Is 1 month too early to look at run differential?

[homer]

Don't get me wrong, I'm ecstatic that the Brewers are in first place, but looking at runs scored vs runs against has tempered my enthusiasm a bit. Below are the run differentials (i.e. runs scored minus runs against) for first place teams:

 

Milwaukee -3

Dodgers +28

Mets +51

LAA +9

Indians +11

Red Sawx +41

 

To paraphrase Sesame Street, one of these teams is not like the others. Is it too early to look at this stat? Is mid season a better barometer? Run differential has shown to be a good predictor (the ole pythagorean formula) of wins and losses.

[TooLiveBrew]

yes

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

I'm not a big fan of run differential especially this early in the season. A loss is a loss no matter if you lose 10-1 or 1-0. This isn't soccer where goals scored is a tie breaker at the end of the season.

[TooLiveBrew]

amen. And before stat-ies jump on that notion, I know what run differential means, and how long the season is, etc., etc.

[rluzinski]

It's too early to expect a team's record or their run differential to match their true talent with any kind of accuracy. That said, if you are going to get off to a hot start, who wouldn't want the run differential to justify the gaudy record? Boston is 16-8 and has a +41 run differential. That doesn't write their ticket to the post season but it's a promising stat.

 

At this point in the season, you are probably better off looking at preseason predictions over the current season's stats to determine "true talent". But as I said in another thread, if the Brewers have the talent of an 85 win team and have simply caught a couple lucky breaks early, it's not like they have a dept to payoff that will inevitably adjust your record back down. They get to keep the wins. That means, assuming you still think the 85 win projection is valid, the Brewers would now be expected to win 87 games. They aren't expected to win 101 games (their current pace).

[RyDogg66]

I was just thinking about this yesterday after the 10-1 loss. I think run differential is a good stat to use, but it is flawed in many ways.

 

For example, good, consistent starting pitching and a very good back end of the bullpen will get you a lot of 3-1 and 4-2 victories. Then, when a starting pitcher falters and you bring in a long guy who isnt very good, maybe you lose 9-3 or 10-1. You'd pile on a bunch of 2-3 run wins and then have a 5-6 run loss and be about even.

 

I think Cleveland's run differential last year put them at well over 90 wins based on the numbers. But their bullpen sucked and that back end of their rotaion was pretty bad as well.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

You hit it right on the head, RyDogg.

[sbrylski]

For example, good, consistent starting pitching and a very good back end of the bullpen will get you a lot of 3-1 and 4-2 victories. Then, when a starting pitcher falters and you bring in a long guy who isnt very good, maybe you lose 9-3 or 10-1. You'd pile on a bunch of 2-3 run wins and then have a 5-6 run loss and be about even.

 

This is similar to what I posted in a different thread. I'm not worried about our run differencial.

[rluzinski]

I was just thinking about this yesterday after the 10-1 loss. I think run differential is a good stat to use, but it is flawed in many ways.

 

Absolutely. it's just one piece of evidence and shouldn't be taken as gospel. Still there's a reason why a team's record is so closely tied to their run differential. Over the course of 162 games, things usually even out.

 

I'm not a big fan of run differential especially this early in the season. A loss is a loss no matter if you lose 10-1 or 1-0. This isn't soccer where goals scored is a tie breaker at the end of the season.

 

It matters with respect to trying to determine the true talent of a baseball team. 99% of what we talk about here is with respect to speculating on future performance. Who do you expect to do better going forward:

 

Team A: 15-9; run diff. of -10

Team B: 15-9; run diff of +40

 

If you say that it doesn't matter because they have the same record, you don't understand the question.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

I think it was 2 years ago where the Packers had scored more points than their opponents at a point very late in the season and didn't they have a 4-12 record?

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

So if Team A and Team B end up the season with the same record, does that make the team with the better run differential the better team?

[rluzinski]

So if Team A and Team B end up the season with the same record, does that make the team with the better run differential the better team?

