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.

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, 200521 yr by Gene Honda Civic

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

Where's Juggernaut when you need him?!

 

 

Hey! I got a promotion!

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.

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, 200521 yr by Gene Honda Civic

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, Just poitning out the teams that did that. Shhesssh

 

Touche!!!!!

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?

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

Where's Juggernaut when you need him?!

 

I'll let you know when I find that I need him.

 

I Kid Because I Care®

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.