Wednesday, March 27, 2013
The 2013 MLB Projection Blowout
With Opening Day rapidly approaching, it’s time for my 2013 MLB projected standings blowout. The idea behind this series of posts is to try and project how the 2013 MLB season might look given what we think we may know right now. I’ve been doing a version of this since 2005, and you can see the results by looking at the following links.
2005
2006
2007
2008 Pt 1
2008 Pt 2
2009 AL
2009 NL
2010 AL
2010 NL
2011 AL
2011 NL
2012
A quick look at the previous seasons shows that the results are hit and miss. Projections don’t pretend to be omnisicent, so they can only tell us so much about how things play out. Hence the following disclaimers.
1) Projection systems are inherently limited in their accuracy, particularly for pitchers. We can get a rough idea of how most players will perform by looking at their past histories and how similar players have performed, and factoring in aging and regression, but abilities/talent can change in ways that can’t be forecasted.
2) Playing time distribution in these simulations will not match actual 2013 playing time. I used the rosters and depth charts available at MLB Depth Charts plus whatever I’ve read over the offseason as my guide to set these up as realistically as possible, but it’s a possible source of error. Rosters were set up to have 35-40 or so active players per team, and to get a reasonable amount of playing time from the bench and extra pitchers, to more closely model reality. Basically, no players are set to play more than 90% of the time, starting catchers are restricted to at most about 75% of the games, and I’ve made sure teams get a non-trivial amount of starts from their 6-8 starters. The healthier a team is in 2013, the more likely they will be to exceed these projections, and vice versa.
3) We cannot predict injuries and/or roster changes. These simulations do try to adjust projected playing time based on past health issues, so someone like Erik Bedard is not expected to make 30 starts. I’ve also included random injuries which may lead to some of the outlying results you see, but there’s no way to account for all the fluctuations that will happen with rosters this season.
4) These are NOT my predictions. These are projections based on running a computer simulation hundreds of thousands of times with projection data that is inherently limited. If your favorite team doesn’t project well, don’t blame me, blame the computers and spreadsheets that projected them. I guess you can blame me for the CAIRO results if you want, otherwise you can take heart in the 2006 Tigers projecting to win 80, the 2010 Giants projecting to go 81-81 or the 2012 Orioles projecting to win 70 games. These are not meant to tell you how the season is going to play out. I prefer to think of them more as a starting point for discussion, with a range of something like 10 wins in either direction based on how things actually end up playing out. You can look at them and argue about why you think some teams will be better or worse.
5) Since this is all automated, I don’t break ties. I simply award all ties a share of either the division title or wild cards when it happens which is why you may see some funny decimal places in the standings that follow.
6) These are the averages of hundreds of thousands of simulated seasons, so the results will tend to regress towards the mean. The final standings will not look like this, because they only play the season once. If the first place team in a division projects to win 85 games, it doesn’t mean 85 wins will win the division, but I’ll get into that into more detail further down in this post.
7) Even if you knew exactly what every player would do, and exactly how much they’d play, you would not get the standings right. A few one run games or a disparate performance in more crucial situations can cause any team to over/under achieve what their stats say they should have done. So if that’s true, you have to figure that since we have no idea what any individual player do or how much they’ll play, the margin of error on these is massive.
There’s too much stuff to fit it all into one post, so I’ve created a separate post for each projection system. I will use this post to show the results of the aggregate/average of all the projections. You can follow the links below to look at the individual projection systems’ results.
This year, I’m using five different projection systems. You can click on each of the links below to get some more information about each system and to see how their specific projected standings look.
CAIRO
Marcel
Oliver
Steamer
ZiPS
I should note that the Marcel projections used here were generated using Python code provided by Jeff Sackmann and are not the “official” projections, although they should be almost identical. I’ll also mention that ZiPS will have its own projected standings so these should not be considered the official version. Playing time distribution, run environments and park factors may cause some divergence between what ZiPS forecasts and what mine say. When in doubt, go with the official version.
With all the disclaimers out of the way, on to the projected standings. These are the combined results for all five projection systems. The standings are rounded to the nearest win so if the total W-L doesn’t add up to 2430-2430 that’s why.
| American League | |||||||||
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% | W+/- |
| Blue Jays | 89 | 73 | 795 | 728 | 29.1% | 9.9% | 9.6% | 48.5% | 77-100 |
| Rays | 88 | 74 | 715 | 644 | 27.6% | 9.5% | 8.8% | 45.9% | 77-100 |
| Yankees | 85 | 77 | 774 | 745 | 18.6% | 7.9% | 8.2% | 34.7% | 73-96 |
| Red Sox | 82 | 80 | 819 | 803 | 15.4% | 6.6% | 8.2% | 30.2% | 70-93 |
| Orioles | 79 | 83 | 738 | 766 | 9.3% | 4.5% | 5.8% | 19.6% | 68-90 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- |
| Tigers | 89 | 73 | 797 | 714 | 46.4% | 6.6% | 6.8% | 59.8% | 77-100 |
| Royals | 81 | 81 | 716 | 721 | 19.3% | 5.6% | 6.5% | 31.4% | 70-92 |
| Indians | 80 | 82 | 741 | 744 | 18.7% | 5.0% | 6.2% | 29.9% | 69-91 |
| White Sox | 76 | 86 | 718 | 767 | 12.4% | 4.0% | 4.8% | 21.2% | 65-88 |
| Twins | 67 | 95 | 693 | 825 | 3.2% | 0.9% | 1.6% | 5.6% | 56-78 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- |
| Angels | 91 | 71 | 763 | 656 | 40.0% | 12.3% | 9.3% | 61.7% | 80-103 |
| Rangers | 88 | 74 | 795 | 727 | 30.1% | 12.0% | 10.0% | 52.1% | 77-100 |
| Athletics | 87 | 75 | 731 | 679 | 24.6% | 12.1% | 10.0% | 46.6% | 75-98 |
| Mariners | 73 | 89 | 660 | 722 | 4.7% | 2.9% | 3.8% | 11.4% | 61-84 |
| Astros | 60 | 102 | 649 | 866 | 0.5% | 0.3% | 0.7% | 1.6% | 49-72 |
| National League | |||||||||
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- |
| Nationals | 90 | 72 | 690 | 598 | 44.5% | 11.3% | 8.3% | 64.0% | 79-102 |
| Braves | 88 | 74 | 673 | 622 | 32.3% | 11.5% | 9.7% | 53.5% | 77-99 |
| Phillies | 80 | 82 | 665 | 680 | 15.1% | 7.2% | 7.9% | 30.1% | 69-92 |
| Mets | 73 | 89 | 645 | 703 | 5.3% | 3.1% | 4.2% | 12.6% | 61-84 |
| Marlins | 69 | 93 | 624 | 731 | 2.8% | 1.9% | 2.5% | 7.3% | 57-80 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- |
| Reds | 89 | 73 | 741 | 662 | 41.0% | 8.9% | 7.9% | 57.8% | 78-101 |
| Cardinals | 85 | 77 | 686 | 655 | 26.8% | 8.8% | 7.8% | 43.4% | 73-96 |
| Brewers | 79 | 83 | 704 | 733 | 13.4% | 5.5% | 6.5% | 25.3% | 67-90 |
| Pirates | 78 | 84 | 665 | 691 | 11.6% | 4.3% | 5.6% | 21.5% | 66-89 |
| Cubs | 74 | 88 | 652 | 705 | 7.2% | 3.3% | 4.1% | 14.6% | 63-85 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- |
| Dodgers | 87 | 75 | 677 | 618 | 30.9% | 9.4% | 8.9% | 49.2% | 76-99 |
| Giants | 87 | 75 | 665 | 613 | 28.3% | 9.1% | 9.0% | 46.4% | 76-98 |
| Diamondbacks | 84 | 78 | 716 | 696 | 22.7% | 8.1% | 8.0% | 38.8% | 73-95 |
| Padres | 78 | 84 | 643 | 668 | 11.0% | 4.4% | 5.4% | 20.8% | 66-89 |
| Rockies | 74 | 88 | 775 | 847 | 7.2% | 3.2% | 4.2% | 14.6% | 63-85 |
W: Projected final 2013 wins
L: Projected final 2013 losses
RS: Projected final 2013 runs scored
RA: Projected final 2013 runs allowed
Div: Division win percentage
WC1: Wild card win percentage
WC2: Wild card win percentage
PS: Postseason percentage (Div + WC1 + WC2)
W+/-: Projected wins within one standard deviation
As noted earlier, this is NOT saying that you can win the NL West by winning 87 games. It’s saying that the team that finished in first most frequently in that division averaged 87 wins over hundreds of thousands of seasons. Here are the average win totals for each spot in each division.
| Place | ALE | ALC | ALW | NLE | NLC | NLW |
| 1 | 94 | 91 | 95 | 94 | 92 | 92 |
| 2 | 89 | 84 | 89 | 87 | 85 | 87 |
| 3 | 85 | 79 | 83 | 80 | 81 | 83 |
| 4 | 81 | 74 | 73 | 73 | 76 | 78 |
| 5 | 75 | 66 | 60 | 66 | 70 | 71 |
| WC1 | 91 | 90 | ||||
| WC2 | 87 | 86 |
Here is how each division broke down in terms of percentages using the aforementioned pie charts.
In the AL East, we’ve got the mostly tightly bunched group of teams in baseball, with just 10 wins separating Toronto at the top and Baltimore at the bottom. Toronto and Tampa Bay look like they’re neck and neck as of right now. The Yankees are already ravaged by injuries and at this point it doesn’t seem like it would take a lot for them to end up having a losing season and even finish last. Should they lose Robinson Cano or CC Sabathia for any significant amount of time that may be exactly what happens. Boston has improved quite a bit from where they were at the end of last season, although they apparently still have a ways to go. The projections are expecting a big regression from Baltimore, although they have enough talented young players with upside that they could beat their projections by quite a bit.
The AL Central basically looks like Detroit and everyone else. Kansas City and Cleveland are jockeying behind the Tigers. It’ll be interesting to see what the Indians get out of Scott Kazmir, who did not have a Steamer projection and projected pretty poorly in all the other systems. He’s throwing harder than he was when last seen in the majors and could surprise some people. For the Royals, it looks like Big Game James may not get into many big games this year, although stranger things have happened. The White Sox are projected to fall off a bit from last season, and the Twins look like they aren’t going to be very good.
There’s a new floormat in the AL West, and it’s the Houston Astros. Can they lose 100+ games for the third year in a row? The projections think they can. Houston projects to be so bad that they have essentially balanced out the league difference between the AL and NL. Last year, the AL went 1150-1118 thanks to interleague play. If you add Houston’s 55-107 to that you get a record of 1205-1225. Los Anaheim looks like the favorite here and project to win more games than any other team in baseball, with Texas a strong second. The Angels do have some concerns in their rotation, which could open the door for the Rangers. Oakland projects to fall back a bit from last year, but still should be in contention. Seattle still doesn’t look particularly good, although they should score some more runs this year, which is something.
The Nationals project as favorites in the NL East, especially now that the restrictions are off Stephen Strasburg. The Braves aren’t quite at their level, but project to be pretty good as well. The Phillies appear to be showing their age, and if Roy Halladay doesn’t bounce back they could be in trouble. The Mets don’t look good to me, especially with Johan Santana looking iffy and the Marlins may be as bad as the Astros. If Placido Polanco is hitting cleanup to ‘protect’ Giancarlo Stanton, it’s hard to see them winning 60 games.
In the Central, the Reds look like the clear favorite. The Cardinals were closer before losing Chris Carpenter and Rafael Furcal, but they seem like the second best team in the division. Pittsburgh and Milwaukee are neck and neck with each other and the Cubs look to be bringing up the rear.
In the West, the Dodgers are spending money like there’s no tomorrow but I’m not so sure they’re spending it all that well. They project a hair better than San Francisco but given the margin of error inherent in projections there’s really no difference in their projections. The Diamondbacks had a bizarre offseason and losing Adam Eaton for two months hurts, but they should be in the mix if a few things go their way. The Padres look a bit better than I expected, although still not good and the Rockies stink.
Usually there’s a surprise team or two in here but this year nothing really stands out. In general it seems that aside from a handful of really bad teams we’re seeing more parity. Between that and the second wild card you can pretty much see any team in baseball sneaking into the postseason. Except the Astros.
And there you have it. The 2013 projection blowout. Results are not guaranteed.
On an unrelated note, our sister site, the Replacement Level Red Sox launches today. Check them out at replacementlevelredsox.com.
Monday, December 10, 2012
CAIRO 2013 v0.2’s Extremely Early and Completely Useless 2013 Projected MLB Standings
Since I was curious about how the big trade between Kansas City and Tampa Bay affected the AL East, I ran some projected standings based on rosters as of last night. As the title says, this is extremely early and completely useless so think of it more as a goof than anything too serious. So using CAIRO v0.2 and the depth charts from MLB Depth Charts and Rotochamp as a rough gauge of playing time, here’s how the 2013 MLB season looks as of December 10.
Update: CAIRO v0.5 is now available
| Date | 12/10/2012 | |||||||
| Iterations | 100000 | |||||||
| American League | ||||||||
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% |
| Rays | 86 | 76 | 698 | 643 | 25.8% | 8.4% | 10.2% | 44.4% |
| Blue Jays | 86 | 76 | 789 | 741 | 25.3% | 9.2% | 8.2% | 42.7% |
| Yankees | 85 | 77 | 771 | 738 | 23.0% | 8.6% | 7.7% | 39.3% |
| Red Sox | 84 | 78 | 788 | 759 | 20.1% | 7.7% | 8.4% | 36.2% |
| Orioles | 73 | 89 | 718 | 780 | 5.8% | 3.1% | 5.0% | 13.9% |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Tigers | 91 | 71 | 791 | 709 | 46.2% | 7.3% | 6.0% | 59.5% |
| Royals | 84 | 78 | 717 | 701 | 24.7% | 6.4% | 8.3% | 39.4% |
| White Sox | 80 | 82 | 725 | 755 | 18.2% | 4.4% | 6.5% | 29.0% |
| Indians | 73 | 89 | 692 | 768 | 7.3% | 2.7% | 4.0% | 14.0% |
| Twins | 65 | 97 | 696 | 854 | 3.7% | 1.6% | 1.6% | 6.9% |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Angels | 95 | 67 | 726 | 616 | 43.4% | 12.8% | 9.3% | 65.6% |
| Rangers | 88 | 74 | 762 | 699 | 24.7% | 12.1% | 10.6% | 47.5% |
| Athletics | 88 | 74 | 712 | 653 | 25.2% | 11.0% | 8.6% | 44.8% |
| Mariners | 74 | 88 | 626 | 692 | 6.0% | 4.3% | 5.0% | 15.3% |
| Astros | 60 | 102 | 651 | 850 | 0.6% | 0.4% | 0.8% | 1.8% |
| National League | ||||||||
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Nationals | 94 | 68 | 699 | 590 | 46.4% | 9.9% | 8.0% | 64.2% |
| Braves | 86 | 76 | 686 | 630 | 23.8% | 11.2% | 8.9% | 43.9% |
| Phillies | 82 | 80 | 666 | 657 | 18.0% | 7.0% | 7.9% | 32.9% |
| Mets | 75 | 87 | 665 | 715 | 8.3% | 4.7% | 5.3% | 18.2% |
| Marlins | 69 | 93 | 625 | 729 | 3.5% | 2.0% | 2.9% | 8.4% |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Reds | 91 | 71 | 722 | 635 | 41.9% | 7.9% | 7.5% | 57.3% |
| Cardinals | 86 | 76 | 696 | 645 | 28.0% | 7.9% | 8.7% | 44.6% |
| Brewers | 78 | 84 | 711 | 742 | 12.7% | 5.2% | 6.5% | 24.4% |
| Pirates | 77 | 85 | 663 | 688 | 11.1% | 5.5% | 6.6% | 23.1% |
| Cubs | 71 | 91 | 635 | 721 | 6.3% | 2.4% | 3.5% | 12.1% |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Dodgers | 90 | 72 | 677 | 587 | 35.0% | 9.3% | 9.0% | 53.4% |
| Giants | 87 | 75 | 663 | 598 | 27.6% | 9.8% | 8.2% | 45.6% |
| Diamondbacks | 81 | 81 | 692 | 678 | 15.9% | 7.1% | 7.1% | 30.1% |
| Padres | 81 | 81 | 659 | 654 | 15.9% | 7.7% | 7.6% | 31.3% |
| Rockies | 71 | 91 | 770 | 865 | 5.6% | 2.4% | 2.5% | 10.5% |
The Astros are going to make it awfully easy for the AL West teams to win the wild cards, aren’t they?
Did I mention that these are extremely early and completely useless?
Saturday, October 6, 2012
NY Times: Returning to Playoffs in Style, Orioles Await Yankees
Buck Showalter managed the first American League wild-card team, the 1995 Yankees, losing an excruciating division series. On Friday he was here for the league’s first one-game wild card playoff as manager of the Baltimore Orioles. There was no series this time, just one chance to continue a miracle season.
“Our approach is it’s sudden life, not sudden death, and there’s something good, real good, that can happen,” Showalter said before batting practice at Rangers Ballpark. “If you had told us at the end of the season last year that we’d have a chance to put a roster together for one game, we’d have signed up for that in blood. I’m sure Texas feels the same way.”
Maybe, but probably not. The Rangers won the last two A.L. pennants and came within a strike of their first World Series title last October. They led the West division this season from the fourth game through the 161st, but tumbled into the wild-card game the last day of the regular season. Now they are finished, victims of a long-dormant potion called Oriole Magic.
Raise your hand if you can guess the next victims of Oriole Magic.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Reuters: Rangers, Orioles, Yankees make postseason
(Reuters) - Texas closer Joe Nathan’s critical save helped the Texas Rangers clinch a playoff spot with an 8-7 victory over the Los Angeles Angels that also secured postseason berths for the Baltimore Orioles and New York Yankees on Sunday.
Nathan blew a chance for a save in the opening game of a doubleheader with the Angels, allowing two runs in the ninth in a 5-4 defeat, but he nailed down the ninth in the nightcap to launch Texas back into the postseason.
The two-time American League champions (93-66) gained at least a wild-card berth with the victory, which put them two games ahead of Oakland in the American League West with three to play in the regular season.
Baltimore and New York, who both won on Sunday to remain deadlocked in the American League East, also secured at least a wild-card spot thanks to the Rangers’ triumph.
At least this saves me typing “if by some miracle the Yankees make the postseason” for a few days.
The way this season has unfolded leaves a lot of uncertainty about who the Yankees will be playing and where they’ll be playing.
They could still end up as the #1 seed and have home field advantage through the ALCS if they win one more game than Texas. That’d give both teams the same record, but since the Yankees won the season series vs. the Rangers they’d get the tiebreaker.
Obviously if they win one more game than Baltimore they win the AL East outright. Whichever team wins the AL East will be the #2 seed at the very minimum since Detroit can’t win more than 89 games. If the Yanks and O’s end up tied then they’ll have to play a one game playoff game for the division title. Whomever wins that game will get Detroit in the ALDS and whomever loses that game will get to play the second wild card team in a one game play-in, which looks like it’ll most likely be Oakland but could also end up being Tampa Bay or the Angels.
You could see a scenario where the Yankees tie Baltimore, then lose the division playoff game then have to play the second wild card team just to get into the ALDS. So in theory the Yankees would have to get through two elimination games just to get into the ALDS. If you assume they’d used CC Sabathia and Hiroki Kuroda in those games, which may not work given the way the rotation is currently configured, you’re looking at an ALDS rotation of Andy Pettitte, Phil Hughes and ??? in the first three games if by some miracle the Yankees make the ALDS.
Wait, I thought I didn’t have to say if by some miracle anymore?
I think Texas is the best team in baseball, but I don’t necessarily think they’re the scariest opponent the Yankees may face. They lead the AL in runs scored and have a solid defense and their pitching from top to bottom is strong, but they don’t necessarily have a true dominant #1 starter. That being said, Yu Darvish has the stuff to pitch like one in any given game and Matt Harrison has had a great year even if he’s pitching a bit over his head. Ryan Dempster’s ERA hasn’t been great for Texas but his peripherals are actually pretty strong so he is another arm that could give teams fits.
The Tigers have clinched a tie for their division and should be able to set up their rotation to have Justin Verlander going twice in the ALDS, and they’ve obviously got a killer 3-4 in their lineup. But their defense makes the Yankee defense look like Tampa Bay’s.
Oakland seems like a possible tough matchup because they can run a bunch of good pitchers at you and have a few guys who have the power to change a game on one swing. They’re rated as one of the top five defenses in the league by UZR although DRS says they’re closer to average.
Baltimore seems like the weakest possible team out of all of the viable postseason teams, but that doesn’t make them a bad team. Since August 4 they’ve got a Pythagenpat winning percentage of .654 which is equivalent to a 106 win team. You can’t completely ignore their early season performance, but you can understand that they’ve changed the composition of their roster significantly enough that it shouldn’t have much bearing in assessing how good they might be right now.
The Rays and Angels face long odds of qualifying for the postseason, but if they get in it’ll be no treat facing either team given their rotations and some of their front-line position players.
The next three days should be exciting.
Friday, September 21, 2012
The Postseason Implications of this Series with Oakland
The Yankees’ second half slide really began when they got swept in Oakland in a four game series following a home sweep of Toronto. Prior to that series, the Yankees had a 10 game lead in the division and were 57-34. Since the opener of that series on July 19 they’ve gone 29-29 and lost nine games off their division lead.
The A’s and Orioles have 85 wins, and the Yankees have 86. The other wild card contenders at this point have a pretty hard road ahead of them to catch any of the three. The Angels are at 81 wins, the Rays are at 80, the Tigers are at 79 and Boston’s at 68. But it’s certainly not impossible that things could change over the next week.
Here’s how the postseason odds for the AL look as of this morning.
| TM | W | L | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% |
| Yankees | 93.4 | 68.6 | 80.1% | 10.3% | 6.8% | 97.1% |
| Orioles | 91.2 | 70.8 | 19.6% | 35.8% | 33.4% | 88.8% |
| Rays | 86.5 | 75.5 | 0.2% | 1.3% | 6.0% | 7.5% |
| Red Sox | 73.0 | 89.0 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Blue Jays | 72.3 | 89.7 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| White Sox | 88.2 | 73.9 | 72.2% | 0.1% | 0.8% | 73.0% |
| Tigers | 86.4 | 75.6 | 27.6% | 0.1% | 1.9% | 29.6% |
| Royals | 74.4 | 87.6 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Twins | 66.7 | 95.3 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Indians | 66.5 | 95.5 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Rangers | 96.1 | 65.9 | 90.9% | 7.4% | 1.2% | 99.4% |
| Athletics | 91.1 | 70.9 | 9.0% | 43.0% | 38.5% | 90.5% |
| Angels | 87.2 | 74.8 | 0.0% | 1.8% | 11.4% | 13.2% |
| Mariners | 74.9 | 87.1 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
W: Projected final 2012 wins
L: Projected final 2012 losses
Div: Division win percentage
WC1: Wild card win percentage
WC2: Wild card win percentage
PS: Postseason percentage (Div + WC1 + WC2)
Here are how they change based on the four possible outcomes of this series.
| A’s 3-0 | W | L | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% |
| Yankees | 89.9 | 72.1 | 58.2% | 4.3% | 22.6% | 85.1% |
| Orioles | 89.4 | 72.6 | 39.2% | 5.8% | 38.1% | 83.1% |
| Rays | 84.9 | 77.1 | 0.6% | 0.2% | 6.0% | 6.8% |
| Red Sox | 71.7 | 90.3 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Blue Jays | 71.1 | 90.9 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| White Sox | 86.6 | 75.4 | 74.2% | 0.1% | 0.2% | 74.5% |
| Tigers | 84.8 | 77.2 | 23.8% | 0.1% | 2.2% | 26.1% |
| Royals | 73.1 | 88.9 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Twins | 65.6 | 96.4 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Indians | 65.2 | 96.8 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Rangers | 94.4 | 67.6 | 85.2% | 12.8% | 0.6% | 98.6% |
| Athletics | 91.2 | 70.8 | 12.8% | 74.8% | 16.1% | 100.0% |
| Angels | 85.8 | 76.2 | 0.0% | - | 12.5% | 12.5% |
| Mariners | 73.4 | 88.6 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| A’s 2-1 | W | L | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% |
| Yankees | 92.1 | 69.9 | 70.9% | 9.0% | 14.5% | 94.4% |
| Orioles | 90.6 | 71.4 | 28.3% | 18.9% | 40.1% | 87.3% |
| Rays | 86.2 | 75.8 | 0.0% | 0.1% | 7.2% | 7.4% |
| Red Sox | 72.5 | 89.5 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Blue Jays | 71.8 | 90.2 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| White Sox | 87.6 | 74.4 | 76.1% | - | - | 76.1% |
| Tigers | 85.6 | 76.4 | 23.1% | - | 1.8% | 24.9% |
| Royals | 74.0 | 88.0 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Twins | 66.4 | 95.6 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Indians | 66.1 | 95.9 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Rangers | 95.4 | 66.6 | 89.2% | 10.0% | - | 99.1% |
| Athletics | 91.6 | 70.4 | 10.0% | 61.0% | 26.1% | 97.1% |
| Angels | 86.7 | 75.3 | 0.0% | 0.2% | 9.9% | 10.1% |
| Mariners | 74.2 | 87.8 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Yankees 2-1 | W | L | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% |
| Yankees | 93.7 | 68.3 | 84.1% | 10.2% | 4.8% | 99.1% |
| Orioles | 91.1 | 70.9 | 15.5% | 42.2% | 34.7% | 92.4% |
| Rays | 86.3 | 75.7 | 0.0% | 0.2% | 4.0% | 4.2% |
| Red Sox | 72.8 | 89.2 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Blue Jays | 72.1 | 89.9 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| White Sox | 87.8 | 74.2 | 75.3% | 0.1% | 0.4% | 75.8% |
| Tigers | 86.1 | 75.9 | 24.3% | 0.1% | 0.8% | 25.2% |
| Royals | 74.3 | 87.7 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Twins | 66.4 | 95.6 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Indians | 66.4 | 95.6 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Rangers | 95.8 | 66.2 | 95.4% | 3.2% | 0.6% | 99.2% |
| Athletics | 90.7 | 71.3 | 4.2% | 41.3% | 44.0% | 89.5% |
| Angels | 87.2 | 74.8 | 0.0% | 2.2% | 10.6% | 12.9% |
| Mariners | 74.6 | 87.4 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Yankees 3-0 | W | L | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% |
| Yankees | 94.5 | 67.5 | 92.6% | 6.6% | 0.2% | 99.3% |
| Orioles | 91.1 | 70.9 | 7.0% | 58.8% | 24.3% | 90.1% |
| Rays | 86.3 | 75.7 | 0.0% | 1.6% | 6.5% | 8.1% |
| Red Sox | 72.8 | 89.2 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Blue Jays | 72.1 | 89.9 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| White Sox | 88.1 | 73.9 | 74.9% | - | 0.2% | 75.1% |
| Tigers | 86.5 | 75.5 | 24.7% | 0.4% | 1.5% | 26.6% |
| Royals | 74.2 | 87.8 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Twins | 66.4 | 95.6 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Indians | 66.3 | 95.7 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Rangers | 95.7 | 66.3 | 96.2% | 2.8% | 0.6% | 99.6% |
| Athletics | 89.9 | 72.1 | 3.2% | 26.8% | 53.3% | 83.4% |
| Angels | 87.1 | 74.9 | 0.2% | 2.6% | 13.4% | 16.2% |
| Mariners | 74.6 | 87.4 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
With Baltimore at Fenway for three games, they have a very good chance at solidifying their postseason odds since they’re guaranteed to gain ground on one of the A’s or Yankees if they can win. Since Boston is really not even an MLB team at this point I’d be shocked by anything less than sweep. In fact, if it were possible I’d say the Orioles would pick up four wins in three games against Boston.
But the Yankees can’t worry about that. They just need to win. Hopefully they can take two of three.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
CBS NY: Yankees’ Gardner Suffers Third Setback; CC Set To Return
NEW YORK (WFAN/AP) — CC Sabathia found the whole experience of his first trip to the disabled list with the Yankees a little “embarrassing,” and he is looking forward to making his first start in more than two weeks.
Brett Gardner might have to wait even longer to return from an elbow injury.
Sabathia will make his first start since June 24 on Tuesday night against Toronto. Out with a groin strain, he says he’s feeling well enough to pitch as long as he needs to and thinks the time off might have been more beneficial to his left arm than the groin.
...
Gardner was sore a day after he had four at-bats in a three-inning simulated game and was being kept off the field Monday. The speedy outfielder has already had two setbacks in his recovery from a strained elbow that has sidelined him since April 18.
At this point, Gardner may do the unthinkable and break Damaso Marte’s record for setbacks in a season. Are we comfortable with a platoon of Andruw Jones/Raul Ibanez and DeWayne Wise on defense for the rest of the year? Jones has a .339 wOBA vs. RHP this year and Ibanez has a .338 wOBA vs. LHP. The average AL LF has a wOBA of .331, so assuming that Jones and Ibanez can keep up what they’ve done the Yankees would be slightly better than average on offense although they probably give away some of that on defense. They can use Wise in spots where defense can be leveraged more optimally I guess.
It seems like a seller’s market right now with so many teams still having a reasonable chance at the second wild card, so I don’t know who’s available and what the price will be. Here are how I have each teams’ odds of qualifying for the postseason as of this morning.
| TM | PS% |
| Yankees | 93.2% |
| Rangers | 92.2% |
| Nationals | 83.0% |
| Reds | 78.7% |
| Braves | 71.5% |
| Giants | 61.8% |
| White Sox | 60.7% |
| Angels | 59.3% |
| Cardinals | 58.8% |
| Pirates | 46.6% |
| Tigers | 45.8% |
| Red Sox | 43.2% |
| Dodgers | 32.9% |
| Rays | 32.0% |
| Indians | 27.9% |
| Diamondbacks | 25.0% |
| Mets | 20.2% |
| Athletics | 19.2% |
| Blue Jays | 17.4% |
| Brewers | 11.5% |
| Orioles | 6.3% |
| Marlins | 4.6% |
| Phillies | 4.1% |
| Royals | 1.8% |
| Rockies | 1.0% |
| Mariners | 0.8% |
| Twins | 0.3% |
| Cubs | 0.3% |
| Padres | 0.3% |
| Astros | - |
I’d probably say any team under 20% should be a seller, but they may feel differently. So who may be available from those teams, and what would they cost?
