There is a fairly predictable relationship between runs scored and allowed, and games won and lost. It does stand to reason, no?
Well, way back in the dawn of pre-history (I believe it was in the 1980 Baseball Abstract, to be precise), Bill James developed a very simple formula to derive a team's expected winning percentage, based on how many runs they scored and allowed.
This formula has been passed down to us through the years. It is known as The Pythagorean Method, and there is a pithy explication of it over at The Hardball Times:
A formula for converting a team’s Run Differential into a projected Won/Loss
record. The formula is RS^2/(RS^2+RA^2). Teams’ actual won/loss records tend
to mirror their Pythagorean records, and variances can usually be attributed
to luck.Variances can usually be attributed to luck - because as a rule a team that wins more (or less) games than their run differential suggests does not make a habit of it. A team that is five games over one year is just as likely to be five games under the next year. There's nothing that suggests that it's a tangible ability, or the product of a style of play... it's mainly just random luck.
So what should the 2005 standings have looked like?
Expected Actual Difference EAST W L PCT GB RS RA W L PCT Boston 91 71 .561 - 910 805 95 67 .586 +4 NY Yankees 90 72 .558 1 886 789 95 67 .586 +5 Toronto 89 73 .547 2 775 705 80 82 .494 -9 Baltimore 73 89 .454 18 729 800 74 88 .457 +1 Tampa Bay 63 99 .391 28 750 936 67 95 .414 +4 CENTRAL Cleveland 97 65 .602 - 790 643 93 69 .574 -4 Chicago Sox 92 70 .569 5 741 645 99 63 .611 +7 Minnesota 84 78 .519 13 688 662 83 79 .512 -1 Detroit 74 88 .458 23 723 787 71 91 .438 -3 Kansas City 58 104 .360 39 702 935 56 106 .346 -2 WEST LA Angels 95 67 .583 - 761 643 95 67 .586 0 Oakland 94 68 .579 1 772 658 88 74 .543 -6 Texas 82 80 .504 13 865 858 79 83 .488 -3 Seattle 75 87 .464 20 699 751 69 93 .426 -6 2005 National League Standings EAST Atlanta 92 70 .566 - 769 674 90 72 .556 -2 NY Mets 90 72 .554 2 722 648 83 79 .512 -7 Philadelphia 90 72 .553 2 807 726 88 74 .543 -2 Florida 79 83 .490 13 717 732 83 79 .512 +4 Washington 77 85 .474 15 639 673 81 81 .500 +4 CENTRAL St. Louis 100 62 .617 - 805 634 100 62 .617 0 Houston 91 71 .564 9 693 609 89 73 .549 -2 Milwaukee 84 78 .520 16 726 697 81 81 .500 -3 Chicago Cubs 80 82 .492 20 703 714 79 83 .488 -1 Cincinnati 74 88 .460 26 820 889 73 89 .451 -1 Pittsburgh 71 91 .439 29 680 769 67 95 .414 -4 WEST San Diego 76 86 .470 - 684 726 82 80 .506 +6 LA Dodgers 73 89 .452 3 685 755 71 91 .438 -2 San Francisco 70 92 .431 6 649 745 75 87 .463 +5 Colorado 69 93 .424 7 740 862 67 95 .414 -2 Arizona 64 98 .398 12 696 856 77 85 .475 +13Yep, while the four NL post-season teams would be unchanged, the Yankees and White Sox would have missed the post-season, replaced by Cleveland and Oakland. (Note: the "winning percentage" given above is actually an expression of the relationship between runs scored and allowed. That figure is then multipled by 162 to produce the expected wins and losses, which are of course rounded off. And this is why the three 90-72 teams all have slightly different winning percentages. In case you were wondering!)
I think this is one of the two best reasons out there for Toronto fans to be waiting impatiently for 2006. (The other, of course, is the thought of Roy Halladay starting 33 games instead of 19. The Blue Jays had the best pitching in the divison by far even though Halladay missed the entire second half.)
Why did the Blue Jays miss their expected Won-Loss record by the largest margin of any team in the major leagues?
Well, no one really knows for sure. But we do know this. The Blue Jays went 16-31 in games decided by one run this past season. No team in baseball had a worse winning percentage in one-run games. If they had just broken even, if they had gone 24-23... we're looking at an 88-74 record.
A team's record in one-run games is also mainly a matter of random chance - it's not something that repeats year after year.
I promise to explore this specific subject at a later date. But for now, let's just take note of this. It is not the case that a team with, say, a superior bullpen does better in one-run games. The Cleveland Indians had arguably the best bullpen in the AL this past year, and they went 22-36 in one run games. That was the most losses by a single run in all of the majors, and an excellent reason to make them the pre-season favourite in the AL Central next year.
It is also not necessarily the case that a small-ball team - a team in the habit of playing for one run at a time - can be counted on to have a superior record in close games. It is indeed true that the team with the best record in one-run games this past season (35-19, .648) were the Chicago White Sox. The White Sox did lead the AL in sac hits, but they also hit more home runs than the Boston Red Sox. The Red Sox, who scored more runs than any team in the universe, had a record in close games (27-15, .643) almost as good as Chicago's. The best team in the NL (28-18, .609) in one-run games was the Arizona Diamondbacks, a team whose offense is built almost entirely around drawing walks and hitting home runs.
It might be a coincidence - but I doubt it. The two teams that won the most games over and above what their runs scored and allowed led us to expect were the Chicago White Sox and the Arizona Diamondbacks. Do not expect this pattern to be repeated next year.
https://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20051003035653798