PDA

View Full Version : Twins outperforming Pythagorean again


A. Cavatica
05-27-2004, 11:24 PM
The Sox are now 27-19, having scored 258 runs and allowed 201.

The Twins are 26-20 despite having been outscored by 14 runs (226 up, 240 down). How do they do this every $^&* year?

Those three blowouts in Minnesota couldn't explain it all...

batmanZoSo
05-27-2004, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by A. Cavatica
The Sox are now 27-19, having scored 258 runs and allowed 201.

The Twins are 26-20 despite having been outscored by 14 runs (226 up, 240 down). How do they do this every $^&* year?

Those three blowouts in Minnesota couldn't explain it all...

Four blowouts--11-0, 10-3, 8-2, 17-7.

That's mostly it right there. Four losses account for a -34 difference.

DSpivack
05-27-2004, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Four blowouts--11-0, 10-3, 8-2, 17-7.

That's mostly it right there. Four losses account for a -34 difference.

Man, the team that blew them out like that must be really good!

Lip Man 1
05-27-2004, 11:47 PM
I guess that shows the reliability of the phythegorian theory eh? They also said the Twins shouldn't have won the division the last two years...but they did.

Stats can't measure heart, injuries, luck, weather conditions and brains. All factor into winning and losing.

Lip

DSpivack
05-27-2004, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I guess that shows the reliability of the phythegorian theory eh?

"I'm like the Pythagorean Theorem, no one can solve my game."

-the wonderfully quotable Shaq

MRKARNO
05-27-2004, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I guess that shows the reliability of the phythegorian theory eh? They also said the Twins shouldn't have won the division the last two years...but they did.

Stats can't measure heart, injuries, luck, weather conditions and brains. All factor into winning and losing.

Lip

Over the course of an entire season it generally evens out. It isn't a stat meant for parts of seasons, but lately has gotten greater popularity because of BP's adjusted standings which uses Pythagorean W-L with Acutal RS-RA, Equivilent RS-RA and Adjusted Equivilient RS-RA. Twins better pick up their level of play though or they will start to fall in the W-L for their sake.

batmanZoSo
05-28-2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by DSpivack
"I'm like the Pythagorean Theorem, no one can solve my game."

-the wonderfully quotable Shaq

Yeah, the phythagorean theorem is endlessly difficult. So much so that you have to be all of 13 to be able to compute it.

Shaq needs to find a new simile for himself... :smile:

WSox8404
05-28-2004, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by DSpivack
Man, the team that blew them out like that must be really good!

Too bad the Chicago media can't figure out who that team is either.

elrod
05-28-2004, 02:11 AM
The Twins outgained their Pythag win total in each of the past three years: 5 wins last year, 8 in 2002, and 4 in 2001. The Sox underperformed their Pythag total last year by 2, missed it by 5 in 2002, outperformed their Pythag in 2001 by 2, and outperformed their Pythag in 2000 by 3. If you add up the total differential over the last 24 years, the White Sox are -1. Almost exactly what the Pythag total would suggest. The Twins, since 1980, are +17, averaging almost one win over per year. In case you're wondering, the Yankees have outperformed their Pythag total by a cumulative 41 since 1980 (the best) and the Mets have underperformed their Pythag total by a cumulative 24 (the worst).

The Pythag theorem is supposed to hint at teams ready for a decline. Sabermetric folks predicted the Royals would collapse because they outdid their Pythag total by 5 last year. But so did the Twins and it looks like they'll do it again. Frankly, I think the Pythag theorem is crap. No team should be "lucky" every year. Ironically, the only team the Pythag calculation seems to work for, over time, is the White Sox.

jeremyb1
05-28-2004, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I guess that shows the reliability of the phythegorian theory eh? They also said the Twins shouldn't have won the division the last two years...but they did.

Stats can't measure heart, injuries, luck, weather conditions and brains. All factor into winning and losing.

Lip

Yeah Lip, that's statistically sound. Use one team over the course of one fourth of a season.

Randar68
05-28-2004, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I guess that shows the reliability of the phythegorian theory eh? They also said the Twins shouldn't have won the division the last two years...but they did.

Stats can't measure heart, injuries, luck, weather conditions and brains. All factor into winning and losing.

Lip

What do you mean Lip? Those are "intangibles". If they can't be measured by stats, they aren't real...

Mickster
05-28-2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I guess that shows the reliability of the Pythagorean theory eh? They also said the Twins shouldn't have won the division the last two years...but they did.

Stats can't measure heart, injuries, luck, weather conditions and brains. All factor into winning and losing.

Lip

Is this the same Lip who has told me numerous times that "luck" has nothing to do with winning? :D:

batmanZoSo
05-28-2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
What do you mean Lip? Those are "intangibles". If they can't be measured by stats, they aren't real...

lol

Was that NOT supposed to be in teal?

OEO Magglio
05-28-2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Over the course of an entire season it generally evens out. It isn't a stat meant for parts of seasons, but lately has gotten greater popularity because of BP's adjusted standings which uses Pythagorean W-L with Acutal RS-RA, Equivilent RS-RA and Adjusted Equivilient RS-RA. Twins better pick up their level of play though or they will start to fall in the W-L for their sake.
For the most part it probably does even out but this has never been the case with the twins. Everyone knows the twins aren't the most talented team and they never have been and because of that they never put up great stats. But they play with heart and know how to win games, so in my opinion this theory has nothing to do with how many games the twins will win.

Randar68
05-28-2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
lol

Was that NOT supposed to be in teal?

It's directed at jeremy, mostly, who refuses to acknowledge ANY human element of the game, since those can't be measured by any known statistics...

batmanZoSo
05-28-2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
It's directed at jeremy, mostly, who refuses to acknowledge ANY human element of the game, since those can't be measured by any known statistics...

I know that's what you meant, I was playing along as if I was of the same mindset. :cool:

Randar68
05-28-2004, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
I know that's what you meant, I was playing along as if I was of the same mindset. :cool:

Sorry, I'm oblivious to subtle humor or role-play... :gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

jeremyb1
05-28-2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
It's directed at jeremy, mostly, who refuses to acknowledge ANY human element of the game, since those can't be measured by any known statistics...

Yep. In my world the game is played by high tech robots. You should see the construction that went into the gigantic Frank Thomas robot that plays for us.

jeremyb1
05-28-2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Stats can't measure heart, injuries, luck, weather conditions and brains. All factor into winning and losing.

Originally posted by Randar68
What do you mean Lip? Those are "intangibles". If they can't be measured by stats, they aren't real...

Haha. I thought about this and I just couldn't let it go without a somewhat serious post.

1) Heart.

I think it's hilarious that people like to suggest the concept of "heart" or as it would be more reasonably called work ethic is unrelated to statstics. Stats measure performance. Don't you think if a player spends extra hours in the batting cage or studying opposing hitters he will perform better and that will be reflected in his stats?

There are other definitions of "heart" I suppose as it's a rather esoteric term. Some people associate it with jumping into walls or diving for catches. I define that as defense. I don't see why they're anything more. Furthermore I find it hilarious people would talk up heart when the guys that probably exhibit it most on this board, Rowand and Valentin, have been slammed on this board recently. Obviously people can agree that occasionally running into a wall doesn't have a gigantic impact in the W-L column.

Finally a lot of times "heart" seems to be associated with "clutch". I'm not going to go into depth since I know it's been discussed anymore but studies show the hitters and teams with the best performance in the clutch were unable to reproduce similar, statistically significant production in the clutch in proceeding and following seasons. I think it is possible (although quite infrequent considering the strong mental approach typically required for a pro athlete) for teams or players to place too much pressure on themselves and perform poorly in the clutch as it seems may have been the case with the Sox down the stretch the last few seasons. That's a big reason I advocated Guillen as manager. I knew the Sox wouldn't hire a manager whose in game strategy I liked and I figured Ozzie could keep the team loose.

2. Injuries

Stats absolutely measure injuries with a stat called "games played". If we're talking about players playing with nagging injuries 1) this is the important of using scouting and not relying entirely on statistics 2) if a player is performing very poorly due to a nagging injury the team and player are being idiotic by putting him in games.

3. Luck

Stats attempt to measure luck more than any other method I'm familiar with. By discovering factors which typically lead to success, luck can be detected by the absence of success in light of these factors or success without the presence of these characterisitcs.

4. Weather Conditions

Weather conditions?! What are we racing horses here? I've never heard of teams that have drastic warm weather/cold weather splits. Regardless the weather for most games are quite similar. There are at most two months of the season where the temperature is significantly colder than the rest of the season and games in which rain are prevalent yet the game is not postponned are infrequent and probably have no effect on the outcome.

5. Brains

See "Heart". You don't think the intelligence of a pitcher like Buehrle or Jamie Moyer factors into their success and is reflected by stats?

Two caveats here: First of all, stats are typically used to measure in the aggreagate, over the span of quite a few games. This is because a relevant sample size is require and statistical analysis isn't all that necessary to evaluate one game. Second as I've hinted at previously, the notion that myself and other "statheads" think that all analysis revolves around statistics is insane. Scouting is critical to see the full picture.

MRKARNO
05-28-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by OEO Magglio
For the most part it probably does even out but this has never been the case with the twins. Everyone knows the twins aren't the most talented team and they never have been and because of that they never put up great stats. But they play with heart and know how to win games, so in my opinion this theory has nothing to do with how many games the twins will win.

Yeah, but this is the worst Twins team we've seen. It will get to a point where they can outperform their Pythag W-L only so much and they wont be able to catch us.

Randar68
05-28-2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
2) if a player is performing very poorly due to a nagging injury the team and player are being idiotic by putting him in games.

Yes, teams are idiotic for playing MLB regulars with nagging injuries when they are still better players when injured than their possible replcements.

What? You left off the favorite myth of stat-heads everywhere... Clutch hitting...

jeremyb1
05-28-2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Yes, teams are idiotic for playing MLB regulars with nagging injuries when they are still better players when injured than their possible replcements.

What? You left off the favorite myth of stat-heads everywhere... Clutch hitting...

No I made a point of saying players performing "very poorly" were idiotic to play.

And I did talk about clutch hitting, it's under heart.

fquaye149
05-28-2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by WSox8404
Too bad the Chicago media can't figure out who that team is either.

too bad the white sox sometimes can't even figure out who that team is

SpringfldFan
05-28-2004, 06:03 PM
I know this is a very basic question, but I have to ask: why is this stat called the "pythagorean"? I thought that was for triangles. What do runs scored and win/loss records have to do with triangles? :?:

MRKARNO
05-28-2004, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by SpringfldFan
I know this is a very basic question, but I have to ask: why is this stat called the "pythagorean"? I thought that was for triangles. What do runs scored and win/loss records have to do with triangles? :?:

Not much, it's just a name. The formula is:

RS^2 / RS^2 + RA^2

RKMeibalane
05-28-2004, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Yep. In my world the game is played by high tech robots. You should see the construction that went into the gigantic Frank Thomas robot that plays for us.

LMAO!

TheBull19
05-28-2004, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Yeah, the phythagorean theorem is endlessly difficult. So much so that you have to be all of 13 to be able to compute it.

Shaq needs to find a new simile for himself... :smile:

It's still a good quote though. One of my favorite Shaqisms - after a trip to Greece he was asked if he visited the Parthenon -
"I don't know the names of all the clubs we went to."

batmanZoSo
05-28-2004, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by TheBull19
It's still a good quote though. One of my favorite Shaqisms - after a trip to Greece he was asked if he visited the Parthenon -
"I don't know the names of all the clubs we went to."

Yeah still funny all of them I'll agree. He's like a modern-day Yogi Berra in a way.

"Would you like your pizza cut into sixths or eighths?"

"Eh, gimme six, I can't eat eight."

elrod
05-28-2004, 07:32 PM
The squared formula is most commonly used. More accurate is:

RS^1.83/
(RS^1.83+RA^1.83)

I'm not sure why this comes out to a more accurate result.

OEO Magglio
05-28-2004, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Yeah, but this is the worst Twins team we've seen. It will get to a point where they can outperform their Pythag W-L only so much and they wont be able to catch us.
I hope your right. I really think the sox will win this division but I will never count out the twins because they just know how to win games when they have to.

A. Cavatica
05-28-2004, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by SpringfldFan
I know this is a very basic question, but I have to ask: why is this stat called the "pythagorean"?

Because that's what Bill James named it. :smile:

gosox41
05-29-2004, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I guess that shows the reliability of the phythegorian theory eh? They also said the Twins shouldn't have won the division the last two years...but they did.

Stats can't measure heart, injuries, luck, weather conditions and brains. All factor into winning and losing.

Lip

The Pythegorian isn't perfect, but it is a much more reliable indicator when taken with a bigger sample size.



Bob

Railsplitter
05-29-2004, 09:35 AM
So, I guess that mean means the when the Twins win, they win close game. When they lose they get clobbered.

DSpivack
05-29-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Railsplitter
So, I guess that mean means the when the Twins win, they win close game. When they lose they get clobbered.

Clobbered by the White Sox, nonetheless.