Tony LaRussa: Actual W/L vs. Pythagorean W/L
by mysterui on Aug 4, 2009 3:28 PM EDT
Email
PrintTo preface this, the formula for Pythagorean W/L is 1/(1+((RunsAllowed/RunsScored)^1.63)). That's ugly in this format, I know
In today's discussion on VEB, we got into the topic on comparing actual W/L to the Pythagorean W/L of the team, based on runs scored and runs allowed. While it is impossible to know what this truly signifies, it is indeed a start and no worse a way to judge a manager than what the general baseball populace uses. With no further ado, here is the info from Tony's reign in St. Louis:
| Year | Runs Scored | Runs Allowed | Wins | Losses | Pyth Wins | Pyth Losses | +/- |
| 1996 | 759 | 706 | 88 | 74 | 86 | 76 | 2 |
| 1997 | 689 | 708 | 73 | 89 | 79 | 83 | -6 |
| 1998 | 810 | 782 | 83 | 79 | 84 | 78 | -1 |
| 1999 | 809 | 838 | 75 | 86 | 78 | 84 | -3 |
| 2000 | 887 | 771 | 95 | 67 | 91 | 71 | 4 |
| 2001 | 814 | 684 | 93 | 69 | 94 | 68 | -1 |
| 2002 | 787 | 648 | 97 | 65 | 95 | 67 | 2 |
| 2003 | 878 | 796 | 85 | 77 | 88 | 74 | -3 |
| 2004 | 855 | 659 | 105 | 57 | 100 | 62 | 5 |
| 2005 | 805 | 634 | 100 | 62 | 98 | 64 | 2 |
| 2006 | 781 | 762 | 83 | 78 | 83 | 79 | 0 |
| 2007 | 725 | 829 | 78 | 84 | 71 | 91 | 7 |
| 2008 | 779 | 725 | 86 | 76 | 86 | 76 | 0 |
| 2009 | 473 | 438 | 58 | 50 | 58 | 50 | 0 |
| Total | 10851 | 9980 | 1199 | 1013 | 1192 | 1022 | 7 |
I'll try and do this with more managers that have been with their teams for awhile. I think that I'll start with Torre's Yankees and Cox's Braves. Like I said above, I don't even know if this information is statistically significant; I'm doing this purely for information's sake
25 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I believe a "stars and scrubs" pitching staff often produces teams that beat their Pythag
Because when they lose, they loose big and the worst manager will avoid using their ace relievers when already down by 10.
See 2007: When more than once (really far too often) we would be in a hole and then Maroth, Jiminez, Mulder, or Cavazos would come in and pile on the runs for the other team. Those, lose by 10+ games hurt the Pythag but only count for one in the standings.
Check out this link to Baseball Between the Numbers...
Here. They did a very broad study of exactly this (1,000 seasons), and showed that a managers current season has essentially a zero correlation with his previous season’s performance vs. pythag.
Like teams as a whole, managers show no ability to outperform the number of runs their teams tend to score and allow.
"I'll be glad to have Ryan [Braun] help if he wants to. I'll give him a badge and he can be my deputy." - Doug Melvin
I suspected that. An R-squared value of .002? Haha
However, it says that it compared the previous season with the current season’s Pythag. That seems, to me, to be a slightly different study than what we’re looking for. What I did is probably still just randomness, but it’s not exactly the study that the book did either
Of all sad words of tongue or pen; the saddest are these: 'It might have been!'
Yeah, maybe not exactly the same thing...
I think they effectively proved that a manager has no skill in getting his team to consistenly outperform pythag in that doing so is not repeatable – one season has no relation to the next.
Red’s fans can rest easy tonight – this also means that the worst managers don’t consistently make their team’s records worse than runs scored and allowed would suggest.
"I'll be glad to have Ryan [Braun] help if he wants to. I'll give him a badge and he can be my deputy." - Doug Melvin
Sir, are you trying to suggest that Dusty Baker is not a good manager?!
brb I’m emailing Joe Morgan about this travesty
Of all sad words of tongue or pen; the saddest are these: 'It might have been!'
Please don't mention my improper apostrophe usage above...He's a stickler
"I'll be glad to have Ryan [Braun] help if he wants to. I'll give him a badge and he can be my deputy." - Doug Melvin
hahaha
Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008
by Felonius_Monk on Aug 5, 2009 7:04 AM EDT up reply actions
I posted on this
a while back and the only manager since ’96 who had outperformed his pythag by anything close to a significant number of wins was Joe Torre. Probably the Rivera Efffect.
The best variable to predict regular season and post season success is team payroll.
I have been trying to use WAR to look at this – is there any concurrence on the number of wins a replacement level team should win? I have seen values from 20 to 54….
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
That was the best estimate I saw
as well. If that is true, the 2008 Cardinals totaled 42.1 WAR and should have won 90 games. I am sure there is quite a bit of slop there.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Pythag not the right tool
Evaluating the impact of a manager on W/L records is a tricky business, but I don’t think the pythagorean analysis is the proper one. The reason is that this analysis takes the runs scored/runs allowed by the team as a given. The role of the manager is to influence the runs scored and runs allowed by the team, and hence their W/L record. He does this by every pre-game and in-game decision he makes: who to start, the batting order, aligning the defense, when to switch pitchers, to steal, hit and run, or bunt, etc. After he makes all his brilliant and/or bone-headed moves, to then analyze the W/L record versus its predicted value does not tell you if the managing helped to score more runs or prevent opponent runs.
Actually, all this analysis shows is how well the pythagorean model fits actual performance in terms of W/L. After 2200+ games, the model is only off by 7 wins. And the highest variance for any individual season is only 7 wins. Pretty good model! But it says nothing about TLR’s value.
"I always thought he was very handsome. I liked his eyes" - My late Grandmother referring to Rogers Hornsby
Probably doesn't mean much
but it is interesting that he is even or above for the last 6 years. That tends to confirm my subjective analaysis that he has become a better manager over his years with the Cardinals. I thought he was woeful to start with but I have reluctantly reached the conclusion that he is a very good manager. I do think, at this point, that we may fall back some after he’s gone.
I really don't think any of those numbers
have any statistical significance.
I always thought TLR was a decent, but overrated, manager until after the 2006 WS. He has really been an embarassment to the franchise the last couple of years.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
"an embarassment"??
What, like Michael Vick? I thin the word embarrassment is a tad strong, don’t you think?
:=8/
I hate Jason Marquis!
:=8O
DUI was embarassing.
Calling out the team for trading Chris Duncan was embarassing.
Playing Aaron Miles and Adam Kennedy in the OF at the end of last year when he didn’t get his shiny new “impact bat” when we had actual outfielders on the roster was pretty embarassing.
You could argue that some of his comments and behaviour towards the press are a bit embarassing.
I don’t think he’s a terrible manager, by MLB standards, even now, but I think you can argue he’s pulled some pretty unprofessional shit in his time.
Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008
by Felonius_Monk on Aug 12, 2009 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think the constant
sniping at the front office, throwing players under the bus, stupid lineups, stubborn refusal to recognize that his pet players are hurt or not performing, and passing out drunk at a stoplight are all very embarassing.
It is no surprise that the FO can’t sign any significant FAs with a manager that players view as one of the top three most undesirable managers to play for. As you can tell I am not a fan that believes the manager should get a huge amount of credit for the franchise’s success.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
How many significant FA's
have we gone HARD after? I think that number is pretty small, and the ones we do go after, we usually expect to sign for a team friendly amount.
Look at all the really good players we’ve managed to keep around, after exposing them to TLR for a season or less. That is way more telling IMO.
There are 3 things the average man thinks he can do better than everybody else: build a fire, run a motel, and manage a baseball team.
-- Rocky Bridges
So you don't think
the fan community deserves any credit in making those players want to play in StL? I have heard that sentiment expressed several times, but never heard any player say he signed a club friendly deal because of TLR.
I have no inside scoop on how HARD we have gone after any particular player, but the fact remains that we really haven’t signed any FAs on any significance unless you want to say Tino Martinez, Ron Gant, and David Eckstein were major acquisitions.
BTW, glad to see you are still around.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Definitely.....
I’m not saying it is all Tony’s doing that we’ve retained several guys. Just pointing out that if Tony is a part of the reason we aren’t getting FA’s, then he is also a part of the reason we are retaining guys.
Thanks. I’ve been really busy, and a little under the weather. I’m not going anywhere though.
There are 3 things the average man thinks he can do better than everybody else: build a fire, run a motel, and manage a baseball team.
-- Rocky Bridges
Do the fans really make that much of a difference.
I’m sure every player wants to be appreciated by the fans, but I believe that aside from money, the front office plays a bigger part in where a player plays than the fans or the manager does. Comittment to winning > Curtain calls.
World Series Ring > Having a player friendly manager.
Players want to be in St. Louis for the same reason they want to play for the Yankees. Because we win. I have spent alot of time in St. Petersburg (pre 2008) and the fans there were really nice and pretty baseball savvy, alot like Cards fans, but you didn’t see guys lining up to sign there. Example: If Holliday signs here for less money than he will get elsewhere, it will be because he thinks that Cardinals FO will make them legitimate contenders for the next few years, not because he was well recieved by the fans or because TLR is fun to play for.
I don't know about that...
The first few games after the Holliday trade, I did not get to see or hear, but the second series or so I got to hear on the radio/tv and the noise coming from the crowd was much different than it was a week+ before that. There was this palpable difference and the players responded to it on the field.
Without knowing Holliday it is difficult
to predict what will be important to him. Did he turn down 4/$72M from the Rox because he is greedy or because he felt he couldn’t win there? Will he sign for top dollar since most teams that can afford him will also be able to afford to be in contention? I think your point is well taken, but I have a hard time imagining that Holliday woud think the StL FO would be better than other suitors at putting a competitive team on the field. I think our chances of a home town discount would boil down to either the overwhelming adulation of the local fans or the chance to hit behind Albert. I agree with you that TLR is probably a small part of the equation, either pro or con.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
