I knew Sewald, Steck and Sadler would kick ass. Not to mention SS adding his 10-12 managerial wins.Captain 97 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 5:26 pmYeah you were closer in wins but not because your WAR predictions were better. It was because the M's wins drastically over performed their WAR.
Not sure who "They" is but they actually nailed the WAR.
The M's had 11.5 fWAR from the position players and 14.3 fWAR from the pitchers.
Good to see SS getting some credit here.D-train wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 6:43 pmI knew Sewald, Steck and Sadler would kick ass. Not to mention SS adding his 10-12 managerial wins.Captain 97 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 5:26 pmYeah you were closer in wins but not because your WAR predictions were better. It was because the M's wins drastically over performed their WAR.
Not sure who "They" is but they actually nailed the WAR.
The M's had 11.5 fWAR from the position players and 14.3 fWAR from the pitchers.
Yes, interestingly the WAR and Pythag were in line but reality was not. It would be interesting to see if WAR or Pythag was more closely correlated with actual wins across all teams. I would think pythag would be a better indicator but who knows.gil wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:25 pmGood to see SS getting some credit here.D-train wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 6:43 pmI knew Sewald, Steck and Sadler would kick ass. Not to mention SS adding his 10-12 managerial wins.Captain 97 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 5:26 pmYeah you were closer in wins but not because your WAR predictions were better. It was because the M's wins drastically over performed their WAR.
Not sure who "They" is but they actually nailed the WAR.
The M's had 11.5 fWAR from the position players and 14.3 fWAR from the pitchers.
A conceptual problem I see with the use of WAR and similar statistics: There are two underling assumptions, (1) a team's performance is the sum of individual performance, and (2) WAR represents an individual's contribution to the team. Obviously the Ms outperformed WAR and pythagorean win-loss. I don't think that these stats account for situational performance, such as a reliever holding a one run lead in the 7th inning (as opposed to pitching a scoreless ninth in a blowout). Or a Kyle Seager (for example) going 1 for 4 with 3Ks and a bottom of the ninth single that advances a runner, versus 1 for 4 with a meaningless single in the first.
I just did a very quick look because I read your note and thought "this IS an empirical question!" And I can't help myself.D-train wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:51 pmYes, interestingly the WAR and Pythag were in line but reality was not. It would be interesting to see if WAR or Pythag was more closely correlated with actual wins across all teams. I would think pythag would be a better indicator but who knows.gil wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:25 pmGood to see SS getting some credit here.
A conceptual problem I see with the use of WAR and similar statistics: There are two underling assumptions, (1) a team's performance is the sum of individual performance, and (2) WAR represents an individual's contribution to the team. Obviously the Ms outperformed WAR and pythagorean win-loss. I don't think that these stats account for situational performance, such as a reliever holding a one run lead in the 7th inning (as opposed to pitching a scoreless ninth in a blowout). Or a Kyle Seager (for example) going 1 for 4 with 3Ks and a bottom of the ninth single that advances a runner, versus 1 for 4 with a meaningless single in the first.
