Tigers Pitching

"S. Smith" <scott.smith.DeleteThis@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:jg8n64lado5il77pnu77dk6c4djuahf8n6@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:53:37 -0500, S. Smith <scott.smith.DeleteThis@iphouse.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 19, 10:10 am, "Likely Story" <h....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Team ERA 4.52
>>>
>>> Twins ERA 4.51
>>
>>
>>Update as of 6/25/08:
>>
>>Twins team pitching is #18 in the league with an ERA of 4.31
>>
>>Tigers drop back down to #25 with an ERA of 4.58
>
>
> Update as of 7/2/08:
>
> Twins pitching up to #17 with a team ERA of 4.23
>
> Tigers holding stong (or weak) at spot #25 with team ERA of 4.51


4.23 vs. 4.51....you're splitting hairs, Scott. While ranking ERA's like
this puts the two teams where they are, they're both still close in ERA and
not all that far apart, IMO.


 >> Stay informed about: Tigers Pitching 

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:49:59 -0400, "Hosmerica"
<BigOneComing DeleteThis @IveGotGas.com> wrote:

>
>"S. Smith" <scott.smith DeleteThis @iphouse.com> wrote in message
>news:jg8n64lado5il77pnu77dk6c4djuahf8n6@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:53:37 -0500, S. Smith <scott.smith DeleteThis @iphouse.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 19, 10:10 am, "Likely Story" <h... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Team ERA 4.52
>>>>
>>>> Twins ERA 4.51
>>>
>>>
>>>Update as of 6/25/08:
>>>
>>>Twins team pitching is #18 in the league with an ERA of 4.31
>>>
>>>Tigers drop back down to #25 with an ERA of 4.58
>>
>>
>> Update as of 7/2/08:
>>
>> Twins pitching up to #17 with a team ERA of 4.23
>>
>> Tigers holding stong (or weak) at spot #25 with team ERA of 4.51
>
>
>4.23 vs. 4.51....you're splitting hairs, Scott. While ranking ERA's like
>this puts the two teams where they are, they're both still close in ERA and
>not all that far apart, IMO.

As of today the Twins are #15 with a team ERA of 4.15, the Tigers are
#24 with a team ERA of 4.51 (still)...I do consider that a healthy
margin, yes.

When you add to that the fact that the Tigers are near the worst in
the majors for walks given up, with 328....and the Twins are best in
the majors with only 200 walks allowed....that adds up to a much
better picture of the differences between these two pitching
rosters.




- Scott Smith: scott.smith DeleteThis @iphouse.com
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers Pitching 

"Matt" <AcesWired DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f5dacd93-9996-42a6-857d-fa15eaa5d513@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 3, 9:49 am, "Hosmerica" <BigOneCom... DeleteThis @IveGotGas.com> wrote:
>
> 4.23 vs. 4.51....you're splitting hairs, Scott. While ranking ERA's like
> this puts the two teams where they are, they're both still close in ERA
> and
> not all that far apart, IMO.

More than a quarter of a run a game isn't splitting hairs. Over the
course of a season (or even half of one), that's significent.


No it isn't. Half a run a game is, I'll agree, but not a quarter.
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers Pitching 

"S. Smith" <scott.smith.TakeThisOut@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:26qp64tr9oon1ijl9gruc4ifs1accha1n0@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:49:59 -0400, "Hosmerica"
> <BigOneComing.TakeThisOut@IveGotGas.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"S. Smith" <scott.smith.TakeThisOut@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>>news:jg8n64lado5il77pnu77dk6c4djuahf8n6@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:53:37 -0500, S. Smith <scott.smith.TakeThisOut@iphouse.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jun 19, 10:10 am, "Likely Story" <h....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Team ERA 4.52
>>>>>
>>>>> Twins ERA 4.51
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Update as of 6/25/08:
>>>>
>>>>Twins team pitching is #18 in the league with an ERA of 4.31
>>>>
>>>>Tigers drop back down to #25 with an ERA of 4.58
>>>
>>>
>>> Update as of 7/2/08:
>>>
>>> Twins pitching up to #17 with a team ERA of 4.23
>>>
>>> Tigers holding stong (or weak) at spot #25 with team ERA of 4.51
>>
>>
>>4.23 vs. 4.51....you're splitting hairs, Scott. While ranking ERA's like
>>this puts the two teams where they are, they're both still close in ERA
>>and
>>not all that far apart, IMO.
>
> As of today the Twins are #15 with a team ERA of 4.15, the Tigers are
> #24 with a team ERA of 4.51 (still)...I do consider that a healthy
> margin, yes.
>
> When you add to that the fact that the Tigers are near the worst in
> the majors for walks given up, with 328....and the Twins are best in
> the majors with only 200 walks allowed....that adds up to a much
> better picture of the differences between these two pitching
> rosters.

You're right, it is a wider margin being almost half a percentage better in
ERA, but the original .28 isn't all that much. I'll concede the walks as
that wasn't my point and I didn't disagree about that anyways.
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers Pitching 

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:47:16 -0400, "Hosmerica"
<BigOneComing.RemoveThis@IveGotGas.com> wrote:

>
>"S. Smith" <scott.smith.RemoveThis@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>news:26qp64tr9oon1ijl9gruc4ifs1accha1n0@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:49:59 -0400, "Hosmerica"
>> <BigOneComing.RemoveThis@IveGotGas.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"S. Smith" <scott.smith.RemoveThis@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>>>news:jg8n64lado5il77pnu77dk6c4djuahf8n6@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:53:37 -0500, S. Smith <scott.smith.RemoveThis@iphouse.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Jun 19, 10:10 am, "Likely Story" <h....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Team ERA 4.52
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Twins ERA 4.51
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Update as of 6/25/08:
>>>>>
>>>>>Twins team pitching is #18 in the league with an ERA of 4.31
>>>>>
>>>>>Tigers drop back down to #25 with an ERA of 4.58
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Update as of 7/2/08:
>>>>
>>>> Twins pitching up to #17 with a team ERA of 4.23
>>>>
>>>> Tigers holding stong (or weak) at spot #25 with team ERA of 4.51
>>>
>>>
>>>4.23 vs. 4.51....you're splitting hairs, Scott. While ranking ERA's like
>>>this puts the two teams where they are, they're both still close in ERA
>>>and
>>>not all that far apart, IMO.
>>
>> As of today the Twins are #15 with a team ERA of 4.15, the Tigers are
>> #24 with a team ERA of 4.51 (still)...I do consider that a healthy
>> margin, yes.
>>
>> When you add to that the fact that the Tigers are near the worst in
>> the majors for walks given up, with 328....and the Twins are best in
>> the majors with only 200 walks allowed....that adds up to a much
>> better picture of the differences between these two pitching
>> rosters.
>
>You're right, it is a wider margin being almost half a percentage better in
>ERA, but the original .28 isn't all that much. I'll concede the walks as
>that wasn't my point and I didn't disagree about that anyways.


And to be fair, the Twins pitching has made up a lot of ground over
the last three or four weeks...their starting pitching and bullpen
have been remarkably good lately. A very pleasant surprise.




- Scott Smith: scott.smith.RemoveThis@iphouse.com
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers Pitching 

> On Jul 3, 1:55�pm, S. Smith <scott.sm....DeleteThis@iphouse.com> wrote:

> And to be fair, the Twins pitching has made up a lot of ground over
> the last three or four weeks...their starting pitching and bullpen
> have been remarkably good lately. A very pleasant surprise.

Another difference--the Tigers lose Zumaya and Rodney and their
bullpen goes in the tank. They plug the hole with Casey Fossum (yechh)
and Freddy Dolsi (not bad). The Twins lose Pat Neshek for the year and
they plug in Craig Breslow, who has far exceeded expectations, and
actually improve their bullpen.
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers Pitching 

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Hosmerica wrote:

> "Matt" <AcesWired DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f5dacd93-9996-42a6-857d-fa15eaa5d513@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 9:49 am, "Hosmerica" <BigOneCom... DeleteThis @IveGotGas.com> wrote:
>>
>> 4.23 vs. 4.51....you're splitting hairs, Scott. While ranking ERA's like
>> this puts the two teams where they are, they're both still close in ERA
>> and
>> not all that far apart, IMO.
>
> More than a quarter of a run a game isn't splitting hairs. Over the
> course of a season (or even half of one), that's significent.
>
> No it isn't. Half a run a game is, I'll agree, but not a quarter.

I'm with Matt. Certainly 4.23 vs. 4.51 isn't the difference between a
first place team and a last place team. But it might matter. Over the
course of ten games, it's about a 3 run difference. Given that scoring
in baseball isn't very uniform, that difference could just as easily
mean one additional three run homer in that span of games. Those extra
three runs will sometimes put a win in jeopardy; some games are lopsided
wins, some are lopsided losses, some are close wins, some are close losses.
(If instead you choose to allocate those 3 runs individually to games,
there are still enough one-run games to make these numbers come out
similarly.) So, perhaps every forty games or so, there might be a game
lost, that "shouldn't" have. Over the course of a season, that's 4 games,
and that's enough to shape many pennant races. In that sense, while it
may be hard to measure with pinpoint accuracy, it's far from splitting
hairs. Unless it's the Mariners or Padres we're talking about this year.

Certainly a half run difference would be even more significant - or more
to the point, more *frequently* significant. Averages are interesting,
but only raw data matters; in that sense I sound almost like Roger
Maynard, sorry to say.

--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
I am not as think as you dumb I am.
 >> Stay informed about: Tigers Pitching