Series 49: Darren O'Day x4

[Kin]

Yes, it does. And your "also" or "in addition to" adds nothing to the original premise. The team is where it is because of the trade and trades Busta alluded to, not because their run-differential luck changed.

I don't really get what you mean by "run differential luck" because the premise is that a team's very good run differential is not a product of luck but, rather, that a team with a very good run differential but a not very good record has had bad luck.

Anyways, I think it's a combination of all of those factors. They made some trades and their luck got a little better. They're 41-14 since the Tulo trade. Being as the the best teams in Baseball history didn't win games at that clip it's not just a function of the quality of the team post-trade. Their historically bad luck pre-deadline has normalized a little and that plays a role.

They weren't quite as bad as they seemed pre-trade, they're not quite as good they seem post-trade. But what looking at run differential tells us is that things like that tend to balance out to some degree(they're still 7 games below their pythagorean W-L) and it has. Hooray!

 

[TML fan]

2 inning Cecil? Tmlfan is going to lose his mind

TML fan was working all night and didn't see the game, but rest assured TML fan would not and still does not agree with the decision, despite the outcome.

 

[hockeyfan1]

reporterchris: The @BlueJays are 41-14 since trading for Troy Tulowitzki on July 29. Incredible.

Not a bad run.

Sounds like their good luck charm. 

 

[Andy007]

Yes, it does. And your "also" or "in addition to" adds nothing to the original premise. The team is where it is because of the trade and trades Busta alluded to, not because their run-differential luck changed.

Anyways, I think it's a combination of all of those factors. They made some trades and their luck got a little better. They're 41-14 since the Tulo trade. Being as the the best teams in Baseball history didn't win games at that clip it's not just a function of the quality of the team post-trade. Their historically bad luck pre-deadline has normalized a little and that plays a role.

That has almost nothing to do with the team's luck "normalizing." At the trade deadline they had played 100-plus games and were a middling .500 team. That's a pretty nice sample size. They had no LF, a weak bullpen, no ace, an error machine at SS and no INF depth. Adding an all-star SS, a good LF who has become a bonafide leadoff hitter, an ace, Cy Young-candidate and three high end arms to the bullpen (all between July 29 and July 31) is why they are on a 41-14 run.

I agree that they are playing above their heads and that that winning rate is likely to decrease significantly. But you are way overvaluating a meaningless run-differential on a team that had serious flaws and wouldn't have improved without these huge acquisitions.

 

[Kin]

I agree that they are playing above their heads and that that winning rate is likely to decrease significantly. But you are way overvaluating a meaningless run-differential on a team that had serious flaws and wouldn't have improved without these huge acquisitions.

I mean you're wrong but that's nothing new.

 

[Andy007]

I agree that they are playing above their heads and that that winning rate is likely to decrease significantly. But you are way overvaluating a meaningless run-differential on a team that had serious flaws and wouldn't have improved without these huge acquisitions.

I mean you're wrong but that's nothing new.

Such a petty comment from such an ignorant person. Nothing new either.

I mean the funny (or is it mind-blowingly frustrating?) thing is that I am completely right. I mean 100%. I mean any somewhat knowledgeable baseball fan can tell you that. I mean.

 

[Kin]

I mean any somewhat knowledgeable baseball fan can tell you that. I mean.

Sure. The guys who actually get hired to work for baseball teams say the opposite though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_expectation

But feel free to cast your lot with the guys calling in to radio shows.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Run differential is not meaningless, it's a better predictor of future results than looking at their record/Win%.  It's not perfect but it's better.  The Jays (and I think I brought it up on the forum earlier in the season) were on pace to have one of the worst records in 1-run games in MLB history - and a team's record in 1-run games is largely chance.  A team one year can have an amazing record in 1-run games, the next season not have one.  It doesn't seem to matter if they have an elite bullpen or an average one.

Jays were pretty clearly having some unfortunate luck in the first half of the season and have had far better luck in the remainder of the season, in addition to improving their roster.  But they were never as bad as their W-L record.

 

[Andy007]

I mean any somewhat knowledgeable baseball fan can tell you that. I mean.

Sure. The guys who actually get hired to work for baseball teams say the opposite though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_expectation

But feel free to cast your lot with the guys calling in to radio shows.

Boy, your (false) sense of superiority is reaching levels of hilarity man. Pythagorean is basically run-differential numbers. There can be some merit in those numbers and there can be very little to no merit.

I'm beginning to think you haven't ever watched a real, live baseball game... 

 

[bustaheims]

I'm beginning to think you haven't ever watched a real, live baseball game...

Oh, hey, it's the same argument that used to get thrown out against sabermetrics, and look how that's played out.

 

[Andy007]

Run differential is not meaningless, it's a better predictor of future results than looking at their record/Win%.  It's not perfect but it's better.  The Jays (and I think I brought it up on the forum earlier in the season) were on pace to have one of the worst records in 1-run games in MLB history - and a team's record in 1-run games is largely chance.  A team one year can have an amazing record in 1-run games, the next season not have one.  It doesn't seem to matter if they have an elite bullpen or an average one.

Jays were pretty clearly having some unfortunate luck in the first half of the season and have had far better luck in the remainder of the season, in addition to improving their roster.  But they were never as bad as their W-L record.

Well I don't think that run-differential is meaningless, but I do think in relation to the Jays and where they were at the trade deadline this year, that it was. 100+ games is a pretty telling sample size. I think it's easy to look into things like one-run games and make sweeping conclusions. The team had such a strong offense that they would pulverize teams in wins and then lose a bunch of close games because of their weak bullpen and shaky defence. That explains a big run differential and why, barring major changes to the defence and pitching staff, that those numbers were unlikely to result in much more wins, imo.

 

[Andy007]

I'm beginning to think you haven't ever watched a real, live baseball game...

Oh, hey, it's the same argument that used to get thrown out against sabermetrics, and look how that's played out.

Yep, there is no such thing as context. Black and white baby!!

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Here's an article on run differential and how it can be a helpful predictor of future results: http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/looking-past-mere-wins-and-losses/?_r=0

I'll assume the "watch the games" comment was a joke.  Has to be.

 

[Andy007]

Here's an article on run differential and how it can be a helpful predictor of future results: http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/looking-past-mere-wins-and-losses/?_r=0

I'll assume the "watch the games" comment was a joke.  Has to be.

That is a paraphrase of a joke I was making at Nik's expense. Call off the sabremetric dogs.

 

[Kin]

Here's Russell Carleton, writer over at Baseball Prospectus and fellow uninformed Baseball fan:

The reason that run differential is so important is that it?s actually a better predictor of how well a team will perform in the future than their record at the moment. If your favorite team is under .500 but they are above water and have scored more runs than they?ve given up, try not to worry too much. However, on the flip side, if they are above .500, but have been getting by on squeakers and getting blown out when they lose, consider this a warning. The good times will not last.

And this is Jonah Keri, author of two bestselling books about Baseball and lead Baseball writer at Grantland. Also has never watched a game:

Since run differential is a better predictor of future results than a team?s actual record, it?s time to start lending more credence to runs scored and runs allowed totals when assessing how good each team is and what its remaining 120-odd games might bring.

 

[Andy007]

Here's Russell Carleton, writer over at Baseball Prospectus and fellow uninformed Baseball fan:

The reason that run differential is so important is that it?s actually a better predictor of how well a team will perform in the future than their record at the moment. If your favorite team is under .500 but they are above water and have scored more runs than they?ve given up, try not to worry too much. However, on the flip side, if they are above .500, but have been getting by on squeakers and getting blown out when they lose, consider this a warning. The good times will not last.

And this is Jonah Keri, author of two bestselling books about Baseball and lead Baseball writer at Grantland. Also has never watched a game:

Since run differential is a better predictor of future results than a team?s actual record, it?s time to start lending more credence to runs scored and runs allowed totals when assessing how good each team is and what its remaining 120-odd games might bring.

"Remaining 120-odd games"? Interesting. Maybe once those remaining games whittle down to 60 and 50 and so on, those pythagorean numbers begin looking a little less like predictors and more like aberrations, no?

And at least you have some humility. Admitting you were uninformed and had never watched a game was something I never thought you'd do

 

[Kin]

That is a paraphrase of a joke I was making at Nik's expense. Call off the sabremetric dogs.

I think it's pretty clear by now that it was a "joke" you made at your own expense.

 

[Kin]

"Remaining 120-odd games"? Interesting. Maybe once those remaining games whittle down to 60 and 50 and so on, those pythagorean numbers begin looking a little less like predictors and more like aberrations, no?

No. Or, at least, not if you listen to virtually anyone who's looked at the numbers behind expected W-L as opposed to, say, you.

 

[Frank E]

Teams whose real winning percentages exceed their expected winning percentages are often referred to as ?lucky?, and teams who do the opposite are ?unlucky?. This is a crutch, and it?s far from statistically rigorous. We should not pretend to be able to extract true talent level from two variables alone, and it?s clear that ?luck? strikes far more deeply than in simple runs scored and runs allowed in a season. A team with an expected winning percentage of .500 and an actual record of 77-85 is not ?really? an 81-win team, although it is true that deviations from pythagorean win-loss are subject to regression. While pure pythagorean expectancy is probably a better way of gauging a team than actual wins and losses, we have some far more informative tricks up our sleeve (we?ll get to them in good time), and so there?s no reason to assume that we?re getting the whole truth from runs scored and runs allowed alone. The idea of pythagorean ?luck? is a quick rule of thumb and nothing more.

Another commonly held belief about pythagorean expectation is that its function is to predict wins and losses given the runs scored/runs allowed data. This is not true: it is merely a statement of a relationship, and it?s very important not to forget that. There is no need for pythagorean expectancy to take into account run distribution, or bullpen WPA, or any other input in order to increase its predictive value. Doing so detracts from the central relationship, the very core of what makes pythagorean expectancy useful.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/principles/expected-wins-and-losses/

 

[bustaheims]

"Remaining 120-odd games"? Interesting. Maybe once those remaining games whittle down to 60 and 50 and so on, those pythagorean numbers begin looking a little less like predictors and more like aberrations, no?

In an average season, 90-95% of the league will be within 3 games of what their end of season Pythagorean numbers expect them to have been. So, no, not aberrations at all. As more games are played, the closer teams get to what their run differential numbers predict them to have been.