On Apr 22, 9:52 pm, "K2" <K2Pad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Winn" <marty.w...@[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.
I like the water analogy. I think these analogies need to be tested
on the uninitiated to see which ones are most effective. I'm already
sold so I'm not a good guinea pig.
I had this conversation with my wife who is no stats geek but has
watched much baseball with me over the last 14 years and heard my
sabrmetric preaching. She says she understands it (run environments),
it's not that difficult, she can't understand why others don't easily
understand.
Baseball is sort of unique in that each ballpark is different. Does
elevation effect scoring in football, hockey, and basketball? I've
heard that you can kick longer FGs in Denver than elsewhere. I
remember the Nuggets used to score tons of points but I thought it was
more the style of play than elevation. I remember that some
discounted Bob Beamons 1968 Mexico City olympic long jump record
because it was assisted by high elevation. I know all the best
distance runners are from high elevation countries because the air is
thinner and their lungs get stronger. Some running world records are
thrown out because they are wind aided. Do other sports have to make
adjustments to their scores or records because of playing conditions?
I've never heard anyone argue that you ought to have to get 11 yards
to get a first down in Denver. Or that John Elways lifetime TDs and
yards ought to have a 5% damper placed on them because of playing
conditions. I know rule changes have effected say total scoring in
basketball, football, and hockey. I admit that it stinks that you
really can't cleanly compare Honus Wagner's stats to A-Rod's stats.
Being a Maddux fan (believe it or not) I wish people would realize
that Bob Gibson's 1968 while a wonderful season was done in the
perfect environment for ERA totals. I'd like a chance to set the all
time golf drive record but I get to do it on the moon.
Shining the Light,
Marty Winn
I think that people actively don't want to understand.
|
