game... there's lots of things that could change that throughout the game, but if you're winning - you're winning. And you have to hold it. Period.

 

I hated hearing Dave Johnson saying "your starter did well... your first three relievers did well... how many times do you think you'll get lucky with a pitcher being able to hold 'em off?"

 

Well, Dave... on a good team? It's not luck. And you proposing that we stretch Johnson or Ohman beyond an inning has it's classic flaws too. Most of these guys are 3-out pitchers and that's it. What's your solution? Because if we left Johnson in for another 2 batters and he gave up the hits, you'd be blaming him for putting Gonzalez in a bad spot.

 

Bottom line: Yes, I expect a pitcher to get 3 outs before giving up 2 runs. Every time.

I agree with what you've written, but I wonder how often do "good teams" put themselves in the position to possibly lose 1 or 2-run games? Of course good teams know how to keep leads late and to the end of games, but (my guess is) they more likely give themselves plenty of cushion so that they don't get into so many save situations, let alone the 1 or 2-run variety. Good teams play solid team ball for the majority of the game, and don't need to rely on one unit solely.

[millz58]

Okay, I've looked up some numbers from last year (espn's MLB stats site), and it seems to evidence your point, dc. All of the 8 playoff teams from last year except the Dodgers were in the top-half of MLB in save % (LAD were 23rd with 63%), and only STL and BOS were NOT in the top-half in save opportunities (LAD was 2nd in that category BTW.) Meanwhile, the bottom-of-the-barrel in both opportunities and percentage were populated with the likes of WAS, BAL, PIT, CLE, TOR. I thereby concede; but I would still like to see a further breakdown into the "close-games" category, the 1 or 2-run contests that go either way, and see how those numbers pan out.

[dc.]

I'll have to check the 1 and 2 run game stats... they keep them and tout them often.

 

Here's what I know, as was mentioned last night and tonight: the O's were something like 17-24 in 1-run games last year. That was among the worst in both leagues. And 41 games coming down to 1 run is nearly 1/4 of the games you play.

 

I think Baseball Reference keeps those stats.

[dc.]

Actually, found it really fast on MLB's site...

 

AL East only, just for fun...

 

In 1 Run Games:

 

Yankees 22-16 (103 total wins)

Red Sox 22-17 (95 total wins)

Rays 20-25 (84 total wins)

Jays 21-28 (75 total wins)

Orioles 17-22 (64 total wins)

 

So the O's were actually right on with every other team in the division in terms of 1-run contests. But like with most stats, they were significantly behind in winning percentage.

 

And just as I scroll through...

 

Seattle was 35-20 (55 was the most I see)... Pittsburgh played the fewest, 12-22 (34). So the O's were seemingly right in the middle/on the low end.

[millz58]

cool; baseball's such a crazy sport numerically. so much to look at; those close-game stats kinda mirror the bigger picture. but simply put the O's have proven your (and Dave's) point these first two games. Hopefully they won't have 40 more chances.

[dc.]

I am consistently amazed at how the numbers just get deeper and deeper.

 

There's certainly a level of "digging too deep" at times. But sometimes the stats are just interesting.

 

My favorite stat is BABIP - Batting Average on Balls in Play. It works for both hitters and pitchers... pitchers especially. If a pitcher has an ERA of something wild like 2.00 or a WHIP under 1.00, you say he's damn good. But if you see that his BABIP is remarkably low (around 200), well, that's just a fluke. No one can control BABIP like that. Not even Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson. Lucky year, the hit balls are getting caught. What happens when they stop getting caught????

[millz58]

I am consistently amazed at how the numbers just get deeper and deeper.

 

There's certainly a level of "digging too deep" at times. But sometimes the stats are just interesting.

 

My favorite stat is BABIP - Batting Average on Balls in Play. It works for both hitters and pitchers... pitchers especially. If a pitcher has an ERA of something wild like 2.00 or a WHIP under 1.00, you say he's damn good. But if you see that his BABIP is remarkably low (around 200), well, that's just a fluke. No one can control BABIP like that. Not even Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson. Lucky year, the hit balls are getting caught. What happens when they stop getting caught????

So BABIP includes as "hits" when batters reach on fielding errors? Wow, i've never seen that stat, but it's like a batter v. pitcher & Defense stat. Weird, does sound like a kind of fluke-filled calculation. I agree, it's really interesting to see baseball stats become so detailed and diverse, dissecting. But even with 162 games, the dicing can become too fine.

[dc.]

So BABIP includes as "hits" when batters reach on fielding errors? Wow, i've never seen that stat, but it's like a batter v. pitcher & Defense stat. Weird, does sound like a kind of fluke-filled calculation. I agree, it's really interesting to see baseball stats become so detailed and diverse, dissecting. But even with 162 games, the dicing can become too fine.

 

No, it does not include reaching on an error. But it's pretty much how many times you reach base (minus home runs) vs every ball you put in play (minus homeruns).

 

For both batters and pitchers, an average BABIP is 300.

 

So, let's say Brian Roberts is hitting 280. For Roberts, that's pretty normal. But let's say he's hitting 280, but his BABIP is only 250. That's 50 points below average - and its not something hitters or pitchers can really control. Once a ball is hit, it's hit.

 

That tells you that Roberts 280 average is likely a little bit lower than it should be. Because as his BABIP naturally rises to the 300 level that everyone else gets... his regular average should rise as well.

 

Meanwhile, you can see the reverse as well. If Roberts is hitting 280, but his BABIP is something crazy like 400, then there's some inflation there. As his BABIP gradually regresses to its "natural" level, his overall average is bound to fall as well.

 

 

Now, of course, your average and the impact BABIP will have on your average is in large part relying simply on how often you put a ball in play (aka - how often you DON'T strike out) and how many HRs you hit. Guys that hit lots of HRs can have a lower BABIP but a higher average.

 

Anyway - bottom line is that it tells you simply how "lucky" a players is getting (both pitchers and hitters). If every time a guy hits a ball, it gets caught... your ERA is likely to be lower. But what control does a pitcher really have over whether a ball is hit to a fielder? Aside from either (a) striking a guy out or (b) giving up a home run... he has no control. Same for a batter. Very little control over whether someone is standing where you hit the ball. Miguel Tejada's liner to LF the other night is a perfect example. Crushed - right to Crawford.

[millz58]

Okay, maybe I'm just confused on what a "Ball in Play" is, to affect the numbers. I thought even a ball hit and errored on by the defense was still in play, and would raise a hitter's BABIP (but lower the pitcher's same?). I need a formula to explain why an "average BABIP" is 300, that type of statement won't make mathematical sense to me unless I know the calculation (true nerdiness coming out).

 

I used to go through similar issues with slugging percentage, but eventually I could get over the lack of baseball knowledge to figure out the sense behind the formula. It seems the BABIP is a cousin to slugging percentage?

[dc.]

Pretty much any ball you hit that stays in the field of play is a "Ball in Play." But just like regular batting average, your BABIP would not go up if you reach on an error.

 

 

The formula is...

 

(Hits - HRs) / (AB - HR - Strikeouts + Sac Flies)

 

So, at bats generally includes every time you come to the plate ... except Sac Flies and Walks. Because a Sac Fly is 'putting a ball in play' we need to re-add that. Because striking out and hitting home runs do not 'put the ball in play' we remove those at bats. So then you've got the total number of times a ball is 'in play' by a batter.

 

And then we just want to see how many times they actually get on base once the ball is in play.

 

Why is 300 an average number? It just is. As people have calculated this stat, almost all players are close to 300. Again, the number is so consistent largely because neither a batter or a pitcher has much control over where a ball is hit (is there a fielder there or not?).

 

Of course, some players have been able to consistently establish themselves as better/worse BABIP (Ryan Howard's BABIP is almost always over 320, Tom Glavine's was almost always under 290). But once a player establishes their average BABIP over a few seasons, you know what to expect.

 

 

Specific Example: Melvin Mora.

 

Over his 9 full seasons with the Orioles, his batting average was 279. Ranging from a high of 340 in 2004 to a low of 233 in 2002.

 

Over that same time period, his BABIP averaged about 306.

 

In his outstanding 2004 seasons where he hit 340, though, his BABIP was a whopping 371.

 

So, a stat geek would look at that and say... "Um, that's retarded. He has no control over his BABIP so for it to jump nearly 70 points over average is nearly impossible. No way that number holds up. His 340 average is a fluke, he'll come back down."

 

In fact, many a stat geek friend of mine said this to me in 04/05... "He'll never get close to 340 again."

 

Sure enough, 2005-2008, his BABIP fell to 309, 300, 307 and 283.. and his average? 279 over those four years.

 

I should point out one more time... there are things you can do to affect your BA that BABIP can't handle - strike out less? Avg goes up. Hit more Home runs? Average goes up. But both would impact your BABIP very little.

 

In Melvin's 2004 campaign, he hit more HRs than before - but his strike outs were right on par with his career numbers. So it's not like he was simply 'getting more contact' ... he was probably getting the same contact, and just getting lucky as to where the balls landed.