Adam Dunn
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Next: Matt Maloney
From: Kevin McClave on 1 Jun 2007 15:46 On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:38:29 -0400, John Kasupski <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> wrote: >On 31 May 2007 10:36:05 -0700, Ron Johnson <johnson(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> >wrote: > >>Another way to look at this. We know that we can estimate >>team runs scored to within about 20 runs most of the time >>using the basic stats you can get from baseball-reference. > >What value is there in the ability to estimate that, considering that >last season, the top six teams in the major leagues in terms of runs >scored did not qualify for postseason play, one of the teams that did >make the playoffs was 26th out of 30 teams in runs scored, and the >team that won it all was 17th? > >Just wonderin'. That's a strange question, John. If we don't care about runs scored, why should we wring our hands about productive outs and Ks and what not? ********************************************************************* Kevin McClave "I believe a place and a people are judged not just by their accomplishments, but also by their compassion and sense of justice." ~Bruce Springsteen *********************************************************************
From: John Kasupski on 1 Jun 2007 16:19 On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:44:35 -0500, Lance Freezeland <freezelandlaw.nospam(a)consolidated.net> wrote: >On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:38:29 -0400, John Kasupski <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> >gave us: >>What value is there in the ability to estimate that, considering that >>last season, the top six teams in the major leagues in terms of runs >>scored did not qualify for postseason play, one of the teams that did >>make the playoffs was 26th out of 30 teams in runs scored, and the >>team that won it all was 17th? > >>Just wonderin'. > >No, you're contructing a straw man argument is what you're doing. Actually, Lance, as usual you have no idea what I'm doing.
From: Lance Freezeland on 1 Jun 2007 16:21 On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:19:39 -0400, John Kasupski <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> gave us: >On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:44:35 -0500, Lance Freezeland ><freezelandlaw.nospam(a)consolidated.net> wrote: >>On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:38:29 -0400, John Kasupski <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> >>gave us: >>>What value is there in the ability to estimate that, considering that >>>last season, the top six teams in the major leagues in terms of runs >>>scored did not qualify for postseason play, one of the teams that did >>>make the playoffs was 26th out of 30 teams in runs scored, and the >>>team that won it all was 17th? >>>Just wonderin'. >>No, you're contructing a straw man argument is what you're doing. >Actually, Lance, as usual you have no idea what I'm doing. You don't realize how good that makes me feel, John. If I start understanding your thoughts, I'm going to be worried. -- Lance "I believe in the Church of Baseball" Annie Savoy ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: David Short on 1 Jun 2007 16:22 John Kasupski wrote: > On 31 May 2007 10:36:05 -0700, Ron Johnson <johnson(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> > wrote: > >> Another way to look at this. We know that we can estimate >> team runs scored to within about 20 runs most of the time >> using the basic stats you can get from baseball-reference. > > What value is there in the ability to estimate that, considering that > last season, the top six teams in the major leagues in terms of runs > scored did not qualify for postseason play, one of the teams that did > make the playoffs was 26th out of 30 teams in runs scored, and the > team that won it all was 17th? > > Just wonderin'. Why...if we were better able to estimate how runs are scored, what components go into producing runs generally, we might come to an understanding of what offensive metrics were valuable and learn how to construct a lineup that would score more runs. Is that what you were after John? dfs
From: John Kasupski on 1 Jun 2007 16:34
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:46:32 -0400, Kevin McClave <kmcclave(a)SPAM666twcny.rr.com> wrote: >On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:38:29 -0400, John Kasupski <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com> >wrote: > >>On 31 May 2007 10:36:05 -0700, Ron Johnson <johnson(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> >>wrote: >> >>>Another way to look at this. We know that we can estimate >>>team runs scored to within about 20 runs most of the time >>>using the basic stats you can get from baseball-reference. >> >>What value is there in the ability to estimate that, considering that >>last season, the top six teams in the major leagues in terms of runs >>scored did not qualify for postseason play, one of the teams that did >>make the playoffs was 26th out of 30 teams in runs scored, and the >>team that won it all was 17th? >> >>Just wonderin'. > >That's a strange question, John. If we don't care about runs scored, why >should we wring our hands about productive outs and Ks and what not? The idea in the long run was to find out from Ron if they have the same degree of success in predicting how many runs a team will *allow* as they have in predicting how many runs a team will score (which Ron said they can do within 20 runs or so most of the time). That really has little to do with the productive outs thing, I'm just wondering if there is more of a correlation between the teams that do and don't make the playoffs based on how many runs are allowed by those teams as opposed to how many runs they score. While I'm typing, I also need to make a correction, because I said that the top six teams in runs scored failed to make the playoffs, and that of course is incorrect since the Yankees, who led the major leagues in runs scored during the regular season, made the playoffs. John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY Reds Fan Since The 1960's http://www.kc2hmz.net |