Are defensive runs worth more than offensive runs
McDuck
worth a little more than offensive runs. The basic hypothesis is that
offensive runs tend to come in bunches and thus, in many cases, are
wasted, whereas defensive runs tend to be spread out more evenly and
thus are more likely to be useful.
In addition, defensive runs are independent of the opposing pitcher.
In effect, a team can "score" a defensive run even against a dominant
pitcher, whereas it is by definition difficult to score an offensive
run against such a pitcher.
If my theory is right, then the improved RS defense may improve the RS
chances against top pitchers even if there is an aggregate loss in
offensive runs equal to the gain in defensive runs.
Comments?
Dano
"McDuck" <wallyDELE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fj59k5trqmea0htgb...@4ax.com...
Makes sense. I'd add that many of the runs in lopsided wins must come
against bad pitchers...whether the starters or the mop guys in the
opponent's bullpen...which seems to me to be logical that it skews your data
(if that's the right phrase). I'm not sure where to look, but I wonder how
many blowout wins all of the high scoring teams had and how this affected
their totals.
In games against the very best pitchers...those most capable of shutting
down even the most prolific hitters...great defense in support of great
pitching would seem to be the most effective approach. Now let's see. When
do you face this situation the most often? The post season...and in games
against other contenders.
Gary
Have you read Alex Speier's column today on WEEI.COM? Here's part of
it:
>-- The 2009 Rangers experienced a massive offensive decline, scoring 119 fewer runs than they had the previous year. Yet they improved in the standings by eight full games.
>
>-- The 2009 Mariners scored 31 runs fewer than the 2008 edition. Yet the M�s improved by a staggering 24 games in the standings.
>
>-- In 2008, the Rays offense scored eight fewer runs than their predecessors of the previous season. Yet that team enjoyed one of the greatest single-season improvements in major-league history, improving by 31
>
>games and becoming a playoff team.
>
>-- The 2005 Indians scored 68 fewer runs than the 2004 Clevelanders. Yet they went from an 80-win club to a 93-win team.
>
>Those four teams all shared a common source of improvement. All made defensive leaps forward � as measured by their defensive efficiency � that more than offset their diminished offenses.
McDuck
wrote:
With Texas, I assume it was their pitching, which was good after being
terrible. Of course, pitching is part of defense, but not the part
currently being discussed in relation to Beltre.
Dano
more than offset their diminished offenses.
>
> With Texas, I assume it was their pitching, which was good after being
> terrible. Of course, pitching is part of defense, but not the part
> currently being discussed in relation to Beltre.
Would it be fair to say that good defense helps to improve pitching?
I wouldn't want you to go way out on a limb or anything.
Dano
> Dano <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Would it be fair to say that good defense helps to improve pitching?
>
Thanks for stating the obvious.
DIet Plan
> je.s.t...@hehxduhmp.org wrote:
> > Dano <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Would it be fair to say that good defense helps to improve pitching?
>
> > As long as they're not giving up a crapload of HRs :)
>
> Thanks for stating the obvious.
sux 3rd place at best
McDuck
wrote:
Pitching is so big a part of defense, on the order of 70%, that
improved pitching dwarfs any improvements in position defense. As you
note, position defense helps pitching --- with me at SS, a v. good
pitching staff would be in real trouble. But with MLB defenders, the
differences are not great enough to explain the Texas surge. It was
mostly better pitching --- they now have a good crop of young pitchers
for the first time in memory.