Keith Law: Cubs only good because of weak schedule

[Dr. Cub]

I tend to agree with him. I don't think this team is even close to as good as they've been playing. I'm expecting a downturn in the number of games over .500, with a finish of 78-82 wins.

 

Except that the Pythagorean Win-Loss statistic says the Cubs should be +3 over the current record (meaning they should be 58-45 right now).

 

The team has actually been unlucky by a factor of three games based on Runs Scored and Runs Allowed analysis. So the team is actually better than the record suggests, not worse as you suggest.

 

I understand the concept, thanks. I'm certainly not stating my opinion as fact, just what I feel will happen. I do not believe this offense to be consistent enough to continue winning at their current pace. It's a statistic analysis concept, not a law, and certainly not proof that the team is better than their record suggests. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

[Dr. Cub]

I tend to agree with him. I don't think this team is even close to as good as they've been playing. I'm expecting a downturn in the number of games over .500, with a finish of 78-82 wins.

 

Its a nice thing all the stats disagree with you and we are actually still underperforming our talent by a couple games.

 

BTW, those super talented Brewers you are so afraid of: still overpeforming slightly.

 

BTW, where in my post did it state that I was afraid of the Brewers?

 

Are you talking about stats like these?

 

8th in NL in RS

12th in NL in HR

10th in NL in OBP

9th in NL in SLG

9th in NL OPS

 

You're right those numbers completely refute my point.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'd also like to mention that the AL is top-heavy. They have three crap-tacular teams at the bottom of each div, plus a fourth that is on the border:

 

D Rays: 40-65

 

KC: 47-58

 

CWS: 48-57

 

TX: 46-59

 

There really isn't much depth beyond the 6 "heavy weights" (Bos, NYY, Det., Clev., Halos, and Seattle.)

 

It is worth noting that Seattle's pythag. says they should be a mere 2 games over .500. Likewise, both Anaheim and Cleveland should have three fewer wins than they do.

 

In fact, the only AL contender with a significant "positive" differential between their actual wins and their pythag wins is the Yankees, who should have 7 more wins than they do.

 

Point is that the prevailing view that the AL is head-and-shoulders above the NL may in fact be hyperbole.

 

You can't use pythag to determine that the AL is not better than the NL. They face different competition, and the AL once again cleaned up in interleague play. The AL may be top heavy, but their top is easily head and shoulders better than the NL's top.

 

It's blatantly obvious the Cubs and Brewers benefit strongly from facing 3 of the worst teams in baseball in their division, and a 4th that isn't any good at all. Plus, none of the other NL teams are particularly great. The West is balanced with 4 good teams who are preventing any one team from racking up a ton of wins. The East has 3.

[RynoRules]

I never said that the NL is better than the AL, or the negative / opposite of that. My conclusion was that the gap is not necessarily as wide as it might appear.

[jersey cubs fan]

I never said that the NL is better than the AL, or the negative / opposite of that. My conclusion was that the gap is not necessarily as wide as it might appear.

 

Well, I'm not sure how it appears to you, but it seems pretty significant to me.

[TheDude]

The West is balanced with 4 good teams who are preventing any one team from racking up a ton of wins. The East has 3.

 

The West isn't balanced with 4 good teams. 3/4 of the West represent 3/5 of the worst offenses in the NL. And because those offenses are so bad, and the ballparks are generally pitching friendly, all the teams in the West have inflated pitching numbers.

 

They may be balanced, but they aren't good. It's a wonder to me that the West isn't the same as it was a few years back, all under .500 records. Both the Cubs and the Brewers are better than all teams in the West, except perhaps the Dodgers (though with the injuries they are racking up, they probably are worse now).

[Mephistopheles]

Keith Law is worthless. He should know that while the Cubs have played a weaker schedule, the schedule doesn't cause this drastic of a turn around.

[E.J.]

The West is balanced with 4 good teams who are preventing any one team from racking up a ton of wins. The East has 3.

 

The West isn't balanced with 4 good teams. 3/4 of the West represent 3/5 of the worst offenses in the NL. And because those offenses are so bad, and the ballparks are generally pitching friendly, all the teams in the West have inflated pitching numbers.

 

They may be balanced, but they aren't good. It's a wonder to me that the West isn't the same as it was a few years back, all under .500 records. Both the Cubs and the Brewers are better than all teams in the West, except perhaps the Dodgers (though with the injuries they are racking up, they probably are worse now).

 

You realize that the Diamondbacks and Padres both have a better record than the Cubs, right?

[RynoRules]

The West is balanced with 4 good teams who are preventing any one team from racking up a ton of wins. The East has 3.

 

The West isn't balanced with 4 good teams. 3/4 of the West represent 3/5 of the worst offenses in the NL. And because those offenses are so bad, and the ballparks are generally pitching friendly, all the teams in the West have inflated pitching numbers.

 

They may be balanced, but they aren't good. It's a wonder to me that the West isn't the same as it was a few years back, all under .500 records. Both the Cubs and the Brewers are better than all teams in the West, except perhaps the Dodgers (though with the injuries they are racking up, they probably are worse now).

 

You realize that the Diamondbacks and Padres both have a better record than the Cubs, right?

 

The D-backs and Cubs are even in the loss column; SD has one less loss. Not exactly a wide berth.

[Mephistopheles]

The West is balanced with 4 good teams who are preventing any one team from racking up a ton of wins. The East has 3.

 

The West isn't balanced with 4 good teams. 3/4 of the West represent 3/5 of the worst offenses in the NL. And because those offenses are so bad, and the ballparks are generally pitching friendly, all the teams in the West have inflated pitching numbers.

 

this is incorrect circular reasoning.

 

Two of the parks are extreme pitchers parks and two of the parks are extreme hitters parks. They tend to cancel out overall. Obviously the teams that play in the uber extremes (Col and SD) need to be monitored but that's about it. LA is a pitchers park, but not that big of a deal.

 

The Padres pitching staff has been good, and it's not just Petco. The team has a the second best road ERA in the league and this isn't because of the western division.

 

In fact, in a limited sample, their team ERA on the road against teams not from the West is 3.60

[jjgman21]

I tend to agree with him. I don't think this team is even close to as good as they've been playing. I'm expecting a downturn in the number of games over .500, with a finish of 78-82 wins.

 

Except that the Pythagorean Win-Loss statistic says the Cubs should be +3 over the current record (meaning they should be 58-45 right now).

 

The team has actually been unlucky by a factor of three games based on Runs Scored and Runs Allowed analysis. So the team is actually better than the record suggests, not worse as you suggest.

 

I assume this was posted before the loss to Philly yesterday. somehow, by virtue of yesterday's 3 run loss, and tonights four run victory, or a run differential of 1 over the course of two games, the 104th and 105th of the season, the Cubs managed to gain two games in Pythag. their "should be" record is now 60-45.

 

freaking Cardinals are 12 over what they should be. has to be the 'luckiest' season in a long time.

[third eye]

Wow, that pythag is crazy. I thought the actual record was much closer than that by now. The Cubs are the only NL team with a pythag of 15 over .500. Next best is the Padres at 12 over. Hopefully there is more "evening out" to be had.

[BigSlick]

I tend to agree with him. I don't think this team is even close to as good as they've been playing. I'm expecting a downturn in the number of games over .500, with a finish of 78-82 wins.

 

Its a nice thing all the stats disagree with you and we are actually still underperforming our talent by a couple games.

 

BTW, those super talented Brewers you are so afraid of: still overpeforming slightly.

 

BTW, where in my post did it state that I was afraid of the Brewers?

 

Are you talking about stats like these?

 

8th in NL in RS

12th in NL in HR

10th in NL in OBP

9th in NL in SLG

9th in NL OPS

 

You're right those numbers completely refute my point.

 

And showing me only offensive numbers to argue my point?

 

I should have said: "The stats taken as a whole tell you the opposite."

[Tracer Bullet]

Does anyone have the actual quote from Law? I skimmed the posts, but didn't see it. For some reason, when a poster paraphrases him and lobs a personal attack at him in the same breath, I discredit the accuracy of the paraphrasing. But that's just me.

[Ender]

Wow, that pythag is crazy. I thought the actual record was much closer than that by now. The Cubs are the only NL team with a pythag of 15 over .500. Next best is the Padres at 12 over. Hopefully there is more "evening out" to be had.

