I also do weddings, parties, and Bar MitzahsOriginally Posted by Red Leader
I also do weddings, parties, and Bar MitzahsOriginally Posted by Red Leader
Is that one of those little things?Originally Posted by MWM
My hypothesis is that it has a lot to do with HRs. HRs are an extremely efficient way of scoring runs, but they result in lumpy scoring patterns from game to game (i.e., they create an unusually wide standard deviation of runs scored or runs allowed per game). My hypothesis is that those teams that hit or surrender an unusual # of HRs (relatively speaking) tend not to adhere to the "rules" that govern everyone else.Originally Posted by SteelSD
The Nats, like the 2004 Reds and 2004 Yankees, may be a good fit for this hypothesis. The Nats home ballpark may be a key driver--RFK scores a 0.550 (extremely low) on the ballpark factor for HRs allowed.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor
Finally, a well-deserved props to BP for critically looking at Washington's run differential. The lazy, Neyer-like approach would be to say they're doomed to "regress to the mean."
You might be onto something by looking at the HR component because HR allow teams to score quickly and end many games immediately. A team like the White Sox has the ability to score "easy" in that respect and I feel that's been overlooked by a dramatic portion of the baseball community.Originally Posted by D-Man
And you may also have a point with the HR Park Factor when combined with a shutdown pen. If the park suppresses the opposition's power, I would think that a team would have an easier time holding leads late when acquring them early.
In any case, it's anecdotal at this point. There's a lot of randomness involved in it but it just may be that there are many circumstantial combinations that would allow for a team to beat the pythag during a season. Generally, "fundamental" or "situational" hitting is the first image that pops into one's head but I think that answer is, most of the time, a misperception and can never be the pat answer folks want to position it to be.
"The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer
"The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
--Ted Williams
A BB example:Originally Posted by rdiersin
For a stat like RC to work at PLAYER level it would have to operate on the assumption that over time all BBs for all players on all teams are equal (similar for doubles, triples etc.) in regards to Run Scoring efforts.
Example: In national league with pitchers hitting your ninth hole will be an out for first 5 innings what 85% of the time? Your 8th hole will be an out ~70-75% of time on average? You only get THREE outs an inning.
I'm sure you know of that Tango table which gives run scoring percentages based on outs and runners on base. That table doesn't take into account quality of hitters.
So right from the start it is easy to see at micro level why a BB to a top of the order hitter who has great speed is FAR more valuable to team run scoring efforts (and would be on high end of Tango table curve) than a BB to a 6 or 7 hitter who doesn't run very well. (and would be on low end of Tango table curve)
If this was just one exception you might say insignificant but the FACT is these situational "tendencies" for lack of better word or "distortion possibilities" are present every time thru the lineup with every player in different ways. They all wash out for lineup as a whole but for a specific player you'll get same distortion potential over and over and over, every time thru lineup and every game.
- - - - - - - - -
So I guess my point is variance/margin of error would increase greatly at PLAYER level because of individual player and situational differences. Throw all players in a bucket fine. But just to grab ONE player out of bucket - he is likely to be overstated or understated and possibly in a predictable way.
If batting order was established by throwing all names in hat and drawing them out 1-9 before every game that would help accuracy at PLAYER level.
As is though, batting orders are designed with "optimal" run scoring opportunities/potential in mind. There is too much difference in quality/types of hitting top to bottom of order and within confines of a 3 out inning to think batting order can just be dismissed as insignificant.
(and that doesn't even address the player "tendencies" issue - that exception just deals with batting order)...........
But your example of a team that does those situational aspects well, the Nats, don't actually do them well. They don't hit well with RISP. Optimal lineup construction has more to do with getting you highest OBP people more ABs than anything else. James Click had a good article on this in BP awhile back.Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
Also, a BB is always preferable to an out, in any situation. If someone is going to give you a walk, than you take it, because if you try not to take it you're doing what the pitcher wants and you aren't very likely to get a hit. You cannot punish players for walking with RISP when the pitcher isn't going to throw them anything.
Let's stay with BB and your point "a BB is always preferable to an out".....I agree.
Let's say every "non-out event" has three components:
1) extend inning, not an out component
2) possibility of becoming a run and
3) possibility of driving in a run(s)
It's easy to see how #1 will be the same for all players all through batting order. But it is ALSO EASY to see how there could be many differences in components 2 and 3. It is those differences which are very tough to deal with accurately at player level for different slots in batting order.
So many different factors impact components 2 and 3. And eventhough they may be subtle and seem minor for one at bat or one trip thru batting order when you take sum total of 4/5 trips thru batting order for season full of games they become very significant.
So, by your measure, Adam Dunn shouldn't be leading the team in runs scored since he's hit 6th or 7th most of the season?
'When I'm not longer rapping, I want to open up an ice cream parlor and call myself Scoop Dogg.'
-Snoop on his retirement
Your Mom is happy.
I would imagine they were for the lava lamp and the water bird rocking thingy.Originally Posted by Chip R
'When I'm not longer rapping, I want to open up an ice cream parlor and call myself Scoop Dogg.'
-Snoop on his retirement
Your Mom is happy.
I agree the differences between 2 and 3 are subtle and that over a season it is significant, but I reach a different conclusion. Over the season, the player that is more likely to be a run will be more productive because it is a TEAM game, not an individual. We just have a fundamental disagreement, you think that a player's job is bring every run home that is presented to him. I think that a player's job is to bring runs home AND score runs, and the only way you do that is to take what the pitcher is giving you and do your best to get on base.Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
Although, I wouldn't be surprised if he got mentioned for his work on the runs created formula, as well as his services at birthdays and bar mitzfahs.Originally Posted by Red Leader
'When I'm not longer rapping, I want to open up an ice cream parlor and call myself Scoop Dogg.'
-Snoop on his retirement
Your Mom is happy.
I think Raisor won a Pulitzer Prize for his "Girls are Evil" work as well.
She used to wake me up with coffee ever morning
He'll continue to ignore the truth of that matter because he began the thread with an inaccurate conclusion caused by lack of research.Originally Posted by rdiersin
"The Nats are beating the pythag thus they must not be striking out much and must be very good situationally on offense."
That's the premise but no effort was made to actually determine whether or not it was true.
Then we find out that the Nats strike out a bunch and have progressively higher K rates as the situation "intensity" increases while we see a degradation of BA and Slugging (the true RBI component). They don't bunt more often situationally than the average team. They're the worst Stolen Base team in the National League.
And that's the problem. There's really no research done beyond what makes "sense" to BF. Because he believes strikeouts are the Devil, any team not reputed to be a power club offensively is assumed to be a low-K team that's exceptionally good at "smallball" components and "situational" hitting.
It's a witch hunt and, as with all witch hunts, actual facts are either glossed over, obfuscated, or completely ignored if they don't jibe with the belief system of the accuser.
"The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer
"The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
--Ted Williams
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. |