BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: 2010 Projected Standings

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

Friday, January 29, 2010

2010 Projected Standings

Cairo there and BP here

I like BP. Yankees third. Orioles with 79 wins.

GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 29, 2010 at 02:33 AM | 51 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: projections

Reader Comments and Retorts

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. The importance of being Ernest Riles Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:12 AM (#3449442)

As much as I want to believe BPro's projected AL West, I don't think that's going to happen.

2. Juan V Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:16 AM (#3449444)

Yeah, I'll take whatever BPro's having.

Projection systems all around seem to like the Reds for this season, what's up with that?

3. Avoid Running At All Times- S. Paige Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:17 AM (#3449445)

SG seems to think BP might have screwed up on the Yanks runs allowed projection:

Digging a little deeper into what these numbers say, PECOTA isn't displaying total runs allowed so I divided the total 789 runs allowed in their standings by the 673 projected earned runs on the team depth chart to reverse engineer it. Right off the bat this looks off, because the ratio is 1.172. The typical ratio is generally 1.08. In fact, this is really, really, really screwed up. Since 1946, there have been 1507 team seasons. I'm using that cutoff to remove the small glove/ deadball era and the WWII era where you had players who didn't belong in the majors to get closer to the modern error rate. In those 1507 seasons, there have been 59 teams that had a RA/ER ratio that high or worse. So they're either predicting the 2010 Yankees to allow unearned runs at a rate that has happened at a rate of 0.03915063 in the MLB team seasons since 1946, or they screwed something up.

They have some smart guys over there, so my guess is it's the latter. As someone who screws up his spreadsheets constantly, I can understand that. I left a comment over there asking for them to elaborate. So don't worry about these yet.

4. Juan V Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:25 AM (#3449447)

Even accounting for that, they have the A's first and the Angels last in the AL West, the Nats finishing over .500....

5. Shock has moved on Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:27 AM (#3449448)

I'm sure he'll weigh in here eventually, but Colin Wyers says on the book blog:

I wouldn’t say NO work has been done on the depth charts. But yeah, there’s still a lot of work to be done when it comes to forecasting playing time and things like that. (Right now most teams don’t even know exactly what their 25-man roster is going to look like on Opening Day, so how should we know?) Certainly this is a work in progress.

But at the same time, some of the complaints I’m hearing about are vastly overblown, like the AL East for instance. The projected differences between the Yankees, Rays and Red Sox are much, much smaller than the uncertainty in the projection - it’s barely accurate to say we’re projecting the Rays to do better than the Yankees at all.

6. rombuu Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:29 AM (#3449449)

Royals with the 2nd best OBP in the AL Central? I'd place a large wager on that not happening...

7. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:32 AM (#3449452)

They (BP) have the Angles giving up more runs than any year since 1996. 120 more runs than last year, and 21 fewer wins. Now I think Lackey was pretty good, but I'm not sure he was that good.

8. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:36 AM (#3449455)

Projection systems all around seem to like the Reds for this season, what's up with that?

They've had about 15 ballyhooed prospects over the last three years - maybe all of them have been disappointing in the majors so far, but the projections haven't given up!

9. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:39 AM (#3449457)

Is there anyplace that has BP's projected standings for the past few years, so we can see how good a track record they have? There sure isn't much about their 2009 projections that makes for much confidence in them.

10. Tuque

Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:48 AM (#3449462)

So no 90-win teams in all of baseball - except for 3 in the AL East?

Actually I suppose that's fairly possible.

11. Rough Carrigan

Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:49 AM (#3449463)

Royals with the 2nd best OBP in the AL Central? I'd place a large wager on that not happening...

Trust the process!

12. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:52 AM (#3449465)

So no 90-win teams in all of baseball - except for 3 in the AL East?

Actually I suppose that's fairly possible.

Possible yes, but highly improbable.

13. McCoy Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:55 AM (#3449467)

Just shoot me now if the Reds and Dusty Baker do actually finish above the Cubs. I don't want to be there when it actually happens.

14. Danny Posted: January 29, 2010 at 05:08 AM (#3449472)

The projected BABIPs for the A's pitchers are ridiculously low, even accounting for their park and defense.

15. Russlan is not Russian Posted: January 29, 2010 at 05:23 AM (#3449478)

I can see the Mets finishing fourth. I can't see the Nats finishing 3rd or finishing six games hehind the Phillies and only three games behind the Braves. They don't have a lot of pitching.

16. edwardflash Posted: January 29, 2010 at 05:35 AM (#3449482)

Thanks for choosing this topic.I have collected a lot of information and got very new ideas regarding this.

17. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: January 29, 2010 at 05:38 AM (#3449483)

16 = spam

18. Shock has moved on Posted: January 29, 2010 at 05:43 AM (#3449486)

I never understood spam like that -- I see it all the time on blogger. But why? There's no link to anything -- what's the point?

19. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 29, 2010 at 05:46 AM (#3449488)

DiamondMind used to keep track of this through 2006. At that point, BP was not doing to bad (based on 4 years of experience)

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/tmpred06.htm

20. SG Posted: January 29, 2010 at 05:57 AM (#3449492)

Projection systems all around seem to like the Reds for this season, what's up with that?

I can't speak for PECOTA, but CAIRO basically thinks the pitching/defense will be the same as last year. The big bump is around 80 more runs scored. It looks like getting full seasons from Jay Bruce and Joey Votto and more Drew Stubbs and less Willy Taveras means good things for the offense, but I still think they're a tad high.

Two other notes. The Cubs and Rangers projections in CAIRO are about two wins low due to some incorrect defensive ratings. They're more like 86 and 81 wins respectively based on a subsequent re-run. That bumps them up to second place in their divisions.

21. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: January 29, 2010 at 05:57 AM (#3449493)

I never understood spam like that -- I see it all the time on blogger. But why? There's no link to anything -- what's the point?

Oh, I wouldn't consider Royal Hablanos nothing!

22. McCoy Posted: January 29, 2010 at 06:37 AM (#3449501)

Two other notes. The Cubs and Rangers projections in CAIRO are about two wins low due to some incorrect defensive ratings. They're more like 86 and 81 wins respectively based on a subsequent re-run. That bumps them up to second place in their divisions.

Slowly pulls knife away from ribcage. . .

23. DJ Endless Grudge Can Use Multiple Slurp Juices Posted: January 29, 2010 at 08:05 AM (#3449515)

So no 90-win teams in all of baseball - except for 3 in the AL East?

It's a very bad sign if your projections are coming up with a lot of 90+ win teams. Yeah, I know they happen, but they more often tend to be 88-win teams with a little bit of good luck than they tend to be 105-win teams with bad luck. The standard deviation for team wins in a 162 game season is something like 6 just from random variation alone, so you should always see projections that are "tighter" in spread than what's observed.

(That was actually one of the big issues with the '09 team projections that Andy points out - the spread was just way too high on those. That's been corrected - we have a tighter spread in projections that's more in line with where it "should" be.) Vegas Watch has consistently placed PECOTA as one of the top forecasts for team wins in years before that.

They (BP) have the Angles giving up more runs than any year since 1996. 120 more runs than last year, and 21 fewer wins. Now I think Lackey was pretty good, but I'm not sure he was that good.

The run totals on the standings page are all systemically high for some reason. This shouldn't affect the win totals much or the ordinal ranking of teams at all. But to forestall the "wow, that offense really turned it around!" or "wow, that pitching staff blew up!" comments... no, those are just RS/RA numbers for a 5 run per game league. Consider this an action item for me.

24. Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Posted: January 29, 2010 at 08:19 AM (#3449517)

Looking at BP's projections more closely, they're pretty much broken. The A's projection is frankly ridiculous, based on crazy-low BAPBIPs. If the point of projection is to give a conservative estimate of a possible picture -- which is what this quote:

It's a very bad sign if your projections are coming up with a lot of 90+ win teams.

is saying -- then if it's spitting out such radical values as Cahill's ERA being south of 4 with a K/BB around 1.2, the system is out of whack. While it's not impossible for that to happen, to have it happening repeatedly with one team results in a projection that is, in essence, the equivalent of projecting a team to win 100 games.

That's not the only team with significant problems, either. It's just the most obvious one.

25. RollingWave Posted: January 29, 2010 at 10:13 AM (#3449529)

They've had about 15 ballyhooed prospects over the last three years - maybe all of them have been disappointing in the majors so far, but the projections haven't given up!

they also don't factor in that Dusty Baker is their manager and will play Willy Tavares for 600 more PAs and blow out half of their under 30 pitcher's arm

26. Something Other Posted: January 29, 2010 at 11:30 AM (#3449532)

BP hates, hates, hates the Mets pitching staff. Actually, projecting them to be better than only the Brewers and the Pirtates makes some sense, but if the staff is handled smartly the Mets' rotation shouldn't be horrible. They have almost no chance of being above average, but with at least five 4/5 guys things shouldn't get out of hand unless they do something cloddish like give Ollie 20 starts while his ERA hovers around 6.00.

27. philevans3154 Posted: January 29, 2010 at 01:14 PM (#3449560)

Royals with the 2nd best OBP in the AL Central? I'd place a large wager on that not happening...

Well, they will have Yuniesky for the whole season.

28. Rally Posted: January 29, 2010 at 01:17 PM (#3449563)

Ollie might actually earn his money, have a 200 strikeout season this year. It would be the third time in his career that he bounces back from a turd sandwich season.

29. Rusty Priske Posted: January 29, 2010 at 01:30 PM (#3449570)

Hey, the Jays won't finish fourth this year!

I agree with that, for what it is worth. I think AA is doing the right things, but it means a whole bunch of losses this year.

30. Spahn Insane Posted: January 29, 2010 at 02:10 PM (#3449585)

Nobody's mentioned what I think is the worst BP pick of the bunch, which is Florida in last. I'll be pretty surprised if they finish lower than third.

The Cubs are kind of a clusterfeck, but there's no way they should project to 77 wins in the central.

31. Spahn Insane Posted: January 29, 2010 at 02:11 PM (#3449586)

more Drew Stubbs and less Willy Taveras

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

32. LargeBill Posted: January 29, 2010 at 02:17 PM (#3449590)

But how do projections take into account removing Eric Wedge's mustache from the equation?

33. Spahn Insane Posted: January 29, 2010 at 02:19 PM (#3449591)

BP has the Cubs allowing about 100 runs more than the Cardinals. I know Dave Duncan's a genius and all, but come on. The Cardinal rotation's Wainwright, Carpenter and a bunch of question marks (which assumes Carpenter's not a question mark himself), and their pen looks mediocre from where I'm sitting.

The Cards should be favored over the Cubs in the Central, but pitching's not the reason for that.

EDIT: Didn't realize how severe Busch's park factor(.919) was last year (or Wrigley's--1.146). Wow--that probably explains most if not all of that RA differential (don't know how many years of park factors the BP projection takes into account). Regardless, I don't see the Cards with an edge on the mound.

34. Rally Posted: January 29, 2010 at 02:39 PM (#3449602)

Nobody's mentioned what I think is the worst BP pick of the bunch, which is Florida in last.

That's bad, but if they were running a casino, the first thing I'd do is bet the over on the Angels.

35. The importance of being Ernest Riles Posted: January 29, 2010 at 02:44 PM (#3449606)

The projected differences between the Yankees, Rays and Red Sox are much, much smaller than the uncertainty in the projection - it’s barely accurate to say we’re projecting the Rays to do better than the Yankees at all.

1. I have nothing but admiration for Colin, even though our time at THT didn't overlap by much if at all.
2. The fact that Colin wrote this tells me that he's going to be honest about the shortcomings of various BPro metrics (and metrics in general).
3. My most generalized criticism of sabermetrics is that analysts are often unclear, intentionally or not, about the shortcomings and error bars in their numbers - especially projections.
4. The presentation of this disclaimer on the blog, and not directly accompanying the projections, is problematic and I hope BPro is even *more* upfront about the error bars associated with projections such as these.

36. Iwakuma Chameleon (jonathan) Posted: January 29, 2010 at 02:48 PM (#3449608)

Another PECOTA West title in the books baby. Flags fly forever, fellas, flags fly forever.

37. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

Posted: January 29, 2010 at 02:48 PM (#3449609)

maybe all of them have been disappointing in the majors so far, but the projections haven't given up!

That's one funny, snarky post, Crispy.

38. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 29, 2010 at 03:22 PM (#3449645)

Wildcard for the Braves?! No. We win or go home. We do not skulk through the back door.

39. and Posted: January 29, 2010 at 03:24 PM (#3449648)

Don't worry, Sam. We won't.

40. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: January 29, 2010 at 03:29 PM (#3449656)

PECOTA thinks that the White Sox will give up 80 more runs in 2010 than they gave up in 2009. I'd be interested to see their logic on this.

41. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: January 29, 2010 at 03:35 PM (#3449664)

PECOTA thinks that the White Sox will give up 80 more runs in 2010 than they gave up in 2009. I'd be interested to see their logic on this.

A lot of that may come from the bullpen, all of whose members were good last year (except Randy Williams). Or less likely, maybe Javier Vazquez will be significantly worse than the Jose Contreras/Bartolo Colon conglomeration was last year.

42. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: January 29, 2010 at 03:38 PM (#3449666)

Or less likely, maybe Javier Vazquez will be significantly worse than the Jose Contreras/Bartolo Colon conglomeration was last year.

Javier Vazquez will be on the Yankees. You mean Freddy Garcia? Although we'll likely see Dan Hudson and Carlos Torres make some starts, too...

It's hard to imagine that the addition of Jake Peavy (who made all of four starts for the Sox in '09) would make the staff worse.

43. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: January 29, 2010 at 03:53 PM (#3449673)

I'm going to dogpile here--BP's projections look awful. But they took the low on the Marlins last year too, so maybe it's a good sign.

CAIRO, except for the 102-win Yankees, looks reasonable.

44. Danny Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:05 PM (#3449685)

Aside from the BABIP issue with the A's pitchers, there seem to be a few other bugs.

Looking at the spreadsheet, there seems to be little correlation between the raw stats and the EQ stats for players on the same team. Looking at the A's, for example:

Player     ERA     RA   EqERA
Devine     2.68   2.82   2.44
Cahill     3.86   4.07   3.89
Anderson   3.77   3.97   4.20 

The same is true of the batting stats. Cust's numbers all go down from raw stats to Eq Stats (which makes no sense given the league/park), while Buck's numbers go up. Maybe this is due to component park factors?

Going back to Cahill and Anderson, they're projected to throw the same number of innings (158), yet Cahill has the better projected VORP (28.4 to 22.9) despite his worse ERA and RA. Is this due to the EqERA problem?

45. Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:32 PM (#3449718)

PECOTA thinks that the White Sox will give up 80 more runs in 2010 than they gave up in 2009. I'd be interested to see their logic on this.

It has the whole league giving up a lot more runs for whatever reason.

46. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:33 PM (#3449720)

It has the whole league giving up a lot more runs for whatever reason.

Inexplicable. Adam Eaton's not in the league anymore!

47. Shredder Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:57 PM (#3449749)

That's bad, but if they were running a casino, the first thing I'd do is bet the over on the Angels.

Is there an easy way to find the PECOTA predicted standings for every year since they've been doing it? I would venture to guess that it underrates the Angels by at least 8-10 wins every single year.

48. Stately, Plump Buck Mulligan Posted: January 29, 2010 at 04:59 PM (#3449756)

PECOTA thinks that the White Sox will give up 80 more runs in 2010 than they gave up in 2009. I'd be interested to see their logic on this.

Over the past six years, PECOTA has underestimated the White Sox win totals by about 8 wins per year (47 total). The number of wins by which the White Sox exceeded the number of wins predicted by PECOTA, by year:

2004: 4
2005: 19
2006: 8
2007: 0 (heckuva job, Silver!)
2008: 11
2009: 5

I don't feel particularly good about the White Sox's chances this year (I love the starting rotation*, but Andruw Jones at DH? what in the?). It's best to think of the predicted 79 wins as a floor, and their analysis of White Sox players as simply setting forth the worst case scenario. (If a player was good last year, they'll regress; if a player was bad last year, it's because he's a bad player.) Of course, maybe they're learning something -- they don't list the Indians as winning 95 games and running away with the AL Central.

*Not a lot of people know this, but the White Sox acquired a guy named Jake Peavy. He's pretty good.

49. Russlan is not Russian Posted: January 29, 2010 at 05:02 PM (#3449758)

Nobody's mentioned what I think is the worst BP pick of the bunch, which is Florida in last. I'll be pretty surprised if they finish lower than third.

I was hinting at that in number 15.

50. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: January 29, 2010 at 05:07 PM (#3449766)

It's best to think of the predicted 79 wins as a floor, and their analysis of White Sox players as simply setting for the worst case scenario.

Their analysis is hidden behind the pay wall, so I can only guess at that. I know that PECOTA has traditionally hated Mark Buehrle and Gavin Floyd, though.

If you're right, that puts the 2010 White Sox somewhere around 85 wins, if they can stay reasonably healthy, which comports with my own gut feeling on this team.

Of course, maybe they're learning something -- they don't list the Indians as winning 95 games and running away with the AL Central.

Heh. PECOTA has always loved the Tribe, hasn't it?

51. DJ Endless Grudge Can Use Multiple Slurp Juices Posted: January 29, 2010 at 05:10 PM (#3449773)

It has the whole league giving up a lot more runs for whatever reason.

It's a bug that's been identified and fixed. I can't tell you yet when the fix will propagate to the main site. There's some other things that we're looking into right now as well.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, January 29, 2010

2010 Projected Standings

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics