Turn Off Ads?
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 114

Thread: Freak Show Reds (By two of our own)

  1. #91
    Haunted by walks
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    6,580
    I think we'll see a lot of series go the way this one with Atlanta did, maybe a little better if we aren't going up against the best record in baseball: A likely win when Graves starts, although he'll have a clinker once in awhile; a chance to win when Reidling starts, if the offense isn't flat and the bullpen holds on; a rare chance to win but probably a close loss when Wilson starts, but a few more clinkers likely; then a couple of blowouts.

    In other words,
    No. 1, a win.
    No. 2, a win.
    No. 3, a close loss, but we won the series and we feel like a contender and we're hanging in there.

    Next series:
    No. 4, a blowout.
    No. 5, a blowout, we've already lost the series, probably to a last-place team, we've lost three in a row, and the sky is falling.
    No. 1, a win, but the sky is still falling.

    Next series:
    No. 2, a win, maybe.
    No. 3, a loss.
    No. 4, a blowout, this is it, we're out of it, trade for next year, etc.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #92
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,159
    Originally posted by BCubb2003
    Well, Wednesday night's game should be a lesson in how this freakish stat can happen. After two epic one-run games, going the distance with the team with the best record in baseball, we get a 15-3 blowout. That's enough to skew the stats for at least 6 one-run games. And the loss, as awful as it was, counts the same in the loss column as the 10-inning one-run loss the day before. I'm beginning to think it's the drop-off in pitching that's the major factor. This run differential is really the difference between Gabe White's amazing showdown with Javy Lopez vs. Chris Reitsma's ineffectiveness, or quality starts by Graves and Riedling vs. nightmares by Jeff Austin and Joey Hamilton.
    There is another possibility. It's probably the answer that no one wants to hear.

    Pastings like last night are how you get such ugly run differential numbers and we all know that teams with ugly run differential numbers usually end up losing more than they win.

    So maybe pastings like last night, if they happen on too frequent a basis, are the hallmark of a not-so-good club.

    It's one thing to lose by five or more runs every now and then. These Reds have done it 11 times (more than 20% of their total games), six since the Puerto Rico purge.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  4. #93
    Score Early, Score Often gonelong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,136
    Nice article M2, good legwork WOY.

    Its nice to see someone have the stones to submit something like this to BP. Its even better to see they have deemed it worthy of publishing. I'd bet you guys have another article published within a few months.

    I know you guys aren't discouraged by the few rude comments here. The chasm between providing the numbers and evaluating them honestly to ... you guys suck ... is wide and deep, and I know you realize it as easily as the majority of us RZers do.

    Rock on.

  5. #94
    Do it! TheBurn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Rincon, PR-Winter Pk, FL
    Posts
    1,820
    I may be wrong or something (it's happened before!) but what I got out of it is that despite all that, we're still contending...
    Isn't that a good thing?
    Congrats M2 & WOY

  6. #95
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,045
    Congratulations, M2 and WOY. They always had sharp folks at BP, and now it seems they found two more.

    M2, one of your posts a while back made me think that you were looking to address Pythagoras. I am glad your efforts made their way back here.

    I also think you might have pre-empted Rob Neyer's annual "X team is going to fall apart because Pythagoras says so" article, which I find good, because he writes the same piece with different team names each year.

    I, perhaps unsurprisingly, am not overly fond of the macro-level runs-creates/runs allowed formulations for those who watch a team on a daily basis; I find that a little watching provides context that the macro level does not. (OK, I will go further: It seems to be one area in which statheads could give bugger-all about sample size.) I'm talking, by the way, about the predictive pieces, not the semi-whimsical, look-at-the-anomaly-in-the-making that you provide. As your article (e.g., in mentioning Oakland) and others here (discussing roster shakeups, injuries, etc.) have pointed out, the RC/RA calculus can change substantially in the course of a few weeks.

    Following up on D-Man's exceptional post [where have you been?], I would be VERY interested in profiles, to the extent that they can be determined, of the teams that bust the Pythagorean "truth." I too suspect that those teams have shaky rotations, stronger pens, walk-dependent OBP and homer-dependent slugging. (As well as aberrational late-inning close BA.) The anecdotal example of yesterday's game shows how a short staff can lead to massive run producing disparities -- just pick a stiff you don't care about and let him get boxed around the ears until PETA intervenes. Presto, a double-digit loss that is not particularly representative of a team's future ability to win games.

  7. #96
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    1,004
    Behind on my news so I just got to your article. Great job, guys. It's spawned some interesting replies in this thread.
    **********************************
    Outside of a dog, a good book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Mark Twain

  8. #97
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Greenville, ohio
    Posts
    497
    As i understand it, the only teams that bust through pythag. RS/RA are teams that are truly lucky (teams that are out scored). I've seen teams do it for the year, but the next year it tends to even out.

    It's a good tool that correlates well to a teams true status. the Reds have been extremely lucky.

    Also, IIRC (and I know this will be heresy for about 85% of the posters here) a teams record in games decided by 1 run is usually a function of luck. Really good teams aren't a function of how they do in 1 run games -but how often they blow out the opposition. Our record in 1 run games will probalby even out toward .500. When that happens, we'll be hurting cause it means we are getting blown out.

  9. #98
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,045
    Originally posted by J "Cooper"
    As i understand it, the only teams that bust through pythag. RS/RA are teams that are truly lucky (teams that are out scored). I've seen teams do it for the year, but the next year it tends to even out.

    It's a good tool that correlates well to a teams true status. the Reds have been extremely lucky.

    Also, IIRC (and I know this will be heresy for about 85% of the posters here) a teams record in games decided by 1 run is usually a function of luck. Really good teams aren't a function of how they do in 1 run games -but how often they blow out the opposition. Our record in 1 run games will probalby even out toward .500. When that happens, we'll be hurting cause it means we are getting blown out.
    I think you mean "teams that look lucky from 60,000 feet." Things "even out" for lots of predictable reasons -- injuries, free agency, career years -- that are obvious to micro-watchers. "Luck" is code for "something that we cannot (yet) explain statistically," not for "something we cannot explain."

    A lot of trees have been killed in the cause of explaining one-run games, but I think all would agree that (1) strong relievers and (2) HR hitters both suggest better-than-expected performance in one-run games.

    At a bottom line, pythagoras depends on a pretty key assumption: That the game in which a team scores or yields runs is pretty much arbitrary. I can think of plenty of reasons (Boone's Sunday specials, e.g.) that is not the case. That does not make RC/RA meaningless; only overused in some circles (and obviously grotesquely underused in others).

  10. #99
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Greenville, ohio
    Posts
    497
    Backbencher: don't mean to offend, but i read your post 3 times and i don't understand your first paragraph. The stuff in quotes went right over my head--I'm kinda slow today.

    AFAIK, good relievers/HR hitters have no real effect on how teams do in 1 run games. Anybody got any studies to refer to? Maybe i missed it.

  11. #100
    insider
    Guest
    I'm guessing much of the run differential can be associated with an injured Jimmy Haynes, an injured Ryan Dempster, Jimmy Anderson, Josias Manzanillo, and more recently, Jeff Austin.

    It's very simple.....if the Reds keep scrambling from starter to starter and nobody outside of Graves/Wilson steps us.....the run differentials will grow and this team will fall well short of .500.

    If John Reidling and a healthy Jimmy Haynes 'step up'.....and either a trade is made for a starter or Ryan Dempster comes back competitive again.....then maybe, just maybe, this team has an outside shot, although we could still use some help from the Cards bullpen, an injured Oswalt and an injured Sosa.

    Reidling and Haynes don't have to be lights out......but they have to give us a chance to win every game the way Graves and Wilson typically do, the way Parris and Villone did in '99. W/ a good bullpen and a team that can score quickly, just keep us close for 6. We've dodged the bullet for now - our W/L record could be much worse - but we won't dodge it much longer if this rotation doesn't take shape real soon.

    I'm not giving up just yet.

  12. #101
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    796
    Backbencher: Thanks for the kind words! I always appreciate your posts as well. I've been on a long hiatus because I enrolled in business school last August. . . Let's just say my first year was a life-consuming event. I've been forced to enjoy the Reds from the "nosebleeds" for nearly a year. Hopefully I will be able to contribute this summer.

    J Cooper: I believe that Bill James details his findings about the appropriateness of the RC formula and the implications of what it tells us in one of his articles in the WIN SHARES book. I believe the article is about halfway or one-third of the way through the book. [Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, as I do not have the book with me.] The Diamond Mind article, http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/tmeff02.htm, details offensive efficiency--how we can normally expect offensive events (e.g., singles and doubles) to translate into runs.

