Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito
The league ERA that year was 4.99. The Rangers had a 4.65 ERA. The Rangers scored 5.69 runs per game, compared with 5.39 runs per game leaguewide. Even if one only adjusts the tiniest sliver for ballpark effects (or, not at all - we're .34 runs a game lower than the average in ERA and only .3 runs a game over the average rpg), I think the statistics back up the argument that, in the context of the time, the Rangers excelled more at pitching than hitting. It may indeed be misleading to say they were BETTER at pitching than hitting, if only because EVERYBODY in 1996 was better at hitting. But we were more above average in pitching than they were in hitting. It doesn't really even take advanced metrics to make that argument.
|
Yup, no advanced stats needed at all for that argument. The general sentiment among the masses was that the Rangers were bashing their way to the playoffs, but that year it really was the pitching that made the biggest difference.