FanHome - View Single Post

Roxpert · November 22nd, 2006, 05:53 PM

I show the Pythag. results not to literally say that it proves that Hurdle costs our team 4 wins per season, but only as further illustrative support that indicates that this team rarely seems to live up to the implied wins that RS/RA would suggest.

Still, I think it's at least plausible to subjectively assume that if your system comes up with 79 wins, the field management will take the raw material and mold it into, say, a 75 win team. In other words, your quant-method is a good one, but inevitably incomplete due to its inability to account for the "Hurdle" factor.

Actually, I think the Hurdle factor is even MORE costly than the Pythag. numbers suggest. I've felt for years that he sub-optimizes his rosters, and wins 5 to 10 fewer games per season than the raw talent given him would allow. I haven't seen any improvement in his managing decisions either in recent years. Granted, this is ALL subjective, but Pythag. lends further support to my subjective belief from the empircal evidence that the Rockies will usually not quite live up to their talent level on paper.

Having said that, we actually did exceed our talent level in 2006. It was an outlier season even though Clint Hurdle cost us several wins. I don't think that bodes well for 2007, by the way.

November 22nd, 2006, 05:53 PM	#8 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,090	I show the Pythag. results not to literally say that it proves that Hurdle costs our team 4 wins per season, but only as further illustrative support that indicates that this team rarely seems to live up to the implied wins that RS/RA would suggest. Still, I think it's at least plausible to subjectively assume that if your system comes up with 79 wins, the field management will take the raw material and mold it into, say, a 75 win team. In other words, your quant-method is a good one, but inevitably incomplete due to its inability to account for the "Hurdle" factor. Actually, I think the Hurdle factor is even MORE costly than the Pythag. numbers suggest. I've felt for years that he sub-optimizes his rosters, and wins 5 to 10 fewer games per season than the raw talent given him would allow. I haven't seen any improvement in his managing decisions either in recent years. Granted, this is ALL subjective, but Pythag. lends further support to my subjective belief from the empircal evidence that the Rockies will usually not quite live up to their talent level on paper. Having said that, we actually did exceed our talent level in 2006. It was an outlier season even though Clint Hurdle cost us several wins. I don't think that bodes well for 2007, by the way. Last edited by Roxpert; November 22nd, 2006 at 05:57 PM.