2018 Draft Pick Watch

[Mr. Bigglesworth 2,972]

I was speaking to league average and yes, 10 to 12 wins over average as a team gets you in the low 90s.

[Mr. Bigglesworth 2,972]

So digging a bit deeper, if you look at Pythag, the Tigers should be 60-85 given their performance.

So, for planning / discussion purposes, 12.5 more wins (and 12.5 fewer losses) should gets them near or at 0.500.

Relative to league average, the Tigers are:

INF: -6.5 Wins (I included catcher as an INF)

DH: -3.1 Wins (This really is quite remarkable)

RP: -2.4 Wins (The Tigers never could build a bullpen)

So getting the INF, DH and relievers to league average gets them to 81 wins.

OF and SP have basically been league average, give or take.

[Mr. Bigglesworth 2,972]

I guess it also shows getting an OK 1B and moving Cabrera to DH (and getting a full season out of Miguel) is probably worth 5 more wins or something.

[Mr. Bigglesworth 2,972]

I guess it also shows focusing on INF prospects is defensible.

[RandyMarsh 481]

On ESPN+ today they had an article about all the rebuilding teams and who is in the best position going forward, out of the 17 teams the Tigers were ranked 7th but that also included the Braves, Phillies and A's who are already in the playoffs.  Outside of them they had the Rays, Pirates, Padres and White Sox just ahead of us. 

[Tigrrfan 63]

10 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

What time frame are we talking about as far as being middle of the road?  Next two season?  2022-ish?

 

For as long as the following players are the team's only OF options:

 

On 9/10/2018 at 2:14 PM, irvink said:

Castellanos, Mahtook, Jones, Stewart, Reyes, Daz, Robson, Gerber and now Peterson.

 

[Mr. Bigglesworth 2,972]

If this season constituted an average AL OF in terms of overall effectiveness, I suspect the ceiling is higher.

[Shelton 1,349]

25 minutes ago, Tigrrfan said:

 

For as long as the following players are the team's only OF options:

 

 

Eye roll

[Tigrrfan 63]

9 hours ago, Shelton said:

Maybe you guys can help me out with the math you are using, but wouldn’t an average team be an 81 win team? So if you are getting 10-12 wins above average from a group of players, is that not a 91-93 win team (assuming the balance of other players is average)?

did you mean to reference replacement level?

I did not speculate as to what an 'average' team is.  I left the definition of the term 'average' in Mr Bigglesworth capable hands.  However, I am not convinced that an 81-81 team could be accurately defined as 'the' average team.  Instead, I think the actual w/l record of an 'average' team, as well as the definition of an 'average' team, may be debatable.  Because as of this moment there are 16 teams above .500 and 14 teams below .500 ..which if exactly .500 were considered average, then one could say there are 16 teams above average and 14 teams below average right now.  .. .. .. .. .. Looking at the most recent fully completed season, last year's season ended with 12 teams above .500 and 18 teams below .500.  So if 81-81 were to be considered an average team (again, debatable), then it suggests there were only 12 teams above average last year and 18 teams below average.

Therefore, how could anyone logically assign an actual win total on a team 10-12 wins above average?  Maybe there is a definitive example of what constitutes an 'average' team.  If there is, I wish someone would enlighten me.

[Longgone 367]

9 minutes ago, Tigrrfan said:

I did not speculate as to what an 'average' team is.  I left the definition of the term 'average' in Mr Bigglesworth capable hands.  However, I am not convinced that an 81-81 team could be accurately defined as 'the' average team.  Instead, I think the actual w/l record, as well as the definition of an 'average' team, may be debatable.  Because as of this moment there are 16 teams above .500 and 14 teams below .500 ..which if exactly .500 were considered average, then one could say there are 16 teams above average and 14 teams below average right now.  .. .. .. .. .. Looking at the most recent fully completed season, last year's season ended with 12 teams above .500 and 18 teams below .500.  So if 81-81 were to be considered an average team (again, debatable), then it suggests there were only 12 teams above average last year and 18 teams below average.

Therefore, how could anyone logically assign an actual win total on a team 10-12 wins above average?  Maybe there is a definitive example of what constitutes an 'average' team.  If there is, I wish someone would enlighten me.

Just what is your point?

[Tigrrfan 63]

The point is ..attempting to determine exactly what really is an 'average' team.  If the consensus is that 81-81 is the definition of an average team ..then I disagree.

[Shelton 1,349]

17 minutes ago, Tigrrfan said:

I did not speculate as to what an 'average' team is.  I left the definition of the term 'average' in Mr Bigglesworth capable hands.  However, I am not convinced that an 81-81 team could be accurately defined as 'the' average team.  Instead, I think the actual w/l record of an 'average' team, as well as the definition of an 'average' team, may be debatable.  Because as of this moment there are 16 teams above .500 and 14 teams below .500 ..which if exactly .500 were considered average, then one could say there are 16 teams above average and 14 teams below average right now.  .. .. .. .. .. Looking at the most recent fully completed season, last year's season ended with 12 teams above .500 and 18 teams below .500.  So if 81-81 were to be considered an average team (again, debatable), then it suggests there were only 12 teams above average last year and 18 teams below average.

