Christ!!! Those are some serious run totals, even with the "crappy" batting orders!

I'm guessing the reason these lineups outscore the 2004 Cardinals by 100+ runs is because they assume all starters play all game, every game, I guess.

But still---975 runs?? WOW!!!

Notice what Click said, though:

"Keep in mind that this isn’t meant to map to actual runs scored, but is just for comparative purposes between the various lineups."

So you have to take those run totals with a grain of salt or two (or a shaker).

Also, I'm sure about the significance of those run differences. 9 runs is small (esp with distributional SD's of 40-45 runs!), and I wonder what the signficance values of the difference is. Suppose the 95% confidence interval is plus/minus 5 runs. It'd be pretty difficult to go against accepted baseball dogma for an average gain of possibly as little as 4 runs. Just not sure... I was surprised that the differences weren't a little larger.

Ahh curve ball, curveblog... I've been wondering what the heck that name meant for a while now. Thanks for spelling it out for those of us that aren't always on our toes.