Paper detail

A Derivation of the Pythagorean Won-Loss Formula in Baseball

It has been noted that in many professional sports leagues a good predictor of a team's won-loss percentage is Bill James' Pythagorean Formula RSobs^c / (RSobs^c + RAobs^c), where RSobs (resp. RAobs) is the observed average number of runs scored (allowed) per game and c is a constant for the league; for baseball the best agreement is when c is about 1.82. We provide a theoretical justification for this formula and value of c by modelling the number of runs scored and allowed in baseball games as independent random variables drawn from Weibull distributions with the same b and c but different a; the probability density f(x;a,b,c) is 0 for x < b and is (c/a) ((x-b)/a)^{c-1} exp(-((x-b)/a)^c) otherwise. This model leads to a predicted won-loss percentage of (RS-b)^c / ((RS-b)^c + (RA-b)^c); here RS (resp. RA) is the mean of the random variable corresponding to runs scored (allowed), and RS - b (resp. RA - b) is an estimator of RSobs (resp. RAobs). An analysis of the 14 American League teams from the 2004 baseball season shows that (1) given that the runs scored and allowed in a game cannot be equal, the runs scored and allowed are statistically independent; (2) the best fit Weibull parameters attained from a least squares or a maximum likelihood analysis give good fits; least squares gives a mean value of c of 1.79 with a standard deviation of .09, and maximum likelihood gives a mean value of c of 1.74 with a standard deviation of .06, which agree beautifully with the observed best value of 1.82 attained by fitting RSobs^c / (RSobs^c + RAobs^c) to the observed winning percentages.

preprint2006arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.