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?
Thursday, October 11, 2012
2012 MLB Division Series Odds through Games of October 10
| Team | Div |
| NYA | 81.3% |
| STL | 76.8% |
| DET | 64.1% |
| SFN | 54.0% |
| CIN | 46.0% |
| OAK | 35.9% |
| WAS | 23.2% |
| BAL | 18.7% |
Div: Probability of winning divisional series
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
2012 MLB Division Series Odds through Games of October 9
| Team | Div |
| DET | 86.0% |
| CIN | 75.8% |
| NYA | 64.0% |
| STL | 52.7% |
| WAS | 47.2% |
| BAL | 35.9% |
| SFN | 24.1% |
| OAK | 13.9% |
Div: Probability of winning divisional series
Monday, October 8, 2012
2012 MLB Division Series Odds through Games of October 7
| Team | Assigned Win % | Division % |
| DET | .631 | 92.6% |
| CIN | .558 | 87.5% |
| NYA | .635 | 83.6% |
| WAS | .617 | 63.8% |
| STL | .568 | 36.2% |
| BAL | .513 | 16.4% |
| SFN | .539 | 12.5% |
| OAK | .529 | 7.4% |
Assigned Win %: Estimate of team strength using Oliver projections and depth charts for remaining games in series
Division %: Projected odds of advancing past the division series
Friday, September 21, 2012
Yankees.com: Martin’s walk-off HR keeps Yanks alone in first
NEW YORK—As Russell Martin galloped down the third-base line, taking a moment to see how far he could possibly fling his batting helmet, the Yankees clustered at home plate to celebrate what most agreed was their biggest hit of the season.
The schedule is growing thin, the games are becoming more crucial, and the Yankees went home with exactly what they needed on this night. Martin’s 10th-inning blast was the game-winner, lifting New York to a 2-1 victory over the Athletics on Friday at Yankee Stadium.
“There’s pressure, but it’s fun; it’s a fun atmosphere,” Martin said. “There’s a lot of energy in the crowd, you can feel the weather change a little bit. Playoff weather is coming. I like it. I enjoy it. I’m ready for it.”
No kneeling tonight.
I didn’t see much of CC’s performance but it looks like he had a heck of a night. Apparently, it’s too much to ask the Red Sox to play the Orioles hard this weekend. I guess they’re saving themselves for the last series of the season in the Bronx.
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.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
The Postseason Implications of this series with Baltimore
I have to admit that I really have no idea how good the 2012 Orioles are. Much has been made of the fact that they’ve been outscored this season, but that ignores the fact that their current roster is not the same as the roster they had earlier in the year. Team talent is not static, and any analysis that assumes that what the Orioles have done all season long is the best way to assess how good they are at this very moment is simplistic and lazy.
That being said, I’m kind of lazy myself and don’t feel like revising and re-running all their projections right now. But anyone that wants to discuss how good/bad the Orioles really are should at least acknowledge that they’re no longer giving starts to Tommy Hunter, Brian Matusz and Jake Arrieta, and what they did in the rotation in the first half of the year should have little bearing on how good the Orioles will be over the rest of the season. The fact is, they’re right in the heart of the postseason race and anything can happen from here on out. They very well could win the World Series if everything falls into place for them.
I also am fairly uncertain about how good the Yankees are right now. I’m reasonably sure they’re not the 94 win team they projected to be at the start of the year when they had Mo and Brett Gardner and Michael Pineda, and that they probably won’t be that good through the end of the year given the injuries they’ve been dealing with and the apparent loss of Curtis Granderson and Andruw Jones’s ability to hit a baseball. Jones should be less of a concern than Granderson, but Joe Girardi’s stubborn insistence on playing him against every LHP the Yankees face makes him a lot more important to this team than he ought to be. Especially when teams are champing at the bit to throw every LHP they can find against the Yankees, which is logical.
We also don’t know if/when they’ll get Mark Teixeira, Ivan Nova and Andy Pettitte back and what they’ll do if/when they do come back. All three have the potential to significantly improve this team, but all three have a very realistic chance of not being able to return and be effective. I don’t think that’s pessimistic, I just think it’s realistic. If the Yankees can get all three back, they improve the lineup and the rotation and the bullpen and start to look like one of the better teams in baseball, if not the best, again.
Rather than using projections and YTD performance for this run through the postseason implications of this series, I’m going to just assume that the Yankees and Orioles are roughly .500 teams. So consider this more theoretical than the typical postseason odds I run.
In that case, here’s how the postseason probabilites for the AL look as of this morning.
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% |
| Yankees | 90 | 72 | 782 | 677 | 45.0% | 13.6% | 15.5% | 74.1% |
| Rays | 89 | 73 | 694 | 603 | 29.2% | 12.9% | 18.0% | 60.2% |
| Orioles | 89 | 73 | 699 | 737 | 25.8% | 12.5% | 14.8% | 53.0% |
| Red Sox | 75 | 87 | 781 | 775 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Blue Jays | 73 | 89 | 732 | 783 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| White Sox | 88 | 74 | 754 | 703 | 61.7% | 1.8% | 4.2% | 67.6% |
| Tigers | 87 | 75 | 742 | 692 | 38.3% | 2.3% | 6.9% | 47.5% |
| Royals | 73 | 89 | 681 | 745 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Indians | 68 | 94 | 668 | 827 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Twins | 68 | 94 | 720 | 835 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Rangers | 96 | 66 | 834 | 698 | 94.8% | 3.8% | 0.6% | 99.2% |
| Athletics | 89 | 73 | 691 | 631 | 3.6% | 37.6% | 21.6% | 62.8% |
| Angels | 87 | 75 | 772 | 699 | 1.7% | 15.4% | 18.6% | 35.7% |
| Mariners | 78 | 84 | 632 | 651 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
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)
And here’s how they look for each of the possible outcomes of this series.
| Orioles 4-0 | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% |
| Orioles | 90 | 72 | 699 | 737 | 55.6% | 11.6% | 12.6% | 79.8% |
| Rays | 88 | 74 | 694 | 603 | 27.8% | 11.6% | 16.3% | 55.7% |
| Yankees | 88 | 74 | 782 | 677 | 15.8% | 14.7% | 19.1% | 49.6% |
| Red Sox | 74 | 88 | 781 | 775 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Blue Jays | 73 | 89 | 732 | 783 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| White Sox | 88 | 74 | 754 | 703 | 64.0% | 2.0% | 3.6% | 69.5% |
| Tigers | 86 | 76 | 742 | 692 | 35.3% | 3.0% | 5.4% | 43.7% |
| Royals | 73 | 89 | 681 | 745 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Indians | 68 | 94 | 668 | 827 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Twins | 67 | 95 | 720 | 835 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Rangers | 95 | 67 | 834 | 698 | 93.9% | 4.4% | 0.9% | 99.2% |
| Athletics | 88 | 74 | 691 | 631 | 3.9% | 35.3% | 22.3% | 61.6% |
| Angels | 87 | 75 | 772 | 699 | 1.4% | 16.6% | 19.2% | 37.1% |
| Mariners | 77 | 85 | 632 | 651 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Orioles 3-1 | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% |
| Orioles | 89 | 73 | 699 | 737 | 39.0% | 14.6% | 15.7% | 69.3% |
| Yankees | 89 | 73 | 782 | 677 | 30.2% | 15.7% | 16.5% | 62.5% |
| Rays | 89 | 73 | 694 | 603 | 30.6% | 13.4% | 15.9% | 59.9% |
| Red Sox | 75 | 87 | 781 | 775 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Blue Jays | 73 | 89 | 732 | 783 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| White Sox | 88 | 74 | 754 | 703 | 64.1% | 2.3% | 4.2% | 70.5% |
| Tigers | 87 | 75 | 742 | 692 | 35.7% | 2.6% | 4.9% | 43.2% |
| Royals | 73 | 89 | 681 | 745 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Indians | 68 | 94 | 668 | 827 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Twins | 67 | 95 | 720 | 835 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Rangers | 96 | 66 | 834 | 698 | 94.5% | 3.9% | 1.3% | 99.6% |
| Athletics | 89 | 73 | 691 | 631 | 4.1% | 33.1% | 23.3% | 60.5% |
| Angels | 87 | 75 | 772 | 699 | 1.3% | 14.3% | 18.1% | 33.7% |
| Mariners | 78 | 84 | 632 | 651 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| 2-2 | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% |
| Yankees | 90 | 72 | 782 | 677 | 47.3% | 13.7% | 13.6% | 74.6% |
| Rays | 89 | 73 | 694 | 603 | 30.1% | 12.7% | 16.1% | 58.8% |
| Orioles | 89 | 73 | 699 | 737 | 22.6% | 11.3% | 20.9% | 54.8% |
| Red Sox | 75 | 87 | 781 | 775 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Blue Jays | 73 | 89 | 732 | 783 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| White Sox | 89 | 73 | 754 | 703 | 60.9% | 2.6% | 4.0% | 67.5% |
| Tigers | 87 | 75 | 742 | 692 | 39.1% | 2.4% | 5.9% | 47.4% |
| Royals | 73 | 89 | 681 | 745 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Indians | 68 | 94 | 668 | 827 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Twins | 68 | 94 | 720 | 835 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Rangers | 96 | 66 | 834 | 698 | 94.7% | 4.4% | 0.2% | 99.3% |
| Athletics | 89 | 73 | 691 | 631 | 4.2% | 35.6% | 21.5% | 61.3% |
| Angels | 87 | 75 | 772 | 699 | 1.2% | 17.2% | 18.0% | 36.4% |
| Mariners | 78 | 84 | 632 | 651 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Yankees 3-1 | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% |
| Yankees | 91 | 71 | 782 | 677 | 67.5% | 10.5% | 8.7% | 86.7% |
| Rays | 89 | 73 | 694 | 603 | 22.8% | 16.8% | 17.7% | 57.3% |
| Orioles | 88 | 74 | 699 | 737 | 9.7% | 11.3% | 18.5% | 39.4% |
| Red Sox | 75 | 87 | 781 | 775 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Blue Jays | 73 | 89 | 732 | 783 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| White Sox | 88 | 74 | 754 | 703 | 63.4% | 2.0% | 2.8% | 68.2% |
| Tigers | 87 | 75 | 742 | 692 | 36.6% | 3.0% | 5.5% | 45.1% |
| Royals | 73 | 89 | 681 | 745 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Indians | 68 | 94 | 668 | 827 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Twins | 68 | 94 | 720 | 835 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Rangers | 96 | 66 | 834 | 698 | 94.2% | 4.2% | 0.9% | 99.2% |
| Athletics | 89 | 73 | 691 | 631 | 4.3% | 36.5% | 24.5% | 65.3% |
| Angels | 87 | 75 | 772 | 699 | 1.6% | 15.8% | 21.5% | 38.8% |
| Mariners | 78 | 84 | 632 | 651 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Yankees 4-0 | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC1 | WC2 | PS% |
| Yankees | 92 | 70 | 782 | 677 | 79.6% | 10.5% | 6.1% | 96.3% |
| Rays | 89 | 73 | 694 | 603 | 17.9% | 22.0% | 23.6% | 63.5% |
| Orioles | 86 | 76 | 699 | 737 | 2.3% | 8.5% | 13.6% | 24.4% |
| Red Sox | 75 | 87 | 781 | 775 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Blue Jays | 73 | 89 | 732 | 783 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| White Sox | 88 | 74 | 754 | 703 | 61.1% | 3.0% | 4.0% | 68.1% |
| Tigers | 87 | 75 | 742 | 692 | 38.7% | 3.1% | 6.5% | 48.3% |
| Royals | 73 | 89 | 681 | 745 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Indians | 68 | 94 | 668 | 827 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| Twins | 67 | 95 | 720 | 835 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
| TM | W | L | RS | RA | Div | WC | WC2 | PS% |
| Rangers | 96 | 66 | 834 | 698 | 95.2% | 3.7% | 0.9% | 99.7% |
| Athletics | 89 | 73 | 691 | 631 | 3.6% | 35.1% | 24.5% | 63.2% |
| Angels | 87 | 75 | 772 | 699 | 1.1% | 13.8% | 20.7% | 35.6% |
| Mariners | 78 | 84 | 632 | 651 | 0.0% | - | - | - |
Remember that I’m assuming the Yankees are Orioles are .500 teams. If you think that’s too pessimistic for the Yankees and too optimistic for the Orioles adjust accordingly.
The Yankees, Orioles, Rays, White Sox, Tigers, A’s and Angels are all bunched within four games of each other, so it’s likely going to be a dogfight to qualify for the postseason. Hopefully the Yankees are better than a .500 team and can pull away from the pack a bit.
Getting back to Yanks vs. O’s, your pitching matchups for the series are:
Thursday, September 6, 2012
David Phelps, RHP (3-4, 3.13 ERA) vs. Jason Hammel, RHP (8-6, 3.54 ERA)
Phelps hasn’t been great over his last couple of starts, including his last start against Baltimore where he walked 6 in 4.2 innings. Hammel was the Orioles’ best starter through June 22 with a 2.61 ERA, but he lost effectiveness over his last four starts, probably at least partially due to a knee injury that ended up requiring surgery that put him on the DL on July 13. He’s making his first start since returning from the DL and may be rusty. Let’s hope so.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Phil Hughes, RHP (13-12, 4.18 ERA) vs. Wei-Yin Chen, LHP (12-8, 3.79 ERA)
Hughes was cruising through his last start against Baltimore through five innings, but the wheels came off in the sixth. Maybe if he walks Mark Reynolds every time he can keep the Yankees in this game. Wei-Yin Chen was dominant against the Yankees in his last start, but his bullpen and defense ended up making his final line look less than great in a game the Yankees stole thanks to a J.J. Hardy error.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
CC Sabathia, LHP (13-4, 3.42 ERA) vs. Joe Saunders, LHP (1-1, 4.63 ERA)
Two finesse lefties face off in the third game of this series. The Yankees really needed a big game from CC in his last start against Tampa, but didn’t get it. I’d like to think they’ll get it here but CC hasn’t looked like CC this year and while his peripheral stats are pretty similar to what they’ve been throughout his Yankee career, his fastball velocity is still down almost 2 mph and I think it’s having a significant impact on his effectiveness. Saunders is back from Little League, and has made one crappy start and one pretty good one. As a lefty, he’s sure to give the Yankees fits.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Freddy Garcia, RHP (7-6, 5.09 ERA) vs. Zach Britton, LHP (5-1, 4.15 ERA)
Garcia’s got a 7.53 ERA over his last three starts while averaging less than 5 innings per game. He’s given up 12 runs over those three games. Zach Britton has a 0.94 ERA over his last four starts, and has struck out 29 hitters in 28.2 innings while going 4-0. Oh, and he’s a lefty.
I hate these pitching matchups. It will be a monumental task for the Yankees to win this series. I suppose Phelps vs. Hammel might be okay if Phelps rebounds a bit and Hammel is rusty. I’d be shocked if Hughes outpitched Chen. CC should be able to beat Saunders, but WTF knows? And that last game looks like a disaster.
I think we’re looking at a split here at best, and wouldn’t be surprised to see the Orioles taking 3 out of 4. Even if that happens, that just means the Yankees will be down by a game in the division as they head to Boston for three games while the Orioles get to host Tampa Bay for three. Unfortunately, this will probably be Boston’s version of the postseason. Fortunately, Boston’s probably not all that good right now and it may not matter.
I realize we feel like the Yankees should be in the postseason every year given their payroll, but it’s kind of fun to have meaningful games in September, isn’t it? Living and dying on every pitch for a month is an emotional roller coaster but that’s part of the entertainment factor of baseball, and one we don’t necessarily get enough of as Yankee fans who usually are watching their team set up their postseason rotation over the last few weeks of the year. It’s like an extended version of the postseason.
It also might be a good reminder that just getting into the postseason is a pretty good accomplishment in and of itself and the season’s not a failure if the Yankees don’t win the World Series. Despite what Randy Levine will surely say at the end of the year if they don’t.
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.
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.
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?
Monday, April 19, 2010
What Should We Expect Out of The Upcoming West Coast Trip(Oakland Edition)?
With a strong 9-3 start that has them tied for first place in the loss column in the AL East and already six games ahead of the Red Sox in that same loss column, the Yankees head west for six games. The first three games are against Oakland, where the pitching matchups are:
Tuesday April 20
Javier Vazquez vs. Gio Gonzalez
Wednesday April 21
Phil Hughes vs. Ben Sheets
Thursday April 22
CC Sabathia vs. Dallas Braden
Oakland’s been a bit of a surprise this year as they are in first place in the AL West with a 9-5 record. They’ve scored 62 runs and allowed 47 runs, which translates to a Pythagenpat record of… 9-5.
As a team, Oakland’s offense isn’t particularly good whether you look at their projections or how they’ve done so far in 2010.
| Rank | team | lg | PA | H | 2B | 3B | HR | R | RBI | BB | SO | HBP | GDP | SB | CS | AVG | OBP | SLG | wOBA | BR | BRAA |
| 1 | Yankees | AL | 472 | 114 | 24 | 4 | 16 | 69 | 63 | 61 | 76 | 7 | 10 | 15 | 4 | .284 | .386 | .483 | .379 | 75.2 | 18.2 |
| 2 | Royals | AL | 467 | 133 | 22 | 1 | 15 | 63 | 58 | 31 | 64 | 3 | 11 | 17 | 1 | .309 | .358 | .470 | .359 | 70.3 | 13.8 |
| 3 | Twins | AL | 518 | 123 | 23 | 2 | 15 | 69 | 67 | 65 | 74 | 2 | 14 | 8 | 1 | .277 | .367 | .439 | .354 | 73.0 | 10.4 |
| 4 | Tigers | AL | 483 | 114 | 30 | 2 | 8 | 58 | 50 | 60 | 74 | 7 | 13 | 2 | 3 | .275 | .375 | .414 | .354 | 64.8 | 6.5 |
| 5 | Blue Jays | AL | 494 | 98 | 35 | 1 | 18 | 57 | 55 | 46 | 109 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 1 | .223 | .300 | .431 | .315 | 60.7 | 0.9 |
| 6 | Red Sox | AL | 462 | 106 | 31 | 1 | 14 | 48 | 46 | 37 | 86 | 4 | 12 | 5 | 3 | .255 | .318 | .435 | .326 | 57.7 | 1.8 |
| 7 | Rays | AL | 458 | 101 | 23 | 3 | 14 | 62 | 61 | 41 | 97 | 2 | 8 | 17 | 4 | .245 | .314 | .416 | .319 | 56.1 | 0.7 |
| 8 | Angels | AL | 489 | 117 | 26 | 0 | 14 | 52 | 51 | 37 | 91 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 4 | .262 | .319 | .414 | .320 | 58.2 | -0.9 |
| 9 | Athletics | AL | 523 | 117 | 28 | 1 | 7 | 62 | 60 | 46 | 89 | 5 | 11 | 11 | 2 | .252 | .321 | .362 | .305 | 56.5 | -6.7 |
| 10 | White Sox | AL | 484 | 95 | 17 | 1 | 16 | 53 | 48 | 46 | 67 | 8 | 17 | 13 | 5 | .222 | .308 | .379 | .305 | 52.0 | -6.5 |
| 11 | Orioles | AL | 488 | 104 | 23 | 3 | 12 | 42 | 40 | 36 | 87 | 6 | 13 | 3 | 3 | .234 | .299 | .381 | .299 | 49.8 | -9.2 |
| 12 | Rangers | AL | 427 | 93 | 16 | 3 | 10 | 46 | 42 | 30 | 89 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 1 | .241 | .300 | .376 | .297 | 43.9 | -7.7 |
| 13 | Indians | AL | 444 | 85 | 17 | 2 | 9 | 45 | 42 | 47 | 89 | 7 | 13 | 7 | 3 | .219 | .313 | .343 | .297 | 43.8 | -9.9 |
| 14 | Mariners | AL | 473 | 102 | 18 | 2 | 5 | 45 | 42 | 47 | 93 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 6 | .245 | .321 | .333 | .297 | 45.7 | -11.5 |
wOBA: Weighted on-base average
BR: Linear weights batting runs
BRAA: BR above average (not position-adjusted)
As a team, they’ve collectively hit .252/.321/.362, although it should be noted that their home park suppresses offense a fair amount (by about 4% on average over the last four seasons). It’s also probably at least worth mentioning that their 62 runs scored is a little higher than their context-neutral batting runs which could indicate some good fortune offensively so far. For comparison’s sake, the Yankees have actually scored six fewer runs than they should have if you go by their context-neutral batting runs
You can see the difference more starkly if you line up their primary starting nine next to the Yankee lineup and compare their projections for 2010.
| Player | Pos | PA | Outs | BR | OBP | Player | Pos | PA | Outs | BR | OBP |
| Derek Jeter | SS | 5 | 3.1 | 0.69 | .372 | Rajai Davis | CF | 5 | 3.3 | 0.61 | .335 |
| Nick Johnson | DH | 5 | 3.0 | 0.72 | .405 | Daric Barton | 1B | 5 | 3.2 | 0.64 | .356 |
| Mark Teixeira | 1B | 5 | 3.1 | 0.84 | .381 | Ryan Sweeney | RF | 5 | 3.3 | 0.60 | .345 |
| Alex Rodriguez | 3B | 5 | 3.1 | 0.87 | .387 | Kevin Kouzmanoff | 3B | 5 | 3.4 | 0.62 | .312 |
| Robinson Cano | 2B | 5 | 3.3 | 0.70 | .338 | Kurt Suzuki | C | 4 | 2.9 | 0.51 | .333 |
| Jorge Posada | C | 5 | 3.2 | 0.70 | .355 | Eric Chavez | DH | 4 | 2.8 | 0.44 | .306 |
| Curtis Granderson | CF | 5 | 3.0 | 0.66 | .341 | Mark Ellis | 2B | 4 | 2.7 | 0.45 | .316 |
| Nick Swisher | RF | 4 | 2.6 | 0.56 | .360 | Travis Buck | LF | 4 | 2.7 | 0.48 | .332 |
| Brett Gardner | LF | 4 | 2.6 | 0.47 | .341 | Cliff Pennington | SS | 4 | 2.7 | 0.41 | .327 |
| Total | 43 | 27.0 | 6.22 | .365 | Total | 40 | 27.0 | 4.77 | .330 |
PA: # of PA in a single game
Outs: Outs made at the plate, equals PA times (1 minus OBP)
BR: Linear weights batting runs for listed PA
OBP:projected OBP
These are based on an average of six projection systems (CAIRO, CHONE, Marcel, Oliver, PECOTA and ZiPS), so the built-in CAIRO bias towards the Yankees is slightly mitigated.
Of course, you don’t have to score 6.22 runs a game to be a good team in baseball if you can prevent runs well. That’s where Oakland’s biggest strength lies. So far this season, their pitching staff has been the most effective one in the American League.
| Rnk | team | lg | Role | G | GS | IP | H | R | ER | HR | BB | IBB | HBP | SO | RA | ERA | FIP | RSAR |
| 1 | Athletics | AL | Total | 48 | 13 | 115.3 | 98 | 39 | 33 | 8 | 44 | 2 | 2 | 97 | 3.04 | 2.58 | 3.62 | 29.8 |
| 2 | Twins | AL | Total | 46 | 12 | 108.0 | 100 | 37 | 37 | 11 | 30 | 1 | 3 | 72 | 3.08 | 3.08 | 4.11 | 27.5 |
| 3 | White Sox | AL | Total | 45 | 12 | 110.0 | 96 | 48 | 44 | 6 | 51 | 6 | 3 | 98 | 3.93 | 3.60 | 3.60 | 17.6 |
| 4 | Mariners | AL | Total | 40 | 12 | 105.0 | 103 | 46 | 43 | 8 | 41 | 1 | 4 | 69 | 3.94 | 3.69 | 4.16 | 16.6 |
| 5 | Rays | AL | Total | 46 | 11 | 103.0 | 97 | 45 | 44 | 16 | 39 | 2 | 4 | 75 | 3.93 | 3.84 | 5.02 | 16.4 |
| 6 | Rangers | AL | Total | 42 | 11 | 95.0 | 87 | 41 | 34 | 11 | 40 | 1 | 8 | 77 | 3.88 | 3.22 | 4.60 | 15.7 |
| 7 | Yankees | AL | Total | 39 | 11 | 95.0 | 87 | 42 | 40 | 8 | 34 | 0 | 4 | 79 | 3.98 | 3.79 | 3.83 | 14.7 |
| 8 | Indians | AL | Total | 40 | 11 | 98.7 | 83 | 46 | 40 | 9 | 50 | 2 | 7 | 60 | 4.20 | 3.65 | 4.90 | 13.0 |
| 9 | Blue Jays | AL | Total | 43 | 12 | 109.3 | 94 | 55 | 53 | 15 | 37 | 2 | 7 | 87 | 4.53 | 4.36 | 4.60 | 10.3 |
| 10 | Red Sox | AL | Total | 45 | 11 | 100.0 | 100 | 54 | 45 | 13 | 42 | 2 | 3 | 64 | 4.86 | 4.05 | 4.96 | 5.5 |
| 11 | Orioles | AL | Total | 48 | 12 | 104.7 | 114 | 63 | 54 | 13 | 36 | 7 | 4 | 96 | 5.42 | 4.64 | 4.13 | -0.6 |
| 12 | Tigers | AL | Total | 43 | 11 | 98.0 | 112 | 59 | 50 | 10 | 39 | 1 | 4 | 61 | 5.42 | 4.59 | 4.60 | -0.8 |
| 13 | Angels | AL | Total | 45 | 12 | 106.0 | 106 | 68 | 61 | 20 | 45 | 0 | 2 | 81 | 5.77 | 5.18 | 5.45 | -4.8 |
| 14 | Royals | AL | Total | 50 | 11 | 98.0 | 112 | 66 | 62 | 14 | 48 | 1 | 7 | 69 | 6.06 | 5.69 | 5.33 | -7.6 |
FIP: Fielding independent pitching
RSAR: Runs saved above replacement. For starters this is calculated as 1.25 times league RA minus starter RA divided by nine times IP. For relievers it’s calculated as 1.15 times league RA minus reliever RA divided by nine times IP
If you go by RA, the A’s have been the best pitching staff in the AL so far, although they obviously get a boost from their park. The bulk of that value is actually in their rotation, at least so far.
| Rnk | team | lg | Role | G | GS | IP | H | R | ER | HR | BB | IBB | HBP | SO | RA | ERA | FIP | RSAR |
| 1 | Athletics | AL | SP | 13 | 13 | 78.3 | 68 | 23 | 20 | 5 | 27 | 0 | 2 | 58 | 2.64 | 2.30 | 3.66 | 24.5 |
| 4 | Yankees | AL | SP | 11 | 11 | 66.0 | 57 | 27 | 26 | 4 | 26 | 0 | 3 | 56 | 3.68 | 3.55 | 3.61 | 13.1 |
| 4 | Athletics | AL | RP | 35 | 0 | 37.0 | 30 | 16 | 13 | 3 | 17 | 2 | 0 | 39 | 3.89 | 3.16 | 3.52 | 5.3 |
| 9 | Yankees | AL | RP | 28 | 0 | 29.0 | 30 | 15 | 14 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 23 | 4.66 | 4.34 | 4.34 | 1.7 |
They’ve been better than the Yankees in both starting and relieving to this point, although strength of offenses faced is likely a contributing factor.
Lastly, Oakland also looks to have a very strong defense, here’s how the primary lineups compare defensively at each position.
| Pos | Player | RS | RS/150 | Player | RS | RS/150 |
| C | Jorge Posada | -0.03 | -5 | Kurt Suzuki | 0.05 | 7 |
| 1B | Mark Teixeira | 0.02 | 3 | Daric Barton | 0.03 | 5 |
| 2B | Robinson Cano | 0.00 | -1 | Mark Ellis | 0.08 | 12 |
| 3B | Alex Rodriguez | -0.03 | -5 | Kevin Kouzmanoff | 0.02 | 3 |
| SS | Derek Jeter | -0.03 | -4 | Cliff Pennington | -0.05 | -7 |
| LF | Brett Gardner | 0.02 | 3 | Travis Buck | -0.01 | -2 |
| CF | Curtis Granderson | 0.04 | 5 | Rajai Davis | 0.06 | 9 |
| RF | Nick Swisher | 0.00 | 0 | Ryan Sweeney | 0.11 | 17 |
| Total | -0.01 | -2 | 0.30 | 45 |
RS: Projected runs saved compared to average defensively per game, using an average of projected zone rating and UZR
RS/150: RS pro-rated to 150 games
Yeah, yeah, so what does all this nerdy crap mean?
It means if we want to figure out the win probability for each game via Bill James’s log 5 methodology, we’d use these numbers to do it.
So in Game 1, we have the following inputs:
Yankees
Offense: 6.22 runs
Defense: -0.01 runs
Pitching: 3.9 runs (using six innings of Vazquez’s projected RA, then an inning each of Damaso Marte, David Robertson and Mariano Rivera)
Pythagenpat win Percentage: .714
Home field disadvantage: -0.02
Road Pythagenpat win percentage: 0..694
Athletics
Offense: 4.77 runs
Defense: 0.30 runs
Pitching: 4.9 runs (using six innings of Gio Gonzalez’s projected RA, then an inning each of Brad Ziegler, Jerry Blevins and Andrew Bailey)
Pythagenpat Win Percentage: .519
Home field advantage: 0.02
Home Pythagenpat win percentage: 0.539
Log 5 win probability = team A win percentage minus team B win percentage + .500. So for Game 1, with these lineups we’d set the Yankee win probability at 67.5%. Of course, Vazquez’s projections don’t include the fact that he can’t pitch in Yankee pinstripes, so the actual Yankee win probability is more like -100.0%.
Using the same lineups for Games 2 and 3 with the changed pitching matchups gives us these probabilities:
Game 2: 57.4%
Game 3: 64.2%
So theoretically, if not for the Vazquez effect, the Yankees should expect to go something like 1.9 - 1.1 against Oakland. Which they can’t do, because you can’t win partial games, so let’s round that up to 2-1.
Of course, one of the great modern philosphers made the astute observation that you can’t predict baseball, so I’m going to throw these numbers into the East River and predict an Oakland sweep to kick off a 15 game losing streak for the Yankees.
Page 1 of 1 pages: