Jump to content

Talk:Pythagorean expectation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Owlcroft (talk | contribs) at 11:33, 23 November 2009 (Referred to longer relevant but separate comment below.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconStatistics Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconBaseball Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Clutch

I am curious if anyone has done any serious analysis as to what one can determine about "clutch" performance based on this concept of Pythagorean expectation. There ought to be a theoretical "correct" result if you assume there is no such thing as "clutch" performance. Observing how the actual results differ from the expectation might point us towards certain 'clutch' behavior to look at, if they exist. -- 24.160.126.217 04:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But there are also other factors that lead to differences between pythag projections and actual team performance, such as bullpen depth, manager decisions, and just plain luck. Javaisfun 04:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also the note below on "Systematic Deviations"; I believe it answers the question. Eric Walker (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Runs Allowed

Hi, I have entirely no expierience with professional baseball, and the term 'runs allowed' makes little sense to me, could someone who would knows what this means clarify this on the page, or create a link to an appropriate page. Thanks. --Neo 21:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the number of runs scored by the other team. I think there's also a technical definition that might differ from this in some instances, used in statistics applied only to pitchers rather than to teams as a whole. Michael Hardy 02:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest differentials?

  • Does anyone know what the biggest differential ever is between Pythag expectation and actual record? The Indians were -12 (Pythag = 90 wins, actual = 78 ) last year, which is impressive, but my guess is that there are far more ridiculous numbers. Wickethewok 02:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using the Lahman Databse (highly recommended), I calculated the pyth% for every team since 1950. Here are the teams who differed most from their expected wins... (Note: I used the "Pythagenpat" exponent, not 2 or 1.83.)
year	Team			lg	G	W	L	RS	RA	Pyth%	PythW	Diff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993	New York Mets		NL	162	59	103	672	744	0.453	73.4	14.38
1986	Pittsburgh Pirates	NL	162	64	98	663	700	0.475	77.0	12.97
1975	Houston Astros		NL	162	64	97	664	711	0.469	75.9	11.91
1984	Pittsburgh Pirates	NL	162	75	87	615	567	0.536	86.8	11.79
2005	Arizona Diamondbacks	NL	162	77	85	696	856	0.403	65.2	11.75
2004	New York Yankees	AL	162	101	61	897	808	0.551	89.2	11.75
1984	New York Mets		NL	162	90	72	652	676	0.484	78.3	11.67
1967	Baltimore Orioles	AL	161	76	85	654	592	0.544	87.7	11.66
2006	Cleveland Indians	AL	162	78	84	870	782	0.551	89.3	11.34
1954	Brooklyn Dodgers	NL	154	92	62	778	740	0.524	80.7	11.30
1970	Cincinnati Reds		NL	162	102	60	775	681	0.560	90.7	11.26
1972	New York Mets		NL	156	83	73	528	578	0.461	71.8	11.15
1955	Kansas City Athletics	AL	155	63	91	638	911	0.335	51.9	11.10
1999	Kansas City Royals	AL	161	64	97	856	921	0.464	74.7	10.67
1993	San Diego Padres	NL	162	61	101	679	772	0.440	71.3	10.34
1961	Cincinnati Reds		NL	154	93	61	710	653	0.539	83.0	10.01
1970	Chicago Cubs		NL	162	84	78	806	679	0.580	93.9	9.95
1980	St. Louis Cardinals	NL	162	74	88	738	710	0.518	83.9	9.92
1972	San Francisco Giants	NL	155	69	86	662	649	0.509	78.9	9.91
1997	San Francisco Giants	NL	162	90	72	784	793	0.495	80.1	9.88
1966	New York Yankees	AL	160	70	89	611	612	0.499	79.9	9.88
1955	Detroit Tigers		AL	154	79	75	775	658	0.577	88.8	9.80
2004	Cincinnati Reds		NL	162	76	86	750	907	0.409	66.2	9.77
1955	Cincinnati Redlegs	NL	154	75	79	761	684	0.550	84.7	9.75
1953	New York Giants		NL	155	70	84	768	747	0.513	79.6	9.56
2001	Colorado Rockies	NL	162	73	89	923	906	0.509	82.5	9.50
1977	Baltimore Orioles	AL	161	97	64	719	653	0.544	87.6	9.38
1981	Cincinnati Reds		NL	108	66	42	464	440	0.524	56.6	9.37
1974	San Diego Padres	NL	162	60	102	541	830	0.313	50.7	9.31
1997	Houston Astros		NL	162	84	78	777	660	0.575	93.2	9.22
1962	New York Mets		NL	161	40	120	617	948	0.306	49.2	9.19
1978	Cincinnati Reds		NL	161	92	69	710	688	0.515	82.8	9.15
1998	Kansas City Royals	AL	161	72	89	714	899	0.391	62.9	9.10
1972	Baltimore Orioles	AL	154	80	74	519	430	0.578	89.1	9.06
1962	St. Louis Cardinals	NL	163	84	78	774	664	0.571	93.0	9.04

Cleveland 2006 was the 9th-biggest differential since 1950. They had the most expected wins of any team in the top 10, however. - Goo Paine 04:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Systematic Deviations"

Re: There are some systematic statistical deviations between actual winning percentage and expected winning percentage, which include bullpen quality and luck. That there are deviations from anything but luck is an unproven and probably incorrect assertion.

Over the past 44 years, the percentages of teams with, as of that year, a streak of any given length are these:

Streak     Actual     Chance
Length      Pct.       Pct.
----------------------------
   12:     0.00%      0.03%
   11:     0.09%      0.05%
   10:     0.09%      0.10%
    9:     0.44%      0.20%
    8:     0.55%      0.39%
    7:     1.35%      0.78%
    6:     2.15%      1.56%
    5:     4.37%      3.13%
    4:     8.42%      6.25%
    3:    15.14%     12.50%
    2:    28.61%     25.00%
    1:    56.06%     50.00%

That does not seem to make much of a case for anything but chance deviations.

(The period 44 years is because the database I used runs from 1955 on, that being the first year certain stats, such as IBB, began to be officially kept; those are not relevant here, but explain the years used--1966 was the first year in which a 12-year streak could exist in those data. Since a team has a 50% chance of being over or under in a given season, "streak" probabilities are simply powers-of-2 divisors.)

That being so, I urge a change to something like: There are inevitable deviations between actual winning percentage and expected winning percentage owing to chance, but there do not appear to be systematic factors (that is, factors attributable to the characteristics of particular teams); the incidence of "streaks" of under-performing and over-performing predictions varies little from that expected from chance.

I will wait to see if there is any comment here before cutting in such a change.

Eric Walker (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]