Add new comment

Sorry Matt, but I think you're wrong about *any* trait being able to beat pythag on a consistent basis.  I've seen zero historical evidence to support the notion in general - much less one that would support the Ms 2009 team as being a model that could sustain its pythag-beating ways.
That said - I also think your assessment of why the Ms beat pythag is wildly inaccurate, and not supported by the facts.
I charted the Ms run scoring and runs allowed charts against those of the other AL West clubs.  On the run scoring side, the Ms have one, (and only one), data point that is significantly skewed from the standard trend -- they scored EXACTLY 4 runs 28 times, compared to the division average 20.  When charted, it's easy to spot visually. 
Other than that, they had zero games scoring more than 11.  The other 3 teams combined for 17 games scoring more than 11, (basically average of 6 each). 
On the runs allowed side, they scored exactly 3 runs 31 times, beating the average of 24.25 by a significant amount.  (Average of 22 if you remove Seattle from the 3-run mix).
On the upside, Seattle never allowed more than 12.  The other 3 teams combined to allow more than 12 in 12 games.
The instinct is to blame the blowout games for the skew.  But Seattle actually didn't create OR allow blowout scoring, which removes them from play in regard to pythag.
=========
So, first off, the notion that Seattle's pitching was wildly inconsistent (compared to the competition) is false.  The primary cause for the pythag skew was that the club had an inordinate number of games scoring PRECISELY 4 and allowing PRECISELY 3.  Other than that, the Seattle run scoring and allowed followed the same basic pattern for other teams.  While run scoring was suppressed (on both sides), but the DISTRIBUTION was otherwise normal.
From a mathematical view of the results, AT BEST one might conclude that the pythag skew was effectively evenly split in "credit" (blame?) between the offense and pitching.  Moreover, the knowledge that the only significant data points well away from norm lie at the 3 and 4 run marks is FURTHER supported by the fact that the club went 35-20 in 1-run games.
The fact the club had 1/3 of its games be 1-run games is remarkable in itself.  Detroit was second in the AL in 1-run wins with 28, (second in 1-run games also, going 28-22).  The 2nd best 1-run time by net wins was the Angels, going 27-18, (+9 games).  Think about that, Seattle was +15 in 1-run games.  That means, not only did they absolutely destroy the rest of the AL in 1-run wins -- they destroyed the #2 team by +6 wins. 
So, the evidence doesn't support the wildly inconsistent pitching theory.  It supports the notion that the credit for the pythag skew was almost evenly split between offense and defense.  And it pegs the lions share of the pythag damage due to the 1-run peaks at 3 and 4 runs.
So ... if you want to convince me that the club has a sustainable pythag beating makeup, then your model must include an explanation for exactly how the team is going to consistently allow EXACTLY 3 runs and score EXACTLY 4 runs.  Me?  I don't think there's any team design that creates such an expectation. 
Additionally, there is strong reason to believe at least 40% of the innings in 2010 will not be devliered by pitchers from 2009, so the notion that they will sustain this alleged (phantom) inconsistency, would require the new arms to repeat PRECISELY this random fluctation.  Honestly, what really amazes me is that you're arguing that RANDOM FLUCTUATION is what will make the pythag beating persistent. 
===========