Hire Farrell? (12/5: 2018 Option Exercised)

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,674
Maine
How low were pre season expectations? We signed one of the best SPs in baseball (Price) and traded for one of the best closers (Kimbrell) and also for one of the best set up guys in baseball (Smith) Most also figured 3B, 1B and LF would be a major improvement over 2015. I'm not sure what *your* expectations were, but I think most people thought we would be right in the middle of the playoff race throughout the season, which of course we have been.
Fangraphs pre-season predictions (recorded 1/12/2016) had the Sox winning the AL East
SB Nation predicted 3rd in AL East
ESPN 31 "expert" predictions = 8/31 to win AL East, 5/31 picked them to be a wildcard, 4/31 picked them to win AL pennant, 0/31 picked them to win WS
Yahoo 6 "expert" predictions = win total ranging 85-90, 1/6 to win AL East, 3/6 to finish 2nd, 2/6 to finish 3rd, 3/6 making a wildcard spot. None picked them to win AL or WS. (also some curious prop bet style picks at the bottom)
CBS 5 "expert" predictions = 1/5 to win AL East, 2/5 to finish 2nd, 1/5 to finish 3rd, 1/5 to finish 4th, 2/5 to take a wildcard spot, 0/5 to win AL or WS.
Bleacher Report predicted 3rd in AL East (87 wins)
Sports Illustrated predicted 2nd in AL East (92 wins)http://www.si.com/mlb/2016/03/25/2016-mlb-season-team-previews

Seems like the sweet spot for most predictions was in contention for the division and the wildcard spots right to the end, with a win total in the 85-90 range. From a general overview perspective, the team is more or less right on target for where they were expected to be. From the up close, see every detail perspective, the season looks a lot worse than it is, especially considering a lot of what has happened hasn't exactly been according to plan. In some ways, I think some folks are failing to see the forest for the trees.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
You guys do realize that preseason projections mean fuck-all, right? They're an estimation on a certain level of expected performance, when nobody has any real, quantifiable, inside information on how players will actually perform. Or if they'll get hurt. Or if they're in shape, out of shape, depressed, nursing a lagging injury, feeling fantastic, trying all new mechanics, going through a rough divorce, or any other insane number of variables that could potentially affect what happens on the field.

It's also possible to have a good record and be in a position to make the playoffs and still underperform. "We're tied for 1st!" is not a valid response to a discussion on relative underperformance. This team has a ton of talent, and it's not unreasonable to suggest they should be ahead of Toronto (and particularly Baltimore,) not treading water with them.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,992
Newton
It's also possible to have a good record and be in a position to make the playoffs and still underperform. "We're tied for 1st!" is not a valid response to a discussion on relative underperformance. This team has a ton of talent, and it's not unreasonable to suggest they should be ahead of Toronto (and particularly Baltimore,) not treading water with them.
I think I read this post of yours in 2011.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
I keep losing track of where the goalposts are.
Well in your case, right now the goalposts seem to be "the team knows its own talent levels and win expectancy in the preseason, and so long as they claim they are performing in line with those, criticizing the manager for perceived underperformance is dumb." And several others are pointing out how indefensibly stupid that argument is, regardless of whether JF is actually guilty of poor management this year or not.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
Well in your case, right now the goalposts seem to be "the team knows its own talent levels and win expectancy in the preseason, and so long as they claim they are performing in line with those, criticizing the manager for perceived underperformance is dumb."
Absolutely nailed it.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
This team has a ton of talent, and it's not unreasonable to suggest they should be ahead of Toronto (and particularly Baltimore,) not treading water with them.
You do realize that a presumed "ton of talent" means fuck-all, right? It's an estimation on a certain level of expected performance, when nobody has any real, quantifiable, inside information on how players will actually perform. Or if they'll get hurt. Or if they're in shape, out of shape, depressed, nursing a lagging injury, feeling fantastic, trying all new mechanics, going through a rough divorce, or any other insane number of variables that could potentially affect what happens on the field.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
You do realize that a presumed "ton of talent" means fuck-all, right? It's an estimation on a certain level of expected performance, when nobody has any real, quantifiable, inside information on how players will actually perform. Or if they'll get hurt. Or if they're in shape, out of shape, depressed, nursing a lagging injury, feeling fantastic, trying all new mechanics, going through a rough divorce, or any other insane number of variables that could potentially affect what happens on the field.
Yes, the ACTUAL performance this season over 120+ games of Betts, JBJ, X, Porcello, Price, Pedroia, Kimbrel, and Wright (among others) means fuck-all.

