Yankees best run differential in MLB... by FAR

Originally posted by quackquack
I like statics but there are limitations and people who write about baseball statics call everything they aren't measuring "luck". They devalue bullpens because they throw fewer innings then starters and then decide that winning close games is based on luck. Meanwhile top teams always have excellent pens and win more than their fair share of close games ...[text shortened]... do against good hitting teams (especially Boston) than I am in plus/ minus run differential.

And obviously Garcia and Colon are concerns (though I don't see any reason to be worried about Garcia's health), but every team has "concerns." The Phillies' offense is mediocre. The Red Sox has an unreliable pen after Papelbon and Bard and and an unreliable rotation after Beckett and Lester. The Rangers, well, they just aren't as good as any of those teams.

Obviously there's no guarantee. But the Yankees have a solid chance to beat anyone in a short series. I'd rate the Phillies' chance at a title being higher because they have an easier road to the WS, but the Yankees have played as well or better than any team in baseball this year.

Originally posted by sh76
Run differential is and always has been a fantastic way to measure the quality of teams. Read Baseball Dynasties by Rob Neyer and Eddie Epstein.

GREAT! My Reds are thus ahead of Milwaukee and only a little bit behind the Cards! We're right in it!

Except for the 12.5 GB thingy ..........................................

Originally posted by no1marauder
GREAT! My Reds are thus ahead of Milwaukee and only a little bit behind the Cards! We're right in it!

Except for the 12.5 GB thingy ..........................................

That probably means they've been victimized by some level of bad luck.

Originally posted by sh76
That probably means they've been victimized by some level of bad luck.

But more likely it is not how many runs you score, but how many games you win that count.

Honestly, you can contrive stats to say whatever you like, but stats don't win games.
History is not automatic.
Great looks on paper don't always win.

That is why they play the games.

That is also why in a short series, the lesser team can, and often does, beat the better
opponent.

But, you already knew that and you are just jerking our chain with this silly stat. 😉

Originally posted by shortcircuit
But more likely it is not how many runs you score, but how many games you win that count.

Honestly, you can contrive stats to say whatever you like, but stats don't win games.
History is not automatic.
Great looks on paper don't always win.

That is why they play the games.

That is also why in a short series, the lesser team can, and often doe ...[text shortened]... ent.

But, you already knew that and you are just jerking our chain with this silly stat. 😉

Stats don't win games; but they're a great predictor of who is likely to win games in the future.

Baseball is about stats. Why else do you follow baseball? For the scintillating action? Come on. Baseball is about numbers. Numbers are what makes baseball great. To follow baseball and not pay attention to stats is like barbecuing the perfect steak and then not bragging about how you did it.

Edit: I absolutely agree that "in a short series, the lesser team can, and often does win." In fact, I would say that winning or losing a short series is something like 30 or 40% luck.

The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals were not the best team in baseball. Not by a long shot.

Nor were the 2010 Giants, of course.

Originally posted by sh76
That probably means they've been victimized by some level of bad luck.

That makes me feel soooooooooooooooo much better.

Originally posted by sh76
Stats don't win games; but they're a great predictor of who is likely to win games in the future.

Baseball is about stats. Why else do you follow baseball? For the scintillating action? Come on. Baseball is about numbers. Numbers are what makes baseball great. To follow baseball and not pay attention to stats is like barbecuing the perfect steak and then not ...[text shortened]... e not the best team in baseball. Not by a long shot.

Nor were the 2010 Giants, of course.

Actually, I watch baseball for a combination of reasons.

I watch the games within the game....

1. pitcher vs hitter
2. manager vs. opposing manager

Because I played the game for so long, it is automatic to do this.
What would I throw in this situation?
Where is the hitter's weakness?
Is this pitcher done?
Is this hitter due?
Hit and run or straight steal?

The outcome is the result of who won the inner games.
Stats are merely a reflection of what happened in the past, but not necessarily a
predictor of the future.

If a hitter got a hit off of me, you can bet he would see something different next time.
If I got him out, was I in his head or did I make a great pitch, or is he in a slump?

How I felt on a given day who predicate what I wanted to do?
If the slider was biting well that day, it was going to be fist city on righties.
If the curve was better that day, high and tight then low and away.
If I had nothing, figure out what junk i could throw at him.

That is the game for me. If you are just watching the action, it could be a great day
or a really bad day. Watch it my way, and every game is a challenge, regardless
of the score or the opponent.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That makes me feel soooooooooooooooo much better.

I'm telling ya...it is the whodey curse!!! 😉😀

It's a difference, not a differential.

Originally posted by Badwater
It's a difference, not a differential.

What are you talking about? Everyone uses the term "run differential" for that stat. Google it.

http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/looking-past-mere-wins-and-losses/

Originally posted by sh76
What are you talking about? Everyone uses the term "run differential" for that stat. Google it.

It's used incorrectly. I could name plenty of terms that are used incorrectly. It's hardly surprising that sports "journalists" and casters screw up a mathmatical term; it's not like they're lining up to join MENSA or something.

Originally posted by Badwater
It's used incorrectly. I could name plenty of terms that are used incorrectly. It's hardly surprising that sports "journalists" and casters screw up a mathmatical term; it's not like they're lining up to join MENSA or something.

The name of a stat is by definition arbitrary. Does a player really bat a run in?

Originally posted by sh76
+ 180

Red Sox: +141
Phillies: + 136
Texas +122

Everyone else: fuggedeabouddit

For all the smack talk about how the Yankees lost out to Boston and Philly in the offseason, no deadline moves, old team, etc. etc. etc. only bad luck has prevented the Yanks from having the best record in baseball (which they're not far off of in any case).

So, folks, how do ya like them (big) apples?

Let the jealousy begin.

😛

Oh boy, another Yankee post season. You can cut the anticipaiton with a knife!!

Originally posted by sh76
The name of a stat is by definition arbitrary. Does a player really bat a run in?

Well, I don't know. Was he at bat?

Just because sports folks enjoy massacring language and mathematics does not make it proper to do so. That Google brings up certain results does not mean that it's a run differential and not a difference. There is a difference here - it's just basic math. I, for one, will neither drink the kool-aid nor utter the word differential when in matter of fact it's a simple difference that is at hand.