You are here

Home > M's Tilt at Pythag Windmill

M's Tilt at Pythag Windmill

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
< Previous post:
M's -53 in run differential but +001 in OPS
Next Post: >
Seattle 3, New Yawk 2
Categories: 
Other
Tags: 
Pythagorean theorem
Don Wakamatsu

Replies

Basil Ganglia's picture
Submitted by Basil Ganglia on

Of course Bavasi understands Pythag. I don't think that was ever the issue. The question at the time was the extent to which Bavasi believed Pythag.

After the 2007 season Bavasi believed that the Mariners had outperformed it's Pythag record because of the character of the players; he believed that he had assembled a roster of players who did the right things, who knew how to perform under pressure in clutch situations, who played hard, and who had good personal character. Bavasi downplayed the Pythag record because he held that players with good character would produce more wins than could be accounted for with measures such as Pythag. In Bavasi's mind the fact that Jose Vidro was a crummy DH was offset by Vidro's clubhouse presence and veteran knowledge. Raul Ibañez's superb personal character, professionalism, and dedication to maintaining his skills would more than compensate for the drain associated with stationing one of the least mobile outfielders in baseball in one of the most expansive left fields in baseball behind a pitch-to-contact pitching staff.

Bavasi was wrong. And the central criticism of Bavasi is not that he didn't understand Pythag, but that he mistook luck for intelligence.

Further, based on Bavasi's comments earlier this year looking back on the Bedard trade it appears that Bavasi has not changed his views. Bavasi's self-critique of the Bedard trade was, in essence, that he hadn't sufficiently weighed that Bedard had never had to perform under pennant pressure while in Baltimore. The implication, of course, is that Bedard wilted when asked to be an ace starter on a serious contender and that if Bedard had possessed proper character the trade would have worked out fine.

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

And completely reasonable.

And not the one I usually read on the 'net.  :- )

...............

What I usually read is little quips and one-liners that seriously assert that Bill Bavasi's problem is that he is stupid in absolute terms.

But your argument is another subject, and well worth discussing.  Gracias.

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

... does Zduriencik "believe in" Pythag faithfully enough to cash in the 2010 season yet, do you think?  :- )

I understand your comment, that we should revise the ever-present "Bavasi did not understand run differential" claim .... to mean "Bavasi thought that run differential would naturally change by itself." 

Whether that's a reach or not, the original premise is unaffected.  

................

Bavasi's acquisition of Erik Bedard was an attempt to give his team a chance to make the playoffs.  He was not criticized for keeping Jose Vidro around, per se.  He was criticized for not realizing that it was futile to 'bet into the pot' with a -19 RD ballclub.   Bedard's acquisition came at the wrong time.  That was the basis offered for the jeering that Bavasi suffered.

Erik Bedard is a pariah in Seattle.  This situation exists primarily because Bavasi was accused of not having the IQ to realize that the 2008 Mariners couldn't feasibly win.

The premise was wrong, and Bedard's pariah-ship in Seattle is a tragedy.

......................

Zduriencik isn't smart enough to realize that he cannot afford to bet into the pot in 2010.  Because there's not a thing wrong with trying to turn a big-payroll team around in one winter.  There never was.

Cyril Morong's picture
Submitted by Cyril Morong on

Maybe the Mariners are not so bad. Here is what their hitters have done:

OBP .313

SLG .400

OPS .713

Here is what their pitchers have allowed

OBP .312

SLG .395

OPS .712

That looks like an average team to me.

 

A quick regression shows that runs per game in the AL this year is

R/G = -5.69 + 21.03*OBP + 8.04*SLG

That predicts them to score about 4.11 per game while it is actually 3.95. Over 148 games, it amounts to 24 runs below expectations. So now we have already accounted for 37 of their -53 run differential (584-637).

Now for runs allowed the equation is

R/G =-4.14 + 22.78*OBP + 3*SLG

(maybe fielding and relief pitching are the reasons this is different than the hitting formula-I really don't know-could be small sample or one year of data)

That says they should allow 4.266 per game and it is really 4.304. Over the 148 games it adds up to 5.59 runs. So now we are up to explaining over 42 of the -53 runs in their differential (which should be very close to zero given their stats I mentioned above).

So I think they have been a little unlucky hitting wise, scoring 24 fewer runs than expected. Then they are allowing too many unearned runs. Also, if I applied the hitting formual to their pitching stats, it would mean they have given up 26 more runs than expected. That could be bad luck or a weak bullpen. My guess is that they know about all this

Maybe the Mariners are not so bad. Here is what their hitters have done: OBP .313 SLG .400 OPS .713 Here is what their pitchers have allowed OBP .312 SLG .395 OPS .712 That looks like an average team to me. The Mariners have allowed 63 unearned runs this year. The league average is 50. A quick regression shows that runs per game in he AL this year is R/G = -5.69 + 21.03*OBP + 8.04*SLG That predicts them to score about 4.11 per game while it is actually 3.95. Over 148 games, it amounts to 24 runs below expectations. So now we have already accounted for 37 of their -53 run differential (584-637). Now for runs allowed the equation is R/G =-4.14 + 22.78*OBP + 3*SLG (maybe fielding and relief pitching are the reasons this is different than the hitting formula-I really don't know-could be small sample or one year of data) That says they should allow 4.266 per game and it is really 4.304. Over the 148 games it adds up to 5.59 runs. So now we are up to explaining over 42 of the -53 runs in their differential (which should be very close to zero given their stats I mentioned above). So I think they have been a little unlucky hitting wise, scoring 24 fewer runs than expected. Then they are allowing too many unearned runs. Also, if I applied the hitting formual to their pitching stats, it would mean they have given up 26 more runs than expected. That could be bad luck or a weak bullpen. My guess is that they know about all this
OR

 

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

... second level is, do a team's actual runs underperform or overperform its expected runs.   In this case (this year, actually) I haven't been bothering.

Thanks for the wake-up call.  :- )  BP's adjusted standings confirm your insight -- per expected runs (EQR, adjusted and unadjusted) the Mariners are solidly .500 this year.

Good show.

...............................

As most of us would agree ... we blink our eyes and it doesn't SEEM like the M's are getting outplayed down there.  Yet the run differential is -50.

The realization that the BASES gained and lost, are 50:50, is comforting.

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

Why are the M's actual runs gained, and relinquished, 'underperforming' compared to their bases.

.......

The lazy answer is RISP and luck, but that's not the only possibility ...

Sandy - Raleigh's picture
Submitted by Sandy - Raleigh on

Great layout of stats.

The .313/.400 offense and .317/.395 defense is very telling, painting a picture of a team that was legitimately producing at a .500 team rate.  While it doesn't answer the "why", (the team is "good?" at not wasting runs in lost causes?), it paints a much rosier picture of where the actual production baseline for 2010 might be.

That said, the 2010 baseline is so blury at this point, there is little point in spending too much time fretting about it.  As of today, the following positions are "open", (could change) for 2010:

1B, 3B, SS, LF, DH --- SP3, SP4, SP5 -- (several relievers)

It's guaranteed that LF and SS are going to be massively different than the PT of the players from 2009.  If you're returning 89% or maybe even 78%, you might be able to do a decent projection beginning with the current season.  But, if you're swapping out more than half your starting lineup, beginning projections based on the previous year's performance is a fool's errand.

My thinking is little changed from the beginning of 2009.  I felt Z made a couple of nice moves to undo what immediate damage he could.  I don't see any horrible mistakes at this point.  But, I definitely would not "plan" on Seattle being a playoff hopeful in 2010, because they're gonna be replacing 55% of their regulars, and 60% (or 80%) of the rotation, the odds of rolling Yahtzee is extremely small.  (Z came up empty on Cedeno and Wlad, and didn't exactly get breakthru performances from ANY of the starting pitchers he acquired).

Give Z another year to get a couple of good guys for the future, (breakthru by Carp or Johnson or Moore or Saunders, maybe), perhaps another couple of FA undervalued bounceback type players ... come 2011, instead of needing 8 for 8 "wins" with new bodies, (needed for 2010), perhaps he only need to go 3 of 4 with his building program to get where he wants.

 

 

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

although the question that occurs is, at what point do resources make turnover a good thing?

The reductio ad absurdum - suppose a team had a $500M payroll had had to buy (and trade for) 25 new players.  What would our goal be -- .500, the playoffs, or what?

Because Zduriencik has made the roster so much more fluid, with cheap scrubs like Guti, Lopez, RRS, Johnson, Branyan, etc, he has opportunities to bring in *good* new players, no? 

Sandy - Raleigh's picture
Submitted by Sandy - Raleigh on

Making these kind of calls is VERY situation dependent.  Yes, Z has undone "some" of the damage - but certainly not all of it.

Silva remains an oppressive mistake Z is paying for, both in length and dollars.  Johjima also has another two seasons at a high price.  With a $100 million payroll, you're talking about 20% of your expense going to a pair of guys you HOPE you don't need.  That's just the installed base of inherited bad costs.  (Imagine you took a job expecting to work 40 hours and get paid for it, but were told that because the guy you're replacing was  moron, they only have money for 32 hours for the next 2 years).  But, that's the reality of GMing.  Every new GM is saddled with problems made by the old GM, and it takes TIME and effort to deal with those.

That said, it's pure conjecture at this point whether Z's eye is REALLY that much better than Bavasi's.  One of Bavasi's first acquisitions was Ibanez.  The critical calls for the future are going to be whether guys like Bill Hall, ($8.4 million in 2010), Snell ($4.25 million in 2010), Jack Wilson ($8.4 million in 2010 - if they pick up the option), work out.  Snell is cheap enough that failure IS an option.  But, what if Hall and Wilson turn into the next Vidro and Johjima? 

Hey, I like the approach.  I approve of most of the decisions so far.  But, while Branyan was a home run, and Gutz a triple, (assuming you appreciate his defense as I do), and got a single to right from Sweeney ... Z fanned badly on Cedeno, grounded out on Chavez, and just popped the ball up (so far) with guys like Hall and Wilson. 

Matt has pointed out that Z is very fond of guys who see lots of pitches.  That's good news.  But, it certainly hasn't translated into a significant improvement in walks.  The club remains 14th in walks, and it is likely Griffey will finish the season as the team leader in that category, (while his return isn't so likely).  The offensive hole that Z began with was REALLY deep, and fixing it is not a case of bringing in one good slugger, (Branyan was one good slugger). 

And, of course, we haven't seen how good Z is in regards to negotiating extensions with guys he brought in on the cheap.  Basically, the job of moving ahead from where the club is today is massively more complex then just bringing in a couple of big bats.

Uncle Ted's picture
Submitted by Uncle Ted on

As I recollect it, the complaint wasn't that Bavasi was trying to win in 2008 rather than just cashing it in.  The complaint was that Bavasi tried to win in a way that made sense for a team that was a legit borderline playoff team i.e. sell the farm for a stud pitcher that will take you over the edge.  Of course, the Mariners weren't a borderline playoff team.  This shows the difference between Z and Bavasi.  Even if we might take issue with the particular trades he's made, Z is acting like he understands that the Mariners have several holes to fill if we are to compete in 2010.  Of course he's going to try and fill those holes, but it will really surprise me, given his moves so far, if he does it by going all out for that one big player. To push the poker analogy, Bavasi went all in with a pair of 10s.  If we take the team to really be a .500 club as per the base based analysis, Jack in contrast seems to be holding two high pairs and betting more reasonably.

 

To put it more succinctly, the objection to Bavasi wasn't THAT he was trying to win, it's HOW he was trying to win.  And yes, you are right, many people took his decisions to cast doubts on how well he understood the team he had.

Leave a Reply

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <i> <b> <img> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <div> <strong> <p> <br> <u>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.