Run Differential

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

    Run Differential

    I used to actually look at this stat in the standings.  Last night showed how meaningless it is. 

    Before the game

    Sox: +138

    Tigers: + 167

    After the game

    Sox: +154

    Tigers: +151

    a 32 run swing in one game

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Run Differential

    That is funny!!

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

    Re: Run Differential

    The more imporant run differential is the average per game. This gives a pretty good indication of what teams win more and what teams lose more. Both teams are now at 1.1. Look at the other teams in their respective divisions and see the difference. It is not a perfect indicator of success but for a single average it does ok.





    "Hold it fellows, that don't move me. Let's get real, real gone for a change."

    -Elvis Presley

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

    Re: Run Differential

    In response to greenwellforpresident's comment:

     

    I used to actually look at this stat in the standings.  Last night showed how meaningless it is. 

    Before the game

    Sox: +138

    Tigers: + 167

    After the game

    Sox: +154

    Tigers: +151

    a 32 run swing in one game

     

     



    This shows how one game can skew the facts in a big way.

     

    I prefer to look at the mean numbers of runs scored and runs allowed.

    Runs scored

    Red Sox   Tigers

    0    0-11   0-9

    1    0-9     0-7

    2    4-11   4-10

    3    6-12   5-14

    4    10-5   10-8

    5    11-3   7-3  (Sox 2 games away from a mean of 4/Tigers 3 away)

    6    12-3  16-6

    7    13-2  16-0

    8    9-1     4-2

    9+  19-0  19-0

     

              Sox   Tigers

    0-1   0-20   0-16

    2-3  10-23  9-24

    0-3  10-43  9-40

     

    4-5  21-8   17-11

     

    6-7  25-5   32-6

    8+   28-1   23-2 

    6+   53-6   55-8

     

    Runs Allowed

      Red Sox  Tigers

    0    7-0    10-0

    1   17-0   20-3

    2   20-5    16-3

    3   12-12  16-9  (Sox 2 games away from a mean of 4/Tigers  7 away)

    4   11-8    7-8

    5    8-9     8-4

    6    3-6     3-7

    7    3-3     1-9

    8    2-2     0-6

    9+ 1-12    0-10

     

    We both have mean scores of 5-3. The Tigers have a better hold on those mean numbers, particularly on runs allowed.

    Tigers have allowed 0-2 Runs 52 out of 140 games.

    Sox have allowed 0-2 Runs in 49 out of 141 games.

     

     

     

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

    Re: Run Differential

    I prefer run differential.

    Fewer numbers.

    Tongue Out

    Seriously -- interesting numbers moon.

     

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

    Re: Run Differential

    In response to royf19's comment:

    I prefer run differential.

    Fewer numbers.

    Tongue Out

    Seriously -- interesting numbers moon.

     




    Simple is often better.

    However, remember when the Sox were leading the league in runs scored, but so many of those runs were bunched in huge blowouts? Well, looking at the mean shows how many times the team scores big, small or somewhere inbetween. 

    This year is much more balanced than last. We also have won more low scoring games this year than last, and lost less big scoring games. We're hanging near the middle. The mean of 3 runs allowed in impressive. Having a mean of 5 runs scored is always a team's goal.

     

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

    Re: Run Differential

    5-3 is the avg score in MLB history.

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

    Re: Run Differential

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to royf19's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I prefer run differential.

    Fewer numbers.

    Tongue Out

    Seriously -- interesting numbers moon.

     

     




     

    Simple is often better.

    However, remember when the Sox were leading the league in runs scored, but so many of those runs were bunched in huge blowouts? Well, looking at the mean shows how many times the team scores big, small or somewhere inbetween. 

    This year is much more balanced than last. We also have won more low scoring games this year than last, and lost less big scoring games. We're hanging near the middle. The mean of 3 runs allowed in impressive. Having a mean of 5 runs scored is always a team's goal.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Washington Nationals are the only team above .500 with a negative run differential. In the end a plus run differential = winning record. 

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

    Re: Run Differential

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I prefer run differential.

    Fewer numbers.

    Tongue Out

    Seriously -- interesting numbers moon.

     

     

     




     

     

    Simple is often better.

    However, remember when the Sox were leading the league in runs scored, but so many of those runs were bunched in huge blowouts? Well, looking at the mean shows how many times the team scores big, small or somewhere inbetween. 

    This year is much more balanced than last. We also have won more low scoring games this year than last, and lost less big scoring games. We're hanging near the middle. The mean of 3 runs allowed in impressive. Having a mean of 5 runs scored is always a team's goal.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Washington Nationals are the only team above .500 with a negative run differential. In the end a plus run differential = winning record. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, it has been a very consistent predictor of wins.

    There are occasional teams with fluke records in close games, but the norm is pretty steady.

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

    Re: Run Differential

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    I prefer run differential.

    Fewer numbers.

    Tongue Out

    Seriously -- interesting numbers moon.

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

    Simple is often better.

    However, remember when the Sox were leading the league in runs scored, but so many of those runs were bunched in huge blowouts? Well, looking at the mean shows how many times the team scores big, small or somewhere inbetween. 

    This year is much more balanced than last. We also have won more low scoring games this year than last, and lost less big scoring games. We're hanging near the middle. The mean of 3 runs allowed in impressive. Having a mean of 5 runs scored is always a team's goal.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Washington Nationals are the only team above .500 with a negative run differential. In the end a plus run differential = winning record. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, it has been a very consistent predictor of wins.

     

    There are occasional teams with fluke records in close games, but the norm is pretty steady.

    [/QUOTE]

    I recall last yr's Os having a peculiar differential vs W-L

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

    Re: Run Differential

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I prefer run differential.

    Fewer numbers.

    Tongue Out

    Seriously -- interesting numbers moon.

     

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

     

    Simple is often better.

    However, remember when the Sox were leading the league in runs scored, but so many of those runs were bunched in huge blowouts? Well, looking at the mean shows how many times the team scores big, small or somewhere inbetween. 

    This year is much more balanced than last. We also have won more low scoring games this year than last, and lost less big scoring games. We're hanging near the middle. The mean of 3 runs allowed in impressive. Having a mean of 5 runs scored is always a team's goal.

     

     

     

     

     



    The Washington Nationals are the only team above .500 with a negative run differential. In the end a plus run differential = winning record. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Yes, it has been a very consistent predictor of wins.

     

     

     

    There are occasional teams with fluke records in close games, but the norm is pretty steady.

     

     



    I recall last yr's Os having a peculiar differential vs W-L

     

     

     



    They had plus 10 for the season, sandwiched between the Yanks and Rays who both exceed plus 100...That they finished where they did 93 & 78 was remarkable given thier differential. In looking closer it was in fact a by product of their abilty to win 1 run games (29 & 9). They finished the season with 11 more wins than the 82 X-WL.... I also think they had double digit come from behind wins when trailing after 7 which contributed to the 29 & 9 

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share