Back in March I wrote about trying to ascertain a team's true talent level during past events. In a nutshell, you don't want to look at actual win-loss record and even Pythag (looking at runs scored and allowed) is faulty, though a lot better than straight won-loss. Instead, you should look toward BaseRuns which helps tell you how many runs the team should have scored and allowed based on the batter-pitcher outcomes that happened.
(In that post I went on to talk about how tRA can be used to improve further on that, but it's a smaller degree of improvement than using BaseRuns over Pythag and for the purposes of this post, would be far too time intensive to do across all teams.)
So, in that spirit, and inspired by LFoJL I present the methodology behind this ranking of lucky and unlucky teams. I have access to BaseRuns data courtesy of The Hardball Times (up through end of play last Friday) and so I have said true talent level for each team. Taking that, I computed the expected wins and losses over a 162 game season for each team. Then, I simply subtracted that number from each team's current won-loss record, projected out to a 162 game season. Here's an example:
Tampa Bay Rays
Actual record: 55-37
Actual Win%: .598
Projected Record: (.598 * 162) = 96.8 wins
BaseRuns, Runs Scored: 444.81
BaseRuns, Runs Allowed: 364.5
BaseRuns, Expected Win%: (pythag formula) = .592
Projected Record: (.592 * 162) = 95.9 wins
Difference: +0.9 wins (positive = lucky)
There you have it. Pretty simple eh? Alright, time for the rundown. Keep in mind the difference is projected over a 162 game season. It does not reflect the number of games at this current point in time.
(Honorable Mention: Astros (+6.0) and Marlins (+5.5) )
(Honorable Mention: Blue Jays (-5.9) and Red Sox (-5.2) )
3 recs | 69 comments
FWIW
The Cubs at +1.3 and Brewers at +3.4 round out the NL Central meaning that all six teams have been lucky, to the tune of a combined 37.5 games (over 162).
Matthew - July 16, 2008
I know I shouldn't be deathly afraid of a oncoming Brewers
but godammit this is the perfect to time to panic.
JI - July 16, 2008
*a ---> the
JI - July 16, 2008
That was really quick
How are the Red Sox?
Last Fan Of Jose Lopez - July 16, 2008
How are the Red Sox what?
Matthew - July 16, 2008
In terms of luck
Last Fan Of Jose Lopez - July 16, 2008
-5.2
see honorable mention under unlucky,
Matthew - July 16, 2008
And they will get Ortiz back.
JI - July 16, 2008
I forgot my reading glasses
Where could I find team BABIP and team LD%? I’m curious to find out the luckiest offenses
Last Fan Of Jose Lopez - July 16, 2008
THT Team page
Jeff Sullivan - July 16, 2008
Cool thanks
Last Fan Of Jose Lopez - July 16, 2008
No Strasburg for you, Padres
regression is gonna be a bitch
seattlebruin - July 16, 2008
Any chance we could get the numbers for each team?
The Beer Baron - July 16, 2008
Every team not mentioned is +/- 5 games. It's not really interesting.
Matthew - July 16, 2008
Matter of opinion.
I happen to think teams performing as expected are very exciting/fascinating.
LantermanC - July 16, 2008
.
Would this be a record?
JI - July 16, 2008
No idea since I've never done this before, but man, that's a ton of luck.
FWIW, they finished 2007 at +9 wins in luck too.
Matthew - July 16, 2008
zomg tha ANGELS hav GOD on their sdie
Last Fan Of Jose Lopez - July 16, 2008
zomg no religion.
Fin - July 16, 2008
It's all Scioscia .
JI - July 16, 2008
And before anyone says anything
no, it would be silly to suggest that the Angels are doing something systematic to defeat Lady Luck. They’re just lucky.
Jeff Sullivan - July 16, 2008
*It would be silly without proof.
JI - July 16, 2008
Proof!
Eyebrows - July 16, 2008
Haven't seen you around in a while Eyebrows, where you been?
Thingray - July 16, 2008
I've been around
Just more time reading/lurking and less time posting. Things are hectic at work lately, so I’m not posting as much.
Eyebrows - July 16, 2008
I hear you on that one. It's been a hell of a busy month for me.
Thingray - July 16, 2008
Since 2001 the only Angels tem to underplay it's pythag?
the 2002 Angels.
JI - July 16, 2008
Rally monkey?
LantermanC - July 16, 2008
Rec'd for use of a title
Sec 108 - July 16, 2008
Now you don't have to read my comment.
JI - July 16, 2008
I collapsed it, and it's beautiful.
Teej - July 16, 2008
I remember
The last time I implied that the Angels are lucky….
ThundaPC - July 16, 2008
What were we last year?
We could’ve had +7 wins due to our runs scored versus runs against, and then maybe another +7 wins due to getting more runs or preventing more than we deserved.
Just curious.
Also, too bad the Nationals aren’t one of the unluckier teams….
LantermanC - July 16, 2008
Do you think Bowden would want Washburn to anchor the staff?
JI - July 16, 2008
He provided a link with this information.
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2008/3/4/153119/6871
Jeff Sullivan - July 16, 2008
In the original post
Matthew - July 16, 2008
What the heck?
JI - July 16, 2008
My fault.
Matthew - July 16, 2008
I'll get over it.
JI - July 16, 2008
Did I offend up there?
If so, sorry.
Sec 108 - July 16, 2008
My guess is that it was LFOJL's usual off-topic hijinks
Gomez - July 16, 2008
You don't need to guess.
JI - July 16, 2008
Well, yeah :P
I just didn’t want 108 thinking he did anything wrong.
Gomez - July 16, 2008
I appreciate it Gomez
I try not to mess with the natural order here since I am not really one of the regulars.
Sec 108 - July 16, 2008
Yeah, I was also playing around with hiding and unhiding stuff
thinking I could hide the first comment of a subthread, thereby hiding all of it and then later go back and unhide that same first comment and unhide the entire subthread.
Turns out it doesn’t work that, if you hide a comment, SBN 2.0 goes through and marks every comment under it as hidden as well and this does not work in reverse. So to unhide the off topic subthread, I’d have to go in and manually unhide every single comment.
Matthew - July 16, 2008
This is why I don't ever close pages
Last Fan Of Jose Lopez - July 16, 2008
FASCIST CENSORSHIP
JI - July 16, 2008
EXPERIMENTAL FASCISM
... wait
Gomez - July 16, 2008
Eh, it's not like what I said was funny anyway
And if it inspired misbehaving it should be hidden.
Sec 108 - July 16, 2008
Fortunately the Rays haven't been too lucky.
I am excited to see them make a second half run to the division.
Fin - July 16, 2008
I'd worry about the Bosox having been unlucky
If they regress, the Rays could be in trouble.
It may have started… they dropped 7 in a row and the Bosox have taken back the AL East lead.
Gomez - July 16, 2008
There's always the WC.
JI - July 16, 2008
They are in the driver's seat
If they were actually good this year, I’d worry about the Yankees.
Gomez - July 16, 2008
I don't think they would be able to duplicate the same second half record they had last year
Especially now that the Rays are good.
Fin - July 16, 2008
The Yankees have much injury/collapse potential
I’d bet against them.
JI - July 16, 2008
And Joe Girardi will probably end up being blamed for the collapse.
Fin - July 16, 2008
I blamed Joe Torre for the collapse of the WTC.
kentroyals5 - July 16, 2008
I blame Jeter
any other shortstop would have caught them.
pdb - July 16, 2008
The one intended for the Capital that crashed in Pennsylvania...
was actually thrown by Chuck Knoblauch.
kentroyals5 - July 16, 2008
I wish I could rec this entire subthread.
Aaron Campeau - July 16, 2008
Considering where we are in the Strasburg race
I’d say that we’re pretty damn lucky.
katal - July 16, 2008
FAIL.
Incorrect, Matthew.
Read this.
True talent = weighted, regressed sample data (performance).
BsR = sample data (performance)
A team that scores more (or allows less) than indicated by BsR (or win more or less than indicated by BsR or run differential) may indeed be called lucky. But to say that a team’s sample data (performance based on BsR) is their true talent is massively wrong – and I’m getting on your case because you ought to know better! We wouldn’t call any 2008 metric – OPS, tRA, whatever – a player’s true talent without first weighting and regressing.
The Angels are actually a good team – their regressed, weighted sample data indicates they are probably a high-80s wins true talent team. Their performance is that of a high-70s wins team. Their actual winning percentage is that of a mid-90s wins team. All three of those are very different things.
salb918 - July 16, 2008
This is a great point Sal.
I don’t mean to come across that BaseRuns = team’s true talent level. Especially this early in the season. The intent of this comparison was simply between actual WP and performance to date.
Though I am curious where you get MGL’s numbers from. Scanning the thread you linked to, the only thing I could find was MGL’s explanation, thusly
But I didn’t see any link to actual regressed weighted samples.
Matthew - July 16, 2008
And even if we assume that these samples exist and are methodologically sound before seeing them....
The Angels are still on pace to play about 10 wins above their “true talent level” win performance, and even under the author’s own conditions that can’t be attributed to anything but luck. So yes, they’ve been lucky and should regress back towards an 87-ish win team rather than the 97-ish win team they’ve played as so far.
OlSalty - July 16, 2008
Shoot.
I linked to the wrong Book thread.
There’s a post somewhere on the site where he actually gives the numbers. I can’t find it right now, though.
salb918 - July 17, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.