The Weak AL Central Isn't Weak, It's Average
A persistent meme is that the American League Central is a weak division, an easy place to win, a friendly environment to compete, etc. This point of view transcends the blogger/mainstream and stathead/traditional divides. On balance, however, the weakness of the AL Central is overstated. Our division isn't weak, she's average.
We frequently see evidence of the assumption that all you need to do is get to 85 wins (or less) in the AL Central and you're a contender. I'm quite guilty of this myself. However, this has only rarely been the case.
Here are the win totals first place AL Central teams in recent years:
- 2011: 95
- 2010: 94
- 2009: 86 (earned a one-game playoff)
- 2008: 88 (earned a one-game playoff)
- 2007: 96
- 2006: 96
Prior to this season, just like every other one in the AL Central's history, we all perceived it to be a weak division. And look, the Tigers took the division title with only 95 wins. Haha, what a joke!
Now granted, the AL Central has rarely had two very good or even great teams, competing for a title. But this is really only regularly the case in the AL East. The weird thing about that 2008-09 collapse is that it came just after one of the strongest periods in division history. In 2006, the Tigers (90 wins), White Sox (95 wins) and Twins (96 wins) were all strong teams.
2008 and 2009 happened, and to be sure, the division was relatively weak then. Was the AL West given the scarlet label of weak when the Rangers won the division with 90 wins in 2010? Now, to be fair, that was just one year. And, to be even more fair, I'd admit that the AL West is usually a tick better than the AL Central. But the West is much closer to the Central than the AL East. I'd also argue the AL Central is comparable, if not better, to the NL West and NL Central. Does it kill you to be in the AL Central? No. Is it a free ride to the playoffs? No. You usually need a win total in the mid-1990s. It is, broadly speaking, an average place to be.
I'm a big AL pride guy, and I enjoy making over-the-top NL-OMG-sucks jokes. Increasingly however, I think there's the AL East and then another set of five divisions, which are comparable.
Perhaps the perception of the division is tied to the idea that the AL Central should be easy. Nobody, whether it's stat heads or mainstream guys ever get excited about Detroit or Chicago, but both franchises have had some very strong seasons. The Tigers and White Sox have been two of the more unique teams in the game in the last decade, they're two of the last teams that seem to exist in a time warp, operating in a way that was once typical: they gamble big on free agents/waiver guys, have been reluctant to tear down (perhaps to the point that it has become a competitive advantage), and don't seem really concerned with what Baseball America says about them. No one ever is very excited about them, but they've both produced high win totals. Of course, they've also had some very mediocre seasons.
Then you have the Twins, who in a period of about a year have gone from being one of the most consistent teams of the 2000s, to a team with a weird roster and a huge range of possible outcomes. They're joined by the Indians, who briefly got very good, but randomly were also inconsistent (from 2005 to 2007) they went 93 wins-78 wins-96 wins for no apparent reason. And oh yea, the Royals were always bad, but you knew that.
Speaking of bad teams, an underrated factor here is that the bad teams in the division have been getting better. In the early part of the decade the Royals and Tigers and Indians put up some horrible records, and that was with them playing each other all the time. However, the Central hasn't had a 100-loss team since 2006. That matters.
Four teams have won the division in the last five years. But unpredictable doesn't equal bad.
And so now, as we head to 2012, the Royals are supposed to be primed to dominate, because the AL Central is weak. For the 6th consecutive year, the White Sox and Tigers are seemingly trending downward. No one knows about the Indians and no one is excited about the Twins. 85 wins should get this thing done. Totally.
102 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
She's a Lady.
Whoa whoa whoa, she’s a lady.
by OnixConcepcion on Dec 8, 2011 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I know your talking about a different song
But I love this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGW_4jaawGY
BFIB
by tiquanunderwear on Dec 8, 2011 8:35 PM EST up reply actions
I'm your knight in shining armor and I
love you…
"You're like that guy who wrote that thing about remembering stuff!!"
- Crow T. Robot
Shouldn't you just compare our divisions win rate
With that of other divisions? I don’t think total wins does much to support your argument.
Playoff records. Teams’ records vs playoff teams, winning teams, etc. Wins alone is going to be highly skewed because of the rest of your division is bad it makes you look better than you are.
by WURoyal on Dec 8, 2011 8:28 PM EST via mobile reply actions 4 recs
That should read total wins to win the division.
I don’t know if your proposition of correct, but your analysis doesn’t support your proposition very well.
by WURoyal on Dec 8, 2011 8:31 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
My thought exactly
IIRC, there was some year where the Twins won 90 some games, but they just dominated the Central, and went under .500 against the AL East and West (I think they dominated interleague too).
I think you can conclude the meme that it only takes 85 wins to take the Central is false, but I don’t think you can necessarily conclude that the Central isn’t weak. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I think the Sox are definitely rebuilding, and the Tigers will probably be pretty good, but its hard to peg how good the Tribe, Twins and Royals will be.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I agree with you in some ideal sense
but a) I dont have time to do a massive in-depth study and b) the “division is weak” argument is usually made wrt what it takes to make the playoffs. and in that regard, I think the win totals of the 1st place team is relevant
It's gonna take me 10 years to adapt to Freneau
BFIB
by tiquanunderwear on Dec 8, 2011 8:38 PM EST up reply actions
In 10 years I'll be making fun of some 14 year old
On this here website
BFIB
by tiquanunderwear on Dec 8, 2011 9:14 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
AL central is a lady
And a princess at that! Only fitting the the Royals win her over repeatedly giving her.. Dare I say it.. The Royal treatment. For many years to come…
"Stay Classy Kansas City"
by Mas Cervezas on Dec 8, 2011 8:44 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Average Divisional Win Totals
Obviously this is a really quick and gritty way of analyzing this, and not completely accurate. But it’s better than anecdotal evidence, I think.
2009
AL EAST- 84.2
AL CENT- 76.4
AL WEST- 86
NL EAST- 79
NL CENT- 78
NL WEST- 84
2010
AL EAST- 86.2
AL CENT- 79.8
AL WEST- 78
NL EAST- 83.2
NL CENT- 77
NL WEST- 82
2011
AL EAST- 85.6
AL CENT- 77.6
AL WEST- 80.75
NL EAST- 84
NL CENT- 77.3
NL WEST- 81.2
3-year Average
AL EAST- 85.3
NL WEST- 82.4
NL EAST- 82.1
AL WEST- 81.6
AL CENTRAL- 77.9
NL CENTRAL- 77.4
3-year Weighted Average (2011*3 + 2010*2 + 2009*1)/6
AL EAST- 85.56
NL EAST- 82.9
NL WEST- 82
AL WEST- 80.7
AL CENTRAL- 78.13
NL CENTRAL- 77.32
Granted, the methodology has a lot of flaws, but the division looks like the second easiest division to compete in, in baseball. The division that’s the easiest has 6 teams, meaning your chances of winning are 1 in 6, rather than 1 in 5. The consequences of that probably mean the AL Central is the easiest division to win.
by sumajestad on Dec 8, 2011 9:18 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
I'm not sure why you're confused
Are you saying that you don’t understand how a team can win 0.4 games? Obviously that’s true, so the “average” win total is 76. But things do not always divide out cleanly like that, and it’s more accurate when you provide additional information, especially with margins of only 8-9 wins between the strongest and weakest divisions.
I think the difference in talent from the AL East to the NL Central is actually huge, but baseball has always been a sport where the bell curve of good to bad teams is relatively small and concentrated.
I gotcha
Im not sure how relevant the #s are since division opponents play eachother so often, but interesting and thanks for posting it.
This is precisely the problem that sumajestad just addressed.
Exactly one team wins every game played (and the other team loses). So, every in-division game adds exactly 0.5 wins to the average divisional win total. The unbalanced schedule evens out the number of intra-divisional match-ups across the league at about 72 games per team per season . So, roughly 36 of the wins in the divisional average are the result of games within the division—without regard to how strong or weak the division is. Since that number is a constant, the average win total calculated above can only go up or down by winning or losing the 90 games that each team plays outside of the division each year.
Since a “strong” division will win more of those games and a “weak” division will lose more, sumajestad’s method gives a pretty good look at the relative strength of each division.
So,
the avg AL Central team record outside the division in ’11 (assuming you round up 77.6 to 78) was 42-48 then…
I agree that is an interesting way to compare teams and divisions within each league. Although, I’m not sure i see the point in the 3 yr weighted avg for each division. Too much turnover per team. Just more info i guess.
That would be great if everything were equal, but
The NL Central has 6 teams, while the AL West has four. So, inherently, it should be harder to compete in the NL Central, and easier in the AL West.
I maintain that if you put 90 wins on the board, you'll win the AL Central 80% of the time.
I can now say this with a straight face, and it will be accurate: Tim Tebow is a better QB than Matt Cassel.
by ProbablyYoungerThanAllOfYou on Dec 8, 2011 9:44 PM EST reply actions
Of course, that only wins you the league 33% of the time over the last 6 years.
Your 2010 Royals Review Fantasy Football Keeper League Champion
Since 2005: Royals win% = .4100, Chiefs win% = .4095
by averagegatsby on Dec 8, 2011 10:40 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Answer:
Only 2 years in the last 10 did a team win 90 games and not win the AL Central. That’s a lot like 80% of the time.
Fair Enough.
But I was thinking from the Royals perspective… I mean I guess to add wins you have to subtract wins.
Your 2010 Royals Review Fantasy Football Keeper League Champion
Since 2005: Royals win% = .4100, Chiefs win% = .4095
by averagegatsby on Dec 8, 2011 11:43 PM EST up reply actions
well, every team with at least 89 wins has won the division since 2007, 9 times in 11 years
the second place win totals this century:
80
88
86
66
66
95
93
83
86
81
85
So, 80% of the time wasn’t too far off.
by 9il on Dec 9, 2011 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
either i made data entry errors, or those were pathetic years for the royals to finish in last place
by 9il on Dec 9, 2011 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
Here you go
2011
95 (1st)
80 (2nd)
2010
94
88
2009
87
86
2008
89
88
2007
96
88
2006
96
95 (Wild Card)
90
2005
99
93
2004
92
83
2003
90
86
2002
94
81
2001
91
85
2000
95
90
Second place has averaged 87 wins since 2000.
This reminds me of Sex Panther
Overgay is Destiny
by DCRoyals on Dec 8, 2011 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I don't think the wins total of first place team can represent the difficulty of a division
I am probably the only Royals fan in Hong Kong?
by Yamfun Cheng Kamfun on Dec 8, 2011 10:31 PM EST reply actions
For those who think that the Royals have a decent shot at the playoffs in 2012
You have to figure a way that the Royals get to 90 wins. That’s a tall order for a team with this kind of talent. And adding one 3 WAR player probably doesn’t get you anywhere close.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
To be sure, it's no cakewalk
But I know you’re a stat guy, Scott. So here are the pythag records (based on mlb.com’s X_WL) for 2011:
Det- 88-74
KC- 78-84
CLE- 75-87
CHI- 75-87
MIN- 62-100
That’s close enough for me to believe we’re within striking distance, and also not be totally delusional.
by sumajestad on Dec 9, 2011 1:05 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This
A big chunk of that gap will be closed by a year of player development/aging without any acquisitions at all.
And again, this involves setting the 2011 pythag as the team's true talent level
That’s a mistake. I believe that thinking that a 12 win improvement is reasonably possible is also a mistake.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 9, 2011 10:10 AM EST up reply actions
Why?
What is the reason that you are throwing that record out in a projection for next year? I know you like stats—there’s one that shows that the Royals were unlucky this year. I don’t understand why you don’t think it’s legitimate. Is it because it is optimistic? Or is it because of another reason?
The pythag does give you a more accurate picture of the team’s performance in 2011 than the actual W/L record of team. But my point here is that the performance of a team (or its individual players) for one year does not set the team (or players’) true talent level. In order to determine the true talent level of a team (as best as we can determine it), you have to look at the TTL of the various players as determined by (in the very least) a weighted average of multiple recent seasons.
And, of course, the 2012 Royals will not be comprised of the exact same players as the 2011 Royals. Key contributors like Melky and Francis, for instance, are gone. So there are multiple reasons why setting the Royals 2011 pythag as the baseline from which we should project to next season is a mistake.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 9, 2011 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
So what is the team's true talent level?
For this young a team, its true talent level has a wide range of possibilities. Key young players could either step up or down to varying degrees.
It just seems more accurate to take the pythag as a better indicator of future performance rather than the murky possibilities of the team’s true talent level. If this were a different (and older) team I would tend to agree with you, but 4 out of the 9 starters have less than a year of ML experience and their fate could drastically change the outcome of the 2012 team.
I guess what I’m saying is that I hear you, but until someone brings in another statistic as a place from which to start that is close to as accurate as pythag, we might as well use it as such.
So what is the team’s true talent level?
When some of the best projection systems (ZiPS, PECOTA) come out, we’ll be able to apply reasonable playing time estimates and get a much better idea.
For this young a team, its true talent level has a wide range of possibilities. Key young players could either step up or down to varying degrees.
That’s certainly true.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 9, 2011 2:21 PM EST up reply actions
In a nutshell
Scott thinks the Royals were unlucky in converting their run differential to wins, but he thinks they were lucky converting their talent into run differential since several players out-performed their likely true talent.
I agree on the first count. And I agree somewhat on the second count, but I think Scott and like-minded others tend to focus too much on the luck-aided seasons from Gordon, Melky and Frenchy. Meanwhile, they fail to account for the bad luck the team had from players like Francis, Duffy, Hochevar, Davies, Mazzaro and Moustakas. I did a back-of-the-napkin calculation a several weeks ago and found that the total good luck was probably greater than the total bad luck, but it’s pretty close.
I believe that thinking that a 12 win improvement is reasonably possible is also a mistake.
In general or just for this team? Teams make 12 win improvements with some regularity.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
This team
Including expected regression from certain players that overperformed, is it likely that natural player development is going to lead to anywhere near a 12 win improvement? No, I don’t think that is reasonably possible. I think when the ZiPS and PECOTA projections come out and the team numbers are crunched, it isn’t going to be anywhere near 90. I think it will be south of 80. Now, could everything come together with a bunch of players blossoming at the same time and some other players have aberrational seasons to get the Royals up to 90? Sure. And I think that is about as likely as the bottom falling out and everything going wrong and the Royals winning only about 64 games.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 9, 2011 11:50 PM EST up reply actions
Not even close
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Dec 11, 2011 7:51 AM EST up reply actions
"this kind of talent"
To me, I can only support this statement to the extent you mean that phrase to mean unknown talent.
I think we have a good idea of what we’ll get from several players, but Moose, Gia, Cain, and Perez are all large question marks. Will Gordon have another great year? Will Hosmer get better or worse? Will we see 2010 Jonathan Sanchez or 2011 Jonathan Sanchez? Will Hochevar look like he did the second half of 2011? Will Duffy or Crow take a step forward? Will Soria look good all year?
A lot more questions than answers. This is still a young, cheap team. If has the potential to get younger depending on how the minor league pitchers perform too.
by WURoyal on Dec 9, 2011 1:52 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I will predict that...
chen will make another 12+win season
Gordon will make another miracle
Hosmer is our god, you don’t question what he does. You just take it with a smile
We fire hochever for the first half and hire him for the second half
sanchez looks good
duffy is a lost cause..like collins
if jefferies can stop smoking pot/learn to aim better, we have a new starter
soria…he needs to become a starter. Crow can handle clean up
francis(is still around) and Paulino (if around) will once again suck. Good potential, no idea how to use it. Maybe they’ll train with chen on his mountain and learn the ancient art of throwing pitches
I see all of that happening
except Jefferies quitting pot. Why would he do that?
by Rufus R. Jones on Dec 9, 2011 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
if he wants to play in the majors, he'll need to stop smoking pot
If I was his coach
“remember jefferies, it’s you vs. 1 batter. Those other 2 guys aren’t real.”

Pitching is so hard impossible funny when you smoke pot
by Rufus R. Jones on Dec 9, 2011 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
he wont have to stop smoking pot...
he’s on the 40 man…they dont test…he’s in the clear
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Dec 9, 2011 10:43 PM EST up reply actions
I honestly believe
The Royals are at least TRYING. Even if they come nowhere near winning the division. I’d love for us to win the Central, but I really just don’t see that happening. A 2nd place finish confirms that Dayton’s plan is at least doing SOMETHING. I’m okay with that. Problem is, most sports fans don’t understand that you need a lot of patience before something actually happens.
"what is age anyway? what's old? what's young?" - Frank White
by AlexGordonHRmagnet on Dec 9, 2011 1:19 AM EST reply actions
Patience
Anyone that is a Royals fan (which can be assumed of readers of a blog about the Royals) knows about patience. If they didn’t have patience they would have given up long ago and become Cards fans.
by spamiam79 on Dec 9, 2011 7:19 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Patience was one of GnR's most boring songs.
"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth
by KeepItCopacetic on Dec 9, 2011 8:46 AM EST up reply actions
My grandfather was the principal at Axl's high school
and he kicked him out
BFIB
by tiquanunderwear on Dec 9, 2011 8:49 AM EST up reply actions
What was the final straw?
"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth
by KeepItCopacetic on Dec 9, 2011 8:52 AM EST up reply actions
Feeling his serpentine in Biology...
More Goofus than Gallant...
by Tracer Bullet 82 on Dec 9, 2011 8:58 AM EST up reply actions
What did Grandpa do to kids that were on the internet all day posting on message boards?
by Rufus R. Jones on Dec 9, 2011 9:57 AM EST up reply actions
Back then, they were still assembling the series of tubes.
"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth
by KeepItCopacetic on Dec 9, 2011 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
The Late, Great
Ted Stevens finished the job circa 2000.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 10, 2011 1:10 AM EST up reply actions
Repeated absences, smoking, selling drugs
I think he hit a teacher and that was what put him over the edge
BFIB
by tiquanunderwear on Dec 9, 2011 9:01 AM EST up reply actions
I just read through his Wikipedia article
Seems like a nice guy
"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth
by KeepItCopacetic on Dec 9, 2011 9:26 AM EST up reply actions
Aren't all grandpas?
Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics
by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 9, 2011 9:28 AM EST up reply actions
Axl Rose
Pride of Laffayate Jefferson High school
BFIB
by tiquanunderwear on Dec 9, 2011 9:40 AM EST up reply actions
Pride and joy of my high school:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Dare
"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth
by KeepItCopacetic on Dec 9, 2011 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
Guess he showed your Grandpa, huh?
Who is going into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?
A. Axl Rose
B. Grandpa tiquanunderwear
by Rufus R. Jones on Dec 9, 2011 9:55 AM EST up reply actions 5 recs
Tiquan
Did they mention your gramps in “Get in the Ring?”
Is your dad Mick Wall? Bob Guccione, Jr.?
by Rufus R. Jones on Dec 9, 2011 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
First of all it is tiquan
There shall be no capitals. My dad is not Mick Wall, my dad is Alex Gordon
BFIB
by tiquanunderwear on Dec 9, 2011 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
He's dead now
maybe he could go in posthumously
BFIB
by tiquanunderwear on Dec 9, 2011 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
AL inter divisional records from 2007 to 2011
East
vs East
0.500
vs Central
0.567
vs West
0.520
Central
vs East
0.433
vs Central
0.500
vs West
0.498
West
vs East
0.480
vs Central
0.502
vs West
0.500
Basically the East is the best will the West the next best with the Central just behind them
Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics
0.502 is the West winning % vs the Central or 81.3 wins over a 162 game season.
Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics
by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 9, 2011 10:01 AM EST up reply actions
HUGUENOT! There is a Huguenot on our board!
I despise the Huguenots, they are the lowest of the low. I demand that we excommunicate him posthaste!
talk to me, Johnny...
Royals overall winning percentage 2006-2011 = .420
Maybe you should have titled this article “The Rest of The Weak AL Central Isn’t Weak, It’s Average.”
3rd out of 3 isn't very average
Jeff didn’t post numbers for the NL
Any reason why you referred to the AL Central as 'she' not 'it'?
I wasn’t aware divisions had genders.
...and would that make each of the 5 teams different female body parts?
KC hasn’t been any of the prettier parts for awhile, thats fo sho……..shudder
David Glass knows how to get the most out of $50,000
“It is not unusual for a single Wal-Mart buyer earning $50,000 a year to handle $1 billion worth of business, which helps to explain why around 200 major suppliers have built their own offices in Bentonville…”
-excerpt from “100 Great Businesses and the Minds Behind Them,” p.266.
No Glass just figures his "Business" *wink wink*
Is worth $1billion.
So we are going to pay someone $50,000 to hold it for him while he pees
"We don’t have guys with a long history of being effective in the seventh and eighth innings."
~Trey Hillman, master of understatements.
I've seen their operation in Bentonville
Well, the outside of it anyway. Wal-Mart facilities sprawl all across town. There are strip malls and office buildings everywhere with signs for every kind of brand name you can think of, but none of it is retail. It’s all offices for the $50,000 buyers, who have to be located in Bentonville if their company expects to sell to Wal-Mart. Weird deal.
This post comes off more as a fanpost than something written by a site manager.
It’s such a weak division. Sure, the Tigers won 95 games in 2011, which is awesome, but using that to claim the division is not weak is misleading. The Tigers only NEEDED to win 81 games to win the division. Woof. No other team won even 50% of their games. That’s a pretty weak showing.
Going by 2nd place +1W would be a better showing of how tough a division is because it shows how many games are actually needed to win it. Like with any of these numbers games, there’s flaws, but I think this makes more sense than looking at just the best teams’ wins. 2nd best shows competition within the division.
ALE – 92
ALC – 81
ALW – 87
NLE – 90
NLC – 91
NLW – 87
That was just 2011, but for the 3 seasons prior to that, the Royals are not the worst but are still in the bottom half of 6 divisions in each of those seasons when looking at 2nd place +1W.
Am I the only one flagging this guy?
Seriously, do we have to wait for the money shot or a "F*** THE SOXXXXXX!" before we ban him? Doubleteapot… BAN HIM!!
by AlohaSox on Sep 28, 2011 10:20 PM CDT
by SandalsNoPants on Dec 11, 2011 12:22 PM EST reply actions
Sorry if this was mentioned earlier in the thread
but I think two issues might be getting confused here: a) the relative “strength” (the quality of its teams relative to the other divisions in the AL) of the AL Central; and b) how many wins it takes to win the division.
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
Before getting tweaked, read up on regression.
From My Understanding,
The new alignment and more balanced schedule will make this easier to evaluate.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 11, 2011 9:14 PM EST up reply actions





![Fresh on the heels of my award-winning 2008 Royals O-Swing Percentage Graph, here is a graph the O-Swing (percentage of pitches swung at outside of the strike zone) for all the teams of the AL Central from 2005-2008 by year, also compared to the MLB average. Remember -- this is for hitters, so lower is better.
(Maybe I [or someone else, of course] will do something like this for pitchers next week).
The results speak for themselvs, I guess, but they are saying all sorts of things. Discuss and enjoy!
For a larger version, click here (opens in new tab/window).
Consider this a humble appendix to the "Secrets of the AL Central" series.
All data via FanGraphs, of course.](http://cdn0.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/31963/file_small.jpg)














