I recall obsessing over those very same BP numbers 2 years ago, in 2005. They had the Red Sox as something like 80% favorites to take the AL East around this time of the season. I don't recall the exact numbers, but the point is, they projected the Red Sox as strong favorites to win the division. Why did the Red Sox not win the division that year?
Things changed with that team. Hitters showed their age and slumped terribly, that patchwork bullpen fell apart and was held together by duct tape and rope (a just called up Papelbon and Mike Timlin in his last effective stint). The point is, things changed.
These projections don't take into account dynamic, constantly changing factors such as a team getting hot towards the end of the season, getting previously injured guys to a healthier state, or adding a guy from the minor leagues who may make a huge difference (Chamberlain).
You can call me a knuckle dragger or whatever, but until these formulas somehow take those factors into account, they are flawed and not the be all, end all. The Red Sox may be 90% favorites to win the division today according to BP, but I look at 5 games difference in the standings and that doesn't seem like a lot with a couple series left between the teams. Hey, I love empirically analyzing data as much as anybody, but I know for damn sure that nobody can predict the future, much less a man made math function.
About the strength of schedule argument: Obviously winning against just the terrible teams means nothing. But there's something to be said for gaining confidence, coming together against the crap teams, and then reproducing those results against the better teams. Yankees have trounced the Indians the last two nights, holding them to 3 combined runs. The Indians are leading the American League Central.
They are not just beating up on the weaker teams anymore, I'm afraid. Simply stonewalling the alternative while holding out a BP formula as evidence isn't going to cut it anymore.
Comment