In 1968, the league average 3.43 runs per game (NL), but WAR credits .124 wins per "run".

In 1930 NL averaged 5.68 runs per game but WAR credits 0.091 wins per run.

In other words, 1930 NL had 1.66x more runs per game as 1968 NL, but a run was only worth 1.36x as many wins. In a pythagorean system, wins per run should be exactly proportional to runs per game, in fact you don't even need to know runs to estimate pythagorean winning percentage, you only need to know the ratio of runs scored to runs allowed.

What is the statistical basis for awarding only 136% of the wins per run in an environment with only 60% as much offense? I don't buy it. I think that a team that averages 2 runs in a 1 run environment will win as much as a team that scores 8 runs in a 4 run environment (both about 80%).

In 1930 NL averaged 5.68 runs per game but WAR credits 0.091 wins per run.

In other words, 1930 NL had 1.66x more runs per game as 1968 NL, but a run was only worth 1.36x as many wins. In a pythagorean system, wins per run should be exactly proportional to runs per game, in fact you don't even need to know runs to estimate pythagorean winning percentage, you only need to know the ratio of runs scored to runs allowed.

What is the statistical basis for awarding only 136% of the wins per run in an environment with only 60% as much offense? I don't buy it. I think that a team that averages 2 runs in a 1 run environment will win as much as a team that scores 8 runs in a 4 run environment (both about 80%).

## Comment