Good show.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
The other teams have good players, too.
That's not even remotely close to the point, but since you're going there: the other teams have lesser run differentials but similar records.

The point was that you can't bank anything on preseason projections. They mean nothing, and a lot has changed since then. This squad has serious talent (as shown by the numbers,) but still playing a bit under where they should be. A projection system that had the Sox at 90 wins is useless to bring up as injuries, unexpected performances (both high and low) and trades have changed much of the landscape.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
That's not even remotely close to the point, but since you're going there: the other teams have lesser run differentials but similar records.

The point was that you can't bank anything on preseason projections. They mean nothing, and a lot has changed since then. This squad has serious talent (as shown by the numbers,) but still playing a bit under where they should be. A projection system that had the Sox at 90 wins is useless to bring up as injuries, unexpected performances (both high and low) and trades have changed much of the landscape.
The point is expecting "where they should be" because of their "serious talent" is just as useless as banking on preseason projections.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Throw projections out the window. One thing that is irrefutably true is that the Sox pythag has them at 75.4 wins (vs. current total of 71) and on pace for 96.2 wins (vs. current pace of 90.5). That as much as anything should be held against the manager.

Edit: it should be mentioned that by pythag, the Sox came up 2.5 wins short last year; on the mark in 2014 (0.3 short); and 4.8 wins short in 2013. So over the course of Farrell's tenure to date they have underperformed their pythag by roughly 12 games in total
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
The point is expecting "where they should be" because of their "serious talent" is just as useless as banking on preseason projections.
Meanwhile, you can keep harping on "serious talent" while ignoring the content and numbers behind the post, or we can have an actual adult discussion.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
Throw projections out the window. One thing that is irrefutably true is that the Sox pythag has them at 75.4 wins (vs. current total of 71) and on pace for 96.2 wins (vs. current pace of 90.5). That as much as anything should be held against the manager.
Thank you.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,674
Maine
That's not even remotely close to the point, but since you're going there: the other teams have lesser run differentials but similar records.

The point was that you can't bank anything on preseason projections. They mean nothing, and a lot has changed since then. This squad has serious talent (as shown by the numbers,) but still playing a bit under where they should be. A projection system that had the Sox at 90 wins is useless to bring up as injuries, unexpected performances (both high and low) and trades have changed much of the landscape.
If we're going by the numbers, they're under-performing by 3 games according to run differential calculations. Meanwhile, the team they're tied atop the division with is under-performing by 2 games relative to their run differential. So, even if they (and every other team in the league) were performing as their "serious talent" would indicate, they'd still be exactly where they are right now...in a dogfight for the division.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
Throw projections out the window. One thing that is irrefutably true is that the Sox pythag has them at 75.4 wins (vs. current total of 71) and on pace for 96.2 wins (vs. current pace of 90.5). That as much as anything should be held against the manager.

Edit: it should be mentioned that by pythag, the Sox came up 2.5 wins short last year; on the mark in 2014 (0.3 short); and 4.8 wins short in 2013. So over the course of Farrell's tenure to date they have underperformed their pythag by roughly 12 games in total
We talked about this a bunch in the old Farrell thread; while his career record vs. Pythag does not help JF's case, I think you also have to concede that there are a lot of other factors that influence that number, luck and chance among them. Esprcially over a single season. I looked at a bunch of managers' career records vs. Pythag and, for example, His Holiness Joe Maddon has a couple single-season win deficits greater than any of Farrell's, and last I looked was averaging less than 1 win over Pythag per season for his career. Showalter is in roughly the same boat.

It's one of many suggestive but highly debatable indicators. And I say that as a JF pessimist. Of course, it's no weaker than treating a preseason win projection with a 6 game margin of error as a conclusive barometer of managerial performance in late August, but again, don't hold your breath for anyone around here to acknowledge the limitations of their own preferred evidence.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,234
If we're going by the numbers, they're under-performing by 3 games according to run differential calculations. Meanwhile, the team they're tied atop the division with is under-performing by 2 games relative to their run differential. So, even if they (and every other team in the league) were performing as their "serious talent" would indicate, they'd still be exactly where they are right now...in a dogfight for the division.

But it doesn't matter what other teams are doing.



