The Worse Team To Win 100 Games

[Crash Course]

Has there ever been a team who has won 100+ games that was not that great, in reality?

[RascalJones]

This year's Yankees after one more win? ;)

Nah, can't really say that. Their offense is as good as just about any I've seen. That rotation, however....

[Crash Course]

Actually, that's what got me thinking on this topic. For weeks now, all I keep hearing at work, on the radio, and at the ballpark is how bad the Yankees are, and, yet, they stand at 99 with 4 to go.............

[Crash Course]

Maybe this is a question for Lee and the raw SBE data?
What's the lowest combined total of RCAA and RSAA for a team with 100 wins?

[nyy26wc]

Worst combined RCAA & RSAA (I'm including the 2004 Yankees, even though they only have 99 at the moment)--

1) 1969 Mets, 69
2) 2004 Yankees, 82
3) 1915 Redsox, 86
4) 1971 A's, 101
5) 1940 Reds, 121
6) 1917 Whitesox, 126
T7) 1967 Cardinals, 127
T7) 1909 Cubs, 127
9) 1980 Orioles, 130
T10) 1978 Yankees, 131
T10) 1962 Dodgers, 131

Worst RCAA
1) 1969 Mets, -20
2) 2002 Braves, -5
3) 2002 A's, 3
4) 1940 Reds, 17
T5) 1907 Cubs, 18
T5) 1909 Cubs, 18
7) 1915 Redsox, 29
8) 1993 Braves, 32
9) 1997 Braves, 34
10) 1913 Giants, 35

Worst RSAA
1) 2004 Yankees, -44
2) 1928 Yankees, -17
3) 1962 Dodgers, -5
4) 1911 A's, 2
5) 2003 Braves, 8
T6) 1993 Giants, 13
T6) 1976 Reds, 13
8) 1932 Yankees, 17
9) 1988 Mets, 19
10) 1962 Giants, 23

[nyy26wc]

I also just determined the following--

The Yankees will be the 92nd team with 100+ wins.

Of those 92, 62 of them had a higher RCAA, only 30 had a better RSAA.

Biggest discrepencies, in favor of hitting
1) 1928 Yankees, 292
2) 1932 Yankees, 262
3) 1976 Reds, 260
4) 1936 Yankees, 228
5) 1927 Yankees, 221
6) 2003 Braves, 200
7) 1939 Yankees, 199
8) 1911 A's, 178
T9) 2004 Yankees, 170
T9) 1953 Dodgers, 170

Biggest discrepencies, in favor of pitching
1) 2002 Braves, 170
2) 2002 A's, 157
3) 1997 Braves, 126
T4) 1969 Mets, 109
T4) 1907 Cubs, 109
6) 1993 Braves, 108
7) 1913 Giants, 94
8) 1909 Cubs, 91
9) 1940 Reds, 87
10) 1954 Indians, 82

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Yeah -- I went with the '69 Mets. Playing in an essentially neutral park, they were below average in scoring . Tommy Agee led the team with 76 RBI.

They rode two great pitchers to 100 wins -- Koosman and Seaver were 42-16 combined.

Sort of like the World Champion D'Backs, but without as much hitting.

[hopbitters]

Biggest discrepencies, in favor of hitting
...
6) 2003 Braves, 200
...
Biggest discrepencies, in favor of pitching
1) 2002 Braves, 170

Interesting turnaround there.

[Crash Course]

Excellent stats Lee - thanks! :thumb:

[Deep Blue]

Worst RSAA
1) 2004 Yankees, -44
2) 1928 Yankees, -17
3) 1962 Dodgers, -5
4) 1911 A's, 2
5) 2003 Braves, 8
T6) 1993 Giants, 13
T6) 1976 Reds, 13
8) 1932 Yankees, 17
9) 1988 Mets, 19
10) 1962 Giants, 23

This part is amazing in some respects. Only 3 teams with 100+ wins have negtaive RSAA - and this year's Yankees dwarf the second place number in this category. Thank goodness for their offense, for Rivera, and for some good fortune !

[Crash Course]

The Yankees RSAA this year is interesting. I think it's because the pitchers on the team that are good, have been good, but the ones who were not good, have been really, really, bad. FWIW, IIRC, the Marlins team RSAA last year was negative too.

[Deep Blue]

Interesting point - I wonder what the Std Dev of RSAA/inning is among the pitchers on a team, and what that tells us abouut the makeup of a staff, and its chances for success....

[captain_napalm]

The Yankees RSAA this year is interesting. I think it's because the pitchers on the team that are good, have been good, but the ones who were not good, have been really, really, bad. FWIW, IIRC, the Marlins team RSAA last year was negative too.
wow, looking at the numbers, 3/5 of the rotation (along with a 1/3 of Quangormo) has a negative RSAA.

Loaiza, Contreras, & Sturze are in double digits

[Crash Course]

Probably why the Yankees will rely on Duque, Mussina, Leiber, Gordon, and Mo, as much as possible, in the postseason.

FWIW, TS, one of the worst pitchers in the bigs, has been lights out in his last few appearances. Supposedly, Mo taught him the cutter.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

What I find interesting is that, while the Yanks have by far the best record in baseball compared to their Pythagorean Expected W-L record, they are not really great in 1-run games.

The top teams in 1-run games this season (and how they compare to their Pythagorean expected W-L records) are:

Dodgers 32-16 (+3 vs P Ex W-L)
A's 32-18 (+4)
Padres 24-14 (-1)
ChiSox 28-18 (-2)
Braves 26-17 (even)
Cards 29-20 (+3)
Tribe 26-18 (even)
Yanks 23-16 (+11)
Twins 22-16 (+3)
Astros 24-18 (-1)

There's more to it than that, but in general, teams that exceed their P Ex W-L usually do very well in close games, while most of their losses are by bigger margins.

I didn't check 2-run games, but I would have to guess that the Yanks were fantastic in games by decided by 2 or 3 runs, and that the Padres and ChiSox were awful in such games.

It does lend creedence to the notion that Rivera makes a huge difference, since he would be a key reason that they Yanks do so well in close games.

[Crash Course]

FWIW, IIRC, the Yanks have the best record in the bigs this year in games where they score 5+ runs.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

That's not surprising, since they have the second-best record anyway.

I did a very small, informal study of how teams did in various run-spreads and against Pythagorean expected W-L% and it bears it out somewhat.

I looked at 1969 and saw how teams did vs the P Ex W-L, and how they did in games decided by 2 runs or less, and gaes decided by 3 runs or more. The close games were the much bigger determinant in how they did against Pythagoras, by a factor of 4 or more.

Another factor affecting the spread was the ratio of the number of close games to other games . Teams that had far more close games than other games AND had a better W-L record in close games than in other games, always had a better W-L record than expected by the Pythagorean method. This is intuitively correct, and the study bears it out.

It's one reason the '69 Mets won 100 games when they SHOULD have won only 92 games.

An even easier way to tell at a glance is to look at the number of Saves compared to total wins. Without checking, I would be almost certain that teams with a high percentage of wins Saved would perform better than Pythagoras, compared to teams with a lower percentage of wins Saved.