National League Win Total Plays:
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o
> </o>
Giants Under 80.5
The Giants appear to be coming out of the 2009 MLB season as the “sexy” pick amongst market participants. There is an inflow of comments regarding the talent of their young pitching staff. In fact, that is all we seem to hear about this team when accessing their talent. There is no denying their starting pitching staff ranks near the best in all of baseball. But what about their offense? There is little mention about their lineup being the worst in baseball by a considerable amount. There is little talk about their bullpen being mediocre at best, possessing a closer with question marks, and a backend of their bullpen with arms well past their prime.
<o> </o>
The Giants starting pitching is young and possess pitchers that have not hit their prime yet. But that does not automatically equate to a pitching staff that possesses pitchers that should perform better than last year? Even though Lincecum is the real deal, and his best years are ahead of him, I am quantifying a slight regression off last year’s numbers. Cain should have many very solid years ahead of him, but again, his intrinsic worth should not increase much off last years productivity. Accompanying them is a backend rotation with southpaws with question marks. Johnson is past his prime, should witness significant regression off last years numbers, and probably won’t put forth an entire season of starts. Zito may improve off last years disappointing season, but expecting the Zito of old is wishful thinking. What is left of Zito is an average pitcher with high variance. Sanchez is talented but raw. He is also a trade candidate late in the season.
<o> </o>
Their lineup is horrible. The Giants did nothing material to improve this deficiency. The additional of Renteria is immaterial. He is a hitter past his prime, and is a situational hitter and role hitter that a welcomed addition to lineups filled with star hitters. The Giants lack such, which leads me to believe the assets that Renteria brings to the plate won’t materialize. The Giants fed of Molina and Winn last year. These are two more players past their prime, and should regress off recent years. Their biggest name hitter, Rowand, is also past his prime. He also proved to be a warning track hitter whose performance of years past hindered on playing for teams who plays in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1lace><st1
laceName>hitters</st1laceName> <st1laceType>Park</st1laceType></st1lace>. His power numbers depreciated significantly last year, and should keep that trend again this year.
<o> </o>
The Giants won 72 games last year. The market is expecting an 8 game increase this year. But why? Where are they going to get that increase in productivity that will result in a 12% increase in wins? Their starting pitching staff that has 2 pitchers past their prime, and two young gems coming off years that may be hard to repeat. Maybe their bullpen that lacks a dominant arm? Or their lineup that is the leagues worst? Maybe they can steal wins from their division? Not so fast. The market is also pricing in improvements from the Padres, <st1lace>Rockies</st1lace>, and Dbacks, while they expect the Dodgers to keep last years form. To add insult to injury, the Giants possessed positive deltas in each three quantified measurements, thus their 72 win total last season was predicated on a fair amount of luck.
<o> </o>
<o> </o>
Padres Over 71.5
There is no team in the National League who I think has a greater chance of winning more games than their season win total than the Padres. A lot of “bad news” has flooded this team. Big drop-off in ticket sales, a complete team rebuilding, and trade rumors surrounding their best player. With alot this news appearing to be priced in to their win total, this teams possesses a lot of upward mobility in my opinion.
<o> </o>
Unlike the Giants, we hear little talk about the Padres pitching staff, which is not that much worse than the Giants. As long as Peavy remains their ace, the Padres pack one of the best one-two punches in baseball. Young (the two punch) is also somewhat of a hidden free agent, as he is coming off a sub par season that was filled with injuries and sub par performances. The backend of their rotation is not dominant or filled with big names. But it is deep and has a lot of upside potential (unlike the one the Giants bring to the table). Baek, Griere, and Rienke are in or nearing the prime years of their career. Also unlike the Giants, their starting rotation is backed by one of the leagues best bullpen. Getting Hoffman out of the closing role is a blessing. Replaced by an underrated closer adds value to this teams public perception. It is also a deep bullpen filled with a combination of young talent, veteran arms, and situational pitchers.
<o> </o>
The Padres lineup leaves a lot to be desired, but again it is a better lineup that what the Giants bring to the table. Also, playing in a pitchers park minimizes the intrinsic devaluation of having a bad lineup. Gonzalez is a hitter you can build a lineup around. Kouzmanhoff and Headley are also young bats that add more value than their perception. Their outfield is underrated, and they somewhat lack “dead spots” in their lineup. When you possess a talented rotation and a top of the line bullpen, you don’t need a dominant lineup; rather a lineup filled with young talent and situational hitters is all you need to be competitive. The Padres possess such.
<o> </o>
This team is not as bad as everyone makes them out to be. Coming off a 63 win season (predicated heavily on bad luck and the third highest negative deltas) is a benefit for Over players, as the odds makers will find it hard to increase their win total by more than 10 wins. That leaves them little room to avoid placing the Padres as a cellar team. With their starting staff and bullpen being as good as what I am pricing them to be, the Padres will have to under perform to be as bad as the market is claiming them to be.
<o> </o>
Dodgers Over 84.5
In my opinion, the Dodgers are a top three team in the National League, and a legitimate contender to represent the National League in the World Series. However, there exists such a deep negative connotation with the NL West, it is hard for a team to develop elite status in this division, especially coming off a season where this division lost 50 more games than they one.
<o> </o>
The addition of Manny is huge. However, it was also mostly anticipated within the opening line to this team. That said, I feel the net change in win total with this addition is far more material than what the market is expecting. Not because he is one of the best hitters in the league. We all know that. What the market is not discounting is the material increase in disparity from what would have been his replacement, Repko. This replacement allows the Dodgers to have what might be the best outfield in the National League. Backed by solid hitting and fielding infield, and the Dodgers have now become a lineup to be reckoned with, and quietly a top three lineup in the National League. This is not something the Dodgers are used to, as they relied on pitching in years past. This now allows them some leverage in their pitching staff, something they may need this year.
<o> </o>
The Dodgers starting pitching staff is decent. Their top two pitchers are underrated. Billingsley has now put forth a dominant ERA two straight years with a dangerous WHIP. Bringing down the latter, will allow him to become a top tier pitcher. Koruda was quietly dominant in the later parts of last season, and should put forth another solid year. Kershaw may possess high variance, but has an insurmountable amount of upside, and is a nice option for a third starter. Where the Dodgers fall off track is their 4<SUP>th</SUP> and 5<SUP>th</SUP> starters. Wolf and Schmidt are old pitchers past their prime and have key injuries that have made them far less effective than the pitchers they once were. Having said that, the Dodgers have options. Stults is a decent option to replace one of these. Another more probable solution is a trade at some part of this season to fill this void if one of these two veterans falters. The Dodgers have always been aggressive in acquisitions late in the season to push them over the hump. Colletti proved that to be the case once again last year. 84 wins is very attractive when analyzing it from this standpoint as well. This win total is a playoff contender. This is also a win total the Dodgers are reluctant to settle for, leading me to believe they will be aggressive in avoiding such a win total through trades and aquisitions. Thus, the Dodgers best chances of falling below 84 wins, is via a major underperformance. The Dodgers bullpen is also top of the line.
<o> </o>
With a top three bullpen and lineup in the NL, a team must really have a poor pitching staff to only warrant winning 84 games. Although no longer their strong point, the Dodgers still possess a decent pitching staff that should be materially different at the end of the season compared to opening day. The Dodgers won 84 games last year. That was with Penny hindering their performance, Kershaw not much of a factor, and Manny their only for the later stages. It was also with material negative deltas. The Dodgers have an inflow of hitters heading into their prime, Manny the entire season, and leverage with their pitching staff. The Dodgers should win their division and approach the 90 win mark.
