PDA

View Full Version : Hitting is most to blame



redssince75
07-07-2011, 06:55 PM
I made up these metrics...but they make sense to me.

Let's say scoring 4 runs a game is mlb average. I think that is close. In all our 88 games this year we avg 4.7 and opps avg 4.3. Based on a 4-run avg, I divided up our losses between "blame it on the offense" (we lost even when the opp scored at or below avg - 4 runs or less) and "blame it on the pitching" (we lost even when our offense scored more than average, meaning 5 or more).

Blame it on the offense -- 18 losses
Blame it on pitching -- 8 losses
Blame it on neither (we just lost) -- 18 losses

Based on this simple analysis the offense has cost us 10 more games than the pitching.

Arguments?

R_Webb18
07-07-2011, 06:58 PM
theres problems with both

ervinsm84
07-07-2011, 07:11 PM
no. /thread

ervinsm84
07-07-2011, 07:43 PM
Team records When scoring 2,3, 4, or 5 runs

Phillies 32-18
Giants 33-21
Braves 33-23
Red Sox 21-18
Cardinals 24-23
Yankees 24-24
Brewers 21-21
Reds 15-27


#of times scoring 0 or 1 runs
Yankees 7
Reds 11
Cardinals 12
Braves 13
Red Sox 14
Brewers 15
Phillies 16
Giants 18

damn our offense sure looks like the problem

DocRed
07-07-2011, 07:47 PM
Global warming is to blame...

redssince75
07-07-2011, 08:31 PM
Team records When scoring 2,3, 4, or 5 runs

Phillies 32-18
Giants 33-21
Braves 33-23
Red Sox 21-18
Cardinals 24-23
Yankees 24-24
Brewers 21-21
Reds 15-27


#of times scoring 0 or 1 runs
Yankees 7
Reds 11
Cardinals 12
Braves 13
Red Sox 14
Brewers 15
Phillies 16
Giants 18

damn our offense sure looks like the problem

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Is that last statement sarcasm or not?

ervinsm84
07-07-2011, 08:45 PM
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Is that last statement sarcasm or not?



is it really that difficult to figure out?

redssince75
07-07-2011, 09:05 PM
is it really that difficult to figure out?

If it was sarcasm, it didn't make much sense to me because it didn't match the stats I compiled, or what I have seen with my own eyes this year.

If it wasn't sarcasm, it didn't make much sense to me because it didn't seem to match the stats you were trying to throw out.

Either way, your post didn't make much sense to me I guess. So, never mind.

ervinsm84
07-07-2011, 09:27 PM
not shocked you couldnt put two and two together.

First thing your stats in the OP are laughable bc you didnt even address which games the pitching was to blame for the win or offense was to blame for the win. to say the offense "cost" them 10 more games just based on looking at the losses is asinine


Second, the Reds have the worst record by a large margin in games when they scored 2,3, 4, or 5 runs. I wonder why that may be? Maybe bc the other team is scoring too many runs in those games? Just maybe

Also, the reds having scored 0 and 1 runs in the least amount of games outside of the yankees,amongst those elite teams should pretty much also confirm the offense hasnt been the problem.

ducy

RedsLvr
07-07-2011, 09:30 PM
I think what he was trying to point out that a playoff contending team should easily be able to win games where the offense scores less than 5 runs. There is no question at all as to what the problem is. Our pitching has just been aweful.

redssince75
07-07-2011, 09:39 PM
Second, the Reds have the worst record by a large margin in games when they scored 2,3, 4, or 5 runs.

This is not as good a measure of hitting vs. pitching as the way I analyzed Ws/Ls, which you clearly could not comprehend. No big deal.

ervinsm84
07-07-2011, 09:45 PM
This is not as good a measure of hitting vs. pitching as the way I analyzed Ws/Ls, which you clearly could not comprehend. No big deal.


oh yoda, do explain.


also funny youre talking about comprehension, considering just a couple posts ago you didnt grasp the most blatant form of sarcasm. Continue burying your head in the sand.

redssince75
07-07-2011, 09:55 PM
oh yoda, do explain.


I thought it was really, really, really simple, but in 1st-grade terms,

Boooooo bad offense (Reds lose even when pitching does good) = 18
Boooooo bad pitching (Reds lose even when hitting does good) = 8

18 is more than 8. Boooooo bad hitting more than boooooo bad pitching.

ervinsm84
07-07-2011, 09:56 PM
I thought it was really, really, really simple, but in 1st-grade terms,

Boooooo bad offense (Reds lose even when pitching does good) = 18
Boooooo bad pitching (Reds lose even when hitting does good) = 8

18 is more than 8. Boooooo bad hitting more than boooooo bad pitching.

wow, you really are just that dumb.

kyred14
07-07-2011, 11:30 PM
RS 419-NL rank 1st
RA 392-NL rank 13th

It's really that simple

redssince75
07-08-2011, 08:37 AM
RS 419-NL rank 1st
RA 392-NL rank 13th

It's really that simple

It's really not. Runs don't carry over from game to game. It's like the difference between match play and stroke play in golf. When we win, we really really win. But when we lose, it's more than twice as often the fault of the offense for not scoring enough runs.

ervinsm84
07-08-2011, 09:04 AM
It's really not. Runs don't carry over from game to game. It's like the difference between match play and stroke play in golf. When we win, we really really win. But when we lose, it's more than twice as often the fault of the offense for not scoring enough runs.

just stop it with this nonsense. Im almost convinced you cant even be real and are just leveling people.


http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/8174/redsdistribution.jpg

wlf WV
07-08-2011, 10:22 AM
I think this is what 75 is trying to convey:I would rather have a consistent 4 r/g offense (49% expected winning percentage/game against an average team) than one that alternates between 0-9 r/g offensively (44% expected winning percentage/game against an average team).Link:http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90488&page=7- A team that scores more runs( with a high standard deviation )can have more losses than a team which scores less runs consistently.See:http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...ow-last-week11

ervinsm84
07-08-2011, 10:27 AM
I think this is what 75 is trying to convey:I would rather have a consistent 4 r/g offense (49% expected winning percentage/game against an average team) than one that alternates between 0-9 r/g offensively (44% expected winning percentage/game against an average team).Link:http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90488&page=7

obv the ideal for a team that averages 4.5 runs is to have your games evenly split between 5 runs and 4 runs. Thats not realistic though, and more importantly, the reds arent any more "inconsistent" by this measure than any of the other good offenses. Also, it ends up punishing teams offenses for "being streaky" by scoring large numbers of runs. As i showed earlier itt, the reds have scored 0 or 1 run a total of 11 times this season. Thats fewer than pretty much eveery single good NL team.

The most mind numbing thing about this, is the reds are 8-10 when they score 4 or 5 runs. I wonder why?

wlf WV
07-08-2011, 10:48 AM
The point was scoring the most runs isn't always the deciding factor.I agree the starting pitching has let us down,but the offense isn't guiltless. 4.5 r/g is not as good as 4/g as in post #18

ervinsm84
07-08-2011, 03:36 PM
theres a huge gap between the off being not guiltless and being ''most to blame.''

I already showed this team rarely scores 1or 0 runs in a game in comparison to other contending teams.

which means the reds are scoring more than the minimum runs wanted of 2 runs more than the other good offenses.

kyred14
07-08-2011, 11:35 PM
stupid offense.....shoulda scored 9!

redssince75
07-09-2011, 09:10 AM
stupid offense.....shoulda scored 9!

Nope that one was DEFINITELY on the pitching.....18-9 now.

DocRed
07-09-2011, 09:12 AM
Our Starting pitching aside from Cueto is putrid...that's whats to blame.