 

It might suggest it but it doesn't prove it, no. I'm not speaking in absolutes, only probabilities. Only sports fans do that. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

I think it was 2 years ago where the Packers had scored more points than their opponents at a point very late in the season and didn't they have a 4-12 record?

 

There's a lot of reasons why football isn't analogous to baseball in this respect. For one thing, there's a significant correlation between points scored and points given up in football. Not so much in baseball (I'm not claiming their isn't any, however). Also, with only 16 games in a season, a lot of weird things can happen. A team can steal 3-4 games and end up with 11 wins. The bears did that a few years ago when they had all those crazy last second wins and then got blown out of the playoffs.

 

Finally, the Packers finished 4-12 in 2005 and had a point differential of -46. If they had a positive point diff early, it probably didn't represent their true talent.

[GAME05]

We're 8th in the NL in runs scored, 11th in runs allowed, so i'll consider -3 pretty decent for those rankings [GAME05 applauds Turndero].

 

Then add in Sheets getting back on track [GAME05 does the Chris Farley motivational speaker thing], i'd see our differential having a very consistent, positive rise.

 

The Mets number looks great now, but with that pitching staff they've got, I'd bet that their differential statistic is going to be a roller coaster ride all season.

[sgtcluels]

Well we score and average of 5.4 runs and give up 2.8 in games we win. We scores an average of 3.2 runs and give up 7.8 runs when we lose. Basically when we lose.. we lose BIG.

[TooLiveBrew]

Quote:

---

GAME05 applauds Turndero

---

Although not as "thinky", I like this, from JSOnline -

Quote:

---

"I think the end result of games is where we have what I call C-squared : dual closers of (Derrick) Turnbow and (Francisco) Cordero," Jenkins said. "It's a nice 1-2 punch for us. I think if we get the lead and get the game to the eighth inning, we're going to win a ton of games.

---

[JohnBriggs12]

Is this case most certainly.

 

The Brewers have won games over the past 8 days that were started by Roy Oswalt (twice), Zambrano and Hill.

 

Very few teams are going to pile up a lot of runs against those guys.

 

Conversely, in the two blowout losses this week, what two pitchers let the games get out of hand? Dessens and Spurling. Dessens is the 11th pitcher. Spurling is clearly on borrowed time as the 12th pitcher.

 

The Brewers have scored runs consistenly but they have not had everyone hit at the same time. Once that happens, we'll see plenty of 11-4, 8-2 type games.

[TooLiveBrew]

yes

[logan82]

You should add

 

Cubs +22

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

It might suggest it but it doesn't prove it, no. I'm not speaking in absolutes, only probabilities. Only sports fans do that.

 

I must not be a sports fan then.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

The Brewers have won games over the past 8 days that were started by Roy Oswalt (twice), Zambrano and Hill.

 

Great Point! Did the Dodgers or Mets face pitchers of that calibur?

[BMuch]

Finally, the Packers finished 4-12 in 2005 and had a point differential of -46. If they had a positive point diff early, it probably didn't represent their true talent.

 

I belive GB beat NO 52-3 or something like that to really skew the differential that year.

[rluzinski]

I must not be a sports fan then.

 

Because you also speak in probabilities?

 

You lost me.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

I was speaking in absolutes by asking if one team is better because they have a better run differential.

[TooLiveBrew]

Quote:

---

I belive GB beat NO 52-3 or something like that to really skew the differential that year.

---

Just like losing one game (in a series we took 2-1) 10-1 to Houston skews our differential.

 

All run differential tells you is how many more or less runs you or your opponents have scored. To me it's not particularly useful, bc it doesn't really predict anything. It can, however, work well in concert with other facts.

[rluzinski]

Just like losing one game (in a series we took 2-1) 10-1 to Houston skews our differential.

 

Which is why run differentials after 24 games isn't particularly meaningful. 100+ games, on the other hand.

 

All run differential tells you is how many more or less runs you or your opponents have scored. To me it's not particularly useful, bc it doesn't really predict anything.

 

You might want to google "Pythagorean Record". You can predict a team's record over a season with only rs and ra pretty accurately.