Raisor's Pyth Thm of Baseball and the Nationals

[BadFundamentals]

So going into tonite's game the Nationals had given up one more run than they had scored. However their W/L record is 50-32. Raisor? Say it ain't so? What about the Pyth Thm of BBall? Does this mean there is such a thing as timely hitting and timely run scoring? What about strikeouts? Does this mean a strikeout is NOT just another out? Oh Raisor....please.... say it ain't so !!

[rdiersin]

So going into tonite's game the Nationals had given up one more run than they had scored. However their W/L record is 50-32. Raisor? Say it ain't so? What about the Pyth Thm of BBall? Does this mean there is such a thing as timely hitting and timely run scoring? What about strikeouts? Does this mean a strikeout is NOT just another out? Oh Raisor....please.... say it ain't so !!

This will be a funny thread when it is brought back up in about a month.

[2001MUgrad]

Those one run games will catch up to them. They still have a chance to make a splash now with a trade or 2 and really improve their team. Was it last year or 2 years ago about the middle of June the Reds were in first place maybe 5 games or so above .500, but had given up more runs than they had scored. It caught up with them and more than likely it'll catch up with the Nats, but they have a chance to improve.

[forfreelin04]

No it can't be true!!!! Situational hitting does exist? Strikeouts do matter? Blasephemy BadFundamentals! How dare you remember how the game is played instead of checking your stat sheet first?

[rdiersin]

Look at the Reds 2004, KC 2003. It will catch up with them, unless they make changes. The Pythag is very accurate when taken over the whole season.

[westofyou]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4192

July 5, 2005
Can Of Corn
Pythag and the Nats

At the exact midpoint of the current season, the profoundly surprising Washington Nationals held a five-and-a-half game lead in the NL East and were on pace for an even 100 wins. As surprising and impressive as that might be, the real oddity about this team is that, if trends hold, they'll win 100 games and a division title despite a run differential of -2. Calling such a confluence of events "historically unprecedented" would be to indulge in understatement of criminal proportions.

Since 1900, 90 teams have won at least 100 games in a season. Those 90 teams had an average run differential of +214.9. The worst run differential by a 100-win team belongs to the 2004 Yankees, who finished with a +89 mark. Only two other teams, the '69 Mets and '70 Reds, have posted run differentials of worse than +100 while still winning 100 games for the season. If the Nats were able to reach the century mark in victories while burdened by a negative run differential it would be, suffice it to say, stretching the depth and breadth of improbability.

The Nats are certainly overperforming to date, but it's a bit facile to say their success is merely the product of good fortune. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest that the team's meager run differential isn't indicative of its genuine, long-term quality. To wit, Washington has a strong and properly deployed bullpen, and they've been exceptional at home. Let's take these one at a time …

Much has been made of the fact that the Nationals have been outstanding this year in one-run games (22-7 on the season). In many analytical circles, success or failure under such circumstances is often dismissed as a matter of luck. However, if a team makes a habit of giving high-leverage innings to its best relievers (and, by extension, low-leverage outings to its worst relievers), they can thrive in one-run contests and, hence, exceed the various Pythagorean-inspired projections. In D.C.'s case, their four top relievers all rank in the top 50 for Relievers' Expected Wins Added (REWA). Also, those four relievers--Chad Cordero, Luis Ayala, Hector Carrasco and Gary Majewski--have worked almost two-thirds of the team's total bullpen innings. Now here's how they fare in terms of leverage:



Pitcher IP R/G REWA Rank Leverage (Rank on Team)*
Cordero 44.1 1.62 1 1.97 (1)
Ayala 48.0 3.38 13 1.49 (2)
Carrasco 29.0 1.86 37 1.22 (3)
Majewski 35.1 3.57 49 1.15 (4)

* - Among Washington relievers with at least 20 IP

As you can see, manager Frank Robinson is deploying his relievers in exact accordance with their REWA rank--that's to say, the best relievers are working the most critical innings. That they've also thrived in nip-and-tuck affairs is no accident. When you have four relievers the quality of those above and you're using them in critical situations, you're going to have a strong record in one-run games.

There's also the matter of the club's success in home games. At the halfway point, the Nats' record at RFK was 29-10, which comes to a winning percentage of .744. That puts them on pace for 60 home wins this season, which would mean this year's Nats model would tie the eighth-best single-season home-win total of all-time. Here's the full list:


Rank Team Home Wins
1. '61 Yankees 65
2. '75 Reds 64
3. '32 Yankees 62
3. '98 Yankees 62
5. '46 Red Sox 61
5. '49 Red Sox 61
5. '62 Giants 61
8. '31 A's 60
8. '42 Cardinals 60
8. '53 Dodgers 60
8. '69 Orioles 60
8. '77 Phillies 60

Of the 12 teams listed, nine exceeded their Pythagorean records for the season, and they bettered those forecasts by a cumulative 47 games. All of this has at least some bearing on the Nationals' troubling run differential. Of Washington's 29 home wins in 2005, only two have come in extra innings or in walk-off fashion. That means in 27 games this season, the Nats haven't batted in the ninth inning. In other words, that's 81 outs they didn't get to use. Teams that are especially potent at home sometimes fall short of their expected records because they don't have as many opportunities to score runs. That's borne out in Washington's underwhelming Pythagorean record.

The Nats have certainly benefited from good fortune this season, but their run differential can partially be explained by some of the team's unique qualities. They have a strong bullpen that's properly deployed, and they excel at home. They're over-performing, to be sure. However, the extreme second-half regression you might expect based on their run differential probably won't come to pass. Summarily speaking, the Nats are worse than their record but much better than their run differential.

As for how the NL East will play out, it's far from decided. In the second half, the Braves will get back from the DL 60% of their Opening Day rotation and Chipper Jones. So it'll be an onerous task for the Nats to hold off the 13-time champs. However, if you're tempted to dismiss Washington because they've given up more runs than they've allowed, don't do it.

Dayn Perry is an author of Baseball Prospectus. You can contact Dayn by clicking here or click here to see Dayn's other articles.

[BadFundamentals]

Those one run games will catch up to them. They still have a chance to make a splash now with a trade or 2 and really improve their team. Was it last year or 2 years ago about the middle of June the Reds were in first place maybe 5 games or so above .500, but had given up more runs than they had scored. It caught up with them and more than likely it'll catch up with the Nats, but they have a chance to improve. They just showed a quote from JimmyB that they were prepared to make any deals that would help their team make playoffs. I think they will. They flashed to Jimmy up in the press box and he was standing/pacing watching every play. It occurred to me I've watched just about every game televised this year on Extra Innings and I haven't once seen DannyO at a game....(???)......

[BadFundamentals]

Look at the Reds 2004, KC 2003. It will catch up with them, unless they make changes. The Pythag is very accurate when taken over the whole season.
Yes, I remember all too well the Reds 2004 and in fact 2003 as well. Of course with the Reds at the critical times in June when they needed to acquire some arms they sat pat. Jimmy will make some moves.