Monday, June 4, 2012
2012 MLB Projected Standings and Postseason Odds through June 3
It’s been a while since I last ran these, so here’s how things look as of this morning. Team projections are based about 2/3 on their average pre-season projection from here and 1/3 on YTD performance in component runs scored and allowed, with some adjustments for roster changes and injuries.
| Date | 6/4/2012 | ||||||||||
| Iterations | 1000000 | ||||||||||
| American League | |||||||||||
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Yankees | 90 | 72 | 811 | 705 | 35.5% | 16.8% | 13.6% | 65.9% | -4.6 | -25 | -7 |
| Rays | 89 | 73 | 740 | 667 | 30.4% | 18.0% | 14.1% | 62.5% | 0.0 | -25 | -16 |
| Red Sox | 86 | 76 | 836 | 750 | 21.2% | 15.1% | 14.2% | 50.4% | -4.1 | 7 | 16 |
| Blue Jays | 82 | 80 | 776 | 755 | 9.1% | 8.5% | 10.9% | 28.5% | 0.4 | 2 | -20 |
| Orioles | 78 | 84 | 711 | 782 | 3.8% | 4.6% | 6.9% | 15.3% | 7.9 | -1 | -37 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| White Sox | 85 | 77 | 731 | 735 | 43.4% | 4.1% | 5.5% | 53.0% | 9.0 | 24 | -37 |
| Indians | 81 | 81 | 749 | 763 | 24.3% | 3.6% | 5.4% | 33.3% | -0.9 | -18 | 11 |
| Tigers | 81 | 81 | 756 | 738 | 23.5% | 3.1% | 5.1% | 31.7% | -4.7 | -28 | 2 |
| Royals | 74 | 88 | 685 | 747 | 7.6% | 1.0% | 2.1% | 10.6% | -0.5 | -20 | -18 |
| Twins | 66 | 96 | 701 | 837 | 1.3% | 0.1% | 0.3% | 1.7% | -5.6 | -29 | 15 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Rangers | 97 | 65 | 840 | 690 | 80.3% | 6.5% | 4.0% | 90.8% | 5.7 | 33 | -12 |
| Angels | 85 | 77 | 700 | 639 | 16.8% | 15.2% | 12.6% | 44.7% | -5.0 | -42 | -22 |
| Mariners | 74 | 88 | 680 | 721 | 1.9% | 2.4% | 3.8% | 8.1% | -0.2 | -2 | -20 |
| Athletics | 71 | 91 | 645 | 713 | 1.0% | 0.8% | 1.6% | 3.5% | -5.0 | -62 | -43 |
| National League | |||||||||||
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Nationals | 88 | 74 | 659 | 614 | 29.3% | 12.0% | 10.8% | 52.1% | 3.8 | -24 | -42 |
| Braves | 87 | 75 | 730 | 681 | 25.0% | 11.2% | 10.7% | 47.0% | -0.6 | 16 | 15 |
| Marlins | 85 | 77 | 689 | 667 | 19.8% | 10.2% | 10.3% | 40.3% | 1.6 | -18 | -14 |
| Phillies | 85 | 77 | 693 | 640 | 18.4% | 10.4% | 10.5% | 39.3% | -4.2 | -5 | 11 |
| Mets | 80 | 82 | 694 | 747 | 7.6% | 5.2% | 6.8% | 19.6% | 6.5 | 11 | -6 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Reds | 91 | 71 | 701 | 643 | 50.0% | 11.7% | 8.1% | 69.8% | 3.8 | -14 | -17 |
| Cardinals | 89 | 73 | 758 | 676 | 35.7% | 13.0% | 9.7% | 58.4% | 2.0 | 27 | -2 |
| Brewers | 80 | 82 | 701 | 699 | 8.3% | 4.8% | 6.0% | 19.1% | -4.7 | 2 | 34 |
| Pirates | 77 | 85 | 611 | 693 | 4.9% | 2.9% | 4.3% | 12.0% | 5.3 | -57 | -59 |
| Astros | 69 | 93 | 630 | 745 | 0.8% | 0.4% | 0.8% | 2.0% | 5.7 | 25 | -11 |
| Cubs | 65 | 97 | 630 | 744 | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.3% | 0.7% | -6.1 | -26 | -6 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Giants | 87 | 75 | 660 | 638 | 39.4% | 6.1% | 6.4% | 51.8% | 2.5 | -12 | -10 |
| Dodgers | 87 | 75 | 659 | 659 | 38.3% | 6.2% | 6.8% | 51.3% | 11.6 | 18 | -31 |
| Diamondbacks | 80 | 82 | 681 | 683 | 13.9% | 3.5% | 4.9% | 22.4% | -3.7 | -12 | 10 |
| Rockies | 77 | 85 | 784 | 782 | 7.9% | 2.2% | 3.5% | 13.6% | -5.5 | 37 | 52 |
| Padres | 65 | 97 | 604 | 694 | 0.5% | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.7% | -10.6 | -43 | 5 |
W: Projected final 2012 wins
L: Projected final 2012 losses
RS: Projected final 2012 runs scored
RA: Projected final 2012 runs allowed
Div: Division win percentage
WC1: Wild card win percentage
WC2: Wild card win percentage
PS: Postseason percentage (Div + WC1 + WC2)
W+/-: 2012 revised projected wins minus 2012 pre-season projected wins
RS+/-: 2012 revised projected runs scored minus 2012 pre-season projected runs scored (positive means they are projected to score more)
RA+/-: 2012 revised projected runs allowed minus 2012 pre-season projected runs allowed (negative means they are projected to allow fewer)
The Yankees have regained their rightful place at the top of the division, although they can lose that tomorrow pretty easily. They’re projecting to end the year almost five wins worse than they originally projected to, but at least so far no one aside from Texas in the AL looks like they’re likely to be much better.
The biggest surprise for me here is the White Sox, who are nine games ahead of their pre-season projections and now have a greater than 50% chance at their division. There is little evidence of luck in their component stats, so they haven’t gotten lucky in terms of wins vs. actual performance so far this year. Whether it will continue is the question, but no one else in their division looks all that great so why not?
I am getting way too much schadenfreude out of the Phillies now projecting to fourth and Cliff Lee having 0 wins despite a 3.00 ERA. Good choice Cliff! THe Nationals now hold a slight edge over the Braves in a pretty balanced division from top to bottom.
The Reds have passed St. Louis in the NL Central, which currently looks like a two team race. The Cubs and Padres are probably duking it out for worst team in baseball, which should please Twins and Astros fans.
The Dodgers are still the biggest overall gainer vs. pre-season projections although now it appears they’ll be neck and neck with San Francisco for the NL West.
There are still four months left, so a lot of this can/will change. So consider it more of a checkpoint than a prediction.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
2012 MLB Starting Pitching Through April 24
| Team | IP | TBF | RA | ERA | FIP | xFIP | BB/BF | K/BF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nationals | 104.7 | 401 | 2.15 | 1.72 | 2.03 | 2.85 | 5.5% | 24.2% |
| Cardinals | 112.0 | 439 | 2.73 | 2.57 | 3.06 | 3.42 | 5.7% | 17.8% |
| Rangers | 120.7 | 497 | 2.83 | 2.76 | 3.25 | 3.90 | 7.6% | 19.1% |
| Pirates | 86.7 | 354 | 3.01 | 2.8 | 3.10 | 3.86 | 7.3% | 14.7% |
| Phillies | 117.3 | 473 | 3.14 | 2.84 | 3.17 | 3.20 | 5.3% | 20.1% |
| White Sox | 110.7 | 442 | 3.17 | 3.09 | 3.42 | 3.63 | 7.9% | 23.8% |
| Athletics | 122.0 | 495 | 3.32 | 2.95 | 3.63 | 4.19 | 6.1% | 13.3% |
| Marlins | 100.3 | 414 | 3.50 | 3.41 | 3.30 | 3.51 | 6.5% | 18.4% |
| Giants | 107.7 | 439 | 3.59 | 3.51 | 3.66 | 3.80 | 6.8% | 19.6% |
| Dodgers | 104.7 | 435 | 3.61 | 3.01 | 3.63 | 3.80 | 9.4% | 21.8% |
| Rays | 107.3 | 453 | 3.77 | 3.44 | 4.16 | 4.31 | 9.9% | 16.1% |
| Blue Jays | 109.7 | 443 | 4.02 | 3.78 | 5.45 | 4.32 | 9.3% | 13.5% |
| Tigers | 95.3 | 406 | 4.25 | 3.87 | 3.29 | 3.43 | 6.2% | 21.4% |
| Reds | 106.0 | 448 | 4.42 | 3.99 | 3.92 | 4.23 | 6.5% | 14.3% |
| Angels | 106.0 | 440 | 4.50 | 4.33 | 4.24 | 3.40 | 5.9% | 20.2% |
| Mariners | 107.7 | 454 | 4.51 | 4.43 | 3.62 | 3.88 | 5.9% | 18.3% |
| Mets | 96.3 | 418 | 4.58 | 3.92 | 3.62 | 3.25 | 7.7% | 20.8% |
| Indians | 84.0 | 367 | 4.61 | 4.18 | 4.19 | 4.31 | 9.0% | 13.9% |
| Astros | 108.3 | 466 | 4.65 | 4.24 | 4.14 | 4.02 | 8.2% | 16.7% |
| Diamondbacks | 108.0 | 456 | 4.75 | 4.33 | 4.17 | 3.68 | 7.5% | 18.4% |
| Cubs | 106.0 | 455 | 4.75 | 4.25 | 3.42 | 3.63 | 8.8% | 21.8% |
| Braves | 101.7 | 430 | 4.78 | 4.16 | 3.80 | 3.99 | 9.1% | 19.3% |
| Brewers | 102.7 | 441 | 4.91 | 4.82 | 3.91 | 3.60 | 7.0% | 21.8% |
| Padres | 104.0 | 445 | 4.93 | 4.15 | 3.92 | 3.85 | 11.0% | 19.8% |
| Orioles | 100.3 | 433 | 5.02 | 4.22 | 4.33 | 4.15 | 9.5% | 18.7% |
| Royals | 88.0 | 386 | 5.32 | 4.81 | 4.11 | 4.49 | 11.7% | 16.8% |
| Rockies | 88.3 | 390 | 5.40 | 4.89 | 4.96 | 4.83 | 9.5% | 12.6% |
| Red Sox | 94.3 | 413 | 5.72 | 5.63 | 4.92 | 4.22 | 9.9% | 17.9% |
| Yankees | 96.3 | 427 | 6.17 | 5.51 | 4.35 | 3.44 | 6.1% | 21.1% |
| Twins | 95.0 | 423 | 7.01 | 6.73 | 5.50 | 4.38 | 6.9% | 13.0% |
FIP: Fielding-independent pitching
xFIP: Expected fielding-independent pitching
Twins pitching vs. the Yankees: 2-2, 6.09 RA
Twins pitching vs. the rest of the league: 3-11, 5.88 RA
Remember how the Yankees’ starting pitching was supposed to be a strength? Now they’re hoping a 40 year old who hasn’t pitched in a year can ride in and save the day.
CC should be fine. I think Nova’s a good bet for continued success thanks to the big improvement in his peripherals. Whether that makes him a 2 or a 3 I don’t know, but it’s probably safer to think he’s a 3. Kuroda will also be ok I think, but I don’t think he’s a 2 in the AL. It’d be nice if Phil Hughes wasn’t awful, because with Michael Pineda looking less and less likely to pitch this year Andy Pettitte could in theory fill one hole between Hughes and Freddy Garcia, but he can’t fill two. My guess is Garcia’s start on Saturday will be his last for this turn in the rotation.
Despite what they’ve shown to date I’d bet a reasonable amount of money the Yankees will not remain the second worst starting rotation in MLB by the end of the year. I think they have a chance to crack the top 20.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
2012 MLB Offenses through April 23
| Tm | R/G | BR/G |
|---|---|---|
| NYY | 6.06 | 6.18 |
| TEX | 5.76 | 5.83 |
| ATL | 5.47 | 4.71 |
| CLE | 5.29 | 5.08 |
| TOR | 5.12 | 4.65 |
| BOS | 5.07 | 5.18 |
| STL | 4.94 | 5.15 |
| COL | 4.80 | 4.91 |
| TBR | 4.75 | 4.57 |
| HOU | 4.47 | 4.33 |
| CHW | 4.44 | 4.45 |
| SFG | 4.44 | 4.49 |
| LAD | 4.41 | 4.34 |
| DET | 4.38 | 3.85 |
| ARI | 4.29 | 4.22 |
| MIL | 4.29 | 4.14 |
| BAL | 4.25 | 4.27 |
| LgAvg | 4.20 | 4.24 |
| LAA | 4.19 | 4.02 |
| MIA | 3.80 | 4.01 |
| MIN | 3.71 | 4.04 |
| CHC | 3.65 | 3.01 |
| WSN | 3.62 | 3.87 |
| KCR | 3.56 | 4.20 |
| SDP | 3.53 | 3.41 |
| SEA | 3.53 | 2.96 |
| NYM | 3.50 | 4.12 |
| CIN | 3.31 | 3.36 |
| OAK | 2.89 | 3.09 |
| PHI | 2.82 | 3.13 |
| PIT | 2.00 | 1.87 |
R/G: Runs scored per game
BR/G: Linear weights batting runs per game
Yes, I realize posting this means the Yankees will not score for the next week.
Monday, April 23, 2012
NJ.com: Carig: Yankees expect powerful Rangers team in upcoming series
Indeed, the Rangers have lived up to their billing. At spring training, Yankees general manager Brian Cashman proclaimed the Rangers the class of the American League, by virtue of their status as two-time defending league champions. They host the Yankees in a three-game set that begins Monday coming off an 8-1 road trip.
The Rangers have a 13-3 mark, the best in baseball.
“Explosive offensive,” Girardi said. “Speed. Power. Play very good defense. Starting pitching is deep. Their bullpen is deep. They’re a complete team.”
The Rangers lead all of baseball in run differential at +52, having scored 94 runs while allowing 42. At their current pace they’d end the year with a 132-30 record and would score 952 runs and allow 425. Their Pythagenpat winning percentage of .816 is higher than their measly .813 actual winning percentage.
I don’t think they’re quite that good. My favorite quick and dirty check of how a good team is uses the linear weights of the components their offense has produced and their pitching/defense has allowed to see how their runs scored and allowed break down in a neutral context. This will adjust for teams that have performed better or worse than expected in crucial situations, something that is generally not predictive.
According to linear weights batting runs, the Rangers offense should have produced 96 runs and their pitching and defense should have allowed 48. So they’ve really only produced at a level commensurate with a .790 wpct team, aka a team that would win 128 games over a full season.
I knew they weren’t that good.
The Yankees are doomed, aren’t they?
Sunday, April 22, 2012
How have the first two weeks of the 2012 MLB season changed team projections?
We’re roughly about 10% of the way throught the 2012 regular season, which is a pretty small sample size to make sweeping observations about how good or bad teams are. That doesn’t mean that what’s happened to this point isn’t important, because it is. I wanted to see what teams have seen the biggest shifts in their outlooks based on how they projected coming into the year compared what they have done since.
The way I looked at this involves three basic steps.
1) Get 2012 projections. In this case I’m using the average of the 2012 MLB projection blowout that I ran at the beginning of April.
2) Estimate revised team strength. For now, this is just a basic weighted average of the team’s projections heading into the year and their Pythagenpat performance to this point. I’m not making any adjustments for injuries/roster changes/etc., yet, although as we get deeper into the season I’ll probably do that.
3) Run the rest of the 2012 MLB season through my Monte Carlo simulator and see what happens. This includes a variable that alters team strength in each iteration to account for things that projections can’t account for.
Here’s what it says.
| Date | 4/22/2012 | ||||||||||
| Iterations | 100000 | ||||||||||
| American League | |||||||||||
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Yankees | 94 | 68 | 848 | 718 | 49.0% | 14.1% | 24.0% | 87.1% | -0.8 | 12 | 7 |
| Rays | 87 | 75 | 764 | 695 | 23.9% | 15.0% | 34.6% | 73.5% | -2.0 | -1 | 12 |
| Red Sox | 83 | 79 | 828 | 765 | 13.9% | 11.2% | 28.1% | 53.1% | -7.6 | -2 | 32 |
| Blue Jays | 81 | 81 | 780 | 775 | 11.6% | 7.8% | 21.4% | 40.9% | -0.5 | 6 | 0 |
| Orioles | 70 | 92 | 712 | 812 | 1.6% | 1.9% | 6.2% | 9.7% | 0.1 | -1 | -6 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Tigers | 88 | 74 | 780 | 730 | 46.6% | 6.1% | 17.7% | 70.4% | 2.9 | -4 | -6 |
| Indians | 86 | 76 | 779 | 758 | 33.4% | 8.2% | 22.3% | 63.9% | 3.6 | 12 | 7 |
| White Sox | 78 | 84 | 706 | 755 | 11.2% | 4.4% | 12.9% | 28.5% | 1.6 | -1 | -18 |
| Royals | 70 | 92 | 697 | 771 | 4.5% | 0.8% | 5.6% | 10.9% | -4.8 | -8 | 6 |
| Twins | 70 | 92 | 720 | 824 | 4.2% | 0.9% | 3.7% | 8.8% | -1.6 | -11 | 3 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Rangers | 99 | 63 | 822 | 679 | 78.2% | 7.4% | 8.0% | 93.6% | 8.4 | 15 | -24 |
| Angels | 85 | 77 | 738 | 667 | 17.0% | 16.4% | 28.9% | 62.3% | -5.1 | -3 | 6 |
| Mariners | 73 | 89 | 672 | 734 | 2.8% | 3.2% | 7.8% | 13.8% | -1.5 | -10 | -7 |
| Athletics | 72 | 90 | 687 | 739 | 2.0% | 2.8% | 9.0% | 13.8% | -4.1 | -20 | -17 |
| National League | |||||||||||
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Braves | 90 | 72 | 734 | 664 | 32.5% | 11.3% | 23.7% | 67.5% | 2.3 | 20 | -2 |
| Phillies | 88 | 74 | 677 | 611 | 25.9% | 12.4% | 21.6% | 59.9% | -1.4 | -21 | -17 |
| Nationals | 88 | 74 | 674 | 639 | 27.5% | 10.4% | 24.4% | 62.3% | 3.8 | -8 | -17 |
| Marlins | 82 | 80 | 699 | 672 | 11.3% | 8.4% | 18.2% | 37.9% | -1.8 | -8 | -9 |
| Mets | 74 | 88 | 677 | 749 | 2.8% | 3.0% | 8.5% | 14.3% | 0.2 | -6 | -3 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Cardinals | 94 | 68 | 740 | 662 | 53.9% | 10.5% | 16.8% | 81.1% | 7.2 | 9 | -17 |
| Brewers | 86 | 76 | 700 | 677 | 21.2% | 9.5% | 19.0% | 49.7% | 1.2 | 1 | 13 |
| Reds | 84 | 78 | 699 | 665 | 18.7% | 9.6% | 21.5% | 49.7% | -2.9 | -16 | 5 |
| Pirates | 73 | 89 | 639 | 726 | 3.3% | 1.8% | 6.2% | 11.3% | 1.5 | -29 | -26 |
| Cubs | 68 | 94 | 652 | 757 | 1.8% | 1.6% | 2.8% | 6.2% | -3.2 | -4 | 7 |
| Astros | 66 | 96 | 607 | 747 | 1.2% | 0.3% | 1.2% | 2.7% | 1.9 | 3 | -8 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Giants | 85 | 77 | 672 | 649 | 29.6% | 5.3% | 14.9% | 49.8% | 0.6 | 0 | 2 |
| Dodgers | 83 | 79 | 649 | 674 | 22.7% | 5.3% | 11.1% | 39.1% | 8.1 | 8 | -17 |
| Diamondbacks | 83 | 79 | 687 | 677 | 22.8% | 4.3% | 14.1% | 41.2% | -1.3 | -6 | 3 |
| Rockies | 81 | 81 | 751 | 744 | 20.1% | 4.9% | 12.6% | 37.6% | -1.2 | 3 | 13 |
| Padres | 72 | 90 | 638 | 690 | 4.8% | 1.4% | 5.1% | 11.3% | -3.5 | -9 | 2 |
W: Projected final 2011 wins
L: Projected final 2011 losses
RS: Projected final 2011 runs scored
RA: Projected final 2011 runs allowed
Div: Division win percentage
WC1: Wild card win percentage
WC2: Wild card win percentage
PS: Postseason percentage (Div + WC1 + WC2)
W+/-: 2012 revised projected wins minus 2012 pre-season projected wins
RS+/-: 2012 revised projected runs scored minus 2012 pre-season projected runs scored (positive means they are projected to score more)
RA+/-: 2012 revised projected runs allowed minus 2012 pre-season projected runs allowed (negative means they are projected to allow fewer)
Good thing for Cliff Lee he signed with the young upstart Phillies instead of the old decrepit Yankees. And remember how the Rangers and Angels looked to be neck and neck heading into the year? Yeah. The Dodgers seem to have snuck their way into the division race now, but other than that the division standings look pretty similar to how they did entering the season.
And here’s a chart that shows the changes in revised team wins projections for each team.
| TM | W+/- |
| Rangers | 8.4 |
| Dodgers | 8.1 |
| Cardinals | 7.2 |
| Nationals | 3.8 |
| Indians | 3.6 |
| Tigers | 2.9 |
| Braves | 2.3 |
| Astros | 1.9 |
| White Sox | 1.6 |
| Pirates | 1.5 |
| Brewers | 1.2 |
| Giants | 0.6 |
| Mets | 0.2 |
| Orioles | 0.1 |
| Blue Jays | -0.5 |
| Yankees | -0.8 |
| Rockies | -1.2 |
| Diamondbacks | -1.3 |
| Phillies | -1.4 |
| Mariners | -1.5 |
| Twins | -1.6 |
| Marlins | -1.8 |
| Rays | -2.0 |
| Reds | -2.9 |
| Cubs | -3.2 |
| Padres | -3.5 |
| Athletics | -4.1 |
| Royals | -4.8 |
| Angels | -5.1 |
| Red Sox | -7.6 |
The Rangers have been destroying the competition and look like they’re probably the best team in baseball. The Dodgers and Cardinals are the biggest positive surprises in the National League so far. The Angels are the biggest disappointment in the AL.
But the Red Sox have to be the most pleasant surprise in baseball for me.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
CAIRO 2012 v1.0 and Final Pre-season MLB Standings Projection
I’ve uploaded the final pre-season 2012 CAIRO projections and projected standings. They can be downloaded here.
Yeah, I know Opening Day was technically last week. Sue me.
Here are the standings and of course, the pie charts. I should be posting more projected standings from other systems later today, so I’ll save the disclaimers and explanations for after that’s all done.
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PS% | W 1 Std |
| AL East | NYA | 96 | 66 | 848 | 713 | 52.8% | 19.6% | 11.1% | 83.5% | 86 - 106 |
| AL East | BOS | 91 | 71 | 857 | 751 | 23.7% | 21.0% | 16.1% | 60.8% | 81 - 101 |
| AL East | TAM | 91 | 71 | 765 | 667 | 22.4% | 25.7% | 14.9% | 63.0% | 81 - 101 |
| AL East | TOR | 79 | 83 | 771 | 793 | 0.8% | 2.4% | 3.1% | 6.2% | 69 - 89 |
| AL East | BAL | 70 | 92 | 736 | 838 | 0.4% | 0.1% | 0.5% | 1.0% | 60 - 80 |
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PS% | W 1 Std |
| AL Central | DET | 87 | 75 | 803 | 741 | 55.2% | 1.3% | 10.3% | 66.8% | 77 - 97 |
| AL Central | CLE | 84 | 78 | 759 | 721 | 36.4% | 2.4% | 9.3% | 48.0% | 74 - 94 |
| AL Central | CHA | 74 | 88 | 699 | 806 | 3.0% | 0.2% | 0.8% | 4.0% | 64 - 84 |
| AL Central | KC | 73 | 89 | 682 | 754 | 3.6% | 0.2% | 0.8% | 4.6% | 63 - 83 |
| AL Central | MIN | 71 | 91 | 725 | 815 | 1.8% | 0.0% | 0.3% | 2.1% | 61 - 81 |
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PS% | W 1 Std |
| AL West | TEX | 93 | 69 | 809 | 685 | 54.2% | 12.7% | 17.3% | 84.1% | 83 - 103 |
| AL West | LAA | 92 | 70 | 739 | 640 | 44.7% | 14.3% | 14.6% | 73.6% | 82 - 102 |
| AL West | OAK | 74 | 88 | 685 | 753 | 0.5% | 0.3% | 0.9% | 1.7% | 64 - 84 |
| AL West | SEA | 73 | 89 | 669 | 742 | 0.6% | 0.0% | 0.6% | 1.2% | 63 - 83 |
| AL | WC1 | 93 | ||||||||
| AL | WC2 | 90 | ||||||||
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PS% | W 1 Std |
| NL East | PHI | 91 | 71 | 690 | 610 | 51.0% | 15.1% | 9.0% | 75.0% | 81 - 101 |
| NL East | ATL | 86 | 76 | 705 | 664 | 20.5% | 16.4% | 10.2% | 47.1% | 76 - 96 |
| NL East | WAS | 85 | 77 | 669 | 632 | 17.7% | 12.8% | 9.7% | 40.1% | 75 - 95 |
| NL East | FLA | 83 | 79 | 710 | 694 | 10.3% | 8.6% | 7.0% | 25.9% | 73 - 93 |
| NL East | NYN | 74 | 88 | 665 | 737 | 0.7% | 0.8% | 0.8% | 2.2% | 64 - 84 |
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PS% | W 1 Std |
| NL Central | STL | 89 | 73 | 728 | 654 | 47.2% | 11.1% | 9.4% | 67.7% | 79 - 99 |
| NL Central | MIL | 86 | 76 | 695 | 646 | 29.2% | 11.6% | 11.8% | 52.6% | 76 - 96 |
| NL Central | CIN | 85 | 77 | 707 | 670 | 22.7% | 10.8% | 11.2% | 44.8% | 75 - 95 |
| NL Central | PIT | 71 | 91 | 653 | 743 | 0.6% | 0.3% | 1.0% | 1.9% | 61 - 81 |
| NL Central | CHN | 71 | 91 | 648 | 748 | 0.3% | 0.3% | 0.3% | 0.9% | 61 - 81 |
| NL Central | HOU | 61 | 101 | 584 | 752 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 51 - 71 |
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PS% | W 1 Std |
| NL West | SF | 85 | 77 | 663 | 634 | 36.5% | 5.2% | 10.2% | 51.9% | 75 - 95 |
| NL West | ARI | 84 | 78 | 692 | 674 | 33.9% | 3.0% | 9.2% | 46.0% | 74 - 94 |
| NL West | COL | 82 | 80 | 755 | 750 | 21.2% | 2.9% | 6.6% | 30.7% | 72 - 92 |
| NL West | SD | 76 | 86 | 635 | 674 | 4.1% | 0.9% | 1.6% | 6.6% | 66 - 86 |
| NL West | LAN | 75 | 87 | 622 | 671 | 4.3% | 0.3% | 2.5% | 7.1% | 65 - 85 |
| NL | WC1 | 90 | ||||||||
| NL | WC2 | 88 |
Div: Percentage of times team won division
WC 1: Percentage of times team won first wild card
WC 2: Percentage of times team won second wild card
PS%: Total percentage team qualified for the postseason (DIV + WC1 + WC2)
W 1 Std: Wins within one standard deviation
Sunday, March 18, 2012
WaPo: Boswell: Phillies’ toughest opponent might be Father Time
Baseball must despise a sure thing. The Phils are still a sane pick to be in the World Series. But they also might not even win their own division. With a speed that is chilling, the gap between the Phils and the rest of the NL East — much less all of baseball — has shrunk to the point where this season, or very soon, the young, rising Braves, Nationals and Marlins, or all three of them, may be on the Phils’ aging heels.
I want to take a trip down memory lane.
“Texas probably finished second to be honest with you. Just as far as the quality of the team and the chance to win a World Series ring, I think they’re a better team. That’s just my opinion. The Yankees can do anything at any moment to improve and they’re not afraid to go do things. That was part of the decision making process too,
Durp.
but I felt like with what the Red Sox had done and it seems like some of the Yankee guys are getting older, but I liked the Rangers.”
Double durp.
If I sum up age times PA and age times batters faced divided by PA + BF for all teams using my current depth charts for 2012, here’s the average age by team.
PHI: 30.5
NYA: 30.1
STL: 29.3
LAA: 28.9
BOS: 28.6
MIN: 28.6
OAK: 28.4
COL: 28.3
LAD: 28.2
MIL: 28.1
CHN: 28.1
PIT: 27.9
TEX: 27.9
NYN: 27.9
SF: 27.7
MIA: 27.6
TB: 27.6
HOU: 27.5
CLE: 27.4
BAL: 27.4
CHA: 27.4
SEA: 27.2
SD: 27.1
ARI: 27.0
CIN: 27.0
DET: 27.0
WAS: 26.9
TOR: 26.6
ATL: 26.5
KC: 26.0
Triple durp.
Here are CAIRO’s up to the minute projections for each of the three teams that were in contention for Cliff Lee’s services.
NYA: 96-66
TEX: 93-69
PHI 91-71
Quadruple durp.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
CAIRO 2012 v0.5 and More Somewhat Useless Projected Standings
I’ve uploaded the latest version of the 2012 MLB CAIRO projections. They can be downloaded here.
The only changes from version 0.4 were moving players who were signed/traded to their new teams. I think this will probably be the last release until right before Opening Day unless I find any issues.
I figured since I’ve updated again I’d run another set of projected standings so here is what they look like.
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PL% |
| AL East | NYA | 97 | 65 | 844 | 692 | 54.3% | 22.5% | 8.0% | 84.8% |
| AL East | TAM | 92 | 70 | 772 | 660 | 23.2% | 27.4% | 14.1% | 64.8% |
| AL East | BOS | 92 | 70 | 862 | 745 | 22.1% | 27.0% | 15.3% | 64.4% |
| AL East | TOR | 78 | 84 | 758 | 795 | 0.4% | 1.2% | 2.6% | 4.1% |
| AL East | BAL | 70 | 92 | 734 | 847 | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.2% |
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PL% |
| AL Central | DET | 88 | 74 | 814 | 741 | 60.7% | 1.6% | 12.7% | 75.0% |
| AL Central | CLE | 84 | 78 | 763 | 729 | 32.1% | 0.8% | 9.5% | 42.4% |
| AL Central | CHA | 74 | 88 | 705 | 805 | 3.5% | 0.2% | 1.0% | 4.7% |
| AL Central | KC | 74 | 88 | 687 | 762 | 3.3% | 0.0% | 0.8% | 4.1% |
| AL Central | MIN | 67 | 95 | 720 | 861 | 0.4% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.5% |
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PL% |
| AL West | TEX | 92 | 70 | 812 | 695 | 51.2% | 8.6% | 17.0% | 76.8% |
| AL West | LAA | 91 | 71 | 741 | 653 | 47.0% | 9.9% | 16.6% | 73.5% |
| AL West | OAK | 76 | 86 | 685 | 735 | 0.7% | 0.6% | 1.7% | 2.9% |
| AL West | SEA | 74 | 88 | 673 | 729 | 1.2% | 0.2% | 1.0% | 2.4% |
| AL | WC1 | 94 | |||||||
| AL | WC2 | 91 | |||||||
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PL% |
| NL East | PHI | 92 | 70 | 701 | 605 | 60.8% | 12.4% | 9.1% | 82.2% |
| NL East | WAS | 86 | 76 | 676 | 625 | 18.6% | 18.2% | 9.1% | 45.8% |
| NL East | ATL | 85 | 77 | 700 | 676 | 13.2% | 12.5% | 11.0% | 36.7% |
| NL East | FLA | 82 | 80 | 708 | 699 | 7.3% | 8.0% | 7.1% | 22.3% |
| NL East | NYN | 75 | 87 | 670 | 733 | 0.3% | 1.2% | 1.8% | 3.2% |
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PL% |
| NL Central | STL | 90 | 72 | 737 | 654 | 47.8% | 12.4% | 10.3% | 70.5% |
| NL Central | CIN | 87 | 75 | 715 | 665 | 27.3% | 11.6% | 12.1% | 51.0% |
| NL Central | MIL | 86 | 76 | 696 | 645 | 24.6% | 12.3% | 11.7% | 48.6% |
| NL Central | CHN | 71 | 91 | 650 | 745 | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.5% |
| NL Central | PIT | 68 | 94 | 649 | 764 | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.4% |
| NL Central | HOU | 60 | 102 | 584 | 773 | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.3% |
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PL% |
| NL West | SF | 85 | 77 | 663 | 630 | 38.1% | 3.1% | 8.4% | 49.5% |
| NL West | ARI | 84 | 78 | 659 | 634 | 33.5% | 3.6% | 8.9% | 46.1% |
| NL West | COL | 81 | 81 | 761 | 759 | 18.3% | 3.0% | 6.6% | 27.9% |
| NL West | SD | 76 | 86 | 633 | 668 | 5.2% | 0.8% | 2.2% | 8.2% |
| NL West | LAN | 75 | 87 | 621 | 669 | 4.9% | 0.7% | 1.8% | 7.3% |
| NL | WC1 | 90 | |||||||
| NL | WC2 | 88 |
Div: Percentage of times team won division
WC 1: Percentage of times team won first wild card
WC 2: Percentage of times team won second wild card
These look more realistic to me than the last set I ran with Marcel. Probably a bit high on the Yankees, but since CAIRO was created to make the Yankees look better than they are that stands to reason.
