Season Wins

[Prof.Hinsley]

2* Cincinnatti Over 78.5 (-125)

As stated above, I really do like this play and went ahead and put it in. Thanks for the discussion, they were originally a team I was going to stay away from, but if everybody stays healthy, Cincy may have a good year and get to around 83-85 wins.

2* San Francisco Over 82.5 (-110)

Adding here because the Giants will be good this year. This makes them a 6* TOTAL.

 

[mc1349]

Good read from a math scientist guys position, article says he has beaten odds 6 out of past 8 years, worth a read IMO.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/10/mathematician-predicts-baseball-season/?test=latestnews

 

[Prof.Hinsley]

Mc, I hope your buddy is wrong on these! If he's not, my book will be very happy! LOL.

Good read though, interesting stuff.

 

[toto]

I have a hard time seeing some of these computer projections this yr. with the way the schedule is. AL East for example, 3 teams winning 90+ games when they play each other 18 or 19 times seems unlikely, the one computer also projected no team
winning more than 82 in the AL West and with them playing each 19 times, 1 or 2 should win more thatn that.

 

[Prof.Hinsley]

2* Losses for any team Under 101.5 -120

I don't see any team losing more than 101 games. Pittsburgh, please don't let me down! J/k. Pitt actually has some talent this year, McClutchen will be a great player, let's see if Pitt keeps him after this year.

 

[buffettgambler]

Quite surprised by the bullishness on sports forums in regards to the 2010 Giants.

 

[Prof.Hinsley]

What do you mean? Do you think people are over-hyping the Giants this year and you don't think they will get to 82.5? Are a lot of people on different forums talking a lot about them? Just curious.

 

[buffettgambler]

What do you mean? Do you think people are over-hyping the Giants this year and you don't think they will get to 82.5? Are a lot of people on different forums talking a lot about them? Just curious.

I did a quick browse on the forums and see a lot of Over calls on the Giants. I don't think it is warranted. A quick test with some with some layman saber metrics will show the Giants vastly overachieved last year. There is a lot of evidence that a lot of their players will regress this year, and they do not have the roster commensurate with a .500 plus ball club. Adding insult to injury is the notion that the DBacks should vastly improve, while the Rockies and Padres should also see some improvement, while the Dodgers should stay put.

The Giants lineup is the worst in baseball in my opinion. They did nothing in the off-season to improve this deficiency. Adding Huff brings no value to the table. What may be added at the plate will be offset with what is lost in the field with Ishakawa on the bench. He has more downside risk and less upside compared to his backup as well. Sanchez is overrated and not a good fit for the Giants. His defense is sub par now, and his lack of walks and taking pitches is not something you want in the front end of a lineup built to manufacture runs. Derosa is another minor improvement at best. Currently on the downside of his career. Has warning track power and now has to hit in a pitchers park. Aside from Sandoval, the heart of their lineups is filled with veterans that are on the downside. Sandoval is vulnerable to regression compared to last year as well. So last years worst lineup may be even worse this year.

Last year they were able to mask their deficiency with superb starting pitching and a solid bullpen. This year it might not be as easy masking this problem. They have a great starting staff, possibly the best in baseball. But Lincecum, Cain and Zito will all more than likely not put up as good of numbers as they did last year. Sanchez is a risk, and they do not have a solid 5th starter until possibly later this year. Their bullpen lost some key pitchers, and their front end looks a bit vulnerable. Their defense is well below average.

The only variable I see not getting mentioned and is a plus for the Giants is their depth on their bench. You can make a case for 2-4 of their bench players warranting a starting job.

 

[TheHungerForMore]

I did a quick browse on the forums and see a lot of Over calls on the Giants. I don't think it is warranted. A quick test with some with some layman saber metrics will show the Giants vastly overachieved last year. There is a lot of evidence that a lot of their players will regress this year, and they do not have the roster commensurate with a .500 plus ball club. Adding insult to injury is the notion that the DBacks should vastly improve, while the Rockies and Padres should also see some improvement, while the Dodgers should stay put.

The Giants lineup is the worst in baseball in my opinion. They did nothing in the off-season to improve this deficiency. Adding Huff brings no value to the table. What may be added at the plate will be offset with what is lost in the field with Ishakawa on the bench. He has more downside risk and less upside compared to his backup as well. Sanchez is overrated and not a good fit for the Giants. His defense is sub par now, and his lack of walks and taking pitches is not something you want in the front end of a lineup built to manufacture runs. Derosa is another minor improvement at best. Currently on the downside of his career. Has warning track power and now has to hit in a pitchers park. Aside from Sandoval, the heart of their lineups is filled with veterans that are on the downside. Sandoval is vulnerable to regression compared to last year as well. So last years worst lineup may be even worse this year.

Last year they were able to mask their deficiency with superb starting pitching and a solid bullpen. This year it might not be as easy masking this problem. They have a great starting staff, possibly the best in baseball. But Lincecum, Cain and Zito will all more than likely not put up as good of numbers as they did last year. Sanchez is a risk, and they do not have a solid 5th starter until possibly later this year. Their bullpen lost some key pitchers, and their front end looks a bit vulnerable. Their defense is well below average.

The only variable I see not getting mentioned and is a plus for the Giants is their depth on their bench. You can make a case for 2-4 of their bench players warranting a starting job.

Sweet. Nice break down. What do you think of my sleeper team the Brewers?

 

[buffettgambler]

Sweet. Nice break down. What do you think of my sleeper team the Brewers?

Hunger, if it weren't for their starting pitching, I would really think this team is an NL contender. Their hitting as we all know is solid. Their bullpen is deep and underrated. However, outside of Gallardo, this team has some major issues with their rotation. Making matters worse for their rotation is the limited upside from their projected worth since 3 of of them are on the downside of their career.

I think the distribution of expected wins for this team relative to the market line is negatively skewed, meaning that more times than not they finish Under their win total, with the probability of any outlier season relative to projections being on the Over.

 

[Prof.Hinsley]

Good points Buffet, but I disagree (obviously).

You're right, Sanchez is on a declining slope, but he is still 32 and has some years of baseball ahead of him. He will hit for average and be just on the wrong side of .300 this year.

DeRosa is a great utility guy and an awesome locker room guy. He can literally play everywhere on the field except maybe catcher. He had a bad year last year but I expect him to be hitting around .280 this year. With DeRosa though is the fact that he is clutch. He can produce runs either by getting the big hit or sacraficing. I think he is much more than just a minor addition (not saying he's a Ryan Howard or anything, though.)

As far as the other teams in the division, I can kind of see the D-Backs having a better year, but I think the Dodgers are going to have some troubles this year. Furcal has lost a step and without Pierre, who played EXCELLENT in his relief of Manny, they lost that run-producing duo. I think that is what made the Dodgers so dangerous was the Furcal-Pierre duo.

The Rockies will have a similar year that they had last year. San Diego is not a good ball club. Gonzalez isn't happy there and is itching for a trade.

I really think the Giants can win this division, which explains why I wagered on them. Zito actually had a good year last year and if he can continue to produce like he is capable, the Giants 1-2-3 punch is as solid as it gets.

Good points though, it is definitly something to think about and its always good to have discussions in these forums.

 

[buffettgambler]

Points well taken Hinsley.

"You're right, Sanchez is on a declining slope, but he is still 32 and has some years of baseball ahead of him. He will hit for average and be just on the wrong side of .300 this year."

Average is far from a good barometer to measure a players worth. Moving just one step up the value chain of players starts with regards to a players value is OBP. Sanchez is well below average in this category. A career OBP of .334 (.296 last year) simply does not cut it for someone batter where he is batting in the lineup and for a team that lacks power.

"DeRosa is a great utility guy and an awesome locker room guy. He can literally play everywhere on the field except maybe catcher. He had a bad year last year but I expect him to be hitting around .280 this year. With DeRosa though is the fact that he is clutch. He can produce runs either by getting the big hit or sacraficing. I think he is much more than just a minor addition (not saying he's a Ryan Howard or anything, though.)"

Good points about Derosa, especially his "clutchness". That said, for a team that had the worst lineup in baseball last year and having a backup player on the downside of his career being their biggest upgrade should raise concerns.

"As far as the other teams in the division, I can kind of see the D-Backs having a better year, but I think the Dodgers are going to have some troubles this year. Furcal has lost a step and without Pierre, who played EXCELLENT in his relief of Manny, they lost that run-producing duo. I think that is what made the Dodgers so dangerous was the Furcal-Pierre duo."

The net decline of the Dodgers should fall well below the net aggregate uptick from the Padres, DBacks and Rockies. Saying the Dodgers will regress may be a stretch as well. Losing Pierre and replacing him with Manny will be an obvious upgrade relative to a good portion of last year. Furcal had a bad year last year, and the depth of the Dodgers lineup was able to overcome. Their lineup is deep and can withstand regression from a player or two.

"The Rockies will have a similar year that they had last year. San Diego is not a good ball club. Gonzalez isn't happy there and is itching for a trade. "

The Rockies should improve from last year. Key young players with a years experience and some star players hitting their prime. Upgraded bullpen and the return of a couple of injured starters. The Padres are not good, but do not be surprised to see them have one of the biggest net improvements from last years win total.

Best of luck with your Giants future. Time will tell.

 

[BallItUp]

I kind of like the Cubs - no pressure this year after all of the expectations the last two years. 83.5 isn't much for them. That's barely above .500.