Pirates vs. Astros

[magnumo]

Houston has been pretty bad for the entire season. Out of curiosity, I decided to look at their record since the wheels fell off for the Pirates.

Through the games of July 19, here's how the teams compared:

51-44 (.537) Pittsburgh
32-65 (.330) Houston

Here's the comparison since the games of July 19:

20-35 (.364) Houston
17-42 (.288) Pittsburgh

This has been going on for 2 months now. I don't think it can be rationalized, ignored, or shrugged off as a small sample. I started the "What Do You Expect" thread on August 5, when the team was already 7 games into the 10-game losing streak. Clearly, none of us expected the Pirates to be as bad as they have been..... that is, significantly worse than Houston.

At any rate, my intent is not to rehash that thread..... merely to report what I found. I wish I had found something more positive. Oh well..... guess I need to look forward toward good performances by our players in the Arizona Fall League or winter ball.

 

[element1286]

Why are we using arbitrary endpoints again?

The Red Sox are 5-14 in September, the Pirates 6-12, the Astros 6-10; who is the best of the group?

The Pirates are a better team than Houston now, and a better organization than Houston going forward. You are what your record says you are at the end of the season. At the end of the season, the Pirates will be a 70 ish win team, no matter how they got there.

No offense, Mags, but there is nothing that get my blood boiling more than picking an arbitrary date of "significance" and trying to create a narrative that either says a team is worse or better than the overall sum of what has happened.

 

[stillmatic32]

Everyone has their highs and lows, that's why they play 162. That's a pretty good timeframe to use to decide who the best teams are.

 

[magnumo]

Why are we using arbitrary endpoints again?

The Red Sox are 5-14 in September, the Pirates 6-12, the Astros 6-10; who is the best of the group?

The Pirates are a better team than Houston now, and a better organization than Houston going forward. You are what your record says you are at the end of the season. At the end of the season, the Pirates will be a 70 ish win team, no matter how they got there.

No offense, Mags, but there is nothing that get my blood boiling more than picking an arbitrary date of "significance" and trying to create a narrative that either says a team is worse or better than the overall sum of what has happened.

We didn't use an arbitrary endpoint.

I used the high point of the Pirates' season, which is hardly an arbitrary point.

I would not dispute your comment that "the Pirates are a better team than Houston now" if the Pirates' season were reversed. That is, if the Pirates started out 17-42, and then went 51-44 in their most recent 95 games, that would be compelling evidence that the Pirates are a better team than Houston now. But since the reverse is true, a strong case can be made that the Astros are a better team than the Pirates now. I know that's unpopular..... and unpalatable..... but it's hard to deny the numbers.

No offense, element, but for the past two months the Pirates have been the worst team in baseball, just like they were for the entire season of 2010. I agree completely that, when the season is over, it will be accurate to say that the Pirates had a better season than Houston.

However, when evaluating performance, one MUST give strong consideration to the most recent body of evidence, as long as it can't be legitimately dismissed as too small a sample size. Every team has good streaks and bad streaks. But I submit that two months+ is a pretty significant sample size.

I had no intention of boiling your blood. My only intention was to report what I discovered when I did that little bit of research. And I stand behind those facts. They are what they are. As someone whom I respect once said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[magnumo]

Element..... as an addendum, you may find this link interesting:

Baseball Prospectus | Adjusted Standings

 

[Darkstone42]

The Pirates were playing way above their heads up to the high point of their season, and they got piles of good luck contributing to that. Now all that luck is evening out, and they're falling back to earth. It is what it is. I don't put a whole lot of faith in these streaks. Basically the Pirates had a 95-game hot streak, and now they're following it with what appears to be projecting as a 67-game cold streak. Statistically, the end result is what really matters. And given the correlation of the bulk of the staff reaching their career highs in innings pitched and the start of this cold streak, I would tend to think the Pirates have been worse than Houston over the last two months for reasons related more to exhaustion than talent.

 

[element1286]

We didn't use an arbitrary endpoint.

I used the high point of the Pirates' season, which is hardly an arbitrary point.

I would not dispute your comment that "the Pirates are a better team than Houston now" if the Pirates' season were reversed. That is, if the Pirates started out 17-42, and then went 51-44 in their most recent 95 games, that would be compelling evidence that the Pirates are a better team than Houston now. But since the reverse is true, a strong case can be made that the Astros are a better team than the Pirates now. I know that's unpopular..... and unpalatable..... but it's hard to deny the numbers.

No offense, element, but for the past two months the Pirates have been the worst team in baseball, just like they were for the entire season of 2010. I agree completely that, when the season is over, it will be accurate to say that the Pirates had a better season than Houston.

However, when evaluating performance, one MUST give strong consideration to the most recent body of evidence, as long as it can't be legitimately dismissed as too small a sample size. Every team has good streaks and bad streaks. But I submit that two months+ is a pretty significant sample size.

I had no intention of boiling your blood. My only intention was to report what I discovered when I did that little bit of research. And I stand behind those facts. They are what they are. As someone whom I respect once said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

I get they have been bad, but I still contest that any endpoint used to separate the season into smaller parts is thus arbitrary. What is happening in September is no more important than what happened in May as far as evaluating players.

The team was playing over well over it's head for a while, now it is playing well under it. It evens out, that is why baseball is such a "long season." Team's "true talent level" can usually be accurately judged over the course of that time.

 

[element1286]

The Pirates were playing way above their heads up to the high point of their season, and they got piles of good luck contributing to that. Now all that luck is evening out, and they're falling back to earth. It is what it is. I don't put a whole lot of faith in these streaks. Basically the Pirates had a 95-game hot streak, and now they're following it with what appears to be projecting as a 67-game cold streak. Statistically, the end result is what really matters. And given the correlation of the bulk of the staff reaching their career highs in innings pitched and the start of this cold streak, I would tend to think the Pirates have been worse than Houston over the last two months for reasons related more to exhaustion than talent.

They had a positive run differential at the "highpoint" of the season. It isn't like they were just winning a bunch of close games, everyone was playing well. I definitely think that is an important distinction.

 

[element1286]

Element..... as an addendum, you may find this link interesting:

Baseball Prospectus | Adjusted Standings

Never much got into those, Mags. I never really looked into their methodology. Interesting though.

 

[magnumo]

Element..... please be careful

If you haven't read this already, please get your blood cooler running before you do.


Kovacevic: Pirates' free fall historic failure - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

 

[thecrow124]

If you haven't read this already, please get your blood cooler running before you do.


Kovacevic: Pirates' free fall historic failure - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

mags I read that earlier today and was surprised not by how historically bad they have been since the Beals call, but their record in general since then. They have not even been playing baseball, I don't know what to call it, but IMO since game 101 they have been playing at about the AAA average. I really believe that the Indianapolis Indians could whip them in a 3 game series right now. They have shown no heart and only a very limited ability to play the game they are paid handsomely to play.

I am disgusted at the abomination that they allowed themselves to become in the last 56 games. The only player on the entire roster than I will except from that is Jeff Karstens, and possibly James McDonald.

 

[magnumo]

I hear ya, crow.

Without the resources of the Elias Sports Bureau, I knew it was bad..... just not HOW bad. Seems to me that the relevant quote bears repeating:

"In the modern history of Major League Baseball that began in 1900, no team has fared worse than these Pirates after holding first place through 100 games. Actually, no team has even come close."

That just can't be ignored. I keep hoping that they will do something to improve my outlook for 2012, but it just ain't happening.