Were the 1994 ExposJust Lucky?
Estimating the “real” skill level ofa team
Phil Birnbaum – www.philbirnbaum.com
The W-L Record and Luck
Imagine a .500 team’s record as aseries of 162 coin tosses
Heads=Win, Tails=Loss
Standard Deviation of wins = 6.3 games
In a 30-team league, 5 teams will bebetter than 87-75
1.5 teams will be more extreme than94-68 or 68-94, just by chance
Statistical Evidence of Luck
Suppose a team is lucky and wins moregames than its talent. How does thishappen?
Can break down into five non-overlapping ways:
Five Ways to be Lucky
Hitters having unexpected “career years”
Pitchers having unexpected “career years”
Team scoring more runs than expected by theirbatting line
Beating “Runs Created” estimate, perhaps by clutch hitting
Team allowing fewer runs than expected by theopposition’s batting line
Getting out of jams while opposition “chokes”
Team winning more games than expected by its RunsScored/Runs Allowed
Pythagorean Projection -- scoring runs in games where they’re most needed
Players Having Career Years
Players can play over their heads
Shows up in a player’s career stats as a “career year”
Example: Jim Clancy, 1982
From 1980 to 1984, Component ERAs were: 3.60,4.71, 3.36, 3.96, 4.05
Estimate Clancy was 31 runs better than expected in1982
At 10 runs per win, the 1982 Jays were “lucky” bythree games because of Clancy’s career year
Players Having Career Years
This is new research
Algorithm to take the previous two years and nexttwo years, and estimate what the player “shouldhave” done in the middle year
Rough idea: average the four years, regress to themean, and adjust for playing time
Work in progress – probably not too accurate, butgood enough to distinguish lucky from unlucky inmost cases
Hopefully similar to examining each case “by hand”
Algorithm available on request
The 1994 Expos
The 1994 Expos went 74-40. Werethey lucky or unlucky? And by howmuch?
We’ll go through the five steps.
1994 Expos
Hitters having career years
Overall, the Expos hitters created 76 runsmore than expected
Moises Alou +25, Wil Cordero +18, LarryWalker +16
Mike Lansing –8 had the worst off-year
1994 Expos
Pitchers having career years
Overall, the Expos pitchers were 49 runsbetter than expected
Butch Henry +20, Jeff Fassero +10, KenHill +9
Kirk Rueter –8 had the worst off-year
1994 Expos
Expos undershot their runs created bytotal -29 runs
Expos opponents undershot their runscreated by 3 runs
Expos overshot their PythagoreanProjection by 2.85 wins, or 28 runs
1994 Expos
Add it all up
+76 = hitters’ career years
+49 = pitchers’ career years
-29 = runs created
+3 = opposition runs created
+28 = pythagorean projection
Total: +128 runs
1994 Expos
The Expos were lucky by +128 runs
That’s 12.8 wins – call it 13 wins
Instead of 74-40, we estimate their realtalent was 61-53
1994 National League East
Actual Luck Projected
Expos 74-40 +13 61-53
Braves 68-46 + 1 67-47
Mets 55-58 + 4 51-62
Phillies 54-61 - 3 57-58
Marlins 51-64 - 1 52-63
Fun Stuff
Which were the luckiest and unluckiestteams from 1960-2001?
Some results surprising to me – forexample, the unluckiest team …
The 1995 Toronto Blue Jays
The 1995 Blue Jays
Hitters were –72
Pitchers were –50
RC –43
Opposition RC –6
Pythagoras –24
Total: -196 runs in only 144 games
The Jays were 56-88 – should havebeen 76-68
Top Unlucky Teams
62 Mets 40-120 61-99 -21
79 A’s 54-108 74-88 -20
95 Blue Jays 56- 88 76-68 -20
87 Indians 61-101 81-81 -20
98 Mariners 76- 85 95-66 -20
…
69 Expos 52-110 66-96 -14
Luckiest Teams
The luckiest team, 1960-2001 was, by avery wide margin …
The 2001 Seattle Mariners
The 2001 Seattle Mariners
Hitters were +127
Pitchers were +116
RC -21
Opposition RC +3
Pythagoras +49
Total: 273 runs!
The Mariners were 116-46; should have been 89-73
That same year, the Angels were 11 games unlucky, and shouldhave been 86-76
The Angels finished 41 games behind Seattle – should havebeen only 3 games
38 game difference from just luck!
The Luckiest Teams
01 Mariners 116-46 89-73 +27
98 Yankees 114-48 92-70 +22
60 Pirates 95-59 76-78 +19
92 A’s 96-66 77-85 +19
85 Cardinals 101-61 83-79 +18
62 Dodgers 102-63 84-81 +18
…
94 Expos 74-40 61-53 +13
93 Blue Jays 95-67 88-74 +7
The Best Teams
Which were the best teams in terms oftalent?
That is, after all the luck was strippedout, which teams remained truly great?
The Best Teams
Only 3 teams from 1960-2001 had anexpected talent of 100+ games
This seems too small, but makes sense – forinstance, there are many players who go 2-for-4, but none who are truly .500 hitters
But 21 teams were expected 100-game losers
The Best Teams
1969 Baltimore Orioles102
1998 Atlanta Braves102
1997 Atlanta Braves100
1970 Baltimore Orioles 99
1974 Los Angeles Dodgers 98
1975 Cincinnati Reds 98
…
1992 Toronto Blue Jays 95
1982 Montreal Expos 92
The Worst Teams
1965 New York Mets 54
1977 Toronto Blue Jays 54
1972 Texas Rangers 57
1969 San Diego Padres 57
1977 Seattle Mariners 57
1971 San Diego Padres 58
1964 New York Mets 58
…
1970 Montreal Expos 65
Lucky and Unlucky Players
Unusual seasons are not always luck; can be
Playing injured
Cheating (Norm Cash)
Sudden maturation
Sudden loss of effectiveness (Steve Blass)
Learning a new skill or new pitch
For instance, consider the unluckiest playerfrom 1960-2001, who cost his team 6 gamesby playing below expectations …
Dave Stieb, 1986
Component ERA:
1984, 2.77
1985, 2.75
1986, 5.86
1987, 3.78
1988, 2.81
Why did Stieb have a bad 1986?
I couldn’t find any evidence of injury. Could it reallyhave been just bad luck?
The Unluckiest Players
1986 Dave Stieb-60
1999 Jeff Fassero-56
1997 Albert Belle-53
1997 Scott Brosius-50
1973 Steve Blass-50
1980 Dennis Lamp-48
1962 Ron Santo-47
1997 Sammy Sosa-45
…
2000 Roy Halladay -41
1971 Carl Morton-38
The Luckiest Players
1972 Steve Carlton+63
1980 Mike Norris+60
1961 Norm Cash+60
1963 Dick Ellsworth+58
1993 John Olerud +58
1996 Ed Correa+54
1970 Billy Grabarkewitz+54
1991 Cal Ripken+52
…
1978 Ross Grimsley +46
1970 Cito Gaston +46
Slides/spreadsheets will be at: