Freak Show Reds (By two of our own) - Page 5 - RedsZone.com - Cincinnati Reds Fans' Home for Baseball Discussion

Raisor · 05-28-2003, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LvJ
gm, we are a much different and better team since those blowouts, so those stats speak nothing but history IMO. How many blowouts have we lost in since the big shakeup? 1;.

and since the big shakeup, the Reds are still -9 RS/RA in that time span.

Once again, since "the big shakeup", the Reds have scored 5.29 runs a game (very very good), but have still allowed 5.56 runs/game (very very bad).

That's still a -44 over the course of a 162 game season.

That's translates into being a bad team, unfortunatly.

Trivia question time: How many teams have made the playoffs since 1990 with a negative run diff.

M2 · 05-28-2003, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Raisor
and since the big shakeup, the Reds are still -9 RS/RA in that time span.

Once again, since "the big shakeup", the Reds have scored 5.29 runs a game (very very good), but have still allowed 5.56 runs/game (very very bad).

That's still a -44 over the course of a 162 game season.

That's translates into being a bad team, unfortunatly.

Trivia question time: How many teams have made the playoffs since 1990 with a negative run diff.

Normally I'd check up on this, but I'm going with none, zero, zip, zilch, nada.

D-Man · 05-28-2003, 06:27 PM

Great job on an interesting article. It was well written and well researched. More importantly, the issue offers two extremely important implications for the 2003 Reds--the Reds are either going to start losing more often, or they're going to have to improve the run differential. Something's gotta give.

I have a few areas of research for you guys to consider if you choose to continue looking into this issue further.

1.) park effects. Although the early data on the GABP has shown it to be a neutral-hitters park, I'm not convinced that that is really the case. By the time the season ends, I believe it will end up being a hitters park, which would likey skew the run-differential data. Teams that play in hitters parks score more runs and play in higher scoring games (e.g., 8-5 games, as opposed to 2-0 games). Naturally, they are going to have run differentials that are not as nice. Using the Pythagorean projections might not necessarily present an accurate picture of reality, which is certainly the case in extreme parks like Coors.

2.) home runs. HRs tend to cause teams to "bunch" their run scoring together because HRs clear the bases of all the runners. This results in scoring pattterns than are high and low from inning to inning, and by implication, scoring patterns that are highly uneven from game to game. (As an aside, the 2001 Mariners are a great example to illustrate the contrast here. That club that outperformed its projections by scoring in smaller bunches across many more innings, whereas the Rockies score in bunches every year and never can perform up to their Pythagorean expectations.) Similarly, the 2003 Reds have hit the most taters in the NL this year (78), but the pitching staff has also given up the most homers in the NL (73). This means that the team is scoring more and getting scored against in bunches, relative to other teams. This penchant to hit (and give up) HRs suggests that the runs scored differential might be a little uneven, relatively speaking, at this point in the season.

The HRs and park effects go a long way to describing why the Colorado Rockies underperform their Pythagorean projections every year--they hit a ton of taters and play in an extreme hitters park, which combine to make the run differential more "lumpy." Similarly, the Pythagorean projections might not be presenting an accurate picture of the who these 2003 Reds actually are. At this point I am a bit ambivalent as to how the homers and park effects will affect the run scoring differential for the Reds, but my intuition leads me to believe that they will split the difference--they will improve their run scoring differential somewhat and also come closer to their Pythagorean projections. Let's face it, a team can't continue to win 90% of its extra-inning games. This is really a .500 ballclub (good hitting, atrocious pitching), which is about where the club's current record stands right now.

Finally, I'm not convinced that two months of runs differential data is sufficient to consider it a trend. The 1999 Reds were way outperforming their Pythagorean projections (+5 games, or something like that) through the end of August, 1999. At the time, analysts (Neyer included) were saying how the Reds were not going to be serious playoff contenders because of this key data point. Not sure if everyone remembers, but Sept-Oct 1999 was one of the best stretch runs ever seen, when Greg Vaughn led the club by hitting something like 16 homers in September and October. In the end, the Reds actually ended up *underperforming* the Pythagorean projections by one game, indicating that some teams might need a little more time for these data to correct themselves, either by the club losing more games or scoring more runs.

There are other issues to consider, like offensive and defensive efficiency (e.g., the value of a good bullpen, bullpen usage patterns by a manager, timely/untimely hitting, etc.). For more in-depth discussion on these points, people might want to check out this Diamond Mind article:
http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/tmeff02.htm

I think the run differential can help us provide insight into *why* the Reds have been winning (i.e., close games, HRs, etc.) more than it can offer definitive evidence that the Reds have been "monumentally lucky." Again, well done, and I hope to see more insight like this in the future.

Raisor · 05-28-2003, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by M2
Normally I'd check up on this, but I'm going with none, zero, zip, zilch, nada.

According to my records, there's been exactly ONE team since 1990 to be outscored in the Regular Season, the 1997 San Fransisco Giants (784/790)

Chip R · 05-28-2003, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Raisor
According to my records, there's been exactly ONE team since 1990 to be outscored in the Regular Season, the 1997 San Fransisco Giants (784/790)

Rockies came close in 1995. Scored 785 runs and gave up 783 runs.

Raisor · 05-28-2003, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chip R
Rockies came close in 1995. Scored 785 runs and gave up 783 runs.

ah, but a) it's the Rockies and b) they were still over the "magic number"!

LvJ · 05-28-2003, 06:40 PM

So it can be done. Those stats are useless.

traderumor · 05-28-2003, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LvJ
So it can be done. Those stats are useless.

Sounds like you've been watching too many LA Law reruns

LvJ · 05-28-2003, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by traderumor
Sounds like you've been watching too many LA Law reruns

I never watched L.A. Law, thank you very much.

:smokin:

gm · 05-28-2003, 06:51 PM

"the issue offers two extremely important implications for the 2003 Reds--the Reds are either going to start losing more often, or they're going to have to score more runs. Something's gotta give"

Or, 3) the Red's pitching staff (esp. the rotation) needs to reduce their runs allowed. Fortunately, Don Gullett's starters usually start performing decently, beginning in the month of June. Don't ask me why they consistently suck in April/May 'cause I've got no excuses to offer yah. I merely observe

Raisor · 05-28-2003, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gm
"the issue offers two extremely important implications for the 2003 Reds--the Reds are either going to start losing more often, or they're going to have to score more runs. Something's gotta give"

Or, 3) the Red's pitching staff (esp. the rotation) needs to reduce their runs allowed.

I'm glad you posted this, since I was just running the numbers

First, let's assume that the Reds' offense of the past 34 games (Post "Big Shakeup") is the "Real" Reds offense (scoring 5.29 runs/game). If that's the case, then the Reds can look to score 843 runs for the season (by the way, Arizona led the NL last year with 819 RS). For the Reds pitching to get even with that, they're going to have to go from giving up [currently for the season] 6.13 Runs/Game (or 5.56 runs/game since "the big shakeup") down to 4.76 runs/game (a difference of either 1.37 runs/game or 0.80 runs/game, depending on your point of view)

Either way, without a major change in personel on the pitching side, I don't see that happening.

PSR

NYMoose · 05-28-2003, 07:10 PM

Nice job guys. The talent level on this board is outstanding.

Congrats

Fil3232 · 05-28-2003, 07:17 PM

Congrats to M2 and WOY on a good article and a very nice opportunity. Keep it up.

gm · 05-28-2003, 07:23 PM

"without a major change in personel on the pitching side, I don't see that happening"

Well you'd think so, but (I'm offering hope, here) St. Don typically starts making lemonade out of JimBo's "lemons" about this time, every season. Hang with 'em, Red's fans

J "Cooper" · 05-28-2003, 07:35 PM

First let me say (write) -congrats to M2 and WOY. You guys produce the best work and the most informative posts on this site. It's way cool you got your stuff on BP. It was a dang good article.

I noticed that BP in their stats section has a metric on where teams would be if you take into account base runners and situations. IIRC, the Reds fair even worse in this metric.

The negative over the top response was/is waaay rude. Almost unbelievable -2 of our own hit the big time and they get this type of grief. Not cool -nor gracious.

05-28-2003, 06:27 PM	#63
D-Man Member Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 787	Great job on an interesting article. It was well written and well researched. More importantly, the issue offers two extremely important implications for the 2003 Reds--the Reds are either going to start losing more often, or they're going to have to improve the run differential. Something's gotta give. I have a few areas of research for you guys to consider if you choose to continue looking into this issue further. 1.) park effects. Although the early data on the GABP has shown it to be a neutral-hitters park, I'm not convinced that that is really the case. By the time the season ends, I believe it will end up being a hitters park, which would likey skew the run-differential data. Teams that play in hitters parks score more runs and play in higher scoring games (e.g., 8-5 games, as opposed to 2-0 games). Naturally, they are going to have run differentials that are not as nice. Using the Pythagorean projections might not necessarily present an accurate picture of reality, which is certainly the case in extreme parks like Coors. 2.) home runs. HRs tend to cause teams to "bunch" their run scoring together because HRs clear the bases of all the runners. This results in scoring pattterns than are high and low from inning to inning, and by implication, scoring patterns that are highly uneven from game to game. (As an aside, the 2001 Mariners are a great example to illustrate the contrast here. That club that outperformed its projections by scoring in smaller bunches across many more innings, whereas the Rockies score in bunches every year and never can perform up to their Pythagorean expectations.) Similarly, the 2003 Reds have hit the most taters in the NL this year (78), but the pitching staff has also given up the most homers in the NL (73). This means that the team is scoring more and getting scored against in bunches, relative to other teams. This penchant to hit (and give up) HRs suggests that the runs scored differential might be a little uneven, relatively speaking, at this point in the season. The HRs and park effects go a long way to describing why the Colorado Rockies underperform their Pythagorean projections every year--they hit a ton of taters and play in an extreme hitters park, which combine to make the run differential more "lumpy." Similarly, the Pythagorean projections might not be presenting an accurate picture of the who these 2003 Reds actually are. At this point I am a bit ambivalent as to how the homers and park effects will affect the run scoring differential for the Reds, but my intuition leads me to believe that they will split the difference--they will improve their run scoring differential somewhat and also come closer to their Pythagorean projections. Let's face it, a team can't continue to win 90% of its extra-inning games. This is really a .500 ballclub (good hitting, atrocious pitching), which is about where the club's current record stands right now. Finally, I'm not convinced that two months of runs differential data is sufficient to consider it a trend. The 1999 Reds were way outperforming their Pythagorean projections (+5 games, or something like that) through the end of August, 1999. At the time, analysts (Neyer included) were saying how the Reds were not going to be serious playoff contenders because of this key data point. Not sure if everyone remembers, but Sept-Oct 1999 was one of the best stretch runs ever seen, when Greg Vaughn led the club by hitting something like 16 homers in September and October. In the end, the Reds actually ended up underperforming the Pythagorean projections by one game, indicating that some teams might need a little more time for these data to correct themselves, either by the club losing more games or scoring more runs. There are other issues to consider, like offensive and defensive efficiency (e.g., the value of a good bullpen, bullpen usage patterns by a manager, timely/untimely hitting, etc.). For more in-depth discussion on these points, people might want to check out this Diamond Mind article: http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/tmeff02.htm I think the run differential can help us provide insight into why the Reds have been winning (i.e., close games, HRs, etc.) more than it can offer definitive evidence that the Reds have been "monumentally lucky." Again, well done, and I hope to see more insight like this in the future. Last edited by D-Man; 05-28-2003 at 06:54 PM.

05-28-2003, 06:40 PM	#67
LvJ Time is the Revelator. Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chattanooga, TN Posts: 7,276	So it can be done. Those stats are useless. __________________ Hide your power alleys; Hide your wife

05-28-2003, 06:51 PM	#70
gm All dyslexics must untie! Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: SW Portland, OR Posts: 8,604	"the issue offers two extremely important implications for the 2003 Reds--the Reds are either going to start losing more often, or they're going to have to score more runs. Something's gotta give" Or, 3) the Red's pitching staff (esp. the rotation) needs to reduce their runs allowed. Fortunately, Don Gullett's starters usually start performing decently, beginning in the month of June. Don't ask me why they consistently suck in April/May 'cause I've got no excuses to offer yah. I merely observe __________________ Never overlook the obvious

05-28-2003, 07:23 PM	#74
gm All dyslexics must untie! Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: SW Portland, OR Posts: 8,604	"without a major change in personel on the pitching side, I don't see that happening" Well you'd think so, but (I'm offering hope, here) St. Don typically starts making lemonade out of JimBo's "lemons" about this time, every season. Hang with 'em, Red's fans __________________ Never overlook the obvious

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-28-2003, 07:10 PM	#72
NYMoose Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Coatesville, PA Posts: 236	Nice job guys. The talent level on this board is outstanding. Congrats

05-28-2003, 07:17 PM	#73
Fil3232 Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 551	Congrats to M2 and WOY on a good article and a very nice opportunity. Keep it up.

05-28-2003, 07:35 PM	#75
J "Cooper" Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Greenville, ohio Posts: 497	First let me say (write) -congrats to M2 and WOY. You guys produce the best work and the most informative posts on this site. It's way cool you got your stuff on BP. It was a dang good article. I noticed that BP in their stats section has a metric on where teams would be if you take into account base runners and situations. IIRC, the Reds fair even worse in this metric. The negative over the top response was/is waaay rude. Almost unbelievable -2 of our own hit the big time and they get this type of grief. Not cool -nor gracious.