Diamond Mind 2006 Projections

[Providence A's]

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/proj2006.htm

Projected 2006 standings

Here are the projected final standings, based on the 100 seasons we simulated on March 27th. Anything that happened since that date is not reflected here. Trades, roster decisions, and new injury reports may have altered the landscape a little.

Legend
W, L, Pct, GB -- average wins, average losses, winning percentage, games behind leader
RF, RA -- average runs for and against
#DIV, #WC -- number of division titles and wild cards (fractions given for ties)

AL East         W   L   Pct  GB   RF   RA  #DIV   #WC
New York       93  69  .574   -  889  771  66.5   8.8
Boston         86  76  .531   7  850  784  25.5  15.0
Toronto        83  79  .512  10  802  780   8.0   9.5
Baltimore      74  88  .457  19  767  830         2.0
Tampa Bay      70  92  .432  23  769  889

AL Central      W   L   Pct  GB   RF   RA  #DIV   #WC
Minnesota      90  72  .556   -  745  664  49.3  12.2   
Cleveland      88  74  .543   2  794  703  33.3  18.2
Chicago        86  76  .531   4  760  725  16.0  11.7
Detroit        79  83  .488  11  753  769   1.3   3.3
Kansas City    62 100  .383  28  715  882

AL West         W   L   Pct  GB   RF   RA  #DIV   #WC
Oakland        96  66  .593   -  827  673  93.5   1.5 
Texas          81  81  .500  15  839  843   0.5   7.0
Seattle        80  82  .494  16  737  747   4.0   5.0
Los Angeles    79  83  .488  17  711  732   2.0   5.8

NL East         W   L   Pct  GB   RF   RA  #DIV   #WC
New York       87  75  .537   -  767  735  34.0  12.0 
Philadelphia   86  76  .531   1  775  729  36.0  10.3
Atlanta        85  77  .525   2  763  734  25.0  13.0
Washington     75  87  .463  12  715  773   5.0   1.0
Florida        69  93  .426  18  709  818  

NL Central      W   L   Pct  GB   RF   RA  #DIV   #WC
St. Louis      95  67  .586   -  781  664  85.5   4.8 
Chicago        85  77  .525  10  735  704   8.5  26.0
Milwaukee      79  83  .488  16  736  746   2.5   7.3
Houston        78  84  .482  17  720  754   2.5   5.0
Cincinnati     77  85  .475  18  724  760   1.0   1.5
Pittsburgh     75  87  .463  20  706  765         1.0

NL West         W   L   Pct  GB   RF   RA  #DIV   #WC
Los Angeles    86  76  .531   -  780  726  42.0   9.0
San Francisco  86  76  .531   -  818  761  47.0   5.5
San Diego      77  85  .475   9  705  728   5.5   1.5
Arizona        76  86  .469  10  771  830   5.5   1.0
Colorado       67  95  .413  19  766  910         1.0

The article is quite lengthy, but is very interesting...worth checking out IMHO.

[DirtyKash]

Not a single 100-win team? Angels with a sub-.500 record? Nope, not at all...

[Providence A's]

you need to click the link to read the reasoning and methodology behind it all. They also show how their predictions have faired over the years compared to what actually happened and against other prediction models.

Here's what he says about the Angels.

Los Angeles Angels (79-83, division title 2%, wild card 5.8%)

Yes, I know, this one looks very strange. The Angels are two-time defending champs in the AL West, they won the World Series as recently as 2002, their manager has a track record of overachievement, and we're picking them for last place. Are you kidding me?

The Rangers, Mariners, and Angels were so tightly bunched in our simulations that we might as well say it's too close to call. An average of 1.7 wins separated second place from fourth. All three teams made the post-season between 7.5% and 9% of the time. The run margins were close, too, with Texas at -4, Seattle at -10, and Los Angeles at -21.

In other words, the simulation results do not make a compelling case for the Angels finishing last. They strongly suggest, however, that the Angels aren't much different from a lot of other teams, and are a good distance behind the Athletics.

Defensively, the Angels were second in the league in pitching last year thanks to a strong and unusually healthy rotation backed up by a terrific bullpen. Despite the loss of 60 starts via the departures of Paul Byrd and Jarrod Washburn, the pitching still looks quite good. Ervin Santana is projected to improve, Kelvim Escobar should be healthier, and Jeff Weaver is a pretty good #5 starter. In fact, pitching wasn't a problem in our simulations, as the Angels finished in the top five in runs allowed.

On the other hand, offense was a major problem, with the Angels finishing dead last in the AL in scoring. They were 7th in 2005, so what accounts for the decline?

The lineup lacks power but doesn't lack low-OBP guys. Garret Anderson is a shadow of his former self, and he's been battling a foot problem all spring. Darin Erstad was the league's worst offensive first baseman last year, and now he projects to be one of the league's worst center fielders. Catcher Bengie Molina took his bat to Toronto. The lineup features only two players, Vlad Guerrero and Dallas McPherson, who are likely to top 20 homers. In other words, they'd better make sure their outs are productive if they want to scratch out a decent number of runs.

Finally, I believe some of the young hitting prospects have been over-hyped. Three of the top four teams in LA's farm system play in very good hitters parks, so it's easier to pile up bloated offensive stats in that system. The Angels play their spring training games in Arizona, which always features a ton of offense, so you need to take their spring stats with a grain of salt. The bottom line is that their young hitters project to be good but not great in the big leagues, at least at this stage of their careers, so they're not likely to rejuvenate an otherwise anemic batting order.

I'm quite aware that the Angels could do enough of the little things, as has been their habit for several years, to finish second in the division. They might even make another serious run at Oakland. But I don't see this as a very good team, and I won't be at all surprised if they struggle.

[go_bucs2000]

I still think the Pirates will be better then expected i'm tellin ya now watch out NL Central the Pirates have set sail

[Providence A's]

as with the Angels/M's/Rangers, there isn't a big difference between the Pirates/Reds/Brewers/Astros. The author basically states that (obviously) it doesn't mean the Angels, or in this case the Pirates, will finish last...the point is that they are jumbled with those other teams in their division and that they could finish anywhere in there (4th to 2nd for the Angels and 6th to 3rd for the Pirates)...another thing to take away from that is that those teams are not really close to the A's and Cardinals.