CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
There's something wrong with these numbers, and all the numbers for all the teams. The triple slash numbers they are showing do not line up with the projected runs scored, at all. If the top of the page is to be believed, PECOTA and these depth charts say that the Yankees as a team will hit .278/.367/.458 for an OPS of .825.
In the history of baseball since the advent of the 154 game schedule, there have only been 28 teams to achieve that. Obviously we have era differences that skews that number towards more recent seasons.
team: avg/obp/slg (ops) runs scored
1927 NYA: .307/.381/.489 (.870) 975 runs scored
1930 NYA: .309/.382/.488 (.870) 1062 runs scored
1936 NYA: .300/.378/.483 (.861) 1065 runs scored
1930 CHN: .309/.374/.481 (.855) 998 runs scored
2003 BOS: .289/.360/.491 (.851) 961 runs scored
1950 BOS: .302/.382/.464 (.846) 1027 runs scored
1996 SEA: .287/.362/.484 (.846) 993 runs scored
1996 CLE: .293/.368/.475 (.843) 952 runs scored
1929 PHI: .309/.374/.467 (.841) 897 runs scored
1999 TEX: .293/.362/.479 (.840) 945 runs scored
1930 NY1: .319/.367/.473 (.840) 959 runs scored
1930 SLN: .314/.369/.471 (.840) 1004 runs scored
2009 NYA: .283/.362/.478 (.839) 915 runs scored
1999 CLE: .289/.372/.467 (.839) 1009 runs scored
1931 NYA: .297/.380/.457 (.837) 1067 runs scored
2000 HOU: .278/.361/.477 (.837) 938 runs scored
2000 CLE: .288/.367/.470 (.837) 950 runs scored
1997 SEA: .280/.353/.485 (.837) 925 runs scored
2001 COL: .292/.354/.483 (.837) 923 runs scored
1953 BRO: .285/.362/.474 (.836) 955 runs scored
2000 SFN: .278/.362/.472 (.834) 925 runs scored
2004 BOS: .282/.360/.472 (.832) 949 runs scored
1997 COL: .288/.352/.478 (.830) 923 runs scored
2007 NYA: .290/.366/.463 (.829) 968 runs scored
1996 TEX: .284/.359/.469 (.827) 928 runs scored
1932 NYA: .286/.373/.454 (.827) 1002 runs scored
2000 CHA: .286/.356/.470 (.826) 978 runs scored
Of those 28 teams, the fewest runs scored by any of them was 897. So either these numbers are wrong, or they think the Yankees are going to be 60 or 70 runs worse than average in baserunning or something.
This is not a Yankee-specific issue with the depth charts, but they are the team that seems to be the most affected. Boston's runs scored total is around 85 runs worse than their component stats would say, so they would likely still project ahead of the Yankees, but the gap should be closer to 1/2 a game or so.
FWIW, the team whose run scored total lines up closest to their listed triple slash stats is Houston, and they're still something like 40 runs low.
Interesting. Shouldn't it be closer to 1.08?
So you're projecting the Yankees to allow 673 earned runs but 789 total runs? A ratio of 1.17? A ratio that's happened 59 times in 1507 team seasons since 1946? Please elaborate.
Is there a reason that we should only be looking at 2009 WARP1 when trying to set a value for free agents going forward? Seems like you're going to overvalue spike seasons.
You're also completely ignoring important factors like age and decline/regresson.
I also don't think that a difference of 0.1 in WARP can in anyway be construed as meaningful, because these numbers are just not that precise.
Yeah, the Yankees/Angels odds look way off.
In order for the Yankees to have that high of a probability of beating the Angels, we'd have to assume that they are being treated as having a winning percentage something like 0.234 better.
So if the Angels are being treated as a .500/81 win team, the Yankees would be a .734/119 win team. They're good, but they ain't that good (and the Angels aren't that bad).
Granted, home field advantage and platoon advantages/pitching matchups could contribute to a greater disparity than the raw numbers would indicate, but I have a tough time seeing them causing THAT much of a disparity.
FWIW, I do my own odds and I get the Yankees at around 58-60%, dependent on whether Sabathia makes two or three starts.
Yeah, seems like Robertson should at least get those Jason Johnson innings. Actually, he should probably get the Humberto Sanchez innings, with Aceves getting the Jason Johnson innings.
\"Is the ballpark effect that significant?\"
I\'m not sure what BP\'s park factors as are, but yeah, it could be. Looking at Baseball Reference\'s multi-year park factors for batting:
Fenway Park (108)
Yankee Stadium (103)
Converting those to multipliers since half the games will occur in ostensibly average parks, Boston\'s offense will appear to be 1.04 times better than it would in a neutral park, and the Yankees would look 1.015 times better.
Dividing Boston\'s projected 851 runs by 1.04 yields 812 neutral park runs. Multiplying those by the 1.015 Yankee Stadium multiplier gives you 830 runs. So park factors are probably the bulk of the difference.