2012 Projected Standings (from our friend MARCEL)
by David Fung on Jan 30, 2012 3:00 PM PST
in News
Email
Print
Piggybacking off the success of my post about the 2012 Davenport Projected Standings, here's what RLYW's got in terms of some also ridiculously early standings projections using MARCEL. Rob Neyer's got a write up on it on Baseball Nation, so figured we can take a look at this a little bit.
As crazy as I thought the original Clay Davenport win projections were at 80 wins, they've since been revised with 77 wins, which seems plausible. Here's how both Davenport and MARCEL look in context.
Just out of curiosity of draft orders and records, I went back and took a look at the records of the bottom 5 teams/top 5 teams drafting and noticed that those teams usually come in at 70 wins and under. A few have won 71 games, but it's safe to say the cut off is 70 games. I suppose the question of tanking and competing is a subject for a different post.
Now I know there seems to be a sense of optimism with the offense shown in these projections. Below is both the updated Clay Davenport projections, as well as the MARCEL projections run by RLYW over the weekend:
Updated Davenport projections:
Compare this to some of the runs scored/runs allowed in the past few seasons. I've linked to the Baseball Reference pages for 2010 and 2011 rosters.
| Year | RS | RA | |
| MARCEL | 2012 | 682 | 674 |
| Davenport | 2012 | 672 | 710 |
| Season Stats | 2011 | 645 | 679 |
| Season Stats | 2010 | 663 | 626 |
In both cases, the Mariners are the ones at the bottom of the AL West standings. The 2010 season where the A's only allowed 626 runs, included good contributions of Gonzalez/Cahill/Braden/Anderson. That staff had an ERA+ of 115, 2nd in all of baseball while the 2011 A's had an ERA+ of 110, 5th in all of baseball. Needless to say, barring instances where Braden and Anderson are coming back from injury, if prospects like Brad Peacock, Tom Milone, or Jarrod Parker can come and and make a positive contributions (1.0 WAR or more), I suppose the 82 wins can be achievable.
Check out FUNGraphs.info or follow me @cobradave for more.
63 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting that the Angels
are only projected to win 87 games. I use “only” a little loose I guess, but with Pujos and Wilson, and getting rid of Mathis, I would think something in the 90s would have been more accurate.
Why buy good luggage? You only use it when you travel. - Yogi Berra
I was surprised about that myself.
I assumed that it was due to splitting the tough games with the Rangers.
Surprised by the Rangers projection as well
Though as Neyer notes, the authors assumed league average performance for Darvish rather than attempting to project him. And, holy moly, 1 in 4 playoff odds?
Chris Iannetta is replacing Mathis, and he's almost as bad.
Also, their 5th starter spot is a question mark. Jerome Williams is no good. I have them at 85-77
WHAT!??!?!?!?!?!?!
by true torture on Jan 30, 2012 6:34 PM PST up reply actions
Conger
will get more ABs. As a high upside developing youngster, he can (will) put that projection in it’s place.
Most arguments are really about context.
by SheaWasBettor21 on Jan 30, 2012 9:17 PM PST up reply actions
Whaa?? Chris Ianetta is "almost as bad" as Jeff Mathis?
In 1733 MLB plate appearances, Iannetta’s tallied 9.4 fWAR (that’s about 3 WAR over a full season). Mathis, over 1360 plate appearances, currently sits at -1.8 fWAR. One is a solidly above-average MLB catcher, and one is literally worse than players who are considered “freely available.”
Agreed
There have even been articles written about Mathis pretty much proving he is one of the worst hitters of ALL-TIME.
Why buy good luggage? You only use it when you travel. - Yogi Berra
by SoCal As Fan on Jan 31, 2012 8:58 AM PST up reply actions
No doubt Mathis is sickeningly terrible.
But Iannetta hitting .200-.238 at Coors Field is not much better. I think Iannetta wouldn’t hit much better than .210-.220 at the Big A.
But SheaWasBettor is right, Conger will probably split at bats.
WHAT!??!?!?!?!?!?!
this isn't passing my smell test
this looks crazy. I think the top/bottom bounds are low. NL West looks especially stupid. only 2 teams below 70 wins? A high of 92 wins?
Specifically for the A’s, if the pitchers perform, multiplied somehow with park effects, I can see a mediocre team. But 25% chance of playoffs seems a bit optimistic.
I'm not impressed by your performance......GSP
It's a projection, not a prediction
Projections are built to minimize overall error and therefore are not going to look like actual final standings.
