How the Orioles Broke FIP

One could argue that the golden age of the Orioles Franchise was from 1960-1985. Over those 26 years, the Orioles won three World Series, lost another three World Series and were knocked out in the ALCS twice. The Orioles had twenty-four winning seasons over that time frame including eighteen consecutive winning seasons from 1968-1985. They had a cumulative record of 2374-1749 or a winning percentage of 57.6% which was easily the best winning percentage in baseball over that period. The next closest was the Yankees with a winning percentage of 55.6%. Outside of that time frame, the Orioles haven’t made it back to the World Series (although the St Louis Browns did in 1944) and have made it to the playoffs just four times. All in all, it was a pretty good run.

When I was looking at some of the numbers from that 26 year time frame, I noted a few interesting things. Our offense was one of the best in the majors but averaged the third most runs per game. The Red Sox led the majors during that time frame and scored 4.53 R/G compared to our 4.35 R/G. Then again, the Orioles won nearly 240 more games than them over that period or more than 9 wins per season.

The Orioles had an FIP of 3.65 over that 26 year period which tied for ninth in the majors. This is decent but indicates that their pitching was not as good as one would expect from a team that was dominant for 26 years. If the Orioles offense was great but not elite while the pitching was merely good then how were the Orioles so successful over that period of time?

Over that 26 year period the Orioles outperformed their FIP by .29 points. The next best team was the Yankees who outperformed their FIP by .17 points.  In addition, their RA_9 was just .08 points larger than their FIP. The Yankees were the next best club but their RA_9 was .27 points larger than their FIP or nearly three times the difference. In absolute terms, the Orioles allowed only 348 runs more than their FIP suggested.  The next closest team was the Blue Jays who allowed 581 runs more than their FIP suggested. Then again, the Blue Jays gave up that many runs in 12,495 innings while the Orioles gave up that many runs in 37,163. As a result, despite having the ninth lowest FIP, the Orioles allowed the second fewest runs per game in the majors over that 26 year period. The data suggest that when the Orioles were elite it was because they had a strong offense and were giving up fewer runs that their FIP suggested. In essence, the Orioles broke FIP.

Last week I noted that even an elite defense should only be expected to outperform their FIP by about .20 points. So how were the Orioles able to outperform their FIP by nearly .3 points? According to Fangraphs fielding metric, the Orioles defense was valued at 1276 runs from 1960 to 1985. The next best team was the New York Yankees and their defense was valued at only 498 runs over that time period. The #2 through #4 teams defensively were worth 1239 runs from 1960 to 1985. The Orioles defense was about two and a half times better than the second best defense in the time frame or by about thirty runs per year. The reason why the Orioles outperformed their FIP by the extent that they did is because their defense wasn't merely elite. It was legendary.

A closer look at the defensive results suggests that the Orioles weren’t elite defensively at each position. Rather, they focused on having strong defensive players at second base (#2), shortstop (#1), third base (#1) and center field (#1) but weren’t particularly good defensively at first base, catcher, right field or left field. All of this makes perfect sense because it is common baseball knowledge that a team needs good defensive players at those positions.  Meanwhile, the Orioles weren’t particularly good offensively at center field (#11), DH (#7), third base (#10) and catcher (#17). They relied on offense from first base, second base, shortstop (it’s more that their players at this position weren’t as bad as most teams) and outfield.

If the Orioles were able to be elite from 1960 to 1985 at least in part due to their excellent defense than it makes sense for the Orioles to try and focus on what once made them great. Excellent defense makes good pitching look like its elite and therefore the Orioles shouldn’t be focusing on trying to find the best pitchers. Rather, the Orioles need to focus on doing the following.

They need to avoid spending big dollars on any pitching free agents. Jim Palmer won three Cy Young awards, had eight twenty win seasons and made it into the Hall of Fame on his first year eligible with 92.6% of the vote. He also benefited greatly due to having an elite defense behind him. Is he a Hall of Famer if he was on the Cubs instead of the Orioles? Dave McNally and Mike Cuellar also had strong ERAs and only decent FIPs. Were they great pitchers or simply lucky to play behind a dominant defense? It seems reasonable to conclude that an elite defense turns great pitchers into Hall of Fame caliber pitchers, good pitchers into great pitchers and decent pitchers into good pitchers. If you don’t have enough resources to focus on everything than ignore pitching and trust your defense to make your pitchers look good.

That allows most of our resources to be devoted on building a strong offense and an elite defense. They need at least two elite players that are strong both offensively and defensively at either second base, shortstop, third base and center field. They need to find another two defensive wizards that can fill the other two positions. And they need three players that are strong offensively that can play at either first base, left field, right field and DH.

