PDA

View Full Version : Scott Freaking Rolen



Phhhl
09-05-2010, 04:10 AM
I don't know what you guys are thinking about Scott Rolen, but I believe he has come close in social status in this country to a reality tv star. I mean, winning a presidency has nothing on that, right? I know he has only hit 1 homer in the last two months, but the guy is changing the way I evaluate players. I can no longer afford to be jaded about the pure statistics of these players. No doubt, judging players against the league average replacement has value. But,only if you intend to be average. Rolen’s effect on the Reds is something that cannot be entirely quantified statistically. Anyone with any talent on the Reds this year has had moments when they played the game like an amateur, either on the bases or defensively. Base running mistakes seem to show up every night. I point out the game on Friday against the Cards as one where simple incompetence in multiple fundamental skills of the game conspired to cost this team runs and ultimately a win. Even as good as Joey Votto is, he has been guilty of ridiculously stupid mistakes this season too, just like everyone else except for... wait for it... Scott Rolen.

My argument for Rolen is based on the fact that he catches absolutely everything pony expressed down the left field line, and puts on a clinic every time he throws a baseball across an infield. Even if his power hitting is fading, the rest of his game has barely eroded. He works a pitcher like Derek Jeter and never gets outsmarted. At the plate, the only thing you see is that he is occasionally behind a fastball. But, even then, he manages to foul off a tough pitch almost at will, and tends to work the pitcher into a position where he eventually gives up a hittable pitch.

On top of all of this, the guy is the best coach on the staff.

Kirk Gibson is the guy I compare Rolen to most. If the Reds win it all, his role will rank up with the bloody sock, Gibson and Bill Mazeroski. Magic.

remdog
09-05-2010, 06:03 AM
Nicely stated.

Rem

icehole3
09-05-2010, 06:09 AM
for years I tried to make that point Santo, it turns you into public enemy no.1 around this forum, tread lightly on this subject or you'll be treated like a witch in Salem

RedsBaron
09-05-2010, 08:17 AM
Good post Santo, and I agree with you about Rolen.
I think the problem a lot of stats minded fans have with giving a player "extra credit" for contributions that cannot be statistically measured is that it can become an all purpose way to highly rank a player a person likes, regardless of the facts, i.e., 'ole Joe only hit .245 but he hustles and is a "holler guy" who inspires the team, that kind of thing.
I'm reminded of something Jayson Stark wrote in his book "The Stark Truth" about Pete Rose: "The energy emanating from Pete Rose, the baseball player, was so overpowering, you could have plugged every TV in America into his uniform. His numbers probably suggest he was overrated by the time he got to Philadelphia. But I saw, with my personal ocular lenses, that this man had a quality underestimated by any numbers. Anyone who thinks it's a coincidence that the 1980 Phillies won the only World Series in franchise history (the book was published in 2007) after Rose showed up must also think it's a coincidence that cars always stop when the light turns red. Pete Rose lifted that team to a different level-in the standings, in October, and in their heads. Don't tell me I hallucinated that. I saw it." I can recall the 1980 Phillies, and the effect Rose had on Mike Schmidt, and Stark is correct (In the same book Stark ranked Rolen as the fifth most underrated third baseman of all time).
In in his "New Bill James Histroical Baseball Abstract," Bill James recognized that leadership can be "real and sometimes significant" even if it cannot be statistically measured, and listed the following players who should be given credit for their leadership skills: Joe DiMaggio, Ken Boyer, Bob Gibson, Carlton Fisk, George Brett, Hal McRae, Gil Hodges, Pee Wee Reese, Pete Rose, Joe Morgan (I don't know how James left Jackie Robinson, Frank Robinson and Tony Perez off that list).

SunDeck
09-05-2010, 08:36 AM
I always had the impression from quotes by the guys who were not part of the BRM elite that Rose wasn't much of a leader, unless you consider this to be a good example. Said to Hal King during a rough plane flight:


We're going down. We're going down and I have a .300 lifetime average to take with me. Do you?

jojo
09-05-2010, 09:22 AM
For the sake of context, stats-minded fans were giddy about Rolen's addition last season.

BCubb2003
09-05-2010, 09:42 AM
I think the problem is when "veteran presence" is all you can say about the aging, declining player you could afford to add. Reds fans have been through that before. The flip side is overvaluing the young, athletic but erratic player whose playing time is being blocked.

kaldaniels
05-13-2011, 11:22 PM
Hey stat experts...is there anything to the gaudy difference of the Reds W-L percentage with and without Rolen in the lineup. I don't have it in front of me but FSN displayed it tonight. I gotta think the sample size is getting pretty big at this point.

Cedric
05-13-2011, 11:25 PM
Hey stat experts...is there anything to the gaudy difference of the Reds W-L percentage with and without Rolen in the lineup. I don't have it in front of me but FSN displayed it tonight. I gotta think the sample size is getting pretty big at this point.


He's a better player than the Reds other options. Why is it surprising the Reds win more when he's playing?

kaldaniels
05-13-2011, 11:30 PM
He's a better player than the Reds other options. Why is it surprising the Reds win more when he's playing?

As I said Cedric, the numbers were staggering. Much moreso than the 5 or so WAR that Rolen is at best. C'mon man bring something better than that to an honest question. I really don't know what angle you are getting at with an answer like that.

Sorry if I'm curt people. I just sometimes hope for a good ole answer, not a condescending/mocking one. (You know what I mean)

Blitz Dorsey
05-13-2011, 11:35 PM
Yo brother, pass that over heeerreee.

Cedric
05-13-2011, 11:37 PM
As I said Cedric, the numbers were staggering. Much moreso than the 5 or so WAR that Rolen is at best. C'mon man bring something better than that to an honest question. I really don't know what angle you are getting at with an answer like that.

Sorry if I'm curt people. I just sometimes hope for a good ole answer, not a condescending/mocking one. (You know what I mean)

I wasn't being rude. A better player creates more depth in a lineup and veterans like Rolen really grind out at bats and wear out opposing pitchers.

kaldaniels
05-13-2011, 11:39 PM
I wasn't being rude. A better player creates more depth in a lineup and veterans like Rolen really grind out at bats and wear out opposing pitchers.

I understand, no harm no foul. And I agree with your point here. I wish someone could come up with the numbers cause they blew my mind to see in print.

Quatitos
05-13-2011, 11:40 PM
As I said Cedric, the numbers were staggering. Much moreso than the 5 or so WAR that Rolen is at best. C'mon man bring something better than that to an honest question. I really don't know what angle you are getting at with an answer like that.

Sorry if I'm curt people. I just sometimes hope for a good ole answer, not a condescending/mocking one. (You know what I mean)

I think I remember in 2008 that the same stats for Jerry Hairston jr was just as staggering. Now that said, I believe that was much more from luck than the effect Rolen has on this team. You can't only point to something like a teams record when a player is in the lineup or not, but with the other evidence towards Rolens leadership it can be used to show that the effect is real and significant.

Quatitos
05-13-2011, 11:41 PM
I understand, no harm no foul. And I agree with your point here. I wish someone could come up with the numbers cause they blew my mind to see in print.

I can't remember the exact numbers they used, but the winning percentage was like .600 with, and .451 without and that is through about a month and a half short of 2 full seasons.

kaldaniels
05-13-2011, 11:43 PM
I think I remember in 2008 that the same stats for Jerry Hairston jr was just as staggering. Now that said, I believe that was much more from luck than the effect Rolen has on this team. You can't only point to something like a teams record when a player is in the lineup or not, but with the other evidence towards Rolens leadership it can be used to show that the effect is real.

I don't think for a moment that luck is not involved with the numbers vis a vis Rolen. However, is it possible, that Rolen is more valuable than his 5 WAR shows? (I know, a dangerous question)

To my initial question, lets say it is luck that the Reds record is what it is when Rolen plays. I ask, what are the odds that there would "luckily" be such a difference.

RedsManRick
05-13-2011, 11:45 PM
Hey stat experts...is there anything to the gaudy difference of the Reds W-L percentage with and without Rolen in the lineup. I don't have it in front of me but FSN displayed it tonight. I gotta think the sample size is getting pretty big at this point.

In short, no there's not - not in so far as we can/should assume that the difference is attributable to his absence (above and beyond the talent different between him and his replacement).

kaldaniels
05-13-2011, 11:47 PM
I tivo'd the game...I forgot!

With Rolen 107-71
Without 37-45

Quatitos
05-13-2011, 11:47 PM
I don't think for a moment that luck is not involved with the numbers vis a vis Rolen. However, is it possible, that Rolen is more valuable than his 5 WAR shows? (I know, a dangerous question)

To my initial question, lets say it is luck that the Reds record is what it is when Rolen plays. I ask, what are the odds that there would "luckily" be such a difference.

I was trying to say that it could be from luck by referencing JHJ in 2008, but that I don't believe that the effect Rolen has had is from luck but actually from his overall impact on the team.

757690
05-13-2011, 11:51 PM
In short, no there's not - not in so far as we can/should assume that the difference is attributable to his absence (above and beyond the talent different between him and his replacement).

If the difference is significantly bigger than what his talent would dictate, I don't see how one cannot at least look to see if there is something else going on.

But what I get most out of that is that there are enough games on both sides for it to be important. We can't make the same judgement on say Votto or Phillips, because they aren't missing from the lineup enough.

kaldaniels
05-13-2011, 11:56 PM
If the difference is significantly bigger than what his talent would dictate, I don't see how one cannot at least look to see if there is something else going on.

But what I get most out of that is that there are enough games on both sides for it to be important. We can't make the same judgement on say Votto or Phillips, because they aren't missing from the lineup enough.

Exactly. I wasn't even looking for a baseball explanation. I was looking for a statistical explantion. (i.e., from someone who knows about confidence intervals and the like)

Patrick Bateman
05-14-2011, 12:28 AM
I tivo'd the game...I forgot!

With Rolen 107-71
Without 37-45

The truth is likely somewhere between you and Cedric.

The Reds are better with Rolen no doubt, but the Reds have been lucky too when in the line-up. It's counter intuitive to think that Rolen can change the skill level of the team to that degree by simply being on the field rather than in the dugout. It's just not logical. Otherwise, even more skilled teams, like the Cardinals of the past would have won 115+ games annually. They didn't because a large sample will weasel out clearly ridiculpus stats with no merit like those shown in this thread.

WVRedsFan
05-14-2011, 12:51 AM
I'm learning these new fangled stats, but a lot of sports is not measureable with stats. The value of a player is one of those. Rolen is a leader in a quiet way. There is a reason why OCab and Renteria and Rolen always end up making a team better and looking at at least two of the three seems to indicate that stats are not the only measurement. Why do these players seem to promote winning while on the field even if they don't have superior stats? It has a lot to do with what many call "chemistry." No one can really define it. It's not luck and in some cases, it's impossible to call it skill, but it's there. Walt Jocketty is a master of finding these players, which is one f the reasons why I'm very happy he is our GM.

757690
05-14-2011, 12:55 AM
The truth is likely somewhere between you and Cedric.

The Reds are better with Rolen no doubt, but the Reds have been lucky too when in the line-up. It's counter intuitive to think that Rolen can change the skill level of the team to that degree by simply being on the field rather than in the dugout. It's just not logical. Otherwise, even more skilled teams, like the Cardinals of the past would have won 115+ games annually. They didn't because a large sample will weasel out clearly ridiculpus stats with no merit like those shown in this thread.

How do you know that the Cardinals during Rolen's weren't really 80 win teams without him?

This is pure speculation, but one factor may be that having Rolen in the lineup changes the way that pitchers approach the other players? I don't think we have to dismiss this effect as magic or luck just because we can't find a specific stat to tie it to.

757690
05-14-2011, 12:59 AM
I'm learning these new fangled stats, but a lot of sports is not measureable with stats. The value of a player is one of those. Rolen is a leader in a quiet way. There is a reason why OCab and Renteria and Rolen always end up making a team better and looking at at least two of the three seems to indicate that stats are not the only measurement. Why do these players seem to promote winning while on the field even if they don't have superior stats? It has a lot to do with what many call "chemistry." No one can really define it. It's not luck and in some cases, it's impossible to call it skill, but it's there. Walt Jocketty is a master of finding these players, which is one f the reasons why I'm very happy he is our GM.

Well written post. :beerme:

He might be the best I've ever seen at finding that "Q" factor. And I have always thought that the key to being an exceptional GM is finding those players. Identifying those players that project to have the best production is easy. Consistently finding those that out produce their projections is the tricky part.

kaldaniels
05-14-2011, 12:59 AM
The truth is likely somewhere between you and Cedric.

The Reds are better with Rolen no doubt, but the Reds have been lucky too when in the line-up. It's counter intuitive to think that Rolen can change the skill level of the team to that degree by simply being on the field rather than in the dugout. It's just not logical. Otherwise, even more skilled teams, like the Cardinals of the past would have won 115+ games annually. They didn't because a large sample will weasel out clearly ridiculpus stats with no merit like those shown in this thread.

What stats are ridiculous and without merit? I agree with the points you have made.

WVRedsFan
05-14-2011, 01:02 AM
What stats are ridiculous and without merit? I agree with the points you have made.Probably none of them to a person who lives on stats. And Kal, I'm learning, but I will always believe that some things cannot be measured in all sports, not just baseball. It's a flaw.

kaldaniels
05-14-2011, 01:03 AM
Probably none of them to a person who lives on stats. And Kal, I'm learning, but I will always believe that some things cannot be measured in all sports, not just baseball. It's a flaw.

Absolutely. There are always immearsurables.

traderumor
05-14-2011, 09:10 AM
Scott Rolen in the lineup and at 3b is better than Francisco/Cairo/Janish/Valiaka? It is a difference like Rose/Foster was better than Vukovich/Rose. I don't think that needs much research and documentation if you follow the sport.

kaldaniels
05-14-2011, 09:56 AM
Scott Rolen in the lineup and at 3b is better than Francisco/Cairo/Janish/Valiaka? It is a difference like Rose/Foster was better than Vukovich/Rose. I don't think that needs much research and documentation if you follow the sport.

But traderumor, the question is not, does Rolen make the Reds better when he is in the lineup, that is a simple question.

The question is based on the fact that we have a 5.0 WAR player, but based on W-L, he is more like a 20+ (or more) WAR player. Of course that is absurd and there is luck involved, but is there more than meets the eye to it?

traderumor
05-14-2011, 10:15 AM
But traderumor, the question is not, does Rolen make the Reds better when he is in the lineup, that is a simple question.

The question is based on the fact that we have a 5.0 WAR player, but based on W-L, he is more like a 20+ (or more) WAR player. Of course that is absurd and there is luck involved, but is there more than meets the eye to it?As I understand it, you are begging the question since WAR isn't a measure of a team's record with a particular player in the lineup, but how many wins he will contribute to the bottom line of the team by being in the lineup. Trying to extrapolate from the team's record his contribution seems about like catcher's ERA to me, whereby you are trying to make a correlation where there is not one.

The argument might be better stated that adding a 5 WAR player to a good team might have an exponential effect on the team's record. Add that 5 WAR player to a below average team, and they will improve, but not as dramatically. And I state that as a hypothesis.

RedsManRick
05-14-2011, 10:16 AM
If the difference is significantly bigger than what his talent would dictate, I don't see how one cannot at least look to see if there is something else going on.

But what I get most out of that is that there are enough games on both sides for it to be important. We can't make the same judgement on say Votto or Phillips, because they aren't missing from the lineup enough.

Something else? Maybe. But is that something else Rolen specifically? We don't know. Just because his absence is correlated with a substantially lower win percentage doesn't mean his absence caused it.

Sample size is very important, but the law of large numbers includes an assumption of random sampling. If your sample of games is biased (not representative of the full population of games), then no sample size will make it so.

It could very well be that Rolen's absences have corresponded with other things that contribute to the Reds playing worse: other players' absences, tough schedules, poor pitching performances, etc.

And even with that sample size and even if the sample is representative, it could still just be "dumb luck" -- random variation. There's a science to sample size having to do with the amount of variance in the distribution of possible outcomes. Over a full season, most projection systems observe a SD of about 6 games. That is, even if your best guess says a team is an 86 win team, that's actually saying that there's a 68% chance the team is an 80-92 win team and a 95% chance it's a 74 to 98 win team.

I haven't seen the Rolen win% posted here, but what might look like a difference that can't be explained by randomness could very well fall in that reasonable range. And again, you can only really look at that if and when you've established that there aren't any other correlative factors (or accounted for their effect).

As for the idea that there's some positive contribution a guy makes not measurable in his performance, I'd certainly concede the possibility. However, I seriously doubt it would be any where remotely close the scale it would need to be to account for that additional observed difference. I'd also question whether the effect was limited to when the guy was actually in the lineup (as opposed to being on the team/in the clubhouse). It strikes me that if it does exist, a good deal of it would occur whether or not the guy was in the lineup on a given day.

