An Attempt to Quantify the Division, beta edition
by Matthew on Dec 16, 2009 8:25 PM PST
in Seattle Mariners Stats
Email
PrintIt's great to know how the Mariners' projected team is stacking up, but ultimately we do not play in a vacuum but in a four-team division. In order to establish some relativity to our discussions, I went about compiling a version of the sheet that Jeff posted below for the other three teams.
First the caveats. This is a gross estimation. I am nowhere near as knowledgeable about those teams as I am about the Mariners and thus projecting depth charts was a lot tougher. That being said, most of the fringey decisions (is Macier Izturis or Brandon Wood the starter at 3B for the Angels?) do not represent much variance in terms of projected production. When I wasn't sure, I defaulted to the player with the better projection.
As for the following, they are a combination of CHONE and me glancing at past history in WAR, tRA, UZR and the like in order to determine what I thought felt about right. These are not precise, but I am pretty comfortable thinking that I overshot as much as I undershot. I am also including my own version for the Mariners, which I did independently of Jeff's.
If you have any corrections to offer, please do so in the comments. If you do it politely, you'll be listened to.
THE ANGELS
| POS | Player | WAR | POS | Player | WAR | |
| C | Napoli | 3.5 | SP | Santana | 2.5 | |
| 1B | Morales | 3 | SP | Weaver | 3.5 | |
| 2B | Kendrick | 2.5 | SP | Saunders | 2 | |
| 3B | Izturis | 2 | SP | Kazmir | 2.5 | |
| SS | Aybar | 2.5 | SP | Palmer | 1 | |
| LF | Rivera | 2 | CL | Fuentes | 0.5 | |
| CF | Hunter | 3.25 | Pen | Assorted | 1.5 | |
| RF | Abreu | 2 | TOTAL | - | 13.5 | |
| DH | Matsui | 2 | ||||
| Bench | Assorted | 1 | ||||
| TOTAL | - | 23.75 |
THE ATHLETICS
| POS | Player | WAR | POS | Player | WAR | |
| C | Suzuki | 3 | SP | Braden | 2.25 | |
| 1B | Barton | 1 | SP | Anderson | 3.5 | |
| 2B | Ellis | 2 | SP | Gonzalez | 1.5 | |
| 3B | Chavez | 1 | SP | Mazzaro | 1 | |
| SS | Pennington | 1 | SP | Outman | 1.25 | |
| LF | Buck | 1 | CL | Bailey | 1 | |
| CF | Davis | 2 | Pen | Assorted | 3 | |
| RF | Sweeney | 2.5 | TOTAL | - | 13.5 | |
| DH | Fox | 1 | ||||
| Bench | Assorted | 0.5 | ||||
| TOTAL | - | 15 |
THE MARINERS
| POS | Player | WAR | POS | Player | WAR | |
| C | Johnson | 0.5 | SP | Felix | 5 | |
| 1B | Hannahan | 1 | SP | Lee | 5.5 | |
| 2B | Lopez | 2 | SP | RRS | 2 | |
| 3B | Figgins | 3 | SP | Snell | 1 | |
| SS | Wilson | 2 | SP | Morrow | 1 | |
| LF | Saunders | 1.5 | CL | Aardsma | 1 | |
| CF | Gutierrez | 4 | Pen | Assorted | 1 | |
| RF | Ichiro! | 4 | TOTAL | - | 16.5 | |
| DH | Carp | 1 | ||||
| Bench | Assorted | 1 | ||||
| TOTAL | - | 20 |
THE RANGERS
| POS | Player | WAR | POS | Player | WAR | |
| C | Teagarden | 0.5 | SP | Harden | 3 | |
| 1B | Davis | 0 | SP | Feldman | 2.5 | |
| 2B | Kinsler | 4 | SP | Feliz/Holland | 3.5 | |
| 3B | Young | 3 | SP | Hunter | 1.5 | |
| SS | Andrus | 3 | SP | McCarthy | 1 | |
| LF | Murphy | 1.5 | CL | Francisco | 1 | |
| CF | Hamilton | 3 | Pen | Assorted | 2 | |
| RF | Cruz | 3.5 | TOTAL | - | 14.5 | |
| DH | Borbon | 1 | ||||
| Bench | Assorted | 1 | ||||
| TOTAL | - | 20.5 |
THE STANDINGS
| hWAR | pWAR | Proj. Wins | |
| ANAHEIM | 23.75 | 13.5 | 85.25 |
| SEATTLE | 20 | 16.5 | 84.5 |
| TEXAS | 20.5 | 14.5 | 83 |
| OAKLAND | 15 | 13.5 | 76.5 |
Some notes:
-The Athletics project to spread a lot of innings around 7-8 starters, hence the higher WAR in their assorted pen.
-I combined Feliz and Holland into one slot since I figure they won't both be in the rotation at the same time.
Obviously, the offseason is nowhere near complete and teams are still filling holes. That is why the WAR totals here are lower than you'd expect. The Angels are 9 wins below their 2009 total, the A's 8 wins, the Mariners 1 win and the Rangers 5 wins. It's unlikely that all four teams (though not impossible since all four were above average in 2009) take a step backward in 2010. Still, hopefully this can provide a starting point for us to figure out a better estimate for the division as the winter progresses.
110 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Okay
Ichiro: Projection systems don’t like Ichiro. Matthew used projections.
Guti: Was 6 WAR last year and, while he should not be expected to hold down that level of defense, he is going into his age 27 season which gives him the most optimistic wOBA projections he will ever have at a premium position.
...and now I'm here
Figgins seems a little low to me but it's hard to quibble about individual projections when the overall picture seems right
by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 16, 2009 8:46 PM PST up reply actions
I'd say the same thing
Depending on how much playing time you project for full-timers, he would get about 2.5 wins just for playing third base. His baserunning is easily worth a half a win, so you’d have to assume he’s just average offensively and defensively to come out at 3 WAR.
Minor point, and I understand the reasoning for not including baserunning. It’s nice to get a closer look at how we stack up.
by nathaniel dawson on Dec 16, 2009 10:21 PM PST up reply actions
You shouldn't assume he'll play ~150 games
You have to factor in injury risk also.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 16, 2009 10:55 PM PST up reply actions
Did you notice what I did there?
I included the phrase “Depending on how much playing time you project for full-timers”.
by nathaniel dawson on Dec 16, 2009 11:06 PM PST up reply actions
That doesn't excuse this part of your sentence
so you’d have to assume he’s just average offensively and defensively to come out at 3 WAR.
No, you are assuming that Matthew is projecting him to 150+ games, which is not the case.
I do appreciate the snark though.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 16, 2009 11:25 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not assuming anything about how many games he's projecting
which is why I included the phrase “Depending on how much playing time you project for full-timers”.
Got it?
by nathaniel dawson on Dec 17, 2009 12:24 AM PST up reply actions
Wow.
Say it with me: Washington Capitals. Capitals.
Preserved In All His Greatness - R.I.P. The Reignman 1989 to 1997
Hey - did ya hear?
That’s what Rob Johnson said when he heard the M’s landed Lee!
SHOW FiFi THE MONEY!!!!
by PositivePaul on Dec 17, 2009 2:02 PM PST up reply actions
Gutierrez has averaged 4.5 WAR the last 2 seasons (proj to full playing time)
knock him down to 4 for defensive regression. It basically assume a +5 hitter and a +10 fielder.
Ichiro I was just overly pessimistic on. He should be 4 WAR.
Also, these don’t really include baserunning, so Ichiro, Guti and Figgins might net us another WAR that route.
Ok, that makes sense.
By the way is there ever going to be a tRA projection system based on multiple years with regressed components?
So it's in the long-term plans or is it just not even on your radar?
tRA is the coolest thing to happen to pitcher evaluation since the first DIPS, and it seems like a projection system would be the next logical step. I find it hard to project tRA as I’m not familiar with how the components regress, etc… Just think it would be cool.
I work more than full time
plus have about 4 to 5 writing commitments at any one time during the calendar year, plus upkeep on StatCorner. Plus trying to have a life.
I’m not pity-diving, just trying to give you an idea that I honestly don’t know if it’ll ever come.
I tackle things when my interest and availability converge. I imagine something will come eventually, but I just don’t know. Among things I want to do aside from that include overhauling tRA (partly done already), developing better park effects for minor leagues, developing a PrOPS version of wOBA, investigating catcher framing from a pitch f/x view and about five others.
Just use tRA* for projections. That’s basically why it exists.
Alright, just cool to know the state of it.
I love tRA* but I know it’s just a year-to-year thing and since we have multiple years of information, using those instead of regressing to a league-average mean would be cool…
But some of the other stuff you’re working on sounds more interesting, so keep up the good work. I love your sabermetric work and writing as well, you’re truly in the league of great sabermatricians moving the ball forward.
tRA* is regressed tRA, which is already half the work of a projection
Just take a 5-4-3 weighted by batters faced average of tRA* to get a projection. I would also add some form of aging.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 16, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions
Don't get too excited.
Seriously, these are all in an indefinite holding pattern.
It sounds like this needs to be you full time job.
Now, how to pay you what you make in your full time job…
by Sinking Away on Dec 16, 2009 9:32 PM PST up reply actions
Whatever
you and Graham’s work have given so much to us already that the mere mention of your next idea is plenty to get excited about, in all honesty
by seattlebruin on Dec 17, 2009 1:34 AM PST up reply actions
Kermit got excited because "Catcher framing" means something very
different to him than it does to you.
by Sec 108 on Dec 17, 2009 7:27 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Matthew is not an AI that requires no rest and doesn't have a life outside of LL, and StatCorner, and Fangraphs and working...
Holy crap how does he do it? Or is he a robot…
You got slurved!
Furthermore
if Franklin had received full playing time (I’m comfortable extending the numbers because he wasn’t missing time with injury), his 5/4/3 average for 2007-9 is 4.5 WAR. He’s been good for awhile.
Seems fair
We’re lucky to have so much flexibility this offseason compared to Texas and Anaheim who are both facing payroll restrictions. I think we are going to improve more than they are with the moves that are still to come.
So does anyone have any idea how much financial flexibility the other clubs have?
We could take all the $ left that the teams have for FA, divide it by 4.5, and add it to the current total and have a better understanding of where all teams stand. Of course, this doesn’t account for trades happening instead of FA signings, etc, but would be pretty cool.
If the Rangers purchase goes through
Then they have ~$5mil left. The Angels probably have ~$10mil after losing Lackey and Figgins. Oakland….no idea.
by ManifestDestiny on Dec 16, 2009 8:56 PM PST up reply actions
Texas doesn't really have any left due to their ownership issues
Anaheim has like not very much since the Matui signing, maybe 3m, unless they decide to increase payroll.
So if the Angels do somehow manage to get Lowe
That’s an increase in 3 wins, from 1 in Palmer to 4 in Lowe.
Although if they give up Rivera and have to use Gary Matthews Jr in the OF consistently, then it’s basically a wash
by ManifestDestiny on Dec 16, 2009 8:52 PM PST reply actions
Derek Lowe is not likely a 4 WAR pitcher in the AL for 2010
3 is a much better estimate.
We come out close to 84 wins even with Hanners starting at 1st and Carp DHing.
That’s freaking amazing.
Offseason with GMZ is so fun.
You got slurved!
I assume in the next edition you'll at least make an effort to include Rob Johnson's rapport with pitchers (2.5-3 WAR boost?)
Other than that, nice job.
