Divisional play math
“nelly + simba” by ynskjen, cc-licensed.
The M’s and Angels have played 5 games, it’s 2-3 for the M’s. There are 14 (!) games between them remaining. If you figure that they’re perfectly equal teams in terms of quality, the importance of these games becomes a little shocking.
Split the remaining 14 games: M’s finish back one. (9 wins v Angels + n other season wins versus 10 wins v Mariners + n other season wins)
M’s go 6-8: M’s finish back three (8 wins v Angels + n other season wins versus 11 wins v Mariners + n other season wins)
M’s go 5-9: M’s finish back five
… and so on.
To make up that gap during the other games, the M’s have to be a significantly better team when not playing the Angels. Making up a one game gap is ~.01 win percentage. Making up three games requires them to put up a ~.02 win percentage. A five game gap — ~.035.
Or, since that’s not really intuitive, if the M’s split the remaining 14 games, the rest of the season they have to play like an 82-win team to catch the Angels if the Angels play .500 ball the rest of the year. Not that hard.
If they go 6-8, they have to play like an 84 win team.
If they go 5-9, they have to play like an 87 win team.
… and so on. And that assumes the Angels tread water the rest of the year. If you think they’ll do better than .500, the difficulty ramps up even more.
The short of it is that getting into a hole against a divisional rival makes getting to the playoffs a lot tougher. Hopefully the M’s can turn this around today.
Man … those number are daunting … we really do need to take this game. Hopefully … uhh – the stats are wrong?
As they say, “You can’t win the division in April, but you can certainly lose it.” Hopefully things start to turn around some.
On a happier note, I just got an inside track on some season tickets from my neighbor. 13 rows behind the visitor’s dugout. Should be fun.
My one question about this analysis is: is there really a statistical significance between an 84-win team and an 87-win team?
Obviously the outcomes of those two seasons could be very significant, but I imagine that a team with a certain talent level around 84 wins, will end up winning 87 games (or more) a fair number of times-just out of pure luck.
I get that the idea is that if they lose Mariners will now have to be luckier than if they win, but on the other hand I think there are so many more opportunities for “luck” in the season that these types of things tend to balance out.
It’s sort of the ideal gas law applied to baseball.
I always figured the Mariners were counting on good luck to get to the playoffs this season anyway. Minimal injuries, players having solid to career years with no holes. Not really my idea of how to build a winner.
Obviously the outcomes of those two seasons could be very significant, but I imagine that a team with a certain talent level around 84 wins, will end up winning 87 games (or more) a fair number of times-just out of pure luck.
Of course, the converse is that a true talent of 84 wins might end up with 81 just as easily at 87, if we assume luck is equally likely to be bad luck as good luck.
I believe in Branch Rickey’s aphorism: “Luck is the residue of design”. And, well, I don’t think the 2008 Mariners are all that awesomely designed.
I think Rickey got that quote from Milton. But it’s a good quote, and he’s the guy who applied it to baseball.
The last two years, the M’s record against the division winner was the difference in the division. It’s not so much the 5-9 as the 0-14 that really can bite you in the ass.
So I guess it’s a good thing they won, then.
Trading Sherrill might prove to be the single greatest mistake Bavasi made in the off-season.
The injury to J.J., the implosion of O’Flaherty, and poor defense, resulted in the sweep in Baltimore (with Sherrill nailing the coffin). That early season sweep might end up being the difference in the AL West and Wildcard.