AL ERA standings

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

    AL ERA standings

    (Dedicated to PG)

    1. KC 3.60

    2. Texas 3.68

    3. Oakland 3.80

    4. Detroit 3.84

    5. NY 3.86

    6. Boston 3.88

    League average 4.08

    Park-adjusted ERA+

    1. Texas 119

    2. KC 114

    T3. Detroit 112

    T3. Boston 112

    5. Chicago 110

    6. NY 107

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    Last. Time I checked RS SP was #1in ERA 3.76 AL and RP was around #12 at 4.13

    which is a 6th overall 

    As a whole pretty DAMN good 

     

     

     

     

     

    Love the Red Sox, Bs, Cs, Pats and enjoy the ride every year.

     

     

     

     

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    Our starting pitching hasnt been the issue. Moreso the bullpen, and for good reason.  Our starters have had some issues, like every other team, but overall has been good compared to the other AL teams.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tomnev. Show tomnev's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings


    For me, Bullpen ERA is a much less important STAT than Starter ERA....Bullpen runs are given up in so many ways that sometimes make no difference......We have left dead arms out there is games we are getting blown out to "take one for the team"....and they give up runs. Our Offense has been one of the best at scoring early.....so we frequently bring guys in from the Pen with 4 or more run leads and those guys are more likely t give up a run or two since the last thing they want to do is nibble around the plate and walk guys. The fact that our Starter's ERA is good is impressive....with the BP, I would judge them more on Blown Save Opportunities and Inherited runners......all in all , we should be very happy what we are getting from our pitching

     

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

    Re: AL ERA standings

    AL Pitching:

    WAR: Det, TX, CWS, NYY, BOS, Oak, TBR, KCR, LAA, SEA, MN, TOR, BAL, CLE, HOU

    WHIP: Oak (1.20), Det, TBR, TX, Sea, NYY, CWS, KC, Bal, #10 Bos (1.34)

    xFIP: Det (3.29), Sea, NYY, TBR, TX, Bos (3.85)

    ERA: KC, TX, Oak, DET, NYY, BOS (3.88), CWS, TBR

     

    Starters:

    WAR: Det (13.6), TX (9.9), NYY (8.1), Bos (8.0), CWS, Oak, 8th TBR, 14 Bal, 15 Tor

    WHIP: Det (1.20), Oak, CWS, Sea, NYY, TX, TB, Bos (1.34)

    xFIP: Det (3.11), Tx, Sea, TBR, Bos (3.87), 8th NYY, 13th Bal, 15th Tor.

    ERA: BOS (3.76), Det, KCR, TX, CWS, Sea, Oak, NYY, TBR, 13th Bal, 14th Tor

     

    Relievers:

    WAR: CWS, TX, MN, Tor, NYY, Det, Oak, TBR, LAA, KC, 11 Bos, Bal, Sea, Cle, Hou

    WHIP: Tor, TBR, Oak, KC, MN, Bal, TX, NYY, LAA, Det, Cle, Sea, 13 Bos (1.39)

    xFIP: NYY, Sea, Det, TBR, Bos, Tor, KC, Bal

    ERA: Tor, KC, Oak, MN, TX, NYY, TB, Bal, LAA, Cle, Det, 12 Bos

    Sox4ever

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to tomnev's comment:


    For me, Bullpen ERA is a much less important STAT than Starter ERA....Bullpen runs are given up in so many ways that sometimes make no difference......We have left dead arms out there is games we are getting blown out to "take one for the team"....and they give up runs. Our Offense has been one of the best at scoring early.....so we frequently bring guys in from the Pen with 4 or more run leads and those guys are more likely t give up a run or two since the last thing they want to do is nibble around the plate and walk guys. The fact that our Starter's ERA is good is impressive....with the BP, I would judge them more on Blown Save Opportunities and Inherited runners......all in all , we should be very happy what we are getting from our pitching

     



    Also, the bullpen is much easier to fix, and to some extent it already has been, with Breslow replacing Mortensen and Hanrahan and Morales being addition by subtraction due to their injuries.  Besides all that, come the post-season, at least one of your starters goes to the pen, and in crucial games everybody is available.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    (Dedicated to PG)

    1. KC 3.60

    2. Texas 3.68

    3. Oakland 3.80

    4. Detroit 3.84

    5. NY 3.86

    6. Boston 3.88

    League average 4.08

    Park-adjusted ERA+

    1. Texas 119

    2. KC 114

    T3. Detroit 112

    T3. Boston 112

    5. Chicago 110

    6. NY 107

     



    The ERA+ numbers are especially encouraging. It is ERA+ that was used in the article I posted a long time ago about there being only three teams out of the last 100 with below average ERA+ winning a ring but 33 out of 100 with below average OPS+. If we can maintain this level of pitching, thats great. However:

    Sox ERA in April: 3.58

    In May: 4.00

    In June: 4.13

    So as you can see, our pitching was much better in April and has gone downhill since then. Unless they pick it up we will not end up with anything but average to below average pitching by the end of the year.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    Pumpsie, I'll try to keep this updated for you.  But in true Polly fashion, I'll probably be much better about updating it on the days we improve in the standings. Laughing 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    Well, using Pumsie's metrics, it looks like KC is going to the World Series.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    (Dedicated to PG)

    1. KC 3.60

    2. Texas 3.68

    3. Oakland 3.80

    4. Detroit 3.84

    5. NY 3.86

    6. Boston 3.88

    League average 4.08

    Park-adjusted ERA+

    1. Texas 119

    2. KC 114

    T3. Detroit 112

    T3. Boston 112

    5. Chicago 110

    6. NY 107

     



    Must be due to Saltalamaccia is having a great year behind the plate. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    I'm still trying to figure out how, if ERA is the only thing that matters, the Sox went from 15-15 in May to 17-11 in June.

     

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

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    (Dedicated to PG)

    1. KC 3.60

    2. Texas 3.68

    3. Oakland 3.80

    4. Detroit 3.84

    5. NY 3.86

    6. Boston 3.88

    League average 4.08

    Park-adjusted ERA+

    1. Texas 119

    2. KC 114

    T3. Detroit 112

    T3. Boston 112

    5. Chicago 110

    6. NY 107

     

     



    The ERA+ numbers are especially encouraging. It is ERA+ that was used in the article I posted a long time ago about there being only three teams out of the last 100 with below average ERA+ winning a ring but 33 out of 100 with below average OPS+. If we can maintain this level of pitching, thats great. However:

     

    Sox ERA in April: 3.58

    In May: 4.00

    In June: 4.13

    So as you can see, our pitching was much better in April and has gone downhill since then. Unless they pick it up we will not end up with anything but average to below average pitching by the end of the year.

    [/QUOTE]

    The ERA since the start of June is 3.92.  21 of the 31 games were against above-average hitting teams, and of the 10 below-average, 5 were against NL teams in an AL park, and I don't care to extrapolate.  The pitching has been outstanding since 6/1.

    I'm not even sure why you'd want to do the criticisms if you don't want to do the research.  The schedule included weaker opposition in April.  Most of the good ERA in April was because of 4-game series v Houston with a 2.50 ERA.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    (Dedicated to PG)

    1. KC 3.60

    2. Texas 3.68

    3. Oakland 3.80

    4. Detroit 3.84

    5. NY 3.86

    6. Boston 3.88

    League average 4.08

    Park-adjusted ERA+

    1. Texas 119

    2. KC 114

    T3. Detroit 112

    T3. Boston 112

    5. Chicago 110

    6. NY 107

     




    This is the stat I like Bob:

    http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/pitching/league/al/sort/savePct/type/expanded/order/true

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    (Dedicated to PG)

    1. KC 3.60

    2. Texas 3.68

    3. Oakland 3.80

    4. Detroit 3.84

    5. NY 3.86

    6. Boston 3.88

    League average 4.08

    Park-adjusted ERA+

    1. Texas 119

    2. KC 114

    T3. Detroit 112

    T3. Boston 112

    5. Chicago 110

    6. NY 107

     

     

     

     



    The ERA+ numbers are especially encouraging. It is ERA+ that was used in the article I posted a long time ago about there being only three teams out of the last 100 with below average ERA+ winning a ring but 33 out of 100 with below average OPS+. If we can maintain this level of pitching, thats great. However:

     

     

     

    Sox ERA in April: 3.58

    In May: 4.00

    In June: 4.13

    So as you can see, our pitching was much better in April and has gone downhill since then. Unless they pick it up we will not end up with anything but average to below average pitching by the end of the year.

     

     



    The ERA since the start of June is 3.92.  21 of the 31 games were against above-average hitting teams, and of the 10 below-average, 5 were against NL teams in an AL park, and I don't care to extrapolate.  The pitching has been outstanding since 6/1.

     

     

    I'm not even sure why you'd want to do the criticisms if you don't want to do the research.  The schedule included weaker opposition in April.  Most of the good ERA in April was because of 4-game series v Houston with a 2.50 ERA.

     



    That's the problem with his posts. He puts no context into any of it. When he started his rant on ERA, whining how the Sox were ranked seventh, he ignores how they Sox were closer to second or third than they were to eighth. He said the Sox are going to finish fourth (and win 78 games) despite the fact that the Yankees are the only AL East team that ranks higher in ERA than the Sox (barely).

     

    He moved the goal line to say he's interested in winning the W.S. so it doesn't matter about the other AL East teams, it's what the other top teams are doing. Yet he ignores Detroit's monthly ERA for April-May-June: 3.57-3.85-3.88; Texas's monthly ERA: 3.14-3.71-3.98 -- two teams that are supposed to be the best two teams in the AL yet their ERAs have been trending up too.

    His complaints about the pitching would be more compelling if he didn't have tunnel vision, looking at one stat w/o providing context and w/o looking at other teams.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    His complaints about the pitching would be more compelling if he didn't have tunnel vision, looking at one stat w/o providing context and w/o looking at other teams.

    It's a conclusion looking for facts.  That's probably more common these days than facts looking for a conclusion.  The idea is to first decide to post a criticism of the Red Sox, then look for facts to support it.  It is why Geo had that ridiculous criticism of Trey Ball being a worse outfielder than Gomes.  He didn't have the foggiest idea of who Trey Ball, but couldn't get past the need to be critical.

    Pumpsie is nowhere near as bad as Geo, but he does rely heavily on narrow samples or cut samples.

    If the Cardinals go out and win 30 in a row, I'd still be able to fill up an entire page of negative data.  With a million data points, finding a few negative ones is easy, and if I can dispense with context, it is simple.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    (Dedicated to PG)

    1. KC 3.60

    2. Texas 3.68

    3. Oakland 3.80

    4. Detroit 3.84

    5. NY 3.86

    6. Boston 3.88

    League average 4.08

    Park-adjusted ERA+

    1. Texas 119

    2. KC 114

    T3. Detroit 112

    T3. Boston 112

    5. Chicago 110

    6. NY 107

     

     

     



    The ERA+ numbers are especially encouraging. It is ERA+ that was used in the article I posted a long time ago about there being only three teams out of the last 100 with below average ERA+ winning a ring but 33 out of 100 with below average OPS+. If we can maintain this level of pitching, thats great. However:

     

     

    Sox ERA in April: 3.58

    In May: 4.00

    In June: 4.13

    So as you can see, our pitching was much better in April and has gone downhill since then. Unless they pick it up we will not end up with anything but average to below average pitching by the end of the year.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The ERA since the start of June is 3.92.  21 of the 31 games were against above-average hitting teams, and of the 10 below-average, 5 were against NL teams in an AL park, and I don't care to extrapolate.  The pitching has been outstanding since 6/1.

     

    I'm not even sure why you'd want to do the criticisms if you don't want to do the research.  The schedule included weaker opposition in April.  Most of the good ERA in April was because of 4-game series v Houston with a 2.50 ERA.

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm not even sure why you'd want to do the criticisms if you don't want to do the research.

    I am not sure why you keep having difficulty with the English language Joe. Your post is even more arrogant than your usual pontifications. What part of what I wrote is untrue? Maybe you could enlighten all of us. To help you out I will provide you with the link where you can find our June team ERA. Here it is...and be sure to let us all know which part of what I wrote is untrue:

    http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/pitching/split/42/league/al

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Pumpsie, I'll try to keep this updated for you.  But in true Polly fashion, I'll probably be much better about updating it on the days we improve in the standings. Laughing 




    Where do you get the current rankings for team by team ERA+? Is that from BR? If so, where?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    I am not sure why you keep having difficulty with the English language Joe. Your post is even more arrogant than your usual pontifications. What part of what I wrote is untrue? Maybe you could enlighten all of us. To help you out I will provide you with the link where you can find our June team ERA. Here it is...and be sure to let us all know which part of what I wrote is untrue:

    I am not sure why you keep having difficulty with the English language Pumpsie.  I never said it was untrue, though, if you see something in my post that mentions 'untrue', please feel free to point it out.

    What I did say, and will continue to say, is that your numbers are without context, with the belief that you'd prefer less context, if any at all, because it would not suit your previously formed opinion.

    Someone with an interest in meaningful data might be inclined to say

    Our ERA since 6/1 is 3.92, against teams that average 4.60 RPG.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Pumpsie, I'll try to keep this updated for you.  But in true Polly fashion, I'll probably be much better about updating it on the days we improve in the standings. Laughing 



    Where do you get the current rankings for team by team ERA+? Is that from BR? If so, where?

    [/QUOTE]

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2013-standard-pitching.shtml

    You click on the heading to sort of course.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    (Dedicated to PG)

    1. KC 3.60

    2. Texas 3.68

    3. Oakland 3.80

    4. Detroit 3.84

    5. NY 3.86

    6. Boston 3.88

    League average 4.08

    Park-adjusted ERA+

    1. Texas 119

    2. KC 114

    T3. Detroit 112

    T3. Boston 112

    5. Chicago 110

    6. NY 107

     

     




     

    This is the stat I like Bob:

    http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/pitching/league/al/sort/savePct/type/expanded/order/true

    [/QUOTE]

    That stat is meaningless, and has been since 1996.

    Maybe ask me next year.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    I am not sure why you keep having difficulty with the English language Joe. Your post is even more arrogant than your usual pontifications. What part of what I wrote is untrue? Maybe you could enlighten all of us. To help you out I will provide you with the link where you can find our June team ERA. Here it is...and be sure to let us all know which part of what I wrote is untrue:

    I am not sure why you keep having difficulty with the English language Pumpsie.  I never said it was untrue, though, if you see something in my post that mentions 'untrue', please feel free to point it out.

    What I did say, and will continue to say, is that your numbers are without context, with the belief that you'd prefer less context, if any at all, because it would not suit your previously formed opinion.

    Someone with an interest in meaningful data might be inclined to say

    Our ERA since 6/1 is 3.92, against teams that average 4.60 RPG.



    Your statement encouraging me to do my research (which, obviously, I already did) implies that a segment of what I wrote was not fully researched. All of it was. In your undying arrogance you keep assuming that only YOUR research is correct. Its not. There are more folks here, including me, that know baseball than just you. Its amazing that you cannot see how your writing style is arrogant.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

     

     

    Pumpsie, I'll try to keep this updated for you.  But in true Polly fashion, I'll probably be much better about updating it on the days we improve in the standings. Laughing 

     

     



    Where do you get the current rankings for team by team ERA+? Is that from BR? If so, where?

     

     

     



    http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2013-standard-pitching.shtml

     

     

    You click on the heading to sort of course.

     




    Thanks. I prefer to use ERA+ anyway but didn't know where to get it from. We are tied for second in ERA+, which is encouraging despite the team ERA for June.

    Other interesting data can be gleaned from that link too. We are dead last in BB/9IP but second in K's/9, putting us in the middle for K's/BB ratio. Also, our WHIP is 10th in the league. That and the BBs need to improve.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaffyDan. Show DaffyDan's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    I am not sure why you keep having difficulty with the English language Joe. Your post is even more arrogant than your usual pontifications. What part of what I wrote is untrue? Maybe you could enlighten all of us. To help you out I will provide you with the link where you can find our June team ERA. Here it is...and be sure to let us all know which part of what I wrote is untrue:

    I am not sure why you keep having difficulty with the English language Pumpsie.  I never said it was untrue, though, if you see something in my post that mentions 'untrue', please feel free to point it out.

    What I did say, and will continue to say, is that your numbers are without context, with the belief that you'd prefer less context, if any at all, because it would not suit your previously formed opinion.

    Someone with an interest in meaningful data might be inclined to say

    Our ERA since 6/1 is 3.92, against teams that average 4.60 RPG.




    It's real simple: Good pitching will beat good hitting, and vice versa.

    Now all you gotta do, is figure out which is happening when.


    -Daf.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: AL ERA standings

    In response to darrylfries' comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I am not sure why you keep having difficulty with the English language Joe. Your post is even more arrogant than your usual pontifications. What part of what I wrote is untrue? Maybe you could enlighten all of us. To help you out I will provide you with the link where you can find our June team ERA. Here it is...and be sure to let us all know which part of what I wrote is untrue:

    I am not sure why you keep having difficulty with the English language Pumpsie.  I never said it was untrue, though, if you see something in my post that mentions 'untrue', please feel free to point it out.

    What I did say, and will continue to say, is that your numbers are without context, with the belief that you'd prefer less context, if any at all, because it would not suit your previously formed opinion.

    Someone with an interest in meaningful data might be inclined to say

    Our ERA since 6/1 is 3.92, against teams that average 4.60 RPG.

     

     



    Your statement encouraging me to do my research (which, obviously, I already did) implies that a segment of what I wrote was not fully researched. All of it was. In your undying arrogance you keep assuming that only YOUR research is correct. Its not. There are more folks here, including me, that know baseball than just you. Its amazing that you cannot see how your writing style is arrogant.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]
    Fact

    There's some folks on here who know baseball but few would include you.

     

    I take a little arrogance over stupidity and constant bashing of a different player every week.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If thats a fact, prove it. You really have a problem speaking for other people. How do you know what anyone else here thinks? You are more arrogant than Breidy. Really, do us both a favor and use the ignore button.

     

Share