Article written by

Baseball writer... sort of.

15 comments
DuncanfromGlenhaven
DuncanfromGlenhaven

This is pretty new territory for me. Having spent years bemoaning that the giants were better than their record suggested (albeit not much, on occasions) and genuinely unlucky, I am currently blown away at how lucky this team has been recently. the rain affected game on the weekend was an excellent case in point - the cubs had so many scoring opportunities against a decent but not awesome Vogelsong it was not funny. almost as not funny as some of tejada's ABs. realistically we should have been around a .500 team over the last 2 weeks. i agree that this situation can't hold.

marcellosfg
marcellosfg

"Tim Lincecum, whose horn I plan to toot later" What kind of blog is this?

Chris Quick
Chris Quick

I lol'd.

Rory Paap
Rory Paap

Haha! That does sound sort of creepy, doesn't it? My next post I plan to write on Lincecum, is what I meant. It'll be the opposite of what a Tejada post reads like.

Rory Paap
Rory Paap

Yes, I really do. In fact, I think it seems obvious this is the primary reason. I also think it's obvious that steroids were helping the hitters a heck of a lot more than the pitchers. Runs have basically gone done every single season since the policy was instituted. The drop is significant and consistent. What could it be, if not that?

giantsrainman
giantsrainman

So you think almost all payers were using before testing? If only a minority then how could this possibly be the effect? As I said above I think even if all it is really hard to believe it would reduce offense this much. I think changes to the ball are the more likely explanation.

giantsrainman
giantsrainman

My second issue it with this statement "With the reduction of steroid use in the game and the improved pitching, if that’s even a factor, scoring has gone down considerably." Do you really believe that reduced steroids use is the primary cause of reduced scoring? I find this very hard to believe even if every player was using before and no players are using now. This statment disappoints as it strikes me as being very shallow in analysis.

giantsrainman
giantsrainman

Thus far in 2011 the NL average for runs scored in a game is just 4.14! Your statement "A team that scores four runs a game is below average, and a team that scores around five is above average." is simply false thus far in 2011's run environment. Scoring 4 runs per game in this run environment is an average offense not a below average offense. Scoring 5 runs per game in this environment is an elite offense (only Cardinals and Reds do this) not just an above average offense. You even acknowledge this to some extent when you state "scoring has gone down considerably" only then to turn around and ignore it by stating "Still, scoring four runs versus scoring five runs is a decent benchmark." In 2011's run environment the benchmarks are almost a half a run lower and I am suprised you were lazy and did not recognize this but instead went with the benchmarks of previous years.

Rory Paap
Rory Paap

Thanks for the comment. 4 runs is below average. Five runs is above average. I know this is not perfect, but when looking at their run production game by game, which I wished to do in this post, it's difficult to score 4.5 runs per game. If you're comparing them on game-by-game basis, it's still a decent benchmark. Nothing I said was false.

giantsrainman
giantsrainman

Ok, on a game by game basis that is fair. But, it is misleading with regards to how far behind the Giants offense is from an average offense. They are just a half a run a game short of an average offense not a full run.

giantsrainman
giantsrainman

Roey, As usual great read and good insight. I do however have two issues with this post and both are contained in the following paragraph: "The difference between a below-average offense versus an above-average one is not huge. It’s about one run per game. A team that scores four runs a game is below average, and a team that scores around five is above average. With the reduction of steroid use in the game and the improved pitching, if that’s even a factor, scoring has gone down considerably. Still, scoring four runs versus scoring five runs is a decent benchmark."

LeviDavis
LeviDavis

When does run differential become predictive? Obviously after one game but before 162. They are not currently THAT far out of line with their expected record, and it is very possible that the offense will start scoring more runs. They are an average offensive team at best, but they are filled with guys who, while bad, will almost certainly not hit as poorly as they have all season. I'll take the over on Tejada (32 wRC+, not by much, but certainly over), Ross (66), Huff (73), Derosa (79, again, not by much, but certainly over), and Sanchez (84). They are a few unders as well, but not nearly to the same degree.

Chris Quick
Chris Quick

Nice post, Rory. When I think of teams living off one run wins, I always think of the 2005 Washington Nationals. In the first half of '05, the Nationals were 52-36 with 357 runs scored versus 361 runs allowed. I can't find the particular statistic, but they had a great record in one run games in that first half. The second half wasn't as kind to the Nats. Their run differential stayed nearly the same (282 runs scored to 312 runs allowed) but their record plummeted to 29-45, they ended up the season at exactly 81-81. At the end of the year, their record in one run games stood at 30-31 -- or nearly the coinflip you would probably expect it to be. Though, I assume bullpen strength would factor into one run wins -- as you point out -- but it's hard to keep throwing sub-1.00 ERAs forever. So, yes, more offense please. It would really be great if Posey could heat up and maybe a return to something non-terrible for Huff. That would help things out tremendously.

first timer
first timer

seeing there's such a huge drop offer after belt & wheeler in the system, how about everyone and anyone in the giants farm that the mets would want + runzler for reyes & beltran.... pipe dream or any feasibility of that happening?