167 replies to this topic

[85Knight]

Apologist here.

The offense can be homer reliant... but end of the day, it's tough to debate, because their 3rd overall in runs scored.

The obp was an issue earlier in the year, but they're 11th overall now.

Also 6th overall in batting average.

1st in slugging.

Where I agree, is that they are homer reliant, and does often feel like they leave meat on the bone.

But 3rd overall in runs is 3rd overall in runs.

That's exactly why I brought up consistency. Stats can be deceiving if they aren't analyzed correctly. My example of scoring 5 runs in each of two games vs. 9 in one and 1 in the other spells it all out. You're definitely going to have a better chance of winning 2 games in the first scenario vs. the more likely 1-1 result in the second. The O's have been playing that 2nd scenario ball way too often.

My argument is that if we were more consistent on offense we'd be no. 1 in scoring instead of 3rd and 5 games better than everyone else. I scrutinize them more because the offense should be the strength of the team when you factor in potential and injuries.

[makoman]

Are we less consistent than last year? Less consistent than other good teams? Less consistent than should be expected? I don't know the answer to these questions. No one should expect to exactly score 1 run more than the other team every day.

 

Pythagorean has us at 69-50, one game worse than we actually are. I think that suggests that our record is around what could be expected by the run totals and isn't being overly hampered by consistency, but again I don't really know. 

[85Knight]

Are we less consistent than last year? Less consistent than other good teams? Less consistent than should be expected? I don't know the answer to these questions. No one should expect to exactly score 1 run more than the other team every day.

Pythagorean has us at 69-50, one game worse than we actually are. I think that suggests that our record is around what could be expected by the run totals and isn't being overly hampered by consistency, but again I don't really know.

Of course this is hard to statistically diagnose and is more of an observation than anything at this point. I'm not really making an us vs. them argument because I don't watch a lot of other teams but what I have seen from us after watching almost all of the games are a lot inexplicable bad offense against what was supposed to be subpar pitching.

[makoman]

FWIW the Yankees are our biggest rivals in both scoring and record. Their consistency doesn't look a whole lot different than ours.

 

 

 

 Screen Shot 2024-08-12 at 6.58.54 PM.png   11.63K   13 downloads

 

[cprenegade]

That's exactly why I brought up consistency. Stats can be deceiving if they aren't analyzed correctly. My example of scoring 5 runs in each of two games vs. 9 in one and 1 in the other spells it all out. You're definitely going to have a better chance of winning 2 games in the first scenario vs. the more likely 1-1 result in the second. The O's have been playing that 2nd scenario ball way too often.

My argument is that if we were more consistent on offense we'd be no. 1 in scoring instead of 3rd and 5 games better than everyone else. I scrutinize them more because the offense should be the strength of the team when you factor in potential and injuries.

 

I'm in agreement, statistics can be deceiving if just taken at face value.  I argue this in football quite often.  Using average to indicated something can often be skewed, especially in smaller sets.  The Median statistic can often give a more true picture than average.  It represents the midway data point in a set of data points.   

 

A good example of this was in analysis of the Ravens rushing game against Buffalo in the playoffs a few years back.  They had something like 150 yards rushing against Buffalo for an average of around 4.5, which is respecable.  But they had three early runs of like 12,10, and 9 yards.  And Huntley had a 19 yard run late in the game.  When you calculated the median that 4.5 average came down to something around 2.6 which is quite a different story.  

 

At the end of the day, statistics are just that.  They are simply tools.  The analysis behind them is what is important.  I think you would get a truer picture of a teams run scoring consistency by calculating the median on their runs scored rather than simply getting a season average.  It gives less weight to the outliers.  

[BSLChrisStoner]

That's exactly why I brought up consistency. Stats can be deceiving if they aren't analyzed correctly. My example of scoring 5 runs in each of two games vs. 9 in one and 1 in the other spells it all out. You're definitely going to have a better chance of winning 2 games in the first scenario vs. the more likely 1-1 result in the second. The O's have been playing that 2nd scenario ball way too often.

My argument is that if we were more consistent on offense we'd be no. 1 in scoring instead of 3rd and 5 games better than everyone else. I scrutinize them more because the offense should be the strength of the team when you factor in potential and injuries.

The consistency is that over 119 games, they've scored the 3rd most runs overall.

[85Knight]

FWIW the Yankees are our biggest rivals in both scoring and record. Their consistency doesn't look a whole lot different than ours.



Screen Shot 2024-08-12 at 6.58.54 PM.png

Thanks. Even though I didn't want to start the conversation with us vs. somebody else this helps. For sake of argument if you use 5 as the median the O's have 50 over and 61 under. The Yankees have 47 over and 57 under.

I'm only talking about being around 5 games better so this at first glance supports my argument. Not an exact science by any means.

The real point I was making and thanks for doing the homework is that the O's have gone over the "mean" 50 times and under 61 times. I'm no rocket scientist but the lows are bringing us down. Mackus needs to chime in.

[85Knight]

The consistency is that over 119 games, they've scored the 3rd most runs overall.

That's not consistency. If you have a lot of outliers it skews the numbers.

The O's average 5.07 runs per game and they've scored fewer than that 11 more times than they've scored over.

And keep in mind that you can only score 0 runs, not negative. Out of that 11 times that they've scored more than 10 they've scored close to 20 several times.

To get to 5.07 runs per game they are being brought down by their futility.