I am a bit surprised that Washington now projects better than Atlanta, even if it’s just a one game edge. The only other major differences from this and the Marcel version is St. Louis at the top of the NL Central and San Francisco and Arizona above Colorado, both of which make sense to me.
Anyway, it’s still early, this is still not that useful, etc.,
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Still Too Early 2012 MLB Standings Projection
Instead of running these with CAIRO this time I used Marcel, mainly out of curiosity in seeing what an unbiased projection that was not created to make the Yankees look better than they are would say.
It says this.
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PL% | |
| AL East | NYA | 92 | 70 | 785 | 682 | 45.3% | 20.3% | 10.4% | 76.0% | |
| AL East | BOS | 90 | 72 | 830 | 750 | 27.9% | 26.1% | 10.8% | 64.8% | |
| AL East | TAM | 88 | 74 | 717 | 646 | 23.7% | 21.2% | 12.2% | 57.1% | |
| AL East | TOR | 81 | 81 | 723 | 727 | 3.0% | 6.9% | 6.8% | 16.7% | |
| AL East | BAL | 70 | 92 | 694 | 806 | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.3% | |
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PL% | |
| AL Central | DET | 84 | 78 | 747 | 708 | 43.0% | 2.4% | 10.1% | 55.4% | |
| AL Central | CLE | 83 | 79 | 722 | 708 | 30.6% | 2.9% | 7.8% | 41.3% | |
| AL Central | CHA | 79 | 83 | 686 | 703 | 15.2% | 1.5% | 4.2% | 20.9% | |
| AL Central | KC | 79 | 83 | 691 | 714 | 10.8% | 1.9% | 4.1% | 16.9% | |
| AL Central | MIN | 68 | 94 | 693 | 813 | 0.4% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.5% | |
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PL% | |
| AL West | LAA | 87 | 75 | 719 | 663 | 43.7% | 6.1% | 11.4% | 61.2% | |
| AL West | TEX | 87 | 75 | 765 | 707 | 38.2% | 6.9% | 13.4% | 58.6% | |
| AL West | OAK | 82 | 80 | 682 | 674 | 14.9% | 3.1% | 7.4% | 25.3% | |
| AL West | SEA | 76 | 86 | 649 | 689 | 3.2% | 0.7% | 1.6% | 5.5% |
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PL% |
| NL East | PHI | 90 | 72 | 689 | 615 | 44.8% | 16.5% | 10.7% | 72.0% |
| NL East | ATL | 89 | 73 | 668 | 608 | 38.2% | 19.2% | 9.9% | 67.3% |
| NL East | WAS | 83 | 79 | 645 | 634 | 10.8% | 10.3% | 8.1% | 29.2% |
| NL East | FLA | 80 | 82 | 682 | 690 | 5.7% | 5.2% | 5.4% | 16.3% |
| NL East | NYN | 74 | 88 | 630 | 680 | 0.6% | 1.5% | 1.2% | 3.2% |
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PL% |
| NL Central | CIN | 89 | 73 | 719 | 647 | 60.4% | 8.4% | 10.9% | 79.7% |
| NL Central | STL | 84 | 78 | 708 | 681 | 24.6% | 10.7% | 7.0% | 42.2% |
| NL Central | MIL | 81 | 81 | 678 | 672 | 13.1% | 6.7% | 7.7% | 27.5% |
| NL Central | PIT | 72 | 90 | 657 | 732 | 1.6% | 0.2% | 1.0% | 2.8% |
| NL Central | CHN | 70 | 92 | 668 | 761 | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.4% | 1.0% |
| NL Central | HOU | 66 | 96 | 617 | 749 | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
| Div | Team | W | L | RF | RA | Div | WC 1 | WC 2 | PL% |
| NL West | COL | 85 | 77 | 749 | 711 | 32.1% | 6.4% | 10.9% | 49.4% |
| NL West | ARI | 85 | 77 | 685 | 656 | 30.8% | 7.3% | 10.8% | 48.9% |
| NL West | SF | 85 | 77 | 629 | 606 | 29.6% | 5.4% | 11.3% | 46.3% |
| NL West | LAN | 76 | 86 | 618 | 659 | 4.1% | 1.5% | 2.7% | 8.2% |
| NL West | SD | 75 | 87 | 608 | 653 | 3.4% | 0.6% | 2.5% | 6.4% |
Div: Percent of time team won division
WC 1: Percent of time team won first wild card
WC 2: Percent of time team won second wild card
We still don’t know if there will be a second wild card yet, so you can chop off that column and subtract that percentage from the team’s over playoff percentage.
Because Marcel regresses more heavily than other projections and because it assumes every one who hasn’t played in MLB projects as league average, you see a tighter spread here than you’ll see in other projected standings. The standard deviation for team wins in my last CAIRO projections was about 9. In this version it’s 7.1. That may be more realistic if you think about how little we really know about how good/bad players and teams are, even though what will actually happen in 2012 will show a much bigger spread more in line with other projected standings.
Here are the average win totals for the placings in each division and for the two wild cards.
| Div | Place | Avg W |
| AL East | 1 | 96 |
| AL East | 2 | 91 |
| AL East | 3 | 86 |
| AL East | 4 | 80 |
| AL East | 5 | 69 |
| Div | Avg W | |
| AL Central | 1 | 89 |
| AL Central | 2 | 83 |
| AL Central | 3 | 79 |
| AL Central | 4 | 75 |
| AL Central | 5 | 67 |
| Div | Avg W | |
| AL West | 1 | 92 |
| AL West | 2 | 86 |
| AL West | 3 | 81 |
| AL West | 4 | 74 |
| AL WC 1 | 91 | |
| AL WC2 | 88 | |
| Div | Avg W | |
| NL East | 1 | 94 |
| NL East | 2 | 88 |
| NL East | 3 | 83 |
| NL East | 4 | 78 |
| NL East | 5 | 72 |
| Div | Avg W | |
| NL Central | 1 | 92 |
| NL Central | 2 | 85 |
| NL Central | 3 | 80 |
| NL Central | 4 | 74 |
| NL Central | 5 | 69 |
| NL Central | 6 | 63 |
| Div | Avg W | |
| NL West | 1 | 91 |
| NL West | 2 | 85 |
| NL West | 3 | 81 |
| NL West | 4 | 77 |
| NL West | 5 | 71 |
| NL WC1 | 89 | |
| NL WC2 | 87 |
What this shows is that on average a team needed 96 wins to win the AL East, etc.,.
Some obvious things to consider would be:
- the difference between Yu Darvish (and other imports) and a league average pitcher
- prospects who project better than league average
- players who switched to parks that will affect their projections since Marcel does not park-adjust
Despite all that, the ordinal rankings seem reasonable. The only differences between this and CAIRO in that regard are that I have St. Louis ahead of Cincinnati and the Diamondbacks and Giants ahead of Colorado.
This is current through Francisco Cordero signing with Toronto, and assumes Prince Fielder at 1B and Miguel Cabrera playing a terrible version of 3B for Detroit in 70% of their games, and DHing in 25% of them.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
CAIRO 2012 v0.3 and Some Extremely Early and Completely Useless 2012 Projected Standings
I’m releasing CAIRO 2012 v 0.3 today which mainly fixes a problem with a handful of pitchers like Alexi Ogando and Ross Ohlendorf and moves players to new teams where applicable. I figure it’d be a good time to run some projected standings even though they are too early to be of any real value.
DISCLAIMER: This is very limited in telling us much about how 2012 will play out for a large number of reasons.
1) There are still a lot of roster changes coming. This may give us some sense of how the offseason has impacted teams to this point and it also shows us how things might look if nothing changed from now until April. Which won’t happen.
2) It’s too early to construct meaningful rosters for a lot of teams, so these projections will favor the teams that have essentially completed their 2012 rosters.
3) In addition to that, projection systems are inherently limited. They are designed to estimate a player’s true talent based on what they’ve done so far and also by factoring in things like age and how similar players have performed in the past. They will generally be in the ballpark for the general population of MLB players, but they can miss significantly on individual players which can obviously affect certain teams more heavily than others.
Anyway, using the depth charts from the wonderful MLB Depth Charts and includng playing time from players on the 40 man roster who don’t necessarily figure to be part of the the opening day 25 man rosters to account for organizational depth and playing out next season 100,000 times, here’s how CAIRO v0.3 sees things as of December 13, 2011. These were run with Aramis Ramirez as a Brewer, but I didn’t remove any of the non-tendered players from yesterday from their rosters.
| Date | 12/13/2011 | ||||||
| Iterations | 100000 | ||||||
| American League | |||||||
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL |
| Yankees | 94 | 68 | 862 | 740 | 59.0% | 16.8% | 75.9% |
| Red Sox | 91 | 71 | 868 | 763 | 31.1% | 26.1% | 57.2% |
| Rays | 85 | 77 | 717 | 654 | 9.5% | 11.8% | 21.4% |
| Blue Jays | 75 | 87 | 773 | 817 | 0.3% | 0.6% | 0.9% |
| Orioles | 68 | 94 | 741 | 853 | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL |
| Tigers | 89 | 73 | 780 | 703 | 54.3% | 4.7% | 59.0% |
| Indians | 87 | 75 | 751 | 696 | 40.8% | 5.9% | 46.6% |
| White Sox | 77 | 85 | 723 | 795 | 3.3% | 1.5% | 4.8% |
| Royals | 73 | 89 | 684 | 760 | 1.6% | 0.2% | 1.8% |
| Twins | 66 | 96 | 698 | 829 | 0.0% | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL |
| Rangers | 93 | 69 | 812 | 697 | 58.0% | 13.7% | 71.6% |
| Angels | 90 | 72 | 720 | 640 | 39.5% | 16.6% | 56.1% |
| Mariners | 77 | 85 | 653 | 668 | 2.3% | 2.0% | 4.2% |
| Athletics | 71 | 91 | 636 | 686 | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.4% |
| National League | |||||||
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL |
| Phillies | 92 | 70 | 681 | 598 | 60.6% | 10.5% | 71.1% |
| Braves | 87 | 75 | 711 | 662 | 24.9% | 13.8% | 38.7% |
| Marlins | 81 | 81 | 716 | 695 | 8.2% | 4.4% | 12.6% |
| Nationals | 80 | 82 | 665 | 668 | 4.9% | 3.2% | 8.1% |
| Mets | 76 | 86 | 669 | 710 | 1.4% | 1.6% | 3.0% |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL |
| Brewers | 92 | 70 | 700 | 646 | 52.5% | 14.3% | 66.7% |
| Cardinals | 90 | 72 | 708 | 648 | 36.8% | 19.3% | 56.2% |
| Reds | 84 | 78 | 724 | 704 | 10.1% | 10.8% | 20.9% |
| Cubs | 74 | 88 | 649 | 727 | 0.3% | 1.1% | 1.4% |
| Pirates | 70 | 92 | 656 | 758 | 0.4% | - | 0.4% |
| Astros | 60 | 102 | 569 | 759 | 0.0% | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL |
| Giants | 88 | 74 | 656 | 613 | 46.3% | 6.4% | 52.7% |
| Diamondbacks | 86 | 76 | 647 | 613 | 31.2% | 6.4% | 37.6% |
| Padres | 81 | 81 | 620 | 613 | 11.3% | 4.6% | 15.9% |
| Dodgers | 79 | 83 | 624 | 644 | 7.9% | 2.9% | 10.8% |
| Rockies | 76 | 86 | 726 | 776 | 3.4% | 0.6% | 4.0% |
The most shocking thing here is the Astros projecting to win 62 games IMO. I also am amused by the fact that the Marlins don’t really project any better than the Nationals despite all their largesse this offseason.
Also, be aware that I haven’t accounted for the stupid new second wild card thing yet, since I am not certain that it will be implemented for this upcoming season, and rremember that this is more for fun than utility and take it in the appropriate spirit.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
NYDailyNews: Yankees’ interest quickly cools on Texas Rangers’ C.J. Wilson
There had been plenty of talk about the Yankees’ interest in [C.J. Wilson], but most of that centered on the Bombers’ nightmare scenario that had Sabathia trading in his pinstripes for a new uniform.
Now that Sabathia is signed up for five more years, Wilson doesn’t seem to be of much interest to the Yankees.
“They don’t think he’s worth the money he’ll get,” one baseball insider said last week. “He just doesn’t have the track record.”
And the games begin.
More than likely, the Yankees are interested in Wilson. But with CC locked up, the pressure to land a top starter isn’t as great. I actually expect C.J. to stay in Texas, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the Yankee swoop in with a better offer.
Also, Yankees talk extension with Russell Martin.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
ESPN: Yanks meet in Tampa, talk CC Sabathia
TAMPA, Fla.—The New York Yankees held their annual organization meeting on Wednesday, and the main topic of discussion was figuring out a way to keep CC Sabathia in pinstripes.
“We’re close to formulating a plan that we think is fair to everyone involved,” said a high-ranking team official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “The idea is to get this done before he goes out on the open market.’‘
Sabathia, who just completed the third year of his seven-year, $161 million contract, has an opt-out clause that allows him to declare himself a free agent four days after the completion of the World Series.
Ideally, the weather in St. Louis keeps the World Series from ever being completed.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Yankees.com: With no late magic, Yanks’ season ends
NEW YORK—From the first morning the Yankees unzip their bags and begin preparing for the regular season, there is one common goal they can all agree upon. For the second time in as many years, they have fallen short of it.
The Yankees’ dreams of a 28th World Series championship were packed into winter hibernation on Thursday, as the Tigers defeated New York, 3-2, in Game 5 of the American League Division Series.
Detroit became the first visiting club to celebrate clinching a postseason series on the field at the new Yankee Stadium, moving on to face the Texas Rangers in the AL Championship Series opening on Saturday.
Congratulations to the Tigers. Have fun getting swept by the Rangers.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
2011 ALDS Preview: Rays vs. Rangers
Who will be facing the Tigers in the ALCS this year? Let’s see what the numbers say.
I don’t particularly find any series previews that focus on what a team did in the preceding full season of much use. It doesn’t really matter if a team scored 5.2 runs per game and allowed 4.2 runs per game over the preceding six months. Rosters change, injuries happen, players come and go, talent changes, and player and team performance is often subject to fluctuations that are not predictive. What I want to know is how many runs will the team and roster as currently configured score and allow?
Because of that, for these previews I’ll be using projections in lieu of 2011 stats. Despite having my own system in CAIRO, I’m going to use the Hardball Times’s Oliver forecasts since I haven’t had the time to re-run CAIRO for this year. Oliver is updated weekly during the season and includes 2011 MLEs for players who saw time in the minors.
The biggest consideration in trying to see how any series may shape up is allocating playing time. So here are depth charts for the two teams, based on the assumption that each team will make 25 outs at the plate over 5 games. Since we don’t have finalized postseason rosters, these are guess-timates and are subject to change.
| Name | Pos | PA | AVG/OBP/SLG | Outs | BR | wOBA |
| Jennings, Desmond | LF | 21 | .266/.334/.415 | 14 | 2.66 | .328 |
| Upton, B.J. | CF | 21 | .235/.328/.402 | 14 | 2.57 | .323 |
| Longoria, Evan | 3B | 21 | .268/.365/.510 | 13 | 3.30 | .376 |
| Zobrist, Ben | 2B | 21 | .261/.358/.437 | 13 | 2.87 | .349 |
| Damon, Johnny | DH | 21 | .272/.343/.430 | 14 | 2.76 | .339 |
| Joyce, Matt | RF | 21 | .263/.349/.463 | 14 | 2.94 | .352 |
| Kotchman, Casey | 1B | 20 | .271/.335/.395 | 13 | 2.29 | .324 |
| Jaso, John | C | 15 | .247/.329/.357 | 10 | 1.53 | .309 |
| Rodriguez, Sean | SS | 18 | .237/.315/.402 | 12 | 2.04 | .314 |
| Starter Total | 179 | .259/.340/.426 | 118 | 22.96 | .336 | |
| Bench | Pos | PA | AVG/OBP/SLG | Outs | BR | wOBA |
| Ruggiano, Justin | OF | 0 | .250/.301/.395 | 0 | 0.00 | .304 |
| Shoppach, Kelly | C | 3 | .208/.303/.379 | 2 | 0.30 | .302 |
| Johnson, Elliot | IF | 0 | .247/.286/.384 | 0 | 0.00 | .286 |
| Fuld, Sam | OF | 2 | .250/.322/.357 | 1 | 0.21 | .304 |
| Guyer, Brandon | OF | 0 | .281/.325/.444 | 0 | 0.00 | .330 |
| Canzler, Russ | IF | 0 | .263/.328/.450 | 0 | 0.00 | .337 |
| Lobaton, Jose | C | 0 | .241/.316/.365 | 0 | 0.00 | .303 |
| Brignac, Reid | SS | 5 | .235/.276/.336 | 4 | 0.39 | .269 |
| Bench Total | 10 | .230/.293/.352 | 7 | 0.91 | .286 | |
| Team Total | 189 | .257/.338/.422 | 125 | 23.86 | .334 |
| Name | Pos | PA | AVG/OBP/SLG | Outs | BR | wOBA |
| Kinsler, Ian | 2B | 20 | .262/.342/.458 | 13 | 2.78 | .346 |
| Andrus, Elvis | SS | 20 | .271/.322/.344 | 14 | 1.99 | .296 |
| Hamilton, Josh | LF | 20 | .313/.358/.544 | 13 | 3.30 | .383 |
| Cruz, Nelson | RF | 20 | .282/.334/.543 | 13 | 3.15 | .370 |
| Young, Michael | DH | 20 | .312/.356/.471 | 13 | 2.82 | .358 |
| Beltre, Adrian | 3B | 20 | .295/.333/.513 | 13 | 2.93 | .360 |
| Napoli, Mike | C | 20 | .286/.362/.559 | 13 | 3.34 | .390 |
| Moreland, Mitch | 1B | 20 | .274/.334/.444 | 13 | 2.55 | .337 |
| Chavez, Endy | CF | 17 | .282/.312/.392 | 12 | 1.80 | .304 |
| Starter Total | 177 | .287/.340/.477 | 117 | 24.65 | .350 | |
| Bench | Pos | PA | AVG/OBP/SLG | Outs | BR | wOBA |
| Murphy, David | OF | 4 | .279/.334/.428 | 3 | 0.50 | .333 |
| Martin, Leonys | OF | 2 | .265/.313/.374 | 1 | 0.21 | .302 |
| Gentry, Craig | OF | 2 | .265/.322/.360 | 1 | 0.21 | .303 |
| German, Esteban | IF | 1 | .271/.343/.366 | 1 | 0.12 | .318 |
| Torrealba, Yorvit | C | 3 | .271/.320/.385 | 2 | 0.32 | .310 |
| Blanco, Andres | C | 0 | .263/.295/.362 | 0 | 0.00 | .285 |
| Treanor, Matt | C | 0 | .223/.307/.321 | 0 | 0.00 | .284 |
| Bench Total | 12 | .272/.326/.392 | 8 | 1.36 | .316 | |
| Team Total | 189 | .286/.339/.471 | 125 | 26.01 | .348 |
Outs: Outs at the plate (assumes 25 outs per 9 innings, calculated as (1 - OBP) times PA + GDP per PA
BR: Linear weights batting runs
wOBA: Weighted on-base average
vs. L/R: Projected wOBA splits vs. LHP/RHP using regressed platoon splits
These tables just show the primary lineup and potential bench players, with a PA estimate. That PA estimate is used to calculate how outs the players will make and how many runs they will provide (BR). PA are added to get the team to 125 outs for a five game series, and then we have an estimate for how many runs the team would project to score.
We can do the same thing with the pitching staffs, allocating 45 innings to see how many runs they’d project to give up.
| Name | Role | IP | R | RA | ERA | FIP |
| Niemann, Jeff | SP1 | 6 | 2.7 | 4.11 | 3.95 | 4.11 |
| Shields, James | SP2 | 7 | 3.1 | 4.03 | 3.70 | 3.68 |
| Price, David | SP3 | 7 | 3.0 | 3.84 | 3.41 | 3.50 |
| Hellickson, Jeremy | SP4 | 6 | 2.6 | 3.85 | 3.55 | 3.97 |
| Davis, Wade | SP5 | 2 | 1.0 | 4.61 | 4.34 | 4.51 |
| Moore, Matt | SP6 | 2 | 1.0 | 4.57 | 4.23 | 4.10 |
| SP7 | 0 | 0.0 | ||||
| SP8 | 0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Starter Total | 30 | 13.5 | 4.04 | 3.73 | 3.87 | |
| Name | Role | IP | R | RA | ERA | FIP |
| Farnsworth, Kyle | CL | 3 | 1.2 | 3.53 | 3.27 | 3.23 |
| Peralta, Joel | SU | 3 | 1.1 | 3.35 | 3.10 | 3.50 |
| Cruz, Juan | SU | 2 | 1.1 | 4.75 | 4.40 | 4.40 |
| McGee, Jake | SU | 2 | 1.0 | 4.56 | 4.22 | 4.03 |
| Gomes, Brandon | MR | 2 | 0.9 | 4.21 | 3.90 | 3.71 |
| Ramos, Cesar | MR | 2 | 1.2 | 5.18 | 4.80 | 4.43 |
| Howell, J.P. | MR | 1 | 0.5 | 4.64 | 4.30 | 4.08 |
| De La Rosa, Dane | LR | 0 | 0.0 | 5.03 | 4.66 | 4.40 |
| Sonnanstine, Andy | LR | 0 | 0.0 | 5.43 | 5.03 | 4.88 |
| 0.0 | ||||||
| Reliever Total | 15 | 7.0 | 4.18 | 3.87 | 3.83 | |
| Team Total | 45 | 20.4 | 4.09 | 3.78 | 3.85 |
| Name | Role | IP | R | RA | ERA | FIP |
| Wilson, C.J. | SP1 | 14 | 5.7 | 3.67 | 3.33 | 3.27 |
| Holland, Derek | SP2 | 11 | 5.5 | 4.51 | 4.24 | 4.26 |
| Harrison, Matt | SP3 | 6 | 2.8 | 4.25 | 3.97 | 4.04 |
| Lewis, Colby | SP4 | 1 | 0.4 | 3.82 | 3.51 | 3.74 |
| Ogando, Alexi | SP5 | 2 | 0.8 | 3.77 | 3.35 | 3.44 |
| Feldman, Scott | SP6 | 0 | 0.0 | 4.82 | 4.40 | 4.47 |
| Hamburger, Mark | SP7 | 0 | 0.0 | 5.17 | 4.79 | 4.97 |
| SP8 | 0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Starter Total | 34 | 15.3 | 4.06 | 3.74 | 3.75 | |
| Name | Role | IP | R | RA | ERA | FIP |
| Feliz, Neftali | CL | 3 | 1.2 | 3.51 | 3.25 | 3.27 |
| Adams, Mike | SU | 2 | 0.7 | 3.06 | 2.83 | 2.95 |
| Uehara, Koji | SU | 2 | 0.7 | 3.07 | 2.84 | 2.98 |
| Gonzalez, Michael | SU | 1 | 0.5 | 4.36 | 4.04 | 4.00 |
| Oliver, Darren | MR | 2 | 0.8 | 3.42 | 3.17 | 3.12 |
| Lowe, Mark | MR | 1 | 0.5 | 4.45 | 4.12 | 4.01 |
| Tateyama, Yoshinori | MR | 0 | 0.0 | 3.80 | 3.52 | 3.35 |
| Valdez, Merkin | LR | 0 | 0.0 | 5.43 | 5.03 | 4.36 |
| Kirkman, Michael | LR | 0 | 0.0 | 5.36 | 4.96 | 4.53 |
| 0.0 | ||||||
| Reliever Total | 11 | 4.3 | 3.49 | 3.24 | 3.27 | |
| Team Total | 45 | 19.6 | 3.92 | 3.62 | 3.63 |
RA: Runs allowed per 9, calculated as 1.08*ERA
ERA: Earned runs allowed per 9
FIP: Fielding independent pitching
We don’t have etched in stone rotations for this series. All I know for certain is that C.J. Wilson will start Game 1 for Texas, and that it’s likely Jeff Niemann gets the ball in Game 1 for the Rays. The Rangers may use Alexi Ogando as a starter but I’ve got him as a reliever for now.
Given these assumptions for playing time, we can then use the runs scored and runs allowed projections to get a Pythagenpat winning percentage which gives us an idea of how strong a team is in the context of this series.
| Team | Gms | RS | RA | wpct | p162 |
| TB | 5 | 23.9 | 20.4 | .572 | 93 |
| TEX | 5 | 26.0 | 19.6 | .631 | 102 |
RS: Projected runs scored
RA: Projected runs allowed
wpct: Pythagenpat winning percentage
p162: # of wins per 162 games using wpct
Oliver LOOOVES Texas. I don’t know if they’re better than Philly in Oliver, but they’re better than everyone in the AL. So, running this matchup through a Monte Carlo simulator gives me these odds.
Texas: 59.1%
Rays: 40.9%
I’ll look at Yankees/Tigers tomorrow.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Sportsday DFW: With home-field advantage on line, Rangers plan on bringing “A” game for season final
With one game left, the Rangers could still end up playing any of three teams:
• If the Rangers win, they will return home to play the wild card winner, which may not be determined until Thursday. Boston and Tampa Bay enter the final game tied. If both teams have the same result on Wednesday, they will play a tiebreaker game Thursday in Tampa.
• If the Rangers lose and Detroit loses, Texas will still hold home field advantage. The Tigers start their game with Cleveland at 6 p.m. CT, an hour before the first pitch of the Rangers-Angels game.
•If the Rangers lose and Detroit wins, the Rangers will head to New York to face the New York Yankees on Friday.
I think Texas is a better team than Detroit, even though the Yankees handled them pretty well this year. Detroit is probably a more difficult team in a five game series than they’d be in a seven game series, but I don’t think that pushes them past Texas..
I suppose I really don’t care who the Yankees face. I can see them beating anyone and losing to anyone. Both Detroit and Texas are good teams that pose a potential obstacle.
The only thing I care about is that whichever of the teams isn’t facing the Yankees is facing Tampa Bay.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Down The Stretch They Come
Instead of just throwing a bunch of percentages up here like I’d normally do right about now, I wanted to take a more granular look at the remaining schedule for the AL postseason contenders.
The Yankees have won 88 games. The teams in the AL who can exceed that this point are Boston, Detroit, Tampa Bay, Texas, LAAAAAA of AA, Cleveland, the White Sox and Toronto. If all those teams won the rest of their games, here’s where they’d end the year.
| Team | W | L | GR | Max |
| NYY | 88 | 57 | 17 | 105 |
| BOS | 85 | 61 | 16 | 101 |
| DET | 84 | 62 | 16 | 100 |
| TB | 81 | 64 | 17 | 98 |
| TEX | 83 | 64 | 15 | 98 |
| LAA | 80 | 66 | 16 | 96 |
| CLE | 72 | 72 | 18 | 90 |
| CWS | 73 | 72 | 17 | 90 |
| TOR | 74 | 73 | 15 | 89 |
Because most of those teams play at least a few games against each other, they can’t all win all their remaining games. Cleveland has three games left with the Rangers and four games left with the White Sox, for example. So if they win all their games, Texas can only win at most 93, and the White Sox can only win 86, etc., I feel comfortable in saying that it’s not likely either Cleveland or the White Sox will win more games than the Yankees over the rest of the year. For the purposes of assessing the Yankees’ postseason chances, Detroit’s a non-factor in this scenario, because they can’t contend for the wild card AND win more games than the Yankees.
Toronto plays nothing but teams on that list for the rest of the year, with two vs. Boston, three vs. the Yankees, four vs. the Angels, three vs. the Rays, and three vs. the White Sox. I’m going to go out on a limb and say they’ll lose at least two of those. So I’m going to only look at the other teams.
| Team | NYY | BOS | DET | TB | TEX | LAA |
| NYY | 3 | 6 | ||||
| BOS | 3 | 4 | ||||
| DET | ||||||
| TB | 6 | 4 | ||||
| TEX | 3 | |||||
| LAA | 3 |
Texas and California have three games left against each other.
Tampa Bay has six games left vs. the Yankees and four games vs. Boston.
The Yankees have those six games vs. the Rays and three games vs. Boston.
Detroit gets to beat up on cream puffs for the rest of the year, and are right now the team with the highest playoff probability in the American League. So I’m going to say they’re in.
That means you’ve got five teams fighting for three playoff spots.
The first number to think about is that 96 from Anaheim. If they get there, that means Texas can only get to 95. So 96 wins is effectively the clinching number to eliminate the AL west runner-up from the wild card. That obviously goes down each time Texas and LAA lose.
If Tampa Bay can get to 98, that means Boston can only get to 97 and the Yankees can only get to 99. So getting to that 97 from Boston is the bar for the Yankees, although it would only be a tie. Again, that obviously goes down as the Rays/Red Sox lose.
That means the Yankees’ magic number for tying for a postseason spot is nine, and for taking one outright is 10. In the event that the Yankees and Red Sox tied for the last spot, the season series between them wouldn’t matter, and there’d be a one game play-in.
Which the Sox would win handily.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Yankees.com: Yanks muster little at plate in loss to Halos
ANAHEIM—Maicer Izturis’ game-winning drive landed in Curtis Granderson’s glove, too deep in center field to attempt a throw, and all Derek Jeter thought about was the toss he should have made.
Izturis connected for a bases-loaded sacrifice fly facing Luis Ayala in the ninth inning on Friday night, lifting the Angels to a 2-1 victory over the Yankees that made Jeter’s hurried fifth-inning throwing error loom even larger.
“It boils down to giving them extra outs,” Jeter said. “I gave them an extra out throwing that ball away.”
More importantly, Jeter added, the Yankees couldn’t afford to cough up runs facing a stellar Jered Weaver, who limited the Bombers to just Jesus Montero’s homer over eight innings, striking out 11.
I’ll give Jeter a pass, since it was Jeff Mathis busting it down the line. It’s pretty hard to throw out a backup catcher on a routine grounder.
I didn’t get to see the game, but reading the recap and the game chatter here’s what I have to say about it.
1) Jered Weaver is a good pitcher, and from what I can glean he pitched well. Sometimes you face a good pitcher and he shuts you down.