Therefore, how could anyone logically assign an actual win total on a team 10-12 wins above average?  Maybe there is a definitive example of what constitutes an 'average' team.  If there is, I wish someone would enlighten me.

Vomiting

[Tenacious D 241]

Too much ******* math.

[Longgone 367]

1 hour ago, Tigrrfan said:

The point is ..attempting to determine exactly what really is an 'average' team.  If the consensus is that 81-81 is the definition of an average team ..then I disagree.

To what end?! This is the epitome of pointless. 

[Mr. Bigglesworth 2,972]

I frankly didn't expect to have to argue whether 81-81 would constitute an average team.  I assumed that was understood.  But, for completeness sake, if you take the sum total of wins and losses divided by teams that played those games, 81-81 is the average record if all teams play a 162 game season. 

There is no mathematical or logical requirement that exactly half of the observations made are above the average (sometimes called mean) and exactly half are below the average.  Sometimes the distribution leads to a few more observations on one side of the mathematical average than the other.

The median is the statistical measure that requires exactly half of the observations fall above (and half fall below).

In summary, it sounds like median is being conflated with the mean.

9 hours ago, Longgone said:

To what end?! This is the epitome of pointless. 

I suspect to the end of having something, anything, to argue against because his opinion isn't well aligned with WAA estimates.

That or he is just being argumentative.

[Tigrrfan 63]

Simple point:  An 81-81 w/l record is an average w/l record in MLB ..and does not necessarily constitute an 'average' team.

[diaspora04 163]

53 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

. . .

That or he is just being argumentative.

 

[Mr. Bigglesworth 2,972]

6 minutes ago, Tigrrfan said:

Simple point:  An 81-81 w/l record is an average w/l record in MLB ..and does not necessarily constitute an 'average' team.

What constitutes an average team in your opinion?

Is the difference between an 81-81 team and your definition of an average team significant enough for there to be a point?

If so, what is that point?

[RandyMarsh 481]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

What constitutes an average team in your opinion?

Is the difference between an 81-81 team and your definition of an average team significant enough for there to be a point?

If so, what is that point?

The point is that you made the Tigers future look at little too optimistic for Tigrrfan's liking so he had to try to come up with a reason for it to look worse.  

[Tigrrfan 63]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Is the difference between an 81-81 team and your definition of an average team significant enough for there to be a point?

It depends upon many factors, ..not the least of which includes Strength of Schedule.

[Casimir 1,193]

OE% has to be taken into consideration as well.

[LooseGoose 644]

1 minute ago, Tigrrfan said:

It depends upon many factors, ..not the least of which includes Strength of Schedule.

If all teams were 81-81 how would strength of schedule affect things?

[Gehringer_2 2,371]

29 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

What constitutes an average team in your opinion?

Is the difference between an 81-81 team and your definition of an average team significant enough for there to be a point?

If so, what is that point?

indeed. This is a weird discussion. 

If the number of wins by a baseball team distributes randomly and normally around it's mean value, which is constrained by the schedule to be 81, then best unbiased estimator of the median is also ---- the mean, so 81.

Now in truth, the distribution of wins is not exactly random normal because it is clear from history that it is more probable for a team to lose 110 than win 110. Thus the distribution is at least a bit asymmetric, but not all that much - maybe a game or two at most. Since the mean is hard pinned by the schedule, extending the limit of the distribution on the loss side probably pushes up the median a bit.

[Tigrrfan 63]

23 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

The point is that you made the Tigers future look at little too optimistic for Tigrrfan's liking ..

Actually ..he did not ..because there is absolutely nothing optimistic about improving the Tigers -3.1 infield (per bbref) into his suggested 10 to 12 wins above average infield.  Moreover, the Tigers current -3.1 infield is 4.2 below the MLB average +1.1 infield (per bbref.)

And that does not include the Tigers catching -2.1 rating (per bbref.)

[Tigrrfan 63]

Just now, Gehringer_2 said:

Now in truth, the distribution is not exactly random normal because it is clear from history that it is more probable for a team to lose 110 than win 110 thus the distribution is at least a bit asymmetric, but not really very much - maybe a game or two at most.

True!  The mean is the average of all teams .. simple math.

On the other hand, the median is a middle value ..where 50 percent of values are above it and 50 percent below it. Thus, when the data is not symmetrical, this is the form of “average” that gives a better idea of any general tendency in the data.  Still simple ..but requires slightly more intelligence.