Mariners Have Not Been Lucky

by Matthew on Jul 13, 2009 4:00 PM PDT in Seattle Mariners Stats

348 runs scored, 366 runs allowed. That is what some people are going to focus on as we hit the All-Star Break and more trade rumors heat up. A negative run differential and yet we are four games over .500. We must be getting lucky and just like 2007, this facade of competitiveness will come crashing down and we will rue the day if we do not take the chance now to trade for the future. Move Washburn, move Bedard, move Aardsma, move Branyan. Time to forget about 2009 and focus on 2010. Zduriencik has built a nice start, now lets give him the trade chits to add some more.

Right?

Wrong.

I talked about it 16 or so months ago and we have mentioned it several times since then. Straight pythag record is fine for a quick estimate, but we have much more advanced methods of evaluation available to us and ignoring them would be silly.

I am not going to re-hash the whole discussion, read my linked post above to get the full details. The only addition to that piece that I would add in is a correction on the strength of schedule faced by the team. Suffice to say, here is the breakdown:

Average winning percentage of Mariner opponents to date: .517

BaseRuns Scored: 367
BaseRuns Allowed: 363
Expected BsR Record: 46-42*

Even subbing in tRA for the runs allowed estimator and applying park and defense measurements leaves the team right about at their 46-42 record. The Mariners have played the third hardest schedule in baseball to date based on opponents winning percentage. The Mariners have earned their first half record.

* The formula (ignore last two lines and sub in 88 for 162 in third most bottom line):

Tweet Comment 62 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Has anyone put together a strength of schedule number based on Expected BsR record instead of actual record?

by abender20 on Jul 13, 2009 4:14 PM PDT reply actions

Not to my knowledge,

but doing so for the Ms yields a .502 SOS and would knock them from 46-42 expected record all the way down to 45-43.

by Matthew on Jul 13, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions

I suppose BsR wouldn't fully account for the weak AL West anyway.

You’d have to come up with expected Win/Loss based on RAA or something of that nature.

by abender20 on Jul 13, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Why would you suppose that?

by Matthew on Jul 13, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions

Correct me if I misunderstood your BaseRuns explanantion, but

Runs scored from the Baseruns equation uses linear weights as applied to outcomes and doesn’t take into account park factors or the talent of the opposing teams. I would assume that facing the run prevention units of Texas, Oakland, and to some extent Anaheim would aid Seattle’s offensive production. While the run prevention half of BaseRuns accounts for park factors, uses tRA, and looks at defense, the run scoring half lacks the same level of depth.

by abender20 on Jul 13, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Oakland has good run prevention

and for the most part, that stuff all evens out and it’s no different from how any RAA measurement would work.

by Matthew on Jul 13, 2009 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions

Out of curiosity

the opponents’ win % – it’s based on current numbers or win % at the time they played us?

How did we, playing in our shitty division and getting the NLW for interleague, end up with anywhere near the hardest schedule to date? Boggles the mind. What kind of range does opponents’ win % have? .520-.480 or so? This is fascinating stuff.

Also, I think it is important when talking about base runs pythag to make the distinction about what has happened and what will happen in the future. To date, the team has been outscored by 16 (real) runs so clearly it has been somewhat lucky to have a winning record. However, it has hit well enough that it should have been outscoring opponents so going forward we can expect them to keep winning.

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 13, 2009 4:24 PM PDT reply actions

For one thing, playing the NL West was actually the best thing for the M's SOS.

The NL West is currently the best NL division by a wide Margin in terms of aggregate winning percentage. Secondly, the M’s play in the second toughest division in baseball at the moment, behind only the AL East.

#34 Forever
Plugging the upside since 2006.
Never give up, never surrender!

by TheOptimist on Jul 13, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions

That last bit cannot possibly be true

our division is full of thoroughly mediocre teams. On talent, there is not one team that cracks the MLB top ten. My guess is that three quarters of the division are in the 15-30 range.

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 13, 2009 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions

True talent is one thing

But if you’re purely measuring SoS on team record, it’s true:
AL East .535 (237-206)
AL West .519 (180-167)
NL West .512 (226-215)
NL Central .494 (261-267)
AL Central .476 (210-231)
NL East .468 (205-233)

by calim on Jul 13, 2009 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions

I guess we have the benefit of having a small division

so we usually only have one goat rather than two or the occasional three you see in the central divisions.

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 13, 2009 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions

Not according to ESPN!

by Wilder. on Jul 13, 2009 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Rational Angel's fans shouldn't exist

It would make blanket propaganda much easier

Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles

by Trenchtown on Jul 13, 2009 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm pretty sure we've also won about 20 one run games

which would contribute to our lower run differential but better win-loss record

by twags on Jul 13, 2009 4:32 PM PDT reply actions

I couldn't agree more!

This is the first place I’ve seen somebody mention this. Where we’ve had a couple blow-out losses that pad the RA. Where we’ve either won the game at home by the middle of the 9th or won in a walk-off, so we’ve only had 8 or 8.1 innings instead of a full 9.

Chicks dig the long ball.

by LauraBu on Jul 13, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Of course winning or losing one run games is something of a crapshoot and winning them at the rate the Mariners have this season makes up for the skewing of the RA.

by Aaron Campeau on Jul 13, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Right.

by The Ancient Mariner on Jul 13, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Blowouts tend to be more indicative of team strength than one-run games

(which tend to be variable from year to year) so that doesn’t actually serve the argument you want to make.

by The Ancient Mariner on Jul 13, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Does the Ms schedule get easier in the second half?

Or is it just more of the same.

by ARock on Jul 13, 2009 4:40 PM PDT reply actions

No Politics.

2009 Safeco Field Record: 5-0 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 9-4

by Fin on Jul 13, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions

Huh?

That’s an odd reaction.

by The Ancient Mariner on Jul 13, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions

It was a joke.

I hate that there is no way to detect sarcasm on the internet.

2009 Safeco Field Record: 5-0 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 9-4

by Fin on Jul 13, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions

That doesn't even make sense as a sarcastic comment.

by Matthew on Jul 13, 2009 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions

"More of the same" is a popular political slogan from both stripes.

It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray

by Faux on Jul 13, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Well that's a tremendous tremendous reach

by Matthew on Jul 13, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions

I got it.

I thought it was funny.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Jul 14, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions

Even so, why should politics be capitalized?

by evanr on Jul 13, 2009 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions

It's a slogan.

by Teej on Jul 13, 2009 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions

I laughed.

I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.

by andrewgolfsalot on Jul 13, 2009 7:24 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

What would the 2008 Angels BsR Record be?

Now I would be curious about that.

2009 Safeco Field Record: 5-0 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 9-4

by Fin on Jul 13, 2009 4:53 PM PDT reply actions

Does this mean...

PLAYOFFS!?!?!?!?

by I Lick Squirrels on Jul 13, 2009 4:57 PM PDT reply actions

Maybe!

by Jaejo on Jul 13, 2009 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions

What's your opinion of the Beyond the Boxscore expected wins and expected standings, Matthew? Are they something that would make calculating the strength of schedule number easier?

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/7/8/942574/btb-power-rankings-through-tuesday

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/7/10/945355/btb-poor-mans-projected-season

by Decatur on Jul 13, 2009 4:58 PM PDT reply actions

I think they are worse than what I outlined above.

BaseRuns > wOBA on a team level.

by Matthew on Jul 13, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Better for estimating runs scored, yes.

Not better for estimating total hitting talent on a team. That one has a more niche use, and might be worse than BaseRuns for Justin’s definition of power rankings, actually.

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 13, 2009 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Somewhat interestingly, BP's third order wins agree with you.

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

According to them, the M’s have had little to no luck at all, one way or the other.

#34 Forever
Plugging the upside since 2006.
Never give up, never surrender!

by TheOptimist on Jul 13, 2009 5:04 PM PDT reply actions

I love that there are four teams in the majors way ahead of everyone in run prevention

and we’re one of them!

by seattlebruin on Jul 13, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions

It's hilarious that not only are the Nationals terrible

They’re incredibly unlucky too.

by Terminator X on Jul 13, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Bad teams tend to be unlucky

And good teams tend to be lucky. It is indicative of being the best and worst in the league

Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles

by Trenchtown on Jul 13, 2009 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

They are really underperforming this year

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 14, 2009 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions

Bad chemistry.

I actually bought a Betancourt t-shirt.

by Hopefulmsfan on Jul 14, 2009 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions

It's all Jordan Zimmerman's fault

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 14, 2009 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions

Look at the Rays...

Huh, I didn’t know they’d been so unlucky this year. BP 3rd order wins say they should have the best record in the Majors, but they’re currently 3 back in the Wild Card race.

by urchman on Jul 13, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions

What a homer article

Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles

by Trenchtown on Jul 13, 2009 5:47 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Yeah, the Mariners bias on this blog is frightening.

Come on.

---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com

by Jack Moore on Jul 13, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

Internet sarcasm ftw

Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles

by Trenchtown on Jul 13, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, I know.

The come on was to the authors.

---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com

by Jack Moore on Jul 13, 2009 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions

That's right

All I ask from the authors at this site is that they completely objectively explain to me that the Mariners are going to win the World Series this year.

by Snuffleupagus on Jul 13, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

What are trade chits?

You got slurved!

Hehehe Mark Reynolds is so awesome.

by Slurvey on Jul 13, 2009 8:09 PM PDT reply actions

Whatever this is supposed to mean, it's stupid.

by evanr on Jul 13, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

It's a fairly common phrase.

by Aaron Campeau on Jul 13, 2009 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Where did you get the winning percentage of Mariner opponents?

The SoS adjustment used by RPI and some other rankings is 1/4Win% + 1/4OppWin% + 1/4OppOppWin%. I think the first part is in there because good teams will make other teams look worse.

Another option is to do SoS recursively, calculating these win% for all 30 teams, then calculate strength of schedule based on those numbers. Rinse repeat until something stabilizes somehow.

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 13, 2009 9:35 PM PDT reply actions

Means 1/2 Win% + 1/4 OppWin% + 1/4 OppOppWin%

by calim on Jul 13, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Well I'm a bit confused now.

The formula is 1/2OppWin%, not 1/2Win%, but it appears that’s the entire RPI ranking formula, not just the strength of schedule piece.

http://www.collegerpi.com/rpifaq.html#Formula

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 14, 2009 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions

That's what RPI is

1/4 wins
1/2 opponent’s wins
1/4 opponent’s opponent’s wins

The RPI used by the NCAA basketball selection committee (the famous one that people talk about) includes an adjustment for road and home games. (It’s actually an innumerate adjustment which contains a fundamental math error, but that’s neither here nor there…) But that’s it.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Jul 14, 2009 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions