PDA

View Full Version : Pythagorean Projected Wins and Losses



D-Man
06-25-2007, 04:28 PM
For a Reds club that is underperforming its Pythagorean projections by a substantial margin (roughly five to eight wins this year), the subject of Pythagoreans W/Ls has been barely broached on RedsZone, if at all.

Compare this year to last, when there were a handful of daily threads from May through August using Pythagorean projections to describe the Reds and their chances. So why has this been a non-issue this year?

Is it a tired subject?

Or is it that Pythagorean projections are less meaningful when a sub-mediocre team looks good, as opposed to when a sub-mediocre team looks atrocious?

Or is it that the stakes are lower this year, and therefore, it really doesn't matter at this point?

Or have people accepted high Pythagorean variances (in either direction) as a fact of life in GABP?

Or have Reds fans been conditioned to be skeptical and assume the worst-case scenario?

PuffyPig
06-25-2007, 04:34 PM
Last year the Pythagorean projestions indicated we were worse than our record. Many posters were quick to jump on that thread.

This year, it shows were aren't as bad as we have looked. You are correct, most have no interest in hearing that.

redsmetz
06-25-2007, 04:37 PM
Perhaps it's the nature of the beast - I've always struggled with the concept because the only thing that matters ultimately is what actually happens. And yet, I've taken some solace from the fact that the Phythag says we should be better - not that it does any good - we're still stinking up the universe!

Johnny Footstool
06-25-2007, 04:47 PM
Last year the Pythagorean projestions indicated we were worse than our record. Many posters were quick to jump on that thread.

This year, it shows were aren't as bad as we have looked. You are correct, most have no interest in hearing that.

Yeah, no one here wants the Reds to win ballgames.

They're currently 5 wins behind Pythag. If you discount the 16-1 blasting of the Mariners on Friday, they're 3 wins behind. At this point, it's the difference between being the worst team in baseball and being *among* the worst teams in baseball. Nothing to get too excited about either way.

wolfboy
06-25-2007, 04:50 PM
Perhaps it's the nature of the beast - I've always struggled with the concept because the only thing that matters ultimately is what actually happens. And yet, I've taken some solace from the fact that the Phythag says we should be better - not that it does any good - we're still stinking up the universe!

In some small way, it's comforting to me as well. Whether it's rational or not, it allows me to have increased hope for next year. That could all change with a few poor deadline deals. For now, I'll take anything even remotely optimistic. An underperforming trainwreck of a team has to be better than an overperforming one, right? :D

M2
06-25-2007, 04:51 PM
I'll go back to what I said when the Reds' run differential was still in the plus column - "Sometimes you catch your pythag, sometimes your pythag catches you."

The way this Reds team plays baseball it's pythag will be chasing it right down a rabbit hole for the rest of the season.

PuffyPig
06-25-2007, 05:01 PM
They're currently 5 wins behind Pythag. If you discount the 16-1 blasting of the Mariners on Friday, they're 3 wins behind. .


Can we discount when we lose by 10 runs also?

edabbs44
06-25-2007, 05:14 PM
I'll go back to what I said when the Reds' run differential was still in the plus column - "Sometimes you catch your pythag, sometimes your pythag catches you."

The way this Reds team plays baseball it's pythag will be chasing it right down a rabbit hole for the rest of the season.

So this quote:


"Sometimes you catch your pythag, sometimes your pythag catches you."

basically means nothing. That's like saying "Sometimes the pythag is right and sometimes it's wrong." Sweet theory.

Johnny Footstool
06-25-2007, 05:22 PM
Can we discount when we lose by 10 runs also?

Sure can. And it has nearly as much impact, which is little impact at all.

Cyclone792
06-25-2007, 05:25 PM
The Reds' current pythag projection has them as pretty much an 89-90 loss team. Those types of teams are just bad teams no matter which way you look at it. Last season, they had a pythag projection of 86 losses, and while the pythag projections are somewhat close, it's still on a current pace to go 35 runs in the wrong direction.

Granted, Bronson Arroyo was great last season. But for whatever reason, whether it's regression, Narron abuse, something else, or some combo, Arroyo stinks this season. But his level of stink so far was unexpected by most everyone, I'm sure.

However, one thing the 2007 Reds do have that the 2006 Reds didn't have (and realistically, the 2008 Reds won't have) is an aging Hall of Famer putting up one of the best single seasons for an outfielder of his age in the history of baseball. Ken Griffey, Jr. created 63 runs last season, but this season he's on a pace to create nearly 120 runs (he already has 57 runs created). As great as it is to watch him hit, we know that it's unrealistic to expect him to keep performing at such an historic level. Griffey's production could drop into being merely "good" during the second half of 2007 and/or the 2008 season and the offense would lose a huge engine in run production (that's really a sign of how great he's been this season).

Considering how great Griffey's been and how much offense he's generated this season that he didn't generate last season, it's mind boggling how this team is still managing to be 35 runs worse this season compared to last season.

M2
06-25-2007, 05:29 PM
That's like saying "Sometimes the pythag is right and sometimes it's wrong." Sweet theory.

I guess if you were to take what I said and reduce it to something that's not particularly what I meant, sure.

Chip R
06-25-2007, 05:31 PM
basically means nothing. That's like saying "Sometimes the pythag is right and sometimes it's wrong." Sweet theory.


Blame Raisor. It's his theory. ;)

edabbs44
06-25-2007, 05:39 PM
I guess if you were to take what I said and reduce it to something that's not particularly what I meant, sure.

Yeah, but what does it mean? I don't think I reduced it to anything. The way I see it, it means that sometimes you are better than your pythag and sometime you aren't. With that in mind, it will even out by the end. Which means, to me, that it isn't a very good assessor of a team's success or future success. Which means it is semi-useless to useless.

M2
06-25-2007, 06:02 PM
Yeah, but what does it mean? I don't think I reduced it to anything. The way I see it, it means that sometimes you are better than your pythag and sometime you aren't. With that in mind, it will even out by the end. Which means, to me, that it isn't a very good assessor of a team's success or future success. Which means it is semi-useless to useless.

Golly, any temptation I might have had to explain the concept has left me.

Cooper
06-25-2007, 06:14 PM
The pythag will correct itself i suppose. A bigger problem is evaluating this team and where they are at on a macro level.

Some evals have this team being middle of the road pitching wise with really poor hitting. If we were to grade it out -the pitching would be about 60 on a (1-100 scale-relative to other teams). The offense being about a 35 (1-100 scale).

You factor in the DER and it's clear that the pitching is not the problem. If the pitching has an average DER to work with -they are pushed up to a 65-69 scale. That's not bad at all, yet if you look around here and listen to the radio/tv guys --it seems as if the pitching is the problem when in reality it's the offense and defense.

It's going to take a smart GM to factor out all the haze and clearly evaluate this team -he/she will have to factor out the always extreme pythag based on a high park factor. It'll always be difficult to know what exactly is going on.

Btw, it seems like pitchers go to other parks and do better-while the hitters leave and struggle...that ought to clue the gm in on what is happening.

Lastly, i wish Narron would look at things on a macro level. He gets 12 stacks of stats and throws them all away except 1 (reported in the Dayton Daily News). He could look at things over a 3 yr. period, but from his quote it's clear he looks at this years numbers (with small, small sample sizes) and reports it's all too silly to look at anything else. This is the worst kind of analysis. The GM needs to explain to him how things look on a macro level. Can he?

RedsManRick
06-25-2007, 06:17 PM
I take a very simple approach to pythag. Teams playing under their pythag aren't likely to get worse. Teams playing above it aren't likely to get better. Will they regress to the mean? Not necessarily -- but they probably won't get much more extreme.

So it tells me that Oakland is probably better than Seattle, Yankees are better than the Blue Jays, and the Padres are better than LA. Beyond that, wins are wins.

deltachi8
06-25-2007, 06:17 PM
Yeah, but what does it mean? I don't think I reduced it to anything. The way I see it, it means that sometimes you are better than your pythag and sometime you aren't. With that in mind, it will even out by the end. Which means, to me, that it isn't a very good assessor of a team's success or future success. Which means it is semi-useless to useless.

Except for the fact that it is pretty darn accurate.

westofyou
06-25-2007, 06:18 PM
Lastly, i wish Narron would look at things on a macro level. He gets 12 stacks of stats and throws them all away except 1 (reported in the Dayton Daily News). He could look at things over a 3 yr. period, but from his quote it's clear he looks at this years numbers (with small, small sample sizes) and reports it's all too silly to look at anything else. This is the worst kind of analysis. The GM needs to explain to him how things look on a macro level. Can he?

Gene Mauch once said :

When the game begins you throw away the book and you make your decisions according to the situation, but there’s no cut and dried strategy. It varies from game to game, situation to situation.

Jerry Narron once said:

Gene Mauch gives us the intensity to battle back.

Thus I'll assume that Jerry's answer to your question would be the same (or about the same) quote as Mauch's.

PuffyPig
06-25-2007, 06:19 PM
So this quote:



basically means nothing. That's like saying "Sometimes the pythag is right and sometimes it's wrong." Sweet theory.

No, that's not what it means.

What it means is that if you are playing below your pythag, you will eventually hit your pythag if you keep playing the way you do, or you will eventually sink to it's level by starting to play worse.

What it means is the pythag is usually right.

D-Man
06-25-2007, 06:42 PM
Considering how great Griffey's been and how much offense he's generated this season that he didn't generate last season, it's mind boggling how this team is still managing to be 35 runs worse this season compared to last season.

I don't think anyone expected the offense to stay the same as last year. Given the moves toward solidifying the defense--retaining Phillips, bringing in AGon, moving Griffey from center--plus the likely regression of Ross and Hatteberg, I don't think there was any question the offense would take a step backwards.


The Reds' current pythag projection has them as pretty much an 89-90 loss team. Those types of teams are just bad teams no matter which way you look at it. Last season, they had a pythag projection of 86 losses, and while the pythag projections are somewhat close, it's still on a current pace to go 35 runs in the wrong direction.

True, however, the second and third order Pythagorean projections have the Reds at 82 and 86 losses, respectively, i.e., a club of equal or better quality than last year's edition.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php

I think my record on this issue has been one of consistent skepticism. Overall, these data points serve as guideposts. If a team has wild deltas in actual v. predicted wins, it is likely to bounce. As is the case here with the Reds.

On the other hand, if a team *consistently* has up and down deviations from its predicted wins, then I suppose there can (and should) be alternative explanations for what is going on. I think that rings true for me with these Reds--so many years with these wild variances suggest this issue may be systemic. The GABP and its HR-inflation create an atmosphere where the Pythagorean projections mean less than they do elsewhere.

edabbs44
06-25-2007, 07:17 PM
Except for the fact that it is pretty darn accurate.

So are the actual standings. They are frighteningly accurate.

jojo
06-25-2007, 07:20 PM
I take a very simple approach to pythag. Teams playing under their pythag aren't likely to get worse. Teams playing above it aren't likely to get better. Will they regress to the mean? Not necessarily -- but they probably won't get much more extreme.

So it tells me that Oakland is probably better than Seattle, Yankees are better than the Blue Jays, and the Padres are better than LA. Beyond that, wins are wins.

Wash your mouth out with soap..... even if it's true there are some things that just shouldn't be said. :nono:



:all_cohol

gonelong
06-25-2007, 09:39 PM
So are the actual standings. They are frighteningly accurate.

They are pretty good at telling you where you are, but they don't give you much insight on where you might be headed.

The Pythag was a topic last year because the Reds were "in cotention".

The Pythag isn't at topic this year because degrees of wretchedness are not quite as fun to split hairs over.

GL

paintmered
06-25-2007, 09:57 PM
Perhaps it's the nature of the beast - I've always struggled with the concept because the only thing that matters ultimately is what actually happens. And yet, I've taken some solace from the fact that the Phythag says we should be better - not that it does any good - we're still stinking up the universe!

The Pythagorean theorem of baseball accurately predicts the number of wins with a standard deviation of 4 wins.

So in other words, it's pretty accurate about 70% of the time - and that is good enough for it to be a useful tool to gauge performance.

edabbs44
06-25-2007, 10:08 PM
The Pythagorean theorem of baseball accurately predicts the number of wins with a standard deviation of 4.2 wins.

So in other words, it's pretty accurate about 70% of the time - and that is good enough for it to be a useful tool to gauge performance.

