Fun with pitching projections
After looking at Mr. Joey's Line up analysis, where the current 2009 lineup is expected to score 830 runs, I wondered how our pitching would look as is in 2009 and how many runs we might expect to give up. So I did some rough calculations based on the CHONE and Marcel projection systems and calculated expected record in 2009 without major additions. I used the projected innings pitched, runs and earned runs to do the calculations.
For all of these, I assumed that starters would pitch a combined 900 innings and bullpen 540. I assumed the starting five to be Millwood, Padilla, McCarthy, Harrison, and Hurley, and used their total projected innings pitched. I then made some assumptions of innings pitched based on some other starter candidates to get to 900 innings total. For the bullpen, I used the full projected innings pitched for Franky, Benoit, and CJ and made some assumptions for other folks
------------------------ CHONE projections -----------------------
Chone projects are pretty hard on our pitchers:
Format used is: Name: IP/ERA, for numbers that I assumed/made up, I put a parethesis around the number
--------- Starters ------------
Millwood: 159/5.09
Padilla: 150/5.16
McCarthy: 78/4.96
Harrison: 134/5.57
Hurley: 107/5.89
Feldman: (60)/4.71
Dusty Tits: (50)/4.73
Hunter: (40)/5.75
Holland: (30)/5.63
Gabbard: (30)/5.23
Others: (62)/(5.40)
Others are either the likes of Murray/Mathis, reclamation projects, minor leaguer FAs, I assume that they will get a 5.40 ERA. This bunch will pitch 900 innings and allow about 570 runs (525 earned), for starter ERA average of 5.25
------------ Bullpen -------------
The bullpen innings are harder to predict since it depends both on player health and performance and health of starters. Also who will end up in the bullpen is hard to say. Here are numbers:
Francisco: 58/3.54
Benoit: 57/4.36
CJ: 58/4.42
Rupe: (70)/4.93
Feldman: (30)/4.71
Dusty Tits: (30)/4.73
Madrigal: (40)/5.14
Gabbard: (40)/5.23
Moscoco*: (30)/5.49
Mendoza: (40)/5.44
Others: (87)/(5.40)
* I picked Moscoco here to represent some combination of Moscoco/Eyre/Bannister. Moscoco seem to get the most healthy projection, so who knows...
This group pitches 540 innings and allows about 318 runs (294 earned), for bullpen ERA of 4.90.
Together, the entire staff looks to give up about 888 runs (819 earned) and staff ERA of 5.12 next year based on CHONE projection. That translate to a pythagorean of 75.5 wins if you assume that we score 830 runs. Not much changes from this year.
However, if you would follow me to dreamland for a minute, what would some FA additions like Ben Sheets do for the expected records? Ben sheets projects in CHONE 148 IP/3.83 ERA in 2009, and if we replace Padilla with Sheets and assume Sheets perform based on projection, the total runs given up gets knocked down to 863, and pythag record goes to 77.9 wins. Replacing Padilla with Sheets should get us an extra 2.4 wins.
What about bullpen improvements? We still need a lefty, and the two names out there that has been linked to everyone's favourite team are Everyday Eddie and Will Ohman.
CHONE projects Ohman to be 51 IP/3.88 ERA and Eddie 36 IP/4.50 ERA. I assume that both will pitch 50 innings should they be signed, and that 40 of those innings are taken from Gabbard and 10 from "Others". Doing this, signing Ohman gives pythag of 76.4 wins (0.9 win improvement) and Eddie 76.0 wins (0.5 win improvement)
----------------------- Marcel projections ---------------------
Marcel (taken from Fangraphs) is little more generous to our starters:
--------- Starters -----------
Millwood: 162/4.94
Padilla: 158/4.87
McCarthy: 65/4.36
Harrison: 102/4.72
Hurley: 72/4.44
Feldman: (100)/4.76
Dusty Tits: (50)/5.20
Hunter: (65)/5.26
Holland: (30)/5.63 --- I can't find Marcel for Holland, so I used CHONE here
Gabbard: (40)/4.41
Others: (56)/(5.40)
Total of 900 innings, surrendering 529 runs (496 earned) for starter ERA of 4.96.
-------- Bullpen ------------
Francisco: 63/4.0
Benoit: 56/4.1
CJ: 55/4.34
Rupe: 70/4.56
Feldman: (30)/4.76
Dusty Tits: (30)/5.2
Madrigal: 44/4.3
Gabbard: (40)/4.41
Moscoco: (30)/5.49 ---- Same as CHONE, combo of Moscoco/Eyre/Bannister
Mendoza: (40)/5.47
Others: (82)/(5.40)
Total of 540 innings, giving up 307 runs (281 earned), ERA of about 4.69 for the bullpen.
Marcel projects the entire staff to surrender 835.6 runs (777 earned) and staff ERA of 4.86, and pythag win of 80.5. Sheets projects 173 IP/3.59 in Marcel, and replacing Padilla with him ups pythag win to 83.4 (+2.9 wins). Adding Ohman nets an extra 0.4 wins and Eddie extra 0.3 wins.
--------------------- Summary --------------------
Well, it looks like a 75-80 win team as everybody else has predicted. The pitching should improve just due to regression, but anything gained from that is lost from the regression in the offense as well. Both projections are generous on the defense, so if you think we are still going to give up 100 unearned runs like last year, take off 3 wins from the projection. If Sheets can pitch up to projection, replacing Padilla with him (maybe 4 million extra per year) gets 2.5 extra wins - a pretty good deal, but there are a lot more people that believe the Sheets will underperform the projection rather than outperform. Ohman might be worth about $4 million a year, depends on which projection you look at and how well you think Gabbard will perform. Eddie should get a half win at a smaller price. Allowing some variations, it's possible that the team will win 85 and compete since the division is weak, but almost equally likely that they will have 70 wins and be in the cellar. At this point and with the current roster construction, serious playoff hope in 2009 is probably a stretch.
There are some room for optimism though. The defense should be better (especially if they put a good glove at 3B), and it's not likely that they will put up with the CHONE projection of Metcalf numbers for an entire season. Most of pitching staff is equally horrible, so depth is less of an issue than for team with obvious aces. The projections also don't show any "breakthroughs", and assumes none of the pitchers take a step forward, but of course they can go backwards as well. Although I have a hard time imagining how you can underperform a projected ERA of 5.7, but it's Rangers baseball afterall - where surprises awaits you after every pitch.
45 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i don't like looking at our pitchers numbers
it’s painful and doesn’t give me any hope. I don’t know what I was hoping for though.
Sign Sheets, lets get those 3 wins baby!
Wait 'til the year after next
09 in a nutshell
We’re gonna give up a shit ton of runs.
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
Wow marcel is much nicer.
"Sooner or later, prospects kill you, because you hang onto them." - Greggo, 11/22/2005
that's because Marcel assumes everyone will be more league average in the future
when you are great, it makes you only good. When you are painfully awful, it makes you merely mediocre.
I haven’t figured out exactly what the CHONE system is doing for its projections, but my initial impressions are that they are far far far better than Marcel. The Marcel predictions are so bad they don’t even merit discussion. But CHONE seems to know what its doing, at least a little bit. But I hate the name.
does this factor in the strength of schedule at all?
A pythag prediction of 76 wins means more like 80-85 considering the AL west is looking like the worst division, no?
Why does Feldman have a 100 IP as starter in one projection and 60 in the other? Especially when his are your own estimations?
Health, Health, Health, please let our starters stay healthy
It does not consider strength of schedule, it’s simply based on runs scored and given up. For that reason, you can’t adjust based on a weak division because it doesn’t affect your run expectancy.
I have Feldman for 100 IP in the second projection because Marcel projects the starting 5 to pitch less combined inning than CHONE. I figured that the most likely contingency would be Feldman and gave him more innings.
if we are in a weak division
I think it is more likely to approach 85 wins than 70. If the Angels have come back, the Rangers play over a third of their games (in division) against mediocre/middling/atrocious competition. If the defense is better, then 70 wins would mean somethings went very wrong and 85 wins would be encouraging and not unexpected. I would be surprised if the Rangers regress in 2009.
Well sure
and I think that the Angels exceeding their statistical prediction had a lot to do with the A’s and Mariners regressing last year and not just “well, they got lucky.” So now that the Angels have regressed, is it wrong to assume our team will exceed its statistical expectation? .500 is where I would predict us finishing next year and I think 90 wins is more likely than 74 wins if I understand the makeup of our division.
Note: I think the chances this team, even with sheets healthy, wins 90 games are remote. The last statement was meant to show how unlikely I think it is that we only win 74
Delusional
Obviously 90 wins would be a snowball’s chance in Hell.
But 74 wins is about where I see them. I don’t see how you can look at the pitching staff up there in black and white and think otherwise. This is a horrible, horrible group. I think the most important projections are IP for starters, and what’s up there seems about right to me. Show me a .500 team that had its top two starters barely combine for 300 innings. Show me.
by Black Francis on Jan 10, 2009 6:44 PM CST up reply actions
That'a a bunch of work for an unhappy ending...
+rec
Can anyone come up with some better numbers, though? Please???
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
Projected Standings via running sims
Every year Replacement Level Yankees blog runs sims to project the standings. They’ve run some using stats and projections for players from The Hardball Times. The results are here:
http://www.replacementlevel.com/index.php/RLYW/direct/extremely_early_projected_standings#When:15:20:00Z
In the AL West, all 4 teams are within 5 games of each other. Sign Sheets.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Questions for anyone on schedules
the other day I heard Gammons say he thinks there will be 3 90 wins teams in the AL East.
1. Has that ever happened before?
2. If not, is it realistically possible? (it seems to be with unbalanced schedules, it’d be very difficult for 3 teams to win .555 of their games or better (90/162))
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
I'm sure it's possible
they can beat up on KC, Balt, and a few others. It’s certainly possible that all 3 of those teams will have .600 records against the other two divisions.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
I found this link
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/statpages/mlbschedule/
In 2005, each member of the AL East played the other teams 18 or 19 times. That’s about 74 games (45%).
If they played .600 ball against all the other teams (52 wins in 88 games), each team would need to win about 51% of their division games.
I suppose it’s possible, but I’ll be surprised if it happens.
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
Far more likely
is that injuries play a part and one of the teams finishes with about 84 wins while the other two are well over 90.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Yeah
It’s just when I heard Gammons say that, my first reaction was to just dismiss him as a homer idiot. But, then I wondered if it was even possible.
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
You could do the statistical analysis...
…or you could just look up some old seasons. I didn’t have to go back too far: In 2006, AL Central, the Twins (96), Tigers(94), and White Sox (90) all had at least 90 wins. In 2007, the NL West was close with the Diamondbacks, Rockies, and Padres putting up 90, 90, and 89 wins, respectively. Heck, in 2004, had the Rangers won just one more game, the AL West would have had the Angels (92), Athletics (90) and the Rangers (89) each with 90+ wins.
So, its not that uncommon.
by NorCalRangersFan on Jan 10, 2009 11:46 AM CST up reply actions
yeah i was lazy
sue me
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Jan 10, 2009 1:34 PM CST up reply actions
Damn
THT must hate the Rangers if Seattle is better than us next year. I’m also shocked to see how the Mariners went from 61 wins to 78 wins.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
They were a little snakebitten last year
There were more than a few people that picked them as a darkhorse to win the division. However, I think 78 might be a little optomistic.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
Seattle
I think they are a good example of when projection based solely on statistics can systematically overestimate the strength of a team. The Angels are the example of where stats perennially underestimate a club.
I’m not sure why that is, but it may have to do with statistical measures not fully capturing the value of scrappy small ball (which the Angels seem to do well), and not adequately accounting for park effects. It may be that teams that play 81 games in bad offensive parks actually has a selective negative impact on the home team’s offense – players get frustrated and start slumping, changing their swing, etc – just as we all would probably think that Texas pitchers, come July and August, get frustrated, start to press, and end up getting shelled. In both cases, any “park effect” would preferentially bias against the home team, since visiting players aren’t there long enough to be affected. Seattle’s park effect is particularly strong in April and May, when it is chilly in the NW, so it is easy for that team to get off to a bad start. Just a crazy theory, but it would explain why projections seem to overrate them.
Some thought so
But the smart money was on them not winning the division. I just don’t see how the projections have them that good unless Bedard is expected to pitch like he did in 07 which I just don’t see happening. They have Felix, Ichiro, Beltre, and Morrow as their only talented players who can be expected to do something this year. Am I missing or forgetting something?
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
They have two talented unknowns in Wladimir Balentien and Jeff Clement.
And Ryan Rowland-Smith is certainly serviceable.
by oc on Jan 10, 2009 3:38 PM CST up reply actions
BA had him at #42 on their top 100 last year
I’d hardly call that “unknown”.
Did Jon Daniels downsize your old position at Dunking Donuts?
He's an unknown
like every young player who hasn’t done anything in the Majors is an unknown.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Mmn, okay gotcha
That’s kind of a confusing way of putting it though. Kind of the whole reason the word “prospect” was created.
Did Jon Daniels downsize your old position at Dunking Donuts?
The Rangers have plenty of talented unknowns as well
filling out the rotation. I don’t see how Clement (who is blocked by Johjima), Balentien, and Rowland Smith make up that many wins this years.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Just out of curiosity ...
at the beginning of last season, what were the Rays projected to do?
I think PECOTA
predicted them to make that jump, not sure anyone else did. The Replacement Level blog I uses Diamond Mind to run their simulations, based on the player projections from The Hardball Times.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Jamesian Theory
One of Bill James’ ideas is that teams either improve or decline by half the number of games they improved or declined from the last year to year jump, only in opposition. So with the Rays, since they improved by 31 games from 2007 to 2008, James’ theory is that they’ll decline by 15.5 games. Interesting thought that the Rays could be right back at .500 if that holds up.
by Andy Seiler on Jan 10, 2009 10:09 PM CST up reply actions
I am not sure if I am dreaming or fanatasizing
But what if a pitcher or two on our staff took a big step forward. We might be in the race for a while. I dont think it will happen but hey, its winter, what else do I have to do?

by 

















