Team Projections and Last Season’s Statistics

The other day, I wrote the Chicago White Sox still don’t seem very good. Naturally, that drew something of a negative response, and that’s fine — people ought to be excited, and it was kind of a buzzkill headline. The White Sox have been active, and general manager Rick Hahn has succeeded in turning nothing into something, at least as far as 2015 is concerned. We all recognize there’s a reason they play the games. Who knows what might happen? Who knows what else Hahn might eventually do? Yet, within the comments, something caught my eye. Some people think Steamer projects too much regression with the White Sox. Which got some gears whirring: How do our current projections compare to roster projections using only last year’s stats?

Obviously, if you’re trying to predict Year X + 1, you need to look at information from more than just Year X. Different people will recommend looking at different windows, but as a rule of thumb, you want to consider at least three or four years, if the data’s there. Plus, there are still other things to take into account. But while Year X isn’t the only thing that’s important, Year X is also the freshest data set in memory. So when a projection differs from what literally just finished happening, people might be prone to thinking that something’s amiss.

The way I figure, we have projected information, and we also have perceived projected information. The former, right now, comes from Steamer. The latter, meanwhile, is influenced very heavily by what happened in 2014. So I wanted to try to find the biggest differences. There’s no right way to do this, but I decided to use our author-maintained, team-by-team depth charts. Those depth charts provide something like expected playing time. Then I opted to simply plug in 2014 WAR figures for each player, adjusting for plate appearances or innings. I set, as 2014 minimums, 100 plate appearances or 25 innings. I used 0.0 WAR for everyone else. For most of those guys, expectations will be low, since they didn’t do anything in the majors last summer. It doesn’t work for everyone Matt Harvey, for example — but it works in most cases.

Before getting to the table, let me note this was written Tuesday night, and the Jimmy Rollins and Matt Kemp trades still aren’t official. Also, there’s talk of a Wil Myers thing? In case that’s happened by morning, it wasn’t not happening as I was writing this. So. The table. There’s Steamer projected WAR, and the league rank. Then there’s “projected” WAR — using projected playing time and last year’s statistics — and the league rank. Finally, there’s the second WAR, subtracted from the first WAR. Here, we might see differences between objective projections and expectations influenced by recency bias.

The sums don’t match up perfectly — there’s more total WAR using last year’s numbers. It doesn’t matter.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.
Team Steamer WAR MLB Rank Using 2014 WAR MLB Rank WAR Difference
Red Sox 42.9 1 34.2 16 8.7
Rangers 31.8 19 25.3 25 6.5
Yankees 36.2 11 32.4 21 3.8
Braves 25.0 27 22.2 30 2.8
Giants 32.4 18 30.0 23 2.4
Reds 26.8 25 24.8 27 2.0
Rays 36.6 10 34.7 14 1.9
Athletics 35.5 13 33.9 18 1.6
Mariners 38.3 5 38.3 9 0.0
Cubs 33.6 16 33.7 20 -0.1
Diamondbacks 24.4 28 25.3 26 -0.9
Royals 36.0 12 37.0 11 -1.0
Indians 36.6 8 38.1 10 -1.5
White Sox 28.8 22 30.7 22 -1.9
Pirates 36.6 9 39.0 8 -2.4
Astros 25.4 26 27.8 24 -2.4
Rockies 32.7 17 35.2 13 -2.5
Padres 21.3 29 24.6 28 -3.3
Angels 35.4 14 39.6 7 -4.2
Twins 29.3 21 34.0 17 -4.7
Phillies 19.3 30 24.2 29 -4.9
Brewers 29.6 20 34.6 15 -5.0
Cardinals 39.8 3 45.1 5 -5.3
Tigers 38.1 7 43.6 6 -5.5
Nationals 41.1 2 47.3 2 -6.2
Mets 27.3 24 33.8 19 -6.5
Marlins 28.4 23 36.7 12 -8.3
Blue Jays 38.3 4 47.3 3 -9.0
Orioles 34.0 15 45.4 4 -11.4
Dodgers 38.1 6 51.6 1 -13.5

Interestingly, though this was partially inspired by the White Sox, they’re right in the middle. Granted, some of the disagreement concerns Adam Eaton, and whether his DRS or UZR defense is more correct. That’s getting too specific. It seems like, even using last year’s information, as available at FanGraphs, the White Sox don’t project as a particularly strong team. Stronger, absolutely. But the odds are still against them. Every team needs some breaks, and the White Sox need some more breaks.

The biggest negative difference, and the biggest difference overall, belongs to the Los Angeles Dodgers. A small chunk of this is just Justin Turner. Turner’s coming off way too good a year. You’ve also got Steamer projecting regression from Clayton Kershaw and, to a lesser extent, Hyun-Jin Ryu. It’d be interesting to look at this again once the Rollins and Kemp trades are factored in, since we kind of know those are happening and it’s a bit annoying they’ve been delayed. But while the perception might be that the Dodgers are incredibly strong, Steamer thinks they’re just good. The best in the division, but perhaps not the best in baseball.

Then you have to speak to the American League East. This is where I think the real meat of the table is. In my Tuesday chats, I’ve fielded questions about whether the Toronto Blue Jays are division favorites. I’ve also been asked why I like the Boston Red Sox more than the Baltimore Orioles, considering everything that just happened. Based on last year’s numbers, the current Red Sox look like a middle-of-the-pack sort of ballclub. The Jays and Orioles, meanwhile, would be a pair of top-five teams. Yet Steamer switches everything. Instead of the Red Sox being more than 10 WAR behind those two rivals, they end up several WAR ahead. And this, again, doesn’t include a non-replacement-level projection for Rusney Castillo.

The Jays look good in both columns. Yet there’s regression factored in. With the Orioles, Steamer doesn’t buy Adam Jones‘ defense. It’s not buying nearly so much of Steve Pearce, and then it’s really not fond of the starting rotation. With the Red Sox, Steamer likes Xander Bogaerts. That’s hardly unreasonable. It thinks Shane Victorino will be healthy and average. It thinks Justin Masterson will bounce back and Joe Kelly will be better and Clay Buchholz will be effective and that Wade Miley and Rick Porcello were sound additions. Steamer doesn’t think the Red Sox have holes anymore. They might have holes with their depth, but we can’t project major injuries.

Really, you could think of it like this: The Red Sox added Hanley Ramirez and Pablo Sandoval to a lineup that should have an improved Victorino and Bogaerts. Castillo last year only had a cup of coffee, and the same goes for Mookie Betts. On the pitching side, the Red Sox made a handful of unsexy but reasonable additions. As much as last season left an impression, the team’s already made a lot of progress moving away from that, and they haven’t even acquired an ace. The way I see it, the Red Sox and Blue Jays are kind of co-favorites, and right now I give the Red Sox the slight edge. I don’t think that’s crazy.

Elsewhere, Steamer likes the Rangers more than 2014 liked the Texas Rangers, which isn’t a shock. Steamer still doesn’t like the Rangers, but Prince Fielder sucked this year. Shin-Soo Choo sucked. Michael Choice had the lowest WAR in baseball. The Rangers should surprise to some extent, especially if they add an impact starter. And Steamer is lower on the Miami Marlins. Blame some projected regression in the pitching staff, and significant regression from Casey McGehee and Dee Gordon. The depth charts don’t yet include Michael Morse, but I can assure you adding Morse will do little to change the math.

Overall, it’s just something to think about in between thinking about more important things. The most interesting part has to be the AL East. Based on current rosters and on what happened a season ago, one might look for the Orioles and Blue Jays to be neck and neck in the battle for first place. Ask Steamer, though, and the Red Sox are the unexpected favorites, by a modest margin. So how heavily do you choose to weigh what happened a season ago? It’s a simple question that informs the way you understand the baseball landscape.





Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.

78 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
santorumforpresident
11 years ago

You mean to tell me projections think the Orioles are a last place team? Shocking!

