Author Topic: General Offense Discussion  (Read 12777 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 24179
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #325: May 03, 2012, 10:36:58 AM »
Makes me wish Dan Snyder owned the Nationals.  Yes, he is a terrible football owner but unlike in football, baseball has no salary cap so he could throw money at the best talent around.  Our offense wouldn't be as bad as it is had we spent money on offensive talent.

We would have Pujols, Werth and Crawford and no one in the minor leagues

What the Nats lineup should be when Zimm comes back (IMO):

Lombardozzi
Espinosa/Desmond (really don't care at this point)
Zimmerman
LaRoche
Werth
Harper
Moore
Ramos
Pitcher

When Morse get's back:

Lombardozzi
Werth
Zimmerman
Laroche
Morse
Harper
Desmond/Espinosa
Ramos
Pitcher

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37348
  • LAC 8)
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #326: May 03, 2012, 10:42:34 AM »
Well it's not the worst anymore. Just feels like it. :lol:

hahahahaha it really does, doesn't it?

Offline LostYudite

  • Posts: 758
  • Naaaa'aah-titude
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #327: May 03, 2012, 12:36:52 PM »
None of last year's playoff teams scored fewer than 700 runs in the regular season.  We are currently on pace to score 540.  Obviously continued contribution from Harper combined with the return of Zimmerman and Morse would accelerate the pace, but the team would need to increase their R/G by 1.16 starting tonight in order to reach 700 runs by the end of the season.

Sure, but we're also on pace to give up 458, which would about 70 runs better than what the Phillies did last year, which was itself 50 runs better than anybody else in the league.  Neither of those paces are going to be sustained.  Both our scoring and others scoring against us will pick up as the summer goes on.

There's no way that we get to 700, but the good news we don't have to.  You're right, none of last year's playoff teams scored less than 700, but the Braves, who were eliminated on the last day, scored 641, and the Giants, who were 3-4 games out, scored a league-worst 570.  I expect our staff will give up around 560-570 and be in the top 2-3 of the league.  If we can be in the 630-640 range, we should be right where we need to be.

The real question is, how the hell does this offense get to 640?  That's still almost three-quarters of a run more than we're currently averaging. 


Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30120
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #328: May 03, 2012, 01:17:51 PM »
There's no way that we get to 700, but the good news we don't have to.  You're right, none of last year's playoff teams scored less than 700, but the Braves, who were eliminated on the last day, scored 641, and the Giants, who were 3-4 games out, scored a league-worst 570.  I expect our staff will give up around 560-570 and be in the top 2-3 of the league.  If we can be in the 630-640 range, we should be right where we need to be.

You saw my next post, right?  I think there's a chance we sneak into the second wild card spot...  maybe.  But I don't think there's any way this team is in the running without that fortuitously-timed change.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30120
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #329: May 03, 2012, 01:23:03 PM »
Snyder thought-experiment split off:

http://www.wnff.net/index.php?topic=26464.0

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17969
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #330: May 03, 2012, 02:43:12 PM »
Chief -

That bar graph is interesting, but one thing you don't account for is the run scoring environment. Runs are down for MLB the past few years.  80 at this point is not as far off the league pace as 80 in 2007.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30120
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #331: May 03, 2012, 02:48:28 PM »
If you know of a way to get league averages for a given date during previous seasons using BR, I'll try to add it in or just make a separate graph for it.

Online houston-nat

  • Posts: 16290
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #332: May 03, 2012, 02:50:47 PM »
If you know of a way to get league averages for a given date during previous seasons using BR, I'll try to add it in or just make a separate graph for it.

Ooooh bar graphs with multiple colors. I know this isn't my most insightful post ever, but... I like bar graphs with lots of colors.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17969
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #333: May 03, 2012, 03:01:01 PM »
I'm not sure how to pick up league average runs per game through certain dates or number of games into the year.  however, it is easy to pick up runs / game here.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/bat.shtml

It's whole season numbers, but, since 2005 in the NL, Runs/game is:

2005 - 4.45
2006 - 4.76
2007 - 4.71
2008 - 4.54
2009 - 4.43
2010 - 4.33
2011 - 4.13
2012 - 4.06

80 runs in 24 games is 3.33. Still stinks, but is 82% of league average for the whole season.

2007, i think, was 78 runs (3.25 /g).  Relative to league average for the whole season, that was 69%.  Progress!

2008 was 93, or 3.875, or 85% of league full season average.  Eyeballing it, that would be the only one close to this year.

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #334: May 03, 2012, 03:05:05 PM »
Baseball reference gives the league rank -

2012 - 14
2011 - 12
2010 - 14
2009 - 9
2008 - 14
2007 - 16
2006 - 10
2005 - 16

For 2012 I don't know if they take into account the number of games played by each team (and last year we only played 161).

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17969
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #335: May 03, 2012, 03:08:38 PM »
Wow.  Everyone talks about the pitching hitting a wall in 2005, but the offense really cratered.

Offline RobDibblesGhost

  • Posts: 18388
  • Is it 2015 yet?
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #336: May 03, 2012, 05:55:29 PM »
Just heard about LaRoche.  Great...just what we need. We've already lost our two best hitters and now we'll add #3 to that list.

Offline LostYudite

  • Posts: 758
  • Naaaa'aah-titude
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #337: May 03, 2012, 05:58:55 PM »
You saw my next post, right?  I think there's a chance we sneak into the second wild card spot...  maybe.  But I don't think there's any way this team is in the running without that fortuitously-timed change.

I did - and I think you're probably right, but I actually think we could be in the running for the first wild-card spot too.  The important thing isn't really just runs scored - it's run differential.  If we can score about 75-80 more than we give up, that puts us in about an 89-90 expected wins.  90 wins puts you right in the wild card and division race, usually and should lock up the second wild card.

So, really, you can start with how great you think the pitching is going to be and work backwards.  sit depends also on how great you think the pitching's going to be.  Putting aside Philly's ridiculous 529 from last year, the lowest over the past few years are in the 580-ish range.  If you presume we're good enough to be where SF was the last few years, you could put us at 575.  75-80 runs puts us at 650.  If we hit that, we should be in the 90 win range, which should put us close to the #1 WC. 

The cool part about looking at it that way is that it gives you a rough approx of wins based on runs scored.  If we peg our runs against at 575, then it works like this:

600 runs:  84 wins
625: 87 wins
650: 90 wins
675: 93 wins
700: 96 wins

And it scales.  So if you happen to think that there's no reason we can't do what the Phillies did last year, adn you want to be aggressive in your guess about how few we're going to give up, you can peg us at 530 runs, and then slide accordingly:

555: 84 wins
580: 87
605: 90, etc.

Anyway, this is a very long-winded way to say I mostly agree with you, but I think it depends on what you think the pitching will do.  That's also why I'm so worried about the offense right now.  The pitching simply can't be this great over the course of a full season, so any reasonable expectation of what they will be requires that the offense get a lot better in a hurry.

Disclaimer: Before I get accused of statistical needledickery, yes, these numbers don't matter if they don't actually perform to them on the field, and yes, there is some built in variance in the real-world, such that a +50 run differential could reasonably be anywhere from 85-89 wins, and +75 could be 88-92, etc. or even a little better or worse if they have a particularly lucky or unlucky season.

Offline nobleisthyname

  • Posts: 2103
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #338: May 03, 2012, 06:27:07 PM »
Just heard about LaRoche.  Great...just what we need. We've already lost our two best hitters and now we'll add #3 to that list.

Why do the wrong guys keep getting injured??

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30120
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #339: May 03, 2012, 06:52:20 PM »
Baseball reference gives the league rank -

2012 - 14
2011 - 12
2010 - 14
2009 - 9
2008 - 14
2007 - 16
2006 - 10
2005 - 16

For 2012 I don't know if they take into account the number of games played by each team (and last year we only played 161).

If one wants to base offensive comparisons on league averages, this is a better method, and shows that our offense has - at best - stagnated over the years.  No offense to JCA, but claiming progress based on methods comparing the current ranking of this team with the to-date progress of other teams compared to their whole-year ranking is a questionable approach.  As the now-popular saying on both sides goes, "the season's not over", so we can't pretend that it is when comparing run production to other incarnations of the offense.

