Euqal or Fewer Hits than Runs - stat lookup?

[goonys evil twin]

It sounds like you are overcomplicating things to make the Cubs look better than they are.

 

They give up the most walks, and almost the most HR. But they also strike out the most. That is why they appear to give up "too many" runs per hit. The hits they do give up are big hits, and the walks mean more of those HR are with runners on base.

 

You might be right, but then HR and walks allowed are accounted for in OPS against right? You would think it would reflect more consistently.

 

It's not perfect, never is. The extremes, high BB, high HR, low AVG, are likely offsetting what would be a more typical OPS/R correlation.

[Guest]

OPS is a pretty flawed stat as it doesn't tell you anything and it isn't mathematically sound. that doesn't make it not useful but is something to keep in mind. slugging is also pretty flawed as it also is not predictive. furthermore, does two doubles really equal one home run?

 

Anyway, I would stop using rankings and simply plot OPS against, OBP against, and slugging against versus runs allowed and see what the correlations look like.

Edited September 15, 2006 by stitchface

[TheDude]

Getting back to the original topic, I sent in a request to the UselessInfo department at ESPN to find out which team in baseball has had the most games where the opponent scored more runs than hits for this season.

 

I also asked them to dig up the record for most such games in a season. If anybody can find the stat, it's those guys.

[Guest]

couldn't you just look at total runs and total hits for every year and see how that ratio stacks up? after all it follows that giving up few runs on many hits would be good luck.

[CubColtPacer]

They're 8th in the NL in total bases allowed, 9th in SLG and OPS against, and 13th in OBP against...

 

How does that add up 15th in Runs allowed? Seems to me that teams have scored about 30 more runs this year than the cumulative spread of numbers would suggest.

 

Well, OBP is more important than SLG when determining runs, and while the Cubs haven't given up a ton of SLG or OPS, that is only because of the low BAA. Way too many of the hits they have allowed have been HR, which is the 2nd killer, along with walks allowed, that has caused this staff to perform so poorly. I think it would be a mistake to think luck has played much of a part in this, and/or it will turn next year. The Cubs are allowing a .258 BAA overall, and it's .265 with RISP. I don't think you can look at the relative rankings you listed, and then say they've given up 30 more runs than they should have.

 

Let me be a bit more clear on my angle, because I feel there is a stronger emphasis on OPS than OBP when correlating Runs scored.

 

When you look at offensive numbers, there is nearly a direct correlation between OPS and Runs Scored.

 

For example, all of the teams in the top 9 for runs scored in the NL are in the top 9 for OPS, and the order only shifts slightly, with teams within 2 in ranking across the board. As expected therefore, the teams with the lowest OPS are also worst in Runs Scored

 

As we would expect, the reverse is true when evaluating the stats from the pitching perspective. The 5 teams in the NL with the lowest OPS against are also the 5 teams that have given up the fewest Runs Scored.

 

There are no anamolies on offense. But there are two teams with anamolies on the pitching side - The Cubs and the Brewers. Each has given up more Runs Scored than the OPS against would suggest.

 

Maybe I am just allowing my optomism for the future to shine through, but it really seems to me that more runs are scoring than the mean would suggest.

 

It sounds like you are overcomplicating things to make the Cubs look better than they are.

 

They give up the most walks, and almost the most HR. But they also strike out the most. That is why they appear to give up "too many" runs per hit. The hits they do give up are big hits, and the walks mean more of those HR are with runners on base.

 

It's just the same as batting. A team can be lucky one year, and have a high RISP one year. Look at Washington and San Fransisco this year for example

San Fransisco-.328 OBP, .421 SLG, 749 OPS

Washington-.340 OBP, .422 SLG, .762

Which team should score more runs? Obviously Washington-but San Fran has them by 2 runs this season-Here is the reason Why

In Scoring Position

San Fransisco-.368 OBP, .440 SLG, .808 OPS

Washington-.353 OBP, .394 SLG, .747 OPS

 

Of course, we know RISP isn't sustainable. So, Washington should have a better offense next year if they keep the same people.

 

The same applies to pitching-here are two more teams.

Cubs-.344 OBP/.435 SLG/.779 OPS

Pittsburgh-.362 OBP/.440 SLG/.802 OPS

 

The Cubs would be expected to give up less runs in this scenario-but they haven't (Pittsburgh has given up 21 less runs). Why?