Meanwhile Guillen takes outside letter high pitch from pedro and lines it to right to drive in 2 (a middle of the order hitter "going with the pitch"?? do you believe it?) and put Nats up 3-0. Guillen 3-3 on the night. Yes, Jose Guillen, Cincinnati Reds 2003.

[KronoRed]

They won't make any deals, the Nationals owner won't add payroll, it's the same stuff Jim Bo said when he was here..fluff fluff fluff.

I do have a picture of Dan O at a game though ;)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/Kronosb/1.jpg

[RFS62]

I had no idea that Raisor invented the Pythag

Who knew?

[Raisor]

Let's see...

30 major league teams.

20 teams (66%) within 2 games of expected w/l record
27 teams (90%) within 4 games of expected w/l record
3 teams 5 or more games (+/-) away from expected w/l record.

Even WITH the Nats (+9) and the Diamond Backs (+7), the average deviation is only +/-2.2 wins.

I'll take that...

[2001MUgrad]

They just showed a quote from JimmyB that they were prepared to make any deals that would help their team make playoffs. I think they will. They flashed to Jimmy up in the press box and he was standing/pacing watching every play. It occurred to me I've watched just about every game televised this year on Extra Innings and I haven't once seen DannyO at a game....(???)......

I hope they do. I like Jimbo. But, also isn't that good for the REDS if the Nats do good since they own a share of the team right now?? If the Nats were to go to the playoffs or even better it should increase the $$ they could get for it.

[Raisor]

I had no idea that Raisor invented the Pythag

Who knew?


I won one of my three Nobel Peace Prizes for my work on the Pythag thm of baseball.

[BadFundamentals]

First year in new park? Nah....nats will do something to help themself.

In fact, on record right now with these two predictions in stone:
1. Nats make move of significance before 7/31 and
2. Seriously with apologies to those of you who he is your fave player, Dunn with Astros by 7/31.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Raisor, but there is not quantitative component in your formula for a guy like Jose Guillen who not only has talent but plays angry and directs that anger towards WINNING. Add Wilkerson, Johnson and an angry Frank Robinson to that mix......who knows?

And now Danny Graves come on to pitch. About to become a blowout.

[KronoRed]

The nats owner is the other 29 teams, they don't care about anything cept profit, add payroll? I doubt it.

[BadFundamentals]

Danny Graves just struck out somebody ! ! ..?? :confused: :confused:

[westofyou]

Raisor, but there is not quantitative component in your formula for a guy like Jose Guillen who not only has talent but plays angry

Plays pretty a pretty sloppy outfield at times too, made a big mental error yesterday and the other day lost the ball in the sun with his sunglasses on top of his hat.. Bob Brenly was disgusted.

Feast or famine with Jose, who increased his game with diving over the plate and upped his HBP rate quite well too.

That said the Nationals are marketing him, not as the Latin Jimmy Piersell though.

[Raisor]

Raisor, but there is not quantitative component in your formula for a guy like Jose Guillen who not only has talent but plays angry and directs that anger towards WINNING. Add Wilkerson, Johnson and an angry Frank Robinson to that mix......who knows?




The Reds were +9 last year, bad BA w/RISP, bad bullpen and all...

[BadFundamentals]

The nats owner is the other 29 teams, they don't care about anything cept profit, add payroll? I doubt it.
You don't think Bowden can find a way to get approval for some deal making? I gotta think he finds a way.

(don't get me wrong I'm not a huge Bowden fan but thought he made great move getting Griff to Cincy and I'd prefer him to DannyO anyway.)

[rdiersin]

Oh, about the hitting with runners in scoring position and doing the little things.

Team data for runners in scoring position

TEAM R SH SF SO BB AVG OBP SLG OPS
St. Louis 312 12 17 127 109 0.285 0.378 0.446 0.824
Philadelphia 302 12 17 157 118 0.280 0.379 0.434 0.813
San Francisco 293 16 25 136 80 0.286 0.355 0.445 0.800
Atlanta 289 11 26 148 114 0.241 0.344 0.418 0.762
Florida 287 12 22 143 92 0.275 0.357 0.430 0.787
San Diego 280 9 20 172 112 0.264 0.362 0.391 0.753
Cincinnati 279 18 26 159 105 0.248 0.341 0.409 0.750
Arizona 279 13 23 143 109 0.253 0.345 0.402 0.747
Pittsburgh 276 14 24 119 92 0.279 0.364 0.453 0.817
Milwaukee 270 15 15 161 108 0.239 0.347 0.426 0.773
NY Mets 265 15 22 158 104 0.243 0.338 0.392 0.729
Chicago Cubs 264 17 21 147 96 0.274 0.360 0.461 0.822
LA Dodgers 262 11 16 119 78 0.257 0.332 0.406 0.738
Washington 262 18 28 146 107 0.261 0.367 0.396 0.763
Colorado 255 15 15 149 99 0.265 0.357 0.364 0.721
Houston 247 16 21 130 73 0.275 0.349 0.424 0.773

[BadFundamentals]

Plays pretty a pretty sloppy outfield at times too, made a big mental error yesterday and the other day lost the ball in the sun with his sunglasses on top of his hat.. Bob Brenly was disgusted.

Feast or famine with Jose, who increased his game with diving over the plate and upped his HBP rate quite well too.

That said the Nationals are marketing him, not as the Latin Jimmy Piersell though.He's got a little Roberto Clemente in him too (the arm, the use all fields hitting, the motor). And his voice sounds like Tony Montana from Scarface.

[RosieRed]

Raisor, but there is not quantitative component in your formula for a guy like Jose Guillen who not only has talent but plays angry and directs that anger towards WINNING. Add Wilkerson, Johnson and an angry Frank Robinson to that mix......who knows?

You do know it's not Raisor's formula ... right?

[BadFundamentals]

You do know it's not Raisor's formula ... right?I think Raisor had a hand in both Pyth Thm of BBall and Runs Created formula.

[Reds Nd2]

I had no idea that Raisor invented the Pythag

Who knew?

He's scrappy that way.

[Raisor]

I think Raisor had a hand in both Pyth Thm of BBall and Runs Created formula.


I also invented the lava lamp.

[CTA513]

I also invented the lava lamp.

:eek:

[Raisor]

I'm guessing BF just missed this....



Let's see...

30 major league teams.

20 teams (66%) within 2 games of expected w/l record
27 teams (90%) within 4 games of expected w/l record
3 teams (10%) 5 or more games (+/-) away from expected w/l record.

Even WITH the Nats (+9) and the Diamond Backs (+7), the average deviation is only +/-2.2 wins.

I'll take that...

[BadFundamentals]

I also invented the lava lamp. ha ha forgot about that one. Ranking Raisor inventions best to worst:
1. Lava Lamp
2. Polyester
3. That little bird that rocks back and forth up/down drinking water.
4. Pyth Thm of BBall
5. Runs Created Formula

- - - - - - -
Unrelated story, Jose just botched one bad in right field........ :bang:

[wheels]

I'm guessing BF just missed this....

No.

He's pretending he missed it, though.

[pahster]

5. Runs Created Formula


Whats wrong with runs created?

[flyer85]

So going into tonite's game the Nationals had given up one more run than they had scored. However their W/L record is 50-32. Raisor? Say it ain't so? What about the Pyth Thm of BBall? Does this mean there is such a thing as timely hitting and timely run scoring? What about strikeouts? Does this mean a strikeout is NOT just another out? Oh Raisor....please.... say it ain't so !! Only 3 teams in baseball history have won 100 games with less than +100 run differential. The Gnats are on pace to do it, it is unprecedented as +76 is the lowest run differential to win 100 games.

Why are the Gnats so far ahead of their pythag record?

Simple they are 22-7 in 1 run games. Why is that? Because Robby has used his bullpen perfectly. He has 4 very high quality relievers. They have pitched all the high leverage innings and the # of those innings distributed to the four goes in the order of their overall effectiveness.

All coutesy of BP.

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4192

[rdiersin]

Here's what I don't get, BF, you say that the Nats are winning because of timely hitting, which one would assume you mean with runners in scoring position, but that's not the case as I gave team stats with runners in scoring position in an earlier post in this thread. The Reds are in the middle of the pack in runs scored in RISP, while the Nats are in the bottom three in the NL. It shows more than anything the reason the Nats are doing alright isn't because of their hitting with RISP, but their pitching. Likewise the Reds woes aren't because of their hitting with RISP, but their pitching.

[Raisor]

I will not sit here while you people introduce FACTS into this discussion.

[BadFundamentals]

Whats wrong with runs created?
I don't think I want to take on this battle in this forum but I'll give you long and short. I just plain don't like it when applied to a specific player. If applied to a team or game or season - fine. In those cases, you have a MIX of players which serves to even out the otherwise possible distortions (spots in batting order, player tendencies, relative values of bases...etc. etc....)

Not to mention it is too complicated for practical use. And the fact that James continues to revise it - with later versions now including component for things like batting avg. with RISP, solo homers, strikeouts etc.....it just shows how earlier versions are flawed and demonstrates the perhaps impracticality of ever arriving at a truly "accurate" formula at PLAYER level.

[rdiersin]

I will not sit here while you people introduce FACTS into this discussion.

Sorry. :(

[SteelSD]

So going into tonite's game the Nationals had given up one more run than they had scored. However their W/L record is 50-32. Raisor? Say it ain't so? What about the Pyth Thm of BBall? Does this mean there is such a thing as timely hitting and timely run scoring? What about strikeouts? Does this mean a strikeout is NOT just another out? Oh Raisor....please.... say it ain't so !!

Wow is this thread misguided...

Washington Nationals 2005- Overall:

5.02 AB/K- Fifth Highest K Rate in the National League

Washington Nationals 2005- w/RISP:

4.53 AB/K- Third Highest K Rate in the National League

What's that? The Washington Nationals strike out MORE with RISP than they do overall??? How could that be??? They're spunky sparky situational killers I thought. It must be a mirage. I'll bet they're really good in even more remote situations like hitting with RISP and Two Outs then. Yeah. That's GOTTA be it.

Washington Nationals- 2005- w/RISP: 2 Out:

3.68 AB/K- Worst K Rate in the National League

Alright. Something's wrong here. After all, the Nationals are spunky sparky situational killing machines who focus on making more contact in every single situation and even more the more "important" and "pressure-packed" the situation gets. At least, that's what we're hearing. And yet, we see a team that is one of the WORST contact-producing teams in the National League???? Say it ain't so!!!

So it MUST be the Stolen Bases then. Of course. That HAS to be it. They're spunky and sparky and run all around the place. They're littleball central after all. They bob and weave and dart and swipe. They must. They're littleball personified after all, aren't they?

Washington Nationals- 2005:

Stolen Bases- 24 (Lowest total in the National League)
Stolen Base %- 49%

WHAT???? They have the fewest Stolen Bases in the National League too?? And they get caught more than half the time???? That's IMPOSSIBLE, isn't it? After all, they're spunky sparky contact-hitting blazing-fast littleball killah's who don't like Mike Scioscia. Sigh.

Well, they bunt some but really not a great deal more than your next team. In those all-important Close-and-Late situations, only six NL teams have sacrificed fewer times even though the Nats have the 3rd more Close-and-Late PA. They step in front of pitches pretty good. But not considerably more than your next best team on the list. They don't hit any better situationally. Their RISP BA of .260 is exactly the same as their .260 overall BA and their RISP w 2 Out BA is .223.

But then, their situational RISP OBP is 32 points above their overall numbers even if their SLG is lower with RISP.

Waitaminit. You mean it's about not making OUTS??? AGAIN??? It's about On-Base Percentage? AGAIN???

Well, not so much. It's really about pitching.

Again.

[Reds Nd2]

I also invented the lava lamp.

You invented that little bird that rocks back and forth up/down drinking water too?

I love those. Dude you totally rock. :thumbup:

[KronoRed]

You don't think Bowden can find a way to get approval for some deal making? I gotta think he finds a way.


He'll tell the press he had tons of deals done and the mean owners said no.

Same as he did here.

[Reds Nd2]

He'll tell the press he had tons of deals done and the mean owners said no.

Same as he did here.

Yep.

[Raisor]

Very weird that BF can't seem to see this post.





Originally Posted by Raisor
Let's see...

30 major league teams.

20 teams (66%) within 2 games of expected w/l record
27 teams (90%) within 4 games of expected w/l record
3 teams (10%) 5 or more games (+/-) away from expected w/l record.

Even WITH the Nats (+9) and the Diamond Backs (+7), the average deviation is only +/-2.2 wins.

I'll take that...

[SteelSD]

Very weird that BF can't seem to see this post.

Well, whatever you do- don't tell him that the Reds finished 9 games above their pythag last season then.

[flyer85]

Well, whatever you do- don't tell him that the Reds finished 9 games above their pythag last season then.which I believe was the best in baseball

[Raisor]

Well, whatever you do- don't tell him that the Reds finished 9 games above their pythag last season then.


eek, sorry...I already did...

[RFS62]

eek, sorry...I already did...



mmmmmmmmmmm, doughnuts

[pahster]

I don't think I want to take on this battle in this forum but I'll give you long and short. I just plain don't like it when applied to a specific player. If applied to a team or game or season - fine. In those cases, you have a MIX of players which serves to even out the otherwise possible distortions (spots in batting order, player tendencies, relative values of bases...etc. etc....)

Not to mention it is too complicated for practical use. And the fact that James continues to revise it - with later versions now including component for things like batting avg. with RISP, solo homers, strikeouts etc.....it just shows how earlier versions are flawed and demonstrates the perhaps impracticality of ever arriving at a truly "accurate" formula at PLAYER level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runs_created#Problems_with_runs_created

I guess I just don't see the problem with it. Sure, it continues to evolve, but as it does it only becomes more accurate.

[SteelSD]

which I believe was the best in baseball

Actually, the Yankees finished 12 games over.

[flyer85]

Actually, the Yankees finished 12 games over.well... how bout the NL then?

[SteelSD]

well... how bout the NL then?

Yeah. I think that was the Reds.

I have no idea if it holds true because I'd have to do a lot of research on the subject to effectively prove it, but I've always felt that teams who are able to best beat their pythag are teams who:

1. Have a combination of either Excellent Hitting/Mediocre Pitching or Mediocre Hitting/Excellent Pitching.
2. End up winning a very high percentage of their one-Run games regardless of method (i.e. "smallball" versus "powerball").

In short, I think beating the pythag is random, but teams that minimize the randomness allowing for more one-Run (or 2-Run maybe) situations over the course of a season are better off in respect to actually beating their pythag.

Again, just a theory.

[BadFundamentals]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runs_created#Problems_with_runs_created

I guess I just don't see the problem with it. Sure, it continues to evolve, but as it does it only becomes more accurate.

As noted in your link:
Accuracy
Runs created is believed to be an accurate measure of an individual's offensive contribution because, when used on whole teams, the formula normally closely approximates how many runs the team actually scores. Even the basic version of runs created usually predicts a team's run total within approximately 20 runs.2 Other, more advanced versions are even more accurate.
- - - - -- - - - - -

Just because it is accurate on "whole teams" doesn't mean you can take it down a level and apply it to players and expect it to sustain accuracy at PLAYER level. That is my problem with it. Some players it will overstate others it will understate. Those offset one another on team but not for individual player.

I'm fine with it at team, game etc.. etc.. level - groups of players but not applied to just one player. There are far too many variables at player level which can go addressed or not be adequately addressed.

[SteelSD]

As noted in your link:
Accuracy
Runs created is believed to be an accurate measure of an individual's offensive contribution because, when used on whole teams, the formula normally closely approximates how many runs the team actually scores. Even the basic version of runs created usually predicts a team's run total within approximately 20 runs.2 Other, more advanced versions are even more accurate.
- - - - -- - - - - -

Just because it is accurate on "whole teams" doesn't mean you can take it down a level and apply it to players and expect it to sustain accuracy at PLAYER level. That is my problem with it. I'm fine with it at team, game etc.. etc.. level - groups of players but not applied to just one player. There are far too many variables at player level which can go addressed or not be adequately addressed.

Yes you can take it to the player level because the team Runs Created numbers are an amalgam of the players who put up the numbers for the team.

Yeesh.

[pahster]

Yes you can take it to the player level because the team Runs Created numbers are an amalgam of the players who put up the numbers for the team.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on it.

[Raisor]

Yes you can take it to the player level because the team Runs Created numbers are an amalgam of the players who put up the numbers for the team.

Yeesh.

Exactly.

Take Dunn's plate appearances that lead to his 60.5 Runs Created away and the Reds' team Runs Created would be exactly 60.5 RC lower.

[rdiersin]

As noted in your link:
Accuracy
Runs created is believed to be an accurate measure of an individual's offensive contribution because, when used on whole teams, the formula normally closely approximates how many runs the team actually scores. Even the basic version of runs created usually predicts a team's run total within approximately 20 runs.2 Other, more advanced versions are even more accurate.
- - - - -- - - - - -

Just because it is accurate on "whole teams" doesn't mean you can take it down a level and apply it to players and expect it to sustain accuracy at PLAYER level. That is my problem with it. Some players it will overstate others it will understate. Those offset one another on team but not for individual player.

I'm fine with it at team, game etc.. etc.. level - groups of players but not applied to just one player. There are far too many variables at player level which can go addressed or not be adequately addressed.

You can take it to a player level BF. I understand your doubts for using it on team statistics and the jump to players, but Extrapolated runs (XR) is another similar stat that on a team stat basis gives similar correlation with Runs scored as RC does. Xr, or other types like Palmers I believe, is linear, so each players contribution adds to the teams Xr. So you might then say, well it doesn't work on a micro basis. But if you look at all of 2003 and 2004 games logs, you can see the Xr and similar stats perform fairly well with a correlation coefficient of around 0.85 or so to runs scored for each game in those seasons. So, in summary, it does measure player contribution, and does a heck of alot better than rbi's and the like.

[Johnny Footstool]

In short, I think beating the pythag is random, but teams that minimize the randomness allowing for more one-Run (or 2-Run maybe) situations over the course of a season are better off in respect to actually beating their pythag.

Again, just a theory.

Someone on this board a few years ago shared the theory that beating pythagorian projections was tied to bullpen ERA, especially back-end bullpen ERA. Something about the ability of your closer and your best set-up men to hold small leads and avoid turning 1-run wins into 1-run losses.

Of course, you could also end up with a Danny Graves who turns 3-run wins into 1-run wins. That also helps you beat pythagorian projections.

[rdiersin]

Someone on this board a few years ago shared the theory that beating pythagorian projections was tied to bullpen ERA, especially back-end bullpen ERA. Something about the ability of your closer and your best set-up men to hold small leads and avoid turning 1-run wins into 1-run losses.

Of course, you could also end up with a Danny Graves who turns 3-run wins into 1-run wins. That also helps you beat pythagorian projections.

Interesting, that was essentially the argument Dayn Perry made in the BP article WOY put earlier in the thread. It will be interesting to see how it plays out the rest of the year.

[MWM]

Yeah. I think that was the Reds.

I have no idea if it holds true because I'd have to do a lot of research on the subject to effectively prove it, but I've always felt that teams who are able to best beat their pythag are teams who:

1. Have a combination of either Excellent Hitting/Mediocre Pitching or Mediocre Hitting/Excellent Pitching.
2. End up winning a very high percentage of their one-Run games regardless of method (i.e. "smallball" versus "powerball").

In short, I think beating the pythag is random, but teams that minimize the randomness allowing for more one-Run (or 2-Run maybe) situations over the course of a season are better off in respect to actually beating their pythag.

Again, just a theory.

You're missing the most important skill, Steel. It's all about directing anger towards winning. That's something you just can't quantify.

[Raisor]

You're missing the most important skill, Steel. It's all about directing anger towards winning. That's something you just can't quantify.


If the Reds were able to harness the anger of Reds fans there would be no stopping them!

[RFS62]

If the Reds were able to harness the anger of Reds fans there would be no stopping them!


If Reds fans anger was electricity, we could light up New York.

[Puffy]

mmmmmmmmmmm, doughnuts

Mmmmmmmmmmm, the KRISPY 7.......

Olmedo Saenz
Sandy Alomar Jr.
Aaron Miles
Tomas Perez
Todd Greene
John McDonald
Luis Matos

[Red Leader]

I also invented the lava lamp.

Raisor, you will get rep points for this. I have to spread some wealth around first, but you will get some points for this.

Hilarious. :laugh:

[Raisor]

Raisor, you will get rep points for this. I have to spread some wealth around first, but you will get some points for this.

Hilarious. :laugh:

I also do weddings, parties, and Bar Mitzahs

[kyred14]

You're missing the most important skill, Steel. It's all about directing anger towards winning. That's something you just can't quantify.

Is that one of those little things?

[D-Man]

Yeah. I think that was the Reds.

I have no idea if it holds true because I'd have to do a lot of research on the subject to effectively prove it, but I've always felt that teams who are able to best beat their pythag are teams who:

1. Have a combination of either Excellent Hitting/Mediocre Pitching or Mediocre Hitting/Excellent Pitching.
2. End up winning a very high percentage of their one-Run games regardless of method (i.e. "smallball" versus "powerball").