2) As I’ve gotten older, I’ve lost the ability to “hate” players. Frankly, if I was the absolute worst player in MLB history, I’d bat or pitch every time a team kept giving me a chance to do it. So I don’t hate players who aren’t particularly good. If their team puts them in a position to fail, that’s the team’s fault, not theirs. So with regards to using Aaron Laffey last night (or Scott Proctor the day before) in the absolute highest leverage a team can be in at the start of an inning, I won’t blame Laffey (Proctor) for that. I’ll blame Joe Girardi. If you think this game is unimportant enough to use Laffey in that spot, you shouldn’t have wasted David Robertson in the eighth, since now you probably won’t be able to use him in a game you may actually try to win tonight. If you think these games are unimportant, why not audition some of the people who have upside and may have a meaningful role with this team in the years to come? Perhaps they’ll surprise you and show that they’re ready now? Does anyone think Buck Showalter would have used Jack McDowell to replace Mariano Rivera in the 9th inning of the fifth game of the 1995 ALDS if he knew how good Rivera was? If Hector Noesi didn’t get a shot against Baltimore in extra innings in his MLB debut, would the Yankees ever have made him a useful part of their bullpen?
3) As I said, the Yankees always find a way to lose to the Angels, and it’s really infuriating. Your pitcher’s pitching brilliantly against them? Make an error that gives them the run that ends up costing you the win.
4) The Yankees are probably exhausted right now given the way their last three games have unfolded. A four hour rain delay in New York resulting in a game that ended around 2:00 am followed by a trip for a day game to Baltimore followed by a flight to the West Coast to play a game at 10:00 pm Eastern time. So maybe we’re seeing some effect from that.
5) Any schadenfreude from the Red Sox’s recent tailspin is pretty much gone with the fact that the Yankees haven’t been able to gain even one iota from it, aside from shortening the amount of time the Red Sox might have to catch them.
It’s still really unlikely that the Yankees miss the playoffs, and with Detroit and Texas in a near dead heat record-wise there’s not necessarily going to be a huge advantage from winning the division. So I can at least be happy that Bartolo Colon pitched well, something he hasn’t done as much of since his return from the DL. I can also appreciate the fact that Jesus Montero pulled a HR off one of the best pitchers in the league and helped make his case for full-time play. Also, the Angels are just two games back of Texas in the loss column and it wouldn’t necessarily be the worst thing in the world if they forced Texas to go all out down the stretch. It can only benefit whomever faces the AL West winner if the race goes down to the wire.
I seriously expect the Yankees to lose every game they play against the Angels. Because of that, I just can’t get that worked up about it anymore. As a card-carrying stat-nerd, I really have a tough time reconciling the fact that what’s happened in the past has no bearing on what happens now when these two teams play and that the talent on the field that given day should be the primary factor in who wins or loses with the way the Yankees constantly roll over for Anaheim.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Monte Carlo Standings and Postseason Odds Through September 4, 2011
| American League | |||||||
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL |
| Yankees | 99 | 63 | 870 | 657 | 63.0% | 36.7% | 99.7% |
| Red Sox | 98 | 64 | 860 | 694 | 36.9% | 62.3% | 99.3% |
| Rays | 87 | 75 | 705 | 630 | 0.1% | 0.9% | 1.0% |
| Blue Jays | 79 | 83 | 745 | 749 | - | - | - |
| Orioles | 64 | 98 | 694 | 841 | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL |
| Tigers | 89 | 73 | 740 | 724 | 94.2% | - | 94.2% |
| White Sox | 82 | 80 | 672 | 681 | 4.0% | - | 4.0% |
| Indians | 80 | 82 | 688 | 720 | 1.9% | - | 1.9% |
| Twins | 71 | 91 | 662 | 791 | - | - | - |
| Royals | 67 | 95 | 706 | 782 | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL |
| Rangers | 91 | 71 | 815 | 696 | 92.1% | 0.0% | 92.1% |
| Angels | 86 | 76 | 666 | 650 | 7.9% | 0.0% | 7.9% |
| Athletics | 75 | 87 | 654 | 668 | - | - | - |
| Mariners | 69 | 93 | 574 | 678 | - | - | - |
| National League | |||||||
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL |
| Phillies | 103 | 59 | 736 | 555 | 98.0% | 2.0% | 100.0% |
| Braves | 94 | 68 | 678 | 605 | 2.0% | 95.4% | 97.4% |
| Mets | 80 | 82 | 723 | 733 | - | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Nationals | 75 | 87 | 632 | 688 | - | - | - |
| Marlins | 73 | 89 | 647 | 717 | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL |
| Brewers | 95 | 67 | 723 | 659 | 98.7% | 0.2% | 98.9% |
| Cardinals | 86 | 76 | 761 | 714 | 1.3% | 2.1% | 3.3% |
| Reds | 81 | 81 | 751 | 711 | - | - | - |
| Pirates | 74 | 88 | 633 | 706 | - | - | - |
| Cubs | 70 | 92 | 664 | 768 | - | - | - |
| Astros | 56 | 106 | 610 | 787 | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL |
| Diamondbacks | 89 | 73 | 713 | 689 | 83.2% | 0.1% | 83.3% |
| Giants | 85 | 77 | 575 | 585 | 15.9% | 0.3% | 16.2% |
| Dodgers | 80 | 82 | 641 | 630 | 0.8% | 0.0% | 0.8% |
| Rockies | 78 | 84 | 744 | 751 | 0.1% | - | 0.1% |
| Padres | 71 | 91 | 614 | 637 | - | - | - |
W: Projected final 2011 wins
L: Projected final 2011 losses
RS: Projected final 2011 runs scored
RA: Projected final 2011 runs allowed
Div: Division win percentage
WC: Wild card win percentage
PL: Playoff percentage (Div + WC)
Not looking like too much suspense aside from seeding at this point.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
More on Run Differentials
Last week I looked at the Yankees’ run differential and made the point that actual runs scored and allowed can be a bit misleading, and that it’s probably more instructive to look at the context neutral value of the offensive events for and against a team to get a better sense of how good they have actually been. For the hell of it I decided to look at this for all teams in MLB as of this morning.
| Team | RS | RA | bRS | bRA | RS - bRS | RA - bRA | Gap |
| Pirates | 436 | 469 | 415 | 503 | 21 | -34 | 55 |
| Yankees | 603 | 436 | 577 | 455 | 26 | -19 | 45 |
| Padres | 431 | 438 | 413 | 448 | 18 | -10 | 28 |
| Reds | 542 | 510 | 522 | 511 | 20 | -1 | 21 |
| Phillies | 504 | 375 | 500 | 391 | 4 | -16 | 20 |
| Blue Jays | 534 | 522 | 515 | 522 | 19 | 0 | 18 |
| Braves | 476 | 426 | 467 | 428 | 9 | -2 | 11 |
| Royals | 505 | 551 | 509 | 566 | -4 | -15 | 11 |
| Diamondbacks | 516 | 502 | 499 | 493 | 17 | 9 | 9 |
| Nationals | 449 | 471 | 445 | 475 | 4 | -4 | 7 |
| Rays | 485 | 452 | 481 | 453 | 4 | -1 | 5 |
| Angels | 441 | 419 | 457 | 439 | -16 | -20 | 5 |
| Cardinals | 552 | 500 | 538 | 490 | 14 | 10 | 4 |
| Indians | 478 | 486 | 458 | 469 | 20 | 17 | 3 |
| Rockies | 528 | 536 | 519 | 529 | 9 | 7 | 2 |
| Twins | 449 | 559 | 420 | 532 | 29 | 27 | 2 |
| Athletics | 442 | 456 | 430 | 440 | 12 | 16 | -5 |
| White Sox | 453 | 468 | 451 | 457 | 2 | 11 | -9 |
| Mets | 518 | 507 | 525 | 504 | -7 | 3 | -10 |
| Red Sox | 625 | 479 | 628 | 472 | -3 | 7 | -11 |
| Dodgers | 418 | 456 | 429 | 454 | -11 | 2 | -13 |
| Marlins | 462 | 503 | 471 | 497 | -9 | 6 | -15 |
| Mariners | 376 | 439 | 362 | 409 | 14 | 30 | -16 |
| Rangers | 589 | 490 | 582 | 466 | 7 | 24 | -17 |
| Brewers | 512 | 486 | 508 | 462 | 4 | 24 | -19 |
| Astros | 437 | 574 | 451 | 568 | -14 | 6 | -20 |
| Orioles | 462 | 598 | 473 | 586 | -11 | 12 | -23 |
| Cubs | 474 | 571 | 481 | 552 | -7 | 19 | -26 |
| Giants | 399 | 411 | 414 | 399 | -15 | 12 | -28 |
| Tigers | 508 | 514 | 512 | 484 | -4 | 30 | -35 |
RS/RA: Actual runs scored/allowed
bRS/bRA linear weights batting runs scored/allowed.
Gap: RS - bRS minus RA - bRA. The larger the number, the more a team has outplayed their peripherals. Basically, positive is bad here and negative is good.
What this table is saying is that, for example, the Yankees have scored about 26 more runs and allowed 19 fewer runs than their peripheral stats say they should have. That doesn’t mean you should subtract 4.5 wins from their total on the season. It just means that their Pythagenpat record/run differential is a bit misleading. In the Yankees’ case they’ve got 73 Pythag wins and 69 actual wins, so they haven’t really taken advantage of this in actual wins.
Contrast that with Pittsburgh, who’ve stumbled lately. They were playing over their heads all year, and unfortunately the correction has been ugly. At 55-59, they’re still two wins ahead of their 53-61 Pythag record, and if you look at that gap they are probably not even that good.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
A Brief Foray into Run Differentials and Component Stats
At this point in the season, the Yankees have the second best winning percentage in the AL.
| Team | a% |
| CLE | .623 |
| NYY | .574 |
| BOS | .536 |
| TEX | .536 |
| DET | .527 |
| TBR | .527 |
| SEA | .509 |
| LAA | .500 |
| TOR | .500 |
| OAK | .474 |
| CHW | .466 |
| BAL | .463 |
| KCR | .455 |
| MIN | .315 |
Over a full season at the actual winning percentage the Yankees would be about a 93 win team, with Cleveland at 101.
Now of course over 1/3 of a season actual winning percentage can be misleading since teams might be winning or losing more games than their actual performance merits. So you can look at something like Pythagenpat to get a better sense of how well a team has played so far and what it might mean going forward.
| Team | p% |
| NYY | .629 |
| CLE | .582 |
| TEX | .563 |
| TBR | .543 |
| TOR | .542 |
| BOS | .540 |
| LAA | .506 |
| OAK | .496 |
| DET | .486 |
| CHW | .480 |
| SEA | .478 |
| KCR | .462 |
| BAL | .422 |
| MIN | .322 |
If you do that, the Yankees look more like a 102 win team, which would be eight wins better than Cleveland and 11 wins better than Boston.
Although Pythagenpat does a pretty good job of estimating a team’s level of play, their actual runs scored and runs allowed might be skewed due to better or worse than expected performances in high leverage situations that are not necessarily repeatable going forward.
You can use linear weights batting runs to account for that. What’s nice about doing that is you can put offense and pitching/defense on the same scale if you use all the same components.
| Team | b% |
| NYY | .599 |
| TEX | .568 |
| BOS | .562 |
| CLE | .559 |
| TOR | .533 |
| TBR | .526 |
| OAK | .526 |
| LAA | .524 |
| DET | .504 |
| CHW | .479 |
| SEA | .469 |
| KCR | .435 |
| BAL | .423 |
| MIN | .343 |
This method also shows that the Yankees have played better than any other team in the AL, and would have them at around 97 wins, five wins ahead of Cleveland and six games ahead of Boston.
We do need to be cognizant that how a team has played so far only tells us so much about how good they are now and how good they’ll be going forward. Regression towards the mean, injuries/roster changes and a whole host of other things are going to have an impact on how a team does moving forward.
But at least as of right now, the Yankees have probably been the best team in the league and the difference isn’t trivial.
All this is moot when Rafael Soriano returns to blow games though.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Extremely Early CAIRO 2011 MLB Projected Standings
Around this time every year I like to run projected standings for the upcoming MLB season. It’s very limited in telling us much about how 2011 will play out since there are still a lot of roster changes coming, but it may give us some sense of how the offseason has impacted teams to this point and it also shows us how things would look if nothing changed from now until April. Which won’t happen.
Since this point is not readily comprehensible for people of limited intelligence I’ll reiterate it. It’s too early to construct meaningful rosters for a lot of teams, so these projections will favor the teams that have essentially completed their 2011 rosters.
In addition to that, projection systems are inherently limited. They are designed to estimate a player’s true talent based on what they’ve done so far and also by factoring in things like age and how similar players have performed in the past. They will generally be in the ballpark for the general population of MLB players, but they can miss significantly on individual players which can obviously affect certain teams more heavily than others.
So, anyway, using the depth charts from the wonderful MLB Depth Charts and includng playing time from players on the 40 man roster who don’t necessarily figure to be part of the the opening day 25 man rosters to account for organizational depth and playing out next season 10,000 times, here’s how CAIRO v0.3 sees things as of December 27, 2010.
| Date | 12/28/2010 | |||||||||
| Iterations | 10000 | |||||||||
| American League | ||||||||||
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Red Sox | 98.1 | 63.9 | 856 | 690 | 54.6% | 15.6% | 70.2% | 9.1 | 38 | -54 |
| Yankees | 89.1 | 72.9 | 835 | 740 | 23.2% | 21.7% | 44.9% | -5.9 | -24 | 47 |
| Rays | 87.1 | 74.9 | 707 | 640 | 17.9% | 18.7% | 36.6% | -8.9 | -95 | -9 |
| Blue Jays | 74.1 | 87.9 | 693 | 737 | 2.6% | 5.8% | 8.4% | -10.9 | -62 | 9 |
| Orioles | 70.1 | 91.9 | 723 | 813 | 1.8% | 2.9% | 4.7% | 4.1 | 110 | 28 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Twins | 85.7 | 76.3 | 752 | 715 | 33.3% | 6.2% | 39.5% | -8.3 | -29 | 44 |
| White Sox | 84.5 | 77.5 | 735 | 711 | 28.4% | 6.2% | 34.5% | -3.5 | -17 | 7 |
| Tigers | 84.0 | 78.0 | 727 | 712 | 27.5% | 4.6% | 32.0% | 3.0 | -24 | -31 |
| Indians | 73.9 | 88.1 | 728 | 802 | 8.2% | 2.7% | 10.8% | 4.9 | 82 | 50 |
| Royals | 66.9 | 95.1 | 678 | 815 | 2.8% | 1.1% | 3.9% | -0.1 | 2 | -30 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Rangers | 89.2 | 72.8 | 746 | 673 | 50.1% | 4.5% | 54.6% | -0.8 | -41 | -14 |
| Athletics | 82.1 | 79.9 | 678 | 667 | 26.1% | 4.3% | 30.4% | 1.1 | 15 | 41 |
| Angels | 77.9 | 84.1 | 665 | 690 | 15.5% | 3.2% | 18.7% | -2.1 | -16 | -12 |
| Mariners | 72.2 | 89.8 | 635 | 703 | 8.4% | 2.5% | 10.9% | 11.2 | 122 | 5 |
| National League | ||||||||||
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Phillies | 96.1 | 65.9 | 754 | 618 | 54.5% | 11.0% | 65.5% | -0.9 | -18 | -22 |
| Braves | 88.5 | 73.5 | 754 | 690 | 26.6% | 13.3% | 39.9% | -2.5 | 16 | 61 |
| Mets | 76.6 | 85.4 | 675 | 702 | 7.1% | 4.5% | 11.6% | -2.4 | 19 | 50 |
| Marlins | 77.3 | 84.7 | 679 | 708 | 8.7% | 5.0% | 13.7% | -2.7 | -40 | -9 |
| Nationals | 72.4 | 89.6 | 659 | 733 | 3.2% | 2.0% | 5.2% | 13.4 | -51 | -141 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Cardinals | 90.2 | 71.8 | 746 | 676 | 35.0% | 12.0% | 47.0% | 4.2 | 10 | 35 |
| Brewers | 87.2 | 74.8 | 698 | 650 | 27.9% | 8.9% | 36.7% | 10.2 | -52 | -154 |
| Reds | 85.5 | 76.5 | 723 | 689 | 23.5% | 8.2% | 31.7% | -5.5 | -67 | 4 |
| Cubs | 79.3 | 82.7 | 742 | 761 | 10.5% | 6.3% | 16.8% | 4.3 | 57 | -6 |
| Pirates | 67.7 | 94.3 | 671 | 808 | 2.1% | 1.2% | 3.3% | -6.3 | 28 | 38 |
| Astros | 65.8 | 96.2 | 604 | 732 | 1.1% | 1.0% | 2.1% | 3.8 | -32 | -36 |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | PL | W+/- | RS+/- | RA+/- |
| Rockies | 85.9 | 76.1 | 768 | 732 | 31.7% | 5.9% | 37.6% | 2.9 | -2 | 15 |
| Giants | 84.2 | 77.8 | 699 | 667 | 24.1% | 6.6% | 30.6% | -7.8 | 2 | 84 |
| Dodgers | 83.3 | 78.7 | 677 | 659 | 20.3% | 7.2% | 27.5% | 3.3 | 10 | -33 |
| Padres | 81.2 | 80.8 | 647 | 652 | 17.7% | 5.0% | 22.6% | -8.8 | -18 | 71 |
| Diamondbacks | 73.8 | 88.2 | 690 | 757 | 6.4% | 1.9% | 8.3% | 3.8 | -30 | -25 |
W: Projected 2011 wins
L: Projected 2011 losses
RS: Projected 2011 runs scored
RA: Projected 2011 runs allowed
Div: Division win percentage
WC: Wild card win percentage
PL: Playoff percentage (Div + WC)
W+/-: 2011 projected wins minus 2010 actual wins
RS+/-: 2011 projected runs scored minus 2010 actual runs scored (positive means they are projected to score more)
RA+/-: 2011 projected runs allowed minus 2010 actual runs allowed (negative means they are projected to allow fewer)
The only reason I am showing wins and losses to one decimal place is so I don’t have to answer questions about why the wins and losses don’t add up to exactly 2430. There is no way to imply that something like this can be precise to that level.
