@@BaseballAF My question is, is advanced stats a more accurate assessment of team performance or the more concrete approach I used by simply adjusting for record, run differential and strength of schedule?
I think that both if used together are the best. I definitely was a bit more advanced stats centric. The irony is that even if a team is average on both hitting and pitching, the schedule can make their record better or worse than average. But you make a good point.
@@BaseballAF Pro football reference is another website I frequent. Standard ranking system, although not perfect (injuries, resting starters after clinching a first round bye, injuries) etc they don't adjust for. Take for example the 1999 Rams, the greatest show on turf with a 284 pd, outscoring opponents by almost 18 ppg. 2nd all time. Their sos was -5.88. After adjusting for sos you would subtract 94 points with a neutral sos, which showed in the playoffs as they narrowly defeated Tampa Bay and Tennessee in route to their Superbowl victory. Baseball reference isn't as exact unfortunately.
I have an idea for a video that you could do that relates to this. What franchise over the course of their lifetime is the most average. You use your same methodology. You take the average franchise OPS+, the average franchise ERA+, and the career franchise Win%. And the franchise that has the lowest number then is the most average. For example, pretend the Twins have an average franchise OPS+ of 104, an average franchise ERA+ of 98, and a career franchise Win% of .488, then they’re total number away from average would be 18 (4+2+12=18) {104-100=4, 100-98=2, 500-488=12}. And if the Twins franchise number is the lowest then they are the most average.
Another video to cover is the statistical anomaly of last years Mairiners. They went 90-72 with Pythagorean theorem expected win total of 76-86 with a -51 rd, a -2 SRS. Would you call that a good team? Lol A good bullpen will always confuse what the numbers say.
Baseball reference is the best
Greatest way to spend my free time.
The 1983 Padres were 81-81. They scored 653 runs and allowed 653 runs. Without factoring in other variables, they perfected mediocrity.
I mean, yeah, you're correct in that regard. There are a lot of ways to define average, you found one I didn't look at.
@@BaseballAF More simple but effective. That 83 teams sos was rated as zero. 81-81 with a zero SRS.
@@BaseballAF My question is, is advanced stats a more accurate assessment of team performance or the more concrete approach I used by simply adjusting for record, run differential and strength of schedule?
I think that both if used together are the best. I definitely was a bit more advanced stats centric. The irony is that even if a team is average on both hitting and pitching, the schedule can make their record better or worse than average.
But you make a good point.
@@BaseballAF Pro football reference is another website I frequent. Standard ranking system, although not perfect (injuries, resting starters after clinching a first round bye, injuries) etc they don't adjust for. Take for example the 1999 Rams, the greatest show on turf with a 284 pd, outscoring opponents by almost 18 ppg. 2nd all time. Their sos was -5.88. After adjusting for sos you would subtract 94 points with a neutral sos, which showed in the playoffs as they narrowly defeated Tampa Bay and Tennessee in route to their Superbowl victory. Baseball reference isn't as exact unfortunately.
I want to do a JR Richard video sometime in the future
He's such an interesting story, I'd be curious to see what kind of direction to take for a video of JR.
I have an idea for a video that you could do that relates to this.
What franchise over the course of their lifetime is the most average.
You use your same methodology. You take the average franchise OPS+, the average franchise ERA+, and the career franchise Win%. And the franchise that has the lowest number then is the most average.
For example, pretend the Twins have an average franchise OPS+ of 104, an average franchise ERA+ of 98, and a career franchise Win% of .488, then they’re total number away from average would be 18 (4+2+12=18) {104-100=4, 100-98=2, 500-488=12}.
And if the Twins franchise number is the lowest then they are the most average.
Thanks so much for the idea! I think it's a good way to expand on this idea.
Another video to cover is the statistical anomaly of last years Mairiners. They went 90-72 with Pythagorean theorem expected win total of 76-86 with a -51 rd, a -2 SRS. Would you call that a good team? Lol A good bullpen will always confuse what the numbers say.
That team is definitely video-worthy
Great channel! New subscriber here
Thank you! Glad you enjoy my stuff!
Thinking to myself as I watch the video, "Going to be the 1977 Houston Astros." Darn it! Off by 3 years!
That's a phenomenal guess dude
I’m just glad it wasn’t the Mets
Honestly I was expecting them to be an option, but they're usually way too good or way too bad
Love it
Thanks!