Add new comment

Saying "runs scored was below expected runs generated, given a team's linear weights" does not equate directly to "they were unlucky".
There is an ASSUMPTION that the Angels had a 'lucky' BABIP in 2009, and that the Ms were unlucky in Runs scored in '09 -- based on standard analytical model. But, "luck" and "we cannot account for this (today)" aren't equal.
Part of the problem I see is that too many "standard" traits get to be ingrained and every outlier becomes pegged as luck. Well, how many times do you have to be "lucky", before the analysts will pause, scratch their chins and say, "well, maybe there is something going on here that we aren't accounting for."
The Angels in 2009 were a nearly unique club (offensively), in that they had TEN (10) players all hitting over 100 OPS+, but lacked the 2 or 3 150 OPS+ mashers typically found on high scoring teams. It is HARD to find clubs in history with offense as evenly distributed up and down the lineup as the Angels. If your "comp" set is 4 or 5 teams in the past 100 years, (I'm saying as an example - not as gospel), then you don't really have a reasonable statistical comparison.
Current methodology typically throws all the numbers in one hopper, and gets statistical saugage out the other side. But, in a game where ORDER matters, having two clubs with identical .350 OBP and .441 slugging "might" have very different runs scored, if one had a trio of 150 OPS+ hitters, while the other had a much flatter distribution of hitters from 1-9. But, as a general rule, teams with similar aggregate stats "tend" to have similar talent distribution, so they "tend" to behave in a particular way.
Were the Ms "unlucky" in runs scored --- or was there run scored shortage related to the fact that for the season, their 7th best hitter was batting in the #2 slot in the order? They had a .710 from the 6th spot, and a .673 in the 2nd. What if you reverse just those two bats? What if the best bat, (.837 in the 5th slot), had been hitting 3rd instead?
Most teams put their best hitters higher in the order. More chances. The Ms got their best production out of the #5 slot, (actually tied with #1). Should that be classified as "luck"? Or should it be classified as a fixable tactical error? If they score runs in line with their linear weights in 2010, it will be "perceived" as luck. But, if the club has its top 5 hitters batting in the top 5 slots in the order, then there might be a specific reason for the change - not only identifiable, but also very much in control of the club.
I tend to distrust the word "luck" in regards to analysis, because I believe it assumes a state where not only is the outcome unexplainable - but that it will ALWAYS be unexplainable, (and completely out of the control of the people involved).
If the wind blowing out/in ratio in Wrigley is 60/21 in 2009 and 21/60 in 2010, you've got a variable that's out of the control of the people. But, it would be relatively easy to quantify the impact of said wind, and adjust stats accordingly. Or, you can just say in 2010, the offense was "unlucky".