I have been curious for some time how the division is stacking up. Some of you will remember my divisional projections from last season. I will be rehashing those in the near future, but in the interests of trying to improve the accuracy and transparency of my thoughts I have decided to greatly expand how I compute the projected totals.
These still rely almost totally on my guesses. I took each position (aside from grouping the outfield together) and broke it down to two or three deep with some estimated playing time for each player. Then adding in my projected WAR per 162 games played, arrived at a guess for each player.
The chart of the hitters is below the jump along with some explanations of my thoughts to be updated as the thread evolves. I've also included a poll to gauge the community reaction to the win numbers. Consider these to have fairly large margins of error. If you vote for either the too high or too low option, I'd appreciate a comment as to why.
For reference, 19.9 WAR would have ranked 17th (MLB) and 9th (AL) in 2010.
I don't expect much offense out of Dustin Ackley this season and figure he will accumulate some value through playing time and position. I anticipate Brendan Ryan beginning the season at second base before taking over short stop.
I didn't allocate any time to the bench but pencil in a half win deduction for injuries, defensive subs, and other miscellany related to this being a team from Seattle.
1 recs | 37 comments
Smoak is underrated.
Otherwise… no real complaints. Just fake ones.
KingCorran - December 23, 2010
Smoak's projection does seem a little light.
Also, if I had to bet on any other player to exceed their projection, it’d be Ryan.
ThomasG - December 23, 2010
I see Smoak as a little too low and Olivo as a little too high
But I don’t think it will be drastic in either case.
Fuckmikereilly - December 23, 2010
Although the difference is minimal, shouldn't we expect more from the SS position?
An above average defensive shortstop can hit poorly and still manage 2 WAR, as Jack Wilson proved most of his years with the Pirates (and to a lesser extent in 2009). I also don’t expect much from Chone Figgins but I completely understand why you do so I don’t have a problem with the projection.
CapSea - December 23, 2010
I assume Jack Wilson starts the season at SS and I'm not sure he's still above average defensively so he gets docked.
Matthew - December 23, 2010
I was looking a little more at Brendan Ryan's 1.5/162, but as I mentioned I definitely think the difference will be minimal.
More of a question about value choices, really.
CapSea - December 23, 2010
The only projections I have major doubt about are playing time ones.
I’ll be shocked if Carp, Jack Wilson and Milton Bradley get that much time on the Mariners in 2011.
Sec 108 - December 23, 2010
Somebody like Carp is just a stand-in for "2nd on the 1B depth chart"
ditto Milton for “4th OF”
Currently, those are Carp and Bradley. Whether it is by June is not something I’m overly concerned about.
Matthew - December 23, 2010
That makes sense and is why I think overall these numbers seem very fair.
Sec 108 - December 23, 2010
Voted Too High because we play 9 games without a DH
Actually voted Too Low based on just a couple that seem overly pessimistic. Can’t really quibble though.
sulles - December 23, 2010
Saunders and Bradley seem a bit high
but otherwise everything else looks reasonable
Poochie - December 23, 2010 via mobile
Updated to add that
For reference, 19.9 WAR would have ranked 17th (MLB) and 9th (AL) in 2010.
Matthew - December 23, 2010
I think 2 wins for Olivo is on the high end.
His wOBAr has been sub .300 for three of the past four years and getting a 22% HR/FB rate like he had in 09 seems unlikely playing in Safeco.
Everything else looks good though.
Nate Dogg - December 23, 2010
I look at that win total and think hey our offense isnt that terrible
but then I remember how much of that is on defense.
Bearskin Rugburn - December 23, 2010
It's already been stated that Olivo seems high.
Considering Moore’s offensive struggles and his projected lack of playing time, his 0.3 WAR seems generous as well.
I think you have Ackley’s projection dead-on.
Smoak seems a little low, while I don’t see Saunders or Bradley hitting well enough to merit positive WAR at all.
katal - December 23, 2010
Some are easier to project than others.
Ichiro, Gutierrez… probably fairly easy. Everybody else, though, considering 2010’s results, SafeCo Field, etc, we should probably err more on the low end than something that seems realistic for middle ground.
Then again, maybe I’ve just become overly pessimistic.
The Typical Idiot Fan - December 23, 2010
Overall these projections seem accurate.
I think you are overvaluing our catching but hopefully Smoak and Ackley can pick up some of the slack. Either one of them could have a breakout season. We also should get more out of Brendan Ryan if we commit to him at SS as soon as possible.
Miguel Olivo has done OK the last couple of years, but I expect him to regress to his 1 WAR or less ways when he is reintroduced to Safeco Field. He and Adam Moore should quickly get into a friendly contest over which one will lead the league in Passed Balls this year.
Droid Rage - December 23, 2010
I think Smoak and Figgins higher...Olivo lower...so I'd inch it up a little.
diderot - December 23, 2010
I don't think you can possibly put Figgins higher than 3 WAR after he had .6 fWAR last year.
Especially since he’s never been above 3.2 fWAR in any season apart from 2009.
thehemogoblin - December 23, 2010
Be wary of a systematic bias towards optimistic outcomes
These projections definitely look too optimistic to me overall, although I would rate a couple of players higher. The issue is that you and I and any other person really can’t make neutral predictions – we have certain tendencies that cause us to overrate the team as a whole. Your predictions last year are indicative of that; in February, you forecasted every AL West team to finish at 83 wins or higher when projection systems, on average, had the Rangers at 84 wins, the Mariners at 81, the Athletics at 79, and the Angels at 78, for an average AL West record a full five wins lower than yours. As I see it, the issues are:
-Even when attempting to view the situation in a neutral light, nobody who watches a team as closely as you and Jeff do can actually see both the good and the bad about any given player and weigh them appropriately. For instance, if a player had a “breakout” year last season, you’re unlikely to regress it as much as you should to average and to career norms.
-Few people will forecast complete collapse or below-replacement production from a player even when it happens to most teams. On a related note, few people appreciate the significant decline associated with aging, which adds up when you’re trying to project twenty-five players.
-You don’t seem to be accounting for the inevitable injuries that will befall multiple players over the course of the season. This is a big deal, and I’d estimate that it accounts for almost half of your systematic optimism.
-I’m sure that I’m forgetting one or more.
Please don’t take this as me lambasting you for poor forecasting methodology or for blindness to reality induced by your being a devoted fan. These estimates simply serve to illustrate the inherent problems with having people and not computers try to perform as complex a task as predicting the production of players in an upcoming season.
austinh - December 23, 2010
Sorry if that seemed condescending, Matthew
After looking at the pitching projections, I think I gave you too little credit for the thought that you put into these. I was treating you too much like the typical optimism-blinded fan and not enough like the clear-headed, analytical thinker that you are. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that they’re significantly too high for the same reasons that I already mentioned – again, no one is really immune.
austinh - December 23, 2010
This seems like a silly thing to say for many reasons:
1) Matthew writes for Fangraphs. I think he is familiar with projection methodology.
2) The entire point of these specific projections is to make guesses off what we believe. That’s their purpose.
3) This is a site that has pioneered statistical analysis. Of all people, the site writers here are quite aware with the pitfalls of user generated projection systems, and has been touting said problems for years. That’s obviously not what this is.
I appreciate your politeness as you try to point out the flaws with creating a projection system based on our own thoughts, knowledge and eyes, but you have essentially done the equivalent of walking into a police station and explaining that the problem with profiling is that other races commit crimes. We here have many posts on ZiPS, CHONE, etc., throughout the season. Also, the assumption that all of those are right is also inaccurate. They have gotten Ichiro wrong every year, thus accounting for a few more wins. They also would have punished players more for breakout years that by all accounts may be indicative of future success. They also tend to punish younger players.
Regardless, the goal of these posts is almost always to see what your guesses are, not what the mathematical projections will be. For that we have the mathematical projections – the same projections that we use (and have used) every year. No one used Matthew’s projections last year to make judgments, because they were his projections. Your post is condescending, not because you are criticizing the site author, but because it assumes that every person here doesn’t already know this. It seems as though you have read the site before, so this seems like something you should already be aware of. Still, it may be a good idea to hang out around here a little bit more, especially as we get closer to the season, so that you can see how the site generally operates and what is used to form opinions. Best of luck.
CapSea - December 24, 2010
You're right that I should recognize that these aren't meant to stand in for computer-aided projections
Perhaps I simply have misinterpreted Matthew’s aim here. If he’s trying to use fan sentiment as extra information that the computers don’t know (say, to recognize that Ichiro really is that consistent and that ageless), or if he’s forecasting players with the tacit assumption that this is what they will do if they remain healthy all year (or something), then of course they should be different. But if, as last year, he uses these to predict team records, then that just doesn’t make sense to me, because he has to know that he’s omitting quite a lot, like injuries. What’s he trying to do there, then, if his forecasts are optimistic by five wins and he knows exactly why? I mean, surely they can’t be meant to be interpreted literally, even though the projections themselves (not extrapolated to team record) are definitely worth something. But then what is their purpose?
I certainly would appreciate if Matthew posted in detail how precisely he arrived at each player’s forecast; it would be much clearer whether they should be treated as the optimistic outcome or the realistic, these-would-align-pretty-closely-with-a-computer-projection one. I do still have a hard time believing that the Mariners’ position players’ true talent will be 19.9 WAR next year, but I’d certainly reevaluate if Matthew have his line of thinking for each offensive and defensive projection.
austinh - December 24, 2010
I'm not seeing for 'not accounting for injuries' thing.
There are primary and backup players for each position. Jack Wilson is likely the starting shortstop and he’s only projected for 62 games for the season. How that’s not accounting for injuries I’ll never know. Are you looking for guesses as to who has season-ending injuries or epic collapses?
It might be better for you to explain what precise problems you have with each player’s forecast, if any, as the majority of the this audience understands how these projections came to be, whether they are too high or otherwise.
ThundaPC - December 24, 2010
That's a grand total of one player
Basically, injuries are likely to strike multiple players over the course of the year – not just the obvious ones like Jack Wilson – but of course it’s unpredictable who will suffer them. You need to set everyone back some fraction of a WAR to account for the missed time filled with approximately replacement-level production, or else you’re going to overstate the total WAR while individual players look reasonable. Do you see what I mean here? I don’t recall having seen anyone calculate the WAR lost due to injury for each team, but it would be relatively straightforward to do as a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and it would give an idea of what to expect the roster in aggregate to lose, and so how much from each player’s projected total.
austinh - December 24, 2010
There are only 'a grand total of' four players on this list who come close to playing all 162 games on this list.
Jack Wilson is only an example. Where is the ‘not accounting for injuries’ factor? Jack Wilson gets hurt or doesn’t perform he gets replaced by Josh Wilson (replacement-level) or Brendan Ryan. Chone Figgins played in 161 games. He’s only shown playing 150 while, as of right now, Tui (replacement-level) covers the rest. Ichiro practically averages 162 games a year and seldom under 155 in the OF (as he’s listed here). Maybe Jack Cust’s playing time is too optimistic? Maybe something happens to Franklin Gutierrez? But even then, he’s shown playing 145 games (less than in his previous two seasons).
Seems pretty intuitive to me. Playing time and the associated WAR total shows the amount of time the player is playing. No one is tabbed for 162 games so everyone who isn’t playing all of them misses some time due to injuries, fatigue, quality of production, etc. I dunno, maybe you’re trying to say that we need to slash about 40 or 50 games from most players and add more replacement-level players to the projection? That’s how I’m reading it anyway and it seems pessimistic.
ThundaPC - December 24, 2010
That's straight-up division of playing time, not time lost to injury
The problem with representing injuries is that you can’t really just peg a random player for losing 40 games to one, so it’s hard to reflect the lost playing time on a list like this that attempts to show the team’s plans for assigning playing time and sending players to AAA. Probably the best way to show it is to give your best prediction for what each player will do given his planned playing time, and then add a lump sum deduction at the bottom for injuries based on the average WAR that teams lose (perhaps 4 or so? I’m not really sure what it typically is). I’m certainly not suggesting that each player, on average, will lose 40 or 50 games; that’s absurd.
austinh - December 24, 2010
I'm doing my best to keep up with this sub-thread. Could you clarify something for me?
You’re discussing estimated playing time and estimating time lost do to injury, correct? And Matthew has given estimated playing time for each player, but hasn’t specified that time lost is due to injury. And that’s the problem.
Is this correct? Because I’m more than a little confused about your point.
Kermit. - December 24, 2010
As a reply to this whole subthread,
Most of your points I do not follow. Injuries are factored in. The lower PA figures are not “playing time decisions”. Nobody would chose to start Greg Halman if the other players are healthy. You seem to be taking a simply concept and losing it attempting to make it far more complicated. And on top of knocking every (literally every) player’s playing time down to account for said marginal injuries I stated that
And so what if I rated the AL West higher than other projection systems? That alone doesn’t make me wrong and them right.
Matthew - December 24, 2010
Can't really argue with anything here
Though 0.4 seems a tad low for Jack Wilson. Guess it just depends on how good his defense is at this point and how quickly he lands on the DL.
Griffin Cooper - December 24, 2010
Looks about right, closer to too low than too high but not enough to vote that way.
Eyeball Kid - December 24, 2010
Ackley's WAR is about 7 too low.
joof - December 24, 2010
I think these are about spot on
I’d personally be more optimistic on Smoak and Ackley, though I realize there’s a very real possibility of downside on both prospects and I think it’s difficult to project their defensive value right now. Olivo might be a bit high, depending on how one feels about his glove and we’d also expect some regression in Cust’s BABIP from 2009, but overall those differences are pretty minor.
JLC - December 24, 2010
I also think these predictions are pretty good.
They don’t seem over-optimistic and being equivalent in WAR to 9th in the AL (2010) is pretty impressive.
With that said, it seems pretty easy to rack up WAR with modest predictions (especially when we have a 4, 5 WAR lock in Ichiro).
How the heck could we have sucked so bad in 2010?
NeighborTom2 - December 24, 2010
I'm voting 'about right'
because the players whose projections I might quibble with are essentially unpredictable. Younger players like Smoak or Saunders are obvious, but so is Olivo and so is Franklin. Gutierrez’s WAR depends in large part on his defense, which means consciously or unconsciously taking a 1-year UZR/def. metric of your choice, and while we all think his defense is great, we’re still talking about a small sample. Olivo’s offensive value will rest almost solely on his ISO/power output as a righty in Safeco. The pessimists will point to his experience in this park to argue that this projection is optimistic, and optimists will point to his actual WAR totals from the past few years.
I actually really like the Ackley and Ryan projections. Everyone knows there’s tons of upside potential there, but knowing that possibility exists and making a decent forecast are very different things. Very well done, Matthew.
marc w - December 27, 2010
I don't understand what you're saying about Guti. We have about 3.5 years worth of outfield defensive numbers on him now.
That’s not a small sample. That’s as big as you’re likely to ever use.
Matthew - December 27, 2010
Broadly, the point is that any single season WAR means single season UZR.
The projection takes into account 3 or 4 years of UZR/other defensive projections, so it’s a much better gauge of Franklin’s true talent. But 1) Franklin’s a guy who’s hard to read – he lost over 2 wins on defense last year (using UZR), and another 1.5 on offense and 2) we’ve still got a guy who’s projected to get a large fraction of his WAR from ~400 chances or so (or less if you prorate for injuries, as you have).
marc w - December 28, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.