My fault that this ended up on the basketball list. I inadvertently
put my original post here. When I saw it was in the wrong place, I
re-posted it on the baseball e-list, then deleted the post from this
list. However, it already went out to some people, who are now
replying to it.

My bad, but can we shift this discussion over to the basebll e-list?

Thanks.

Stew


--- In mnbuckets@yahoogroups.com, marc hugunin <marc@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, and BTW, some mid-season analyses suggest that the Twins most
incredible
> weaknesses are in the OF and at 3B.
>
> At 3B itıs true that Mike Lamb is the culprit and he wonıt be
getting a lot
> of PA from here on out. But is Buscher adequate? What do you think?
>
> Then in the OF, C. Gomez fares about as well as a guy with a .280
OB is
> gonna fare, and D. Young fares about as well as a corner OF with
no power is
> likely to fare. So no surprise. But Cuddyer has showed up as just
about the
> worst RF in the AL in some analyses. What do you think of that?
>
> Meanwhile the pitching‹specifically the starting pitching‹has been
a huge
> surprise. Can the young guys maintain it? Especially as the Twins
spend a
> lot of time on the road in the next 6 weeks. And is the bullpen on
the verge
> of an implosion, as some have suggested?
>
> Marc
>
> On 7/23/08 10:00 PM, "marc hugunin" <marc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Iıve 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 theyıre 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.
> > Thatıs 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 donıt 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, theyıre 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>