quote:

---

This has turned into less of a "trash talk" thread and more into a "Houston Fans Make Excuses For Why Texas Really Isn't That Good" thread.

---

Regarding 2017. Who's to say the Rangers don't improve in the offseason and turn some of these one run games into 2, 3, 4 run games?

Run differential is overly simplistic. It doesn't account for changes to the roster throughout the season. If the Rangers (and every other team) had been playing with the same roster for the entire year then I believe it would be more meaningful.

My hypothesis is that the Rangers have made significant upgrades due to trades and players returning from injury. As an example we can examine the number of pitchers used by the Rangers and Astros over the season.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/team/stats/pitching/_/name/tex/texas-rangers
http://www.espn.com/mlb/team/stats/pitching/_/name/hou/houston-astros

The Rangers have used 29 total pitchers.
28 of those pitchers threw more than 1 inning.
11 of those pitchers started at least 1 game.
10 pitchers who have thrown more than 1 inning also had an ERA over 7.0.
Only 1 pitcher with an ERA over 7.0 is still on the roster (Dario Alvarez who has thrown 4 innings and given up 5 earned runs).

The Astros have used 21 total pitchers.
18 of those pitchers threw more than 1 inning.
8 of those pitchers started at least 1 game.
1 pitcher who has thrown more than 1 inning also had an ERA over 7.0.
No pitchers with an ERA over 7.0 are still on the roster.

In summary the Rangers have removed a total of 133.2 innings and 138 runs given up from the roster (pitchers with an ERA over 7). The Astros have removed 8.2 innings and 7 runs given up from the roster (pitchers with an ERA over 7).

Furthermore, if the Rangers replaced an "average pitcher" with a 4.5 ERA for those 133.2 innings then they would have only given up 66.5 runs. That alone would increase their run differential by a whopping 71.5 runs. That would also decrease the number of 1 run games they ever played. I would argue that the Rangers have been very "unlucky" with regards to injuries to even find themselves in 38, 1 run games.

I did some homework regarding the Rangers run differential. Take our seven "problem children" - Ranaudo, Chi Chi, Lohse, Wilhelmsen, Tolly, Nick Martinez. Guys we have found a viable replacement or alternative for, who by and large are NOT used anymore. They gave up 114 ER in 119.2 IP. If you replace them with just an average pitcher (many would say they've been replace with ABOVE average) talent) with a 4.5 ERA, they would project to give up just 60 runs. That would boost our run differential to +82 - more in line with the Dodger/Giants/Indians.

Now, your argument is going to be, "but if you let the good teams replace the stats of their problem children...". I would argue using the point the above poster made, regarding the number of pitchers he Rangers have had to use. I don't think the good teams problem children have been nearly as bad, or as often used as the Rangers. However, the Rangers got it fixed, and their talent level appears to be more in line with the elite teams.

But yes, keep prancing run differential out there as a viable example of the Rangers not really being that good.

Exactly. That's why just looking at run differential is problematic. A few pages ago we had done similar math showing that the replacements for Griffin/Darvish/Holland/Lewis gave up an additional 63 runs compared to average performances for the regulars they replaced.

Of course, nobody expects the 30-8 record in one-run games to happen again next year, but this team has been winning at a similar pace since last year's trade deadline. They may not dominate in one-run games next year, but they may still win just as many as they do this year. That's how baseball go.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Run differential is overly simplistic. It doesn't account for changes to the roster throughout the season. If the Rangers (and every other team) had been playing with the same roster for the entire year then I believe it would be more meaningful.

My hypothesis is that the Rangers have made significant upgrades due to trades and players returning from injury. As an example we can examine the number of pitchers used by the Rangers and Astros over the season.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/team/stats/pitching/_/name/tex/texas-rangers
http://www.espn.com/mlb/team/stats/pitching/_/name/hou/houston-astros

The Rangers have used 29 total pitchers.
28 of those pitchers threw more than 1 inning.
11 of those pitchers started at least 1 game.
10 pitchers who have thrown more than 1 inning also had an ERA over 7.0.
Only 1 pitcher with an ERA over 7.0 is still on the roster (Dario Alvarez who has thrown 4 innings and given up 5 earned runs).

The Astros have used 21 total pitchers.
18 of those pitchers threw more than 1 inning.
8 of those pitchers started at least 1 game.
1 pitcher who has thrown more than 1 inning also had an ERA over 7.0.
No pitchers with an ERA over 7.0 are still on the roster.

In summary the Rangers have removed a total of 133.2 innings and 138 runs given up from the roster (pitchers with an ERA over 7). The Astros have removed 8.2 innings and 7 runs given up from the roster (pitchers with an ERA over 7).

Furthermore, if the Rangers replaced an "average pitcher" with a 4.5 ERA for those 133.2 innings then they would have only given up 66.5 runs. That alone would increase their run differential by a whopping 71.5 runs. That would also decrease the number of 1 run games they ever played. I would argue that the Rangers have been very "unlucky" with regards to injuries to even find themselves in 38, 1 run games.

---

Speaking of luck, Houston has the fewest games lost due to injuries in the majors this year so far (153 games). Now that is luck right there.

There are reasons why Rangers used 29 pitchers with pretty bad results. Darvish, Lewis and Holland (60%) of starting rotation have missed significant number of games this season. I think those three combined have missed starts (35 or so) whichis about 1/5 of total number of games Astros have missed due to injuries.

---

Clutch/luck/sequencing/1-runVictories is not a proven repeatable skill from year to year.

Injury prevention is more of a repeatable skill based on average player age, pitching mechanics, etc.

And I agree that run differential is too basic. That's why I prefer Baseruns.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The MLB standings seem to be the best refutation.

---

Simple question. Do you think the 1-run game record is sustainable through 2017?

---

The correct answer is "that question is irrelevant". Why?

Let's say you flip a coin 9 times and it comes up "heads" every time? What are the odds it comes up heads on the next flip?

The answer is the odds are 50/50. Those are the odds on every single flip.

So if one subscribes to the baseball stat geek mentality that one run games are a coin flip (i.e., everyone is .500 over time in one run games), the outcome of the Rangers next one run game is still .500. Because PAST PERFORMANCE DOES NOT AFFECT FUTURE OUTCOMES in games of chance.

Hell, if the Rangers went 100-0 in one run games in 2016, what would be the odds of them winning or losing their first one run game of 2017? 50/50.

I agree that the Rangers 1 run record is like flipping a coin. There might be some skill, but a lot of luck too.

quote:

---

I agree that the Rangers 1 run record is like flipping a coin. There might be some skill, but a lot of luck too.

---

It's similar to those people who are playing craps and they always throw the dice with the same numbers pointing up as if that has anything to do with the outcome of their roll.

Wouldn't it be better to be 0-0 in 1 run games?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Anyone have a sock they don't mind wasting? This thread is beyond saving, and needs to be pr0n-blasted into oblivion.

---

You ain't lying

---

quote:

---

Interesting:

So, a +76 run differential against teams w/ a winning record and a record of 57-27.

---

Even Ben and Skin were talking about run differential and all the crap the Houston sports fans were spouting off.

Hard to fathom the joy of sweeping the Astros this weekend with a suite of one run games!

Looking over the last few pages it seems as though it's the Ranger fans still talking about run differential.

Why are Astros fans even here? You're way behind in the standings, you're trying to climb into a WC spot, and you have been absolutely drilled in head-to-head.

So you want another Ranger fan echo chamber, got it.

quote:

---

Looking over the last few pages it seems as though it's the Ranger fans still talking about run differential.

---

Irish pete is a ranger fan? Your thread observations suck almost as badly as your baseball observations

I'll be a Ranger fan come October. I sure hope Hank has another great season in him.

I went back to pg 97 dip***** He mentioned it once and it was him agreeing with another Ranger fan. Keep being a badass though. Gotta get that e-cred somehow.

And you're clearly a person that measures winning and losing on an Internet message board. Your wife and kids must be so proud.

quote:

---

He isn't the one scanning through pages of a message board auditing who has posted what.

---

quote:

---

He isn't the one scanning through pages of a message board auditing who has posted what.

---

Auditing = Proving you to be a dumbass, whatever you want to call it.