Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 3:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 10:07:00 AM (view original):
Season |
IP |
Runs |
Ks |
R/9 |
K/9 |
Corr - 2014 |
1990 |
37,563.7 |
17,919 |
23,853 |
4.29 |
5.72 |
-0.20 |
1991 |
37,769.7 |
18,127 |
24,390 |
4.32 |
5.81 |
-0.31 |
1992 |
37,829.7 |
17,341 |
23,538 |
4.13 |
5.60 |
-0.43 |
1993 |
40,507.0 |
20,864 |
26,310 |
4.64 |
5.85 |
-0.75 |
1994 |
28,586.3 |
15,752 |
19,766 |
4.96 |
6.22 |
-0.86 |
1995 |
36,032.0 |
19,554 |
25,425 |
4.88 |
6.35 |
-0.86 |
1996 |
40,560.7 |
22,831 |
29,308 |
5.07 |
6.50 |
-0.86 |
1997 |
40,454.0 |
21,604 |
29,937 |
4.81 |
6.66 |
-0.85 |
1998 |
43,434.7 |
23,297 |
31,893 |
4.83 |
6.61 |
-0.85 |
1999 |
43,211.3 |
24,691 |
31,119 |
5.14 |
6.48 |
-0.85 |
2000 |
43,244.3 |
24,971 |
31,356 |
5.20 |
6.53 |
-0.85 |
2001 |
43,287.3 |
23,199 |
32,404 |
4.82 |
6.74 |
-0.88 |
2002 |
43,269.0 |
22,408 |
31,394 |
4.66 |
6.53 |
-0.89 |
2003 |
43,335.3 |
22,978 |
30,801 |
4.77 |
6.40 |
-0.89 |
2004 |
43,394.0 |
23,376 |
31,828 |
4.85 |
6.60 |
-0.89 |
2005 |
43,232.3 |
22,325 |
30,644 |
4.65 |
6.38 |
-0.88 |
2006 |
43,258.0 |
23,599 |
31,655 |
4.91 |
6.59 |
-0.94 |
2007 |
43,425.7 |
23,322 |
32,189 |
4.83 |
6.67 |
-0.92 |
2008 |
43,357.7 |
22,585 |
32,884 |
4.69 |
6.83 |
-0.89 |
2008 |
43,272.0 |
22,419 |
33,591 |
4.66 |
6.99 |
-0.83 |
2010 |
43,305.3 |
21,308 |
34,306 |
4.43 |
7.13 |
-0.74 |
2011 |
43,527.3 |
20,808 |
34,488 |
4.30 |
7.13 |
-0.58 |
2012 |
43,355.3 |
21,017 |
36,426 |
4.36 |
7.56 |
-0.79 |
2013 |
43,653.3 |
20,255 |
36,710 |
4.18 |
7.57 |
-1.00 |
2014 |
43,613.7 |
19,761 |
37,441 |
4.08 |
7.73 |
|
This.
What are the coefficients from 1994 and later?
Are they also "beyond weak"?
Think about what your data is saying about your sample size. If you use 20 data points the coefficient is -0.86. if you use 24, the coefficient is -0.20. What a giant swing.
And 0.86 is incredibly strong, stronger than the correlation between team OBP and team RS for every season going back to 1920. That's a huge red flag that your sample size is way too small.
Unless you think strikeout totals impact run scoring more than OBP?
You won't admit it, of course. You'll just keep posting the same tiny sample of league wide numbers that me/dahs/burnsy have already dismissed.
If strikeouts matter, teams that strikeout more would see their run scoring impacted. Those teams don't see that happen, though, because an out is an out.