Beyond the Boxscore: 2009 AL Central On Paper

BtB breaks down the 2009 AL Central race on paper. Curiously, the White Sox grade out best, followed closely by Minnesota and Detroit. The Twins are considered "lucky" for ending up with almost identical ERA and FIP, given far below average defense.

3 months ago Adam Peterson 6 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

interesting story

considering a sample of 163 games, allowing 50 runs less than your model predicts strikes me as evidence that the model is defective.

by BD57 on Oct 13, 2009 9:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That's not true

50 runs is well within range. It’s just that hard to predict something as random as baseball. Now, the model may be defective, and some of the methods used are questionable, but the 50 runs really isn’t evidence of that.

by lookatthosetwins on Oct 13, 2009 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's unclear

The 50 run gap could be due to a number of factors:

1. The Twins were “lucky” to outperform their FIP + UZR this year.

2. One or both of the FIP / UZR models are deficient as it related to this year’s Twins team.

I’m not sure which. I’m guessing we were a bit lucky and that FIP / UZR were not entirely accurate. For example, I would expect our infielders’ UZR to suffer a bit due to playing 81+ games on artificial turf. Is this considered in UZR? However, I understand this would only serve to increase the FIP-ERA gap…

by Adam Peterson on Oct 14, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have to question the BtB methods just based on some of the results

I am not enough of a stats head to get into their numerical analysis in too much depth, but seeing their full results makes me question how they got there. Some standouts:

Blue Jays – I think the Blue Jays are definitely hurt by being in the AL East, but I also don’t think they are all that good. They’re not better than the Angels, who rank in at 7.

A’s – Really? This would rank the A’s as a better team than any AL Central team, better than the Phillies, and better than the Cardinals, among others.

Royals better than #23 Giants – enough said.

Anyway, that’s just my first impression, based on rankings alone. I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.

by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Oct 14, 2009 11:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not really sure about the first two

but strength of schedule is more important than people realize, and saying the AL East is the best division of all time is no hyberbole. That does seem high to me.

As far as the Royals go, I don’t disagree with this. AL teams beat NL teams 57% of the time. That’s a huge difference. It doesn’t seem right when looking at the giants (Lincecum, Cain, etc.) and the Royals(everyone but Greinke) that the Royals would be better, but every member of the Giants would be a little bit worse if they played a neutral (half AL, half NL) schedule, and every member of the Royals would be just a little bit better. All of those little bits add up to a lot.

I’ve said a lot about the Central not being the worst division in baseball and gotten a lot of shit for it, but people just don’t understand how large the gap is between the AL and NL.

by lookatthosetwins on Oct 14, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs