"Smart" Standings are Stupid

by fjm235 on Aug 9, 2007 4:04 AM EDT

I decided to check out the new playoff probabilities after last night's win. The D'backs chances increased to 39.7% while the Padres fell.... to 54.2%! The gap is the same if you look at winning the division alone: 26.8% to 41.3%.

What is wrong with this picture? The D'backs have a 2 game edge in the standings, so why are they the underdog? Strength of remaining opponents, perhaps? Nope. The same site clearly shows our schedule is slightly easier (.491 to .499). Home vs. Road games? No, we have 3 more at home, they have 3 more away. Any ideas?

Poll

What do you think the D'backs chances of making the playoffs are?

75% +

0 votes

0 to 24%

0 votes

25 to 34%

1 votes

35 to 44%

1 votes

45 to 54%

10 votes

55 to 64%

5 votes

65 to 74%

9 votes

26 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Run Differential. Obv.

Ours is the worst in the division (yes, including the Giants). History shows teams with poor run differential project poorly into the future.

Sure, there's always exceptions, but they're few and far between. Let's just hope that either this feast or famine bullpen and offense makes us an exception, or we're just able to ride the season out before history catches up with us.

by dahlian on Aug 9, 2007 5:45 AM EDT reply actions

Jim's thoughts on our run differential

Have been enlightening -- a lopsided bullpen (put in scrubs who get hammered in games you're losing 3-0 and end up losing 11-0, combined with four very strong relievers in close games) should in fact adversely affect run differential without creating any more losses.

by andrewinnewyork on Aug 9, 2007 10:03 AM EDT reply actions

Run Differential

Yes, I'm sure you're right. Despite their W-L record, the D'backs are being treated as a losing team when it comes to predicting the future.

The fact is, their 63.9% Win Pct. in close games (margin of 4 runs or less) would be the 5th best of this millenium if they maintain it through yearend. That's out of 240 team-years. And the 4 teams ahead of them all won over 100 games!

Of course, they won't come close to that, given their 35.5% Win Pct. in games decided by more than 4 runs. That places them 203rd out of those 240 teams in non-close games.

So I guess the real question is, is the Pythagorean Formula really a better predictor than W-L record? I suspect some blend of the two would be optimal. Another way to ask the same question: does the fact that a team has won far more than it's fair share of close games reflect some skill not reflected in overall run differential, or is it pure luck? For the moment, I choose to believe there is some skill involved. Let's check back Sept. 1 and see if those %'s are holding up.

by fjm235 on Aug 9, 2007 12:33 PM EDT reply actions

The general view is...

One-run games are as much chance as anything. I've not got time immediately, but over lunch, I'll see if I can dig up stats on it. However, the fact that two of Melvin's three years here, he's come up with teams ranking in the best dozen of the most "over performing" teams of the last forty years, make me thing there may be more to it than mere chance.

I certainly do not view run differential as a great predictor of future performance. It has no memory: the fact we're ten over what we should be, is entirely independent of what will happen going forward. We're just as likely to be +10 again, as -10. Of course, being zero is probably more likely than either.

by Jim McLennan on Aug 9, 2007 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Oh God

Noy the BoMel thing again......

by AZDarkKnight on Aug 9, 2007 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions

I ignore that stat

I like to use the sportsclubstats.com probability and percentages. Looking at the rest of the teams and not just the snakes it seems to be the closest to predicting the outcomes.

Tippecanoe and Pena too! (let's hope pena doesn't die after 30 days in office)

by seton hall snake pit on Aug 9, 2007 2:02 PM EDT reply actions

Good THT article addressing this issue

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ten-things-i-didnt-know-last-week43/

by shoewizard on Aug 9, 2007 2:24 PM EDT reply actions

More info on one-run games

More from Hardball Times

A lot of people think that the outcome of one-run games is pretty much random. As an example, the 2003 Detroit Tigers, one of the worst teams of all time, actually won over 50% of their one-run games... A team's true talent emerges as the margin of a game increases. One-run games do tend to bring all teams closer to .500, but the best teams still win one-run games more often than other teams.

[Bill] James found that there is some evidence that some teams display an ability to perform better or worse in one-run games independent of their overall talent level. The teams that show this ability have two fundamental traits: they play small ball (sacrifice hits, stolen bases, fewer home runs, etc.) and have good pitching. ... Bullpens may have an impact, too... Many others have suggested--that teams with strong bullpens may win more one-run games. If your team is leading by one run entering the ninth inning, and your bullpen (think pre-injury Eric Gagne) can shut down the opposition, you will win that game. But I'm not totally convinced. By definition, teams that win more one-run games will have more saves and holds. And there are many teams with great bullpens who have had relatively poor one-run records.

In Underestimating the Fog, Bill James listed eight "strong form" conclusions that may, in fact, not be supported by the analysis. One of them was: "Winning or losing close games is luck. Teams which win more one-run games than they should one year have little tendency to do so the next year."

by Jim McLennan on Aug 9, 2007 5:27 PM EDT reply actions