If Ryan O’Hearn and his career -2.4 bWAR where slugging .500 for the Yankees this year you would be calling it some kind of Yankees voodoo, not lauding it.
"I’d also say that the Orioles, because they’re so young and surprising, are bringing a certain energy to the ballpark every day that makes them tough to beat."
On the Orioles: One of my favorite things to do when a team is doing maybe better than their stats say (and winning a lot of one run games) is look at how they are doing in high leverage situations. There are alot of things you can look at, like the above mentioned record in 1 run games, or record when leading after the 6th inning, or what have you. There are some vague situational stats that break down certain situations, and there is a faction of people that think that clutch is not ever a thing.
This year, league wide, about 19% of PAs are considered high leverage. But when it comes to winning and losing, they are the most important 19%.
The league is hitting .254/.330/.413 in high leverage situations. The Orioles are hitting .290/.371/.469 and other teams are hitting .221/.294/.344 against their pitching. Having this difference happen at the most important parts of games will win you some games.
Clay Davenport does a thing called third order winning percentage. (I think of it as deserved winning percentage) The average difference per team currently is 3.34 wins different than their actual number of wins (the median is 2.2) but it adds up to the exact amount of wins. (There is the same amount positive and negative league wide) The Orioles are the most positive, with having 8.2 more wins than the third order has them with.
The biggest difference overall is the Royals, who have 9 less wins than their third order, and the Royals, already a bad team, are having an historically bad year in high leverage situations . They are hitting .185/.264/.286 (Yes, those are real numbers) in high leverage and other teams against their pitching are hitting .320/.382/.520 in high leverage.
Taking this to runs, the league is scoring (and giving up) 25.66 runs per 100 high leverage PAs. The Orioles are scoring 32.13 and giving up 19.84. The Royals are scoring 18.51 and giving up 34.70.
Oh yeah, they would still be bad. But that high leverage pulls them down to that historically bad level.
To show you the difference, in medium and low leverage, the league hits. 246/.317/.411. The Royals hit .241/.300/.393, and allow a .252/.328/.412 against. Still worse, but a crap ton closer.
Their OPS is .693 until it gets to high leverage, and then it goes to .550. OPS against is .740 in other situations, .902 in high leverage. That is a .047 difference in medium and low (between what they are hitting and allowing) and a .352 difference in high leverage.
Having caught the last third of the O's-Rays game last night, I was 100% certain Joe was gonna write about the Orioles today.
I was about 80% convinced that he'd focus on Hyde's bunt 'im over strategy in the 10th, but alas.
Would have been a good column: the largest takeaway is that great performances will usually trump bad strategy. But there's also why bad strategy persists, and also, what will it take to forever eliminate bad strategy.
Like I said woulda been good.
As it is, definitely enjoyed the Biff McGonigle reference!
the Orioles haven't been swept in 70 consecutive series (obviously dating back to last year), that in itself is an amazing stat!
sad to see Rodón fall, he was so good for my Giants last year!
yes, Joe, you deserve ALL the starred reviews, you're one of the best writers ever! and not just baseball, although your love of the beautiful game that all of us also love & grew up with shines through in every word you pen...
“Posnanski’s comical storytelling ability and heartwarming, delightful writing style”.....FWIW: That’s why I subscribe. I suspect, Joe, that if you had ants in your house, it would result in the funniest thing that I read that week. Thanks for what you do.
Orioles are best explained by the object of the game: To win it.
All the stats in the world don’t measure why we remember Bobby Thomson. He had a nice, solid career....but ....well, there is that epic game winning homer in 1951.
That homer was the result of massive sign stealing by Giants. The sign stealing scheme was discovered a few years ago. Branca was still alive when it came to light and responded by saying “Why me.” To his discredit, Bobby Thomson made a living out of the purloined homer, never revealing that he and the Giants cheated.
Giants were among many teams stealing signs over the years. Their system was advanced for the 1950s - but not prohibited by any baseball rule at the time.
Thomson acknowledged (as reported by the NY Post in 2002) the system but maintained that he didn't benefit; Branca long said that he didn't care. (He was quoted in his obituary as maintaining that Thomson knew what was coming.) The two of them signed autographs together for years and became good friends. They donated a portion of their proceeds to charities. (Also noted in Branca's NYT obituary in 2016.)
