A different way of looking at the offseason - Impact on Playoff Hopes
So I thought it would be interesting to do something a little different and review the moves that have taken place this offseason. I'm not going to do a detailed post with in depth analysis but I want to highlight how the moves this front office has made this offseason have improved the M's chances at making the playoffs. I'm not worrying about salary or the future. I'm only thinking about how it affects our production this year. To do this, I've chosen to use an equation Jeff highlighted a little while back that is from Athletic Nation.
To be clear with my methods, I simply used the equation at Athletic Nation to use my projected win totals to compute our chances at making it to the playoffs. I loosely used Matthew's projected win and WAR totals. To understand how the moves affected the team, we are interested in wins above bench (or how much better they were than the player they replaced) and not WAR so I had to fudge stuff a little. There are also a little fudging numbers (personal opinion) here or there so there is always some questions. If you are interested in the exact numbers I used, I supplied a table at the end of the post.
This chart shows the chance of the Mariners making the playoffs after each successive move. It is made in chronological order (I did it by day so the Bradley/Silva and Langerhans moves are combined since they occurred on the same day). You can see that the Lee move basically propelled our team in one day into the playoff picture and then soon after we were in contention. Since then we have seen our odds slowly increase to about the 35% mark.
I also made another plot with the same data looking at the change in our playoff chances. This plot shows better that the Mariners playoff chances were basically made in two days at the start of the offseason.
I thought this was a little different way of looking at the success of the offseason and which moves were important. It doesn't really say much specifically about the offseason but I thought it was an interesting way to make a timeline. Also, don't put too much faith in the absolute numbers because of a ton of factors. I think its a little interesting to think about it this way. It shows the Figgins move didn't really improve our chance of making the playoffs since at that time the team was not projected to be in contention. I'll end this with one final plot showing how a win added now is worth much more for this team than it was at the end of the season since this team's expected win total is approaching that magic value of around 90 wins that teams shoot for to get in the playoffs.
With that I'll leave with a final graph showing the increase in playoff odds divided by wins added for each move this offseason.
|
Player |
Date | Wins Added | Wins | Playoff % | Change in % |
| Start | 12/1/2009 | 77.5 | 0.7 | 0.0 | |
| Figgins | 12/8/2009 | 2.5 | 80 | 1.8 | 1.1 |
| Lee | 12/16/2009 | 5 | 85 | 11.9 | 10.1 |
| Bradley/Langerhans | 12/18/2009 | 2 | 87 | 23.1 | 11.2 |
| League/Morrow | 12/23/2009 | -0.5 | 86.5 | 19.8 | -3.4 |
| Bard | 12/28/2009 | 0 | 86.5 | 19.8 | 0.0 |
| Kotchman/Hall | 1/7/2010 | 0.5 | 87 | 23.1 | 3.4 |
| Byrnes | 1/29/2010 | 0.25 | 87.25 | 25.0 | 1.8 |
| Garko | 2/1/2010 | 0.5 | 87.75 | 28.9 | 3.9 |
| Bedard | 2/6/2010 | 0.75 | 88.5 | 35.4 |
6.5 |
35 comments
|
15 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hmm not sure how that HTML garbage happened at the end of the post
And not sure how to remove it. Since it doesn’t really mess stuff up, I might just leave it there.
Thanks
Did you go into the HTML view and clean it up?
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 8, 2010 2:21 PM PST up reply actions
Yes.
I’ve found that it’s much easier to post tables as images than code, incidentally.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 8, 2010 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
Sometimes I think Edgar for Pres and Graham are secretly the same person.
by I Lick Squirrels on Feb 8, 2010 2:23 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
That makes the above exchange all the more troubling
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 8, 2010 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
Like Fight Club?
So that would make Graham Tyler Durden?
by seattle_since_81 on Feb 8, 2010 2:34 PM PST up reply actions
Cool
This shows how critical even marginal improvements are at this point. Since we’re in the +9% playoff odds per win territory, Dave’s case to sign Washburn becomes even more convincing.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 8, 2010 2:30 PM PST reply actions
Yeah if you take that equation I brought up and say we are a 88.5 win team right now
Wins Added => Playoff % Increase
0.5 = 4.7%
1 = 9.6%
1.5 = 14.6%
2 = 19.5%
Basically if we could give our GM/offseason a leverage index, he’d be crapping himself right now.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 8, 2010 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Zduriencik has a closer's mentality
He’ll be alright. Just give him the checkbook and let his instincts do the rest.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 8, 2010 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah that's sort of what I was thinking before
Snell has a lot more upside but Washburn is an excellent bullpen option due to his splits, so if he’s really cheap you can accomplish both letting Snell be your 5th starter even when Bedard comes back, and still be benefitting from Washburn being on the roster.
At this point if you think you can acquire a player that makes the team better and there is money left
You better do it. We are getting close to the point where you think about selling a little of the future to improve this team now. Not only do you need to look at the projected value of the prospects you deal and what you get back but you also need to increase the value of players you can acquire that will make the team better this year. I like prospects and this would hurt me a little bit but if you are gonna do it, this is as good of a time as any.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 8, 2010 7:29 PM PST up reply actions
I like how the moderators don't write any posts for nearly 48 hours
And so subsequently, between this and Fogel’s take on Rob Johnson, the quality of FanPosts skyrockets in order to fill the void.
by katal on Feb 8, 2010 4:34 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
With the increase in value of wins
Garko+Bedard was a higher % increase than Lee.
That really drives home the increasing value of wins for me.
So,
If the order of transactions was switched around, Figgins would have a much larger rate of increase, right? For instance, if he were the latest transaction, there would be a steeper climb at the end of the first graph?
Just want to make sure I understand this correctly.
Hypothetically, if Seattle’s first acquisition was re-animated Babe Ruth and the latest was Washburn, there is still a high rate of value for that additional win, even though we wouldn’t even be in the neighborhood of competition without the first moves.
Yeah
Figgins got screwed by being an aquisition when we had a relatively low number of wins. He’d have made a huge impact if he was the most recent aquisition. The last plot I posted is basically an unnormalized leverage index for each player.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 8, 2010 7:26 PM PST up reply actions
Like i said, there is definitely a little bit of personal perspective in all this
Personally, I’m not sure if Bard is even gonna make the team. Maybe I’ll redo this after the season and see how the offseason actually went.
On a sidenote, it would be really cool if there was a way to insert really easy to use user interfaces into fanposts so I could program something so that people could enter their own numbers in and it would spit out personal projections. Maybe SBN v.250 will have something like that.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 8, 2010 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
Exactly.
On that hypothetical team, Babe Ruth gets us to a spot where we have some semblance of a playoff run (let’s say 82 or so). Later on in the offseason (and after some other moves), adding Washburn and his small improvement puts us at 90 wins. Since teams have a higher chance to make the playoffs increasing from 89 to 90 wins compared to increasing from 81 to 82, the value of the acquisition at the time of the deal is greater, even though Washburn is clearly a worse player than Babe Ruth.
by Jackle Mackle on Feb 8, 2010 7:33 PM PST up reply actions
I'm curious,
does the League/Morrow trades’ negative impact have more to do with established knowledge or your opinion? Seems like trading a flaky, not-very-good SP for a solid, best-pitch-in-the-game-last-year RP would help our playoff odds instead of hurt them. Is it just because SPs accumulate more WAR?
Its mostly my personal opinion
In the end all that matters for this exercise was WAR above bench. Since at that point we basically had replacement level starting pitching, Morrow was relatively slightly more valuable.
Basically I it broke down as:
Morrow: 1.25 WAR
M’s SP depth: 0 WAR
League: 1 WAR
M’s RP depth: 0.25 WAR
This gives us a total impact overall of 0.5 wins lost. Obviously our front office doesn’t think Morrow can start or rack up at least 1 WAR as a RP or 1.25 WAR as a SP or they wouldn’t have done this trade. The Blue Jays did. Since I wrote this post, I get to ding the Mariners for this trade which I believe is not going to work out in their favor. We’ll see who is right.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 9, 2010 9:11 AM PST up reply actions
Let me take a closer look at that
Yeah you are right. I messed up. I had the bench SP being 0 WAR for Morrow’s case and 0.5 WAR for Bedard’s case. It doesn’t make a huge difference. Thanks for catching this.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 9, 2010 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
The first one there looks like it's peaking higher than 35%. More like 40%. Is that right?
And I realize this is your own inexact science, just curious.
Yeah you are right. I accidentally had the win total after fixing the error at 89 and not 88.5 wins.
I can repost stuff if people want but it really just shifts the overall playoff % back to ~35%. Nothing like making another error after removing an error. I think you guys get the idea though.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 9, 2010 4:08 PM PST up reply actions
No problem!
This was all a really cool way to visualize everything being said about our chances in the playoffs
Also, just to throw it out there
I lumped Bradley and Langerhans together because they happened on the same day but if we split them up it depends on the order that we assign wins.
If Bradley is first and Langerhans is second:
Bradley = 6.8% increase
Langerhans = 3% increase
If Langerhans is first and Bradley is second:
Langerhans 1.9% increase
Bradley 7.9%
Averaging these results:
Bradley = 7.4%
Langerhans = 2.5%
Another way we can cut this data
Is to equally distribute the credit for increasing playoff odds amongst all the players weighted by the wins they added to the team.
Player – Distributed Playoff % Added
Figgins 7.58%
Lee 15.17%
Bradley 4.55%
Langerhans 1.52%
Kotchman/Hall 1.52%
Byrnes 0.76%
Garko 1.52%
Bedard 2.28%




by 
















