Comments on: Most consecutive team games, no XBH http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/564 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: vonhayes http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/564/comment-page-1#comment-3840 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:00:32 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/564#comment-3840 It makes perfect sense. My comment about 1964 has more to do with selective memory and coincidence than anything else. Somehow it seems that, using the PI, I've found a lot of anomalies and extremes from that year (mostly stuff related to lack-of-scoring), but I'm sure similar things occurred in other 60's and early 70's seasons.

]]> By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/564/comment-page-1#comment-3839 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:19:42 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/564#comment-3839 I wonder how much of the difference is pure statistics. In other words, back in the 1960s, extra base hits were rarer, and teams must have won more games while hitting fewer XBHs on average than they do today. Therefore, based purely on natural distributions, we'd expect more wins in the 1960s with 0 XBH than we would today. This question goes way beyond the PI, though, and requires a math whiz like Sean or the THT guys.

]]> By: vonhayes http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/564/comment-page-1#comment-3838 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:10:01 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/564#comment-3838 Thanks. What a weird season.

]]> By: Raphy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/564/comment-page-1#comment-3835 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:36:47 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/564#comment-3835 I made a mistake before. 789-2862 is .216 or 35 per 162.
In 1964 the record was 95-303 which is .239 which is 39 per 162.

]]> By: vonhayes http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/564/comment-page-1#comment-3834 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:29:08 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/564#comment-3834 Raphy, can you do just 1964?

]]> By: vonhayes http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/564/comment-page-1#comment-3833 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:26:56 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/564#comment-3833 Speaking of Royals games, check this one out. Sixteen runs on 17 singles, 7 walks, 2 errors and a hit-by-pitch.

Then there's this. Twenty-two singles!!

]]> By: Raphy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/564/comment-page-1#comment-3831 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:22:29 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/564#comment-3831 Andy you are absolutely correct.
From 1960-1969 teams that had 0 XBH in a game were 789-2862, which is a .276 winning percentage. Over 162 games the difference between .157 and .276 is the difference between 25 wins and 44.

The record for runs in a game without an XBH is 16 by the '79 Royals.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TOR/TOR197908060.shtml

]]> By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/564/comment-page-1#comment-3830 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:26:29 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/564#comment-3830 Nice...I bet it's a lot higher in the 1960s (though still not great, probably.)

]]> By: birtelcom http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/564/comment-page-1#comment-3828 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:16:04 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/564#comment-3828 Using the Team Game Finder, I get a 2007 won-loss record of 42 wins and 222 losses for teams with 0 XBHs in a game. That's a .159 winning percentage. Looking at the years 2000 through 2007 together I get 333 wins and 1,790 losses, for a .157 winning percentage.

]]>