When I projected that the 2013 Nats were going to win 94 games, I did so with a bit of trepidation. Not only did this mean that I was projecting a performance so good that it would have been literally unbelievable only a few years before, but because I have certain doubts about the construction of my model.
As you might have gathered from the title of this post, I think my model has been systematically under-counting playing time for pitchers and hitters. In the spirit of Top of the Inning/Bottom of the Inning nature of the Natstradamus projections, I’ll deal with the pitching issues first, and then the batting problems in the bottom of the inning.
EDIT: Astute readers noted that I should have reduced relief pitcher innings by as much as I increased starting pitching innings. I have amended the relevant analysis. This results in a 98-win total.
Executive Summary for the TL;DR Crowd: Our earlier projection wasn’t as accurate as it should have been in counting playing time: A slight adjustment in innings pitched for starters–with a corresponding reduction in relief pitching innings– yielded a decrease in runs scored by 2—but a better/more nuanced look at plate appearances by the starting line-up yielded an astonishing increase in runs scored, from 692 to 725. This revises our win projection for the 2013 Nats to 98 wins.
Innings, Limits, and Other Stuff to Tear Your Hair Out With
First, pitching. If you look back at the projected innings pitched column in my pitching runs allowed projections, you will notice that I assume that pitchers in the starting rotation will pitch about 190 innings each, with Strasburg pitching only 180. How does that stack up with reality?
- Gio Gonzalez (199.1 IP);
- Jordan Zimmermann (195.2 IP)
- Edwin Jackson (189.2 IP).
Looking at things like this, it’s starting to look like our 180-inning starting rotation baseline is off by a little bit. Is it really, though? None of the top three for the Braves (Minor, Hudson, Hanson) pitched over 180 innings last year. The Phillies had Hamels (215.1) and Lee (211.0), then a sharp drop-off (injuries). The Mets had Dickey (232.2) and Niese (190.1), and then a precipitous dropoff to Santana (117.0).
Things get a bit better when we look at the Reds, whose top five were remarkably consistent as far as innings, with Cueto (217), Latos (209.1), Bailey (208), Arroyo (202) , and Leake (179). Likewise, the Giants got a lot of innings out of their starters, with Cain (219.1), Bumgarner (208.1), Vogelsong (189.2), Lincecum (186), and Zito (184.1).
In fact, it’s the rare National League team that gets more than 180 innings from all of its top five starters–only the Giants managed this in 2012, and we all know how that worked out for them, right?
Anyway, returning to our projections: is there a better way we can match the innings expectations for Nationals starting pitchers? Maybe we can. During the height of the Strasburg Shutdown hysteria last year, I wrote that the organization has a general innings-limiting principle:
The Nats have a policy–and a remarkably enlightened one, at that–of limiting starting-pitcher workloads to 120% of the innings a pitcher had pitched the previous year, wherever those innings happened (whether as an amateur, the minor leagues, or the majors). For pitchers returning from major injuries, the innings limit seems to be about 120% of the pitcher’s previous single-season career high total innings pitched.
The conventional wisdom is that this limit may not apply to pitchers like Gio Gonzalez (age 27) and Dan Haren (age 32). Jordan Zimmermann (age 26) might have arguably “aged out” of this system, too, since he pitched 195.2 innings last year. Detwiler (age 26) might have aged out, as well, but last year’s 164.1 IP represented his professional maximum, so let’s assume we’re stretching him out more carefully and put him on the limit. Strasburg (age 24), it should go without saying, is probably under this silent limit as well.
Applying those limits, and looking at last year’s performances, we get the following:
- Stephen Strasburg. 120% of last year’s innings for Strasburg works out to 190.2 innings for Strasburg. Plugging that into our model, that works out to 54.23 runs allowed, an increase of 3.03 runs.
- Jordan Zimmermann. JZ pitched 195.2 innings. It would be foolish to assume he would pitch any more. Let’s assume he pitches 195 innings, then. That works out to 80.38 runs allowed, an increase of 2.06 runs.
- Gio Gonzalez. 199 innings is a lot, but he pitched over 200 innings in the two preceding years, so I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to give Gio 200 innings in 2013. Ten more innings of Gio than in our initial model yields 84.67 runs, an increase of 4.24 runs.
- Ross Detwiler. Detwiler’s 151 innings in 2012 was a career high for him. Increasing that by 120% yields 181 innings. Fortunately, the old model pegged him at 180 innings to begin with. We’ll leave well enough alone, then.
- Dan Haren. Haren’s a little harder to judge. He only pitched 176.2 innings in 2012, but before his back got balky, he pitched well in excess of 200 innings for seven consecutive seasons. Various projections have him pitching as many as 218 innings and as few as 170. Let’s say he recovers form and pitches 190 innings–which is what we had in the original model. Great.
After adjusting for an increase in innings pitched, we see that the Nats give up a few more runs– 9.33 runs. That’s enough to cost them one full game in the Natstradamus projection–so that leaves them with 93 wins, instead.
Not so fast. You will notice that we’ve increased Gio’s innings by 10, Strasburg’s innings by 10, and Zimmermann’s innings by 5. That means we need to reduce relief pitcher innings accordingly. If we reduce Craig Stammen’s 110 innings to 95 innings (-6.6 runs allowed) and Zach Duke’s innings from 90 to 80 (-4.8 runs allowed), we actually end up saving about 2 runs. That keeps us steady at 94 wins for now. But how about the hitting?
Batters: Up.
The crude assumption built into the model was that every one of the starting position players got 600 plate appearances each. This is, of course, false. The ever-astute David Huzzard reminded me that the number of plate appearances varies with position in the batting order. Fortunately, Baseball Reference lets us look at exactly how many plate appearances, on average, each batting order position got in the National League in 2012. As you can see, the lead-off batter gets, on average 750 plate appearances–125% more than our model assumed! What does it look like?
Split | Pa |
---|---|
Batting 1st | 750 |
Batting 2nd | 732 |
Batting 3rd | 716 |
Batting 4th | 699 |
Batting 5th | 684 |
Batting 6th | 666 |
Batting 7th | 647 |
Batting 8th | 625 |
Batting 9th | 606 |
In fact, we see that in the NL, the only batting average position that gets even close to 600 plate appearances is the number 9 batter–which is usually the pitcher’s spot! Safe to say, then, that the model is broken as far as runs scored. To fix it, we need to figure out what the batting order is going to be and award plate appearances in proportion to that player’s spot in the batting order. To keep things consistent with our defensive statistics, we’ll assume that each “every day” position player appears in 150 games. With that in mind, let’s assign some plate appearances to a hypothetical order:
Player | PA |
---|---|
Denard Span | 695 |
Jayson Werth | 678 |
Bryce Harper | 663 |
Adam LaRoche | 647 |
Ryan Zimmerman | 633 |
Ian Desmond | 617 |
Danny Espinosa | 599 |
Wilson Ramos/Kurt Suzuki | 579 |
Pitchers | 561 |
That leaves us with some 453 plate appearances to distribute among the other bench players. Let’s assume, crudely, that we distribute them evenly among Tracy, Moore, Lombardozzi, and Bernadina, giving them 113 plate appearances each. Let’s also further assume that the “Pitchers” spots are evenly distributed among all the starting pitchers, giving each of the starting five 112 plate appearances each.
The results are shocking:
Player Name | 4-year total PA | 4-year total wRC | 4-yr moving avg wRC/PA | Projected PA | Projected wRC | Team Total wRC | |
Jayson Werth | 2803 | 425 | 0.151623260792009 | 678 | 102.80 | ||
Ryan Zimmerman | 2844 | 426 | 0.149789029535865 | 633 | 94.82 | ||
Tyler Moore | 171 | 26 | 0.152046783625731 | 113 | 17.18 | ||
Bryce Harper | 597 | 86 | 0.144053601340034 | 663 | 95.51 | ||
Adam LaRoche | 2622 | 361 | 0.13768115942029 | 647 | 89.08 | ||
Denard Span | 2671 | 334 | 0.125046798951703 | 695 | 86.91 | ||
Wilson Ramos | 613 | 76 | 0.123980424143556 | 290 | 35.95 | ||
Ian Desmond | 1849 | 214 | 0.115738236884803 | 617 | 71.41 | ||
Danny Espinosa | 1428 | 164 | 0.11484593837535 | 599 | 68.79 | ||
Roger Bernadina | 1150 | 121 | 0.105217391304348 | 113 | 11.89 | ||
Chad Tracy | 845 | 85 | 0.100591715976331 | 113 | 11.37 | ||
Kurt Suzuki | 2703 | 274 | 0.101368849426563 | 290 | 29.40 | ||
Steve Lombardozzi | 448 | 42 | 0.09375 | 113 | 10.59 | ||
Stephen Strasburg | 83 | 3 | 0.036144578313253 | 112 | 4.05 | ||
Drew Storen | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | ||
Dan Haren | 240 | 19 | 0.079166666666667 | 112 | 8.87 | ||
Craig Stammen | 90 | 3 | 0.033333333333333 | 30 | 1.00 | ||
Jordan Zimmermann | 166 | 4 | 0.024096385542169 | 112 | 2.70 | ||
Zach Duke | 226 | 1 | 0.004424778761062 | 0.00 | |||
Tyler Clippard | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | ||
Gio Gonzalez | 84 | -5 | -0.05952380952381 | 112 | -6.67 | ||
Ross Detwiler | 97 | -9 | -0.092783505154639 | 112 | -10.39 | ||
Ryan Mattheus | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | ||
Rafael Soriano | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | ||
Bill Bray | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | ||
725.252999244993 |
That’s a huge jump in runs scored, from 692 up to 725!
Putting it Together
Having adjusted our playing-time expectations somewhat, our revised projection has the 2013 Nats allowing 600 runs, while scoring 725 runs. Running that through the Pythagorean Win Expectation Formula gives us a revised win projection for the 2013 season of 98 wins, or four more than we had initially projected. The vast undercount of offensive plate appearances made a huge difference in terms of runs scored, and added two whole wins. The increase in starting pitching at the expense of middle relief yields two more wins.
There are a few caveats, of course. Naturally, this all assumes that every player involved will stay healthy all year, and that they all perform according to their four-year trailing average performances. A realignment of the batting order will affect runs scored in very real ways: this is particularly true in the case of Bryce Harper. The current line up puts two left-handed power hitters, Harper and LaRoche, back-to-back, which may be suboptimal in matchup situations. But moving Harper down in the order will deprive him of plate appearances and run-creating chances.
I have goosebumps just thinking about this.