As we all know. Kershaw walks a lot of batters. What worries me, is that his walk rate is climbing. In my boredom today I decided to look at some of him numbers. I still don't understand some of the stats so I would appreciate some guidance If I'm off on some/every thing. I know we are only dealing with a third of a season this year. But considering how long he has been in the league I don't think that is a terrible sample size.

I'm mostly looking at plate discipline and pitch selection here. One other thing. FG definition of Zone% is pitches SEEN in the strike zone. I don't know if that is strikes taken or total strikes. It kind of works for me either way though.
Kershaw's Strike out rate has gone steadily up from 8.4/9 in 08 to 9.7/9 in 09 to 10.4/9 in 2010. His walk rate has also risen form  4.3/9 in 08 to 4.8/9 in 09 to 5.1/9 this year. His Zone% has actually increased every year while the league average has decreased. To the point where he is actually 12th in the league at 52.8 % the league average in 2010 is 47.4. He was at 49.5 in 08 when the league average was 51.1. So if batters are actually SEEING more pitches in the zone from Kershaw. Why is he walking more batters? One thing has not improved at all. First pitch strikes. For his carrier he has a 55.3% first pitch strike rate. It's 55.4% this year. The league average is around 58.3% during that time. Cliff lee is at a league best 70.3% this year. It's not so much he needs to throw over the plate more. Cliff lee has a 57.7% Zone%. It's when he throws over the plate. Hitters can be patient, and get away with it more often. Because there is a very good chance they will start the at bat ahead in the count.
However his strike out rate has also increased. As his contact rate drops. Kershaw has always thrown a ton of fastballs. 71.9% for his carrier 72.1 this year. That's good enough for second most in the N.L. in 09 and this season. However his contact percent has dropped from 79% his rookie year to 77.1% in 09 and 71.6% this season almost 10% less than league average, and the lowest in the bigs among qualified starters. This may or may not be due to his increased use of his slider. He threw his slider .3% of the time and his curve 23% of the time in 08. That increased to 6.9% of the time in 09 as his cure dropped to 16.8%. So far in 2010 he has basically deserted his curve, throwing it just 8.3% while increasing his slider to 17.2%.

So while Joe has allowed him to throw a few more pitches per start. He hasn't really been able to go much deeper into games because he is walking more and striking out more. The difference isn't much but I would like it to be going in the other direction. Basically He doesn't really need to throw more strikes he really needs to throw more first pitch strikes.

One more thought. This basically a question. Many have suggested that Kershaws HR/FB from last year and to this point in the season is unsustainable. The argument against this is his high percentage of IFFB. He was about average his rookie year. Then last year and to this point in the season this year he has a WAY above average percentage. Is this luck? or due to a change in pitch selection/location on his part? Do you think it's sustainable? (I forgot where I found the numbers on this so I didn't post them. If you know where I can find them again please let me know).

Anyway this is just my thoughts on this. I would love some input. And maybe a better explanation of FanGraphs Zone%. Thanks

After a full off season of projections and analysis. Where most pick the Rockies to win the NL west. This morning after reading most of the comments over at DT on Jon's "Looking back on 2010" post.(Sorry no link, I'm sure most of you know where to find it if you haven't already) Where many projected the same thing. I decided I had to look into why. My gut told me they got lucky last year. So I decided to look at some of the numbers.

I am mostly focusing on their starting rotation. As I've felt this is the main area most choose to point out. As the reason the Rockies will win they're first NL west title. I concede that the Rockies can hit. Although they scored only 24 more runs than the Dodgers in 2009. Where they really came through was a franchise low 715 Runs against (638 in 1994) in 2009. That's still 114 more runs than the Dodgers allowed.

Yes, the Rockies can finally pitch. I think to many people think they are still a Juggernaut offensive force at the same time. While still good for 2nd in the NL their 804 runs scored last year was the 5th fewest in club history. The club scored 860 runs in their NL championship season in 2007. The most since the humidor was introduced to Coors field in 2002. Where the team averaged 895 runs over 7 FULL seasons prior to the change. Not a huge drop off, but 56 runs is more than double the difference between the 2009 Dodgers and Rockies.

So lets take a look at the best starting rotation in Rockies history.

Ubaldo Jimenez is a very good pitcher. I would say one of the best in MLB. He is clearly the best on this staff. Posting a 3.47 ERA, 132 ERA+ 7.6 H/9, 3.3 BB/9, 8.2 K/9 all while giving up only .5 HR/9 while playing half his games in the slightly less jumpy Coors field. Over 218 innings pitched, very solid. I would expect similar number from Ubaldo. All his 2009 numbers where better than 2008, but not enough for me to project a great deal of further improvement in 2010.

Jason Marquis/Jeff Francis. Jason Marquis was the first half savior for the Rockies in 2009. The only consistent winner the first two months of the season. He won 7 of Colorado's 18 wins Before Jim Tracey took over. In fact he might have been the only guy on the team to miss Clint, as he went 8-10 the final 4 months of the season. Overall he had a good year posting a 113 ERA+ better than his career average 99 ERA+. Jeff Francis who will basically replace Marquis (who signed with the Nationals) after missing all of 2009 due to shoulder surgery. Has a slightly better 101 ERA+ for his career. Considered the staff ace in 2007 with a 17-9 record. Despite an ERA of 4.22. He will be hoping to return to his career best 2007 form. In all likelihood, if he can stay healthy he might repeat what Marquis did in 2009. I highly doubt he could put up better numbers. It's a virtual wash with a lot of potential downside.

Aaron Cook is the Rockies franchise leader in wins with 63. His 2009 ERA+ of 110 is right in line with his 111 ERA+ for his career. Cook has been fairly consistent in his career. He gives up a lot of hits ( and doesn't strike out many but he also keeps the walks down. He'll also give you innings if he can stay healthy. I would expect him to be about the same this season.

Jorge De La Rosa really seemed to start putting it all together once he arrived in Colorado. He was given regular playing time, and at 27 he became more consistent. He lead the starting staff with 9.4 K/9 in 2009 but he also had the worst walk rate 4.0 BB/9. Still he was second in WHIP because of his second best 8.4 H/9. At 29 he only has 589 MLB innings. Making his big league debut at 23 and struggling mightily early on. He has very good stuff, and might continue to improve. However there is just not enough there for me to count on that. Nor do I think any one else should.

Jason Hammel has improved slightly over the past 4 seasons. Though last year was his first season with more than 85 MLB innings. Much like Cook he gives up a lot of hits and doesn't strike many out. Last year he cut his walk rate in half. 2.1 BB/9 compared to roughly 4.2 BB/9 the previous 3 seasons. His minor league number where decent and he's still only 26 so he might still have some upside. I still don't think he will become anything more than average at this point.

So the three youngest of the five had career years. Jimenez probably still hasn't reached his ceiling, De La Rosa very well might have, and Hammel's is so low it doesn't matter. Marquis is gone. And Francis is going to have to match his carrier best 2007 season. Just to match what he did. All while trying to bounce back from a major injury. Cook is pretty consistent, but his 110 ERA+ is his worst since 2003. Not by much though.

One of the main arguments I've been hearing is about depth. While I feel the Rockies have one of the best benches in baseball. I think that is slightly off set by the fact that their regular starters aren't all the highest caliber players. The Dodgers bench should also be slightly if not significantly improved this season. As far as pitching depth. The Rockies got 67 wins in 155 starts from their top 5 starters in 2009. While the Dodgers got 43 wins in 126 starts from their top 5 starters. That is a large gap. It is a large plus for them. Now I don't know much about the Rockies pitching depth in their minor league system. So I won't comment on their ability to back up Francis when he goes down. The Dodgers managed 52 wins from their bullpen and various spot starts in 2009. That might not be ideal, but I certainly wouldn't call it THIN.

I would pick the Rockies over AZ,SF,and SD, but I don't see why they are favorite to win the division.

One more thing they're road ERA was 4.06 that's .35 lower than their home ERA of 4.41 at Coors field. Where they scored and average .53 more runs per game.

I thought I'd compare my outlook on the 2009 season. Toward the end of last spring. With my outlook on the 2010 season at roughly the same point in the year. I wasn't a member of TBLA or any other Dodger blog or forum last year. I didn't even know of their existence. So I certainly don't know what your projections for the year where. This is just how I felt.

As the last week of spring training 2009 was rolling around. I was very optimistic. I think it's hard not to be when your coming off a season that ended in October. Manny was back. Casey Blake and Furcal returned. I expected Kemp, Ethier, Loney, and Martin to all improve. I was disappointed that Dewitt didn't get a chance at second, but I was excited to have Hudson on the team. I expected Billingsley and Kuroda to have roughly similar seasons to 2008. I felt Kershaw would continue to slowly improve, and I expected Wolf to have a solid year. My hopes were high for JMac and I thought he was up to the task. While I liked Broxton for the closer role. I wasn't completely sold on him. Not because of the NLCS at all. I just wasn't sure yet. Kuo was a question that I never counted on. I hoped Wade could repeat. Beyond that I didn't think much of our bullpen. I didn't even know Belisario made the club until his first appearance. I thought we would battle with Arizona all season. But I felt we had a good chance at a repeat.

Well, I didn't see a 50 game suspension coming. The day after a record setting hot streak (always thought that was a little to much of a coincidence). Martin struggled to start, and never really went anywhere let alone improve. Kuroda went down day one, and JMac just couldn't throw strikes. Furcal wasn't quite what he was in the past, but we got him for a full year. Loney basically photo copied 2008. After Hudson's hot start, he reverted back to the basically the same guy his was in Arizona. Solid, but not quite who he was in Toronto. Billingsley didn't quite do what I hoped, but he was a big part of our success in 2009. Wade's arm fell off. Where these guys fell short. Kemp and Ethier proved they still had room to grow. Wolf and Blake had career years. Kershaw just.... well he was Kershaw. Broxton showed he was the real deal. Mota(eventually), Weaver, and Belisario came out of almost no where and turned up the jets in the blue. Along with all of that we got some very solid contributions for the fill in pitchers through out the year. These guys (I'm not listing them all) pitched a lot of innings, and were good enough to help give us the best team ERA in the league. Add to this several mid-late season additions. That may or may not have been necessary, but they helped the team. At least in 2009. On March 27th 2009 I did not expect the Dodgers to win 95 games. I did think they had a chance at another world championship title though.

Today I am even more optomistic. Manny looks like he got his swing back. Kemp and Ethier look to be in good form. I'm hopefull that Blake hasn't lost anything with his beard. And that Furcal can get some of his old self back. I see no reason to think that Loney won't at least repeat what he did the last two years. He may not be Howard, but i'm not saying no to 90 RBIs. We'll just have to see with Martin. I don't even know what to expect anymore. It almost seems like he just does the opposite of what I think he will (that might be good for the team). Same with Kershaw. I didn't think he could improve that much in one year. I don't know quite what to expect, but I'm almost certain I will be very pleased. I think Billz will be fine, and if he can finally get a change up going. He might leap into a whole other relm. If Kuroda can stay healthy I have no worries about his ability to pitch. Padilla...... well I really like his stuff. We'll see where he puts it. #5 starter(see 2009). I'm a little worried about the pen. But I didn't go into 2009 thinking it would become our greatest weapon. We're going to need a good one, but I think we can piece one together. He have a lot of good pieces they're just a little spread out at the moment.

I don't think the division change at all. Arizona under performed last year and over achieved in 2008, Even if they get half a season of a Cy Young Webb. I don't think it's enough. The Rockies did even less than we did. In the off season. Even at 100% I can't see Francis being any better than Marquis was last year. I still think they over achieved last year(maybe we did too).  I can't see them winning the division though. The Giants have pitching........ and a few guys that like to swing the bat, but shouldn't. They're going to need Zito and Sanchez to figure it out it they wan't a winning record. 4th place. San Diego......... No. (maybe a thorn in our side, but no).

I didn't really address our bench. Mostly because It was kind of forgettable last year. I think we're improved. We might on occasion miss Pierre's speed(off the bench), but I think better defense will make up for it. It should be interesting to see if they Platoon Ethier at all and how much Manny gets rested. And how much time Belliard and Carroll really get. If DeWitt ends up starting. I really think, short a major injury to a starter or possible even two. We win the division hands down. You never know who might stumble, or get hurt, or suspended for 50 games, OR... who might make a giant leap in ability.

BUT...... that's just my opinion.

Not to me.

A lot of people like to point to Bills' 2009 post All-Star ERA and say he broke down in the second half. While it's true he struggled at times later in the year it's not quite that simple.

Before I get started I want to say a few things. I did this for my self and decided some might find it interesting. If anyone has already covered this. Than I apologize, however I might have a different take. So If your interested read on. Also I used baseball-reference for most of this. Mostly splits and game logs. For some reason some of the numbers didn't add up namely K and BB totals I couldn't figure out why, but we're talking about 3-7 for the full season. So just keep that in mind. I also didn't include his one relief appearance, because I didn't feel it was relevant for my point. I had to subtract that 1.2 innings my self and it came up a lot. I was careful, but there is a chance it slipped in somewhere. I don't think it will fudge things up to much, but just keep it in mind. One last thing I split the season in two at the beginning of July instead of the All-Star break. 1. Because it was easier for me and 2. Because I always felt that's when he started struggling. So the first half is April-June and the second half is July-September.

By my split Bills had a first half ERA of 3.08 and a second half ERA of 5.18. That's sertainly a big difference, and it's easy to say that he had an All-Star first half and a terrible second half. However when you break it down by month it looks a little different. April 2.14 ERA 4-0 Ace, May 3.35 ERA 2-3 Great, June 3.73 3-1 Very Good, July 7.52 ERA 1-3 Umm, August 3.21 ERA 2-2 Great, September 4.82 0-3 fifth starter?. As you can see his great April shines up his good May and June. His terrible July soils his good August and mediocre September. I trend from April was down hill though.

The biggest difference I found though. Were his innings and pitches thrown. In the first half he threw 1872 pitches in 112.1 innings. 110 pitches a start. In the second half he threw 1331 pitches in 82.1 innings 86.7 pitches per start. He averaged roughly the same pitches per inning 16.7 in the first half. As his slightly better, 16.1 in the second half. So if he was slightly more efficient. Why the large difference in innings pitched. We know Joe Torre has a short hook for struggling starters. Even with an All-Star. There were also the injuries, and the Rockies climbing the ladder.

So if he wasn't throwing more pitches to get threw an inning why was he struggling. His first half BB/9 of 3.2 was a little better than his 3.6 BB/9 in the second half. So he wasn't walking guys at a terribly higher rate. His dominance fell off some. He had a first half K/9 of 9.6 and in the second half it was down to 7.5 K/9. Does that account for an ERA jump of 2.10 though. His hit rate jumped from 7.2 H/9 first half, to 8.6 H/9 second half. So his WHIP went from 1.15 first half to 1.35 in the second half. His HR rate also more than doubled going from .48 HR/9 to 1.09 HR/9. So maybe it was combination of a little good/bad luck and a slight drop off in performance. His first half BAbip of .283 wasn't crazy low and his second half BAbip 3.19 wasn't crazy high (BAbip splits are at All-Star break). In fact they're in line with his career average.

Many people (Including my self) theorize that his offseason injury. Prevented him from being conditioned enough to go strong through 35 starts. He averaged 1 more inning and about 16 more pitches per start. From the first half in 2008 and the first half in 2009. That sound about right for a young starter. So I wouldn't say his work load increase was the problem. I doubt we'll ever now how much of an impact his injury had on his season. 

Many people point to his overall dominance early in games, and his struggles late in games. As evidence of fatigue. Well. his 2.60 ERA innings 1-5 and 9.79 ERA innings 6 + in 2009 do make you think. In contrast in 2008 he posted an ERA of 3.54 innings 1-5 and 1.66 innings 6 +. However most of his trouble came in the 1st and the 5th where he had an ERA just north of 5. This trend was not confined to the second part of the season in 2009 though. Of the 43 earned runs Bill's gave up after the 5th inning in 2009. 18 of them were before July 1st, 25 after. If you subtract the 6 he gave up in the 6th to the Cardinal on July 28th. Which is the game I think of the most, when pondering his troubles. It's an 18-19 split. Although with few innings pitched in the second half.

Another interesting thing is his Win/Loss splits. He posted an ERA of 2.39 in Wins, 5.66 in Losses, and 4.25 in no decisions. This seems in line with most of the pitchers I've looked at. He was definitely at his best in most of his wins. However his walk rate and strikeout rate were actually better in his losses than his no decisions. His HR rate was close in both. The BIG difference came in his BAbip .265 in wins, .255 in no decisions and .366 in his losses. It would seem luck played a large role in his ability to give the Dodgers a chance to win, when he was struggling.

Basically, other than April where he totally dominated. He had highs and lows all year. I think his conditioning effected him even early in the year. Though not to the extent it did after he had logged 120+ innings. It seems to me like July might have just been the perfect storm of fatigue, heat, bad luck, and maybe a little All-Star distraction. Even with his struggles in September, if you normalize July his ERA sits around 3.50. Which is still higher than I think he's capable. Billingsley comes of as a perfectionist. I think as he matures and realizes perfection is not possible. He will find him self more confidant and his competitive nature will really take hold. Hopefully that happens this year. Plus you know the whole health thing.     

That's my take. I think he just had a down year. Caused by many factors. Factors that I don't think we should expect this year. You never know what might happen though.

I can't take it anymore.

I've tried and tried to take it in stride. I just can't take articels like this anymore.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/pablo_torre/03/18/giants.postcard/index.html#ixzz0j57Iy3os

With stuff like this:

"The Giants have the best pitching staff in the National League"

"The NL West is arguably the deepest pitching division in all of baseball, and San Francisco possesses the best staff of them all (and the best one-two punch)."

Then he breaks down their possible starting rotation. Ok Timmy is very good. Matty is very good against everyone but us. Zito is still trying to find his um....(insert what ever here). Sanchez..... has been compared to Kershaw, in a bad way. For both of them, but Sanchez is 27. He does have a no hitter though. Then there is the Bum. 10 innings in. 20 years old and he is the rock that solidifies the bottom of the best pitching staff in baseball. The kid has good minor league numbers, but between his age and his spring problems. He is hardly a lock for that rotation. Let alone a proven performer at the big league level. I say bring him on, if he really is that good we'll see him sooner than later. If he falls flat on his face all the better for us.

My real problem is this though. Teams change every year, individual performances rise and fall, injuries happen. To me the Dodgers and the Giants have a pretty well balanced mix. Of young, possible up and coming stars (already there in Lincecum's case). As well as vets that have had success in the past, and journeyman with solid mediocre careers. Plus the fancy new prospects vying for a shot on the roster. I really think both our pitching staffs are both very good and very similar. Sure there might be a little more confidence in the future performance of Lincecum compared to Kershaw. Ok guilty untill proven innocent.

But ALL the quotes are "PITCHING STAFF" not good staff + Ace. Yet the Dodgers have a better Team (= Staff) ERA over both of the last two seasons. Both LA and SF finished the 2009 season with 611 runs allowed (tied for first in MLB). Though L.A. pitched 27 more innings. They also allowed fewer earned runs. Although sadly enough that is a different topic.

I will fully, and rightfully so admit. The Giants have a very good pitching staff. But I really, really, really, need just one person to give me a reason why even though they have allowed more runs over the last two years they are better than the Dodger.

It's will he have any run support?

I think most of you know he didn't always have the best run support last year. If someone has already covered this I'm sorry. Feel free to stop reading. I know there is a sample size issue here but since that's all we have it will have to do.

Kershaw has an ERA of 1.76 in 13 career wins. With an ERA of 8.56 in 13 career losses. Most of those were terrible games which is expected from a 20-21 year old. Here comes the bad part he's posted an ERA of 2.28 in 27 no decisions, 25 were starts. Now I know he has trouble going deep into games, but his walk rate 3.9/9 in wins 3.8/9 in no decisions (it's 7.6/9 in his losses by the way) is almost identical. I couldn't find any data on pitch count, but his but he pitched roughly 6.2 innings per win and 5.6 per no decision. I'm guessing that might have more to do with Torre getting jumpy in a close game than his actually pitch count or performance. In his 51 starts he has left the game with less than 2 runs of support 18 times. Not all of those were close games, but it's over a third of his starts.

In contrast, Little Tim Lincecum has and ERA of 1.51 in 40 career wins (39 starts). In 33 career no decisions he has posted an ERA of 3.31. In 38 more career starts. Lincecum has just 6 more no decisions. Now I know what your thinking. Lincecum goes deeper into games. True. he's posted roughly 7.4 innings per win. More than a full inning more than Kershaw. His 6.1 innings per no decision is just half an inning more than Kershaw's  however. When Lincecum is on he wins. When he is just good or the competition is a little better he might not get that W.

My point is there is an ERA difference of 1.8 runs between Lincecum's Wins and his no decisions. Kershaw's is .52. Does he have to keep it under two runs to win? This might be a sample size issue, but his 5.4 BB/9 with less than 2 runs is higher than his 4.2 BB/9 with 3 or more runs. Or it could be a kid trying to be too fine with little run support. In any case he is going to have to improve is command and efficiency (hopefully the third pitch will help here). If he is going to stay in longer and give himself and his team a better chance to get a win. I think Joe might let him stay out there another inning or two if he has a two or three run lead instead of a tie or one or two run deficit though. Regardless of how well he's pitching. A huge streangth of this team is it's bullpen I'd like to keep it that way. Kershaw throwing an extra 30-40 innings this year would go a long way to help. I would also like to see him become more than a .500 pitcher.

Another thing just for fun. Roy Halladay's No decision ERA is 4.11 in 88 games 86 starts. Cliff Lee? 4.20 52 games 48 starts. I know both of their careers are longer. I picked Lincecum because his service time isn't a ton longer than Kershaw's, and the Giants offense makes my point a little better.

Some more fun facts about Kershaw:

He has a .500 record on the road, and at home despite having a road ERA of 4.37 and a home ERA of 2.48.

He has not given up a grand slam, or even a home run after the 4th inning.

He has only one start against the Giants. (I'm sure they would like to keep it that way) 18 against the rest of the west.

His IF/FB rate was 65% in 2009. This might explain why even though his HR/FB rate was a league average 8% he only gave up 7 home runs. I don't think that percentage is sustainable. The league average is 13%. I do think though, that his career average will be well higher than that of the league.

I had a slow day so I thought I would look a little deeper into run differential. For some reason I've really started to like this stat. Originally I was going to look back at the league wide numbers for the past 5 seasons. But it's a lot of work and it became clear that 3 seasons would be enough for my purposes. My math may be a little off, because I was working with a lot of numbers. I double and triple checked where needed, and the large sample size should even out the rest IF I did make a mistake or two.

I know it makes sense that the better your run differential the better your chances of winning over a season are. That may be why most people don't pay to much attention to it. However I found it fascinating 1. How strongly it correlates it winning. 2. How much a team can change season to season. and 3. The few exceptions demonstrate that no stat can truly show what happened or predict what will happen. The main factors that can fudge this data are blow out games, and tight games. Large numbers of either will really screw things up, but the sample size is large so most of it evens out.

The main trend I noticed is if your going to be deficient in one area as a team it should be offense. I'm sure many would agree, and the numbers really show it. No matter how many runs you score. Keeping the other team from scoring your chances of winning increase. Basically good pitching and or defense and poor offense (Giants) is a LITTLE better than poor pitching and or defense and good offense (Brewers). However a well balanced team is going to have a better chance any day.

The Dodgers had the best run differential in 2009 at +1.04 it was the Cubs in 2008 at +1.13 and Boston in 2007 at +1.29. This shows that a good Run Differential over 162 means little come October. As I'm sure most of you know. One of the most interesting things I found. Was that the 2007 Diamondbacks actually won the division 90 wins with a negative run differential of -.12 R/G. That's +.74 R/G lower than the second place Rockies 90 wins in 163. This is the exception though. Over the last three seasons just five teams have posted a winning records while having a negative run differential (Seattle twice). Only one team posted a losing record and a positive run differential the 2009 Blue Jays. For the other 84 clubs a negative run differential meant a losing record, and a positive run differential meant a winning record.

Of all the clubs to make the playoffs the last three years (other than AZ in 2007). The lowest run differentials were the 2009 Twins, and the 2008 Dodgers at +.32 R/G. Both barely made it by 1 and 2 games respectively. However the 2009 Dodgers +1.04 R/G only gave them 3 more wins than the Rockies +.54. So clearly it's not black and white.

A year can make a big difference. The 2007 Devil Rays and a -1.00 R/G differential in 2008 the new team posted a +.63 R/G mark. The difference was 31 more wins and a trip to the world series. I don't think this make the Nationals who had a terrible -1.01 R/G in 2009 our possible rival in the 2010 NLCS. But it shows with all the possible injuries, roster moves and break out years. That all the stats I spent half the day pouring over mean very in 2010.

Over the last 3 seasons teams with a record of 91 + wins had an average run differential of +.81 R/G. Between 81-90 wins +.26 R/G Between 71-80 wins -.38 R/G and less than 70 wins -.75 R/G.

I know most of this is common sense, but it was fun for me and if you actually read all the way through I hope you found it interesting. It also proves once again that great offense, pitching, or defense don't mean a thing if you can't put them all together at the right time to get the W. The 2007 Diamondbacks showed a great ability to do that in the regular season. They didn't really dominate anyone but they still cam out on top. Until October rolled around. The 2007 Red Sox scored almost 1 and 1/3 more runs per game than their competitors. But the Indians almost knocked them out, until they rediscovered their dominance. And the 2009 Yankees who scored exactly 1 more run per game than the teams they played in the regular season. Didn't skip a beat once the weather changed, and the umpires brains froze. Finally the 2009 Dodgers who got off to one of the best starts in Baseball history. The team that had the best record in MLB for much of the year. Who finished the year with the most wins in the National league. Despite a rough finish with the Rockies hot on their trail. A team that out scored their opponents by more than a run a game in 162. Had the best pitching in the NL (ERA), the best defense in the NL (DEF), and the fourth best offense in the NL (Runs Scored). Fell flat on their face in the NLCS to a team that bested their competition at a mere +.73 R/G(still very good) clip in the regular season.

I was fortunate enough to be at game 1 of that NLCS. I can tell you it was one of best days of my life. I don't think I could say the same thing if I was at game 5. Kershaw was lights out through 4. The crowed roared at every strike called, and every pitch missed. The sight of Loney's homer as it soared right in front of me sent chills down my spine. But not as much as the first of 2 three run shots. I think Dodger stadium was the loudest place I've ever been after Manny took a change up deep into the left field pavilion. It sill wasn't enough, but I know all you have to do to win in baseball is score one more than the other team. The Dodgers did that last year more often than not. I'm hoping they can do it again even in October. I think they will.

First I want to say hello. This is my first post. In fact I haven't made a comment yet. But I've been reading this blog every day since the end of the 2009 season. Great community, I look forward to becoming a part of it.

After watching the Dodgers 30/30 Today. And being frustrated for the countless time. About national coverage of the Dodgers, specifically they're starting rotation. I decided to go check out some of the stats from 2009, which I had already looked at before, but it's been a while. After looking around for a while I noticed a few things. Particularly some eerily similar numbers with the Giants. LA and SF both had the same runs allowed 611 walks allowed 584 and GO/FO 1.14 LA had 27 more innings pitched, but it still struck me as odd. Most of the other pitching stats are also very close, as i'm sure most of you know. I was surprised that they had walked as many batters, I guess I over looked that before. Again this just frustrated my more because we always hear how great the Giants pitching is and how many questions there are with the Dodgers. I realize some of this is because the the Giants got more innings out their main starters and we had a lot of bull pen innings, But some times I just think does it matter who allows the runs to score. The run doesn't care how it got on the board. I know this isn't always true on an in game basis, but it over the coarse of a season.... I don't know. Any way to my point some where along the way I started thinking about run differential. I knew the Dodgers had a good one, I think i've even heard best in the NL. But I thought I'd check out the other teams in the NL west last season. These are my calculations and they could be wrong, but I double checked them and they seem about right.

These are per game. LA 1.04, COL 0.55, SF 0.23, AZ -0.39, SD -0.81.

I like run differential because it show a good contrast of the overall abilities of a team to me. I know there have been roster changes and injuries can always effect things. But I feel for the most part the west in unchanged. When I look at the Rockies run differential it looks like they got lucky in the last 2/3s of 2009. I don't know if that record is sustainable. As for Arizona they probably underperformed last year. But even IF they get Web back at something close to his old self I don't know if they are consistent enough to give us a real push.  Clearly San Fran just doesn't have the offense and SD is a AAAA team with some descent upside. We'll see how it all plays out I can't wait. GO BLUE!