<o> </o>
<o> </o>
Potential Additions/Just missed the mark:
<st1lace>Rockies</st1lace> Over 77.5:
2 years ago the <st1lace>Rockies</st1lace> were my sleeper team. They made the World Series. Last year I backed off. I like them once again this year. The loss of Holliday is overqualified. Not because of his worth, but the replacement value of the new left fielder. The <st1lace>Rockies</st1lace> don’t have the best lineup in the league, but they do have the deepest. They also have a lot of upside potential, a deep bench, and young bats.
Their bullpen is underrated and above average. What is making me shy away from them? Their starting pitching staff, and the net increase in value of the other teams in their division. If their price falls, I may be a buyer.
<o> </o>
Marlins: Over 76.5
I think this team has potential and may fly under the radar with high profile teams in their division. Their pitching staff is young, above average, and has a lot of upward mobility. The exact same thing can be said for their lineup. Then why not be a buyer when the market is pricing them at 6% less than average? Their bullpen for is a one of the problems. Their backend is a big weakness, and not something you when playing against teams in their division that can keep it close and possess strong backend pens. A lot of close games are expected to be lost. They are also a seller in the market, meaning they are more likely to unload talent than seek it late in the season. Their division is solid, and the difficulty of schedule may take away some wins. Their pitching staff high risk/high rewards. They have a lot of upside, but also a lot of downside. Young arms coming off injuries reek of high variance. I avoid high variance with long term bets.
<o> </o>
<o> </o>
Braves Under 83.5
Name notoriety alone is the reason this team is being priced to win more than lose. Why else would you price a team this high that has a slightly below pitching staff with their three best arms past their prime, a slightly below average lineup that possesses the worst outfield in the league, backed by only a slightly above bullpen whose key players are have been know to break down, battler injuries, and have yet to master the roles that they will be placed in this season. To add insult to injury, the talented division they will have to play in. Why am I not a seller? This team may not settle with what they have. They have been active in the off season in trying to upgrade their team. Such a propensity may continue during the regular season. This team underachieved last year and battled key injuries. This team should win 80, and a potential addition may put them past the required 83.5 mark.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o> </o>Giants Under 80.5
The Giants appear to be coming out of the 2009 MLB season as the “sexy” pick amongst market participants. There is an inflow of comments regarding the talent of their young pitching staff. In fact, that is all we seem to hear about this team when accessing their talent. There is no denying their starting pitching staff ranks near the best in all of baseball. But what about their offense? There is little mention about their lineup being the worst in baseball by a considerable amount. There is little talk about their bullpen being mediocre at best, possessing a closer with question marks, and a backend of their bullpen with arms well past their prime.
<o
> </o>The Giants starting pitching is young and possess pitchers that have not hit their prime yet. But that does not automatically equate to a pitching staff that possesses pitchers that should perform better than last year? Even though Lincecum is the real deal, and his best years are ahead of him, I am quantifying a slight regression off last year’s numbers. Cain should have many very solid years ahead of him, but again, his intrinsic worth should not increase much off last years productivity. Accompanying them is a backend rotation with southpaws with question marks. Johnson is past his prime, should witness significant regression off last years numbers, and probably won’t put forth an entire season of starts. Zito may improve off last years disappointing season, but expecting the Zito of old is wishful thinking. What is left of Zito is an average pitcher with high variance. Sanchez is talented but raw. He is also a trade candidate late in the season.
<o
> </o>Their lineup is horrible. The Giants did nothing material to improve this deficiency. The additional of Renteria is immaterial. He is a hitter past his prime, and is a situational hitter and role hitter that a welcomed addition to lineups filled with star hitters. The Giants lack such, which leads me to believe the assets that Renteria brings to the plate won’t materialize. The Giants fed of Molina and Winn last year. These are two more players past their prime, and should regress off recent years. Their biggest name hitter, Rowand, is also past his prime. He also proved to be a warning track hitter whose performance of years past hindered on playing for teams who plays in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
ffice:smarttags" /><st1lace><st1laceName>hitters</st1laceName> <st1laceType>Park</st1laceType></st1lace>. His power numbers depreciated significantly last year, and should keep that trend again this year.<o
> </o>The Giants won 72 games last year. The market is expecting an 8 game increase this year. But why? Where are they going to get that increase in productivity that will result in a 12% increase in wins? Their starting pitching staff that has 2 pitchers past their prime, and two young gems coming off years that may be hard to repeat. Maybe their bullpen that lacks a dominant arm? Or their lineup that is the leagues worst? Maybe they can steal wins from their division? Not so fast. The market is also pricing in improvements from the Padres, <st1
lace>Rockies</st1lace>, and Dbacks, while they expect the Dodgers to keep last years form. To add insult to injury, the Giants possessed positive deltas in each three quantified measurements, thus their 72 win total last season was predicated on a fair amount of luck. <o
> </o><o
> </o>Padres Over 71.5
There is no team in the National League who I think has a greater chance of winning more games than their season win total than the Padres. A lot of “bad news” has flooded this team. Big drop-off in ticket sales, a complete team rebuilding, and trade rumors surrounding their best player. With alot this news appearing to be priced in to their win total, this teams possesses a lot of upward mobility in my opinion.
<o
> </o>Unlike the Giants, we hear little talk about the Padres pitching staff, which is not that much worse than the Giants. As long as Peavy remains their ace, the Padres pack one of the best one-two punches in baseball. Young (the two punch) is also somewhat of a hidden free agent, as he is coming off a sub par season that was filled with injuries and sub par performances. The backend of their rotation is not dominant or filled with big names. But it is deep and has a lot of upside potential (unlike the one the Giants bring to the table). Baek, Griere, and Rienke are in or nearing the prime years of their career. Also unlike the Giants, their starting rotation is backed by one of the leagues best bullpen. Getting Hoffman out of the closing role is a blessing. Replaced by an underrated closer adds value to this teams public perception. It is also a deep bullpen filled with a combination of young talent, veteran arms, and situational pitchers.
<o
> </o>The Padres lineup leaves a lot to be desired, but again it is a better lineup that what the Giants bring to the table. Also, playing in a pitchers park minimizes the intrinsic devaluation of having a bad lineup. Gonzalez is a hitter you can build a lineup around. Kouzmanhoff and Headley are also young bats that add more value than their perception. Their outfield is underrated, and they somewhat lack “dead spots” in their lineup. When you possess a talented rotation and a top of the line bullpen, you don’t need a dominant lineup; rather a lineup filled with young talent and situational hitters is all you need to be competitive. The Padres possess such.
<o
> </o>This team is not as bad as everyone makes them out to be. Coming off a 63 win season (predicated heavily on bad luck and the third highest negative deltas) is a benefit for Over players, as the odds makers will find it hard to increase their win total by more than 10 wins. That leaves them little room to avoid placing the Padres as a cellar team. With their starting staff and bullpen being as good as what I am pricing them to be, the Padres will have to under perform to be as bad as the market is claiming them to be.
<o
> </o>Dodgers Over 84.5
In my opinion, the Dodgers are a top three team in the National League, and a legitimate contender to represent the National League in the World Series. However, there exists such a deep negative connotation with the NL West, it is hard for a team to develop elite status in this division, especially coming off a season where this division lost 50 more games than they one.
<o
> </o>The addition of Manny is huge. However, it was also mostly anticipated within the opening line to this team. That said, I feel the net change in win total with this addition is far more material than what the market is expecting. Not because he is one of the best hitters in the league. We all know that. What the market is not discounting is the material increase in disparity from what would have been his replacement, Repko. This replacement allows the Dodgers to have what might be the best outfield in the National League. Backed by solid hitting and fielding infield, and the Dodgers have now become a lineup to be reckoned with, and quietly a top three lineup in the National League. This is not something the Dodgers are used to, as they relied on pitching in years past. This now allows them some leverage in their pitching staff, something they may need this year.
<o
> </o>The Dodgers starting pitching staff is decent. Their top two pitchers are underrated. Billingsley has now put forth a dominant ERA two straight years with a dangerous WHIP. Bringing down the latter, will allow him to become a top tier pitcher. Koruda was quietly dominant in the later parts of last season, and should put forth another solid year. Kershaw may possess high variance, but has an insurmountable amount of upside, and is a nice option for a third starter. Where the Dodgers fall off track is their 4<SUP>th</SUP> and 5<SUP>th</SUP> starters. Wolf and Schmidt are old pitchers past their prime and have key injuries that have made them far less effective than the pitchers they once were. Having said that, the Dodgers have options. Stults is a decent option to replace one of these. Another more probable solution is a trade at some part of this season to fill this void if one of these two veterans falters. The Dodgers have always been aggressive in acquisitions late in the season to push them over the hump. Colletti proved that to be the case once again last year. 84 wins is very attractive when analyzing it from this standpoint as well. This win total is a playoff contender. This is also a win total the Dodgers are reluctant to settle for, leading me to believe they will be aggressive in avoiding such a win total through trades and aquisitions. Thus, the Dodgers best chances of falling below 84 wins, is via a major underperformance. The Dodgers bullpen is also top of the line.
<o
> </o>With a top three bullpen and lineup in the NL, a team must really have a poor pitching staff to only warrant winning 84 games. Although no longer their strong point, the Dodgers still possess a decent pitching staff that should be materially different at the end of the season compared to opening day. The Dodgers won 84 games last year. That was with Penny hindering their performance, Kershaw not much of a factor, and Manny their only for the later stages. It was also with material negative deltas. The Dodgers have an inflow of hitters heading into their prime, Manny the entire season, and leverage with their pitching staff. The Dodgers should win their division and approach the 90 win mark.
<o
> </o><o
> </o>Potential Additions/Just missed the mark:
<st1
lace>Rockies</st1lace> Over 77.5: 2 years ago the <st1
lace>Rockies</st1lace> were my sleeper team. They made the World Series. Last year I backed off. I like them once again this year. The loss of Holliday is overqualified. Not because of his worth, but the replacement value of the new left fielder. The <st1lace>Rockies</st1lace> don’t have the best lineup in the league, but they do have the deepest. They also have a lot of upside potential, a deep bench, and young bats.Their bullpen is underrated and above average. What is making me shy away from them? Their starting pitching staff, and the net increase in value of the other teams in their division. If their price falls, I may be a buyer.
<o
> </o>Marlins: Over 76.5
I think this team has potential and may fly under the radar with high profile teams in their division. Their pitching staff is young, above average, and has a lot of upward mobility. The exact same thing can be said for their lineup. Then why not be a buyer when the market is pricing them at 6% less than average? Their bullpen for is a one of the problems. Their backend is a big weakness, and not something you when playing against teams in their division that can keep it close and possess strong backend pens. A lot of close games are expected to be lost. They are also a seller in the market, meaning they are more likely to unload talent than seek it late in the season. Their division is solid, and the difficulty of schedule may take away some wins. Their pitching staff high risk/high rewards. They have a lot of upside, but also a lot of downside. Young arms coming off injuries reek of high variance. I avoid high variance with long term bets.
<o
> </o><o
> </o>Braves Under 83.5
Name notoriety alone is the reason this team is being priced to win more than lose. Why else would you price a team this high that has a slightly below pitching staff with their three best arms past their prime, a slightly below average lineup that possesses the worst outfield in the league, backed by only a slightly above bullpen whose key players are have been know to break down, battler injuries, and have yet to master the roles that they will be placed in this season. To add insult to injury, the talented division they will have to play in. Why am I not a seller? This team may not settle with what they have. They have been active in the off season in trying to upgrade their team. Such a propensity may continue during the regular season. This team underachieved last year and battled key injuries. This team should win 80, and a potential addition may put them past the required 83.5 mark.
