I wrote a nice little positive story tonight and then I read this:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/503/5563947.html
I would encourage you to read this. Joe Christenson of the Strib explains the Pythagorean Winning Percentage. Of course, the 'Tool denigrates the whole idea. Says the 'Tool:
"All these numbers that people want to throw out there," he said, "and all this stuff that people want to try to bring into it doesn't mean a hill of beans. You know why? Because it's all done on the baseball field.
"The White Sox have gotten it done on the field -- not with numbers, not with anything else. They've gotten it done with wins and losses. They've won their one-run games, and that's the one thing that we haven't done."
Yep, those numbers don't mean a thing. It's all done on the field! Why analyze what's happened??? Read on:
The Twins were 24-24 in one-run games after going an impressive 75-42 in one-run games during their three-year title run.
"Just take 10 of our one-run losses and flip those around," Gardenhire said. "That's a big difference in the standings."
Yep, if the Twins were 34-14 in one run games, a .708 winning percentage, in other words, if they are tremendously lucky, they'd only be four games out of first. On the other hand, if the White Sox were .500 in one run games, a significantly lower percentage than their overall winning percentage, they'd still be eight games ahead of the Twins. Of course, if the Twins scored 5 runs once in a while instead of two, they'd win a few games 5-3 instead of losing 3-2. But, hey, they'd have to score those runs ON THE FIELD! So, it's useless to even talk about it! That makes sense! Don't think about it. Why are we in Iraq? Because we are!
Let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose the Twins had scored the average number of runs of an AL team this year. The Twins would likely be 68-50 and leading the wild card chase. But, no, it's not about numbers. It's not about how many (or how few) runs the team has scored. We wouldn't be moaning about all these one run losses (as I told you last week, the Twins haven't been THAT unlucky). You know, that whole Moneyball thing is stupid. On base percentage, Pythagorean Winning, who needs it? Hey, the A's they were just about three starting pitchers. I mean how are they doing now without Mulder and Hudson? Oh wait. Never mind.
Hey Gardy. I know someone who agrees with your line of thinking. Good news, 'tool, he's a Hall of Famer and he thinks like YOU! His name? Joe Morgan.
I'll bet Gardy objects to those numbers and formulas mainly he'd hate to acknowledge that the standings or his team's success in 1-run games may have anything to do with random chance. If he allows himself to think that Chicago has been unusually lucky this year, he might have to admit that his team was lucky the last few years, too. I'm sure he'd prefer to think he's the master of his own destiny, and all that.
The line that jumped out and bit me was Christensen's: "The Twins seemed to lose their winning edge after letting go of Koskie and Guzman. Guzman has turned into a statistical disaster this year for Washington, but he had a nose for winning with the Twins."
How does such shit even make it past an editor?
Funny, but I thought Shannon Stewart was the team MVP. But it turns out, Guzman's nose for winning was the key to the Twins success all along! Who knew?
'Tool might also realize that some refined MANAGING might have helped win some of those one-run games this year.
20 hits last night...what a team!
We really miss Guzman. We really miss Blanco. We really miss every other crappy player that we no longer have.
I was trying to decide if it was Christenson who thought up that Guzman thing or if 'tool said that and Christenson decided not to attribute it to 'tool. The excuse making is too much!
By the way, the Twins would have to have scored at least two more runs to turn every one of those one losses around (or give up two less, or, well you get the idea). The result on the Pythagorean Theorem is that with increased run production, you would EXPECT MORE VICTORIES. It all comes back to scoring more runs. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be managing at the major league level.
'Tool had some college, so he should have learned some things (but he went to Texas, does that count, Moss?) but he probably didn't take many statistics or science courses.
SBG: I thought of you right away this morning with I saw that piece. I think they got the idea from your On-Line Magazine! They owe you some coin.
PS: Isn't it about time to implement a Vikings game?
There is an active current of "we really miss our infield veterans" running through the Strib newsroom lately. I'm not sure about the PiPress or TV. Normally when reporters share a harebrained idea like that, I assume they're being fed a storyline. We know how Gardy feels about the issue, and Christensen was talking to him for the article, so....
You know who really developed a nose for winning, at least after he left Minnesota: he came into today hitting .304/.400/.596 with 31 HR and 105 RBI for the team that won the World Series last year. I think the Twins could use somebody like that. Mr. Ullger, what do you say?
I think it''s fucking gorgeous.