What else was Thomson supposed to say? And “Everyone does it” never justifies chicanery. Branca’s “Why me” exclamation on learning the truth many years later tells it all. That Thomson knew what was coming takes the bloom off “The shot heard round the world.”
Anent the Rangers ... as a Dodger fan, I hate to say nice things about a manager who won three World Series, but Bruce Bochy has made a difference. And as a member of the Maddux Brothers Chapter of SABR, well, his pitching coach is the less famous brother.
Joseph A.W. Iglehart-- my Grandfather & Best Friend-- was Principal Owner and Chairman of the Board of the Orioles, 1954-1965 (like Casey said...). I was a Founding Member of the Team's 1979 Designated Hitter Organization, without which, the Angelos Family would not be sitting in 'the catbird's seat.' All of which is to say: I HAVE MORE THAN A PASSING ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE BALTIMORE ORIOLES. I don't know if I agree with your premise that we "don't have a viable MVP candidate." What I Do Know: IT HAS BEEN AN AWFULLY LONG, 40-YEAR WANDER IN THE DESERT-- like those 1983 BIRDS, "ORIOLES' MAGIC" IS BACK!
The "taking a lead into the 6th inning" stat is interesting. At first glance, it sounds like it's indicating that relievers are really, really important. But, you also have to have a lead in the 6th inning, so starting pitchers and scoring runs are also really, really important.
It’s definitely time on Boone. I don’t think one person in the organization or in the city for that matter listens to a word he says. He needs to go away on a boat somewhere and catch some fish.
Showalter too. It’s a crazy game where you can go from an enlightened Boomer genius who can talk the animals and win 101 games to an old man cluelessly chewing his nails watching the dream die in 9 months.
I would give Showalter a better chance of survival only because it’s just 2 years where Boone has had a long run to get it right and it’s just not gonna happen under him.
Buck has obviously worn out his welcome before, but never like this. It's just very hard to understand. Obviously every manager looks smarter & more connected to his players when they're winning, but the change from last year to this is vast, and that's despite a lot of continuity (although much less in the rotation).
I really want to read some good inside reporting on this.
I would love to see if "record when taking lead into 3rd" is any different from "record when taking lead into 6th." The best teams are likely going to have the best records regardless of what inning you plug in there.
IMO it points towards skills: most obviously, bullpen quality (which has an outsize effect on W-L), but also general quality of play. Are your fielders making boneheaded mistakes, do the hitters produce late against the other team's relievers, and does your manager do a good job with his own relievers?
Especially in today's game, where basically nobody's starters go more than 6, the stat looks at a chunk of the game where some of the most impactful (ugh) players—starting pitchers—are out of the picture, and so everybody else's contributions loom larger.
As a Cubs fan who lives in the Philly burbs.... Turner's season is what everyone is talking about. During the off-season I was disappointed the Cubs didn't sign him, Swanson felt like a consolation prize. I was hearing from the Phillies fans jubilant talk of being back in the Series....
And then the injuries hit for the Phillies. I was at the Phillies first home game against the Cubs. Turner's season was the talk of the day. And then he Ole'd a grounder. And went 0 for.... and at his third at bat he started getting booed by the home town fans.
It's a comment on how his name sounds like that of a stereotypical 80s high school movie villian. Craig Calcaterra made a similar comment in his newsletter the other day.
It's the perfect Brat pack name, so he would have to be dating Molly Ringwald. I also expect he wears a puffy jacket and may wear polarized Gargoyle shades.
I appreciate you going back to check the video and see what you could have done better. It's that kind of commitment that is going to lead this comment section to the pennant this year.
The Yankees would like to thank the Royals for a wonderful weekend in the Bronx!
If Ryan O’Hearn and his career -2.4 bWAR where slugging .500 for the Yankees this year you would be calling it some kind of Yankees voodoo, not lauding it.
"I’d also say that the Orioles, because they’re so young and surprising, are bringing a certain energy to the ballpark every day that makes them tough to beat."
This could also apply to the Reds this year...
What do Elly de la Cruz and Mercury astronaut Al Shepard have in common? 15 minutes of high speed excitement followed by a sudden splashdown.
On the Orioles: One of my favorite things to do when a team is doing maybe better than their stats say (and winning a lot of one run games) is look at how they are doing in high leverage situations. There are alot of things you can look at, like the above mentioned record in 1 run games, or record when leading after the 6th inning, or what have you. There are some vague situational stats that break down certain situations, and there is a faction of people that think that clutch is not ever a thing.
This year, league wide, about 19% of PAs are considered high leverage. But when it comes to winning and losing, they are the most important 19%.
The league is hitting .254/.330/.413 in high leverage situations. The Orioles are hitting .290/.371/.469 and other teams are hitting .221/.294/.344 against their pitching. Having this difference happen at the most important parts of games will win you some games.
Clay Davenport does a thing called third order winning percentage. (I think of it as deserved winning percentage) The average difference per team currently is 3.34 wins different than their actual number of wins (the median is 2.2) but it adds up to the exact amount of wins. (There is the same amount positive and negative league wide) The Orioles are the most positive, with having 8.2 more wins than the third order has them with.
The biggest difference overall is the Royals, who have 9 less wins than their third order, and the Royals, already a bad team, are having an historically bad year in high leverage situations . They are hitting .185/.264/.286 (Yes, those are real numbers) in high leverage and other teams against their pitching are hitting .320/.382/.520 in high leverage.
Taking this to runs, the league is scoring (and giving up) 25.66 runs per 100 high leverage PAs. The Orioles are scoring 32.13 and giving up 19.84. The Royals are scoring 18.51 and giving up 34.70.
If the Royals had 9 more wins they would only seem like an average bad team, instead of historically awful.
Oh yeah, they would still be bad. But that high leverage pulls them down to that historically bad level.
To show you the difference, in medium and low leverage, the league hits. 246/.317/.411. The Royals hit .241/.300/.393, and allow a .252/.328/.412 against. Still worse, but a crap ton closer.
Their OPS is .693 until it gets to high leverage, and then it goes to .550. OPS against is .740 in other situations, .902 in high leverage. That is a .047 difference in medium and low (between what they are hitting and allowing) and a .352 difference in high leverage.
Thank you for not referring to Bautista as "King Felix."
Having caught the last third of the O's-Rays game last night, I was 100% certain Joe was gonna write about the Orioles today.
I was about 80% convinced that he'd focus on Hyde's bunt 'im over strategy in the 10th, but alas.
Would have been a good column: the largest takeaway is that great performances will usually trump bad strategy. But there's also why bad strategy persists, and also, what will it take to forever eliminate bad strategy.
Like I said woulda been good.
As it is, definitely enjoyed the Biff McGonigle reference!
"They don’t have a viable MVP candidate." - neither do 13 other AL teams.
the Orioles haven't been swept in 70 consecutive series (obviously dating back to last year), that in itself is an amazing stat!
sad to see Rodón fall, he was so good for my Giants last year!
yes, Joe, you deserve ALL the starred reviews, you're one of the best writers ever! and not just baseball, although your love of the beautiful game that all of us also love & grew up with shines through in every word you pen...
“Posnanski’s comical storytelling ability and heartwarming, delightful writing style”.....FWIW: That’s why I subscribe. I suspect, Joe, that if you had ants in your house, it would result in the funniest thing that I read that week. Thanks for what you do.
Orioles are best explained by the object of the game: To win it.
All the stats in the world don’t measure why we remember Bobby Thomson. He had a nice, solid career....but ....well, there is that epic game winning homer in 1951.
That homer was the result of massive sign stealing by Giants. The sign stealing scheme was discovered a few years ago. Branca was still alive when it came to light and responded by saying “Why me.” To his discredit, Bobby Thomson made a living out of the purloined homer, never revealing that he and the Giants cheated.
Giants were among many teams stealing signs over the years. Their system was advanced for the 1950s - but not prohibited by any baseball rule at the time.
Thomson acknowledged (as reported by the NY Post in 2002) the system but maintained that he didn't benefit; Branca long said that he didn't care. (He was quoted in his obituary as maintaining that Thomson knew what was coming.) The two of them signed autographs together for years and became good friends. They donated a portion of their proceeds to charities. (Also noted in Branca's NYT obituary in 2016.)
What else was Thomson supposed to say? And “Everyone does it” never justifies chicanery. Branca’s “Why me” exclamation on learning the truth many years later tells it all. That Thomson knew what was coming takes the bloom off “The shot heard round the world.”
Anent the Rangers ... as a Dodger fan, I hate to say nice things about a manager who won three World Series, but Bruce Bochy has made a difference. And as a member of the Maddux Brothers Chapter of SABR, well, his pitching coach is the less famous brother.
I like that you wrote “anent” and I’m annoyed that autocorrect almost didn’t let me!
Joseph A.W. Iglehart-- my Grandfather & Best Friend-- was Principal Owner and Chairman of the Board of the Orioles, 1954-1965 (like Casey said...). I was a Founding Member of the Team's 1979 Designated Hitter Organization, without which, the Angelos Family would not be sitting in 'the catbird's seat.' All of which is to say: I HAVE MORE THAN A PASSING ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE BALTIMORE ORIOLES. I don't know if I agree with your premise that we "don't have a viable MVP candidate." What I Do Know: IT HAS BEEN AN AWFULLY LONG, 40-YEAR WANDER IN THE DESERT-- like those 1983 BIRDS, "ORIOLES' MAGIC" IS BACK!
It's time for the Yankees to cough up whatever it will take to coax Theo Epstein out of the Commissioner's office.
What an outstanding conspiracy theory this is
Josh Naylor has been the best player in the league (non-Ohtani category) since May
The "taking a lead into the 6th inning" stat is interesting. At first glance, it sounds like it's indicating that relievers are really, really important. But, you also have to have a lead in the 6th inning, so starting pitchers and scoring runs are also really, really important.
It’s definitely time on Boone. I don’t think one person in the organization or in the city for that matter listens to a word he says. He needs to go away on a boat somewhere and catch some fish.
Showalter too. It’s a crazy game where you can go from an enlightened Boomer genius who can talk the animals and win 101 games to an old man cluelessly chewing his nails watching the dream die in 9 months.
I would give Showalter a better chance of survival only because it’s just 2 years where Boone has had a long run to get it right and it’s just not gonna happen under him.
Buck has obviously worn out his welcome before, but never like this. It's just very hard to understand. Obviously every manager looks smarter & more connected to his players when they're winning, but the change from last year to this is vast, and that's despite a lot of continuity (although much less in the rotation).
I really want to read some good inside reporting on this.
Is it a meaningful stat that explains a repeatable skill or just a reflection of outlier results?
I would love to see if "record when taking lead into 3rd" is any different from "record when taking lead into 6th." The best teams are likely going to have the best records regardless of what inning you plug in there.
IMO it points towards skills: most obviously, bullpen quality (which has an outsize effect on W-L), but also general quality of play. Are your fielders making boneheaded mistakes, do the hitters produce late against the other team's relievers, and does your manager do a good job with his own relievers?
Especially in today's game, where basically nobody's starters go more than 6, the stat looks at a chunk of the game where some of the most impactful (ugh) players—starting pitchers—are out of the picture, and so everybody else's contributions loom larger.
No "just" about "a reflection of results"
As a Cubs fan who lives in the Philly burbs.... Turner's season is what everyone is talking about. During the off-season I was disappointed the Cubs didn't sign him, Swanson felt like a consolation prize. I was hearing from the Phillies fans jubilant talk of being back in the Series....
And then the injuries hit for the Phillies. I was at the Phillies first home game against the Cubs. Turner's season was the talk of the day. And then he Ole'd a grounder. And went 0 for.... and at his third at bat he started getting booed by the home town fans.
Of course, Phillies fans would boo their mother for catching a cold.
"When he’s not dating Molly Ringwald, Houston’s Chas McCormick..."
Uh, what now?
Yeah Chas...it took me a second but pretty much every 80’s heel (Zabka, Spader) had similar names.
It's a comment on how his name sounds like that of a stereotypical 80s high school movie villian. Craig Calcaterra made a similar comment in his newsletter the other day.
Stuart Fairchild of the Reds has the same energy.
Or Jarrod Saltalamacchia.
Got it !
It's the perfect Brat pack name, so he would have to be dating Molly Ringwald. I also expect he wears a puffy jacket and may wear polarized Gargoyle shades.
Members Only jacket with Zubaz pants FTW.
It should have been Oakley Razor Blades, but I couldnt remember the name so went with Gargoyles. Sorry about that folks.
I appreciate you going back to check the video and see what you could have done better. It's that kind of commitment that is going to lead this comment section to the pennant this year.
Sweater tied around his neck by the arms.
I was just about to ask the same thing.