Interesting Team Stats

by zogger on Oct 8, 2009 8:18 PM EDT Comment 6 comments

Here is a site with some interesting stats.

The Bucs had 28 comback wins but had 39 blown leads.
6 Walk-off wins but 7 Walk-off losses
When ahead by the 7th inning, they were 51-11
When behind by the 7th inning, they were 5-78
They were shutout 17 times
If they scored 4 runs or more (74 games), they were 47-27
If they allowed 4 runs or less (85 games), they were 49-36
They scored 2 runs or less in 60 games. They were 4-56 in those games

Compare to the Cardinals:

32 comeback wins, 31 blown leads
6 Walk-off wins but 7 Walk-off losses
When ahead by the 7th inning, they were 68-16
When behind by the 7th inning, they were 14-57
They were shutout 10 times
If they scored 4 runs or more (85 games), they were 66-19
If they allowed 4 runs or less (101 games), they were 80-21
They scored 2 runs or less in 44 games. They were 9-35 in those games

The Cardinals won 91 games. In 80 of those they gave up 4 runs or less. In their 91 wins, they scored 4 runs or more 66 times.

What do I see in these numbers?

The Bucs have to score more runs and give up less runs. Duh!
Thye need to score more than 2 runs alot more often.
Thye need to allowed less than 4 runs more often.
They have to get the lead by the 7th inning.
They have to be able to come from behind in the 7th inning on.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting Stats

Very detailed and specific instructions. Charles Barkley once made a similar scholarly observation when inquired what his team needed to do to win more games, as he responded, “Score more points than the other team.” In order for the Pirates to win more, do they also have to place 9 functioning human bodies with a body temperature approximately 98.6 degrees onto the field, maintain the exchange of exhaling carbon dioxide and inhaling oxygen, consume food nourishment on a regular basis, whilst simultaneously occupying the same location in the space time continuum as the rest of the reality as we know it? I think these sound like good ideas to win baseball games too.

by TheLizardKing on Oct 9, 2009 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yea..But

I am not sure you are saying. While these are good things to do to win ballgames, I was trying to show how the Bucs differ from a winning team. We can talk all we want about “Let sign player A” or “When prospect B is brought up” but to translate this into wins, the Bucs need to start doing the things above better.

It is clear that they need to both score more runs and do it sooner in a game, allow less runs, and be able to score more runs from the 7th inning on. Just getting better talent won’t mean they will do these things better. The talent has to focus itself on doing these things.

For example, if you are not scoring runs early in a game, maybe it is because you are not preparing properly for the SP. Did you watch video? Did you look at how he ptiched you previously? Were you patient when he is not throwing strikes?

To allow less run early in a game, the SP has to do his homework. I think Kerrigan made strides with Duke and Maholm this year in being better prepraed to not give up alot of 1st inning runs. This was problem they have had. So if they can continue to improve and the other SPs can learn this, we can get to the bullpen with a better chance of having a lead or at least being in striking distance.

So my point is that while we need more talent, the talent needs to play the game right and prepare properly before the game begins.

by zogger on Oct 9, 2009 12:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The things you list are not skill sets...

acquiring talent is the only way to improve the stats you speak of. You can’t draft a player who excels at getting on base late in the game or a pitcher who doesn’t give up runs in the last three innnings. It would be nice if we could teach Maholm and Duke to not give up runs in the 1st inning but it doesn’t work that way. Hey, you know what would be even better? Let’s teach them to not give up runs at all. That way we would have a good chance to win most games. Then all we’d have to do is teach the offense to score one or more runs per game. Or, if we can’t fix Maholm and Duke, we just have to teach the offense to score more than 4 runs per game. That should work.

“So my point is that while we need more talent, the talent needs to play the game right and prepare properly before the game begins.”

We supposedly had two of the best instructors around in Perry Hill and Kerrigan. The were said to have more instruction at the major league level than any other team. The Pirates lead the league in errors and Fldg % (I know, not a great stat) and the good pitchers on our team (save Capps) had decent seasons. They pretty much played the game the right way. The biggest problem is lack of talent…end of story.

by Slick1 on Oct 9, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok but..

Yes, they are not skills in the sense of speed, throwing arm, power hitting, etc. But they are skills/work habits that a player needs to aquire to become better.

I don’t agree that they always played the right way. Yes, the talent is not there. But even if the talent WAS there, they need to improve these other things.

If you watch the good teams, they find a way to get a guys in from 2nd base much more often then the Bucs do. If a guys hits a lead off triple, the next 3 guys don’t strike out!

The pitchers on good teams find a way to get a guy out w/o giving up a runs. They less often walk the lead off batter. These are things they can learn.

by zogger on Oct 9, 2009 1:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You're speaking of fudnamentals...

and yeah there was some room for improvement but we did a lot of things well in that area as well. We weren’t so good with the bunt but statistics show the bunting with anyone but the pitcher is usually a bad idea. Getting guys in from 2nd still comes down to having players that can hit the ball which we didn’t. And your last sentence again has nothing to do with teaching. If we could teach pitchers to get guys out without giving up runs we would win every game. Again, it comes down to better players. We get better players (or have the young guys develop as we hope) and all of the things you are talking about will take care of themselves.

And sorry if I was a little too sarcastic above, didn’t mean to come off as such a tool.

by Slick1 on Oct 9, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm confused

shouldn’t the number of games for all-encompassing statistics total up to the number of games played?

If the Cardinals played 162 games, and they scored 4 runs or more in 85 of them, shouldn’t the number of games where they scored less than 4 runs be 77? Otherwise, one might be led to believe they played in 186 games this year. (IDK, maybe my math is just off.)

Second, you said they need to allow 4 runs or less more often, but their record in that situation is 13 games over .500 over an 86-game span. That’s actually not too bad. It would be even better if they could just score more than 4 runs more frequently.

It’s not that I don’t agree with anything you said, I guess it’s just a little tough to follow.

"Straight ball I hit very much, but curveball, bats are afraid." - Pedro Cerrano

by silencerdu on Oct 9, 2009 4:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs