Re: Red Sox Offense On Pace to be More Productive Than 2007 (And Other Halfway Notes)
posted at 6/28/2013 3:20 PM EDT
In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
Hey roy...sorry , I just hate "on pace" stats, threads and discussions.
Here are a few reasons why:
In NASCAR, the driver that sits on the pole doesn't always win, the driver that leads at halfway rarely wins, this is why they run the whole race. So, NASCAR T.V. announcers tend to refrian from saying "he's on pace to finish in first place by two laps", mainly because the car can blow an engine or get caught up in a wreck.
Go buy a Lottery ticket. If you get extremely lucky and get two winners in one day....are you on pace to have 730 winning tickets this year?....I don't think so.
Say Lackey strikes out two batters in the 1st inning of a game. He would be "on pace" to strike out 18 batters in that game( if he pitched all 9 innings...which doesn't happen much anymore), even so, he'd be on pace to strike out 12 batters in his normal 6 inning stint.....not likely.
Currently 5 guys in the AL are "on pace" to hit over 40 homeruns ( Davis, Cabrera, Encarnacion, Dunn and Cruz) ...how many do you think will keep up that pace?
Back about 20 years ago , I was making a really good income , with lots fewer expenses. I was likely on pace to be a millionaire ( at some point in my life), I bought a house, had to change jobs, and the banks don't pay the same interest they paid back in 1990. Needless to say , I fell off that pace and never came close to even half a million.
"There are lots of people who mistake their imagination for their memory.-Josh Billings
Like I said, saying they're on pace isn't to suggest that they're going to continue at that level (or pace) and end up like that. Pumpsie is trying to start an argument that I'm stating that because the offense is at this level that I'm saying they're going to make the playoffs.
It's simply to provide context. If you simply throw out numbers 16 home runs or 48 wins or whatever, you might not be able to quantify how good or bad the numbers are. By doing the math (simply multiply by 2) to give full-season numbers, it gives you a better point of reference.
48 wins x 2 is 96 wins. 16 home runs x 2 is 32 home runs. We all know that 96 wins and 32 home runs are very good numbers for a full season. So it gives the fan better context to realize how good (in this case) the first half was for the team and some players. Simple as that.
Doing it at the halfway point makes for easy math. But by doing it at any point of the season simply gives you a better idea on how good or bad a player or team was during that span.
If those 48 wins and 16 home runs were for 103 game that's a 76-win pace and 25-home run pace and the numbers are quite the same, from poor for wins and simply good for home runs.
And by comparing the on-pace full-season numbers to other teams simply gives you another point of reference to see how good or bad the team was compared to recent teams.
Your NASCAR and lottery examples aren't the same thing.
In sticking to baseball, when someone says on-pace, I NEVER assume that's how it's going to end up because there are many factors that could affect the rest of the season. It simply gives me a better reference on how the team or player is doing at that point in time.