Words to describe the NBA Draft Lottery:
Publicity Stunt
A Joke
Superfluous
Fundamentally Flawed
Moronic
Marketing Gimmick
Unnecessary Diversion
Ratings Grabber
Waste of Time
Unfair
There are many more nasty words that I could write about the NBA Draft Lottery, but I'll spare you from reading them. I despise everything about the NBA Draft Lottery (just like I do for the Wizards name) and refuse to accept any of the reasons people give for it's existence.
The team with the worst record should always have the 1st pick (just my opinion). The "tanking" argument is flawed. Do people honestly think the Charlotte Bobcats were tanking at the end of last season? They have absolutely no talent on their roster and were rarely competitive in games throughout the entire season. 7 total wins in 66 games is beyond awful. The Bobcats deserve the chance to draft the best player in the draft. Their fans need a reason to attend games. Anthony Davis would be that reason.
My Lottery Prediction for the Bullets: 3rd Pick
In this scenario, Bullets management would have to settle for Michael Kidd-Gilchrist with the 3rd pick in the draft and lose out on the Bradley Beal (taken with the 2nd pick by some other team). The team really needs a quality 3 point shooter and Beal is the best one in this draft. I really want to see a Bullets team that can shoot the 3 and open up space for John Wall to dominate off the dribble. Beal could be that player, so consider me 100% in the #BealCamp, especially if the Bullets luck into the 2nd pick* during this deplorable NBA Draft Lottery.
*1st Pick is not even a remote possibility for the Bullets in my opinion. No need to torment myself by thinking it could happen.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
The Reim-Time Timeline: Rebuttal
Before reading this post, please check out The Reim-Time Timeline
article by Zach Wilt over at BaltimoreSportsReport.com
(@BalSportsReport). This post is a rebuttal to the evidence he provided
to support his claim that Reimold can not stay healthy enough to hold a
roster spot.
^games on Orioles 25 man roster
*based on research from online sources
September 18th to October 4th, 2009:
I would not count these "games missed" against Reimold. The key point to remember here is that the Orioles shut him down. The season was essentially over (since all the Orioles were trying to do was not lose 100 games). It was better to get Reimold into surgery to repair the Achilles Tendon, rather than play 16 meaningless games. He had already proven he could be a valuable MLB player, as he was leading all AL rookies in homers, on-base percentage (.365), slugging percentage (.466), walks (47) and total bases (167).
April 7th to September 1st, 2010:
Recovery time for a torn Achilles' Tendon ranges from 6 to 12 weeks, but rehabilitation back to 100% strength usually takes at least a year. I think Reimold, as well as the Orioles, rushed him back. There are certain injuries that must be dealt with in a more cautious manner. Tommy John surgery is one of the injuries that comes to mind when talking about pitchers.
When it is determined that a pitcher needs Tommy John surgery, the team has to accept the loss of that player for an entire year. The recovery and rehabilitation from this major surgery can be slow and tedious. Major League Baseball teams do not rush pitchers back that have had Tommy John surgery. When pitchers are ready to come back from Tommy John surgery, their inning and pitch counts are limited while being increased incrementally over a full season. Their progress is moderated closely by training staffs as to avoid overwork and stress.
My opinion is that an Achilles' Tendon surgery should be the same category as Tommy John surgery. If one puts Achilles' Tendon in that category, then Reimold should not have been playing every game immediately. An incremental increase in number of games played would have put Reimold back at 100% in September of 2010. Orioles should have accepted that he would not be 100% healthy until September. Yes, it is an injury, but it was a nasty one just like a pitcher tearing an elbow ligament, and most wouldn't hold it against a pitcher if they missed a year due to it.
September 1st to October 1st, 2010:
Reimold played 10 games over 35 days. There were some good games in there, but the lack of playing time did not provide Reimold with many opportunities to showcase his skills. It should also be noted that 10 games is an extremely small sample - no judgement should be made based on 33 at-bats.
April 1st to May 20th, 2011:
Reimold was sent to Norfolk due to the fact that he had one option left and Felix Pie did not have any options left. If my memory serves me correctly, both Reimold and Pie had underwhelming spring training numbers. I have never put a lot of faith in spring training numbers. Most teams are experiencing with all types of pitchers during spring training games. And many position players are working to improve skills such as bunting, hitting opposite field, etc during split-squad games. Reimold's demotion to the AAA Norfolk Tides after spring training was a business decision. There were no injury concerns or problems for Reimold at the end of spring training.
May 20th to Sept 28th, 2011:
My research (and watching games) shows that only a handful of these games were due to injury. The rest of the games missed were the result of the manager's decision (#bucklogic) to play inferior players over Reimold (despite his consistent OPS above .800 for most of the season).
Final Rebuttal Thoughts:
Even though it may seem like Reimold has missed a lot of playing time, very few of the missed games were the result of injury. This neck problem is the first injury that has caused him to a miss significant number of games*. If Reimold comes back from this neck issue by the middle of June and continues to produce at a high level for the rest of the 2012 season, then I will consider his recovery a win-win for the fans and the games he missed will be a small price to pay for long term success. If he gets injured again and misses another 30 games, then I will start to agree with Zach about Reimold's inability to stay heathly long enough to hold a spot.
*Reimold played throughout 2010 (in almost every game) for the Norfolk Tides even though the Orioles should have been more cautious while he rehabilitated from Achilles Tendon surgery.
The Real Issue:
Currently, the point could made that Reimold needs to be more consistent. He has had flashes of great play (2011) and spans of terrible play (2010). I point to his great play during the second half of 2011 as reflection of his potential and a sign that his play will continue to improve. He produced a 1.5 WAR in 87 games played and had one of the most clutch hits in Orioles history in Game 162.
My outlook for his 2012 season was very optimistic. I still have high hopes for the rest of his 2012 season. He started off the season at a very high level and had already produced 0.6 WAR in 16 games. The man has battled back from terrible injuries in past and suspect he will beat this neck problem as well. I still believe that the Orioles need Reimold every game at an above-average level if they want to have a chance at the playoffs in 2012.
| Games | Games | Games Missed | |
| Time Frames | on O's^ | Missed | Due to Injury* |
| Sept 18th to Oct 4th, 2009 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| April 7th to Sept 1st, 2010 | 33 | 4 | 0 |
| Sept 1st to Oct 1st, 2010 | 30 | 17 | 0 |
| April 1st to May 20th, 2011 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| May 20th to Sept 28th, 2011 | 120 | 32 | 5 |
*based on research from online sources
September 18th to October 4th, 2009:
I would not count these "games missed" against Reimold. The key point to remember here is that the Orioles shut him down. The season was essentially over (since all the Orioles were trying to do was not lose 100 games). It was better to get Reimold into surgery to repair the Achilles Tendon, rather than play 16 meaningless games. He had already proven he could be a valuable MLB player, as he was leading all AL rookies in homers, on-base percentage (.365), slugging percentage (.466), walks (47) and total bases (167).
April 7th to September 1st, 2010:
Recovery time for a torn Achilles' Tendon ranges from 6 to 12 weeks, but rehabilitation back to 100% strength usually takes at least a year. I think Reimold, as well as the Orioles, rushed him back. There are certain injuries that must be dealt with in a more cautious manner. Tommy John surgery is one of the injuries that comes to mind when talking about pitchers.
When it is determined that a pitcher needs Tommy John surgery, the team has to accept the loss of that player for an entire year. The recovery and rehabilitation from this major surgery can be slow and tedious. Major League Baseball teams do not rush pitchers back that have had Tommy John surgery. When pitchers are ready to come back from Tommy John surgery, their inning and pitch counts are limited while being increased incrementally over a full season. Their progress is moderated closely by training staffs as to avoid overwork and stress.
My opinion is that an Achilles' Tendon surgery should be the same category as Tommy John surgery. If one puts Achilles' Tendon in that category, then Reimold should not have been playing every game immediately. An incremental increase in number of games played would have put Reimold back at 100% in September of 2010. Orioles should have accepted that he would not be 100% healthy until September. Yes, it is an injury, but it was a nasty one just like a pitcher tearing an elbow ligament, and most wouldn't hold it against a pitcher if they missed a year due to it.
September 1st to October 1st, 2010:
Reimold played 10 games over 35 days. There were some good games in there, but the lack of playing time did not provide Reimold with many opportunities to showcase his skills. It should also be noted that 10 games is an extremely small sample - no judgement should be made based on 33 at-bats.
April 1st to May 20th, 2011:
Reimold was sent to Norfolk due to the fact that he had one option left and Felix Pie did not have any options left. If my memory serves me correctly, both Reimold and Pie had underwhelming spring training numbers. I have never put a lot of faith in spring training numbers. Most teams are experiencing with all types of pitchers during spring training games. And many position players are working to improve skills such as bunting, hitting opposite field, etc during split-squad games. Reimold's demotion to the AAA Norfolk Tides after spring training was a business decision. There were no injury concerns or problems for Reimold at the end of spring training.
May 20th to Sept 28th, 2011:
My research (and watching games) shows that only a handful of these games were due to injury. The rest of the games missed were the result of the manager's decision (#bucklogic) to play inferior players over Reimold (despite his consistent OPS above .800 for most of the season).
Final Rebuttal Thoughts:
Even though it may seem like Reimold has missed a lot of playing time, very few of the missed games were the result of injury. This neck problem is the first injury that has caused him to a miss significant number of games*. If Reimold comes back from this neck issue by the middle of June and continues to produce at a high level for the rest of the 2012 season, then I will consider his recovery a win-win for the fans and the games he missed will be a small price to pay for long term success. If he gets injured again and misses another 30 games, then I will start to agree with Zach about Reimold's inability to stay heathly long enough to hold a spot.
*Reimold played throughout 2010 (in almost every game) for the Norfolk Tides even though the Orioles should have been more cautious while he rehabilitated from Achilles Tendon surgery.
The Real Issue:
Currently, the point could made that Reimold needs to be more consistent. He has had flashes of great play (2011) and spans of terrible play (2010). I point to his great play during the second half of 2011 as reflection of his potential and a sign that his play will continue to improve. He produced a 1.5 WAR in 87 games played and had one of the most clutch hits in Orioles history in Game 162.
My outlook for his 2012 season was very optimistic. I still have high hopes for the rest of his 2012 season. He started off the season at a very high level and had already produced 0.6 WAR in 16 games. The man has battled back from terrible injuries in past and suspect he will beat this neck problem as well. I still believe that the Orioles need Reimold every game at an above-average level if they want to have a chance at the playoffs in 2012.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Strength of Schedule (Orioles): 2005 vs 2012
Lots of talk in the twitter world about how the Orioles fan base should stay calm and not get overly excited about their good play through the first quarter of the season. I was trying to find a way to justify that this Orioles team is not like the 2005 team that went 25-13 through their first 38 games.
I started to consider the Orioles opponents thus far in the 2012 season to date and it feels like the Orioles have played a lot of games against high quality opponents (Texas, Yankees, Red Sox, Rays). I pulled the records of the 2005 Orioles' opponents through the first 38 games of the 2005 season as a starting point and compiled the results to generate a Strength of Schedule (SOS) factor:
*Factor is the % of Games Against divided by the Opponent Winning % (basic SOS). Please correct me if I have over-simplified this calculation.
If my math is correct, the 2005 Orioles Strength of Schedule through 38 games was .4894.
I pulled the same data for the 2012 Orioles, and to my enjoyment, I learned that they have played a slightly more difficult schedule than the 2005 Orioles after 38 games:
After 38 games, the 2012 Orioles Strength of Schedule is .5058.
How much better is .5058 than .4894? Probably not that much, but it is nice to see that the numbers do show (even if only slightly) that the Orioles have played a tougher schedule after 38 games than the 2005 Orioles. As a viewer, it sure has felt like the Orioles were playing a great opponent every night.
This small finding is another reason to be optimistic as the season goes forward. The Orioles know they can compete and beat the best teams in the American League. Let's just hope it continues all summer long.
I started to consider the Orioles opponents thus far in the 2012 season to date and it feels like the Orioles have played a lot of games against high quality opponents (Texas, Yankees, Red Sox, Rays). I pulled the records of the 2005 Orioles' opponents through the first 38 games of the 2005 season as a starting point and compiled the results to generate a Strength of Schedule (SOS) factor:
| 2005 | Games | Wins | Loses | % of Games Agst | Opp Winning % | Factor* |
| yankees | 6 | 21 | 19 | 0.16 | 0.53 | 0.0829 |
| devil rays | 6 | 14 | 26 | 0.16 | 0.35 | 0.0553 |
| blue jays | 6 | 21 | 18 | 0.16 | 0.54 | 0.0850 |
| red sox | 4 | 23 | 16 | 0.11 | 0.59 | 0.0621 |
| royals | 4 | 11 | 28 | 0.11 | 0.28 | 0.0297 |
| white sox | 4 | 28 | 12 | 0.11 | 0.70 | 0.0737 |
| oakland | 3 | 15 | 24 | 0.08 | 0.38 | 0.0304 |
| twins | 3 | 21 | 16 | 0.08 | 0.57 | 0.0448 |
| tigers | 2 | 18 | 19 | 0.05 | 0.49 | 0.0256 |
| Totals/Avgs | 38 | 19.1 | 19.8 | 1.00 | 0.49 | 0.4894 |
*Factor is the % of Games Against divided by the Opponent Winning % (basic SOS). Please correct me if I have over-simplified this calculation.
If my math is correct, the 2005 Orioles Strength of Schedule through 38 games was .4894.
I pulled the same data for the 2012 Orioles, and to my enjoyment, I learned that they have played a slightly more difficult schedule than the 2005 Orioles after 38 games:
| 2012 | Games | Wins | Loses | % of Games Agst | Opp Winning % | Factor* |
| yankees | 8 | 20 | 17 | 0.21 | 0.54 | 0.1138 |
| blue jays | 6 | 20 | 18 | 0.16 | 0.53 | 0.0831 |
| white sox | 4 | 17 | 21 | 0.11 | 0.45 | 0.0471 |
| rangers | 4 | 24 | 14 | 0.11 | 0.63 | 0.0665 |
| oakland | 3 | 19 | 19 | 0.08 | 0.50 | 0.0395 |
| rays | 3 | 24 | 14 | 0.08 | 0.63 | 0.0499 |
| red sox | 3 | 17 | 20 | 0.08 | 0.46 | 0.0363 |
| twins | 3 | 11 | 26 | 0.08 | 0.30 | 0.0235 |
| angels | 3 | 17 | 21 | 0.08 | 0.45 | 0.0353 |
| royals | 1 | 15 | 21 | 0.03 | 0.42 | 0.0110 |
| Totals/Avgs | 38 | 18.4 | 19.1 | 1.00 | 0.49 | 0.5058 |
After 38 games, the 2012 Orioles Strength of Schedule is .5058.
How much better is .5058 than .4894? Probably not that much, but it is nice to see that the numbers do show (even if only slightly) that the Orioles have played a tougher schedule after 38 games than the 2005 Orioles. As a viewer, it sure has felt like the Orioles were playing a great opponent every night.
This small finding is another reason to be optimistic as the season goes forward. The Orioles know they can compete and beat the best teams in the American League. Let's just hope it continues all summer long.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Starting Rotations (IP/GS): 2011 vs 2012 Orioles
Through 37 games of the season, it appears that the Orioles' starting rotation is substantially better than the 2011 version. How much better? I'm not totally sure, but there is one pitching metric where improvement is undeniable: IP/GS (innings pitched per start)
*Projected based on the premise that the production level from the first 37 games is maintained for the entire season.
**Rays, Angels, Yankees, Mariners, Rangers had the Top 5 starting rotations based on runs scored against per game. 4 of those 5 made the playoffs.
The starting rotation of the 2011 Orioles was not good in the IP/GS category:
*also going with the general assumption that the starting pitchers are allowing less runs and pitching more efficiently if they are pitching into the 7th inning.
I would have even more confidence in the Orioles' playoff hopes if the IP/GS was a little higher. I'm hoping the return of Zach Britton will bring the rotation up to an elite level (6.1-6.2 range) in the IP/GS statistic.
Hoping for the best, expecting the worse, but this starting rotation has an opportunity to maintain respectability and could surprise the MLB community even more as the dog days of summer approach.
I'll continue to say it until it becomes untrue...
This Orioles team is different...they know how to win and expect to win every game.
| 2012 Orioles Starting Pitchers | GS | IP | IP/GS |
| Jason Hammel | 7 | 43.2 | 6.2 |
| Wei-Yin Chen | 7 | 44.0 | 6.3 |
| Jake Arrieta | 8 | 48.1 | 6.0 |
| Brian Matusz | 7 | 37.2 | 5.3 |
| Tommy Hunter | 7 | 42.0 | 6.0 |
| Dana Eveland | 1 | 6.0 | 6.0 |
| 2012 Orioles Rotation (current totals) | 37 | 220.5 | 6.0 |
| 2012 Orioles Rotation (projected totals*) | 162 | 965.4 | 6.0 |
| 2011 Top 5** AL Rotations (based on R/G) | 162 | 1014.1 | 6.3 |
| 2011 Orioles Starting Rotation | 162 | 874.8 | 5.4 |
**Rays, Angels, Yankees, Mariners, Rangers had the Top 5 starting rotations based on runs scored against per game. 4 of those 5 made the playoffs.
The starting rotation of the 2011 Orioles was not good in the IP/GS category:
- In 2011, the Top 5 rotations in the AL managed to record an average of 19 outs per start (6 innings, one out).
- In 2011, the Orioles starting rotation managed to record an average of 16 outs per start (5 innings, one out)
- an entire inning less than the contenders
- 140 more innings thrown by the Orioles bullpen than the bullpens of the Top 5 starting rotations (average)
- the equivalent of 15 complete games
- The Top 5 rotations in the AL have managed to record an average of 19 outs per start (6 innings, one out).
- The Orioles' starting rotation through 37 games in 2012 is averaging 18 outs per start (6 innings).
- 2/3 of an inning more per game than in 2011.
- 90 less innings thrown by the bullpen than in 2011.
- the equivalent of 10 complete games
*also going with the general assumption that the starting pitchers are allowing less runs and pitching more efficiently if they are pitching into the 7th inning.
I would have even more confidence in the Orioles' playoff hopes if the IP/GS was a little higher. I'm hoping the return of Zach Britton will bring the rotation up to an elite level (6.1-6.2 range) in the IP/GS statistic.
Hoping for the best, expecting the worse, but this starting rotation has an opportunity to maintain respectability and could surprise the MLB community even more as the dog days of summer approach.
I'll continue to say it until it becomes untrue...
This Orioles team is different...they know how to win and expect to win every game.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Arrieta and Matusz: BABIP Concerns
There has been a lot of positive talk about Jake Arrieta's start to the 2012 season, and not so much positive talk about the beginning of Brian Matusz's season. After last night's win against the Yankees, I was shocked to see that Matusz's ERA was down to 4.67 (respectable for the AL bEast). And then I remembered that I saw Arrieta's ERA on the television screen after his last, and rather disappointing start: 4.45.
I found this to be a shocking considering the praise Arrieta has received so far this year, yet Matusz has been on the front end of a lot of negativity despite being nearly as productive on the mound. Obviously, ERA is not the best judge of one's pitching ability. I only brought up their ERA's because they lead to this question:
Are Jake Arrieta and Brian Matusz producing at the same level through 5 starts* in 2012?
*small sample, yes, but still worth a look
The short answer is No, they have not been producing at the same level. Arrieta has been worth 0.2 WAR more through 5 starts. Over an entire season of starts, that would result in about a 1.0 WAR difference between them. But WAR does not predict the future or account for "luck" (BABIP)...
The BABIP data suggests that one of these pitchers has been luckier than the other. I'm going to make the big assumption that Matusz is back to his former 2010 self (positive thoughts people) for predictive purposes. When Matusz was on top of his game in 2010, he sported a BABIP of .292, which is common during his successful stretches. Matusz's BABIP in 2012 through 5 starts is .322. I do not truly understand all of the advanced metrics and how one effects another, but let's say his luck improves and his BABIP gets down to the .290 range. He'll likely see a drop in the other advanced pitching metrics, start pitching a little deeper into games, and have more quality starts*.
Jake Arrieta, on the other hand, has been extremely lucky with his .235 BABIP. His career BABIP is typically in the .280 range. If his luck takes a turn for the worse and approaches .280, his advanced metrics will not look like those of top rotational pitcher. His current level of production would not be sustainable with a higher BABIP, and he would probably have an ERA in the 5.0 range when the 2012 season is over.
I do not mean to shed gloom and doom on Jake Arrieta. I just think the Orioles faithful needs to watch the advanced metrics closely with Arrieta and Matusz before judging them. My bold prediction is that Brian Matusz will have better numbers and be more productive then Jake Arrieta by the end of the year. I hope Jake proves me wrong and wins 15 games, but I think Matusz is going to surprise his doubters and win between 13 and 15 games with ERA in the 3.9-4.1 range.
*Side Note: The Quality Start statistic is poor barometer for success in my opinion. I like the idea of a Quality Start being at least 7 innings pitched with 3 or fewer earned runs. I think an even better statistic would be a High Quality Start: at least 7 innings with 2 or fewer earned runs.
I found this to be a shocking considering the praise Arrieta has received so far this year, yet Matusz has been on the front end of a lot of negativity despite being nearly as productive on the mound. Obviously, ERA is not the best judge of one's pitching ability. I only brought up their ERA's because they lead to this question:
Are Jake Arrieta and Brian Matusz producing at the same level through 5 starts* in 2012?
*small sample, yes, but still worth a look
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The BABIP data suggests that one of these pitchers has been luckier than the other. I'm going to make the big assumption that Matusz is back to his former 2010 self (positive thoughts people) for predictive purposes. When Matusz was on top of his game in 2010, he sported a BABIP of .292, which is common during his successful stretches. Matusz's BABIP in 2012 through 5 starts is .322. I do not truly understand all of the advanced metrics and how one effects another, but let's say his luck improves and his BABIP gets down to the .290 range. He'll likely see a drop in the other advanced pitching metrics, start pitching a little deeper into games, and have more quality starts*.
Jake Arrieta, on the other hand, has been extremely lucky with his .235 BABIP. His career BABIP is typically in the .280 range. If his luck takes a turn for the worse and approaches .280, his advanced metrics will not look like those of top rotational pitcher. His current level of production would not be sustainable with a higher BABIP, and he would probably have an ERA in the 5.0 range when the 2012 season is over.
I do not mean to shed gloom and doom on Jake Arrieta. I just think the Orioles faithful needs to watch the advanced metrics closely with Arrieta and Matusz before judging them. My bold prediction is that Brian Matusz will have better numbers and be more productive then Jake Arrieta by the end of the year. I hope Jake proves me wrong and wins 15 games, but I think Matusz is going to surprise his doubters and win between 13 and 15 games with ERA in the 3.9-4.1 range.
*Side Note: The Quality Start statistic is poor barometer for success in my opinion. I like the idea of a Quality Start being at least 7 innings pitched with 3 or fewer earned runs. I think an even better statistic would be a High Quality Start: at least 7 innings with 2 or fewer earned runs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)