|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 19, 2014 3:14:55 GMT -5
Led by the danged Dodgers, West Coast teams were given plenty of respect by Baseball Prospectus in its season projections. The Dodgers were projected to win an unusually high 98 games, best in the majors by 9 (!) games.
In addition to the Dodgers, the Giants, A's and Angels received high marks, with all expected to make the playoffs.
The A's are projected to win the AL West with 88 wins, joined in the playoffs by the Angels with 87 victories. The Giants are expected to win a like 87 games and make the playoffs.
Baseball Prospectus' projections attempt to balance out the highs and lows of possible team performance, so the 98 wins projected for the Dodgers is a very large number -- large enough to top the majors by almost double digit games. The Dodgers are rated so highly because they are believed to have few weaknesses.
The Dodgers' best high spot is considered to be its pitching, led by consensus top pitcher Clayton Kershaw. Zack Greinke is considered a very strong #2, and their Korean lefty a very strong #3.
Because of all the variables that enter a season, it is tough for projections to materialize, but Baseball Prospectus has a high ranking in that regard. BP was highly accurate in the NL West, missing significantly on the Giants. They predicted the win total for both the Dodgers and the Padres exactly, and weren't far off on Arizona and Colorado. Like most projections, they were way off on the Giants.
BP also was very strong in its projection for the highly-regarded Washington Nationals. The Nationals were a strong consensus pick to win the NL East, but suffered through a difficult season. BP came within a single win of predicting the Nationals' victory total precisely.
Notable projections for this year include the Pirates with only 78 wins and the Yankees with 82. The Red Sox are projected to have the 2nd-highest win total with 89. The Cardinals are predicted to win 88 contests.
In presenting Baseball Prospectus' picks, the MLB Network didn't cheat toward the East either. The three teams of which they spoke in detail included the Dodgers and the Angels. The Yankees were the other. They didn't want to show TOO much West Coast bias. 
As for their projections for the Giants, making the playoffs -- even as a Wild Card -- would be a good result. |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 19, 2014 17:30:02 GMT -5
Rog, on the whole, and based upon their history, I disagree.
I think they've always shown the same East Coast bias as the networks, and it is ONLY because.. all-of-a-sudden, no one can question the strength of the NL west.
Each and every team has made solid, solid moves to improve.
The Dodgers bought theirs, Arizona, San Diego, and the Giants either developed their own, or traded for the guys they have.
And don't nit pick. I know there are a few exceptions. But more or less, what I've said is right on.
Bottom line; the NL west FORCED them to changed their perspective.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 19, 2014 18:14:06 GMT -5
Boly -- Bottom line; the NL west FORCED them to changed their perspective Rog -- I was simply giving the results of this time. They were also pro-NL West a year ago, predicting the precise 92 wins for LA and projecting both the Giants and Diamondbacks with solid winning records. Unfortunately, the NL West didn't force them into those projections as much as we had hoped. In fact, they were very close on the rest of the division. It was only the Giants they significantly over-estimated. I know I myself did as well. A year ago BP was wise enough to predict almost to the game the heavy decline of the Washington Nationals, whom almost everyone else was predicting to win the NL EAST, most of the predictions (including mine) being that they would do so easily. One thing they have learned is that teams who make quantum leaps one year usually drop back the next. That is part of the reason they are projecting the Pirates to finish below .500. Neither of those predictions show much East Coast bias either. Here's what I think about the East Coast bias. I don't know that the writers from the East Coast (and many now are on the West Coast or in between) were biased per se against the West Coast teams. It used to be that they didn't get a lot of their information on West Coast games until so late that it didn't make the papers the next day. I know when I lived in Illinois, I had to wait for the evening paper the next day to read about the Giants. I think with the rise of the internet and widespread sports shows on TV, that has lessened. Admittedly, night games on the West Coast no doubt are missed until the next day by many on the East Coast. But I didn't see prejudice against Tim Lincecum or now Buster Posey. Yasiel Puig and Hanley Ramirez didn't seem to suffer from much of an East Coast bias last year. Part of it has been because Bruce Bochy has managed the All-Star game two of the past four seasons, but the Giant have had a very good representation in the game. Their top four starters alone have had nine. Sergio Romo has been there at least once. If not for his ill-timed injury two years ago, Santiago Casilla might well have gone. What I'm saying is that if one means by bias a geographical fact that makes the West Coast a little less visible, I'll buy it. And maybe there are isolated instances where writers ARE biased against the West Coast teams. I would doubt there are many who are still angry about the Giants and Dodgers moving out of New York, but you never know. Chris Berman of ESPN is a noted Giants fan despite being in Connecticut. So is the very outspoken guy on WFAN IIRC. When I hear the word bias, I think of intentional unfairness. I just don't think that is the case. The evidence that has been presented here has been scarce, and it is automatically assumed that if a guy rates the Giants lower than we do, he's biased. The guys who didn't predict great things for the Giants this past season were ultimately proven right. Were there more of them on the East Coast? I don't know. I have seen many guys in the Chronicle who haven't predicted the Giants as highly as I would have thought. As almost always, I would ask for backup to support the so-called East Coast bias. Not just isolated examples, either. I would need to see where MANY East Coast writers showed bias against the West Coast. If we don't see a lot of writers who do show the bias (and we can show that it isn't mostly a difference of opinion but rather a consistent underrating), how do we know we're not simply basing our generalization opinion on a small minority of writers? It's possible the East Coast bias exists. But I haven't seen enough examples to feel that way. And we should rememeber that some of the difference of opinion comes from the time difference. Perhaps Mark can weight in on this. He has more exposure to East Coast writers and other media than we do. Even Mark's exposure likely isn't large in the overall context, but perhaps it can at least help us become more informed. As for my original post, I didn't say that the East Coast bias doesn't exist (although I don't believe it does to any large degree). I simply stated that Baseball Prospectus didn't seem to be showing any bias with their projections for this upcoming season. That they didn't show one certainly doesn't mean one doesn't exist. In fact, writers such as Baseball Prospectus employees who make their judgments on factual numbers and long-time trends are less likely to show a bias than those who might allow their emotions or pre-conceptions enter into their decisions. But I just haven't seen enough of this so-called bias to say with any degree of certainty that the bias exists. As usual, I ask for help in how you arrived at this conclusion. If the evidence is strong enough, I'll jump right on the bandwagon or unicycle or whatever it is right along with you. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2191/baseball-prospectus-east-coast-bias#ixzz2toM3Cw1Y |
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Feb 19, 2014 23:40:53 GMT -5
Well, now that they've made their picks, no point to playing the season. Just have the parade in LA this year, and wait around for BP's 2015 predictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 20, 2014 15:50:09 GMT -5
Mark -- Well, now that they've made their picks, no point to playing the season. Just have the parade in LA this year, and wait around for BP's 2015 predictions. Rog -- That's not what it's about, Mark, although I suspect you're just joking here. Recently on the MLB Network, Ben Lindbergh came on with the projections. He showed precisely how last year's picks turned out (probably better than the average projection, but certainly far from perfect, as is to be expected). The next day he was on the air going over individual projections, indicating where he didn't quite agree with the projections, which are done by the staff. When I see a projection, I am usually intrigued to how someone views the situation as opposed to myself, or sometimes as opposed to virtually no knowledge I personally have on various teams. I try to find out as much as I can about the methodology. Has the methodology been successful in the past (which is virtually impossible given the variables that go into each team's season). When the projection predicts a team to have a certain record, how does that compare with other teams' projected records? Is a race expected to be