Looking at when the 2010 St. Louis Cardinals’ offense scored their runs indicates an increased number of blowouts compared to 2009.
During a Monday in which Mark McGwire’s return as hitting coach of the St. Louis Cardinals for 2011 was announced, there was a Twitter-driven backlash against those critical of the coach and his inconsistent 2010 offense.
Cited was the truth that the Cardinals scored more runs than in 2009 in a year during which offense was down across the game. The reality for the Cardinals was a meager increase of six runs scored over 162 games, or up 0.8 percent. However, it was more impressive when put up against the backdrop of a 2.4 percent decline in scoring across the National League. (details here)
Still, after having watched most of St. Louis’ games this past season, it felt to me like the offense often didn’t score when needed. Given the small increase in total runs scored, this might imply they crossed the plate more often when those runs were less valuable.
To test that thought, I calculated the average runs scored by the Cardinals over the last four years, broken out between games the Cardinals won versus the ones they lost. Even though the hitters don’t have any impact on the pitching or runs scored by the opposition, I also looked at the average run differential, again separated between wins and losses.
| Cards | Wins | Avg R/G | Avg R Diff | Losses | Avg R/G | Avg R Diff |
| 2010 | 86 | 6.21 | 3.90 | 76 | 2.66 | 3.16 |
| 2009 | 91 | 5.95 | 3.62 | 71 | 2.66 | 3.37 |
| 2008 | 86 | 6.67 | 3.55 | 76 | 2.70 | 3.30 |
| 2007 | 78 | 6.67 | 3.85 | 84 | 2.44 | 4.81 |
Though the Cards won five fewer games this season than last, they averaged one-quarter of a run more in each win. They also increased their margin of victory in those contests by just a bit more, .28 runs per game, to the highest winning edge in at least the last four years.
Looking at their losses, the Cardinals scored the exact same average amount of runs per defeat in both 2009 and 2010, while closing the gap in the average loss by .21 runs per game this past season compared to last.
The average run differential in losses of 3.16 runs was the club’s tightest margin in at least the last four years. That should be attributed to better Cardinals pitching, not an improved offense, since again, run-scoring in the losses was flat year-to-year.
In other words, one might conclude that on the average, the 2010 Cardinals improvement in run scoring was “wasted”, as they increased their bulge in games they were likely en route to have won anyway.
More blowout wins in 2010
The analysis above was still based on averages across the 86 wins and 76 losses. I wanted to try to get more granular in my review. So, to take this one step further, I looked at the run differential in each of the Cardinals wins over the last two seasons. They break out as follows.
| Win margin | 1-R | 2-R | 3-R | 4-R | 5-R | 6-R | 7-R | 8-R | 9-R | 10-R | 13-R | Total games won |
| 2010 | 20 | 13 | 9 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 86 |
| 2009 | 24 | 13 | 16 | 9 | 12 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 91 |
Grouping the numbers really tells the story. Here is the same data, split between the quantity of games in which the Cardinals won by five or fewer runs compared to the ones they won by six or more scores.
| Cardinals | 1-5 run wins | % total wins | 6+ run wins | % total wins |
| 2010 | 62 | 72.1% | 24 | 27.9% |
| 2009 | 64 | 79.0% | 17 | 21.0% |
As the data clearly indicates, the Cardinals increased their number of blowout victories in 2010 over 2009, both in terms of absolute wins (up from 17 to 24) and especially in percentage of wins (from 21 percent up to 28 percent), while taking fewer close contests.
This reinforces my earlier point that more of St. Louis’ runs in 2010 seemed to be “wasted” in comparison to the year before.
