"Pyt. Record"

[jasonb13]

Just a question about the "Pyt. Rec." column - does anyone know what record is this? Is it last year's, or what is "expected" of the team (and if so, what produces this expectation figure) or something completely different?

[The Interloper]

Pythagorean Record.

Runs scored squared divided by (runs scored plus runs allowed).

[satchel]

Originally Posted by jasonb13

...does anyone know what record is this?

No, no one knows. It’s a big mystery.

[jasonb13]

Thank you - that has befuddled me for months.

[The Interloper]

Actually, I should have said:

Runs scored squared divided by (runs scored squared plus runs allowed squared). It's supposed to show what your winning percentage should be, given your runs scored and allowed. It's more accurate for rating the quality of a team.

[Bluenoser]

Pythagorean Theorem - (James)

As anyone might surmise, there is a strong correlation between runs scored/runs allowed and wins/losses. This equation expresses that correlation reasonably accurately. Rarely do teams exceed or subordinate the theorem by more than 3 wins. When they do, it's usually due to either luck or the bullpen, which in baseball terms, are sometimes synonymous. Anyway, the equation is: (runs scored * runs scored)/((runs scored * runs scored) + (runs allowed * runs allowed)) The result will give you the team's winning percentage, or at least what it should be based on how many runs they've scored and allowed.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by BruceM

Pythagorean Theorem - (James)

As anyone might surmise, there is a strong correlation between runs scored/runs allowed and wins/losses. This equation expresses that correlation reasonably accurately. Rarely do teams exceed or subordinate the theorem by more than 3 wins. When they do, it's usually due to either luck or the bullpen, which in baseball terms, are sometimes synonymous. Anyway, the equation is: (runs scored * runs scored)/((runs scored * runs scored) + (runs allowed * runs allowed)) The result will give you the team's winning percentage, or at least what it should be based on how many runs they've scored and allowed.

Last season, my current team finished with a 110-52 record, 14 games above its Pythagorean record. Now that's some gooood luck.

James is generally correct, though. Something like that is very rare.

[Kaline]

Originally Posted by ctorg

Last season, my current team finished with a 110-52 record, 14 games above its Pythagorean record. Now that's some gooood luck.

James is generally correct, though. Something like that is very rare.

I once finished an online league -10 in pyt record while the divisin winner was +8...I lost by 2 games.

I dont credit it ALL to luck, managing blowouts plays a role (put in your young/bench players for some PT or keeping the starters), bullpen (aforementioned) all make a difference...

[jasonb13]

Originally Posted by ctorg

Last season, my current team finished with a 110-52 record, 14 games above its Pythagorean record. Now that's some gooood luck.

James is generally correct, though. Something like that is very rare.

Luck...or skill? If you win a bunch of close games, it's probably due less to luck rather than having a great closer/bullpen and clutch players. Thus, a team that is over it's pythagorean record can be said to be making the most of its runs (ie - overachieving) and vice versa.

[satchel]

Originally Posted by jasonb13

If you win a bunch of close games, it's probably due less to luck rather than having a great closer/bullpen and clutch players.

Conventional wisdom (a.k.a. Elias) says the opposite: close games are more likely to be won by ‘luck’ because a neither team had the preponderance of skill needed to defeat the other team decisively.

[jasonb13]

I'm not saying that a majority of close games overall are won by luck - this is probably true. But a team that wins a majority of its own close games (75%+) is lucky - it's good under pressure.

For example, if you have a closer on the level of Rivera or Gagne, 1 or 2 runs is decisive!

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by jasonb13

I'm not saying that a majority of close games overall are won by luck - this is probably true. But a team that wins a majority of its own close games (75%+) is lucky - it's good under pressure.

For example, if you have a closer on the level of Rivera or Gagne, 1 or 2 runs is decisive!

I can see what you mean. Managerial skill. I've noticed that I am usually a larger amount over my pyt. record than the AI is, possibly because the AI doesn't take situations into account when deciding what to do enough. For instance, i will often take out all my best players in a blowout to avoid injuries, while the AI will not.

[satchel]

Originally Posted by ctorg

Managerial skill.

I agree. Good managing should be able to make the difference in close games. At the risk of sounding like Bill James, I’ll say that ‘good managing is worth x wins a year.’

[RayofHope]

Originally Posted by jasonb13

Just a question about the "Pyt. Rec." column - does anyone know what record is this? Is it last year's, or what is "expected" of the team (and if so, what produces this expectation figure) or something completely different?

It's a bunch of bollocks and a waste of OOTP space that could be given to something else in my opinion.

Ignore it.

[jasonb13]

I don't know if it's totally useless, from how it's been explained to me - It's a good way to see if your team is firing on all cylinders or if its underachieving. Not the most important thing, but it does have some use.