Chances Reds finish positive in Run Differential?

[JFLegal]

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.

i hear you, but i do believe over this long of a season, when a team loses a bunch of one-run games, has a positive run differential, and is 10 games under .500 ... that team has been the victim of bad luck.

[redswin]

+4 uh oh

[Sea Ray]

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...

Tell the tale? What's the tale? The Reds are a bad team in 2019

- - - Updated - - -

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?

I can only speak for myself but I'm saying you shouldn't use Pythag to project forward in the Reds case at all. How are you using it to project forward?

[Sea Ray]

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.

Since their record has continued to dip further under .500 and their Pythag has continued to decline as well, isn't that evidence which points to your option one listed above?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

What does this mean? In your mind they're a .500 team?

[Sea Ray]

i hear you, but i do believe over this long of a season, when a team loses a bunch of one-run games, has a positive run differential, and is 10 games under .500 ... that team has been the victim of bad luck.

That means that what happens in the last two weeks changes the narrative on the first 24 weeks. Either they had bad luck or they didn't but if they fall below .500 in Pythag (they're only +4 in rs-ra now) then they didn't have bad luck...they're just bad. This is where stat loving gets crazy. Us fans who have watched them for 24 weeks knows what they are. They're a 10 game sub .500 team due to poor/streaky hitting and poor/streaky bullpen. What happens against the Cubs this week won't change that

[REDREAD]

i hear you, but i do believe over this long of a season, when a team loses a bunch of one-run games, has a positive run differential, and is 10 games under .500 ... that team has been the victim of bad luck.

And I hear your point too.
But the bad bullpen has been responsible for a lot of those 1 run losses, not bad luck.

If Inglesis gives up a lead in the bottom of the ninth, for example, the game is over, they don't give the opposing team the rest of their outs for the sake of run differential.
I think with a better bullpen, the Reds probably would have won 6 more games, maybe more..

[JFLegal]

That means that what happens in the last two weeks changes the narrative on the first 24 weeks. Either they had bad luck or they didn't but if they fall below .500 in Pythag (they're only +4 in rs-ra now) then they didn't have bad luck...they're just bad. This is where stat loving gets crazy. Us fans who have watched them for 24 weeks knows what they are. They're a 10 game sub .500 team due to poor/streaky hitting and poor/streaky bullpen. What happens against the Cubs this week won't change that

that is a big assumption that the final 2 weeks will change the narrative. what if the reds break even over the final 2 weeks (or roughly break even) both in terms of wins/losses and run differential?

either way, it won't change the fact that for the vast majority of the season, the reds had a positive run differential, lost a lot more 1-run games than they won, floated around 8-10 games under .500 all year ... and any sabermatrican would agree that all adds up to bad luck over such a long season. to what degree? i don't know, but imo, it's clear that the reds have been the victim of bad luck to a relatively large degree this year.

[Sea Ray]

that is a big assumption that the final 2 weeks will change the narrative. what if the reds break even over the final 2 weeks (or roughly break even) both in terms of wins/losses and run differential?

either way, it won't change the fact that for the vast majority of the season, the reds had a positive run differential, lost a lot more 1-run games than they won, floated around 8-10 games under .500 all year ... and any sabermatrican would agree that all adds up to bad luck over such a long season. to what degree? i don't know, but imo, it's clear that the reds have been the victim of bad luck to a relatively large degree this year.

No assumption...just a what if. If they've floated around 8-10 games sub .500 all year then I'd say that they are what their record says it is. It's not bad luck unless you think R Iggy giving up runs late is bad luck rather than bad pitching

[Kinsm]

that is a big assumption that the final 2 weeks will change the narrative. what if the reds break even over the final 2 weeks (or roughly break even) both in terms of wins/losses and run differential?

either way, it won't change the fact that for the vast majority of the season, the reds had a positive run differential, lost a lot more 1-run games than they won, floated around 8-10 games under .500 all year ... and any sabermatrican would agree that all adds up to bad luck over such a long season. to what degree? i don't know, but imo, it's clear that the reds have been the victim of bad luck to a relatively large degree this year.

The Reds were 38-43 in the 1st half of the season, they outscored their opponents by 39 runs during that span (PYTHAG of 45-36).

The Reds are 32-38 (with 11 to go) in the 2nd half of the season, over that span they've been outscored by 35 runs (PYTHAG of 31-39).

If PYTHAG is truly reflective of luck, then the Reds were only unlucky in the first half.

I personally don't buy that argument however, since in 8 of their first half games they managed to outscore their opponents by 7 to 14 runs a piece - a combined 70 runs and avoided any major blowouts of their own (that in itself is more luck than anything - the 2nd half is by and large void of those kind of games).

Their one run win/loss record is more indicative of their piss poor offense and Iglesias woes rather than bad luck IMHO, poorly constructed teams have bad 1 run W/L ratios.

If anything I think you could say the club was lucky they had so many blowouts in the 1st half, and perhaps unlucky they were blownout so much in the 2nd half.

[redsrule2500]

Their one run win/loss record is more indicative of their piss poor offense and Iglesias woes rather than bad luck IMHO, poorly constructed teams have bad 1 run W/L ratios.

You're right, poorly constructed teams have bad 1-run W/L, just like they have bad 2-run W/L. This team has worse than expected 1-run W/L, when compared to their record and RS/RA, indicating that they had bad luck.

If we could run the 2019 MLB season simulation 1,000 times, I'm betting the Reds would average 82 wins.

[JFLegal]

The Reds were 38-43 in the 1st half of the season, they outscored their opponents by 39 runs during that span (PYTHAG of 45-36).

The Reds are 32-38 (with 11 to go) in the 2nd half of the season, over that span they've been outscored by 35 runs (PYTHAG of 31-39).

If PYTHAG is truly reflective of luck, then the Reds were only unlucky in the first half.

I personally don't buy that argument however, since in 8 of their first half games they managed to outscore their opponents by 7 to 14 runs a piece - a combined 70 runs and avoided any major blowouts of their own (that in itself is more luck than anything - the 2nd half is by and large void of those kind of games).

Their one run win/loss record is more indicative of their piss poor offense and Iglesias woes rather than bad luck IMHO, poorly constructed teams have bad 1 run W/L ratios.

If anything I think you could say the club was lucky they had so many blowouts in the 1st half, and perhaps unlucky they were blownout so much in the 2nd half.

PYTHAG is based on math. i do not argue against math.

[redswin]

+7!

[Kinsm]

0

[redswin]

Not a great game last night.

[mbgrayson]

Currently run differential is -2 after today's loss.