This was published in SABR's Baseball Research Journal several years ago.
(This article benefited from comments made by David Gassko.
Any mistakes or defects are due entirely to me, of course)
If a team scores 10% more runs than average and allows 10%
fewer runs than average, they could be said to be perfectly balanced. Do such
teams win more games than teams that are less balanced? For example, if another
team scored 15% more runs than average and allowed 5% fewer runs than average,
they would obviously be less balanced than the first team. Does the first team
win more games due to greater balance, even though they seem to have about the
same level of performance as the first team?
To measure a team’s offensive performance, I divided their
runs scored per game by the league average. Then that was park adjusted using
the park factors from the Sean Lahman database. The 1980 Orioles, for example,
scored 4.97 runs per game. That divided by the league average of 4.51 leaves
1.10. But their park factor was 99, meaning that 1% fewer runs were scored in
their park than average. So the 1.10 was divided by .99 to get 1.114, which is
then multiplied by 100 to get 111.4, meaning the Orioles were 11.4% better than
average in scoring. I performed similar calculations for runs allowed. In that
case, the Orioles got 111.77, meaning they gave up 11.77% fewer runs than
average (I’m following the convention that Pete Palmer uses, so above 100 means
the team was better than average at preventing runs). Let’s call the runs
scored measure “OFF” for offense and the runs allowed measure “DEF” for defense
To measure balance, I found the difference between their OFF
and DEF and then found the absolute value. Let’s call this result “BAL” for
balance. So the closer OFF and DEF are to each other, the more balanced the
team is. The Orioles had a BAL of .374 (slightly different than the numbers
above would imply due to rounding). Is this balance factor important or
relevant? To test this, I first ran a regression in which team winning
percentage was the dependent variable and OFF and DEF were the dependent
variables. The equation was:
(1) Pct = -.476 + .49*OFF + .482*DEF
(I divided both OFF and DEF by 100 for the regression so,
for example, instead of using 110 for BAL, I used 1.10). The coefficient on DEF
is not negative for reasons explained in above. The standard error for 162
games was about 4 wins. I looked at all teams from 1980-2004.
Then I ran the regression with the balance variable added
in. Here are the results:
(2) Pct = -.476 + .486*OFF + .488*DEF - .032*BAL
The standard error was still just about 4 wins for 162
games. It did fall by about .02 wins. So adding in a balance factor does not
explain winning much better. The BAL variable was statistically significant
with a T-value of -2.6. It has the right sign needed if balance is to help
winning. As BAL gets larger (teams get less balanced), they win less. But
notice that its impact is only about 1/16 of OFF and DEF. Adding BAL also had
very little impact on the equation itself, which you can see by comparing
equation (2) to equation (1).
It is also helpful to look at how much a one standard
deviation increase in any of the variables would change a team’s winning
percentage. Standard deviation (SD) is a measure of dispersion or how spread of
the numbers. The SD of OFF was 9.51. If we multiply that by .486 we get 4.62.
Since I divided both OFF and DEF by 100 for the regression, we have to divide
4.62 by 100, which leaves .0462. Over a 162 games, that is about 7.5 more wins.
The SD of DEF was 9.07. That multiplied by .488 leaves 4.43. Over a full
season, that is 7.17 more wins. For BAL, the SD was 8.11. Using the -.032
coefficient, over 162 games we get about .42 more wins. So if you made a
significant improvement in how balanced your team is you add less than 1 win a
season.
I also looked to see if teams that exceeded their
“Pythagorean” winning percentage were more balanced than other teams. The
“Pythagorean” winning percentage was invented by Bill James and it says that a
team should have a winning percentage equal to runs scored squared divided by
(runs scored squared + runs squared allowed). The correlation between the BAL
variable and how much teams exceeded their “Pythagorean” winning percentage was
.0025, meaning that there is no connection. Being more balanced did not
increase a team’s number of expected wins.
How did the most balanced teams do? The table below shows
the teams with the lowest 25 BAL scores.
Table 1: The
Most Balanced Teams
|
||||||
Rank
|
Team
|
Year
|
OFF
|
DEF
|
BAL
|
PCT
|
1
|
NYN
|
1999
|
110.08
|
110.13
|
0.047
|
0.595
|
2
|
KCA
|
1983
|
95.23
|
95.28
|
0.049
|
0.488
|
3
|
NYA
|
1997
|
112.67
|
112.62
|
0.050
|
0.593
|
4
|
SDN
|
1980
|
95.6
|
95.53
|
0.068
|
0.451
|
5
|
PHI
|
1997
|
89.58
|
89.66
|
0.085
|
0.420
|
6
|
BOS
|
1995
|
106.4
|
106.51
|
0.103
|
0.597
|
7
|
CHN
|
1987
|
95.21
|
95.32
|
0.113
|
0.472
|
8
|
TBA
|
2004
|
92.17
|
92
|
0.173
|
0.435
|
9
|
ATL
|
1985
|
90.49
|
90.27
|
0.224
|
0.407
|
10
|
TBA
|
1999
|
92.07
|
91.84
|
0.226
|
0.426
|
11
|
MON
|
1983
|
102.25
|
102.5
|
0.251
|
0.506
|
12
|
CLE
|
2003
|
95.46
|
95.13
|
0.329
|
0.420
|
13
|
CHN
|
1990
|
94.68
|
95.03
|
0.353
|
0.475
|
14
|
BAL
|
1980
|
111.4
|
111.77
|
0.374
|
0.617
|
15
|
NYN
|
1982
|
92.89
|
92.51
|
0.375
|
0.401
|
16
|
COL
|
1997
|
100.63
|
101.02
|
0.387
|
0.512
|
17
|
NYN
|
1994
|
97.87
|
98.29
|
0.415
|
0.487
|
18
|
MON
|
2002
|
100.96
|
101.4
|
0.438
|
0.512
|
19
|
PIT
|
1981
|
98.09
|
97.63
|
0.464
|
0.451
|
20
|
CAL
|
1996
|
89.65
|
90.14
|
0.486
|
0.435
|
21
|
PHI
|
1990
|
94.85
|
94.36
|
0.488
|
0.475
|
22
|
MIL
|
1998
|
94.02
|
93.53
|
0.490
|
0.457
|
23
|
BOS
|
1986
|
107.05
|
106.56
|
0.491
|
0.590
|
24
|
NYA
|
1982
|
99.76
|
99.26
|
0.502
|
0.488
|
25
|
CAL
|
1986
|
106.39
|
106.92
|
0.539
|
0.568
|
Their average winning percentage is .491. So they did not
win any more games than normal. The next table shows the 25 least balanced
teams. Their average winning percentage was .497.
Table
2: The Least Balanced Teams
Rank
|
Team
|
Year
|
OFF
|
DEF
|
BAL
|
PCT
|
1
|
KCA
|
1987
|
88.32
|
117.16
|
28.845
|
0.512
|
2
|
DET
|
1993
|
119.10
|
90.18
|
28.924
|
0.525
|
3
|
TEX
|
1991
|
116.43
|
87.47
|
28.952
|
0.525
|
4
|
SEA
|
1983
|
73.87
|
103.06
|
29.194
|
0.370
|
5
|
HOU
|
1995
|
120.43
|
91.04
|
29.387
|
0.528
|
6
|
TEX
|
1983
|
89.22
|
118.80
|
29.585
|
0.475
|
7
|
TOR
|
1991
|
90.52
|
120.32
|
29.797
|
0.562
|
8
|
ATL
|
1995
|
94.81
|
124.75
|
29.940
|
0.625
|
9
|
KCA
|
1993
|
85.13
|
115.35
|
30.225
|
0.519
|
10
|
SLN
|
2003
|
122.14
|
91.04
|
31.096
|
0.525
|
11
|
CIN
|
2004
|
108.46
|
77.07
|
31.390
|
0.469
|
12
|
TOR
|
1982
|
82.36
|
113.80
|
31.441
|
0.481
|
13
|
TOR
|
1996
|
82.80
|
114.35
|
31.543
|
0.457
|
14
|
TEX
|
2001
|
113.04
|
81.34
|
31.702
|
0.451
|
15
|
BOS
|
1992
|
79.96
|
111.98
|
32.024
|
0.451
|
16
|
ANA
|
2001
|
82.02
|
114.33
|
32.304
|
0.463
|
17
|
ARI
|
2003
|
86.46
|
118.88
|
32.422
|
0.519
|
18
|
SFN
|
1999
|
120.86
|
87.80
|
33.068
|
0.531
|
19
|
BOS
|
1993
|
83.31
|
117.97
|
34.658
|
0.494
|
20
|
TOR
|
1997
|
81.06
|
116.25
|
35.188
|
0.469
|
21
|
ML4
|
1982
|
129.90
|
94.64
|
35.259
|
0.586
|
22
|
SDN
|
1997
|
114.63
|
77.00
|
37.635
|
0.469
|
23
|
TBA
|
1998
|
73.44
|
113.49
|
40.053
|
0.389
|
24
|
MON
|
2003
|
80.65
|
121.04
|
40.389
|
0.512
|
25
|
LAN
|
2003
|
82.61
|
126.31
|
43.696
|
0.525
|
The next table shows the top 25 teams in winning percentage
from 1980-2004. Their average BAL score was 11.737, while the average for all
teams was 10.138. So the best teams are just a little less balanced than normal
(remember that zero is perfect balance).
Table 3: The Best Teams
Rank
|
Team
|
Year
|
OFF
|
DEF
|
BAL
|
PCT
|
1
|
SEA
|
2001
|
126.60
|
118.04
|
8.561
|
0.716
|
2
|
NYA
|
1998
|
121.31
|
118.79
|
2.513
|
0.704
|
3
|
CLE
|
1995
|
115.25
|
117.67
|
2.416
|
0.694
|
4
|
NYN
|
1986
|
119.28
|
111.23
|
8.059
|
0.667
|
5
|
ATL
|
1998
|
108.76
|
128.15
|
19.385
|
0.654
|
6
|
MON
|
1994
|
109.94
|
116.04
|
6.104
|
0.649
|
7
|
SLN
|
2004
|
117.27
|
110.64
|
6.635
|
0.648
|
8
|
DET
|
1984
|
116.93
|
109.15
|
7.785
|
0.642
|
9
|
OAK
|
1988
|
116.84
|
108.16
|
8.674
|
0.642
|
10
|
ATL
|
1993
|
103.40
|
130.09
|
26.689
|
0.642
|
11
|
NYA
|
2002
|
118.18
|
108.89
|
9.289
|
0.640
|
12
|
NYA
|
1980
|
114.63
|
106.95
|
7.677
|
0.636
|
13
|
OAK
|
1990
|
109.59
|
116.13
|
6.540
|
0.636
|
14
|
SFN
|
1993
|
115.74
|
109.77
|
5.971
|
0.636
|
15
|
ATL
|
1999
|
110.23
|
116.51
|
6.273
|
0.636
|
16
|
OAK
|
2002
|
98.71
|
123.92
|
25.215
|
0.636
|
17
|
ATL
|
2002
|
98.83
|
126.79
|
27.959
|
0.631
|
18
|
HOU
|
1998
|
119.78
|
115.28
|
4.498
|
0.630
|
19
|
OAK
|
2001
|
116.95
|
118.41
|
1.452
|
0.630
|
20
|
NYN
|
1988
|
119.16
|
108.57
|
10.590
|
0.625
|
21
|
ATL
|
1995
|
94.81
|
124.75
|
29.940
|
0.625
|
22
|
SLN
|
1985
|
114.52
|
112.88
|
1.637
|
0.623
|
23
|
ATL
|
1997
|
103.99
|
128.35
|
24.357
|
0.623
|
24
|
NYA
|
2003
|
115.31
|
107.33
|
7.988
|
0.623
|
25
|
ATL
|
2003
|
125.16
|
97.93
|
27.225
|
0.623
|
A couple of teams are interesting here. One is the 2002-3
Braves. In 2002, they rank #17 having an OFF of just 98.83 and a DEF of 126.79.
So they had great pitching and about average hitting. But the next year, 2003,
ranked #25, they were very unbalanced, but in the opposite direction. They had
great hitting (an OFF of 125.16) and just so-so pitching (a DEF of 97.93). The
other is the 2001-02 A’s. In 2001, they were very balanced, with a BAL of
1.452. Their winning percentage was .630. The next year, they became very
imbalanced when BAL rose to 25.215. But they actually saw a slight rise in
their winning percentage, to .636. So for the A’s, going from being very
balanced to being very imbalanced did not hurt their record.
The next table shows the lowest 25 teams in winning
percentage. Their average BAL was 10.165. So the worst teams are just about as
balanced as anyone else. Lack of balance is not why they lost so much.
Table
4: The Worst Teams
Rank
|
Team
|
Year
|
OFF
|
DEF
|
BAL
|
PCT
|
1
|
CIN
|
1982
|
80.68
|
103.19
|
22.513
|
0.377
|
2
|
CLE
|
1987
|
92.56
|
84.60
|
7.962
|
0.377
|
3
|
SDN
|
1993
|
90.65
|
97.02
|
6.374
|
0.377
|
4
|
MIN
|
1981
|
78.82
|
99.60
|
20.776
|
0.376
|
5
|
SDN
|
1981
|
95.48
|
87.93
|
7.544
|
0.373
|
6
|
MIN
|
1982
|
87.96
|
92.09
|
4.132
|
0.370
|
7
|
SEA
|
1983
|
73.87
|
103.06
|
29.194
|
0.370
|
8
|
CLE
|
1985
|
99.75
|
85.74
|
14.006
|
0.370
|
9
|
CHN
|
1981
|
85.82
|
90.98
|
5.164
|
0.369
|
10
|
SEA
|
1980
|
82.23
|
94.47
|
12.234
|
0.364
|
11
|
DET
|
1989
|
90.49
|
83.56
|
6.930
|
0.364
|
12
|
NYN
|
1993
|
96.26
|
94.81
|
1.447
|
0.364
|
13
|
KCA
|
2004
|
93.35
|
86.13
|
7.219
|
0.358
|
14
|
PIT
|
1985
|
87.62
|
92.49
|
4.867
|
0.354
|
15
|
CLE
|
1991
|
78.49
|
96.68
|
18.193
|
0.352
|
16
|
TOR
|
1981
|
71.86
|
100.10
|
28.231
|
0.349
|
17
|
MIL
|
2002
|
90.61
|
85.16
|
5.445
|
0.346
|
18
|
DET
|
2002
|
79.83
|
84.26
|
4.429
|
0.342
|
19
|
TBA
|
2002
|
86.90
|
84.37
|
2.531
|
0.342
|
20
|
ATL
|
1988
|
85.11
|
89.68
|
4.567
|
0.338
|
21
|
BAL
|
1988
|
80.82
|
87.14
|
6.313
|
0.335
|
22
|
FLO
|
1998
|
93.32
|
78.25
|
15.071
|
0.333
|
23
|
DET
|
1996
|
90.63
|
79.91
|
10.714
|
0.327
|
24
|
ARI
|
2004
|
79.44
|
86.12
|
6.678
|
0.315
|
25
|
DET
|
2003
|
79.01
|
80.60
|
1.591
|
0.265
|
The interesting team here is the 1981-82 Twins. In 1981,
their BAL was 20.776. So they were unbalanced and they had a winning percentage
of just .376. The next year, their BAL fell to 4.132, meaning they became more
balanced. Yet their winning percentage also fell to .370.
The most balanced team was the 1999 Mets. They boasted very
good hitting and pitching, with their OFF and DEF both being just about 110.
This lead to an excellent .595 winning percentage, a wild card birth in the
playoffs, and a tough loss to the Braves in the NLCS (equation (1) predicts
that they would have a .594 winning percentage). They boasted a star-studded
lineup. The table below shows how the Met regulars hit:
Table 5: 1999 Mets Hitting
|
||||||||
Player
|
AB
|
HR
|
RBI
|
AVG
|
SLG
|
OBP
|
OPS
|
SB
|
Edgardo Alfonzo
|
628
|
27
|
108
|
0.304
|
0.502
|
0.385
|
0.886
|
9
|
John Olerud
|
581
|
19
|
96
|
0.298
|
0.463
|
0.427
|
0.890
|
3
|
Robin Ventura
|
588
|
32
|
120
|
0.301
|
0.529
|
0.379
|
0.908
|
1
|
Mike Piazza
|
534
|
40
|
124
|
0.303
|
0.575
|
0.361
|
0.936
|
2
|
Rey Ordonez
|
520
|
1
|
60
|
0.258
|
0.317
|
0.319
|
0.636
|
8
|
R. Henderson
|
438
|
12
|
42
|
0.315
|
0.466
|
0.423
|
0.889
|
37
|
Roger Cedeno
|
453
|
4
|
36
|
0.313
|
0.408
|
0.396
|
0.804
|
66
|
Brian McRae
|
298
|
8
|
36
|
0.221
|
0.349
|
0.320
|
0.669
|
2
|
Benny Agbayani
|
276
|
14
|
42
|
0.286
|
0.525
|
0.363
|
0.888
|
6
|
The Mets were a solid fifth in runs scored, averaging 5.23
runs per game.
The table below shows how the performance of the key Met
pitchers:
Table 6: 1999 Mets Pitching
|
|||||||
Pitcher
|
W
|
L
|
SV
|
IP
|
BB
|
SO
|
ERA
|
Al Leiter
|
13
|
12
|
0
|
213
|
93
|
162
|
4.23
|
Orel Hershiser
|
13
|
12
|
0
|
179
|
77
|
89
|
4.58
|
Masato Yoshii
|
12
|
8
|
0
|
174
|
58
|
105
|
4.40
|
Rick Reed
|
11
|
5
|
0
|
149
|
47
|
104
|
4.59
|
Octavio Dotel
|
8
|
3
|
0
|
85.1
|
49
|
85
|
5.39
|
Turk Wendell
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
85.1
|
37
|
77
|
3.07
|
Armando Benitez
|
4
|
3
|
22
|
78
|
41
|
128
|
1.85
|
Kenny Rogers
|
5
|
1
|
0
|
76
|
28
|
58
|
4.03
|
Pat Mahomes
|
8
|
0
|
0
|
63.1
|
37
|
51
|
3.71
|
Dennis Cook
|
10
|
5
|
3
|
63
|
27
|
68
|
3.86
|
Bobby Jones
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
59
|
11
|
31
|
5.64
|
John Franco
|
0
|
2
|
19
|
40.1
|
19
|
41
|
2.92
|
The Mets were fifth in ERA in the NL at 4.28. The pitching
staff was helped by Gold Glove winners Ventura
at 3B and Rey Ordonez at SS. Two other players won at least 1 Gold Glove in
their careers, but not 1999, Rickey Henderson and John Olerud. The Mets also
only made 68 errors that year, by far the lowest in the league, and also a
record at that time. Every other team made at least 100.
The least balanced team was the 1987 Royals. They had a
fairly weak hitting attack, with an OFF of just 88.32. The next table shows the
Royals key hitters:
Table 7: 1987 Royals Hitting
Player
|
AB
|
HR
|
RBI
|
AVG
|
SLG
|
OBA
|
OPS
|
SB
|
Kevin Seitzer
|
641
|
15
|
83
|
0.323
|
0.470
|
0.399
|
0.869
|
12
|
Danny Tartabull
|
582
|
34
|
101
|
0.309
|
0.541
|
0.390
|
0.931
|
9
|
Willie Wilson
|
610
|
4
|
30
|
0.279
|
0.377
|
0.320
|
0.698
|
59
|
Frank White
|
563
|
17
|
78
|
0.245
|
0.400
|
0.308
|
0.708
|
1
|
George Brett
|
427
|
22
|
78
|
0.290
|
0.496
|
0.388
|
0.884
|
6
|
Bo Jackson
|
396
|
22
|
53
|
0.235
|
0.455
|
0.296
|
0.750
|
10
|
Steve Balboni
|
386
|
24
|
60
|
0.207
|
0.427
|
0.273
|
0.700
|
0
|
Jamie Quirk
|
296
|
5
|
33
|
0.236
|
0.345
|
0.307
|
0.652
|
1
|
Angel Salazar
|
317
|
2
|
21
|
0.205
|
0.246
|
0.219
|
0.465
|
4
|
Seitzer, Tartabull and Brett all had good years, but the
rest of the hitters did not. The Royals were last in runs scored, averaging
4.41 runs per game (and tied for next-to-last in OPS). Their park factor was
106 that year, meaning it was slightly a better than average run environment.
Now for the pitchers:
Table 8: 1987
Royals Pitching
Pitcher
|
W
|
L
|
SV
|
IP
|
BB
|
SO
|
ERA
|
Bret Saberhagen
|
18
|
10
|
0
|
257
|
53
|
163
|
3.36
|
Mark Gubicza
|
13
|
18
|
0
|
241.2
|
120
|
166
|
3.99
|
Charlie Leibrandt
|
16
|
11
|
0
|
240.1
|
74
|
151
|
3.41
|
Danny Jackson
|
9
|
18
|
0
|
224
|
109
|
152
|
4.02
|
Bud Black
|
8
|
6
|
1
|
122.1
|
35
|
61
|
3.61
|
Steve Farr
|
4
|
3
|
1
|
91
|
44
|
88
|
4.15
|
Jerry Don Gleaton
|
4
|
4
|
5
|
50.2
|
28
|
44
|
4.30
|
Dan Quisenberry
|
4
|
1
|
8
|
49
|
10
|
17
|
2.76
|
John Davis
|
5
|
2
|
2
|
43.2
|
26
|
24
|
2.29
|
Bob Stoddard
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
40
|
22
|
23
|
4.28
|
Dave Gumpert
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
19.1
|
6
|
13
|
6.13
|
Gene Garber
|
0
|
0
|
8
|
14.1
|
1
|
3
|
2.55
|
Saberhagen, the leader of the staff, was a two-time Cy Young
award winner. The Royals were second in the league in ERA at 3.87, only .13
behind the league leading Toronto Blue Jays (a little impressive since their
park was favorable to hitters). Frank White (2B) won the last of his eight Gold
Gloves. Willie Wilson had one career Gold Glove, but not in 1987.
(This is an expanded version of an article that originally
appeared at the “Beyond the Boxscore” website)
Cyril Morong, a member of SABR since 1995, teaches economics
at San Antonio College and is lifelong White Sox fan
Source:
The San Lahman database
Retrosheet
Lee Sinin’s Complete Baseball Encyclopedia
Baseball Reference
