Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Variance/Reasons for Optimism?

CubColtPacer

By CubColtPacer,
in Chicago Cubs Talk

 Share
Hairyducked Idiot All-Star

Hairyducked Idiot

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

Some fun with oversimplified math scenarios:

 

42 games is roughly the point where pythagorean win percentage is more predictive than previous season's win percentage. We have a pyth record of 21-21.

 

Baseball Prospectus's third-order wins says that our actual performance to date has been that of a .530 team.

 

Using binomial probability, if we're a .500 team, there's a 26% chance we'll be least .500 after 102 games, or roughly the trade deadline. Fangraphs is projecting it will take 86 wins to win the second wild card, and if we stayed a .500 true talent team all season there'd be a 9% chance of us getting to at least that many wins.

 

If we're a true .530 team, then .500 at the deadline would be a 43% chance and 28% chance of 86 wins.

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hawk4Hall First Round Pick

Hawk4Hall

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
Right now, we're 18-25. We've had 10 blown saves, or fall from ahead L's. of the 10, 3 stand out as games we should have won; 4/6 vs. Atlanta, 4/14 vs. San Fran, and 4/22 vs. Cincy. Give us those and we're 21-22.

Plus the offense had a really slow start. The amount of men left on base and in scoring position that didn't cross home plate really hurt.

 

That being said, this club is playing much better baseball right now.

Tracer Bullet Knoxville Smokies

Tracer Bullet

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
Man, I didn't realize that the run differential was down to only -7. That's got to be pretty hard to do and be 6 games under .500 this early in the season.

 

It's pretty crazy. The Cubs' run differential is 5 runs better than the Nationals, and yet they're 4 games behind them in the standings. The Cubs' run differential is 10 better than the Padres, and they're 1.5 games behind them. 13 runs better than the Dodgers and a half game behind, 17 runs better than the Brewers and tied, and 20 runs better than the Phillies and 1.5 games behind.

That's what happens when you give up runs late in games.

 

I didn't realize late inning runs were worth more.

Guest

Guest

Guests
Posted
Posted
Man, I didn't realize that the run differential was down to only -7. That's got to be pretty hard to do and be 6 games under .500 this early in the season.

 

It's pretty crazy. The Cubs' run differential is 5 runs better than the Nationals, and yet they're 4 games behind them in the standings. The Cubs' run differential is 10 better than the Padres, and they're 1.5 games behind them. 13 runs better than the Dodgers and a half game behind, 17 runs better than the Brewers and tied, and 20 runs better than the Phillies and 1.5 games behind.

That's what happens when you give up runs late in games.

 

I didn't realize late inning runs were worth more.

Late runs given up and less chances to score runs, equals run differentials that don't seem right. Homer, these are called cause and effect relationships. It's not just bad luck.

Guest

Guest

Guests
Posted
Posted
The 4 NL teams worse than the Cubs in bullpen ERA are a combined + 3 to their pythagorean. The Mets being 1 game under are the only team of the 4 under-performing their pythagorean.
Guest

Guest

Guests
Posted
Posted
The 4 NL teams worse than the Cubs in bullpen ERA are a combined + 3 to their pythagorean. The Mets being 1 game under are the only team of the 4 under-performing their pythagorean.

Because bullpen era is the important metric here.

Guest

Guest

Guests
Posted
Posted

Changing it to innings 7+ only adds 1 new team to the mix. The Reds, who are 1 game under their pythagorean.

 

EDIT: To speak nothing of whether or not that performance is actually indicative of the players' ability.

Cubswin11 All-Star

Cubswin11

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

At least if we are operating under negative variance the right pieces are operting well and could be traded for something at the deadline (Feldman, Wood, Dejesus)? That's all I got.

 

But the long term pieces (specifically Castro) are opening up more questions than answers, imo.

Cubswin11 All-Star

Cubswin11

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
As annoying as Castro's stagnation is, the only question involving him is "Will he be good or great as our starting SS for the next seven years?"

I know, the questions with him have to be relative to expectations. It's more realizing he might be settling into more of a good playe,r like you said, and being a 3ish WAR player for the next decade and not the 4-5+ WAR player that many have expectations for.

Tracer Bullet Knoxville Smokies

Tracer Bullet

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
Man, I didn't realize that the run differential was down to only -7. That's got to be pretty hard to do and be 6 games under .500 this early in the season.

 

It's pretty crazy. The Cubs' run differential is 5 runs better than the Nationals, and yet they're 4 games behind them in the standings. The Cubs' run differential is 10 better than the Padres, and they're 1.5 games behind them. 13 runs better than the Dodgers and a half game behind, 17 runs better than the Brewers and tied, and 20 runs better than the Phillies and 1.5 games behind.

That's what happens when you give up runs late in games.

 

I didn't realize late inning runs were worth more.

Late runs given up and less chances to score runs, equals run differentials that don't seem right. Homer, these are called cause and effect relationships. It's not just bad luck.

lol

Brian MVP

Brian

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
It feels like the same thing happened this time last year... terrible start then around early/mid May the team was actually kind of fun to watch and we all thought .500 might be a possibility and then BAM right into the tank.
Guest

Guest

Guests
Posted
Posted
11th in MLB in wOBA differential, and still a clear 4th in the division, wow.
Guest

Guest

Guests
Posted
Posted
It feels like the same thing happened this time last year... terrible start then around early/mid May the team was actually kind of fun to watch and we all thought .500 might be a possibility and then BAM right into the tank.

 

Yeah, Cubs started 15-20 last year and followed it up by going 4-20 in their next 24 games.

Hairyducked Idiot All-Star

Hairyducked Idiot

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

At the risk of this turning into the "ZOMG look how negatively varianced the Cubs are thread," this one comes courtesy of DocPeterWimsey over at BleacherNation

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/05/24/the-cubs-are-10-games-under-500-and-the-numbers-say-thats-pretty-unfair/comment-page-1/#comment-304727

 

The Cubs have a net OPS of 0.037. In the last 51 years, 94 teams have finished with a net OPS between 0.032 and 0.042. Only 6 of them finished below 0.500, with the worst have a 0.472 winning percentage (the 1967 O’s). Two more finished at 0.500, and the median record was 0.549 (89-73 in 162 games, or 25-21 in 46 games).
davell Chicago Cubs

davell

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
All you can do is laugh at the absurdity of that. Wow. I wish the common meatball could appreciate that Theo put out a pretty solid squad for his restrictions this year. It's OK though, because seeing numbers like that just make me wonder what kind of team he can put together with no handicapping. The variance thing will turn around at some point.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

Become a Caretaker

  • Member Statistics

    6,795
    Total Members
    13,056
    Most Online
    Chrisenvy
    Newest Member
    Chrisenvy
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...