clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

100 Seasons

I swore up and down that when I started this blog it wouldn't be filled with ZIPs, PECOTAs, BABIPs and all the other numbers that make my eyes glaze over.

But I thought for some of you who are more statistically inclined, you might be interested in this. (Hat tip to Larry at Viva El Birdos for the link.)

Over at Baseball Think Factory, "SG in ATL", one of the regular posters there, ran some ZIPs data through a Diamond Mind simulator -- which, I think, looks something like this:


You'll have to scroll down, incidentally, to comment #67 in this Baseball Think Factory thread to get the results of the 2006 season being "played" 100 times, with the results crunched to get an "average" standing of the teams, based on the data input. It came out like this (you can see the full data in the BTF thread; for simplicity's sake, here are just the W-L records):

AL East
Boston       92-70
New York      85-77
Toronto       83-79
Baltimore     73-89
Tampa Bay     70-92
AL Central
Minnesota     86-76
Cleveland     83-79
Chicago       82-80
Detroit       82-80
Kansas City   65-97

AL West
Oakland       96-66
Los Angeles   85-77
Texas        80-82
Seattle       79-83

NL East
New York      90-72
Philadelphia  89-73
Atlanta       81-81
Washington    75-87
Florida       70-92

NL Central
St. Louis     96-66
Chicago       85-77
Pittsburgh    82-80
Milwaukee     80-82
Houston       74-88
Cincinnati    69-93

NL West
Los Angeles   87-75
San Francisco 83-79
Arizona       77-85
Colorado      76-86
San Diego     75-88
There's more at BTF, including stats on highest and lowest win total generated for each team, the number of division titles and wild cards won, etc.

Well. First of all, remember that the major league players don't play on a computer. They don't play exactly as their stat lines say they're supposed to; these figures obviously do not factor in injuries, or future acquisitions (clearly, they are showing the Astros without Roger Clemens, for example). And to my mind, this simulation would have been more valid if it had been run 100,000 times, rather than just 100 times.

Food for thought, though. I know it ought to generate some discussion here. Have fun.