That said, I don't think the fact that scoring is down around the league matters in a purely offensive discussion.  Whatever the reasons, Nationals offensive production has steadily declined since 2009.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30120
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #340: May 03, 2012, 06:55:11 PM »
I did - and I think you're probably right, but I actually think we could be in the running for the first wild-card spot too.  The important thing isn't really just runs scored - it's run differential.  If we can score about 75-80 more than we give up, that puts us in about an 89-90 expected wins.  90 wins puts you right in the wild card and division race, usually and should lock up the second wild card.

Of course, but as this is the offensive thread, I didn't want to digress by bringing pitching into it.

Is there any advantage to being the higher-seeded WC?  Home field for the 1-game playoff?

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17969
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #341: May 03, 2012, 09:44:06 PM »
If one wants to base offensive comparisons on league averages, this is a better method, and shows that our offense has - at best - stagnated over the years.  No offense to JCA, but claiming progress based on methods comparing the current ranking of this team with the to-date progress of other teams compared to their whole-year ranking is a questionable approach.  As the now-popular saying on both sides goes, "the season's not over", so we can't pretend that it is when comparing run production to other incarnations of the offense.

That said, I don't think the fact that scoring is down around the league matters in a purely offensive discussion.  Whatever the reasons, Nationals offensive production has steadily declined since 2009.

I've learned not to take offense to someone who looks like a cross between Barney and Oscar.  I agree, what I was doing has its faults.  But the main point, that the run scoring environment makes year to year comparisons based just on runs scored without any adjustment is only fair in a ballpark way.  What you are showing is this offense has been on a par with some of our worst teams, like 2007 - 08.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30120
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #342: May 03, 2012, 09:46:20 PM »
I've learned not to take offense to someone who looks like a cross between Barney and Oscar.  I agree, what I was doing has its faults.  But the main point, that the run scoring environment makes year to year comparisons based just on runs scored without any adjustment is only fair in a ballpark way.  What you are showing is this offense has been on a par with some of our worst teams, like 2007 - 08.

I respectfully disagree.  A baseball team is like a car, it requires regular maintenance to maintain a certain level of performance, and heavy modification to significantly increase performance.  Our offense has declined due to lack of maintenance.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17969
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #343: May 03, 2012, 09:47:57 PM »
BTW - just noticed - this year and 2008 we are both 14th, and 2008 was the year that was the closest comp with my little % trick.  Coincidence . . . or a mystery wrapped in an enigma?

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30120
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #344: May 03, 2012, 09:49:21 PM »
BTW - just noticed - this year and 2008 we are both 14th, and 2008 was the year that was the closest comp with my little % trick.  Coincidence . . . or a mystery wrapped in an enigma?

2008 team finished with 641 runs.  For what it's worth, I think this team will top that unless things with RZ and Morse go significantly worse than expected (or some other unforseen disaster).

Online Nathan

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 10658
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #345: May 03, 2012, 09:50:56 PM »
2008 team finished with 641 runs.  For what it's worth, I think this team will top that unless things with RZ and Morse go significantly worse than expected (or some other unforseen disaster).

Sooooo..... no chance we top 641 runs?

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30120
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #346: May 03, 2012, 09:51:39 PM »
Sooooo..... no chance we top 641 runs?

:lmao:

*insert medical staff joke*

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 14314
  • Nats hitters = Maggie Lizer
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #347: May 03, 2012, 09:53:00 PM »
"medical staff joke" might be the most redundant thing ever said on this forum

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30120
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #348: May 03, 2012, 09:55:16 PM »
zing! :lol:

Offline Tyler Durden

  • Posts: 7971
  • Leprechaun
Re: General Offense Discussion
« Reply #349: May 03, 2012, 10:03:57 PM »
We've never even been among the top half of teams offensively.  That's terrible.

If LaRoche, Morse, and Zim all come back, we should improve significantly.  Those 3 plus Werth and Harper should net a decent offense.  If we get anything out of the middle infield and catcher, that would just be a bonus.