Prev: Stubbs the human fan
Next: Tonight's Lineup May 7, 2010
From: JustTom on 6 May 2010 13:02 On Thu, 6 May 2010 10:25:00 -0600, "Will Vaughan" <wsvon(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Doesn't concern me - as long as they win them. In fact, winning like this >this early in the year should build some confience, yet keep them on edge. >People here complain way too much.... > Having to be rode hard and put away wet in all of the preliminary heats doesn't really help your chances in the finals.
From: Will Vaughan on 6 May 2010 13:32 tom dunne wrote: > On May 6, 12:25 pm, "Will Vaughan" <ws...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "john smith" <eddyg...(a)msn.com> wrote in message >> >> news:6578-4BE2119C-1172(a)baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com... >> >>> John K, I just made the point that this team hasn't blown out one >>> team all year. This is not good. Almost 30 games and not one walk >>> in the park...... NO EASY ONES.... >> >> *snip* >> >> Doesn't concern me - as long as they win them. In fact, winning like >> this this early in the year should build some confience, yet keep >> them on edge. People here complain way too much.... > > Are you complaining about how much people here complain? Ironic! :) Not complaining - just stating an opinion - its actually quite entertaining, as a lot of it is for naught. > The problem with the Reds winning this way is that it won't last. > They've been incredibly lucky, and have the most 1-run wins and extra > inning wins in the majors. The truth is that the Reds have been > outscored by their opponents by 28 runs so far this season. That's > exactly one extra run per game that the Reds are giving up. When the > lucky breaks stop, so will the wins. Absolutely - if they continue to get the performances they have gotten. But if the team evolves as contending teams need do, its possible that they've set themselves up for a good run. Its also possible if they don't evolve or injuries take over, that they'll be looking up at the Bucs at some point. The point being - its early and the Reds have many question marks. But you've got to be happy that they've been able to at least get some wins under the belt, build some confidence and have the ability to take that next step - not saying they will, but they're certainly capable. Off the soapbox now - let the diatribe continue that we should package Stubbs and Harang to get Ryan Freel back. ;)
From: John Kasupski on 7 May 2010 20:17 On Thu, 6 May 2010 09:46:11 -0700 (PDT), tom dunne <dunnetg(a)gmail.com> wrote: >The problem with the Reds winning this way is that it won't last. >They've been incredibly lucky, and have the most 1-run wins and extra >inning wins in the majors. The truth is that the Reds have been >outscored by their opponents by 28 runs so far this season. That's >exactly one extra run per game that the Reds are giving up. When the >lucky breaks stop, so will the wins. Four months from now the stats will mean something...the losers will be able to look at the stats and determine WHY they lost. At this point in the season there are all sorts of statistical anomalies you can find that are the result of small sample size...all of which are pretty much equally meaningless. JK
From: tom dunne on 7 May 2010 21:31 On May 7, 8:17 pm, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote: > On Thu, 6 May 2010 09:46:11 -0700 (PDT), tom dunne <dunn...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >The problem with the Reds winning this way is that it won't last. > >They've been incredibly lucky, and have the most 1-run wins and extra > >inning wins in the majors. The truth is that the Reds have been > >outscored by their opponents by 28 runs so far this season. That's > >exactly one extra run per game that the Reds are giving up. When the > >lucky breaks stop, so will the wins. > > Four months from now the stats will mean something...the losers will be able to > look at the stats and determine WHY they lost. At this point in the season there > are all sorts of statistical anomalies you can find that are the result of small > sample size...all of which are pretty much equally meaningless. I know how you feel about stats, John. I'm going to post about them anyway. You don't have to read 'em if you don't want to.
From: John Kasupski on 8 May 2010 02:17
On Fri, 7 May 2010 18:31:19 -0700 (PDT), tom dunne <dunnetg(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 7, 8:17�pm, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 6 May 2010 09:46:11 -0700 (PDT), tom dunne <dunn...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >The problem with the Reds winning this way is that it won't last. >> >They've been incredibly lucky, and have the most 1-run wins and extra >> >inning wins in the majors. �The truth is that the Reds have been >> >outscored by their opponents by 28 runs so far this season. �That's >> >exactly one extra run per game that the Reds are giving up. �When the >> >lucky breaks stop, so will the wins. >> >> Four months from now the stats will mean something...the losers will be able to >> look at the stats and determine WHY they lost. At this point in the season there >> are all sorts of statistical anomalies you can find that are the result of small >> sample size...all of which are pretty much equally meaningless. > >I know how you feel about stats, John. Um, no, apparently you don't. I'm just saying that I think at this point in a season the sample sizes are still too small for the numbers to really give us a true indication of anything. Now if the situation is still the same at the end of May... >I'm going to post about them >anyway. You don't have to read 'em if you don't want to. Indeed. JK |