Patrick Bateman
05-14-2011, 01:23 PM
How do you know that the Cardinals during Rolen's weren't really 80 win teams without him?

This is pure speculation, but one factor may be that having Rolen in the lineup changes the way that pitchers approach the other players? I don't think we have to dismiss this effect as magic or luck just because we can't find a specific stat to tie it to.

Because adter Rolen left, the Cardinal players did not play like chickens with their head cut-off. Their players did not all magically get worse. They were not 20 wins worth.

There's a reason that Scott Rolen is not paid upwards of 100M a year which is what is suggested free agent worth would be right now annually.

I think there might be some effect. I don't have enough info., and neither does anyone here to make a conclusive determination. But I think we need to dig a little deeper than about 2 seasons worth of stats to claim that this outlier makes Scott Rolen the first 20 win player in baseball history.

kaldaniels
05-14-2011, 01:28 PM
No one has said he is a 20 win player.

dougdirt
05-14-2011, 01:36 PM
No one has said he is a 20 win player.

Sure they did. Someone said how do we know the Cardinals weren't an 80 win team without Rolen? Given that they won 100 games, that suggests he was worth 20 wins.

Patrick Bateman
05-14-2011, 01:38 PM
As I said Cedric, the numbers were staggering. Much moreso than the 5 or so WAR that Rolen is at best. C'mon man bring something better than that to an honest question. I really don't know what angle you are getting at with an answer like that.

Sorry if I'm curt people. I just sometimes hope for a good ole answer, not a condescending/mocking one. (You know what I mean)

I was more or less responding to this when you suggested that Cedric was more or less being ridiculous to suggest that the Reds improved record has something to do with Rolen being better than his replacements.

The records that you posted with Rolen vs. without him would suggest a 24 win difference over a 162 game schedule, which correct me if I'm wrong, but you have been arguing is mainly a result of Scott Rolen's influence rather than a statistical bump in the records.

As well I am responding to this post made by a seperate poster:



How do you know that the Cardinals during Rolen's weren't really 80 win teams without him?

This is pure speculation, but one factor may be that having Rolen in the lineup changes the way that pitchers approach the other players? I don't think we have to dismiss this effect as magic or luck just because we can't find a specific stat to tie it to.

Which is an argument that Scott Rolen is the influence causing this stat. So yes, it is being argued, and no, he's not a 24 win player worth $120M.

757690
05-14-2011, 02:02 PM
Because adter Rolen left, the Cardinal players did not play like chickens with their head cut-off. Their players did not all magically get worse. They were not 20 wins worth.

There's a reason that Scott Rolen is not paid upwards of 100M a year which is what is suggested free agent worth would be right now annually.

I think there might be some effect. I don't have enough info., and neither does anyone here to make a conclusive determination. But I think we need to dig a little deeper than about 2 seasons worth of stats to claim that this outlier makes Scott Rolen the first 20 win player in baseball history.

First, the Cards averaged 89 wins a season with Rolen, so I was only asking if they would gain around 9 wins by having him in the lineup. and with him being a 5 win player based on stats, that's only a 4 win extra difference based on his "presence."

We'll never know, because the only way to know would be to get into a DeLorean and play this seasons with someone else as the Cards 3B. What they did after he left is rather meaningless, as their roster changed enough to make it impossible to attribute any difference in success on just one player.

Now I wasn't even suggesting that this was true, just pointing out that we don't know that it isn't true. And that's my biggest point. We don't know the true effect that Scott Rolen or any one player has on a team's success. These stats that we create help us get a decent guess, but they are far from definitive and precise.

kaldaniels
05-14-2011, 02:23 PM
That's for the clarification. Like I said no one said he IS a 20 win player. As for me, I wanted an answer from a statisical POV, which only Rick has obliged. Is the improvement within the margin of error?

Brutus
05-14-2011, 04:08 PM
I certainly don't think Rolen is a 20-win player, but understanding the psychology of the workplace should lead anyone to believe that there are far more affects on a lineup and its players than just what is physically brought to the field.

The intangibles, and specifically, the presence of another individual, can absolutely be uplifting and inspiring to other individuals, and can have a contagious result. Sometimes it can help to achieve better max results in others. I alluded to this in the past in managerial discussions, but I once took a course on psychology for managing a group of phone retailers, and it was amazing to see how certain things can impact psyche, morale and production.

That the Reds can be so much better than just Rolen's physical output is not only logical, but it's to be expected by human nature if he's the steadying force in the clubhouse it appears he is. Of course, that's under an assumption that he does have an affect on others, but if that's the case, it would make sense then that those players perform more closely to their maximum potential when they're in the right frame of mind.

jojo
05-14-2011, 09:28 PM
Hey stat experts...is there anything to the gaudy difference of the Reds W-L percentage with and without Rolen in the lineup. I don't have it in front of me but FSN displayed it tonight. I gotta think the sample size is getting pretty big at this point.


The argument might be better stated that adding a 5 WAR player to a good team might have an exponential effect on the team's record. Add that 5 WAR player to a below average team, and they will improve, but not as dramatically. And I state that as a hypothesis.

To test this hypothesis, letís put some numbers on this to see if the magnitude of the indirect/intangible effect is plausible.

Since Rolen joined the Reds, they are 107-71 (Win%=.601) when he starts and 37-45 (Win%=.451) when he doesnít start. Since the number of games arenít the same for the condition in that split, lets assume this is a real, repeatable effect and extrapolate to a full season to get a sense of the magnitude of such an effect. With Rolen starting an entire 162 game season, the Reds would win 97 games. They would only win 73 without him in the starting lineup for a whooping difference of 24 wins (or think a swing of 240 runs for pythag). Thatís huge but nonetheless, is it possible? Remember the deal that brought Garza and Barrett to the Rays? By adding Bartlett, the Rays dramatically impacted their run prevention be realigning their defense as the addition of Bartlett allowed several players to move back to their natural positions. In other words, adding Bartlett lifted the production of several players and that trade probably resulted in pythag swing of close to 60 runs just due to the expected impact on the defense alone.

But was the case with Rolen? He was pretty much a straight up swap with EE with little impact reverberating across the rest of the defense.

To try and answer that, lets first look a little closer at the direct impact that Rolen has had on production at third for the Reds over the with/without him split. As a Red he has posted a slash line of 276/.356/.459 (OPS=.815; wOBA=.357) and a UZR/150=11.8. His replacements have posted a slash line of .261/.330/.364 (OPS= .695; wOBA= .313) with a UZR/150=-3 (an approximation based upon 770 defensive innings). Lets compare Rolen versus his replacements over a full season to see what his impact would be. Assuming his wOBA and UZR, Rolen would be a +14 run bat, a +11.8 run glove while heíd also get 20 runs for the difference between an average and replacement level bat and 2.5 runs for his position adjustment. This calculus would make Rolen a 48+run player (4.8 WAR) over a full season given what heís done as a Red. His replacements over a similar amount of playing time would be a mythical player with a -9 run bat, a -3 run glove while still getting 22.5 runs for position and the replacement adjustments making ďhimĒ a 10.5 run player or a 1.5 WAR player. In other words, the direct impact of Rolen upon production at third would equate to a roughly 3.3 WAR (win) upgrade. Thatís absolutely huge of course, but itís not anywhere near 24 wins (22 wins if one wants to normalize the season to be consistent with the playing time in the above analysis).

So lets consider his indirect impact on the rest of the roster. Is it plausible that having him on the field could raise the performance of his teammates to the tune of 20+ wins especially given his addition basically doesnít dramatically realign the defense or even have a significant impact on the batting order? For perspective, that would mean his addition indirectly altered pythag by roughly 200 runs.

Some have claimed itís intuitive that a positive work environment has a significant positive effect on everyoneís production. While I donít disagree per se that a positive environment certainly makes work more enjoyable, such a statement in the context of this issue frankly begs the question that Rolenís addition dramatically altered team chemistry and that team chemistry has a tremendous impact on winning percentage. Furthermore, even if it were true that Rolen positively impacted the clubhouse environment, why would that dramatically change when he wasnít starting? In other words, this just isnít a likely trigger that can explain the ďwith Rolen/without RolenĒ split.

Iím willing to entertain an argument that suggests Rolen might have a 2 win effect on his teammates especially since having him start can impact bench usage and game theory etc but 20 wins? It just doesnít seem plausible. The split as it currently stands is interesting because of the eye popping disparity that is consistent with intuition and romance but itís a difference that is most likely to regress much closer to 3 wins given enough time. A roster is an extremely complicated beast so IMHO, trying to find underlying causes for the disparity beyond happy randomness is most likely chasing ghosts.