IGT 9/3/05 - Mets vs. Marlins

[Elster88]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I think team OBP in our case speaks louder than RS. WWSB hasn't helped much in that regard, and made some questionable decisions, but let's go easy on the wound-licking: We're not a great team. Philly and Florida over the last week have given us what we've earned pretty much.

I'd have to agree with all of this, and the use of OPB over RS (though not just because it supports my argument.)

[Valadius]

I say forget stats and formulas and all that nonsense. At the end of the day, you either win or you lose.

[Guest Rotblatt]

]I think team OBP in our case speaks louder than RS..

I'm sorry, but NOTHING speaks louer than runs scored. The purpose of an offense is to SCORE RUNS, not get on base. Getting on base is just one method to acheive that end.

The bottom line, when it comes to an offense, is how many runs we score. And we've done a pretty good job of that.

I mean, do you all SERIOUSLY think we would have won more games if our team OBP were 40 points higher but we scored the same number of runs?

It just doesn't make any sense.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Agreed, Rot. Most primary stat is W-L. As Parcells said, if you ever need to know how good you are, look at your record. But the next most important is Runs (points) scored/Runs (points) surrendered, which correlates to W-L directly.

The other stuff, of which OPS is most crucial, helps you understand how W-L records and RS records are achieved, but they're more fallible than the bottom line numbers are.

[nymr83]

]I say forget stats and formulas and all that nonsense. At the end of the day, you either win or you lose.

and when you ignore the stats and say, i dont know, play miguel cairo every day, you tend to lose more often.

]The other stuff, of which OPS is most crucial, helps you understand how W-L records and RS records are achieved, but they're more fallible than the bottom line numbers are.

but the W/L record don't tell you anything about what you are missing. if you are 81-81 what does that tell you?

if on the other hand you scored 650 runs and allowed 635 it tells you that you need some help scoring runs, not preventing them.

but it still hasn't told you why you arent scoring runs. so you take a look and see that while your 3, 4, and 5 hitters all have respectable SLG% they have few RBIs, so you look at your top 2 and notice that they are getting on base at a combined rate of 31%! and now you've (likely) found your problem, and if you're smart you'll go out and address that instead of replacing perfectly good pitchers who have bad W-L records through no fault of their own but through horrible run support.

my point is you need to go deeper to understand a team, here is another example:

halfway through the season you have a team in first place, at 44-37 that has scored 50 less runs than it has allowed. the team in second, 42-39, has scored 50 more runs than it has allowed. who do you expect to win that division?

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Nymr83 wrote: [. if you are 81-81 what does that tell you?

That you're not winning divisions much?

You seem to want to argue that because there are exceptions, there are really no rules. But if you have a hard time breaking .500, it doesnt really make much sense to say, "well, we played much better than 81-81--look at our OPS, look at our BB/K ratio," yyybbb. Sure sometimes that does disprove something as essential as your W-L record, but it's a bad idea to assume that the W-L misrepresents the situation. It's who you are, and you need to accept that before you're ready to do anything.

[nymr83]

you misunderstood. what i'm saing is your record tells you nothing about what needs improvement or what doesn't. you could squeek into the playoffs with a terrible run differential which will tell us that you had beter not rest on your laurels or you ain't making it back next year.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

]The bottom line, when it comes to an offense, is how many runs we score. And we've done a pretty good job of that. I mean, do you all SERIOUSLY think we would have won more games if our team OBP were 40 points higher but we scored the same number of runs?

Of course not. Obviously getting on base is a component of scoring runs and runs count more. Just as obviously, 40 points fewer outs would result in more runs, not the same.

What I am saying though, is we shouldn't be misled by this team's RS-RA gap considering we've had such a disparity in blowouts this year.

The RS component was largely accomplished in five single games this year which we won by 11, 12 (twice), 13, and 14 runs.

Take away the 5 biggest margin-of-victory games and the Mets have a 544-534 RS-RA edge on opponents, or a .509 WP% -- pretty much what we're looking at this morning.

I realize that leaves 5 wins out there somewhere -- but I'd argue they are of the 4-3, 3-2, shutout variety.

Generally over the course of the year freak blowouts tend to cancel one another out. But because our pitching has been consistently good, we've managed to avoid bad losses: Losing by 10 (once) and seven (five times).

[smg58]

I have a rules question on the Castro play. It's perfectly OK for a catcher to run after the ball and then make an appeal to first base? Castro would have made it to first if it had been called immediately, and judging from the replay, he had no reason to think that he didn't check his swing.

As far as the more critical play... we can argue who the right person in that spot was, or that Hernandez was a bad matchup, but bringing in a call-up who had gotten unceremoniously dumped from his previous team to make his first appearance with you with the bases loaded and two out against one of the five best hitters in the league? ANYBODY else would have been a less arguable option.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Yup.

Not that this would have stopped me, but Cabrera's numbers vs. Hernandez are pretty sick.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: . Just as obviously, 40 points fewer outs would result in more runs, not the same.

This isn't obvious to me. I don't even understand the sentence.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Rott's scenario said: Would you prefer a 40-point edge in OBP and the same number of runs. I meant to respond: a 40-point edge in OBP wouldn't result in the same number of runs.

Sometimes when I argue OBP I like to express it in Outs, that's what I meant to do there (ineffectively ... sorry).

I often think OBP could be a more effective and telling statistic, particularly among old-school writers and the slow-to-evolve, if it were re-named and re-stated as Out Percentage.

a. Jose Reyes has a .310 OBP
b. Jose Reyes makes an out 69% of the time he comes to bat

I like b.

Back to my other point: rpg all games 4.56
rpg minus 5 blowouts 4.18

[Elster88]

]What I am saying though, is we shouldn't be misled by this team's RS-RA gap considering we've had such a disparity in blowouts this year. The RS component was largely accomplished in five single games this year which we won by 11, 12 (twice), 13, and 14 runs. Take away the 5 biggest margin-of-victory games and the Mets have a 544-534 RS-RA edge on opponents, or a .509 WP% -- pretty much what we're looking at this morning.

This is what I was trying to say, I just have no ability to say it as eloquently as JD. This is why you don't say "A new manager would have been the difference, just look at the difference we have in RS and RA."
_____________________________
This post was under the designation 165) Jose Reyes

[nymr83]

]Take away the 5 biggest margin-of-victory games and the Mets have a 544-534 RS-RA edge on opponents, or a .509 WP% -- pretty much what we're looking at this morning.

if you're going to take away a team's 5 best games you to take away the 5 worst as well, which i believe would be 11, 7, 7, 7, 7?

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Worst marin of loss was 10, then 5 sevens. The reason I didn't want to take those games away because for us they were more or less normal games offensively.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Worst marin of loss was ...

somewhere around San Francisco?

I see what you're doing, Dickshot, and I see how it makes some sense, but it smacks of cherry-picking to me. "See, if you don't count THIS loss, and you pretend THAT one got rained out, and THAT one never happened, then..."

Not saying you're doing this, of course, but it's a terriblle practice to encourage, exactly the kind of thing pathetic, excuse-making losers do.

To be extra-clear, I'm NOT calling you a pathetic, excuse-making loser. That's NOT. N-O-T, not.


oe: I hear a lot of this crapola statswork during broadcasts: the most popular form of degraded cherrypicking excuse-making is "Piazza has gotten on base in 9 of his last fourteen games, not counting the two pinch-hitting experiences during that span." Yeah? So what's your point? That he stlll has a pulse?.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I hope my point is clear: Some people can look at the sum total of runs scored and conclude we're a strong offensive team; I'm saying that most nights, we run an average-or-worse offense out there.

THAT ought to be evident by looking at the players at 1B & 2B every night, and the fact that we rank 12th in OBP in the NL -- which is where we started.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Ithe players at 1B & 2B every night.

Yeah, but every team has a 7th and 8th spot hitter. Not every team bats them 2nd and 6th as WWSB does, which is another source of the problem.

Johnny Dickshot wrote: and the fact that we rank 12th in OBP in the NL -- which is where we startedI.

What I was trying to say before is that I'm sure there have been teams with the Mets OBP who scored a lot of runs--some because they were lucky, but some who had better power, some who played in a run-rich context, etc. Take Reyes, for example. There was some talk earlier this year that he might get away with a low OBP if he hit with unusual power for a leadoff batter, if he stole often and successfully, if he got on base through infielder's rushed throws, etc. Hasn't exactly worked out, and OBP is always desirable, but the Mets might have bbeen able to bear up under the burden of Reyes low OBP--if they don't have Cairo or Matsui batting behind him, if they have a first baseman who knew what that stick-thingy everybody uses is for, if they have a bullpen, etc. But you can't have mostly problems and still win, not that I've seen.

(Actually, I saw 1973, when the Mets had nothing but problems and won, but that's quite rare.)

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Buh.

Guys who hurt you in the lineup hurt you in the lineup.

Cairo would be a drag on this team's offense wherever he hit in the order.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Buh. Guys who hurt you in the lineup hurt you in the lineup. Cairo would be a drag on this team's offense wherever he hit in the order.

Mostly true. But batting them 7 and 8 would over the season mean they'd get a few dozen fewer at-bats. That couldn't hurt.

[nymr83]

you're both right. the only one that is wrong here is wee willie bat the yankee 2nd small balls.

[Elster88]

A two run output against a major league team is going to hurt us in the RS/RA department.
_____________________________
This post was under the designation 164) Keith Miller