"A Run Saved Is a Run Earned" Or Is It?

In baseball, the ultimate goal is to score more runs than your opponent. It might be said in some circles (like Seattle) that the goal is to force your opponent to score less often than you, though. Theoretically, they should be looked at as equals: offense and defense. As with almost everything baseball related though, it's not that simple. I was recently looking at Bill James' Pythagorean record formula. For those of you not familiar with this, it is a simple formula used to determine how many wins and losses a team "should" have had based on the amount of runs scored and runs allowed. The reason "should" is in parentheses, is because often teams can either get lucky or unlucky, sometimes winning a great deal of close games or losing a great deal of them. The luck can at least partially be explained by quality bullpen though. I've conveniently linked a more in depth explanation of the formula from the most unbiased, truthful source I could possibly find here.

When I was looking at it, I decided to plug in some random numbers to see what would happen when I altered them. For example, if a team scored 1,000 runs and gives up 1,000, they would expect to have a .500 record, going 81-81. But if that same team improved their offense by 200 runs and it was 1,200-1,000, they would have a .59 winning percentage, going about 96-66. Interestingly though, if a team were to reduce runs allowed by the same amount, making it 1,000 scored vs. 800 allowed, they would improve more. They would have about a .61 percentage and go 99-63. Of course, the idea of a team scoring 1,000 runs while giving up the same amount is rather far fetched. The team would probably have to invest all their money into a lineup full of mashers who played no defense and started a rotation of Kei Igawas and still not even get there. 

What does all this mean for the Yankees in 2010? Most prediction sites have them scoring a little over 900 runs and a giving up a little over 750. In other words, very similar to last year in which it was 915 scored vs. 753 allowed. Their theoretical record would be 96-66, 7 wins off last year's pace. How would their team (on paper) react to changes runs scored and runs allowed? I'm glad you asked. Rather than taking a drastic change such as 200 runs, I'll take a more subtle, practical approach.

Earlier this winter (as every one of you is well-aware), much was made over the Yankees not bringing back Johnny Damon in favor of the cheaper, younger, better defensive Brett Gardner. Since they will in all likelihood mostly be playing the same position this year, I decided to look at the differences in the type of player they are. Gardner (in a very small sample size) has put up very solid defensive numbers both in CF and LF. This coming year, he is projected by most to be either right at replacement level of a few runs above on offense while about 10 runs above in the field. Damon meanwhile, is projected to be about 5-10 runs below in the field while between 10-15 runs above replacement at the plate.

How do would these values affect the Yankees' chances of winning? Taking the conservative approach and assuming they are currently on track for 900 runs for and 750 against, we would come up with these numbers: 97-65 with Gardner 96-66 with Damon. That isn't to say that Gardner is a full run above replacement better than Damon, but with the way the Yankees are currently constructed, the marginal value of runs saved is greater than the value of runs scored. Combine this with the fact that Gardner will make the league minimum in 2010 while Damon will be making $8 million and it becoming increasingly evident that the Yankees will be just fine without Damon.