Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito
The OPS+ of that club was 103, and the ERA+ was 113. They were actually better pitching than hitting, once the era/park was accounted for (i.e., steroids). Pudge's .300/.342/.473 was only league average. Ken Hill's 1996 (16-10, 3.63 ERA in 250.1 IP, 145 ERA+, 6.5 WAR) is criminally underappreciated.
The 2011 Rangers have an OPS+ of 108 and an ERA+ of 117.
EDIT: Speaking of Ken Hill, I vividly remember being at this game: http://www.baseball-reference.com/bo...99607170.shtml . I was eight years old at the time, but I remember Hill being lifted by Oates with two outs in the ninth and not being very happy about it (because my dad wasn't very happy about it). |
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say bulsh on a couple of those stats. Again, I've learned to take all stats with a grain of salt. No one that was around following baseball would agree with the statement that the Rangers pitching was actually better than their hitting that year. If that's what some advanced metrics show, then the advanced metrics are wrong.
Trying to put a number to how much a ballpark impacts an offense is a good idea in theory, but it really cannot be done. Obviously playing in the ballpark has a positive imapct on offense, but how much compared to league average is something that we'll truly never know. There's simply no way to quantify all of the factors that would need to be quantified.