Pythagorean W/l, David Gassko Article

[Shimmering Wang 1]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...ing-pythagoras/I saw this link in a recent Rob Neyer blog entry, and thought it was incredibly fascinating. For anybody who doesn't know, Pythagorean wins/losses are simply the measure of how many games a team SHOULD win, independent of luck. It's based on runs scored vs. runs allowed (and, in some cases, EXPECTED runs scored vs. EXPECTED runs allowed, etc.). It's fairly accurate, and a common tool of baseball geeks (like me), used to measure whether a team is winning as many games as they should be and will continue to win, or if they're eeking out alot of close wins, and getting blown out at a rate that suggests they're likely to fall off the map.Anyway, if a team is outpacing its pythagorean W/L numbers, most sabermatricians generally just shrug their shoulders and attribute the deviation to "luck." This is usually the case. But David Gassko decided to check and see if there's any tangible and quantifiable reason a team could be significantly (in the statistical sense) better or worse than it's Pythagorean numbers suggest.The results are pretty fascinating. Baseball geeks need to check it out.Wang

[mrdannyg 274]

i don't understand the math, but very interesting nonetheless. I find it amazing how little effect lineup choice has on a team's results, though I guess as long as the Cubs are winning games with Juan Pierre batting leadoff, that's all the proof I need.The leverage of relievers actually goes towards something I often rant about:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...&hl=closersOf course save situations are often the most important use of your best reliever, but clearly that is not always the case. Assuming your closer is your best reliever, he should be used in the most important situations, not in save situations. While these might overlap, they don't always. We can argue it is tough to figure out when those important situations are, but baseball managers are paid to make exactly that type of decision.The trend has improved, with teams being more willing to bring their closer in during the 8th, or leaving a lefty in for the first (left-handed) batter of the 9th, etc, but there's still plenty of teams making terrible mistakes, like not bringing in their closer in a tie game in the 9th as the home team, or wasting them with a 3-run lead against the Royals.

[MDXS 0]

Hey, thanks for passing this along. I skimmed through it and it looks like it has some interesting stuff. I'll go back and digest some morning when my eyes are doing a better job of focusing. Incidentally, **** Dale is the youngest 70 year old I've ever seen. His show didn't start until 11 and he went full bore past 1. I'd heartily recommend seeing him. When he's playing he's young and rocking out and then in between songs, he's rambling on and telling circuitous stories like the codger sitting on a porch. So it's like two forms of entertainment.

[Ouch-8s 4]

you know you could have just emailed bizzle the link...

[Shimmering Wang 1]

MDG Leverage Rant

I agree. I have these fights with people all the time, to little or no avail. Explaining to smart baseball people why some relievers really aren't as unimportant as starters as they think (because of their frequent use in high-leverage situations) is painful work.

Hey, thanks for passing this along. I skimmed through it and it looks like it has some interesting stuff. I'll go back and digest some morning when my eyes are doing a better job of focusing. Incidentally, **** Dale is the youngest 70 year old I've ever seen. His show didn't start until 11 and he went full bore past 1. I'd heartily recommend seeing him. When he's playing he's young and rocking out and then in between songs, he's rambling on and telling circuitous stories like the codger sitting on a porch. So it's like two forms of entertainment.

When I read this, you were the first person I thought of, but I couldn't even remember your name. I just thought, (Professor Frink Voice) "Redsox fan with the initials and the baseballs! Hoyven!" Let me know what you think.

you know you could have just emailed bizzle the link...

Oh man. I sure hope Bizzle sees this. I can't tell him about it, I just have to hope he stumbles onto it organically. See Bizzle? We're thinking about you, even when you're not here. Just in case you're wondering, don't worry, this article doesn't have a hint of funny business in it...Wang