Comments on: Less Than 25 Home Wins Within 1st 120 Games Of Season – Since 1996 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14049 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Kahuna Tuna http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14049/comment-page-1#comment-137690 Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:03:06 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14049#comment-137690 JGF, the Padres' announcing team tonight kept trumpeting the fact that the Padres lead the National League in runs scored since the All-Star break. They really have done much better in the past five weeks:

First half: 40-52, 304 RF, 338 RA (3.30 R/GF, 3.67 R/GA), 3 games scoring 10+ runs, 15 times shut out

Second half: 15-17, 164 RF, 139 RA (5.12 R/GF, 4.34 R/GA), 4 games scoring 10+ runs, 1 time shut out

]]>
By: John Garrett Franklin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14049/comment-page-1#comment-137616 Wed, 17 Aug 2011 03:32:36 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14049#comment-137616 It is interesting to see that among the teams listed above that the 2011 San Diego Padres have had the lowest ERA in their wins by a wide margin. This is further testament to how weak their offense has been this season, requiring nearly perfect pitching to muster a win.

]]>
By: Detroit Tigers Links: Delmon Young trade is ‘low-risk’ | Detroit News http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14049/comment-page-1#comment-137228 Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:48:58 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14049#comment-137228 [...] home. But it’s not the all-time record. You’re never going to guess who owns this one. [Baseball-Reference] Article source: [...]

]]>
By: Kahuna Tuna http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14049/comment-page-1#comment-137127 Tue, 16 Aug 2011 05:19:11 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14049#comment-137127 From 1919 to 1995, team won, at home, in team's first 120 games, sorted by smallest number of games in a single season matching the selected criteria:

• 1956 Athletics and 1961 Phillies, 13 wins
• 1939 Browns and 1962 Mets, 15 wins
• 1940 Phillies, 1944 Phillies, and 1969 Padres, 16 wins
• 1919 Athletics, 1924 Phillies, 1928 Braves, 1937 Athletics, 1953 Browns, and 1981 Blue Jays, 17 wins

]]>
By: Neil L. http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14049/comment-page-1#comment-137082 Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:52:31 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14049#comment-137082 @11
Sorry, please disregard. Wrong blog.

]]>
By: Neil L. http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14049/comment-page-1#comment-137081 Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:51:12 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14049#comment-137081 Sean does not define "elite" hitter in his NY Times article. That should be noted.

At risk of oversimplfying, I think that what is the heart of Sean's thinking is the fallacy of using RBI, on its own, as a measure of the quality of a hitter.

We can pick at some of the specifics of the article, but the fact remains that a batter cannot control the number of runners on base when he comes to the plate. He only has control over turning himself into an RBI with the long ball.

RBI is a stat, like wins for a pitcher, that is used by those uninclined to dig a little deeper. Look at the amount of weight it is given by MVP voters!

Think about it for a minute before you go off on me. Is it possible that there is some similarity between how Joe Carter was viewed at the time and how Ryan Howard is seen today? Hold on, hold on, hear me out.

Ryan Howard is a much more productive hitter than Carter ever was. However, just as Carter's reputation was inflated by his RBI totals, so may Howard's today.

Sean's article is provocative, but don't lose sight of his main point, in my opinion.

I think the table posted in this blog is not a good follow-up to the NY Times article. It tends to obscure the RBI issue as it relates to Howard rather than illuminating it.

]]>
By: JoshG http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14049/comment-page-1#comment-137080 Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:50:54 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14049#comment-137080 @4 - They do, but they never show up

]]>
By: DoubleDiamond http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14049/comment-page-1#comment-137060 Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:46:44 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14049#comment-137060 I count one team with a World Series championship just two seasons in the future, two with World Series championships only three seasons in the future, and one more (the one that leads off the list) with a World Series appearance just three seasons in the future.

]]>
By: n17317 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14049/comment-page-1#comment-137017 Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:56:05 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14049#comment-137017 It's "fewer" than 25 games, but thanks a lot for this.

It's interesting how many teams on this list are so bad that I remember them specifically. The '03 Tigers had to get hot at the end of the year to hit 40 (!!) wins. The '04 D-backs cost Randy Johnson a Cy Young. SI dissed the '01 Reds in their season preview because Elmer Dessens was their best pitcher. Eric Milton threw a no-no against the Angels that had much more to do with the lineup than the pitcher. So many bad teams on this list.

]]>
By: jiffy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14049/comment-page-1#comment-136934 Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:34:57 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14049#comment-136934 Interesting to see 2003 Milwaukee on there given their crazy success at home this year. Guess they figured out the ballpark by now.

]]>