Monday, January 26, 2009


Oh man, sometimes "The Bank President" really strikes a nerve. Today he writes on his blog:
MORE ON RUN DIFFERENTIAL: I mentioned in a comment on John Erardi's post that the Reds did a whole lot better as far as run differential after the Adam Dunn trade, which signalled the move away from the Dunn-Ken Griffey Jr. area. The trade happened on Aug. 11. The Reds went with Chris Dickerson in left, Jerry Hairston or Corey Patterson in center and Jay Bruce in right the rest of the way -- faster, more athletic.

They club went 22-21 the rest of the way and outscored the opposition 194-190. That projects to scoring 731 runs and giving up 716 over 162 games. That kind of ratio will put you right around .500. I think the team you'll this year will much more closely resemble the post-Aug. 11 team of last year.
I'm going to get grumpy here. Six weeks of a season and you think it's responsible journalism to "project" a season's totals and use 43 games to "prove" a point? Do they not teach statistics 101 in J school?

It wouldn't be so bad if some of the people who comment on that site weren't of the lowest common denominator and didn't take every word of the Enquirer as gospel. And they're the ones Mr. Castellini sees as typical Reds fans, which only contributes to getting rid of productive guys like Dunn in exchange for no OBP guys like Taveras.

The commenter Mr. Redlegs, whom everyone says is a former journalist, has the perfect response to the post: "Sample size." Well said. (Golf clap.)

The truth about run differential is written by the great John Erardi here. Now THAT'S good journalism. But what do I know? I'm just a lowly blogger.

No comments: