Spring training is here. Columnists will soak in some sun and make in the next few weeks bold predictions on the success or failure of baseball teams.
In 2013, the Cubs record was 66-96. It's Pythagoean record was calculated (by a formula that takes in account runs scored and runs allowed) to be 71-91, which represents to some that the Cubs underperformed their projected record. When we look at the WAR for both hitters (15.6) and pitchers (10.5), one would have calculated the Cubs having 75.1 wins.
In 2012, the Cubs record was 61-101. It's Pythagoean record was
calculated to be 65-97, which represents to some that the Cubs
underperformed their projected record. When we look at the WAR for both
hitters (13.6) and pitchers (2.3), one would have calculated the Cubs
having 64.9 wins.
In 2011, the Cubs record was 71-91. It's Pythagoean record was
calculated to be 70-92, which was only a game off. When we look at the WAR for both
hitters (14.0) and pitchers (7.5), one would have calculated the Cubs
having 70.5 wins.
In 2010, the Cubs record was 75-87. It's Pythagoean record was
calculated to be 73-89, which represents to some that the Cubs overperformed their projected record. When we look at the WAR for both
hitters (7.4) and pitchers (15.9), one would have calculated the Cubs
having 72.3 wins.
In 2009, the Cubs record was 83-78, the last above .500 record. It's Pythagoean record was
calculated to be 84-77, which represents to some that the Cubs
underperformed their projected record by a game. When we look at the WAR for both
hitters (10.8) and pitchers (24.2), one would have calculated the Cubs
having 84.0 wins.
Charting the win totals:
Real Wins Pyth Wins WAR Wins
66 71 75.1
61 65 64.9
71 70 70.5
75 73 72.3
83 84 84.0
356 363 366.8
It appears that the Pythagoean record is a 2 percent deviation from Real Wins. The WAR win calculation is higher at a 3 percent deviation. A 2 to 3 percent deviation calculates to a difference of 3.24 to 4.86 wins per 162 game season. This number is interesting because it can explain many things. First, the deviation falls within the general discussion of what is the "value" of a manager to the performance of his club. A great manager can improve his team's record by a few games. A bad manager can cost a team a few games. Since the Cubs underperformed by 3 to 5 wins on average, is this proof that bad managers cost even a bad team wins? Second, this could also show that the players themselves did not play well as a team (the sum of their individual parts, i.e. stats was greater than the the team record). This could show a lack of collective baseball IQ, the ability to manufacturer runs or give a team less second chance opportunities to score runs. Bad teams have a tendency to fail in the basic game fundamentals.
If one would want to predict the number of Cubs wins in 2014, I would suggest taking the final 25 man roster, average the last two seasons players' WARs, minus 2.5 percent. That figure should be close to the last five year average track record for the Cubs.