In short, I think beating the pythag is random, but teams that minimize the randomness allowing for more one-Run (or 2-Run maybe) situations over the course of a season are better off in respect to actually beating their pythag.

Again, just a theory.

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.

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."

[SteelSD]

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.

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.

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.

[BadFundamentals]

You can take it to a player level BF. I understand your doubts for using it on team statistics and the jump to players, but Extrapolated runs (XR) is another similar stat that on a team stat basis gives similar correlation with Runs scored as RC does. Xr, or other types like Palmers I believe, is linear, so each players contribution adds to the teams Xr. So you might then say, well it doesn't work on a micro basis. But if you look at all of 2003 and 2004 games logs, you can see the Xr and similar stats perform fairly well with a correlation coefficient of around 0.85 or so to runs scored for each game in those seasons. So, in summary, it does measure player contribution, and does a heck of alot better than rbi's and the like.
A BB example:

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.

[BadFundamentals]

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)...........

[rdiersin]

A BB example:

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.

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.

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.

[BadFundamentals]

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.

[Chip R]

I won one of my three Nobel Peace Prizes for my work on the Pythag thm of baseball.What were the other two for?

[Red Leader]

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?

[Red Leader]

What were the other two for?

I would imagine they were for the lava lamp and the water bird rocking thingy.

[rdiersin]

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.

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.

[Red Leader]

I would imagine they were for the lava lamp and the water bird rocking thingy.

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.

[Roy Tucker]

I think Raisor won a Pulitzer Prize for his "Girls are Evil" work as well.

[SteelSD]

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.

He'll continue to ignore the truth of that matter because he began the thread with an inaccurate conclusion caused by lack of research.

"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.

[rdiersin]

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.


Its just like the Reds, its the pitching that is the reason the two team are where they are at, not the situational hitting.

[Puffy]

Its just like the Reds, its the pitching that is the reason the two team are where they are at, not the situational hitting.

Alright - stop making sense!

I might have to negativize you if you keep making valid points using logic and stuff.

Don't tempt me, cause I'll do it. I will. Really. I will.

[Puffy]

I would imagine they were for the lava lamp and the water bird rocking thingy.

brown-noser.

:mooner:

[SteelSD]

Its just like the Reds, its the pitching that is the reason the two team are where they are at, not the situational hitting.

Yep. Exactly.

And the ironic thing is that after last night, the Nats still have an almost identical overall and RISP Batting Average (.260, .262). They're SLG is lower with RISP They've scored the fewest Runs in the National League but when you look at the RISP numbers, they take a tiny jump up to 13th in Runs Scored with RISP while having the 2nd lowest number of AB in that situation.

So why do they jump up three spots with a constant BA and a lower SLG versus their overall numbers? If it's not BA, and it's not SLG, and it's not K's (because they K more with RISP), and it's not Stolen Bases, and it's not Bunts, then what is it?

They're seventh in the NL in BB with RISP. That's what. The Nats' OBP is 33 points higher with RISP because of it.

In fact, the Nats have posted 3,129 PA this season and have taken 260 BB overall. Yet, in only 841 PA with RISP, the Nationals have drawn 107 BB.

That's astounding. The small bump in RISP production for the Nationals is entirely attributable to the fact that they've taken 41% of their BB this season in the 27% of their PA that fall in the RISP realm. The additional opportunities generated by this with RISP have led to a small increase in the Nats ability to score Runs and it's the ONLY significant positive deviation we can find when we take an objective look at their numbers for 2005.

Funny how that works.

[registerthis]

Those one run games will catch up to them. They still have a chance to make a splash now with a trade or 2 and really improve their team. Was it last year or 2 years ago about the middle of June the Reds were in first place maybe 5 games or so above .500, but had given up more runs than they had scored. It caught up with them and more than likely it'll catch up with the Nats, but they have a chance to improve.
But the Nats have far, far better pitching than the Reds did. Hernandez is a legitimate ace, and Loaiza's worth every cent as well.

[westofyou]

But the Nats have far, far better pitching than the Reds did. Hernandez is a legitimate ace, and Loaiza's worth every cent as well.

The staff really helps them if a slump occurs on the hitting side... especially playing in that pitchers park. A good pitching park that reduces runs enables them to weather the streakiness their contact first team will be encumbered with (eventually) better than being in a hitters park.

[Yachtzee]

I also do weddings, parties, and Bar Mitzahs

Hey, weren't you in Sha-Na-Na for a while? Or was it Menudo? :)

[BadFundamentals]

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.
Yes we seem to agree in certain areas but I guess fundamentally you are ok with just dismissing the situational and player-specific stuff as insignificant and I'm not.

How do you explain this?

2005 to Date
Griffey 47 Runs and 53 RBI = Total of 102
Dunn 57 Runs and 46 RBI = Total of 103

If you accept that generally speaking for a team (Runs + RBIs) / 2 = Actual Runs then for a player it should follow that as individuals these guys are each responsible for ~ 51 Runs

according to espn
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?split=0&league=nl&season=2005&seasonType=2&sort=runsCreated&type=sab&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=all

Griff's Runs Created this year is 52.3 (close enough to ~51 for me)
Dunn's Runs Created this year is 61.5 (looks like an overstatement)
- - - - - - - -

I'm aware of the "team dependent" argument against RBIs but RBIs are no more "team dependent" than Dunn's 58 BBs which no doubt some are a function of his hitting in 6 hole and having the team's worst hitters following him - those same BBs that pump up that RC number.

[KronoRed]

Hey, weren't you in Sha-Na-Na for a while? Or was it Menudo? :)
It was both, he's very talented

[Red Leader]

I'm aware of the "team dependent" argument against RBIs but RBIs are no more "team dependent" than Dunn's 58 BBs which no doubt some are a function of his hitting in 6 hole and having the team's worst hitters following him - those same BBs that pump up that RC number.

Someone has to be driving in Dunn when he walks since he LEADS THE TEAM IN RUNS SCORED!

[SteelSD]

If you accept that generally speaking for a team (Runs + RBIs) / 2 = Actual Runs then for a player it should follow that as individuals these guys are each responsible for ~ 51 Runs

Translation:

If rdiersin can accept an overly-simplistic and entirely inaccurate premise, then you'll be right.

If you'll accept that the moon is made of green cheese, then I can prove that man never landed on it.

[SteelSD]

BTW, BF-

It's about time you addressed why you were so wildly inaccurate about the Washington Nationals offensive unit. Considering that you called Raisor out on this thread and then ended up being completely wrong about it, I think Raisor deserves at least that much.

Go ahead.

[OldRightHander]

You're missing the most important skill, Steel. It's all about directing anger towards winning. That's something you just can't quantify.

Actually that can be quantified. Obviously you weren't aware that all the first place teams lead the league in two major categories: AWQ (anger to wins quotient) and SF. (scrappy factor) Any Postastat could give you the exact numbers, probably in three different graphs and tables.

[rdiersin]

If you accept that generally speaking for a team (Runs + RBIs) / 2 = Actual Runs then for a player it should follow that as individuals these guys are each responsible for ~ 51 Runs


I don't accept that a players worth is their (RBI+R)/2. That's an estimation scheme that already knows the result for a team. It cannot be applied to a situation in which you do not have those measurements truely available and that's the case for a player. Also for a team RBI~=R, but that's not the case for the player.

[Roy Tucker]

BTW, BF-

It's about time you addressed why you were so wildly inaccurate about the Washington Nationals offensive unit. Considering that you called Raisor out on this thread and then ended up being completely wrong about it, I think Raisor deserves at least that much.

Go ahead.
In my neighborhood, we call that a triple dog dare.

[registerthis]

BTW, BF-

It's about time you addressed why you were so wildly inaccurate about the Washington Nationals offensive unit. Considering that you called Raisor out on this thread and then ended up being completely wrong about it, I think Raisor deserves at least that much.

Go ahead.
Heh.

I can say with absolute certainty that the Nats offense has NOTHING to do with why the team has been successful thus far. (As I believe has been proven on here.)

Anyone with the faintest notion of the team would understand this.

[rdiersin]

In my neighborhood, we call that a triple dog dare.

Man he skipped the whole double dare and went straight for the triple dog dare. Luckily it is July and there are no cold flag poles.

[RFS62]

In my neighborhood, we call that a triple dog dare.


Yep.

[BadFundamentals]

I don't accept that a players worth is their (RBI+R)/2. That's an estimation scheme that already knows the result for a team. It cannot be applied to a situation in which you do not have those measurements truely available and that's the case for a player. Also for a team RBI~=R, but that's not the case for the player.
Fair enough.

Well I don't accept that RC formula can possibly be accurate at PLAYER level as long as it assigns same value for a speedy Ryan Freel walk at top of the order and a walk to Austin Kearns batting 6th in the order.

Both walks are not outs and extend inning but the Ryan Freel walk has FAR more chance of resulting in a run for team than the walk to a player who doesn't run the bases and has the 3 worst hitters on team up next. Freel's walk not only has more value but it is also representative of a greater level of player achievement than a 6 hole hitter taking a walk.

Give me 50 walks by each of those players. Freel might come around to score twice as often but as far as Runs Created is concerned both will get same Runs Created value.

[Red Leader]

...and (let me check) yep, Adam Dunn still leads the Reds in runs scored despite hitting in the 6th / 7th spot in the order almost the entire year.

[pedro]

...and (let me check) yep, Adam Dunn still leads the Reds in runs scored despite hitting in the 6th / 7th spot in the order almost the entire year.

yeah but those are "soft" runs because his job isn't to score runs.

[Red Leader]

yeah but those are "soft" runs because his job isn't to score runs.

Oh yea, that's right. His job is to drive in runs and wrecklessly make outs in the process, I forgot. He's a power hitter from the early 80's.

Soft runs. The next person that mentions "soft walks" or "soft runs" should be kicked in the "soft parts". :angry:

[pedro]

Oh yea, that's right. His job is to drive in runs and wrecklessly make outs in the process, I forgot. He's a power hitter from the early 80's.

Soft runs. The next person that mentions "soft walks" or "soft runs" should be kicked in the "soft parts". :angry:

See, now you're talking. Joe Carter was great because of his amazing ability to hit a ground ball to the SS when there was a guy on third. He'd do 70 times a year. What a star.

[OldRightHander]

Both walks are not outs and extend inning but the Ryan Freel walk has FAR more chance of resulting in a run for team than the walk to a player who doesn't run the bases and has the 3 worst hitters on team up next. Freel's walk not only has more value but it is also representative of a greater level of player achievement than a 6 hole hitter taking a walk.

I would venture to say that if you bat Freel in the 6 spot and he manages to draw the same number of walks that Dunn would, (not likely, but we'll assume that just for the illustration) that the runs scored after those walks would be pretty close for either player. Freel might steal a couple more bases than Dunn will but if you hit him low in the order without the meat of the order coming up behind him, how many more runs are going to result from those stolen bases?

I also think that Freel would not be pitched around as much as Dunn if he were to bat in the 6 spot with nobody hitting behind him, so he wouldn't be drawing as many walks. Maybe he would still have a decent BA, but he is not going to drive himself in nearly as much as Dunn will. Whoever you have in whatever spot in the order, a walk is more likely to score if there are good hitters coming up next. A few times that player will use his speed and generate a scoring chance, but he still depends on someone else to drive him in. Sure, Freel is an asset to any lineup with his speed, bus as far as producing runs goes (whether scoring them or driving them in) Dunn is by far the more productive hitter.

[Red Leader]

See, now you're talking. Joe Carter was great because of his amazing ability to hit a ground ball to the SS when there was a guy on third. He'd do 70 times a year. What a star.

Damn right, and Joe Carter has a World Series ring. How many does Adam Dunn have? ;)

[rdiersin]

Fair enough.

Well I don't accept that RC formula can possibly be accurate at PLAYER level as long as it assigns same value for a speedy Ryan Freel walk at top of the order and a walk to Austin Kearns batting 6th in the order.

Both walks are not outs and extend inning but the Ryan Freel walk has FAR more chance of resulting in a run for team than the walk to a player who doesn't run the bases and has the 3 worst hitters on team up next. Freel's walk not only has more value but it is also representative of a greater level of player achievement than a 6 hole hitter taking a walk.

Give me 50 walks by each of those players. Freel might come around to score twice as often but as far as Runs Created is concerned both will get same Runs Created value.

That's not entirely true. Yes, a BB by Freel and another slower player may not be "equal", in the sense that Freel may be able to score on a double, where another player may not, but that's not exactly easily quantifiable. RC does take SB and CS into account, so it does contain those speed aspects that are easily quantifiable. Beyond that is a slippery slope. How do you call one player speedy? I mean what things can you objectively give that would give someone points for being speedy? You can't really, without it becoming incredibly subjective. This is what has to be avoided in analysis. SB and CS are sort of hard stats and can be (and are) taken into account, but nothing more can be done without it becoming subjective instead of objective.

[Roy Tucker]

I would venture to say that if you bat Freel in the 6 spot and he manages to draw the same number of walks that Dunn would, (not likely, but we'll assume that just for the illustration) that the runs scored after those walks would be pretty close for either player. Freel might steal a couple more bases than Dunn will but if you hit him low in the order without the meat of the order coming up behind him, how many more runs are going to result from those stolen bases?
Just wondering, is there any kind of base-running stat?

Something along the lines of average number of bases advanced per on-base opportunity? Removing HRs since trotting around the bases isn't hard. Also BBs.

I realize its dependent on the hitters behind you, but I would think that eventually, better base runners would advance more bases than lesser base runners.

[Puffy]

Fair enough.

Well I don't accept that RC formula can possibly be accurate at PLAYER level as long as it assigns same value for a speedy Ryan Freel walk at top of the order and a walk to Austin Kearns batting 6th in the order.



Yet you so value batting average which assigns the same value to singles, doubles, triples and homers.

[KronoRed]

Damn right, and Joe Carter has a World Series ring. How many does Adam Dunn have? ;)
None, he's not scrappy.

[OldRightHander]

Just wondering, is there any kind of base-running stat?

Something along the lines of average number of bases advanced per on-base opportunity? Removing HRs since trotting around the bases isn't hard. Also BBs.

I realize its dependent on the hitters behind you, but I would think that eventually, better base runners would advance more bases than lesser base runners.

No doubt you have a very good point there. If there is a stat to measure it, I have complete faith that someone here will post it. I was more or less offering a rather simplistic explanation. The better baserunner will probably score a few more runs by virtue of his speed, but I just wonder how many more runs that player would score batting low in the order without the best hitters in the lineup hitting behind him. Basically, would Freel score more than Dunn if he hit in the same spot in the lineup and if he did would the difference really be that great?

[westofyou]

Just wondering, is there any kind of base-running stat?

Something along the lines of average number of bases advanced per on-base opportunity? Removing HRs since trotting around the bases isn't hard. Also BBs.

I realize its dependent on the hitters behind you, but I would think that eventually, better base runners would advance more bases than lesser base runners.

there's a bases aquired per plate appearance.
BPA--Bases per plate appearance. The formula is (TB+BB+HBP+SB-CS-GIDP)/(AB+BB+HBP+SF)


and here are the top ten reds under the age of 25


BPA BPA
1 Eric Davis .688
2 Kal Daniels .602
3 Frank Robinson .601
4 Adam Dunn .596
5 Sam Crawford .542
6 Bobby Tolan .540
7 Sean Casey .528
8 Edd Roush .524
9 Vada Pinson .524
10 Austin Kearns .516

[paulrichjr]

I have not read this entire thread so this may have been discussed already but I wonder what many of you stat guys ( who I think most of the time are correct but not always - I know that is hard for you to believe) think of Jose Guillen this year. I remember when he had his breakout year with Cincy that many of you said it wasn't real and that he would come back to earth. He would return to his average. Well he hasn't done that. How do you guys explain this. I want to make sure that you don't think I am trying to be smart about this because you guys are right a lot more than not. I am seriously wanting to know how you explain this.

[SteelSD]

I have not read this entire thread so this may have been discussed already but I wonder what many of you stat guys ( who I think most of the time are correct but not always - I know that is hard for you to believe) think of Jose Guillen this year. I remember when he had his breakout year with Cincy that many of you said it wasn't real and that he would come back to earth. He would return to his average. Well he hasn't done that. How do you guys explain this. I want to make sure that you don't think I am trying to be smart about this because you guys are right a lot more than not. I am seriously wanting to know how you explain this.

Actually, I noted that I expected Guillen to settle in right around the .850 OPS mark for a few years before his bat slows down.

2004- .849 OPS

He's at the tail end of one of his little hot streaks right now. When he goes through those two-week streaks, his OPS can rise and fall by as much as 40-50 points. I expect him to settle back in right around the same range as 2004 give or take a few points.

[BadFundamentals]

That's not entirely true. Yes, a BB by Freel and another slower player may not be "equal", in the sense that Freel may be able to score on a double, where another player may not, but that's not exactly easily quantifiable. RC does take SB and CS into account, so it does contain those speed aspects that are easily quantifiable. Beyond that is a slippery slope. How do you call one player speedy? I mean what things can you objectively give that would give someone points for being speedy? You can't really, without it becoming incredibly subjective. This is what has to be avoided in analysis. SB and CS are sort of hard stats and can be (and are) taken into account, but nothing more can be done without it becoming subjective instead of objective.
It gets back to the team concept of whether player is making optimal contribution to TEAM run scoring. Freel hitting leadoff and trying to hit homers and in so doing losing 100 points from OBP is not likely a good tradeoff. These "role on team"/"role in lineup" intangibles Runs Created formula has no way of knowing or adequately handling.

I mean if we agree that both Runs/RBIs are "team dependent" stats how could "Runs Created" be INDEPENDENT of the TEAM?

[pedro]

I have not read this entire thread so this may have been discussed already but I wonder what many of you stat guys ( who I think most of the time are correct but not always - I know that is hard for you to believe) think of Jose Guillen this year. I remember when he had his breakout year with Cincy that many of you said it wasn't real and that he would come back to earth. He would return to his average. Well he hasn't done that. How do you guys explain this. I want to make sure that you don't think I am trying to be smart about this because you guys are right a lot more than not. I am seriously wanting to know how you explain this.

He's having a good year. It's very BA driven and he's only on pace to walk 33 times but if he continues to hit .315 then his OBP will be acceptable.

The thing you have to realize is that the year he was doing well for the Reds was the first year he'd ever hit like that and there was no historical data to indicate that it was anything other than an anomoly. Up until that time he had never hit above .270, so there was no reason to believe it was anything other than a mirage. History is littered with guys who hit .300 once but never walked enough to have a decent OBP.

Even knowing what we know now, I believe the Reds made the right choice in trading Guillen.

[westofyou]

Vada Pinson hit like Guillen.. much better fielder, better young player.

[Chip R]

I would imagine they were for the lava lamp and the water bird rocking thingy.
I heard he's up for another one for teaching Jim Coombs how to play baseball.

[rdiersin]

It gets back to the team concept of whether player is making optimal contribution to TEAM run scoring. Freel hitting leadoff and trying to hit homers and in so doing losing 100 points from OBP is not likely a good tradeoff. These "role on team"/"role in lineup" intangibles Runs Created formula has no way of knowing or adequately handling.

I mean if we agree that both Runs/RBIs are "team dependent" stats how could "Runs Created" be INDEPENDENT of the TEAM?

Optimal contribution to team run scoring? What is that? I have seen nothing you have said that is in anyway a minimization of a cost or a maximization of team run scoring. It is simply what you THINK a player should do in that position. Not the same thing.

[Danny Serafini]

I heard he's up for another one for teaching Jim Coombs how to play baseball.

No one taught Jim Coombs, he sprinted to first straight out of the womb.

[Red Leader]

No one taught Jim Coombs, he sprinted to first straight out of the womb.

After drawing a "soft walk" in the womb. So "Charlie Hustle" of him.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[SteelSD]

STILL waiting to hear BF explain why he was so mind-jarringly hopelessly wrong about the Washington Nationals offense.

Starts a thread about it. Calls out Raisor. Now won't address it.

C'mon. Let's hear it. If your view of the game is the right one, why were you so wrong about the Nats?

Everybody's waiting.

[OldRightHander]

STILL waiting to hear BF explain why he was so mind-jarringly hopelessly wrong about the Washington Nationals offense.

Starts a thread about it. Calls out Raisor. Now won't address it.

C'mon. Let's hear it. If your view of the game is the right one, why were you so wrong about the Nats?

Everybody's waiting.

Don't hold your breath.

[SteelSD]

Don't hold your breath.

Oh, no worries there, ORH.

I'm just kinda amused that BF started a thread about a specific topic but refuses to address that specific topic.

If there were a record for thread hijacking by the thread starter, I'm pretty sure BF would hold it.

[Red Leader]

Achtung, BF. Achtung!

[Raisor]

We shouldn't allow this thread to die until BF admits that he was a bit "off" on his original post in this thread.

[wheels]

He's on to something else now.

He's over you and all of your stats.

[Cyclone792]

wheels, I absolutely love that sig!

:laugh:

[wheels]

wheels, I absolutely love that sig!

:laugh:

Yeah, I was all mad one day after heard DanO's show.

He's my muse.

[Raisor]

So going into tonite's game the Nationals had given up one more run than they had scored. However their W/L record is 50-32. Raisor? Say it ain't so? What about the Pyth Thm of BBall? Does this mean there is such a thing as timely hitting and timely run scoring? What about strikeouts? Does this mean a strikeout is NOT just another out? Oh Raisor....please.... say it ain't so !!


:wave:

[TRF]

7 pages.

7 pages and the guy cannot admit he was wrong.

i'd say unbelievable, but then i see who started the thread...

[Raisor]

Day Three, Redszone Held Hostage.

[BadFundamentals]

Day Three, Redszone Held Hostage.
ha ha.... :D sorry....I don't have energy to read back through to see what I was supposed to be wrong about but I'll admit it to you oh creator of the drinking bobbing water bird, I was wrong.

And cyclone, do you have a link for more pics of that girl in your avatar ?? who is she??

how am I supposed to think about pyth thm of baseball with her in the mix?

[Red Leader]

I knew it.



I knew that drinking bobbing water bird was too much for him to overcome.

In fairness, it's really too much for anyone.

[Raisor]

So, my accomplishments...

3-Nobel Peace Prizes (I hear I'm up for a 4th this year, keep your fingers crossed)
Created the lava lamp back in the 60s, before I was born.
The head bobbing bird with the top hat that drinks water.
Made BF cry uncle.

I am Redszone Superhero.

Send me money.

[pedro]

So, my accomplishments...

3-Nobel Peace Prizes (I hear I'm up for a 4th this year, keep your fingers crossed)
Created the lava lamp back in the 60s, before I was born.
The head bobbing bird with the top hat that drinks water.
Made BF cry uncle.

I am Redszone Superhero.

Send me money.

not to mention you bagged a hot chick ;)

go raisor go

[Raisor]

not to mention you bagged a hot chick ;)

go raisor go

we're still not sure how THAT happened...

[Raisor]

Back on the 5th, when this thread was started, the Nats were at +9. As of today, they're +7 and have lost four straight one run games.

Just sayin.

[flyer85]

Back on the 5th, when this thread was started, the Nats were at +9. As of today, they're +7 and have lost four straight one run games.

Just sayin.something like ... regressing to the norm.

I have a feeling that will also describe the 2nd half performance of Joe Randa.

[Raisor]

something like ... regressing to the norm.

I have a feeling that will also describe the 2nd half performance of Joe Randa.

He's already there, take a look at his monthly OPS.

Apr 881
May 766
Jun 951
Jul 682

He had a tremendous first two weeks of the season, and a awesome June. Other then that he's the same old Joe Randa.

[Jpup]

He's already there, take a look at his monthly OPS.

Apr 881
May 766
Jun 951
Jul 682

He had a tremendous first two weeks of the season, and a awesome June. Other then that he's the same old Joe Randa.

shh. :laugh:

[MWM]

The Nats have lost 7 of 10 and are only 1.5 games in front of Atlanta.

[SteelSD]

Nationals Update 7/20/05:

Nationals now have lost 8 of last 11 and 10 of their last 14 games. Atlanta now 0.5 Games back and even in the Win column.

Livan Hernandez angry but won't tell anyone why. Rumors swirl it's because Jose Guillen stole his Mike Scioscia punching bag and budges in the postgame buffet line.

Frank Robinson moves Mike Scioscia punching bag to clubhouse chapel and is overheard yelling at it after games.

Guillen flips out and confronts Robinson for removing punching bag without his knowledge. Robinson snaps and tells Guillen that, if he doesn't shut up, he'll suspend him. Guillen responds with, "Old man, I've been suspended by PLAYOFF teams so you can't tell me what to do!!!"

Nick Johnson and Brad Wilkerson attempt to intervene, but Guillen pulls a switchblade on them and tells them to back off. When asked what they've ever done to Guillen to make him behave this way, Jose calls them both pansies for taking too many walks and demands they stop doing it because it insults his "game".

When Johnson asks Jose what the heck he's talking about, Guillen pulls out a five-page letter from his back pocket and tells Johnson that someone sent him something called KRISP that proves their walks are soft and that they are unmanly. When asked about the lipstick and perfume on the letter, Guillen mutters something and turns to walk away, but forgets that he already had an altercation going with Robinson.

Robinson, having now completely lost it, summarily crunches Guillen flush with a metal stool he pulled from the trainers room while Guillen was distracted. Unfortunately, the chair loses the battle as Robinson strikes Guillen in the only place he cannot do any more damage- Guillen's head.

Guillen, more shocked than dazed, bursts into tears and screams, "I'm telling DAD!!!!" before running out of the room.

Bowden starts feeling like his leather pants are riding up in the nether regions.

When that clubhouse finally blows up, folks, it's going to be a sight to behold.

[M2]

Stupid pythagorean theorem, always identifying teams likely to regress to the norm.

[OnBaseMachine]

Update time:

Nationals are 3-10 since the All-Star break, and trail 4-1 in the 5th inning today. A loss today drops them three behind Atlanta and into a possible tie in the wildcard.

I guess "Raisor's Pyth Thm" isn't so stupid afterall? Someone owes Raisor an apology...

[OldRightHander]

I guess "Raisor's Pyth Thm" isn't so stupid afterall? Someone owes Raisor an apology...

Don't hold your breath.

[pedro]

Damn math.

[flyer85]

The Gnats are finished. The smoke and mirrors was only going to last so long and the regression to the mean has come hard and fast.

How soon people forgot the lesson of the 2004 Reds and their flirtation with 1st place well into June. Somehow I don't think BF will take the opportunity to stop by and dine on some crow.

[deltachi8]

This will be a funny thread when it is brought back up in about a month.

looks like it didnt take a month to be funny...

[MWM]

This thread is a classic and belongs in the archives.

[Jpup]

The Gnats are finished. The smoke and mirrors was only going to last so long and the regression to the mean has come hard and fast.

How soon people forgot the lesson of the 2004 Reds and their flirtation with 1st place well into June. Somehow I don't think BF will take the opportunity to stop by and dine on some crow.

http://www.republicanvoices.org/eating_crow.jpg

[traderumor]

Maybe Bowden is on a quest to beat Pythag. He's baseball's Smeagols.

Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy. The Pythag is a cruel taskmaster with many challengers and so few have overcome it. How dare you think you could overcome it with Guzman, Castilla, and Loaiza. Even an impressive home field advantage cannot overcome The Formula. Your demise was inevitable.

[ochre]

Heard them waxxing about the Nats misfortune of late in one run games. Who was it that said, over time teams tend to be ~.500 in one run games whether the team is good, or bad?

[RosieRed]

Who was it that said, over time teams tend to be ~.500 in one run games whether the team is good, or bad?

Had to be Raisor. Since it's his pyth thm and all.