My Mariners blog - SodoMojo, Twitter Feed, Fuck the fucking Angels!
No Griffin really buys into the idea of team chemistry factoring into a player's WAR
We usually add 0.2 WAR for every smile, laugh, or ticklefight induced by the player
by .Taylor on Dec 17, 2009 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
Well now I have the image you two jumping up and down on a bed having a pillow fight.
While Vegas style slot machine noises ring out as the WAR racks up. I hate my brain.
by Kermit. on Dec 17, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
ugh when will you mariners fans learn
remember the LAST time you got some “big postseason” pitcher? this is just Jeff Weaver part two!!! HAHAHAHAHA suckers
by .Taylor on Dec 16, 2009 9:39 PM PST reply actions
So you're saying the Mariners are definitely going to win the World Series in 2010.
Got it.
angels fan in seattle
And plus no balls would ever get past him on account of he's so fat and unsightly
by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 16, 2009 11:10 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
You always put the fat, ugly kid behind the plate.
His mass blocks more balls and his ugliness is hid by the mask for half the game.
If we pay him like 100M or so it only seems fair he should have to be catcher
Wak to Snell and Morrow: “Look, you have to throw strikes. Throw stuff in the dirt or way off the plate and he’s probably going to miss it.” They’ll learn.
The A's project to be pretty bad
But when I look at their team, most of those players look like they have a fair amount of upside.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 16, 2009 10:56 PM PST reply actions
Unfortunately the same can be said with Texas.
...and now I'm here
It sounds stupid but Oakland has a bad but interesting team
Texas is pretty close to being good. Its kinda scary to have 3 teams who all project to be 80-85 wins.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 17, 2009 1:34 AM PST up reply actions
Thanks for putting this up Matthew.
I like how close all four teams are to each other. This should make for an interesting season.
This is amazing. Thanks for the work.
Mathew, I’m not sure that you care, but when I view this in Chrome the formating is all kinds of messed up.
Racer X. You have to love those amarillo hops.
p.s. fuck you angels
The Angels are left in an interesting position...
in that they don’t have any obvious upgrades to make now that the top rung of starters have been taken off the market. The Mariner’s on the other hand have obvious replacements at first base, catcher, and DH. Knowing that we’re this close just makes that feel good fest that was the last game of the season feel that much more special, it really is something else to feel this much optimism and pride about the Mariner’s again.
Awesome write up Matt, thanks.
I could be way off here
but it seems like you’re being more conservative with your Mariner projections than with the others, and it still comes out looking like a three horse race.
One thing I notice right away is that the only positions where the Angels can significantly improve are closer and 5th starter, and they shouldn’t be able to add much more than a coupe wins there. The Mariners however, can reasonably add something like 4-6 wins with fairly low-profile moves to fill 1B, DH, C, and 4th starter (and that’s with neither Morrow or Snell making any progress over the winter).
Also, you’re projecting our pen to pretty much suck balls. Last year’s crappy pen was worth 3 wins, and while Aardsma will likely regress a bit, you might expect some progress from other holdovers or addition of talent from the minors etc. What is your thinking behind that number? Not quibbling over one win here, just curious.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Dec 17, 2009 10:51 AM PST reply actions
Part regression, part less opportunity.
Lee and a full-ish season from RRS should cut down the number of innings that goes to backup starters and various relievers.
Rangers
That they’re as close as they are with a big fat 0 from the 1B slot scares me. I’d consider putting in a 1 for Smoak/others combo… I’m assuming they’re factored into the bench’s 1 WAR, but… I’m just worried. They could move an OF to 1B and put Borbon in the OF, which would help their defense, or they could just play Smoak out of spring training and help their 1B runs directly (Bill James projection on him is way above average; cut it down quite a bit and he’s still a 1.5-2 WAR player potentially). You were kind to their pitchers, so it may just all work out.
Well we are also where we are with crap 1B and DH
by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 17, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions
And C
Being worth half a win at C is like getting a D in gym class. Christ.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Dec 17, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions
Brayan Pena was worth .5 wins over ~160PA at catcher last year.
GOD. The Royals’ backup is as valuabe as our starter. Landon fucking Powell was worth more over 140 PA.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Dec 17, 2009 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
But Rob Johnson's CERA was so good!
I bet it stays as good this year when he’s catching Felix’s AND Lee’s starts.
by eponymous_coward on Dec 17, 2009 11:28 AM PST up reply actions
Wow, the A's hitters are terrible.
And I don’t see a ton of upside there either, but that’s just me.
I like that our projections, as of right now, still offer a lot of easy places to make upgrades.
I feel like this was the most surprising part.
Before looking at the player individually, I felt like the Rangers, M’s and Angels would be close, that the A’s would have good pitching, but I wasn’t sure about their hitting.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Dec 17, 2009 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
Isn't this pretty much the case every year now?
Ever since Eric Chavez’s back went into the toilet, they’ve been some variation of bad.
by eponymous_coward on Dec 17, 2009 11:29 AM PST up reply actions
I still have no idea how Daric Barton turned out this bad.
At least the A’s have a Jeremy Reed too….
For future referrence on the A's...
I’m guessing you’ll do something like this again as the offseason draws to a close, so when you do you might want to consider that Outman is out until at least mid-season as he recovers from TJS.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Outman, Eveland, Cahill, ...
I’m not sure there’s much difference between the three. It’s more just penciling in the wins for the slot then for a particular person, but I will modify it. Thank you.
Also, LF should be Hairston, and I think Taylor/Patterson/Cunningham will all see more time than Buck...
the projections for the A’s look very good to me. I think Barton should be higher but that’s about the extent of my disagreement.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
That's who I had originally and then I changed it because, really,
they’re going to start Hairston in left field?
Just FYI on the Rangers.
They’ve gone ahead an announced that the starting OF next year is going to be Hamilton-Borbon-Cruz. The assumption is that Murphy will the 4th OF and part-time DH with Mike Lowell looking like the most likely option to pick up the other ABs at DH. As a Rangers fan, I’m more than a bit disappointed that Lowell will be the primary DH and backup 1B/3B. This is theoretically the first season that the Rangers were projecting themselves to contend and thus, raise payroll from the ridiculously low levels that they’re at now. Alas, such is the ‘luck’ of Rangers fans, who get to deal with ownership transition all offseason and what seems to be a payroll freeze for all intents and purposes.
The thing that makes the Rangers more interesting than past years is that they have more than flaming piles of crap as backup starting pitchers, both in AAA and possibly as long men in the bullpen. The starting rotation may not get as close to its upside as most Rangers fans are hoping for (or what they will need to win the division), but hopefully they can mitigate the lower end of the variance with the number of near-league average starting pitchers in the minors.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
Visualizing Need
I put together a chart that attempts to highlight need at each position. Filled boxes under M indicate players whose projected WAR is below the mean for their position. Filled boxes under – or + indicate players who are below or above one standard deviation from the mean for their position respectively.
by HopHead on Dec 17, 2009 11:28 AM PST reply actions 9 recs
Are the mean and standard deviation based on these four samples for each position?
by Mariner John on Dec 17, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, not much of a sample size...
It would undoubtedly be better to get projections for the entire league.
Or you could take ~2 as average
since that’s sort of the theoretical value.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Dec 17, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
Nice, by the way.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Dec 17, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
I don't like this chart system
It makes Texas look better than us. Make us up a chart that has us winning the ALWest.
by nathaniel dawson on Dec 17, 2009 2:17 PM PST up reply actions
Just realized
the Angels are pretty much finished being the Angels. Especially if they end up going with Wood over Izturis. We are so much more the Angels than the Angels are.
Not totally done!
Thanks for playing Mathis over Napoli, Mike!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
