Briandong79 wrote: BostonSucksMyBalls wrote: CourtesyFlush wrote: BostonSucksMyBalls wrote:
Briandong79 wrote:3rd best record in baseball, best record in the AL, and their run differential is +1. Very fluky year.
Can you explain this a smidge further for me? Act like I'm Flush. Really spell it out so I understand it.
Should their run differential be more? Less? What is fluky?
I'll explain it to you because I already understand. You would expect a team with a great record like theirs to have a higher run differential. It's basic math: if you're 20 games over .500 you would expect to have at least 20 more runs than your opposition but with the Rangers this year that isn't the case.
I dont know. I wouldnt think that, actually. You've lost a lot of games also, so that run diff gets taken into account.
I dont know what a standard run diff would look like.
Basically, you can look at over 100 years of records and see that there is a fairly predictable relationship between the more you outscore your opponents, the better your record will be. If they were at .500, then the differential would be around 0. The Rangers are well above .500, so you'd expect them to be easily outscoring their opponents. As a comparison, the Cubs run differential this year is +208, so based on expected record, they actually are performing worse than expected. The Rangers are way overperforming, which makes it much more of a fluky year.
If you go off expected W-L, they'd be a game over .500 and behind the Astros and Mariners in their own division.
Run differential is generally used to predict wins.
Win% = (Runs Scored)^2/(Runs Scored^2 + Runs Allowed^2)
Comparing the Rangers and Cubs:
The Rangers are 73-52 with 582 runs scored and 581 runs allowed. The predictive # of wins would be 50.1% of their games or a record of 63-62.
The Cubs are 79-45 with 636 runs scored and 424 runs allowed. The predictive # of wins would be 69.2% of their games or a record of 86-38.
So the Rangers are considered pretty lucky to have their record and the Cubs are considered a bit unlucky for not having a better record.
For the most part, run differential reflects record. It's not perfect, but it's better than listening to Tim McCarver trying to explain the Rangers' intangibles or telling me that "nobody in the league is better at playing a ball like that than Scott Brosius" whenever he bare handed a slow roller down the third base line.