Just Sayin’

NYY runs scored: 115 (2nd most in MLB)
NYY runs allowed: 72 (2nd fewest in MLB)

Reasons for optimism, in our opinion. Make of it what you will.

17 comments… add one
  • 3rd most runs scored acually…

    Phil April 25, 2006, 11:21 pm
  • yep, that formula worked great for us in 2003.

    beth April 26, 2006, 7:09 am
  • 4th in runs scored according to ESPN.
    Plus, they’ve played 18 games, whereas most other teams have played 20 or 21.

    airk April 26, 2006, 12:59 pm
  • RS-
    Reds-131
    ChiSox-123
    Indians-120
    MFY-115
    O’s-114
    Rockies- 112
    BoSox- 98
    RA-
    MFY/ NYM- 72
    BoSox- 89
    Present standings:
    Boston- 13-7
    MFY-10-8
    You keep scoring those runs…

    Mayday Malone April 26, 2006, 1:22 pm
  • Despite my snarky thoughts about Pythagorean wins, if the Yankees continue this pace it bodes very well for them, forget the records at the moment.

    SF April 26, 2006, 1:24 pm
  • MM, and you keep putting all your save eggs in a rookie basket…

    Nate April 26, 2006, 1:27 pm
  • The numbers changed a bit AFTER my post, which came before the completion of several of last night’s games. And yeah, they’ve played a couple fewer games than some teams. But the run total is still way in the lower percentile of the league, and more games would only mean MORE runs on the other side of the ledger. As for the records, yeah, the Sox, after their great start, and despite the Yanks difficulties, have exactly 1 game on them in the loss column. In April. And this was a post about indicators.

    YF April 26, 2006, 1:29 pm
  • “And this was a post about indicators. ”
    You said it. NY will continue to score runs at a prodigious rate, and will win 10 of every 18 games. I like it.

    Mayday Malone April 26, 2006, 1:42 pm
  • You’re doing your handle total justice, Mayday. Big ups to Carla and the gang.

    YF April 26, 2006, 1:44 pm
  • So now the sample size is big enough for you, YF, but not a week ago. Now we’re talking about reasonably good “indicators”, instead of small sample sizes. Clever semantic shift, just a few days later.
    (and I am not disagreeing with the premise of your post, for that matter, just how you seem to have selectively deployed numbers when they tell you something positive but ignored others or castigated posts that rely on early, admittedly small samples when they say something you don’t want to hear)

    SF April 26, 2006, 2:51 pm
  • the sample has grown considerably, and it says what it says. as i wrote, “make of it what you will.” obviously, all of this data is early and, to some large degree, meaningless.

    YF April 26, 2006, 2:58 pm
  • “considerably”. Sure. 2 games is 100% more than 1 game, but it’s not “considerable” in the terms we both probably understand it to mean. But I pretty much agree with you otherwise.

    SF April 26, 2006, 3:09 pm
  • sf: i honestly have no idea what you’re talking about, or what i’m being accused of, but it seems pretty clear you’re just making a tsimis for the sake of doing so.

    YF April 26, 2006, 4:18 pm
  • I hate tsimis.

    SF April 26, 2006, 4:21 pm
  • i tried to tsimis yesterday and it turned into a brad gushfest. as far as small sample sizes go, the angels are the masters of it. you can not get through a game without hudler or fisiac giving you inane stats about what a guy’s OBP is on wednesday night games, where the weather is between 57 and 62 degrees, with a lefthander who has 3 or more vowels in his last name on the mound. oh how i miss castiglione and trup.

    sf rod April 26, 2006, 5:16 pm
  • tsmis? Explain for the newbie, please?

    Paul A. April 26, 2006, 6:14 pm
  • Yiddish for “making a mountain out of a molehill”

    YF April 26, 2006, 8:37 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.