The Rays were consistently at or near the top of the power rankings all season long, which is something that caused more than a few raised eyebrows. Early in the season, this occurred despite their having a sub-0.500 record! That they surged mid-season and became, at least for a time, a legitimate threat in the East was a modest vindication--but even so, we have a 0.519 W% team as our #2 overall team. Why? We're estimating that a team with the Rays' component stats should score 24 more runs than the Rays did as well as allow a whopping 53 fewer runs. Offensively, the Rays do rate as a below-average "clutchy" team by FanGraphs' clutch measures (-23 runs), which makes up to the offensive shortfall very well. On defense, though, I think they were just unlucky. ERA was very much in line with FIP & tERA, despite the Rays having an extremely good fielding team. Somehow, despite the good fielding, those extra runs were still scoring.
about 1 month ago
R.J. Anderson
17 comments
0 recs |
Comments
During a broadcast of one of the playoff games
a productive out stat was given showing most of the playoff teams at or near the top
Wonder if you know where to find this list
by sternfan1 on Oct 12, 2009 4:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ESPN:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/productive?tp=team
Rankings by productive out percentage (ProdOuts/Opps):
Red Sox: 30th
Yankees: 26th
Dodgers: 25th
Twins: 16th
Philadelphia: 15th
Angels: 8th
Cardinals: 6th
Rays: 5th
Rockies: 2nd (probably influence by Coors helping hitters put ball in play)
And, the clincher, Nationals: 1st
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 12, 2009 4:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Wait, so you mean "productive outs" don't correlate to winning?!
GASP!
by Suttree on Oct 12, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, negatively last time I recall
by vivaelpujols on Oct 12, 2009 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They are still outs, afterall
Get well soon DM
by Sandy Kazmir on Oct 13, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aah, here is what I was looking for
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/yet-another-productive-outs-article/
If I’m reading those correlations correctly, productive out percentage (not even the counting stat) has a -.476 correlation to W%. That truly is amazingly perfect.
by vivaelpujols on Oct 13, 2009 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looking at this year's correlation it was only -0.1435
The correlation between Opp and W is .2194. Which makes sense while the correlation between PO and W is only .0023. No idea on the significance and don’t feel like doing it.
Get well soon DM
by Sandy Kazmir on Oct 13, 2009 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
On the pitcher side the correlations are
.3355
-.3082
.0395, respectively
A line estimate for the batter side shows -54.00 with a constant of 0 while the same for the pitcher side is 177.
Get well soon DM
by Sandy Kazmir on Oct 13, 2009 2:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Nats!!!!
Swav or Die (>'-')> <('-')> <('-'<)
For the lulz
by SRQman on Oct 12, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
THE NATIONALS
ARE GOOD in something- OMG, ITS THE APOCALYPSE.
J.J LOVE SPREADS while RAHEEM MORRIS'S PLAN FOR NFLDOMINECION IS COMING TO AN END.
by Some other guy who does not care on Oct 12, 2009 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this is flawed big time
You must trim the hits out of the equation
ProductiveOuts/(Opportunity-Hits)
Essentially what you want to be measuring is how often a team hits a ground ball to the pitcher, strikes out, or a lazy pop up that doesn’t do squat. Once you start throwing in hits then things are a bit screwed up because it favors crappy offensive teams. Teams that suck of offense will have more productive outs than good offensive teams because they produce more outs as a % of total ABs than good teams. You need to strip that out.
Can we get robots for umpires and a computer to make in game strategy decisions? I'm sick of inconsistently bad umpiring and Joe's pitiful in game management. Oh and Navi (and BJ) need some PED's. BenZo, Bartlett, and Pena do not.
by matthan on Oct 13, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course it is ridiculous period.
Can we get robots for umpires and a computer to make in game strategy decisions? I'm sick of inconsistently bad umpiring and Joe's pitiful in game management. Oh and Navi (and BJ) need some PED's. BenZo, Bartlett, and Pena do not.
by matthan on Oct 13, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
still doesn't make me feel any better about this season
by save_the_trop on Oct 13, 2009 1:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
2nd best Rays season ever?
No? Not biting?
by Marky Mark's Third Nipple on Oct 13, 2009 1:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We were a playoff team that failed to make the postseason
That is a disappointing season. Nothing wrong with analyzing the season and figuring out what went wrong. And if it comes down to luck then that sucks even more. However at the end of the team it is all about championships.
Hearing that we were better than what we finished is a good sign for the future. Nobody wins tropheys for excel championships though…
Can we get robots for umpires and a computer to make in game strategy decisions? I'm sick of inconsistently bad umpiring and Joe's pitiful in game management. Oh and Navi (and BJ) need some PED's. BenZo, Bartlett, and Pena do not.
by matthan on Oct 13, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs



















