03-26-2014, 07:20 AM #221
I invoked the 2013 starter list specifically as a response to Jokin's 2014 projections, not to compare the pitchers themselves, but to show an example of how you cannot project a group by going through the list and assigning good but not great outcomes to each one. There are bad outcomes, injury and ineffectiveness, and they happen to virtually every team, all the time. I agree the 2012-2013 Twins had more bad outcomes than most, but that doesn't mean the 2014 Twins will be devoid of such outcomes. They should be improved. But this is nowhere near a league average starting staff unless we get a lot of luck.
03-26-2014, 07:26 AM #222
Finally, I don't believe this staff or team will be the worst of the last 4 years. Even with a mostly stagnant offense, I think they should improve by a couple games as a mean projection, maybe they creep into the low 70's win range with some good fortune.
It's probably more likely they lose 100 than win 81, however -- the starting staff is still full of high-variability guys with modest upsides (a couple coming off low ebbs on their variability), and we all know the sorry state of the offense.
03-26-2014, 07:35 AM #223
To get +8 wins from the rotation, we need less than 1 win over replacement level from each starter.
That's far from a best-case scenario.
03-26-2014, 07:50 AM #224
- Liked 461 Times in 290 Posts
03-26-2014, 08:18 AM #225
12 fWAR from SP would be 2013 Royals, Reds, Pirates, White Sox, Rays, Athletics territory. Very good starting staffs, all. I think that's clearly best case for the 2014 Twins SP.
03-26-2014, 08:23 AM #226
Quick link to Twins 2013 SP fWAR:
It would be hard for Pelf or Correia to improve on those 2013 fWAR figures, same with Deduno and whoever replaces Albers as a fill-in, and that's nearly 3/5 of the rotation right there.
How it all translates to rWAR, I don't know. Does B-Ref have a nice table of SP only WAR by team, like this?
Would be great to get some context around that -3 rWAR total...
Last edited by spycake; 03-26-2014 at 08:32 AM.
03-26-2014, 08:51 AM #227
Given this group's question marks (more talented and more likely, sure, but still huge question marks), +8 is most certainly not the floor for this staff, it's much lower than that.
Or we might, once again, have an issue with people not understanding what a "floor" is in a projection. If you think worst case with this group is +8 WAR you are definitely overly optimistic.
03-26-2014, 08:53 AM #228
03-26-2014, 08:58 AM #229
I really don't like fWAR for pitchers as a metric of past performance. Pelfrey was a bad pitcher for most of the year but because fWAR uses FIP (what should have happened if you remove fielding and uncontrolled elements from the equation), it makes him look like a productive starter.
And that simply wasn't the case. If you want to suggest that Pelfrey should post a 2014 WAR somewhere around his 2013 fWAR numbers, I could get behind that argument.
But in no way, shape, or form was he a 2 WAR player in 2013.
Personally, for pitchers I use this:
rWAR as a gauge of past performance because it's closer to what actually happened, luck be damned. fWAR as a predictive tool of future performance because it's closer to what should have happened if luck was removed from the equation.
Of course, Pelfrey could post another good fWAR season but stink up the field. The outfield isn't exactly full of Willie Mays this season, just as it wasn't last season.
03-26-2014, 09:43 AM #230
- Liked 396 Times in 262 Posts
- Blog Entries
03-26-2014, 10:00 AM #231
- Liked 123 Times in 89 Posts
- Blog Entries