BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: RLYW: How have the first two weeks of the 2012 MLB season changed team projections?

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, April 22, 2012

RLYW: How have the first two weeks of the 2012 MLB season changed team projections?

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.

Swedish Chef Posted: April 22, 2012 at 05:08 PM | 49 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: sabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. escabeche Posted: April 22, 2012 at 06:14 PM (#4113266)

How do the Orioles not improve their projection?

2. Crispix Attacks 2: Swag Airlines Posted: April 22, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4113268)

Am I seeing things? This RLYW website (which apparently I've never actually visited before) looks exactly like the old Baseball Primer did. I've never seen an other website I could say that about.

3. Best Regards, L.M. Posted: April 22, 2012 at 06:21 PM (#4113271)

Am I seeing things? This RLYW website (which apparently I've never actually visited before) looks exactly like the old Baseball Primer did. I've never seen an other website I could say that about.

I liked the way the old Primer looked and tried to emulate it.

4. TerpNats Posted: April 22, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4113274)

In this projected universe...

AL East
NYY 94-68
TB 87-75 (WC1)
Bos 83-79
Tor 81-81
Bal 70-92

AL Central
Det 88-71
Cle 86-76 (WC2)
CWS 78-84
KC 70-92
Min 70-92

AL West
Tex 99-63
LAA 85-77
Sea 73-89
Oak 72-90

NL East
Atl 90-72
Phi 88-74 (WC)
Was 88-74 (WC)
Mia 82-80
NYM 74-88

NL Central
StL 94-68
Mil 86-76
Cin 84-78
Pit 73-89
ChC 68-94
Hou 66-96

NL West
SF 85-77
Ari 83-79
LAD 83-79
Col 81-81
SD 72-90

That would be an intriguing postseason, though the idea of the Indians cracking the predicted "six goes into five" AL top tier would be a bit of a surprise, keeping the Angels at home along with the Bosox. And would that NL wild-card game be in Philadelphia, or would the Phillies (who end the regular season at Nationals Park) have to extend their hotel reservations for an additional day?

5. boteman Posted: April 22, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4113285)

HA!

6. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 22, 2012 at 08:02 PM (#4113327)

How do the Orioles not improve their projection?

By allowing more runs than they've scored?

7. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: April 22, 2012 at 08:09 PM (#4113329)

AL top tier would be a bit of a surprise, keeping the Angels at home along with the Bosox.

If Boston doesn't make the playoffs, how many more Wild Cards will Bud want to add a week or so before the 2013 season starts?

8. BDC

Posted: April 22, 2012 at 09:18 PM (#4113365)

The Rangers have been destroying the competition and look like they’re probably the best team in baseball

How about we amend that to: "The Rangers have been destroying the competition and look like they've had a great two weeks."

Being 5½ to 7 games ahead of your division is a very excellent thing to be at any time in a season, but two weeks in it doesn't say much about your "true talent level" or your September prognosis.

9. Mayor Blomberg Posted: April 22, 2012 at 09:30 PM (#4113369)

Of course, when the Braves were 12-3 in 1983, they were only a game ahead.

10. SG Posted: April 22, 2012 at 09:34 PM (#4113370)

How do the Orioles not improve their projection?

Transcription error. They should be about one win better now (71 wins compared to 70 pre-season).

Being 5½ to 7 games ahead of your division is a very excellent thing to be at any time in a season, but two weeks in it doesn't say much about your "true talent level" or your September prognosis.

True in general, but in this specific instance the Rangers had a reasonable argument for being the best team in baseball before the season started. The only team I had ahead of them was the Yankees, and that was before they lost Michael Pineda. It's not a case of overrating two hot weeks.

11. Frisco Cali Posted: April 23, 2012 at 02:20 AM (#4113472)

What do consecutive World Series appearances say about a teams' true talent level?

12. Dr. Vaux Posted: April 23, 2012 at 03:03 AM (#4113479)

If Boston doesn't make the playoffs, how many more Wild Cards will Bud want to add a week or so before the 2013 season starts?

The new system makes Boston less likely to make the playoff, not more. The one-game playoff isn't really "the playoffs."

13. Greg (U)K Posted: April 23, 2012 at 03:30 AM (#4113482)

"Playoff: a series of contests played after the end of the regular season to determine a championship —often used in plural"

These games are played after the regular season and determine who goes on to the next round eventually leading to the championship. You can argue that it's a silly system, or you won't consider a loss in the initial round much of an accomplishment, but it is a playoff game.

14. zack Posted: April 23, 2012 at 09:02 AM (#4113515)

But considering any team in that one-game playoff to be a "playoff team" makes a mockery of the concept. Game 163 is also a play-off game, and no one considers the loser of that game to be a "playoff team".

15. Lassus Posted: April 23, 2012 at 09:07 AM (#4113517)

If Boston doesn't make the playoffs, how many more Wild Cards will Bud want to add a week or so before the 2013 season starts?

I repeat myself from another thread: The MLB black-helicopterers have gone completely off the rails at this point.

16. SG Posted: April 23, 2012 at 09:15 AM (#4113519)

I just say postseason instead of playoffs. No one can quibble with that, can they?

17. bunyon Posted: April 23, 2012 at 09:16 AM (#4113520)

Nice mixed metaphor, Lassus.

18. AROM Posted: April 23, 2012 at 09:23 AM (#4113524)

Game 163 is also a play-off game, and no one considers the loser of that game to be a "playoff team".

Game 163 counts in the regular season stats. I don't think wild card game will.

19. Kevin Sefcik was Pure Grit Posted: April 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4113612)

It doesn't make sense to claim that this new system was made to benefit the Yankees and Red Sox. Since 1995, either the Yankees and Red Sox have finished as the wild card playoff team (9) times, while they would have been the second wild card (4) times (the Red Sox and Mariners were tied in 2002). Assuming we don't count the loser of the one-game playoff as a real "playoff" team, and assuming that the winner of the game is basically a 50-50 crap shoot, then instead of making the playoffs 9 times as they did under the previous system, the Yankees/Red Sox would have made it (.5*9 + .5*4) 6.5 times. The recent rise of the Rays has skewed the results over the past several years, but in general, to make the claim that it benefits NY/BOS, you are in essence saying that you believe they will finish as the second wild card more often than they finish as the first wild card.

20. Mike Webber Posted: April 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4113613)

I guarantee the Royals would BUY on 70 wins right now.

21. SoSH U at work Posted: April 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM (#4113619)

Game 163 counts in the regular season stats. I don't think wild card game will.

Yes. Furthermore, Game 163 exists only if there's a tie between two teams, extending the season. The one-game will be played every year regardless of finish, and may very well be played after a Game 163. They aren't really comparable.

The five teams in each league will be playoff teams (or will have made the postseason). The format for their eliminations doesn't change that.

22. Ray (RDP)

Posted: April 23, 2012 at 11:28 AM (#4113626)

We go through this every year, because inevitably some good teams get off to bad starts and people conclude that they're bad teams and will definitely miss the exhibitionseason.

Not that three weeks is irrelevant, obviously; the losses are banked and have an impact. But nothing has changed all that much.

23. LionoftheSenate (feels sorry for the Pirates) Posted: April 23, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4113627)

It is early. But Texas is the best team in baseball.

24. Greg (U)K Posted: April 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4113633)

I would have thought the one team to benefit the most from the change (in the short-term) is the Jays.

Previously they had to hope for two of Bos, NYY, or TB to slip. (unlikely). Now just one of them imploding is enough (slightly more likely, but I'm not holding my breath despite Boston's start).

Of course there's the possibility of the Angels too.

25. Shredder Posted: April 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4113638)

Having actually watched them play just about every game to this point, I'd be absolutely shocked if the Angels won 85 games. 75 seems much more likely.

26. Matt Garza smells it deep (Mr. Tapeworm) Posted: April 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4113677)

I just say postseason instead of playoffs. No one can quibble with that, can they?

The Quibbler can! Muah-hah-hah-haaaaaah!

27. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4113678)

Having actually watched them play just about every game to this point, I'd be absolutely shocked if the Angels won 85 games. 75 seems much more likely.

Why?

How does a team with a rotation of Haren/Weaver/Wilsom/Santana not break .500?

28. Shredder Posted: April 23, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4113709)

How does a team with a rotation of Haren/Weaver/Wilsom/Santana not break .500?

Unless those guys learn to hit and defend three or four different positions on the field, it's not going to matter how well they pitch.

29. Ray (RDP)

Posted: April 23, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4113716)

Why?

How does a team with a rotation of Haren/Weaver/Wilsom/Santana not break .500?

People overreact to bad starts. No team is going to look good going 6-10. And it takes more than 16 games for a team's true talent level to settle.

30. The Good Face Posted: April 23, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4113717)

Having actually watched them play just about every game to this point, I'd be absolutely shocked if the Angels won 85 games. 75 seems much more likely.

Why?

How does a team with a rotation of Haren/Weaver/Wilsom/Santana not break .500?
Page 1 of 1 pages

This. The Angels have a bad record, but their run differential isn't terrible. Between that and the talent on the roster, I don't see a truly bad team. The entire offense is underachieving, except for maybe Vernon Wells, who could actually suck that much. And Pujols hasn't done a thing yet. At some point, their bats will get hot and they'll start racking up wins.

31. AROM Posted: April 23, 2012 at 01:31 PM (#4113724)

How does a team with a rotation of Haren/Weaver/Wilsom/Santana not break .500?

This new 1B reminds me a lot of Darin Erstad. Great defense, both in making plays himself and saving bad throws from the other infielders. Seems to have a decent swing, but a complete lack of power. Kind of strange as I've heard he hit quite a few homers in the lower league before he got called up.

32. AROM Posted: April 23, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4113725)

If the Angels lose their next 4 games, they'll be 6-14. Anybody know if an Angel team has ever started out that poorly and turned it around?

33. bunyon Posted: April 23, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4113782)

I don't know about projecting records. I wouldn't expect the Angels to be this bad for the season. BUT, I figured (unscientifically) going into the season that the Angels and Rangers were fairly even. If the Angels had a 7 game lead on the Rangers, I wouldn't think the Rangers would catch them. Turn it around, and I don't think the Angels will catch Texas. But they could still certainly grab one of the two wild cards and beat Texas in a short series.

34. Bad Doctor Posted: April 23, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4114020)

This is a real fun toy, so not to #### on SG, but ... I'm not seeing how it adds up. The Phillies were projected to score 698 runs. Through 16 games, that would be just a hair under 69 runs. They've scored 43 ... so they're already 26 runs to the bad from their original projection (unless they were projected to score fewer than pro rata runs on this part of the schedule ... with games in SF and SD, a possibility, but shouldn't be that big a difference). Plus they've hit like #### one-tenth of the way through the schedule, which you'd think would then drop their projected RS for the next 90% further ... but they're only down a total of 21 runs scored for the season. It seems like it should be quite a bit larger than that.

35. Misirlou is bad, he's nationwide Posted: April 23, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4114031)

If the Angels lose their next 4 games, they'll be 6-14. Anybody know if an Angel team has ever started out that poorly and turned it around?

Aside from their WS season? No.

36. cardsfanboy

Posted: April 23, 2012 at 06:30 PM (#4114043)

At this point in time, the records could just be a combination of bad luck and who you had to face. If the Cardinals were 6-10, I would be thinking that 9 of those games were against two of the favorites to win the division this year, and another 3 against the Cubs who, regardless of the quality of team they have, always play us tough.

It's just way to early to even pretend to re-evaluate the quality of the teams based upon results so far this year.

37. Shredder Posted: April 23, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4114056)

At this point in time, the records could just be a combination of bad luck and who you had to face.

Yeah, that's kind of the problem. 13 of the Angels 16 games have come against the Royals, Orioles, A's, and Twins. Ouch.

38. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

Posted: April 23, 2012 at 07:03 PM (#4114070)

Yeah, that's kind of the problem. 13 of the Angels 16 games have come against the Royals, Orioles, A's, and Twins. Ouch.

That's part of the problem, yep. Even when (if?) the bats revert to a more normal level of production, they're going to be up against better teams.

FWIW, Mike Napoli is the gift that keeps on giving. .286/.368/.673 with 6 homers to start the season.

39. SG Posted: April 23, 2012 at 07:08 PM (#4114072)

They've scored 43 ... so they're already 26 runs to the bad from their original projection (unless they were projected to score fewer than pro rata runs on this part of the schedule ... with games in SF and SD, a possibility, but shouldn't be that big a difference).

They've been a bit unlucky in turning their offensive events into runs, their linear weights for runs scored is more like 48, so that's part of it as well, plus the projection was based on a weight of about 7% 2012 and 93% 2012 projection. It should be closer to reality as we move on through the season and the projection has less weight.

40. Dan Posted: April 23, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4114081)

The Phillies lineup for tonight:

1. Juan Pierre (L) LF
2. Placido Polanco (R) 3B
3. Jimmy Rollins (S) SS
4. Ty Wigginton (R) 1B
5. Shane Victorino (S) CF
6. Carlos Ruiz (R) C
7. John Mayberry (R) RF
8. Freddy Galvis (S) 2B
9. Kyle Kendrick (R) P

Somehow I don't see their offense busting out any time soon.

41. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 23, 2012 at 07:34 PM (#4114089)

1. Juan Pierre (L) LF
2. Placido Polanco (R) 3B
3. Jimmy Rollins (S) SS
4. Ty Wigginton (R) 1B
5. Shane Victorino (S) CF
6. Carlos Ruiz (R) C
7. John Mayberry (R) RF
8. Freddy Galvis (S) 2B
9. Kyle Kendrick (R) P

Somehow I don't see their offense busting out any time soon.

How do you bat Victorino 5th in that horror show?

42. DKDC Posted: April 23, 2012 at 07:45 PM (#4114092)

It's an old-fashioned lineup. The 1B HAS to bat cleanup no matter who it is.

Heck, they're even letting the pitcher bat.

43. Tom Nawrocki Posted: April 23, 2012 at 08:08 PM (#4114101)

FWIW, Mike Napoli is the gift that keeps on giving. .286/.368/.673 with 6 homers to start the season.

Iannetta is not so far behind that, is he?

44. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

Posted: April 23, 2012 at 08:24 PM (#4114117)

Iannetta's at .268/.348/.512. That's very fine. I'm just still unhappy that the Angels allowed Texas to improve their catching situation dramatically while saddling themselves with Vernon Wells. Repercussions for years, man! Years!

45. Ray (RDP)

Posted: April 23, 2012 at 08:29 PM (#4114125)

Iannetta is not so far behind that, is he?

No, he's not, but nobody cares about former Rockies.

Or current ones.

(Hat tip to Alec Baldwin on 30 Rock: "I told you not to call me after 11pm. Or before.")

Anyway, it's a 168 OPS+ for Napoli, and a 140 OPS+ for Ianetta. But Napoli has more PA (57-46). On the other hand, all of Ianetta's PA have come at catcher.

Ron Washington still can't help himself. He's diminishing Napoli's value by playing him at 1B (6 games at 1B, 7 games at C). So that Torrealba (38 PA, 75 OPS+) can get too many PA at catcher. Torrealba has caught 82 innings; Napoli just 56.

Mitch Moreland may not be much, but he's much younger than Torrealba, and a better hitter with a higher upside.

46. BWV 1129 Posted: April 23, 2012 at 09:27 PM (#4114173)

I'm not worried yet. Weaver and Haren look great, even though Haren gave up some hits and HR in his first couple of starts. Pujols is a little pull-happy but usually looks good at the plate, he's just not getting the results. CJ Wilson fits in nicely in the #4 spot. I am digging the Iannetta era. Trumbo is looking rather hitterish.

But most of the hitters haven't put it together, Ervin Santana's head is up is ass, and the bullpen is, once again, The Arson Squad.

For any of y'all not looking, Mike Trout is tearing up AAA so far. As such, every hit from Vernon Wells is a stab to the heart. His 92 OPS+ is not terrible.

47. Walt Davis Posted: April 23, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4114209)

Re: the Phils (especially) ... do the new sims adjust playing time for injuries which have happened already? Or did the original sim already assume all that missed time for Phils hitters? And now Lee to the DL. Injuries (and rehab progress) is one place where in-season information obviously adds a lot to the projections.

48. SoCalDemon Posted: April 23, 2012 at 10:04 PM (#4114241)

Speaking of small sample sizes, 8 games ago Napoli was hitting .100/.269/.100. Its amazing what going 10-23 with 6 home runs will do this early in a season.

49. Tom Nawrocki Posted: April 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM (#4114254)

Iannetta's at .268/.348/.512. That's very fine. I'm just still unhappy that the Angels allowed Texas to improve their catching situation dramatically while saddling themselves with Vernon Wells. Repercussions for years, man! Years!

Iannetta is balding fast, but the hair he does have is curly. For a while early last year, he grew his hair out, and also grew a Fu Manchu mustache that came in all curly too. It looked totally boss. If he does that again, you'll forget all about Mike Napoli.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Sunday, April 22, 2012

RLYW: How have the first two weeks of the 2012 MLB season changed team projections?

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Sponsor

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics