2009 Season Preview AL WEST

[Zagi-CRO]

Los Angeles Angels
Prediction: 90 -72 1st place :nod:

In: LHP Brian Fuentes
Out: 1B Mark Teixeira, RHP Francisco Rodriguez, OF Garret Anderson, RHP Jon Garland.

The Angels lost Teixera, K-Rod, Garland. Their 100-game winners are past. They acquired only LHP Fuentes. Still, they have migthy rotation and bullpen. Lineup without Teixera isn't the same, but they will reach the 1st place again.


Oakland Athletics
Prediction: 74 -88 2nd place ;)

In: 1B Jason Giambi, LF Matt Holliday, RHP Russ Springer, RHP Michael Wuertz.
Out: RHP Huston Street, 1B Mike Sweeney, OF Matt Murton, RHP Kirk Saarloos, LHP Alan Embree, OF Carlos Gonzalez, LHP Greg Smith, LHP Lenny DiNardo.

A's have landed Matt Holliday and Giambi this year. The starting rotation is young and fresh with Duchscherrer as 1st spot.
Bullpen is without Street, Embree with Wuertz. A's could earn 74-76 wins but still under the mark 0.500 this year.
And they can't keep Matt Holliday entire season. Their advantage are their prospects: T.Cahill, B.Anderson, Gio Gonzalez, Chr.Carter, A.Cardenas, Je.Weeks, M.Inoa, V.Mazzaro.


Seattle Mariners
Prediction: 70 -92 3rd place :rainy:

In: OF Franklin Gutierrez, 1B Russell Branyan, INF Ronny Cedeno, OF Endy Chavez, LHP Garrett Olson, RHP Tyler Walker, RHP David Aardsma, DH-1B Mike Sweeney, LHP Tyler Johnson.
Out: Manager Jim Riggleman, LF Raul Ibanez, RHP J.J. Putz, DH Jose Vidro, INF-OF Willie Bloomquist, OF Jeremy Reed, RHP Sean Green, INF Miguel Cairo, RHP R.A. Dickey, RHP Jared Wells, INF Luis Valbuena.

The Mariners were one of the biggest DISAPPOINTMENTS last year. Now they are rebuilding team for the new season. They have good starters and King Felix as an ace. Is it enough for 0.500? I don’t think so. The Mariners lineup and bullpen are still weak for better record then 70-92.


Texas Rangers
Prediction: 66 -96 4th place :crazy

In: SS Elvis Andrus, SS Omar Vizquel, LHP Eddie Guardado, OF Greg Golson, pitching coach Mike Maddux.
Out: OF-DH Milton Bradley, C Gerald Laird, RHP Wes Littleton, RHP Kameron Loe, INF Ramon Vazquez.

The Rangers have the best prospect-organization in MLB (J.Smoak, N.Feliz, E.Andrus, T.Teagarden, Max Ramirez, D.Holland, E.Hurley). Other things look bad, Millwood and Padilla at the top of the rotation?
C.J.Wilson is going to be a closer with an ERA 6.02?
The Rangers have mighty lineup – Josh Hamilton, Kinsler, Young, Murphy… Maybe they could be pleasant surprise this year?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, state your opinion.

[gman5431]

Well done. I dont know anyone not picking the Angels for the division. I think the clearly are the team to beat. Dont think they will reach 100 wins but division should be a sleeper for most of second half. I agree they will be the only team over .500. I think i would pick Rangers for 3rd and M's for the cellar though.

G MAn

[philkid3]

Hey, Zagi. What would you like to bet that the Rangers win more than 66 games?

And C.J. Wilson is probably not going to be the closer.

[Zagi-CRO]

Hey, Zagi. What would you like to bet that the Rangers win more than 66 games?

And C.J. Wilson is probably not going to be the closer.

hehehe... you'll have to bet with my computer
!! :hissyfit:

Ok, really... I said Maybe they could be pleasant surprise this year?
I agree, the Rangers have bright future.

