BP's Early '08 Season Records Projections

[JGalt73]

BP Link

 

Central

(Record, Club, RS /RA)

89 - 73 Chicago Cubs 845/759

87 - 75 Milwaukee Brewers 829/765

79 - 83 Cincinnati Reds 772/794

74 - 88 Houston Astros 725/798

72 - 90 St. Louis Cardinals 711/796

71 - 91 Pittsburgh Pirates 715/822

 

This is the 1st iteration based on PECOTA and BP's manually entered playing time projections. They will typically update this over the Spring to reflect trades/injuries/playing time guesses.

 

NL Division winners: Mets, Cubs, Diamondbacks, (WC) Brewers

[AllStarMe]

I wouldn't hate to see the cards finish 5th

[BigbadB]

I wouldn't hate to see the cards finish 5th

 

I'm not so sure Pittsburgh's pitching staff will give up more runs than the Cardinals pitching staff, however. I think I like Pittsburgh's offense a little more than St. Louis this year as well. I see this year being an ideal year for Pujols to miss a significant part of the season to have surgery to fix his arm.

[TruffleShuffle]

i'll be stunned if the giants don't lose more than 90 games.

[Soul]

How close were they on our '07 prediction?

 

I'll take 89 wins from this bunch any day.

[CubColtPacer]

How close were they on our '07 prediction?

 

I'll take 89 wins from this bunch any day.

 

Up and down. On one hand, they got the Cubs record exactly right last year, and Milwaukee was only off by 1 game.

 

At the same time, they predicted the Cubs would have a great offense but bad pitching last year, and they predicted Milwaukee would have very good pitching but a bad offense. So their records were right, but the way they got to them was completely wrong.

 

Edit: I just found the numbers. They projected the Cubs offense to have 76 more runs than they actually had. Milwaukee was projected to have 20 less runs than they ended up with.

 

As for pitching, the Cubs allowed 99 less runs then they were projected to, and Milwaukee gave up 28 more runs than they were projected to.

 

So their Milwaukee projection wasn't too bad, but their Cubs projection last year was way off.

Edited February 17, 2008 by CubColtPacer

[David]

How close were they on our '07 prediction?

 

I'll take 89 wins from this bunch any day.

 

Up and down. On one hand, they got the Cubs record exactly right last year, and Milwaukee was only off by 1 game.

 

At the same time, they predicted the Cubs would have a great offense but bad pitching last year, and they predicted Milwaukee would have very good pitching but a bad offense. So their records were right, but the way they got to them was completely wrong.

 

They were also dead on on the White Sox, which nobody else saw coming, if I remember right.

[Ender]

To be fair I think everyone excpected the Cubs pitching to be worse than it was last year and the hitting to be better than it was. I think at least part of that was caused by the weird cold weather we had to start the year.

[JGalt73]

Tweak #1 to the projections (Divisional Strength), adds 2 wins to the Cubs - projected now to 91. :shock:

 

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that these figures change for each individual club once we account for the fact that a team cannot play itself. In fact, the general impact of this strength-of-schedule adjustment is to widen the standings gap between the strongest teams and the weakest ones, because of the sort of self-immunity... Seven teams gained at least a game in the standings as a result of the adjustment, and almost all of them were pretty strong clubs to begin with:

 

Cubs 89 –> 91

 

Indians 89 –> 90

Tigers 89 –> 90

Angels 89 –> 90

Brewers 87 –> 88

A’s 78 –> 79

White Sox 77 –> 78

 

Note that the Cubs, who have probably the easiest schedule in baseball, are the only team to gain two wins.

[TruffleShuffle]

They were also dead on on the White Sox, which nobody else saw coming, if I remember right.

 

yeah that was one of my favorite things that happened last year, the white sox got all pissed off at the computer that projected them to go 72-90, and then they... finished the season at 72-90. bwahahaha.

[Soul]

Tweak #1 to the projections (Divisional Strength), adds 2 wins to the Cubs - projected now to 91. :shock:

 

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that these figures change for each individual club once we account for the fact that a team cannot play itself. In fact, the general impact of this strength-of-schedule adjustment is to widen the standings gap between the strongest teams and the weakest ones, because of the sort of self-immunity... Seven teams gained at least a game in the standings as a result of the adjustment, and almost all of them were pretty strong clubs to begin with:

 

Cubs 89 –> 91

 

Indians 89 –> 90

Tigers 89 –> 90

Angels 89 –> 90

Brewers 87 –> 88

A’s 78 –> 79

White Sox 77 –> 78

 

Note that the Cubs, who have probably the easiest schedule in baseball, are the only team to gain two wins.

 

I can't allow myself to believe the Cubs will win 91 this year. I'll need to see it, then give appropriate accolades if it happens.

[AlwaysaCub]

Note that the 845 runs they have for the Cubs would be SECOND in the nl according to their projections, behind the Rockies but ahead of the Phillies. A cause of this is probably the predicted team OBP of .343, again second in the NL behind the rockies. We apparently will also lead the league in slugging.

 

I could see the SLG part, but 2nd in on-base in the nl?

[otis89]

Note that the 845 runs they have for the Cubs would be SECOND in the nl according to their projections, behind the Rockies but ahead of the Phillies. A cause of this is probably the predicted team OBP of .343, again second in the NL behind the rockies. We apparently will also lead the league in slugging.

 

I could see the SLG part, but 2nd in on-base in the nl?

 

Fukudome will have on OBP of .675. http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif

[bhogg]

As much as some of us don't want to admit it (why, I have no idea), the Cubs have a very good team this year.

 

The offense is there.

 

As for pitching; I know we like to gripe and complain, but most teams are lucky to have 2 good starters. We have 3 good starters and a bunch of other guys who are able to eat innings. If we can get solid years out of Z, Lilly, and Hill then have the back of the rotation stay healthy and make their stars, we'll be fine. Even if the likes of Marquis is at the end of the rotation, he still manages to win as many as he loses. Granted, wins aren't the best evaluator of a pitcher, but I'll still take it from the butt-end of the rotation.

 

 

Now that I've jinxed the team, we can all expect a year full of inuries and rookie pitchers (see 1985).

[CubinNY]

As much as some of us don't want to admit it (why, I have no idea), the Cubs have a very good team this year.

 

The offense is there.

 

As for pitching; I know we like to gripe and complain, but most teams are lucky to have 2 good starters. We have 3 good starters and a bunch of other guys who are able to eat innings. If we can get solid years out of Z, Lilly, and Hill then have the back of the rotation stay healthy and make their stars, we'll be fine. Even if the likes of Marquis is at the end of the rotation, he still manages to win as many as he loses. Granted, wins aren't the best evaluator of a pitcher, but I'll still take it from the butt-end of the rotation.

 

 

Now that I've jinxed the team, we can all expect a year full of inuries and rookie pitchers (see 1985).

The Cubs have a mediocre team in a terrible division. I suppose that makes them good, as everything in life is relative. :D

[David]

It's actually somewhere between very good and mediocre, as the roster stands now, IMO. Guess we'll see. A few key guys like Geo and Fukodome could make it go either way.

[bukie]

I see the Cubs as a good team in a terrible division, so they might end up being the 3rd or 4th best NL team, but finish with the best record anyway.

[bhogg]

Do you guys think there is a team in the NL that is head and shoulders above anyone else? Seems like there is a bunch of teams, the Cubs included, that in that "good" category.

 

 

Guys, you see, all teams are going to win 60 and lose 60. It's what you do in those other 42 games that makes all the difference. . . . . hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[David]

Do you guys think there is a team in the NL that is head and shoulders above anyone else? Seems like there is a bunch of teams, the Cubs included, that in that "good" category.

 

 

Guys, you see, all teams are going to win 60 and lose 60. It's what you do in those other 42 games that makes all the difference. . . . . hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

The Mets.

I think most of us have a problem with the fact that the Cubs, given their market and payroll situation, should be one of those head and shoulders better teams, rather than maybe the best of the mediocre bunch that is the NL (after the Mets).

[seanimal]

What David said.

 

A lot of people, and rightfully so, don't think it's at all appropriate for a team with the resources of the Chicago Cubs to be content simply to compete weakly in a weak division and get unceremoniously shuffled out of the playoffs almost every time they get there. Ultimately, this team should be keeping up with Boston, Detroit, Cleveland, and the New Yorks in order to give ourselves the best chance in the playoffs. I don't think we're doing that.

[Rob]

Note that the 845 runs they have for the Cubs would be SECOND in the nl according to their projections, behind the Rockies but ahead of the Phillies. A cause of this is probably the predicted team OBP of .343, again second in the NL behind the rockies. We apparently will also lead the league in slugging.

 

I could see the SLG part, but 2nd in on-base in the nl?

 

As of right now, the bench is a big part of the reason they're predicting us to do so well.

 

They are predicting that Theriot loses a lot of PT to Cedeno (who rightfully has a much better projection). Murton looks like the best 4th OF in MLB. Ward is solid, and PECOTA loves Fontenot, allowing us to use DeRosa elsewhere without losing much production at 2B.

[TruffleShuffle]

btw did anyone notice that tampa is projected to win 89 games this year? i don't buy it. i know they have a buttload of talent, but i think pecota often overrates young players and assumes that they'll mostly be able to translate their minor league success into being good in the bigs. i also don't think it accounts for the adjustment time that a lot of young players experience.

 

not to mention that they've always been bad. not even average, but BAD. it'd be quite a leap to go from a perennial bottom-feeder to contending with the red sox and yankees.

[anabiono]

Do you guys think there is a team in the NL that is head and shoulders above anyone else? Seems like there is a bunch of teams, the Cubs included, that in that "good" category.

 

 

Guys, you see, all teams are going to win 60 and lose 60. It's what you do in those other 42 games that makes all the difference. . . . . hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

The Mets.

I think most of us have a problem with the fact that the Cubs, given their market and payroll situation, should be one of those head and shoulders better teams, rather than maybe the best of the mediocre bunch that is the NL (after the Mets).

 

i know they got santana, but i still don't see this team as being very good yet, like some of you and other sports people

[JGalt73]

Central

(Record, Club, RS /RA)

90 - 72 Chicago Cubs 843/765

88 - 74 Milwaukee Brewers 828/770

79 - 83 Cincinnati Reds 771/787

74 - 88 St. Louis Cardinals 710/781

73 - 89 Houston Astros 732/811

72 - 90 Pittsburgh Pirates 713/799

 

Original 2/15 Projections

 

Central

(Record, Club, RS /RA)

89 - 73 Chicago Cubs 845/759

87 - 75 Milwaukee Brewers 829/765

79 - 83 Cincinnati Reds 772/794

74 - 88 Houston Astros 725/798

72 - 90 St. Louis Cardinals 711/796

71 - 91 Pittsburgh Pirates 715/822

[David]

Weird. Our pythag goes down because we score fewer runs and give up more, yet we wind up with one more projected win.