Runs allowed over/under and discussion
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 10:46 AM CST
Email
PrintThere's been a fair amount of talk the past few days about how many runs the Rangers are likely to allow in 2009, and whether there should be any hope/expectation that they'll allow fewer in 2009 than they did in 2008, when they allowed 967.
So...based on where the team stands right now, assuming no Ben Sheets (or the team signs Sheets and he promptly goes all Jason Jennings on us and misses the year), where would you set the over/under number for runs allowed in 2009?
For those who are of the gambling type, this means you think there's a 50% chance the team will give up more runs than the amount you pick, and a 50% chance the team will give up fewer runs.
Cast your vote, and discuss your vote and your reasons why, below...
196 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Frankly, I think we give up fewer runs
simply by moving Michael over to 3B, regardless of our pitching staff.
I'm betting tricer
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Feb 3, 2009 10:57 AM CST up reply actions
I haven't voted yet
But I tell you what, I’m going to give it some serious thought and then vote and give a thorough explanation for why I think what I think.
I’d encourage you to do the same with your vote, and I hope to see some reasoning beyond simply parroting this “regress to the mean” nonsense, or “things are just bound to be better than last year, for no particular reason”, or “our group of chronically injured pitchers is going to magically be transformed into a bastions of health and vitality”,
"drawing walks is an overrated trait in my eyes."
"i do believe we could have 4 30 start pitchers in the rotation."
-- both these genius remarks brought to you by our resident guru, bigsteve
Sorry you think the arguments being offered are nonsense
But the reality is, regression to the mean is a basic fact of life in MLB. That’s something Bill James dealt with over two decades ago…teams that are bad tend to get better. Teams that are good tend to get worse. Teams that are historically bad in an area will generally have some regression to the mean and not be as bad because that’s just how things go.
That’s not nonsense. It is reality.
The team probably won’t allow 107 unearned runs next year.
The team probably won’t have a couple of pitchers combine for over 100 runs allowed in about 85 innings, like they did last year.
Some of the “chronically injured pitchers,” who are really guys who have been healthy until the past year or two, probably will be healthy this season.
This group isn’t all that much different from the 2007 group that allowed 844 runs, really.
The argument that, well, the team allowed 967 runs last season, and hasn’t added anyone, so they’ll be at least as bad and probably worse is specious.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 11:21 AM CST up reply actions
Injuries...
Were a huge factor last year. The guys who filled in have more experience and a couple of the guys who remained injured (Benoit, Hurley) will not be on the bump until they are healthy from surgery. I think if they can fight the injury bug this year, get some more use out of their starters and improve their defense then we will see a pretty large decline in runs allowed.
Click Here for Hot Rangers Blog Love
"They say brevity is the key to wit, so shut the f*ck up." Dad
by RangerFloppy on Feb 3, 2009 11:23 AM CST up reply actions
The Rangers gave up 89 unearned runs in 2007
which was the highest total in the AL.
How come they were much worse in 2008?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Stuff happens
If you’re looking at this thing from only a statistical point of view, picking a sample of 2 seasons will result in cases where teams that are bad get worse. The larger the sample size, the more likely they are to regress to the mean though it is no guarantee from 1 year to another.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Adam said that teams
that are bad tend to get better (which is sometimes true) but sometimes they get worse.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
yes
exactly
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
No, what it means is that I don't necessarily
think it is a given that this team’s will be any better in 2009 especially when no improvements have been made.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
If Andrus plays 140+ games
I’m expecting, conservatively, at least 25 errors which is 11 more than than the Rangers SS committed in 2008.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
But how many more balls will stay in the infield?
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
Okay
That’s only part of the equation, though.
Do you think Andrus will make plays (and get outs) on 11 balls that Young would have watched roll into the outfield?
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 11:46 AM CST up reply actions
What could happen is that
the team may give up fewer runs but proportionally more unearned runs with Andrus getting to more balls but making many more errors.
Ozzie Smith made something like 25 Es his first swim thru as a 23 year old. There’s a chance Andrus makes 35-40 Es if he plays 140 games.
There is also going to be some kind of adjustment period for Young at 3B. It may be a month or it might be 3 months.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
The Ranger third basemen last year...
…were a collective 30 in +/.
I’ll be surprised if Young is any worse than average there, even taking into account any adjustment period (which I don’t suspect will be real lengthy).
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 11:52 AM CST up reply actions
Notice that...
Josey hasn’t voted yet?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I'm not voting little brother.
Not enough info available.
Check with me in March.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Do you say...
“the Great Game” and “The Show” because that’s how you imagine real ballplayers to talk?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Knowing that those terms
bug the hell out of you is the perfect reason to use said terms.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Lets say he creates 30 errors in the same # of chances Young had last year
Say Young gets to 80% of the balls that he should. Considering that he has around a 98% fielding percentage he would convert about 78% of possible chances. Instead, suppose you replace him with an above average feilder. If he gets to 95% of the balls he should that would require a feilding percentage of around .821 to maintain a 78% conversion rate.
If you pull that out through the 669 total chances that Young had last year, that would be about 120 errors. That is not even a feasible option. Say Andrus makes 30 errors next year in the same number of attempts Young had last year for a Feilding % of .955. He would still be coverting 91% of his total chances. That 13% difference between Andrus and Young equates to roughly 87 outs.
87 outs would change the Rangers BA against from .288 which was worse in all of baseball to .273 which would be tied for 22rd with Cleveland
You can attempt to equate for the extra base runners according to errors, but regardless of the computations you use, the net change in outs will still be in favor of moving Young off of SS.
Who said it was a given?
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
I think most people agree this team will be more talented come September
Than they will be in April.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
my objection is based on the application of a broad scale observation to a fine scale phenomena
This way of thinking seems to ignore a lot of pertinent information.
It will probably happen, because it usually happens isn’t exactly compelling evidence IMO. I’d hope that some of the brighter minds around here, and there are plenty of them, would look at the more specific data, rather than ignore it.
"drawing walks is an overrated trait in my eyes."
"i do believe we could have 4 30 start pitchers in the rotation."
-- both these genius remarks brought to you by our resident guru, bigsteve
Well
Replace Mendoza and Jennings’ 90 innings with pitchers who allow “only” 6 runs per 9 IP, and you shave 40 runs off right there.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 11:51 AM CST up reply actions
Or bring Mendoza's ERA closer to his FIP.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
no.
NO MENDOZA!!!
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Feb 3, 2009 1:03 PM CST up reply actions
I can't wait for Mendoza to shine this year.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
Or we can look at CHONE
CHONE is the most pessimistic of the prognostication systems, it appears, on the Ranger pitchers…
Padilla — 5.16
Feldman — 4.71
Millwood — 5.09
Harrison — 5.57
McCarthy — 4.96
Let’s say each of those guys makes 25 starts apiece, and for the ease of the math, assume they all pitch the same number of innings. That’s 125 starts.
That’s an aggregate 5.30 ERA. That’s about 20 runs saved right there.
Let’s assume that the remaining 37 starts are made by some grabbag of guys, none of him lights it up. An aggregate 6.00 ERA from those guys.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 12:00 PM CST up reply actions
using those assumptions, which sound reasonable to me
let’s also assume the following:
that the first group of starters average 6 ip/start,
and the second group of starters averages 5 ip/start,
and the bullpen ERA is 5.15 (same as last year, although the available talent there is arguably less).
According to my quick calculations, that comes to 864 earned runs allowed.
Add in significant defensive improvement to get the unearned runs down from 107 to, say 75.
That would total 939 runs allowed, not much of an improvement at all. Certainly not the regression to the mean that several here seem to be expecting.
"drawing walks is an overrated trait in my eyes."
"i do believe we could have 4 30 start pitchers in the rotation."
-- both these genius remarks brought to you by our resident guru, bigsteve
I would be very surprised...
…if the bullpen ERA is as high as 5.15.
Particularly if the starters pitch as many innings as you are projecting.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 12:19 PM CST up reply actions
not really my projections
I was just trying to expand on the CHONE projections and the assumptions that you provided to come up with a number for runs allowed.
What would you use for the bullpen ERA and the ip/start for those two groups, and I’ll plug them in and see what it totals.
"drawing walks is an overrated trait in my eyes."
"i do believe we could have 4 30 start pitchers in the rotation."
-- both these genius remarks brought to you by our resident guru, bigsteve
where do you see these bullpen improvements coming from?
"drawing walks is an overrated trait in my eyes."
"i do believe we could have 4 30 start pitchers in the rotation."
-- both these genius remarks brought to you by our resident guru, bigsteve
Is there any specific reasoning for assuming
that the bullpen ERA is going to drop by over half a run?
I think, if anything, the bullpen is less talented going in. We’ve lost Benoit, and CJ was healthy going into last season and this year he’s not.
"drawing walks is an overrated trait in my eyes."
"i do believe we could have 4 30 start pitchers in the rotation."
-- both these genius remarks brought to you by our resident guru, bigsteve
Well
Benoit and C.J. combined for an ERA of 5.52 last year.
And I think you’ve got it backwards on C.J. He is, apparently, healthy going into this season. He wasn’t healthy going into last season.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 12:46 PM CST up reply actions
Why is it that...
people recognize that good bullpen performances are erratic from year to year, but don’t recognize the same thing about bad ones?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I think it's a lot easier
with the names we’ve come to follow around here. When your big free agent signings in the relief market are both signed to minor league deals (smartly), one is over the hill and the other has regressed big time for 3 years in a row, plus we’re counting on some historically unhealthy names from the past – Rupe, Francisco, CJ, to round out that bullpen, as well as unproven arms such as Madrigal and maybe a Tom Diamond, to be pessimistic.
But I agree, a bullpen’s production is going to be quite erratic with such a revolving door.
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Feb 3, 2009 1:08 PM CST up reply actions
I don't buy regression towards the league mean
as an argument. Of course that happens over populations, but individual data points are not populations, and I think you can figure out why some teams get better and other teams get worse. Bad teams tend to make moves to improve their weaknesses. This contributes to a trend towards getting better. Great teams tend to lose guys from their strengths (to teams filling weaknesses), so they tend to regress. I would argue that is a substantial component of the “regression to the mean” phenomenon you see. The other aspect is simply replacing bad players with other bad players who may randomly be good.
Arguably, those don’t apply to the Rangers. They haven’t made any moves to shore up their pitching. So the “mean” the Rangers will regress to is not the league average (as they have done nothing to approach that), but rather the “expected value” for their staff. Basically, do you think the Rangers suffered more than expected because of chance, because bad luck will average out over the long term. That is the only source of regression I can see this team having.
So what you have to say is what was the “mean” expected runs allowed for the Rangers last season? 900? 950? You point to 2007, and they were 844. But that was just as likely to be a chance number as well. So the average of the two is roughly 900 runs allowed. So your “regress to mean” should start at 900. Which is the average for this poll, incidentally.
But there is a lot of noise aroudn that expected value (as seen from the two seasons used to calculate it). So a prediction of 1000 runs allowed isn’t out of the question. Its on the tail, to be sure, but it is as likely the team gives up 1000 as it is the team gievs up 800. You biased your poll by giving more selections below 800 than above 1000.
Individuals
also tend to regress to the mean, and this is something that has been proven in baseball research. Of course individuals will buck that trend, but most players will not drastically under or overperform their projections year to year. The Rangers had a lot of injuries last year, and bad defense that should be better at 3B.
The offense will not be as good and the pitching will not be as bad in 2009. Of course, something else could happen. But that is the most likely thing to happen.
And predicting 1000 runs is fine, but picking that historically high number as the over-under? Ridiculous.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
I don't think 1000 should be an o/u
but it isn’t any more ridiculous than saying 800. And the truth is that the people who voted for both of those probably misread the poll (as I did when I voted 960). For an O/U, I’d put it at 900. But giving up 1000+ is not out of the realm of possibility.
And there is a huge selection bias in saying that individuals regress to the mean. Players with skills>stats will be kept around, likely leading them to outperform what they did the bad year. Players with bad stats and not great skills are not typically kept around, unless they are under big fat contracts. Basically, only players who return to the mean are kept around long enough to affect the statistics.
I just despise the term “regress to the mean”. It is a meaningless phrase that gets used by people far too often. Obviously there is variability at play in baseball, and over time that variability will cancel itself out, leading to a nice average behavior. But there are a lot of other factors that actually affect performance in addition to noise. Having bad players, or being a bad player, doesn’t just change if you play long enough. Maybe your BABIP returns to league average, or ratio of errors to unearned runs normalizes.
But without showing me any strong evidence that the Rangers players were actually affected by bad luck as opposed to just being bad, I’m not going to be saving up fro playoff tickets just yet.
But players that are below replacement level...
…are generally going to be replaced by players who are at least around replacement level.
Look at Mendoza, Jennings and Hunter. They gave up about 120 runs in around 100 innings. It is highly unlikely that, whomever the Rangers roll out next season, their worst pitchers will allow 120 runs in 100 innings.
Regression to the mean suggests that those players who are such extreme outliers on the negative end of the scale will be replaced by players who may not be good, but aren’t going to suck quite as bad.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 1:51 PM CST up reply actions
But you miss most of our arguments there
We aren’t arguing that the Rangers will suddenly be good that were bad. We are just arguing that becoming worse than they are now is much less statistically supportable than that they become average. Realize that one or two things have to get worse than last year to get to 1000 runs. The defense has to get worse and/or the pitching has to get worse.
In essence your arguing that going from 5.9 runs per game to 6.2 runs per game is more likely than to 4.8 runs per game. While the math looks like it should be without anything else in it, realizing that 5.9 is riddled with horrible performances at pretty much every pitching slot says that your much more likely to trend downward.
I agree in that we aren’t likely to get to 780 runs next season. But if I were being forced to bet on 780 or 1000 I would bet on 780 as 1000 just doesn’t seem to happen pretty much ever.
I understand your argument
Globally 780 is a much more likely outcome than 1000. And generally I’d agree with you – in the absence of any other information, 780 would obviously be a much better guess. The problem is we have other information: I see that the Rangers have only one starting pitcher who we can reasonably predict would even be league average, and he’s the guy most likely to be injured (BMac). Obviously there can be disagreements on that point, but that is an argument on how to interpret the pitchers, not a statistical one.
Adam is arguing that there is a ceiling due to replacement level around the Rangers 2008 level, which is a fair argument. While I’d agree that there is a ceiling there, it isn’t hard. How long do the Rangers stick with Millwood or Padilla if they come out with 6.00 ERAs? If the Rangers are in last place in July and are convinced to wait until 2010 for Feliz and Holland, then at what point do they say “screw it” and just run Feldman and his 7.20 ERA out there every day to save money? Gotta say that scenario is far more likely than the “Matt Harrison wins 15 games with a sub 3.50 era” scenario.
I don’t think 1000 runs is likely. I’d put it at <5% chance. But I think 780 is impossible with this roster. And as an O/U option it is just as insane as the 1000.
I agree
In stating that 780 and 1000 aren’t viable numbers for an over/under, neither are likely. I disagree that 1000 is more likely than 780. Since 99 there is no team over 980. Go back into the 90s and there are a grand total of 4 teams that hit that pace. In the height of the steroids era 1000 runs was still a horrible outlier.
I agree we likely are headed for 1000 runs if we allow Millwood and Padilla to pitch a load of innings with an ERA thats above their career worst numbers, and around a full run worse than last year. I agree that we are headed for 1000 if Feldman takes his already bad ERA and adds over a full run to it.
I guess we will just disagree on which is more likely the Team ERA climbing another almost half point or it dropping about a full point. We are likely arguing over the a few decimal places of a percentage point there as neither are a remotely likely. I just think that statistics would likely favor the 780 a tiny amount over the 1000. Pushing the narrow end of a bell curve just gets really hard really fast.
thanks JBI
it’s comforting to know that at least one other person looks at this in a similar light.
"drawing walks is an overrated trait in my eyes."
"i do believe we could have 4 30 start pitchers in the rotation."
-- both these genius remarks brought to you by our resident guru, bigsteve
OK - here's my rationale
I think the pitching should regress to the mean and there shouldn’t be as many injuries next year. Things have to get better, right?
Wait – what did you say again?
I need to think something lasts forever, and it might as well be that state of being that is a game; it might as well be that, in a green field, in the sun.
that was funny
"drawing walks is an overrated trait in my eyes."
"i do believe we could have 4 30 start pitchers in the rotation."
-- both these genius remarks brought to you by our resident guru, bigsteve
One other point
The Ranger pitchers allowed an OPS 85 points higher with RISP than overall.
The normal spread is 20 points.
Looking at BP’s stuff, it appears that was a major contributor to the Rangers giving up about 35 runs more than would be expected, given their breakdown of hits, walks, errors, etc. allowed.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to believe that isn’t likely to occur again in 2009.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 3:28 PM CST up reply actions
I think I remember a post on Fangraphs in the last month or so that attempted to validate this idea in greater detail, but I can’t seem to find it now.
This could be a case of bad luck, but could also be attributed to pitchers that got easily flustered and didn’t make good pitches in crucial situations. I watched plenty of the latter.
I do agree that it isn’t likely to have that type of spread in OPS allowed w/ – w/out RISP again this year.
"drawing walks is an overrated trait in my eyes."
"i do believe we could have 4 30 start pitchers in the rotation."
-- both these genius remarks brought to you by our resident guru, bigsteve
Why isn't it progress towards the mean?
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
I didn't go that way
but considering last year was 967 and we haven’t made significant improvements in the pitching department, and we may well have some people playing at new positions defensively, I’m not sure its out of the realm of possibility.
Get off my lawn.
But as the over/under?
meaning you think there’s a 50/50 chance it goes either way? That seems excessive to me.
I mean, sure it could go that high, but I don’t think there’s a 50% chance it does.
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Feb 3, 2009 11:01 AM CST up reply actions
If we allow 107 unearned runs again...
…that’s a huge problem. If nothing else, that number should drop.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 11:06 AM CST up reply actions
I'm not sure I understand
why its inconceivable that next years team defense could be worse with a rookie SS, a brand new to the position 3B, and relatively weak defensive 1B and 2B. I can see the defense going through teething pains.
I think long term it will be better, but so far it has seemed that Andrus has sucked a lot of Ass initially on callup.
Get off my lawn.
I'm not sure I understand...
…where you get the idea anyone said it was inconceivable.
I’m also not really that sure that the 1B and 2B are relatively weak defensively.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions
Well
a few people made the 1000+ guess, and you were curious about the thought process.
I’d be more curious about the thought process of someone who said <780. That is inconceivable to me.
Get off my lawn.
I agree
It is far more likely that this team gives up over 1000 runs than it gives up less than 780.
Why?
I don’t think either is likely at all, but when is the last time a team gave up over 1000 runs and when is the last time a team gave up less than 780 runs. I think it is more likely for Texas to be like one of the 9 teams in the AL last year to give up less than 780 runs (not including KC’s 781 runs allowed) rather than them being one of the few teams to ever give up more than 1000 runs.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Actually
I don’t think either is likely at all, but I’d suspect that under 780 has a higher probablitiy based on the fact that 1000 runs is a historically bad performance level. 780 is a somewhat average performance.
As bad as we were last year we have to get significantly worse in either pitching or defense to break 1000.
just for arguments sake...
I agree that 1000 plus runs is NOT likely BUT…
Last year we gave up 967 runs. That’s not that far from 1000 and whole lot closer to 1000 than 780.
We would have to get SIGNIFICANTLY better to get to “somewhat average” team.
I believe we will get marginally better in 2009 and continue that trend into 2010 and beyond.
All I'm going for
is that when your on the far end of the curve like we were you have to get worse to get to 1000. The chances of things going much worse to get to 1000 is much much lower than things going in the other direction to any amount. I agree that a lot has to happen to get us to being average, but I still think thats much more likely than us getting even worse and hitting a historically bad level.
Likely the pitching and the defense both have to get worse. We had a horrible defense and an already historically bad rotation.
Honestly I would say we likely end up somewhere in the 800s. I’m feeling optomistic today so I would say lower 800s. But if I were betting I’d put money on 780 before I would put money on over 1000.
I agree with your assessment
this team will not give up 1000. This team will get better than 967 runs it gave up last season IMO.
but one could argue that 1000 plus is more likely.
The arguement would go …
Start with 967 runs given up in 08. Gone from the pitching staff are Ponson, Loe, Wright and Benoit. They combined for 215 IP and all had ERA’s better than the team. The team has not added anyone to the MLB staff. The four pitchers gone replaced by the teams average era would add 29 runs to the total. 967 plus 29 = 996. The team giving up that many runs would be out of contnetion early and more young players would get their chance. It would only take four runs to get to 1000.
The problem with that
You picked some pitchers who had great luck with unearned runs last year, that helped out your numbers a lot. Ponson had 12 unearned runs last year that your numbers don’t really account for. I’d probably look more at runs per nine innings or something like that for this argument. In that Ponson was just a tick below average at 5.8. So for his 5.5 innings thats less than one run total by replacing him. Wright produced 6.1 runs per nine innings. Over his 84 innings that is a savings of just under 2 runs by replacing Wright with the average pitcher on our staff last year.
I’ll give you that Loe and Benoit performed well over the course of the season by the number I’m using. 5.3 and 5.6 respectively. Benoit with the average pitcher, not reliever, puts 1.5 extra runs on us. Loe actually costs us the most runs, even though he has the shortest time, 2.2 runs.
So replacing the pitchers with the average pitcher on the rangers would cost us about 4 runs total over the course of a season, not 29. You still have to find an additional 29 runs some where, not an additional 4.
Stupid question: why is Davis so shitty at third base but an improvement at first?
Because he doesn’t have to make the throw?
What was all this nonsense about moving Davis to the outfield? I thought he had a cannon.
Does he have a faster step to his right, than he does his left?
You just don't know when to keep your mouth shut, do you Saxy boy?
by oc on Feb 3, 2009 11:34 AM CST up reply actions
Well
The defensive skills at first base aren’t the same as the ones at third base.
Teixeira is a gold glove winner at first base, but a bad defensive third baseman.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 11:38 AM CST up reply actions
At least you'll agree with me that this is a make-or-break season for Ian Kinsler to prove he's dependable at second base.
You just don't know when to keep your mouth shut, do you Saxy boy?
by oc on Feb 3, 2009 11:41 AM CST up reply actions
Having great range and not making so many errors.
You just don't know when to keep your mouth shut, do you Saxy boy?
by oc on Feb 3, 2009 11:53 AM CST up reply actions
I thought you meant stay healthy for a full season for the first time
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
That also.
You just don't know when to keep your mouth shut, do you Saxy boy?
by oc on Feb 3, 2009 12:38 PM CST up reply actions
Kinsler is adequate defensively
and terrific offensively, where is the question about his value?
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Adequate is a nice way of putting it.
You just don't know when to keep your mouth shut, do you Saxy boy?
by oc on Feb 3, 2009 12:50 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, I don't feel
he is ever going to be a “plus” with the glove, but he’s not a liability either.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Did you see last year's defense
We had absolutely horrible production from our 3B and our SS position wasn’t exactly too good. Davis for a full season is an improvement at 1B. Even if you don’t think Kinsler will be any better this year than last year, the defense is better despite a rookie SS and a player new to 3B playing the 3B position.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Davis looked pretty good to me at 1st.
Kinsler must improve. It’s that simple. I think he will…but do my thoughts count? No, he has to go out and prove it like he did in the 2nd half of 2007, with what, 47 games in a row without an error? It can be done.
"Hang-Dai, Wu...Hang-Fu$&ing-Dai"
by Walter Sobchak on Feb 3, 2009 1:11 PM CST up reply actions
To answer two of your concerns. . .
Davis is not projected to be relatively weak, and I also expect he has the tools to be a solid first baseman.
There is also a good chance Kinsler, like most of his career to last year, will use his fabulous range to not be too weak himself.
The same kind of person who writes "First!"
You know, douches.
My 2009 New Years Resolution: Quit feeding the trolls.
Why did you put it as an option
If you were just gonna scorn someone for picking it?
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
I'd love to see the thought process from the 3 folks that voted 820 or under
"drawing walks is an overrated trait in my eyes."
"i do believe we could have 4 30 start pitchers in the rotation."
-- both these genius remarks brought to you by our resident guru, bigsteve
I would, too
However, I think that’s probably as likely, if not more so, than 1000+ runs allowed, given that the Rangers have done that twice in the last 5 years, and have never allowed 1000+ runs, I don’t think.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 11:23 AM CST up reply actions
Surely you think
the 780 is less likely. That would be either no errors, and an ERA of around 4.5 for the pitching staff, or an even lower ERA plus some number of errors.
That is unachievable with the Rangers pitching staff as it stands today.
Get off my lawn.
I don't know
The Rangers allowed 784 runs in 2006.
That was a team where John Koronka was third on the team in starts, Rick Bauer pitched over 70 innings, and the rotation was Millwood, Padilla, and a bunch of suck.
So no, I don’t see less than 780 runs in 2009 as being “unachievable.”
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 11:49 AM CST up reply actions
The 2006 bully had
a 3.78 ERA.
Do you think it is remotely possible this bully has a 3.78 bully?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Remotely possible?
Like, within the realm of possibility?
Yeah.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 11:54 AM CST up reply actions
Our relievers had a 5.15
ERA in 2008 and led the AL in IPs.
The big addition is Turnbow who hasn’t pitched worth a damn since 2005.
I don’t think it’s remotely possible this thing has a bully with anything close to a 3.78 ERA.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
"bully"
This is starting to remind of the time Bart Simpson starting talking like a grizzled 1890’s prospector. Are you going to start telling us how when you were a kid nickels had bumblebees on them?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
It was R.J. Anderson.
You just don't know when to keep your mouth shut, do you Saxy boy?
by oc on Feb 3, 2009 11:35 AM CST up reply actions
Defense should be better...
and hopefully more guys will stay healthy, although the Rangers aren’t off to a good start in that department either.
I’d say 900-920.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
I voted 840-860
we avg 5.97 runs allowed per game last year.
840 runs allowed = 5.19 runs per game
860 runs allowed = 5.31 runs per game
I think we’ll have a quicker, and more improved middle infield with Elvis/Ian, and some strong arms in Cruz and Hamilton in the corner OF. CF is a concern, but Bryd didn’t do a horrible job last year, and Murphy is quick out there as well.
I also think that our rotation this year, will be more proven and rested then it was last year (McCarthy, Scooter, Padilla) due to the new Maddux pitching program.
I’m not really that concerned with Davis and Young at the corners, more so than I am of Elvis and Ian in the middle. As long as they can keep the amount of balls going through the infield, I don’t really see too many reasons as to why they won’t be able to knock 3/4 a run per game vs last year.
(Of course, I’m generally optomistic, and even as I post this, see waaay too many reasons as how they can even allow 3/4 MORE run per game this year too….starting with our rehabbing bullpen….. ) DOH!
Ya....That's Real Mature.
Even if...
the Rangers suffer through another horrible rash of injuries with their pitching staff, the guys they bring in this year will at least have had some major league experience due to last year. It seemed like each week last season, they were bringing up some rookie (Harrison, Hunter, Hurley, Mendoza, etc) to pitch in their first major league baseball game. The only guys who I could see making their major league debut this season are Holland and Feliz.
Millwood and Padilla are in their free agent seasons.
Young is no longer the SS.
Davis will be an everyday 1B and we’ll finally get some consistent play from ONE player.
Harrison and Feldman will be even better.
All these reasons SHOULD get us somewhere between 75 and 100 runs less allowed.
I'm not voting or making guesses until I see
the team in spring training.
Nice discussion but way too many variables to make an educated guess in early February.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
That's what assumptions are for
Adam specifically wrote that in his post.
So…based on where the team stands right now
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Go ahead and have fun with the discussion
but I need more information to make an educated guess.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Didn't you make the educated guess...
that this team would win less than 70 games after Hurley got injured?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
That wasn't a prediction
That was just a guess on what this steaming pile would do.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Everything is table talk at this point, little brother.
This is a team that had a Pythagorean expected win total of 76 last year.
They made no additions to their weaknesses in the short-term that will help and made a couple of moves that will subtract from one of their strengths (offense).
They finished the season 19-29.
They’re coming back with the same manager, who is considered a joke by most in the organization and was not extended in 2010.
It’s also very apparent there’s a fart in the room (Jonny Donuts) that nobody respects and is poisoning the atmosphere.
Using a baseline of 76 wins from last year and currently constructed, I’d say the projected win total for 2009 is not going to be more than 76.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Jonny Donuts is poisoning the atmosphere on the team?
Really?
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Do you really think Michael Young,
the leader of the team respects Jonny Donuts from his actions this winter?
Granted, Kevin Mench has an axe to grind but he intimated that JD is not respected by the players in the room and MY validated those thoughts last month.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Does it really make any difference if the players respect JD?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Okay
Let’s presume that’s the case.
So what?
You think that Young being pissed off at Daniels because he’s being moved to third base is going to cause the team to lose more games?
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 12:16 PM CST up reply actions
The parallel I would draw with JD
is how the Dallas Stars felt about their GM (can’t remember his name, Doug Jarvis?) at the start of last year.
Modano, the FOTF had been stripped of his captaincy and apparently a lot of the other players on the team weren’t too crazy about Jarvis either.
The team really scuffled out of the gate in 2007-08 but when the GM was torched, the team somehow turned around and went to the Conference Finals.
Why exactly do things like that happen? There are relatively few changes in personnel but as soon as the fart is out of the room, the team goes nuts. You saw the Stars do it this year when Sean Avery was cut and also the Mavs when Nelson was let go and Avery Johnson was brought in. I do believe it’s rare for a team to do this when a GM is let go bu you see it in sports at all levels all the time.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
I guess I don't agree with your contention...
…that Daniels is a fart.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 12:36 PM CST up reply actions
Adam,
Who is the person that has to tell Fat Ass Millwood to come to camp in shape this spring?
Who is the person that has to talk MYoung off the bridge and come to his senses?
Who is the person that has the final say on any major trades?
The answer to every question is Nolan.
Mench was on Galloway a few weeks ago and made it known how the players felt about JD and it wasn’t a pretty picture.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Okay
So Mench said on Galloway’s show the players don’t respect Daniels, and that means he’s a fart?
Again, I guess I don’t see all this as clearly as you do.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 3, 2009 12:42 PM CST up reply actions
I'm starting to wonder...
why anyone has the idea that players and management (or workers and management) are supposed to be giving each other french kisses in the shower, anyway.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Because management keeps buying the players dinners
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Kind of tough to take as true...
…given that Mench ended up in Japan courtsey of JD. Guy has an axe to grind, so anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.
I figured that would be
It gets bigger…. doesn’t it?
The presence of JD (I believe) is helping
poison the atmosphere on the team. Is it right to use that presence as an excuse to under perform? No.
I think you would agree that beginning in 2005, the players on this team have had a mostly contentious relationship with ownership & management. JD was a part of management when that relationship was at it’s worst. He’s not a baseball man, grew up priviliged and has an Ivy League degree, is young and has made a lot of boneheaded moves- one can imagine how some of those players feel about him.
When Buck left and Washington arrived, some of those feelings were erased because Buck was a detailed hard ass and Wash is a doormat while some were amplified (Tex saw what a dumbass Washington was and wanted out).
Mench said that the players were getting close around 2005 but when JD came aboard he wanted to put his mark on the team and “began trading everybody.”
Whether or not they really were close is another discussion but a team that scores has 901 runs and has a starting rotation of Danks, Galarraga and Chris Young is probably going to win 90 games so I can see why the players feel that way.
The presence of the fart hanging over the room isn’t their biggest problem, it’s one of their problems.
I view finishing the season 19-29, not addressing your biggest weaknesses and taking away from your strengths as the biggest problems.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Bradley
Is the only real subtraction from our strengths this year. While we will be worse than he was in his around 500 ABs we will likely be much at worst even in the other ones, likely better.
The question is what drop off will we get from Bradley to who ever DHs this year. But realize that there are a few things that should help make up for that some. 3b was a black hole most of last year. 1b was a black hole for much of the season last year. Bradley was great when he was playing, but would any one have been willing to take the over on him playing 120 games this year? Would Bradley have likely trended back toward his median if he had stayed here?
How much improvement can we see out of Hamilton this year? If he is in better shape and not worn out in CF will his second half numbers go up. Kinsler would be a big boost if healthy for the year. Will SS this year be less of a black hole than 3b was for most of the year and 1b was for the first half of it.
I think theres a very legitimate chance that the offense is almost a wash with last year, including losing Bradley. I’d bet that we are within about 10-15 runs by the end of the year.
You're a big fan of Billy Beane...
I gathered that from your constant fellating of him… he trades players all the time. And I don’t know offhand how his players think of him, but according to Moneyball he’s something of a prick. So tell me how the players’ feelings about management really impacts things?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I don't care if the players like JD
but I do care if he’s respected.
Billy Beane doesn’t need to have Reggie Jax (or his equivalent) around to wipe his ass like JD has to have Nolan.
Beane also played a little bit in the bigs although ironically he was sabermetrician’s nightmare and paid his dues quite a bit before becoming the GM. I would imagine that, along with some of his accomplishments give him a lot of credibility.
Beane has made some mistakes as well but I don’t think anybody questions whether or not he garners respect.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Beane
He’s also part owner of the team, so I think it’s a different situation from Daniels.
"I dont care to debate with a troll." - Sharky
Beane didn't become
owner of the team until he had a few skins on the wall.
He had a lot respect before he was given a piece of the team.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
I think
This is what you’re trying to talk about
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Hockey =/= baseball
For one thing, hockey is a much more emotional sport.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
And for another thing
Many people have said (and accurately so) that Modano’s playing style is not the sort of style you expect out of a captain. He isn’t a physical player willing to get in a scrap to make a point, or nail a guy to the boards to get his team back in the game.
Frankly, I don’t expect many baseball players to understand the front office’s decisions, given how much many of them seem to revile “statistical analysis”.
I would definitely agree with your second point...
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
yeah
guess its a good thing he’s built this system to be the best in the league so that when he “poisons” the club house, he’ll have plenty of guys to replace those players with.
900-920 seems reasonable.
Everyone and their mom underachieved last year, so I figure shaving off 40-60 runs as a starting point is reasonable, even without any FA signings.
I do expect "regression to the mean"
Also… Mendoza won’t get so many innings. I have a feeling Jennings won’t pitch in the majors, and if he does he won’t be all messed up, so will put up an ERA of like 6 instead of like 8. Harrison got shelled in a few starts, taking his rookie lumps. I expect him to be more even, pitching, say, 150-170 innings of 4.75-5 ERA ball, which would be an improvement over a lot of the starts we had last year.
I also expect some regression to the mean on errors, particularly from Kinsler.
I voted 900-920. If I trusted Millwood and Padilla more, I’d have voted probably 840-860 or 860-880.
940-960
I think the starters might actually have better years than last year but, I have a terrible feeling about our bullpen.
"Come on man you have to admit the average guy in a baseball clubhouse...... is relatively a douchebag." BGL.
+1
"No... JD has been exposed as a kid who trades his remote-controlled helicopters for paper airplanes, then fails to consider the feelings of the paper airplane when he refolded it into a hat." -Telegraph.
by Kinslerhomer on Feb 3, 2009 11:51 AM CST up reply actions
-1, I thought I read 920-940...
"No... JD has been exposed as a kid who trades his remote-controlled helicopters for paper airplanes, then fails to consider the feelings of the paper airplane when he refolded it into a hat." -Telegraph.
by Kinslerhomer on Feb 3, 2009 11:53 AM CST up reply actions
Damn it
And to think, I just got a little chubby thinking I got a +1 from Kinslerhomer. Chubby killer.
"Come on man you have to admit the average guy in a baseball clubhouse...... is relatively a douchebag." BGL.
lol.
"No... JD has been exposed as a kid who trades his remote-controlled helicopters for paper airplanes, then fails to consider the feelings of the paper airplane when he refolded it into a hat." -Telegraph.
by Kinslerhomer on Feb 3, 2009 12:00 PM CST up reply actions
Nolan on 105.3 NOW!
"No... JD has been exposed as a kid who trades his remote-controlled helicopters for paper airplanes, then fails to consider the feelings of the paper airplane when he refolded it into a hat." -Telegraph.
Rangers week-day games are now on 105.3 and weekend games on 1080.
"No... JD has been exposed as a kid who trades his remote-controlled helicopters for paper airplanes, then fails to consider the feelings of the paper airplane when he refolded it into a hat." -Telegraph.
by Kinslerhomer on Feb 3, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions
And
Ben and Skin will be doing the broadcast.
Purgatory's kind of like the in-betweeny one. You weren't really shit, but you weren't all that great either. Like Tottenham.
I assume this is a joke, right?
Nadel does all the radio games. At least I hope so.
"drawing walks is an overrated trait in my eyes."
"i do believe we could have 4 30 start pitchers in the rotation."
-- both these genius remarks brought to you by our resident guru, bigsteve
Just day games?
Or all games from Mon-Fri?
"...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
Mon-Fri.
"No... JD has been exposed as a kid who trades his remote-controlled helicopters for paper airplanes, then fails to consider the feelings of the paper airplane when he refolded it into a hat." -Telegraph.
by Kinslerhomer on Feb 3, 2009 12:29 PM CST up reply actions
Ugh
Newy and Salisbury are terrible…
Purgatory's kind of like the in-betweeny one. You weren't really shit, but you weren't all that great either. Like Tottenham.
+1
"No... JD has been exposed as a kid who trades his remote-controlled helicopters for paper airplanes, then fails to consider the feelings of the paper airplane when he refolded it into a hat." -Telegraph.
by Kinslerhomer on Feb 3, 2009 12:37 PM CST up reply actions
My guess
I think the defense is the key point in this team having a big difference between this year’s and last year’s runs allowed.
C: Teagarden is a plus over Laird/Salty from last year. I’m also a Salty supporter and think he’ll be a bit better next year. Maybe a 5 run gain here.
1B: Davis last year was just a bit below average defensively which was better than the rest of last year’s options. Rangers 1B last year had a UZR of -7 and I think Davis can be at least as good which would be a nice positive swing.
2B: Probably will end up near the same as last year unless Kinsler can put it all together this season.
3B: Rangers 3B last year had a UZR -24.1. Young can’t be that bad.
SS: Andrus’ defense won’t have problems translating to the Majors and I think we’ll see at least another 5 runs or so gained from moving from Young to Andrus.
OF: No Cat in the OF, Hamilton showing that he only needed more experience to improve and/or moving out of CF, and Byrd, Murphy, and Cruz continuing to do what they do will see us add about 12 runs to the OF defense, if not more.
P: Our pitchers last year were terrible defensively and Nolan has said that they are putting more emphasis on that this offseason. We’ll see how it works.
I think this sees a 50-60 run swing in this team’s runs allowed. Now get rid of Jennings and Mendoza’s numbers from last year, Nippert’s not giving up 16 runs in 8 innings again, and I don’t believe this team will be forced to put a guy like Hunter out there for starts (a pitcher who clearly isn’t ready for the Majors yet). I think you’ll end up seeing 40 runs or so saved there from simply not having those absolutely terrible pitchers anymore. So I think we can shave off about 100 runs off the runs allowed this season. That is being optimistic though and that is a playoff team if we do end up in the 860 range, so I’ll say 880 is my prediction.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Great question Adam...
Made me think and take a hard look at the pitching staff as it stands right now.
I voted 920-940 FWIW.
Defensive changes will help in the second half and into 2010. Could be trouling early in the season if Vizquel is on the bench and Andrus starts from day one. Kinsler’s defense (.974 F% , 18 errors) unforunately reminds me more of Soriano than Willie Randolf. Here is hoping he can improve that part of his game. I like the move of MY to third but expect some time for that transition to pay dividends. Overall they won’t give up 107 unearned runs but I still expect 80-90 unearned runs. More importantly the team will be in a position to improve even more in 2010.
Good discussion on the regression to the mean above. I agree that a regression will occur but that can have both a positive and negative effect. Will Padilla and Milly combine for 58 starts??? Gone is our own Aruban drunkard Mr. Ponson along with his 9 starts 55 IP anda sub 4.00 ERA. Injuries will occur but probably NOT as bad as last season. Assuming we go with Harrison, Feldman and McCarthy to fill out the rotation I simply do not see the rotation making drastic improvements over last years fiasco.
The pen is weaker IMHO. Wright, Loe and Benoit are all gone along with their 160 combined innings. Each had an ERA better than the team’s ERA.. That is a bunch of innings to be filled. CJ coming back from injury is still a question mark.
Overall giving up 900 plus runs is embarrassing IMO but the team is positoning itself to change this in the future. Just not this year.
On Kinsler
I’m wondering why so many seem to buy the horrible start to last year as what he is as opposed to the better finish or the relatively average year the season before.
I just don’t think theres all that many stats to show that Kinsler is likely to be a butcher at 2b next year. It seems like the chance is that hes somewhere within a few runs of average like he has been over his whole career.
Kinlser in 2007
had a fielding % of .977 and 17 errors. Thst is pretty consistent with the .974 and 18 in 2008.
He certainly can improve but if he get much worse I would hope he starts looking for a new position.
frankly
errors and fielding % are basically a similar stat and aren’t very good stats. People aruge about which defensive stats to use consistently. I’ll admit I’m lazy and look ath BPs FRAR/FRAA a lot. Just looking at FRAR/FRAA he was within a few runs of average both years, plus/minus.
I agree with you about
difficulty in measuring the defensive performance. Kinsler has better than average range but has not really slowed the error rate yet. I think he can, but until he does, I would not call his defense a plus. Love his bat though. Last year he handled taking over the lead-off spot thank goodness for the team. Hopefull this year he will work with Wash, reported to be a great infield defensive coach to address a perceived weakness.
I wouldn't call it a plus either
but I would call it probably around a neutral. Which isn’t what a lot of people are saying about it. On average Kinsler’s play at 2b is probably just about break even, which to me is something you can live with. Unlike Soriano who showed a consistent negative in pretty much every fielding stat.
I can live with around neutral out of Kinsler. If he actually sinks to Soriano level then is when we need to start worrying and figuring out what to do.
Some here don't seem to understand
what over-under is. You’re not making a prediction, you’re guessing the most likely outcome. If you vote over 1000 for the over-under, you’re saying that is the most likely outcome.
Maybe Adam should have picked a number and then made us vote over or under. I voted for the 900-920, simply because of better health and better performance is much more likely than not. It’s possible that many arms could be injured again…it’s possible that many guys could underperform their projections by a huge margin again…but it ain’t bloody likely.
I might vote even lower if it weren’t for the high number of young and unpredictable guys.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Analyzing the votes so far...
the over-under would end up around 910. 54% voted for between 880-940.
I noticed that right after I voted
that I had fallen right in the middle of the bell curve.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Me too....
I must be getting loder as I feel comfortable being in the middle of bell curves more than when I was young. PEACE.
880-900
50 runs saved from defense improvements
20 runs saved from natural pitching improvements and fewer injuries leading to fewer Lizard-type sightings in the bullpen
Some tinkering with CHONE some time ago predicted about 890 runs
for some reason within 2 seconds of seeing the poll i voted 920-940
but upon thinking about it for more than a quarter of a second, 880-900
the preceding post was a great success.
wait, the saga continues
ok, all of that was having read it as runs scored, not runs allowed.
now that I’ve actually read the topic and text explanation (no sheets), I now reverse back to 920-940! But on the lower end, ~925.
my deepest apologies.
the preceding post was a great success.
I want to change my vote
to 880-900. Nolan Ryan, Mike Maddux, contract years for Millwood and Padilla, BMac healthy and an improved defense should decrease the runs allowed by 0.5/gm. So the total becomes 886.
Elvis Andrus - 2009 AL Rookie of the Year
Contract years
It has been pointed out many times on this site and others that the contract year spike is mostly mythological lazy-columnist-fodder…
Nah, noob.
You can keep pointing it out
But that isn’t true for all players.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Yes it is
It is true that there is no “contract year” phenomenon. The fact that some players do better in their contract years is not proof of some sort of contract year spike factor that has any predictive value.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Except when you look at a guy like Millwood
Who has spent the past few years being an out of shape waste of money. I don’t know if this is the case for Millwood specifically, but seeing the potential to get 12 million dollars guaranteed if he pitches well could definitely give him the extra incentive to get back in shape and work harder than he has in the past.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
I think a player may well be
motivated in a different way, and for a few players that motivation might mean a performance closer to their potential. But really, these guys are very competitive. They got to the big leagues in the first place because they were very talented and very hard working, and very competitive. Millwood didn’t just sit on his ass because he had a big contract. His age and poor conditioning habits just caught up with him as he aged, that’s all.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
With Millwood
You have a player who (IMO) had the choice between working out more and training harder to pitch well or just be a lazy bum and continue believing everyone telling him he needed to work harder was just wrong. Do you think he makes that same decision if he doesn’t have near 50 million dollars guaranteed him?
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
900-920
That’s based on a hand full of estimates looking at projections and making a few guesses and looking at how they compare to last season. I finished at about 920 and decided to take the optimistic option.
I may well change this at some point (especially after finishing these projections).
900-920
I see the improvement coming primarily from Millwood and Padilla as they play for $$$, plus I like Mike Maddux.
Irregardless, this staff does indeed suck.
"If you have a problem with me, you're probably a doucher."
A good question:
Does this team allow more runs in the first half, or second half of the season?
A lot of variables impact that question…
"If you have a problem with me, you're probably a doucher."
That is interesting
too many variables honestly. But mostly just counting up the games against the good offenses and the bad offenses it looks like the first half is about a neutral. I’d honestly say its just a coin flip right now.
It would almost solely depend on when/if we get eliminated and what we do at that point. If we pull up Feliz/Holland and give them 15 starts each in the back part of the year our runs likely inflate.
Just as a knee jerk reaction I voted 840-860
and after thinking about it, I won’t retract my guess. Here’s why:
1. The unearned runs will improve a bit.
2. Our performance with RISP have to be a tad better.
3. MY and Andrus (or Vizquel) help us defensively.
4. Millwood is in better shape.
5. Injuries can’t be as bad as last year. Can they?
6. Maddux has said he will stress throwing strike one.
This is the one difference from last year that makes me the happiest.
Finally, the people who don’t believe in regression to the mean make me laugh.
I really wish I could set up a series of bets with these fools. Regression to the
mean is a mathematical inevitability
"Evolution happened, now get over it." Michael Shermer
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
