let's go D'backs, LETS GO
Has the baseball fan world become so enamored with sabr-metrics and pythagorean records that we can't notice a team that is 19 games over .500? Why is that the Diamondbacks still get no respect after proving over the course of 140 games that they are a good team, if not the best in the National League West, at least as deserving as the other four contenders to that title?
I appreciate that Runs Allowed v. Runs Scored is a reasonable way to judge the "actual" quality of a team, but why grossly favor that over other metrics or frankly the only metric that "actually" counts, Wins and Losses?
For the none baseball fans, the story is like this. The Arizona Diamondbacks are currently leading the National League West by 3.5 games over the Padres (and more over the Dodgers & Rockies) with the second best record in the National League, 83-64. The Diamondbacks have scored 643 runs this year and allowed 666 runs. The current state of baseball and fandom (post-Moneyball) insists and quantifying teams "real" record by the method of a formula similar to Pythagoras famous one, such that teams that have been outscored have an expected record that is below .500. All-in-all a valuable tool to judge whether a team is underplaying it's skill, is unlucky or inversely a team is overplaying its skills or is overly lucky. One example being the Cubs over the first couple months of the season in that they were outscoring their opponents generally, but not specifically and had a losing record despite an expected winning record. Later in the season they turned it around and are now battling for a playoff spot.
The opposite example should be the Diamondbacks or so Stat Folks would tell you. Near the middle of the season the D'backs were 48-43 but were outscored by 25 runs ERGO they should move back to the mean and start losing over the course of the season. Damn D'backs didn't comply and now they have a winning record and are in the driver's seat for a playoff spot.
Two big problems with this sort of analysis:
One - one of the biggest fallacies (in my mind) is Regression towards the Mean. Maybe I'm just revealing my ignorance of mathematics/statistics but why should a team (or a coin flip) (with a history or not) be automatically as unlucky in the future as it was lucky in the past? That is to say, if I flip a coin 25 times and get 25 heads, the likelihood that I will flip a head on the next toss is 50% and the next one and next one, etc. If I want to predict what the outcome (or total) over the next 75 tosses will be I should guess 50% of those tosses for a total that is still +25 heads.
So to relate this to the D'backs, who were lucky over the first half of the season, why should they then be unlucky over the second half of the season? If they have an equal number of runs scored and runs allowed over the second half (which they do) shouldn't they be as likely to outperform that as they are to under-perform that over the rest of the season?
So the Diamondbacks, who have a POSITIVE run differential over the second half are still being burdened with the negative run differential from the first half and are quoted as being overly lucky and over performing their "actual" quality for having a winning record in the second half and overall.
Which leads nicely into point number 2.
Shouldn't the D'backs success reveal, not confirm, the foolishness of putting to much faith in statistics? So the D'backs have outperformed their run differential, obviously they are still doing something right because they've still been winning. They have an extremely good record in one-run games (another classic luck team stat but maybe also revealing of the D'backs strong and wisely used bullpen (three of their relievers are in the top 25 of WXRL - a reliever stat quantifying success in pivotal game moments)), they have two of the longest winning streaks of the season (8 a piece), they've gotten better as the season has gone on (not surprising given the number of 25 or younger players on their team), and they WIN WIN WIN! What I'm not saying is throw out the metric, what I am saying is treat the metric appropriately and be happy with what you got - A WINNING BASEBALL TEAM!
Which leads to my bigger point, why does no one seem to care? Baseball writers are still choosing the Padres to win the division, no one is seeming to write up glowing reviews of Bob Melvin the manager or Brandon Webb the star or any number of reasons why this team is one of the best stories of the year. (blame "boring" players, blame playing in AZ, blame "expected" record, blame whatever) - but right now this is a good team that is going to the playoffs. And will be a good team for the next couple of years as the develop one of the strongest cores of young talent. Josh Byrnes (GM) is doing something right, let's get on this bandwagon and root root root.
Let's go D'backs. LET'S GO!
I appreciate that Runs Allowed v. Runs Scored is a reasonable way to judge the "actual" quality of a team, but why grossly favor that over other metrics or frankly the only metric that "actually" counts, Wins and Losses?
For the none baseball fans, the story is like this. The Arizona Diamondbacks are currently leading the National League West by 3.5 games over the Padres (and more over the Dodgers & Rockies) with the second best record in the National League, 83-64. The Diamondbacks have scored 643 runs this year and allowed 666 runs. The current state of baseball and fandom (post-Moneyball) insists and quantifying teams "real" record by the method of a formula similar to Pythagoras famous one, such that teams that have been outscored have an expected record that is below .500. All-in-all a valuable tool to judge whether a team is underplaying it's skill, is unlucky or inversely a team is overplaying its skills or is overly lucky. One example being the Cubs over the first couple months of the season in that they were outscoring their opponents generally, but not specifically and had a losing record despite an expected winning record. Later in the season they turned it around and are now battling for a playoff spot.
The opposite example should be the Diamondbacks or so Stat Folks would tell you. Near the middle of the season the D'backs were 48-43 but were outscored by 25 runs ERGO they should move back to the mean and start losing over the course of the season. Damn D'backs didn't comply and now they have a winning record and are in the driver's seat for a playoff spot.
Two big problems with this sort of analysis:
One - one of the biggest fallacies (in my mind) is Regression towards the Mean. Maybe I'm just revealing my ignorance of mathematics/statistics but why should a team (or a coin flip) (with a history or not) be automatically as unlucky in the future as it was lucky in the past? That is to say, if I flip a coin 25 times and get 25 heads, the likelihood that I will flip a head on the next toss is 50% and the next one and next one, etc. If I want to predict what the outcome (or total) over the next 75 tosses will be I should guess 50% of those tosses for a total that is still +25 heads.
So to relate this to the D'backs, who were lucky over the first half of the season, why should they then be unlucky over the second half of the season? If they have an equal number of runs scored and runs allowed over the second half (which they do) shouldn't they be as likely to outperform that as they are to under-perform that over the rest of the season?
So the Diamondbacks, who have a POSITIVE run differential over the second half are still being burdened with the negative run differential from the first half and are quoted as being overly lucky and over performing their "actual" quality for having a winning record in the second half and overall.
Which leads nicely into point number 2.
Shouldn't the D'backs success reveal, not confirm, the foolishness of putting to much faith in statistics? So the D'backs have outperformed their run differential, obviously they are still doing something right because they've still been winning. They have an extremely good record in one-run games (another classic luck team stat but maybe also revealing of the D'backs strong and wisely used bullpen (three of their relievers are in the top 25 of WXRL - a reliever stat quantifying success in pivotal game moments)), they have two of the longest winning streaks of the season (8 a piece), they've gotten better as the season has gone on (not surprising given the number of 25 or younger players on their team), and they WIN WIN WIN! What I'm not saying is throw out the metric, what I am saying is treat the metric appropriately and be happy with what you got - A WINNING BASEBALL TEAM!
Which leads to my bigger point, why does no one seem to care? Baseball writers are still choosing the Padres to win the division, no one is seeming to write up glowing reviews of Bob Melvin the manager or Brandon Webb the star or any number of reasons why this team is one of the best stories of the year. (blame "boring" players, blame playing in AZ, blame "expected" record, blame whatever) - but right now this is a good team that is going to the playoffs. And will be a good team for the next couple of years as the develop one of the strongest cores of young talent. Josh Byrnes (GM) is doing something right, let's get on this bandwagon and root root root.
Let's go D'backs. LET'S GO!
posted by furtanic at 11:01 AM
6 Comments:
gotta give those d'backs credit, they're pretty good at letting a blow-out get the best of them every few days. they'll probably win the division (even with the tough schedule ahead of them), and can dominate whoever comes out of the central or east. but can they handle the pads head on in october?
Mike Noble, sports fan. Who knew? I think the Dbacks can beat any NL team in a series if Hernandez and Davis pitch OK. That said I still think the Mets are the best team in the NL.
i commented too soon. it's too bad the padres' best hitter is such a hot-headed jackass. here come the rox! best team, maybe, but boy would i love to see a mets-phillies nlcs.
hm. I like Milton Bradley. Hot-headed, maybe. At least I don't get the sense that it's just a job for him, but a passion. One could be professional and play nice, or one could call people out on their shit.
Whatever.
He's DEFINITELY the most interesting thing about the Padrezzzzzzzzzzzzz.
let's go d'backs, keep losing! let's make this already crazy NL race more interesting! what do you think, ben, can they break the rox streak?
the Dbacks win this series and win the NL West. Period.
I'll put $$ on it.
Post a Comment
<< Home