If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Major League Baseball)   Orioles set all-time MLB record for most errorless games in a season   (baltimore.orioles.mlb.com) divider line 31
    More: Cool, Major League Baseball, Orioles, Nate McLouth, Matt Wieters, defensive team, UZR, Astros, Red Sox  
•       •       •

490 clicks; posted to Sports » on 19 Sep 2013 at 8:31 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-19 08:16:02 AM
Fangraphs has Machado with a UZR of 31.1, almost 7 ahead of the next highest Andrelton Simmons and Shane Victorino.
 
2013-09-19 09:30:49 AM

SlothB77: Fangraphs has Machado with a UZR of 31.1, almost 7 ahead of the next highest Andrelton Simmons and Shane Victorino.


Somehow, it does not surprise me that I've never heard of UZR.  Mostly because I hate the over-Saberization of baseball statistics. Can't we just say "he's good" and leave it at that anymore??
 
2013-09-19 11:10:46 AM
The Oriole's major error was thinking their pitching staff was adequate.
 
2013-09-19 11:39:32 AM

FriarReb98: Somehow, it does not surprise me that I've never heard of UZR.  Mostly because I hate the over-Saberization of baseball statistics. Can't we just say "he's good" and leave it at that anymore??


But how do you KNOW he is good? And what is "good" anyway? And how can you tell he is good if you don't know how good everyone else in the league is?  I'm only semi-serious about all that. I think baseball ops people can really use that information, but as a fan I'm only mildly interested.

INeedAName: The Oriole's major error was thinking their pitching staff was adequate


I think a lot of people predicted them to have a much tougher go of it this season. 29-9 in one-run games is not going to repeat itself every year. Their record in that area this is year is 17-28. But they are only 4 games off their win pace from last year. Assuming a .500 winning percentage is normal, they're doing much better this year than last ... I think. Unless I'm confusing myself.
 
2013-09-19 11:52:50 AM

WinoRhino: INeedAName: The Oriole's major error was thinking their pitching staff was adequate

I think a lot of people predicted them to have a much tougher go of it this season. 29-9 in one-run games is not going to repeat itself every year. Their record in that area this is year is 17-28. But they are only 4 games off their win pace from last year. Assuming a .500 winning percentage is normal, they're doing much better this year than last ... I think. Unless I'm confusing myself.


I think the 12 blown saves this season are a bigger problem than the 1 run games.  If the number of blown saves was cut in half, they would lead the wildcard race.
 
2013-09-19 12:01:00 PM

degenerate-afro: I think the 12 blown saves this season are a bigger problem than the 1 run games.  If the number of blown saves was cut in half, they would lead the wildcard race.


Actually I only remembered 12, but now that I look at the statistics they have 23 blown saves.
 
2013-09-19 12:13:04 PM

degenerate-afro: Actually I only remembered 12, but now that I look at the statistics they have 23 blown saves.


Oh, well, there ya go then. That'll certainly do it.
 
2013-09-19 12:19:42 PM

WinoRhino: And how can you tell he is good if you don't know how good everyone else in the league is?


Considering that this is a thread about errors, this is a really important question, yet is generally ignored.

In general, an error is an an error if an out could've been made with ordinary effort. Here's the definition of that:

ORDINARY EFFORT is the effort that a fielder of average skill at a position in that league or classification of leagues should exhibit on a play, with due consideration given to the condition of the field and weather conditions.

Comment: This standard ... is an objective standard in regard to any particular fielder. In other words, even if a fielder makes his best effort, if that effort falls short of what an average fielder at that position in that league would have made in a situation, the official scorer should charge that fielder with an error.


Anyone think the official scorer in any given town knows what sort of effort every other player gives?
 
2013-09-19 01:48:50 PM

DeWayne Mann: WinoRhino: And how can you tell he is good if you don't know how good everyone else in the league is?

Considering that this is a thread about errors, this is a really important question, yet is generally ignored.

In general, an error is an an error if an out could've been made with ordinary effort. Here's the definition of that:

ORDINARY EFFORT is the effort that a fielder of average skill at a position in that league or classification of leagues should exhibit on a play, with due consideration given to the condition of the field and weather conditions.

Comment: This standard ... is an objective standard in regard to any particular fielder. In other words, even if a fielder makes his best effort, if that effort falls short of what an average fielder at that position in that league would have made in a situation, the official scorer should charge that fielder with an error.

Anyone think the official scorer in any given town knows what sort of effort every other player gives?


The number of errors also seems to be trending downwards across MLB. According to Baseball-Reference, the average team has comitted 86 errors so far this year, predicting a total around 93-4, which as far as I can tell will be an all time low. In 2000, the average was 115, down from 122 in 1990, and 139 in 1980. E/team/season seems to have been stable in the high 130s-mid 140s throughout the modern era before the 80s. Fielders can't be getting that much better, especially given that, by the rule you posted the standard for an error should rise as the level of play rises. So not only are errors a largely useless stat, they're a useless stat that isn't being kept honestly.
 
2013-09-19 02:13:44 PM

neon_god: The number of errors also seems to be trending downwards across MLB. According to Baseball-Reference, the average team has comitted 86 errors so far this year, predicting a total around 93-4, which as far as I can tell will be an all time low. In 2000, the average was 115, down from 122 in 1990, and 139 in 1980. E/team/season seems to have been stable in the high 130s-mid 140s throughout the modern era before the 80s. Fielders can't be getting that much better, especially given that, by the rule you posted the standard for an error should rise as the level of play rises. So not only are errors a largely useless stat, they're a useless stat that isn't being kept honestly.


The increase in strikeouts likely plays a role here.
 
2013-09-19 02:19:10 PM

FriarReb98: Somehow, it does not surprise me that I've never heard of UZR. Mostly because I hate the over-Saberization of baseball statistics. Can't we just say "he's good" and leave it at that anymore??


I'm a stat geek and get into these things.  They are fascinating in settling debates comparing players in disparate playing situations (i.e. how many homers would a guy have if playing in a smaller park, or hitting before another slugger), but they're not directly visible, so they'll never replace traditional stats -- ie. you'll likely never being in a situation where a guy makes a big late-inning play and someone gets up and yells, "Holy fark, he just increased their mean expectancy of winning by 13%!!!"
 
2013-09-19 02:36:46 PM

DeWayne Mann: neon_god: The number of errors also seems to be trending downwards across MLB. According to Baseball-Reference, the average team has comitted 86 errors so far this year, predicting a total around 93-4, which as far as I can tell will be an all time low. In 2000, the average was 115, down from 122 in 1990, and 139 in 1980. E/team/season seems to have been stable in the high 130s-mid 140s throughout the modern era before the 80s. Fielders can't be getting that much better, especially given that, by the rule you posted the standard for an error should rise as the level of play rises. So not only are errors a largely useless stat, they're a useless stat that isn't being kept honestly.

The increase in strikeouts likely plays a role here.


That explains part, but not most, of the trend. Doing a quick and dirty calculation from BB-Ref data, assuming balls in play= AB-HR-SO (don't have time to factor in HBP, etc, but it shouldn't much matter), there has been 1 error for ~ every 45 balls in play this year, down from 42 in 2010, 38 in 2000, 36 in 1990, 33 in 1980, and 32 in 1960 and 1970.
 
2013-09-19 02:41:08 PM

WinoRhino: degenerate-afro: Actually I only remembered 12, but now that I look at the statistics they have 23 blown saves.

Oh, well, there ya go then. That'll certainly do it.


Yes, it will. Given how good they've been offensively, if their closers were even close to as good as they were last year, the mediocre pitching wouldn't matter. They'd be competing not just for the wildcard, but the division and the 1 seed.
 
2013-09-19 02:46:37 PM

Deneb81: They'd be competing not just for the wildcard, but the division and the 1 seed.


Would they? Let's compare them to the Boston Red Sox who have the top spot and #1 seed. Care to guess how many saves the Red Sox blew this year? Amazingly, it happens to be 23... same as the Orioles.

The difference is how many games the Red Sox won AFTERblowing the save. I have to look it up, but it's pretty high, I think.
 
2013-09-19 02:47:16 PM

neon_god: That explains part, but not most, of the trend. Doing a quick and dirty calculation from BB-Ref data, assuming balls in play= AB-HR-SO (don't have time to factor in HBP, etc, but it shouldn't much matter), there has been 1 error for ~ every 45 balls in play this year, down from 42 in 2010, 38 in 2000, 36 in 1990, 33 in 1980, and 32 in 1960 and 1970.


There's some other stuff that might be in play too. Off the top of my head:

1. If a player is shifted and misplays a ball, are they less likely to get an error? I saw an E5 in short right field the other day. Have to guess that's not too common.
2. Because of the "can't assume a double play" thing, are errors less common with men on base?

In conclusion I really hate errors.
 
2013-09-19 02:54:06 PM

DeWayne Mann: neon_god: That explains part, but not most, of the trend. Doing a quick and dirty calculation from BB-Ref data, assuming balls in play= AB-HR-SO (don't have time to factor in HBP, etc, but it shouldn't much matter), there has been 1 error for ~ every 45 balls in play this year, down from 42 in 2010, 38 in 2000, 36 in 1990, 33 in 1980, and 32 in 1960 and 1970.

There's some other stuff that might be in play too. Off the top of my head:

1. If a player is shifted and misplays a ball, are they less likely to get an error? I saw an E5 in short right field the other day. Have to guess that's not too common.
2. Because of the "can't assume a double play" thing, are errors less common with men on base?

In conclusion I really hate errors.


Yeah, I'm with you there. I wouldn't say they're as bad as, say, saves, because they don't actively cause anyone to play or manage in a stupid way, but they're pretty bad. Then again, I'm not a huge fan of a lot of advanced defensive stats because of the absurdly huge sample size you need for any accuracy. I think we can agree that the only true measure of a player's defense is number of Gold Gloves won.
 
2013-09-19 02:54:10 PM

WinoRhino: Deneb81: They'd be competing not just for the wildcard, but the division and the 1 seed.

Would they? Let's compare them to the Boston Red Sox who have the top spot and #1 seed. Care to guess how many saves the Red Sox blew this year? Amazingly, it happens to be 23... same as the Orioles.

The difference is how many games the Red Sox won AFTERblowing the save. I have to look it up, but it's pretty high, I think.


I know that baseball-reference has had some weird 2013 issues, but assuming those are all fixed, it looks like the Red Sox have 13 wins after blowing a save. That includes a game where they blew two saves yet still won.

The Orioles have six.
 
2013-09-19 02:55:34 PM
I don't know the math, but I know that Isee a lot of line scores where the errors are the same as the margin of victory.

Any stats geeks want to help explain if that's a valid observation, or just my imagination?

/runnin' away with me.
 
2013-09-19 02:59:29 PM

neon_god: I wouldn't say they're as bad as, say, saves, because they don't actively cause anyone to play or manage in a stupid way, but they're pretty bad.


Hmmm.

I'll agree that the fact that the mere existence of the save (and the win) causes manager to manage stupidly is really bad.

But the error has that fairly unique situation where a decent player can get an error on a play where a worse player wouldn't (partially because of the scorer issue I mentioned earlier). The only other stat like that I can think of is the "vulture win", where the reliever blows a save then gets the win.

So....wins are the worst?

neon_god: I think we can agree that the only true measure of a player's defense is number of Gold Gloves won.


Yes yes, we all know what you think, Rafael Palmeiro.
 
2013-09-19 03:04:16 PM

MFAWG: I don't know the math, but I know that Isee a lot of line scores where the errors are the same as the margin of victory.

Any stats geeks want to help explain if that's a valid observation, or just my imagination?

/runnin' away with me.


Mostly your imagination.
 
2013-09-19 03:23:47 PM

balki1867: FriarReb98: Somehow, it does not surprise me that I've never heard of UZR. Mostly because I hate the over-Saberization of baseball statistics. Can't we just say "he's good" and leave it at that anymore??

I'm a stat geek and get into these things.  They are fascinating in settling debates comparing players in disparate playing situations (i.e. how many homers would a guy have if playing in a smaller park, or hitting before another slugger), but they're not directly visible, so they'll never replace traditional stats -- ie. you'll likely never being in a situation where a guy makes a big late-inning play and someone gets up and yells, "Holy fark, he just increased their mean expectancy of winning by 13%!!!"


Meh, even then there are problems.  For example, some of the statistics state that a 400ft fly ball to center field would be a home run in some parks, and a long fly out in other parks, but none of them take into account the wind conditions in the different parks in that given day.  The way sunlight may affect a batters vision, the vertical leap of the outfielder in question, the height of the mound when the pitch was thrown, etc.

So while the statistics only take one aspect into account, there are many other things that would factor into it being a home run as well.
 
2013-09-19 03:24:32 PM

DeWayne Mann: So....wins are the worst?


Yeah, probably, although saves always bothered me more, because wins means something semi-useful back when pitchers routinely finished games. The save came along in 69, when people should have known better. On the other hand, at least those two mean something definite. A closer doesn't get awarded a save because he only coughed up a 1 run lead and the home scorer decided to fudge it a bit.
 
2013-09-19 03:37:04 PM

degenerate-afro: but none of them take into account the wind conditions in the different parks in that given day


Sure they do:

http://www.hittrackeronline.com/glossary.php:

Impact Due To Wind - the distance gained or lost due to the impact of the wind on the ball in flight, in feet. Distance lost to the wind is listed as a negative number, while distance gained from the wind is listed as a positive number.

Impact Due To Temperature - the distance gained or lost due to the impact of the ambient temperature, in feet, as compared to a "standard" temperature of 70 degrees. Distance lost to the increased resistance of cooler, more dense air is listed as a negative number, while distance gained from the decreased resistance of warmer, less dense air is listed as a positive number.

Impact Due To Altitude - the distance gained or lost due to the impact of the ballpark altitude, in feet, as compared to a "standard" altitude of zero feet (sea level). Currently, there are no ballparks located below sea level, so there are no negative numbers; distance gained from the decreased resistance of the less dense air at higher altitudes is listed as a positive number.

degenerate-afro: the height of the mound when the pitch was thrown


Uh, you may want to rethink this one.

neon_god: A closer doesn't get awarded a save because he only coughed up a 1 run lead and the home scorer decided to fudge it a bit.


Not the same situation, but you might want to look at what happened to the Yankees last week when Mo got the win.
 
2013-09-19 03:45:37 PM

DeWayne Mann: Not the same situation, but you might want to look at what happened to the Yankees last week when Mo got the win.


OK then... and people claim the stuff stats people do is arcane and overcomplicated.
 
2013-09-19 03:48:56 PM

neon_god: DeWayne Mann: Not the same situation, but you might want to look at what happened to the Yankees last week when Mo got the win.

OK then... and people claim the stuff stats people do is arcane and overcomplicated.


It's not complicated if it's tradition!

Or something like that.

(Semi-related: this article)
 
2013-09-19 04:07:41 PM

MFAWG: I don't know the math, but I know that Isee a lot of line scores where the errors are the same as the margin of victory.

Any stats geeks want to help explain if that's a valid observation, or just my imagination?

/runnin' away with me.



Yes, its most often shown as runs/hits/errors.

I have no idea why errors are in there, but its the way its always been.  There are many other stats that are more important than errors.
 
2013-09-19 04:11:30 PM

downstairs: Yes, its most often shown as runs/hits/errors.

I have no idea why errors are in there, but its the way its always been. There are many other stats that are more important than errors.


Honestly, now that you're on that topic, why are hits even in there?  That is such an arbitrary set of stats to show.  Could you imagine if NFL scores were shown as "Points / First Downs / Penalty Yards"?
 
2013-09-19 04:13:16 PM

downstairs: Yes, its most often shown as runs/hits/errors.

I have no idea why errors are in there, but its the way its always been. There are many other stats that are more important than errors.


That's not his question.

balki1867: Honestly, now that you're on that topic, why are hits even in there? That is such an arbitrary set of stats to show. Could you imagine if NFL scores were shown as "Points / First Downs / Penalty Yards"?


It's so we can all freak out about no-hitters.
 
2013-09-19 04:23:27 PM

DeWayne Mann: downstairs: Yes, its most often shown as runs/hits/errors.

I have no idea why errors are in there, but its the way its always been. There are many other stats that are more important than errors.

That's not his question.

balki1867: Honestly, now that you're on that topic, why are hits even in there? That is such an arbitrary set of stats to show. Could you imagine if NFL scores were shown as "Points / First Downs / Penalty Yards"?

It's so we can all freak out about no-hitters.



Whoops, I totally mis-read his question.
 
2013-09-19 08:08:03 PM

balki1867: downstairs: Yes, its most often shown as runs/hits/errors.

I have no idea why errors are in there, but its the way its always been. There are many other stats that are more important than errors.

Honestly, now that you're on that topic, why are hits even in there?  That is such an arbitrary set of stats to show.  Could you imagine if NFL scores were shown as "Points / First Downs / Penalty Yards"?


The line score is best used in conjunction with the box score. You can get a very good picture of what happened and when, although the how is fuzzy.


Miss you, Grandpa, but thanks for teaching me how to read those!
 
2013-09-20 12:52:51 PM

DeWayne Mann: degenerate-afro: the height of the mound when the pitch was thrown

Uh, you may want to rethink this one.


Depending on the dirt and who is pitching, the mound gets worn down a different amount each game which changes the angle of the pitch as the innings wear on.  That and fatigue affect pitches later into a game as compared to the beginning.  Plus there are the people who wear a toe hole into their landing point throughout the game.  Plus weather conditions affect it as well.  Had a rain delay?  Extra windy day, etc.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report