So, you're saying a team that wins 10-0 five games in a row should be put on the same level as a team only winning 1-0 games? Yes, a sproadic blow-out here and there is random... but several of them is not. And over 162 games, "random events" even out... and if something is in more abundance than another, its by definition no longer random. The way you're wording it, its like saying hitting a homerun is a largely random/unpredictable event... and yes, its essentially the same amount of runs awarded as a run scoring single... yet OPS largely favors the homerun hitter.
Im still holding on to hope, we can keep losing this many games...we are due for a win streak, too much heart in these guys
There aren't any tombstones. If I had to predict the winner, I would still take the Astros. The Astros have the better rotation, pen, depth and defense. The Rangers have a few nice hitters in their line up that we lack, but the Astros are just the better overall team.
It was a 2004 reference. I still think we get to the playoffs one way or another as a WC, but AL west champ sounds much better.
But that underscores the point; there are no examples of teams going on a run of that significance. And even if they did, five games is not significant over the course of 162 games. The Astros have six 10+ run victories; 4% of their games - in what universe is a sample size of 4% significant? But they are sporadic! That's the point. Blow-outs are not sustainable. There is no carry-over. The Astros blow-outs, by date: April 28 June 12 June 14 June 23 July 19 August 25 Yes; they had the even-more random near back-to-back - but they sandwich an 8-1 loss and followed a seven-game losing streak. Generally understood - unless, IMO, you're still dealing with a small sample size of random, disconnected games. Six of the Astros 145 meets the 10+ criteria. If you extend it to include the Rangers (who have also been involved in six 10+ blow outs), it's 12 out of 289 games. It's less than a single NFL game; what's pythagorean is essentially arguing is that (made-up example) the Texans are better than their record because they beat the Chiefs by 44 points - even though their other 15 games yields a net-zero differential. I'll tell ya what - and I'm by no means a math person AT ALL - but explain the +/- differential to me. The "with blow-outs" pythagorean is significantly different for both teams; the "without blow-outs" seems to tell a more accurate story (that the two teams are pretty even).
I'm not booing anyone at the next game or jumping off any ledges, but I'm not as confident as some of you. This inability to win on the road is very concerning to me, seeing as how our last 6 games of the season are on the road. If we don't have everything wrapped up by the end of our homestand (which is very unlikely), I don't feel good about our chances. Run differentials mean nothing - only wins and losses matter at this time of year. I also don't buy into the theory that we should be happy no matter what happens because our future is so bright. We have a very young talented team and I'm excited about that, but the future is never guaranteed. Just ask the 86 Rockets. I hope this post isn't deleted from this thread!
I want to internet junkpunch the next ******* that tells me this. I'm always going to be upset when my team chokes an 8-game lead, especially to Arlington, no matter what the future appears to be or what the expectations were six months ago.
So, either they're random/sporadic/insignificant... or they're not. You can't argue both sides of it. Your theory also doesn't take into account that one of the Astros blowout wins (and one of the Rangers blowout losses) was the Astros beating them 10-0 (which is partially balanced by them losing to Texas 11-3 earlier in the year.) And why aren't you including teams 8 or 9 run games? Are those that much less significant than the magic 10 run games? Hell, if a team consistently wins or loses by 6 or 7 runs (also likely unsustainable), are those to be lumped in the "random/insignificant" pile as well? In the end, it all should even out... and if you don't feel it does, and a team did have a disproportionate amount of blowout wins (and other team had a disproportionate amount of blowout losses), then perhaps that other team IS the better team. But like I said before, it typically evens out... you can play the sample size "exclude this/exclude that" stretch game in an endless fashion. Now, if you want to look at the run differential in head to head games specifically, and see if it translates with the head to head record... that could give you a little bit more data as far as not only who is the better team, who's been the luckier team, and whether or not the final 5 games could see a bit of a correction in either way.
Nah... its a thread attempting to avoid "jump off the ledge/burn it all down" useless discussion. Its obvious the season isn't over when you're 0.5 games back with 17 games left to play (with 5 of them being H-2-H)... people shouldn't need this thread (or any other thread) to "hold on to optimism." This is not a vigil... this is a lets get back to discussing baseball and why we truly are where we are.
Agree with this post. I'll also say that I don't think the bullpen suddenly turned to crap. We've always seen that season-to-season, bullpen guys can see their ERAs go up and down significantly. Typically this is attributed to the fact that sample size within a season for a RP is small, and a few ERs here and there can change things significantly. Now we're talking about fluctuations *within* a single season. A week or 2 shouldn't suddenly make us think everyone's terrible. I understand that 2 or 3 bad outings isn't ideal (Neshek, Harris)--and might also be indicative of wear and tear. But I still have confidence in a bullpen that was top 5 for much of the season. (Yes, I also agree that Feliz and VV should get more opportunities...if nothing else, so we know what options we might have in the playoffs.)
Good teams win blowouts, it's what they do. Look at the best teams in the MLB, and check their record in games decided by 5 or more. Almost all good teams have a good record in these "anomalies" Unfortunately the Pythagorean record doesn't help a team during it's current season. There is no guarantee or regression towards their record. Runs poorly distributed is just considered "water under the bridge" and doesn't help a team win more games later in the year. It does however have a very strong predictor towards success or failure in future seasons.
Season is definitely not over. Looking forward to lots of great games down the stretch. One somewhat negative question: Can someone explain statistically why Chad Qualls is still on this team? Because from a non-analytics point of view, he looks awful.
From a non-analytics point of view... he's been pretty good since coming off the DL. Sinker sinking more, good velocity, good control. He's not (nor as he ever been) lights out... he'll never post a sub 2 ERA for the season... but he's a good enough 6th-7th (occasional 8th) inning guy on a good team. Somebody else can pull the analytical side...
Since coming off the DL, 22 of his 26 appearances (85%) have been 0 ER. In 2 of those 4 appearances where he gave up runs, he still left with the lead. In 1 of those 4, his ER was let in by someone else. Since coming off the DL, he has inherited 12 runners. Only 3 of them have scored.
