Projecting the 2009 A's
by CapgrasDelusion on Jan 30, 2009 1:03 PM PST
87 comments
Some of you are probably aware that the folks at Beyond the Box Score have organized a community project aimed at projecting the 2009 season. The basic idea is to make use of statistics such as wOBA, UZR, FIP, then adjust for position to get a figure representing Wins Above Replacement (WAR). Tallying these WAR figures up gives us an estimate of the number of wins expected for each team.The spreadsheet utilized in making these projections comes from Sky Kalkman at BtBB.
Now that Russ Springer is officially in the fold, I'd like to unveil my projection for the 2009 Oakland A's. My wOBA, defense, and ERA figures come courtesy of CHONE (for ERA I've used park adjusted FIP), and base-running figures are from Baseball Prospectus.
I have the A's tabbed as an 85 win team in their current incarnation (of course, I've had to make my own subjective predictions about who will fill out the roster, and how playing time will be distributed). The good news is that's already accounting for about 150 innings of replacement level pitching, which is a possibility given the inexperience and fragility of our staff.
So, feel free to take a gander, scrutinize, critique, lambast, etc. This is, after all, a community project. For those who don't like numbers: don't be intimidated. Just follow the links above for detailed explanations of what each figure represents. If you're more comfortable with the traditional ba/obp/slg line, just use this shortcut method of getting wOBA: ((1.75*obp + slg)/3).
It's up to you guys how you want to proceed with this. If you'd like, we can produce a set of community projections for each player like Brew Crew Ball is doing. I may not be the ideal candidate for heading up such a project, but I would be more than willing to open the spreadsheet for editing.
2009 Oakland A's projected WAR
One interesting tidbit: I decided to compare the effect of adding one of Orlando Cabrera/Nick Johnson to the roster. To do this, I plugged O-Cab's projected .318 wOBA in for Bobby Crosby's 600 PA; this bumped the team's projected win total to 85.9. If instead we replace Barton's 250 PA with Johnson's .399 wOBA. we get almost an identical result - the projected win total is bumped to 86.1. So, even in a measly 250 PA, the brittle-boned Johnson has the potential to make a real impact.
4 recs |
87 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Roster
Replace Joe Dillion with Jeff Baisley and Gregorio Petit with Cliff Pennington. Thats more likely to what the A’s will go with.
Dogfood Gangstas
Canned or Dry,
We Neva Die.
Not 2008 low
His true BABIP is probably more like .280 than .230.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
right, but i still wouldnt expect him to regress to an era over 4
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
And he's always been a reliever, up until last year.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
interesting projections
personally, I felt that you pegged some of the position players a bit high and undervalued our starting pitchers.
Obviously you can’t predict who, but I have a feeling that at least one of those pitchers will have a breakout season.
However, if this is the case, we could be in for a fun season!
Keep in mind the rate stats aren't my projections;
they come directly from CHONE, which have proven to be fairly accurate, and incorporate more data than other systems, like park factors and minor league numbers.
by CapgrasDelusion on Jan 30, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions
I took a quick look
The PA estimates look a bit generous for Buck, Holliday, and Sweeney. I also have found that the CHONE projections on Denorfia and Dillon are really optimistic. Replace those guys with guys like Pennington and Cunningham and the win estimate might go down a win or two. Then again, the A’s SP projections are very harsh. I think it might even out the Dillon/Denorfia thing.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Yeah
My sense is that most projection systems have a problem with older players who put up good numbers in AAA. The issue of minor league equivalents is tricky. You definitely need to make an adjustment for age relative to league, and I assume most good projection systems do so, but even with that there is still a possible selection bias issue: it’s not safe to assume that a player in AAA who doesn’t get promoted would do just as well in the majors as a player with similar stats who does get promoted. I’m not sure how they deal with that.
It’s probably not a big deal though. Dillon and Denorfia are each projected for about 300 PAs. Knocking their rates down a bit, or replacing them with younger players with slightly worse projections like Baisley and Cunningham will only make a difference of about one win total.
Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough
I see a lot of healthy players -- Ellis, Chavez, Duke.
If they actually play as much as you project, 85 wins is achievable. If not…..
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
Baseball Prospectus released the first PECOTA sheet
of the year today.
Top 3 A’s hitters by VORP:
Matt Holliday – 44.6
Jack Cust – 23.7
Jason Giambi 13.0
Pitchers by VORP:
Justin Duchscherer – 21.5
Joey Devine – 16.7
Dana Eveland – 12.4
Wow they're not optimistic at all. They think the A's are a pretty bad team.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 31, 2009 3:27 AM PST up reply actions
Dallas Braden
I saw Dallas at a bar last night, and he said he has really been working hard this offseason and has been locating his change-up well in his bullpen sessions. He also said he would like to play for the Giants, which made me want to puke.
Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.
Why does he want to play for the Giants?
Did he say? I am guess it’s because he wants attention and a team with more money to spend but it would be nice to hear what he actually said about it.
He grew up in Stockton yeah?
Maybe he grew up a Giants fan
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 30, 2009 6:30 PM PST up reply actions
He is a huge Giants fan, so it is reasonable to want to pitch for your favorite team..
He alluded to some Billy Beane dislike. With the trade of Swisher being the root of his ill feelings.
Eveland rocks! Eveland rocks! Somewhere Drew Carey just smiled.
tell him to wait ten years
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
Can't play for the Giants
They already have a 5th starter (Zito) under contract for a few more years.
In about 10 years he'll be old enough to play for the Giants
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
oops, should have read more carefully first
TravDog beat me by a mile.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
what would you expect him to say?
“I’ve been getting high and going to strip clubs”
If you had a lineup of 9 Jack Custs who hit(Cust career average) .239 AVG, .382 OBP, and .475 SLG, then your team would score 6.12 runs per game-totalling to 991runs a season.The 08 rangers lead the majors in runs score with 901.
I might have expected, "I like playing for the A's."
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Honestly, with the way he's been getting bounced between Sacramento and Oakland?
Frankly that would kinda suck.
Well
The chances of him sticking with another club are low since he bounced around on a non-contending team the past two years.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 31, 2009 10:21 PM PST up reply actions
Various comments
1. Joe Dillon is a left fielder? Might be safer to allocate those ABs to Cunningham.
2. Jack Cust at only 2 WAR seems very conservative to me.
3. Petit isn’t getting 250 plate appearances if he’s that bad.
4. If the A’s correctly platoon Chavez and Sweeney to a significant extent, the wOBA of those two and the guys opposite them (Dillon and Denorfia) should increase somewhat.
5. Why are all of your ERAs significantly worse than the CHONE-projected ERAs? Just curious.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Response
I’ve added Cunningham and Pennington to the projection. CHONE gives some funky numbers for both of them. I don’t see anyway Pennington is that bad of a SS – especially after looking at the TotalZone numbers. I do have Sweeney and Deno in a strict platoon, and their wOBAs were bumped up a bit to account for that; I’ll adjust them up a little more. I’m starting to think it might be better to use Oliver’s projections for guys like Cunningham, where major league data is scarce.
As for the ERA: What I have plugged into the spreadsheet as of now is CHONE’s FIP projections, adjusted for PF. CHONE’s ERA projections are adjusted for defense. If I use those, I would be double-counting defense, no? I’m a bit unclear on this last point.
by CapgrasDelusion on Jan 30, 2009 7:04 PM PST up reply actions
You're right, you don't want to double-count defense
It might be worth double-checking, though. One way to do that is to figure out the total defensive value above average, and compare it to the value gap between the straight CHONE ERA and the CHONE FIP.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
I zeroed all of the defensive ratings, and replaced FIP with CHONE ERA
The result was virtually identical – 85.1 wins.
by CapgrasDelusion on Jan 31, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions
FIP isn't just accounting for defense
FIP assumes that pitchers have no control over 1) the run value of balls in play and 2) the order of events. Neither of these are true; they’re remnants of DIPS 1.0 back in 2001.
Additionally, Oakland has a strong park effect of limiting BABIP—particularly on flyballs and popups (the large foul ground). Some pitchers will take more advantage of that than others, but park adjusting and using FIP ignores this.
The 2009 A’s pitchers aren’t playing in a context-free environment; they’re playing in a real park in front of a real defense that will help/hurt some pitchers more than others.
Defense is accounted for through the position player projections
and the FIP projection is adjusted for PF. Theoretically, the lower BABIP should be reflected in the PF, since it ultimately contributes to a lower run-scoring environment, no?
I’ve considered using (tRA* * .92) for the more experienced pitchers; there’s really no alternative to using FIP projections for the younger guys.
by CapgrasDelusion on Jan 31, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
By using FIP instead of ERA...
…you’ve already accounted for much of Oakland’s park factor. Regressing the team BABIP back to league average takes away most of what makes Oakland a pitcher’s park. Using a full park adjustment after that is double counting.
Perhaps more importantly, some pitchers (like Russ Springer) will be projected to have a better ERA than FIP in front of an average defense in an average park. Looking at his projected FIP will underrate him.
2 WAR at DH is like being a 4 WAR hitter with a -2 WAR position penalty.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I know-- I think he's more like a 5 WAR hitter
Cust has been ~150 OPS points above league average for the last two seasons, which is roughly three wins above average or 5 WAR.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Fangraphs has him at 3.2 WAR in 2007 and 2.3 last year (which includes a bunch of poor fielding).
You’re right that 4.5 to 5.0 WAR on offense has been his level in the past. But for a projection, doesn’t 4.0 seem more reasonable?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Quit raining on my parade, dammit.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
I think Duchscherer's and Gallagher's ERAs will be a lot lower,
Duchscherer’s because he’s always expected not to be able to _ but always just flat out pitches great when he’s healthy, and Gallagher because he has the stuff and will have more experience. The projected ERAs for the others seem about right. I just don’t expect those 5 to constitute the rotation for very long, if ever.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
BABIP
Duke’s cutter misses barrels of bats. Actually, everything he throws cuts/slices/moves… Why wouldn’t his BABIP stay pretty low?
by Colorado Fan on Jan 31, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
Between Outman and a "replacement"
I have 200 innings allocated to others. I tend to agree with you about Gallagher, and I think it’s safe to lower his projection a few ticks.
With Duke, as well as all of the pitchers, what’s projected is his FIP: a measure only accounting for only Ks, BBs, and HRs. The frequency at which batted balls are converted to outs is not reflected in the pitching projections. This is found in the defensive ratings of position players. I do think his BABIP will be somewhere around .275 this season; a figure that accounts for regression, as well as a slightly less efficient defensive unit.
by CapgrasDelusion on Jan 31, 2009 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
In addition to your intriguing projections
you sport one of the finest usernames ever to grace these pages. I do hope it means you’re a recast of a previous persona or a sockpuppet or somesuch (which I’m totally OK with), but regardless, a fine post and especially fine handle.
"Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud." Willie Stark
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 30, 2009 9:07 PM PST reply actions
Assuming the roster below... I Project the A's at 80-82
C Suzuki
1B Barton
2B Ellis
3B Chavez
SS Crosby
LF Holliday
CF Sweeney
RF Cust
DH Giambi
BN Bowen, Pennington, Hannahan, Buck, Davis
SP Duke, Gallagher, Eveland, Simmons, Braden
RP Devine, Zieg, Casilla, Blevins, Foulke, Springer
Not sure if I’ve got the pen right; nor who will be our 4th and 5th OFs…
But, based on that roster, I don’t see us finishing over .500. Rotation is not strong enough; infield defense is good, but outfield defense is average at best with Cust in RF; pen looks good, but could be unreliable due to lack of tested arms; and offense is basically Holliday-Cust-Giambi and the six dwarves (Suzuki and Ellis might deserve a seat at the big-boy table, but probably not).
I think the A’s will be more fun to watch than last year, but any projection that has us finishing with 85+ wins is seriously discounting the impact of losing Harden and Blanton from last year’s 1H team…
The A’s are going to struggle to put together winning streaks because our rotation is simply not that good (possibly the 3rd- or 4th-worst rotation in the AL this season, ahead of Baltimore and Texas and, maybe, Detroit). Gallagher, Eveland, and Gio (if he makes the team) are going to suffer through outings where they can’t find the plate. Duke is unlikely to pitch more than 24-25 games. Dallas Braden is… well, Dallas Braden.
We simply do not have enough rotation depth right now to be a competitor for the AL West crown, let alone the AL pennant.
Any basis but guess work?
I’ve seen projections with the A’s at 87-88 wins. That doesn’t pass the eyeball test, but 85 seems like a reasonable expectation. And I would say the standard deviation for number of wins is going to be very high for the A’s due to their young pitching.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
See my reply below (a mix of projections)
I assume, by standard deviation, you mean the standard deviation on, say, 1,000 different simulations of the 2009 season using the stats from a player forecasting system… there is, after all, no standard deviation for the number of games the A’s will win in 2009; there will just be the result.
If that’s what you’re saying, I agree with you. The A’s are less susceptible to accurate projection because of their youth, especially on the pitching side of the roster. So, if you graphed the A’s simulated W-L results on an X-Y axis, with X being the # of wins in a season, and Y being the # of times that result occured, and you ran the 2009 season through some sort of simulator 1,000 times, the A’s bell-curve might be a little flatter than those of teams with more veterans (i.e., the standard deviation would be larger).
With all that taken into account, I look at this pitching staff and I don’t see these young pitchers leading us to the right side of that bell curve in the 2009 season. I’m not sold on anyone in our rotation other than Duke; and if/when Duke gets injured, that leaves us with a rotation that isn’t scaring anyone (other than in a “watch out he might hit the mascot” kind of way). It’s possible our young pitchers turn into the 2008 Florida Marlins staff overnight; but Nolasco-Johnson-Sanchez had shown a little more promise going into last season than Eveland-Gallagher-Gonzalez have going into this season.
With all of this said… I hate thinking the A’s don’t have a chance in January. Hope springs eternal: so, if I had to list three things that would push the A’s from a 80-win team to a 90-win team in 2009, here they are: (1) Gallagher keeps his BB/9 rate below 3.8; (2) Gio keeps his BB/9 rate below 4.0; and (3) Eveland keeps his BB/9 rate below 3.2. That’s it. If those three things happen, this team is a contender.
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 30, 2009 11:14 PM PST up reply actions
If you think one side of the bell curve is more likely than the other
then either it’s not a bell curve at all, or it’s not that bell curve.
by green star oakland on Feb 1, 2009 12:09 AM PST up reply actions
Foulke is no longer with the A's
the Bullpen would be: Devine, Ziegler, Blevins, Casilla, Springer, Schroder, Replacement
As for the rotation, while the SP slots are open to our pitching prospects, I don’t know if they would use Simmons just yet. I think they’d use Outman before that.
Dogfood Gangstas
Canned or Dry,
We Neva Die.
This is pretty baseless...
The A’s are going to struggle to put together winning streaks because our rotation is simply not that good (possibly the 3rd- or 4th-worst rotation in the AL this season, ahead of Baltimore and Texas and, maybe, Detroit). Gallagher, Eveland, and Gio (if he makes the team) are going to suffer through outings where they can’t find the plate. Duke is unlikely to pitch more than 24-25 games. Dallas Braden is… well, Dallas Braden.
All of this analysis is simply manifestations of the statistics, but you don’t say anything to contradict the statistics. The fact of the matter is that if the projections are 100% accurate the A’s will finish with 85 Pythagorean wins. So when you say the A’s rotation is bad you really aren’t saying anything new. The projections demonstrate that the rotation is bad and they still have the A’s winning 85 games.
I miss Chad God
Baseless...
I’m more pessimistic than most of the projection systems on Eveland; unless the guy learns to throw strikes, he’s basically Nate Robertson (plus a few Whoppers).
I think we’re lucky if we get 150 IP out of Duke this year. Pitchers who increase their workload by 50+ IP from one season to the next are more likely to breakdown in the following season. Duke went from 16 MLB IP in 2007 to 142 MLB IP in 2008…
And I see Gio and Gallagher as enormous wild cards. If they can harness their stuff; then we’re talking. But neither has shown any sort of consistency in their (admittedly) short MLB careers thus far. One of them, and preferably both, will need to be much more consistent this year in order for us to keep up with the better teams in the AL.
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 30, 2009 11:30 PM PST up reply actions
the difference between eveland getting a 4.2 era and a 4.7 era is only about 1 win.
you’re overblowing just about everything you say.
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
A mix of all sorts of projection systems
I’ve looked over PECOTA’s projections, Baseball HQ’s projections, ZiPS, CHONE, Oliver’s projections, and Marcel’s projections… after that, it’s all guesswork.
For a baseline, I took the total VORP of that roster (which, I think, came out to 250 runs above replacement — 150 on the offensive side, 100 on the pitching side), and added that to 54 wins (which I figured a team full of replacement-level players could go 54-108). That put me at 79-83. I added a few wins for our defense, which I consider above-average, despite Senor Brick Hands (Jack Cust) in RF.
I’m more optimistic about our offense than most projection systems, but I’m less enthralled with our pitching. I don’t see Gallagher, Gio, or Eveland being consistently good over the course of a 162-game season; and I think inconsistent pitching can cripple a team’s chances because of the effect it has on a team’s pen and on a team’s psyche. Therefore, I knocked off a few wins for the weakness of our rotation.
If I had to give you a range (which I think is a more reasonable way to project teams anyway), I’d say we’re a 77- to 83-win team right now; with some luck, we might very well hit 84, 86, or even 90 wins; win bad luck, we could sink as low as 70, 71, or 72 wins. My 80-82 projection just fell in the middle of that range.
How about doing the projection with an average of all the Projection Systems?
Dogfood Gangstas
Canned or Dry,
We Neva Die.
I think the consensus at BtB is to use CHONE projections
However, I could be wrong about that.
I miss Chad God
It's open. Many people have used CHONE as a starting point, because it's among the best publically available.
Some folks aren’t using any starting point and having fans just throw out their own projections. The idea is to make this a community projection. Sean can just compute CHONE’s predictions himself. As playing time is very difficult for an algorithm to project, getting community input on IP and PAs is the most important part of this project.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
This is an interesting idea
I may very well create another spreadsheet that does just that. The problem, however, is that projections like Marcels don’t take minor league data into account, and don’t do a very good job of projecting guys with little or no major league experience. This is especially relevant for a team like the A’s.
by CapgrasDelusion on Jan 31, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions
i like to read projection threads...
as much as the next guy. They’re fun. Especially, when you compare them to what actually happens.
But, until somebody comes up with a statistical method of projecting injuries, that’s all projections will be… fun.
I mean, most on AN think Crosby will get hurt this year. Chavez will play 30 games. Buck and Ellis are likely to be out for some number of games?
Will any this actually transpire? I don’t know. And, neither does anybody else. If they all play a full season, the A’s will be a pretty good team. Whether they’re above 85 wins probably has to do more with their rotation, anyway, but… it’d be nice to have some hitters who actually hit in the 2009 version.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
that's not how i look at it
when i look at projections, i compare teams. I don’t say “oh look we’re projected to win 85 games” i say “we’re projected a similar win total to the angels”. And that the injuries can hit their team just as hard as it can hit ours.
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
so, you're depressed?
or optimistic?
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Jan 31, 2009 12:57 AM PST up reply actions
I disagree that the Angels are an equal health risk as the A's.
For the A’s it’s Ellis, Chavez, Duke, Gallagher, Buck, Sweeney, and Giambi who are health risks
For the Angels it’s Guerrero, Kendrick, Izturis and Rivera.
That’s not similar at all.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 31, 2009 2:58 AM PST up reply actions
Don't forget about Kelvim Escobar.
The guy missed all of last season and is a pretty big piece of their rotation. However the Angels have much more experienced starting pitching depth to sustain the loss of a starter then we do.
I'm assuming he doesn't pitch at all.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 31, 2009 4:31 PM PST up reply actions
No they don't...
Their 5th starter right now is a choice between Nick Adenhart (greener than 67Marquez’s mom’s chili) and Dustin Moseley (just flat-out shitty). Escobar is apparently a nonfactor for their rotation, or so I’ve heard.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
but we have much more depth. An injury to the Angels hits them harder than it hits us.
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
Well true, we may have more depth
if by “depth” you mean guys who can at least go out there and throw. Right now the rotation projects to be something like Duke, Eveland, Gallagher, Braden and Gio. That leaves Outman, and possibly Brett Anderson as insurance if the roster is set for opening day right now. I guess Jerome Williams could be considered an option but i’m not holding my breath. Mazzaro needs to spend some time in AAA to prove that his stint in AA wasn’t a fluke considering what his career numbers look like at every other stop. Then you have Cahill and Simmons, niether of which has pitched above AA. The reason I think Anderson is an option even though he only has a few innings above AA (AAA playoffs) is because everything I have read about him says he has the polish, poise and control to pitch at the big league level here real soon. The bottom line is if we lose a pitcher or two for an extended amount of time I think this rotation is going to be in a world of hurt. If the Angels lose a pitcher or two for an extended amount of time they still have a solid rotation, and guys who have pitched at the big league level some to fill in if needed. I think adding another starter, even if were not talking about the most attractive names out there is a move that needs to happen. Maybe a Mulder project will work out, or maybe Beane can get a Looper/Wolf type on the cheap.
Also dont forget that the Angels have dramatically beaten their projections each of hte last 4-5 seasons.
I believe that over the last 4-5 years the Angels have beaten their projections by an average of 8 games…Not saying that means anything going forward, but its getting to be significant enough that maybe it does.
You can verify this by clicking on my profile and reading my outlandish O-Cab post.
I miss Chad God
Wonder which way that cuts...?
Does the fact that the Angels have beaten their projection each of the last five seasons mean it’s more likely that they will do so again? Or, is a team beating its projection like flipping a coin (i.e., beating the projection one season does not affect the odds of beating the projection the next season)?
I'd say one season = "coin flip,"
while five seasons = “Hmmm…”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Here's a neat one: If you flip a coin 100 times,
what are the odds that you will get a sequence of at least five heads/tails in a row at some point?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
More to the point,
at any given time, among 30 MLB teams, odds are rather high that one of them will have beaten its projection 5 years in a row.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
right, but
there was a pretty good analysis last year that the Angels win more of their share of one-run games and lose more than their share of 10-run games because of certain factors. One that I remember was an unusually high disparity between the top half of their bullpen and the bottom half.
by vk on Feb 1, 2009 8:52 AM PST up reply actions
The same analyses were done to exculpate the Diamondbacks for their Pythag luck in 2007
and, wonder of wonders, this year they had no special skill in that department whatsoever. It’s frigging luck.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
I don't actually think it is,
but I do think that:
1. the Angels outperformed their Pythag even more than they should have, due to luck (i.e., they should have outperformed it a little, not a lot) and
2. I don’t think the 2009 team is necessarily constructed to outperform it anymore (because I’m not sure their offense will be good enough to consistently push across that go-ahead before the other team does).
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Why was their offense good enough to consistently push across that go-ahead run
but not good enough to push across any other runs? Sounds like clutch performance….which means it’s most likely not repeatable. Angels were an 88 or so win team last year, and are a bit worse this year. The issue is mostly that their competition is still not very good.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Feb 2, 2009 6:15 AM PST up reply actions
Their ability to "push across runs," if real, is already reflected in the ~4 win gap
between their Equivalent Runs and their actual runs scored. It’s already accounted for to a large degree in Pythagorean record. (I know they might be more tempted to use those strategies in late and close situations, but the other team is also more likely to defeat those strategies in those situations.)
That’s not true of bullpen management, which is leverage-dependent where “manufacturing runs” is leverage-independent, but as I said, I just don’t buy that that has any real predictive value. Relievers are so unpredictable that one year’s setup man is often the next year’s mop-up man.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
Well, for what it's worth,
I see the Angels currently as about an 86-win team, which I believe is close to their Pythag. The A’s currently look about 84ish to me, which is why I’m interested in relatively minor upgrades like O. Cabrera and Springer/Wuertz.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
projecting??
i love you guys who take geekdom to a new level. i would love the 85 wins-but really, you have time to do this stuff? i am amazed. i am retired and can hardly find time to read what you have projected. put the sliderule down and go outside for a while. breathe the air and look at birds or something. when it’s time to check out, you won’t find yourself wishing you had spent a little more time combing through stats.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
Related FanShots on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
