Monday, October 6, 2008


2005 Standings


.599 New York [D]
.599 New York [D]

.593 Minnesota [D]
.543 San Diego [W]

.586 Detroit [W]
.543 Los Angeles [D]

.574 Oakland [D]
.525 Philadelphia

.556 Chicago
.516 St. Louis [D]

.537 Toronto
.506 Houston

.531 Boston
.494 Cincinnati

.521 Los Angeles
.488 Atlanta

.494 Texas
.481 Florida

.481 Seattle
.472 San Francisco

.481 Cleveland
.469 Colorado

.432 Baltimore
.469 Arizona

.383 Kansas City
.463 Milwaukee

.377 Tampa Bay
.436 Washington

.414 Pittsburgh

.407 Chicago

[Symbols; D=Division Winners/W=Wildcard Winner]

While I recently consulted the handy pythamonitor [Better known as Bill Jame's Pythagorean Runs W/L% ; A formula for converting a team’s Run Differential into a projected Won/Loss record. The formula is RS^2/(RS^2+RA^2). Teams’ actual won/loss records tend to mirror their Pythagorean records, and variances can usually be attributed to luck.#1 ] I had taken notice that the team of my following, the Cardinals, had a very low Pythagorium Runs W/L%. My mind was telling me about the upcoming collapse of the Cards before them barely performing adequitly enough to be considered division champions.

So what exactly is the beneficiaries of this numerical cluster besides a nice figure with a decimal point inserted in order to be a rate instead of the inferior counting number? The Pythagorean run won loss percentage is a reasonably accurate formula of predicting a straight up won loss record. It is also a good way to peer into a crystal ball and predict gloom or doom Nostradomus style.

The American League Pythagorean run won loss record documents some mighty departures from the norm. Take further note of the below metrics.

2006 AL Pythagorean Runs W/L%


.597 Detroit [W]

.595 New York [D]

.579 Minnesota [D]

.553 Cleveland

.544 Chicago

.535 Toronto

.531 Texas

.529 Oakland [D]

.523 Los Angeles

.497 Boston

.477 Seattle

.422 Baltimore

.393 Tampa Bay

.378 Kansas City

[Symbols; D=Division Winners/W=Wildcard Winner]

Any series of numbers includes a medium [average]. Theoretically, half the numbers will ride above the dotted line [.500], while the other dips below the mean. Anyway, theories are not always perfect. The most important question ought to be, "Why is the average rate way above the .500 point?" Some American League teams score more runs for than runs against, even though their won loss record is below .500. [An example is Cleveland's pythagorian rate being .553, while their won loss record is a sub-par .481. "Why are these crooked numbers created?" Probably because a team will score a disproportionate high ratio of runs in a very short period of time.

2006 NL Pythagorean Runs W/L%


.566 New York [D]

.544 Los Angeles [W]

.537 San Diego [D]

.532 Philadelphia

.527 Atlanta

.512 St. Louis [D]

.511 Houston

.501 Colorado

.491 Florida

.490 Arizona

.471 San Francisco

.466 Cincinnatti

.434 Milwaukee

.431 Pittsburgh

.423 Washington

.422 Chicago

[Symbols; D=Division Winners/W=Wildcard Winner]

After taking a really quick peek at National League statistics, the rates appears to follow the norm. A few team pythagorean runs have a deviant like appearance, but the National League definitely comes across as being more of a pitchers league through these lower Pythagorean numbers compared to their counterparts.

Putting these figures under a microscope will document the National League's mean at .491 [a few points below by theory], while the A.L.'s mean is a high .511. What do all these numbers represent? Simply put, the NL is ruled by the arm, while the AL's ball travels in favor of the batter. The big question is how much an attribute the pitcher to the NL is to the designated hitter in the AL..

No comments: