Sean C. in Illinois
May 21, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I have some comments on the article by Bendix.
Why is who the Tigers have played so far a “luck” factor?
If the Tigers are supposed to have scored 203 runs rather than 192 (after 44 games), in which games were they supposed to have scored the extra 11 runs, and would it have helped them win, considering that they might be “supposed” to have given up more runs than they actually have?
Am I incorrect in taking it that all points discussed were to be taken as luck factors? Getting on base but not scoring, hitters by and large performing below projections? Luck? BABIP I can see as a sort of luck factor, but not the rest.
I like stats, often find them fascinating even when they’re not particularly useful. And I don’t know enough about sabermetrics to knock it even if I wanted to. But I have to wonder what Jim Leyland would make of all this.
Maybe: “That’s weak. That’s horse____. You want to tell me that it’s bad luck to play the Boston Red Sox, the New York Yankees – that’s a diversionary tactic. You’re 17-27, striking out a lot, ____ grounding into double plays, you shouldn’t go popping off about how ___ unlucky you are, horse____ like that.”
Put me straight if sabermetrics has a special definition for luck, which is probably the case.
May 21, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Interesting link on the ‘Fire Jim Leyland’ page.
Tiger brass, supposedly, have been worried for some time now that he’s been throwing so many sliders because of wear on the arm(according to ‘insiders’ and such). This is one of the reasons they want him to throw a changeup more often.
It would make sense then, that if he’s not throwing his best pitch as often, he might worry too much about catching the heart of the plate with his other pitches, hence, more walks this year.
May 21, 2008 at 10:12 pm
No, not all the elements being discussed had to do with luck. The schedule is the schedule, that’s not luck. The only real luck components are that the Tigers have under-scored what their offense components would predict. These are based on models and don’t look at game by game. But in general 10 runs equals a win.
It was just an article that looked at a few different aspect of the Tigers struggles.
May 21, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Thanks. I went in (to the article) expecting a conclusion or an explanation, rather than the simpler examination it turned out to be. Confused me a bit. Didn’t mean to sound so negative about it.
Copyright © 2014 Detroit Tigers Weblog.