PDA

View Full Version : Pythagorean Predictions


FedEx227
06-22-2006, 12:52 PM
I had a few extra minutes before work, so I decided to do the ol' Bill James classic Pythagorean Equation on the baseball standings and get a gage of what the rest of the season may play out as.

Please no FOBB, "OH MY GOD STATS"... this isn't set in stone and it has no true bearing on any teams chances to make the playoffs. All it merely does is create a win percentage for each team by virtue of their runs scored against runs given up. Its main problem is that it does not reward 1-run victories or tight ball games but instead rewards blow-outs and complete offensive dominance. And for all the detractors of the actual stat, it is traditionally pretty accurate.

Anyway here's what it looks like:

AL East
*Yankees 93-69
Blue Jays 89-73
Red Sox 88-74
Orioles 70-92
Devil Rays 64-98

AL Central
*Tigers 106-56
*White Sox 100-62
Indians 86-76
Twins 78-84
Royals 48-114

AL West
*Rangers 87-75
Mariners 83-79
Oakland 82-80
Angels 72-90

Playoff teams: Tigers, White Sox, Rangers, Yankees

NL East
*Mets 98-64
Marlins 80-82
Phillies 78-84
Braves 74-88
Nationals 72-90

NL Central
*Cardinals 91-71
Reds 80-82
Astros 76-86
Pirates 73-89
Brewers 68-94
Cubs 60-102

NL West
*Dodgers 92-70
*Padres 86-76
Giants 84-78
Diamondbacks 81-81
Rockies 79-83

Playoff teams: Dodgers, Padres, Cardinals, Mets

Some surprising things, some not so surprising. Obviously the close-wins have hurt the Brewers prediction, they've had a bevy of 1-run, late-inning wins which will screw up their ratio.

samram
06-22-2006, 01:00 PM
It doesn't seem fair that the Yanks get five extra games.

FedEx227
06-22-2006, 01:02 PM
It doesn't seem fair that the Yanks get five extra games.

Steinbrenner bought a few from the Royals.

My fault, fixed it, thanks for the heads up.

Ol' No. 2
06-22-2006, 01:29 PM
And for all the detractors of the actual stat, it is traditionally pretty accurate.If by "pretty accurate" you mean within about 4-8 games either way, then you're correct.

samram
06-22-2006, 01:44 PM
If by "pretty accurate" you mean within about 4-8 games either way, then you're correct.

Are you implying that 4-8 games may be significant in a game where only 4 teams from each league make the playoffs?

Lip Man 1
06-22-2006, 01:55 PM
Games are played on the field with real live human beings....not in some stat geek's basement with the shades drawn.

Please.

:rolleyes:

Lip

Minnie Me
06-22-2006, 02:10 PM
Games are played on the field with real live human beings....not in some stat geek's basement with the shades drawn.

Please.

:rolleyes:

Lip

Picture of me busy formulating my own Formulas on what Pablo will bat this year.

http://www.geekoftheday.com/images/funny/laptop_stall.jpg

ondafarm
06-22-2006, 02:14 PM
I've been tinkering with a correction factor and trying to keep it as simple as possible. The problem with the Pythagorean formula is that teams that win a lot of one run games and better defensive squads tend to get short-changed. The Sox of 2000 were consistently under their Pythagorean prediction, they scored bunches of runs and had lousy defense. The Sox of 2005 were perpetually over their prediction, with good defense and moderate offense.

StockdaleForVeep
06-22-2006, 04:50 PM
Picture of me busy formulating my own Formulas on what Pablo will bat this year.

http://www.geekoftheday.com/images/funny/laptop_stall.jpg


:kneeslap:
http://philonometryisbetterthanscientology.ytmnd.com/

Johnny Mostil
06-22-2006, 05:02 PM
IAL Central
*Tigers 106-56
*White Sox 100-62.

Interesting, but I can't see the Tigers or Sox winning 100+ (and I do think both have a good chance of making the post-season).

Will this year's Tigers team really prove to be two games better than the '84 version?

getonbckthr
06-22-2006, 05:21 PM
Interesting, but I can't see the Tigers or Sox winning 100+ (and I do think both have a good chance of making the post-season).

Will this year's Tigers team really prove to be two games better than the '84 version?
Well the 2006 team does have the luxury of playing the worst team in baseball history 19 times.

Ol' No. 2
06-22-2006, 05:26 PM
Well the 2006 team does have the luxury of playing the worst team in baseball history 19 times.They only play the Cubs three times.:cool:

spiffie
06-22-2006, 05:43 PM
I've been tinkering with a correction factor and trying to keep it as simple as possible. The problem with the Pythagorean formula is that teams that win a lot of one run games and better defensive squads tend to get short-changed. The Sox of 2000 were consistently under their Pythagorean prediction, they scored bunches of runs and had lousy defense. The Sox of 2005 were perpetually over their prediction, with good defense and moderate offense.
I've thought that would be a good way to improve on it. Generally even the stat geeks tend to say the teams that outperform EXPWL are the ones with strong pens and defense, while underperformers have the opposite, with particular emphasis on the pen. I wonder if perhaps something based off of bullpen ERA+ wouldn't be a useful starting point.

Johnny Mostil
06-22-2006, 05:44 PM
Well the 2006 team does have the luxury of playing the worst team in baseball history 19 times.

Touché. I can't recall a team in '84 as bad as this year's Royals (or even this year's Cubs).

Ol' No. 2
06-22-2006, 05:52 PM
Touché. I can't recall a team in '84 as bad as this year's Royals (or even this year's Cubs).The "worst team in baseball" took 2 out of 3 from the 'Stros and are on the verge of sweeping the Pirates. They'd probably be a WC contender if they played in the NL.

Johnny Mostil
06-22-2006, 06:17 PM
The "worst team in baseball" took 2 out of 3 from the 'Stros and are on the verge of sweeping the Pirates. They'd probably be a WC contender if they played in the NL.

Fair point. I guess the better question is whether the difference between the '84 Tigers and the '84 Brewers is as big as that between the '06 Tigers and '06 Royals . . .

Fenway
06-22-2006, 06:32 PM
88 wins for the Red Sox?????!!!!!!!!!

Well it's based on a formula by some hayseed from Kansas who could never get a job in MLB


oh

wait a minute

:o:

SBSoxFan
06-22-2006, 07:42 PM
I had a few extra minutes before work, so I decided to do the ol' Bill James classic Pythagorean Equation

I had no idea Bill James was that old. And he's still alive? :o:

SBSoxFan
06-22-2006, 07:47 PM
I've been tinkering with a correction factor and trying to keep it as simple as possible. The problem with the Pythagorean formula is that teams that win a lot of one run games and better defensive squads tend to get short-changed. The Sox of 2000 were consistently under their Pythagorean prediction, they scored bunches of runs and had lousy defense. The Sox of 2005 were perpetually over their prediction, with good defense and moderate offense.

Pythagorean is a misnomer for what they use, as Pythagorean implies squared terms. What you say about it is absolutely correct. Imagine winning 10 games by the score of 10 - 0, and losing 10 games by the score of 1 - 0. RS = 100 and RA = 10, but you're only 5 and 5.

Instead of a correction factor, I would recommend a multi-dimensional approach. Maybe even RS, RA, and standard deviation of (RS - RA) would be a good start. What do you think?

TornLabrum
06-22-2006, 11:17 PM
Pythagorean is a misnomer for what they use, as Pythagorean implies squared terms. What you say about it is absolutely correct. Imagine winning 10 games by the score of 10 - 0, and losing 10 games by the score of 1 - 0. RS = 100 and RA = 10, but you're only 5 and 5.

Instead of a correction factor, I would recommend a multi-dimensional approach. Maybe even RS, RA, and standard deviation of (RS - RA) would be a good start. What do you think?
I think it's all a bunch of bull****.

Ol' No. 2
06-22-2006, 11:59 PM
Pythagorean is a misnomer for what they use, as Pythagorean implies squared terms. What you say about it is absolutely correct. Imagine winning 10 games by the score of 10 - 0, and losing 10 games by the score of 1 - 0. RS = 100 and RA = 10, but you're only 5 and 5.

Instead of a correction factor, I would recommend a multi-dimensional approach. Maybe even RS, RA, and standard deviation of (RS - RA) would be a good start. What do you think?This (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/standings/index.jsp) always worked pretty well for me.

Tragg
06-23-2006, 06:58 AM
If by "pretty accurate" you mean within about 4-8 games either way, then you're correct.
You're awfully kind. Pythagorean said that the Tribe won the central by 6 games last year; that we were a 72 win team to start 2005 and an 82 win team to start 2006.

It's strictly margin of victory calculation.

SBSoxFan
06-23-2006, 09:59 AM
I think it's all a bunch of bull****.

Yes, that's a much better analysis, and easier to calculate! But hey, there's money in it. :wink:

SBSoxFan
06-23-2006, 10:00 AM
This (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/standings/index.jsp) always worked pretty well for me.

I like it. Did Bill James invent that too? Mod edit: Watch the political stuff or your stay here might be drastically shortened.

mccoydp
06-23-2006, 10:12 AM
Or was that the internet? Mod edit: And now you make it necessary for me to edit here. Look if you know it's political don't ****ing quote it!
Please don't start with that bull****.

Ol' No. 2
06-23-2006, 10:39 AM
You're awfully kind. Pythagorean said that the Tribe won the central by 6 games last year; that we were a 72 win team to start 2005 and an 82 win team to start 2006.

It's strictly margin of victory calculation.That margin of error is AFTER THE FACT. Pythagorean W-L calculated from RS and RA vary from actual with a standard deviation of about 4 games, which means that about one-third of the teams will have actual W-L more than 4 games different, either high or low, from their Pythagorean predictions.

SBSoxFan
06-23-2006, 12:10 PM
I like it. Did Bill James invent that too? Mod edit: Watch the political stuff or your stay here might be drastically shortened.

Sorry.

buehrle4cy05
06-23-2006, 01:01 PM
I know these don't mean much, but is the NL really so bad that the wild card will come out of the West???

AJTrenkle
06-23-2006, 04:14 PM
Stats can take a lot away from the pleasure of the game but they are a useful tool. +/- 4 to 5 games is helpful to see how talented a team really is. One good thing is that run differential shows the 06 Sox to be much superior to the 05 team at this point in the season.

Ol' No. 2
06-23-2006, 08:15 PM
Stats can take a lot away from the pleasure of the game but they are a useful tool. +/- 4 to 5 games is helpful to see how talented a team really is. One good thing is that run differential shows the 06 Sox to be much superior to the 05 team at this point in the season.It shows no such thing. It shows that they've had a lot more blowouts. That's it.

SABRSox
06-23-2006, 08:42 PM
It shows no such thing. It shows that they've had a lot more blowouts. That's it.

Ayup, that's right.

I hate threads like this because:

a) Too many people think these stats are more meaningful then they actually are. In this case, using the pythagorean formula to predict how the season will end. That's a waste of time. This thing has no value for that. Its only use is after the season is over, to judge if a team under or over acheived, or played to their ability, and even then it's not the best or only tool that should be used to judge such things.

b) Some people will speak about stats in a way that makes no sense, or is flat out wrong. For instance, the poster who stated that the 06 White Sox are clearly more dominant because of an increase in run differential. No, they are not clearly more dominant. They have had more blowouts. They have won games differently. There is nothing in that stat that leads me to believe this Sox team is more dominant. Hell, I may even argue that the 05 team was more dominant because the pitching was tighter, and because they won more 1-run games.

c) Posts like "Games are played by real men, on a real field, not some stat geeks spreadsheet." That adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.