Chances Reds finish positive in Run Differential?

[Sea Ray]

As the yr has progressed the Reds record has changed very little. They've been about 10 games sub .500 since the 1-8 start. In May their Pythag showed a sizable positive run differential. Since then the record hasn't changed much but the run differential has greatly decreased. In the example of this yr's Cincinnati Reds, the run differential has adjusted to the record and not vise versa

[redswin]

+10

[PuffyPig]

As the yr has progressed the Reds record has changed very little. They've been about 10 games sub .500 since the 1-8 start. In May their Pythag showed a sizable positive run differential. Since then the record hasn't changed much but the run differential has greatly decreased. In the example of this yr's Cincinnati Reds, the run differential has adjusted to the record and not vise versa

Yet it hasn't. The Reds are still +10 but 10 games under .500.

Since that 1-8 start, the Reds are 3 games below .500 with a +23 run differential.

[Sea Ray]

Yet it hasn't. The Reds are still +10 but 10 games under .500.

Since that 1-8 start, the Reds are 3 games below .500 with a +23 run differential.

At the end of May the Reds were 3 games under .500 and their Pythag was nearly +40. Since then their Pythag is sub .500 as is their record. So what was more predictive after 2 mos? The positive Pythag or the sub .500 record? In other words the fan that said at that time that their Pythag would adjust to their record would have been proven correct rather than vise versa.

If you are a true believer in Pythag then we're still in bigtime trouble 'cause that means the team is getting worse rather than better.

[PuffyPig]

At the end of May the Reds were 3 games under .500 and their Pythag was nearly +40. Since then their Pythag is sub .500 as is their record. So what was more predictive after 2 mos? The positive Pythag or the sub .500 record? In other words the fan that said at that time that their Pythag would adjust to their record would have been proven correct rather than vise versa.

If you are a true believer in Pythag then we're still in bigtime trouble 'cause that means the team is getting worse rather than better.

You just can't dismiss large parts of the season to fit your narrative. Phythag is more accurate over larger sample sizes, but you seem bent on shortening the sample size.

[Sea Ray]

You just can't dismiss large parts of the season to fit your narrative. Phythag is more accurate over larger sample sizes, but you seem bent on shortening the sample size.

Nothing is a smaller sample size than your example of our run differential after a 1-8 start. Mine is much more scientifically sound as I compared two months to 3.5 mos. I didn't dismiss any part of the season. It was all included

As I understand it, the Pythag folks here are saying that this stat is predicative of future records. I'm saying that it was not predicative after two months

[PuffyPig]

Nothing is a smaller sample size than your example of our run differential after a 1-8 start. Mine is much more scientifically sound as I compared two months to 3.5 mos. I didn't dismiss any part of the season. It was all included

As I understand it, the Pythag folks here are saying that this stat is predicative of future records. I'm saying that it was not predicative after two months

Nice try, you were the one who brought up the 1-8 start.

[JFLegal]

the reds have been very unlucky this year. doesn't every sabermetrician agree that over the course of 162 games, run differential is a pertinent statistic? and doesn't every sabermetrician agree there is a high degree of luck in winning/losing one-run games?

i feel like people are just arguing against the math here because it's been an extremely frustrating (and unlucky) season.

[Sea Ray]

Nice try, you were the one who brought up the 1-8 start.

What's your bottom line/point here with regard to Pythag, the Reds and run differential? I honestly don't know.

We all know that in general teams that score more than their opponents, do better than those that don't. That's obvious. In general it's better to have an .800 OPS than a .700 OPS.

[Sea Ray]

the reds have been very unlucky this year. doesn't every sabermetrician agree that over the course of 162 games, run differential is a pertinent statistic? and doesn't every sabermetrician agree there is a high degree of luck in winning/losing one-run games?

i feel like people are just arguing against the math here because it's been an extremely frustrating (and unlucky) season.

In order to buy that you'd have to buy the idea that they've been unlucky every month of the season. From April to Sept, each and every month they've played sub .500 ball except for May where they went a whopping 15-13. In other words they've been consistently sub .500 the entire yr.

I don't buy the luck argument. I think teams that lose close games generally have a bad bullpen and blow lots of saves/ties late. I think that's a bigger factor than luck.

[kaldaniels]

I keep seeing it said that due to roster turnover you can’t/shouldn’t use Pythag to project forward.

Ok. But doesn’t the exact same logic apply to W-L record?

[mbgrayson]

Going into tonight's game in Chicago, the Reds are +10.

I think the series against the Cubs may tell the tale. Hopefully the Reds fare better than the Pirates did this weekend....Cubs outscored the Rats 47-15 over three games...

[REDREAD]

the reds have been very unlucky this year. doesn't every sabermetrician agree that over the course of 162 games, run differential is a pertinent statistic? and doesn't every sabermetrician agree there is a high degree of luck in winning/losing one-run games?

i feel like people are just arguing against the math here because it's been an extremely frustrating (and unlucky) season.

I think it's a fair point to say, most of the year , the Reds had a positive run differential. I think it was in the 40's at one point.
However, I think this is what is being debated:

Was it an anomaly that the run differential was so high for a bad team, and the run differential should adjust to their true talent level (ie go down over the season)?

OR

Was the win-loss record the anomaly, and it should have gotten better as the season went on , to match the pythag record.. and since it didn't, it's not "bad luck"?

Each is a valid argument, and really not "arguing against the math".
Run differential is just one tool to evaluate a club, it is not perfect.

[redsrule2500]

I keep seeing it said that due to roster turnover you can’t/shouldn’t use Pythag to project forward.

Ok. But doesn’t the exact same logic apply to W-L record?

Yes, it does. W/L is less granular in nature than RS/RA and thus has LESS importance when evaluating a team than RS/RA.

[demas863]

+5 run differential and crappy in one-run and extra inning games. So what does that tell you?