What’s interesting is that the Orioles are loosely following this plan. The Orioles have potential elite offensive and defensive talent at third base and shortstop. Schoop is excellent defensively at second base while Adam Jones has elite offensive ability at center field. The Orioles have potential above average offensive talents at first base, catcher and right field. The Orioles would strongly benefit from having an excellent center field option that can both hit and field that could push Adam Jones to right field. It would also be nice to add another platoon bat that can team up with Delmon Young to hit right handed pitching. Still, the Orioles are close to having the offensive talent to be successful.

The Orioles have wasted some resources on pitchers like Ubaldo Jimenez. But for the most part their rotation is filled with pitchers that may not seem to be special but have a knack for over performing what is expected from them. They may not be as successful on a team with poor fielders but they're on the team that they're on. More importantly, most of their pitchers are cheap which makes it possible to spend money on the more important position players.

What if the Orioles decided that what they’ve been doing wasn’t working and therefore decided to go back to what has been successful in the past?  This team has a lot of similarities to the Orioles teams in 1960-1985 and with two playoff appearances in the last three years the plan seems to be working.

The History of MLB Visualized

If there is one thing that baseball does better than any other sport, it's history. Professional baseball predates The Football League (1888) in England, the NHL (1917), and the NFL (1920). Beyond professional leagues, the origins of baseball extend back through Alexander Cartwright's publication of the first official baseball rules in 1845 and into colonial times for traditional folk games using a stick, a ball, and running.

For professional leagues, the National League dates to 1876 and the American League to 1901. While other leagues came and went in the early years of professional baseball, including the National Association (1871 - 1875), the American Association (1882 - 1891), the Union Association (1884), the Players League (1890) , and the Federal League (1914 - 1915), only the National League and the American League have endured into the 21st century. The American Association, perhaps, came the closest to succeeding, even playing 7 early versions of the World Series against National League champions. Despite this, 4 franchises jumped to the NL, indicating potential issues with level of play and league organization. 4 more franchises joined the NL from the AA after it folded in 1892. In just 10 seasons, the AA hosted 25 franchises, indicating tremendous instability (even when compared to 19th century NL instability). Four AA franchises survive today: the Pittsburgh Pirates, the Cincinnati Reds, the Los Angeles Dodgers, and the St. Louis Cardinals. Only the Chicao Cubs and Atlanta Braves franchises date to the original 1876 founding of the National League.

While much of baseball history is rightfully devoted to the players and on-the-field achievements, the odyssey of franchises has been a major influence on the course of the game. Over more than a century of professional baseball, the American League and National League have seen contraction, relocation, and expansion. Fifty franchises have played for at least one season in either league. More than a hundred fields, parks, and stadiums have been called home by professional baseball teams from the AL and NL.

The following data visualization shows the history of franchises, stadiums, and cities throughout MLB history. Click through for an interactive version. Mousing over nodes and links will provide a pop-up with extra information including the progression of team nicknames and the years in which a franchise played in a specific stadium.

Some interesting facts:

• 10 franchises have relocated from east to west, 5 franchises have relocated from west to east, 10 franchises have relocated from north to south, and 5 franchises have relocated from south to north. This reflects the heavily northeastern and upper-midwestern focus of early baseball.
• 4 of the 8 original AL franchises have not relocated since 1901 while 1 of the 8 original NL franchises has not relocated, folded, or been expelled since 1876 (5 of 8 since 1901).
• The early years of the National League, from 1876 - 1899 were rather chaotic, with 20 franchises folding, being expelled, or being merged into remaining franchises. Many of the cities that hosted these franchises would eventually catch on as major league cities, but Worcester, Louisville, Troy, Buffalo, Syracuse, Providence, Hartford, and Louisville would not regain major league status, although many now host minor league teams.

Notes:

All logos are the property of MLB and their respective teams. They are used here for identification purposes only.

All franchises and stadiums in grey are defunct. All defunct franchises were members of the National League prior to 1900. The American League has never contracted. The American Association is not included in this visualization, due to the issues outlined above.

Franchises are listed according to their most recent name. Certain combinations of cities and team names have been used multiple times by difference franchises. For example, no less than four different franchises have used the Washington Senators name (one of which was alternately know as the Washington Statesmen and is listed under that moniker).

The visualization is based on Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG). Use CTRL and either + or - on your keyboard or the scroll wheel on your mouse to zoom in or out.

Mouse-over nodes (hover) to pull up info relating the franchise, stadium, city, or related links. Note that values are in seasons, not years. Therefore, a stadium such as Sportsman's Park, which hosted Major League Baseball during 68 years could host 102 home seasons combined for multiple franchises.

The visualization is created using a JavaScript library, called Data Driven Documents (D3), developed by Mike Bostock.

Teams cannot be displayed in alphabetical order or by division, due to the complexity of links resulting from relocations and the working of the algorithm used to place nodes on the visualization. The horizontal layout shows the order in which the franchise played in stadiums, but does not represent a timeline to scale. Most recent homes are to the left and oldest are to the right.

Please email any questions or comments (especially on inaccuracies or errors in the visualization) to lokitez {at} gmail {dot} com or leave a comment.