In other words, in the average case there will of course be some team with more than 92 wins. But the average case for the Yankees in particular (which Marcel thinks is the best team) could very well be 92 wins.
Can you also add a playoff zone in addition to the top 5 pick zone on the chart?
Obviously in the current format we can guess 90 wins, but I’m curious if the extra wild card (which supposedly is being implemented) brings that down in any significant way. I would guess 86-88 could get you in.
Chances are we will fall in the middle of both zones, but I think the graph would be more interesting if it showed a postseason zone…
Updated the graphic
Looks like playoffs start at 90 wins in the AL West. The Twins won their division in 2009 with 87 wins, but that’s a pretty low humber.
It's up there.
I just refreshed my page, but you might need to clear your cache. Lemme know if you still can’t see it.
Noooo!!!
I don’t want us to be mediocre… I want us to suck!!!
At one point in my life I liked Dave Kingman more than Rickey Henderson. I was an idiot.
by the_rozeboom on Jan 30, 2012 8:16 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
only in Oakland, folks...
by Brett Narloch on Jan 30, 2012 8:58 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
I'm not sure if this will make sense, but here goes...
As an A’s fan my “seasons” have become less about one season, but more like four or five seasons put together. I don’t like the term “window”, but I guess that’s what it is. I know that I am an A’s fan for life, and I’m not going to give up on them after a crappy season or half-decade or full-decade, for that matter! I want them to win, of course, but I am also realistic about the process that it takes to get to a winning situation.
At one point in my life I liked Dave Kingman more than Rickey Henderson. I was an idiot.
by the_rozeboom on Jan 31, 2012 8:49 AM PST up reply actions
I want the A's to win games whenever possible
But I’m strange that way.
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
Yeah
I really don’t get the “I want us to suck” mindset. Suck and get a draft pick that may or may not turn out to be a good player in 5 years. Really? You’d rather completely tank the season for an uncertain future payoff than have 25% playoff odds?
I’ll take the 25% playoff odds and enjoy watching a half-decent team any day. And I really do think this year’s A’s will be half-decent, maybe even creeping up to the full-decent zone.
To me it's more that if we DO suck,
well, at least we’ll get a high draft pick. Silver lining to the cloud. As for each game we actually play in a real season, I’d prefer to outscore the opponent whenever possible.
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
Realistically what's it get us?
Pick 1 and pick 18 is a massive difference, no doubt. But pick 9 and pick 18 aren’t likely to be THAT different. We got Sonny Gray at 18 last year, and I think we would’ve taken him as high as 8. It’s possible the guy they want at 10, hypothetically, will be there at 20.
Like in 2008, Jemile was their guy but he likely still would’ve fallen to them even if they had drafted at the back end of the 1st round. No matter what, there will be talent available wherever they draft in 2013. They just need to be able to find it.
I was thinking the difference between 1-5 and about somewhere in the teens
I’d love to draft someone like Hosmer or Posey in the 3-5 range.
Every player in the world "may or may not turn out to be a good player in five years."
That said, there is an enormous difference between a high (top five) pick and basically everybody after that. A chart for your viewing pleasure:
Exactly...
We need to suck in order to raise the talent level.
At one point in my life I liked Dave Kingman more than Rickey Henderson. I was an idiot.
by the_rozeboom on Jan 31, 2012 8:38 AM PST up reply actions
Or, at least, have a chance to raise the talent level.
At one point in my life I liked Dave Kingman more than Rickey Henderson. I was an idiot.
by the_rozeboom on Jan 31, 2012 8:39 AM PST up reply actions
Ok, I'm eyeballing this chart
And while it does look dramatic, what does it really mean? It’s a little scrunched up and difficult to estimate the exact numbers near the top, so I went back and found the old Sky Kalkman article about this, which gives the formula as 20/sqrt(pick#).
So, the average return on a top 5 pick is going to be 13 WAR. And the return picking at #15, which is a reasonable guess for the A’s if their expected result is around .500 as stated by the Marcel projections, is about 5 WAR. Thus, tank the season and net +8 WAR … spread over 6 seasons, starting 3-5 years in the future.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that the Marcel projections are a bit high, but that Beane has indeed built a semi-decent team that has 15-20% playoff odds in the assumed new 2 wildcard format (ok, a lot of assumptions, but bear with me). Would you rather he have purposely destroyed the team’s chances this year, sending those odds down near 0, in order to get one pick that would net about 1-1.5 WAR per year for six years, starting at some point about 3-5 years in the future?* I would take the chance at the playoffs and enjoy watching the team actually win a few games.
I understand the importance of drafting high, but especially after looking at this I think we’re seeing people overstate the case a bit. Getting one high pick is a lot different from truly sucking for a decade and piling up a huge reserve of picks, like the Rays did. I hope nobody actually wants to go that route.
*One thing I found funny after calculating this all out: whenever Beane signs a league-average player at below market value, you definitely see comments around here saying something like, “OMG, we don’t need league-average players! We need stars! We shouldn’t be signing these guys, we should be sucking so we can get a high draft pick!” And yet … a top 5 draft pick becomes, on average, a league-average player.
I think even your 1-1.5 WAR is a little high.
The net +8 WAR that you refer to would be over the course of a player’s whole career, not just his first six years of team control. If you figure a ten year career, now you’re talking about 0.8 WAR per year. So the people who want to suck THIS year want to do so in order for the team to win one extra game per year 3-8 years from now.
You’re right. A team would have to suck for at least 4-5 years to make a significant difference. I haven’t seen anyone advocate that. I don’t think many fans would stick with a team that made that their policy.
How about we just advocate better drafting in general. From 2003-2007 the A’s had twelve picks in the first round (including supp. picks). Only Houston Street and Cliff Pennington have produced more than 2 WAR. Including those two they’ve averaged 1.45 WAR
Actually, they did better in the second round. Ethier, Suzuki, and Cahill were all picked in that round during the same time period.
In that time period the Yankees netted Phil Hughes, Joba Chamberlain, and Ian Kennedy in the first round, picking after the A’s.
No amount of suck guarantees future success, and putting a good team on the field doesn’t preclude accumulating talent throught the draft.
Couple of corrections
I realized after I ran those calculations that there’s a formula right there on the chart you posted as well. Not sure where that one came from, but if you use it to calculate the difference between a top 5 pick and the 15th pick, you get only +5 WAR, considerably worse than the +8 you get using the formula from the Baseball Analysts article. (And it was Sky Andrecheck, not Sky Kalkman. Seriously, there are multiple sabermetric writers named Sky?)
So what this tells me from is that anything outside of the top 5 is a crapshoot.
What can we learn from it? Plugging the picks into the formula, we see that the #1 overall selection will accumulate an average of about 19.8 WAR over the course of his career. Meanwhile, it drops significantly to 14.0 WAR for the #2 pick. From there it drops rapidly to an expected 6.2 WAR for pick #10 before leveling off at 3.6 WAR for #30, 2.0 WAR for #100, and 0.9 WAR for #500. The model-based approach makes sense because it uses a relationship which both fits the data and matches our preconceived notions that the #1 pick is likely to become an excellent player, followed by a sharp drop-off in value with each successive pick until leveling off.
Not sure what you mean by crapshoot here
There’s a huge amount of variability at every pick. There’s a very quick dropoff at every pick in the first round, especially at the top, and it quickly levels off. Every pick can be described as a crapshoot, they just have different average returns.
What I meant
Was that it quickly levels off, that’s it. The average return is way higher up there, you’re right. =)
It quickly levels off in that graph
because of the methodology. The actual data is very bumpy, as you can see in GlassHeart’s analysis here on AN. For example, the #10 pick is enormously better than the #9 or the #11.
Of course this is due to random variation in the small sample, and we all know that. In order to avoid drawing absurd conclusions like that it’s better to draft #10 than #9, we look for ways to “smooth out” the data. One way is to treat it sort of like a rolling average, so that our value for pick #X is not just #X alone but an average of the Y picks around it. So for example, if we’re evaluating the likely value of pick #10, instead of looking at the #10s alone, we look at all the #8s, #9s, #10s, #11s and #12s, and likewise for any other specific pick.
Another approach, which is what Sky Andrecheck has done with the graph pictured above, is you assume the data follows a power law pattern and you find the parameters for the quadratic equation that best fits the data.
In the picture there, you can see the dots behind that curve:
Either of these has the effect of smoothing out the data and thus making it appear to “level off” more than it actually does. In actual fact there are big hits and big misses in the lower level but since we can’t find any way to measure/predict them, we average it out and call it even. But that’s not the same as actually being even.
Another problem with both smoothing methods is that they fail at the higher levels. You can’t apply averaging to the #1 pick because there’s no pick #0 and pick #-1 before it to average with. So you’re pretty much just left with the actual data point, which is 100% accurate for the past but may or may not be a reasonable projection of the future. With a power law equation you’re at your steepest at the far left, so if something in your modeling knocks the curve out of whack a little, your going to have your biggest error there. In the case of the equation here, it looks like he’s got it pegged to the #1 data point, so again you’re just looking at the actual history with its small sample.
My point being that if you presume to measure the drop-off in value between #1 and #2, none of these analyses leave you significantly better off than simply looking at actual #1s and #2s. Historically, #1s have on average provided 60% more career WAR than #2s. Do you trust that pattern to continue? Everyone knows #1 is better than #2, but is the predictive power of that historical data strong enough that you’ll consider over, say, looking at the actual top guys available in next year’s draft.
Difference of opinion among my community is a sign of the bounty of God.
by iglew on Feb 3, 2012 12:50 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
TMZ Special Tonight: "The Dots Behind The Curve"
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
Yet more pertinent analysis
From a Dave Cameron article today on FanGraphs. He lays out the case that Pat Burrell is exactly what you should expect if you draft a hitter #1 overall. Note: we’re talking about first overall now, not even the average of picks 1-5.
And, sure enough, if you look at Pat Burrell’s 22 career fWAR over 6,520 plate appearances, you see a player who averaged almost exactly 2 WAR per 600 PAs. A league-average player. Over his first six seasons he compiled about 13 fWAR, again making him a league-average player.
What I take away from all of this is that getting one high draft pick, while helpful, does not remotely justify tanking a season. Expecting better than a league-average player, even from the #1 overall pick, is wishful thinking. Sure, it could happen, but you could also draft a bust.
GlassHeart did a post on here a couple weeks ago on this
To dig a little deeper, the average or total is one thing to look at, but not the only thing. What is the chance you get a nice player, a guy that averages 3 WAR? And then a chance that you get a very good player, at 4 WAR average? Or an All-Star/MVP candidate caliber player at 5 WAR/season? I mean a 2 WAR average from the #1 overall pick could mean a 50% chance of drafting 4 WAR and 50% chance of drafting 0 WAR. It could be something like, with the top overall pick you have a 65% chance of drafting someone that is 1 WAR/year or better, 50% 2 WAR, 25% 3 WAR, and 10% 4 WAR or better (just as a hypothesis). And these numbers would drastically go down and approach zero as you get to the later picks.
It’s not exactly a crapshoot because the curve is clear and you likely have exponentially better chances of drafting a more valuable player in the top 5 picks. But exponentially better does not mean you have a better than 50% chance of drafting a multiple time all-star.
I agree that I would rather go for a 25% chance of going to the playoffs versus turning that 25% chance into 0%, in exchange for a 25% chance of drafting a player that will average 3 WAR or more/season for you starting 4 years down the road.
However, I would not sacrifice my farm system in trades to try to “go for it” when I only have a 25% chance of going to the playoffs either. With the hope that next year guys like Choice, Gray, Peacock and Norris will bring that 25% up higher.
by Billy Frijoles on Jan 31, 2012 2:08 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed
One of the advantages of having a guy like Bill steering the ship, is we don’t have to get a top 5 draft pick by losing, he will deal a high pick anyway usually as that is his MO.
This Message brought to you by Lew "what's an RBI?" Wolff, and John "I own a whatball team?" Fisher.
deal FOR a high pick is what I meant LOL. Actually he will deal them to later LOL
This Message brought to you by Lew "what's an RBI?" Wolff, and John "I own a whatball team?" Fisher.
There's a huge drop off in the picks
Where do you think that number is NateHST? Like somewhere in the middle first round?
You're asking me where I think the A's will end up?
Probably between 8-14. Though I think if they’d not traded for Seth Smith and signed Jonny Gomes or Bartolo Colon, it’d be somewhere between 5-10, which I’d prefer.
I think that was my question, I got a little off track.
I’d prefer the latter as well, possibly minus Colon, Gomes, or Smith, but I have said in the past I like to see a competitive team, that’s what I had explained originally in my Replacing Runs graphics but back in those comments, I remember people looking for a complete rebuild, saying there was no point signing/trading for guys like Smith/Colon.
Another consideration,
if you’re seriously contemplating the strategic value of tanking the season in order to get a high draft pick, is that it usually requires a lot more losses to jump in the draft order when you’re in the #1 to #4 level than if you’re in the #5 to #10 level. Typically there will be a clump of teams in the general vicinity of 72-90, so if you’re one of those, a swing of just one or two games could jump you five or six slots in the draft order. On the other hand, if you’re competing for dead last, you might very well need to lose an additional seven games just to jump from #2 to #1, which is what it would have been for Minnesota this year.
Difference of opinion among my community is a sign of the bounty of God.
Brown
Gota get the next Jeremy Brown!
Most arguments are really about context.
by SheaWasBettor21 on Jan 30, 2012 9:20 PM PST up reply actions
I don't believe this is a 77 win team
Much less an 82 win team. I don’t know how long MARCEL or Davenport have been making projections, but when was the last time the A’s matched or exceeded either’s projected wins for them?
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true? Or is it something worse?
Yes, there is no way that this team wins 75+ games...
At one point in my life I liked Dave Kingman more than Rickey Henderson. I was an idiot.
by the_rozeboom on Jan 31, 2012 8:36 AM PST up reply actions
BTW, the Boss rules... nice pic biscuit530!
At one point in my life I liked Dave Kingman more than Rickey Henderson. I was an idiot.
by the_rozeboom on Jan 31, 2012 8:37 AM PST up reply actions
I assume you know he's going to play San Jose 24 April
Tickets go on sale Friday.
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true? Or is it something worse?
David - do you know if Marcel limited Brett Anderson's contribution
to August-September and if it did a lefty/righty platoon on Smith/Gomes?
John 3:16
"If they want to pay me like Mike Gallego, I’ll play like Gallego." - Rickey Henderson
as I understand it Marcel takes the average performance over the past 3 years
And replaces any missed time with a league average player. I think it also projects rookies to be league average. I got schooled by iglew yesterday and tried to read up on it but it’s damn confusing so I could be wrong.
by Billy Frijoles on Jan 31, 2012 7:30 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah I kinda understand how it does individual performances
But I hadn’t looked into the team performance side. I actually really like the individual performance projections from MARCEL because it takes away so much bias about how good a player is perceived to be.
John 3:16
"If they want to pay me like Mike Gallego, I’ll play like Gallego." - Rickey Henderson
So in order to increase our chances of winning
What if we signed Edwin Jackson? He would make about the same amount of money as Cahil+Bailey this year, and we still get to keep the prospects.
I wrote on one of the other threads about possibly investing the money we would have put into Gio over the next few years into Edwin Jackson instead. Same idea – get the same production for the same price and get prospects basically for free.
John 3:16
"If they want to pay me like Mike Gallego, I’ll play like Gallego." - Rickey Henderson
I am for this if it keeps Parker in the minors.
by Billy Frijoles on Jan 31, 2012 2:08 PM PST up reply actions
Our rotation would then look like this
1. McCarthy
2. Edwin Jackson
3. Colon
4. Milone
5. Braden
Braden hopefully will be good to go for the first start that we need a 5th starter. I don’t know about you guys, but that looks like a pretty good rotation. 1 Rookie, 1 old guy with limited upside but willing to eat innings (among other things), 1 guy that’s put up 3+ WAR in 3 straight seasons, and two really good FIP pitchers who will hopefully be healthy. All while not using any service time from our top prospects. I’m in.
John 3:16
"If they want to pay me like Mike Gallego, I’ll play like Gallego." - Rickey Henderson
Yeah which is pretty ridiculous for a guy with 3 straight 3.5+ WAR seasons
That’s why I’m calling for the A’s to sign him to a 1yr/7M deal or a more aggressive 4/35-40M deal.
John 3:16
"If they want to pay me like Mike Gallego, I’ll play like Gallego." - Rickey Henderson
If I am Jackson I do it
Build value in low-pressure pitching environment. He is flippable. Wouldn’t be the worst move A’s could make.
Visit my blog the Todd Van Poppel Rookie Card Retirement Plan!!
I'm in.
Doesn’t hurt at this point to get away from the pay floor right? At the least, to not bring up Parker prematurely.
2 year deal
assuming most of next offseason’s projected FA’s don’t sign extensions
this way Edwin Jackson has more trade value for the a’s, and he avoids getting mixed in with that strong of a SP class of free agents
Snoochies
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Barry Bonds thinks it will be ‘very sad’ if he doesn’t get into the Hall on his first try
- Chris Johnson’s glove webbing had a Spidey sense at Coors Field — for one play, at least
- Jonathan Lucroy breaks hand after suitcase falls during search for sock
- The Juice: Long Adam Dunn homer punctuates Chris Sale’s 15 Ks, Mark Trumbo goes deep after Jered Weaver goes down for Angels
- Leyland begs media to make umpires ‘accountable’ for bad calls (VIDEO)
