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.
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
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.
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.
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?
Monday, November 1, 2010
MLB.com: Giants win the Series! Giants win the Series!
ARLINGTON—Go ahead, say it. It’s no longer mere fantasy or sheer folly to do so. A rare mix of veteran rejects and budding stars completed an unlikely ascent to the Major League summit Monday night, allowing all to repeat a five-word phrase never before heard:
World Series champion San Francisco Giants. The Giants made franchise history with a 3-1 triumph over the Rangers in Game 5 of the World Series, ignoring their underdog status to capture the 106th Fall Classic, four games to one.
You know Suzyn…
Seriously, congratulations to the Giants and their fans. I tend to root for the AL team in the World Series unless their name starts with a B and ends with an X, but I found myself pulling for the Giants and I’m glad they pulled it off.
I’m also glad they single-handedly ended the Cliff Lee = best pitcher ever meme that was getting really tiresome to listen to and/or read about.
Page 1 of 1 pages: