Reason, Passion–and Reasonable Expectations

If you read Spanish at all, read this post over at Línea de Fair. It discusses baseball, the philosophy of science, semiotics, Sabermetrics, and the experience of being a fan all in a single post. One paragraph in particular caught my attention (translation is mine):

The baseball fan and the baseball analyst–sometimes the roles are confused, but both are delighted to see a good ballgame–try to explain the logic of the game and to predict what might happen next in the same way that man used to try to find the reason why the sun rose every day, or why the rain fell. The dynamism and insight of the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR, by its English initials) has generated new explanations, very much in vogue these days, which have been the origin of a feverish debate similar to that between the Apollonians and the Dionysiacs….

The author points to a divide in the philosophy of science between those who believe that reality can be described by the application of reason (Apollonians) and those who doubt that human reason can possibly explain the whole world (Dionysians). This is a tension that I as baseball fan feel very strongly.

On the one hand, there is a certain unknowable, aesthetic quality to baseball. When I see Danny Espinosa leap and pluck a line drive out of the air, turning as he lands to double off the runner taking a lead off first base, I am watching something no less beautiful or graceful as a ballet. But even though I might witness that play at Nats park with twenty or thirty or forty thousand of my closest friends, not one of them will feel quite the same way as I do when I see it. We can communicate those memories to each other, and compare them, but those emotions are really ours alone. And no matter how many times Debbi Taylor (or her successor) asked the Nats’ hero of the day to describe what was going through his mind as he made a game-changing play, neither Debbi nor anyone watching will ever really know how it felt to make that play. That’s a wholly subjective, unknowable experience. Our emotional bond with baseball is made of countless such memories–each of them precious, each of them irreplaceable, and each of them utterly incommunicable.

But then, I spend an awful lot of time perusing statistics. The cynic might suggest that this kills the joy of going down to the baseball game at all. After all, stats don’t tell stories as much as they open windows into specific questions: Which is the most effective pitcher? Who bats better, overall? How good is this player’s defense? Indeed, on this blog, I’ve tried to use my rudimentary grasp of statistics to open a window on the 2012 Nationals season yet-to-be.

All of this mucking about with cold rationality has affected me as a fan–but, I think, for the better. I started my 2012 projections project because I was sick and tired of hearing all the emotional overreactions to the Prince Fielder free agency drama on my twitter feed. The Nationals, so it went, were going to be world-beaters with Fielder and terrible without him. That looked like a proposition I could test, so I did, the best way I could.

As FDR might have said, the only thing Nats fans have to fear is “Fear itself: nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror, which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” My calculations put the Nationals anywhere between 84 and 86 wins–on track for their best season since arriving in DC. And, even in a “doomsday scenario” without Adam LaRoche, the Nats look to get anywhere between 79 and 81 wins.

Think about what that means. It means that the worst I can expect from the 2012 Nationals is that they’ll have an even chance of winning any given ballgame on any given night. As a fan, that’s all I can reasonably ask for, anyway. If that’s the worst I can expect, I can put my unreasoning, unjustified terror aside and enjoy the visceral joys of watching Espinosa and his teammates doing beautiful things on a baseball field. It might not be a perfect synthesis of reason and passion, but I’ll take it.

Round and Round it Goes

It’s been a dizzying day in Natstown. First came the news that the Nationals had prevailed in the salary arbitration case against John Lannan, netting Lannan a $5 million sallary instead of the $5.7 million he asked for.

Just when everybody thought it would be time to put the arbitration proceedings behind us and focus on baseball, Natstown was rocked by the news that Bavarian-born St. Louis hurler Edwin Jackson had joined the Nats for a one-year deal valued at about $10 million.

Wait, WHAT?

I guess that means Rizzo’s going to trade Lannan and acquire that mythical center fielder, right? Well, not really. “We did not acquire Edwin Jackson to trade another starting pitcher,” said Rizzo.

If we’re to take Rizzo at his word–something I myself am loath to do–where does that leave the 2012 Nationals?

The Nats can’t possibly break camp with all of that starting pitching. Someone has got to go on the pitching staff. It can’t be Detwiler, who’s out of minor-league options. I very much doubt that it will be Wang. The only pitcher in the rotation that comes to mind with minor league options left is…the five-million dollar man, John “Long Ball” Lannan.

So Jackson must replace Lannan. What does that mean? Well, between 2008 and 2011, Edwin Jackson has has a FIP of 4.13 (as opposed to Lannan’s 4.57). Assigning him the 180 innings that I gave Lannan in my previous projections, Edwin Jackson’s better pitching is worth one extra win. That’s right Nats town: With Edwin Jackson instead of John Lannan, the 2012 Nationals would be projected to 85 wins.

It could potentially get better. Edwin Jackson is a much better batter than Lannan. I project he will be worth 1.16 wRC in 2012. So what? That nudges the win total up to 86.

That’s a lot of wins for a ballclub that’s only broken even once (the magical 2005 Nationals!). But that hasn’t stopped some observers from envisioning big things for the Nats. Who would have believed that Buster Olney was going to put the Nats in the wildcard?

My best guess here is that the fans in Syracuse will be treated to John Lannan for a good while…until a deal can be struck trading Lannan, Bernadina, Detwiler, and possibly Lombardozzi for a capable center fielder.

Also, what shouldn’t be lost in all this is that John Lannan has been a pretty good pitcher for the Nats, all in all. As a friend of mine remarked right after the arbitration award was announced, “Lannan has done yeoman’s work for the Nationals during some of their darkest years.” Even if he didn’t get all of what he asked for, he deserved at least some of it.

But You Don’t Have to Take MY Word For It…

I’ve predicted the 2012 Nats to win 84 games, and I feel pretty confident about that prediction. There are other forecasts out there, and, as the great LeVar Burton might say, you don’t have to take my word for it.

By chance, I found these 2012 standings projections over at the Replacement Level Yankees Weblog. You should peruse them at your leisure. But the notable thing is that he has the Nationals winning 83 games in 2012, one under my projection of 84 wins, but close enough.

According to the poster, he used the Marcel the Monkey forecasting system by the legendary Tangotiger. (Who, by the way, seems most insistent that his forecasting engine is a monkey. Definitely not a shell with shoes on).

I haven’t yet had the time to break down and understand the Marcel forecasting system, nor to apply it to the Nationals, but its outputs don’t seem too far out of line.

The Limits of Prescience

A thread over at the Washington Nationals Fan Forums pushed back against some of my projections here and raised a few points that I neglected to address in my 2012 projections.

Margins of Error

Interesting projections but the missing piece would be an estimate of how much of a margin of error there would be for both the offensive and defensive estimates that would provide a range for the expected number of wins as opposed to a hard number.

This was a serious omission on my part. All projections have a certain degree of uncertainty built into them, and I really should have discussed the degree of uncertainty built into mine.

I took my method for calculating the projected runs allowed by pitching and defense from this site. The author tested this method against 7 years of complete season data from 2002 through 2008. As he writes:

I found the R^2 value. Not to oversimplify things too much, but this value basically shows what percentage of the variation can be accounted for by the model. The value ranges from 0 (worthless) to 1 (perfect). For my 210 data points, I had an R^2 value of about 0.78 (i.e. 78% of the variation).

That means that my defense and pitching runs allowed projections should be good for plus or minus 22%. That gives a lower bound of 482.84 runs allowed and an upper bound of 755.20 runs allowed.

If we assume that my offensive predictions are correct (a problem I’ll get to in a second), that means the 2012 Nats will win anywhere between 68 and 103 games

I know that’s an immense difference. I’m not sure how I could close that gap. UZR doesn’t account for pitcher or catcher defense, for instance. But even then, I think the method at least gets us in the ballpark.

The offense numbers are a lot more troublesome. I haven’t been able to do any real regression analysis to determine how good my model is–I simply haven’t had the time.

On the other hand our offense has way too many question marks to estimate the total number of runs scored with enough precision to come up with a meaningful value that can be used in a secondary projection as you did in calculating our win total.

Any type of future projection is likely to involve more than a little handwaving. Here, I’ve drawn an arbitrary line: all players included in this analysis are players on the Nats’ 25-man roster as of January 27, 2012, some 23 days before pitchers and catchers are due to report at Viera.

Individual Players and the Projections

Will Werth stay Werthless?

2011 Jayson Werth was astonishingly bad. I’m going to believe that his 2011 numbers are aberrations and not indicative of a “new normal.” I’m fairly confident that the 4-year average from 2008-2011 is a fair picture of what kind of player Werth is now–somewhere between his Philly days and the debacle of 2011.

Will Desmond, Ramos, and Espi improve or stagnate?

As far as Desmond and Espinosa, I have no idea. I don’t think I have nearly enough data about them to make any predictions going forward. Ramos, however, gets a nice bump from more playing time and more PAs. His wRC/PA isn’t terrible, so that’s to be expected.

Will Morse fall back to Earth?

I’m going to go ahead and say No. As I said in Part 3, Morse’s modest offensive outputs in 2008-2010 might make you think that he’s going to crash down to Earth in 2012. But, remember, I’ve taken a four year average of his wRC/PA over the same period. Giving Morse 600 plate appearances in 2012 gives a projected wRC of 97.00: exactly the same as his breakout 2011 “beastmode” year. Indeed, even if we throw out Morse’s 2011 season, running the same calculation over data from 2008-2010 yields a projected wRC of 90.00: Seven runs short of our prior projection and of the 2011 total, but still enough to make him almost as good as Ryan Zimmerman (projected for 90.69 wRC). Indeed, all of this taken together seems like pretty persuasive evidence that “beastmode” has been lurking inside him the whole time, and only needed to see enough PAs.

Will Zimmm get hurt again? Will LaRoche bounce back?

My response: Dammit, Jim, I’m a baseball fan, not a doctor!. I have really no good way of figuring out La Roche’s prognosis post-surgery, nor can I really know anything about the state of Zimmerman’s joints and muscles. The only real response I have here is that the four-year interval I picked should be fair to both men in terms of their expected production.

Who plays centerfield?

Again, I had to draw an arbitrary line and go with who was in the organization as of the day I began compiling the statistics. That means that for now, we’re looking at a DeRosa/Bernadina platoon in center field. This might not be ideal, but I didn’t want to mix players who weren’t officially in the organization into these projections. Blown Save, Win, however, has attempted to address the center field question in a recent post, where he suggests that perhaps the short-term answer is Rick Ankiel. I’ll have to go back and study this, obviously.

Projecting the 2012 Nationals, Part 4: Setting Expectations.

In this fourth and final installment of my series on projecting the 2012 Nationals season, we’ll put together everything we’ve learned about the 2012 Nationals so far and make a final, bold prediction of the Nats’ won/loss record.

Actually, what the hell, let’s get the prediction out of the way first: The 2012 Nationals will win 84 games and lose 78, for a winning percentage of .520 on the season.

Remember I said back in Part 1 that a baseball team’s winning percentage can be estimated fairly accurately using the Pythagorean win expectation formula:

\text{Win} = \frac{\text{Runs Scored}^2}{\text{Runs Scored}^2 + \text{Runs Allowed}^2} = \frac{1}{1 +(\text{Runs Allowed}/ \text{Runs Scored} )^2}

Plugging the data we collected in Part 2 and Part 3, that comes out to a final winning percentage of .520. Multiply that by a 162-game season, and that gives you 84 wins.

That’s not bad! In fact, it’s 4 more wins than the Nats got in 2011, and it would be more wins than the Nationals have ever gotten in a season since coming to D.C. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m very excited by this.

Now all we need to do is convince Ted Lerner to bring back fireworks at Nats Park so we can all hear Charlie Slowes make his signature “Bang, Zoom Go the fireworks! A Curly ‘W’ is in the books!” call as God intended.

You might want to go back and read the rest of the series:

Projecting the 2012 Nationals, Part 3, Bottom of the Inning: Offense & Runs Scored

In Part 1 of this series, we sketched out one method we can use to project wins and losses for the 2012 Nationals. In Part 2, we sat through the top of our hypothetical season-as-single-inning and watched the 2012 Nats give up 615.72 runs.

Well, now we come to the bottom of the inning. Time for the 2012 Nationals to bat. Do they score more runs than the visiting team? And if they do, how many more? Let’s find out.

Calculating Projected Runs Scored

As I mentioned back in Part 1, we need to use wRC to figure out how many runs the offense is likely to create.

wRC stands for Weighted Runs Created ( Not World Rally Championship, this blogger’s preferred form of motorsport). The “weighted” bit in the name comes from the fact that a major component in the stat is another advanced offensive statistic, wOBA or Weighted On-Base Average. As Fangraphs explains:

Weighted On-Base Average (wOBA) is based on a simple concept: not all hits are created equal. Batting average would have you believe they are, but think about it: what’s more valuable, a single or a homerun? Batting average doesn’t account for this difference and slugging percentage doesn’t do so accurately (is a double worth twice as much as a single? In short, no). OPS does a good job of combining all the different aspects of hitting (hitting for average, hitting for power, having plate discipline) into one metric, but it weighs slugging percentage the same as on-base percentage, while on-base percentage is more valuable than slugging.

Weighted On-Base Average combines all the different aspects of hitting into one metric, weighting each of them in proportion to their actual run value.

Using a 4-year Average wRC

With that said, you’d think it would be a simple matter of finding an average wRC for each player during the period under study and then adding all those values together. Doing that yields a shocking result: the 2012 Nats would be projected to score 428.25 runs. As Dave Huzzard over at Blown Save, Win helpfully pointed out, this would make the 2012 Nationals the worst offense in all baseball. In 2011, the San Francisco Giants had the worst offense in the National League, scoring 570 runs.

(Incidentally, according to Fangraphs, the record for fewest runs scored in a single season goes to the hapless 1876 Cincinnati Reds, who scored a paltry 238 runs, earning them a 9-46 record, and plunging them into the National League cellar, 42.5 games behind the Chicago White Stockings. The record for most runs scored goes to the 1894 Boston Beaneaters, who scored 1,220 runs in a 132-game season)

Accounting for Plate Appearances

A 428.25 total, then, can’t possibly be right. The model must be broken.

Coming back to our imaginary baseball game, I realized something that should have been obvious: the more times that a batter steps up to the plate, the more chances he has to score runs. By dividing a player’s total wRC over the period under study by the number of Plate Appearances that player made, we get the number of runs the player is likely to create, on average, every time he steps up to bat. What happens if we normalize offense to the number of plate appearances each hitter is likely to get? Well, we end up with a table that looks like this:

Player Position wRC 2008-2011 annual average wRC/PA 2008-2011 annual average 2012 PA (projected) 2012 wRC (projected)
Adam LaRoche 1B 65.50 0.132658 600 79.59
Danny Espinosa 2B 22.50 0.116883 600 70.13
Ryan Zimmerman 3B 83.25 0.151158 600 90.69
Ian Desmond SS 33.25 0.102151 600 61.29
Michael Morse LF 37.75 0.161670 600 97.00
Roger Bernadina CF 22.25 0.100112 400 40.04
Jayson Werth RF 95.25 0.154941 600 92.96
Wilson Ramos C 15.75 0.121857 400 48.74
Mark DeRosa RF 44.50 0.129927 400 51.97
Steve Lombardozzi 3B 0.25 0.031250 350 10.94
Jesus Flores C 13.25 0.101727 300 30.52
And, just for kicks, let’s consider the pitchers, too, since this is the National League:
Player Position wRC 2008-2011 annual average wRC/PA 2008-2011 annual average 2012 PA (projected) 2012 wRC (projected)
Stephen Strasburg RHSP -0.75 -0.100000 60 -6.00
Jordan Zimmermann RHSP 0.25 0.010000 100 1.00
Gio Gonzalez LHSP -0.25 -0.111111 100 -11.11
Chien-Ming Wang RHSP -0.75 -0.111111 100 -11.11
John “Long Ball” Lannan LHSP -2.50 -0.042553 100 -4.26
Ross Detwiler LHRP -1.25 -0.104167 20 -2.08
Tom Gorzelanny LHRP -1.25 -0.038462 20 -0.77
Craig Stammen RHRP 1.00 0.048780 20 0.98
Henry Rodriguez RHRP 0.00 0.000000 0 0.00
Brad Lidge RHRP 0.00 0.000000 0 0.00
Tyler Clippard RHRP 0.00 0.000000 0 0.00
Drew Storen RHRP 0.00 0.000000 0 0.00

Added all together, that means the 2012 Nationals score a respectable 640.82 runs in the bottom of our imaginary season-as-single-inning.

One really surprising thing here is that Michael Morse’s “beastmode” 2011 season may not have been a fluke. Morse’s 4-year average annual wRC is 37.75. But when you break it down and look at his wRC per plate appearance, you discover that “beastmode” was always lurking inside Morse, waiting to be unleashed and given enough plate appearances. Multiplying Morse’s wRC per plate apperance by a projected 600 plate appearances (reasonable for an every-day player), his projected wRC jumps to 97.00: exactly what his actual wRC was in 2011’s breakout season.

That does it for the bottom of the inning. The 2012 Nats have scored 640.82 runs. What does that mean, and how should Nats Town feel about the ballclub going into the 2012 season? Tune in tomorrow for Projecting the 2012 Nationals, Part 4: Setting Expectations.

Projecting the 2012 Nationals, Part 2:Top of the Inning: Pitching, Defense, and Runs Allowed.

In part 1 of this project, I sketched out how we might arrive at a projected win-loss total for the 2012 Nationals by using the Pythagorean win expectation formula. Again, let’s suppose the whole 2012 season is like a day at Nats Park. The visitors get to bat first. As Nats fans, then, the first thing we have to watch is the effectiveness of the home team’s pitching and defense.

Total Runs Allowed: 615.72

Let’s get this out of the way quickly: I project that the opponents of the 2012 Nationals will score just under 616 runs against the Nats. 

To be pedantic, the “visiting” team in our calculations will score 615.72 runs in 2012. Don’t be bothered too much about the fractional runs–they’ll all come out in the wash.

You might ask yourself: “Well, how did I get here?”

The short answer is this: we need to figure out how many runs the pitching staff allows–that means using FIP. In your mind’s eye, imagine the 5-run 9th-inning debacle against the Marlins on July 26th of last year.

Then we need to figure out if the defense can take any of those runs away. In your mind’s eye, think of a happier moment– Roger “The Shark” Bernadina’s unbelievable catch at Nats park, robbing Mike Stanton of at least a couple of runs.

The gist is: Runs allowed is the sum of each individual pitcher’s runs allowed, minus the sum of all the runs saved by each defender.

Pitching: 619.02 Runs Allowed

You might have noticed that FIP looks an awful lot like the “traditional” pitching effectiveness statistic, Earned Run Average or ERA. This is not an accident. FIP is meant to remove the troublesome “earned/unearned” distinction and get to the question of whether the pitcher “caused” the opposing team to score.

ERA, of course, is calculated like this:

\text{Earned Run Average} = 9 \times \frac{\text{Earned Runs Allowed}}{\text{Innings Pitched}}

FIP is calculated a bit differently:

\text{Fielding Independent Pitching} = \frac{13HR + 3BB - 2K}{IP} + \text{scaling constant}

Where “scaling constant” is some constant figure (around 3.20 or so) to normalize things to a league average and make it look like ERA.

Notice that FIP only cares about things that are in the pitcher’s control: Home Runs, Walks, Strikeouts, and Innings Pitched. The rest is up to the defense (which we’ll get to). Notice also that it looks an awful lot like ERA, so we can use it like ERA. FIP tells us how many runs a pitcher is likely to give up, on average, for every 9 innings he pitches.

The only thing we don’t know for sure is the number of innings each pitcher will pitch–that’s what we have to project. But we already know, more or less, how “good” each pitcher is from the FIP data.

To figure out how many runs each pitcher is likely to give up, we calculate an expected runs allowed this way:

\text{Pitcher's Projected Runs Allowed} = \frac{\text{FIP} \times \text{Projected Innings Pitched}}{9}

Adding each of those numbers together for each pitcher will give you a total number of runs likely to be given up.

Starting Pitchers

Pitcher Name 2012 IP (Projected) FIP (2008-2011 Average) 2012 Runs Allowed per pitcher (projected)
 Stephen Strasburg  160.00  1.87  33.24
 Jordan Zimmermann  180.00  3.59  71.80
 Gio Gonzalez  200.00  4.06  90.22
 Chien-Ming Wang  180.00  4.35  87.00
 John Lannan  180.00  4.57  91.40


Pitcher Name 2012 IP (Projected) FIP (2008-2011 Average) 2012 Runs Allowed per pitcher (projected)
Ross Detwiler 63.2 4.30  30.42
Tom Gorzelanny 98.1 4.64  50.69
Craig Stammen 61.0 4.23  28.67
Sean Burnett 62.0 4.20  28.93
Brad Lidge 60.0 3.72  24.80
Henry Rodriguez 72.2 3.22  26.00
Tyler Clippard 72.2 3.61  29.15
Drew Storen 73.0 3.29  26.69

Defense: 3.30 Runs Saved.

Accounting for defense in these projections is, paradoxically, both easier to do and harder to explain.

It’s easier, because there’s not much to be done. We take our UZR data and add them up.

Yup, it’s really that simple. The end result tells us how many of the runs allowed by the pitchers the defense saves. Thus, a positive value means that the defense took away that number of runs that might have scored otherwise. A negative value, on the other hand, means that the defense bungled enough to allow more runs to score than they otherwise would have done.

We can say this, of course, because built into the pitching statistic (FIP) is the assumption that the pitcher would perform exactly the way FIP would expect him to perform in front of a perfectly average defense. UZR measures how much above or below average defense is.

I won’t reproduce the position player tables here–that would be too tedious, and you can read them here anyway. When you add them all together, the 2012 Nats defense will prevent 3.30 runs from scoring that might otherwise have scored.

There are a couple of quirks to this calculation. If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll notice that UZR is a “counting” statistic, not a rate. So over four years, the totals you’ll see in the tables are aggregates: the number of runs, total, in the last four years that that player is responsible for saving (or letting through). For the purposes of this calculation, I’ve had to divide that figure by four, to get a rough estimate of how many runs the player saves, on average, for each year under consideration.

I should note a few things I learned while looking at the defensive statistics:

  • Ryan Zimmerman is every bit the defender that I thought he was, apparently. In each of the four years in my study, the Nats could expect Zimmerman to save 7.55 runs, on average. That’s phenomenal.
  • As a right fielder, Jayson Werth’s average UZR in the period under study is a respectable 4.35. As a center fielder, he’s perfectly average, with a 0.00 UZR in the period under study. In left field, Werth is less than ideal, but serviceable, with a -1.60 UZR (allowing, on average 1.6 “extra” runs to score).
  • By UZR, Roger Bernadina might be the worst center fielder on this roster (-2.10 UZR). He’s much, much better in left field (1.70 UZR). This surprised me. After all, it’s his spectacular diving catch in center field that I linked to above as an example of saving runs.
  • On the bench, Mark DeRosa and Steve Lombardozzi are, overall, perfectly average defenders, but they can play an excellent spread of positions. If I were managing the Nats, I’d appreciate the degree of flexibility they can bring to a lineup.

Well, that does it for the top of the inning. The pitchers would have allowed 619.02 runs, but the defense took 3.30 of those away from the opposition. Going into the bottom of the inning, the 2012 score stands with the visiting team at 615.72, with the Nats coming to bat in the bottom of the inning. We’ll find out just how well they bat in the bottom of the inning in Projecting the 2012 Nationals, Part 3, Bottom of the Inning: Offense.

Projecting the 2012 Nationals, Part 1: Ground Rules & Starting Line-Ups

In keeping with the prophetic nature of the blog, I promised you all some projections about the 2012 Nationals. As you might imagine, trying to see the future is a fair bit of work, and I wanted to be able to walk you all through my reasoning step by step, so I’m going to break my analysis up into a 4-post series.

And because this is about baseball, after all, I’ll break it down in a baseball-like fashion. Imagine yourselves in Davey Johnson’s shoes, stepping out towards home plate at Nats park, line-up card in hand, ready to meet the umpire and the opposing manager. You’d have to discuss the ground rules first, and then exchange line-up cards. That’s what we’ll be doing in this post: sketching out the outlines of my method and telling you just who’s in the starting line-up.

Ground Rules: What Are We Doing and How Are We Doing It?

A baseball team’s winning percentage can be estimated fairly accurately using Bill James’s Pythagorean win expectation formula:

Wins/Losses= 1/1+(runs allowed/runs scored)^2)

 This is of course pretty intuitive, particularly in its simplified form on the right. The team that scores more runs than it gives up will win a baseball game. A 162-game season is thus just a day in the [ball]park, but in macrocosm. Our calculations feel pretty much like watching a ballgame, too:

  1. Figure out who makes the team.
  2. Watch the top of the inning: how many runs do the pitchers give up? To do this, we’ll need a stat called FIP, or Fielding-Independent Pitching.
  3. Still in the top of the inning: how well is the team defending? To answer that, we’ll need an esoteric stat: UZR, or Ultimate Zone Rating [Yes, I know it’s a dumb name. The sad thing is that if Sabermetricians were more articulate, they’d be baseball writers–and thereby deprive us of their statistical insights].
  4. Finally, at the bottom of the inning, we figure out if the home team can score more runs than the visiting team did in the top of its inning. To find that out, we’ll need wRC, weighted Runs Created.

Projections should be pretty straightforward, right? There are a couple of pitfalls. UZR is notoriously unstable, and needs at least 3 years of data to be any good at all in calculations like this. Because we’re dealing with a pretty mixed bunch of ballplayers here, I can’t just use career UZR figures and take an annual average. Jayson Werth’s figure would have to be divided by 9, while Danny Espinosa’s would only be divided by 2. To even things up, I’ve decided to use a four-year average of each of the stats above. That gives just about enough of a sample size, I think, to be useful. It’s also fair: the four-year moving average sweeps from 2008 through the end of 2011–good news for Jayson Werth, who gets to include his phenomenal run with the Phillies with his near-abysmal 2011 campaign.

The Starting Lineup: Meet your 2012 Washington Nationals!

With today’s acquisition of veteran relief pitcher Brad Lidge, I think it’s pretty safe to say that the Hot Stove League is at an end. Without further ado, meet your 2012 Washington Nationals! [All of the data here, by the way, is from Fangraphs.]

Starting Rotation

Pitcher Name 2012 IP (Projected) FIP (2008-2011 Average) Remarks
 Stephen Strasburg  160.00  1.87  Strasburg’s coming back after Tommy John surgery, so he’ll be on an innings limit, just like Jordan Zimmermann was in 2011. I’ve set his limit at 160 innings, around about where J.Z. was limited last year.
 Jordan Zimmermann  180.00  3.59  Now that J.Z. is healthy again, I’ve allocated him what I feel is a fair load for a starting pitcher.
 Gio Gonzalez  200.00  4.06  Gio’s had a few 200 IP seasons, and he comes billed as an inning-eater, so I’ve given him a heavier IP load.
 Chien-Ming Wang  180.00  4.35  Wang is also coming off a long injury. I wonder if giving him a regular starting pitcher’s load isn’t a bit ambitious. Also, Wang gets hurt by my somewhat arbitrary 4-year window. His career FIP is really 4.04, but for now I’m going to accept the 4.35 number because…
 John Lannan  180.00  4.57  Lannan’s FIP is really really high compared with the rest of the rotation. I’ll get a lot of flak for putting him in the rotation at all, especially from Detwiler’s (4.30 FIP) partisans. On a wholly subjective level, though I think Lannan’s pitched well enough for long enough to land a spot in the rotation. Detwiler, to me, anyway, seems to have a much harder time the second and third time through an opposing batting order, but I don’t have any data to confirm that at the moment.


Pitcher Name 2012 IP (Projected) FIP (2008-2011 Average) Remarks
Ross Detwiler 63.2 4.30 Long relief.
Tom Gorzelanny 98.1 4.64 Long relief.
Craig Stammen 61.0 4.23 Middle relief
Sean Burnett 62.0 4.20 Middle relief
Brad Lidge 60.0 3.72 Middle relief. Lidge figures to be a 6th-inning pitcher to get to Clippard & Storen. Also, as far as I can tell, Lidge has never had a plate appearance, so he doesn’t mess with my offensive calculations.
Henry Rodriguez 72.2 3.22 Middle relief; alternate closer; last-ditch pitcher in losing efforts.
Tyler Clippard 72.2 3.61 Clip’s 2008-2011 FIP is better than his career FIP of 3.91
Drew Storen 73.0 3.29 Closer.

Starting Position Players

Note on position players: because UZR is calculated per-position, players will appear more than once on each table. In effect, it’s like having lots of players, one at each position, on defense, but having them form like Voltron into a single batter for offense. Also, I’ve omitted the pitchers’ offensive numbers from these tables–they were getting too cluttered, anyway. Don’t worry, I’ve factored the pitchers’ offensive contributions, such as they might be, into my final projections, but it would be tiresome to list them here. Also, UZR ignores defense from pitchers & catchers, so you won’t see any UZR numbers by Ramos or Flores.

Player Position UZR 2008-2011 wRC 2008-2011 annual average wRC/PA 2008-2011 annual average 2012 PA (projected) 2012 wRC (projected)
Adam LaRoche 1B 4.30 65.50 0.132658 600 79.59
Danny Espinosa 2B 3.00 22.50 0.116883 600 70.13
SS -0.20
Ryan Zimmerman 3B 30.20 83.25 0.151158 600 90.69
Ian Desmond SS -13.70 33.25 0.102151 600 61.29
RF -0.70
2B -2.80
Michael Morse LF -6.90 37.75 0.161670 600 97.00
1B -3.50
RF -7.50
3B 0.40
Roger Bernadina CF -8.40 22.25 0.100112 400 40.04
RF -4.10
LF 6.60
Jayson Werth RF 17.40 95.25 0.154941 600 92.96
CF 0.00
LF -1.60
Wilson Ramos C 15.75 0.121857 400 48.74

Bench Players

Player Position UZR 2008-2011 wRC 2008-2011 annual average wRC/PA 2008-2011 annual average 2012 PA (projected) 2012 wRC (projected)
Mark DeRosa RF 6.10 44.50 0.129927 400 51.97
LF 2.70
SS 0.00
1B -1.20
2B -2.80
3B -4.50
Steve Lombardozzi 3B 1.10 0.25 0.031250 350 10.94
2B 0.10
SS -0.90
Jesus Flores C 13.25 0.101727 300 30.52
Unless something unusual happens in the next couple of days, I don’t see the Nats’ opening-day 25-man roster looking too different from this. How will they do in 2012? Stay tuned for the next part of my 2012 projection series, Top of the Inning: Pitching, Defense, and Runs Allowed.