Brassworld Pythagorean Results October 2005


As a reminder, the number of runs a team scores and gives up by a mathematical formula can predict its winning percentage generally by + or - 4 games. Deviations outside this range are less likely attributed to luck and might have an organic cause. An excess of games won over that predicted by the formula suggests an Earl Weaver or Billy Martin like attention to the details of the game, such as knowledge of the other teamís bench and your own limitations, or perhaps just pivotal use of allowable Stratball techniques. A poorer record might result from a managerís inability to lay off the hard stuff while managing or might come about as result of inattention due to a miserable season.


This yearís results show as usual most teams within the predicted 4 games of the Pythagorean estimate.Two poor teams (Baltimore and Exeter) did noticeably worse than predicted by the formula and perhaps were just playing out the string in anticipation of a better 2006. One exception was a 90 win team, Maryland, which played a staggering 10 games worse than predicted. Checking home/away splits, the Mounders had only a small 4 game advantage at home, so it seems HAL is not to blame. In the three years I have done this, I do not recall a 90+ win team with so many fewer wins than predicted. Such underperformance cost the team a playoff spot.


The better field managers this year included several also-rans such as Waukesha, Aspen, Rivendell, and the lowly Mounties. With better talent perhaps these managers will be able to show off their skills to better effect.


Buckeye alone among the playoff teams did a little better than predicted; that managerís efforts could account for an extra game won over what might have been due luck alone.

Pythagorean Excel Report October 2005