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

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Update Clay Davenport 2013 Season Projections

Giants and Tigers projected with the best records in the NL and AL.

Jim Furtado Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:14 AM | 48 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: projections, 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. McCoy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:35 AM (#4397530)
Woulod be pretty incredible if the Marlins lost more games than the Astros.

I'll take the under on Cub wins.
   2. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:43 AM (#4397537)
That's not too far off from how I'd put em. I don't think Houston will win nearly that many, but I don't think they're as bad as people think. I'll take the under on Pittsburgh, NY Mets, Baltimore, and the over on Washington, LA Dodgers, and St. Louis.
   3. Dan Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:46 AM (#4397540)
That Nationals projection seems awfully low.
   4. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:46 AM (#4397541)
Oakland projects better than I thought. Kansas City will/should have a puncher's chance at the postseason. A little surprised the Nats don't project better.
   5. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM (#4397553)
Miguel Cabrera is projected to win two of the three triple crown categories, second behind Bautista in HR. Giancarlo Stanton would have 45 HR, with only 88 runs and 99 RBI.
   6. Joey B. is being stalked by a (Gonfa) loon Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:09 AM (#4397560)
I'll take the over on the Orioles. Yes, they overachieved record-wise, but they're better than most people seem to think.
   7. zenbitz Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4397564)
Curious, because most other projections have SF just above average.
   8. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:23 AM (#4397578)
The top of Clay's AL East projections highlights one of the best things about baseball:

ALE  Won Lost  Runs   RA
TBY   87   75   666   619 
TOR   86   76   768   722 


Virtually identical records arrived at by very different sets of run totals. It'll be fun if it actually plays out like that.
   9. Tom Nawrocki Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:27 AM (#4397581)
Arizona seems way too high.
   10. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:27 AM (#4397582)
Wow, Davenport does not like the Sox pitchers. 3rd most runs against in baseball.
   11. Tom Nawrocki Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4397590)
A couple of notes on the Rockies projections:

1. They're projected to have every single pitcher on the staff finish with an ERA over 4.00. That seems unlikely. Their top four relievers (by IP) all had ERAs under 4.00 last year.

2. Ramon Hernandez is projected to get more starts than Wilin Rosario, but Rosario is, as of this moment, the starting catcher.
   12. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:53 AM (#4397603)

Arizona seems way too high.


You underestimate grit.
   13. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: March 27, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4397617)
Arizona seems way too high.


I am not fan of their off-season, but they do have a very good pitching staff. I can see them as a .500 team.
   14. andrewberg Posted: March 27, 2013 at 12:02 PM (#4397620)
2. Ramon Hernandez is projected to get more starts than Wilin Rosario, but Rosario is, as of this moment, the starting catcher.


Not only that, but didn't Torrealba beat out Hernandez for the backup job?
   15. TerpNats Posted: March 27, 2013 at 12:02 PM (#4397621)
Only 27 games' difference between the best record (Detroit, 93-69) and the worst (Miami, 66-96)? Forgive my skepticism, but I think the gap will be noticeably larger.
   16. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: March 27, 2013 at 12:03 PM (#4397622)
This doesn't take into account the Yankees' inevitable signing of Chone Figgins to put them over the top.
   17. Joey B. is being stalked by a (Gonfa) loon Posted: March 27, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4397625)
Only 27 games' difference between the best record (Detroit, 93-69) and the worst (Miami, 66-96)? Forgive my skepticism, but I think the gap will be noticeably larger.

These "millions of seasons" simulations virtually never show a team winning close to 100 games or under 60, because by nature they tend to skew to the average.
   18. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: March 27, 2013 at 12:08 PM (#4397627)
These "millions of seasons" simulations virtually never show a team winning close to 100 games or under 60, because by nature they tend to skew to the average.


Nobody's batting average is over .313.
   19. Spahn Insane Posted: March 27, 2013 at 12:15 PM (#4397635)
Clay's projection for Cub wins matches my completely unscientific bulls-eye prediction (made shortly after the Jackson signing) exactly, so I'll stick with it.
   20. Tom Nawrocki Posted: March 27, 2013 at 12:31 PM (#4397646)
Not only that, but didn't Torrealba beat out Hernandez for the backup job?


Yes, they're apparently trying to trade Hernandez. Don't the Yankees need a catcher?
   21. Der-K: Hipster doofus Posted: March 27, 2013 at 12:36 PM (#4397651)
deleted for piling on
   22. Dan Lee prefers good shortstops to great paintings Posted: March 27, 2013 at 12:47 PM (#4397660)
The Cleveland projection seems about right to me. They're a .500ish team that could legitimately contend if they stay healthy and get bounceback seasons from Hill, Kazmir, Jimenez, and Stubbs, guys like Ryan Raburn and Mike Aviles produce, and if Bauer pitches well.

Also, I've never been on board the Lonnie Chisenhall train, so Davenport's .250/.301/.397 line seems spot on.

'Course, I'm always bearish on the Tribe. When Lucy yanks the football away a few dozen times, it's difficult to expect anything else the next time you take a run at it.
   23. KT's Pot Arb Posted: March 27, 2013 at 12:57 PM (#4397672)
I am not fan of their off-season, but they do have a very good pitching staff. I can see them as a .500 team.


The projection has the starting staff ERA > 4.3, only 3 above average position players, and seems a bit high on games played for already injured players.

How that becomes 81-81 can only mean that some grit must have gotten into Clays computer.
   24. depletion Posted: March 27, 2013 at 12:59 PM (#4397674)
Only 27 games' difference between the best record (Detroit, 93-69) and the worst (Miami, 66-96)? Forgive my skepticism, but I think the gap will be noticeably larger.

As Joey and Hang Down state, events usually dicate that a couple teams win a bunch more, or lose a bunch more, than the long term averages indicate. I wonder if one applied maximum entropy techniques, in which the estimator converges on a result with a distribution close to the expected distribution, that we would see a more realisitic set of standings? There may be a simpler way of getting a more realistic distribution by multiplying the winning percentages by a curve that pulls down the poorer teams and boosts the better teams.

I see the Mets and Yanks being a bit worse and the O's a bit better.
   25. KT's Pot Arb Posted: March 27, 2013 at 01:01 PM (#4397676)
He does have AL something like 12 games over .500
   26. Barnaby Jones Posted: March 27, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4397693)
Craig Kimbrel is listed as the Braves' 5th starter. I predict that will not be prescient.
   27. Dan Lee prefers good shortstops to great paintings Posted: March 27, 2013 at 01:30 PM (#4397706)
Yeah, Vinnie Pestano is listed as Cleveland's fifth starter. I think Clay does that when there's not a pitcher who's likely to be the fifth starter for the entire year.
   28. cardsfanboy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4397713)
If the Cardinals only score 706 runs, then these projections are correct, I have a funny feeling though that the Cardinals will be closer to 800 runs than 700. These projections have the Cardinals 6th in runs scored in the NL.... I just don't see that.
   29. Spectral Posted: March 27, 2013 at 01:43 PM (#4397715)
I understand that projections tend towards the mean, but 86 wins sure looks awfully low for the Nats.
   30. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: March 27, 2013 at 01:51 PM (#4397722)
That's not too far off from how I'd put em. I don't think Houston will win nearly that many, but I don't think they're as bad as people think. I'll take the under on Pittsburgh, NY Mets, Baltimore, and the over on Washington, LA Dodgers, and St. Louis.

For some reason I have a feeling this will be a transitional year for the Cards. They're depending on a bunch of guys -- Westbrook, Garcia, Freese, Beltran, Kozma, Motte, Descalso -- who could be injured or terrible. They also don't have a superstar anymore, unless you believe Yadier Molina is a perennial MVP contender. Yes they have better replacements in the minors than just about anyone else, but I can see them digging themselves into a hole early and then using the kids to make a charge at the end.
   31. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 27, 2013 at 01:58 PM (#4397727)
i am not buying the reds finishing second in the league in runs and increasing their runs scored total by 83 from last year

a healthy votto (assuming he's back to being his wrecking crew self), choo instead of stubbs and frazier over rolen doesn't make that type of leap. i can see the reds being a bit better even with ludwick taking a step back and Phillips getting older. but not 83 runs better.

and if votto isn't healthy all bets are off. and if someone is going to mention his spring training stats i will toss back to them ludwick slugging .245
   32. cardsfanboy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 02:18 PM (#4397747)
For some reason I have a feeling this will be a transitional year for the Cards. They're depending on a bunch of guys -- Westbrook, Garcia, Freese, Beltran, Kozma, Motte, Descalso -- who could be injured or terrible.


Kozma, Motte, Descalso don't matter. If they are terrible it doesn't really affect anything in comparison to the team of last year. I don't see any way that Freese can be terrible, he could be injured of course, but that isn't the same thing. As far as Garcia and Westbrook.... that is possible, but it's also equally possible that they put up a 120 era+... most people see them both as 100 era+ pitchers, and that is what most people would be projecting for them.

The Cardinals real issue is going to be if their bullpen is going to be the (one of the)best in baseball or just another bullpen or a complete failure. That is really where their season is resting, they'll score a lot of runs, even if they lose players to injury, they have enough depth and extra players that it isn't really a concern. The positions that they don't have depth(short/second), are the positions that they don't expect any performance anyway.
   33. salvomania Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:25 PM (#4397928)
I don't know, those Cardinal projections look about right: Holliday, Beltran, Molina, Freese, Craig, Jay, and Carpenter all seem due for dramatic downturns. Who's going to pick up the slack? Pete Kozma and Daniel Descalso?
   34. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:49 PM (#4397940)
These "millions of seasons" simulations virtually never show a team winning close to 100 games or under 60, because by nature they tend to skew to the average.

Well, yeah. If you average 10,000 seasons, the result should be pretty close to the projections it is based on.

If you actually simulated and averaged 1 million seasons, I'd be shocked if any player's BA varied more than a point or two off the projections used to run the sim.
   35. cardsfanboy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:56 PM (#4397946)
I don't know, those Cardinal projections look about right: Holliday, Beltran, Molina, Freese, Craig, Jay, and Carpenter all seem due for dramatic downturns. Who's going to pick up the slack? Pete Kozma and Daniel Descalso?


Jay due for a downturn? Jay is basically Adam Dunn with his consistency. It's only a matter of getting him enough playing time. Their numbers reflect that. Freese should project to be a 115-120 ops+ player, their numbers reflect roughly a 110 ops+ player. They don't even have him hitting his career averages...not sure I'm buying that he's all the sudden going to do worse than his career averages. Freese has always been underrated by these systems.

I'm fine with their numbers for Beltran and Holliday. Molina is probably a little too conservative, but I can accept that.

The slack is going to be picked up by a better bench than last year. Jay played in 117 games last year, his slacked was picked up by Shane Robinson and his 82 ops+ and Adron Chambers 65... Taveras will ended up filling the void for any outfielder put on the dl, and by this methodolgy they have him as an .800 ops hitter. Same with Beltran and Holliday, but with Carpenter and Adams picking up the slack.

You are looking at an offense that is going to probably be
C Molina, 110-120 ops+.
1b Craig 120-130 ops+
2b Carpenter 90-100 ops+(at least)
SS Crap(I mean Kozma) 70 ops+
3b Freese 120 ops+

Filling in for injuries Adams 100 ops+, Descalso(late inning defensive replacement, and day to day starter for day to day injuries) 75 ops+.

Outfield
Beltran 120 ops+
Jay 113 ops+
Holliday 130 ops+

With Taveras filling in for any sustained injuries at about 105-110 ops+.

I don't see this as a tail off on offense from last year, I see the same issues with injuries that we had to worry about last year, but with a better supporting cast to cover those injuries. Cardinals will score over 750 runs, it's whether they break 800 that might make or break this team(if the starting pitching really falters)
   36. PreservedFish Posted: March 27, 2013 at 06:06 PM (#4397953)
Descalso is going to be big this year! I know it!
   37. cardsfanboy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 06:34 PM (#4397961)
Descalso is going to be big this year! I know it!


If Descalso sees 300 at bats this year, I think the team might be in a little trouble(not really, but he's a backup second baseman, third baseman, shortstop and late inning defensive substitute, his at bats are going to be a lot lower leverage than pretty much anyone else on the opening day roster)

I've already stated in a previous thread, that my real concern with the Cardinals is going to be their rotation, the offense is going to be there, and their bullpen should be among the best in baseball, it's the crapshoot of their rotation that is going to be their story of the year. If Wainwright returns to ace form, Garcia and Westbrook both hit 110 era+, Lynn repeats last year and Miller/Kelly equal out to a 100 era+ pitcher, then we are exceptional, it's just whether we'll get enough innings from those guys to not also be relying on Martinez and Wacha for a significant number of innings. (hopefully those first six combine for 900+ ip as starters)
   38. bibigon Posted: March 27, 2013 at 06:51 PM (#4397970)
If you actually simulated and averaged 1 million seasons, I'd be shocked if any player's BA varied more than a point or two off the projections used to run the sim.

Well that's a weird thing to say. Many many players would have had skillset changes greater or less than Davenport (or anyone else) projects.

You could have run the 2010 season as many times as you want, and Jose Bautista would have beat every HR projection for him every time.
   39. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 07:01 PM (#4397977)

Well that's a weird thing to say. Many many players would have had skillset changes greater or less than Davenport (or anyone else) projects.

You could have run the 2010 season as many times as you want, and Jose Bautista would have beat every HR projection for him every time.


I'm talking about in the simulation, not real life. The average of 1 million simulations will come very, very close to the inputted projections. Otherwise, the simulation engine is unstable.
   40. Walt Davis Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:22 PM (#4398072)
The average of 1 million simulations will come very, very close to the inputted projections. Otherwise, the simulation engine is unstable.

Or you've added a wrinkle to the simulation that's not in the projections.

It would be fun to add in some of those and see what happens. If a prospect has a rough first month he goes down for two months but if he has a hot first month, he's in the lineup for the next 3 months even if he's now tanking. Put in protection or clutch or team momentum. See what it does to the variation in results.
   41. greenback likes millwall Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:31 PM (#4398076)
Jay due for a downturn? ... Freese has always been underrated by these systems.

Jay (.348) and Freese (.359) are both beneficiaries of very fat BABIPs. For hitters this is a skill, but it still has to be regressed.
   42. cardsfanboy Posted: March 28, 2013 at 04:14 PM (#4398660)
Jay (.348) and Freese (.359) are both beneficiaries of very fat BABIPs. For hitters this is a skill, but it still has to be regressed.


I don't see why. Jay will post a 112 ops+ or better this year. Freese will post a 120 ops+ or better this year(assuming he gets 400 pa) I think these are as much of a guarantee as you will find in baseball.
   43. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 04:58 PM (#4398684)
I don't see why. Jay will post a 112 ops+ or better this year. Freese will post a 120 ops+ or better this year(assuming he gets 400 pa) I think these are as much of a guarantee as you will find in baseball.

That's way too much confidence for guys with 1200 PAs. And you're putting their minimums at their career averages.

Jay has a 113 career OPS+, but is "guaranteed" to be >112, and Freese is at 123 career OPS+, but is "guaranteed" to be over 120?!?! That's crazy.
   44. AROM Posted: March 28, 2013 at 05:01 PM (#4398687)
I don't see why. Jay will post a 112 ops+ or better this year. Freese will post a 120 ops+ or better this year(assuming he gets 400 pa) I think these are as much of a guarantee as you will find in baseball.


In the case of The Federalist, he's been up 3 years and has OPS of 113-114-113. So that should be a guarantee. But it's just as much a guarantee that he won't top 114.
   45. zenbitz Posted: March 29, 2013 at 11:16 AM (#4399110)
I think these are as much of a guarantee as you will find in baseball.


So no guarantee at all then
   46. Davo Dozier (Mastroianni) Posted: March 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4399127)
Jay (.348) and Freese (.359) are both beneficiaries of very fat BABIPs. For hitters this is a skill, but it still has to be regressed.

"He doesn't hit line drives; that's chain lightning that leaves his bat!"
   47. Jesse Barfield's Right Arm Posted: March 29, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4399141)
Hamels at a 3.67 ERA? After 3.06, 2.79, and 3.05 the last three years?

Does anyone know how defense is calculated into this? Is this a reflection of how bad a defensive player Michael Young is? I don't think it's a coincidence Cole had his two best seasons ('08 and '11) with Pedro Feliz and Placido Polanco manning the hot corner.

Edit: Wow, 4 question marks. Sorry, that's a bit obnoxious looking.
   48. Danny Posted: March 29, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4399153)
Chris Carter: .229/.317/.426, 113 games in LF...and a 2.3 WARP.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Ray (RDP)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(268 - 11:43am, Apr 17)
Last: CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck

NewsblogExposition:The Jonah Keri Mega Q&A
(10 - 11:40am, Apr 17)
Last: CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck

NewsblogGleeman: Mets minor league team is hosting “Seinfeld night”
(79 - 11:40am, Apr 17)
Last: Der-K: Hipster doofus

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1439 - 11:38am, Apr 17)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for April 17, 2014
(8 - 11:38am, Apr 17)
Last: Good cripple hitter

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(198 - 11:37am, Apr 17)
Last: The Good Face

NewsblogHartlaub: For the love of the snot rocket: Why Bumgarner’s Farmer John is good for baseball
(4 - 11:30am, Apr 17)
Last: just plain joe

NewsblogPaine: Advanced Stats Love Jackie Robinson
(13 - 11:26am, Apr 17)
Last: SoCalDemon

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-17-2014
(8 - 11:23am, Apr 17)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(879 - 11:09am, Apr 17)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogChris Resop - The Most Interesting Reliever in the World
(2 - 10:57am, Apr 17)
Last: salvomania

NewsblogNightengale: Pujols nears 500 home runs...and no one seems to care
(72 - 10:01am, Apr 17)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(62 - 9:44am, Apr 17)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogVerducci: Overuse of young pitchers fueling MLB's Tommy John surgery problem
(44 - 9:39am, Apr 17)
Last: Arbitol Dijaler

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(54 - 9:03am, Apr 17)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.4580 seconds
52 querie(s) executed