Projecting the Orioles in 2012 (Part II)
Last year, I said that it would be fair to expect the Oriole offense to be significantly better than they were in 2010, by something like 100 runs or so. And that basically happened, as the '11 Orioles scored 95 runs more than their previous iteration. In fact, no other team in the sport improved their offense as much as the Orioles from 2010 to 2011. So much for all of the frustration caused by soul-killing strikeouts and Vladimir Guerrero's poor cleanup hitting, huh?
I've already taken a look at the 2012 bench and made an estimation of it collectively scoring 80 to 100 runs, for a relatively large improvement over the poor bench performance in 2011. Today our focus moves to the starting lineup. This is the performance breakdown of last year's starters:
| Position | Player(s) | PA | wOBA | Runs Created (wRC) |
| DH | Vladimir Guerrero | 590 | .318 | 67 |
| C | Matt Wieters | 551 | .339 | 72 |
| 1B | Derrek Lee/Chris Davis | 493 | .309 | 53 |
| 2B | Brian Roberts/Robert Andino | 689 | .297 | 67 |
| 3B | Mark Reynolds | 620 | .348 | 85 |
| SS | J.J. Hardy | 567 | .343 | 76 |
| LF | Luke Scott/Nolan Reimold | 541 | .326 | 65 |
| CF | Adam Jones | 618 | .339 | 81 |
| RF | Nick Markakis | 716 | .334 | 91 |
*As I normally do, I refer to weighted on base average (wOBA), the all-encompassing offensive statistic of choice. Runs Created is derived from it and plate appearances. All data can be found on fangraphs.com.
While Reynolds actually spent time at first and Davis at third, but from an offensive point of view, their position is meaningless. Davis replaced Lee in the lineup. All other players, besides pitchers (who, led by Zach Britton, created 5 runs of their own), figured into the bench part of this project. As a group, the starters totaled 657 runs in 5385 plate appearances.
Our first task is determining playing time for the 2012 batch of starters:
| Player | Projected PA |
| Wilson Betemit |
400 |
| Matt Wieters |
550 |
| Chris Davis |
550 |
| Mark Reynolds | 650 |
| Robert Andino | 500 |
| J.J. Hardy | 550 |
| Nolan Reimold | 550 |
| Adam Jones | 615 |
| Nick Markakis |
700 |
A few thoughts on how I arrived here. Most of these players had roughly this many PA last season, which provides a sturdy baseline to project off of. Andino I'm projecting for fewer PA than the second basemen received in 2011, because I expect the Orioles will try and find more time for Matt Antonelli or Ryan Adams or perhaps Ryan Flaherty, at least to begin the year. If you remember from part one, I think the bench will receive more time at the plate than they did last year. That should cut into Andino's playing time, since Andino is the weakest link on the offense.
If you're playing along at home, you've noticed I'm missing about 200 PA to get to a full year. The issue is Wilson Betemit, who has never gotten more than 412 PA in any season (and that high water mark came back in 2006). Additionally, the Orioles have indicated a desire to use him for his ability to crush right handed pitching. But who serves as the other half of the DH platoon? That is a question that is yet to answered. But let's not forget about those last 200 PA.
Armed now with playing time projections that make sense to me, let's establish a basic expectation. If every single 2012 starter hit at the same rate as he did in 2011, but in the plate appearances I have projected, how many runs would the Orioles score?
| Player | Projected Runs Created |
| Wilson Betemit | 52 |
| Matt Wieters | 72 |
| Chris Davis | 58 |
| Robert Andino | 52 |
| Mark Reynolds | 89 |
| J.J. Hardy | 74 |
| Nolan Reimold | 72 |
| Adam Jones | 81 |
| Nick Markakis | 89 |
It's not a surprise that the projected total, 639, is not far from the total runs the starters created in 2011, 657. After all, the only new starter is WIlson Betemit, who looks like a certain upgrade at DH. With the extra 200 PA still in our back pocket, it's easy to suggest that the starters, even with reduced playing time, could equal the total production of the 2011 lineup. The big question to tackle at this point is who will hit better, and who will hit worse than they did in 2011?
I can easily break the lineup into three groups:
Bounce-Back Candidates
Nick Markakis is a perennial bounce-back candidate. His stat line just seems to keep going down. Last year, to top it off, he suffered from an abdominal injury. Here's reason for optimism: From June 1st onwards, Markakis hit for a .813 OPS, before that it was an ice cold .640. If an .813 OPS is close to the true Nick Markakis, then a return to his 2009-2010 offensive production levels is absolutely within reason. That's a potential boost of about 10 runs in Nick's bat. You do have to wonder about the abdominal injury though, and honestly I'm not sure how to project that out. I will say that giving Nick an extra 5 runs seems fair, if somewhat conservative.
Matt Wieters turns 26 in May, he still has his traditional prime years ahead of him. He should get better with the bat, and he's already trending upwards as it is. Let's give him an extra 5 runs, too.
Regression Candidates
"Regression" doesn't necessarily imply downwards trending, but it has a certain negative ring to it, so I'm going to use it for its negative connotations here. The top regression candidate is easily J.J. Hardy, who had a career year in the power department while doing very little getting on base. A return to form for Hardy could see him drop 10 of the runs he created in 2011.
Everyone Else
Gun to my head, I see everyone else in the starting lineup pretty much being who they have been. Certainly there is upside with Chris Davis, but Davis has over a thousand plate appearances in his career and has been pretty much who we saw at the end of last season. Adam Jones is a terrific player, but he's sat around 80 runs created the past two seasons with relatively stable underlying stats.
There is potential for greatness, but to expect that it to be realized would be foolish. As this is a project to develop a reasonable expectation in 2012, I'm inclined to leave everyone else more or less where they were in 2011.
Coincidentally, between our improved outlook for Markakis and Wieters and our grayish outlook for Hardy, the starters nearly break even with where they were in 2011.Our total runs created expectation, including the bench, now sits at about 720 runs, which is a modest improvement over the 708 runs scored in 2011. Sabrmetrically, we can expect the Orioles' bats to win an extra game over the 2011 squad. It's not much, but it's something.
But wait! The question remains of who receives the missing 200 PA. Manny Ramirez? Wilson Betemit? Nick Johnson? Jai Miller? Once that answer becomes clearer, we can revisit this topic. In the meantime, consider that the average 2011 Oriole, if given 200 PA, would create 23 runs. That's two more wins generated by the offense. Hopefully, whoever the Orioles settle on to share DH duties with Betemit can do even better than that.
47 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Any improvement or decline will be marginal.
I definitely see a regression in Hardy who had a monster year. But I still see him being one of the better offensive SS in the AL. Camden Yards has rejuvenated him.
Conversely, I agree that Markakis can really only get better offensively, although I don’t expect a huge improvement. The real possibilities for improvement in my mind come from Reimold and Wieters. Wieters just because of his general trajectory offensively and Reimold because I have this completely unjustified faith in him. I’m a sucker for power, I guess.
The offense is good enough. Improvement in Ws and Ls is dependent on pitching with this team.
by NittanyBlueHen on Feb 10, 2012 11:23 AM EST reply actions
Camden Chat is the home of completely unjustified faith in Nolan Reimold.
You’re in good company here.
"So I said, 'Looks like they've finally got Ogea in the pen. I wonder if the glove fits.' I thought I was going to get fired." - Mike Flanagan, RIP
by Eat More Esskay on Feb 10, 2012 12:54 PM EST up reply actions
I think any fall in JJ's production won't be in his rate stats but his playing time.
It all hinges on whether he an stay healthy.
Please come back Koji, we miss you.
You done made my momma sad, Camden Chat. Shame on you. - duck
by J(O's)elskIL on Feb 11, 2012 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
If that's the realistic view, what do you think the optimistic and pessimistic views are?
something like +/- 20 runs from 720 respectively sound about right? The optimism coming from potential growth from Jones, Wieters, and maybe a return to form for Markakis. and the pessimism coming from Chris Davis.
If everything went perfect
which I’d define as would be everyone at least maintaining what they did last year and then big years from Wieters, Jones, Markakis, and Davis, I could see tacking on an additional 50-60 runs on top of everything else. I don’t think that’s really feasible though.
Worst case scenario (without injuries) would be the continued decline of Markakis, a return to 2010 form for Hardy, a stagnant or decline year for Jones, Davis, and Wieters, and then Reynolds like trading power for marginal batting average, and I could see that putting the team down towards 650 runs or so.
Your cannonball trajectory, it always gave me hope
Chris Davis strikes out too much
but he is still young, and in the same age catergory as Jones and Wieters. I think he’s the biggest wildcard in our lineup.
Well, those two things may be closely related.
It’s the Brandon Wood effect: the prospect is overrated because evaluators see all of his good attributes (power, a good swing, etc.) and they believe that he has the ability to overcome the strikeouts with his other skills. But John Sickels has suggested that high strikeout rates in the minors can foreshadow poor contact (low walk, high strikeout) rates in the majors.
We can see that Davis doesn’t have a BABIP problem (his career rate is .335 in 1082 PAs), so his main issues are his walk and strikeout rates (and realizing his power at the major league leve, but that’s a different discussion altogether). In 2011, Davis walked in 5.2% of his PAs and he struck out 30% of the time. If he had been able to bring up his walk rate up to 7% and cut the strikeouts down to 25%, Davis would have added about 4 walks and 4 hits (based on his career batting average on contacted balls). That would bring his 2011 OBP from .305 to .343. So, yeah, strikeouts (along with walks) can make a pretty big difference in getting on base.
His problem (same as Reynolds but to a greater degree) is simply contact.
He has a problem putting bat on ball.
Please come back Koji, we miss you.
You done made my momma sad, Camden Chat. Shame on you. - duck
by J(O's)elskIL on Feb 11, 2012 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
They're similar in that respect, but they're also pretty different.
Both have their contact issues, but Reynolds has a very good walk rate. Reynolds walked in 12.1% of his PAs last year. If Davis had put up that walk rate in 2011 without changing anything else, he would have had about 14 more walks and a .372 OBP. That’s huge.
Plus, Davis’ power hasn’t materialized in the majors. Both Davis and Reynolds have demonstrated their “raw power” – Davis’ career Power Factor is 1.034, and Reynolds led the majors in 2011 with a 1.186 mark. But Reynolds’ has shown “useful power”, with a career .246 isolated power figure. Davis’s career ISO is just .196.
Davis does hold advantage over Reynolds in BABIP. Reynolds has had well-below-average BABIPs the past two seasons (.261 in 1216 PAs), despite having posted above average rates in his first three seasons (.343 in 1689 PAs). As I mentioned in the last post, Davis’ career rate is a very good .335 in 1082 PAs.
But Davis also plays the second-lowest position on the defensive spectrum. While Reynolds can at least pretend to play third base*, Davis is solidly entrenched at first, and he’s probably not a good defender there. He’s going to need an good bat to be an average starter, and he’ll need an amazing bat to be a superstar-type player. (Think pre-2011 Adam Dunn.)
*Reynolds makes sense at third even he is a -15 run defender in 2012. The position change from third to first is -15 runs, so it would be a push if Reynolds were an average defender at first base. Mark Reynolds is not an average defender at first base.
Despite all those issues, I think I understand why we tend to see Davis as a breakout candidate in 2012: when he makes contact, he either picks up a hit or he knocks the ball a long way. There are a bunch of things holding him back – walk rate, strikeout rate, power, defense, position. But if he just makes some slight improvements – just 2% on his walk rate, just 5% on his strikeout rate, just 20 points on his ISO, just average defense at first – Davis could be a very good player. Anyone who watches him play can see that potential. I mean, his first homer as an Oriole was an opposite-field 419 footer that just looked so easy coming off his bat, like he didn’t even give it his best swing. And I think that that homer is representative of what we should expect from Chris Davis: brief, brilliant flashes of pure baseball ability over the course of the long season.
Sorry, this started as a response to your post, and ended up being a comparison/analysis of Davis as a player. I’ve been thinking out loud a lot lately…
by SeanP on Feb 11, 2012 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Thanks, that means a lot coming from you.
Now, do you have the kind of database we could use to see how many players actually make those kinds of small improvements?
Tom Tango once said (I can’t seem to find the post) that analyzing the current stats is half of the issue; the other half is looking at historical data to find some precedent and probability of outcomes. I’d like to follow through on this analysis of Davis, but I’m not sure if I have the right resources and skills, so any help would be awesome.
One minor note,
Chris Davis has actually played more games at 3B than at 1B in his minor league career. Not sure if he is any good at it, but I cannot fathom him being worse than Reynolds at third. Maybe because I don’t want to.
Great post indeed though!
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
Between an injured Luke Scott, and a shitty Pie (is he included in last yrs calc?)
I feel like their could definitely be improvement in runs created in LF, no?
Pie was grouped into the bench players
I have Reimold hitting as well as he did last year, which was pretty good (I actually feel like this is somewhat optimistic), and picking up an extra 7 runs over what Scott and he did in 2011.
Your cannonball trajectory, it always gave me hope
this is good...
Going to help me for my post :)
also, I see you left Roberts out as well
Really torn about how to handle him in the projections. Might he be the other 200 PA?
could be
I’m betting against seeing him again though, except in an extremely limited bench-type role.
Your cannonball trajectory, it always gave me hope
like Kirk Gibson style?
He’s got one good swing left in him…crushes a homer to send us to the playoffs!?!
So the starting lineups between 2011 and 2012 are basically a push?
And the extra runs created are coming from the much improved bench, if you want to look at it that way.
The assessment that the starting lineup is worse without Vladimir Guerrero puzzles me.
...While you're waiting for moments that never come.
by Astronaut Mike Dexter on Feb 10, 2012 12:39 PM EST reply actions
It's not worse
It’s better, but the playing time has been reduced. That’s why the starters come out 18 runs shy of the 2011 starters. There are 320 fewer PA I’m projecting the ’12 lineup to get than what the ’11 lineup got.
Your cannonball trajectory, it always gave me hope
Thanks for posting this
I am confused on markakis numbers – it has him at 91 runs created last year to lead the team and improving to 89 runs created this year? I’m not sure I am reading the numbers right.
if i'm not mistaken
I think the 89 was based on Andrew’s projected PAs but he said to expect a rebound year and potential for higher runs created than the 89 projection.
At least thats how i looked at it.
by Jokes & Burns on Feb 10, 2012 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
So based on parts 1 and 2...
We have a projected 4 more wins based off the improved bench production and 3 from the modest line up projections, with a potential to improve upon that number.
So that gives us a potential 76 win season with LAST year’s pitching. One can only assume that the O’s pitching has to improve next year. Looking forward to you diving into those projections.
no
It is, in total, about a 1 win gain offensively (bench + starters) before adding in the last 200 PA. If the Orioles find an average bat to take those last plate appearances, we’re looking at 3 wins better with the same pitching and defense.
Further (and I’ll make this more explicit as I move on) that only improves their expectation to 70 wins, because their pythag record last year was 67 wins, as opposed to the 69 wins they actually got.
Your cannonball trajectory, it always gave me hope
well that sucks.
i was getting pretty damn excited.
as one not familiar with sabrmetrics and fancy mathematician statistics, how did we go from a projected 4 win improvement from the bench production, and then add in a fairly equal stat line from 2011 to 2012 for the starters and lose a projected 3 runs? or one run… or i have no clue what i’m saying.
by Jokes & Burns on Feb 10, 2012 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
The luck fairy could help us, though. I’ve estimated that a team has a standard deviation of 6 wins over the course of the season (see fanpost), so with some luck, and better pitching along with these projections, we could be looking at a 85-90 win season. Of course, luck could go the other way and we’ll end up losing close to 100.
goldomatic, who is King in the art of wishful thinking
There is absolutely no way that this team is going to win even close to 90 wins. I bleed orange and black, but its just not going to happen. Our offense is good enough to do that, but our pitching would have to improve dramatically for us to have a shot at even 82 wins.
Our starting pitching, while it has potential…it just doesn’t cut it to win in the bigs, and MUCH less so in the AL East. If Matusz, Arrieta, and Britton can all come out and have a stellar season, then yeah, there is a chance, but whats the likelihood of that happening?
Well, let’s back up a step. Given this and assumed the same pitching/defense as before, let’s say they are a 75 win team. If the standard deviation is 6 games, then to get to 90 would require 2.5 standard deviations of luck, or about a 1% chance. Not very likely.
But suppose the pitching staff takes a step forward, so instead we have an 82 win team. Then we’d need 1.3 standard deviations, or about an 18% chance to get to 90 wins. Not likely, but not impossible either. There’s a lot of ifs, and I certainly wouldn’t bet on it happening, but crazier things have happened.
goldomatic, who is King in the art of wishful thinking
This article sums up how much luck enters into things pretty nicely. It also states a standard deviation of 6.4 games, a little more then figure I got but still in the right ballpark.
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/god_and_500/
goldomatic, who is King in the art of wishful thinking
Okay
but you don’t project a team to be “really lucky” or otherwise. You wouldn’t build a team that would win 75 games in a luck neutral environment and then sit back, have a stiff drink, smile to yourself, and say “If we get super, duper lucky, I’m talking luckier than anyone’s ever been, we are totally winning this division. Job well fucking done, me.” You build, and you project, with no regard for luck, because it’s just as likely to go against you as it is for you.
Your cannonball trajectory, it always gave me hope
by Andrew_G on Feb 11, 2012 8:07 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Oh no, of course not. You build a team so you can maximize your expected win total and not have to rely on a good roll of the dice in order to win (although it worked for the NY Giants this year, grrrr). As far as expecting luck, well, you can’t.
I think the Orioles talent level for 2012 is 75 wins. This means they’d have about a 15% chance to get to .500, or about a 0.5% chance to get to 90 wins (I redid the math from my earlier post). If the FO thinks they like those odds and are making decisions based on that… well, it’s going to be another long season.
goldomatic, who is King in the art of wishful thinking
75 wins seems reasonable to me
although I have not strongly looked into the pitching or defense yet. But, yeah, we’re in agreement.
Sorry if I came on strong. I guess I’m a little bit frustrated with how the offseason’s gone.
Your cannonball trajectory, it always gave me hope
You might not hear this often enough,
but not only is your analysis fundamentaly sound and great overall, but you also write well.
Great post.
Please come back Koji, we miss you.
You done made my momma sad, Camden Chat. Shame on you. - duck
In a nutshell:
There is potential for greatness, but to expect that it to be realized would be foolish
Enjoyed the piece. I’m pretty shocked that the overall offense wouldn’t regress given its big jump in 2011. I’m likely a bit more bearish on Hardy, primarily due to his chances for injury and the inevitable malaise of being an Oriole. Well, really just the first part.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever

by 



