Fewer blowout losses
For completeness, let’s take one more cut at the data, this time looking at runs scored in Cardinals losses over the last two seasons.
| Loss margin | 1-R | 2-R | 3-R | 4-R | 5-R | 6-R | 7-R | 8-R | 9-R | 10-R | 11-R | 14-R | Total games lost |
| 2010 | 22 | 12 | 15 | 9 | 11 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 76 |
| 2009 | 21 | 12 | 12 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 71 |
When we roll up the data into the same categories as above, losses of five or fewer runs compared to defeats of six or more runs, the Cardinals had fewer blowout losses in 2010 compared to 2009.
| Cardinals | 1-5 run losses | % total losses | 6+ run losses | % total losses |
| 2010 | 69 | 90.8% | 7 | 9.2% |
| 2009 | 58 | 81.7% | 13 | 18.3% |
In summary
Bottom line, it isn’t necessarily all that valuable just to score more often. It is better to do so in games where the additional runs might truly alter the outcome.
Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.
Consistency in scoring runs is useful and tends to be underestimated. Its good not to get shut out, but to scratch out a run or two with small-ball. This will enable a team to compete in more games, over the course of the season.
TLR prefers not to attempt steals at the top of the lineup with Pujols or Holliday at the plate. This is probably statistically justified.
In addition to Albert and Matt who enjoyed fine offensive seasons in 2010, the Cards could use higher on base percentages from some of the other guys in 2011.
Even though I love photos of McGwire, its up to the hitters.
Wouldn’t the Cards have a much better Pythagorean expectation of wins and losses if they were that inconsistent? I believe they finished with the exact record as that system would predict.
The Cards had only 7 blowout losses (6 runs+) in 2010. The 18 in the chart includes 5-run losses.
You are right, Tom. I added the part with the losses this morning and didn’t split them properly. I was torn between using the five or six run line to define a blowout. It wouldn’t have changed the main conclusion about wins, but made a big difference in the losses. Anyway, I fixed the above to be accurate and consistent.
Thanks for the correction and feel free to join in the discussions here.
By using six runs as the cutoff, you are showing the worst possible outcome. That’s sort of like proving something you wanted to believe with a biased set of numbers.
Had you chosen seven runs as the cutoff for blowouts, the totals for 2009 and 2010 would have been exactly the same at 14. Had you chosen five runs as the cutoff, the pct. would’ve been much closer and at three runs as a cutoff, there more wins in 2009.
I think it’s simply random and you could probably find similar discrepancies with just about any team from year to year.
Here is a data question……
I wonder what the trend has been in recent years in terms of average years of ML experience among lads on ML 25 man active rosters?
I expect it is going down, for a couple of reasons. First, with more attention to preventing lads from pumping themselves full of the muscle helpers, like Clemens or Bonds, older players may be ready to retire sooner.
Second, the expansion of international recruits is providing a more vigorous talent pool coming out of the minors. The more high quality talent, the more competition, and the shorter the ML tenures of the average player.
The salary effect will be to create more situations like the Cards, where a handful of veteran stars like Pujols, Holliday, Carpenter are paid much of the salary budget, while rosters are filled out with men with less service time.
DD17, you are correct that there is no clear definition of blowout. I happened to have already run the numbers at three and they tell a similar story. Ten percent fewer close wins and ten percent more blowouts this year compared to last.
Further, my main point was supported by the runs per game in wins vs. losses. The increased run scoring in 2010 was in games they won.
Brian, I was counting a three run win on the other side from what you show, as in three or more.
I would find it very difficult to defend calling a three-run game a blowout since it is close enough to be considered a save opportunity.
Hi Brian
This is a bit off-topic and fits nicely into the ‘better late than never’ category, but I just wanted to drop by and say thanks for what you do. I was recently conducting some research on Jeff Luhnow and John Mozeliak and ran across your excellent interviews of them circa 2004. Very well done, sir… informative, probing and still pertinent 6 years down the road. Thanks for making them available.
Great to see some new posters today joining the regulars. Welcome HBTexas, and thanks for the kind words. I guess I have been at this for some time now. Still lotsa good new stuff on the main site, though the best content is often going to be behind the subscriber wall. Kind of a Catch 22. I spoke with two minor league managers today in preparation for our upcoming rookies and players of the year series and head to Arizona and the fall league in one week so more is coming soon.
Brian, in games won by three runs, the team scored two runs they didn’t need. Part of your argument is that they scored more often when they didn’t need the runs. A three run win may not be a blowout but it can be argued that they wasted runs in those games.