I’ve heard it said that the Twins have hit exceptionally well with runners on base/runners in scoring position (RISP). Frankly, it is hard to imagine any other scenario. I mean, not only are they last in HR but their OBA is also among the lowest in the AL. Most stat heads will tell you there is no such thing as clutch hitting. So one would have to surmise that the Twins performance with RISP is just random fluctuation and that it cannot (or is highly unlikely to) continue. So either they’re gonna have to get more baserunners or hit more HR or both to maintain their R/G.

Winning more games than their Pythag would indicate is a different issue. That’s just the distribution of runs for and runs against. I.e. The Twins have been blown out a few times. Set those games aside and in the rest of their games the W-L and the Pythag probably match up pretty well. Still, that is unlikely to continue. IOW if the Twins score the same number of runs they give up the rest of the way, the likely record from here on out is .500.

I don’t know about Nathan being the cause. I mean, when the closer holds the lead and gets the save, how does that affect your Pythag. You were already ahead, neither team scores, and you win. Your performance vs. Pythag was established prior to the 9th inning. It is the hitting with RISP that puts Nathan in the position to get more saves than the Pythag would seem to suggest.

In both cases, I think that unless the Twins change their run numbers, for and/or against, they’re unlikely to do as well in the 2nd half. Especially that streak where they play 24 of 31 on the road or whatever the number was.

Marc


On 7/23/08 8:26 PM, "stewthornley" <stew@...> wrote:

 

I sat through a kinda dull Dodgers-Rockies game today, so I amused
myself analyzing the A. L. offensive stats.  I recall that a week or
so ago the Twins were leading their division in runs despite being
last in homers.  Coming into today, they were third in the division,
but not too far behind Detroit and Chicago (although the gap will
have widened after the Tigers and Sox scored 7 and 10, respectively,
and the Twins only 1).  The Twins are still doing a pretty good job
of scoring runs for so few homers.  I suppose the anti-Bill James,
anti-Moneyball people would say that this proves that piranha-ball
is the way to go, although my guess is that this is probably a bit
of an anomoly and that the strong correlation Bill James has
demonstrated between homers and runs still applies.

I did look at stolen bases.  The Twins have stolen about 50 (I left
the stat pack at the ballpark so I'm now relying on my memory).  
It's probably good they haven't tried more, because they've been
caught stealing more than a third of the time.  Coming into today,
they were the only A. L. team to be under 2/3 in their success rate
(Baltimore was right at 2/3).  

So I'm not sure where the runs are coming from.  Maybe they're being
inordinately efficient in their hitting.  I'm sure some would say
this is an indication of their character, their chemistry, yada,
yada, although it might be that the random chance has been falling
their way so far this year.

I don't remember their exact differential between runs scored and
runs allowed so I can't use the Pythagorean (nor can I spell it)
formula Bill James has for what a team's winning percentage, but
when I looked at the run differential this afternoon, it did look
close enough that the Twins' .550 winning percentage coming into
today was probably above what would be expected based on their runs
scored/runs allowed.  Does having a strong closer make it more
likely to win rather than lose close games?  Is this an indication
of the acumen and cunning of the manager?  Or is it just random
chance again?

Comments/insights from others?

Today's game (5-3 Rockies) was the lowest scoring game I've attended
at Coors Field.  I was here for three games in 1999 before the
humidor, and this is the fourth game I've attended here since 2002,
when I'm told they started using the humidor to store the balls.  At
least today, nothing seemed to be carrying too far even though the
wind was blowing out to center, so maybe the humidor is having some
effect.

Even if that's the case, the outfielders still play pretty deep.  I
suppose with so much territory beyond them, they want to keep the
ball from going over or by them since it will roll for a while
before it would be stopped by a fence.

Not only does that mean that a lot of balls will drop in front of
them, it means it's easier for runners to get an extra base on a
single.  In the eighth today, the Dodgers had runners at second and
third with one out.  Loney, the tying run at second, was getting a
huge lead off second, and the Rockies were doing nothing to keep him
close.  I wondered if they figured they should just hold their
infield positions, not diminishing their chanches of getting an out
on a grounder or at least being able to keep it in the infield,
because they figured that a hit to the outfield would allow the
runner from second to score anyway, regardless of how big a lead he
got.

Overall, I was wondering what the best way to play the outfield is
in a spacious ballpark, especially if the ball is not expected to
carry an inordinate distance.  This might be akin to a stadium at a
normal elevation that has no outfield fences.  Should the outfield
play at a depth intended to maximize outs on fly balls, even if it
means that balls hit through the gaps or beyond the outfielders will
roll a ways?  Or is it worth keeping the outfield back to prevent
the triples and homers, even though this means that runners will be
able to advance more on hits and, more significantly, the team will
turn fewer fly balls into outs?

Comments/insights?

Stew