“If we pretend that pitching doesn’t matter, that runs allowed is entirely a function of fielding, and that there was no real difference between Three Rivers Stadium and Veterans Stadium — even if we assume that this was all because of those 63 errors — it doesn’t strike me as particularly significant.
I’ll put it a different way. The Phillies allowed 586 runs in 1978; the Pirates allowed 637. Both teams allowed a below average number of runs in 1978. Is it reasonable to believe that the additional errors were responsible for a significant total of those 51 runs?”
Here is another way to look at it. In 1978, the Phillies allowed 534 ER plus 60 unearned runs. The Pirates allowed 548 ER plus 89 unearned runs. Their FIPs were nearly identical, at 3.39 and 3.40. Because their FIPs were nearly the same, wouldn’t the majority of those extra unearned runs be attributed to defense?
The 1978 Pirates scored 684 runs and allowed 637. The Phillies scored 708 and allowed 586.
Using the Bill James formula to predict wins based on run differential (runs scored^2) / (runs scored^2) + (runs allowed^2), the Pirates would be expected to win 86.7 games, the Phillies 96.1. Their actual win totals were 88 and 90.
If we remove the 29 extra unearned runs from the Pirates’ runs allowed, they would be expected to win 90.5 games, a difference of close to four wins, which would move them ahead of the Phillies, who underperformed their run-differential.
Another note:
The Phillies led MLB with 78 Rtot (Total Zone, Total Zone Fielding Runs Above Average).
The Pirates were 21st, with -33 Rtot. That’s a significant difference of 20 spots in the rankings and 111 runs.
Not everyone has bought into the WAR stat as the defining number for a player. What most have bought into per ranking a hitter are his BA, SLG, & OPS numbers.
In 1978, Parker led the National League in those. Like many who claim to know who the best player/players are in MLB, Bill James tends to be closer than most per that...opinion. imho
https://open.substack.com/pub/johnnogowski/p/there-was-only-one-dizzy-dean?r=7pf7u&utm_medium=ios
“If we pretend that pitching doesn’t matter, that runs allowed is entirely a function of fielding, and that there was no real difference between Three Rivers Stadium and Veterans Stadium — even if we assume that this was all because of those 63 errors — it doesn’t strike me as particularly significant.
I’ll put it a different way. The Phillies allowed 586 runs in 1978; the Pirates allowed 637. Both teams allowed a below average number of runs in 1978. Is it reasonable to believe that the additional errors were responsible for a significant total of those 51 runs?”
Here is another way to look at it. In 1978, the Phillies allowed 534 ER plus 60 unearned runs. The Pirates allowed 548 ER plus 89 unearned runs. Their FIPs were nearly identical, at 3.39 and 3.40. Because their FIPs were nearly the same, wouldn’t the majority of those extra unearned runs be attributed to defense?
The 1978 Pirates scored 684 runs and allowed 637. The Phillies scored 708 and allowed 586.
Using the Bill James formula to predict wins based on run differential (runs scored^2) / (runs scored^2) + (runs allowed^2), the Pirates would be expected to win 86.7 games, the Phillies 96.1. Their actual win totals were 88 and 90.
If we remove the 29 extra unearned runs from the Pirates’ runs allowed, they would be expected to win 90.5 games, a difference of close to four wins, which would move them ahead of the Phillies, who underperformed their run-differential.
Another note:
The Phillies led MLB with 78 Rtot (Total Zone, Total Zone Fielding Runs Above Average).
The Pirates were 21st, with -33 Rtot. That’s a significant difference of 20 spots in the rankings and 111 runs.
Not everyone has bought into the WAR stat as the defining number for a player. What most have bought into per ranking a hitter are his BA, SLG, & OPS numbers.
In 1978, Parker led the National League in those. Like many who claim to know who the best player/players are in MLB, Bill James tends to be closer than most per that...opinion. imho