ISF Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writ...vers/index.html Pretty interesting article from Tom Verducci. I wonder if one of our resident statistical experts could compile the overall numbers for our current staff from last year. Would be an interesting projection of just how effective our rotation might be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 (edited) I read a study, (I've lost the data now because I wiped my HD) that was basically about this same thing(with much less mainstream media Yankee fellating) -- I'll see if I can find it... Basically the gist of it was that teams whose pitchers get more strikeouts do better than teams that don't (I know it's revolutionary) -- From what I can remember, I would say about 90% of all playoff teams from the past 25 years recorded about 1000 strikeouts. That's a pretty healthy correlation. Edited January 25, 2005 by Gene Honda Civic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshPR Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 09:13 PM) I read a study, (I've lost the data now because I wiped my HD) that was basically about this same thing(with much less mainstream media Yankee fellating) -- I'll see if I can find it... Basically the gist of it was that teams whose pitchers get more strikeouts do better than teams that don't (I know it's revolutionary) -- From what I can remember, I would say about 90% of all playoff teams from the past 25 years recorded about 1000 strikeouts. That's a pretty healthy correlation. The 93 Sox team was one of the 10% that made the playoffs with less than 1000 k's they had 974 and the 1983 team was another with 877 K's, 96 Rangers are another with 976 k's, 98 Rangers had 994 '99 Rangers had 979k's More teams that made the playoffs with out 1000 k's 1983 Orioles 774 k's 2002 Angles 999 k's 1986 Angels 955 k's 1982 Angles 728 k's 1995 Indians 926 k's 1992 A's 843 k's 1991 Twins 876 k's 1990 A's 831 k's 1990 Red Sox 997k's 1989 A's 930k's 1989 Blue Jays 846k's 1988 A's 983k's 1987 Twins 990 k's 1987 Tigers 976k's 1985 Blue Jays 823k's 1985 Royals 846k's 1984 Tigers 914k's 1984 Royals 724k's I know it said close, I just threw out the numbers so it can be compared Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider17 Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Where's Juggernaut when you need him?! Hey! I got a promotion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBetsy Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 05:13 PM) I read a study, (I've lost the data now because I wiped my HD) that was basically about this same thing(with much less mainstream media Yankee fellating) -- I'll see if I can find it... Basically the gist of it was that teams whose pitchers get more strikeouts do better than teams that don't (I know it's revolutionary) -- From what I can remember, I would say about 90% of all playoff teams from the past 25 years recorded about 1000 strikeouts. That's a pretty healthy correlation. Actually, da Chort, I just did a regression on HR differential, BB differential and K differential vs. games above five hundred. The strongest correlation was between HR differential and Games above .500 (r squared of .59. Next highest correlation was BB differential and games above .500 (r squared of .53). Lowest correlation was K differential and games above .500 (r squared of .09). It's an interesting spreadsheet, which I'll probably post to either Black Betsy or Nats Blog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(JoshPR @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 03:46 PM) The 93 Sox team was one of the 10% that made the playoffs with less than 1000 k's they had 974 and the 1983 team was another with 877 K's, 96 Rangers are another with 976 k's, 98 Rangers had 994 '99 Rangers had 979k's More teams that made the playoffs with out 1000 k's 1983 Orioles 774 k's 2002 Angles 999 k's 1986 Angels 955 k's 1982 Angles 728 k's 1995 Indians 926 k's 1992 A's 843 k's 1991 Twins 876 k's 1990 A's 831 k's 1990 Red Sox 997k's 1989 A's 930k's 1989 Blue Jays 846k's 1988 A's 983k's 1987 Twins 990 k's 1987 Tigers 976k's 1985 Blue Jays 823k's 1985 Royals 846k's 1984 Tigers 914k's 1984 Royals 724k's I know it said close, I just threw out the numbers so it can be compared If your trying to prove me wrong, congratulations. But you did help jog my memory enough to help me find what I was talking about. I read far too much to keep it all straight. I remembered in the follow-up discussion Lee Sinnis had a quote something along the lines "there's little correlation between strikeouts and winning, there's a strong correlation between striking out and fans booing", The Jose Valentin postulate™ So anyway -- Here's the study(http://www.netshrine.com/20040806.html), and accompanying data(http://www.netshrine.com/OverallTeamContactRating.xls) which wasn't about K's by pitchers at all, but rather a combination of a team's pitchers ability to record K's in conjunction with the same team's ability to avoid K's at the plate to come up with a "contact ratio" -- Be sure to read the Discussion thread (http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/showth...ght=fans+booing) as part of the theory is debunked. This discussion is much more informative than Verducci's "OMG Why didn't the Yankees win the World series this year" pile Sometimes we have selective memories, I remember that I saved the spreadsheet and ran some other stuff off of it, specifically using it as a predictor of 2004 playoff qualfiers. Edited January 25, 2005 by Gene Honda Civic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshPR Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, Just poitning out the teams that did that. Shhesssh Touche!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I just know that our pitchers seem to give up a lot of walks followed by home runs. Maybe they can cut that down and we will win a few more games? Pretty simple analysis. Maybe I can get a job as a baseball analyst/writer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshPR Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Jan 26, 2005 -> 05:53 AM) I just know that our pitchers seem to give up a lot of walks followed by home runs. Maybe they can cut that down and we will win a few more games? Pretty simple analysis. Maybe I can get a job as a baseball analyst/writer? You'll surely do better than that dumbass Harold Reynolds on BBT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 QUOTE(southsider17 @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 05:07 PM) Where's Juggernaut when you need him?! I'll let you know when I find that I need him. I Kid Because I Care® Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I don't want to do this stat because I know it's going to look bad for the Sox. We have not been a good K-out club for the past 4 yrs. We have not been a good control team either. The Twins dominate us in this stat. Have for the past 4 yrs. Every year I go into the season saying this is Garland's year. I don't want to lose that dream so I prefer to just look forward to 2005 & hope for the best. For those who are new to Sox fandom Garland is more than just a 5th starter. He's a symbol. If he has a breakout year with the Sox it's major bragging rights vs Cub fans. I know because I'm surrounded by them. We talk about Garland all the time. That trade talk never seems to end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 With respect to that list, I think you should disregard most of those years. The game has changed. Off-seasons were never as big as they are now. 2002 Angles 999 k's 1995 Indians 926 k's In both those years phenomenal hitting overcame the weakness in power pitching. But that's 2 out of the last 9 years. That strongly suggests that to win a World Series you need at least one guy to become a light's out pitcher. Beckett was that guy in 03, & probably Schilling & Foulke combined for that in 04. Even if that 02 season where the Angels didn't have a starter like that they did have F-Rod & he was light's out in the pen. If I'm not mistaken the Tribe had some light's out guys in their pen as well. In the modern game you can not win a series on phenomenal hitting alone. You have to have dominant pitching coming from someone in the rotation or someone in the pen or both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Pay attention Ozzie: Hernandez did rescue the Yankees' season by going 8-2 with a 3.30 ERA in 15 starts. He also wore down, though, and gave the Yankees only five so-so innings in October. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider17 Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 26, 2005 -> 01:22 PM) Pay attention Ozzie: Hernandez did rescue the Yankees' season by going 8-2 with a 3.30 ERA in 15 starts. He also wore down, though, and gave the Yankees only five so-so innings in October. But he was still recovering from arm surgery. He hadn't built up his endurance yet. And I'm not saying he has now, either. That's why I also support putting him in the 5 spot in the rotation with regards to allowing him to skip some starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ISF Posted January 26, 2005 Author Share Posted January 26, 2005 Using career averages, our rotation K/BB ratio comes in around 2.03 Our K/9 ratio comes in at 6.39. I didn't do the plus/minus based on last year, although it appears from first glance like we could expect a pretty good performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.