TeamBoone
02-12-2007, 09:08 AM
Ouch! Pretty horrible review.
MLB Teams Due For A Fall
By Ernest Miller / WagerWeb.com Contributing Writer
On Saturday, we highlighted the three big-league teams that look to be the most improved over the winter. It's only fair that we examine the flip side of that coin. So, today, we'll look at the three steepest declines from 2006, which actually covers four teams since there is a tie for third.
First, a note about season-to-season fluctuations might be in order. In a typical season, there are usually about five teams that enjoy (or suffer) double-digit swings on either end of the spectrum.
Last season, there were four teams that improved by at least 10 games over 2005 (Tigers, Dodgers, Mets and Twins) and five that dropped by at least 10 games (Nationals, Braves, Cubs, Indians and Cardinals).
Keep in mind that these fairly large shifts in win totals occur every season, without fail. Targeting which teams are going to rocket upwards or tumble downwards is another matter, an inexact science at best.
Prognosticators, especially mainstream writers, tend to largely foresee repeat performances from the previous season. The upward and downward shifts that they do forecast are invariably a reaction to high-profile player acquisitions and departures.
However, year-to-year statistical regression, new talent ascending from the minor leagues and typical aging patterns (both plus and minus) almost certainly, as a whole, have a much greater effect on the movement in the standings than the front page signings and trades.
While there is no perfect way to anticipate the standings of a coming season, anyone who is interested in doing so would do well study statistical projections put out by any number of Web outlets and publications aimed at the analytically inclined.
By using the kind of solid, objective criteria that the many practicing sabermetricians employ, you can uncover some of those less obvious trends and stay ahead of the game, so to speak.
Now, on with our falling teams, listed by projected number of wins declined.
1. CINCINNATI REDS (-17): Reds general manager Wayne Krivsky looked at a team that went 80-82 in baseball's worst division and was outscored by 52 runs and decided that, what the heck, let's stand pat. Isn't the object of the game to get better? It's not like Cincinnati's is a roster full of young players on the upswing. Only third baseman Edwin Encarnacion fits that bill. The only position-player change of note was bringing in one of the Alex Gonzalezes to play shortstop. Jeff Conine was brought in to shore up the bench. He's 90 years old. The outfield defense is one of the saddest sights you'll ever see with decrepit, brittle Ken Griffey Jr. in center field and statuesque Adam Dunn in left. Right fielder Ryan Freel is fast, but he can't catch everything -- and he can't hit enough to justify an everyday spot at an outfield corner. Last year's pitching staff overachieved to finish in the middle of the pack in National League ERA. The only significant new face brought in was fifth starter Kirk Saarloos. This team is in a lot of trouble.
2. OAKLAND ATHLETICS (-14): Oakland is far from hopeless, but when a team loses its best hitter (Frank Thomas) and best pitcher (Barry Zito) without bringing in new talent to replace them, a projected drop is going to be the most likely result. GM wiz Billy Beane is banking on a healthy season from Rich Harden to replace Zito's production. As for the offense, his hope is that Mike Piazza will replace a good chunk of Thomas' monster 2006 season and improvement from Bobby Crosby, Eric Chavez and Dan Johnson will bring them the rest of the way. One possible portent of doom is that because Oakland is well known for using analytical methods in managing its franchise, it generally does well in statistical projections. The fact that this year the A's do not may suggest that this time around, Beane has done a little bit too much wish casting.
3. (tie) CHICAGO WHITE SOX (-12): Has tinkerer deluxe GM Kenny Williams finally gone too far? The numbers sure seem to think so. The outfield, which includes Scott Podsednik (assuming he returns from hernia surgery) and Brian Anderson is two-thirds lousy, and Jermaine Dye will almost certainly regress significantly from his career season of 2006. That outfield and a starting rotation thinned by the departures of Freddy Garcia and Brandon McCarthy leave the White Sox vulnerable for a fall.
3. (tie) TEXAS RANGERS (-12): You gotta love the Rangers' infield of Mark Teixeira, Ian Kinsler, Michael Young and Hank Blalock. But unless newly acquired closer Eric Gagne shows a dramatic improvement in health, that will be the Rangers' only strength. With a shaky starting rotation, the lineup will need to outscore opponents just as Texas lineups of yore were expected to do. But an outfield/DH combo of Frank Catalanotto, Kenny Lofton, Nelson Cruz, Brad Wilkerson and Jason Botts will do well to yield league-average production once you factor in defense. The Rangers will have a decent offense, but it won't be nearly enough to offset the pitching and defense. And, when you think about it, that's pretty much business as usual for the Texas Rangers.
http://www.wagerweb.com/expert-columns/4253.html
MLB Teams Due For A Fall
By Ernest Miller / WagerWeb.com Contributing Writer
On Saturday, we highlighted the three big-league teams that look to be the most improved over the winter. It's only fair that we examine the flip side of that coin. So, today, we'll look at the three steepest declines from 2006, which actually covers four teams since there is a tie for third.
First, a note about season-to-season fluctuations might be in order. In a typical season, there are usually about five teams that enjoy (or suffer) double-digit swings on either end of the spectrum.
Last season, there were four teams that improved by at least 10 games over 2005 (Tigers, Dodgers, Mets and Twins) and five that dropped by at least 10 games (Nationals, Braves, Cubs, Indians and Cardinals).
Keep in mind that these fairly large shifts in win totals occur every season, without fail. Targeting which teams are going to rocket upwards or tumble downwards is another matter, an inexact science at best.
Prognosticators, especially mainstream writers, tend to largely foresee repeat performances from the previous season. The upward and downward shifts that they do forecast are invariably a reaction to high-profile player acquisitions and departures.
However, year-to-year statistical regression, new talent ascending from the minor leagues and typical aging patterns (both plus and minus) almost certainly, as a whole, have a much greater effect on the movement in the standings than the front page signings and trades.
While there is no perfect way to anticipate the standings of a coming season, anyone who is interested in doing so would do well study statistical projections put out by any number of Web outlets and publications aimed at the analytically inclined.
By using the kind of solid, objective criteria that the many practicing sabermetricians employ, you can uncover some of those less obvious trends and stay ahead of the game, so to speak.
Now, on with our falling teams, listed by projected number of wins declined.
1. CINCINNATI REDS (-17): Reds general manager Wayne Krivsky looked at a team that went 80-82 in baseball's worst division and was outscored by 52 runs and decided that, what the heck, let's stand pat. Isn't the object of the game to get better? It's not like Cincinnati's is a roster full of young players on the upswing. Only third baseman Edwin Encarnacion fits that bill. The only position-player change of note was bringing in one of the Alex Gonzalezes to play shortstop. Jeff Conine was brought in to shore up the bench. He's 90 years old. The outfield defense is one of the saddest sights you'll ever see with decrepit, brittle Ken Griffey Jr. in center field and statuesque Adam Dunn in left. Right fielder Ryan Freel is fast, but he can't catch everything -- and he can't hit enough to justify an everyday spot at an outfield corner. Last year's pitching staff overachieved to finish in the middle of the pack in National League ERA. The only significant new face brought in was fifth starter Kirk Saarloos. This team is in a lot of trouble.
2. OAKLAND ATHLETICS (-14): Oakland is far from hopeless, but when a team loses its best hitter (Frank Thomas) and best pitcher (Barry Zito) without bringing in new talent to replace them, a projected drop is going to be the most likely result. GM wiz Billy Beane is banking on a healthy season from Rich Harden to replace Zito's production. As for the offense, his hope is that Mike Piazza will replace a good chunk of Thomas' monster 2006 season and improvement from Bobby Crosby, Eric Chavez and Dan Johnson will bring them the rest of the way. One possible portent of doom is that because Oakland is well known for using analytical methods in managing its franchise, it generally does well in statistical projections. The fact that this year the A's do not may suggest that this time around, Beane has done a little bit too much wish casting.
3. (tie) CHICAGO WHITE SOX (-12): Has tinkerer deluxe GM Kenny Williams finally gone too far? The numbers sure seem to think so. The outfield, which includes Scott Podsednik (assuming he returns from hernia surgery) and Brian Anderson is two-thirds lousy, and Jermaine Dye will almost certainly regress significantly from his career season of 2006. That outfield and a starting rotation thinned by the departures of Freddy Garcia and Brandon McCarthy leave the White Sox vulnerable for a fall.
3. (tie) TEXAS RANGERS (-12): You gotta love the Rangers' infield of Mark Teixeira, Ian Kinsler, Michael Young and Hank Blalock. But unless newly acquired closer Eric Gagne shows a dramatic improvement in health, that will be the Rangers' only strength. With a shaky starting rotation, the lineup will need to outscore opponents just as Texas lineups of yore were expected to do. But an outfield/DH combo of Frank Catalanotto, Kenny Lofton, Nelson Cruz, Brad Wilkerson and Jason Botts will do well to yield league-average production once you factor in defense. The Rangers will have a decent offense, but it won't be nearly enough to offset the pitching and defense. And, when you think about it, that's pretty much business as usual for the Texas Rangers.
http://www.wagerweb.com/expert-columns/4253.html