Photo

This made me chuckle


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,184 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 17 February 2021 - 11:57 AM

https://sports.yahoo...Ke9qFGKJq4bsQQM


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#2 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,618 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 17 February 2021 - 12:20 PM

I saw that and thought it was funny too. 0.0 seems about right.  That also equals the effort and expense we put into being competitive this season, so if you are tanking at least own it.


  • weird-O likes this
@mikeghg

#3 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,577 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 17 February 2021 - 01:57 PM

So this is funny in terms of the engagement and banter.  The results are sad, but they are what they are.

 

While laughing at this is a little bit of looking into the abyss, this is exactly what I've discussed in other threads going back a while.

 

What changes where the Orioles - even a good Orioles team - is the dominant W% in the AL or even the ALE.

 

One of the reasons that the Orioles are at 0.0% isn't because they are worse than the Tigers or Pirates as a team, it's because the unbalanced Division schedule makes it more difficult on the Orioles than other lesser teams in weaker Divisions.  The Yankees are at 91% in much reason because they get to play a lesser Oriole team. 

 

This is sort of the self full-filling prophecy of being intentionally bad.

 

I can't speak to the methodologies (only because I haven't spent any time reviewing them), but as a pictorial, I like this work from BP that was linked out of the above article for showing the bell-curve range of possibility.

 

When we discuss average or 1-sigma or 3-sigma results, this is the representation that is of importance.

 

The Yankees have a projected 97+ win team but that's only an 81% chance of winning the Division...and that's with the Orioles giving away their win totals.  Everyone that competes is stealing % away from the other teams in the Division and the other 4 teams all act like their trying into the foreseeable future.  

 

If the Orioles got to a 35-50% opportunity to make the playoffs, that would seem like a lot.  To get to a 95+ win projection, you have to be significantly better than several of the teams in the Division.  Significantly better.



#4 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,363 posts

Posted 17 February 2021 - 02:00 PM

AcidicFaroffBeagle-size_restricted.gif


  • Nigel Tufnel and Mike in STL like this

#5 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,680 posts

Posted 17 February 2021 - 02:04 PM

The East will always have two teams with a lot of revenue, and for the last X amount of years has also had Tampa Bay operating highly effectively on their limited budget. Now that's coupled with Toronto on the ascension. 

 

IMO, you run your own race, you build your own team and don't spend time being preoccupied with the others. 

That said, the goal should be building a team that when you go into Spring Training you believe is a 90+ win team. 

And sure - a team that goes into a year projected to win 90 games, will only have an X percentage chance of reaching the post-season - but you control what you can control. 

It's better than building a team built to win 81 games, and hoping you play up.  
 


  • BSLRoseKatz likes this

#6 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,577 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 17 February 2021 - 03:10 PM

Misrepresentation of my opinion doesn't count as my opinion. 



#7 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,680 posts

Posted 17 February 2021 - 03:36 PM

Misrepresentation of my opinion doesn't count as my opinion.


The first time you build a team that is better than a .500 team trying to play up, you'll have a point.



#8 Ravens2006

Ravens2006

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,012 posts

Posted 17 February 2021 - 03:37 PM

0.0% is WAAAAAAY too high... Like Jim Hunter or Steve Melewski PR spin high... ;)
  • tennOsfan likes this

#9 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,184 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 17 February 2021 - 03:57 PM

0.0% is WAAAAAAY too high... Like Jim Hunter or Steve Melewski PR spin high... ;)

Good stuff :D


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#10 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,577 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 17 February 2021 - 04:02 PM

The first time you build a team that is better than a .500 team trying to play up, you'll have a point.

 

This has always been my point.  Our future teams are exactly the same...and imo they won't be measurably better than we could generally do in any year (we'll get there eventually).  Nothing the Orioles have done has uniquely changed a win perspective in any future year.

 

You have no idea what a 95 win team looks like (or if you do, you've never bothered to present it.)

 

I still think we're going to need some more definition to Step 2:



#11 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,184 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 17 February 2021 - 04:03 PM

So this is funny in terms of the engagement and banter.  The results are sad, but they are what they are.

 

While laughing at this is a little bit of looking into the abyss, this is exactly what I've discussed in other threads going back a while.

 

What changes where the Orioles - even a good Orioles team - is the dominant W% in the AL or even the ALE.

 

One of the reasons that the Orioles are at 0.0% isn't because they are worse than the Tigers or Pirates as a team, it's because the unbalanced Division schedule makes it more difficult on the Orioles than other lesser teams in weaker Divisions.  The Yankees are at 91% in much reason because they get to play a lesser Oriole team. 

 

This is sort of the self full-filling prophecy of being intentionally bad.

 

I can't speak to the methodologies (only because I haven't spent any time reviewing them), but as a pictorial, I like this work from BP that was linked out of the above article for showing the bell-curve range of possibility.

 

When we discuss average or 1-sigma or 3-sigma results, this is the representation that is of importance.

 

The Yankees have a projected 97+ win team but that's only an 81% chance of winning the Division...and that's with the Orioles giving away their win totals.  Everyone that competes is stealing % away from the other teams in the Division and the other 4 teams all act like their trying into the foreseeable future.  

 

If the Orioles got to a 35-50% opportunity to make the playoffs, that would seem like a lot.  To get to a 95+ win projection, you have to be significantly better than several of the teams in the Division.  Significantly better.

I think you took this way too seriously. But, I agree with you about the unbalanced schedule. I have never liked that. The single purpose of that shift, was to increase the number of regular season NYY v. Bos games. I don't usually criticize a sports league for making moves to increase revenue and viewership. But that particular decision had a negative impact on the post season.  


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#12 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,577 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 17 February 2021 - 04:20 PM

I think you took this way too seriously. But, I agree with you about the unbalanced schedule. I have never liked that. The single purpose of that shift, was to increase the number of regular season NYY v. Bos games. I don't usually criticize a sports league for making moves to increase revenue and viewership. But that particular decision had a negative impact on the post season.  

 

So again, I think the narrative's in the article were great.  The best chart was the second one where they made all of the teams at 100% except the Orioles still at 0.0%.

 

....but the information is instructive.  The Orioles aren't at 0.0% because they are the worst team.  This Orioles team actually has some interesting pieces on it.  I'd fully expect them, despite continuing to shed some of their better players, to actually win more games.  The interesting pieces that are here or are coming are the same pieces we were told 3 years ago weren't good enough, but they are, in fact, interesting.

 

Wins and Losses in Baseball and every Sport are competitive. You can't ignore the Teams around you in terms of your assessment because winning isn't theoretical, it's actual.  You have to go out and compete and win.  That's how you build a win total.  All of the seems like Captain Obvious, but maybe not.

 

Every team has largely the same processes.  To believe the Orioles have some devastating process that will yield unique and superior results would, seem to me, be flawed.

 

Most of the teams are trying to figure out how to push their bell curves to the right.  That changes the Playoff %s....for every team that shades a win to the right, some other team loses a win.  You don't just get to move it to the right because you want to.



#13 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,680 posts

Posted 17 February 2021 - 04:20 PM

This has always been my point.  Our future teams are exactly the same...and imo they won't be measurably better than we could generally do in any year (we'll get there eventually).  Nothing the Orioles have done has uniquely changed a win perspective in any future year.

 

You have no idea what a 95 win team looks like (or if you do, you've never bothered to present it.)

 

I still think we're going to need some more definition to Step 2:


I've repeatedly said the goal is to build a team you believe is capable / should win 90+, and always agreed with you on the thoughts on the East and you're percentage chances thereof.  (Less on the actual percentages, but the general idea.)

I haven't built the '90 win' team because of all the variables I've pointed out numerous times. Who sticks who doesnt, who develops, who doesn't, what depth do you have, what limitations do you have, what's available externally.   But I like the depth being developed, and I like the limited payroll obligations, and I think availability is coinciding well with need. So we will see. 

Your future teams when you've added names have bothered me repeatedly because: 

 

- They typically involving giving up cost controlled talent for mediocrity

- You suggest players coming back under limited control, thus giving shorter windows... and again you've given up control to get them...

- You imo undersell what it would take to obtain the talent you identify

- The teams you build have limited ceiling in the immediate, even if they would give you a percentage chance of things going right 'now.' 



#14 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,247 posts

Posted 17 February 2021 - 04:33 PM


I've repeatedly said the goal is to build a team you believe is capable / should win 90+, and always agreed with you on the thoughts on the East and you're percentage chances thereof. (Less on the actual percentages, but the general idea.)

I haven't built the '90 win' team because of all the variables I've pointed out numerous times. Who sticks who doesnt, who develops, who doesn't, what depth do you have, what limitations do you have, what's available externally. But I like the depth being developed, and I like the limited payroll obligations, and I think availability is coinciding well with need. So we will see.

Your future teams when you've added names have bothered me repeatedly because:

- They typically involving giving up cost controlled talent for mediocrity
- You suggest players coming back under limited control, thus giving shorter windows... and again you've given up control to get them...
- You imo undersell what it would take to obtain the talent you identify
- The teams you build have limited ceiling in the immediate, even if they would give you a percentage chance of things going right 'now.'

Was dude not paying attention to the Os from about '98-'06. They did exactly the thing he wants to do. Well except we didnt really having many young cost controlled assets to trade away for the middling expensive veterans. We just spent $. We never finished with even 80 wins in any of those seasons.

#15 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,184 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 17 February 2021 - 04:34 PM

So again, I think the narrative's in the article were great.  The best chart was the second one where they made all of the teams at 100% except the Orioles still at 0.0%.

 

....but the information is instructive.  The Orioles aren't at 0.0% because they are the worst team.  This Orioles team actually has some interesting pieces on it.  I'd fully expect them, despite continuing to shed some of their better players, to actually win more games.  The interesting pieces that are here or are coming are the same pieces we were told 3 years ago weren't good enough, but they are, in fact, interesting.

 

Wins and Losses in Baseball and every Sport are competitive. You can't ignore the Teams around you in terms of your assessment because winning isn't theoretical, it's actual.  You have to go out and compete and win.  That's how you build a win total.  All of the seems like Captain Obvious, but maybe not.

 

Every team has largely the same processes.  To believe the Orioles have some devastating process that will yield unique and superior results would, seem to me, be flawed.

 

Most of the teams are trying to figure out how to push their bell curves to the right.  That changes the Playoff %s....for every team that shades a win to the right, some other team loses a win.  You don't just get to move it to the right because you want to.

I absolutely agree with the bolded part. I think everyone agrees with it. No one is calling Baltimore an innovative organization. As fans, it's just nice to see them embrace established practices for success, that have long been ignored. 


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#16 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,577 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 17 February 2021 - 04:45 PM

I haven't built the '90 win' team because of all the variables I've pointed out numerous times. 

 

We're pretty out of variables.  For an Orioles Team to produce the results you routinely project (WS Contender in 2023), every one of those players in in AA or higher now.

 

I've never even argued with you how you get guys.  Every player in MLB has some projection over the next 2-4 years.  

 

In the context of this thread, that is, by 2023 (your timeline), what players (acquire/develop) are on the 2023 Orioles roster that would give you confidence in delivering your average projection 90+ win total?

 

In 2018 (and 2019 and 2020) I talked about adding Corey Seager.  He'd be better than whoever your SS will be.  So if you don't have players on your projected team better than Corey Seager, how is my team an 81 win team and yours is a 90+ win team?

 

...and fwiw, Seager is off my radar because he'll extend with LAD now that Lindor is in NYM.



#17 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,247 posts

Posted 17 February 2021 - 04:47 PM

Seager was never available. Im just curious what happens when some these guys youve targeted arent available or the team tells you your offer isnt good enough.

#18 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,577 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 17 February 2021 - 04:50 PM

Was dude not paying attention to the Os from about '98-'06. They did exactly the thing he wants to do. Well except we didnt really having many young cost controlled assets to trade away for the middling expensive veterans. We just spent $. We never finished with even 80 wins in any of those seasons.

 

Please stop, you have no idea what you're talking about.  I have message board history back to 1999 and some people that are here from the Sun Boards know my positions and the things I've advocated for.

 

The Orioles have been generally terrible at their jobs and there's one consistent theme across the last 23 years.



#19 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,577 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 17 February 2021 - 04:51 PM

I'm just curious what happens when some these guys you've targeted aren't available or the team tells you your offer isn't good enough.

 

...tell me what Chris does when he goes to get those same type players and their answer is the same.  You see, you can play that game any time you want.  There's nothing unique about waiting...you aren't buying groceries on a shelf.  You have to get conditions aligned to allow you execute. ....but..."what if I want it more?"

 

(I'll answer your question more directly in a minute)



#20 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,577 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 17 February 2021 - 04:55 PM

Seager was never available. 

 

I disagree.  Seager's injury in 2018 could have made him available.  Machado could have been their SS through the same year as Seager today, MM would have had a better deal than he got and the Dodgers would have had a better team in their 2018 and 2019 runs).  The Dodgers also preferred Lindor the last couple of years and specifically didn't like something about Seager.

 

Those conditions will change now.  Lindor will be the face of the NYM for the next decade+.  That leaves Seager as the next best guy out there and I don't see any way the Dodgers let him walk now.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=