Spencer00
11 years ago

Don’t you think that’s a bit disingenuous. Steamer sees them as a roughly average team in a good division. Someone has to finish last, and there’s a fairly good chance that any one of those five teams end up doing it.

CrazyPants
11 years ago
Reply to  Spencer00

Steamer should be renamed Steaming Pile.

First fix is that Steamer needs to lose the blue and red Sox goggles. Seriously, is everything going to end up a best case scenario for RSN? come on. Masterson is going to be great. Kelly great. Miley great. Buchholz a CY contender. Castillo is going to battle Betts and Vazquez for ROY. Xander is going to be an all-star… and on and on…

Eminor3rdMember since 2019
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

It’s almost like you people think this is the Coaches/AP Poll in college football. Do you have ANY idea how this works? There’s no possible way for team bias to be a part of this.

CrazyPants
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

Not claiming that it’s systematic, but that there appear to be bugs in it nonetheless.

me
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

Did you even actually look at the projections? Masterson, Kelly, Buchholz, and Miley are all projected for about 2 WAR. Castillo is projected to be replacement level because Steamer doesn’t have enough history on him yet. Betts and Bogaerts are projected for a little over 2 WAR each. What about this is weird to you?

arc
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

Yes, you definitely claimed it was systemic. You claimed steamer is wearing Red Sox goggles.

CrazyPants
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

well, sorry if I don’t share your optimism that the Sox are 16 games better than the 2014 version with the pitching staff they’re assembling. Not to mention that I think Steamer is overrating all of Ortiz, Nava, Napoli and Holt. And we haven’t even mentioned that the pen looks very thin at the moment.

I’m not questioning the method or objectivity, only the big picture of the results against my projection of what these teams are set up to accomplish. To me, the Jays look like a 95 win team with the rest of the division battling it out for 2nd 10 games or more behind.

arc
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

You have your own projections? Cool. Share them with us. Show your work.

Joshua_C
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

I DON’T AGREE WITH THIS THEREFORE IT MUST BE WRONG

CrazyPants
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

are you saying that people cannot disagree with the projections? or “have to show their work” every time they dare to give an opinion??

CrazyPants
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

sounds pretty open-minded.

me
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

If you’re going to call something a “Steaming Pile” you should have a good reason for it. Otherwise don’t be surprised when people don’t take you seriously.

CrazyPants
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

It’s called a play-on-words. The inter webs are flush with them. No need to get yourself in a lather over that.

Joshua_C
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

I’m saying if you disagree with something, you should offer a cogent opinion as to why it’s incorrect. Which you haven’t done.

CrazyPants
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

Sure I have. You just don’t like it.

Joshua_C
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

Actually, let’s look at your contentions about specific players. The ones for which you’ve alleged Steamer is overly optimistic include Ortiz, Nava, Napoli, and Holt.

Something would appear to be systematically wrong with Steamer, but you haven’t identified any actual flaws in how you think it’s projecting these players–they just seem wrong to you. Because, you know, the human gut is much more accurate than finely tuned predictive analytics.

But let’s look at the individual players:

Ortiz: Steamer projects 2.3 WAR, which would be his lowest total since 2009. It projects regression from him in his walk rate, k rate, and ISO, which will be balanced out by improvement in his horrific 2014 BABIP. What exactly seems inaccurate to you?
Nava: Steamer projects 0.9 WAR, which would be Nava’s lowest total since 2010. He’s been worth 1.8 WAR and 2.6 WAR in the last two seasons, but Steamer sees him as a true-talent below-average defender whose BABIP is unsustainable.
Napoli: Steamer projects 2.6 WAR, with Napoli being virtually the same player as 2014 and significantly worse than in 2013.
Holt: Steamer projects 0.5 WAR, down from 2.3 WAR in 2014. It projects below-average defense and a 95 wRC+, right in line with his career 91 wRC+.

Oh, and Castillo isn’t going to be battling for ROY according to Steamer, because Steamer is projecting him as replacement level right now.

It’s almost as if you didn’t even look at the actual projections and made up your mind without doing any analysis at all.

CrazyPants
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

Yep, I was mistakenly looking at the 2014 war of those 4 so I retract that particular comment.

santorumforpresident
11 years ago
Reply to  Spencer00

I’m not going off the deep end like Crazy Pants, but yeah it’s hard to take these projections, particularly when it comes to the AL East, without a massive grain of salt considering how wrong they’ve been the last three years. The Orioles have been consistently outperforming both as a team and as individual players. The Red Sox projections have sucked as well. This is an unusual division.

No, I’m not an Orioles fan. Just a fan of the site that thinks we should probably stop pretending like we can project this division.

mattdecap
11 years ago

Of course any projection system we use to predict something with as many variables as baseball is going to be incorrect a lot. Just because we can point to some anecdotal evidence from the past three or four years doesn’t mean that we should dismiss the projection system. Statistical variance allows for a true talent 80 win team to win 90 games as much as it allows them to win 70 games, just as 5 coin flips could yield 5 heads or 5 tails. That doesn’t impact the value of trying to ascertain the true odds, because they can inform decisions in the future.

Kevin
11 years ago

i dont think you can mention the Orioles overperforming in 2014 without mentioning the underperformance of the Red Sox and Rays. These two things are probably related.

DD
11 years ago

Aaaaaaaaaaaand the Phillies stil suck.

Free_AEC
11 years ago
Reply to  DD

Still?

The Phillies project as the worst team in MLB, and that is before the sale of Jimmy Rollins for two Camden Riversharks. He did well in 2014, his replacement will not be nearly as good.

Then we have the pending sale of Marlon Byrd who was also good in 2014 and for whom no better replacement exists. Just try to imagine Cole Hamels being sold for four Camden Riversharks also.

The Phillies will be picking first in 2016. The best player available will be a Scott Boras client so the Phillies will pass on him as the 30 Years WAR on Scott Boras must continue. The Phillies have never signed a Boras client and they must continue the war even as it destroys the franchise.

Of course, the war has been extremely profitable and the profits will only increase as the payroll plummets. The massive cash TV payments assure John Middleton of that.

_

JOHN MIDDLETON is a LOOTER.

Highlight and Google: John Powers Middleton Felony Fraud

_

J. Cross
11 years ago

Good stuff.

Darren did some analysis of the accuracy of last year’s Fangraphs depth charts here:
http://tangotiger.com/index.php/boards/viewthread/406

They held up pretty well (beating Vegas although, of course, one year doesn’t mean much of anything with this small of a difference).

tz
11 years ago
Reply to  J. Cross

I love his followup that shows that predicting everyone to finish at .500 was overall more accurate than predicting everyone to match their 2013 records.

tz
11 years ago

Wow, now even Steamer has gotten into the heavy Red Sox/Yankees/East Coast bias thing lol.

Carson Cyst-Stooly
11 years ago

Wow, the Braves are bad.

Shorebird Bob
11 years ago

Prediction: The Orioles will once again outperform their projections and Dave Cameron will be condescending towards Oriole fans and chalk it up to “luck” instead of trying to find out why they continue to beat the projections.

arc
11 years ago
Reply to  Shorebird Bob

And I’m sure if the Orioles exactly match their projection this year, you will concede Dave’s point about variance rather than concocting some alternate narrative that preserves your opinion that projections are dumb and the Orioles are world-beating sabermetric prover-wrongers.

Because it’s everyone else that disagrees with you that’s biased, not you.

Kevin
11 years ago
Reply to  Shorebird Bob

i’m pretty sure their overperformance has been chalked up to defense, bullpen and yes, some good old fashioned luck. it’s human nature to try to assign mystical significance to the everyday. reality is usually not so exciting. a handful of teams do this every year.

Matthew
11 years ago

Right now, the Dodgers’ projection assumes that they have Arruebarrena at shortstop, Nicasio at fifth starter, and a replacement-level bullpen They obviously aren’t going into the season like that. If you make even pretty conservative estimates for those spots, the Dodgers are up to ~43 projected WAR, which would make them the best team in baseball.

Nathaniel Dawson
11 years ago
Reply to  Matthew

You could also make that same claim for just about every team in baseball. Pretty much all teams have a few spots that don’t project very well, and the offseason isn’t over, so there’s still time for all teams to make moves that upgrade their roster. Since we can’t know what all those moves are going to be, we can only look at how teams stack up right now.

Orsulakfan
11 years ago

No surprise coming from an Orioles fan, but I think Steamer is a clumsy and inflexible tool. I don’t see the Orioles struggling as much as it does and as Fangraphs does. Maybe teams that load up on stars don’t have roster flexibility the way that teams like the Orioles who use the full 40-man (and more) do, and so Steamer can’t project that? Maybe Steamer favors teams with WAR hoarded into a few star players? I’m not sure. The AL East really is hard to project though: as with last year I think all 5 teams have a roughly equal chance to be in first and a roughly equal chance to be in last.

CrazyPants
11 years ago

If I’m reading this right, the Jays are projected to *lose* 9 wins in 2015?! ummmm, ok…..

Paul Clarke
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

I suspect you’re not reading it right, because I initially made the same mistake. The table isn’t saying the Blue Jays project to be 9 wins worse than they were last year, it’s saying that they project to be 9 wins worse than a team consisting of their current players were last year.

CrazyPants
11 years ago
Reply to  Paul Clarke

fine. Why would the Jays current roster be staring at a 9 game regression?

KDL
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

You clearly don’t even want to understand. Which is fine no one is saying you have to. But, why the charade?

CrazyPants
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

OK, I’ll just get in line and pray to the Steamer god. Is that what you really want?

Joshua_C
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

Because they acquired several veteran players who had strong 2014 seasons (e.g. Martin, Donaldson) and look to modestly regress next year?

Jon L.
11 years ago
Reply to  CrazyPants

And a lot of their most important players (Bautista, Encarnacion, Dickey) are post-peak and potential injury risks?

Philbert
11 years ago

So if I disagree with something here, that means there’s something systemically wrong with Steamer and that it’s biased against the team I like, right?

King Buzzo's Fro
11 years ago

waaaah, steamer doesn’t like the orioles. At least you’ve got a great owner, pass the natty bo

AndrewYF
11 years ago

Steamer must be stuck on the ‘Red Sox every possible thing goes right 2013’ setting. Because that’s pretty much the only way their projection makes any kind of sense, at least compared to the rest of the league.

me
11 years ago
Reply to  AndrewYF

Steamer is projecting the Red Sox to win 87 games next year. Do you think this is overly optimistic? They are projected to be at least average at every position, with an average rotation. Do you disagree with this? What exactly do you think needs to break drastically in their favor for this to happen?

Nicolas
11 years ago
Reply to  me

Where do you see that they’re projecting 87 wins for them? That doesn’t line up with this projected WAR.

me
11 years ago
Reply to  Nicolas

I was looking at the standings page:
http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=Standings

It now occurs to me that this might not be the Steamer projection. I’m not sure what projection system is used on this page.

KDL
11 years ago

Valid (hypothetical)criticism of projections: I think Steamer doesn’t weigh recent performance enough. Steamer incorporates minor league numbers in a weird way.

Invalid criticism of projections: I don’t like the results. My team isn’t projected to win 90 games.

Whiny folks…do you see the difference.

TimK
11 years ago

I’m a little unclear on the 2014 WAR figure. Was the 2014 WAR figure adjusted to meet projected plate appearances/innings pitched in 2015? Or did you simply use total 2014 WAR as long as the players met the 100PA/25IP threshold?

Using total 2014 WAR, I got a much different result for the White Sox.

