"Winn" <marty.winn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:57b7dace-d7ec-4714-9989-27fb1d0bd425@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
> Shining the Light,
> Marty Winn
Nice job on the stats! A few of us have been trying to get that point
across
for a while. It's a tough sell.
How about this as an analogy:
Running in water as opposed to running on land.
I can run the 100 meters faster on land than an Olympic champion can run
it
in water. It's an extreme case, but a good illustration of how the venue
can
disguise relative ability.
|
