Another Day, Another New Plan Projected
As owners and the players discuss ways to start up the 2020 season, we’ve started to see the outline of a possible plan for play become less foggy. 162 games has, of course, long been impossible; now, the owners are proposing roughly a half-season rather than the expected 100-110 games. 82 games starting in early July gives us less baseball than usual, but it could also result in the “baseball year” following its same basic schedule rather than ending in late November. After all, teams normally play about that many games after early July! This likely represents the desire of the owners to play as many games as possible in the home parks rather than the considerably more exotic Super Spring Training plans that have been floated over the last six weeks.
But a shorter schedule isn’t the only proposed change coming for 2020 baseball. Forecasting how the Players v. Owners fight over revenue-sharing shakes out is beyond my abilities as a projectionista, but there are many other new tidbits that do fall within my scope. For one, while the league standings are still likely to be organized along the usual lines, teams would only play their regional division “partners” and the corresponding geographical division of the other league. This has the rather odd result of the Wild Card standings consisting of a lot of teams that would never play each other. But as ugly as that sounds, the main concern is playing the season rather than maximizing its fairness. For the purposes of these projections, I’ve assumed teams will play 52 games, or 63% of the schedule, in their division with 30 games out of division.
The designated hitter is also expected to become universal this year. I’ve long been of the opinion that as soon as interleague play became a daily activity, pitcher-hitting was on borrowed time. When interleague play consisted of special chunks of the season, NL teams could design their rosters to call up a Wily Mo Pena, a competent DH type without a full-time spot on the team, large pitching staffs having mostly killed off the designated pinch-hitter job. Once DH games became sprinkled throughout the system, it put NL teams at a slight disadvantage when planning to have an extra bat on the roster.
Another major proposed change is expanded rosters. While this has been done in the past — 27 players after the 1990 lockout, 28 after the 1994-1995 strike — modern baseball has never been disrupted to this degree. For the purposes of these projections, I went with 30-man active rosters. I also included the effect of a 20-man taxi squad and gave those players real playing time given the very likely possibility of no minor league season in 2020.
The last major change is seven teams going to the playoffs in each league, something that Rob Manfred talked about before the world fell apart. I hated the idea then due to the continued cheapening of the regular season, but at this point, there are a lot of things I don’t like that I’ll learn to live with for the purposes of getting baseball going! With those changes in mind, here’s how the season projects:
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | DIV% | WC% | PLAYOFF% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York Yankees | 50 | 32 | — | .610 | 58.4% | 38.8% | 97.2% |
| Tampa Bay Rays | 48 | 34 | 2 | .585 | 33.9% | 56.1% | 90.0% |
| Boston Red Sox | 42 | 40 | 8 | .512 | 6.6% | 38.0% | 44.6% |
| Toronto Blue Jays | 37 | 45 | 13 | .451 | 1.2% | 11.6% | 12.8% |
| Baltimore Orioles | 28 | 54 | 22 | .341 | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | DIV% | WC% | PLAYOFF% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Twins | 48 | 34 | — | .585 | 50.2% | 35.1% | 85.2% |
| Cleveland Indians | 46 | 36 | 2 | .561 | 33.9% | 41.7% | 75.7% |
| Chicago White Sox | 43 | 39 | 5 | .524 | 14.0% | 35.4% | 49.4% |
| Kansas City Royals | 37 | 45 | 11 | .451 | 1.7% | 7.5% | 9.2% |
| Detroit Tigers | 33 | 49 | 15 | .402 | 0.2% | 1.1% | 1.3% |
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | DIV% | WC% | PLAYOFF% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Houston Astros | 49 | 33 | — | .598 | 54.7% | 34.8% | 89.5% |
| Oakland A’s | 46 | 36 | 3 | .561 | 30.2% | 46.8% | 77.1% |
| Los Angeles Angels | 43 | 39 | 6 | .524 | 12.1% | 37.0% | 49.1% |
| Texas Rangers | 39 | 43 | 10 | .476 | 2.8% | 15.2% | 18.0% |
| Seattle Mariners | 32 | 50 | 17 | .390 | 0.1% | 0.8% | 0.9% |
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | DIV% | WC% | PLAYOFF% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlanta Braves | 47 | 35 | — | .573 | 38.1% | 39.4% | 77.5% |
| Washington Nationals | 47 | 35 | — | .573 | 36.6% | 39.4% | 76.1% |
| New York Mets | 43 | 39 | 4 | .524 | 13.3% | 35.1% | 48.5% |
| Philadelphia Phillies | 43 | 39 | 4 | .524 | 11.2% | 32.5% | 43.7% |
| Miami Marlins | 36 | 46 | 11 | .439 | 0.8% | 4.7% | 5.5% |
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | DIV% | WC% | PLAYOFF% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chicago Cubs | 45 | 37 | — | .549 | 31.5% | 27.9% | 59.4% |
| Milwaukee Brewers | 44 | 38 | 1 | .537 | 24.7% | 27.1% | 51.8% |
| St. Louis Cardinals | 43 | 39 | 2 | .524 | 21.5% | 26.3% | 47.9% |
| Cincinnati Reds | 43 | 39 | 2 | .524 | 19.3% | 25.8% | 45.1% |
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 37 | 45 | 8 | .451 | 2.9% | 7.0% | 10.0% |
| Team | W | L | GB | PCT | DIV% | WC% | PLAYOFF% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles Dodgers | 52 | 30 | — | .634 | 77.3% | 20.6% | 97.9% |
| San Diego Padres | 45 | 37 | 7 | .549 | 14.8% | 56.9% | 71.7% |
| Arizona Diamondbacks | 43 | 39 | 9 | .524 | 6.9% | 42.3% | 49.2% |
| Colorado Rockies | 37 | 45 | 15 | .451 | 0.7% | 9.3% | 10.0% |
| San Francisco Giants | 36 | 46 | 16 | .439 | 0.4% | 5.4% | 5.8% |
So who gains from all of this? A few different classes of teams.
Great teams tend to be hurt the most by shorter schedules and in an 82-game season, a lot of would-be playoff appearances by teams like the Yankees and Dodgers disappear into the ether. The greater number of Wild Card spots mitigate this somewhat, restoring the playoff odds these teams saw in the “normal” projected standings from a few months ago.
The shorter season also helps teams with injury problems that will be mitigated somewhat by starting the season in July. The Yankees get the biggest boost, but this also aids teams like the Reds, Astros, and Indians.
The biggest winners are perhaps the AL and NL Central teams. Both the Central divisions are projected as weaker-than-average and these teams benefit by swapping out East and West division teams for games against the Central team of the opposing league. Overall, the strength of schedule becomes even more unbalanced, with opposing team strength ranging from .525 for the Orioles (85 wins per 162) to the Twins’ opponents at .479 (78 wins). That doesn’t increase their divisional probabilities since there’s still just one AL Central and one NL Central title, but it’s a huge boost to their Wild Card chances. Teams like the White Sox, Cardinals, and Reds all advance to coin flips.
The designated hitter rule provides a boost for NL teams with extra bats. My colleague Craig Edwards wrote about how the DH changes affect National League teams and while I get slightly different results from making slightly different choices, the same principle applies. A team like the Reds, with too many outfielders for their lineup, is well-equipped to provide a viable DH on a daily basis.
And lastly, the taxi squads provide a small but real boost to teams with better high minors depth and better top prospects. The Rays and Dodgers, among others, see gains here, thanks to having both elite prospects and excellent Triple-A depth.
Do these changes benefit the game? In a normal season, I’m not sure. But in 2020, anything that gets us closer to “Play Ball” has to be seriously considered.
Dan Szymborski is a senior writer for FanGraphs and the developer of the ZiPS projection system. He was a writer for ESPN.com from 2010-2018, a regular guest on a number of radio shows and podcasts, and a voting BBWAA member. He also maintains a terrible Twitter account at @DSzymborski.
Universal DH really helps the market for Puig
Does it? Projections have him as pretty average hitting and fielding. Anyone could have signed him as an OF. An extra “lineup” slot shouldn’t change things.
I just don’t understand why players think this is an improvement. Relying on owners to overpay for older hitters sounds like Lucy and the football.
What about this plan indicates that the owners are going to “overpay” for older hitters? Guess I missed that part
Average hitting and fielding is a lot better than most NL teams have for their 9th best position player. NL teams that were previously comfortable with standing pat would become more interested in Puig once they have to put an extra bat in the lineup.
I sort of took the opposite view above, suggesting Puig might be a loser this year if he doesn’t adjust his salary demands, but your point is quite valid. As long as he doesn’t ask for the moon and takes a one year deal, he might land quickly. He frankly should take minimum if that’s all he can get. Out of sight, out of mind. Go to a team where he can have a big impact over the 82-game season and re-enter the market in the off season.
How many teams actually have a dedicated DH? Sure, each team probably has a player who will get a significant portion of the DH ABs, but the reality is short of elite hitters with poor fielding or health skills–think David Ortiz or Edgar Martinez or Frank Thomas in his 30s or Harold Baines–most AL teams use the DH spot to rotate their position players. They don’t want one player locking up that spot because it reduces roster flexbility.
Let’s look at one team that pops to mind. The Yankees have Giancarlo Stanton. He may get the most ABs at DH, but he likely also plays 60+ games in the OF as long as he can return to health. Judge, Sanchez, Voit, etc. will get time at DH to rest. That’s the model most AL teams want follow. It allows them to have an extra impact bat in the lineup, while also allowing them to rest their position players. The Mets, for another example, have multiple players they can DH, and eventually they’ll welcome the opportunity to DH Robinson Cano.
Puig is someone a team can DH, but know that he can also go to the OF. Puig, though, could be a big loser THIS year. He never signed. Who is going to sign him now with only half a season to play if he continues to ask for a high salary? Teams are counting pennies now. He may not return until 2021 unless he takes a low-base contract.
Is there also a possibility of one-time divisional realignment to minimize travel, for example, avoid travel between Canada and Florida?
Considering that as of now you literally cannot get from into Canada from the US unless you are doing “essential travel” or are a Canadian citizen/permanent resident–and that you need to self-quarantine for 14 days upon arriving–I’m pretty sure that any plan has the Blue Jays not playing in Canada at all.
I suspect that there are probably 10 different teams that will be unable to play in their home parks in July.
Yes! There is definitely an element in this of putting pressure on places that are not ready to open up. Same as we’re seeing in the NCAA (which is a cesspool nobody should emulate of course).
I think there will be some subset of players who won’t play. It will be interesting to see if any stars decide to sit the season out. Imagine how the Angels odds collapse if trout decides to stay home and track tornadoes.
Snell seems to be saying he’s not sure he wants to take the risk.
And will teams be penalized Service time by trying to use players not on the 40 man? I hope not, because we could see some single A and double AA players if there is no service time penalty.
When push comes to shove, money talks and the players will play. This is what they do for a living and their big earning years are finite . . .
Someone like Snell may looking at their long term health risks, and may prioritize that over their current earnings. There’s growing evidence that Covid-19 can have long lasting effects. Someone like Snell may be looking at staying healthy for the big payday when they hit free agency in a few years.
Snell has already earned $6 million. His 2020 salary would have been $7 million for the full season. He’ll hit free agency in 2024, at age 31, and have made over $50+ million at that point. Would his pro-rated 2020 salary be worth the risk of that next big contract being affected? The more I look at these numbers and how he’s personally set up, it’s not hard to think that the answer is no, a 2020 pro-rate salary would not be a good move for his career if he has the choice to sit out.
Without 2020, he’d still have $45 million made/guaranteed. At age 31, it’s not hard to picture a $200 million free agent contract. What percent risk of that free agent contract not happening would be worth $3.5 million now?
Less than $3.5m if the owners get their way with the 50/50 revenue split. More like 2.5-3, depending on if any games have fans.
Then again, would he really be making more money if he forfeits a year of service time and can’t become a free agent until 2025 at age 32?
If Snell sits out, he doesn’t get paid at all, and his free agency is delayed a year. Snell didn’t say he wouldn’t play. He said it wouldn’t be worth it to him to play if he took a pay cut because of the risk. That statement implies he’ll play for his prorated salary, which means his statement may be more Union talk than concern for his personal safety. I’m behind the players here, but the conversation on both sides is about money. Based on the data we have, there is a better chance that Snell blows out his elbow in 2020 compared to suffering any long-term health impact due to COVID19, even if he contracts it. Not trying to diminish his words or the virus at all. I’m simply interpreting his statement. He may prove me wrong, but I suspect Snell will be playing in 2020 at whatever the MLBPA agrees to.
Then there’s possibility (liklihood?) that some Latin players won’t be allowed to re-enter the US in time to play, especially if they’re from countries still experiencing increases of Covid cases. Which teams might be most affected by that?
I suspect that won’t be a problem, simply because a major goal of the executive branch right now is to get sports going again. In a world where we followed rules and laws and regulations no, they’d not get special treatments, but even if we lived in that world 5 years ago we definitely don’t now.
Blake Snell circa 2 months ago:
“I think the media kind of hypes up the coronavirus,” Snell said.
“But I’m not too worried about it. If I get it, I get it. If I don’t, I don’t. Either way it was meant to be.”
“I’m not really worried about it, so I don’t get it,” Snell said.
https://www.tampabay.com/sports/rays/2020/03/11/rays-blake-snell-says-coronavirus-is-overhyped-if-i-get-it-i-get-it/
Sounds like he’ll play, he just doesn’t want to take a pay cut. Which is totally fine to want, but let’s not pretend that these new statements from yesterday are about anything else.
To be fair to Snell, people are allowed to change their opinion.
True. But I’ve seen a lot of well-thought out and intelligent responses from people like Sean Doolitle that are quite productive to the dialogue. I would not consider Snell one of those people.
Great example of the dishonest tactics and excuses used by entitled employees with their insatiable greed under the cover of this shutdown. Not surprising he proves to not even be a man of his word, changing his words since as if this is some kind of big ask to go entertain us and things haven’t gotten amazingly better
Now that I know the extent players will try to go just for the money they agreed to a couple months ago, definitely would like to see the owners get their chance to call take backs and renegotiate a more favorable deal
Snell comes off as a putz.
Breaking news: dipshit acts like a dipshit
What a fuckin’ douchenozzle
If there are proper disincentives such as forfeiting the entire season’s pay and service time, I can’t see many players sitting out.
I don’t think proper is the correct word choice. Players should not be forced to play while risking their own health and that of their family. The union will (sorry should) push back pretty hard on those kinds of disincentives.
Is the universal DH really necessary if NL teams will only play 15 games as visitors in AL ball parks?
It’s quite possible, if not likely, that Gerrit Cole took the last AB by a pitcher in a MLB game in game 5 of the 2019 World Series. The players overall want the DH, so the owners may give it to them for some other concessions this season. I think it’s likely the DH is in the NL in 2021, not just this year.
It’s not just the players that want the universal DH though, the owners want it too. No owner wants to sign a Max Scherzer for $200+ mil and then bite their nails every time he steps in the batters box.
It’s pretty clear at this point the vast majority of pitchers have no business hitting and the anecdotal instances of success (i.e. the glorious Bartolo homer) are just a side show.
The DH in the NL will definitely hurt my interest in watching baseball. Very unfortunate.
Love those backward Ks in the 9th slot, huh?
I like small ball, bunting, move the runner over, manufacture a run.
Absolutely. No idea why you are being downvoted.
It is if you plan to never go back to pitchers hitting
What happens if the SoCal teams can’t host games……LA is already talking about stay at home staying in place well into August?? Would they have to play all their games on the road?
Yeah, I don’t think California or NY are going to let anyone play games anytime soon. Probably other states too. But if there are no fans, I’m not sure it’s quite as big a deal.
LA Angels become Anaheim Angels again.
Los Angeles Angels –> California Angels –> Anaheim Angels –> Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim –> Los Angeles Angels –> Anaheim Angels of COVID
This plan also calls for players to be tested multiple times per week using 24-hour tests, and doing monitoring of players but not stopping play. Could it work? I don’t know, but at least they’re thinking about it.
The testing part is not talked about enough. It’s not just players that need to be tested regularly but every essential employee. That’s going to be thousands of tests a week just for the MLB.
Then think about other sports trying to come back and the testing requirements they will all have. Is this really the best use of resources?
Former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb said that a company could test its employees by having every one spit in a bucket and then test that sample. If the bucket tested positive, then test each individual. So there’s a way to economize on tests. MLB has a more extensive testing regime planned than KBO, which last I read is just doing temperature checking and then testing only if a player has a high temperature.
Well, the big difference is that on May 5th (opening day) the KBO only reported 2 new cases (and I don’t think they cracked double digits any day that whole week.
The same day the US topped 22,000 new cases.
How many cases has the MLB reported? I agree with bluerum29 that it’s not necessary to test that often, since MLB players are not at risk of death since they’re not old and generally in good immunosuppressive condition. 40 states are re-opening with most declining rapidly in cases and deaths and the few that are rising are at a very low base (500 cases in an entire state).
I think we also want liability protections for businesses that re-open, provided that they comply with some level of workplace cleanliness, employee masking, and distancing procedures. This is already being done at the state level so that PPE manufacturers can get their goods to hospitals and grocery stores can function without worrying about a spate of lawsuits. We have flattened the curve, so now we need to re-open more than we need continuing $3T bailouts from federal government printing presses.
You seem to be profoundly mistaken about where we are right now in the United States. It appears that things have plateaued in virtually all of those states, but even if they are declining, it will start to rise as restrictions are lifted. 40 states are lifting restrictions but only about 10 should be doing it (Utah, Montana, Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, W. Virginia, North Dakota are the ones I’m looking at here). And even then, they’re going to have to proceed slowly.
This is a horror movie where the protagonists think the monster is dead, but they’re wrong.
MLB has reported zero infections because they do not test, but even if they did they exist in a wider environment with substantial disease transmission that is unlikely to abate. Liability protections are already covered.
Fortunately, most people are not going out and behaving like everything is okay, even in places where restrictions are being lifted. This is good news for public health, but it’s probably not going to be enough.
So you know more than 40 governors? LOL. Is your position that we can’t open up until we have a vaccine or until we meet Ashish Jha’s testing standard? (I think we’re testing 2.5M/week now and he wants 9M/week.)
Liability protections are only covered for “essential” businesses and not in every state. Pelosi opposes it for all businesses at the federal level, probably because her biggest funders are trial lawyers (and gov’t unions). Instead, she is having the House vote today on a $3T spending program with massive welfare payments to continue idleness, aid to “essential” cannabis distributors, pension bailouts, and tax relief for rich people in high tax states.
Again, MLB is filled with very rich celebrities so it should take extra testing than it needs to avoid bad PR. OTOH, the players are young and in good health and baseball is fairly distanced (accommodation in the dugout may be needed), so they are not a population I’d worry about in terms of Covid-19. If any player is particularly worried, he can choose not to play, won’t earn a salary but should get a year of service counted as it applies to arbitration or free agency.
If you don’t have the appropriate level of testing, you cannot lift the restrictions unless you want more cases. If you lift too many of them (which is impossible to know), or you have bad luck, you are right back to where you were before.
The only way to actually get this down is through isolating people who are positive. Do you want to isolate everyone, or just the people who are positive? This should not be a hard decision, but without enough testing the second one doesn’t work.
And, it should go without saying, nothing is happening if coronavirus is spreading uncontrolled. “Before” is a humanitarian and economic disaster.
This is not just my position. This is the position of nearly every single epidemiologist on the planet. And remember, while the exact number of tests needed is unknown, Ahish Jha is not only one who has proposed a correct number of tests. A lot of people are arguing we need a lot more.
Not necessary to test that often.
It wouldn’t be a bad idea in a world where we had the capacity to test everyone like that. But given that testing right now is like 1/3rd of where it needs to be nationally, it is pretty entitled.
You do know that there is no amount of testing we can do that will satisfy the media? If we magically tripled testing tomorrow, they would just move the goalposts
For instance, when we weren’t doing enough testing, we ramped up to what is now 10 million tests and a rate of 300k/day. Most in the world by a factor of 2. Now, the complaint is that we aren’t doing enough testing per capita. “Hey, look at those studs in the island nation of Iceland, why can’t we do that ?”
The need to triple testing is a make believe number that’s designed to make you panic.
It’s ok to want more tests but don’t believe the “experts” who tell you that all is lost if we can’t get there.
I’m sorry, this is just a thousand times wrong. The problem is that you need a testing setup that is proportional to the scale of the disease spread. You need to test enough (and have enough of the rest of the public health infrastructure, like contact tracing) to get % of positive tests down to about 3%. Otherwise any attempt to contact trace will be met by an impossible number of tests where you can’t follow up on everyone where you need to.
Without more testing–a LOT more testing–you’re in social distancing mode forever. Do you want that? I do not.
The triple-the-number-of-tests (about 900K per day) is actually a pretty conservative estimate. There are people out there who argue that we need to do over 20 million tests a day to resume normal life. That’s probably not true–the people making that argument seem to misunderstand how contact tracing can help you. The number I’m citing comes from Ahish Jha, director of the global health program at Harvard.
Or, utilize treatments that are being developed and get people healthy in much less time. Less worry then about getting the virus.
The overall mlb projected winning percentage of .513 seems awfully high. Is that just rounding?
Woohoo, goooo Cubs….Would love to see a column for each team’s projected $/WAR just in case there’s no playoffs due to a second outbreak and we need to belt up or crown a champ