Pointless Chart of the Day....Or Is It?

by Slyde on Jun 8, 2009 11:46 AM EDT in Features

2009 Reds record in games where they HR or SH a certain number of times.
Num in Game	HR	SH
0	8-9	9-19
1	13-11	15-5
2	6-5	4-2
3	2-1	0-1
4	0-0	1-0
5	0-1	0-0

As you can see, SMAWL BAWL RULZ!!!1!11!1

Now it is your job, in 500 words or less, to explain why.

Tweet Comment 29 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

We hit five home runs in a game and lost?

No wonder we decided that offense was overrated.

by Brendanukkah on Jun 8, 2009 11:50 AM EDT reply actions

It was the Mother's Day game where Cherry and Owings both homered to tie it in the 9th

But lost it in the 10th.

"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty

by Slyde on Jun 8, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions

Correlation => Causation!

It’s true, because I read it on wikipedia.

Let me write out a formal proof for you.

by Gray on Jun 8, 2009 12:00 PM EDT reply actions

"The Reds were a .600 ballclub last year when Jerry Hairston hit lead off"

- Name that announcer!

by D-Rock on Jun 8, 2009 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions

i'm not so sure

/furtive gesture

by bbjones on Jun 8, 2009 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions

If this chart tells us anything...

It’s that 1 sacrifice hit is the perfect amount, and 3 is just plain stupid.

by D-Rock on Jun 8, 2009 12:13 PM EDT reply actions

or, if you are going to do three, you better be willing to do a 4th

"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty

by Slyde on Jun 8, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions

that's what she said?

by D-Rock on Jun 8, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions

I guess I don't get this small ball stuff...

I’d much rather rely on good pitching AND good offense and win every game 7-2

Nobody listens to Andrew

by nlt-andrew68 on Jun 8, 2009 12:37 PM EDT reply actions

that the Reds are undefeated this year when they score more runs than the opposing team….sorry there’s no link to back up my research. Maybe someone can track that down for me. They should just score more runs than the other team all the time.

by Who's on First? on Jun 8, 2009 12:55 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

small sample size alert!

"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty

by Slyde on Jun 8, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions

Good point...

However, after doing a little more research, I have determined that in the entire Reds team history they have actually won every game in which they scored more runs than the opposing team. So you gotta figure dating back over 100 years, that is a pretty substantial sample size and also a pretty good team strategy. Just score more runs than the opposing team and you have it made.

by Who's on First? on Jun 8, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions

And also.

I like your stats like this. Even when they don’t necessarily mean that much, I still think it’s pretty interesting. It’s pretty strange that they have such a good record in games with one sacrifice. It may be interesting to see if in those games, the sacrifice actually led to the winning run or runs. Or if it was a case of Dusty bunting in a 5 run game.

by Who's on First? on Jun 8, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions

maybe just having ~1 sacrifice

is a message of doing no sacrificing except with the pitcher, and dudes are getting on base in front of him?

This supposition brought to you from Cy Schourek’s ass.

by Cy Schourek on Jun 8, 2009 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions

that's the whole point of this thread

I wanted to see what everybody pulled out of their collective asses.

"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty

by Slyde on Jun 8, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions

eww

by Charlie Scrabbles on Jun 8, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions

It will be a little less without Colin

by ken on Jun 9, 2009 7:01 AM EDT up reply actions

The SH part seems pointless

but the HR part is really interesting to me, especially given Joe Posnanski’s recent blog about it.

Seems like the Reds should be much better in those 2 homer games, and much worse in the O homer games. I know it’s a tiny sample size, but still.

Isn't there a slanket somewhere you should be filling with your farts?

by nycredsfan on Jun 8, 2009 1:59 PM EDT reply actions

Just... because!

I have 498 words left, no wait… 491… 490… um -?

Reds fan for 40 years!

by gejoe on Jun 8, 2009 2:29 PM EDT reply actions

why smawl bawl rulz

When you can score a run in only two outs (cuz you bunted away your third one), it shows you are much more manly than those teams that need three outs to score.

The end.

Baseball worshiped here.

by Daedalus on Jun 8, 2009 3:16 PM EDT reply actions

fuck yeahhhhhh

only pussies and gaybos hit home runs.

by Charlie Scrabbles on Jun 8, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions

and foot fairies

"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty

by Slyde on Jun 8, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Is it necessary to have a mangina to be a foot fairy?

Just curious.

Eighty-five percent of the f*ckin' world is working. The other fifteen percent come out here. A f*ckin' playground for the cocks*ckers.
-Lee Elia on Cubs fans

by Farneyismycopilot on Jun 8, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Then the Pirates must be the most manly team in baseball!

So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded!? Yea, totally. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets do a sample. There are 4 of us and you're retarded. Thats 25 percent. -South Park; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce.

by gorillakilla34 on Jun 8, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions

The SH is selfless

And everyone knows God rewards selflessness. Therefore, wins.

The only reasonable explanation I can come to is that if I were managing, I would be inclined to play small ball in close games, that is, games in which a single run is likely to make a huge difference. Put another way, what’s the point in SH’ing down four runs? Therefore, if we’re SH’ing we must be at least close anyway, right?

Also, baseball is screwy and will mess with your mind if you think too deeply about it.

by ben nevis on Jun 8, 2009 4:42 PM EDT reply actions

oddly enough

This is average runs per game for 0 SH games vs. 1 SH games:

SH    RS    RA
0    3.9   4.7
1    5.3   3.8

So games where the Reds didn’t sacrifice are actually closer than games in which they did, though not by a lot. I would guess the real difference is base runners. In games where they sacrifice once, they have 2 more base runners on average than in games without a sacrifice. More base runners means more opportunities to score as well as more opportunities for sacrifice bunts.

"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty

by Slyde on Jun 8, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions

I just had a thought...

There also seems to be a reasonable relation (caution: small sample size alert) between the number of runs allowed in a game and the number of sacrifice hits. This could be because teams are much more likely to sacrifice with their pitcher, who is in turn much more likely to stay in the game to bat for himself (as opposed to being replaced by a pinch hitter) if he is pitching well, and therefore giving his team a chance to win.

Therefore, the reason games with more sacrifice hits are won is because pitchers who pitch well get more sac bunt chances.

by ThePensive on Jun 9, 2009 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions

SH: It is interesting

The SH, it adds many different facets to a teams Approach. The Previous Gaybo HR theory has held true through these small sample size, but the SH, It’s manliness coefficient also suffers the same fate due to small sample size. In conclusion, the SH, it seems to have an upside, but most likely its SH, it.

Dusty Baker said it was the first [triple play] he’d seen in person. When he was with the Dodgers, they hit into one, but he was in the bathroom.- C Trent

by The Crushinator on Jun 8, 2009 5:36 PM EDT reply actions