(and, as I understand it, the two things most likely to skew pythag results are blowout wins and losses and shitty/great bullpens).
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
We talked about this a bunch in the old Farrell thread; while his career record vs. Pythag does not help JF's case, I think you also have to concede that there are a lot of other factors that influence that number, luck and chance among them. Esprcially over a single season. I looked at a bunch of managers' career records vs. Pythag and, for example, His Holiness Joe Maddon has a couple single-season win deficits greater than any of Farrell's, and last I looked was averaging less than 1 win over Pythag per season for his career. Showalter is in roughly the same boat.

It's one of many suggestive but highly debatable indicators. And I say that as a JF pessimist. Of course, it's no weaker than treating a preseason win projection with a 6 game margin of error as a conclusive barometer of managerial performance in late August, but again, don't hold your breath for anyone around here to acknowledge the limitations of their own preferred evidence.
Agree with every bit of this post, but I think the eye test helps in this regard, at least when considering this year's team: just a ton of close and late losses, with a lot of blowout wins. Somewhere I read that 16 of their last 18 losses have come by only 27 runs. So it's good that they aren't getting blown out, but they are losing so many close games and it is dragging down their overall record vs. their pythag, and in this case I think that is fair to hang on the manager (not that the bullpen has helped)
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,234
Agree with every bit of this post, but I think the eye test helps in this regard, at least when considering this year's team: just a ton of close and late losses, with a lot of blowout wins. Somewhere I read that 16 of their last 18 losses have come by only 27 runs. So it's good that they aren't getting blown out, but they are losing so many close games and it is dragging down their overall record vs. their pythag, and in this case I think that is fair to hang on the manager (not that the bullpen has helped)
Whether its fair or not, how does it compare to other managers? (This is where the eye test fails, unless you watch a lot of baseball..)
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
The Cubs are 5 games under their Pythag. Maybe we can hire Maddon when the Cubs fire him.
This is well covered ground. Maddon is letting the Cubs coast with a giant lead in the division because he's a genius. But no, Farrell didn’t do the same thing in 2013, we won in spite of him. Please keep up.

(I'm actually curious if there's any relationship between expected W-L and relative position in standings, e.g. does Pythag become less predictive for teams that are either way out of it or way ahead? It's probably too noisy to be meaningful over the kind of intervals where it would still be practically useful.)
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Whether its fair or not, how does it compare to other managers? (This is where the eye test fails, unless you watch a lot of baseball..)
Unsure. One thing I look at is record when tied after X inning. Basically if the Sox don't have a lead through 4 they aren't very good. 12-12 when tied after 5, 8-10 when tied after 6, 5-9 when tied after 7, 4-6 when tied after 8, 5-7 when tied after 9.

Compare to Buck's O's: 15-14 when tied after 5; 8-7 when tied after 6; 13-5 when tied after 7; 12-3 when tied after 8; 10-3 when tied after 9.

That is a stark contrast. And yes, the bullpen has a lot to do with it. But close, late games are where the manager DOES matter more than other situations, and the Sox don't play well in those situations.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
(I'm actually curious if there's any relationship between expected W-L and relative position in standings, e.g. does Pythag become less predictive for teams that are either way out of it or way ahead? It's probably too noisy to be meaningful over the kind of intervals where it would still be practically useful.)
Actually, the 1998 Yankees and 2001 Mariners each outperformed their pythag by 6-7 games. Interesting.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
Unsure. One thing I look at is record when tied after X inning. Basically if the Sox don't have a lead through 4 they aren't very good. 12-12 when tied after 5, 8-10 when tied after 6, 5-9 when tied after 7, 4-6 when tied after 8, 5-7 when tied after 9.

Compare to Buck's O's: 15-14 when tied after 5; 8-7 when tied after 6; 13-5 when tied after 7; 12-3 when tied after 8; 10-3 when tied after 9.

