Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The Store

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Recent Blogs

From MinnCentric


Photo

Projecting the Twins 2013 Record... with rosy projections

projected record projections pythagorean
  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,198 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 01:12 PM

A post in another thread (thanks, beckmt) got me thinking about this real hard... if by chance things do "go right" for the Twins next year, where could we expect them to end up? We can have a little fun with the Pythagorean Theorum to get a back-of-the-napkin idea. This formula factors runs scored and allowed to come up with the number of wins a team could expect on average.

Last year, the Twins scored 701 runs and gave up 832 for a pythag-projection of 68 wins (compared to our actual 66 wins). So, if we run through a series of potential and desireable fates, we can take a stab at adjusting the number of runs scored (or allowed) from last year and see where we stand.

1. CF production is adequately replaced by a young player (or retread, for that matter) and matches Span's production. Net 0 runs.

2. Plouffe turns into an above average three-bagger with a .270 avg and 25+ HRs. This would put his offensive production in the Ryan Zimmerman range and move his projected RC (runs created) from mid-50s to 95ish. +40 runs scored.

3. Parmelee sticks and does well enough to post .280 / 30 2Bs / 15 HRs. This puts C-Parm around 90 runs created. The Twins generated 80 offensive runs from RF in 2012. Parmelee's defense compared to Revere will cancel out that gain. +10 runs scored, +10 runs allowed.

4. Mauer and Morneau have good years and stay healthy. Mauer did just that last year, so no change there. Morneau could top his second half numbers and end up with an OPS around .825 for +20 runs scored.

5. Dozier, Carroll, and Florimon hold down the MI and hit .260+. The defense improves some and a marginal increase in BA provides +10 runs scored and -5 runs allowed .

6. Fresh blood in the rotation allows starting pitching to improve dramatically with a group ERA a little above 4. This would get the rotation back to about MLB-average and, despite an increase in IP, result in -100 runs allowed.

7. Bullpen remains solid. The Twins were MLB-average here last year despite marginal performances by some contributors. The improved rotation results help the pen stay rested and pitch fewer innings (558 down to 500) resulting in -25 runs allowed.

Now, this all assumes the team stays healthy and we don't see regression from any of the folks not named here (looking at you, Josh Willingham). These rosy scenarios would put the Twins runs scored at 781 and runs allowed at 712 for a pythagorean projected record of 88-74.

So, what do you say? Could everything go right for the Twins in 2013 and reverse the dreaded start of our downfall in 2011 when everything went wrong? What else could go right and push these numbers higher?

#2 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 7,252 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 01:15 PM

Some of that looks quite realistic.

#3 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,834 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 02 January 2013 - 01:29 PM

> Now, this all assumes the team stays healthy and we don't see regression from any of the folks not named here (looking at you, Josh Willingham).

Cast an eye in Diamond's direction as well. (Not just because he's one of the few 2012 mainstays not mentioned, but because he seems like a serious regression risk.)

#4 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,198 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 01:47 PM

Some of that looks quite realistic.


Probably unlikely it all goes exactly right, but certainly not impossible. Hopefully it at least gives a little hope to the other side of all the doom and gloom projections.

#5 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,834 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:13 PM

> 6. Fresh blood in the rotation allows starting pitching to improve dramatically with a group ERA a little above 4. This would get the rotation back to about MLB-average and, despite an increase in IP, result in -100 runs allowed.

I thought about this some more. Unlike your analysis position-by-position for the batters, the situation for starting pitching cries out a little bit for "show your work". Here is my rough cut at it. The Twins employed 12 different starting pitchers in 2012, none of whom had a full workload of 32 or 33 starts: so I grouped them together in approximately 32-start bunches, which happened to work out neatly except I had to split Duensing's year into two slots.

Hopefully, the following arithmetic doesn't contain major mistakes (I had to guess in a couple of spots), the assumptions I made are sound (e.g., 6+ innings per start from a successful staff), and the work is reasonably self-explanatory. Sorry, I don't know how to change the font so that columns of numbers line up; the bottom lines and differentials are meant to be in units of Earned Runs, in keeping with your analysis.

The conclusion I draw is I don't really see where a savings of 100 runs is possible from the 2013 starting staff in its current state. Around 50 seems the best to hope for. This is because DeVries and Deduno had better ERAs than we probably choose to remember, limiting the upside possible from upgrades. Starters going deeper into games somewhat skews these run counts (100 runs by a #5 starter going 6+ innings all the time is obviously better than the guys in 2012 giving up 100 in only 5 innings), but I think you have already taken this into account by assuming fewer runs given up by the relief staff given a lower work load in your bullet item #7.

Starts ERA ER
Diamond 27 3.54 68
Swarzak 5 8.10 21
---
89
2013: Diamond 3.50 80 Diff: -9

Blackburn 19 7.39 81
Vasquez 6 5.68 20
Marquis 7 8.47 32
---
133
2013: Worley 4.00 90 Diff: -43

Liriano 17 5.31 54?
Pavano 11 6.00 42
Duensing 4 6.92 15
---
111
2013: Correia 4.50 100 Diff: -11

Deduno 15 4.44 39
Walters 12 5.69 39
Duensing 7 6.92 25
---
103
2013: Gibson 4.50 100 Diff: -3

DeVries 16 3.99 38
Hendriks 16 5.59 53
---
91
2013: Some guys 4.50 100 Diff: +9

#6 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,185 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:45 PM

Can the starters pitch 6 innings minimum giving up no more than 3-4 runs average. Will the bullpen hold in a range of 1-1.5 runs for their work.

If so, can the Twins score a minimum of 850 runs for the season. Average 5 a game, by chance? Will four most games do it?

Don't see either happening (except perhaps the bullpen).

The starters are middlin. The offense has no lineup or player protection, you can pitch around whomever whenever and hope that the others are playing...well, like they usually do.
Joel Thingvall
www.thingvall.com
rosterman at www.twinscards.com

#7 markos

markos

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 266 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:51 PM

If you look at innings and runs rather than starts and ERA, it isn't unreasonable to foresee a 100 run improvement from the pitching staff next season. I did an analysis a few weeks ago, and was able to get a 113 run improvement: Pitching Improvement - Twinkie Town

The short version: if you look at the 10 pitchers who (hopefully) won't be back next year (Liriano, Hendriks, Blackburn, Pavano, Gray, Marquis, Manship, Duensing as a starter, Walters, Maloney), there is a lot of room for improvement. Collectively, they averaged almost 7 runs per 9 innings over 580 innings. If those 580 innings are gobbled up by the new arms (Harden, Correia, Worley, Gibson, Pelfrey), the new arms average 5 runs per 9 innings (an okay rate, but not good or great), and everyone else on the staff matches last year's performance (yes, a lot of ifs), then the Twins would give up 113 less runs than last season.

I think allowing 100 less runs next year is achievable.

#8 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:07 PM

If you look at innings and runs rather than starts and ERA, it isn't unreasonable to foresee a 100 run improvement from the pitching staff next season. I did an analysis a few weeks ago, and was able to get a 113 run improvement: Pitching Improvement - Twinkie Town

The short version: if you look at the 10 pitchers who (hopefully) won't be back next year (Liriano, Hendriks, Blackburn, Pavano, Gray, Marquis, Manship, Duensing as a starter, Walters, Maloney), there is a lot of room for improvement. Collectively, they averaged almost 7 runs per 9 innings over 580 innings. If those 580 innings are gobbled up by the new arms (Harden, Correia, Worley, Gibson, Pelfrey), the new arms average 5 runs per 9 innings (an okay rate, but not good or great), and everyone else on the staff matches last year's performance (yes, a lot of ifs), then the Twins would give up 113 less runs than last season.

I think allowing 100 less runs next year is achievable.

liam hendriks? you remember diamond in 2011? hopefully liam gets a shot and runs with it ...he will never be an ace of the staff but certainly has the stuff to be a 3,4,5th starter especially for the twins

#9 Danchat

Danchat

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 539 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:19 PM

Twins go 61-101.

#10 markos

markos

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 266 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:34 PM

liam hendriks? you remember diamond in 2011? hopefully liam gets a shot and runs with it ...he will never be an ace of the staff but certainly has the stuff to be a 3,4,5th starter especially for the twins


I hope so too! I should have been more clear - I hope the Liam Hendriks that gives up 0.72 runs per inning won't be back next year. If there is a version that only gives up 0.5 runs per inning, I'd love to see that version pitch 175 innings next year.

#11 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,198 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:36 PM

Unlike your analysis position-by-position for the batters, the situation for starting pitching cries out a little bit for "show your work".


Great question. It wasn't a 'by the pitcher' breakdown that I used, but rather a look at the whole group. Here's the math I used to arrive at 100 runs for the rotation:

The 2012 starters allowed 528 ER in 880 IP.
(Minnesota Twins Team Stats » 2012 » Starters » Standard Statistics | FanGraphs Baseball)
If we think they can be league-average in 2013, the ERA for the group will be around 4.10.

I assumed the improved performance would lead to longer starts, for 940 IP. The 4.10 ERA at that many IP is 428 runs.

So, 528-428... 100 fewer runs allowed.

#12 Knotholemike

Knotholemike

    Member

  • Members
  • 35 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:45 PM

The short version: if you look at the 10 pitchers who (hopefully) won't be back next year (Liriano, Hendriks, Blackburn, Pavano, Gray, Marquis, Manship, Duensing as a starter, Walters, Maloney), there is a lot of room for improvement. Collectively, they averaged almost 7 runs per 9 innings over 580 innings. If those 580 innings are gobbled up by the new arms (Harden, Correia, Worley, Gibson, Pelfrey), the new arms average 5 runs per 9 innings (an okay rate, but not good or great), and everyone else on the staff matches last year's performance (yes, a lot of ifs), then the Twins would give up 113 less runs than last season.


Wow! Looking at it that way one understands why the Twins front office is more optimistic with Correia, Pelfry, Harden, etc. in the fold than the bunch they suffered with last year. The front office probably sees Correia as a better option than Liriano and Pelfry as a less expensive risk than Baker. No wow factor there but if they just put up their average career numbers they'll be a huge improvement over the bunch that gave the Twins up an average of 7 runs over 580 innings. I still think the Twins could land either Saunders or Marcum.

#13 SpantheMan

SpantheMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 120 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:52 PM

I think there is more room or improvement in the MI. I also believe that Mourneau will be much better than he was last year because he will be another year remove from all those injuries (espn1500 had a nice article about him). Butera getting less ABs because Gardy trusts Doumit more could lead to an increase in production from C. However, I find it unlikely that the twins replace Span's production in CF. Willingham and Doumit are both also due for regression.

#14 SpantheMan

SpantheMan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 120 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:54 PM

Even if we lose outfield production, it is reasonable to think that every IF spot and every SP spot should have better production than last year.

#15 edavis0308

edavis0308

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 576 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:55 PM

What exactly are your projections for Pelfrey and Correia? Seeing as one is coming off significant arm surgery and both are making the NL to AL jump.

EDIT: Oops I just no saw the 'not a by the pitcher breakdown' part.

Edited by edavis0308, 02 January 2013 - 04:10 PM.


#16 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,033 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:59 PM

Great question. It wasn't a 'by the pitcher' breakdown that I used, but rather a look at the whole group. Here's the math I used to arrive at 100 runs for the rotation:

The 2012 starters allowed 528 ER in 880 IP.
(Minnesota Twins Team Stats » 2012 » Starters » Standard Statistics | FanGraphs Baseball)
If we think they can be league-average in 2013, the ERA for the group will be around 4.10.

I assumed the improved performance would lead to longer starts, for 940 IP. The 4.10 ERA at that many IP is 428 runs.

So, 528-428... 100 fewer runs allowed.


Why would you think they can be league average? Let's assume Diamond can replicate his season (big assumption), and Worley his. Then what? Correia won't be. Hendricks very well may not be, and his ceiling is probably an average pitcher. Gibson has a chance at being above average, but as a rookie on an innings limit, I wouldn't put a ton of hope into that either. Pelfrey was an innings eater but hasn't been average in quite some time. That's not a lot of hope for shaving 100 runs off.

I'd say the best hope for the starting 5 is a healthy and effective Rich Harden along with a Sam Deduno figuring out how to locate that fastball just enough.

#17 SweetOne69

SweetOne69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 490 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:25 PM

Why would you think they can be league average? Let's assume Diamond can replicate his season (big assumption), and Worley his. Then what? Correia won't be. Hendricks very well may not be, and his ceiling is probably an average pitcher. Gibson has a chance at being above average, but as a rookie on an innings limit, I wouldn't put a ton of hope into that either. Pelfrey was an innings eater but hasn't been average in quite some time. That's not a lot of hope for shaving 100 runs off.

I'd say the best hope for the starting 5 is a healthy and effective Rich Harden along with a Sam Deduno figuring out how to locate that fastball just enough.


I agree that league average is a lofty goal for the starting staff coming off of a league worst 5.40. They had a 4.64 in 2011 and a 4.17 in 2010.

I'd be satisfied with the 940 innings and a 4.50ish ERA. That would be still be a 60 run improvement of 2012.

#18 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,167 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:46 PM

Nice thread, jay. I like the idea of trying to tangibly envision a best-case scenario and what this team could do if everything breaks right. Unfortunately, some of the assumptions required to meet these parameters are dauntingly huge stretches, especially on the pitching side. I really feel like adding even one legitimate, quality starter to the mix would greatly increase their chances of staying afloat.

#19 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,198 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:10 PM

Why would you think they can be league average?


Can't disagree here. It's a hopeful wish, not so much a projection of reality. You never know though... someone could surprise... Gibson, Harden, Pelfrey, even Worley. Given how wretched production was at the bottom of the lengthy list of starters as someone else pointed out, it's not hard to see a significant improvement compared to last year, even if it's not all the way to average.

#20 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,198 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 05:21 PM

Nice thread, jay. I like the idea of trying to tangibly envision a best-case scenario and what this team could do if everything breaks right. Unfortunately, some of the assumptions required to meet these parameters are dauntingly huge stretches, especially on the pitching side. I really feel like adding even one legitimate, quality starter to the mix would greatly increase their chances of staying afloat.


Thanks, Nick. I prefer my offseason filled with visions of fresh beginnings and a dose grandeur. If I go through these realistically, I'd probably project this current squad to put up 715 and give up 770. A little closer to competitive, but more like 76-86.

I do think 3, 4, 5, and 7 are very do-able. 1, 2, and 6 are stretches of varying levels from a toe-touch to Stohs dropping into the splits.

#21 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,548 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:06 PM

Nice thread, jay. I like the idea of trying to tangibly envision a best-case scenario and what this team could do if everything breaks right. Unfortunately, some of the assumptions required to meet these parameters are dauntingly huge stretches, especially on the pitching side. I really feel like adding even one legitimate, quality starter to the mix would greatly increase their chances of staying afloat.


I think that it is close. And again, (great post btw.) we are talking about a best-case scenario. A scenario where all the pitchers the Twins have signed are healthy and effective. In that case, Diamond will be number 4 and the rotation would look like this:

Harden
Pelfrey
Worley
Diamond
Correia

If I think of these guys at their best (remember, best case scenario,) this is not that bad of a rotation. And Gibson and Hendriks and Meyer and May on the wings.

The problem I have is one that will be even worse, if the Twins add another arm without subtracting someone because the above 4 are already blocked... and I am not even mentioning Blackburn.
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#22 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,339 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:15 PM

Great question. It wasn't a 'by the pitcher' breakdown that I used, but rather a look at the whole group. Here's the math I used to arrive at 100 runs for the rotation:

The 2012 starters allowed 528 ER in 880 IP.
(Minnesota Twins Team Stats » 2012 » Starters » Standard Statistics | FanGraphs Baseball)
If we think they can be league-average in 2013, the ERA for the group will be around 4.10.

I assumed the improved performance would lead to longer starts, for 940 IP. The 4.10 ERA at that many IP is 428 runs.

So, 528-428... 100 fewer runs allowed.


I know I'm nitpicking here, but the league average ERA for starters last year was roughly 4.40. Relievers were at 3.55, the combined figure was 4.10.

That would be 458 runs in those 940 innings for the starters.

#23 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,716 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:54 PM

I think, if you're looking for positives, you should look to things that speak to the long-term. Like getting to see Aaron Hicks, a full season of Parmalee, Kyle Gibson, Worley, etc. Any hope for vast improvements on this team overlooks the fact that things didn't go catastrophically wrong last year. They just weren't very good and haven't improved much (if at all) this offseason.

#24 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,198 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 07:48 AM

I know I'm nitpicking here, but the league average ERA for starters last year was roughly 4.40. Relievers were at 3.55, the combined figure was 4.10.


I realize I'm nitpicking back, but it made me check again. I come up with 28617 1/3 IP for the SPs and 13335 ER in 2012 for an ERA of 4.19. Where's the 4.40 figure coming from?

Major League Team Stats » 2012 » Starters » Standard Statistics | FanGraphs Baseball

#25 markos

markos

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 266 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 08:06 AM

I realize I'm nitpicking back, but it made me check again. I come up with 28617 1/3 IP for the SPs and 13335 ER in 2012 for an ERA of 4.19. Where's the 4.40 figure coming from?

Major League Team Stats » 2012 » Starters » Standard Statistics | FanGraphs Baseball


MLB average is 4.19 -> 13335 ER in 28617.2 Inn
AL-only average is 4.37 -> 6474 ER in 13342.1 Inn
NL-only average is 4.04 -> 6861 ER in 15275.1 Inn

#26 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,339 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 03 January 2013 - 08:08 AM

From baseball reference, the actual figure was 4.37.

American League 2012 Pitching Splits - Baseball-Reference.com


Edit: I see, you're looking at ML as a whole.

#27 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,198 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 08:18 AM

Ah, I see.

I suppose AL average would probably be the more realistic goal. That's just GREAT... now come up with 30 more runs some where.

#28 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,339 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 03 January 2013 - 08:38 AM

... now come up with 30 more runs some where.


A Shaun Marcum signing could help out in that regard.

#29 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 3,975 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 11:26 AM

They won't lose as many games as last year, view that any way you choose.

#30 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 10,157 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks

Posted 03 January 2013 - 11:40 AM

Last year... The Starting Pitching was bad... The effect that had on the 2012 team was obvious to all... We kept putting an ineffective Blackburn and Marquis and Liriano out there because we had nobody else to throw.

In 2013... I have no expectation for Kershaw type performance from anyone... but... we do have options this year... Not Kershaw type options but options none the less. If Ryan/Gardenhire use those options... Average pitching is absolutely possible and with just average pitching... The team can improve their win loss totals by quite a bit.

The key will be... If Correia fails like most here seem to think he will... The Twins won't keep trotting him out there and instead turn to Gibson, Hendriks... Deduno or whoever to see if they can at least provide average pitching.

If Correia or Pelfrey have 6 plus ERA's in June and are still in the rotations... Our pitching depth will mean nothing and it will be a long year. If our starters can average around 4.40... We could be OK.

I'm still hoping for a Marcum signing... I will be dispointed if we don't and I am preparing for that highly possible disapointment.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: projected record, projections, pythagorean