close, or a runaway? Most importantly, does the methodology make consistent sense, or it mostly semi-intelligently throwing darts at the board? What Lindbergh mentioned specific to this year's projections was that he was surprised at how MUCH the Dodgers were projected to win by. Frankly, I was too. Boagie has led me to question the Dodgers' depth beyond the rotation. I'm a little disheartened by the spread in the projection between the Dodgers and Giants, but I already expected the Giants to need to have normal seasons from most of their players and comebacks by most of the group of Lincecum, Hudson (from injury), Vogelsong, Sandoval, Posey and Morse. The Giants themselves lack depth, so they will need to stay healthy. I think good seasons are certainly possible from the swing guys, and I like that their rotation depth seems better with Petit and the minor league Escobar, whom the Giants seem very high on. One thing I was thinking about. Randy made a good point about the Giants' lack of depth on the infield. They're likely a little light in the outfield, as well. But if necessary, it shouldn't cost the Giants much in prospects to shore up that depth at the trade deadline. Getting the right STARTING player can be costly, but getting a back to the backup shouldn't be. I think the Giants may have as good a shot as they had going into the 2010 season, and if we had known that Melky Cabrera wouldn't be around late in the season and post season, a similar shot as in 2012. Probably better than before 2012, since we had little way of knowing Tim Lincecum would fall off the planet. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2191/baseball-prospectus-east-coast-bias#ixzz2tteEz9GR |
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Feb 21, 2014 8:02:03 GMT -5
I have all the baseball magazines in the store I work in, and every one of them had the Dodgers winning the division, but they all had the Giants winning the wild card. None of them had the Giants advancing in the playoffs though, which surprised me. If there's one team in the major leagues whose proven they're dangerous in October, it's the San Francisco Giants. Of course the one game playoff is a crapshoot and severely handicaps you even if you win, but I was still surprised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2014 13:47:09 GMT -5
In both 2010 and 2012, the Giants defied the odds. They're good in even-numbers years that start with 201-.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Feb 21, 2014 19:54:36 GMT -5
I'm not a greedy man, Rog. I don't expect to win the World Series every year, I can live with them winning it every other year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 22, 2014 5:19:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 22, 2014 6:46:13 GMT -5
Baseball Prospectus expects great things from the Giants' rotation this year, but it expects modest hitting and a poor bullpen. Here are various figues in Total Average (think batting average, but combining the ability to reach base and hit for power into the equation). A .300 Total Average hitter is a good hitter. A .250 hitter, not so much -- just as we think of regular batting average.
For pitchers, the simple ERA is used:
Hitters:
Buster Posey -- .306
Pablo Sandoval -- .295
Brandon Belt -- .284
Hunter Pence -- .282
Mike Morse -- .279
Angel Pagan -- .267
Marco Scutaro -- .253
Roger Kieschnick -- .252
Gregor Blanco -- .246
Tony Abreu -- .245
Brandon Crawford -- .243
Hector Sanchez -- .242
Joaquin Arias -- .231
Starting pitchers:
Matt Cain -- 3.10
Madison Bumgarner -- 3.16
Tim Lincecum -- 3.39
Tim Hudson -- 3.43
Ryan Vogelsong -- 4.36
Relievers (Ouch):
Sergio Romo -- 2.27
Heath Hembree -- 3.30
Jeremy Affeldt -- 3.51
Santiago Casilla - 3.62
Javier Lopez -- 3.68
Jean Machi -- 3.70
Yusmeiro Petit -- 3.95
As mentioned before, the Giants are projected to go 87-75 and make the playoffs. On a Wins Above Replacement, the four Giants projected to have three or more WAR are Posey (4.3), Cain (3.2), and Sandoval and Bumgarner with 3.0 each.
It's intriguing to look and see how the various evaluation formulas fit together. Each player's Value Over Replacement Player is very similar to his Wins Above Replacement.
The team record is projected to be 87-75. Their projected run differential would indicate an 86-76 record. Their Wins Above Replacement would project 85 wins (assuming replacement wins at 50).
The Giants' lineup strength is expected to be a solid lineup throughout, with only Posey being at an All-Star level. Likewise, the rotation is seen to feature depth (with Cain and Bumgarner pitching at or near an All-Star level). The bullpen is expected to have little beyond Romo, who is expected to remain an All-Star level reliever or close to it.
Overall, the lineup is projected to be good; the rotation very good; the bench poor; the bullpen poor; and the defense poor. I did find the projections for the lineup and especially the rotation to be encouraging.
As most here have been stressing, Baseball Prospectus believes the need is for more depth on the bench and in the bullpen. The good news is that both those areas should be relatively inexpensive to fill at the trade deadline. And I'll bet that as is usually the case with the Giants at least one expected minor player will turn out to have a fairly valuable season.
Speaking of minor players who surprised, I take it the Giants were significantly soured by Chad Gaudin's airplane escapades. Not even offering him enough to sign him to a minor league contract? I suspect a significant decline for Chad -- but not so much of one that I wouldn't have worked hard to sign him to at least a minor league pact.
|
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 22, 2014 12:33:42 GMT -5
Here's the big question, who's the better team if both teams are healthy and if all the question marks perform at a high level?
|
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 22, 2014 12:44:05 GMT -5
Rog-The bullpen is expected to have little beyond Romo, who is expected to remain an All-Star level reliever or close to it.
Boagie- Aren't just about all relievers in the All-Star game closers? I question the merit of that comment. Were those the exact words the Baseball Prospectus used or are those your words?
I see no reason Lopez and Casilla won't continue being top notch relievers. Affeldt is the question mark due to his poor season last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Feb 22, 2014 13:33:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Feb 22, 2014 13:35:56 GMT -5
computer ate my post..Chad Gaudin was signed and released by the Phils...
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 22, 2014 14:44:49 GMT -5
Boagie -- Here's the big question, who's the better team if both teams are healthy and if all the question marks perform at a high level? Rog -- I would think the Giants would be pretty darn close on that one. The problem though seems to be that the Giants have a lot more question marks and less depth to answer the questions with should things go wrong. By the way, I have mentioned that you have impressed me with how LITTLE depth the Dodgers have compared to what I was thinking (including my thought that they would add one of the upper tier free agent starters). Still, with the Dodgers having four outfielders who at their peak were likely better than all but one Giants outfielder -- if that -- they do have some depth. Here is where the changing of the guard has primarily occurred IMO. In their glory years, the Giants' pitching was right near the top of the league. Now it is the Dodgers who stand at that level. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2191/baseball-prospectus-east-coast-bias#ixzz2u57jv6SR |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 22, 2014 14:47:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Feb 25, 2014 12:26:48 GMT -5
where did everyone go??
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 25, 2014 13:50:58 GMT -5
Rog -- There must be some type of serious issue going on behind the scenes there. I would certainly look at signing Chad to a minor league contract as the Phils did. This one is a baffler to me.
--boly says---
Rog, from what I read, he flunked the physical.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 25, 2014 18:47:32 GMT -5
Rog -- There must be some type of serious issue going on behind the scenes there. I would certainly look at signing Chad to a minor league contract as the Phils did. This one is a baffler to me.
--boly says---
Rog, from what I read, he flunked the physical.
Rog -- I guess that explains it. I wonder if it came from his August carpal tunnel problems with the Giants? That would seem the logical answer.
Perhaps he'll get healthy again, and who knows? He might even rejoin the Giants. I have a feeling (expressed by many others here, including Boly) that the Giants still need bullpen depth. I guess they'll still be OK if their top four can repeat their performances of last season, but I'll be surprised if more than a pair among the quartet is able to do so.
Heath Hembree is held in very high regard in some quarters, and the Giants seem to love last season's San Jose closer, Derek Law. If those two are answers, the question should be pretty well answered. Add Yusmeiro Petit to that sextet, and the bullpen could be all right. I wouldn't expect Law to open the season with the Giants, but it's well within the realm of possiblity.
There are still lots of question marks, but I have to admit I'm getting a little more confident. Ah, hope springs eternal in the, well, spring.
|
|
