A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I didn't say TX pitching was better than CA's.
    I said Boston's pitching was.

    I mentioned that TX may have the most under-rated staff.
    Venue definitely plays into the numbers... for each staff.
    Personally, I'd rather Boston play CA than Texas. I'd be surprised to see CA in the PO's.

    Rays aren't going away.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Yes, but you also said LAA's staff was vastly over-rated due to the park they play in. As you know it is possible that a staff is still great even though they play in a pitcher's park.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Call me crazy but I think Wakefield will get at least one more start this year. I don't think he's done.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Yes, but you also said LAA's staff was vastly over-rated due to the park they play in. As you know it is possible that a staff is still great even though they play in a pitcher's park.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Of course a staff can excel, regardless of venue, if the skill-set is there. That's why I said Tampa isn't going away. They are not only a dangerous spoiler, they are keeping the top dogs honest.
    The talent level is measured by using H/A splits as a frame of reference. That way, all applicable venues are included.

    The Angel's staff is compromised when in top hitting venues. If they were "great", this wouldn't be the case. That's why I said they're over-rated, in the context of isolating their numbers, much of which are the product of pitcher parks.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    You say Texas' staff is under-rated. You say LAA's staff is over-rated. Boh based on venue adjusting. Texas has scored a ton of more runs than LAA and yet LAA is right on the door step. How do you explain it? 

    Usually run differential is a major factor in determining wins, but when a team bucks the trend, it is almost always a team with a great pitching staff.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Run differential can be skewed by a few games, like NY's against the A's the other day. A starter taking lumps for the team inflates RA.
    I think using hitting/pitching H/A is more accurate.

    I say the Angels pitching is over-rated. I'm not saying it isn't good. It's just not as good as people think it is. But their hitting is under-rated. Both are reflective of venue.

    The Angels have a 3.09 Team ERA in CA. 1.222 WHIP  .673 OPP OPS
    Their hitters have a .686 OPS at home. Their home record is 38-28.
    The differential in OPS doesn't equate to this W/L record, which may indicate
    a lower home W/L ratio by year's end.

    The Angels have a 3.95 staff ERA on the road. 1.307 WHIP  7.23 OPP OPS.
    Their hitters have a .731 OPS on the road. Their road record is 34-33, which chimes with the OPS differential. That tells me their road record is likely to continue in the same fashion.

    TX has a 4.58 ERA at home. 1.359 WHIP  .760 OPP OPS.
    Their hitters have an .840 OPS at home. The team is 42-27 at home.
    The differential is pretty accurate.

    TX has a 3.19 ERA on the road. 1.195 WHIP  .665 OPP OPS. That's a hell of a difference from their home numbers. But their hitters only have a .713 OPS on the road. The Angels actually out hit TX (using this criteria) on the road! Now, who'd think the Angels hitters would out-produce TX hitters? It goes to show how much home venue favors TX offense...and compromises their pitching.

    TX has a 34-32 road record. The OPS disparity tells me they may end up playing better on the road by year's end.

    In a big series just completed, TX took 2 of 3 from CA in TX. The Angels hit better than they'd hit at home, but the big three of Haren/Santana/Weaver again got clocked in the hitting venue. They gave up 17 ER in 17+ IP.

    TX has now won 9 of the 16 meetings and has a 3 game lead.
    Why are the Angels only 3 back? Because TX is playing .563 ball. If they played in the A.L. East, they'd be 7 games in back of Boston.
    The Angels are playing .541 ball, which places them behind both the Tigers and the Rays.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Good response and data, harness. I do agree that home venue plays a huge role in the numbers and ultimately the W-L records. I would like to point out that Texas' road 3.19 ERA is deflated due to playing many road games in Oakland, LAA, and Seattle, so adjustments should be made there as well.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    The Sox are in a position to put a serious hurt out the Yanks this week. Beckett and Lester pitching in this series and the Yanks have 2 more games to play before year end while having to play 2 yesterday. Can Lackey beat Sabathia? He will certainly start to endear himself a lot more with RS fans if he can.

    Burnett is pitching in one of these games. This is a series we should win but will we? For the first time in many years we seem to be putting more into the series match ups with these guys, lining up the staffs more. The Yanks have always done that with us. It's about time we focused more on these series as they are crucial to winning the division.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    If we are excited enough to put Aviles in the OF, I would probably even consider putting Lavarnway in LF ( in Fenway only ) but they should have put Lavarnway out there in the minors if they were even considering it. It's not going to happen but it would be great to get his bat in the lineup.

    Papi sure has been hot lately huh! I think Lavarnway has gotten his attention!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Yes, Boomer, why move Wakefield up a day? What better way to get win 200 but by showing confidence in Wakefield and letting him pitch in a big game. Really cheap and a no confidence vote to try and line up A's. Didnt work, they pounded Timmy.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]The Sox are in a position to put a serious hurt out the Yanks this week. Beckett and Lester pitching in this series and the Yanks have 2 more games to play before year end while having to play 2 yesterday. Can Lackey beat Sabathia? He will certainly start to endear himself a lot more with RS fans if he can. Burnett is pitching in one of these games. This is a series we should win but will we? For the first time in many years we seem to be putting more into the series match ups with these guys, lining up the staffs more. The Yanks have always done that with us. It's about time we focused more on these series as they are crucial to winning the division.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    The last 28 day numbers (not counting today's games)

                  GS  W-L  ERA  WHIP
    Boston:
    Miller     3   2-0   2.66  1.377
    Lester   4    2-2  3.08  1.253  (6 IP  1 ER & win Sat)
    Beckett 5   2-1   3.60  1.200
    Bedard  4   0-2   4.09  1.318 (4 IP  0 ER & ND Sat)
    Wake     5   0-2   5.23  1.452
    Lackey  5   3-1   5.34  1.469

    New York:
    Garcia   2  1-0   2.45   1.364
    Nova     4   4-0   3.81  1.154 (Not including 7IP  7H  3 ER Sunday)
    Hughes 4  3-1   3.97  1.015  (Not including tonights game vs the O's)
    Sabath  5  2-2   4.95  1.349
    Colon    4   0-2   5.73  1.409  (Not counting 7.2 IP  7H  2 ER Sunday)
    Burnett 5  1-2  11.91  2.338

    The Yanks will have played 3 games in 2 days before playing us. We will have had 2 days off. Our pen should be well rested.


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Good response and data, harness. I do agree that home venue plays a huge role in the numbers and ultimately the W-L records. Iwould like to point out that Texas' road 3.19 ERA is deflated due to playing many road games in Oakland, LAA, and Seattle, so adjustments should be made there as well.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Good point. And it holds true for CA as well, so their road ERA of near 4 should also be adjusted higher since they play in Oakland/Seattle as well.
    I don't think TX road ERA is indicative of it's truer number. I also don't think their home ERA of 4.58 is either, and I expect it to go down as the climate in TX changes in the fall.

    From the data presented, it looks to me like the Angels might not sustain their home record, while Texas could improve on their road numbers. That means CA will not likely lessen the 3-game difference by year's end. Better chance TX will expand on it.

    We'll see.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    There's another factor at work with the run differential issue: if you have these two teams over a full season:

    Team A: scores 550 runs and lets up 550 runs.
    Team B: scores 350 runs and lets up 350 runs.

    What team is more likely to win more games?

    I think it is Team B, since the majority of their games are closer. I'm not sure if the data backs me up, but it's a gut feeling I have.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]There's another factor at work with the run differential issue: if you have these two teams over a full season: Team A: scores 550 runs and lets up 550 runs. Team B: scores 350 runs and lets up 350 runs. What team is more likely to win more games? I think it is Team B, since the majority of their games are closer. I'm not sure if the data backs me up, but it's a gut feeling I have.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I think it could go either way, Moon. That's why I don't like to use run differential as a lone source. One or two lopsided games skews the canvas.

    On a side note to all those who post on this thread:
    There's a thread currently running called: Then and now.

    IMO, it is this year's top thread. Any baseball fan will consume the data and the high level of interaction.
    It covers a great many issues about the game's history
    and some common misconceptions.

    The quality of this impressive achievement is what this forum should strive to deliver.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Time and time again, the teams that have low differentials but are still in the race, are the ones that have great pitching or low ERAs.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I'll buy that, Moon. I just haven't looked into it.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    BTW: I agree with Boom in that we haven't seen the last of Wake as a starter.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    harness, I have mentioned this before, but wanted to restate it differently. I certainly agree that park venue has a big role in determining a player's career stats. I know guys like Boggs, Fisk and Youk have been helped a ton by Fenway. However, some players may play better "at home" no matter where home may be (except maybe places like SD and Oak). Home field is hude in every sport, even those sports without different field dimensions. It's hard to quanitify how much of the Fenway differential was actually dimension, green backdrop, and not just good ole home cookin'. My guess is, the park dimensions played the major role, but with individual players, it is hard to know by how much.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I remember guys like Rico Petrocelli and Yaz really worked to maximize the opportunities given to them in Fenway. A lot of guys don't seem to ever be able to do that. For example Drew was supposed to be able to use the wall but never really maximized that. Crawford is supposed to be working on that now. Some guys just never seem to be able to use the park to their advantage.

    Rico could! 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Another factor has to be considered: playing in fenway may alter a players approach and "swing". Thinking "go the other way" might mess with their normal thought process rendering them less capable of producing. Also, that Fenway mindset and "adjustment" to their swing could transfer to away games and hurt their away numbers, since it was hard for them to "change back" quickly. It's easier for a pitcher to get a guy out of he knows he trying to pull the ball (RHB in Fenway) of go the other way (LHB in Fenway) all the time.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I'm about ten pages behind as we just got power back after Irene hit this weekend. Since this is also the Jimmy Fund telethon day I wanted to put in my personal pitch to some of you who want to support the Jimmy Fund and support me. I will walk the 26.2 mile Boston Marathon course on September 18th and you can donate to the Jimmy Fund through the link below. This is my sixth year doing this and I am very passionate about this cause. Please help if you can, JidgeF.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Moon, a little off topic but in ST we were discussing possible veteran additions and you liked Berkman whom I think is with St. Louis, I believe I just heard they might be trading him as I watch the Sox, and I mentioned Eric Chavez who the Yanks picked up.  Any idea how they've done this year?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I'm not bragging about liking Berkman as our LF'er this year over CC, since I also mentioned Ordonez and Dunn as other options.

    Once I saw what Dunn got, I was shocked. I will say that $20M/2 year deal the Nats got him for was a steal even with his God-awful defense.

    Here are some of the numbers of names I threw out there. All were cheaper than CC, but more importantly, all were much shorter term.

    Mags  .230/.282/.298/.580 (308 PAs) Uggggggggleeeeee! ($10M/1yr)
    Dunn  .163/.290/.289/.578 (435 PAs) Uggglier  ($56M/4)
    Werth .231/.330/.389/.718 (546 PAs) at $122/7 and older than CC.

    Berkman .289/.405/.570/.975 (474) Lead the NL OPS+ at 170. ($8M/1)
    Chavez   .264/.328/.358/.686 (116) for $1.5M
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    did you hear moon, Wakefield is now getting "respect" from the Sox....the minds of the Pink Hatters out there. It's really getting warped. They absolutely had no idea that Wakefield was throwing well for a good stretch, the fans. And they couldn't figure out that Tito was just waiting for that next bad start...how long will he wait on John Lackey throwing a good start before he is moved out of the rotation as well.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    We saw it coming, danny.

    The guy had 4 straight starts with
    28.2 IP  (7.1 IP per start)
    13 ER  (4.08 ERA)
    25 Hits and 5 BB (1.046 WHIP)

    before his last 2 starts:
    9.1 IP   8 ER    19 H+BB

    Bam!

    You're outta here!
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share