Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
This is a not-particularly-scientific study of the effects of luck on a baseball team's chances, using the 2003 Diamond Mind Baseball season disk as data.


After the events of the last two seasons, baseball fans may be forgiven for thinking that luck, not talent or skill, is the primary determinant of success in baseball. (Fans of the Chicago Cubs are more than willing to discuss this topic at great length.) I became more aware that luck plays a factor in baseball, at least in simulated baseball, when I was replaying the Jays' 2003 season using Diamond Mind.

My simulated Roy Halladay was born under a bad sign: he always pitched in bad luck. In a typical start, the digitized Doctor would get 11 straight ground ball outs, put two men on base with bloop singles, and give up a three-run bomb. Or, he'd pitch a complete game, allow two runs, and lose 2-1. By August, he was leading the league: with 15 losses. This led me to do two things:

- Fire myself as manager (i.e., stop playing the season).
- Wonder: how much luck is there in baseball?

To try to test this, I used Diamond Mind to automatically replay the 2003 season twelve times. (I'd've done more than 12, but I have a short attention span.) Here are the Jays' won-lost records, the division winners, and the wild card winner for these seasons:

1 83-79 NYY CHW OAK BOS
2 85-77 NYY MIN OAK CHW
3 79-83 NYY CHW SEA BOS
4 91-71 NYY CHW and MIN (tie) OAK BOS
5 96-66 NYY CHW SEA TOR
6 93-69 NYY MIN OAK BOS
7 85-77 NYY CHW SEA MIN
8 87-75 BOS MIN SEA NYY
9 79-83 BOS MIN OAK NYY
10 87-75 BOS CHW OAK NYY
11 87-75 BOS CHW OAK NYY
12 80-82 BOS CHW OAK SEA

Notice that the Jays' win total ranged from 79 to 96, which is about a 24% difference. Of the 14 American League teams, six made it to the postseason five or more times, seven didn't make it at all, and the Jays managed to sneak in once. Each division title was shared by two of the eligible teams. I have no idea why the Yankees won the first seven divisional races and lost the next five. Neither, I assume, does George Steinbrenner.

As for luck on an individual level: here are Carlos Delgado's batting lines for the twelve seasons, with batting average, home runs, RBI's, and (for the fun of it) hit by pitches listed. Yes, I know these are the traditional counting stats, but we're not trying to analyze players here, just their horseshoes.

.334 39 148 16
.276 30 99 19
.304 32 103 9
.310 42 121 16
.331 49 149 21
.317 50 150 15
.311 39 109 14
.306 40 125 15
.273 46 135 13
.314 43 134 19
.317 49 154 21
.285 49 154 10

Here, computerized Carlos compiles batting averages ranging from .273 to .334. There is a 61-point difference between best and worst, which is about 22%. The home run totals range more widely, with extremes of 30 and 50, or a 66% difference. The RBI totals are almost as widely spaced, ranging from 99 to 154, or a 56% difference.

Oddly enough, the strongest correlation here between team success and individual success is Delgado's HBP total. When he gets plunked 13 times or fewer, the Jays finish under .500. Carlos, I guess this means you have to take one for the team every now and again.

Here's Roy Halladay's seasons (except for season 5, which I stupidly forgot to save pitching stats for). The numbers are ERA, wins, losses, and home runs allowed:

3.52 18 10 27
3.75 14 13 37
3.06 20 10 23
3.68 16 11 30
2.68 18 6 21
3.21 18 10 25
3.45 17 12 24
3.47 18 11 33
3.98 16 13 24
2.95 18 10 23
3.32 15 11 32

Notice that the good doctor only won 20 once in his 11 simulated seasons. While his ERA fluctuated between 2.68 and 3.98, his win total was relatively stable: he won 18 five times. His range of wins, measured as a percentage, was actually smaller than his range of ERA.

What conclusions can we draw?

Not many, to be honest - this is a small sample size, the simulation may be flawed, etc., etc. But here's what I conclude:

- Luck does play a factor in the pennant race, but only up to a point. If you're armed with popguns, and your opponent has tanks, I'd bet on the tanks. The Yanks are likely to win this year; the Jays could; the Tigers won't.
- There's no point in fine-tuning a player rating system. If a player's batting average (to use one metric) can swing as much as 60 points based on luck alone, it's better just to put the guys hitting about .260 in one pile, and the guys hitting about .300 in another pile.
- I'm looking forward to the season finally starting. That's not scientifically proven, but it is, nonetheless, true.
Is it better to be lucky than smart? | 8 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_John Neary - Saturday, April 03 2004 @ 05:18 PM EST (#73846) #
I'm looking forward to the season finally starting. That's not scientifically proven, but it is, nonetheless, true.

Maybe it's the Gödel sentence!

Nice piece, Dave.
_Ryan F. - Sunday, April 04 2004 @ 12:37 PM EDT (#73847) #
So all this proves is that Diamond Mind isn't that great of a simulation tool...unlike, say, OOTP6.
Coach - Sunday, April 04 2004 @ 03:22 PM EDT (#73848) #
I have to wonder about the DMB rating for Halladay; based on what he actually did last year, shouldn't he duplicate that season more often? The simulated Doc sure does seem to have some bad luck.

The Delgado numbers look more plausible to me, as do the season results. There really is that much variation in "possible" outcomes, if not more. Good luck, especially concerning key injuries, can be the principal difference between the high range and the low in any projection.

Eagerly anticipating tomorrow is true for me, too.
_NIck - Sunday, April 04 2004 @ 09:30 PM EDT (#73849) #
I can see where this demonstrates a good amount of chance (a better word than luck, since you certainly wouldn't call it luck if you played below the 50% mark of the win difference) in respect to a team's season, but I don't see how it demonstrates anything concerning a player's season. The fact that the computer Delgado's stats varied from year to year just tells you something about the random number generator DMB is using. It doesn't tell you anything about how much chance was involved in Delgado's performance last year. If you take the three true outcomes, something in which there isn't a lot of chance involved, and run those through DMB, there will be a good deal of variance from year-to-year because DMB is using some kind of random number generator. That variance, however, doesn't mean that there some kind of equal amount of chance in Delgado's production of those stats.
_John Neary - Monday, April 05 2004 @ 07:53 AM EDT (#73850) #
Nick,

Stephen Tomlinson's characteristically excellent Blue Jays Projected Record contains a good discussion of the role of chance in baseball outcomes. Stephen frames it in terms of a team's wins, but it's equally applicable to a player's performance.

Assuming that DMB is just using a random number generator to determine the outcome of each at-bat, and not varying Delgado's expected level of performance, then the expected variation in Delgado's stats is as described by Dave above.

John
_NIck - Monday, April 05 2004 @ 05:30 PM EDT (#73851) #
Hmm, couldn't find any discussion of chance in the article.

Dave may have the expected variation in Delgado's stats perfectly correct. However, the mistake I think that Dave makes is that he attributes that varience to chance.
_Liam - Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT (#73852) #
http://n/a
i think that this website is soooooooooooooo cool...i mean like omg i luv all ur baseball updates they're the greatest thx so much 4 doing this website it's the best
_John Neary - Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 06:11 PM EDT (#73853) #
Nick,

The discussion of chance is under the "Disclaimer" heading.

At this point, we are in danger of getting into a long semantic discussion about the nature of chance (or luck; take your pick.)

Why do you think that chance does not play a role in outcomes in baseball?

John
Is it better to be lucky than smart? | 8 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.