PDA

View Full Version : Interesting NLCentral Team Stats...



dabvu2498
05-30-2006, 02:44 PM
Through May 29 games:

Team W L % GB ORuns/G OPS BARISP DRuns/G

St. Louis 33 18 .647 - 5.10 .780 .294 4.00
Cincinnati 28 23 .549 5.0 5.04 .785 .236 5.02
Milwaukee 26 25 .510 7.0 5.04 .818 .251 5.53
Houston 26 26 .500 7.5 4.60 .742 .258 5.06
Chicago 19 31 .380 13.5 3.84 .679 .232 5.14
Pittsburgh 17 34 .333 16.0 4.57 .745 .265 5.14

Darn it! Those looked good when I pasted them in!

TeamBoone
05-30-2006, 03:10 PM
I think you forgot GB.

dabvu2498
05-30-2006, 03:12 PM
Cincinnati 28 23 .549 5.0
No... they're there. Oh well.

BuckWoody
05-30-2006, 03:14 PM
Team W L % GB ORuns/G OPS BARISP DRuns/G
St. Louis 33 18 .647 - 5.10 .780 .294 4.00
Cincinnati 28 23 .549 5.0 5.04 .785 .236 5.02
Milwaukee 26 25 .510 7.0 5.04 .818 .251 5.53
Houston 26 26 .500 7.5 4.60 .742 .258 5.06
Chicago 19 31 .380 13.5 3.84 .679 .232 5.14
Pittsburgh 17 34 .333 16.0 4.57 .745 .265 5.14


There we go, all cleaned up. ;)

RedsManRick
05-30-2006, 04:13 PM
horrible<poor<average<good<great

St. Louis: great offense, good pitching
Cincy: great offense, poor pitching
Milwaukee: great offense, horrible pitching
Houston: average offense, poor pitching
Chicago: horrible offense, poor pitching
Pittsburgh: average offense, poor pitching

Two things that are surprising is that we're 5 games over .500 and Pittsburgh is 8.5 games behind the Astros despite similar run profiles.

registerthis
05-30-2006, 04:15 PM
What is surprising is that we're 5 games over .500 and Pittsburgh is 8.5 games behind the Astros despite similar run profiles.

My immediate, non-researched answer is "Harang and Arroyo", but I've nothing but supposition to back that up.

dabvu2498
05-30-2006, 04:16 PM
I was surprised that Milwaukee is only 2 games back of the Reds despite giving up half a run more per game. The sample size is still fairly small, though.

NastyBoy
05-30-2006, 04:44 PM
I was surprised that Milwaukee is only 2 games back of the Reds despite giving up half a run more per game. The sample size is still fairly small, though.

They are just hanging around in the Central until Sheets and Helling get back from DL. They will give pitching staff a boost.

terminator
05-30-2006, 05:54 PM
Or viewed another way, the Reds have the #2 pitching and #2 offense in the division, so they are where they belong.

Of course the 1960 Pirates might have something to say about the importance of scoring runs when it matters. ;)

Johnny Footstool
05-30-2006, 06:00 PM
Darn it! Those looked good when I pasted them in!

Use "code" tags when you're posting stats. It's easier to get them to line up

TeamBoone
05-30-2006, 09:25 PM
Cincy: great offense, poor pitching

I respectfully disagree. Reds pitching is certainly not spectacular, but it is not poor either.

RedsManRick
05-30-2006, 09:38 PM
I respectfully disagree. Reds pitching is certainly not spectacular, but it is not poor either.

Perhaps you've lost perspective because we've had some historically bad staffs the last few years. Or perhaps I wasn't clear in stating that pitching includes our defense. We're on pace to allow over 800 runs. That's not good. In 2005, 8 of 30 teams allowed 800 or more runs.

Think of it this way. Overall MLB rank:

1-6: great
7-12: good
13-18: average
19-24: poor
25-30: horrible

Our current 256 runs against is 19th. Our current EARNED runs aginst (227) is 15th So again, our runs allowed is poor. Argue my chosen nomenclature if you want. I agree that we are doing MUCH better in preventing runs this year -- 10% better in fact. But that doesn't make us good or even average. it makes us on the upper end of poor.

TeamBoone
05-30-2006, 09:43 PM
Pitching includes the Reds defense?

Technically, I suppose you're right, but I've really never looked at it that way, except for defensive plays made (or not) by a pitcher.

I don't think most people would say "poor pitching" when they mean poor defense... they would say one or the other (or both).

RedsManRick
05-30-2006, 10:01 PM
Yeah TB, that was my bad. I used the word "pitching" as a proxy for "runs allowed" -- definitely not completely accurate, especially with a team like the Reds where 10% of their runs allowed are unearned.

Keystone12
05-30-2006, 11:15 PM
What I find interesting is how low our BARISP is - even though comparitively, our run total is pretty good.

Possible conclusions:

1. We're knocking in runs without getting hits - ground balls, sac flies.
2. We're scoring runners from bases other than scoring position [read: first and home].

I doubt the former is the case (though maybe that's just because I was at last Friday's game).

But the latter seems to me to be rather probable, given the propensity of homers we hit. It seems to me that this is a statistic with ramifications for Narron - considering how poorly we hit with RISP, he should consider abandoning the bunt in borderline situations, because moving a runner into scoring position while giving up a precious out isn't sensible. Might as well wait for a double or homer.

I'm not sure how much JN is characterized as an 'old-school' manager, but hopefully he has the humility to consider it. Hey, Earl Weaver was a hell of a manager because he recognized that all he needed was pitching, defense & the three-run homer.