Optimistic Prediction from SI

[magnumo]

Sports Illustrated ranks the Pirates #20 out of 30 major league teams in their latest "power rankings" (published on February 1). Apparently, the author believes that there are 10 Major League teams worse than the Pirates (including 5 in the NL and 2 in the NL Central).

The article seems suspect, about the Pirates at least:

- The author lists "notable additions" for the Pirates as Bedard, McGehee, Barmes, and Barajas. (Seems like a reasonable list for such an article.)

- However, he lists ONLY Jose Veras as a "notable subtraction." Somehow, he missed Maholm (listed as a notable addition for the Cubs), Cedeno (listed as a notable addition for the Mets), Doumit (listed as a notable addition for the Twins), and Snyder (listed as a notable addition for the Astros). He also omits Derrek Lee, but perhaps that's understandable due to Lee's short tenure with the Pirates.

(In a side note, the author also lists Ryan Ludwick as a notable addition for the Reds.)

Here's the link:

Rangers, Yankees, Phillies, Tigers, Angels lead offseason rankings - Joe Lemire - SI.com

 

[thecrow124]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is optomistic, they did finish 22nd in MLB last season with an all time epic disaster of a second half. Out of the teams listed behind them the only one I would say has a legitimate case for being ahead of them is Colorado.

However, the Cardinals being 6th on the list has got to be some sort of joke. They are coming into the season with no Pujols, a rookie manager and a rookie pitching coach. I would be shocked if they finish in the top half of MLB.

 

[Etrius24]

I think the Cards will be okay...

I cannot remember, but I think I read that they inked Oswalt? If this is true they will field a competitive team.. Pujols is a special player obviously, but they locked up Berkman who is likely hall of fame bound himself... They were missing their ace all of last season... So getting him back... with Carpenter (Who is getting older but is still a good pitcher) and now Oswalt...They have the pitching to hang with anyone...

You cannot easily replace the bat of someone like Pujols... But you can precent runs with great starting pitching... The runs the offense loses can be made up by trimming an equal amount of runs allowed...Getting their ace back and adding Oswalt in my humble opinion is a good way to try to accomplish this.

Remember in the pythag win theory by james...Runs scored are equal to runs allowed in the equation... your expected win total is dependent upon how many runs you score in relation to the runs you allow.

 

[element1286]

I'm interested to see how everything works out for the Cubs this year, they changed their roster a ton, adding a bunch of 1-2 WAR players, while the only real losses being Marshall and A-Ram.

 

[magnumo]

I'm interested to see how everything works out for the Cubs this year, they changed their roster a ton, adding a bunch of 1-2 WAR players, while the only real losses being Marshall and A-Ram.

I agree. I gotta a feeling the Cubs will finish ahead of the Pirates in 2012. Although Theo is saddled with some bad contracts, he has already begun operating on improving the team, and I gotta feeling we'll see additional moves during the off-season..... and in-season. Unlike the Pirates, he seems focused on actually improving the major league roster. (To be fair, he has more money to work with.) He may not see immediate success, but I wouldn't bet against him.

Seems to me that the only team which MAY keep the Pirates out of the cellar in 2012 is Houston.

- I'm reminded that the Astros were 26-44 (.371) after the break last season. That's not good.

- But the Pirates were worse at 25-47 (.347).

 

[element1286]

I can see it as 50/50 on the Cubs finishing above the Pirates, mainly because they will still be trying to trade away proven major leaguers for prospects as this year, and probably next continues.

Although the Cubs have added value, I think almost all of their acquisitions have the bust potential. Theo's moves seem a lot like Billy Beane's moves in the past 3-4 years; have a surplus of fringe regulars/#4 starters. That strategy doesn't seem like it works as well as it should in theory.

Yea, the Stros are god awful, even if you squint real hard they have little talent on the roster.

 

[Etrius24]

Element,

Yes the Cubs added players that should help... But there is also the fact that the cubs failed to live upto their expectations last year... So the combination of adding players who have value (WAR) and just a new season where the incumbents can once again try to meet expectations.... Could be interesting for them.

Definately going to be a tough division... and that does not bode well for the Bucs. The only easy team in the division is going to be the Astros...They are a mess... The Brewers without Fielder will help...They are also going to lose Braun for 50 games for Steroids....So I am counting them out...The Bucs with a healthy Bedard could challenge for second place in the division with the Cubs and Cards. I guess that would be an optimistic best case scenario...

 

[magnumo]

I can see it as 50/50 on the Cubs finishing above the Pirates, mainly because they will still be trying to trade away proven major leaguers for prospects as this year, and probably next continues.

Sounds about right. I'd probably favor the Cubs by 60-40 because I have a lot of respect for Theo.

Although the Cubs have added value, I think almost all of their acquisitions have the bust potential. Theo's moves seem a lot like Billy Beane's moves in the past 3-4 years; have a surplus of fringe regulars/#4 starters. That strategy doesn't seem like it works as well as it should in theory.

Seems ironic, now that Beane's fame is probably at its peak (due to the movie), that Oakland hasn't had a winning season since 2006. I don't want to take anything away from Beane..... the A's DID have a nice run from 1999 through 2006..... but those starting pitchers maturing at the same time was the primary factor in his success. We can only hope that something similar will happen for the Pirates over the next few years.

Yea, the Stros are god awful, even if you squint real hard they have little talent on the roster.

Yeah, Houston is bad. But if you look at 2011 team stats, Houston had a slightly better slash line on offense (.258/.311/.374/.684) vs. Pittsburgh (.244/.309/.368/.676). On the pitching side, the Pirate staff had a significantly better ERA (4.04 vs. 4.51) and we were better in HR's allowed (152 vs. 188), but Houston had the edge in strikeouts (1191 to 1031) and hits per 9 (9.26 vs. 9.40).

My conclusion is that the primary reason we finished ahead of Houston last year was our pitching, especially in the first half..... and if our pitching holds a similar ERA edge in 2012, we should finish ahead of the Astros again.

 

[element1286]

True, the Astros did outperform the Pirates last year, but think the Pirates offense will be improved this year, and the Astros will be worse.

 

[Etrius24]

The real meat and potatoes here is runs scored and runs allowed... The run differential be it positive or negative tells us everything we need to know.

Looking at the Astros...They scored 615 runs and allowed 796 runs.. This gives them a negative run differential of 181

Looking at the Pirates...They Scored 610 runs and allowed 712. This gave them a negative run differential of 102!

The Pythag win theorem is over 98% accurate using runs scored and allowed...Truly there is no greater tool to accurately calculate a team expected win total.

Batting average and homeruns allowed are nice peripheral stats... But they are only peripheral stats... It all comes down to scoring runs and preventing the other team from scoring runs. The Pirates did a better job of it last season by a fair bit and thus their record reflected it.

When the Astros have a better run differential than the Pirates we can say they outperformed them... Until then it is truly folly.

I know it is a simplification of sorts.. but the object of the game is to score runs and to prevent the other team from doing the same... This is why the run differential is So very important... and it is also why it is one of the most powerful tools we have to evaluate a teams performance.

This tool is easy to calculate, accurate and gives us something that matters....It is in truth about as close as you can come to the perfect stat... if you are into Sabermetrics
...And Element based on your posts in the past I believe that you are.

 

[thecrow124]

If RD is so important then why did SF finish 10 games over. 500 with an RD of -8? While SD finished 20 games under. 500 with a RD of -18.

RD tells you server a team is capable of being a decent team, but grisly tells you little about the outcome of a 162 game season.

 

[Etrius24]

Crow

A team can variate a few games either side of their expected win total...It has happened...

That does not change the Pirates RD or that of the Cubs... We can look at their RD and see who had the better season clearly.

If we are looking at 2 teams with identical RD and one wins a handful of games more than the other...We then can say that one team was lucky or the other was unlucky...

Much the same as if you flip a coin you may get a head or you can get a tail... you can flip the coin ten times and get 7 tails... but the more you flip the coin the closer to a 50/50 split you will get...

So looking at one teams rd in one year there are things that standout... but look at it over the course of 100 years for all teams and you start to see how mazing this tool really is.

 

[magnumo]

I have followed run differential and the Pythagorean Expectations equation for a number of years and posted about them many times on the ESPN.com Pirate board. Here are a few facts:

- First, although the Pythagorean equation includes "runs scored" and "runs against," the equation is NOT the same as "run differential." Here is the equation itself: (I don't know how to format an equation on the board, so I will describe it in words, and add a link to the Wikipedia entry, which shows the actual equation.)

"Expected win percentage" equals 1 over 1 plus ("runs allowed" divided by "runs scored")squared.

Multiply "expected win percentage" by "number of games played" to get expected wins.

Pythagorean expectation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- The Pythagorean Expectations equation becomes more accurate, the larger the sample. (However, according to Wikipedia, more accurate equations have subsequently been developed. See the Wikipedia link above.)

- Exactly how accurate is the Pythagorean Expectations equation for a full season? That depends on how one defines "accuracy."

- For example, looking at the order of finish of all 30 major league teams in 2011, 6 of 30 teams finished in a different position in their divisions than that predicted by the equation. Thus, the accuracy of the equation in predicting order of finish was 83% in 2011. (That's a bit misleading, since when one team finishes out of its expected position, a second team also must finish out of position, by definition.) Four of the six divisions in MLB finished in the order predicted by the equation (with a little "hedge" about the NL Central, as described in the last paragraph below). The most anomalous division was the NL West. According to the equation, the expected finish in the NL West should have been as follows (numbers in parentheses show actual order of finish):

1 Arizona (1)
2 LA (3)
3 SF (2)
4 SD (5)
5 Colorado (4)

- It is unusual for the games won by any individual team during a season to equal the number of wins predicted..... but the differences are usually small. Here are the numbers for the National League's 2011 season.

Phila......102 actual wins vs. 104 expected wins (-2)
Atlanta....89 actual wins vs. 86 expected wins (+3)
Wash......80 actual wins vs. 78 expected wins (+2)
NYMets...77 actual wins vs. 78 expected wins (+1)
Florida....72 actual wins vs. 72 expected wins (0)
------------------------------------------------
Milw.......96 actual wins vs. 91 expected wins (+5)
St.L.......90 actual wins vs. 89 expected wins (+1)
Cincy.....79 actual wins vs. 83 expected wins (-4)
Pgh.......72 actual wins vs. 69 expected wins (+3)
ChCubs..71 actual wins vs. 69 expected wins (+2)
Houst....56 actual wins vs. 61 expected wins (-5)
------------------------------------------------
Ariz.......94 actual wins vs. 89 expected wins (+5)
SF........86 actual wins vs. 80 expected wins (+6)
LA........82 actual wins vs. 85 expected wins (-3)
Colo......73 actual wins vs. 77 expected wins (-4)
SD........71 actual wins vs. 79 expected wins (-8)

- One of 16 NL teams (the Marlins) won the exact number of games predicted by the equation, and two other teams had a difference of one win. The maximum difference between actual wins vs. the number predicted by the equation was -8 for the Padres.

- The average difference for all National League teams was 3.4 games in 2011. Thus, accuracy of the Pythagorean Expectations equation in predicting number of wins for National League teams in 2011 calculates to about 96%. (If anyone wants to run the numbers for the AL, help yourself.)

- The equation predicted about 0.7 more expected wins for the Cubs than for the Pirates. The Pirates' calculation predicted 68.6 wins..... vs. 69.3 for the Cubs. Since both of those numbers rounded to 69 wins, I did NOT describe the Pirates finishing ahead of the Cubs as an anomaly (but, technically, I could have).

 

[magnumo]

Another observation which could have been included in my previous post.....

According to the Pythagorean expectations equation, Houston should have won 61 games and the Pirates should have won 69 games. In actuality, Houston won only 56 games, while the Pirates won 72 games. So, based on plugging team performance (in terms of runs scored and runs against) into the equation..... the calculation suggests that the Pirates and Astros should have been only 8 wins apart vs. their actual 16.

Obviously, if the Pirates improve and the Astros get worse, that difference should not "make a difference." On the other hand, it indicates that, despite their miraculous first half, the Pirates weren't nearly as superior to the Astros as the standings might suggest.

 

[Etrius24]

Mags

Nobody is saying that the Run differential is the exact same thing...The Pythag win theorem uses the run differentials of teams to calculate their expected win totals.

And you got 96% accuracy... Nice... Ten years ago I read an article by James where he plugged 80 seasons in and it came out 98% accurate.

There are other ways to measure wins and losses... and there are other metrics for the offense and the pitching staff. But with anything we have to ask basic questions..

How much extra effort is involved with the other methods of calculation, and how much improvement is there on the final result. Much like OPS...Which combines SLG and OBP... The Pythag win theorem Is great because it is easy to use...you are taking 2 stats in each case and coming up with a very powerful number that means something.

We can look at win shares and then replacement values and they are fine statistics...But for a team...We are better served to look at the run differentials and then to plug the runs scored and allowed into the theorem.

Now if we were running an exercise where everyone had to pick a group of players to sign or trade for... (Assuming we could all come up with available, realistic names)...We could take the OPS totals for the new players.. plug them into the incumbents OPS and find a way to surmise the expected offensive production for the team next year...Ditto for the pitching staff.... And from that we could look at the new expected run differentials and then use the win theorem... etc..

Or we could look at the WAR values of players and plug them into the team and come up with an expected win total that way.

But in regards to 2011 cubs, astros and bucs... all we need to break it down is the run differentials and the win theorem.

And even with the numbers and analysis you just gave us...The earlier statements of the Astros outperforming the bucs is inaccurate. Be it by looking at their actual win totals or looking at them through the win theorem...The astros come up well short in both regards.... We can say that in the win theorem they should have been only 8 wins below the pirates... A great statement to make... But that still does not mean they outperformed the Pirates...

Basic math dictates that : 69 > 61

 

[magnumo]

More Non-Value-Adding Blah-Blah-Blah

This post will examine Etrius' previous post, in its entirety.

Nobody is saying that the Run differential is the exact same thing...

It certainly appeared that was exactly what you were saying, since you used the terms interchangeably and did not differentiate between them in any way. From your posts, an objective (but uninformed) reader would conclude that they WERE the exact same thing.

The Pythag win theorem uses the run differentials of teams to calculate their expected win totals.

1. The equation does NOT use "run differentials." Instead, it uses a fraction consisting of "runs allowed" divided by "runs scored," and then squares that fraction.

2. The equation itself does NOT yield "expected win totals." It calculates "expected winning percentage." One must do the follow-up calculation (multiply that "expected winning percentage" by the "number of games played") to get "expected win totals."

And you got 96% accuracy... Nice... Ten years ago I read an article by James where he plugged 80 seasons in and it came out 98% accurate.

So what? You made the statement that the equation was 98% accurate, without any stated basis. I commented as follows:

- "Accuracy" in the National League in 2011 was 96%, if "accuracy" is defined as expected wins vs. actual wins. That is true.

- More accurate equations have been developed since. That is true.

There are other ways to measure wins and losses...

I don't know of any..... a win is a win and a loss is a loss. If what you MEANT to say was, "There are other ways to PREDICT wins and losses"..... that's certainly true, and I suspect that all Pirate fans who frequent this board know that already.

...and there are other metrics for the offense and the pitching staff. But with anything we have to ask basic questions..

How much extra effort is involved with the other methods of calculation, and how much improvement is there on the final result. Much like OPS...Which combines SLG and OBP... The Pythag win theorem Is great because it is easy to use...you are taking 2 stats in each case and coming up with a very powerful number that means something.

We can look at win shares and then replacement values and they are fine statistics...But for a team...We are better served to look at the run differentials and then to plug the runs scored and allowed into the theorem.

Now if we were running an exercise where everyone had to pick a group of players to sign or trade for... (Assuming we could all come up with available, realistic names)...We could take the OPS totals for the new players.. plug them into the incumbents OPS and find a way to surmise the expected offensive production for the team next year...Ditto for the pitching staff.... And from that we could look at the new expected run differentials and then use the win theorem... etc..

Or we could look at the WAR values of players and plug them into the team and come up with an expected win total that way.

Don't know what the point of all that was. I have long been a proponent of both the Pythag equation AND run differentials..... as means to determine whether a team is playing up to its potential, how a team compares to its primary rivals, whether a team's current win-loss trend is likely to continue, etc. Obviously, all of that is trumped by ACTUAL wins and losses.

But in regards to 2011 cubs, astros and bucs... all we need to break it down is the run differentials and the win theorem.

If by "break it down" you mean analyze whether the teams finished where they SHOULD HAVE, that's both true and obvious. As I posted previously, the Cubs SHOULD HAVE finished ahead of the Pirates by 0.7 games, and the Astros SHOULD HAVE finished behind the Pirates by 8 games.

If "break it down" means anything else (such as analyzing which players contributed the most or the least, how players and teams could have done better or worse, what changes a team should pursue to improve upon their 2011 performance, etc.), then your statement is obviously false.

And even with the numbers and analysis you just gave us...The earlier statements of the Astros outperforming the bucs is inaccurate. Be it by looking at their actual win totals or looking at them through the win theorem...The astros come up well short in both regards.... We can say that in the win theorem they should have been only 8 wins below the pirates... A great statement to make... But that still does not mean they outperformed the Pirates...

Basic math dictates that : 69 > 61

The only notable statement I see here is the one I have bolded. Everything else is repeating what has already been posted.

In regard to your statement in bold, every statement I have posted previously is factual and completely accurate:

- I posted that the Astros outperformed the Pirates, in terms of actual wins and losses after the break. That is true.

- I posted that the Astros outperformed the Pirates for the entire season in terms of offensive slash lines. That is true.

- I posted that the Pirates significantly outperformed the Astros in terms of ERA, but that the Astros had the edge in a couple of important pitching peripherals. That is true.

- In his post #9, element said: "True, the Astros did outperform the Pirates last year, but think the Pirates offense will be improved this year, and the Astros will be worse." Since he was responding to my previous post, and his second clause refers specifically to the offense, it's pretty obvious that in his first clause, element was referring to the Astros outperforming the Pirates on offense, which is true. So, if you're criticizing element's post, that seems off-base as well.

Bottom line: My conclusion is that your post #15 is typical of many of your posts: lots of repetition and non-value-adding blah-blah-blah, sprinkled with inaccuracies and false statements.

I will leave other readers to draw their own conclusions. I don't plan to respond further to you in this thread (unless, of course, you post further false statements).

 

[element1286]

Considering it is such a blunt statistical tool, pythagorean expectation is remarkably accurate.

Also, there seems to be a type of team that outpeform their pythagorean expectation, teams with great bullpens being the most common. In turn there are going be teams that underperform. As for the Stros, they had a bunch of no talent players playing above their heads at one point or another, I don't know of a profile of a team that should under perform their pythagorean, but the Astros last year made sense.

 

[Etrius24]

Element

Guys like Clay Davenport can come up with and calculate new metrics to replace the Expected win theorem...but not everyone wants to do the extra work and not everyone has a math degree... Bang for the buck it is the best stat tool we have...

It is an amazing tool... I have been using it for years...

 

[magnumo]

Considering it is such a blunt statistical tool, pythagorean expectation is remarkably accurate.

Also, there seems to be a type of team that outpeform their pythagorean expectation, teams with great bullpens being the most common. In turn there are going be teams that underperform. As for the Stros, they had a bunch of no talent players playing above their heads at one point or another, I don't know of a profile of a team that should under perform their pythagorean, but the Astros last year made sense.

Perhaps you're already familiar with a pretty good article at the SB Nation site (home of BucsDugout), titled "Sabermetrics 101: Expected Wins and Losses."

Sabermetrics 101: Expected Wins and Losses - Lookout Landing

I like the article because:

- It's brief but well-written and complete (IMO).

- The very first sentence says: "Pythagorean win/loss record is one of the most misused concepts in sabremetrics. That doesn't mean it doesn't have moments where it shines, so let's look at what it is, when to use it, and when not to use it."..... and the article follows through on explaining that.

- (Most useful for me) It links to other articles which describe how Pythagorean expectations relate to other parts of Sabermetrics. Heck..... between some of the stuff you and others have posted in the past AND articles like those found at the link above, I'm starting to understand some of the more obscure (to me) parts of Sabermetrics. I've read some stuff at both FanGraphs and Baseball Reference, but I'm curious..... do you have a favorite source for Sabermetrics definitions and explanations?

Your thought about typical teams which might overperform or underperform their Pythag expectation is intriguing. Unfortunately, it seems that any theory about that might take a lot of time analyzing a lot of data in order to verify empirically. I've already tested a couple of ideas against a couple seasons' worth of data..... and verified nothing. How did you come to your notion about teams with great bullpens typically outperforming their Pythag expectation?