That is a stark contrast. And yes, the bullpen has a lot to do with it. But close, late games are where the manager DOES matter more than other situations, and the Sox don't play well in those situations.
I suspect the O's this year are big outliers in this area in general, and there is a sense that they have played over their heads and are coming back to earth... I'd be curious about league average in these same spots, and records for other contending teams as well. On mobile so not gonna look it up now.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
I suspect the O's this year are big outliers in this area in general, and there is a sense that they have played over their heads and are coming back to earth... I'd be curious about league average in these same spots, and records for other contending teams as well. On mobile so not gonna look it up now.
For instance, the Cubs are only 8-11 when tied after 5, 8-7 when tied after 6, 4-6 when tied after 7... wow, they really don't play a lot of close games. 8-11 tied after 5 is a remarkably small number. You would expect a team that good to be better than .500 in the late innings when tied, but I guess they are blowing out so many teams (or were earlier in the season) that these numbers just don't represent a meaningful sample. Not sure how much we can glean from these "tied after" figures. My feeling is that we should probably be using these as tools / pieces in the overall evaluation. Pythag, record in close and late, record in 1 run games, macro performance vs. expectations (both team and individual performance), eye test... you really need it all to evaluate a manager.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
For instance, the Cubs are only 8-11 when tied after 5, 8-7 when tied after 6, 4-6 when tied after 7... wow, they really don't play a lot of close games. 8-11 tied after 5 is a remarkably small number. You would expect a team that good to be better than .500 in the late innings when tied, but I guess they are blowing out so many teams (or were earlier in the season) that these numbers just don't represent a meaningful sample. Not sure how much we can glean from these "tied after" figures. My feeling is that we should probably be using these as tools / pieces in the overall evaluation. Pythag, record in close and late, record in 1 run games, macro performance vs. expectations (both team and individual performance), eye test... you really need it all to evaluate a manager.
I think you would have to include records where the score is within X runs after inning Y. Looking at ties only is too narrow. The difference between a 1 run lead and a 1 run deficit and a tie in the 5th inning is not that great.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Last night was a perfect example of the micro vs the macro.

The micro moves of when to take out Rodriguez, who should have been brought in and when during the sixth inning really illustrated what a tough job Farrell has right now.

Here's the macro: What about the decision to start Rodriguez and put Buhholz in the pen? Where does that fall on the manager vs others' input decision spectrum?
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,367
What about the organization's distaste for tune-up starts in the minors for starting pitchers coming off the DL?
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
Last night was a perfect example of the micro vs the macro.

The micro moves of when to take out Rodriguez, who should have been brought in and when during the sixth inning really illustrated what a tough job Farrell has right now.

Here's the macro: What about the decision to start Rodriguez and put Buhholz in the pen? Where does that fall on the manager vs others' input decision spectrum?
Taking one step back from this - is the argument here that Clay should have started over Edro? I think you would get very mixed input over that decision, even setting aside whether it is JF's decision to make or not.

Personally I am a JF critic but I agreed with both the decision to move Clay to the pen, and the timing of the Edro move in the 6th. Barnes' performance was bitterly disappointing but there was also some shit luck there. You could argue over which reliever gets the call in that spot, but it's pretty marginal.

My guess is that both Edro and Wright will settle in fine after their respective hiccups and the pitching will be better for it overall with Clay in the pen.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,674
Maine
What about the organization's distaste for tune-up starts in the minors for starting pitchers coming off the DL?
Rodriguez wasn't on the DL. I guess the question does apply to Wright on Friday, but unless you want to argue that a rehab start might have prevented that shakey first inning, I'm not sure how having him make a start in Pawtucket would have been all that beneficial.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
My guess is that both Edro and Wright will settle in fine after their respective hiccups and the pitching will be better for it overall with Clay in the pen.
I'm skeptical whether what happened with Wright was a hiccup or rust. I'd love to think that his first inning was not the true Wright and that the five that came later were more indicative, but I think we're starting to get a picture of who he is. He's a guy who comes out each inning and seems to either have it not have it. Each one is like it's own little adventure. When it happens in the 5th or later, the conclusion generally is that he "tired" and it's time to pull him. Maybe that's correct -- or maybe there's an alternative hypothesis.

When Wright gives up runs, he gives them up in chunks. In the last 54 innings, he has had 40 zero run innings and has had 14 innings where he has given up runs. (I'm not distinguishing between earned and unearned runs, because they all count and because he gives up lots of unearned runs because he's a knuckleballer.) In the 14 innings he's given up the following runs in those innings: 3, 5 ,1, 3, 1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 5. So, crooked numbers 12 out of 14 times, and an average of nearly 3 runs per inning when he gives up runs.

I think this is who he is. I think he's a guy who, about 20 percent of the time is going to go out and have a bad inning, and when he has a bad inning, it's bad. The other 80 percent of the time, it's great. That gives him about a 20 percent chance of putting 7 great innings together, but 80 percent of the time, he won't. I think that's who he is. At least, that's the hypothesis.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I'm skeptical whether what happened with Wright was a hiccup or rust. I'd love to think that his first inning was not the true Wright and that the five that came later were more indicative, but I think we're starting to get a picture of who he is. He's a guy who comes out each inning and seems to either have it not have it. Each one is like it's own little adventure. When it happens in the 5th or later, the conclusion generally is that he "tired" and it's time to pull him. Maybe that's correct -- or maybe there's an alternative hypothesis.

When Wright gives up runs, he gives them up in chunks. In the last 54 innings, he has had 40 zero run innings and has had 14 innings where he has given up runs. (I'm not distinguishing between earned and unearned runs, because they all count and because he gives up lots of unearned runs because he's a knuckleballer.) In the 14 innings he's given up the following runs in those innings: 3, 5 ,1, 3, 1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 5. So, crooked numbers 12 out of 14 times, and an average of nearly 3 runs per inning when he gives up runs.

I think this is who he is. I think he's a guy who, about 20 percent of the time is going to go out and have a bad inning, and when he has a bad inning, it's bad. The other 80 percent of the time, it's great. That gives him about a 20 percent chance of putting 7 great innings together, but 80 percent of the time, he won't. I think that's who he is. At least, that's the hypothesis.
I like the idea of seeing whether he "loses it" and gives up runs in bunches. But he's pitched 152 innings this year, 259 in his career, with excellent overall numbers. Why focus on the last 54 innings? (Also, if your hypothesis works, it would be interesting to see if there's evidence of Wright "resetting" himself an inning later.)
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,367
Whoops, you're right, no DL. A stronger start from ER, however, gets him deeper into the game before fading. Of course, that just changes who in the pen would get to blow it.

Whether in the minors or in garbage time in MLB, I would like the sidelined starters to get a few innings in before starting another MLB game. Side sessions just aren't game competition.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
I like the idea of seeing whether he "loses it" and gives up runs in bunches. But he's pitched 152 innings this year, 259 in his career, with excellent overall numbers. Why focus on the last 54 innings? (Also, if your hypothesis works, it would be interesting to see if there's evidence of Wright "resetting" himself an inning later.)
It's totally cherry picking to take the last 54 innings, but this season is such a tale of two seasons that it felt like that was the appropriate point at which to divide the year and ask "what's going on here"?

He started the year -- games 1-14 -- as a consistently excellent pitcher with a 2.01 ERA and only one outing that could truly be regarded as bad. And then, as if a switch was flipped, he became one of the worst, or at least a very below average pitcher, with most bad outings in games 15 to 23 and an ERA of 5.30. And those games have been marked, as I mentioned above, by meltdowns. One very bad inning, sometimes two.

On the question of whether he rebounds, there just aren't many datapoints, because if his bad inning happens after inning 3, he generally gets yanked given the conventional wisdom that he has lost it.

Just to show how telling the story of his two seasons has been in terms of giving up the big inning, his overall number of innings in which he allowed runs in the first 14 games was not that different, but his ability to limit those innings to one-run innings was dramatically different. So, 22 innings where he allowed runs and the runs allowed were: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 4, 1, 1, 1. So, 65 percent of the innings in which he allowed runs were 1-run innings (as compared to 14 percent of the time in the more recent games) and the number of runs allowed in innings when he has allowed runs jumps from 1.4 to nearly 2.7.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
We need a reporter to give us the scoop on the decision making process around activating Wright and putting Buchholz in the pen. Who was making what arguments and how stridently. What did the doctors say. What was Wright telling them by
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
This is well covered ground. Maddon is letting the Cubs coast with a giant lead in the division because he's a genius. But no, Farrell didn’t do the same thing in 2013, we won in spite of him. Please keep up.

(I'm actually curious if there's any relationship between expected W-L and relative position in standings, e.g. does Pythag become less predictive for teams that are either way out of it or way ahead? It's probably too noisy to be meaningful over the kind of intervals where it would still be practically useful.)
I'm curious as to whether pythag tends to overrate teams with particularly strong offenses, since they are prone to binge-run-scoring which sets up the pythag to say they should have several additional wins on their record per binge.

This is a little hackneyed, but if you remove the five games when they crushed Oakland and use their remaining games, their win expectancy is a .538 win pct or a few games below where they are now (77-61, .558). [Math: subtract 67 RS and 19 RA.] Sure, you could start cherry-picking a few lopsided losses and tilt it the other way. My point isn't that this exercise gets you a more accurate pythag, it's merely that a team that piles up blowout wins because they score far more runs than anyone else will have a tough time living up to a raw pythag calculation.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
You could trim both sides to make it akin to a trimmed mean. Those are known to be more stable statistics (e.g., the Dallas Fed publishes trimmed mean inflation and their former president considered it the inflation statistic of choice). So if you take out the 5 biggest wins and 5 biggest losses you'd have the 3% trimmed pythag, and you could look to see if it were more or less accurate.
 

jk333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2009
4,323
Boston
I'm curious as to whether pythag tends to overrate teams with particularly strong offenses, since they are prone to binge-run-scoring which sets up the pythag to say they should have several additional wins on their record per binge.

My point isn't that this exercise gets you a more accurate pythag, it's merely that a team that piles up blowout wins because they score far more runs than anyone else will have a tough time living up to a raw pythag calculation.
There was an article looking at run prevention versus run scoring that talked to your point; they found run prevention was slightly more important for beating the predicted pythag and that scoring a lot of runs can overstate actual wins versus pythag. But these differences are very, very small and greater for low scoring teams. Here it is.

Long story short, the article finds both pythag and pythagpat are really accurate. When looking at both statistics over 300 seasons they're very, very accurate for all teams except the lowest scoring. (and even then they're very accurate)
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
There was an article looking at run prevention versus run scoring that talked to your point; they found run prevention was slightly more important for beating the predicted pythag and that scoring a lot of runs can overstate actual wins versus pythag. But these differences are very, very small and greater for low scoring teams. Here it is.

Long story short, the article finds both pythag and pythagpat are really accurate. When looking at both statistics over 300 seasons they're very, very accurate for all teams except the lowest scoring. (and even then they're very accurate)
Thanks. Well, the data has spoken then. They do suggest a slight adjustment, e.g. one game, at the extremes, and the Sox' run scoring is at one of the extremes, but nothing more.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Watching the Yankee game and again noting a big difference between Girardi and Farrell.

Girardi tried to time getting Layne up to face a lefty due up 4th, but the inning progressed fast and the lefty came to the plate before Layne was ready. In this situation, it seems to me Farrell throws up his arms and says. Oh well, Layne's not ready, gotta let the righty stay in, what can you do, bad luck. Girardi of course, had the catcher go out to the mound for a chat, the. After the catcher slow walks back the pitcher throws over to first, then the pitcher goes through the signs with the catcher, the. Girardi calls time out and walks to the mound, and finally calls for Layne.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
Watching the Yankee game and again noting a big difference between Girardi and Farrell.

Girardi tried to time getting Layne up to face a lefty due up 4th, but the inning progressed fast and the lefty came to the plate before Layne was ready. In this situation, it seems to me Farrell throws up his arms and says. Oh well, Layne's not ready, gotta let the righty stay in, what can you do, bad luck. Girardi of course, had the catcher go out to the mound for a chat, the. After the catcher slow walks back the pitcher throws over to first, then the pitcher goes through the signs with the catcher, the. Girardi calls time out and walks to the mound, and finally calls for Layne.
I had the same criticism earlier this year. We don't stall like the Girardi's and Maddon's of the game. Farrell is obviously aware of the stall tactic being involved with the game for over 3 decades so I have to imagine he isn't a fan of it. Perhaps there are negatives we aren't considering. I mean you're essentially asking a guy to warm up double time or with less throws than he's accustomed to.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
I had the same criticism earlier this year. We don't stall like the Girardi's and Maddon's of the game. Farrell is obviously aware of the stall tactic being involved with the game for over 3 decades so I have to imagine he isn't a fan of it. Perhaps there are negatives we aren't considering. I mean you're essentially asking a guy to warm up double time or with less throws than he's accustomed to.
Only if you do it wrong.
If you have left way too little time for the guy to warm up then stalling means they are rushed. If you have them up just a little late and need a bit more time to allow them to go through their usual routine then you are good to go.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
Only if you do it wrong.
If you have left way too little time for the guy to warm up then stalling means they are rushed. If you have them up just a little late and need a bit more time to allow them to go through their usual routine then you are good to go.
I was watching the Yankee game and that's what Girardi had Layne do and that's what P91 and I are talking about. Layne literally had a mound meeting + a toss over to 1B to warm up so about 2 minutes if that.

EDIT: YES had the split screen going and you saw when Rothschild phoned to the bullpen to let them know "we're stalling, Layne is coming in ASAP."
 
Last edited: