User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.6119 seconds
62 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Primate Studies > Discussion
Primate Studies
— Where BTF's Members Investigate the Grand Old Game
— Where BTF's Members Investigate the Grand Old Game
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Believe Pythagoras or not? A look back
In all of major league history, there were seven teams prior to 2007 that met the following criteria:
1. Had a winning record;
2. Were outscored;
3. Exceeded their Pythagenpat expectation by at least eight games.
Arizona, in 2007, is now #8. The other seven teams are:
Detroit, 1905 AL (79-74, 65.6 expected wins, +13.4)
St. Louis, 1917 NL (82-70, 71.6 expected wins, +10.4)
Pittsburgh, 1932 NL (86-68, 76 expected wins, +10.0)
New York, 1972 NL (83-73, 71.8 expected wins, +11.2)
New York, 1984 NL (90-72, 78.3 expected wins, +11.7)
San Francisco, 1997 NL (90-72, 80.1 expected wins, +9.9)
New York, 2001 NL (82-80, 73.2 expected wins, +8.8)
I found it really odd that three of the seven teams were Met teams.
The Tigers were 62-90 in 1904. They fell back to 71-78 in 1906, although they exceeded their Pythagenpat again, this time by 6.1 games. They then reeled off three straight AL pennants and five straight seasons winning at least 85 games before crashing in 1912.
The Cardinals were 60-93 in 1916. They crashed back to the bottom of the league in 1918 and 1919 before slowly righting themselves as Branch Rickey’s roster makeover took root. The war may have had something to do with what happened in 1918, although at a glance it doesn’t look like it affected the Cardinals all that much.
The Pirates were 75-79 in 1931. With one exception (1934) they remained about an 85-win team until 1939.
The Mets were 83-79 in 1971. They won 82 games and an NL pennant in 1973, 71 games in 1974, then 82 and 86 games the following two seasons.
The Mets were 68-94 in 1983. They won 90 games in five of the next six years (and 87 in the other season).
The Giants were 68-94 in 1996. They won 89 and 86 games in the following two seasons, then had five straight seasons of at least 90 wins after that.
The Mets were 94-68 with an NL pennant in 2000, and finished below .500 in each of the three seasons following 2001.
The Diamondbacks were 76-86 in 2006. Interestingly enough, in 2005, coming off a 51-111 season a year earlier, they went 77-85 but with a Pythagenpat expectation of 65.2 wins, coming in at +11.8, and they essentially maintained their 2005 actual performance in 2006, although they were 3.5 wins below Pythagenpat a year ago. Arizona’s expectation this year was 78.9 wins, and they were +11.1.
Seven teams isn’t enough of a sample to draw any firm conclusions, and the available evidence is a mixed bag. I’m inclined to think that the 1917 Cardinals, because of the war effects, aren’t especially relevant to the conversation, and the 2000 Mets, an older team, probably aren’t especially comparable to the Snakes, a younger team. The other five teams all essentially maintained or improved their performance over the short term (with one-year aberrations here and there), and their Pythagenpat moved in the direction of the actual performance in the high-differential season.
Support BBTF
My Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2007 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
(and with that comment, Evaluating Managers, Part I finally falls from Primate Studies' Hot Topics side bar :(
As a wild example, say the 1998 Yankees gave way to a '99 version closer in talent to the Brewers of the era. There's no way the formula would give a worthy prediction, right?
The idea is that if a team exceeds it's projected wins by a significant amount then they really aren't as good as their record and will come back to earth the next season. Obviously roster changes and the like play a role too. If the Yankees suddenly became the Brewers the Pythag stuff goes out the window, but there is generally more continuity from year to year than that.
I think of it like this. One way to try to predict how many games a team will win is to go thru by position and figure out how many wins better/worse a team is than the year before. So, for the D-Backs, say we'd expect (just making up numbers) Jackson to be 2 wins better, Drew to be 2 wins better, Young to be 1 win better, Davis to be 1 win worse, Owings to be 1 win better, and their bullpen 1 win worse. So that adds up to the D-Backs being 4 wins better. The question then is, 4 wins better than what? If you say, better than their actual record this year, then you'd predict the D-Backs would win 94 games next year. If you say, better than this year's Pythag, then you'd predict the D-Backs would win 83 games next year.
Doing the same sort of thing in reverse, were the 1985 Mets 8 games "better" than the '84 version (their actual improvement in wins) or 18 games better (their Pythag improvement)?
I don't think I was cherry-picking - rather, I was trying to find teams who did something remotely comparable to what Arizona did this year. Of the seven teams I listed in the article, three - 1932 Pittsburgh, 1984 New York, and 1997 SF - won at the D'backs rate, and all three of those teams performed at that level or better over the following 4-5 years, with the single exception of the 1934 Pirates.
For both the 1932 Pirates and 1984 Mets, it was primarily a case of improvement from within, although both teams made one key acquisition in the offseason (Fred Lindstrom for the Bucs, Gary Carter for the Mets). Both teams had relatively young lineups; the Pirates had one veteran anchor (Traynor), the Mets two (Hernandez and Foster). Both teams had a young ace starter (Larry French, Dwight Gooden) backed up by a host of lesser arms, although the Mets had better ones in Darling and Fernandez. The Pirates didn't have any real offensive holes, although Lindstrom did represent an upgrade over Adam Comorosky; the Mets had two (catcher and SS) and fixed one of them with Carter.
The 1997 Giants were different: a veteran offensive core where the youngest starter was 26, a rotation fronted by two young starters who had good years, and a bullpen that lacked depth and which was losing its All-Star closer to free agency. The 1998 Giants also made one key offseason acquisition - closer Robb Nen - rebuilt the bullpen, and picked up Ellis Burks and Joe Carter in midseason to fortify the OF. Getting Rich Aurilia back to full-time duty as SS made a difference, too.
The Diamondbacks also need an offensive upgrade, but I think in their case it is far more likely to come from within. The weakest positions - SS, C, RF - are all filled with youngsters who have a lot of upside. There are reasons to be nervous about the starters not named Webb - Davis's improved ERA this year isn't supported by his peripherals, most of which were worse than a year ago, and Livan's deteriorating to the point where I think there's a better than 50-50 chance he'll have to be replaced. There are some arms in the minors, but they're at least a year or two away. To me, the key to this offseason will be whether the Diamondbacks realize that there's still some work to do, and how aggressively they attack the pitching.
-- MWE
That 1981 Baltimore team had a huge hole at SS, as Mark Belanger's career was all but over and his primary replace, Lenn Sakata, also suffered through a miserable year. The Orioles plugged that hole a year later with Cal Ripken, but opened another one at third that they never really did fill. The Lowenstein/Roenicke platoon also had an off-season. Among the pitchers, Steve Stone, after being worked to death a year earlier, collapsed, Jim Palmer continued his slow fade, and Mike Flanagan also suffered through a tough year, especially after the strike-induced break. Palmer and Flanagan would rebound a year later, and the Orioles would add rookie Storm Davis to the bullpen to shore up the depth behind Martinez/Stoddard/Stewart.
I think that Arizona fans have to be encouraged by what has happened to teams that outperformed their Pythag in similar ways, but one common thread that goes through each of the four teams is that they didn't just stand on their laurels, but actively tried to shore up weak spots. Arizona's one big weak spot, IMO, is the starting pitching; the Diamondbacks may think that's under control, especially if the Unit gets healthy, but it is really a big risk area for them; Davis and Hernandez are IMO odds-on bets to implode next year.
-- MWE
There are two teams in major league history that played .450 ball or less while outscoring their opponents:
Cincinnati, 1907 NL (66-87, +7 run differential, -11.4 Pythagenpat)
San Francisco, 1972 NL (69-86, +13 run differential, -9.9 Pythagenpat)
The Reds played .474 ball the following year, were over .500 in 1909, and stayed above .450 until 1913. The Giants were a roller-coaster franchise in the 1970s, with successive seasons of .531, .556, .445, .543, .444, .497, .457, .463, .549, and .438 ball. It's relatively easy to see what happened with the Giants in 1972: the pitching staff fell apart almost en masse, and the hitters did one thing (hit home runs) well, so they there were times they could run up a lot of runs quickly and win big. The Giants were 18-14 in blowouts in 1972, which is really unusual for a team with a .445 overall record.
-- MWE
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main