whatifsports - Angels are lucky, not that good

Jehrico · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:36 am

Interesting simulation I hadn't heard of before. Basically, this site uses only each teams current season statistical performance, then each team is simulated against every other 100x's - 50 home & 50 away so that all starters in the current rotation pitch 10x's at each location. Their #1 team is the Cubs, with a winning percentage of 62.9%. At first, it was surprising to me that the Angels were 13th in the league at 51.8%. Most of the other rankings were pretty close to where you would expect them to be. Then I looked at the current pythagorean records, and the Angels are by far the luckiest team in baseball at 13 wins more than their expected record, so maybe it's not that far away from what you'd expect.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/powerRanki ... atIfSports

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagu ... ings.shtml

Bob Sanders · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:46 am

exactly why most rational people don't consider them the best team in baseball despite having the best record. it certainly helps that they've been in arguably the worst division in MLB

Jehrico · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:51 am

Bob Sanders wrote:

exactly why most rational people don't consider them the best team in baseball despite having the best record. it certainly helps that they've been in arguably the worst division in MLB

Could they end up being the worst 100-win team in MLB history? I think you could make a strong case for it.

gflore34 · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:05 am

I see the Twins at 20, some of us were debating whether or not they're all that good, I don't think they are...

bukie · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:14 am

Also indicates that anything other than a Red Sox/Rays ALCS would be a pretty large upset.

Outshined_One · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:19 am

Jehrico wrote:

Bob Sanders wrote:

exactly why most rational people don't consider them the best team in baseball despite having the best record. it certainly helps that they've been in arguably the worst division in MLB

Could they end up being the worst 100-win team in MLB history? I think you could make a strong case for it.

Hi, we'd like to disagree with you.

bukie · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:22 am

Outshined_One wrote:

Hi, we'd like to disagree with you.

Huh? Statistically, that Mariner team was awesome.

Jehrico · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:24 am

Outshined_One wrote:

Jehrico wrote:

Bob Sanders wrote:

exactly why most rational people don't consider them the best team in baseball despite having the best record. it certainly helps that they've been in arguably the worst division in MLB

Could they end up being the worst 100-win team in MLB history? I think you could make a strong case for it.

Hi, we'd like to disagree with you.

That Mariners team may not have been 116 win, record-tying good, but they were considerably better than this Angels team.

imb! · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:22 pm

Outshined_One wrote:

Jehrico wrote:

Bob Sanders wrote:

exactly why most rational people don't consider them the best team in baseball despite having the best record. it certainly helps that they've been in arguably the worst division in MLB

Could they end up being the worst 100-win team in MLB history? I think you could make a strong case for it.

Hi, we'd like to disagree with you.

their pythag was 109-53, what are you doing?

Backtobanks · **Joined:** Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:32 pm **Posts:** 4479

gflore34 wrote:

I see the Twins at 20, some of us were debating whether or not they're all that good, I don't think they are...

I'm amazed that they're in contention every year. Gardenhire ought to be Manager of the Year every year.

North Side Baseball

whatifsports - Angels are lucky, not that good

Who is online