David Cameron’s comment seems like it SHOULD be right (more clutch runs = more close games won), I’m just not sure if it is.
The most obvious question is why the also outperformed in 2006.
I think the story that makes the most intuitive sense to me is they had a very strong couple of bullpen arms but a very weak couple of mopup guys, so they turned solid losses into blowouts and won close games.
Not sure if that’s a sufficient answer.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want"
The clutch explanation is most of it. Unclear if or to what extent that is luck or them doing something right. Strong top end of the bullpen/weak mopup is just another way of saying clutch pitching on the team level.
Another hypothesis is: the most distinctive thing about their team is very aggressive baserunning. This should to some extent reduce their total runs scored for the year, but reduce the magnitude of distribution of runs among games. If they are able to leverage aggressive baserunning well, it could be a fairly substantial effect.
Did the Angels outperform in 2006? They beat their PECOTA’s, but did they outperform their 3rd order Pythag record (which is basically a context-neutral talent level)?
That whole thread is pretty interesting.
[tin foil hat] Of course nobody mentions that the results could be due to the fact that the umpires manipulate the strike zone to the Angels advantage in high leverage situations. [/tin foil hat]
Don’t ask Elvis Costello that question, or he’ll hit you too.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
Yeah, lots of people seem to believe that the Angels consistently outperform their stats, but what they’re talking about is not always the same: actual performance versus preseason predictions, actual runs scored/allowed vs. component models, or wins/losses vs. pythagorean record. That creates a couple of problems:
1) A lot of the argument depends on cherry-picking: finding one of these things that they outperformed in a given year, and ignoring the ones that they didn’t.
2) It’s basically impossible to find an explanation for “it,” if the “it” is not always the same thing.
In the Scioscia era (using b-r’s pythag):
+1, -2, -2, -3, +1, +2, +5, +4, +12, +5.
1) If there is a “skill” there, it has really only manifested itself in the last four years. Beware cherry-picking and the multiple endpoints fallacy.
2) One standard deviation for W/L vs. true talent over the course of a season is about 6 wins. (.5*sqrt(162)). Over 4 seasons it’s about 13 wins (.5*sqrt(648)). So even if we do restrict our attention to those last 4 years, the Angels are about 2 standard deviations above expectation. The odds of a given team doing that by luck alone are about 2.5%. But given that there are 30 teams, it’s not at all surprising that one of them would.
3) Even if we somehow could determine that in this case the difference is the result of some repeatable skill and not just luck, there’s no particular reason to think that a manager whose W/L exceeds his pythag is actually helping his team win more games. For example, intuitively, it makes sense that small-ball strategies would help W/L records relative to Pythag since they make multi-run innings and hence big wins less likely. But that doesn’t tell you anything at all about whether they help, hurt, or are basically a wash for the W/L record in an absolute sense.
I think the component data is a little more interesting, though. Not only did the Angels win a few more games than their pythag record over the last several years, they also wound up with higher run differentials than their component stats would indicate. And if there really is a skill there then it’s nothing that any of the projection systems could catch.
Good news, people! According to my email alerts from Oakland Athletics ticketing we can now get partial season Diamond Level packages. 1/2 season for a mere $7175 per seat.
It’s a good thing mk has stopped watching Lost, because the speech Jack made last night to his “son” would have sent mk on a Tri-State anti-cheese killing spree. And no jury in the world would convict him.
"Kraut will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no kraut."
There was certainly no shortage of velveeta during that episode. And because of mk, I was hyper-aware of it. (Thanks for ruining it for me, man.) I was especially impressed by the use of swelling background music during a scene of someone playing music.
But there was also a lot of what keeps me watching the show despite the cheese:
Some partially subverted cheese (“I came back to the island because … I thought it could fix me.” “Oh … sorry dude.”)
And best of all Crazy Claire.
Sorry. Maybe I will eventually watch seasons 4-6 as penance for undermining your enjoyment.
Isn’t Jack’s son really Kate’s son who is really the hobbit-loving Australian girl’s son, who is actually Jack’s nephew because the hobbit-loving Australian girl is Jack’s half-sister?
No in alternatimeline we are back in 2004. Claire just gave birth, but Jack has a son who is middle school age. (The mother won’t turn out to be someone on the flight, but it will surely be someone we know. Maybe Juliet, or Rousseau.)
No. Nor the Harlem Globetrotters.
(Edit: Wow, I had forgotten some of the similarities of that. They “are on a plane ride over the Pacific Ocean when it has engine trouble and they are forced into an emergency landing” … “the island contains ore which provides large sources of energy.”)
I just want to know how Juliet manages to lead the resistance against the lizard invaders while lost in spacetime.
On a related note, I went to a movie yesterday, and arrived early enough to watch the always entertaining “First Look” segments. I am happy to report that the casts of both Kirstie Alley’s Big Life and V are extremely excited about the direction their respective shows are taking.
Modern life is what’s insane. If someone is “sane” within the constructs of our modern reality, I don’t want to touch ’em with a twenty foot pole, because they SCARE me.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
Supposedly the Cubs informed the A’s of Fox’s option status at the time of the trade. So why did the FO tell SuSlu that Fox had an option remaining earlier in the year? No idea.
Plus, Sweet and Stipe used to be in a band together called Community Trolls.
Troll! Where?
Lemmekillit!
I like rainbows.
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
This brings up a pretty good point… Has there been a definitive Krautrock post on this site yet? Something that goes beyond Can and Kraftwerk and deep into the belly of the beast…
\"Weren\'t you already aware the Kay is already writing everyone\'s story? We\'re all just characters who believe we are real. Things make more sense now, don\'t they. Be honest.\"- DMOAS
Funny thing is, so do the Angels’ year-end results. Seems to me the homers are routinely more accurate than impartial analysis.
As far projections go, this seemed informative.
But Dave Cameron’s post in that thread is the real issue, and I’m not sure what to make of it.
I think that’s too facile. The Angels didn’t just outperform, they dramatically outperformed. He’s counting +0.1 the same as +6.
David Cameron’s comment seems like it SHOULD be right (more clutch runs = more close games won), I’m just not sure if it is.
The most obvious question is why the also outperformed in 2006.
I think the story that makes the most intuitive sense to me is they had a very strong couple of bullpen arms but a very weak couple of mopup guys, so they turned solid losses into blowouts and won close games.
Not sure if that’s a sufficient answer.
It’s not (or it shouldn’t be). When I looked at the issue previously, backloaded bullpens don’t correlate to overperformance.
TWSS
Perhaps as a general rule… but what about in the specific case of the 2006 Angels?
The clutch explanation is most of it. Unclear if or to what extent that is luck or them doing something right. Strong top end of the bullpen/weak mopup is just another way of saying clutch pitching on the team level.
Another hypothesis is: the most distinctive thing about their team is very aggressive baserunning. This should to some extent reduce their total runs scored for the year, but reduce the magnitude of distribution of runs among games. If they are able to leverage aggressive baserunning well, it could be a fairly substantial effect.
Do other aggressive baserunning teams show the same effect? Seems odd that an AL team would be the beneficiary.
Yeah, most of the “explanations” I’ve seen go like this:
Angels do X –> leads to anomalous result.
But nobody ever asks, who else does X, and does it lead to anomalous results for them?
Do any of the stat sites provide team comparables, the way they do for individual players?
not sure. FG might.
Did the Angels outperform in 2006? They beat their PECOTA’s, but did they outperform their 3rd order Pythag record (which is basically a context-neutral talent level)?
That whole thread is pretty interesting.
[tin foil hat] Of course nobody mentions that the results could be due to the fact that the umpires manipulate the strike zone to the Angels advantage in high leverage situations. [/tin foil hat]
{snerk}
When did you stop beating your PECOTA?
Don’t ask Elvis Costello that question, or he’ll hit you too.
Yeah, lots of people seem to believe that the Angels consistently outperform their stats, but what they’re talking about is not always the same: actual performance versus preseason predictions, actual runs scored/allowed vs. component models, or wins/losses vs. pythagorean record. That creates a couple of problems:
1) A lot of the argument depends on cherry-picking: finding one of these things that they outperformed in a given year, and ignoring the ones that they didn’t.
2) It’s basically impossible to find an explanation for “it,” if the “it” is not always the same thing.
I meant wins/losses vs. pythagorean record. Is that not true for each year?
In the Scioscia era (using b-r’s pythag):
+1, -2, -2, -3, +1, +2, +5, +4, +12, +5.
1) If there is a “skill” there, it has really only manifested itself in the last four years. Beware cherry-picking and the multiple endpoints fallacy.
2) One standard deviation for W/L vs. true talent over the course of a season is about 6 wins. (.5*sqrt(162)). Over 4 seasons it’s about 13 wins (.5*sqrt(648)). So even if we do restrict our attention to those last 4 years, the Angels are about 2 standard deviations above expectation. The odds of a given team doing that by luck alone are about 2.5%. But given that there are 30 teams, it’s not at all surprising that one of them would.
3) Even if we somehow could determine that in this case the difference is the result of some repeatable skill and not just luck, there’s no particular reason to think that a manager whose W/L exceeds his pythag is actually helping his team win more games. For example, intuitively, it makes sense that small-ball strategies would help W/L records relative to Pythag since they make multi-run innings and hence big wins less likely. But that doesn’t tell you anything at all about whether they help, hurt, or are basically a wash for the W/L record in an absolute sense.
I think the component data is a little more interesting, though. Not only did the Angels win a few more games than their pythag record over the last several years, they also wound up with higher run differentials than their component stats would indicate. And if there really is a skill there then it’s nothing that any of the projection systems could catch.
This is much more persuasive.
Is there a similar negative outlier?
Us.
(only half joking)
Holy crap. I couldn’t remember my username, password, or the URL to this place.
I don’t watch Lost anymore. :(
Good. That show’s for losers, anyhow.
liar.
Just today, I thought, “Man. Where’s Jennifer? I wish she’d come back.”
Proof that wishes come true.
If you have two more, can one of them be the A’s win the world series? Be careful not to go around saying “I wish” lightly.
No swag for you!
she needs swag.
for jennifer, I’ll open the swag store back up. I owe a few of you bitches some FK labels anyhow, plus monkey’s come up with some good ideas. again.
No swag-nazi you.
Thank god you’re back. This place was a disaster without you.
Jennifer’s browser history:
expensivefeekraut.comfreeslaw.com
not**.com
hot4thoutfielderaction.com
halosheaven.com
What a difference a letter can make.
And again.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!
(poppy, tell her she can have swag)
Whoa.
Thank god you made it. I have some complaints about Jennifer.
Good news, people! According to my email alerts from Oakland Athletics ticketing we can now get partial season Diamond Level packages. 1/2 season for a mere $7175 per seat.
I don’t need food.
Get Chris on the phone.
They come with free food.
bonus. It will truly be feast or famine, based solely upon whether the A’s are in town.
I do want to sit down there once, to say I did. Packages, though, seem like companies only territory
I got four diamond level seats for $100 (total) for a game late last year. It was pretty damn cool.
Dude. That’s a hell of a deal.
WOW
I’ve always wanted to sit down there.
It’s a good thing mk has stopped watching Lost, because the speech Jack made last night to his “son” would have sent mk on a Tri-State anti-cheese killing spree. And no jury in the world would convict him.
In this world, or in the alternate multiworlds?
There was certainly no shortage of velveeta during that episode. And because of mk, I was hyper-aware of it. (Thanks for ruining it for me, man.) I was especially impressed by the use of swelling background music during a scene of someone playing music.
But there was also a lot of what keeps me watching the show despite the cheese:
Some partially subverted cheese (“I came back to the island because … I thought it could fix me.” “Oh … sorry dude.”)
And best of all Crazy Claire.
Three years in the jungle with no conditioner’ll do it to you.
Sorry. Maybe I will eventually watch seasons 4-6 as penance for undermining your enjoyment.
Isn’t Jack’s son really Kate’s son who is really the hobbit-loving Australian girl’s son, who is actually Jack’s nephew because the hobbit-loving Australian girl is Jack’s half-sister?
No in alternatimeline we are back in 2004. Claire just gave birth, but Jack has a son who is middle school age. (The mother won’t turn out to be someone on the flight, but it will surely be someone we know. Maybe Juliet, or Rousseau.)
Has Bob Denver shown up yet?
No. Nor the Harlem Globetrotters.
(Edit: Wow, I had forgotten some of the similarities of that. They “are on a plane ride over the Pacific Ocean when it has engine trouble and they are forced into an emergency landing” … “the island contains ore which provides large sources of energy.”)
For a brief, hopeful moment I didn’t see the “l” in Harlem.
iFSU cosmonauts land on you
I just want to know how Juliet manages to lead the resistance against the lizard invaders while lost in spacetime.
On a related note, I went to a movie yesterday, and arrived early enough to watch the always entertaining “First Look” segments. I am happy to report that the casts of both Kirstie Alley’s Big Life and V are extremely excited about the direction their respective shows are taking.
Odd… our host’s inappropriate content filter didn’t kill this comment despite the fact it says “Kirstie Alley”
I LIKE Kirstie Alley. She’s clearly insane, has weight issues and has whacked out beliefs about God and whatnot.
I have a type.
Modern life is what’s insane. If someone is “sane” within the constructs of our modern reality, I don’t want to touch ’em with a twenty foot pole, because they SCARE me.
oooga booga!
I’m so insane I’m sane
Kirstie Alley’s certifiable, though. Seriously. And it’s part of her charm for me.
Juliet was my first thought.
Or Penny. Depending on the availability of the actresses.
Hunh.
Maybe it would be nice if the rules were a bit less archaic. It would also be nice if Fox had another option.
I hope the A’s knew that when they traded for him…
That was my reaction too.
Supposedly the Cubs informed the A’s of Fox’s option status at the time of the trade. So why did the FO tell SuSlu that Fox had an option remaining earlier in the year? No idea.
Neyer agrees
Dude, you are harshing my mellow.
I’m giving it time to sink in.
Obama on R/D spending: whoopsies?
Depressing, but rings true. I’d love to see some Senate leadership here.
Grammarians: I need a ruling. Can you crash a party you’re invited to?
Sure.
Any time you mistake “Drive” for “Reverse”.
You mean any time you drive a VW with a manual transmition?
Can’t mistake
for 
Maybe he did, maybe he walked
gay singers… southern pop-rock
pretty easy to confuse, if you ask me.
Plus, Sweet and Stipe used to be in a band together called Community Trolls.
Troll! Where?
Lemmekillit!
I like rainbows.
wait. Matthew Sweet’s gay?
Well, that adds a whole new layer of meaning to “Girlfriend,” doesn’t it?
He’d like to *call* you his girlfriend.
He’s certainly not “Southern,” though — he’s a carpet (ahem) bagger.
Christ, what ahem
Maybe he rocked around the
clockkraut.This brings up a pretty good point… Has there been a definitive Krautrock post on this site yet? Something that goes beyond Can and Kraftwerk and deep into the belly of the beast…