Secrets of the AL Central, VI

by royalsreview on Jan 23, 2009 2:02 AM EST in News Comment 26 comments

American League Central teams, against teams with .500 or better records:

Cleveland: 37-38
Minnesota: 40-43
Chicago: 40-48
Detroit: 41-59
Kansas City: 41-62

And against teams below .500:

Chicago: 49-26
Minnesota: 48-32
Kansas City: 34-25
Detroit: 33-29
Cleveland: 44-43

Takeaways:

Just another data point suggesting what a strange season transpired by the Cuyahoga last season, as the Indians were the best team in the division against good teams, and the worst against bad ones. Cleveland has turned into something of an enigma in the second-half of the decade. Why? I have no idea.
The AL Central may not have actually been very good last season, at least by AL standards. My hunch is that the Blue Jays would have won the division by three games. Only one AL Central team went over .500 against the AL East... naturally, it was Cleveland at 20-15. Second best was Detroit, at 15-20. Everyone else got blitzed.
Detroit was really not very good. They have a looooong way to bounce back.
Is being good against bad teams a skill? Naturally, the over .500/under .500 line isn't perfect, or really even good, but it's easy. Does the Royals status as a pitching-first team mean that they will be able to take care of business against bad teams to a larger degree than an offense-first team?

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Detroit is not very good

And they got rid of two averagish (albeit declining) players and replaced them with what could possibly be the two worst hitting regulars in the league next year in Adam Everett and Gerald Laird.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 23, 2009 10:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'd still take their lineup over ours

with Guillen, Granderson, Ordonez, and Cabrera in the middle of the order. Even their pitching could be better than the Royals if Verlander and Willis bounce back, Bonderman stays healthy and Edwin Jackson pitches with consistency. But that’s a big if.

The AL Central looks like a crapshoot next year. Minnesota should finish in the top half, and the Royals most likely will not win the division. But other than those near certainties, I would not be surprised with any of the rest finishing between first and last.

Waiting for April.

by DC Royal on Jan 23, 2009 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Except that Laird and Everett are good defenders

A quick CHONE projection for the AL Central a couple months back says that Detroit is the second best team in a (weak) AL Central.

The projected (WAR) standings (could still change) are:

1. Cleveland
2. Detroit
3. Chicago
4. Minnesota
5. KC

Here’s the chart I did. “overlaps” show the relative chances of the inferior team outplaying the superior, if I did it right.

Here is a larger version.

I think the Everett/Laird acquisitons were smart, as the team is older, and they need to make a move now.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 23, 2009 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Definitely

That’s the reason they were picked up. I’m just saying 1000 runs!!!!111 is in jeopardy.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jan 23, 2009 10:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Detroit need to win this year

That team is Old, if they don’t make it happen this year it probably isn’t going too for a while. I think the Central is going to be really poor this year, like NL West bad with maybe only 1 or two teams above .500 and not by much. That is probably no bad thing for the Royals.

And yes, the Blue Jays would stroll to the Central title. I can’t imagine how much it sucks to be a Blue Jays fan, consistently above .500 yet never in contention.

The Allard Baird of incisive internet discourse.

by kcbottom9th on Jan 23, 2009 10:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Is there a...

…typo in your numbers for Cleveland in the against teams under .500 list? – TL

by timlacy on Jan 23, 2009 10:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I am happy that last year

they will be able to take care of business against bad teams

This is something that they couldn’t do in the past, and no, it isn’t because they were so bad that there were only a couple of teams that were worse than them, but I remember them not being able to beat the teams that they should have (playing down to the competition). This is a good trend to reverse.

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Jan 23, 2009 11:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

First thing I noticed about that list

was Chicago’s “success”. They cleaned up against the sub-.500 teams, but were only average against > .500 teams. And they traded away a couple of good pieces this offseason.

This might have been a good offseason for the Royals to make a push to sign an above average player and make an earlier than expected push for the division.

by Top Ramen on Jan 23, 2009 11:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I hate to say it

but I think Dayton might think that is what he’s doing.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 23, 2009 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dayton has a plan, man. Stick to it and don't cut and run.

Two years for Bloomquist and Farnsworth means that the Royals will obviously win the division in 2010. He knows what he’s doing.

Waiting for April.

by DC Royal on Jan 23, 2009 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Over/under distribution

I was about to ask why KC and Detroit had so many games against teams over .500 and so few games against teams under .500 compared to the others in the division…

and then I realized, it’s because they can’t play themselves.

So I say, abandon interleague play in favor of intrasquad games… that’s bound to help their record, Bloomquist or not!

by wentToARoyalsGameBeforeRR on Jan 23, 2009 12:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

exactly, either way, Bloomquist helps

by royalsreview on Jan 23, 2009 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Using devil fingers charts,

I don’t think I would conclude that the AL Central projects as being weak at all. Apex for KC is in the upper 70s, with Min & Chi around 81, and then Det & Cle in the low 90s.

That would work out to an above avg division, right?

Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!

by loyal2sdad on Jan 23, 2009 1:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

that's an older chart

and I didn’t/don’t have a lot of knowledge about exactly how the other teams will play guys.

IIRC, I had CLE and DET each in the upper 80s, Minn and CHA in the lower 80s, and KC around 79. But that was with a pretty low league offensive average — each team should probably have been 0.5-1 win worse.

As for a weak division, we’d have to run some of the other divisions to see. My guess is that there are probably three teams in the AL East alone that project better than any team in the Central. As for the West… the Angels and Oakland might be, but the Angels don’t have much hitting, and Oakland’s pitching is uncertain. Maybe I’ll run some rough numbers later.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 23, 2009 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

division hierarchy anyone?

I’ve got the AL East #1…

what is the second best division?

by royalsreview on Jan 23, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

in the AL or in baseball?

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 23, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

all of b-ball

I may have to go with NL East, then AL Central, NL Central, AL West then NL West

by royalsreview on Jan 23, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd Go

AL East
NL East
NL Central
AL Central
AL West
NL West

I spot a geographic trend in there…

The Allard Baird of incisive internet discourse.

by kcbottom9th on Jan 23, 2009 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You think the AL Central is better than the NL?

Maybe, I guess. St. Louis and Chicago are very good teams, but I see your point, that they have flaws that keep them from being better than CLE and DET. Milwaukee is also good, but we’ll see how they do after losing their two best pitchres.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 23, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the bottom of the NL central is pretty weak

pirates and reds and cards

I wanna know what love is, I want you to show me

by LeoBloom on Jan 23, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, the AL Central has five decent teams

The middle and bottom of the NL Central is awful.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Jan 23, 2009 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you guys are probably right

I’m now wasting time calculating WAR for other division… the As starting really looks weak

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Jan 23, 2009 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

here we go

AL West
AL Central
NL East
AL West
NL Central
NL West

by wildthang on Jan 23, 2009 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, here it is

AL East
NL East
NL Central
AL West
AL Central
NL West

Chicago Cubs 2009 World Series Champions

by CUBSfaninYANKEEcountry on Jan 23, 2009 5:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think being good against the bad teams IS a skill

Because usually bad teams GIVE you and PRESENT opportunities for you to win the game whether its errors mentally, physically, on offense or on defense, if you pay close enough attention bad teams let them beat you.

Sometimes i nregards to bad teams, they allow a ton of base runners and if your team is struggeling there may be a lot of LOB’s for the series.

by Royal from Queens on Jan 23, 2009 7:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Detroit's pitching

is pretty bad.

Bonderman had surgery on his shoulder for a blood clot issue. Although not pitching related, we’ll see how that goes. But even in Bonderman’s best season it was for half a season where he was productive.

Although I think to be fair, the offense should be good enough that the starting pitching doesn’t have to be top notch.

by Royal from Queens on Jan 23, 2009 7:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs