!!!!!

by Lord Duggan on Feb 11, 2012 12:05 AM EST in New York Yankees Analysis

Methodology
In 2011, the Yankees bullpen had a 3.12 ERA, with the average for all pitching in the AL being a 4.08 ERA. That is 31% better than league average, so the bullpen posted a 131 ERA+. The 2011 Yankees scored 867 runs and allowed 657, which using Pythagorean Winning Percentage translates to an expected 101 wins. They actually won 97 games, which means that they under-performed their expectation by four wins, or a -4 on the graph. I did this for every season from 1990-2011 and put them on a scatter plot.

But what does it all mean, Basil?
A team over-performing their Pythagorean wins indicates winning a lot of close games; they pulled out more wins than the raw run differential would have predicted. Under-performing means the opposite; they lost a disproportionate amount of games, given their run differential.

*One step further: If a team has a proclivity for winning blowouts and losing close games, they will under-perform their Pythagorean expectation, as one 15-0 trouncing carries a lot more weight in run differential than a few 3-2 losses. People say this about the Yankees all the time, but from 1990-2011, they have over-performed their expectation by 46 games.

A thought process often espoused is that the quality of your bullpen is a major determining factor in the number of close games that you win, and therefore, the number of extra wins you can scrape out over the course of the season. However, a pretty simple and intuitive way to put that to the test flies directly in the face of this theory. There really has not been any correlation at all.

*The brilliance of the manager is another common theory that I also don't much buy into. Unfortunately, that one would be much harder to research.

I don't know if there are ironclad factors that determine if a team can exceed their win expectation, but for the past twenty-two season of Yankees baseball, it hasn't been the quality of the bullpen.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

So…..Luis Ayala was not the key to the season?

Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc

Co-Manager/Writer for Pinstripe Alley, Editor/Writer for Blueshirt Banter, Writer for On The Banks

by Brandon C. on Feb 11, 2012 12:07 AM EST reply actions

But…but…shortening the game!

Tweets
"Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains"

by WhatwouldJeterdo on Feb 11, 2012 12:09 AM EST reply actions

So what you're saying is

We need a 2nd inning guy!

"WHO WOULD LEAD?! THE CLOWN?!"
ImNotAHRHitter

by I'mGivingYouARaise on Feb 11, 2012 12:10 AM EST reply actions

So, defense doesnt win championships?

Should you choose to test my resolve in this matter, you will be facing a finality beyond your comprehension, and you will not be counting days, or months, or years, but milleniums in a place with no doors.

by YankeesJets on Feb 11, 2012 12:14 AM EST reply actions

Trade Nova and Mason Williams for Ryan Madson.

by MichaelGGBGrabow on Feb 11, 2012 12:19 AM EST reply actions

Then Granderson for Papelbon

by MichaelGGBGrabow on Feb 11, 2012 12:19 AM EST up reply actions

Bring Back Armando Benitez!!!

"I never knew how someone dying could say he was the luckiest man in the world. But now I understand." -Mickey Mantle's farewell address

by LaserVortex888 on Feb 11, 2012 12:59 AM EST reply actions

Let me get this straight....

we need more cowbell?

"When my time on Earth is gone, and my activities here are past, I want they bury me upside down so all my critics can kiss my a**"- Bob Knight

"Talent is God-given, be grateful. Fame is man-given, be humble. Conceit is self-given, be careful."- John Wooden

"Never take anything for granted. Don't forget, great prices have been paid and will be paid again if you become too smug, too egotistical and self-assured."- Johnny Cash

by JumpinJackFlash on Feb 11, 2012 1:20 AM EST via mobile reply actions

This pythagorean winning percentage thing sounds entirely made up.

by CAyankeesfan on Feb 11, 2012 2:41 AM EST reply actions

Like dinosaurs and electricity.

"Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about a bad break I got. Yet today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth."

"There is no room in baseball for discrimination. It is our national pastime and a game for all." - Henry Louis "Lou" Gehrig

by Xavier10 on Feb 11, 2012 7:16 AM EST up reply actions

Pythag is based on an idea that is obviously true

Winning teams score more runs and allow less. It is a quite good correlation. The numbers are quite useful but there is some variation. It is a legitimate statistical pursuit to question whether the variations between the predicted result and the actual result are random “luck” or systematic. If the variation is systematic the model can be improved. But you are right, like the theory of relativity, or the law of large numbers, someone made it up.
If by calling it made up you imply it is wrong, you are wrong.

"I’m never really surprised, but I am thrilled sometimes." Joe G. 2010

by Cbeck3 on Feb 11, 2012 8:07 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

Has any team underperformed their Pythag and won the WS?

What I noticed up there was 2009 & 1998, both championships. Was there a “luck” factor involved? Or…shudder…“clutch?”

by PortlandYankee on Feb 11, 2012 11:29 AM EST reply actions

Most recently...

The 2010 SF Giants: Pyth. W of 94, finished with 92. Difference: 2.
The 2008 Phillies: Pyth. W of 93, finished with 92. Difference: 1.
The 2007 Red Sox: Pyth. W of 101, finished with 96. Difference: 5.
The 2002 Angels: Pyth. W of 101, finished with 99. Difference: 2.
The 2001 D-Backs: Pyth. W of 95, finished with 92. Difference: 3.

The last 5 Yankees championships, the Yankees have overperformed their Pythag.

by incognito64 on Feb 11, 2012 5:16 PM EST up reply actions

A thought process often espoused is that the quality of your bullpen is a major determining factor in the number of close games that you win, and therefore, the number of extra wins you can scrape out over the course of the season. However, a pretty simple and intuitive way to put that to the test flies directly in the face of this theory. There really has not been any correlation at all.

How about that the coefficients for the PythagWins formula are arbitrary and may not even by right? That means at least some of the under/over-performs may not have been. The coefficients (per my understanding) are the result of what someone thought “seemed” about right… which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. In fact, they’ve been changed at least once, possibly a few times since the PythagWins formula first made its appearance.

By contrast, the coefficients in the Quadratic Formula, or Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, or the circumference of a circle (or many other examples) aren’t arbitrary at all, and can never, ever vary: they are what they are, period, end of story.

So to me, asking why a team underperformed the formula seems a little hollow when the formula itself may not represent the “correct” number of wins that team should have achieved. It’s just a convenient approximation, nothing more.

by pinstriper on Feb 11, 2012 7:10 PM EST reply actions