clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

BaseRuns & Projections

New, 7 comments

For more on BaseRuns. What I decided to do was run numbers based on teams baseruns projected record (over 162 games) versus their "real" projected records based on current winning percentage. Since most teams have about 30 games left we probably won't see too big of a swing, but I'm curious if some of these teams regress (or progress) over the next month and some. In fact when the season is over I plan to review the numbers just to see which pair of numbers worked out.

Here are the numbers we need to worry about:

Team RS RA Proj W Real W Difference
ANA 560 552 82 98 -16
MIN 603 607 81 91 -10
HOU 577 656 72 82 -10
TBA 595 528 90 99 -9
MIL 626 572 88 94 -6
PIT 579 742 63 69 -6
CIN 559 673 67 71 -4
FLO 590 602 79 83 -4
SLN 677 637 86 89 -3
PHI 630 590 86 89 -3
KCA 515 630 66 68 -2
SFN 509 587 71 72 -1
CHN 710 551 100 101 -1
TEX 720 738 79 80 -1
NYN 638 566 90 89 1
CHA 670 560 94 93 1
NYA 627 574 88 86 2
CLE 599 594 82 80 2
BAL 656 665 80 77 3
WAS 488 634 62 58 4
COL 638 647 80 76 4
DET 668 657 82 78 4
OAK 505 522 79 74 5
BOS 694 544 99 94 5
TOR 564 514 88 83 5
ARI 581 529 88 83 5
LAN 540 517 84 79 5
SEA 545 654 68 61 7
ATL 599 578 84 71 13
SDN 535 581 75 62 13

Obviously some teams have been bitten by the injury bug -- San Diego has been nearly devoured by the damn thing -- which makes their projected records a bit off if (when) they get healthy. A team like Boston for instance, without Mike Lowell and possibly J.D. Drew are probably less likely to match their production thus far this season than say the Chicago Cubs who aren't missing any key components right now. I'm not quite sure what to expect, but which of the two methods do you think will result in more accuracy?

Update: Thankfully Sky pointed out a mistake I made in the original formula, the numbers above are accurate.