 

The expected W-L for the Cubs based on stats isn't that high though, the Cubs have scored a lot more runs than they probably should have given their offense and a few less runs than their pitching should have. A huge part of the good record over the last month is the Cubs are scoring a ton of runs while hitting poorly, a .700 team OPS doesn't usually lead to a lot of wins.

 

They should be 56-49 using W3, Brewers should be 57-51, Mets should be 61-45.

[CubColtPacer]

Wow, that pythag is crazy. I thought the actual record was much closer than that by now. The Cubs are the only NL team with a pythag of 15 over .500. Next best is the Padres at 12 over. Hopefully there is more "evening out" to be had.

 

The expected W-L for the Cubs based on stats isn't that high though, the Cubs have scored a lot more runs than they probably should have given their offense and a few less runs than their pitching should have. A huge part of the good record over the last month is the Cubs are scoring a ton of runs while hitting poorly, a .700 team OPS doesn't usually lead to a lot of wins.

 

They should be 56-49 using W3, Brewers should be 57-51, Mets should be 61-45.

 

It's hard to tell if it is partly a function of how the Cubs play (forcing people into quick decisions and quick throws) or if they've just had a long streak of luck, but for the last month or two everybody makes errors when they play the Cubs. That drags down the Cubs OPS, but it leads to runs, and the Cubs have probably had the most errors comitted against them lately in the major leagues. I think the way the Cubs hit and run the bases has led to a higher than average number of errors, although some of the frequency is probably just random variation. So that needs to be taken into account when looking at team OPS and how it correlates to runs.

[wastra]

I couldn't find anything about how it's calculated, but according to this site, the Cubs have the weakest schedule in all of baseball.

 

Of course every team in the NL Central is at the bottom of that...

 

And I can't tell...is that overall schedule or just what's left?

 

And no American League team has an easier schedule than anyone in the National League...

 

That's exactly what I was wondering. I really wish I knew how that was calculated, but I imagine he considers his formula 'proprietary' and doesn't want to just give it away. I would guess it is recalculated based on the records of the teams played and yet to play.

 

My thoughts:

1) Strong teams are at a disadvantage because they win more games, thus making their schedule 'weaker' by simply playing better. Conversely, weaker teams make their schedule 'stronger' by simply playing worse than their opponents.

2) Strength of schedule in baseball only has limited, if any, value when attempting to determine how strong a team is compared to their record. Pythagorean record is a much better indicator of how well a team has played, IMO.

 

If any of the resident experts could chime in that would be excellent.

 

Not to mention that a weak team can't play itself, and neither can a strong team...hence by nature, their schedule difficulties are at least slightly skewed.

[jjgman21]

I tend to agree with him. I don't think this team is even close to as good as they've been playing. I'm expecting a downturn in the number of games over .500, with a finish of 78-82 wins.

 

Except that the Pythagorean Win-Loss statistic says the Cubs should be +3 over the current record (meaning they should be 58-45 right now).

 

The team has actually been unlucky by a factor of three games based on Runs Scored and Runs Allowed analysis. So the team is actually better than the record suggests, not worse as you suggest.

 

I assume this was posted before the loss to Philly yesterday. somehow, by virtue of yesterday's 3 run loss, and tonights four run victory, or a run differential of 1 over the course of two games, the 104th and 105th of the season, the Cubs managed to gain two games in Pythag. their "should be" record is now 60-45.

 

freaking Cardinals are 12 over what they should be. has to be the 'luckiest' season in a long time.

 

just an update. by virtue of their one run win tonight, the Cubs fell one game back in Pythag. for an expected record (based on total runs) of 60-46.

 

by virtue of the Bucs slaughter of the Cards, the Cards are now only .5 up on the Bucs for worst Pythag. in the NL, but remain ahead of the White Sox who should be 42-65.

[bukie]

Since June 3 (when the Cubs were 22-31 and arguably when their run towards the top started), the Cubs have played 26 games against winning teams, and 26 games against losing teams. They are 18-8 against losing teams, and 16-10 against winning teams. I'm not sure how that counts as fattening up on the weak teams. Sure, they're 2 games better against losing teams. Whoop-dee-doo.