Ask and ye shall receive.
Frequent reader Tom sent a message on Monday asking whether I thought Syracuse was under or overachieving this season. Rather than enter a lengthy discussion describing my position (which, of course, will be left for the close of the 2006 Orange campaign), I decided to put together a Pythagorean Win Theorem table charting how Syracuse and its Big East brethren have performed thus far this season.
For the uninitiated, Bill James' Pythagorean Win Theorem projects how a team should perform by weighing points/runs scored against points/runs against. Instead of using actual point values this year, however, I'm using the values generated through my efficiency formulae. Inherently, James' methodology works on a theoretical level; there's no reason the inputs should vary from that platform.
Data
Legend
TOB -- Total Offensive Benefit
TDB -- Total Defensive Benefit
A W/L -- Actual won/loss record
A W/L% -- Actual winning percentage
P W/L -- Pythagorean Win Theorem won/loss record
P W/L% -- Pythagorean Win Theorm winning percentage
Margin -- Difference between actual and Pythagorean won/loss record
Margin % -- Difference between actual and Pythagorean winning percentage
Notable Underachievers
1. Connecticut
2. Pittsburgh
Notable Overachievers
1. Louisville
2. West Virginia
Frequent reader Tom sent a message on Monday asking whether I thought Syracuse was under or overachieving this season. Rather than enter a lengthy discussion describing my position (which, of course, will be left for the close of the 2006 Orange campaign), I decided to put together a Pythagorean Win Theorem table charting how Syracuse and its Big East brethren have performed thus far this season.
For the uninitiated, Bill James' Pythagorean Win Theorem projects how a team should perform by weighing points/runs scored against points/runs against. Instead of using actual point values this year, however, I'm using the values generated through my efficiency formulae. Inherently, James' methodology works on a theoretical level; there's no reason the inputs should vary from that platform.
Data
Legend
TOB -- Total Offensive Benefit
TDB -- Total Defensive Benefit
A W/L -- Actual won/loss record
A W/L% -- Actual winning percentage
P W/L -- Pythagorean Win Theorem won/loss record
P W/L% -- Pythagorean Win Theorm winning percentage
Margin -- Difference between actual and Pythagorean won/loss record
Margin % -- Difference between actual and Pythagorean winning percentage
Pythagorean Win Theorem -- Big East (Through 10.22.06) | ||||||||
| Team | TOB | TDB | A W/L | A W/L% | P W/L | P W/L% | Margin | Margin % |
| Rutgers | 142.583 | 42.667 | 7-0 | 1.000 | 7-0 | .946 | 0 | .054 |
| West Virginia | 231.417 | 88.833 | 7-0 | 1.000 | 6-1 | .906 | +1 | .094 |
| Pittsburgh | 214.417 | 88.250 | 6-2 | .750 | 7-1 | .891 | -1 | -.141 |
| Louisville | 233.417 | 103.167 | 7-0 | 1.000 | 6-1 | .874 | +1 | .106 |
| South Florida | 167.583 | 122.583 | 5-3 | .625 | 5-3 | .677 | 0 | -.052 |
| Connecticut | 148.167 | 115.083 | 3-4 | .429 | 5-2 | .645 | -2 | -.216 |
| Cincinnati | 145.667 | 132.167 | 4-4 | .500 | 4-4 | .557 | 0 | -.057 |
| Syracuse | 142.750 | 171.250 | 3-5 | .375 | 3-5 | .394 | 0 | -.019 |
Notable Underachievers
1. Connecticut
2. Pittsburgh
Notable Overachievers
1. Louisville
2. West Virginia
What exponent did you use in the Pythagorean Win Theorem?