Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 152

Thread: Projections have Twins headed for fourth-straight 90-loss season

  1. #61
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,174
    Like
    19
    Liked 198 Times in 125 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    In the past five years, Mauer has posted an OBP of .444 and .416.

    Is it likely he'll post .420 or better in 2014? No. Is it impossible? Definitely not.

    I'm not even sure his increasing K rate is a concern right now, though that BABIP sure is.
    I would also think OBP improvements may correspond to any positive development of Sano and Arcia batting behind Mauer.

  2. #62
    Why would you project them to be better than 90 losses if you are anyone other than a Twins fan? We have improved 2 rotation spots and that is it.

    If we add a couple of those hitters that have been talked about, I don't hate our chances of winning 80 games.

  3. #63
    Please ban me! All-Star stringer bell's Avatar
    Posts
    2,579
    Like
    89
    Liked 140 Times in 100 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp View Post
    In the past five years, Mauer has posted an OBP of .444 and .416.

    Is it likely he'll post .420 or better in 2014? No. Is it impossible? Definitely not.

    I'm not even sure his increasing K rate is a concern right now, though that BABIP sure is.
    I think Mauer's K rate and BABIP last year were both aberrations. I sincerely doubt he'll strike out 100 times this year in well over 600 PAs (if healthy all year), but I also doubt he can sustain the otherwordly BABIP. They should balance out to another .300+ BA and .400+ OBP.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    851
    Like
    9
    Liked 44 Times in 27 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by twinscowboysbulls View Post
    Why would you project them to be better than 90 losses if you are anyone other than a Twins fan? We have improved 2 rotation spots and that is it.
    That whole regression to the mean thingie, remember?

    If we add a couple of those hitters that have been talked about, I don't hate our chances of winning 80 games.
    If you truly think the Twins are a 72 win team, I think you'd be hard pressed to show how even Drew and Morales/Cruz make them 8 wins better.

  5. #65
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    4,640
    Like
    532
    Liked 216 Times in 148 Posts
    I would put the over under around 75.....based on a healthier Mauer and Willingham, and improvement in pitching.....but they were SO FAR from median in runs scored and allowed that improvement will only get them so far. They need a lot of improvement (defense too) to get to .500.
    Lighten up Francis....

  6. #66
    Senior Member All-Star Willihammer's Avatar
    Posts
    2,405
    Like
    263
    Liked 205 Times in 117 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    They're certainly not over the moon about Arcia, Dozier, Hicks, Mastro, Pressley, Pinto, or Sano. Significant upside there.

    Rotation desperately needs another arm IMO.

  7. #67
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    385
    Like
    2
    Liked 26 Times in 19 Posts
    My question is how does Davenport project the Mighty Whities to improve by 16 wins? They've made a couple of moves, but I don't think they've improved by anywhere close to that.

  8. #68
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    463
    Like
    137
    Liked 55 Times in 41 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtung View Post
    In the last five years only 11 of the thousands of players in baseball have had an OBP of >.420. Mauer's K% has been rising steadily for 4 years straight and even with an absurd BABIP of .383 last season he was unable to even approach .420. I'm curious what you think will be different this year that allows Joe to achieve such a difficult task?
    I don't have any special formula or regression for this 'guess'.

    The .420-.440 is Joey Votto territory. I think Mauer can do that. Less prep for hitters (almost none now) compared to doing that as a catcher. And the legs under him. Just my thoughts.

  9. #69
    I don't really know much about the guys they added but I don't think they are going to be very good. I mean we lost Morneau and didn't really add anyone like him to the team. We are a lot worse than we were 3 years ago. I just wish the team would bring in some better players. I remember going to a game last year and I only knew one of the guys in the lineup. I think the rest were all minor league players or something.

  10. #70
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,159
    Like
    379
    Liked 344 Times in 229 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottyB View Post
    My question is how does Davenport project the Mighty Whities to improve by 16 wins? They've made a couple of moves, but I don't think they've improved by anywhere close to that.
    They've actually made more than a couple of significant moves, but no doubt part of the projection is related to regression to the mean.....The Whities in the previous 5 seasons won anywhere from 79-89 games. A 16 win improvement + last year's total of 63 wins = 79 wins.

  11. #71
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    851
    Like
    9
    Liked 44 Times in 27 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by jokin View Post
    They've actually made more than a couple of significant moves, but no doubt part of the projection is related to regression to the mean.....The Whities in the previous 5 seasons won anywhere from 79-89 games. A 16 win improvement + last year's total of 63 wins = 79 wins.
    He pins Jose Abreu, the Cuban 1B, to come in and have a monster season equivalent in value to our 1B, LF, and C combined (Mauer, Willingham, and Pinto/Suzuki) while helping them add 84 runs on offense over last year.

    He also projects their cobbled #4/#5 pitchers (the likes of Felipe Paulino, Eric Surkamp, etc) to be worth 4 wins... while no two Twins starters total that amount and the Sox shave off 21 runs on the pitching side compared to last year. They subtracted Peavy, Floyd, Santiago, Reed, and Crain from last year... but project to get better?

    I don't see it.

  12. #72
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,159
    Like
    379
    Liked 344 Times in 229 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by jay View Post
    He pins Jose Abreu, the Cuban 1B, to come in and have a monster season equivalent in value to our 1B, LF, and C combined (Mauer, Willingham, and Pinto/Suzuki) while helping them add 84 runs on offense over last year.

    He also projects their cobbled #4/#5 pitchers (the likes of Felipe Paulino, Eric Surkamp, etc) to be worth 4 wins... while no two Twins starters total that amount and the Sox shave off 21 runs on the pitching side compared to last year. They subtracted Peavy, Floyd, Santiago, Reed, and Crain from last year... but project to get better?

    I don't see it.
    They signed more than just Abreu, and got interesting prospects via the trades of your aforementioned departures, plus he factors in positive regression for certain returning players. Will the Sox reach 79 wins? I highly doubt it, and Abreu's numbers are inflated,

    but that wasn't my overarching point- which is-

    the formula Davenport uses seems to overemphasize and exaggerate regressionary bouncebacks.

  13. #73
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,100
    Like
    99
    Liked 343 Times in 196 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jay View Post
    That whole regression to the mean thingie, remember?

    If you truly think the Twins are a 72 win team, I think you'd be hard pressed to show how even Drew and Morales/Cruz make them 8 wins better.
    This pretty much sums up my opinion. With the fact that we outperformed our Pyth. last year and the offense looks shoddy - I don't think we sniff .500 unless multiple young players make surprisingly big jumps this year.

    72.5 - that's my prediction for Vegas' number. That would be a 6-7 game improvement over their actual record and an 11-12 game improvement over their expected record last year. That felt overly optimistic as I typed it actually.

  14. #74
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,159
    Like
    379
    Liked 344 Times in 229 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    This pretty much sums up my opinion. With the fact that we outperformed our Pyth. last year and the offense looks shoddy - I don't think we sniff .500 unless multiple young players make surprisingly big jumps this year.

    72.5 - that's my prediction for Vegas' number. That would be a 6-7 game improvement over their actual record and an 11-12 game improvement over their expected record last year. That felt overly optimistic as I typed it actually.
    I'm glad you brought up last year's Pyth-number, which is very contextual in this discussion. I predicted 70-74 after the Winter Meetings brought back nothing (I predicted 66-75 in 2013), which I guess makes my median number @ 72 wins, and at this point, in consideration of how my prediction turned out last year, I feel a little over-optimistic, yet again, myself.

    Keeping my fingers crossed that a couple more impactful moves are in the works to make this all moot, but for now, the 90-loss projections don't seem all that unreasonable.

  15. #75
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,388
    Like
    50
    Liked 35 Times in 23 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jay View Post
    Win differential from 2013 actual to this 2014 projection...

    Bottom 5:
    1 (t) ATL, BOS, PIT -11
    4 KC -9
    5 (t) BAL, OAK -8

    Top 5:
    1 HOU +19
    2 CWS +16
    3 MIA +13
    4 SEA +12
    5 SF +9
    7 (t) MIN, LAA +6

    Notice any trends here? Teams that were bad or worse than expected last year get better (regress towards the mean). Teams that were good or better than expected last year get worse (regress towards the mean). This highlights what PseudoSABR was referring to. Not exactly an earth-shattering concept.
    "Regression to the mean" is such a large part of not only baseball but of the world as a whole that it is not surprising that his model is dominated by it. Not everyday can be a good day and not everyday is going to be terrible. In fact most are going to be well, average (however one defines that for themselves). I don't really hear anyone arguing that his model is invalid because he uses regression to the mean but rather people seem to think that he is a little heavy handed with it. That's fine. Is that an accurate assessment with people's problem with his model? If so...

    I'd like to talk a little bit about the opposite of "regression to the mean". What many of you seem to be saying is that his model, and I'd argue most statistical models, doesn't do a good job of predicting natural variability. That is it doesn't predict enough "spikes" in the way a player plays, whether that is good or bad.

    It seems to be rather easy to understand some of the triggers for regression to the mean. Getting older. Getting hurt. Having surgery. A huge spike in performance, either good or bad.

    What about the triggers for natural variability? In order to incorporate that variability into statistical models we must know what the impetus is. Here is another way of asking the question: why was Mauer so much better in 2009 than any year before or since? Then ask yourself, does that data exist publicly?

    I think that is at the heart of the problem in this model, and really all baseball prognostication. This is a rather esoteric ramble but I thought it worth reflecting on. Enjoy, or not, as one pleases.

  16. #76
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,388
    Like
    50
    Liked 35 Times in 23 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by stringer bell View Post
    I think Mauer's K rate and BABIP last year were both aberrations. I sincerely doubt he'll strike out 100 times this year in well over 600 PAs (if healthy all year), but I also doubt he can sustain the otherwordly BABIP. They should balance out to another .300+ BA and .400+ OBP.
    Here is a chart showing Mauer's K%, BABIP and batting average on a yearly basis.

    Year K% BABIP Average
    2005 11.6 .322 .294
    2006 8.9 .364 .347
    2007 10.8 .319 .293
    2008 7.9 .342 .328
    2009 10.4 .373 .365
    2010 9.1 .348 .327
    2011 11.4 .319 .287
    2012 13.7 .364 .319
    2013 17.5 .383 .324

    We can see that in the years that his BABIP is high and his K% is low, like 2006, he has a very high batting average. In years that his BABIP is high and his K% is high, like 2012, we can see that his average is still high but not as high as 2006. In years that his BABIP is "low" (yet still above league average) and his K% is high his batting average takes a big hit like in 2011.

    Now notice the last four years of his K%. It has risen from 9.1% all the way to 17.5% and it is rising very consistently, there doesn't seem to be any spiking. This to me says that Joe is just getting older. His reflexes or perhaps understanding of the strike zone just aren't what they used to be. That doesn't bode well for his batting average. As we can see in 2013 if his BABIP is high enough (somewhere around .300 is league average) it can compensate for his increase in strikeouts.

    I think that we can all see that if Joe's K% remains high, like the last four years suggest, and his BABIP regresses, like it should, that he is unlikely to continue his impressive batting average and OBP.

    I think this is part of why all of these models predict that Joe Mauer will not be as productive in 2014 as he was in 2013. Unless he either has another lucky year re:BABIP or his K% trend turns around.

    Does anyone want to make a pitch as to why either of those should be expected? I'm feeling a little pessimistic at the moment after looking at these trends and could use some hope.

    On the bright side his BB% is as high as it ever has been. That doesn't seem to be effected. If anyone wants to do some more research into why Joe is striking out more that would be very interesting to know. Is it strikes looking? Called Strikes? Has his "strike zone" gotten larger and so he has to "defend" a larger area? All interesting questions, IMO I just don't have time to look into it currently.

  17. #77
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,388
    Like
    50
    Liked 35 Times in 23 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Willihammer View Post
    They're certainly not over the moon about Arcia, Dozier, Hicks, Mastro, Pressley, Pinto, or Sano. Significant upside there.

    Rotation desperately needs another arm IMO.
    I wonder if they don't predict great things for Pinto, Sano, et al. because for every Wil Meyers that enters the league there are two Pedro Florimons or Parmelees. When you're being comped with other first year players I have to believe the numbers of Florimons outweigh the number of Meyers significantly and therefore drag the expectations way down.

  18. #78
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,388
    Like
    50
    Liked 35 Times in 23 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsfan34 View Post
    I don't have any special formula or regression for this 'guess'.

    The .420-.440 is Joey Votto territory. I think Mauer can do that. Less prep for hitters (almost none now) compared to doing that as a catcher. And the legs under him. Just my thoughts.
    I think we all can get behind that hope!

  19. #79
    Senior Member Triple-A h2oface's Avatar
    Posts
    298
    Like
    22
    Liked 23 Times in 16 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    I Keep hearing how Ryan spent money...... but the payroll is virtually the same. He has just replaced the money that went off the books. To me, that is not really spending money, even though many would like to think so.

  20. #80
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    851
    Like
    9
    Liked 44 Times in 27 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtung View Post
    I wonder if they don't predict great things for Pinto, Sano, et al. because for every Wil Meyers that enters the league there are two Pedro Florimons or Parmelees. When you're being comped with other first year players I have to believe the numbers of Florimons outweigh the number of Meyers significantly and therefore drag the expectations way down.
    Unless you're a Cuban first baseman for the White Sox.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtung View Post
    What about the triggers for natural variability? In order to incorporate that variability into statistical models we must know what the impetus is. Here is another way of asking the question: why was Mauer so much better in 2009 than any year before or since? Then ask yourself, does that data exist publicly?

    I think that is at the heart of the problem in this model, and really all baseball prognostication. This is a rather esoteric ramble but I thought it worth reflecting on. Enjoy, or not, as one pleases.
    I actually couldn't agree with you more. My posts were mostly intended to point out that while these projections are fun to talk about, there is so much unknown reality that will happen. You did a better job articulating that part. Regression is a very real thing, but variation is as well and those causes are extremely unpredictable in a world that we try so hard to predict.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.