 

Scoring Position

Pittsburgh-.367 OBP/.406 SLG/.773 SLG

Cubs-.366 OBP/.429 SLG/.795 SLG

 

The Cubs have given up a much greater percentage of XBH in key situations this year, even though Pittsburgh has given up many more runners. Again, stats with RISP are not sustainable-so the Cubs should have better pitching than the Pirates next season (if the teams had remained the same).

 

The answer is yes-the Cubs have had a bad pitching staff this year, but their total number of runs is greater than their OBP, SLG, and OPS would seem to suggest.

[Guest]

maybe its just giving up three run homers to david ross . . .

[goonys evil twin]

Of course, we know RISP isn't sustainable. So, Washington should have a better offense next year if they keep the same people.

 

so the Cubs should have better pitching than the Pirates next season (if the teams had remained the same).

 

The answer is yes-the Cubs have had a bad pitching staff this year, but their total number of runs is greater than their OBP, SLG, and OPS would seem to suggest.

 

 

No, you can't do that. You can't just compare them to another team and say next year they have to be better because....

 

What if SF is getting lucky while Washington is simply performing as expected? Washington isn't "supposed" to have a better offense next year, just because. That's like saying it was heads this year, it's going to be tails next.

 

As for the last statement, the Cubs BAA overall, and with men in scoring position is very close. You can't make the claim that you attempt to do, with the evidence you are attempting to use.

[baseball7897]

obp against and strikeouts are more indicative. wins are arbitrary and pointless.

 

Wins are pointless? I dont agree with that.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

obp against and strikeouts are more indicative. wins are arbitrary and pointless.

 

Wins are pointless? I dont agree with that.

 

Pitcher's wins? Yes they are. We're not talking about team wins.

[baseball7897]

obp against and strikeouts are more indicative. wins are arbitrary and pointless.

 

Wins are pointless? I dont agree with that.

 

Pitcher's wins? Yes they are. We're not talking about team wins.

 

I never said you guys were talkng about team wins. Stop putting words in my mouth.

 

I guess Maddux's streak of 15 wins per season is not importantf or a team? Usually if a pitcher has 15 + wins, they are keeping their team in the game. But, there are the exceptions(Jason Marquis).

[Guest]

maddux was a great pitcher by other standards that are far more meaningful. wins can be misleading or they can be realistic. since they are not objective, they are not a meaningful measure of a pitcher. quality starts is a better measure though still significantly flawed.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

obp against and strikeouts are more indicative. wins are arbitrary and pointless.

 

Wins are pointless? I dont agree with that.

 

Pitcher's wins? Yes they are. We're not talking about team wins.

 

I never said you guys were talkng about team wins. Stop putting words in my mouth.

 

Well then, pitching W-L is pointless. Lest we forget Roger Clemens' record last season and Randy Johnson's the season before.

 

I guess Maddux's streak of 15 wins per season is not importantf or a team? Usually if a pitcher has 15 + wins, they are keeping their team in the game. But, there are the exceptions(Jason Marquis).

 

That's great that he's keeping a team in the game. But there are other, better stats to judge a pitcher. Much better. Wins are arbitrary, they can award a pitcher who did poorly as much as a pitcher who threw a perfect game. Great pitching outings can be looked at negatively if a pitcher's bullpen blows it or his offense can't score. Wins are a pointless stat, they don't properly judge a pitcher's performance.

 

Maddux's streak is indeed impressive - his performance was better judged by other stats during that time.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Yesterday's game was yet another game ths year where the Cubs gave up more runs than hits out of the pitching staff.

 

Maybe my perception exagerrates the rate this occurs, but it seems to happen far more than should.

 

Does anybody know of a stat source that could tell me without browsing 140 boxscores, how many games the Cubs pitching staff has given-up fewer hits than runs? Or equal numbers of hits and runs?

 

Is there any value in evualting the ratio of hits-to-runs for the pitching staff, and comparing that to the league average? The idea would be to figure if the Cubs simply get snake-bitten often with some bad luck, or figure out if there is some deeper reason for opponent's ability to conistently put together all their hits in one or two innings against the Cubs.

 

Here's some data you can chew on for a while.

 

The CUBS are 1-5 when they allow more runs than hits........

 

Gm#    Date       Opponent         Score  Starter
 8  Thu 04/13    Cincinnati        3- 8  Zambrano      
42  Sat 05/20  @ Chicago (AL)      0- 7  Hill        
47  Fri 05/26    Atlanta           5- 6  Zambrano      
105  Mon 07/31    Arizona       N   4-15  Prior        
114  Thu 08/10  @ Milwaukee         6- 8  Prior        
147  Thu 09/14    Los Angeles       6- 5  Miller        

 

The CUBS are 2-8 when they allow the same number of runs and hits.....

 

Gm#    Date       Opponent         Score  Starter
16  Sat 04/22  @ St. Louis         1- 4  Rusch        
22  Sat 04/29    Milwaukee         2-16  Rusch        
25  Tue 05/02    Pittsburgh        0- 8  Guzman        
37  Sun 05/14    San Diego         0- 9  Hill        
76  Tue 06/27    Milwaukee     N   5- 8  Zambrano      
82  Mon 07/03  @ Houston       N   2- 7  Marmol        
107  Thu 08/03    Arizona       N   2-10  Marmol        
117  Sun 08/13  @ Colorado          8- 7  Marmol        
145  Tue 09/12    Los Angeles   N   9- 8  Marshall      
148  Fri 09/15    Cincinnati        0- 4  Mateo        

 

I'm afraid I don't have similar data for other teams to compare this to, but I do like to keep track a team's runs per baserunner, or R/(H+BB+HBP). This makes an interesting proxy variable for the ever elusive clutch hitting, but that's another discussion for another time. Anyhow, here's what I've got........

 

9/15           R    H  BB  HBP    R/BR
NY Mets       768 1325 482  57   0.412
Atlanta       753 1355 475  49   0.401
Philadelphia  773 1355 549  83   0.389
Florida       697 1310 449  69   0.381
San Francisco 679 1292 460  50   0.377
Arizona       710 1363 464  63   0.376
Colorado      696 1333 482  55   0.372
St. Louis     695 1340 475  54   0.372
LA Dodgers    730 1396 532  47   0.370
Cincinnati    699 1306 556  57   0.364
Milwaukee     646 1257 450  71   0.363
CUBS          632 1353 365  36   0.360
Washington    677 1300 543  62   0.355
Houston       655 1256 525  63   0.355
San Diego     649 1312 496  38   0.352
Pittsburgh    642 1335 419  81   0.350

Average       694 1324 483  58   0.376
Maximum       773 1396 556  83   0.412
Minimum       632 1256 365  36   0.350

CUBS Opponent 770 1293 619  64   0.390

 

Have fun with it !!

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Wins are about as pointless a measure of a pitcher's performance as any stat available.

[baseball7897]

Wins are about as pointless a measure of a pitcher's performance as any stat available.

 

And thats YOUR opinion. I disagree with that. Is that ok?

[NCCubFan]

Wins are about as pointless a measure of a pitcher's performance as any stat available.

 

And thats YOUR opinion. I disagree with that. Is that ok?

Yes it is OK, but it's not just his opinion. It's the opinion of a lot of knowledgeable basefall fans. Wins are meaningless because they relate to a team's offense as much (if not more) than the pitcher. Pitcher A could stink up the joint yet win 9-8, while Pitcher B could pitch a masterpiece but lose 1-0 on an unearned run. Without question Pitcher B would have pitched the better game, yet he'd have a loss while Pitcher A would have a win.

[baseball7897]

Wins are about as pointless a measure of a pitcher's performance as any stat available.

 

And thats YOUR opinion. I disagree with that. Is that ok?

Yes it is OK, but it's not just his opinion. It's the opinion of a lot of knowledgeable basefall fans. Wins are meaningless because they relate to a team's offense as much (if not more) than the pitcher. Pitcher A could stink up the joint yet win 9-8, while Pitcher B could pitch a masterpiece but lose 1-0 on an unearned run. Without question Pitcher B would have pitched the better game, yet he'd have a loss while Pitcher A would have a win.

 

I did mention there were the exception out there(Marquis). But, you can judge a SP by the number of wins he has in a season. Capuano won 18 games last year. I would say he deserved those 18 wins last year. Playing on a team like Brewers who made alot of errors last year made it even tougher for him.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Wins are about as pointless a measure of a pitcher's performance as any stat available.

 

And thats YOUR opinion. I disagree with that. Is that ok?

 

If you want to be wrong, sure.

[baseball7897]

Wins are about as pointless a measure of a pitcher's performance as any stat available.

 

And thats YOUR opinion. I disagree with that. Is that ok?

 

If you want to be wrong, sure.

 

Im not wrong, and you're not right either. Depends on how a person judges a pitcher. I judge a pitcher by Wins, IP, BAA, WHIP, and the number of starts(30-35).

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Wins are about as pointless a measure of a pitcher's performance as any stat available.

 

And thats YOUR opinion. I disagree with that. Is that ok?

 

If you want to be wrong, sure.

 

Im not wrong, and you're not right either. Depends on how a person judges a pitcher. I judge a pitcher by Wins, IP, BAA, WHIP, and the number of starts(30-35).

 

And I'll take Pitching Runs Created along with date of birth, height, weight, and eye color and would still have a better idea who was the better pitcher.

[baseball7897]

Wins are about as pointless a measure of a pitcher's performance as any stat available.

 

And thats YOUR opinion. I disagree with that. Is that ok?

 

If you want to be wrong, sure.

 

Im not wrong, and you're not right either. Depends on how a person judges a pitcher. I judge a pitcher by Wins, IP, BAA, WHIP, and the number of starts(30-35).

 

And I'll take Pitching Runs Created along with date of birth, height, weight, and eye color and would still have a better idea who was the better pitcher.

 

I know more about pitching than you do. So I highly doubt you could judge a pitcher better than me.

[rocket]

Wins are about as pointless a measure of a pitcher's performance as any stat available.

 

And thats YOUR opinion. I disagree with that. Is that ok?

 

If you want to be wrong, sure.

 

Im not wrong, and you're not right either. Depends on how a person judges a pitcher. I judge a pitcher by Wins, IP, BAA, WHIP, and the number of starts(30-35).

 

And I'll take Pitching Runs Created along with date of birth, height, weight, and eye color and would still have a better idea who was the better pitcher.

 

I know more about pitching than you do. So I highly doubt you could judge a pitcher better than me.

 

Maybe actually watching a pitcher pitch, you might be able to discern more info about him than Vance. Maybe. But looking at a statbook and seeing who's a better pitcher, my money is on Vance. All of my money, for that matter.

[baseball7897]

Wins are about as pointless a measure of a pitcher's performance as any stat available.

 

And thats YOUR opinion. I disagree with that. Is that ok?

 

If you want to be wrong, sure.

 

Im not wrong, and you're not right either. Depends on how a person judges a pitcher. I judge a pitcher by Wins, IP, BAA, WHIP, and the number of starts(30-35).

 

And I'll take Pitching Runs Created along with date of birth, height, weight, and eye color and would still have a better idea who was the better pitcher.

 

I know more about pitching than you do. So I highly doubt you could judge a pitcher better than me.

 

Maybe actually watching a pitcher pitch, you might be able to discern more info about him than Vance. Maybe. But looking at a statbook and seeing who's a better pitcher, my money is on Vance. All of my money, for that matter.

 

You would file for bankruptcy then. Watching a pitcher pitch plays in how you judge him. And anyone could look up a pitchers stats to judge him.

Edited September 16, 2006 by baseball7897

[Flames24Rulz]

Wins are about as pointless a measure of a pitcher's performance as any stat available.

 

And thats YOUR opinion. I disagree with that. Is that ok?

Yes it is OK, but it's not just his opinion. It's the opinion of a lot of knowledgeable basefall fans. Wins are meaningless because they relate to a team's offense as much (if not more) than the pitcher. Pitcher A could stink up the joint yet win 9-8, while Pitcher B could pitch a masterpiece but lose 1-0 on an unearned run. Without question Pitcher B would have pitched the better game, yet he'd have a loss while Pitcher A would have a win.

 

Well said. Look at a game earlier this year when Reyes threw a one-hitter against the Sox and still got the loss. He made one bad pitch in a game where he was very dominant. Wins are not a very good stat to measure a pitcher's performance because of the exact reason that you mentioned.

[rocket]

 

You would be filing for bankruptcy then. Watching a pitcher pitch plays in how you judge him. And anyone could look up a pitchers stats to judge him.

 

And, believe it or not, Vance has watched pitchers play! And even though he was never a mediocre high school baseball player, he still has an ability to look at a pitcher and see what his stuff looks like, if his mechanics are good, what the batters look like while facing them, how much fortitude the pitcher has, how the defense is relaxed while playing behind him, and all that jazz! Anyone can watch a pitcher and see if he's good or not!