Power Pros Forum

While it's correct his season is impossible, it's not off by that large a margin. (If that was the case, you'd be able to tell without adding any numbers at all.) He's only off by 73.

For the 2430 games a season, there are 2430 wins and 2430 losses, not 1215 wins and 1215 losses. The reason should be obvious. If two teams play one game, there is one win and one loss, not 1/2 a win and 1/2 a loss.

ok so I changed it to be more realistic. but trust me it should still be off



AL East

Yankees : 101-61
Red Sox : 93-69
Rays : 91-71
Orioles : 75-87
Blue Jays : 65-97

AL Central

Twins : 88-74
Tigers: 84-78
White Sox : 78-84
Royals : 72-90
Indians : 66-96

AL West

Rangers : 94-68
Mariners : 88-74
Angels : 86-76
Athletics : 77-85

NL East

Phillies: 98-64
Braves : 93-69
Marlins : 87-75
Mets : 81-81
Nationals : 69-93

NL Central

Cardinals : 89-73
Cubs : 88-74
Brewers : 82-80
Reds : 76-86
Pirates : 73-89
Astros : 67-95

NL West

Rockies : 96-66
Giants : 89-73
Dodgers : 85-77
Diamondbacks : 79-83
Padres : 73-89

So now the Pirates are bad again?

2430 / 30 = 81

81 is half the number of games you play in a season.

Half of 2430 is 1215.

Therefore there should be 1215 wins and 1215 losses.

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. To further illustrate my example, the Yankees and Red Sox play the opening day game tonight. After tonight, a total of one game would have been played and the 2010 MLB season would have a total of one win and a total of one loss.

To put it another way: if there were a total of 1215 wins and 1215 losses among all 30 teams, that means the average win-loss record would be 40.5-40.5. How can each team play 162 games and have only 81 decisions?

Ooooooh ok I think I understand now. But 1215 is the number of games that are played in one season, yes?

No, there are 2430 games in a regular season. Your math was correct up to that point. 30 teams play 162 games each, then divide by 2. The important point here is that you already divided by 2. It was a mistake to divide by 2 AGAIN to get 1215.

Let's look at it another way. On Sunday, the Yankees played the Red Sox. The game can only result in a win OR a loss for a given team. From the Yankees point of view, they played 1 game and had 1 loss. From the Red Sox point of view, they played 1 game and had 1 win.

From the COLLECTIVE point of view, the 1 game played resulted in 1 win AND 1 loss. This is why when you add up all the records of all 30 teams, you get 2430 wins and 2430 losses.

I don't think the Twins will finish on top of the division. With Joe Nathan out, the Twins need to find a reliable closer.

...and they think that "reliable" closer is the tallest guy in the Majors, John Rauch.

Does being tall make you unreliable? Randy Johnson was almost 7 feet tall and we all know how great he was. I thought being tall gave you more velocity.

Joe Nathan was, at most, worth about 3 or 4 wins above replacement level. Replacing him with Jon Roach will cost them at most 2 wins. It's not that much of a difference.

Closers are worth more than just their WAR values, longball.

BBB, have you read the book Moneyball by Micheal Lewis? It's that book on the Oakland A's and their GM Billy Beane. We have a topic for it somewhere on this site. But anyway, the books makes a point that practicly any effective pitcher could be made a closer, and then auctioned off for a boatload of prospects/players/draft picks. So Jon Roach, a reasonably effective pitcher, will do just fine as a closer. However, what Longball says is true, Roach is no where near as effective as Nathan. It may only cost them 2-4 wins, but in the tight AL Central, it could mean the difference between winning and losing out on a playoff spot.

On a side note, getting some save opps for Roach is another story.

Yes, I read the book Moneyball. I was actually the one who made the topic.

Just because a closer may have a WAR value of 4 doesn't mean he is only 4 wins better than an average reliever. For example, last year Francisco Rodriguez of the Mets had a WAR of 0.3. He was DEFINITELY worth more than a third of a win. I can't tell you how many times a different reliever blew the game in the eighth or ninth inning and it drove me nuts. If we are winning and a reliever blows the lead and we wind up losing, it may not count as a whole negative number on the reliever's WAR. But he just single handedly lost us the game. If K-Rod had pitched that game we would have won. Therefore Rodriguez is in reality a game more valuable than the reliever who blew it. But it doesn't show in his WAR.

A couple things:

(1) Just to clarify, a player with a WAR value of 4 is worth 4 wins over a REPLACEMENT level player, not an average player.

(2) That aside, I agree with Bobby. Closers (or relievers in general) should be rated by WPA (Win Probability Added). Basically, WPA measures how well a player did in any certain situation compared to the numerous times the situation occured before. However, WPA doesn't seem to do K-Rod any more favors than WAR.
Last year, among relievers, Jonathan Papelbon led the league in WPA, at +5.13. Joe Nathan was third, at +3.89. Francisco Rodriguez was -0.45. Interestingly, Jose Mijares, also of the Twins, finished 8th, at 2.97, and Matt Guerrier, also of the Twins, finished 16th, at 2.64. Jon Rauch has put up an average of about +.30 over his career.

(3) Why are teams so afraid of the 'closer by committee'? What's so bad about it? I think that it's purely a psychological decision. Teams don't want to make the impression that they don't have things under control, so they name a random reliever to be the closer. Someday, somebody will use a "closer by committee" with a strategy based on Bill James, Moneyball, and other influences, and people will say, "Gee, why didn't we try that?". There is no reason one player should get the glamor job while other equally good pitchers toil in the shadows.

(4) You may be good, Bobby, but I am better.