K2 wrote:
> "Winn" <marty.winn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
news:2f94e422-ac5c-4fd5-b6f4-fd2d3c1fbcc5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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.
>>>
>>>> ****ning 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 s****ts 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.
>>
>> ****ning the Light,
>> Marty Winn
>>
>> I think that people actively don't want to understand.
>
> Gibson's amazing '68 season was perhaps the straw that broke the
> camel's back, as baseball immediately made an effort to goose
> scoring, lowering the pitcher's mound, and the umpires started
> ****fting the strike zone, taking away the high strike (remember when
> the strike zone was defined as extending to the armpits?). And oh
> yeah... the introduction of the DH... Given the heavy bias towards
> offense in the contem****ary game, methinks they may have overdid it.
>
> Local effects like the thin air of Denver (and to a slightly lesser
> degree Arizona) can work both ways, making balls travel farther
> (batted balls, kicked footballs) but also causing fatigue (making the
> Nuggets' achievement more impressive, IMO, because the thin air tends
> to cause fatigue quicker in a fast-paced, high-intensity s****t like
> NBA basketball... if anything, it speaks to the quality depth of
> their bench)
> Altitude was also an oft-cited factor in Beamon's amazing long jump.
> The dominance of Africans (primarily Kenyans and Ethiopians) in
> distance running is probably less because of "stronger lungs" but
> rather because their blood cells and respiratory systems had become
> accustomed to lower oxygen levels and worked harder to extract the
> oxygen. At sea level, it was like bolting on a turbocharger and the
> oxygen boost provided more stamina. As a result, nearly all endurance
> athletes now do considerable altitude training to take advantage of
> the effect.
Not really an analogy, but the St. Louis Cards of the mid-to-late-80s were
a
great example of a team that was built to get the most from their park
with
a lot of fast, base-stealing, singles hitters who could play good defense
in
a large stadium. Of course, they did have Jack the Ripper too.
When the Pads first moved into Petco, I expected them to follow that old
Cards template, but it hasn't worked out that way.
Go Pads !
|
