Here is one more interesting post:These are 4 colu...

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7965585998403674176.post-43428912120551065802007-09-26T04:45:00.000-04:002007-09-26T04:45:00.000-04:002007-09-26T04:45:00.000-04:00Here is one more interesting post:These are 4 colu...Here is one more interesting post: These are 4 columns of wins for each team. One is my pre-season win totals. Two is my pre-season win totals by prorating each player projection by their actual playing time (and pitcher roles). Three is converting actual player performance and playing time into a win total (like a pythag record, but a 3rd order, or maybe 2nd order, record). Fourth is actual record. You can infer whatever you want about the players, team, manager, etc., from these. NYY 93 94 96 93 BOS 90 90 94 96 TOR 84 82 88 83 BAL 78 75 78 69 TB 74 81 68 67 CLE 89 91 90 97 MIN 84 83 80 79 DET 79 80 87 88 CWS 77 75 72 70 KC 71 73 70 70 OAK 86 81 90 77 ANA 84 83 83 94 TEX 80 76 75 76 SEA 77 81 76 86 ATL 85 87 87 86 PHI 85 83 85 88 NYM 84 84 95 90 FLO 79 78 74 69 WAS 69 72 64 73 STL 85 81 75 75 MIL 84 85 88 84 CHC 81 80 91 86 HOU 78 78 70 71 PIT 76 78 73 69 CIN 71 70 65 73 SD 89 89 93 89 ARI 84 81 80 91 LA 82 82 80 83 COL 77 80 91 88 SF 73 77 75 72 Interestingly, the only teams that benefited a lot (more than 4 exected wins) or were hurt a lot by either injuries or changes in roles (I used the BP depth charts and playing time estimates before the season started) were OAK and TB, respectively. Teams that were helped or hurt 4 wins were TEX and STL hurt and SEA and SF helped. The rest were withing 3 wins of their pre-season projection based on pre-season estimates of personnel, playing time, and roles, and actual personnel, playing time, roles, etc. That does not mean that most of the teams had the the same or almost the same personnel, playing time, etc. as BP predicted. The difference between the second and third columns is essentially the difference between how the players on the team were expected to perform based on their pre-season projections and how they actually performed. Maybe, just maybe, you can give the manager and coaches some credit if there is a substantial difference, good or bad. Then again, the projections are essentially based on the last 4 years' performance, so maybe you only want to give credit (or demerits) to the first or second year managers and coaches. Who knows. Teams with the greatest differences between how they were expected to perform and how they did are: A lot better than expected: TOR, DET, OAK, METS, CUBS, COL A lot worse than expected: TB, STL, HOU, CIN Finally, you can infer anything you want from the difference between the 3rd and 4th columns, which is essentially the difference between their expected number of wins based on their overall offensive and defensive performance and their actual record. Obviously a lot of the difference must be attributed to luck (there is around a 6.5 game random SD in 162 games, right?). Maybe some of it can be attributed to other things that the players and/or manager and coaches have control over. Again, who knows. Teams that have won a lot fewer games than they "should have" given their underlying performance, not in runs, but in actual component stats, like lwts for the batters, and component ERA for the pitchers: BAL, OAK (they take the cake), FLO, and to some extent Mets and Cubs. Teams that have overperformed are: CLE, ANA, SEA, WAS, and CIN. Finally, the only two teams who both performed better than expected based on their players' projections AND won more games than expected based on their underlying performance were Boston, Detroit, and Philly. The teams that performed worse than expected AND won fewer games than expected from theor performance were: TB, MIN, CWS, FLO, PIT, and SF. If I absolutely had to give out best and worst manager awards based on these numbers (and I believe that evaluating managers is an impossible task and MOY awards are a bigger joke than GG awards), I would give the best to Leyland (DET) and the worst (by far) to Maddon (TB).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com