Sea Ray

06-01-2008, 11:12 AM

One of the problems I have with saber metrics is how subtly the numbers change. There is an example of this in John Erardi's column today.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080601/SPT04/806010438/

One of the essential principles of sabermetrics - and this is our guiding light right here, the Holy Grail - is that in a 162-game season, for every 10 runs your team scores over the number of runs it allows, you get a victory. If you score the same number of runs as you allow, you are going to finish within one or two games of .500, 81-81. It is true every year for all but one or two teams in the majors, and those one or two that defy it are lucky, nothing else.

Last year, your team scored 70 fewer runs than it allowed. We know that your Wharton education allows you to calculate quickly that with a minus-70 run differential, your team finished within one or two games of seven games under .500, 74-88. Sure enough, the Reds were

72-90.

OK but then he changed his method of determining games over/under .500 when he said this:

That's right: You've scored 23 fewer runs than you've allowed, which by run differential should place your team within a game or two of being 2-3 games under .500.

Well, guess what? Through Friday's game, your team is dead on it, 3 games under, 26-29.

I suspect this is shotty journalism on his part, but which is the correct method to determine games under/over .500? In other words is 74-88 7 games under or is it really 14 games under. Is 26-29 3 games under or 1?

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080601/SPT04/806010438/

One of the essential principles of sabermetrics - and this is our guiding light right here, the Holy Grail - is that in a 162-game season, for every 10 runs your team scores over the number of runs it allows, you get a victory. If you score the same number of runs as you allow, you are going to finish within one or two games of .500, 81-81. It is true every year for all but one or two teams in the majors, and those one or two that defy it are lucky, nothing else.

Last year, your team scored 70 fewer runs than it allowed. We know that your Wharton education allows you to calculate quickly that with a minus-70 run differential, your team finished within one or two games of seven games under .500, 74-88. Sure enough, the Reds were

72-90.

OK but then he changed his method of determining games over/under .500 when he said this:

That's right: You've scored 23 fewer runs than you've allowed, which by run differential should place your team within a game or two of being 2-3 games under .500.

Well, guess what? Through Friday's game, your team is dead on it, 3 games under, 26-29.

I suspect this is shotty journalism on his part, but which is the correct method to determine games under/over .500? In other words is 74-88 7 games under or is it really 14 games under. Is 26-29 3 games under or 1?