Another Reason I'm Not Worried About Next Season
The Yankees are going to bounce back in a big way, and here's another reason why from Sax Baxamusa and the Hardball Times:
Despite the fact that there is little or no evidence that a team can control its distribution of runs scored, some teams every year do have weird run distributions. It is probably due mostly to luck. Well, not luck--let's say "unrepeatable performance that does not persist." When we call a team "inconsistent" or "feast-or-famine," we are really saying that they have a weird run distribution.
The Yankees scored 0-2 runs in 6.5 more games than was predicted by the Weibull distribution model. Think of the Weibull model as a more advanced cousin to the pythagorean winning percentage that I've introduced before.
On the other end of the spectrum, they scored 8 runs or more in only 1.8 more games than expected.
Now, I'm not saying that -4.7 difference translates into wins. But some of them will.
If the Yankees had performed to expectations and scored around 5 runs 4 or 5 more times (instead of what they scored) that would have added a win in 16 of the 31 relevant games.
That's 50%. Half of 4.7 games equals 2 wins. We lost the division by those two games.
It's worth remembering that this isn't about projecting runs or performance- we're using the 2007 data to explain what happened in 2007. But from what we understand about 2007 (that the Yankees had some bad luck that caused an unexpected run distribution), we can look ahead to 2008. Better pitching (with or without Santana), a more consistent offense, a deeper bench.
We're going to be great.
0 recs |
15 comments
Comments
Bravo
by marcbouch9 on Dec 3, 2007 12:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Whatever ...
by Ronster22 on Dec 3, 2007 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh,
I won't debate the Pythagorean record with you, but the thing a pretty good indicator.
by marcbouch9 on Dec 3, 2007 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're three quarters of the way there
This is about figuring out what went wrong at a macro level. Banking on Pavano and Igawa was a mistake, but it was a mistake compounded by some things (like run distribution) that were beyond the control of the players and coaches.
by jscape2000 on Dec 3, 2007 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not too many 16-14 games ...
Pitching is what did us in. Pitching is what will kill us in 2008 unless we build a better pen. Listen to guys who played behind Seaver, Jenkins, Marichal, Gibson and Koufax. They felt they had a chance to win if they could score 1 or 2 runs. Did our guys EVER feel that security when 4/5ths of our rotation took to the hill--especially early in the season?
Good pitching is the great elixer for slumping sluggers. Because as we have seen over the last 6 years, good pitching ALWAYS beats good hitting.
by Ronster22 on Dec 3, 2007 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's fair
I'll add that to the list of projects to get when the semester ends next week.
by jscape2000 on Dec 3, 2007 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that'll take a few moments ...
by Ronster22 on Dec 3, 2007 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is also true that bad starting pitching
I think those guys might do better with some psychological support and a more reasonable workload. In terms of pitching injuries it was an unusual year.
by Cbeck3 on Dec 4, 2007 2:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Luck
by marcbouch9 on Dec 3, 2007 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pitching's all that matters.
Anyway, what really killed us in the regular season was that horrendous start and all those injuries in April and May. It's a real testimonial to the team that with all that, we still finished only 2 out.
Andy's back in the fold. Santana or no, the middle relief needs work, especially if Joba's in the rotation. When that's done, we can talk about '08.
by django on Dec 3, 2007 1:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I'm curious to see what Girardi's philosophy is regarding the bullpen. I'm hopeful that he's not a Torre disciple. That said, you are right. We need some quality brought back into the pen to give our young pitchers some confidence to just keep it close.
by Ronster22 on Dec 3, 2007 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The bug out game?
Truth be told, this Santana thing has been a distraction from the real task in front of the team - finding a bridge from the starters to Mo. With such young arms in the rotation and Girardi (hopefully) being careful with the pitch counts, now more than ever we'll need a 2008 version of Nelson and Stanton in the pen.
by django on Dec 3, 2007 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the recipe for '07 Success
The problem in recent years has been pitching. The team has consistently ranked high on offense (1st or 2nd in runs scored each of the past few years) but the pitching staff has usually been league average (i.e. in 2007, the Yanks ranked 7th in fewest runs allowed).
I don't think it's unrealistically optimistic to think this team can surrender 50 fewer runs next year. This would likely rank them somewhere around 3rd or 4th in the pitching department. (I go by total runs allowed because you don't win or lose games based on ERA).
To accomplish that, here's what needs to happen:
Without Johan Santana:
Pettitte & Wang combine for 400 innings at last year's level - 4.11 runs allowed per 9 innings - This is very probable.
The Trinity combines for 300 innings and 4.2 runs allowed per 9 innings - I feel this is a middle of the road projection; it's far from a certainty, but realistic.
Rivera/Farnsworth/Vizcaino combine for 200 innings at least years level - 4.25 runs per 9 - Mo is likely to rebound, Farnsworth(less) is who he is, as is Viz. This is a reasonable expection.
A trio of Ohlendorf/Britton/Veras/Sanchez/Whomever else needs combine to throw 150 innings at 4.2 runs per 9 - This is probably what makes or breaks the goal. Britton could do a lot to help by duplicating his performance for the '06 Orioles. Again, this is probably a middle of the road projection. These guys could be lights out, or terrible.
Everyone else (Mussina, Edwar, Igawa, my grandmother) needs to combine for 400 innings at no worse than 5.35 runs per 9. Essentially, they need to just be league average.
Of course, with Santana, you're adding a net of 100 innings (200 by Santana - 100 by one of the Trinity) at an elite level, so the burden is reduced on everybody else.
I don't think any of these projections are outrageous. You can expect the offense to regress, but even if they score 75 fewer runs than last year, you could win up with 890 scored/725 allowed, which means potentially a 100 win team who is 1st in runs scored and 3rd or 4th in runs allowed. That is the kind of balanced team that can go toe to toe with the rest of the league in the postseason.
by kuri3460 on Dec 3, 2007 2:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Your projection
Those extra 100 innings will greatly lighten the load on the bullpen. I've got a post in the works on how I'd run the rotation, but I want to see how today's Santana news plays out before I put too much time into it.
by jscape2000 on Dec 3, 2007 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
by kuri3460 on Dec 3, 2007 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

















