Did the Cubs win more games than they should have in 2009?

I came across this rather fascinating blogpost today written by a Tampa Bay Rays blogger whom I follow on Twitter (@RaysIndex). He's trying to determine whether Rays manager Joe Maddon, who I happen to think is a pretty cool guy, was the worst skipper in baseball this season.

To do so, he's used each MLB club's team WAR to calculate its expected wins and then compared those results to its actual wins. As you can see, according to this method, our 2009 Cubs won almost six games more than they should have, based on their statistical results.

So, assuming you buy into this blogger's methods, were the Cubs somehow both unlucky (in the context of their preseason projections) and lucky (when viewed in the context of their actual play) this season? Or was Sweet Lou better than many of us thought?

I'm curious to hear your thoughts - especially any sabermagicians out there.

over 2 years ago daver 13 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I'm not sure I buy this method completely.

But it also shows the Cardinals as having performed far above expectation.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al Yellon on Oct 26, 2009 2:38 PM CDT reply actions

Sigh...they always seem to.

And I’m not totally sure about the method either. To be honest, I’ve just recently started looking closely at WAR for players. I haven’t done much with team WAR yet.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by daver on Oct 26, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Their method is smart baseball

Which is what we seem to not do alot! A baserunning coach would help us immensely for starters!

I would sleep with Blou if it meant the Cubs would win a WS. by Doggie Stalker on Aug 22, 2009 4:11 PM EDT

by cubsluver22 on Oct 26, 2009 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions

We've got one of those - Bobby Dernier.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by daver on Oct 26, 2009 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions

Who knows...

…this stuff confuses the hell out of me!

When you have as much good pitching as the Cubs did (especially early on) and don’t win your share of games, it simply means your offense sucked to high heavens.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 26, 2009 2:51 PM CDT reply actions

Yeah, I stared at this article on and off all morning trying to figure it out.

I think the bottom line is it suggests the Cubs somehow managed to win about six more games than they should have based on their offensive and defensive production (I think team WAR figures in both). Maybe it was luck. Maybe it was Lou. Or maybe all that scrappiness paid off after all.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by daver on Oct 26, 2009 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions

Or maybe...

…some of the teams they played just sucked more than the Cubs.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 26, 2009 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions

I have reservations about the methodology, and think the conclusions are specious

One big problem with this is that every team does not play every other team an equal amount. So even if simply summing a team’s WAR was indicative of a team’s talent level for a given season, some teams would be favored in this because they had an easier schedule.

Case in point, there’s a big red flag that I noticed when looking at the numbers: every team in the NL central overachieved last season? That seems unlikely. And the same thing in 2008 (only 1 team below 0). Meanwhile, on the other side of that coin, the AL East, for 3 years in a row the majority of the teams underachieved according to this measure of true talent. At first glance it looks like division strength correlates negatively with this measure of Wins vs Expected, which is what I would have expected.

Beyond that it’s dumb to attribute all of this difference strictly to the manager. There are a lot of reasons why a team’s record may not match its level of talent, and a manager is just one of them.

by Wreckard on Oct 26, 2009 3:49 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

Well, in the blogger's defense...

…he leaves some doubt as to whether it’s entirely Joe Maddon’s fault. But, then again, it’s still sort of the premise of his post.

Thanks for your insights on the method, though. I must admit that I smell a rat when the Padres and Reds are in the Top Five.

Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.

by daver on Oct 26, 2009 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions

I'll give it a stab.

I like the set-up, it looks like a simple regression equation from 4 years worth of correlational data. Looks like it was a good rainy Sunday activity.

I guess the first two questions would be to investigate the covariance between WAR and win totals; I’m not so certain 4 years worth is enough to create this regression equation. I would have done at least 5 or 10, I’m not sure why 4 was chosen.

Can we use individual-level performances to predict group-level wins? I myself don’t know if this is an appropriate analysis; perhaps something like a HLM approach would be easier, with players nested within teams.

Conversely, and simply enough, can a manager be to blame for a loss? He doesn’t hit, field, or pitch. Perhaps it means for as good some players are, they are poor on other days.

Fun analysis, I liked it.

Dan

"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks

by dtpollitt on Oct 26, 2009 9:36 PM CDT reply actions

I don't think he did a regression on this data...

He appears to have just summed the WAR for all the players in a given year and subtracted it from that team’s win total.

by Wreckard on Oct 26, 2009 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions

How else would he have gotten the line of best fit?

I’m not expert, I just take a lot of stats classes in my doctoral program. And that’s not a degree in baseball, so I’m sure you know better than I.

"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks

by dtpollitt on Oct 26, 2009 11:11 PM CDT up reply actions

No, you're right

I forgot about the single linear regression he did on the Wins * WAR data at the beginning.

I still think all he’s done is quantified the “noise” that WAR removes – league factors, schedule, park effects, etc. If he correlated the Wins – WAR difference with league and division I’ve no doubt that he’d see an influence there.

by Wreckard on Oct 27, 2009 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions