Is the AL West up for grabs?

[TooLiveBrew]

Latest from LAA is that Kelvim Escobar has a torn rotator cuff and is opting for season-ending (& possibly career-ending) surgery. Ace John Lackey is also out until at least mid-May, with questions surrounding how effective he can be once he does actually return. Oh, and just for good measure, Vladimir Guerrero is battling what Mike Scoscia phrased "stiff[ness] in the knee." Below is The Disabled List Informer's take on that:

 

 

"'Stiff in the knee' is the term Mike Scioscia used today when describing Guerrero's situation. Let's not get overly worked up here, since stiffness in a joint can happen to anyone. However, Guerrero is 32 years old, and is not getting any younger. It is entirely possible that he is dealing with an arthritic condition in the knee. If this is the case, he will have good days and bad days.

The good news? There is no particular trauma that occurred, and no mention of an incident that created any other types of symptoms such as clicking, locking, popping, or instability of the knee. If you hear of any reports mentioning this, you might want to be more concerned. Until then, consider him day-to-day and draft as you normally would."

[endaround]

I still think the Angels are the only above .500 team there. Yeah the Ms might get some career years and make a run but thats like a 20% event at best.

[sbrylski]

I liked Seattle either way.

[stoutdude04]

I have a man crush on Vlad...ill stick with the Angels.

[crewcrazy]

Seattle can't score runs, Oakland will probably hover around .500 if Harden can stay healthy, and the Rangers will stink. I think the Angels still have a pretty good grip on that division.

[Gopher74]

Seattle can't score runs, Oakland will probably hover around .500 if Harden can stay healthy, and the Rangers will stink. I think the Angels still have a pretty good grip on that division.

I don't see how the A's are anywhere near .500 this year when they're a worse team than last year.

 

As for the M's, they've vastly improved this year, and they were in it all year last year. I think they're a .500 team at absolutely worse. I think that this is the M's division without Escobar.

 

[endaround]

The Mariners had a negative run differential last season. They've gotten older. Hernandez and Bedard would have to be brillant to allow them to do anything.

[Oldcity]

I wonder if Beane would have reconsidered blowing up the team if he knew the Angels would get hit this hard with injuries. Probably would have done it anyway.

[Gopher74]

The Mariners had a negative run differential last season. They've gotten older. Hernandez and Bedard would have to be brillant to allow them to do anything.

This isn't 2007. If we're just going to use run differential from last year to determine which teams are going to be good this year, this isn't going to be a very fun thread, and we can just post those on here.

88 times last year the Mariners finished the game with more runs. They've added an ace, and had a few players have awful years. The Angles already have their ace and their number 2 out, the A's have all but given up, and the Rangers are awful.

 

I don't really think that Hernandez and Bedard have to "brilliant" for them to do "anything".

[endaround]

USS Mariner used Zips and projected 77 wins, winning the division 6% of the time

 

PECOTA projects them at 73 wins

 

The point about the run differential is that they weren't an 88 win team talent wise and they are likely to fall from where they were. Meet the White Sox of 2008

[Gopher74]

USS Mariner used Zips and projected 77 wins, winning the division 6% of the time

 

PECOTA projects them at 73 wins

 

The point about the run differential is that they weren't an 88 win team talent wise and they are likely to fall from where they were. Meet the White Sox of 2008

We'll see. Hernandez and Bedard coming into their primes, Sexon having hopefully a bounce back year, Kenji's a good catcher, Ichiro's one of the best players in the world, Ibanez and some other nice position players and a pretty solid staff now with a couple potential impact young arms on their way up.

 

Which team can't they beat? The Angles look very average without Escobar and Lackey, and the Rangers and A's?

 

I'll bet between the White Sox and the Mariners, you get 170 wins.

 

[TooLiveBrew]

Sexon having hopefully a bounce back year

It's awfully hard to think that Richie'd play as poorly as he did in 2007 again.

[crewcrazy]

Seattle can't score runs, Oakland will probably hover around .500 if Harden can stay healthy, and the Rangers will stink. I think the Angels still have a pretty good grip on that division.

I don't see how the A's are anywhere near .500 this year when they're a worse team than last year.

 

As for the M's, they've vastly improved this year, and they were in it all year last year. I think they're a .500 team at absolutely worse. I think that this is the M's division without Escobar.

 

Harden was hurt for most of last season, though, as was the rest of their team (Chavez, Street, etc.). This year, they at least have him healthy (for now). Harden's like the AL version of Ben Sheets, though, so they really shouldn't be counting on him to do much this year. I like their young players, though, and with such a weak division and the bottom of the rest of the AL being pretty pitiful, there's a lot of chances for easy wins this year. If guys like Cust and Chavez can stay healthy, they shouldn't be too bad.

I don't hate the M's, I just think that they won't be able to score a lot of runs. In my (completely baseless) opinion, they might have been better off keeping Adam Jones and putting him in the lineup than adding Bedard when they already have Felix Hernandez. Bedard's an outstanding pitcher, but their starting rotation was the least of their worries. I think they're really going to miss Jones, especially if he does well in Baltimore this year. Their offense lacks much pop...Beltre had their high HR total last year with 26, and they lost Jose Guillen's 23 HR. Sexson was next with 21, but that was while slugging .399 with a .295 OBP. Other than Ichiro, their lineup is scattered with some pretty bad OBP's...they don't get on base enough to score many runs. They're going to have to win a lot of 3-2 games, which doesn't happen often in the AL.

Put the M's in the NL West, and I think they run away with the division. But in the AL, their style of play isn't always going to work.

[BrewCrewForever]

Crap! I have Escobar on my fantasy team, that sucks. I like Seattle in the West.

[endaround]

The M's would be killed in the NL West, they are only better than the Giants. They are just not very good team. Now if they were smart they could get Bonds to DH, move Vidro to the bench and pick up 3 wins, then you might have something.

[TooLiveBrew]

Yeah, I've thought Bonds to SEA makes sense, too.

 

 

If guys like Cust and Chavez can stay healthy, they shouldn't be too bad.

 

Chavez isn't healthy now, though, so it's not a matter of staying, but 'getting' for him. Here's a take on his WOAHs:

 

 

"In what is becoming to sound like a broken record, Eric Chavez is now likely to start the season on the DL with his chronically aching low back.

 

I had my doubts about Chavez earlier this month, even though he is one of my favorite players of the past 10 years.

 

He continues to have pain, primarily when fielding ground balls, meaning that he has what we call a 'flexion movement impairment.' Many things can cause this, such as instability of the spinal segments, local stabilizing muscles being inhibited, weakness, tightness, diminished disc height, or any combination of the above.

 

I am personally wondering if Chavez needs to tone down his rehabilitation efforts. It sounds as though he would benefit from exercising in an aquatic environment, in addition to having some focused attention on the deep stabilizers of the spine, namely the Transversus Abominus and the Multifidii.

 

In any event, you really cannot count on Chavez for anything more than a last-resort bench role in AL-only leagues - at least until he is found to be healthy and can string together a couple weeks of practice at the very least."

[Ennder]

No, the Angels are still by far the best team. They not only had the best team they had by far the most depth of any team in the division and could probably lose 4 or 5 major players and still be better than the Mariners. Of course Mattews, Lackey, Escobar and Shields are all hurt so they are already at 4!

[rluzinski]

You can't just look at last year's record, analysis off season moves and call it a day. Often, you are going to get a distorted view of a team's true skill if you do.

[Gopher74]

You can't just look at last year's record, analysis off season moves and call it a day. Often, you are going to get a distorted view of a team's true skill if you do.

Not anymore than you can look at Run Differential an"projections" and call it a day.

 

[Gopher74]

No, the Angels are still by far the best team. They not only had the best team they had by far the most depth of any team in the division and could probably lose 4 or 5 major players and still be better than the Mariners. Of course Mattews, Lackey, Escobar and Shields are all hurt so they are already at 4!

Don't forget to add Vlad to that list. He's been banged up all camp.

 

That team is old, and they've had a hellish spring losing Escobar for the year and Lackey for the first chunk of the season. Matthews cashed in on a career year, as did Hunter last off-season. I don't know how you can be so convinced that team will keep it together with the age and injury concerns.

 

The Angels are a good team when healthy, but they're not healthy at all.

 

[Ennder]

Yes but no other team in the division is even average with their current starting roster and the Mariners have absolutely no depth outside of C and corner OF. If Felix or Bedard go down that isn't even a .500 team. The Angels have loads of talent in backup roles so they can afford a few injuries to their older players.

[endaround]

You can't just look at last year's record, analysis off season moves and call it a day. Often, you are going to get a distorted view of a team's true skill if you do.

Not anymore than you can look at Run Differential an"projections" and call it a day.

 

Yes you need to read the national media too! You know the ones who say the Cubs are going to win 90 games and the Brewers are going to finish behind the Reds.

PECOTA is the best projection system that exists

 

[rluzinski]

Not anymore than you can look at Run Differential an"projections" and call it a day.

 

With regard to projections, am I to presume you are insinuating the name is a misnomer by putting it in quotations? People need to stop assuming that all "projections" are based on crazy, seemingly arbitrary math. There are certainly some questionable ones out there that should be more heavily scrutinized but the simplest projections (like Marcels) basically do what every fan does intuitively when trying to use stats from prior seasons to guess on future performance:

 

1. Look at previous years' performances, weighing the most recent seasons more.

 

2. Regress to the mean, with the amount proportional to the amount of AB or IP the player has (we can trust the stats from a guy who has 1,800 AB over the last 3 seasons more than one who has had only 50 AB).

 

3. Adjust for age (a 25 year old should be expected to get better, a 35 year old is probably getting worse).

 

Obviously, we shouldn't stop there, however. If we know more about a player (scouting information for a young prospect and recent injury history being the big two), we should also consider that. I'm not going to change my expectations for Gabe Kapler just because he says he has a new swing, though.

 

With regard to run differential, it certainly isn't the end all, be all, but when a team wins a lot of games with a negative run differential, something is up. A team will do that for a season from time to time, but none can keep it up year in and year out. As a result, we should be very suspicious of any projection that uses Seattle's 2007 record as a jump off point.

[zzzmanwitz]

I'll bet between the White Sox and the Mariners, you get 170 wins.

I'd take that bet. I'm thinking about 72 wins for the Whitesox... i don't see seattle winning 98.

[Gopher74]

With regard to projections, am I to presume you are insinuating the name is a misnomer by putting it in quotations? People need to stop assuming that all "projections" are based on crazy, seemingly arbitrary math. There are certainly some questionable ones out there that should be more heavily scrutinized but the simplest projections (like Marcels) basically do what every fan does intuitively when trying to use stats from prior seasons to guess on future performance:

 

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. I do respect projections, but I see them for what they are, essentially just guessing. Educated guesses, but guesses nonetheless. Frankly, there can be a underlining condescension on this board at times when opinions differ. When a statement as obvious as "you can't just look at last years standings and off-season acquisitions and call it a day", I find that to be so painfully obvious, that it comes off as a bit condescending, which I wouldn't think was the point, but all the same. Perhaps I'm being a bit sensitive, I don't know.

 

Obviously, we shouldn't stop there, however. If we know more about a player (scouting information for a young prospect and recent injury history being the big two), we should also consider that. I'm not going to change my expectations for Gabe Kapler just because he says he has a new swing, though.

 

Nor should you, but this goes back to an earlier disagreement we have had(and I want to be clear, I certainly didn't and wasn't referring to you in that previous paragraph). I don't think that fans should allow any of those extenuating circumstances to impact our predictions, or our opinions of how a players going to perform because honestly, most aren't qualified to. But in the case of Kapler, when you argued that Melvin shouldn't have gone after him, citing his projections, I argued then and I'm arguing now that can remove almost all of the human element out of it. Players would get signed then accordingly based on who's projects to be the best. There has to be room in predictions for projections, as well as opinions that may not yet be substantiated by statistical data. That's essentially what scouting is, is it not? At least at the high school level, you can't possible use their stats given the wide range of competition to evaluate a player.

 

My overall point is that saying the Mariners in this instance are just not a good team, and can't win that division unless the stars align for them because of their projections and last years run differential leaves out an enormous part of the equation. It's simply not that simple, otherwise Marcel would likely be far more accurate on a year to year basis than it is.

 

As a result, we should be very suspicious of any projection that uses Seattle's 2007 record as a jump off point.

 

I guess I'm using the fact that they were a good team last year as a way to defend my argument that I believe they'll be a good team this year. Teams with good pitching, defense, and BP's are more likely to maintain a poor run differential and still win games. I believe to a degree that is what Seattle did last year, and they've since added a true ace, and they've got a number of players who are either primed to make an impact(Morrow, Clement, O'Flahtery, Feierabend) as well as a couple huge pickups(Bedard, Silva) and players who are in line for bounce back years(Sexon namely) and then some young players who may improve upon past performance.

 

I just take issue with the suggestion that I'm not a "sophisticated" enough fan to look beyond last years records and the fact that they picked up a good player. It's the suggestion that I just don't get it rather than I just don't agree with it...