Point of Contention

Great article from Paul; nothing groundbreaking, I suppose, but well laid out and explained. There should be a comprehension test based largely on these ideas for anyone from cleveland.com that wants to post here.

almost 3 years ago CU Adam 20 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Given our dismal first half, it’s amazing that we scored only 6 fewer runs in 2008 than we did in 2007. It does seem that, in addition to the bullpen ERA figures, another indicator that the bullpen was the problem last year is our W/L in relation to our run differential and expected wins under the pythagorean theorem. That certainly supports Shap’s emphasis on the pen this winter.

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on Mar 4, 2009 1:48 AM EST reply actions

we went through a rough offensive stretch in 07 too.

by Brick. on Mar 4, 2009 6:41 PM EST up reply actions

Not like in 05 and 08 though.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Mar 4, 2009 6:54 PM EST up reply actions

6 fewer runs scored in 2008. Run differential went down from +115 to +44. As much as the injuries to Pronk and Victor were a major issue, 2008 is largely on the pitching staff, and within that, on the bullpen. Of course, this doesn’t account for the possibility that we won close games and lost blow outs. Is there any easy way to look that up? Anybody?

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on Mar 4, 2009 9:33 PM EST up reply actions

In 2008, the Tribe was 14-17 in one run games and 29-20 in blowouts (5+ run differential)

In 2007, the Tribe was 29-24 in one run games and 26-15 in blowouts.

Oh and info is on BRef, on the team schedule page

by talonk on Mar 5, 2009 11:24 AM EST up reply actions

Thanks, that’s useful information. And I’m glad I know where to look it up myself next time.

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on Mar 5, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions

Good stuff.

I will never understand anyone who hates Shapiro. He has done a remarkable job this decade and has (potentially) set us up for another 3-4 years of similar success.

by Toxicadam on Mar 4, 2009 2:09 AM EST reply actions

Thanks guys.
And don’t worry, I get an influx of e-mails after things like this to “Keep Drinking the Kool-Aid”, that “numbers can be massaged any way you want”, and that “the Dolans are cheap”.

I know that this goes back to Evan’s FanShot a couple of days ago, but it’s amazing how some people can send me these irrationally spiteful e-mails after I simply tried to lay out some very basic facts, while not earth-shattering, that point to how the Indians have contended since 2005 more so than 22 MLB teams.

by The DiaTriber on Mar 4, 2009 10:19 AM EST up reply actions

It makes you wonder why these people waste their time watching the games and reading about the team. Why be fans if you hate everything about your team and nothing will ever make you happy? I just don’t get that attitude. People are always looking for a reason to be negative or hateful (and not just in sports, as we discussed).

But I don’t get why they keep following the team if they hate everything about it? Or maybe they like doing that; maybe it gives them pleasure to rip on the team and every move they make. Does it make them feel good about themselves to think they can run the team better than Shapiro or manage better than Wedge? I just don’t get it.

by Buckeye Brad on Mar 4, 2009 10:26 AM EST up reply actions

yep. again, if it makes you angry, why is it your hobby?

by Brick. on Mar 4, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions

Have you ever tried fly-fishing?

by odradek on Mar 4, 2009 10:33 PM EST up reply actions

no. and i don’t get people that get mad on the golf course either.

by Brick. on Mar 5, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions

I get mad when I’m on this blog and I shank a comment.

by NickFantana on Mar 5, 2009 11:01 AM EST up reply actions

When the Tribe goes into a funk, I go fly-fishing. When I have a bad day fly-fishing, I can’t wait to get back and watch the Indians.

by dgcambridge on Mar 5, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions

And keep up the good work, by the way.

by Buckeye Brad on Mar 4, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions

I didn’t mean to imply that it wasn’t good by saying it wasn’t groundbreaking; sorry, just reread that. I just meant that the stats and general ideas used are known by most of the people here, if not so explicitly and in detail.

Great job, as always.

Il faut d'abord durer.

by CU Adam on Mar 4, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions

Indians’ ERA by Starters – 2005 to 2008
2008 – 4.16 ERA (6th in AL, 11th in MLB)
2007 – 4.19 ERA (1st in AL, 2nd in MLB)
2006 – 4.31 ERA (3rd in AL, 7th in MLB)
2005 – 3.96 ERA (5th in AL, 10th in MLB)

Funny that in our starters’ two best years, they were ranked lower in relation to the rest of baseball than they were in their two worst years.

Oh, and that’s a good article.

by Matt Y. on Mar 4, 2009 12:36 PM EST reply actions

That means they weren’t really their best two and worst two years, doesn’t it?

Let’s re-do these rankings with ERA+.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Mar 4, 2009 2:23 PM EST up reply actions

If you know where that data (ERA+ by team, for starters or relievers only) exists, I’m all ears as I don’t know where to find that specific information.

by The DiaTriber on Mar 4, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions

I didn’t mean it as a critique, but Matt Y raised an interesting question, and it’s tough to answer it without ERA+. That would correct for fluctuation in runs scored between seasons, which at least for 2008 was kind of significant. Sweetening the pot, it would also correct for park effects.

Anyway, you can find each team’s overall ERA+ on the league-season pages of B-Ref, scroll down to “League PItching.”

To get ERA+ for the starters vs. relievers, however, would be quite a bit more complicated. Each team-season has a pitching splits page, but it doesn’t include ERA+. You could use the sOPS+ as a rough proxy, and that would be helpful even though it’s not park adjusted.

There is a much more complicated way to do it. The league-season page gives us each team’s ERA and ERA+. The team-season page gives us the Split ERA for starters and relievers. So you can solve for the split ERA+ for any team split as:

(ERA+ * ERA) / splitERA

So for the Indians in 2008:

starters: (4.46 * 100) / 4.16) = 107
relievers: (4.46 * 100) / 5.13) = 87

(The 100 in there is not part of the ERA+ formula, it just happens that the Indians team ERA+ in 2008 was exactly 100. You lose some precision in there because the published ERA+ is rounded off, but it’s accurate to within one point of ERA+ and usually will be dead-on. It might help to go to one decimal place for an ERA+ ranking.)

I didn’t mean to give you this as a big homework assignment … kind of slammed at the moment or I might do it myself … but anyway, the data is out there, just not that convenient.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Mar 4, 2009 4:03 PM EST up reply actions