[philkid3]

hehehe... then you have to bet with my computer!! :hissyfit:

Ok, really... I said Maybe they could be pleasant surprise this year?
I agree, the Rangers have bright future.

I'm actually not sure how much of a surprise we'll be (though I think they could win the division with some luck), I'd bet against getting 85 wins without some sort of flukey season.

But I'll gladly bet against them winning only 66 games.

[Zagi-CRO]

I'm actually not sure how much of a surprise we'll be (though I think they could win the division with some luck), I'd bet against getting 85 wins without some sort of flukey season.

But I'll gladly bet against them winning only 66 games.

What do you think how much wins they will have?
70 or more?

[philkid3]

What do you think how much wins they will have?
70 or more?

I would probably set the over/under between 76-78.

[boisemarinersfan]

unfortunatly I think the Mariner's are on a path with a speeding train. 4th wouldn't suprise me and 100+ losses wouldn't either. I am NOT impressed with this off season. I think the only way Seattle doesn't lose 100 is if Texas just can't play them in their division match-ups but i don't see that happening. I see something like 9-13(ish) agains the rangers and worse all around. Another tuff yeasr in the Great Northwest. I used to not be so pesimistic but until they prove me wrong I will just live with being a fan of a crappy team. I don't really even think Felix impresses me anymore. Good starter sure. Ace no win some damn games 1-0. A pitcher has to be able to put a low scoreing lineup on his shoulders ever now and then. I haven't seen this guy do that much. And if any one can tell me were runs are going to come from on a consistant basis that would be cool. Man i am surley.

[Zagi-CRO]

I would probably set the over/under between 76-78.

Ok, what is their strenghtness- rotation, lineup or bullpen?

[philkid3]

Ok, what is their strenghtness- rotation, lineup or bullpen?
You mean which of the three is the farthest above (or closest to) average?

Probably gonna be the lineup. Easily.

[Zagi-CRO]

You mean which of the three is the farthest above (or closest to) average?

Probably gonna be the lineup. Easily.

I meant what is the best part of the team. Ok, I agree their lineup is closest to average.
But I'm afraid of their rotation.
I think they have 29th rotation, one place above the Orioles one.
It's the same group- the Rangers, the Nats, the Pirates.

[philkid3]

I meant what is the best part of the team. Ok, I agree their lineup is closest to average.
But I'm afraid of their rotation.
As am I, but with I, but that's a pretty shallow observation, not very useful for a reliable projection.

And I don't think their lineup is going to be closest to average, I think it's going to be well above.

860 runs scored and 920 allowed (and that's not merely a random guess) comes to a pythag of 78 wins. Taking a slight over on the runs allowed and looking at projections I've done using CHONE and also PECOTA's early stuff, and I'm thinking I'd early on put the over/under at 76. Certainly a lot more than 66.

Do you know when the last time the Rangers had that many losses was? What is it that makes you think the pitching is going to be SO much worse than last season that they're due to have the worst record in the franchises history over a long period of time?

[Zagi-CRO]

What is it that makes you think the pitching is going to be SO much worse than last season that they're due to have the worst record in the franchises history over a long period of time?

The Rangers has these starters:

W-L ERA



Kevin Millwood 9 10 5.07
Vicente Padilla 14 8 4.74
Dustin Nippert 2 3 5.63
Scott Feldman 6 8 5.18
A.J. Murray 1 0 3.52
Kason Gabbard 2 3 4.82
Brand McCarthy 1 1 4.09
Matt Harrison 9 3 5.49
Warn Madrigal 0 0 3.00
Eric Hurley 1 2 5.47
Douglas Mathis 1 1 8.83
Tommy Hunter 0 2 16.36
Jason Jennings 0 5 8.56
Luis Mendoza 2 6 9.40


Could you name their 5-man rotation?
I could not!
Why they are going to have the worst pitching? See at numbers!!
And they didn't sign any reliable name and other teams did it.
That's why I think the Rangers would have poor results.

[Zagi-CRO]

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/pitching_wins_the_world_series

Important: :debate:

Pitching wins championships. From the days of Cornelius Alexander McGillicuddy, known as Connie Mack, to the modern era of Joe Torre, good pitching will usually stop good hitting. In a best of seven series, teams with two outstanding starters are a formidable opponent. Teams with three excellent starters usually win, even if they have eight starting players who are inferior to the opposition’s eight starters.

I used /incorporated/ this opinion in my CGP methodology /I gave heavy ponder to pitching/.

[philkid3]

Could you name their 5-man rotation?
I could not!
I would expect Millwood and Padilla each to get around 155 innings, about 140 for Matt Harrison and anywhere from 70-100 from 5-8 of Kason Gabbard, Scott Feldman, Tommy Hunter, Kameron Loe, Derek Holland, Dustin Nippert, Thomas Diamond, Jason Jennings and Brandon McCarthy.

Why they are going to have the worst pitching? See at numbers!!
They might, in fact, have the worst pitching. But you're missing something: they had the worst defense last year, too. They allowed 967 runs and still won 79 games.

I feel like you're missing this part: a team can have an awful defense and still be much better than a ~95 loss team. In fact, a team could quite conceivably be .500 with the worst defense if they also had the best offense.

The Rangers were about that last season. And that defense was with several player having down years, some bad luck and was worse than in surrounding seasons. There's plenty of reasons to expect the D to be at least a little better, and even if it is, 66 wins is EXTREMELY low.

Again, to hammer this home, they were the worst pitching and defense last year, too, and won a lot more than 66 games.


And they didn't sign any reliable name and other teams did it.
But those other teams don't make the Rangers worse. Those players already existed. The only things that make the Rangers worse are: 1) losing players/gaining worse players, 2) natural or forced regression from what was already in house or 3) bad luck.

One doesn't apply to the Rangers much (Milton Bradley is far from a 13 win player). Three is unpredictable, and the Rangers weren't a very lucky team in 2008, either. So, two would be what you'd have to be looking at.

So I ask you again: what, on the Rangers, do you think is going to decline so much that they're going to lose 13 more games this year and reach an extreme even this franchise hasn't reached in a long time?

Plese don't tell me the pitching will be bad. It was bad last year and they won 79 games. I want to know what specifically you are projecting to be that much worse and why.

[philkid3]

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/pitching_wins_the_world_series

Important: :debate:

Pitching wins championships. From the days of Cornelius Alexander McGillicuddy, known as Connie Mack, to the modern era of Joe Torre, good pitching will usually stop good hitting. In a best of seven series, teams with two outstanding starters are a formidable opponent. Teams with three excellent starters usually win, even if they have eight starting players who are inferior to the opposition’s eight starters.

I used /incorporated/ this opinion in my CGP methodology /I gave heavy ponder to pitching/.
A pair of dominant pitchers sure is a help in a short post season series. But we're not evaluating that here, we're evaluating a 162 game season. And in that regular season, pitching is not much more important.

Did you check your weights or are they arbitrary?

[philkid3]

Here, in graphical form, are roughly my expectations for the Rangers:

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/30868/2itscpl.jpg

That's primarily using a spreadsheet provided by skyking168, CHONE projections and my own estimates as a Rangers fan for playing time.

That WILL change and is not exactly my own opinion (I would slightly take the over on the 50%), but it won't change much and it's not far from my own opinion.


This post isn't an argument as I give no evidence. It's just supposed to be a visual representation of my own stat-based expectations.

[Zagi-CRO]

So I ask you again: what, on the Rangers, do you think is going to decline so much that they're going to lose 13 more games this year and reach an extreme even this franchise hasn't reached in a long time?

Plese don't tell me the pitching will be bad. It was bad last year and they won 79 games. I want to know what specifically you are projecting to be that much worse and why.

Yes, I understand... I will try to explain as clear as I can.. :nod:
May be there are some gaps in Texas's numbers..

In my calculation for the ALC -Texas have the worst pitching, the best lineup(!) and the worst bullpen.
When I used my formula and ponders for the pitching, batting and pen -result is awful for them.
The biggest problem is pitching, if they will acquire an ace-starter, like
Felix etc. their projection will be more better.

Ponders for three components /my evaluation in my math/

pitching 0.33
batting 0.53
bullpen 0.14
-------------

[Zagi-CRO]

A pair of dominant pitchers sure is a help in a short post season series. But we're not evaluating that here, we're evaluating a 162 game season. And in that regular season, pitching is not much more important.

Did you check your weights or are they arbitrary?

I gave you weights P:B:P 33 : 53: 14
We could change it...?

[Zagi-CRO]

Here, in graphical form, are roughly my expectations for the Rangers:

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/30868/2itscpl.jpg

That's primarily using a spreadsheet provided by skyking168, CHONE projections and my own estimates as a Rangers fan for playing time.

That WILL change and is not exactly my own opinion (I would slightly take the over on the 50%), but it won't change much and it's not far from my own opinion.


This post isn't an argument as I give no evidence. It's just supposed to be a visual representation of my own stat-based expectations.

So, I dont understand something... which possibility give you the best projection?
I think it's 100%? Or 61 wins...

[philkid3]

I don't think you really answered my question, Zagi. What is it on the Rangers that's going to be so much worse and why? I'm assuming it's the pitching and fielding. They had the worst defense last year and weren't anywhere near as bad as 66 wins.

Could you explain shortly - this diagram?
It's the percentage chance of reaching each win total, with every five wins, from 61-101, as the points of data. In otherwords, a near 100% chance of at least 61 wins or more, about a 95% chance of 66 wins or more, about a 50% chance of 74 wins or more, and so on.

[Zagi-CRO]

I don't think you really answered my question, Zagi. What is it on the Rangers that's going to be so much worse and why? I'm assuming it's the pitching and fielding. They had the worst defense last year and weren't anywhere near as bad as 66 wins.

Ok, my answer is - my math. And the Rangers is extremely case. I cant change my math only because of the Rangers...I see that result or projection for the Rangers isn't real but what can I do?

It's the percentage chance of reaching each win total, with every five wins, from 61-101, as the points of data. In otherwords, a near 100% chance of at least 61 wins or more, about a 95% chance of 66 wins or more, about a 50% chance of 74 wins or more, and so on.

Ok, possibility of 50% for 74 wins or more? So, you also have 66 wins for the Texas with the 95% possibility!



in text .....

[Zagi-CRO]

Here, in graphical form, are roughly my expectations for the Rangers:

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/30868/2itscpl.jpg



So, I dont understand something... which possibility give you the best projection?
I think it's 100%? Or 61 wins...

[philkid3]

Ok, my answer is - my math. And the Rangers is extremely case. I cant change my math only because of the Rangers...I see that result or projection for the Rangers isn't real but what can I do?[QUOTE]
And what I'm saying is what part of the Rangers -- in your math -- is going to do much worse than last year and why?

[quote]Ok, possibility of 50% for 74 wins or more? So, you also have 66 wins for the Texas with the 95% possibility!
Meaning that projection (which, btw, I just realized there was an error and it should be higher) gives them at 95% chance to win at least 66 games. Not exactly, at least. It would be setting the over/under at about 74 wins.

So, I dont understand something... which possibility give you the best projection?
I think it's 100%? Or 61 wins...
Read the graph this way: from left to right, the chances in 100 the Rangers reach AT LEAT that number of wins. So it gives them a 95% to win at least 66 games.

As in, if they played 1,000 seasons, they'd win fewer than 66 games only about 50 times. And they'd win at least 74 games about half the time and fewer than 74 games about half the time.

[Zagi-CRO]

[QUOTE=Zagi-CRO;1427284]Ok, my answer is - my math. And the Rangers is extremely case. I cant change my math only because of the Rangers...I see that result or projection for the Rangers isn't real but what can I do?[QUOTE]
And what I'm saying is what part of the Rangers -- in your math -- is going to do much worse than last year and why?


Meaning that projection (which, btw, I just realized there was an error and it should be higher) gives them at 95% chance to win at least 66 games. Not exactly, at least. It would be setting the over/under at about 74 wins.


Read the graph this way: from left to right, the chances in 100 the Rangers reach AT LEAT that number of wins. So it gives them a 95% to win at least 66 games.

As in, if they played 1,000 seasons, they'd win fewer than 66 games only about 50 times. And they'd win at least 74 games about half the time and fewer than 74 games about half the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg

I think better to present your forecast with Gauss or normal distribution?
My forecast is based on 66 wins +- 5% or alfa=10% /significant alfa/.

so it's in range of 62.7 - 69.3 wins for the Rangers with very high possibility.

[Zagi-CRO]

[QUOTE=Zagi-CRO;1427284]Ok, my answer is - my math. And the Rangers is extremely case. I cant change my math only because of the Rangers...I see that result or projection for the Rangers isn't real but what can I do?[QUOTE]
And what I'm saying is what part of the Rangers -- in your math -- is going to do much worse than last year and why?


Meaning that projection (which, btw, I just realized there was an error and it should be higher) gives them at 95% chance to win at least 66 games. Not exactly, at least. It would be setting the over/under at about 74 wins.


Read the graph this way: from left to right, the chances in 100 the Rangers reach AT LEAT that number of wins. So it gives them a 95% to win at least 66 games.

As in, if they played 1,000 seasons, they'd win fewer than 66 games only about 50 times. And they'd win at least 74 games about half the time and fewer than 74 games about half the time.

Ok, AT LEAST 66 wins with 95%... I understand.

[philkid3]

And what I'm saying is what part of the Rangers -- in your math -- is going to do much worse than last year and why?
I still would like to know.

[Zagi-CRO]

I still would like to know.

The last prediction is:


Los Angeles Angels 92 70
Oakland Athletics 72 90
Texas Rangers 71 91
Seattle Mariners 69 93


Only reason for the Rangers slumping is
1. a weak rotation (except Padilla others are minors starters)
2. a weak bullpen (closer is going to be Francisco, others Wright and who else is worth?)
3. Bradley was traded and the only good batters I see only Hamilton, Kinsler and Young.

[philkid3]

The last prediction is:


Los Angeles Angels 92 70
Oakland Athletics 72 90
Texas Rangers 71 91
Seattle Mariners 69 93

While 71 is certainly a bit more reasonable, you say you have an objective, computerized projection system and I still want to know who EXACTLY is projected to regress on the Rangers. PECOTA has them regressing a little and has the details as to why. I want that from you, as well.


Only reason for the Rangers slumping is
1. a weak rotation (except Padilla others are minors starters)
What about Millwood? And Jennings and Harrison aren't rookies.

The pitching is probably bad, but it was bad last year and they were a 79 win team. What is going to get worse and why?

2. a weak bullpen (closer is going to be Francisco, others Wright and who else is worth?)
Wright isn't on the Rangers anymore. Brendan Donnelly projects pretty well.

Just like your first point, the bullpen will, probably, be bad. But that was true last year.


3. Bradley was traded and the only good batters I see only Hamilton, Kinsler and Young.
What about Chris Davis? Marlon Byrd? Nelson Cruz? What does your projection say for them?

Milton Bradley wasn't traded, he was a free agent. And while he was good, he was NOT worth 8 wins. What about a regression to the mean (progression?) on defense, moving Young down the spectrum and playing Vizquel and Andrus at short?

Again, 71 is not out of the question, I probably wouldn't bet against it. But I want to know exactly what the regression your system sees is. Why are they going to be significantly worse. It cannot be all Milton Bradley.

[Zagi-CRO]

While 71 is certainly a bit more reasonable, you say you have an objective, computerized projection system and I still want to know who EXACTLY is projected to regress on the Rangers. PECOTA has them regressing a little and has the details as to why. I want that from you, as well.



What about Millwood? And Jennings and Harrison aren't rookies.

The pitching is probably bad, but it was bad last year and they were a 79 win team. What is going to get worse and why?


Wright isn't on the Rangers anymore. Brendan Donnelly projects pretty well.

