Did the Rays Overachieve?

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 12, 2007 12:39 PM EDT Comment 8 comments

Runs scored: 408
Runs allowed: 537
Expected W-L: 33-54
Real W-L: 34-53

I feel it's important to note that 222 of those runs (not earned runs) came off of: Seo, Fossum, Jackson, Orvella, Cocoran, Lugo, otherwise that's 286 off of the rest of the Rays' pitchers, and Josh Wilson. Of the 764 innings pitched this season, 539 have been by pitchers I didn't list, a la the not 'BEEP' terrible variety, the other 225 to those listed, which amazingly comes out to almost a run per inning when those six touch the rubber.

This shows us, that at least the runs deficits won't get worse in the second half; obviously good teams usually outscore their opponents, but when you're giving up that many runs...

As for the offense, check this out for some of the Rays' overachievers and underachievers, at least from the Hardball Times perspective, interesting to see Upton boast a 30% contact rate, a lot of folks seem to think he strikes out too much.

So 87 are done, 75 to go, what will the Rays' final record stand at, and will they get the 31 wins at home needed to reach 50?

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Did the Rays Overachieve?

Record after 87 games in 2007: 34-53

Projected record in 2007 based on first 81 games: 66-96

Record after 87 games in 2006: 38-49

Final record in 2006: 61-101

If the bar was set at 61-65 wins, then yes indeed the Rays have so far overachieved. I would hope the locals hold this team to a higher standard of "achievement", however.

Matt Sammon, draysbay columnist and professional bump on a log

by Matt Sammon on Jul 12, 2007 5:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Did the Rays Overachieve?

Matt, the overachievment comment was based on the RA / RS and the formula based on that difference that results in the W/L record, obviously nobody is happy with the teams' performance.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 12, 2007 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Did the Rays Overachieve?

R.J.

Understood about the original intent of the piece, and I have to admit I went out of my way to extend the argument.

There's no doubt several of the Rays players have gone above and beyond what people were expecting of them. But to me, no matter how you slice and dice stats the biggest stat is the wins and losses.

Mayve it's just me :)

Matt Sammon, draysbay columnist and professional bump on a log

by Matt Sammon on Jul 12, 2007 9:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Did the Rays Overachieve?

Of course, I understand your point, as a team they've yet to live up to the W-L totals, and that is the only thing that matters at this point.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 12, 2007 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Did the Rays Overachieve?

Or MAYBE it's just me :)

Matt Sammon, draysbay columnist and professional bump on a log

by Matt Sammon on Jul 12, 2007 9:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Did the Rays Overachieve?

Maybe or mayve, its just the way that it is:) You can win one ball game 11-4 and lose 3 games by 5-3, 6-4 and 4-2 and still have a better run differential and be 1-3.

In the end, you are what you are and it is what it is, there is only so much lipstick for every pig. Let's hope some of these young guys can stay motivated.

Joe

by joedobr on Jul 12, 2007 11:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Sadly

The Rays never win games by that wide of margin; as we know.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 13, 2007 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Did the Rays Overachieve?

I see no overachievement by the pitching staff. We only have three guys with ERA's under 5. That's not very good.

How much more seasoning do the guys in the minor leagues need to have to be better than the current bullpen?

I think the real underachievers are the management guys who somehow don't understand what those bull pen numbers mean. It's time to fact the fact that these guys just are not good pitchers. They are occupying spots on the roster and in the dugout that should go to guys who can do no worse. (I could do no worse, and I'm a little out of shape.)

by Fox 71 on Jul 16, 2007 11:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs