View Full Version : Crazy and untrue (run differentials)

09-07-2014, 09:35 AM
This is my (junkhead's) last post here on this board because the administrator continues to ban me for the offense of telling the inconvenient truths about the Reds based on objective perspective, evidence and analysis. The most important reason, however, is that I'm just tired of homerism on this board where only the optimism is allowed.

If you root too hard for one team, people who are sick of the homerism start rooting against that team.

Well, lets get to the point.

1. The injuries


Thread: The Reds are not a contending team

Originally Posted by Old school 1983
Did junkhead or any other predictor of doom predict anything about the huge rash of injuries the Reds suffered? Nope. They predicted sucktitude under normal operating conditions. Pretty lame to claim correctness if in that prediction you didn't mention the main reason for the outcome.

Here is a fact: every MLB team deals with injuries throughout the regular season, not just the Reds.

Rangers: 100
Dodgers: 75
Yankees: 70
Reds: 65
Nationals: 60


Originally Posted by arctictokyo
What about Dodgers?

Clayton Kershaw
Hyun-Jin Ryu
Josh Beckett
Hanley Ramirez
Juan Uribe
A.J. Ellis
Carl Crawford
Brian Wilson
Paul Maholm
Chris Perez
Chris Withrow
Paco Rodriguez
Chad Billingsley

They have all gone on the DL at least one time.

And what about Yankees?
They are missing Tanaka, Sabathia, Nova, Pineda(4 starters) to injuries , and Beltran and Teixeira also missed significant time with injuries. McCann had also missed some games with a concussion.

Dodgers, Nationals => True contenders
Reds => Pretenders

Unless you are the Rangers, you don't make a excuse about the injuries.


The Rangersí injury woes have been historic, dwarfing the health struggles of even the hardest-hit teams in recent memory. Hereís the entire list of the Rangersí 2014 disabled-list stints, including how many games each injured player has missed, and what the teamís record has been in those games. Warning: Chart contains graphic violence.

If you donít feel like counting, the Rangers have already lost 688 days to the DL. Just how gruesome is that number? According to Jeff Zimmerman, whoís sliced and diced injury data for FanGraphs since 2010 (and done lots of other excellent work on a variety of analytical topics), the Padres have been the most oft-injured team over the past four seasons. They were particularly snakebitten in 2012, when numerous pitching injuries resulted in Tommy John surgery and ensuing season-long DL stints. When tallied up, the Padresí 2010-2013 injuries average out to 1,221 days lost to the DL per season. Prorated over a full season, the Rangers are on pace to lose 1,715 days to the DL this year.

Originally Posted by Old school 1983
With everyone healthy, I think they'd be at or near the top of the division. Same next year if healthy.

I agree on the surgical type moves. Something needs to give in the pen. The bench needs an offensive piece. LF is a major area of need. At minimum they need to fill LF with a legitimate starter.

If you truly believe that the Reds are true contenders, why they even need a legitimate LF? Your contention simply doesn't add up.
Furthermore, you don't have any basis for the contention at all.

Your basis, I think, could be probably one of this two.
1. The Reds are contenders because I am a Reds fan.
2. The Reds are contenders because they won 97 games in 2012.

Read below.

Originally Posted by Pereiro
Thirdly, I know that many RedsZone members argue that if not for injury, the Reds would be contenders, which is ridiculous.

Let me ask you the question again: Do you genuinely think that way or is it just an effort to maintain your optimism for the Reds?

As of today, the Reds rank 29th in OBP and wRC+ in MLB and that OBP certainly includes Vottoís .390 OBP in 62 games. Where do you think their OBP would have ranked if Votto had played every game this season? 24th? 23rd? 22nd? Do you really think those are good enough for them to be a legitimate contender?

By the way, for some people who donít recognize the importance of OBP, here is one example of showing the importance of OBP.


Anyway, If you really do believe they are contenders, whatís your basis for that? Because you are a Reds fan? Or because they were a 97 win team in 2012 which is a popular response in the RedsZone?


But, as you can see above, the 2012 Reds were, talent-wise, a 85~86 win team, not a 97 win team. Add to this a much tougher NL central division, then the Reds are more or less a .500 team. If you contend that the Reds are contenders due to the fact that they were a 97 win team in 2012, then you are just making a mistake of hasty generalization.

2. Luck

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman
The difference is, it seems, that the offense has probably distributed their runs in a less consistent manner than the average team, causing volatility, and worse performance in close games (is that a function of luck, or feast or famine against the types of pitching they face? Are they built like a guy like Drew Stubbs who performs almost exclusively against sub par pitchers? Maybe, but there's a lot of noise in that thought).

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman
That's fair in that it begs the questions whether the Reds actually deserve their run differential, but it says nothing about the luck variance that actually goes with the won loss record being tied to run differential.

Notwithstanding how they got there (the RS vs. RA) the variance in the standings is not a fair reflection of the quality of ball each of the teams in the standings have actually scored and prevented runs.

Here, youíre just talking nonsense and making a excuse about something for whatever reason.


As you can see above, the Reds offense is just downright awful and if anything, they have been relatively lucky compared to the other teams considering their underlying stats.

Just look at the difference between 1st Order Win Pct and 3rd Order Win Pct (+3.6).

And this.

Cardinals: .255/.323/.373, 97 wRC+ (15th in MLB), 543 RS
Braves: .244/.310/.368, 90 wRC+ (23rd in MLB), 528 RS
Reds: .240/.298/.367, 84 wRC+ (29th in MLB), 533 RS
Dbacks: .248/.303/.379, 85 wRC+ (28th in MLB), 544 RS
Cubs: .240/.299/.387, 88 wRC+ (25th in MLB), 543 RS

*Cluster Luck*

The first figure in parentheses represents runs-scored luck, the second is runs-allowed luck; positive values indicate good fortune, while negative values point to poor luck.

1. Oakland: 49.42 (38.48, 10.94)
2. Baltimore: 27.79 (-14.68, 42.47)
3. Kansas City: 25.44 (5.55, 19.89)
4. Seattle: 23.71 (13.23, 10.48)
5. New York Mets: 22.65 (-4.96, 27.61)
6. Washington: 20.10 (2.85, 17.26)
7. Atlanta: 19.29 (-5.81, 25.09)
8. Cincinnati: 15.36 (-1.47, 16.84)
9. Milwaukee: 12.48 (9.76, 2.72)
10. San Francisco: 10.49 (1.30, 9.19)
11. Minnesota: 8.08 (5.43, 2.65)
12. San Diego: 7.16 (-4.53, 11.69)
13. Texas: 4.31 (1.28, 3.03)
14. Cleveland: 2.08 (-0.66, 2.73)
15. Toronto: 1.70 (-20.84, 22.55)
16. Detroit: 0.36 (-10.60, 10.96)
17. Miami: -1.26 (-7.70, 6.44)
18. Philadelphia: -2.29 (1.88, -4.17)
19. New York Yankees: -4.40 (-10.93, 6.53)
20. Boston: -6.38 (-28.38, 22.00)
21. Arizona: -8.38 (-8.42, 0.04)
22. Los Angeles Dodgers: -9.04 (-24.40, 15.36)
23. Chicago White Sox: -13.02 (-2.55, -10.47)
24. St. Louis: -16.28 (-18.45, 2.17)
25. Los Angeles Angels: -20.02 (14.20, -34.21)
26. Pittsburgh: -22.97 (-26.08, 3.11)
27. Colorado: -23.06 (-22.70, -0.36)
28. Houston: -35.54 (-17.74, -17.80)
29. Chicago Cubs: -35.72 (-3.87, -31.84)
30. Tampa Bay: -41.10 (-33.38, -7.73)


If you truly believe that the Reds have been unlucky this season, that's because you are biased towards the Reds.

Goodbye cruel world
I'm leaving you today
Goodbye all you people
There's nothing you can say
To make me change
My mind

09-07-2014, 12:02 PM
What inconvenient truth is he talking about?

Patrick Bateman
09-07-2014, 01:39 PM
Congratulations, you identified bias towards the Reds on a Reds board.

Hope you didn't stay up too late arriving at that conclusion.