I was looking at MLB.com’s Regular Season Standings a few minutes ago while I had my coffee and I thought how unarticulate wins losses, Pythagorian Winning Percentage and the like were. I came to focus in particular on one stat which I felt was the greatest dissapointment where the most should have been expected. Elimination Number. Really, this is what fans would look to in the morning paper in a Bill James Utopia, but instead it is as incapable of expression as its 18th century siblings and expected winning percentage, which good teams seem to always outperform, hinting to some sinister clutchness factor lurking beneath its pristine greek name. While taking my shower, from which I am now shivering seeing as the weather here in massachusetts leaves something to be desired, I thought how it would be really something if elimination number actually told you something about the status of teams like the Royals, the Braves, the Devil Rays and such, who we are told are all at least 60 odd games from “elimination”. Honestly, who will be watching the Royals 60 games from now? Contention is what should be addressed. Something to back up the ESPN analyst whinings about the Braves fallen dynasty. I thought of a simple metric, though I’m not very sure that it is kosher, that would at least simulate what would be desired in a “Contention Number” stat.

CONTENTION NUMBER V.-1 6/24/06

((((teamw-teaml)-(divisionleaderw-divisionleaderl))+gamesremaining)*team winning percentage)

A negative number indicates out of contention by x games
A postive number indicates in contention by x games

12 contention number- kansas city
28 contention number- tampa bay
25 contention number- atlanta

As of june 24, 2006

For example, pittsburghs contention number is found thusly,

((((26-49)-(42-30))+91)*.347)=19.432, which can be rounded to 19

In 19 games at the present pace, pittsburgh will be virtually out of contention===

I am obviously an amateur and this stat may be more of the flying machines of the 1800s compared to the Wright Plane in comparison to a real stat, but it definately looks the part to my eyes and displays what sort of metric one would want in a standings stat to replace elimination number.

I would really be intrested in engaging some discussion of standings stats, their downfalls and their possible remedies.

Interesting take. (One nit-picky thing—what about ties?)

I’m afraid that I’m unqualified to answer or discuss your questions, but I can offer a question that may help: how easily could your contention cutoff be foiled by a team’s good/returning-from-bad luck, or maybe returning a star from injury (D. Lee and the Cubs), etc.?

For example, after August 11, 1951, the NY Giants were 59-51, far behind the Brooklyn Dodgers (who were 70-36-1 at that point). For the Giants, this would be a Contention Number of 9 with 43 games still to play. So, in theory, if things kept going the way they were, the Giants would have been out of contention in 9 games. Interestingly enough, out of those 43 games, the Giants only lost 8 more. What if they all came right then, after August 11? I mean,  that’s incredibly unfair to your system, but what if instead of turning to success, they waited 8 or 9 more games before they sparked? They would have been eliminated from the pennant race, and then won it.

But the Giants didn’t hold off winning for 8 or 9 more games, but rather won 16 games in a row, beginning what would be the most exciting and improbable pennant race of all time (capped with “The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant!”)

Your system seems to hold up even in this very extreme case of sudden and immediate and pace-changing success, but I suppose it’s always possible that a team breaks your Contention Number.

Perhaps there could be a correlating and opposite Virtual Clinch Number for the division leader?

Garth Sears - 27 June 2006 09:35 PM

Interesting take. (One nit-picky thing—what about ties?)

I’m afraid that I’m unqualified to answer or discuss your questions, but I can offer a question that may help: how easily could your contention cutoff be foiled by a team’s good/returning-from-bad luck, or maybe returning a star from injury (D. Lee and the Cubs), etc.?

For example, after August 11, 1951, the NY Giants were 59-51, far behind the Brooklyn Dodgers (who were 70-36-1 at that point). For the Giants, this would be a Contention Number of 9 with 43 games still to play. So, in theory, if things kept going the way they were, the Giants would have been out of contention in 9 games. Interestingly enough, out of those 43 games, the Giants only lost 8 more. What if they all came right then, after August 11? I mean,  that’s incredibly unfair to your system, but what if instead of turning to success, they waited 8 or 9 more games before they sparked? They would have been eliminated from the pennant race, and then won it.

But the Giants didn’t hold off winning for 8 or 9 more games, but rather won 16 games in a row, beginning what would be the most exciting and improbable pennant race of all time (capped with “The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant!”)

Your system seems to hold up even in this very extreme case of sudden and immediate and pace-changing success, but I suppose it’s always possible that a team breaks your Contention Number.

Perhaps there could be a correlating and opposite Virtual Clinch Number for the division leader?

Unlike Expected Winning Percentage and much like Elimination Number and Games Back, A Contention Number would only measure the relations of wins and losses of one team to another- so that any change in the winning percentages would be mirrored across the Contention Number by the same degree.

So for example: Contention Number is suddenly better for teams that suddenly do better compared to the divison leader—in a parellel type of change.

Contention Numbers As of July 14th, Using the Wild Card Leader in Each Respective League as Target of Contention,
[  ((((TEAMW-TEAML)-(WILDCARDLEADERW-WILDCARDLEADERL))+GAMESREMAINING)*TEAM WINNING PERCENTAGE) ]

So, in this measurement, no teams are yet out of contention, though at the current pace Pittsburgh and Kansas City will be soon, (in 13 games and in 8 games respectively). If the winning percentage of a team improves relative to the wild card leader, their contention number will rise, whether a team is out of contention (a negative number) or in contention (a positive number), so that a team out of contention can come back into contention. Though winning percentages don’t change, contention number drops with every less game there is remaining in the season, as contention number measures “games until out of contention at the present pace.” It considers the difference in record, the amount of games in which to change it without construing a steak-filled long string of bad team wins versus good team losses as a possiblity avalible as elimination number does for most of the season, inevitably, by directly reducing this amount given the direness of present performance.

I was interested in seeing how this measure held up a month later.  There are about 50 games remaining and the Wild Card races are heating up.

Only the Royals are out of contention by this measure.  The Pirates are close to being out of contention . . . by this measure.  By all reason, the Pirates are out of contention.  I gather it is just the mediocracy of the NL that the Pirates still “have a chance”.

But it is also interesting that a month ago the measure predicted the Pirates would be out of contention in eight games.  About 25 games later, the measure still says the Pirates have five more games until they are out of the race.

So, by going 14-13 in the last month, the Pirates have kept themselves in contention.