Pretty accurate about 70% of the time?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e393/jonilee/SexPanther1.jpg

jojo
06-25-2007, 10:11 PM
Pretty accurate about 70% of the time?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e393/jonilee/SexPanther1.jpg

Would you reject a system that predicted the winning lottery numbers because it was accurate only 70% of the time?

paintmered
06-25-2007, 10:13 PM
Pretty accurate about 70% of the time?

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e393/jonilee/SexPanther1.jpg

Well, yeah. The accuracy for the Pythagorean theorem is a normal distribution. No statistical method is going to provide a 100% answer. Just because it isn't doesn't mean it's a failure. On the contrary, the Pythagorean theorem is quite good at what it does.

edabbs44
06-25-2007, 10:14 PM
Would you reject a system that predicted the winning lottery numbers because it was accurate only 70% of the time?

1) It was a joke. My Lord.

2) At what point does the pythag predict the final record? Or does it just predict what your record is at that time?

edabbs44
06-25-2007, 10:15 PM
Well, yeah. The accuracy for the Pythagorean theorem is a normal distribution.

I'm not saying 70% is bad. It's that it is pretty accurate about 70% of the time.

paintmered
06-25-2007, 10:19 PM
2) At what point does the pythag predict the final record? Or does it just predict what your record is at that time?

The Pythagorean theorem actually calculates a winning percentage. That can be multiplied against the number of games played or 162 to project full season results.

Here's some required reading on it:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=342

paintmered
06-25-2007, 10:20 PM
I'm not saying 70% is bad. It's that it is pretty accurate about 70% of the time.

It was simply my attempt to put into words that the single sigma for the formula is 4.039 wins.

bucksfan2
06-26-2007, 09:45 AM
I mean no offense to anyone who likes this projection but I think it is foolish. This is a method of projecting something on paper that cant take into consideration small outside influences that effect the outcome of a game. If this projection were right on then why even play the game?

Johnny Footstool
06-26-2007, 09:48 AM
Gene Mauch once said :

When the game begins you throw away the book and you make your decisions according to the situation, but there’s no cut and dried strategy. It varies from game to game, situation to situation.

Jerry Narron once said:

Gene Mauch gives us the intensity to battle back.

Thus I'll assume that Jerry's answer to your question would be the same (or about the same) quote as Mauch's.

I love that Narron has modeled himself after a guy with a career .483 winning percentage and 2 first place finishes in 28 years.

westofyou
06-26-2007, 09:52 AM
I love that Narron has modeled himself after a guy with a career .483 winning percentage and 2 first place finishes in 28 years.

Well, if you know anything about the situations that he managed under you'd probably disregard that winning percentage argument.

Kinda like Casey Stengel and Joe Torre prior to New York.

westofyou
06-26-2007, 09:53 AM
I mean no offense to anyone who likes this projection but I think it is foolish. This is a method of projecting something on paper that cant take into consideration small outside influences that effect the outcome of a game. If this projection were right on then why even play the game?

Math is foolish eh?

37red
06-26-2007, 10:16 AM
What's fun about this kind of thread is it's like the Ole Black 8 ball as a kid. You ask it questions and it gives answers that are "relevant" no matter what the question was.

bucksfan2
06-26-2007, 10:19 AM
Math is foolish eh?

Math is not foolish but when you subject math to sporting projections it doesn't work. There are way too many outside influences in order to determine an acurate projection. Can math tell why a ball took a bad bounce? Can math tell you why an umpire made a bad call? Can math tell you why a ball traveled an inch over the outreached glove of an outfielder? I find it hard to believe that a formula used to find the legnth of a side of a right triangle can tell me how many games the reds should win. And then I find it hard to believe that I should feel a little better because the reds are playing worse than that # and things should get better.

M2
06-26-2007, 10:23 AM
Math is not foolish but when you subject math to sporting projections it doesn't work.

Tell that to the Vegas sports books.

westofyou
06-26-2007, 10:26 AM
Tell that to the Vegas sports books.

Memories....... http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11888

rdiersin
06-26-2007, 10:44 AM
Math is not foolish but when you subject math to sporting projections it doesn't work. There are way too many outside influences in order to determine an acurate projection. Can math tell why a ball took a bad bounce? Can math tell you why an umpire made a bad call? Can math tell you why a ball traveled an inch over the outreached glove of an outfielder? I find it hard to believe that a formula used to find the legnth of a side of a right triangle can tell me how many games the reds should win. And then I find it hard to believe that I should feel a little better because the reds are playing worse than that # and things should get better.

No, it can't. But it can try and catagorize those events as random processes. Sporting "projections" are no different than many other things. Take your heating for example. We don't know everything that is going on in the system, but we can measure the temperature (and there are random inputs here as well as in doors opening, ovens turned on, etc.). Same in baseball, we have things that we can accurately measure in runs scored and runs allowed. We then have a function(pythag) that gives a "winning" percentage, or rather, an estimate of the winning percentage. It so happens that when we compare the estimate with the measured and look at the error, that the estimate is a reasonable estimate. What math does is gives us a way to catagorize this error, and that is the beauty of it. So no, we can't tell exactly how an umpire affects the games, or a bad bounce, but we can, in spite of those things, charactarize those effects.

texasdave
06-26-2007, 10:45 AM
Just for kicks I decided to see how Pythag sees the rest of the season playing out. Take each team's games left and multiply it by its current Pythag winning percentage . Take those 'forecasted' wins and add them to each team's current won/loss record. Here is how Pythag sees the rest of the season shaking out.



nl-east pxw pxl al-east pwon ploss
nym 89 73 bos 101 61
phi 82 80 nyy 87 75
atl 78 84 tor 84 78
fla 77 85 bal 74 88
wsn 66 96 tbd 69 93
nl-cent pwon ploss al-cent pwon ploss
mil 90 72 det 98 64
chc 82 80 cle 93 69
hou 71 91 min 84 78
stl 69 93 kcr 67 95
cin 68 94 chw 66 96
pit 66 96 al-west pwon ploss
nl-west pwon ploss laa 100 62
sdp 97 65 oak 89 73
lad 88 74 sea 83 79
ari 88 74 tex 70 92
col 80 82
sfg 76 86


NLDS: Milwaukee brews Los Angeles; while San Diego baptizes the Mets.
NLCS: San Diego exorcises Milwaukee.

ALDS: Boston beans Cleveland; while LAA 'harp'oons Detroit.
ALCS: Boston stamp acts LAA.

World Series: Boston dumps San Diego into the harbor of baseball also-rans and takes the title.

Other items of note:
1) No New York Yankees in the playoffs. The Evil Empire in decay. :beerme:
2) The Chicago White Sox go from World Champs in 2005 to worst record in baseball just two short years later. Ozzie! Ozzie! Ozzie! :(
3) The Reds neither lose 100 nor secure the worst record in baseball. They emerge from the NL-Central cellar and will draft 5th in June 2008. :)

bucksfan2
06-26-2007, 10:54 AM
Tell that to the Vegas sports books.

I was always under the understanding that the Vegas sports books only cared about getting as much action on both sides of the number. The wanted the bets equal on both sides to collect the 10% they take on every bet.

redsmetz
06-26-2007, 10:57 AM
This is pure poetry - great job all around.


Just for kicks I decided to see how Pythag sees the rest of the season playing out. Take each team's games left and multiply it by its current Pythag winning percentage . Take those 'forecasted' wins and add them to each team's current won/loss record. Here is how Pythag sees the rest of the season shaking out.



nl-east pxw pxl al-east pwon ploss
nym 89 73 bos 101 61
phi 82 80 nyy 87 75
atl 78 84 tor 84 78
fla 77 85 bal 74 88
wsn 66 96 tbd 69 93
nl-cent pwon ploss al-cent pwon ploss
mil 90 72 det 98 64
chc 82 80 cle 93 69
hou 71 91 min 84 78
stl 69 93 kcr 67 95
cin 68 94 chw 66 96
pit 66 96 al-west pwon ploss
nl-west pwon ploss laa 100 62
sdp 97 65 oak 89 73
lad 88 74 sea 83 79
ari 88 74 tex 70 92
col 80 82
sfg 76 86


NLDS: Milwaukee brews Los Angeles; while San Diego baptizes the Mets.
NLCS: San Diego exorcises Milwaukee.

ALDS: Boston beans Cleveland; while LAA 'harp'oons Detroit.
ALCS: Boston stamp acts LAA.

World Series: Boston dumps San Diego into the harbor of baseball also-rans and takes the title.

Other items of note:
1) No New York Yankees in the playoffs. The Evil Empire in decay. :beerme:
2) The Chicago White Sox go from World Champs in 2005 to worst record in baseball just two short years later. Ozzie! Ozzie! Ozzie! :(
3) The Reds neither lose 100 nor secure the worst record in baseball. They emerge from the NL-Central cellar and will draft 5th in June 2008. :)

Kc61
06-26-2007, 11:12 AM
The Reds have allowed one more run than Philly.
The Reds have scored 33 fewer runs than Philly (over about 75 games).
The Reds are 10.5 games behind Philly.

The Reds have allowed 4 more runs than St. Louis.
The Reds have scored 38 more runs than St. Louis.
The Reds are 5.5 games behind St. Louis.

The Reds have allowed 15 more runs than Houston.
The Reds have scored 16 more runs than Houston.
The Reds are 3 games behind Houston.

The Reds have allowed 1 fewer run than Florida
The Reds have scored 19 fewer runs than Florida.
The Reds are 7 games behind Florida.

Pittsburgh has allowed 70 more runs than it has scored.
Cincinnati has allowed 41 more runs than it has scored.
The Reds are 2.5 games behind Pittsburgh.

Given its runs scored v. runs against, it seems to me the Reds' record should be better than it is. Why is this? Chance? Something else?

Johnny Footstool
06-26-2007, 11:23 AM
Well, if you know anything about the situations that he managed under you'd probably disregard that winning percentage argument.

Kinda like Casey Stengel and Joe Torre prior to New York.

Yeah, yeah, lousy teams and whatnot.

Of course, if he truly was a good manager, wouldn't he have inspired those lousy teams to perform better?

And wouldn't some of his proteges have been decent, unlike Narron and Bob Boone?

Mauch was the epitome of a micro-manager, and he passed that "skill" on to his pupils.

Heath
06-26-2007, 11:26 AM
Lastly, i wish Narron would look at things on a macro level. He gets 12 stacks of stats and throws them all away except 1 (reported in the Dayton Daily News). He could look at things over a 3 yr. period, but from his quote it's clear he looks at this years numbers (with small, small sample sizes) and reports it's all too silly to look at anything else. This is the worst kind of analysis. The GM needs to explain to him how things look on a macro level. Can he?

You can't teach a macro level to a micro-manager. There is no other reasoning with Narron that explains Norris Hopper's playing time and Juan Castro pinch-hitting for Josh Hamilton.

westofyou
06-26-2007, 11:45 AM
Yeah, yeah, lousy teams and whatnot.

Of course, if he truly was a good manager, wouldn't he have inspired those lousy teams to perform better?

And wouldn't some of his proteges have been decent, unlike Narron and Bob Boone?


The Twins were pretty lousy and they surprised for a short span, as did the Phillies, who were truly horrible when he showed up, plus the Expos were a respectable expansion team.

As for his legacy players, he's certainly not churning out future hall of famers, however that doesn't lessen his knowledge or impact on the men played for him.

My point is all the time folks throw up their hands and act like everything that Narron does is somehow new, and unique to the Reds, I just see the same act of the same play every day of every game of every year, they're all nuts and they all do something that we all wouldn't do. And the only thing unique about it is that we've all yet to figure out that it's not going to ever change completely nor as fast as we'd like it to.

M2
06-26-2007, 11:47 AM
I was always under the understanding that the Vegas sports books only cared about getting as much action on both sides of the number. The wanted the bets equal on both sides to collect the 10% they take on every bet.

They want action on both sides of the number for protection, but ultimately they want the majority of bets to be losing bets. Otherwise they make no money.

As we know, the sports books make a tremendous amount of money. So how do they set the (starting) lines to achieve that? Hint: it's got something to do with math (and information, but there's a lot of math involved).

flyer85
06-26-2007, 11:51 AM
The casinos want to limit exposure thus they want close to same amount bet on each side, that is why the betting line moves. The casino makes their money on vigorish That way they make money regardless of the outcome

M2
06-26-2007, 12:10 PM
Well, if you know anything about the situations that he managed under you'd probably disregard that winning percentage argument.

Kinda like Casey Stengel and Joe Torre prior to New York.

I don't have a problem with the notion that a bad team can have a good manager. Yet, if you had a good team, would you want Jerry Narron to manage it? I wouldn't.

As for Mauch, I'm guessing he'd be a disaster in the modern game. He'd have managed his team into too many outs (check out his clubs' SB-CS ratios) and his fondness for weak bats and going to the whip on his starting pitchers likely would lead to some run scoring and runs allowed calamities.

flyer, from what I understand, the leading sports books are looking to beat the vig % these days.

Cooper
06-26-2007, 12:35 PM
The typical gambler and micro-managing topics kind of merge.

They both believe that any action is good action.

They both believe in streaks -and being hot. In a big, big way. Mr. Narron has no concept of the odds staying the same on a coin flip -he believes that if there have been 8 heads in a row --then there is a great chance there will be a 9th. (we had a thread about this -3 months ago).

They both believe they have more influence on a positive outcome than they really do.

They both believe negative outcomes are random without influence.

They both believe being the feeling of being close to winning is better than winning. e.g "i made a great move, but then we got a bad bounce and lost...i was this close"....

Listen to their language when they speak about close losses. Both almost hyperventilate when describing the action.

Mr. Narron is a loser --he loves the action. I would hope he would get smart, but there's no reason for him to do so.

texasdave
06-26-2007, 01:47 PM
Considering how great Griffey's been and how much offense he's generated this season that he didn't generate last season, it's mind boggling how this team is still managing to be 35 runs worse this season compared to last season.

A couple of items stick out after a cursory glance while comparing the stats for the first 76 games of both the 2006 and 2007 seasons.

On offense extra base hits are down some. But walks are down significantly.



YEAR HITS 2B 3B HR XBH BB
2006 22.5% 4.9% 0.3% 3.5% 8.7% 10.3%
2007 22.7% 3.9% 0.5% 3.7% 8.1% 8.1%


As far as the extra base hits are concerned, much of that can be explained by the slow starts of Dave Ross and Edwin Encarnacion. After 76 team games last year the two had combined for 42 XBH in 331 PA (12.7%). In 76 team games this year they have 27 XBH in 442 PA (6.1%). Since both seem to be on the way out of their respective batting funks this margin should narrow as 2007 continues on.
In regards to the decline in BB%, this may be due to the hitting philosophy of the new batting coach. It will be cause for concern if it doesn't correct itself to some degree. Trading walks for outs is never a good thing.


On the pitching side the problem may well be lie with inherited runners.



YEAR IR IS IS%
2006 159 32 20.1%
2007 148 54 36.5%


Inherited runners are scoring at almost twice the clip in 2007 as they did in 2006. If inherited runners scored at the 20.1% rate in 2007 there would have been 24 less runners score. (30 as opposed to 54). Fix that bullpen, Wayne. Perhaps the 20.1% rate from 2006 was flukishly low, and a 36.5% rate is to be expected. I just do not know.

dfs
06-26-2007, 02:08 PM
They want action on both sides of the number for protection, but ultimately they want the majority of bets to be losing bets. Otherwise they make no money.

I really like most of your posts, but that's just wrong. The oddsmakers never try and decide who is going to win, they want the line in the middle of what people will bet. They make money on each bet, not on who wins and loses. They lose money when the betting is not evenly distributed and the majority wins.

Johnny Footstool
06-26-2007, 02:35 PM
The typical gambler and micro-managing topics kind of merge.

They both believe that any action is good action.

They both believe in streaks -and being hot. In a big, big way. Mr. Narron has no concept of the odds staying the same on a coin flip -he believes that if there have been 8 heads in a row --then there is a great chance there will be a 9th. (we had a thread about this -3 months ago).

They both believe they have more influence on a positive outcome than they really do.

They both believe negative outcomes are random without influence.

They both believe being the feeling of being close to winning is better than winning. e.g "i made a great move, but then we got a bad bounce and lost...i was this close"....

Listen to their language when they speak about close losses. Both almost hyperventilate when describing the action.

Mr. Narron is a loser --he loves the action. I would hope he would get smart, but there's no reason for him to do so.

Excellent post!

Here, have a few hundred expired "1 Rep Point" coupons.

PuffyPig
06-26-2007, 04:11 PM
I really like most of your posts, but that's just wrong. The oddsmakers never try and decide who is going to win, they want the line in the middle of what people will bet. They make money on each bet, not on who wins and loses. They lose money when the betting is not evenly distributed and the majority wins.

That's correct. The reason the line moves is based on supply and demand. It's moves simply to even out the betting. If a particular team is a sentimental favorite which moves more betters to bet in it's favour, the betting line actually will be less that their actual chances to win as oddsmakers will want to encourage bettors to go the other way.

paintmered
06-26-2007, 05:37 PM
I mean no offense to anyone who likes this projection but I think it is foolish. This is a method of projecting something on paper that cant take into consideration small outside influences that effect the outcome of a game. If this projection were right on then why even play the game?

Because you have to play the games to make the projection.

bucksfan2
06-27-2007, 08:49 AM
That's correct. The reason the line moves is based on supply and demand. It's moves simply to even out the betting. If a particular team is a sentimental favorite which moves more betters to bet in it's favour, the betting line actually will be less that their actual chances to win as oddsmakers will want to encourage bettors to go the other way.

To take it even a step further don't most of the Casino sports books pair up with each other? I thought I heard that Caesers runs a couple of sports books and it would make sense that that would pair up to aleviate some of the risk.

jojo
06-27-2007, 09:11 AM
I'm starting to think the division isn't winnable. Maybe it's time for the Reds to focus on winning the wild card?

KronoRed
06-27-2007, 10:39 AM
I'm starting to think the division isn't winnable. Maybe it's time for the Reds to focus on winning the wild card?

Only 14.5 back with the rest of the NL in front :cool:

37red
06-27-2007, 10:53 AM
Now that's a challenge! That's almost as challenging as thinking of a world series at the start of the season. But I fall for the excitement every time they winn two in a row, which isn't very often. I don't think a wild card is in the crystal ball this year.

M2
06-27-2007, 11:32 AM
I really like most of your posts, but that's just wrong. The oddsmakers never try and decide who is going to win, they want the line in the middle of what people will bet. They make money on each bet, not on who wins and loses. They lose money when the betting is not evenly distributed and the majority wins.

Traditionally no, but I believe that's changed with some houses and they now cherrypick some games. I could swear I read something back around the turn of the century to that effect (about how sports books are moving into brave new worlds, essentially taking cues from the bond trading market). The basic idea is that if the house is able to pick winners at a certain (high) percentage, it can drop its vig, attract more bets and increase its profit margin.

Your local bookie won't be doing this, but I believe some of the elite betting parlors in Vegas do. They're in competition with each other (online as well) to take your money.

redsrule2500
06-27-2007, 12:13 PM
I remember in the late 90's when the Reds were very streaky, we would have a 12 game winning streak in the midst of a losing season.

That's what we need right now, but go ahead and make it 19 games, and then we will be right back in it. :)

membengal
07-10-2007, 01:51 PM
Bumping up, just because I was curious where we stood on the pythag pace to date...

IslandRed
07-10-2007, 04:17 PM
RS - 418; RA - 454

Actual record: 36-52
Pythag: 40.5-47.5
2nd order pythag: 43-45
3rd order pythag: 41-47

The 2nd-order pythag is based not on runs, but the component parts of runs; the 3rd-order extends that to incorporate the quality of opposition faced.

By the way, BP is running a free preview week.

RedsManRick
07-10-2007, 04:20 PM
RS - 418; RA - 454

Actual record: 36-52
Pythag: 40.5-47.5
2nd order pythag: 43-45
3rd order pythag: 41-47

The 2nd-order pythag is based not on runs, but the component parts of runs; the 3rd-order extends that to incorporate the quality of opposition faced.

By the way, BP is running a free preview week.

Looking at just 3rd Order pythags, 41-47 puts us in 3rd place by half a game over Houston. Narron probably still has his job and Krivsky is talking about how to make up the 7.5 game deficit. Funny how that works out.