Official MLB Predictions Thread

[DeToxRox]

Here is my prediction .. the AL Central is going to end up being more pathetic then the NL West. Every Central team has glaring weaknesses, it's just sad.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Here is my prediction .. the AL Central is going to end up being more pathetic then the NL West. Every Central team has glaring weaknesses, it's just sad.

Twins have the same exact team as last year +Liriano - the early season injuries and they won 88 games. Cleveland should be much better as well with all their young talent and MOST importantly a reliable closer. White Sox will take a dive however.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by lungs

Nothing at all. I think the AL Central doesn't have a clear cut favorite. I see the Indians squeaking out the Central and when the playoffs roll around anything can happen.

A couple of years ago I picked the Rockies to win the NL and they did it, much in the same manner I'm picking the Indians here. I don't have any evidence to back my projection. So I'm basically pulling it out of my ass

The sportsbooks agree with you as they have the Indians favored to win the AL Central as well.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

The sportsbooks agree with you as they have the Indians favored to win the AL Central as well.

But probably not the World Series, like I do.

[AENeuman]

Ortiz MVP? No Manny, wrist problems....

I can see kansas city being this years rays

[Mr. Sparkle]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Ortiz MVP? No Manny, wrist problems....

I can see kansas city being this years rays

Not when they decide to roll out Sidney Ponson and Horacio Ramirez as their 4th and 5th starters. I like the Royals, but they're still a year or two off from being serious challengers, I think.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sparkle

Not when they decide to roll out Sidney Ponson and Horacio Ramirez as their 4th and 5th starters. I like the Royals, but they're still a year or two off from being serious challengers, I think.

Agree. Dayton Moore needs to figure how to not put complete shit around his solid core.

[molson]

This thread needs the baseballprospectus projected standings:

American League East
Yankees 99-63
Red Sox 95-67
Rays 94-68 814
Blue Jays 76-86
Orioles 75-87

American League Central
Indians 86-76
Tigers 80-82
White Sox 76-86
Twins 76-86
Royals 75-87

American League West
Athletics 84-78
Angels 81-81
Mariners 77-85
Rangers 70-92

National League East
Mets 92-70
Phillies 87-75
Braves 86-76
Nationals 77-85
Marlins 71-91

National League Central
Cubs 95-67
Brewers 84-78
Cardinals 83-79
Reds 79-83
Astros 69-93
Pirates 64-98

National League West
Dodgers 92-70
D'backs 88-74
Giants 76-86
Padres 72-90
Rockies 71-91

[lordscarlet]

Woo! 4th place!

[adubroff]

Here you go, for what it's worth:
AL East: Yankees
AL Central: Twins
AL West: A's
AL Wild Card: Red Sox
NL East: Phillies
NL Central: Cubs
NL West: Dodgers
NL Wildcard: Giants

AL MVP: Kevin Youklis
AL Cy: CC Sabathia
AL ROY: Elvis Andrus
NL MVP: Chase Utley
NL Cy: Tim Lincecum
NL ROY: Jordan Zimmerman

Random Prediction - Washington breaks .500. I think they were really banged up last year and still showed some pluck. I like their starting pitching, like the Dunn pickup, and I think Acta is a good manager.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by molson

This thread needs the baseballprospectus projected standings:

American League East
Yankees 99-63
Red Sox 95-67
Rays 94-68 814
Blue Jays 76-86
Orioles 75-87

American League Central
Indians 86-76
Tigers 80-82
White Sox 76-86
Twins 76-86
Royals 75-87

American League West
Athletics 84-78
Angels 81-81
Mariners 77-85
Rangers 70-92

National League East
Mets 92-70
Phillies 87-75
Braves 86-76
Nationals 77-85
Marlins 71-91

National League Central
Cubs 95-67
Brewers 84-78
Cardinals 83-79
Reds 79-83
Astros 69-93
Pirates 64-98

National League West
Dodgers 92-70
D'backs 88-74
Giants 76-86
Padres 72-90
Rockies 71-91

81-81? lmao...that ain't happening unless bp has gotten into the business of predicting injuries, too.

I can see the A's making a run at the Angels and making the division interesting, but there is too much talent on the Angels' roster to finish .500, especially playing so many games against the still pitching weak Rangers and the young Mariners.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

81-81? lmao...that ain't happening unless bp has gotten into the business of predicting injuries, too.

If I'm not mistaken, this does somewhat go into the equation. I know their player projections have a % attrition rate or something like that and that is what the projected standings are based off of.

Usually with these projections I figure the projected wins are a midpoint of what could happen and realistically any team could be +- 7-9 wins from the projections because nobody knows what happens during the season.

That said, I'd definitely agree with BP that the Angels could go many ways this season. They could win the AL West or they could be a big disappointment. I definitely don't believe they are as strong as in recent years. I picked the Rangers for the West. On paper they figure to be bottom feeders with the Mariners but it always seems like a bottom feeder on paper shoots up the standings to surprise and given a weak AL West, I think it's a division ripe for the picking by Texas or Seattle given some breakthroughs and good luck. Just a dumb hunch on my part that will probably turn out incorrectly.

[JetsIn06]

AL East: Red Sox
AL Central: Twins
AL West: Angels
AL Wild Card: Rays

NL East: Phillies
NL Central: Cubs
NL West: Diamondbacks
NL Wildcard: Dodgers

AL MVP: Grady Sizemore
AL Cy: C.C. Sabathia
AL ROY: Travis Snider

NL MVP: Chase Utley
NL Cy: Johan Santana
NL ROY: Cameron Maybin

AL Champs: Rays
NL Champs: Cubs

WS Winner: Rays

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

No one is going to say anything to Stevew about picking the Pirates to win the wildcard?

What you don't believe!?

They must be hard for even you to hate. They are so sorry, you should feel pity for them, and be happy you can always get tix for a Phillies game in a pretty damn nice park.

[DeToxRox]

In 2003, when the Tigs lost 119 games, I was at the Copa on a Thursday afternoon for a Pirates/Tigs game. No joke, the attendance MIGHT'VE cracked 2000.

Christ that season was a travesty.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by lungs

If I'm not mistaken, this does somewhat go into the equation. I know their player projections have a % attrition rate or something like that and that is what the projected standings are based off of.

Usually with these projections I figure the projected wins are a midpoint of what could happen and realistically any team could be +- 7-9 wins from the projections because nobody knows what happens during the season.

That said, I'd definitely agree with BP that the Angels could go many ways this season. They could win the AL West or they could be a big disappointment. I definitely don't believe they are as strong as in recent years. I picked the Rangers for the West. On paper they figure to be bottom feeders with the Mariners but it always seems like a bottom feeder on paper shoots up the standings to surprise and given a weak AL West, I think it's a division ripe for the picking by Texas or Seattle given some breakthroughs and good luck. Just a dumb hunch on my part that will probably turn out incorrectly.

You're entitled to your opinion, and you may even be right. That said, I don't think people picking against the Angels are really taking a close look at them. Just who did they lose that's going to spell doom for them? Teixeira? He wasn't even on the team until July 31, when the division was already well in the bag. K-Rod? Anyone following baseball threads here knows how I feel about that--the Angels will be fine in the pen, especially having brought on Fuentes. GA? Look, I love GA as much as the next guy, but who doesn't think either Juan Rivera or Bobby Abreu will end up with better numbers than GA this year? And we don't have just one of them, we have both.

This is a deep and talented team. Too many people have focused on the losses and not really concentrated on what's still here. If they did, they would realize how very deep this organization goes. Heralded potential starters and top prospects like Brandon Wood, Sean Rodriguez and Matt Brown (and Reggie Willits, who has been on the big squad two years running) are headed back to the minors, even though they have absolutely nothing to gain from more time at Salt Lake. If it weren't for some short term injuries in the rotation, Nick Adenhart would be joining them there as well. Gary Matthews, overpaid as he is, still has the ability to hit 20 homeruns, steal 20 bases, hit .280 or so, and play excellent defense--and he's not even their 4th outfielder. He barely made the team.

Mathis and Napoli combined to form perhaps the top offensive catcher tandem in the league last year. Howie Kendrick is spoken of in terms of "Gwynn", "Boggs", "Ichiro" when it comes to his quality of hitting. Kendry Morales, the long awaited heir apparent at 1B, has been ripping the cover off of the ball all spring. Figgins, Abreu, Hunter, Vlad, Rivera--these are all pretty much proven players.

The rotation, when healthy, features Lackey (definite #1 type in a contract year), Escobar (back shortly and pitching extremely well, Cy Young candidate two years ago), Saunders (one of top pitchers in league last year), Santana (another of top pitchers in league last year) and the much-maligned Weaver (pretty darn good for #5). Three of those guys are currently on the shelf, but only Santana is expected to not be back full before May 1.

The Angels always have a terrific pen, and outside of K-Rod, those guys are all back. Shields, Arredondo, Speier, Oliver, along with Jepsen, maybe Bulger, Fuentes of course, and eventually Mosely will be there when he's no longer needed to start.

Spring training is what it is (meaningless). That said, bad teams--even mediocre teams--do not go 26-8 in spring training.

Not everything above is going to pan out, and there will be injuries, of course, but that happens to everyone. The Angels are in a better position than anyone else in the division to recover from things like this, because they are so deep, they just fill a hole when it needs to be filled and move along. Plus, Scioscia is still one of the best managers around.

I am completely biased and I admit it. But I also know enough not to BS myself, and I know I ain't here. This is a good team--and it could very well win 100 games again this season.

[Chief Rum]

BTW, not that BP is biased or nothing, but they put a heavy emphasis on sabermetric projections, I believe, and everyone knows the Angels are the antithesis of that style of play. Sabermetric fans hate that the Angels still manage to win playing such an inefficient style of play, and the staff at BP is no different. Even if they approached it without bias, their formulae are biased against the Angels' style. Once again, not to say that invalidates anything, but it's definitely something I keep in mind when I see anyone post anything that involves the Angels from BP.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

BTW, not that BP is biased or nothing, but they put a heavy emphasis on sabermetric projections, I believe, and everyone knows the Angels are the antithesis of that style of play. Sabermetric fans hate that the Angels still manage to win playing such an inefficient style of play, and the staff at BP is no different. Even if they approached it without bias, their formulae are biased against the Angels' style. Once again, not to say that invalidates anything, but it's definitely something I keep in mind when I see anyone post anything that involves the Angels from BP.

That'd be all well and good if only it were true.

BP doesn't at all fault the Angels for their style of play. In fact they even talk about how they go about making an 'inefficient' (your word, not mine) style of play efficient.

Try reading it first. Sabermetrics are evolving. Reading my BP annual from 2009 is a lot different than reading even my 2005 version. That's the nice thing about sabermetrics. They are always finding ways to expand their knowledge and in many cases discrediting what they thought to be true.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by lungs

That'd be all well and good if only it were true.

BP doesn't at all fault the Angels for their style of play. In fact they even talk about how they go about making an 'inefficient' (your word, not mine) style of play efficient.

Try reading it first. Sabermetrics are evolving. Reading my BP annual from 2009 is a lot different than reading even my 2005 version. That's the nice thing about sabermetrics. They are always finding ways to expand their knowledge and in many cases discrediting what they thought to be true.

I admit I don't read BP or go there often, because I know what they base most of their stuff on (sabermetrics), and I have a longstanding belief that baseball is more than a math formula, and that people playing the game on the field aren't variables, but, people.

I would enjoy reading the BP annual if they are indeed evolving. But if they're saying the Angels' target this season is 81 wins, with +/- 7-9 wins on their win scale (meaning that the most they can win is 90 games), that tells me whatever way BP has evolved hasn't been enough. No way someone could look at this team and think that it maxes out at 90 wins, and that it's "likely" to be a .500 team.

[Ryche]

AL East - Boston
AL Central - Minnesota
AL West - Los Angeles
AL Wild Card - Tampa

NL East - New York
NL Central - St. Louis
NL West - Los Angeles
NL Wild Card - Chicago

World Series - Boston over St. Louis

AL MVP - Youkilis
AL Cy Young - Kevin Slowey
AL ROY - Wieters

NL MVP - Pujols
NL Cy Young - Santana
NL ROY - Jason Motte

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

AL Champs: Rays
NL Champs: Cubs

WS Winner: Rays

There's going to be mass suicides in Chicago if the Cubbies make it to the Series and lose to freakin' Tampa Bay.

[Atocep]

CR, I have absolutely nothing against the Angels, I think their success has been interesting and I think they'll win the division unless the A's young pitching comes through. BP has mentioned learning from both the Angels last year and the Diamondbacks in '07. Good statistical analysis isn't closed minded. Instead of poking holes in things that go against expectations it questions why it happened.

This Angels team, however, has a lot more questions than last year's team. Santana has an injury similar to Liriano's in '06 before he got rest and came back and snapped his elbow in his first start back. They may get most of the season out of him, but the odds are against it. Saunders is going to have kick his K rate up or he's looking at some steep regression. Escobar may be pitching well, but he's still coming off of shoulder surgery and is a question mark.

The offense was 10th in runs scored last year and lost Teixeira, who helped enormously when he was picked up. They need Kendrick, Wood, and Morales to actually start living up to the hype this year because Vlad and Hunter are declining. Matthews has hit .280 once in his career while never hitting 20 homers or stealing 20 bases so I wouldn't be counting on anything other than good defense and 5th outfielder type offense from him.

That isn't meant to completely shit on the team, as I said, I could see the team still winning the division. Its really just to show that its fairly easy to see why people could pick against them and give you more of the glass half empty viewpoint.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

CR, I have absolutely nothing against the Angels, I think their success has been interesting and I think they'll win the division unless the A's young pitching comes through. BP has mentioned learning from both the Angels last year and the Diamondbacks in '07. Good statistical analysis isn't closed minded. Instead of poking holes in things that go against expectations it questions why it happened.

This Angels team, however, has a lot more questions than last year's team. Santana has an injury similar to Liriano's in '06 before he got rest and came back and snapped his elbow in his first start back. They may get most of the season out of him, but the odds are against it. Saunders is going to have kick his K rate up or he's looking at some steep regression. Escobar may be pitching well, but he's still coming off of shoulder surgery and is a question mark.

The offense was 10th in runs scored last year and lost Teixeira, who helped enormously when he was picked up. They need Kendrick, Wood, and Morales to actually start living up to the hype this year because Vlad and Hunter are declining. Matthews has hit .280 once in his career while never hitting 20 homers or stealing 20 bases so I wouldn't be counting on anything other than good defense and 5th outfielder type offense from him.

That isn't meant to completely shit on the team, as I said, I could see the team still winning the division. Its really just to show that its fairly easy to see why people could pick against them and give you more of the glass half empty viewpoint.

Agree completely with all this, Atocep. I'm not saying the Angels are a cinch lock for jack squat. But I do think there is protection in the sheer number of quality players they have. Sure, plenty of things could happen to these players, but when an organization is as deep as it is, it offers a buffer against injury and poor performance.

This team has entered a season with a lot more questions and more potential issues ('02, '04 and '07 all immediately come to mind) and always won. Outside of an aberrant '03, this team hasn't won less than 89 games in a season since 2002.

Works the other way, too. They entered '03 with almost no questions (returning just about everyone from the championship team) and only won 77 games. That said, '03 has clearly become the exception to the rule.

I don't have any issues with anyone doing exactly what you're doing, seeing these potential issues and picking the A's (who I think will be solid this year, although will falter in the long run because of the dependence on young pitching).

My problem is with a site/organization that is known to rely on formulae for its predictive analysis punching in all that the Angels have and coming up with 81 wins. People can have qualitative opinions, and that is fine, but when an analysis purports to quantitatively put the Angels at .500, that just goes against everything I am reading and seeing and hearing about this Angels team this year.

The fact alone that their number comes in at 8 wins less than the Angels have even won in a season only once in 7 seasons calls this into question. Following the team as closely as I do, and knowing the day to day goings-on of the team and what's happening in camp and everything, and being a long-seasoned watcher of the Angels for decades now, I find it difficult to believe that this team is even capable of being .500, short of a monumental run of injuries and the assumption that the front office does absolutely nothing to address them.

[Izulde]

I think the White Sox have a realistic shot at winning the AL Central.

Of course, the AL East will send two teams, so the Central and West need to win their division if they want to go postseasoning.

[Terps]

My only prediction is that Matt Wieters will win the Rookie Of The Year.

[kingfc22]

Giants win 86 games and stay in contention. Starting pitching carries them all season and Zito finds his niche as the #4 starter finishing 14-8.

Lincecum wins 21 and K's 224

[adubroff]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

The fact alone that their number comes in at 8 wins less than the Angels have even won in a season only once in 7 seasons calls this into question. Following the team as closely as I do, and knowing the day to day goings-on of the team and what's happening in camp and everything, and being a long-seasoned watcher of the Angels for decades now, I find it difficult to believe that this team is even capable of being .500, short of a monumental run of injuries and the assumption that the front office does absolutely nothing to address them.

Four teams did this just last year:

Oakland : 75 wins, 2nd worse season since 2000 was 88 wins
Seattle: 61 wins, 2nd worse season had been 69 wins
Washington/Montreal: 59 wins, 2nd worse season since 2000 had been 67 wins
Atlanta: 72 wins: 2nd worse season since 2000 was 84 wins. Atlanta's streak actually started in 1995.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by adubroff

Four teams did this just last year:

Oakland : 75 wins, 2nd worse season since 2000 was 88 wins
Seattle: 61 wins, 2nd worse season had been 69 wins
Washington/Montreal: 59 wins, 2nd worse season since 2000 had been 67 wins
Atlanta: 72 wins: 2nd worse season since 2000 was 84 wins. Atlanta's streak actually started in 1995.

Interesting, you quote me, but it's DeTox's name at the top. How you do that?

As for your examples, there are pretty clear reasons for all of them.

The A's: Traded Haren in the offseason, and then Harden and Blanton in midseason. Even still, they were on their way to being within 8 wins of their 2007 season but gave up because they knew they couldn't catch the Angels or the wildcard (hence trading Blanton and Harden).

The M's: This has a ton more to do with the M's over-achieving 2007 season than their '08 season which was a statistical return to norm. The M's by run differential were actually not very good in '07, but they managed to win 90+ tight games. Unlike the M's, the Angels' "statistical norm" is over 90 wins.

Washington/Montreal: What is the consistency in their performance? They are consistently running out MLB periphery players and young prospects. That sort of team lends itself to constant variation in its results (but all bad).

Atlanta: Had a lot of injuries, pitching depth issues and traded away their best player at midseason (Teixeira).

Sorry, but none of the above situations are remotely applicable to the Angels' situation. You're going to have to go back further than 2007-08 to find anything comparable to what is being predicted by BP.

[Chief Rum]

In retrospect, I think you were talking more than just from 2007 to 2008, adubroff, so sorry for misreading that. That said, I still think there are clear reasons these situations aren't comparable.

The A's have been consistently losing players for several years. 2008 was when the boom finally happened (combined with them throwing the towel in in early July). When you depend on so many kids and injury-prone players, this is what happens.

The M's season last year was atrociously bad, and much worse than they usually are, but I am finding it hard to make this comparable to the Angels. The M's aren't usually a division-winning team. They have had some very good teams, and also some pretty mediocre teams in the past decade. Their results have been a bit all over the board. I do know that last year was very much related to the regression to norm of many of their players from what was very much an overachieving 2007.

Like the M's, the Nats are a hard fit to make as comparable, because they have been fairly bad for a while now. Such teams can see a lot of movement if they happen to have a couple prospects in key spots do well, or they find a waiver-wire level vet who contributes far more than expected. Plus, the records of teams like that is much predicated on the relative strength of their division, which can vary a lot from year to year.

The Braves are the closest approximation, I think, given their long history of success. That said, this is not something not seen coming. The Braves have lost a lot of guys over recent years who played very well for them (if not always well elsewhere), guys like Maddux, Glavine (for a year), Jones (before he really stunk), Furcal, Marcus Giles (before he disappeared), Sheffield, Renteria, Javy Lopez, etc. etc. The Braves put a premium on returning to a more economically viable model a few years back, and never really went in for big ticket free agents. So that put the onus on their farm system. That system continues to produce some pretty solid hitters (Saltamacchia, LaRoche, McCann, Kelly Johnson, Francoeur, sure there are others), but it has been extremely hit and miss with pitching. The Braves were kinda like the A's in that respect, having to rely too much on kids after having vets for so long, and some key injuries and pitching depth issues (and some under performances), led to their fall last year. It could have happened in 2007 or this year or next year, but it was bound to happen at some point. The Angels don't have that same sort of situation--they still have their vets and they have organizational depth and a willingness to spend money that the Braves don't.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Eh, what the heck
AL East - Rays
AL Central - Twins
AL West - A's
AL Wild Card - Yankees

NL East - Phillies
NL Central - Cubs
NL West - Dodgers
NL Wildcard - D'backs

AL Champs - Rays
NL Champs - Dodgers
WS Champs - Rays

Surprise occurrence not in those picks: Royals finish 3rd in the AL Central
2010 pick in advance: After winning the WS, Tampa will miss the playoffs entirely

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I admit I don't read BP or go there often, because I know what they base most of their stuff on (sabermetrics), and I have a longstanding belief that baseball is more than a math formula, and that people playing the game on the field aren't variables, but, people.

I would enjoy reading the BP annual if they are indeed evolving. But if they're saying the Angels' target this season is 81 wins, with +/- 7-9 wins on their win scale (meaning that the most they can win is 90 games), that tells me whatever way BP has evolved hasn't been enough. No way someone could look at this team and think that it maxes out at 90 wins, and that it's "likely" to be a .500 team.

Just for the record the +/- 7-9 wins from the projection is completely my creation, and has nothing to do with BP.

FWIW, BP's PECOTA system projects the Angels to win 81 games and finish in second place but in the writeup in the book it does call the Angels the team to beat because the other teams in the division have even more questions than the Angels.

I think the problem is that people take these projections to be gospel. BP doesn't act as if they are absolute truth either. Why would they contradict their own system by calling the Angels the favorite in the division? PECOTA is used as a baseline, but computers can only do so much and they certainly don't act as if they don't even need to play the games. One feather in the hat of PECOTA from last year was the prediction that the Rays will win 88 games. These projections are worthwhile if only the person reading them understands the context that they are made. It goes both ways between statheads and the anti-statheads. Both sides take them too literally.

Personally, I'd probably put the midpoint of the Angels at about 85-86 wins with the upside being about 93-95 wins and the downside being 77-79. So much can happen throughout the course of the season that you could pretty much throw the projections out.... the first game of the season. That's what they play the games for.

[adubroff]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

In retrospect, I think you were talking more than just from 2007 to 2008, adubroff, so sorry for misreading that. That said, I still think there are clear reasons these situations aren't comparable.

Your original quote was:

The fact alone that their number comes in at 8 wins less than the Angels have even won in a season only once in 7 seasons calls this into question.

I simply looked at 2008 for teams which dropped 8 or more wins from their second worse season since 2000. There were 4. The Yankees, who are not short on resources came very close to fitting your definition as well. It's not terribly unusual for a team to have a bad year off a series of good years, usually age is the primary cause (and I think that's where BP is looking at the Angels harshly....Abreu, Figgins, Guerrero, Hunter are all old enough that the usual expectation is that this season will be worse than last).

One of the things which I think would worry me a bit if I were an Angel fan is that even if they are as deep as you think they are, there's a fairly good chance that it's going to take them a while to sort some of this out. For instance, it's not unrealistic to me for someone to suggest that one of the many bullpen options may be close to as good as KRod has been, but it's optimistic to me to guess that it's going to be the first one they pick.

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Eh, what the heck
AL East - Rays
AL Central - Twins
AL West - A's
AL Wild Card - Yankees

NL East - Phillies
NL Central - Cubs
NL West - Dodgers
NL Wildcard - D'backs

AL Champs - Rays
NL Champs - Dodgers
WS Champs - Rays

Surprise occurrence not in those picks: Royals finish 3rd in the AL Central
2010 pick in advance: After winning the WS, Tampa will miss the playoffs entirely

Out of curiosity, what makes you think the Rays will miss the playoffs in '10?

Edit: JIMG...to clarify my question, do you think that it's because they will regress as a team or because the Yanks and Sox will be better teams and that they'll still be in a tough AL East race?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I think the White Sox have a realistic shot at winning the AL Central.

Of course, the AL East will send two teams, so the Central and West need to win their division if they want to go postseasoning.

Hell, everyone in the Central has a chance of winning, tho some have better chances than others.

SI

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by adubroff

Here you go, for what it's worth:
AL East: Yankees
AL Central: Twins
AL West: A's
AL Wild Card: Red Sox
NL East: Phillies
NL Central: Cubs
NL West: Dodgers
NL Wildcard: Giants

AL MVP: Kevin Youklis
AL Cy: CC Sabathia
AL ROY: Elvis Andrus
NL MVP: Chase Utley
NL Cy: Tim Lincecum
NL ROY: Jordan Zimmerman

Random Prediction - Washington breaks .500. I think they were really banged up last year and still showed some pluck. I like their starting pitching, like the Dunn pickup, and I think Acta is a good manager.

I like this guy.

I was disappointed that when I went to the exhibition game on Saturday that Zimmerman wasn't pitching -- I'm looking forward to seeing him. They're keeping him in Syracuse until April 19 because they can work a 4 man rotation based on the schedule for the first week or two.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

Edit: JIMG...to clarify my question, do you think that it's because they will regress as a team or because the Yanks and Sox will be better teams and that they'll still be in a tough AL East race?

Regression, player loss, off years from complacency, etc. Just a combination of things.