Pythag Record and the Future
I'm a big believer in Pythagorean record as a test a team's quality. I like the simplicity: reduce runs allowed or increase runs scored to increase winning. Hitting, pitching and defense are already built into the analysis. (Click here for a down and dirty explanation).
| RS | RA | Diff | Pythag | actual W% | |
| 2009 | 915 | 753 | +162 | .586 | .636 |
| 2008 | 789 | 727 | +62 | .537 | .549 |
| 2007 | 968 | 777 | +191 | .599 | .580 |
| 2006 | 930 | 767 | +163 | .586 | .599 |
I was surprised to find that 2009 was not a marked improvement over the previous 3 clubs. The pitching and defense was actually worse than the 2008 squad, and whole team was roughly equal in 2006 and 2009.
Could it be that the big transformation wasn't CC or AJ or Hughes in the pen. Certainly, both players were essential to replacing Mussina, to cover for the loss of Wang, the 5th starter debacle and a slight regression by the bullpen (87 OPS+ against in 2008; 92 in 2009). But those problems at the back of the rotation mask the improvements at the top.. It was the addition of Tex and the return of a healthy Posada and Matsui that really put the team back in the driver's seat.
On the other hand, the Yankees significantly overshot their expectations in 2009, so unless the team improves on one side of the ball or the other, we had better brace for a step back in 2010.
Having Mariano in the pen (and a strong pen in general) seems to skew the Yanks to the top side of the projections (because they lose fewer close games than other teams). While I expect Joba/ Hughes/ mystery pitcher to outperform 2009 Joba/ Wang/ Mitre/ Gaudin, I'm worried that will be balanced by a step back for CC or AJ.
Johnny Damon was a decent offensive left fielder but a terrible defensive one. Offensively he was 24.5 weighted Runs Above Average, and defensively -9.2 runs below average according to UZR, for a net of +15.3 runs. Matt Holliday netted +39.6 runs in 2009. Jason Bay netted +23.0. My preference, Mike Cameron, netted +18.8 as a centerfielder.
0 recs |
7 comments
|
Comments
Good numbers but.....
You should take in consideration the 45 earned runs that Wang gave up. Take those out and the numbers are much better.
Also, I would rather get Roy Halladay over any free agent right now. He had 9 complete games alone and his era was under 3.
I totally get what you're saying
But I’ve been burned playing that game before, too.
We can’t assume that only our worst innings will be replaced. Somebody is going to be terrible next season.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
True, but Wang was really bad.
I may have more invested in this because i was at the worst game in Yankee history in April when he gave up, i think, 18 runs in 3 innings. I have been to about 100 pro games and this was the first one where i fell asleep for an inning (4th)! It was in the daytime! The beverages that i drank didn’t help matters, but they coincide with the performance.
Good point though.
I would argue...
that during such a game, beverages would actually help! How else could you make it through such a game!
Pythag is good...
but 2nd order and 3rd order numbers are better.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php
Look at the W2/L2 and W3/L3 columns. The 2009 Yankees were only slightly above expectation in both categories.
by New York Sports Jerk on Nov 19, 2009 2:13 PM EST reply actions
True. I’ve always prefered Pythag simply because I understand precisely how it’s computed. For the same reason I prefer OPS and wOBP to VORP and WARP3. Not that I don’t believe the others, but that I like being able to see clearly how changes will effect the final totals.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
I think possibly...
the biggest difference wasn’t in the Yankees getting remarkably better, I think it was in the other teams in the division performing markedly worse.




















