How’s the East look now?

[Bahama O's Fan]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Why should we have an advantage there and will that advantage even matter?  Those guys aren’t likely make or break type guys.

Because the Yanks have injury prone guys that will see playing time. Okay, maybe not the bottom three, but my point is that we have far more depth. If any one player on our team is injured, it is not gonna cause a make or break season. 

[Sports Guy]

4 teams in the ALE with more than a 48% chance to make the playoffs, according to this.

Edited February 7 by Sports Guy

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

Because the Yanks have injury prone guys that will see playing time. Okay, maybe not the bottom three, but my point is that we have far more depth. If any one player on our team is injured, it is not gonna cause a make or break season. 

Well I disagree with that. Losing Adley would be huge. Losing any of the top 3 pitchers could be major.  Losing Kimbrel could be problematic.

[sportsfan8703]

6 minutes ago, Say O! said:

Re: NYY.  Their big three of Judge/Soto/Cole have been so consistently dominant that I suspect the projection model volatility is narrower and/or the below 50% cases are still the three highest in the AL.

While there is a gap between Judge/Soto/Cole and Gunnar/Adley/Burnes, there also is the fact Gunnar and Adley play premium positions.  Also, bullpens have regressions.  Not just the O's but the Yankees are in danger of that as well.  

Our defense is a lot better than the NYY too.  

[Spy Fox]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

4 teams in the ALE with more than a 48% chance to make the playoffs, according to this.

And four of the top nine World Series odds in their model. 

[Il BuonO]

1 hour ago, dystopia said:

The Talkin' Baseball guys (who are Yankee fans) even said the odds were likely due to Yankee fans

 

Lol, well, if the Talkin Baseball guys said that then that’s the final authority!

[Say O!]

Re: projection models.  I wonder if the areas of potential outperformance for Os can occur with managed playing time and take favorable advantage of inherent volatility. In other words, gaming effective vs ineffective players.  Given the Os depth, positional flexibility, general roster construction, would players perform at 50 % outcomes or instead for offense does any non Gunnar/Adley player ever really get much PT when performing below the curve?  Would that instead bump real-life outcomes to more like 60/65% cases?  Example, if one of the primary outfielders has regressed, do they get replaced with a Cowser/Kjerstad (whichever more effective at the time).  We already know that Os play platoon and certain pitcher matchups which nudges up favorable outcomes.  Hyde certainly streamed RPs into leverage situations based on effectiveness and handedness.

In general this may sound a bit like timing the stock market and decision biases. And I get that in practice deploying players when effectual only is somewhat fallacy (like riding the “hot hand”).  But is that more the case of true talent dispersions? So given the uniqueness of the Os roster where the talent level does not see meaningful drop offs to bench/minors, could we see the most likely collective outcome exceed base projections?  what I’m describing is IMO one reason why Tampa seemingly so often exceeds base case projections. 

Edited February 7 by Say O!

[Hank Scorpio]

I always chuckle at the specific percentages assigned for a team's likelihood to win the World Series. 

The amount of variables that go into something like this are infinite. I guess it's a fun exercise but I wouldn't a whole lot of stock into it.

[24fps]

20 minutes ago, Spy Fox said:

And four of the top nine World Series odds in their model. 

Note no Texas, and this projection has them barely above .500 over the course of the season.

[Spy Fox]

6 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I always chuckle at the specific percentages assigned for a team's likelihood to win the World Series. 

The amount of variables that go into something like this are infinite. I guess it's a fun exercise but I wouldn't a whole lot of stock into it.

I do think that while the projected standings have some substance to them, projecting WS%s at this point is mainly just for show. 

And 25% WS odds for any one team seems pretty high. I know this isn't how they got there, but that's the equivalent of giving the Braves a 100% chance at the bye, then a ~63% chance of winning each of their three playoff rounds. While still looking ahead from February, to me that level of confidence smells fishy for any team.

[sportsfan8703]

1 hour ago, 24fps said:

Note no Texas, and this projection has them barely above .500 over the course of the season.

If only Fangraphs would book that bet....

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Spy Fox said:

And four of the top nine World Series odds in their model. 

It’s ludicrous to think any team has a 24.9% chance to win the World Series, in a world where you have to play at least three postseason series to win a ring.  

[dystopia]

1 hour ago, Spy Fox said:

And four of the top nine World Series odds in their model. 

Good Lord that’s a joke. 

[HowAboutThat]

I’ve enjoyed reading these replies. The Rangers blog was screaming the same stuff, Because they ain’t getting no respect for winning it all. And the Yanks are probably screaming because they aren’t projected to win 162.

I am not disappointed by these projections, I would like our team to have a bit more offense. But I am happy with how things are, and I’m not scared of the Yankees. My daughter in Astoria doesn’t like them, And if she doesn’t like them, by golly, that’s enough for me.

[Sports Guy]

I guess FG has a bias against the Rangers too.