TLAK Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 After a winter of trades and signings how do teams stack up 'on paper'? I used the rosters from the MLB Rosters thread and added each batter's 2005 runs scored and each pitcher's runs allowed. I normalized each team using MLB averages for team AB and IP and added them up to estimate the number of runs scored and runs allowed by the current members of the roster. Then I applied the venerated Bill James Pythagorean theory to the results to come up with the chart below. It says look for a dogfight in the AL Central, the Brewers will surprise, the Cardinals will disappoint and nobody will win in the NL West. Wild cards go the A's and Astros. AL Central Team Runs Runs Allow PagPct W L GB White Sox 755 665 .557 90 72 .. Indians 792 713 .548 88 74 2 Twins 704 645 .540 87 75 3 Tigers 731 765 .479 77 85 13 Royals 688 874 .392 63 99 27 AL East Team Runs Runs Allow PagPct W L GB Yankees 893 742 .584 94 68 .. Red Sox 797 713 .551 89 73 5 Blue Jays 745 661 .555 89 73 5 Orioles 716 770 .467 75 87 19 Devil Rays 716 955 .371 60 102 34 AL West Team Runs Runs Allow PagPct W L GB Angels 745 632 .574 93 69 .. A's 776 682 .559 90 72 3 Rangers 819 781 .522 84 78 9 Mariners 731 727 .503 81 81 12 NL Central Team Runs Runs Allow PagPct W L GB Brewers 752 641 .572 92 70 .. Astros 721 634 .559 90 72 2 Cubs 739 692 .530 85 77 7 Cardinals 746 715 .520 84 78 8 Reds 806 841 .480 77 85 15 Pirates 701 769 .458 74 88 18 NL East Team Runs Runs Allow PagPct W L GB Braves 786 694 .556 90 72 .. Phillies 791 728 .538 87 75 3 Mets 728 715 .508 82 80 8 Marlins 746 738 .505 81 81 9 Nationals 691 737 .471 76 86 14 NL West Team Runs Runs Allow PagPct W L GB Dodgers 757 771 .492 79 83 .. Rockies 773 855 .454 73 89 6 Padres 711 794 .450 72 90 7 Giants 664 770 .433 70 92 9 Diamondbacks 710 820 .434 70 92 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 (edited) This is nice for speculation, but I don't put a lot of weight on statistical speculation. Baseball has so many intanigbles that I think it's very tough to try to predict anything. Interesting chart, though - surprised to see the Cardinals speculated to finish 4th. I certainly don't see the Brew Crew as being better than the Sox. 92 wins is VERY optimistic for Milwaukee. They'll be pretty damn good, but 92 wins? I'd be stunned. Edited February 19, 2006 by The Critic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Actually, those are all of the division winners that I picked with the exception of the Angels in the West. Nice job putting this together Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Man, sometimes there's just too much statistical analysis in baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLAK Posted February 19, 2006 Author Share Posted February 19, 2006 QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 10:34 AM) This is nice for speculation, but I don't put a lot of weight on statistical speculation. Baseball has so many intanigbles that I think it's very tough to try to predict anything. Interesting chart, though - surprised to see the Cardinals speculated to finish 4th. I certainly don't see the Brew Crew as being better than the Sox. 92 wins is VERY optimistic for Milwaukee. They'll be pretty damn good, but 92 wins? I'd be stunned. Agreed. Everyday in baseball is a new day and these are past results pasted on to the future. It did kill a couple hours on a very, very cold morning though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Statistics are the devil's work! Seriously, though, how did you treat young players? Does a pitcher who was only up for a month at the end only count for those end-of-season runs? It will be pretty damn funny if the Nationals finish below the Marlins. And I wouldn't totally discount that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 10:38 AM) Man, sometimes there's just too much statistical analysis in baseball. ^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilmot825 Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 I actually agree with the Brewers finishing 1st Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 12:24 PM) Especailly when it has the Marlins finishing .500......... So you're saying a team with an $18M payroll can't finish at .500? That's just asinine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlackSox8 Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 (edited) every team in the NL west finishes under .500......LMAO Edited February 19, 2006 by TheBlackSox8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 11:51 AM) Seriously, though, how did you treat young players? Does a pitcher who was only up for a month at the end only count for those end-of-season runs? ^^^ To me, this, and players who were injured last year(Jim Thome is screaming bloody murder) are the majors downsides to this. If you can put in some projected numbers for some of these players, then I think you're on to something. I don't view the Sox as 9 games worse when KW did nothing but improve the overall team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daa84 Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 QUOTE(wilmot825 @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 12:31 PM) I actually agree with the Brewers finishing 1st not me, not quite yet...i still need to see hardy weeks and fielder longer in the bigs, but if they develop this year and all have strong years and their pitching stays healthy they have as good a shot as anyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Interesting reads. I think BP just did their's with PECOTA's projected WARPS. Pythag is flawed in general, but it's the best correlation we have, so I like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 19, 2006 -> 10:38 AM) Actually, those are all of the division winners that I picked with the exception of the Angels in the West. Nice job putting this together That's a fact which puts this analysis' credibility in it's proper perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dam8610 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) The best and worst teams always defy these predictions by a great deal. Factors such as a good or poor bullpen, 1 run games record, etc. can throw these WAY off. Last year, the White Sox were something like +11 or +12 on their predicted Pythagorean Record (meaning they got 11 or 12 more wins more than that formula predicted). If they were to do that again this year, they'd win over 100 games, but that would mean they'd have to get another great year from the pen and win about 2/3 of their 1 run games again. Edited February 20, 2006 by Dam8610 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 So under this model no teams in baseball will win more than 94 games? You might as well throw it in the trash then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 TLAK, good analysis, as always. The one thing that makes a huge difference is strength of schedule. If you apply the SoS to your predictions some teams will have about a +/-10 game difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.