On an unrelated note, might I trouble you to check, if you’ve runs the numbers for all of the teams, whether I’ve the record for the Brewers (1 lose-able win, 5 winnable losses) correct? Thanks.

]]>This needs it’s own category.

]]>If on the other hand I selected a winnable game as say the odds being greater than say 75% and that only one team reached that level, then maybe I get a total of say 1800 winnable games (for one team). That puts the average at 60 for each team.

Then what? I’m adding extra work then if say the Mariners had 62 winnable games by this definition and 85 actual wins. Should I just add 21 games to each team to baseline them to the 81 win average? Should I multiply by 81/60?

There’s plenty of arbitrary choices to be made. I don’t know what any arbitrary choice is better than the other, but I have to make a choice at some point, so I can paint the story.

If you are suggesting that this arbitrary choice doesn’t paint a good story, that’s fine. If, let’s say, it’s a big surprise that the Mets left their fans with a real downer or the Yanks really were clutch, then your objections would have more merit.

Otherwise, we can sit here and try to tease out the best definition, and still end up win the same place (which is what I think we’d get anyway). So, I don’t know that it’s a big deal, considering that the baseline that I’ve chosen requires no further adjustments. 2430=2430.

]]>Well, the 81.21% seemed pretty arbitrary, and saying it was chosen to make winnable games equal to played games… Given that that doesn’t mean that every game was winnable (by someone), I just am not sure what the point of setting them equal is, either. I can’t think of a better spot for where to set the threshold; I guess I’m just wondering if there’s something about using that spot as a threshold that I’m missing. (Plus, the phrasing in the article seemed to me to imply that every game was winnable at some point, by that definition, when that’s obviously not the case.)

]]>Since there are 2430 games, and since some games are not winnable by either team (win% between 20% and 80% heading into the 9th), then that means that some of the other games are winnable by both teams.

Is the objection that I have some games as winnable by two teams? If it helps, I can just as well separate the 2430 winnable games into say 2000 games winnable by one team, and 215 games winnable by two teams.

]]>http://www.fangraphs.com/wins.aspx?date=2009-04-09&team=White%20Sox&dh=0&season=2009

Hmm… decided to do another minute’s worth of searching:

http://www.fangraphs.com/wins.aspx?date=2009-04-18&team=Blue%20Jays&dh=0&season=2009

http://www.fangraphs.com/wins.aspx?date=2009-04-18&team=Giants&dh=0&season=2009

Tigers, Astros(!) and Rays top 3.

]]>