One Paragraph on Comforting Math

by Basil on Mar 27, 2007 8:12 AM EDT in News

Apparently, Buster Olney of the Four Letter ventures to say the Nats could be as bad as a 130-loss team. Funny Olney should pick that number. There is, of course, a relationship between a team's run differential and its winning percentage. While the relationship strains considerably as a team's wins or losses approach the edges of what is common, let's do a quick experiment with the Pythagorean formula. Over the past two decades (excluding strike years), the most runs allowed in a season is 1103 (Tigers, 1996) and the least runs scored in a season is 548 (Dodgers, 1992). If you plug those figures into Pythagoras, you get . . . a 32-130 record. Thus, in order for the Nats to be that inept---historically inept---they will require not only the worst pitching of recent memory but also the worst hitting (so bad it will match the worst performance of the five years leading up to the Offensive Explosion). I feel like I'm beatin' down a straw man, but to be clear about it: that ain't happenin'. As Capitol Punishment points out, a reasonable projection (as opposed to a subsequent result) is bad but not groin-grabbingly awful. And the reason is quickly apparent. Even allowing for an ultimate doomsday pitching scenario, it's impossible to project an offense sufficiently impotent to allow the team to reach even '62 Mets/'03 Tigers levels. Could that happen? Maybe, I guess. But it's not something you can credibly project beforehand. They say good pitching wins (many) ballgames. I suppose the corollary is you can't lose (many) ballgames unless you have bad hitting. Double that when discussing the chances of an historic result.

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

To be fair

They only really have to have a Pythag projection of 120+ losses and some bad luck in 1 run games.

Seriously though, one team EVER has lost more than 120 games and that was in 1899. I'm going to guess that isn't happening this year. The offense is close to average so even if the pitching is somehow worse than last year (a possibility) the team still isn't going to go much past 100 losses.

Jeopardy Answer: Bill Bavasi, Wayne Krivsky. Jeopardy Question: Who are two guys much dumber than Jim Bowden?

by harper on Mar 27, 2007 11:05 AM EDT reply actions

You know

the more I think about this team, the more I think people are wrong. I don't think they're going to lose 100. The rotation was horrible last year, but they still managed to win 71 games. Both the offense and the bullpen are decent. Hell, statistically speaking, one out of those four new starters has to have a decent year. They'll lose 90, but they aren't going to lose 100, especially given the Mets rotation - what a mess that is. For people who like offense, a Mets-Nats game this year will probably be good for that. I mean, the Mets will have more offense, of course, but Zimmereman, Kearns, and Lopez will have no problems beating up on the Mets staff.

I heart Ryan "Brooks" Zimmerman.

by Daedalus on Mar 29, 2007 1:25 PM EDT reply actions

Olney

Actually, no, Buster Olney did not say the Nationals could lose 130. He relayed an anecdote about MLB scouts who have a pool going about how many losses the Nationals would have. Olney reported that in the scouts' pool the low end was 105 and the high end was 130.

Joe Sheehan at Baseball Prospectus projected their record using the above formula and came out with 57-105.

Boswell said Vegas had the over/under at 94.

If I had to guess, I'd say 98-102. In part because I think they are going to get rolled in interleague play.

by RPS on Mar 29, 2007 4:23 PM EDT reply actions