Buck Showalter and Managing the Postseason

The Orioles finished off the Detroit Tigers yesterday, winning their division series three games to none, though the primary story of the series still seems to resolve around the Tigers and their disastrous bullpen performance. Despite throwing $10 million per year at Joe Nathan over the winter, and then trading for Joakim Soria at the deadline, the Tigers bullpen combined for 19.29 ERA in this series, and that includes two shutout innings from regular season starter Anibal Sanchez. If you look at just the Tigers postseason pitchers who were relievers in the regular season, they combined to allow 11 runs in just three innings against the Orioles, good for an ERA of 33.00.

The Orioles likely would be up 2-1 in this series even if the Tigers relievers had pitched well — Detroit’s starter left with the team down 4-3 in Game 1 and down 2-0 in Game 3, and the Tigers never managed to make up those deficits in either game — so it’s not accurate to say that the Tigers bullpen cost them the division series. However, on the other end of things, we could put together an argument that the Orioles bullpen, and more specifically Buck Showalter’s management of his relievers, won this series for the Orioles.

That isn’t to take away from the other parts of the Orioles roster that performed well in the first round, but the stark contrast in bullpen management between between Showalter and the other postseason managers is difficult to miss. Over the first week of the postseason, we have seen numerous instances of managers sticking with tiring starting pitchers until they start getting into trouble, and asking their bullpen to put out fires rather than to prevent them from ever occurring in the first place. But we didn’t see that in Baltimore, and it’s one of the primary reasons the Orioles are advancing and the Tigers are not.

In the postseason, starting pitchers are averaging 25 batters faced per start, the same number as they averaged during the regular season. Nine of the 24 starting pitchers who have taken the hill so far have faced 27 or more hitters, getting through the line-up three times, and in some cases, facing hitters for a fourth time in their start.

The Orioles starters? They’re averaging 21 batters faced per start, the second lowest total in the postseason — the Angels number was dragged down significantly by C.J. Wilson’s first-inning hook yesterday — despite the fact that they actually pitched pretty well. Usually, a low batters faced total for a starting pitcher means he got chased early, but Buck Showalter has been aggressive in removing his starters before their starts could go too far south.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

In Game 1, Chris Tillman was removed after facing just 20 batters, even though he’d recorded 15 outs in the process. He’d given up two home runs in the second inning, but had just completed three straight scoreless innings when Showalter went to the bullpen, asking his three best relievers to finish the final four innings.

In Game 2, Wei-Yin Chen forced Showalter’s hand a bit, getting knocked around in the fourth inning, but even here, we don’t see Showalter messing around too much. The first five batters of the inning went single-double-single-homer-homer, so there wasn’t really much time for the pen to get warmed up in time to prevent the five runs that Chen allowed, but even after he settled down to record two outs afterwards, Showalter still replaced him with Kevin Gausman once he gave up one more baserunner.

In Game 3, Bud Norris became the first Orioles starter to pitch beyond five innings, as Showalter allowed him to get 25 batters deep before going to Andrew Miller. But even then, we can still see a relatively quick hook, as Norris had taken just 100 pitches to get through those 25 batters faced, and was pulled for a lefty even though the next batter due up, Andrew Romine, is a switch-hitter who has historically been much better from the right side of the plate. In the most extreme case of Showalter pushing his starter, he still removed him before he got through the line-up three times and after throwing just 100 pitches, and he surrendered the platoon advantage in order to do so.

The Orioles bullpen is excellent, and Showalter undoubtedly feels more confidence in handing the ball to his relievers than Brad Ausmus did in calling on the Tigers relievers, for instance, but Showalter’s aggressive bullpen usage isn’t just about having better arms than everyone else; it’s about realizing that his fresh relievers are more likely to get outs and protect leads than one of his tiring starters. And perhaps he’s emboldened in that belief by the fact that the Orioles don’t exactly have a traditionally dominant starting pitcher or two at the front of their rotation, making it easier to justify removing a guy like Tillman or Norris, even when they are performing well.

Historically, the belief has been that teams with dominant starting pitching have the biggest advantage in October, and the Tigers and A’s both loaded up on front-line pitchers at the trade deadline, while the Orioles — with an inferior rotation but a strong bullpen — loaded up on yet another reliever instead. Obviously, you don’t want to draw conclusions based on the results of one series — or in the A’s case, one game — but both Bob Melvin and Brad Ausmus leaned heavily on their high profile starting pitchers in the playoffs, and they combined to win exactly zero games between them.

Perhaps there is a hidden cost to having a starter-heavy pitching staff in October. As we’ve talked about numerous times, the times-through-the-order penalty makes even the best starting pitchers an inferior option relative to a solid reliever by the the time the sixth or seventh inning rolls around, but it is possible that having a strong rotation makes it less likely that a manager will take advantage of this in the postseason. Showalter has done a fantastic job of managing his pitching staff, but I wonder if the team’s okay rotation/great bullpen construction has emboldened him to follow this strategy more than he would have if he was given David Price or Jon Lester.

Of course, having those guys is great, but everything in baseball is a trade-off. The Orioles don’t have a legitimate #1 starter, but instead of using their prospects to go get one, they used a quality prospect to go get Andrew Miller instead. Trading for a reliever at the deadline isn’t a guarantee of landing a dominant bullpen arm in October — Joakim Soria says hello — but relievers can have a significantly larger impact on the game in the postseason than they do in the regular season. And if a team has a strong group of lights-out bullpen arms behind a group of decent-but-unspectacular starters, perhaps it creates a freedom for the manager to handle his pitching staff in a more aggressive manner, rather than sticking with a tiring starter for too long when better bullpen options exist.

Buck Showalter’s Orioles are in the ALCS in part because Showalter was willing to use his relievers to prevent rallies rather than simply extinguish them. Not only was his ALDS management style a great example of how postseason baseball should be handled, but perhaps the Orioles are evidence of an inherent advantage of a bullpen-heavy pitching staff. Give this kind of pitching staff to a manager who isn’t afraid to exploit potential advantages, and you find things like the Orioles running over a team that threw the last three AL Cy Young winners at them.

The players deserve credit too, of course. Showalter wouldn’t look like as much of a genius if Miller had pitched like Soria in this series, but his aggressive bullpen management gave his team their best chance to win.





Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.

55 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
hookstrapped
11 years ago

Thanks for the thoughtful article!

Do you think there is a market inefficiency being exploited here with the relative abundance and low cost of high quality relievers compared to number 1 or 2 starters?

Nate
11 years ago
Reply to  hookstrapped

To me, it seems like a situation that can be used in the post-season, but not so much for the regular season. It might be harder to do that if your team played say, 15 days in a row, etc.

Nice article.

hookstrapped
11 years ago
Reply to  Nate

I see your point, but in the regular season, using the Orioles as an example, in addition to Miller, O’Day, and Briton Showalter has Hunter, Brach, McFarland, Matusz. All those guys are decent to good, so for this to work in the regular season there has to be a lot of depth.

Orsulakfan
11 years ago
Reply to  Nate

That, to me, is the main difference between the 2012 regular season and now. O’Day, among others, was overused in 2012 and 2013, and Showalter has eased up on his usage. He is also very careful about “dry-humping” (warming up without using) his relievers. It’s a huge part of his managerial strategy, and the players remark on it.

What makes it work in the regular season is that Buck and Duquette use the whole 40-man roster to ensure that no one reliever gets overused, and is smart about leverage. They are very careful about that if there is a long extra-inning game, or a doubleheader, or if a starter gets knocked out early, and immediately call for help from the minors in those cases. What makes this strategy not too dangerous is that the Orioles have pretty good depth in their system, a bunch of pretty-good guys rather than stars and scrubs. McFarland and Matusz didn’t even make the postseason roster (for the ALDS anyway, they may be back for the ALCS), and they were solid pitchers in the regular season.

Matt P
11 years ago
Reply to  hookstrapped

The problem is that it’s hard to determine who will be a high quality reliever before a season starts and you can only have seven relievers on the active roster. If you get a high end reliever and he completely busts then you’re stuck.

Bill
11 years ago
Reply to  Matt P

That’s certainly true, but I think the Orioles counter this by stockpiling a large number of relievers. Hunter wasn’t effective this year, so in came a converted starter. McFarland wasn’t great, so in came a depth guy in Brach to pick up the slack. Miller was clearly a better reliever than Soria. Had the Tigers gotten Miller and the O’s Soria, this would have been a completely different series.

Wobatus
11 years ago
Reply to  Bill

Miller was great but at the break Miller’s xFIP was 1.89 and Soria’s 1.99. Soria had a good year but he got injured right after the Tigers got him.

John Thacker
11 years ago
Reply to  Bill

The Orioles also repeatedly sent starters down to the minors between starts in order to roster another reliever during the season.

pass the Buck
11 years ago
Reply to  hookstrapped

When are they going to tear down that ugly stadium in “charm” city? that ugly wearhouse is nicer looking than the ballpark

thebamoor
11 years ago
Reply to  pass the Buck

“pass the Buck”, an opinion shared by no one.

Jack
11 years ago

A well written article, without any of the backhanded compliments that usually get thrown the Orioles way. Particularly refreshing considering that the general storyline that has been beat to death is that the Tigers pen lost the series, when they only blew one lead out of the 3 games.

Buck has done a fantastic job of leveraging his pen in the postseason. Another aspect to consider is his willingness to extend Britton to cover multiple innings as a closer. While hardly being revolutionary, he hadn’t done all year and was unwilling to do so with Jim Johnson in 2012, so it was good to see.

I would love to see an article or an Instagraphs post breaking down the decision to intentionally walk Castellanos. Definitely going against convention and coming with a big WPA hit in the game graph, I’d like to know what that would look like when adjusting for A) Britton’s extreme GB rate, and the adeptness of the Orioles’ defense at turning double plays, and B) weakness of the 8 and 9 hitters relative to Castellanos.

Bill
11 years ago
Reply to  Jack

Was hoping for this as well. Was at a bar and oriole’s fans were lauding him for the move afterward because it worked out, but that doesn’t make it the right one. I pulled up the WPA as it was happening and tigers went from 28% to 34% on the IBB.

hookstrapped
11 years ago
Reply to  Bill

Does WPA consider specifics of the players involved, e.g., Britton’s extreme groundball tendency, Orioles good infield defense, bad Tigers hitters available?

hookstrapped
11 years ago
Reply to  hookstrapped

Sorry – just saw the same points brought up in the post above

Colonel Obvious
11 years ago
Reply to  hookstrapped

No.

Cantinflas after every meal
11 years ago
Reply to  hookstrapped

Both WPA and WE charts are contextless — and therefore largely useless when evaluating managerial moves. Example of the latter:

Top of 16th inning, Atlanta Braves take a 1-run lead. For the bottom half, they bring in Kimbrel to face the opponents’ 7-8-9 hitters. The WE% in that situation is identical to bringing in a position player to face the top of the order. (Kimbrel having been already used earlier.)

Showalter made a smart daring move that paid off exactly as designed. Full marks for the Oriole skipper.

Hieronymous
11 years ago
Reply to  Bill

Not saying that it was necessarily the right move, but simply looking at WPA for a situation isn’t always the best way to analyze it. Showalter was taking several things into account. First, Castellanos is a much better hitter than Romine/anyone who could pinch hit for Romine. Second, Britton has an absurdly high ground ball rate, making the chance for a double play more likely.

If WPA could take that context into account, would it still be a 6% jump for the Tigers? I’m guessing not.

Bill
11 years ago
Reply to  Hieronymous

Could be wrong here but, the very nature of trying to take things into context can be used to arbitrarily make any % work for your argument. WPA works best because it’s impartial, and if you ran the scenario out enough times, that’s the likely result.

Ryan
11 years ago
Reply to  Hieronymous

WPA becomes pointless if you don’t take into account the situation. Walking the winning run on for Miguel Cabrera while having a flyball pitcher in wouldn’t be the same situation as walking on the winning run for a 75% groundball pitcher facing a guy who has 6 major league at bats. I’d say in this situation, it was the higher percentage play.

Hieronymous
11 years ago
Reply to  Hieronymous

“WPA works best because it’s impartial, and if you ran the scenario out enough times, that’s the likely result.”

It’s not the likely result, because it’s measuring different situations. WPA says that teams win 6% more often with 1st and 2nd one out down one in the ninth than just a runner on second. It absolutely doesn’t say that running the same situation with Zach Britton on the mound with the Orioles defense behind him and Hernan Perez at bat will give you a 6% boost. If you ran that scenario enough times to be statistically meaningful to create a context-specific WPA, that WPA would likely be very different from normal WPA.

That doesn’t mean WPA isn’t useful or meaningful. But just like with every other statistic in baseball, it’s utility is improved by also looking at other statistics.

Carlos Gomez HR trot
11 years ago
Reply to  Jack

Congrats to Baltimore fans for being this year’s winner of the “whiny ass, we don’t get respect, blah blah blah” Atlanta Barves memorial trophy

thebamoor
11 years ago

Maybe it’s the sabermaticians who are “whiny ass”? They keep on insisting that the O’s success is just byproduct of luck, even though they’ve had 3 winning seasons in a row (and 90+ wins 2 out of 3). They could have taken a more constructive attitude and, “Maybe there’s something that we’re overlooking,” and try to improve their models.

Graves
11 years ago

Great article. It seems to be proven again and again that the most well rounded teams do the best in the Postseason. I only hope the Dodgers can win in spite of their weaker Bullpen. I wish Donny Baseball would be more aggressive with Kenley Jansen.

LaLoosh
11 years ago

Interesting attempt to try and explain the results of the post-season so far… but be honest Dave, your head must be exploding with the ALCS matchup of O’s-Royals…

haishan
11 years ago
Reply to  LaLoosh

As a great man once said, that’s the way baseball go.

Colonel Obvious
11 years ago
Reply to  LaLoosh

You must have missed the theme of randomness that’s been discussed all year.

LaLoosh
11 years ago

makes it pretty easy to call things any which way when you just strike the real results up to random variation.

Catoblepas
11 years ago
Reply to  LaLoosh

This is dumb. You are dumb. A prediction is based on the most likely outcome. You can’t judge that on a single trial! If I put a 51% probability on the Orioles winning, and they win, there is no way to tell if I was right, or even close. You need to run numerous, numerous trials and see if my 51% teams win 51% of the time. I **should** be “wrong”, by your definition, a full 49% of the time! In baseball, you can’t run the same season, but you can look at track records. Saying “hurr hurr you said they wouldn’t do well hurrrrr” is not helpful or analytically valid. Looking at seasons worth of data, not anecdotal evidence (so you can’t just start shouting about 2012 and what that “proves”) is. Please, feel free to do that! Then, if you can make better predictions, do that! But until you can a) come up with even a reasonable estimate for accuracy and b) a way of doing better, stop complaining.

LaLoosh
11 years ago
Reply to  LaLoosh

this is the typical ad hominem you get the moment someone challenges the dogma here.

if this is really what you believe, then there is absolutely no point in making projections. if the variation is really that wide and results so random then doing projections is a complete waste of anyone’s time. Just talk about the fun of watching games in the moment and stop saying with any degree of confidence who is better than whom because you have no fucking idea.

Ted
11 years ago
Reply to  LaLoosh

Yep, (quality) predictions are based on models, but the criticism is still a bit valid: “variance” is not analysis. It is misguided to criticize the modeling that produces the prediction based on the outcome of a single series, but it is appropriate to expect and want analysis of what happened in the series, rather than be satisfied with “variance swamps everything”. There is space for both. Perhaps there is little predictive value to analysis of a single series, but it can still be interesting, particularly if a skilled analyst and writer finds something in the series that might push our understanding of what happened a bit further than the box score.

worstfan_NA
11 years ago
Reply to  LaLoosh

kind of curious.

and pardon me for being the worstfan_NA, but does the analysis take into any consideration club house cancers, chemistry, or the players believing in themselves, the coach, and the team?

im guessing probably not…since it approaches Phil Jackson level of hippie bullshit and might be hard to quantify. but be the ball danny.

As an avid fan of the Charm City Charlatans, I can tell you that the clubhouse chemistry appears very good, and in the course of a season you can see its fingerprints from time to time. they hungry yo.

take the critical call at the plate by Hardy in game 2. the base runners who had just scored were giving him instructions on where to slide. Did anyone notice any Tigers players telling Miguel Cabrera what to do ( other than maybe making him run faster by holding a bottle of Fireball)?

Miguel Cabrera might be a clubhouse cancer. confirm/deny?

jpg
11 years ago
Reply to  LaLoosh

“makes it pretty easy to call things any which way when you just strike the real results up to random variation.”

That’s not at all what Dave has been saying. The O’s, in particular, have had a knack for producing positive results despite the fact that a lot of the data, underlying or otherwise, suggested they are a mediocre team. The O’s have been good at a lot things, it’s just that those things are influenced more by luck and random variation than they are by talent or a repeatable skill.

Bottom line: You’re going have people, like Dave, who are going to trust numbers and forecasting models that have determined that O’s are a decent team that’s gotten lucky. On the other side, you are to have people, like O’s fans, who will be dismissive of the numbers and say that the O’s success proves that the models and forecasts are bullshit. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

worstfan_NA
11 years ago
Reply to  LaLoosh

Its not that I think the models have no predictive value. I think they can and do. but there are outliers, and the outliers may operate independently of how it would work for other teams.

in other words, i’m optimistic that the numbers will reflect some sort of hipster, magical, 1 dollar beer night special case of relativity bullshit for the orioles. whilst the adjusted models in this special case may work for the orioles, i hope they cause the models to spew out utterly terrible numbers. thus, le magic. sparkles.

ensue shitty chants to songs that jumped the shark. terrible towels with a sex change. repeating geurilla marketing campaign slogans with astroturf and alcohol fueled support.

#mostvainfan_NA

Ryan
11 years ago

Must be easy to be an analyst when anytime you or your numbers are wrong, you can just use the “Random variation” card. You’ll never be wrong and you’ll keep your credibility.

Gelatinous Cube
11 years ago
Reply to  Ryan

Apologies in advance for being a newb walking into a polemical minefield, but do the stats-folk’s predictions include estimates of variance? If not, then they should. If they do, then the O’s 96-win season (including coasting at the end as players were rested and various options were tried) can be compared to a null hypothesis that will tell you how plausibly this model worked. In fact, do it every year for the whole MLB schedule or postseason.

Any articles online that address this?

mattypabst
11 years ago
Reply to  LaLoosh

I actually think the opposite. I am willing to bet teams like the Royals and the Orioles are the best thing that can happen because it pushes people to keep looking for new explanations and ideas.

Brock Sampson
11 years ago

To my fellow Orioles fans: Could we please try and refrain from coming on here and heckling Cameron like a bunch of adolescents?

Mediocre Team
11 years ago
Reply to  Brock Sampson

Never! I liked this article though – I like the site for stuff like this. I think that watching the Orioles will eventually give Cameron reason and ideas on how to tweak his metrics. Bullpen usage has absolutely been a part of the O’s out performing their RE24 and is a repeatable managerial skill.

worstfan_NA
11 years ago
Reply to  Brock Sampson

so much this. If you are going to heckle, at least be funny or original.

don’t be neither, and say things like “would of”. stop making bad posts because you feel the need to defend the hometown team against every slight. be amused by it, the ability of the team to linger around like a turd that has clogged the toilet.

it’s amusing to stain the porcelain.

Jim
11 years ago
Reply to  Brock Sampson

….So you want them to be different than the other 29 fan bases?

chuckb
11 years ago
Reply to  Brock Sampson

It’s not just Orioles’ fans. A lot of people get their rocks off doing exactly that, often failing to read the article or misinterpreting what he or someone else here has written. Many here need to read more and type less.

Hurtlockertwo
11 years ago

The sad part of another Tigers quick ouster is they likely don’t have the best hitter and best pitcher on the team anymore. Cabrera and Verlander seem to be on a downwerd slope despite both being only 31 y/o.

Catoblepas
11 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlockertwo

“only”

Catoblepas
11 years ago

Thought the gap between Showalter and others was even more apparent during the Angels’ death-march last night. Yes, Scoscia pulled Wilson early, but he threw sub-par reliever after sub-par reliever onto the field while his two best (Smith and Street) watched from the bullpen. It’s one thing to have a quick hook, and it’s another to recognize when to use your bullets. Using Miller and Gausman instead of, say, Ubaldo Jimenez, in the 5th and 6th innings is another thing I really liked.

Andre the Angels Fan
11 years ago
Reply to  Catoblepas

This…

Chief
11 years ago

I don’t think Showalter was aggressive in removing his starter. Tillman had trouble with his off speed pitches which resulted in a lot of foul balls so it took him 105 pitches to get thru 5 innings. Chen had given up 5 runs in the 4th and was in danger of letting the game get away from them. He was also replaced by Gausman who was essentially a 2nd starter. Norris threw 100 pitches and was likely a pleasant surprise to last until the 7th for Showalter. Just about any manager would have removed the starter at the same point point that Showalter made the move for these three games.

Who and when he brought in as relievers was where he excelled. Bringing Britton in the 8th in game 2. Letting Miller pitch more than 1 inning in games 1 and 3 and the intentional walk to put the winning runner on base were where Showlater made great decisions (ground ball pitcher,taking advantage of the Tigers lack of depth).

Mark
11 years ago

I do wonder what the outcome would have been if Schoop hadn’t headlocked Kelly at 2B and prevented him from having a lane to the base. He clearly would have scored on the base hit that put runners on 2nd & 3rd later on in the inning, which would have tied the game. Orioles probably would have won, but that play couldn’t have been legal :(.

That being said, yeah, Buck is doing a great job managing. It’s painful watching some of the other decisions made by managers across the board. If it gets to a BP battle in the next series I could see Baltimore winning, even if their RP aren’t as good as Holland/Davis simply because Buck has been putting them in at the right spots.

Matt
11 years ago
Reply to  Mark

Yeah that was an odd situation and probably not called correctly. Obstruction is defined in Major League Baseball’s official rules as “the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.” Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment reads: “It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the ‘act of fielding’ the ball.

It’s basically a judgment call for the umpire and it seems to me that the obstruction wasn’t intentional on Schoop’s part – but he certainly did prevent the runner from getting back to the base after the ball fell out of his glove. I guess you could make the case that in his attempt to go after the dropped ball he just happened to be in the runner’s way, which would actually fit within the confines of the rules and not be obstruction.

PackBob
11 years ago

It still comes down to player performance in a short series. Williams removed Zimmerman and got burned.

CW
11 years ago

Kershaw

APer930
11 years ago

It’ll be interesting to see which bullpen is better in the ALCS, the Royals or the Orioles. Either way, I’d hate to face either, especially the Orioles, in the World Series.

Brock Sampson
11 years ago

Good on fangraphs for having their essays picked up by slate.

Bad on slate for doing their usual desecration of headlines.

JB
11 years ago

What are Mattingly and Williams for pulling Greinke and Zimmermann?

John
11 years ago

The Orioles have consistently outperformed the sabermetric projections over the last three years, particularly in 2012 and 2014. This has been too easily attributed to “random variation” as opposed to the weakness of projection models. In fact, there are several things that the models don’t seem to account well for: defense, especially in combination with low-strikeout-rate pitchers; depth, especially the role of limiting negative WAR players by playing marginal WAR players in good matchup situations; managerial decision-making based on in-game performance; etc. The Orioles are good at all of these things.

In addition, the analysts need to take into account that things change on a time scale that is faster than the models can build statistical significance. When a player gets “hot”, it may be random variation, but I would guess it’s more likely relative health or being “up” in the constant game of adjustments that professional players make. Conversely, cold players may be suffering from random variation, but health and other factors (pitchers exploiting a weakness, hitters seeing a tendency, etc.) may be much more important. The analysts need to stop the arrogant dismissal of valid arguments about the weakness of projection systems!