Pythagorian W/L

[Outta Leftfield]

With 23 completed teams, I ended up +12 wins over expected (2076 real wins vs 2064 expected.) As with Jimmy C's results, the Pythag projections were very close, over time, to the actual results.

That said, there can be significant deviations in specific years. The largest deviation was a +12 performance (89 expected wins, 101 actual). I also had teams that were -8, -7, and -6 and two teams that were +6. So individual seasons involved some significant variations—enough to make a team make or miss the playoffs in a given season-- but the differences tended to average out over time.

Looked at another way, if we think of between +3 and -3 of expected wins as "very close" to pythag expectations, then 13 of my 23 teams were "very close." The remaining results for my 23 teams were symmetrical. 5 of my teams were +4 or more in wins (+12, +6, +6, +5, +4). 5 teams lost -4 or more in wins (-8, -7, -6, -4, -4).

BTW, I anticipated coming out [i:a63f3d07ed]behind[/i:a63f3d07ed] pythag expectations because I tend to disdain one-run strategies and also because I remembered a few teams that seriously underperformed. But I guess neither expectation was right: HAL didn't hold my dislike of one-run strategies against me and it seems that I tended to remember the bad pythag years while forgetting the good ones. Overall, however, it's been pretty darn close to a wash.

[YountFan]

What is missing is the fact that the manager is the reason for the run diff. and to say they are better or worse that the expect does not mean a thing. If I have bad hitters and pitchers I will have a losing no matter how good I manage and the badness will be reflected in the run diff. We get the same with great hitters and pitchers.

I think the test for manager is winning over time. The greats stand out aka Panzer Ace