Did I mention that it’s still too early to do this, and that it shouldn’t be taken seriously?
I guess it’s not exactly news that Boston and Philadelphia look to be the two best teams in baseball right now. Although it’s easy for lazy analysts to make the claim that Tampa Bay is going to be bad because they lost Carl Crawford and their whole bullpen, it’s just not true. They’ve won the AL East in two of the past three seasons, and they have a ton of pitching talent in the minors. Jake McGee looks like a potentially dominant closer. They also won 96 games last year despite getting very little production out of first base and DH. Losing Crawford hurts, but Desmond Jennings is another good prospect who has a chance to mitigate that a bit as well.
Toronto tends to project worse than they actually end up doing every year, mainly because they’ve always seemed to get better than expected pitching. They’ve lost John Buck and Shaun Marcum from last year’s team, and CAIRO is expecting Jose Bautista will not hit 54 HRs again which explains most of their drop.
The Orioles tend to project better than they actually end up doing every year, but perhaps they’ll Buck that trend in 2011.
As for our Yankees, they’re still a good team. They’re just not as good as Boston on paper right now. That doesn’t mean they can’t win the division, it just means that they need some players to exceed their projections (A.J.?) and/or some players from Boston/Tampa Bay to underperform some of their’s. If they can add Andy Pettitte or some league average starter who can give them 180 innings or so that’s probably worth another two wins over Ivan Nova/Sergio Mitre.
Right now the AL Central looks pretty tightly bunched at the top between the White Sox, Tigers and Twins. Cleveland should be able to hold off KC for fourth place, although if Melky-mania runs wild who knows?
The West looks like Texas’s to lose, even without Cliff “The Big Train” Lee. LA of A could pick up about three wins if they sign Adrian Beltre, but that alone doesn’t seem like it’d be enough to get them up to Texas’s level.
I don’t know if the Phillies are as good as Boston, although they may be a better short series team. They are almost certainly the tallest midget in the circus known as the National League, but they’re not some 110 win juggernaut on paper. The Braves seem to be the second best team in the NL East and should at least be a strong contender for the wild card.
The Cardinals still appear to have the best front-line talent in the NL Central although Milwaukee has improved themselves significantly. The Reds are not far off from the top either.
The NL West is also tightly bunched at the top, with only about four wins separating first place through fourth.
Did I mention that it’s too early for this to be taken too seriously?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Yankees.com: We’ll CC you in Texas: Yanks force Game 6
NEW YORK—There is no one the Yankees would rather throw in a potential elimination game than CC Sabathia, and the ace left-hander delivered hope, pitching six solid innings to force the American League Championship Series back to Texas with a 7-2 victory over the Rangers on Wednesday.
Facing elimination, the Yankees’ dreams of a 41st AL pennant remain alive as they attempt to become just the fifth team in history to recover from a 3-1 series deficit and advance to the World Series. The ALCS returns to Rangers Ballpark for Game 6 on Friday at 8 p.m. ET.
It wasn’t exactly CC’s best game, but it was enough, especially with Curtis Granderson continuing to hit. And while Robinson Cano may not end up getting the 2010 AL MVP, he’s certainly been the Yankees’ MVP in the postseason.
One game at a time.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Hughes with Two Strikes
Phil Hughes had a little trouble with two strikes against the Rangers’ hitters on Saturday. He went to two strikes on two lefty batters, walking one and yielding a double to the other. After two strikes to 10 right handed Rangers, Hughes allowed 4 hits (2 doubles, 1 triple) while striking out 3.
Phil Hughes Contact Rate with 2 Strikes (26 pitches)
Phil Hughes In Play Rate with 2 Strikes (26 pitches)
The top map shows the contact rate (number of balls in play + fouls / number of swings) against Phil Hughes with two strikes on Saturday. Too much red there. The bottom map shows the in play rate (balls put in play / swings). It seemed as though Hughes was trying to elevate his pitches with two strikes against the Rangers, but they weren’t missing. Just for comparison, here’s his 2010 in play map:
2010 Phil Hughes In Play Rate with 2 Strikes to RHB (1016492 pitches)
UPDATE: Just realized I only put up the in play rate for RHB. Here it is for LHB:
2010 Phil Hughes In Play Rate with 2 Strikes to LHB (524 pitches)
All heatmaps courtesy of the In Depth Baseball analytics platform
Saturday, October 16, 2010
ALCS Game One Strikezone
Here are the heatmaps for both C.J. Wilson and CC Sabathia from last night’s ALCS Game One, separated by balls and called strikes as determined by home plate umpire Gerry Davis.
Early in the game, it seemed as though Sabathia was not getting the paint on the inside outside corner to lefty righty batters. However, it looks like Gerry Davis wasn’t calling pitches on the upper left side of the zone much for either pitcher. It just seemed to harm CC more since he kept trying to hit that spot early on.
However, when comparing Wilson’s called strikes to Sabathia’s called balls, it appears Wilson was getting that lower right portion of the zone more. In fact, CC seemed to miss out on a few calls that were probably within that lower right portion of the strikezone.
UDPATE:
Just realized there’s a nifty “Called Strike Rate” heatmap available. Sorry. I’m still getting used to the software.
Here they are for both pitchers:
All heatmaps courtesy of the In Depth Baseball analytics platform
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Should We Be Rooting For the Rays or Rangers Tonight?
I was thinking about this last night, and was wondering about how the Yankees matched up against their two potential opponents in the ALCS. I’m not going to run through all the projections and stuff now, but I was just curious about how the teams matched up in terms of platoon advantage.
In a seven game series, it’s likely the Yankees would try and get at least four games out of lefties, but maybe even five if they try and start CC Sabathia on three days rest twice. So a team that has more righties would be a harder matchup.
Using rough depth charts, here’s how the Ray, Rangers and Yankees compare in terms of PA by batter-hand over a seven game series.
Rays: 115 PA by RHB, 124 PA by LHB, 26 PA by switch-hitters
Rangers: 151 PA by RHB, 80 PA by LHB, 25 PA by switch-hitters
Yankees: 86 PA by RHP, 81 PA by LHB, 99 PA by switch-hitters
Of course the quality of the hitters matters, which this ignores.
On the pitching side, here’s how they compare in terms of batters faced by pitcher hand.
Rays: 195 PA by RHP, 66 BF by LHP
Rangers: 183 BF by RHP, 75 BF by LHP
Yankees: 118 BF by RHP, 144 BF by LHP
If you knew nothing about any of these teams except these numbers, you’d say the Yankees match up better against the Rays, who don’t have as many left-handed pitchers or right-handed batters.
Of course, we do know more than that. On paper the Rays look like the better team, and since I hate the wild card it’d be nice if they advanced and the Yankees beat them as a sort of solace for failing to win the division. But I have a hunch that Texas would be a more difficult opponent with the way they match up.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
2010 ALDS Preview: Rangers vs. Rays
Who will the Twins play in the next round?
Since Joe Maddon took his time to get his roster in, this is going to be be quick.
Here are the Rangers’s position player projections.
| Lineup | Pos | 2010 OBP | 2010 wOBA | Proj OBP | Proj wOBA | PA | Outs | BR | Def |
| Elvis Andrus | SS | .335 | .296 | .310 | .309 | 20 | 14 | 2 | 0.1 |
| Michael Young | 3B | .331 | .336 | .340 | .341 | 20 | 13 | 3 | -0.3 |
| Josh Hamilton | CF | .411 | .444 | .366 | .392 | 20 | 13 | 3 | 0.0 |
| Vladimir Guerrero | DH | .346 | .361 | .355 | .374 | 20 | 13 | 3 | 0.0 |
| Nelson Cruz | RF | .372 | .405 | .343 | .374 | 20 | 13 | 3 | 0.3 |
| Ian Kinsler | 2B | .380 | .357 | .352 | .357 | 20 | 13 | 3 | 0.1 |
| Mitch Moreland | 1B | .360 | .362 | .319 | .316 | 15 | 10 | 2 | 0.1 |
| Bengie Molina | C | .292 | .275 | .286 | .302 | 10 | 7 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Julio Borbon | LF | .304 | .287 | .314 | .297 | 10 | 7 | 1 | -0.1 |
| Andres Blanco | 2B | .326 | .298 | .311 | .297 | 10 | 7 | 1 | 0.0 |
| David Murphy | LF | .355 | .356 | .334 | .340 | 10 | 7 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Cristian Guzman | SS | .308 | .289 | .305 | .302 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Chris Davis | 1B | .279 | .267 | .286 | .319 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Matt Treanor | C | .285 | .266 | .289 | .277 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Jorge Cantu | 1B | .301 | .302 | .317 | .330 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0.0 |
The biggest issue the Rangers probably have on the position player side is Josh Hamilton’s health. He’s playing through a rib injury and it may affect his availablity and his effectiveness.
And their pitching projections,
| Pitcher | Role | 2010 RA | 2010 FIP | Proj RA | Proj FIP | IP | R |
| Cliff Lee | SP1 | 3.56 | 2.59 | 3.75 | 3.40 | 14 | 5.8 |
| C.J. Wilson | SP2 | 3.66 | 3.59 | 3.93 | 3.68 | 6 | 2.6 |
| Colby Lewis | SP3 | 4.04 | 3.51 | 4.70 | 4.03 | 6 | 3.1 |
| Tommy Hunter | SP4 | 3.87 | 4.99 | 5.19 | 4.98 | 5 | 2.9 |
| Neftali Feliz | CL | 2.73 | 2.97 | 4.13 | 3.60 | 3 | 1.4 |
| Darren O’Day | SU | 2.18 | 3.58 | 3.26 | 3.61 | 3 | 1.1 |
| Darren Oliver | MR | 2.97 | 2.64 | 3.41 | 3.43 | 3 | 1.1 |
| Derek Holland | MR | 4.71 | 4.04 | 5.94 | 4.63 | 2 | 1.3 |
| Alexi Ogando | MR | 1.33 | 3.16 | 3.75 | 3.77 | 2 | 0.8 |
| Dustin Nippert | MR | 4.37 | 4.95 | 5.47 | 4.97 | 1 | 0.6 |
Texas has got a pretty good pitching staff, especially when you account for the historical tendency of their home park to boost offense. Obviously Cliff Lee’s as good as any pitcher out there, and having him going twice in a series is a pretty good thing.
As far as the AL East champs, here are their projections.
| Lineup | Pos | 2010 OBP | 2010 wOBA | Proj OBP | Proj wOBA | PA | Outs | BR | Def |
| John Jaso | C | .371 | .343 | .343 | .324 | 15 | 10 | 2 | -0.1 |
| Carlos Pena | 1B | .324 | .325 | .352 | .366 | 18 | 12 | 3 | 0.0 |
| Sean Rodriguez | 2B | .305 | .312 | .323 | .338 | 20 | 14 | 3 | 0.3 |
| Jason Bartlett | SS | .318 | .298 | .332 | .318 | 20 | 13 | 2 | 0.1 |
| Evan Longoria | 3B | .372 | .380 | .367 | .391 | 21 | 13 | 4 | 0.4 |
| Carl Crawford | LF | .353 | .374 | .342 | .347 | 21 | 14 | 3 | 0.3 |
| B.J. Upton | CF | .324 | .339 | .341 | .334 | 20 | 13 | 2 | 0.0 |
| Ben Zobrist | RF | .345 | .325 | .351 | .341 | 20 | 13 | 3 | 0.4 |
| Rocco Baldelli | RF | .208 | .238 | .303 | .331 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Reid Brignac | SS | .308 | .306 | .300 | .306 | 10 | 7 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Matt Joyce | RF | .359 | .361 | .321 | .330 | 10 | 7 | 1 | 0.1 |
| Kelly Shoppach | C | .308 | .296 | .311 | .329 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Dan Johnson | 1B | .341 | .337 | .350 | .347 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Desmond Jennings | CF | .292 | .267 | .316 | .311 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.1 |
| Pitcher | Role | 2010 RA | 2010 FIP | Proj RA | Proj FIP | IP | R |
| David Price | SP1 | 3.06 | 3.44 | 4.01 | 4.15 | 14 | 6.2 |
| James Shields | SP2 | 5.67 | 4.26 | 4.73 | 4.15 | 6 | 3.2 |
| Matt Garza | SP3 | 4.13 | 4.43 | 4.23 | 4.41 | 6 | 2.8 |
| Wade Davis | SP4 | 4.19 | 4.83 | 5.06 | 4.84 | 6 | 3.4 |
| Rafael Soriano | CL | 2.05 | 2.79 | 3.09 | 3.21 | 3 | 1.0 |
| Grant Balfour | SU | 2.60 | 2.75 | 3.45 | 3.30 | 3 | 1.2 |
| Joaquin Benoit | MR | 1.52 | 2.52 | 3.73 | 3.68 | 3 | 1.2 |
| Dan Wheeler | MR | 3.75 | 4.19 | 4.24 | 4.41 | 1 | 0.5 |
| Randy Choate | MR | 4.67 | 3.50 | 4.50 | 3.93 | 2 | 1.0 |
| Jeff Niemann | MR | 4.47 | 4.66 | 4.83 | 4.70 | 1 | 0.5 |
David Price is probably better than that projection, but we won’t know that for a while. Although James Shields had an ugly season, a lot of that had to do with a pretty high BABIP. I’m still surprised he’s starting Game 2 though.
So you’ve got:
| Team | Offense | Defense | Pitching | Pythagenpat | p162 |
| Rangers | 24.1 | 0.2 | 20.8 | .568 | 92 |
| VS | |||||
| Rays | 24.5 | 1.7 | 21.0 | .613 | 99 |
And 10,000 simulations of that series says:
Rays: 53.9%
Rangers: 46.1%
Page 1 of 1 pages: