Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, December 10, 2012

Schoenfield: Could the Dodgers win 110 games?

Add it all up and we get 72.7 wins. Assuming a replacement-level standard of 50 wins, we’re talking 112 wins or so. Not too shabby—although still fewer than the 116 wins of the 2001 Mariners (yes, I had to throw that in there).

Of course, not all these players will equal their best seasons of recent vintage. Crawford isn’t going to be a seven-win player in 2013 and Ramirez’s best days are in the past. Kershaw and Greinke are an excellent 1-2 punch, but the rest of the rotation has a high degree of volatility and health concerns (although with plenty of depth, including Aaron Harang). I’d pin their over-under in the low 90s.

Should the Dodgers be the favorite in the NL West over the Giants? Considering the Giants overachieved in some regards last year, I don’t think it’s unfair to pin that label on L.A.

Thanks to LA Chet.

Repoz Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:07 PM | 54 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dodgers

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. DanO Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4321030)
No. My money's on 81 wins, and a 3rd place finish. And I'll really enjoy it, too.
   2. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4321034)

Schoenfield: Could the Dodgers win 110 games?


No.
   3. DCA Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4321055)
Sure they could. 18 in spring training, 90 in the regular season, and 2 in the playoffs (bounced in the NLDS).
   4. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4321064)
Just like the 2011 Red Sox were better than the '27 Yankees?

I'd put the O/U closer to 93. Unless '12 showed us the real Gonzalez and Beckett, then O/U ~88.
   5. Nasty Nate Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4321067)
If Cain, Posey, and Bumgarner get lost in the Bermuda triangle on their way to spring training the Dodgers would have an outside shot at 110.
   6. cardsfanboy Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4321071)
Just like the 2011 Red Sox were better than the '27 Yankees?


Exactly what came to my mind. I seemed to remember a lot of people thinking the Red Sox team was going to be one of the greatest teams of all time.(or 2012 Angels)
   7. AROM Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:43 PM (#4321075)
Silly assumptions give you silly results.

If every player on the team matches his best season from the last 3 years, measured by the stat site most favorable to him, how many wins does that get you? The Dodger's 110 might not even be the best out there. The average team under the same conditions would obviously come out way above 81 wins. Not sure if "average" would work out to 90, 95, or even 100.

Beyond that the reliever WAR includes leverage index - except you can't give everyone high leverage innings next year even if they all pitch at their best rates.
   8. SG Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4321077)
   9. NJ in DC Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4321078)
Exactly what came to my mind. I seemed to remember a lot of people thinking the Red Sox team was going to be one of the greatest teams of all time.(or 2012 Angels)

Or '12 Rangers early on.
   10. JJ1986 Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:46 PM (#4321079)
I thought the 2012 Rangers were the best team of all time.

edit: coke to NJ.
   11. with Glavinesque control and Madduxian poise Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4321085)
Ray beat me to it.
   12. cardsfanboy Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:55 PM (#4321090)
Silly assumptions give you silly results.


The article was a fun exercise from an optimistic fanboy point of view on the team(at least I hope it was)

Beyond that the reliever WAR includes leverage index - except you can't give everyone high leverage innings next year even if they all pitch at their best rates.


War is not a good predictive stat anyway, as your point points out. Of course the article ended up using fWar for most of the pitchers, which ignores the defense that is going to be behind them.
   13. BDC Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4321091)
no … wait, people are already saying that :)
   14. AROM Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4321092)
Add it all up and we get 72.7 wins. Assuming a replacement-level standard of 50 wins, we’re talking 112 wins or so.


Unless math has changed the rules to keep the deficits from scaring too many people, 72.7+50 = 122.7
   15. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:05 PM (#4321102)
10 of the starting pitchers and position players were evaluated using fWAR which has a replacement level closer to 43 wins I think, so you probably should subtract 5-6 wins for that, and then add back the 10 wins from the math error and you get 117 wins. You should also subtract something for Crawford missing half the season so let's say 115 wins. I'm not sure whether that's fantastic or merely good.

If every player on the team matches his best season from the last 3 years, measured by the stat site most favorable to him, how many wins does that get you? The Dodger's 110 might not even be the best out there. The average team under the same conditions would obviously come out way above 81 wins. Not sure if "average" would work out to 90, 95, or even 100.

Well this would overrate those teams composed primarily of veterans just out of their peak phase and underrate teams with a lot of young players like the Royals or a lot of rookies like the 2o12 A's. That would probably bring down the average a bit.
   16. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4321107)
I think we can safely pencil them in as a playoff team (using a "more likely than not" standard), but they will not win 110 games unless absolutely everything goes their way, including Matt Kemp remaining intact.
   17. cardsfanboy Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:12 PM (#4321110)
I think we can safely pencil them in as a playoff team (using a "more likely than not" standard), but they will not win 110 games unless absolutely everything goes their way, including Matt Kemp remaining intact.


I think they are on the list of 8 likely NL playoff teams (Nationals, Braves, Phillies, Cardinals, Brewers, Reds, Giants and Dodgers) I don't see anything that clearly separates any team from that group. Add in a surprise team or two, and I can see them not making the playoffs.

   18. AROM Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:12 PM (#4321111)
Doing this quickly for a .500 team last year (Diamondbacks) I get 64 WAR, or 114 wins. My guess is some team out there would project (by this method) better than the Dodgers.

True that it would overrate a veteran team (been there) over a team with talented rookie (no WAR in their past). But otherwise may not be a terrible way to look at things, as long as you did it consistently for every team and found your true baseline (which would be way over 81 wins).
   19. TerpNats Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4321112)
I like their chances of making the playoffs, but being a team for the ages? Please.
   20. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:14 PM (#4321114)
Really? I think they are on the list of 8 likely NL playoff teams (Nationals, Braves, Phillies, Cardinals, Brewers, Reds, Giants and Dodgers) I don't see anything that clearly separates any team from that group. Add in a surprise team or two, and I can see them not making the playoffs.


Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

   21. TomH Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4321137)
Gee, put Jabbar, Chamberlain, and Russell on the same team, and you would score 125 pts a game and get every rebound! Oh wait, you can't add WAR or counting stats to assemble a team??
   22. 'Spos Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4321151)
...or will they faceplant as spectacularly as the 2012 Marlins?
   23. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4321160)
I think they are on the list of 8 likely NL playoff teams (Nationals, Braves, Phillies, Cardinals, Brewers, Reds, Giants and Dodgers) I don't see anything that clearly separates any team from that group. Add in a surprise team or two, and I can see them not making the playoffs.

I would have guessed the Diamondbacks over the Phillies, and I think the Dodgers, Nationals and Cardinals are better than the others, but I agree they're all within striking distance of each other.
   24. Esoteric Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4321169)
No. My money's on 81 wins, and a 3rd place finish. And I'll really enjoy it, too.
I don't think they'll be that bad, but I warmly approve of the sentiment.

The Dodgers are now the team that America would most like to see fail. Congrats, Yanks -- you finally made it off the hot seat.
   25. AROM Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4321177)
Gee, put Jabbar, Chamberlain, and Russell on the same team, and you would score 125 pts a game and get every rebound! Oh wait, you can't add WAR or counting stats to assemble a team??


Not the same thing. Sure you can add WAR as long as you restrain the playing time. Adding Kemp, Ethier, and Crawford is fine. Adding Pujols + Fielder + Votto, with no DH and without handling a position change, would be the equivalent of Kareem + Wilt + Bill.
   26. SoSH U at work Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4321181)

The Dodgers are now the team that America would most like to see fail. Congrats, Yanks -- you finally made it off the hot seat.


If one season of spending by this mostly mediocre bunch is all that it takes to push them past the Yankees on any such list, then America really ought to be ashamed of itself.

   27. Walt Davis Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:28 PM (#4321184)
AROD 10
CC 7
TEx 7
Cano 8
Jeter 8
Granderson 7
Pettitte 8
Rivera 5
Gardner 7
Kuroda 5
Nova 3
Pindeda 2
Hughes 2.5

That's almost 80 already and there's still no C and I haven't bothered with the rest of the pen or the bench. Granted, they are going to sorely miss Andruw's 8 WAR.

That some of these career highs were in the last century and that Mo is unlikely to pitch 100 innings in a season again might suggest it's a bit unrealistic. :-)
   28. Gamingboy Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4321186)
The Dodgers are now the team that America would most like to see fail. Congrats, Yanks -- you finally made it off the hot seat.


The Dodgers are about 20 titles short of that title. Not to mention they have Vin Scully and Magic Johnson, as opposed to Michael Kay and the family Steinbrenner.

That said, if the Dodgers win 110 or more games this season, I will speak in Pig-Latin the day after 162.
   29. Walt Davis Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4321188)
Not the same thing. Sure you can add WAR as long as you restrain the playing time. Adding Kemp, Ethier, and Crawford is fine. Adding Pujols + Fielder + Votto, with no DH and without handling a position change, would be the equivalent of Kareem + Wilt + Bill.

Russell would be a power forward in today's game. Wilt led the league in assists one year so we're gonna put him at the point. :-)
   30. cardsfanboy Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4321193)
I would have guessed the Diamondbacks over the Phillies, and I think the Dodgers, Nationals and Cardinals are better than the others, but I agree they're all within striking distance of each other.


I actually flipped flopped between those two. I gave it to the Phillies since they are only a year removed from being very good.

And it's too early for me to trust myself with anything more than surface analysis, which means basically I rank the teams five ways Horrible/poor/average/good/great....and you don't make it to great unless you have almost no holes on your roster or question marks. (right now that is)
   31. Esoteric Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:39 PM (#4321197)
The Dodgers are about 20 titles short of that title. Not to mention they have Vin Scully and Magic Johnson, as opposed to Michael Kay and the family Steinbrenner.
If I may paraphrase Chuck D., "Magic was a hero to most/But he never meant sh*t to me." And I always liked the old man Steinbrenner, sleaze and all. He was very "New York" (ironic for a guy originally from Cleveland, but there you have it) in a way that always appealed to me. Guess it's just the East Coast guy in me.

Actually, though, the Red Sox ownership remains far more unlikeable than any of these guys.
   32. cardsfanboy Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4321198)
That some of these career highs were in the last century and that Mo is unlikely to pitch 100 innings in a season again might suggest it's a bit unrealistic. :-)


Not really what the writer was doing though. He only used war from 2010-2012 in his article.
   33. AROM Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4321199)
The 2012 Yankees lineup, playing as their 2005 selves:

C Martin .282, 10 HR (cheating a bit, this is his 2006 rookie season)
1B Tex .301, 43, 144 (RBI and OPS+)
2B Cano .297, 14 HR
SS/DH Jeter .309, 19 HR gold glove (awarded)
3B/SS/DH A-Rod .321, 48 hr, 173 ops+
3B Chavez .269, 27, 101 rbi, gold glove (earned)
RF Ichiro .303, 15 HR, 12 3B, 33 SB, gold glove (earned)
CF Jones 51 HR, 128 RBI, gold glove (earned)
LF Ibanez .280, 20 HR, 115 OPS+
4th OF Granderson 47g, 114 OPS+
5th OF Swisher 102 OPS+

   34. AROM Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4321204)
And the pitching:

Pettitte 17-9, 177 ERA+, 222 ip
Garcia 14-8, 116+, 228 ip
Derek Lowe 12-15, 114+, 222 ip
Sabathia 15-10, 104+, 196 ip
Colon 21-8, 122+, 222 ip (cheating a bit, Colon was a 2011 Yankee)


Rivera 1.38 ERA, 43 saves
   35. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4321207)
I wanna know what coolstandings.com says before I throw my money down a rathole. They'll tell me when it's over even before it's always been over.
   36. Eddo Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4321216)
If Cain, Posey, and Bumgarner get lost in the Bermuda triangle on their way to spring training the Dodgers would have an outside shot at 110.

I think hypnotism gone wrong, radiation poisoning, and falling into the Springfield Mystery Spot are more likely.
   37. Dale Sams Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4321246)
Actually, though, the Red Sox ownership remains far more unlikeable than any of these guys


I thought the little we see of Fenway and 'Henry' in Moneyball was just amazing.
   38. phredbird Posted: December 10, 2012 at 06:14 PM (#4321278)
could the dodgers win 110 games?

yes!

and i'm not saying that just because i live in L.A. and sometimes get free tickets!!!

well, maybe i am.
   39. bookbook Posted: December 10, 2012 at 07:01 PM (#4321307)
Honestly, it would be awfully difficult to beat a team with Wilt, Jabbar, and Russell. I don't care if they played the same position, I wouldn't want to face all three at the same time.
   40. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 10, 2012 at 07:15 PM (#4321312)
The Dodgers are now the team that America would most like to see fail. Congrats, Yanks -- you finally made it off the hot seat.

I don't really get why spending lots of money to improve your team makes you unlikeable. Most fans wish their teams would do that. The perverse appeal of the A's with their low payroll and crappy stadium escapes me.
   41. PreservedFish Posted: December 10, 2012 at 07:29 PM (#4321315)
The Dodgers have 8 starting pitchers, each easily capable of 15 wins. 15 x 8 = 120. Proved.
   42. Shoebo Posted: December 10, 2012 at 07:34 PM (#4321318)
I actually flipped flopped between those two. I gave it to the Phillies since they are only a year removed from being very good.


While the 102 win Phillies were much better in 2011, the D Backs were pretty good too. 94 Wins, 88 Pythag. And they are a lot younger, so I would bet on more upside swing for D Backs roster....IF Kevin Towers doesn't dump Justin Upton for a no hit all glove shortstop like Elvis Andrus.
   43. Mayor Blomberg Posted: December 10, 2012 at 07:40 PM (#4321320)
of course they could.
   44. Walt Davis Posted: December 10, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4321329)
cfb, if we're gonna start requiring people read the article before snarking, we might as well shut the whole place down. :-)

He's also using a mix of fWAR and bWAR and they have different replacement levels.

But, fair enough, using just bWAR:

AROD 4
CC 7
TEx 4
Cano 8
Jeter 2
Granderson 5
Pettitte 2.5
Rivera 3
Gardner 7
Kuroda 5
Nova 3
Pindeda 2
Hughes 2.5

Still no C and RF or DH but their best seasons at C/RF are 2 and 3.5 WAR. Filling out the bullpen (not necessarily with the current roster, I'm too lazy to check) looks to add about 10-12. Bench (most of the DH I guess) looks to add about 4. All told that comes to about 85 WAR.

Now the Angels:

Trout 11
Bourjos 5
Pujols 7
Kendrick 4
Aybar 4
Callaspo 3
Trumbo 2.5
Morales 2
Ianetta 3
Wells 3.5
rest of bench 3

(this will teach them to get rid of pitchers):

Weaver 7
Wilson 4.5
Hanson 2.5
(who is the rest of their rotation?)
bullpen 8

That's 70 plus 2 rotation slots


   45. J.R. Wolf Posted: December 10, 2012 at 08:50 PM (#4321362)
I'd still rather see the Yankees fail than the Dodgers. But it's close.
   46. Jose Canusee Posted: December 10, 2012 at 09:17 PM (#4321380)
playing as their 2005 selves:

Looked at BB-ref for a team that had more recent success like
RF (6 years ago) 29 HR .308/.361/.501 121 OPS+ 4.5 oWAR
LF (5 years ago) 19 HR .321/.408/.521 153 OPS+ 4.3 WAR
1B (5 years ago) 27 HR .299/.366/.511 125 OPS+ 4 WAR
CF (4 years ago) 215 H 13 triples 97 BB .350/.440/.441 136 OPS+ 7.0 WAR
2B (3 years ago) 103R 30 2B 11 3B 19 HR .287/.337/.464 4.2 WAR

pretty solid nucleus! Gus Bell, Gene Woodling, Gil Hodges, Richie Ashburn, Charlie Neal...1962 Mets.
   47. tshipman Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4321439)
Honestly, it would be awfully difficult to beat a team with Wilt, Jabbar, and Russell. I don't care if they played the same position, I wouldn't want to face all three at the same time.


I think you could make it work. You'd play some kind of weird zone on defense, and make teams shoot over you. You would, of course, punish teams down low on the other end.

Wilt and Kareem running a high-low game would be something devastating to watch.
   48. Walt Davis Posted: December 11, 2012 at 12:16 AM (#4321506)
By the way, for kicks, the Dodgers if everybody repeats their 2012 bWAR (ignoring pitcher hitting):

Ellis 3
AGon 3
Ellis 2
Hanley 1
Cruz 2 (rest on the bench)
Crawford 0
Kemp 2
Ethier 3.5
bench 0

Kershaw 5
Greinke 3
Beckett 1
Harang 1.5
Capuano 2
Billingsley 1.5
bullpen 7 (give or take)

That's 38 WAR or 90 wins (as I understand b-r replacement level). That's about a 5-6 WAR improvement on last year. Obviously things might change as the rotation sorts itself out. Impressively whatever you lose from an AJ Ellis regression you probably make back with Kemp and AGon.
   49. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 11, 2012 at 12:26 AM (#4321508)
War is not a good predictive stat anyway, as your point points out. Of course the article ended up using fWar for most of the pitchers, which ignores the defense that is going to be behind them.
Speaking of fWAR and predictive value, anybody have a study showing whether fWAR is better than ERA+ wrt predicting a pitcher's future season?
   50. J.R. Wolf Posted: December 11, 2012 at 01:03 AM (#4321519)
90 wins I can believe.
   51. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: December 11, 2012 at 06:43 AM (#4321591)
Hell, they've already won over 10,000 games! What more do you want?
   52. Rants Mulliniks Posted: December 11, 2012 at 09:01 AM (#4321607)
You folks need to read the article. From TFA:

I'd pin their over-under in the low 90s.
   53. zenbitz Posted: December 11, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4321954)
The Dodgers are about 20 titles short of that title. Not to mention they have Vin Scully and Magic Johnson, as opposed to Michael Kay and the family Steinbrenner.


You are forgetting Tommy Lasorda.
   54. cardsfanboy Posted: December 11, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4321958)
Speaking of fWAR and predictive value, anybody have a study showing whether fWAR is better than ERA+ wrt predicting a pitcher's future season?


Wouldn't any study that shows fip is better predictor than era be pretty much the same thing?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(84 - 2:28am, Apr 19)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogMitchell: Now Playing First Base for the Yankees
(55 - 1:57am, Apr 19)
Last: Dan

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(901 - 1:38am, Apr 19)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogOMNICHATTER FOR APRIL 18, 2014
(150 - 1:29am, Apr 19)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogNY Daily News: Secret Service Threatened To Shoot Mr. Met
(15 - 1:16am, Apr 19)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOrioles launch D.C. invasion with billboard near Nationals Park
(27 - 12:57am, Apr 19)
Last: Belfry Bob

NewsblogA's, Doolittle agree to 4-year extension
(3 - 12:47am, Apr 19)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogPirates Acquire Ike Davis From Mets
(18 - 12:37am, Apr 19)
Last: Dan

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(332 - 12:20am, Apr 19)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1680 - 11:44pm, Apr 18)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(330 - 11:28pm, Apr 18)
Last: Select Storage Device

NewsblogRB: Carlos Beltran: more of a center fielder than Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb or Duke Snider. So what?
(33 - 11:18pm, Apr 18)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogEscape from Cuba: Yasiel Puig’s Untold Journey to the Dodgers
(24 - 10:41pm, Apr 18)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(143 - 10:25pm, Apr 18)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogFletcher: Foes have slowed Trout in one category so far - steals
(7 - 7:22pm, Apr 18)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.5040 seconds
52 querie(s) executed