On Apr 22, 12:23 pm, Seapig <sea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 7:58 am, Winn <marty.w...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 1:34 am, "Swillabrew" <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > Winn wrote:
> > > > On Apr 18, 11:12 pm, Chris <> wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:07:03 -0700 (PDT), Padredog
>
> > > >> <padredo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > >>> ...6-0 D-backs in the 1st. Maddox is 2-10 lifetime against
them.
>
> > > >> No worries, we have two hits through 5 1/3.
>
> > > > Who was worse the offense or the defense? I say the blame is
> > > > basically equal in this game. The expectation/average performance
is
> > > > about 4.5 runs (except Petco where it might be 4.0). So the
offense
> > > > scored 4.5 fewer runs than expected and the defense (mostly
Maddux)
> > > > gave up 4.5 runs more than expected.
>
> > > Maddux got shelled, but it's pretty hard to win when you fail to
score any
> > > runs. I'm not sure where you got your expectation/average
performance
> > > numbers, but through 17 games the team has scored 50 runs, which
works out
> > > to just under 3 per game. We need a big bat in the heart of our
lineup or
> > > we might as well give up now.
>
> > > Go Pads !
>
> > In 2007 there were 12388 runs scored against NL clubs in 2594 team
> > games. That comes to 4.78 runs/game. They scored 12208 in the same
> > games =4.71. Remember that interleague messes with the evenness of
> > these numbers. Also in a small number of these games a DH was used so
> > maybe 4.7 is a good number to use instead of the 4.5 I quoted.
>
> > Lets look at the Padres. In 2007 games at Petco the Pads scored 323
> > and gave up 278 =601 runs/162 team games = 3.71 runs/team/game. On
> > the road they scored 418 and gave up 388 = 806/164 team games
> > (remember extra game in Colorado) = 4.91 run/game. Padres averaged
> > 5.10/game on road, opponent averaged 4.73/game.
>
> > Let's look at totals. Padres scored 741/163 games =4.54 game.
> > Opponents scored 666/163 games = 4.09 game. Both teams together
> > scored 1407/326 games = 4.32 runs/game.
>
> > What does all of this mean. 2008 is a pretty small sample size so
> > far. In 2007 you could expect a team in a Padres game to score 3.71
> > runs/game at Petco and 4.91 on the road. That's means that offense is
> > suppressed 24% at Petco. 1.2 runs/team/game. I'd prefer to use
> > multiple years worth of numbers and that's why you have park factors.
> > Note that in road Padres games the teams averaged 4.91 runs. In all
> > NL games the average was 4.75. Padres games are higher scoring than
> > average. The Padres scored 5.10 runs/game on the road, higher than
> > the 4.71 NL average. This means good, not great offense. Padres gave
> > up 4.73 runs/game on the road just slightly better than the 4.78
> > average.
>
> > To sum up in a non Petco environment the offense was better than
> > average by a much wider margin than the pitching was better than
> > average.
>
> > To sum up the other point. Average runs you should expect an average
> > team to score at Petco is about 3.7, elsewhere it is about 4.7. When
> > you look at who is to blame/deserves credit between offense and
> > defense look at how far they deviate from these numbers. When Maddux
> > started and lost 9-0 the defense gave up 4.3 more runs than expect
> > (really closer to 4.0 since Phoenix is high offense environment) and
> > the offense scored 4.7 (really about 5.0) runs fewer than should have
> > been expected. So the offense was more to blame than the defense.
>
> > As to this years small sample size the average score at home is 3.1 to
> > 3.5 (expect 3.7). On the road it is 3.4 to 5.7 (expect 4.7). So
> > park adjusted the offense is 19 runs worse than average and the
> > defense is 8 runs worse than average. So far this year the offense
> > has been the weak link.
>
> > Sorry for how dense this is, hope someone could follow it. I did this
> > for my sake as much as yours.
>
> Thanks. I think you explained that about as well as it could be
> explained.
>
> I wish it wasn't quite so complicated. When I try to tell people that
> the Pads' offense was actually better than their pitching last season,
> they look at me like I'm crazy. Launching into an explanation, along
> the lines of what you wrote above, doesn't really help matters, and
> doesn't make for very exciting conversation at parties. So now,
> whenever I run into somebody complaining about the Padres' offense, I
> try to change the subject to politics or religion, something less
> likely to get me into an argument.
I know, It's dense and really how can you expect a casual fan to
understand this. If people could just understand the need to adjust
for run environments you'd be almost all the way there. AL scores
higher because of DH. High mounds of the late 60s deflated offense,
juiced ball/players, smaller parks inflated offense recently. Hi
elevation Coors inflated offense, Petco deflates. There really ought
to be some good analogy for this that makes it all clear. Maybe
inflation. My first house costed 10 times as much as my Dad's first
house but not because it was 10 times nicer. The value of money
changed, likewise the value of runs changed. That's not quite working
either. There has got to be something that is obvious to the layman
about how you make adjustments in everyday life. How much an
apartment costs in NYC vs Wyoming, how long it takes to drive 5 miles
in downtown vs the county, etc.
****ning the Light,
Marty Winn
|
