PDA

View Full Version : Just how bad is the AL Central?


PeteWard
07-24-2011, 09:56 PM
We are nearing August and only the Indians have a positive run differential. And that is +1.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings

I know it is not an important stat for a team, but when the entire division could soon be at the minus level, I think it speaks volumes about how cruddy the Central is this year.

Does anyone recall this happening before--I mean this late in the season? My guess would be that if it did, it would be in the AL West but only during a year that the Angels were down.

Domeshot17
07-24-2011, 10:06 PM
Ever year, the mlb has a pathetic division, this year it is the central. The fact our season isn't over already speaks volumes. This team in no way shape or form deserves to be in a playoff hunt, but some how, thank god, we are.

ChicagoG19
07-24-2011, 11:37 PM
Ever year, the mlb has a pathetic division, this year it is the central. The fact our season isn't over already speaks volumes. This team in no way shape or form deserves to be in a playoff hunt, but some how, thank god, we are.

It certainly makes the summer more entertaining.

TDog
07-24-2011, 11:50 PM
We are nearing August and only the Indians have a positive run differential. And that is +1.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings

I know it is not an important stat for a team, but when the entire division could soon be at the minus level, I think it speaks volumes about how cruddy the Central is this year.

Does anyone recall this happening before--I mean this late in the season? My guess would be that if it did, it would be in the AL West but only during a year that the Angels were down.

On August 11, 1994 (which was as far as the 1994 season went), the Texas Rangers were in first place in the AL West with a record of 52-64. They had scored 84 fewer runs than their opponents, which actually was second worst in the division. The Angels had scored 117 fewer runs than their opponents, but A's were minus-39 and the Mariners were minus-47.

But the fact is, run differential doesn't tell you much.

Zakath
07-25-2011, 08:31 AM
The fact that the Sox and the Tigers are barely negative (Sox -2, Tigers -5) negates a bit of the concern. The Tigers are one of only two teams in MLB (the other being the Brewers) with a winning record who are upside down in the runs scored/runs allowed difference.

It's just a mediocre division, as demonstrated by the record vs. people outside the division. Take out Minnesota's pathetic 8-19 record vs. the East and the rest of the division is actually 1 game over .500 vs. the East (KC has a LOT of games left vs. the East, however, including two series with Boston). Versus the West, the division is actually right at .500. The interleague record is a bit stunning, however, as only Cleveland and the Sox are over .500 and the division as a whole is 6 games under vs. the NL.

SI1020
07-25-2011, 09:54 AM
The fact that the Sox and the Tigers are barely negative (Sox -2, Tigers -5) negates a bit of the concern. The Tigers are one of only two teams in MLB (the other being the Brewers) with a winning record who are upside down in the runs scored/runs allowed difference.

It's just a mediocre division, as demonstrated by the record vs. people outside the division. Take out Minnesota's pathetic 8-19 record vs. the East and the rest of the division is actually 1 game over .500 vs. the East (KC has a LOT of games left vs. the East, however, including two series with Boston). Versus the West, the division is actually right at .500. The interleague record is a bit stunning, however, as only Cleveland and the Sox are over .500 and the division as a whole is 6 games under vs. the NL. All of this tells me it is a very weak and pathetic division.

Zisk77
07-25-2011, 11:35 AM
I don't disagree about our division being pathetic. However, I don't think the run differentials necessarily suggest that. It may just suggest the team has great pitching and a meager offense. You could be 15 games over right now with a -2 differential. When you lose you get shelled. When you win its 3-1. You just win a lot of pitchers duels.

TDog
07-25-2011, 02:23 PM
I don't disagree about our division being pathetic. However, I don't think the run differentials necessarily suggest that. It may just suggest the team has great pitching and a meager offense. You could be 15 games over right now with a -2 differential. When you lose you get shelled. When you win its 3-1. You just win a lot of pitchers duels.

I generally agree. A bit before the All-Star break, I heard people on the radio talking about the Giants, who were in first place at the time, being 9 games over .500 and having a run differential of plus-9. The Giants play a lot of 1-run games, and they have a great record in 1-run games. They have played 40 1-run games and have won 27 of them. People who believe run differential is meaningful might consider the Giants lucky to be in first place, but they are built to win 1-run games and know how to win them. The Giants won the World Series last year without much hitting, and they have even less hitting this year due to injuries. Still, they have great starting pitching, a great bullpen and the mental make-up to win 1-run games.

Great teams, in fact, get come-from behind walk-off wins and win pitching duels, neither of which lead to impressive run differentials. When I was a kid, schoolyard consensus was that the White Sox and Cubs were very close because they lost so many one-run games. As I grew up, I learned that it doesn't work that way.

The odd thing about the AL Central right now is that the entire division is 1 game over .500 in 1-run games. The White Sox, Tigers and Twins are .500. The Indians are 2 games over and the Royals are 1 game under. The Royals, the last time I looked, lead the AL in walk-off wins, and they are in last place.

PeteWard
07-26-2011, 12:59 AM
On August 11, 1994 (which was as far as the 1994 season went), the Texas Rangers were in first place in the AL West with a record of 52-64. They had scored 84 fewer runs than their opponents, which actually was second worst in the division. The Angels had scored 117 fewer runs than their opponents, but A's were minus-39 and the Mariners were minus-47.

But the fact is, run differential doesn't tell you much.

Thanks! How did you get this info? :D:

The Immigrant
07-26-2011, 08:34 AM
Guess who's back to a positive run differential? :tongue:

As for crummy divisions, I'll take the AL Central over the NL Central (or the NL West) any day of the week.

Moses_Scurry
07-26-2011, 10:07 AM
Guess who's back to a positive run differential? :tongue:

As for crummy divisions, I'll take the AL Central over the NL Central (or the NL West) any day of the week.

Agreed. The NL central is worse than the AL central. The Tigers are the AL equivalent of the Cardinals. The Indians are the equivalent of the Pirates. The Sox are the equivalent of the Reds. The Twins and Royals are both better than the cubs. Nobody stinks like the Astros. The NL central has one more mediocre team in the Brew crew. It's not a wide gap, but the AL central is definitely better.

Fenway
07-26-2011, 10:20 AM
Baseball is a funny game - both NYY and Boston are at .500 vs the Cent this year.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings/_/type/vs-division

DumpJerry
07-28-2011, 08:56 AM
After yesterday's games, the Sox are the only team in the AL Central with a positive run differential. Oh, the Sox run differential is a whopping one run.