PECOTA projects the Orioles record at 74-88

[Scrat1]

I disagree with the bolded part. Other than Jones and arguably Davis, I don't see any offensive players who had a career year. I'd argue there's more upside than downside offensively. I see the starting pitching as a mixed bag, some guys who exceded expectations and some guys who were big-time disappointments. The bullpen is the one place where I expect some regression, but that's where the one-run games were won, so you don't count it twice.

This is important. Too often analysts are conflating the Orioles' overperformance with 1-run and extra inning games with the overperformance of the individual players. The first is a given and will certainly regress closer to the mean. The second, however, is not true at all, which is why all the national predictions for regression are premature. There were very few players playing over their heads--Gonzalez, the bullpen as a collective unit, maybe McLouth--and there are plenty players that played adequately or well below their ceiling. The team is full of talented players entering their prime and it's not at all unlikely that some of those players will take significant steps forward.

Obviously that's not to say another run is inevitable, only that the media's reasoning why the Orioles will regress is inadequate.

[boller4president]

I disagree with the bolded part. Other than Jones and arguably Davis, I don't see any offensive players who had a career year. I'd argue there's more upside than downside offensively. I see the starting pitching as a mixed bag, some guys who exceded expectations and some guys who were big-time disappointments. [

B]The bullpen is the one place where I expect some regression, but that's where the one-run games were won, so you don't count it twice. [/b]

Overall, the models I've seen are fair enough on offense, it's the regression in the pitching I take issue with. The pitching got better as the year progressed, in part because the defensive alignment was better, and I expect the 2013 Orioles to allow fewer runs overall than in 2012.

1. I agree with this for the most part.

2. I think as O's fans you expect most of your young players to take a step forward. Some did like Tillman others didn't like Matsuz and Arrieta. Thats normal with young players.

What I was referring more to was the Hammel's (career 4.76 ERA) and Gonzlez's (4.63 xFIP) of the world. Players who came out of nowhere and gave 35 starts of sub 3.6 ERA pitching and are not likely to replicate their performances.

3. That's not true. Pythag is a basic formula based on RS vs RA. It doesn't take into account whether or not individual player performances are sustainable.

If your bullpen falls closer to their xFIP of last season (3.00 ERA vs 3.88 xFIP) then obviously that will cost your teams additional runs and should (all things being equal) cost you pythag and actual wins in 2013.

4. Your team ERA was actually 3.90 while FIP was 4.20 and your xFIP was 4.14.

Now, I can't tell you that your defense didn't improve over the course of the season based on the stats that are available to me but what I can tell you is that your defense didn't cost your pitchers anything over the course of a season more then what a normal MLB caliber defense would have .

[DrungoHazewood]

I disagree with the bolded part. Other than Jones and arguably Davis, I don't see any offensive players who had a career year. I'd argue there's more upside than downside offensively.

Jones had a career year.

Davis has (by far) a career year.

McLouth had his first acceptable year since 2009.

Markakis had his highest OPS and SLG since 2008, and improved his OBP from '11.

Betemit just missed his career average OPS despite playing the 2nd-most games of his career.

Wieters essentially held serve from his career best 2011.

Weigh that against:

Hardy had a black hole of an OBP, 32 points off career average.

The offense from 2B couldn't be much worse.

Machado has some strong breakout odds.

Reimold has upside if he could combine health and a hot streak.

And also, kind of unknown outcome:

Reynolds was average, but he's been replaced by what looks like a platoon.

The bench wasn't particularly strong offensively, don't know what it'll be in '13.

So... I think my first glance look at this is they're likely to be about what they were last year. Maybe a bit better if things really go right, if Machado breaks out. Maybe a bit worse if Davis and Jones can't lay off the 56-ft curves and outside sliders, and they don't find acceptable replacements at 2B and DH, or Reimold fails to establish himself for about the 5th time.

I certainly don't think it's likely that they vault into the top 4-5 teams in the league in runs.

[Frobby]

Jones had a career year.

Davis has (by far) a career year.

McLouth had his first acceptable year since 2009.

Markakis had his highest OPS and SLG since 2008, and improved his OBP from '11.

Betemit just missed his career average OPS despite playing the 2nd-most games of his career.

Wieters essentially held serve from his career best 2011.

Weigh that against:

Hardy had a black hole of an OBP, 32 points off career average.

The offense from 2B couldn't be much worse.

Machado has some strong breakout odds.

Reimold has upside if he could combine health and a hot streak.

And also, kind of unknown outcome:

Reynolds was average, but he's been replaced by what looks like a platoon.

The bench wasn't particularly strong offensively, don't know what it'll be in '13.

So... I think my first glance look at this is they're likely to be about what they were last year. Maybe a bit better if things really go right, if Machado breaks out. Maybe a bit worse if Davis and Jones can't lay off the 56-ft curves and outside sliders, and they don't find acceptable replacements at 2B and DH, or Reimold fails to establish himself for about the 5th time.

I certainly don't think it's likely that they vault into the top 4-5 teams in the league in runs.

I'm with you on all of this. I think if the offense stays significantly healthier than last year (which is not a certainty), we will score more runs than last year, but not by a drastic amount. If we have about the same year injury-wise as in 2012, our offense will be about the same or slightly worse. PECOTA has us scoring one fewer run than last year, and I really can't argue with that being a reasonable projection.

[Number5]

Jones had a career year.

Davis has (by far) a career year.

McLouth had his first acceptable year since 2009.

Markakis had his highest OPS and SLG since 2008, and improved his OBP from '11.

Betemit just missed his career average OPS despite playing the 2nd-most games of his career.

Wieters essentially held serve from his career best 2011.

Weigh that against:

Hardy had a black hole of an OBP, 32 points off career average.

The offense from 2B couldn't be much worse.

Machado has some strong breakout odds.

Reimold has upside if he could combine health and a hot streak.

And also, kind of unknown outcome:

Reynolds was average, but he's been replaced by what looks like a platoon.

The bench wasn't particularly strong offensively, don't know what it'll be in '13.

So... I think my first glance look at this is they're likely to be about what they were last year. Maybe a bit better if things really go right, if Machado breaks out. Maybe a bit worse if Davis and Jones can't lay off the 56-ft curves and outside sliders, and they don't find acceptable replacements at 2B and DH, or Reimold fails to establish himself for about the 5th time.

I certainly don't think it's likely that they vault into the top 4-5 teams in the league in runs.

Although I'm not certain, it seems as though you are suggesting that the players listed in the first paragraph are likely to see regression in 2013. I'm not sure that I would conclude that from the points you have listed.

Jones has had a "career year" every year of his career. While such steady improvement is bound to stop at some point, I'm not sure that it is a given that his improvement is more likely to stop and regress this year, when he starts the year at age 27, than for improvement to continue to some degree.

2012 was only the second season in which Chris Davis has played in at least half of his team's games, outdistancing 2009 by 26 games and 143 plate appearances. Of course he turned in his "career year." He turns 27 in March. He appears to now be stabilized in a position. Why would you forecast regression in those circumstances? While anything is possible, it appears to me that a season of at least equal productivity to last year is at least as likely as a regression. In fact, I think that continued improvement is probably more likely than regression.

McLouth is a wildcard, but he is healthy. Regression is certainly possible, but I'm not sure that we can say it is likely.

Markakis missed a lot of time last year, which has not been his norm. If healthy, I'm not ready to expect that regression is likely.

So Betemit had a career average season. I'm not sure what your point is here. He is likely to face as close to all right-handed pitching as possible this year, which plays into his strength. Having Manny for a full season allows Betemit to play only in circumstances where he is more likely to succeed, for the most part. Even if there are injuries, I believe that the Orioles will take other courses of action than to play Betemit vs. LHP and/or in the field more often because the Orioles are motivated to keep his plate appearances below the level that would kick in a 2014 option. No, I wouldn't expect regression for Betemit.

Matt Wieters turns 24 in May. I see no reason to expect regression. In fact, I think that the break-out we have been waiting for is at least as likely as regression, if not more-so. Of break-out, modest improvement, continued play at the same level, or regression, it certainly appears to me as if regression is the least likely scenario in Wieters' case.

You also mention concern about replacing Reynolds' average bat with a platoon. You have already discussed Betemit, so at least half of the platoon is already addressed, but I would say that, in reality, Reynolds is being replaced by a full season of Machado, which is likely to be an improvement, IMO, not a regression. Even at DH, we may see a reduction in Reynolds' 23 home runs out of that spot, but not by a whole lot. While we can't expect to catch lightning in a bottle out of Valencia, Canzler, Jackson, et al, Reynolds' numbers aren't really an impossibly high bar to reach, so I don't see the loss as devastating.

If these are the players that have the greatest chance for regression in our lineup, I have to say that I like our chances.

[Number5]

Jones had a career year.

Davis has (by far) a career year.

McLouth had his first acceptable year since 2009.

Markakis had his highest OPS and SLG since 2008, and improved his OBP from '11.

Betemit just missed his career average OPS despite playing the 2nd-most games of his career.

Wieters essentially held serve from his career best 2011.

Weigh that against:

Hardy had a black hole of an OBP, 32 points off career average.

The offense from 2B couldn't be much worse.

Machado has some strong breakout odds.

Reimold has upside if he could combine health and a hot streak.

And also, kind of unknown outcome:

Reynolds was average, but he's been replaced by what looks like a platoon.

The bench wasn't particularly strong offensively, don't know what it'll be in '13.

So... I think my first glance look at this is they're likely to be about what they were last year. Maybe a bit better if things really go right, if Machado breaks out. Maybe a bit worse if Davis and Jones can't lay off the 56-ft curves and outside sliders, and they don't find acceptable replacements at 2B and DH, or Reimold fails to establish himself for about the 5th time.

I certainly don't think it's likely that they vault into the top 4-5 teams in the league in runs.

Although I'm not certain, it seems as though you are suggesting that the players listed in the first paragraph are likely to see regression in 2013. I'm not sure that I would conclude that from the points you have listed.

Jones has had a "career year" every year of his career. While such steady improvement is bound to stop at some point, I'm not sure that it is a given that his improvement is more likely to stop and regress this year, when he starts the year at age 27, than for improvement to continue to some degree.

2012 was only the second season in which Chris Davis has played in at least half of his team's games, outdistancing 2009 by 26 games and 143 plate appearances. Of course he turned in his "career year." He turns 27 in March. He appears to now be stabilized in a position. Why would you forecast regression in those circumstances? While anything is possible, it appears to me that a season of at least equal productivity to last year is at least as likely as a regression. In fact, I think that continued improvement is probably more likely than regression.

McLouth is a wildcard, but he is healthy. Regression is certainly possible, but I'm not sure that we can say it is likely.

Markakis missed a lot of time last year, which has not been his norm. If healthy, I'm not ready to expect that regression is likely.

So Betemit had a career average season. I'm not sure what your point is here. He is likely to face as close to all right-handed pitching as possible this year, which plays into his strength. Having Manny for a full season allows Betemit to play only in circumstances where he is more likely to succeed, for the most part. Even if there are injuries, I believe that the Orioles will take other courses of action than to play Betemit vs. LHP and/or in the field more often because the Orioles are motivated to keep his plate appearances below the level that would kick in a 2014 option. No, I wouldn't expect regression for Betemit.

Matt Wieters turns 24 in May. I see no reason to expect regression. In fact, I think that the break-out we have been waiting for is at least as likely as regression, if not more-so. Of break-out, modest improvement, continued play at the same level, or regression, it certainly appears to me as if regression is the least likely scenario in Wieters' case.

You also mention concern about replacing Reynolds' average bat with a platoon. You have already discussed Betemit, so at least half of the platoon is already addressed, but I would say that, in reality, Reynolds is being replaced by a full season of Machado, which is likely to be an improvement, IMO, not a regression. Even at DH, we may see a reduction in Reynolds' 23 home runs out of that spot, but not by a whole lot. While we can't expect to catch lightning in a bottle out of Valencia, Canzler, Jackson, et al, Reynolds' numbers aren't really an impossibly high bar to reach, so I don't see the loss as devastating.

If these are the players that have the greatest chance for regression in our lineup, I have to say that I like our chances.

[Frobby]

Although I'm not certain, it seems as though you are suggesting that the players listed in the first paragraph are likely to see regression in 2013. I'm not sure that I would conclude that from the points you have listed.

Jones has had a "career year" every year of his career. While such steady improvement is bound to stop at some point, I'm not sure that it is a given that his improvement is more likely to stop and regress this year, when he starts the year at age 27, than for improvement to continue to some degree.

2012 was only the second season in which Chris Davis has played in at least half of his team's games, outdistancing 2009 by 26 games and 143 plate appearances. Of course he turned in his "career year." He turns 27 in March. He appears to now be stabilized in a position. Why would you forecast regression in those circumstances? While anything is possible, it appears to me that a season of at least equal productivity to last year is at least as likely as a regression. In fact, I think that continued improvement is probably more likely than regression.

McLouth is a wildcard, but he is healthy. Regression is certainly possible, but I'm not sure that we can say it is likely.

Markakis missed a lot of time last year, which has not been his norm. If healthy, I'm not ready to expect that regression is likely.

So Betemit had a career average season. I'm not sure what your point is here. He is likely to face as close to all right-handed pitching as possible this year, which plays into his strength. Having Manny for a full season allows Betemit to play only in circumstances where he is more likely to succeed, for the most part. Even if there are injuries, I believe that the Orioles will take other courses of action than to play Betemit vs. LHP and/or in the field more often because the Orioles are motivated to keep his plate appearances below the level that would kick in a 2014 option. No, I wouldn't expect regression for Betemit.

Matt Wieters turns 24 in May. I see no reason to expect regression. In fact, I think that the break-out we have been waiting for is at least as likely as regression, if not more-so. Of break-out, modest improvement, continued play at the same level, or regression, it certainly appears to me as if regression is the least likely scenario in Wieters' case.

You also mention concern about replacing Reynolds' average bat with a platoon. You have already discussed Betemit, so at least half of the platoon is already addressed, but I would say that, in reality, Reynolds is being replaced by a full season of Machado, which is likely to be an improvement, IMO, not a regression. Even at DH, we may see a reduction in Reynolds' 23 home runs out of that spot, but not by a whole lot. While we can't expect to catch lightning in a bottle out of Valencia, Canzler, Jackson, et al, Reynolds' numbers aren't really an impossibly high bar to reach, so I don't see the loss as devastating.

If these are the players that have the greatest chance for regression in our lineup, I have to say that I like our chances.

Wieters is turning 27, not 24.

I think a key point with Markakis and McLouth is that if they are available for the whole season, they can be an improvement over the guys who played their positions last year even if they regress a little. Last year our LF's had a .694 OPS and if you take McLouth out of that equation, the rest had aproximately a .649 OPS. So, even a .725 OPS season from McLouth is a big upgrade from what we had in LF last year. The RF's other than Nick had a .764 OPS, so Nick could slip a ways from last year's .841 (in RF) and still improve overall RF production if he's healthy.

[Number5]

Wieters is turning 27, not 24.

I think a key point with Markakis and McLouth is that if they are available for the whole season, they can be an improvement over the guys who played their positions last year even if they regress a little. Last year our LF's had a .694 OPS and if you take McLouth out of that equation, the rest had aproximately a .649 OPS. So, even a .725 OPS season from McLouth is a big upgrade from what we had in LF last year. The RF's other than Nick had a .764 OPS, so Nick could slip a ways from last year's .841 (in RF) and still improve overall RF production if he's healthy.

Doh! *Slaps head*

Thanks, FRobby, dumb mistake on my part.

I will say that I am still not expecting a regression from Wieters.

[Frobby]

Doh! *Slaps head*

Thanks, FRobby, dumb mistake on my part.

I will say that I am still not expecting a regression from Wieters.

I think Wieters has way more upside than downside. Just my opinion.

[LookinUp]

I think Wieters has way more upside than downside. Just my opinion.

I agree. I think he can add a couple of WAR this year just by defending better (again) and slight upticks in his hitting stats. If he ever breaks out to the point he puts up a .900 OPS season, watch out league. I don't think it's out of the question.

[DrungoHazewood]

Although I'm not certain, it seems as though you are suggesting that the players listed in the first paragraph are likely to see regression in 2013. I'm not sure that I would conclude that from the points you have listed.

If not regression then at least little change from last year.

Jones has had a "career year" every year of his career. While such steady improvement is bound to stop at some point, I'm not sure that it is a given that his improvement is more likely to stop and regress this year, when he starts the year at age 27, than for improvement to continue to some degree.

Maybe, but I think it's more likely that he levels off or regresses following a number of years of improvement.

2012 was only the second season in which Chris Davis has played in at least half of his team's games, outdistancing 2009 by 26 games and 143 plate appearances. Of course he turned in his "career year." He turns 27 in March. He appears to now be stabilized in a position. Why would you forecast regression in those circumstances? While anything is possible, it appears to me that a season of at least equal productivity to last year is at least as likely as a regression. In fact, I think that continued improvement is probably more likely than regression.

Davis played that much because it was the first year where he was good enough for long enough to play that much. Even in '12 he had an extended period in mid-summer where he OPS'd .600. His improvement was in keeping his hot streaks going long enough to counteract the periods where he was lost. I think it's quite likely that he will continue to alternate hot and cold periods. When a 26-year-old with 1000 PAs of a .750 gives you an .827 the logical next step is somewhere in between.

McLouth is a wildcard, but he is healthy. Regression is certainly possible, but I'm not sure that we can say it is likely.

There's some injury history to take into account. But like Davis, when you have a multi-year track record of a .600-something OPS and you then OPS almost .800 in a couple months at age 30 the next logical step is somewhere below last year's performance. As much as I like Nate McLouth you need to remember that he was only those 62 bad plate appearances with the Pirates from having a sub-700 OPS.

Markakis missed a lot of time last year, which has not been his norm. If healthy, I'm not ready to expect that regression is likely.

I'm hopeful with Markakis. But he did have his best offensive performance in four years.

The other guys... the same kind of thinking. We all have reasons that we hope everyone will fix problems and continue success and even leap forward. But taking a step back and looking objectively it's hard to see the O's, as a group, being much better on offense than last year. Any of the players mentioned above could be better than '12, but altogether the odds are they'll fall back a bit. Hopefully Machado and Hardy and others will pick up for that.

[Frobby]

Bump....this is a fascinating thread to revisit, with lots of predictions or opinions about the AL East teams and the Orioles going into 2013. I said several things in this thread that turned out to be right, and other things that were horribly wrong.

[Can_of_corn]

I always cringe a bit when I see a bump like this but, nothing embarrassing from me.

[weams]

According to the Clubhouse Confidential on MLB Network, PECOTA projects the Orioles record at 74-88.

So we have Vegas giving us the over/under at 76.5 and PECOTA projected 74 wins.

I know this has been beat into the ground, but it does goes to show that besides some optimism from the fans and organization, most people predict a deep dive for the Orioles in 2013.

Me, I think we're about an 82 win team give or take 4-5 wins.

So you are saying, take the over? Again?

[SilentJames]

PECOTA and ZiPS are going to be rough on this team, for at least another year.

Don't they use the previous three years for projections?