Pos. Players
Abreu – 5.3
Ramirez – 3.3
Eaton – 2.7
Cabrera – 2.6
Flowers – 1.8
Laroche – 1.6
Gillaspie – 1.2
Sanchez – (-0.3)
Garcia – (-0.4)
tot = 17.8

Starters
Sale – 5.4
Quintana – 5.3
Samardzija – 4.1
Danks – 0.8
Noesi – 0.6
tot = 16.2

Relievers
Robertson – 1.7
Duke – 1.3
Putnam – 0.8
Petricka – 0.6
Guerra – 0.2
tot = 4.6

The combined 2014 WAR for projected 2015 White Sox starters was 38.6. Subtracting the Steamer projected WAR from that figure would leave a difference of 9.8, the largest in the chart.

Again, I’m not totally clear how many more players you used that those I listed or if you modified the 2014 WAR values to fit projected 2015 playing time. But I think that almost 39 wins the White Sox starters put up last season is why our fans are more optimistic than the projections say we should be.

mattdecap
11 years ago
Reply to  TimK

I think he used 2014 WAR totals as the input for a new 2015 projection based solely on this past season. I don’t think it was his intention to compare the Steamer 2015 projection to an exact repeat of last season.

Bridgeport Joe
11 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Sullivan

Hi Jeff. This is enlightening. How did you account for missing playing time in 2014? Did you prorate WAR per IP or PA or whatnot, and then multiply it out by projected playing time?

TimK
11 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Sullivan

Thanks a lot for the explanations. Now that I understand the method, it looks like just those three non-stars you mentioned drag the total down by five wins.

I guess Avisail is a bit of a wild card for us. Because of those tools, age, injuries, his ceiling and floor are pretty far apart. I suppose we will need him to be a healthy, close-to-average player to compete for a postseason spot next year.

Ashlandateam
11 years ago

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but I would LOVE to see past Steamer projections side by side with the actually seasons. How did 2014 Steamer do actually projecting 2014 WAR totals? I think for a lot of people who are skeptical of huge regressions, seeing that, in fact, regressions happen on a regular basis and Steamer was able to predict them would go a long way. Or, if the opposite is true and Steamer does a terrible job at predicting these sorts of things, then it would go a long way for other people. Basically, I’d love to see the ‘scoreboard’ for past Steamer projections. Is that somewhere? If not, can it be somewhere?

everdiso
11 years ago
Reply to  Ashlandateam

well, for example. steamer wildly overrated the red sox last year.

Eric R
11 years ago

“It doesn’t work for everyone — Matt Harvey, for example – but it works in most cases.”

So what did you do? Did a player like Matt Harvey count as 0 WAR or did you leave it with his steamer projected win rate or did you use 2013, etc?

Bonez
11 years ago

Don’t mean to pile on the bandwagon of Os fans here, but I think I’m misunderstanding what the chart is telling trying to say. I guess my confusion comes from the extreme negative numbers with the bottom teams. What exactly have the Orioles lost that makes their team 11 wins worse than last year? I can understand that steamer is expecting regression with some players but 11 wins is a mighty big number. Or am I just misunderstanding the whole concept haha?

Expo45
11 years ago
Reply to  Bonez

Steamer thinks that Steve Pearce won’t be anything close to what he was and that Adam Jones’ D will go back to being bad (UZR liked him last year, but never has in the past). It also thinks basically all of the starters will regress a couple wins. There are small regressions baked in for Hardy and a few others. Finally, Wieters was great in the 112 PA he got last year (36 points above his career wRC+), so the “2014 stats WAR” prorates that to a full season while Steamer sees him as good but not that good. It’s not that the Orioles have done anything to get worse, Steamer just thinks a bunch of guys had career years in 2014 and the team will be weaker when those guys regress towards career norms.

Bonez
11 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Sullivan

Appreciate the feedback from Jeff and Expo45 both. Definitely makes more sense now, I guess the double digit number just seemed out of place due to the lack of real loss, but regression is definitely going to set in on some level with the major contributors. Gotta say I disagree with the regression on Gausman though. I think as he gets more comfortable throwing that slider and becoming more of a pitcher than a thrower he could break out in a big way this year. His stuff is electric and he’s just learning how to use it

Fred
11 years ago

How do projection systems deal with teams composed of players at differing stages of their careers? To me it seems like a system like steamer would be pessimistic about the performance of a team with primarily emerging players and optimistic about a team with older, potentially declining players. I realize that aging curves are built in, but I still wonder whether this could be a systemic bias in the projection systems.

Joshua_C
11 years ago
Reply to  Fred

Projection systems don’t project teams. They project individual players, and incorporate aging curves specific to each skill (at least, Steamer does). Jeff is just aggregating the individual projections and attempting to account for playing time, if I’m understanding correctly.

So unless the individual aging curves Steamer is using are systematically wrong, which is, of course, possible, this shouldn’t be an issue.

Fred
11 years ago
Reply to  Joshua_C

Right, I get that. I guess the crux of what I’m wondering is whether aging curves can actually model individual players career trajectories, or whether they model the average career trajectory of an average player. My guess would be that individual players tend to improve and decline more rapidly than what a system would project, but I obviously could be wrong.

If that were the case though, teams with more young (or recently improved) players should be more likely than average to outperform their expectations and the opposite should be true for teams with older, more “established” veterans.

Perhaps seeing something like 25th and 75th percentile projections around player (and extrapolated team) performance would make this more clear.

wild style
11 years ago
Reply to  Fred

I think it’s fair to assume that the projection system uses age-based improvement/decline data that is more comprehensive and bias-less than whatever you or I perceive to be correct. Which isn’t to say it’s accurately predicting every single player, but rather that systemically it understands the odds of improvement and decline at different ages much better than us. Nor is it to say that the mechanics of this particular system are 100% correct. Merely to say that I doubt it’s structurally wrong about something that has been subject to much analysis.

Jon L.
11 years ago
Reply to  Fred

Projection systems might do this, but it doesn’t lead to systemic error. *Systemic* error is just what it avoids. Individuals may well tend to improve or decline faster than the projection system predicts, if across individuals they do so at different ages (or points in their careers). In this case, the projection system will effectively smooth those changes to be accurate in the aggregate. The result would then be that projection error in estimating individual age-based change in performance would tend to miss equally often in either direction, to minimize error in the aggregate.

Put differently, you might expect your team’s promising young players to develop rapidly this year, while the projection system predicts slight improvements to account for some not developing, based on historic player development, until next year or the year after.

heyyo
11 years ago

I want to believe in the Yankees projection, the lineup is pretty solid (great D too). But the staff scares me to death.

Jason B
11 years ago
Reply to  heyyo

On the other hand, none of the other rotations in that division screams “world-beaters”.

Keyser Soze
11 years ago

Good read Jeff, thanks as always. I understand why some fans don’t like the results of projections, especially numbers don’t reflect the passion they have for their team. I’m one of those at times. I do appreciate the input they provide which gives a good base to which I can add my my own context regarding things like injuries or potential of certain players plus the impact the improvement of other teams has on a team’s potential (especially within a division).

It is interesting to see the Athletics projected as a decent middle of the pack team despite everyone assuming they have all but thrown the season away with their trades. If Lawrie and their injured starters all return and stay healthy they could potentially even improve on those projections.

A real interesting race is developing again in the AL East though as Jeff indicated. It could be close with health and depth being major deciding factors in who wins the division. There may not be a lot of ‘easy’ wins outside of the division either as other AL teams seem to be improving.

Red Sox have some positive regression in their favor but I suspect it won’t all work out as expected. Castillo will add to numbers but only at a cost in Victorino’s input. Or Nava’s. I don’t feel confident in Pedroia’s and Napoli’s health and Ortiz will continue to have BABIP struggles as a result of his inability to counter aggressive defensive shifts.

The Yankees should have a pretty solid defense with the exception of RF but there won’t be much power. The starting rotation is pretty much what Dave said about the Blue Jays going into last season, “a great big bag of who the hell knows?” Could be solid or a disaster if Tanaka, CC and Nova can’t stay healthy or come back strong.

The Blue Jays are about right as a starting point on the field although I expect they will figure out second base at some point and get an extra win or two of positive value. The starting pitchers are underrated again, they had a rough month in August but other wise the rotation stayed healthy and was very strong down the stretch last season, pitching effectively and deep into games. Even if they don’t acquire another starter I’m pretty certain they get decent positive value out of adding Sanchez to the rotation as opposed to the current negative projection for him. Add a couple of wins right there, and we’ll see what they add in the bullpen in future.

The Orioles seem to be greater than the sum of their parts in recent seasons – the Buck effect? Any regression from other starters should be mitigated by Gausman and maybe Bundy but nothing is certain. On the field it is hard to say what Davis, Pearce, Wieters and even Machado will be coming off his injuries and there is no Cruz parachuting in to hit 40 HRs this year. They should still be dangerous offensively.

The Rays are a real wild card. The starting pitching figures to keep them in games but their hitting is a huge question mark. They are shaping up to look something like the Cards in the eighties, little power but won with pitching, speed and defense. Those Cards didn’t play in the current AL east environment though.

Going to be a fun division to watch.

Jason B
11 years ago

“The Rangers should surprise to some extent, especially if they add an impact starter.”

The ___(insert any team here)___ should surprise to some extent if they add an impact starter.

Jason B
11 years ago

I’m still so, so confused as to why any fan base gets upset with Steamer or *any* projection system. Do they realize that those projections count for a 0.0000000000000000000000000% weight in the actual standings (+/- 0.0000%)?

I’ve said before, and I’ll repeat, that I’ll happily take any (and every!) projection system expecting my team to go 50-112 if they win the division and make the playoffs. Who cares?!

Matt
11 years ago

You guys are just the worst. Mafia mentality when a commenter disagrees. Jesus Harold and mother of Mary, you guys really, really SUCK.

That said, look at the bottom 3 teams. Alex Anthropulous, Zaidi, Freidman and the entire FO of the Orioles that is coming off of back-to-back seasons of beating all projection systems. Something tells me they know much, much, much, much more than Steamer. Take Steamer with a grain of salt. The people that are bashing it don’t understand it’s a suggested outcome, not written in stone. And the people that don’t acknowledge that an educated and progressive, analytical based front office know much more than Steamer are just as bad.

John
11 years ago

I’d like to see a study of how teams who made an improvement similar to that of the Red Sox actually did in the next season vs the one prior. Any growth that large is based on a lot of positive regression so I am curious as to whether or not that actually occurs

Bounty
11 years ago

I wonder how much different overall team projections would be (and individual player counting stats) if you factored in the projected lineup construction. I mean, I’m guessing we’re looking at individual past player years and not who is around each player in the year(s) we’re dealing with.

(also teams you’re scheduled to face, platoons R vs L etc.)

Estimating a players rates, then extrapolating average (for a league or whatever) counting stats from that vs extrapolating a particular set of counting stats from a group of players (in a certain order) with those rates.

everdiso
11 years ago

for an old and injured team like the red sox, i’d say a projection in which every player either maintains or improves his performance from last year is a significant overrating.

how a projection system like this can not ding guys like ort and uehara significantly for being 40yrs old seems more than a bit strange.

Randy Jones
11 years ago

I don’t understand all this. All I know is you have Sabathia as a 2.2 War for next year and Tyson Ross and Cashner as 1.3 and 0.8 respectively for 2015. What? Makes no sense whatsoever, at least from my point of view. The only basis I can see for it is Cashner’s penchant for ending up on the disabled list once or twice a year and the fact Ross threw more innings than he’d ever thrown last year so maybe he’s due for a poor rebounding year. But Sabathia has more injury issues than an old horse so I still don’t get it.

bill
11 years ago

Steam knows all. All hail to steam. Steam will save all. What a crock of $#!T