The Season Has Started

by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 7, 2006 12:00 PM PST in News Comment 52 comments

Predicition season, that is. Ah yes, the time when everyone likes to pretend they are smarter than everyone else by showing who will not only win all the divisions, but predict who will win the Fall Classic. Funny, I don't think anyone had the White Sox last year...or the Red Sox the year before or the Marlins...ah, never mind.

I recently went to my local Border's and looked at the Street & Smith's 2006 season preview as well as Lindy's. Both had the Angels winning the division.

Interestingly enough, I wonder how different the Internet predictions will be from the "mainstream" predictions this year. Over at Larry Mahnken's Yankee Replacement Blog, they have the A's winning the West by 11 games over the Angels in their projections. Of course, this is a baseball simulator which is different than someone just scanning a roster and deciding who will win. Or maybe it isn't all that different.

Still, they ran the season through the simulator 100 times and the A's won the division 88 percent of the time and making the playoffs 94 percent of the time. According to this divisional projection, the A's are the biggest sure thing in the American League. Boston is closest to the A's 94 percent rate at 82 percent. If the projections hold true, the AL Central will be the most unpredictable of all American League Divisions, but the Twins and Indians came out ahead overall with the White Sox missing the playoffs altogether 76 percent of the time.

What does all this mean? Well, take it for what it's worth, predictions and projections. It's interesting that even last season, the Internet community seemed to favor the A's even in what was supposed to be a retooling season. Many of the mainstream media publications predicted doom and gloom for the A's. I wonder what the split in choosing the A's for the AL West will be this season. Perhaps we should keep a tally comparing the old school publications versus online publications?

I think publications who need to make predictions long before many of the moves have been made have a tendency of missing out on acquisitions that can be underrated like Bengie Molina signing with the Blue Jays. So, take them for what they're worth (usually somewhere between $4.95 and $12.95).

0 recs | Comment 52 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Most net fans

are picking the Angels to always win the West or at least he Wild Card on the ESPN boards. ESPN had a poll on their front page a while ago, and the Angels kicked everyone's ass on it.

But I think it mostly stems from fans who follow other divisions, and pick whomever has won the division before.

Knowledge is Power, Ignorance is Bliss. But I have Blissful Power, because I have a lot of knowledge, I just forgot it all!

by Zonis on Feb 7, 2006 12:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm talking about Internet writers

not necessarily the fans.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 7, 2006 12:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Rob Neyer

On his ESPN Chat today, Rob Neyer said that A's are the third best team in the world behind the USA and Dominican Republic...

by dpetri2000 on Feb 7, 2006 12:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

damn espn insider...

can u share the transcript of that chat?

by Suck My Moneyballs on Feb 7, 2006 12:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not on this site he can't

Please don't post full transcripts of a pay service.

Thank you.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 7, 2006 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

"full transcripts of a pay service"

"Uh, hi, is this, uh, 'Mistress Joe'?"

"Yes, baby. You sound like you've been a naughty baseball player! Have you been a naughty baseball player?"

"Um, uh, y-y-y-yeah, I -- I guess I have."

"Well, do you know what happens to naughty baseball players?"

"N-n-n-n-no ..."

"Naughty baseball players ... get tweezed!"

"Uh, I, uh, gotta go --"

"Oh, no, stay on the line, baby -- you ain't hit your billing time yet!"

<click>

"Yay for drug adventures!" -- HollywoodOz @('.')@

by monkeyball on Feb 7, 2006 1:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps he can

We can post snippets of such material under fair use rules can't we? For example, the portion of that chat that had to do with the A's.

by dumbruss on Feb 7, 2006 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think 88% is ridiculously high...

I think the A's have a great chance to win the West..but 88% isnt even remotely close to the % I woul put on it.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Feb 7, 2006 12:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I personally think

it's 87.8%, but who's counting?

Actually since a bunch of us did this last year, and i was ultimately somewhat humiliated-- though of course the Harden and Crosby injuries were unanticipated in August when i was so bullish, here's my attempt to set some odds this year.

Odds of making the AL playoffs:

New York: 65
Boston: 45
Toronto: 25
baltimore: 3
Tampa Bay 2

Chicago: 50
Cleveland: 45
Minnesota: 25
Detroit: 4
Kansas City: 1

Oakland: 75
LAA: 40
texas: 15
Seattle: 5

So there you go.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Feb 7, 2006 9:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Does Kansas City's 1%

involve two pairs of charter flights each crashing in mid-air?

Personally, I can't take too much issue with your odds, other than minor subjective tweaks. I'd probably put Texas and Seattle even at 10% each, switch Chicago and Cleveland, give 5% of Oakland's odds to LAA, and maybe give 5% of Boston's odds to Toronto, but those aren't major changes.

by Nico on Feb 7, 2006 9:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I can't say 0%

although I suppose with rounding their odds are closer to 0 than 1-- more than 1 in 200?? I guess so.

Hey-- you had the A's at 75% down below, and now you're already revising?

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Feb 8, 2006 7:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No, below I said

that 75% would be reasonable to an outsider (i.e., not a "homer pick"). I think the A's are somewhere between 70%-75%, but with Harden and Thomas both unproven in regards to health, plus Bradley and Chavy's health a bit fuzzy, plus Crosby prone to bizarre events that leave someone on crutches, I'll go with the lower figure for now.

And yes, I think the Royals' chances are less than 1 in 200.

by Nico on Feb 8, 2006 8:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ZIPS and Diamond Mind

There are some problems with these sims. First, it's double-counting defense, and that definitely helps the A's. ZIPS tries to account for defense when projecting pitchers, but they also put defensive ratings on the position players for the DM sims.

Second, DM doesn't really take serious injuries into account.

by Danny on Feb 7, 2006 12:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

At least it's a process rather

than glancing at a roster and making a prediction that way...it might not be perfect, but it appears more scientific than how some of these old school pubs make their predictions.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 7, 2006 12:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, definitely

It's the best we've got until the PECOTA and Diamond Mind sims come out.

by Danny on Feb 7, 2006 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

to add one more

This set of sims was done without a full roster set which means that certain teams are run without a full roster which can really hamper their performance over a simmed season. It also depends a lot on the playing time input from the person who runs the sims.

A much better guestimate will be available when Diamon Mind runs their own regressions in March. They picked last year pretty well, although the Angels outperformed their projection enough to knock us out of first (several career years from your pitchers will do that). For reference:
http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/proj2005.htm

RFB

by Tim J on Feb 7, 2006 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd believe a computer sim a million times

before I'd believe some pundit. Most are biased anyways, so whats the point of listening to them any ways. I just pay attention to the make up of the teams, the offseason moves, and then i make my own personal prediction.

prediction

A's win 93, west, WS over cards.

Simming Offseason.....

by robber23 on Feb 7, 2006 12:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

i realize the irony of my own A's biased punditry

Simming Offseason.....

by robber23 on Feb 7, 2006 12:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

my own

I've got the A's winning about 93-95 games, based on my manipulations of Bill James and ZiPS projections.
I don't know where the Angels will fall with that, but that's something I'll get to when I have time. I think, based on anecdotal evidence, that they'll win around 90 games.

Zonis- I'm getting to the PECOTA projs. really... ;)

--The Pastime--

by Ryan Armbrust on Feb 7, 2006 12:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

A's

Isn't that what Theo said his goal was as Boston's GM to Put together a team that wins around 95 games on paper. That way they should be there right to the end and most of the time make the playoffs.

As for the A's I think they have improved the team in about all phases of the game. I am really impressed with what Beane and more importantly the ownership (increasing payroll)has done. To me the big question is wether their stars can stay healthy.

The Angels seem to always out perform the computer simulations. Wether that is due to having a great bullpen, a vetern team or the ability late in games to move runners is tough to tell. This year in my opinion they have a lot of players who maybe on the downside of their careers (Anderson, Erstad, Kennedy ...) and their best lineup might include a number of young players (kotchman, kendrick and Wood) But they are also an organization which does not make those moves to easily. But I would be suprised if they have as good a year as they did last year.

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Feb 7, 2006 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Where do we fall on the payroll scale now?

We used to be 4th lowest. Then I think we moved up to 11th loswest. Are we a mid-salary team now?

by NovA'sFan on Feb 8, 2006 6:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

AL West

The pundits are usually all wrong anyway, I'm not 100% sure, but I highly doubt that any of them had the White Sox winning the Central, let alone the World Series. Rob Neyer loves the A's and always overpredicts how well we will do. There is no way to tell who will win now, because there are too many things that can change, the A's could pick up a huge bat in a F***ing A trade, or we could (God Forbid)lose a few players to injuries like last year. The fans that vote on Internet polls don't know anything about baseball, and they just vote on name recognition.
That being said, all rosters staying basically the same, the A's win around 95 games and win the division, and then it's a roll of the dice.

by Chavez4Prez on Feb 7, 2006 1:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Shooty Babbitt was big on WS

early on.

#$%*Throws Barry Bobblehead%$#@~~!!!

by A s Eh on Feb 7, 2006 10:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What about the people who make money doin this?

http://www.bodog.com/sports-betting/baseball-futures.jsp

Dominican Republic is the favorite? Looks close for the AL West

"If you throw at someone's head, it's very dangerous, because in the head is the brain." -- Pudge Rodriguez

by niallmack on Feb 7, 2006 1:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

They're based on profitability

not actuality.

They know that they don't need to offer fair odds to get folks to bet on the Angels.

Check out some awesome music ...

by devo on Feb 7, 2006 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They're pretty good, though...

Danny posted this last week in response to some musings of mine about the accuracy of Vegas vs. Diamond Mind, et al

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/tmpred05.htm

I went and checked it out... all of the predictors have their up years and their down years, but apparently Vegas has been the most consistent over recent history.

by booya on Feb 7, 2006 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

maximizing profit not accuracy

Exactly. They've got shorter odds for the Giants than the A's - and remember that's to win it all, not just the division.

by green star oakland on Feb 7, 2006 2:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Simulator......

How often does Harden go down with random tweaks and strains in the simulator? As far as I'm concerned, healthy Harden = playoffs.

What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do? If your numbers go up, you're having more fun.

by AlwaysSweatin on Feb 7, 2006 2:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

sorry Blez, for going off-topic, but...

...are you planning an interview trip to ST again this year?

"You don't look up truthiness in a book, you look it up in your gut." ~ Stephen Colbert

by Poppy on Feb 7, 2006 2:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

15- 1 odds

Those were the odds in Las Vegas last week that we win the World Series.
My annual bet!
My new idea is to play lottery with sets of favorite A's numbers..a pitchers set, outfield, infield, alltime favorites..etc. Wish me luck!

"Listen, my attitude is a whole lot better when we win..." Our favorite GM

by LongTimeFan on Feb 7, 2006 2:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm really tempted to go to Vegas to put some

real money on this one.

by alamedaman on Feb 7, 2006 6:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Go no further than your laptop...

"Don't you play the flute, Huddy?"

by capper3 on Feb 7, 2006 9:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I should try,,,I'm just hung up on the

legality thing,,,I know that's a little foolish, since the law is stupid, but I probably won't.

by alamedaman on Feb 7, 2006 11:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

FYI...

i've been doing the online thing for years and have collected plenty o' times. Not a problem. And actually there has not been any prosecutions of bettors online..just the people taking the bets.

"Don't you play the flute, Huddy?"

by capper3 on Feb 9, 2006 12:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

mlb.com has a's winning

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article_perspectives.jsp?ymd=20060203&content_id=1305862& vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp

don't think it's based on computer simulation though.

by mendelbob on Feb 7, 2006 3:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

That guy also has Seattle finishing

second, so I'm not sure how seriously to take his predictions.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 7, 2006 5:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Last year, MLB.com

chose the A's to finish last. Go figure.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Feb 7, 2006 5:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Here it is

Last year, MLB.com predicted the A's to finish last in the AL West:
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article_perspectives.jsp?ymd=20050202&content_id=938609&v key=perspectives&fext=.jsp

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Feb 7, 2006 5:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yes, but...

he leaves the door wide open:

The A's might have made some money-hacking moves, but this is not a fire-sale team by any stretch
Projected regular-season finish: Fourth place in a tight race, top to bottom
Wild card: They've got a lot of stellar arms, even though some are young and untested. But if it clicks right away for a couple of youngsters and the pitching staff comes together better than people think, there's no reason the A's couldn't get right back in the mix.

i think it was a pretty mild last place prediction.

Oakland, you know I go way back. -- Too Short

by mendelbob on Feb 8, 2006 2:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Last year's prediction.

In case people were too lazy to click on the link, the same stimulation before 2005 season predicted:

A's v. Angles: 59 to 30% making playoff and the Twins winning Central 70%

So there is still a lot of room for random chance. The only thing certain is that we don't have to worry about the Royals.

by hedgehog on Feb 7, 2006 3:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Screw the rest, here's mine.

Last year I predicted the A's out of the playoffs and with 84-86 wins. With one HUGE caveat, I predict a 92-96 win season with the A'S beating out TEXAS in the final week.

Oh ya, the HUGE caveat? Health. If this team stays healthy they will be in the WS in '06. This team is stacked and stout (much like how I like my women and beer)in all areas.

Cheers

by bigelephant on Feb 7, 2006 4:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Athlon Magazine

The baseball preview has the A's winning the West. Sporting News baseball preview was split...four of the writers/editors had the Angels winning, four had the A's winning. Two of the four having the Angels winning the division have the A's winning the wild card.

So take that for what it's worth.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Feb 7, 2006 5:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

MLB.com has the worst fluff

articles before the season, how can every team have the best catcher, double play duo etc? Now they tell the crappy teams' fans they are gonna win, I would guess they are trying to get people to show up at games. Still I wouldn't be suprised to see the Rangers finish higher than the Angels who are one Vlad getting an axe to his leg during the WBC from last place.

"If you throw at someone's head, it's very dangerous, because in the head is the brain." -- Pudge Rodriguez

by niallmack on Feb 7, 2006 5:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Well,

If the A's win their first game their odds are 100% (meaning that I estimate the chances of them losing the division is less than 1 in 200) but if they lose, they only have a 6.5% chance.

Seriously, I think the A's chances are somewhere between the computer sims and the mainstream writers (probably a 55% chance of wining the division which is very good for non-defending champ). But, I believe baseball is played on a field only once so this math is impossible to prove.

"A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore." - Yogi Berra

by vignette17 on Feb 7, 2006 7:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think 55% is reasonable

Add another 20% for Wild Card and you get a rather yummy 3/4 chance of making the playoffs without any predictions that would seem unreasonable to the outsider.

But I don't know where you get the idea that baseball is played on a field. It's played on steroids, yee hah!!!

by Nico on Feb 7, 2006 8:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nico

See above-- I swear I didn't look at yours first-- 75% sounds about right.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Feb 7, 2006 9:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

LOL

And I just replied to your post above before seeing this one.

Great minds don't think alike, but they do think at the same time.

by Nico on Feb 7, 2006 9:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My great mind

doesn't think at all.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Feb 7, 2006 9:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought baseball...

...is played in my TV...

"(Insert favorite AN quote here.)" -- Some ANer
AN Census

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Feb 8, 2006 8:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I hope the A's prediction is correct

and I think they coud potentially lead MLB in wins, but the fact that this prediction has San Diego leading the league in games played doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence.

West
Los Angeles(N) 87 75 748 701 59
San Francisco 83 79 732 716 28
Arizona 77 85 729 771 7
Colorado 76 86 787 842 2
San Diego 75 88 675 718 5

by Norcalvb on Feb 7, 2006 11:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Pfft...

San Diego. The A's will play 165 regular season games this year, or my name isn't FormerLasVegasStar...

"(Insert favorite AN quote here.)" -- Some ANer
AN Census

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Feb 8, 2006 8:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Exhibits #1-14

how many years have the braves not been picked to win their division? it seems like since the mets went to the world series last someone else other than the braves have been picked to win the division. pretty much any of the other teams really.

but what i am worried about that not a lot of people are talking about is how huston will perform this year. i'm not saying that he can't repeat his .535 opsa, but isn't that asking a lot? i'm not saying that he can't, but to repeat that isn't so simple... to me i guess.

by bjk15 on Feb 9, 2006 7:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs