(Or Why The Giants Suck So Badly So Far)
Because this journal isn't boring enough, I thought I'd take a moment to show a couple of tables with baseball statistics. I know we're only nine games into the season, but for my own amusement, I wanted to see if there was any correlation between the number of plate appearances it took a team to score a run and its standing in division play.
The following table shows the teams that needed the least number of plate appearances to score a run. Teams in bold are division leaders.
| Rank | Team | PA | R | PA/R | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | New York Yankees | 312 | 52 | 6.00 | .500 |
| 2 | Toronto Blue Jays | 322 | 52 | 6.19 | .625 |
| 3 | New York Mets | 314 | 49 | 6.41 | .625 |
| 4 | Cleveland Indians | 201 | 31 | 6.48 | .600 |
| 5 | Tampa Bay Devil Rays | 306 | 45 | 6.80 | .375 |
And here are the teams that required the most plate appearances to score a run. Teams in bold are division cellar dwellers.
| Rank | Team | PA | R | PA/R | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26 | Pittsburgh Pirates | 344 | 28 | 12.29 | .444 |
| 27 | St. Louis Cardinals | 325 | 26 | 12.50 | .556 |
| 28 | Oakland Athletics | 358 | 28 | 12.79 | .400 |
| 29 | San Francisco Giants | 316 | 20 | 15.80 | .222 |
| 30 | Washington Nationals | 333 | 21 | 15.86 | .111 |
Conclusion Stating the Obvious: While a high PA/R doesn't guarantee a spot at the top of a division, a low PA/R nearly ensures a slot at the bottom.
(A quick key to abbreviations: PA = Plate Appearances, R = Runs, % = Win-Loss Percentage)
