Pitching always wins baseball games, whether it's quality pitching or not.

I have a feeling McPhail will be vindicated -- eventually. Atlanta in the 90s had lots of pitching and really not a lot of hitting, especially for power, bar 1 or two players each year. Pitching is definitely the key

I have to think that letting the pitchers work their way out of jams and not being fanatical about pitch counts has helped win the hearts of the pitching staff. That and the fact that the offense is showing some signs of life and the starters no longer feel they are required to pitch a shutout to have a chance. Whatever it is, the pitching is a lot more like what I was expecting back in the hopeful days of spring.

Pete, I think they should throw the stats books in the trash. They have ruined the game.

Managers manage more from stats than feel of the game. I do like the fact that Buck is old school in the way he looks at the game. If a pitcher is pitching well, let them pitch. A quality start to me is one we win, period. Who cares if the guy goes eight and looses.

We have guys in the big leagues who don't get to play because they are a left hander against a left hander and if the occasion comes that they do get a start against a left hander and they don't produce immediately, they almost never get another shot.

To me if the guy can play he can play against all types, let 'em play.

The chances of seeing a guy with 300 wins is gone because they aren't around for a late game ralley's or they get pulled for a match up reliever who blows the game. This is an easy game made complicated by stats.

In addition, have you listened to a Gary Thorne broadcast, he spouts stats all game long to the point I want to scream. Who cares if guy hits .300 on days where the sun shines from west instead of the east.

The game is way over analyzed. Just play ball.

I think Roy is right on. Recent regimes have yanked the starters too fast, and that sends a message that they're not trusted. For better or worse, you have to let your best players compete.

The QS is far more relevant than wins & losses. The 4.50 ERA argument is weak. A quality start is six innings OR MORE with three earned runs OR LESS. Tally up the ERAs of a pitcher's qualities starts vs. his ERA in the non-quality starts, then see how "valid" the QS is.

What did he do differently? I think it is called accoutability. Under the two previous managers, guys were not playing for their jobs so there was not as much focus on each and every day, at bat, pitch. Now they know they are being judged for the long term. I also think that Buck's arrival gave many of these guys a fresh start. They started the season horribly and most likely were pressing to make up for it. Buck comes in, it is a fresh start (and you can not argue that this team is not playing as though the games matter) and now they're building confidence. In any event, this is the first time in a long while I have watched the Birds after training camp opened. I am hoping they can continue this through the end of the season.

TGC3RD,

You do know who pioneered the use of stats, right?

Give you a hint......initials E. W.

TGC3RD said who cares if a guy goes 8 and loses...I care..ALOT...especially if I am evaluating my team for next year. Yes, wins are nice, but when you are 35 games under .500 or whatever they are, I am looking for any signs of improvement. Having your young pitchers go 8 innings is a great sign that you are headed in the right direction.

The stats are crap Peter. They're just a coincidence as are the Oriole wins. Looks like you lost the argument with your friend.

But I will enjoy the WIns while they're here.

Where's wayne my boy?

This team is now one of the best in the American League but now Wayne and Gil go into hiding. And where's not brooks? Where are his reasons why the Orioles are so bad?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Go O's

wayne+jason+keith+mesooo+bobby+gil+not brooks=LOSERS

PeteyPablo, all by himself = LOSER

I think the quality start is defined correctly, as its purpose is to quantify how often your starting pitchers do what you want your starting pitchers to do- eat up a minimum number of innings and keep your team in games. For the most part, lasting at least 6 innings and giving up at most 3 runs does just that- it gives your team a chance.

There are already numerous other stats for exceptional games: shut-out, no-hitter, perfect game. And there are line-item stats that measure pitcher's level of play more accurately on an ongoing basis: ERA, WHIP, H/9 and BB/9, OBA, etc.

Most importantly, if the definition of "quality start" were made stricter, say a max of 2 runs over at least 8 innings, it would become highly redundant with the most important of all pitching stats- Wins. A Quality Start could go either way- the point is that you're not taking your team out of the contest but giving them a chance to win (it will still require the hitters to hit and the relief pitchers to pitch), but if a pitcher does better than a quality start most often they are going to get the win. So why have two stats that are highly correlative? That's my two cents.

The rub on the QS for me is that if you go 8 or 9 and give up four earned runs you DON'T get one. If you go 5 perfect innings, you don't get one. The second one I get a little more, you need starters to pitch deep.

Getting carried away a little there smitty and paulie? I love wins as well, but 'best team'? I can hardly agree with that.

And very mature petey pablo. Don't worry, it's back to school next week.

oh boy, look at the good post today. Have to agree with the sentiments though. Sure looks like keith, wayne and meso look stupid now.

But look, meso is on our side now. He's jumping on the bandwagon before the others. Should we let him on? We can vote on it.

Quality start means NOTHING, if you do not WIN THE GAME!!!!!

A horse is a horse, or course, unless, of course, the name of the horse is Jay Gibbons or Carrie Bradshaw.

Unless I was commenting in my sleep, that's not me at 9:49 AM.

I'll never understand the doppelganger commentator. That makes even less sense than jason's "different name every time" bit.

Anyways...

Petey - Nice to know you're grouping me with Meso, jason and Keith, despite the fact that I disagree with 99% of what they say.

smitty - Nice to know you haven't been paying attention to, or haven't understood, a single word I've written all season.

As I've said before, this has been a nice stretch. And I'm not surprised that guys like Matusz and Jones have done so well under the Buck Regime. Those guys have way too much talent to struggle as much as they did for the first 90 games or so.

But, and there's always a but...

This team, as it's currently assembled, isn't going to win anything.

This winter will be the test. Will they acquire a middle of the order bat? Will they acquire a legitimate, experienced ace? If they don't acquire a quality veteran to play left field, will Felix Pie be good enough? What about shortstop? What about third base?

I'm enjoying the Buck Era O's as much as the next guy, and the pitching has obviously been the most fun to watch. But now that some of these young guys are finally hitting their stride, where do we go from here? I've always thought that this team has had some talent. It was just a matter of when that talent would step it up on the major league level. Now that that seems to be happening, what is Andy MacPhail going to do to continue to improve things?

All of the questioning I've done about this team this season has been directed at Andy MacPhail. Sure, I've had my thoughts about the struggles of certain young players, but that all goes back to MacPhail anyway. If you really think I've just been writing my "reasons why the Orioles are so bad", you need to get a clue.

MikeB. What a goof. Read Pete's column again. He correlates quality starts with wins. Can you read? Thanks for posting it twice. Makes you look twice the goof.

...............................................................................................
Pete's reply: Thanks for the backup, but it's hard to dispute his point. Kevin Millwood would probably have said the same thing in April.

I think the idea of a quality start is valid, but the definition needs some tweaking. Lower the number of runs to 2, instead of 3 and you have a far more meaningful statistic.

Or perhaps we should define it based on the number of runs your bullpen gives up. How many times have the O's starters in the past few years had "quality starts" only to see their performance obliterated by the bullpen? We may need someone from MIT to count that high.

I think the idea of a quality start is valid, but the definition needs some tweaking. Lower the number of runs to 2, instead of 3 and you have a far more meaningful statistic.

Or perhaps we should define it based on the number of runs your bullpen gives up. How many times have the O's starters in the past few years had "quality starts" only to see their performance obliterated by the bullpen? We may need someone from MIT to count that high.

I think the idea of a quality start is valid, but the definition needs some tweaking. Lower the number of runs to 2, instead of 3 and you have a far more meaningful statistic.

Or perhaps we should define it based on the number of runs your bullpen gives up. How many times have the O's starters in the past few years had "quality starts" only to see their performance obliterated by the bullpen? We may need someone from MIT to count that high.

"We've come a long way, baby."

Only took better than 2/3 of the baseball season before we have seen enough quality starts by O's pitchers to qualify for a pitching debate!

why doesn't rick kranitz get any credit for the starting pitching turnaround? he's the pitching coach. he's been here for all 3 managers. give him more credit than buck.

10:53 and 9:29 posts not mine.

I'm willing to bet PeteyPablo, and smitty posts aren't either. not brooks already pointed out that he's been flim-flamed too.

Peter: The "quality start" was invented when teams were scoring more runs than they are this year. So it seems a little worse now that the league ERA is 4.16, compared to 4.92 in the year 2000.

Like most statistics, it's useful in connection with other stats and facts. If you also count "disaster starts" (more than 1 run per inning), you have a picture of how often a starting pitcher keeps his team in the game.

I find "quality starts" to be most useful in talking about 5th starters, because that's all you can really hope for.

In reference to "Dennis | August 20, 2010 11:12 AM" - it's refreshing to actually be able to have a real debate about quality starts in relation to the O's.

Wow, I feel like I have "arrived" as a blogger, now that someone has written a post as me. I'm blushing. Thanks 'not anyone' for speaking on my behalf, but calling 7 others losers isn't my style. ps - if you want to look like me, there's no space between petey and pablo.

Pete, the problem I have with any stat is that it can be deceiving. In Millwood's two quality starts in April, he gave up 4 total runs, including 3 off 2 HR's after Miggy's error. 2 of his other starts he gave up 2 runs but only pitched 5 innings. In the one game, how can that be considered quality when you give up 3 HR's?

I'd prefer to define a quality start as 7 innings and 3 runs. This way, I know if my pitcher's going deep enough to allow me to use my setup guy for 1 inn, and my closer for the last.

I'd love to know what the W-L is in games where the pither goes only 6 innings with 3 ER. I'm guessing about 50-50. Is anyone able to research this?

lololol, that's because you and smitty are the same guy paulie. That's why you would know. lmfao.

Yes pitching wins games. That's why McFail is so smart. While the team struggles he brings up Castillo 5x, Mata,and Gabino.

Pete = wayne = MacPhail

This should be the chant at OPCY!

Grow the Arms - Buy the Bats

followed by:

Work Fast
Throw Strikes
CHange Speeds

I am going to have to speak up for the long term critics of the Orioles. For the most part they were not wrong about the state of the Orioles. I don't remember details of all of their posts, because I have better things to focus on. However, the overall point of needing to Fire Trembley was, of course, very accurate. Look at how well the team has responded to Showalter. As for all of those whose brilliant insights included such gems as: "a manager might get you 5 or 6 more wins a year", and "if they fire Trembley who else will the hire that would make any difference?" , or the defenders of the pitch count, the right-lefty matchups, and all of the other axiomatic, popular, ill-conceived drivel. These are the people wearing the egg on their collective faces. Do McPhails players look better now that Showalter is coach? Sure, but that doesn't mean McPahil hasn't made some REALLY bad moves, does anyone really still want Garret Atkins on their team? How about all of those place holder starters from last year whose names I mercifully can no longer remember? In fact, outside of Felix Pie, and those two blockbuster trades that McPhail made soon after he arrived, he has failed to make a positive impact on the Orioles, personnel wise. He has made 0 big time acquisitions, while providing a litanny of sorry excuses for not doing so. The Orioles are much improved under Showalter to be sure, but they still are not ready to compete with the beasts of the AL East for a full season. This off-season McPhail needs to prove his worth by netting us a top tier first baseman, and starter. Just two players please. I would like to see us get Pujols who will be a free agent after this season. This would immediately make the Orioles a contender. It would put fannies in the stand, and be a real watershed moment for the future of the team. Okay peanut gallery you can start with the excuses, like Pujols will never come here, we can't afford Pujols, or we could get Pena for less money. When the Orioles follow up the Showalter hire with some positive moves in the personnel department it will be time to sing the O's praises. Until then, yes the O's results under Showalter are a breath of fresh air, but it only represents a start. If there is no follow through; Birdland will remain a dismal place.

I also like the way Buck is applying more of a "if it's working... go with it" approach to the bullpen as well. Trembley had a knack for taking guys out who were pitching well, and after going through 4 or 5 relievers he'd inevitably bring in the guy who was having an 'off' night and the game would blow up right there. I like that Buck hasn't been afraid to leave Koji, Gonzo, Albers, etc in there a bit longer when it seems they're pitching well. I have to think the pitchers themselves appreciate this approach as well.

SM, you're right on about Buck's handling of the relievers. Trembley used to drive me crazy with his L/R matchups. He'd end up pulling his hottest reliever after two batters because he wanted to matchup with the hitter. Trembely just had no "feel" for the game.

Wayne Hicks,

Excellent post. While I don't agree with everything you say (which I'm sure matters little to you), you make solid sense.

Am Move Over - Buck's Starting Over

Wow, so someone (or multiple people) is/are posing as not brooks, smitty, paulie, peteypablo, etc. This is getting Hitchcock-esque with all the stolen identities and things-not-quite-as-they-seem. Now we all have to sift through the comments and decide whether or not we should actually take the most incendiary and reactionary comments at face value....

Here's an observation: no one ever posts something *great* and *constructive* under someone else's name. Maybe we should focus on reading, writing, and responding to that kind of post instead?

Wayne Hicks, don't worry. MacPhail has made some really poor moves (Adam Eaton and Garrett Atkins being two screaming examples), and the recent upswing with Showalter at the helm doesn't mean that all our problems are over. It also doesn't mean that people will forget how painful some of his moves (or the lack thereof) have been. MacPhail absolutely must get a genuine power bat at first and/or third next year; getting an excellent, durable starter with proven success in the AL East is a close second, but those are fairly rare unless they're locked up with the Yankees, Red Sox, or Rays.

On another note, I've got to say that if Koji can stay healthy through the end of the year and keep his ERA under 2.00, we'd have to think very seriously about re-signing him.

Thoughts on Koji, anyone?

PeteyPablo -

I was once told by an individual here that I'm "not relevant" on this blog. I think it was Jason who said it. It must mean that I have a life and a real job. Don't feel too honored, at least not yet lol

lololol, that's because you and smitty are the same guy paulie. That's why you would know. lmfao.

Posted by: bf | August 20, 2010 11:47 AM

_________________________________

I'm smitty like you're wayne.

Also, I wanted to agree with some of the posters who think the definition of a quality start should be changed.

stefangingerich said maybe 2 runs over 6 innings; PeteyPablo said 3 runs over 7 innings. These make more sense, especially considering that for at least 5 years now, a Oriole starter handing the ball to an Oriole reliever after just 6 innings has rarely been a quality move!

Also wanted to point out that I think Not Brooks writes consistently substantial posts. I don't think he typically rants and raves with the stubbornness of a mule, so I don't see why he should be so quickly lumped in with that gang.

Anyway, Quality Start as a stat is about as vague as the Save as a stat. It really isn't an accreate way of valuing a pitcher.

If a pitcher gives up 3 runs on 6 hits and 5 BB's in 6 IP, is that considered as quality? Most people will say 'no', but I guess it depends on how you look at it. Personally, I don't put much stock in to the QS stat because there are a lot of better ways to evaluate a pitcher.

Yep ---- Not Brooks is a genius, just like you Birdman. We're so lucky to have you to point out who has been good and bad. You're a regular Santa.

who cares about "quality starts" the only stat that is
worth a damm is wins and losses
if a pitcher doesn"t win it is
not a "quality start" quality
start stats are b.s.

who cares about "quality starts" the only stat that is
worth a damm is wins and losses
if a pitcher doesn"t win it is
not a "quality start" quality
start stats are b.s.

Pete: " The guy must be some kind of Zen master."

"Ah, Grasshopper, when you can snatch the rosin bag from my hand, time for you to come out of the bullpen."

yeap...

paulie at 1:16...is the faker.

the real paulie knows how to spell yeap.

I love it though...imitation is the biggest form of flattery. lol, I can feel my ego swelling thanks guy.

Can someone post as me...I'm sure it would be more relevant..

Okay....Here is my wish list for potential free agents. We need a first basemen. We have zero prospects in the minors and to be honest I'm tired of waiting for prospects to grow.

1) Dunn - He should be gettable. It might take 12-15 M a year but when is the last time the O's had a hitter that could hit 40 HRs
2) Pujols - not happening. He will retire a Cardinal.
3) Konerko
4) Pena

We can make the biggest upgrade at 1st. I don't see alot of quality third basemen/SS. What is everyone's wish list at 3rd and SS?

Why are so many people on th Koji bandwagon? Sure he's effective now and his era is decent. He hasn't pitched all year- hello. He's fresh as he should be, since he's always one batter away from the DL. Also, relievers era's are deceiving. One bad inning and their era's shoot up to a not so impressive number.

Re: Quality Starts.

Many statistics don't tell the whole story. Wins going to guys who give up 8 runs, but their team puts up 10. A Strike Out could be a swing-and-miss on a great pitch, or a missed called by an Ump.

Quality Starts are a useful indicator of a pitchers effectiveness. It does not indicate how good the opposing pitcher may have been, and it doesn't measure the offensive effectiveness of the team.

I know some will point to "Wins" as a better measure of a Pitchers effectiveness, but a Perfect Game won't result in a Win unless the team scores.

In short, I like Quality Starts, but there are limits to how much a person can extrapolate from any stat...including Quality Start. But in absence of a better metric, I think Quality Start is useful in looking at a Pitchers success.

While we should all be pleased that the level of play, focus, intensity, and above all wins have picked up since Buck arrived, can we just keep it real here and in perspective? To Smitty, who wrote at 9:33 am that " This team is now one of the best in the American League........" , if you really believe this, then keep smiling and enjoy.
Just don't let reality hit you in the face too hard. As an example, when showing the standings, cbssportsline.com also shows how teams have fared on a rolling 10 games basis. Checking this morning, it shows that over the past 10 games, the AL East teams have fared as follows: Rays, 7-3; NY & Red Sox, both 6-4; and the Jays and Orioles, 5-5.
Anyone looking for another indicator? Try comparing the Orioles' starting 9 position players (including DH) to their counterparts in the AL East. Rank the players 1-5 with 1 being the best. Starting at 3b, let's say Longoria, Rodriquez and Beltre are 1, 2 and 3 respectively. After going through this exercise, see where the Orioles players fit in.Anyone see us higher than 4 or 5 at 3b, SS, 1B, and LF? Then compare pitching staffs with the same grading system. This is collectively the team's challenge going into next season. ...to close the gap.

The best thing that has happened since Buck arrived is that, as part of his evaluation process, he is allowing players to do more to either prove or disprove that they can be the "nuggets" he spoke of in his initial press conference. I believe he'll make players better because of his feel for the game, the higher expectations he sets, and the confidence that he shows in the players which typically makes one want to work/play harder for the boss. As an example, does anyone think that, after having scored 4 runs in the 7th, Dave or Juan would have let Brian Matusz come out for the 8th? You know we would have heard the same old familiar refrain from Dave, "After he pitched so well, we didn't want him to possibly lose the game".

This team is still seriously flawed at too many positions and, while showing slight improvement in certain areas, continues to be impatient and undisciplined at the plate. [There's a reason why (as a team) we see so few pitches per at-bat.]

The best reason to be optimistic going forward is that, IF the Orioles ever get significant upgrades at 1B, 3B, LF and an ace pitcher, they finally have a manager who will make the most of those added assets.

My thoughts on Koji is why not sign him if we can get him for a decent price? It's not as if other teams are going to start a bidding war over him so if he agrees to a 1-2 mill contract, let's do it.
He has excellent control and might serve the O's well in either middle or late relief. Yes, there is some concern about his health but more concern about bringing back the likes of Albers/Giambino or Hendrickson.
I like the idea of Dunn wearing the black and orange; Pena not so much..Carlos Pena is an all or nothing type of hitter and while he can go deep 30-35 times, that comes with a low BA and tons of K's. Dunn give you more power, a better eye and higher BA. He does strike out a lot too but I can live with that.
I'm not sure about our OF as Jones and Markakis are pretty well set but Pie and Patterson are about the same type of player. I guess if Reimold turns things around that would change the situation but that's far from certain. Pie is brittle as they come and Patterson is streaky so they aren't both set in stone either. It would be nice to have someone down on the farm that is ready but that doesn't seem to be the case.
A number one ace is definitely welcomed but we can dream that one of this year's phenoms steps it up. Failing that,we can either overspend for another arm or a bat and I say splurge on the hitter.

Harvey,

Couldn't agree more but I think we need to upgrade SS. It is more of an need than LF. I think we can get by with Pie/Scott/Reimhold/Patterson in LF. This winter is key. If McPhail doesn't make a splash in the free agent market than I'm joing Wayne's team.

I think it's clear that Buck is a big Christopher Nolan fan and has taken "Inception" to heart.

I think the delay in his hiring was so he could implant an idea that this team can and will win with or without hairy men.

If Texas gets swept again by the Birds of summer, they wont last long in October.

NC Terp fan. I can live with Itzuris at short if he keeps playing steady defense. He's not much help offensively but if we had another bat or 2, we could get by.
Weiters needs to step it up and I think Scott should stay away from the OF and be the full-time DH. If we can get a guy like Dunn to play 1st then our offense will be greatly improved.

Question: Would Dunn be a better 1B than Scott, who is not as good as Wigginton?

I think Dunn would be adequate at 1st defensively. He's gone on record as saying he'd prefer to play 1st rather than DH so the fact that the O's are lacking a 1B might be a selling point for him to come to Balt(along with 12 mill/yr of course!).
Dunn would be better than either Scott (who should be the DH) and Wiggington(who should revert to his usual role as a utility man etc).

IMO, the best way to define a quality start would be "at least six innings pitched with an ERA at or below 4." This would mean for 6 to 6.2 innings pitched, 2 runs or less. For 7 to 8.2 innings pitched, 3 runs or less. For 9 to 11 innings pitched, 4 runs or less. Works for me.

To those who dismiss the quality start ... yeah, it doesn't mean anything as far as the scoreboard or standings go, true enough. But a W-L record is a poor indicator of a pitcher's actual performance. WHIP and QS are much better stats if you're trying to get an idea of how good the pitcher performs.

I have more confidence in a pitcher who goes 8 innings, gives up 1 run, and loses, vs. one who goes 6 innings, gives up 9 runs, and wins.

hey right in front of us-may we add two items-in and out ,up and down?

Paulie

As a stat, Quality Start also doesn't equate defense. There are sabermetrics such as dERA (Defense Independent ERA) which takes away the effect of the defense and shows the actual performance of pitcher.

There is also a sabermetric called DiPs (Defense Independent Pitching Statistics) which measures a pitcher's effectiveness based only on plays that do not involve fielders: home runs allowed, strikeouts, hit batters, walks, and, more recently, fly ball percentage, ground ball percentage, and (to much a lesser extent) line drive percentage.) In otherwords, it takes into account plays that are under only the pitchers control, rather than the fielders.

Anyway, don't mean confuse anybody with my "obsure stats" (as some here refer to them). It's funny how people here chose to ignore that which they fail to understand.

I guess the world is flat too.

Quality Starts are, like most stats, inadequate at some level, but they are somewhat useful for evaluating starting pitching, particularly on teams near the bottom of the standings (ahem).

QS is a product of the modern bullpen-happy era, when a starting pitcher has little say in staying in a game for the duration. A starter should get some minimal recognition statistically for keeping his team in the game for at least 6 innings; the outcome of the game will often be out of his hands if the bullpen is brought in for 2+ innings (as we so often saw earlier this season).

It's not a great stat, more like a Minimally Decent Start, but if your team's offense gives you no support and if your bullpen can't maintain leads then it's a consolation to counter what may be a misleading W-L record.

NC_Terp Fan,

I left SS off the upgrade list for two reasons. First, the current free agent list for that position looks sparse (although if the Mets don't exercise their option on Reyes, I'd grab him in a heartbeat. Second, if the Orioles seriously upgrade their offense at the positions I mentioned previously by adding 2-3 impact bats, we could probably continue to carry Izturis. Don't know how far back you go with the team, but the Orioles of the late 60s-early 70s accommodated Mark Belanger's .215-.220 annual batting average because of his great glove AND because we had Frank, Brooks and Boog, etc.

The Mytical 1B bat.

There are 30 teams in the MLB, so how many of them have 30 HR 1B bats?

16. A little more than 1/2.

How about 3B 30 HR sluggers?

8.

How many guys in MLB hit 30 or more HR's last year?

30 Players.

The Yankees have 3 guys with over 30 dingers from last year.

The pickings are slim. But let's blame Andy for not getting one. He won't so I'll start blaming him now for what he won't do in a few months.

not brooks
I have not posted on this link (till now). It appears to be my secret admirer again. He goes by Wayne and bf and other things.
So I won't respond to a conversation that I didn't start.
Kind of sad people actually get a kick out of such things.

Sorry for the mix up, smitty.

I should have known.

Too many free passes again for Jake tonight. I know that none of the three walks scored, but, man, he's got to stop doing that if he wants to stick around in this league.

Oh, that was me smitty and not brooks? Are you sure? Really?

Then who is my impostor? You? paulie? Me? Do I pretend to be myself? Am i my own impostor?

I know I'm talented, but...... ok.

BUCK,

Please take notes (as I know you are). Jake pitched well tonight (he was already in the O's system by the way) but overall, these guys are very, very, very bad.

Your cattle prod can only work for so long. The last 10 games (4-6), although still better than before you arrived, is more representative of what you're dealing with. These are the real Baltimore Orioles.... a very bad major league baseball team.

Now people will say how we're playing better, pitching better, playing harder, etc..... But I'm thinking Buck, that's all BS to you. It's losing to you. And losing doesn't sit well with you.

Bottom line though Buck, this is good for you to see. 4-6 over the last 10 is real Oriole baseball.

Fix this mess Buck, and you'll be the highest paid manager in the game in a couple years (not here of course). Remember, the last manager of the year this team had was fired the same week he won the award (or was it the same day?).

AM Move Over - Buck's Starting Over

TerryP, thanks for your answer re: Dunn at 1B.

Anonymous, that's pretty interesting stuff. I mean, Luke Scott actually counts as a significant power bat this year if that's determined by 30 HR potential. It'll be interesting to see if he makes it there--will we still clamor for a big bat, or will we say we have one (who, by the way, is also currently hitting for better average than some other 30 HR bats in the majors)?

Wayne,
Buck is taking note of your comments. He is secretly planning to overthrow AM. He needs more folks like you. He is just putting on a show pretending he thinks Andy is a good baseball man with great instincts.
He's with you Wayne. He knows Andy won those rings before the internet. He's just letting Pie play himself off the team so Andy will be forced to resign.
But be careful what you wish for because he wants to become GM himself and then hire Wedge as his on field manager.....
Move over Buck Wedgegate is getting bigger and more complex by the day.

you're just never funny smitty. You even post as my name at times in a desperate attempt. But dude... you're just never funny.

And as people can see in your other post... not only are you not funny, you discriminate.

Yeah, it's only a blog, and yeah, we know you're shamrock and others..... but dude, you're not funny under any name.

No you're just sad... blog or not

Oh, good grief, Wayne. Why can't you take a fair dose of what you dish out so much?

For Paulie, dave in glen burnie, etc. regarding the quality start debate:

dave brought up an interesting sabermetrics stat, and I won't pretend to know much about that. I do think that distinguishing between pitcher's control and fielders' control can be useful in assessing elements of a team's win or loss.

This doesn't negate that at all, but a quality start does, at least, include (if not precisely measure) the extent to which a team plays behind the pitcher. The O's have been playing incredible defense recently, and that's got to have something to do with their increasing confidence in their starting pitching. Therefore, quality starts may be a useful stat precisely because they not only indicate something about the pitcher's performance, but also about the defensive performance of the team behind him. So while that sabermetrical distinction between what's in and out of the pitcher's control may be useful, the quality start stat could be a helpful tool for assessing the game for precisely the opposite reason: just how well *do* the pitcher and other fielders play together?

Point is, the "quality start" stat shouldn't be a definitive tool to evaluate a pitcher's performance, but it's still helpful for assessing some important elements of the game.

No problem Bird,

It's just a blog, and I was commenting on another smitty post anyway. Funny (or attempted funny) by any or us is all in good fun. But when you find out you're dealing with racist types, it kind of lowers things a bit.

But it is what it is I suppose.

But when you find out you're dealing with racist types

What the hell are you talking about?