    M2 and West of You: Great job on bringing up an excellent discussion. I've thoroughly enjoyed it. It just goes to show that no matter what happens in baseball, there are a hundred ways to explain the events--what a beautiful game. The efficacy of the RC formula (when it is appropriate, when it isn't) is one of my "pet" topics, and I look forward to seeing more examination of the issue in the future.
    Last edited by D-Man; 05-30-2003 at 12:52 AM.

  13. #102
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,045
    Originally posted by J "Cooper"
    Backbencher: don't mean to offend, but i read your post 3 times and i don't understand your first paragraph. The stuff in quotes went right over my head--I'm kinda slow today.

    AFAIK, good relievers/HR hitters have no real effect on how teams do in 1 run games. Anybody got any studies to refer to? Maybe i missed it.
    J Coop -- Sorry, I was not clear enough. One of my pet peeves about the SABR movement is that it has coopted the term "luck." To them, luck is not the same as pure chance; it is something that cannot be explained with a STATS, Inc. subscription and a calculator. They are not the same thing. In the context of RC/RA and the Reds, I like the way M2 and WOY have put it -- the Reds are quite aberrational. That does not mean that we cannot explain the aberration or, more important, that the aberration will not continue into the future. If the early-season past were prologue, the A's would never make the playoffs.

    As for teams that tend to do better in one-run games, every article I have seen on the subject gives a nod to strong bullpens as a common link between teams that do well in such situations. One problem with repeating that performance over the course of multiple years is that bullpens do not necessarily stay together, or maintain health, or perform at peak level for long stretches of time. I also have read the slugger theory once or twice, and I happen to like it. It is less discussed/accepted, though.

  14. #103
    post hype sleeper cincinnati chili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    10,786
    Jeez. If this is what people say when you guys write a GOOD article, I'd hate to see the level of criticism if you guys wrote a lousy article.

    This goes to show that you can't please everybody.

    As for the article, I'd see this as an opportunity for the Reds' front office. They've effectively dodged a bullet. By continuing to make the team better (they did so when they dumped Manzy, Anderson, and Austin), they could be a legitimate contender. They're 2 or 3 players away, and they probably won't get those players, but this article shows me that they've made the most of some pretty lousy run output.
    How, then, are those people of the future—who are taking steroids every day—going to look back on baseball players who used steroids? They're going to look back on them as pioneers. They're going to look back at it and say "So what?" - Bill James, Cooperstown and the 'Roids

  15. #104
    Member red-in-la's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Santa Paula, CA
    Posts
    6,536
    I am beginning to join with your sentiment chili.....I think the Reds are going to need 2 or 3 more real players to get to the next level.

    This WMP thing has got to get fixed.....it is embarrassing.

    Hopefully, Dempster can come back and take Austin's place.

    And I think they need to fix the Guillen/Dunn/Casey thing.

    If in that effort, they can get one more solid starting pitcher and return Riedling to where he belongs, as the replacement for Scott Sullivan, I think they are most of the way there.

    Other than tat, either Lopez has to start hitting again or somebody has to play SS who can lead off....that would be the other guy they need.
    "Is there a problem officers?"

  16. #105
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Newport Beach, CA
    Posts
    8,066
    Having been out of town, I'm pretty late to the party on this thread so I'll say this:

    Nicely written article by M2 & WOY (is this going to be a 'Siskel & Ebert' type of tandum?). Congrats on being 'published'. Although I don't particularly hold BP in high esteem, it's nice to see some 'locals' getting a wider audiance.

    Having said all of that, IMO, the article, basicly, simply sent the pig the long way around the barn to get to the trough----the trough being that if, in the long run, other teams out score you, you're going to lose more games than you win. (shrug) No disrespect there WOY & M2, I simply don't get a big thrill out of pages of numbers that end up stating the obvious. That's just me. I'm aware that some folks like that sort of thing and I have no gripe about it. Good for them.

    For some people the 'devil is in the details'. For others, the 'devil is in the happening'. Some people like to get up in the morning and look at the game strictly by the numbers. Others like to stay up late and watch the action and the numbers be damned (except in the win loss/column). (Once again, shrug.)

    Obviously, the thread garnered a lot attention. Kudos. There must be some interest here over and above the 'local boy makes good' angle.

    BTW, just my opinion but the most interesing insight (including the original article) in the whole thread came from posts by D-Man and backbencher. You two guys might also want to become another 'dynamic duo' spawned by Redszone.

    Rem
    Last edited by remdog; 06-03-2003 at 02:35 AM.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25