Comments on: Consecutive games with 5+ runs http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4343 This and that about baseball stats. Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:57:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: DavidRF http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4343/comment-page-1#comment-10966 DavidRF Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:01:16 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4343#comment-10966 Thanks Gerry. The 1894 NL doesn't get enough attention. :-) The league as a whole scored 7.36 R/G. I found a 5+ run streak by the Phillies that year that lasted 25 game. Not as impressive as the 7+ run streak above, but its still a longer 5+ run streak. They went 16-7-2. Oddly, both ties were 9-inning blowouts (1W/1L) that were declared no-decision for some reason and both were the first game of a double header. Thanks Gerry. The 1894 NL doesn't get enough attention. :-) The league as a whole scored 7.36 R/G.

I found a 5+ run streak by the Phillies that year that lasted 25 game. Not as impressive as the 7+ run streak above, but its still a longer 5+ run streak. They went 16-7-2. Oddly, both ties were 9-inning blowouts (1W/1L) that were declared no-decision for some reason and both were the first game of a double header.

]]> By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4343/comment-page-1#comment-10946 Andy Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:43:59 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4343#comment-10946 That was the pre-steroids steroids era. That was the pre-steroids steroids era.

]]> By: Gerry http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4343/comment-page-1#comment-10942 Gerry Fri, 29 Jan 2010 04:58:52 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4343#comment-10942 In 1894, Boston had a string of 21 consecutive games in which they scored 5 or more runs. But that was only their 2nd longest such streak. Earlier in the season, they had a string of 23 consecutive games in which they scored not just 5 but 7 or more runs. They went 17-6. Ah, the good old days. In 1894, Boston had a string of 21 consecutive games in which they scored 5 or more runs. But that was only their 2nd longest such streak. Earlier in the season, they had a string of 23 consecutive games in which they scored not just 5 but 7 or more runs. They went 17-6. Ah, the good old days.

]]> By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4343/comment-page-1#comment-10941 Andy Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:17:00 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4343#comment-10941 #5, Sean decided to give a try to disabling the login feature for commenting. It might come back at some point but for now it lets anybody comment without having to create an account. #5, Sean decided to give a try to disabling the login feature for commenting. It might come back at some point but for now it lets anybody comment without having to create an account.

]]> By: DoubleDiamond http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4343/comment-page-1#comment-10940 DoubleDiamond Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:07:12 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4343#comment-10940 When I heard about that 1-9 record by the Nationals in the streak of scoring at least 5 runs in a game, I just knew that the Phillies had to be in there somewhere, and they are. The two teams played some high-scoring games in 2009, with the Phillies winning most of them. That date range also includes that rain-shortened game in which Drew Carpenter got the win despite not going five innings. In fact, the Phillies are in the opponents list for three of the five 2009 National League entries (although not the other one for the Nationals). It's a wonder they didn't do it themselves, though. While only one AL team accomplished this type of streak in 2009, the list for the 2000s includes a lot more AL teams than NL teams. What's interesting is that four of the streaks by AL teams are made up partially or entirely by interleague games, further evidence of the advantage the AL has maintained in these games. There are no such streaks in favor of NL teams. With all of the offense by the Phillies in recent years, though, I would have expected them to be on such a list, but they're not. The Phillies have had a lot of interleague problems in recent years, especially in 2009, so it's no surprise that they are up there in the third list during that tough spell they hit against the AL East this past June. But it's also no surprise that they're in two of the other teams' opponents list. The fourth list contains two streaks of NL teams surrendering a lot of runs to AL opponents, again carrying out the interleague problems of the "senior circuit". When I heard about that 1-9 record by the Nationals in the streak of scoring at least 5 runs in a game, I just knew that the Phillies had to be in there somewhere, and they are. The two teams played some high-scoring games in 2009, with the Phillies winning most of them. That date range also includes that rain-shortened game in which Drew Carpenter got the win despite not going five innings. In fact, the Phillies are in the opponents list for three of the five 2009 National League entries (although not the other one for the Nationals). It's a wonder they didn't do it themselves, though.

While only one AL team accomplished this type of streak in 2009, the list for the 2000s includes a lot more AL teams than NL teams. What's interesting is that four of the streaks by AL teams are made up partially or entirely by interleague games, further evidence of the advantage the AL has maintained in these games. There are no such streaks in favor of NL teams. With all of the offense by the Phillies in recent years, though, I would have expected them to be on such a list, but they're not.

The Phillies have had a lot of interleague problems in recent years, especially in 2009, so it's no surprise that they are up there in the third list during that tough spell they hit against the AL East this past June. But it's also no surprise that they're in two of the other teams' opponents list.

The fourth list contains two streaks of NL teams surrendering a lot of runs to AL opponents, again carrying out the interleague problems of the "senior circuit".

]]> By: ImAShark5 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4343/comment-page-1#comment-10939 ImAShark5 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:14:50 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4343#comment-10939 To Kelly: I already asked that. To Kelly: I already asked that.

]]> By: bdunc8 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4343/comment-page-1#comment-10938 bdunc8 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:45:04 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4343#comment-10938 Here's the odds of the Nats streak (I think): P(NL team losing in 2009) = .505 P(NL team scoring 5+ runs) = .425 P(NL team losing, given they scored 5+ runs) = .217 P(NL team losing and scoring 5+ runs) = (.425)*(.217) = .092 P(NL team winning and scoring 5+ runs) = (.425)*(1-.217) = .333 P(NL team losing and scoring 5+ runs 10 games in a row) = (.092)^10 = .00000000004 P(NL team losing and scoring 5+ runs 9 out of 10 games, and winning the other game while also scoring 5+ runs) = (10!/9!)*((.092)^9)*((.333)^1) = .000000002 P(NL team scoring 5+ runs 10 games in a row, and losing at least 9 out of those 10 games) = .00000000004 + .000000002 = .000000002 In other words, it was ridiculously improbable. Here's the odds of the Nats streak (I think):

P(NL team losing in 2009) = .505
P(NL team scoring 5+ runs) = .425
P(NL team losing, given they scored 5+ runs) = .217
P(NL team losing and scoring 5+ runs) = (.425)*(.217) = .092
P(NL team winning and scoring 5+ runs) = (.425)*(1-.217) = .333
P(NL team losing and scoring 5+ runs 10 games in a row) = (.092)^10 = .00000000004
P(NL team losing and scoring 5+ runs 9 out of 10 games, and winning the other game while also scoring 5+ runs) = (10!/9!)*((.092)^9)*((.333)^1) = .000000002
P(NL team scoring 5+ runs 10 games in a row, and losing at least 9 out of those 10 games) = .00000000004 + .000000002 = .000000002

In other words, it was ridiculously improbable.

]]> By: Kelly http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4343/comment-page-1#comment-10935 Kelly Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:01:56 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4343#comment-10935 I'm just happy to see the Nats leading in some positive category. On another note, what happened to the old login format? I'm just happy to see the Nats leading in some positive category.

On another note, what happened to the old login format?

]]> By: Djibouti http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4343/comment-page-1#comment-10934 Djibouti Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:37:37 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4343#comment-10934 Speaking of the Nats and odd streaks, last year they had 3 losing streaks of 7+ games and 2 winning streaks of 7+ games. They started the year with 7 losses, they ended the year with 7 wins. Weird season for a weird team. Speaking of the Nats and odd streaks, last year they had 3 losing streaks of 7+ games and 2 winning streaks of 7+ games. They started the year with 7 losses, they ended the year with 7 wins. Weird season for a weird team.

]]> By: JohnnyTwisto http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/4343/comment-page-1#comment-10931 JohnnyTwisto Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:16:35 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=4343#comment-10931 I recalled the Yankees having a long run-scoring streak last season. I think it was for scoring at least 4 runs in a game, which they did 19 times in a row in June-July. The next longest streak was 12. Actually, I think a poster here made me aware of this last summer. The 19 was the longest since the Yanks themselves had 19 in '94. I recalled the Yankees having a long run-scoring streak last season. I think it was for scoring at least 4 runs in a game, which they did 19 times in a row in June-July. The next longest streak was 12. Actually, I think a poster here made me aware of this last summer. The 19 was the longest since the Yanks themselves had 19 in '94.

]]>