Just like your first point, the bullpen will, probably, be bad. But that was true last year.



What about Chris Davis? Marlon Byrd? Nelson Cruz? What does your projection say for them?

Milton Bradley wasn't traded, he was a free agent. And while he was good, he was NOT worth 8 wins. What about a regression to the mean (progression?) on defense, moving Young down the spectrum and playing Vizquel and Andrus at short?

Again, 71 is not out of the question, I probably wouldn't bet against it. But I want to know exactly what the regression your system sees is. Why are they going to be significantly worse. It cannot be all Milton Bradley.

I cant explain my methodology in few words. But this math computes division, league and interleague projection.
I could only say this- the Rangers didn't make any move in upgrading the roster with some better players then they had.
Many other clubs upgraded lineup, rotation with fresh names... someone like for ex. the Brewers will regress this season but the truth is - if I compare the rosters the Rangers regresses. It's all about it.

Jamey Wright is in the Royals, my mistake.

[Zagi-CRO]

While 71 is certainly a bit more reasonable, you say you have an objective, computerized projection system and I still want to know who EXACTLY is projected to regress on the Rangers. PECOTA has them regressing a little and has the details as to why. I want that from you, as well.

Key Addition(s): Derrick Turnbow and Omar Vizquel
Key Loss(s): Gerald Laird and Wes Littleton

The Rangers had quiet offseason, obviuosly.

Projected Lineup:
Ian Kinsler 2B
Michael Young SS
Josh Hamilton CF
Chris Davis 1B
Hank Blalock DH
Jared Saltalamacchia C
Nelson Cruz RF
Marlon Byrd LF
Travis Metcalf 3B

I agree and I said - thier lineup is more above .500.


Top Pitchers
SP: Kevin Millwood
SP: Vincente Padilla
SP: Brandon McCarthy

RP: Derrick Turnbow
SU: C.J. Wilson
CL: Frank Francisco


That's the bottleneck problem!!

Well, let’s just say Texas will win games this season on the offensive end of things.
I can’t see this rotation and bullpen giving up less then 4-5 runs per game on average.
The top two starters are anything but intimidating.
Millwood, 35 and Padilla, 32 give the Rangers a very old combination, with not much heat to brush off any hitter.
A bright spot for Texas is lefty reliever, C.J. Wilson who posted great save numbers last season, converting 24 of 28 save opportunities.

[philkid3]

I cant explain my methodology in few words. But this math computes division, league and interleague projection.
Then give your player projections and the reasons for their regression individually.

I could only say this- the Rangers didn't make any move in upgrading the roster with some better players then they had.
And they only had one significant contributor depart and he wasn't an 8 win player, or even close. So you're still not answering my question: what players on the Rangers are regressing and why?

Many other clubs upgraded lineup, rotation with fresh names... someone like for ex. the Brewers will regress this season but the truth is - if I compare the rosters the Rangers regresses. It's all about it.
That's not sound logic, Zagi. Those players already existed for the most part. The teams they left get worse, the teams they go to get better. That doesn't affect the Rangers, though. The Yankees getting better doesn't make the Ranger worse, it makes the Yankees better.

[philkid3]

I can’t see this rotation and bullpen giving up less then 4-5 runs per game on average.

The Rangers gave up more than 5 runs a game last year -- with a defense that you could make a case was worse than it should be this year -- and won 79 games (with a third order record just about as good). So, once again, who will be worse and why?


A bright spot for Texas is lefty reliever, C.J. Wilson who posted great save numbers last season, converting 24 of 28 save opportunities.
Ceej was AWFUL last year, Zagi. He was hurt, so he could be a bright spot this year, but I wouldn't bet on it and he was terrible last year. Saves are an attrocious way to evaluate relievers, and Ceej put up a 6.14 tRA. That's good for 27% worse than league average and half a win BELOW replacement. 28 out of 24 isn't really that awesome, anyway, unless he's pretty much only getting a 1 run lead everytime and, of course, the save stat doesn't tell you that. Which is the problem with it.