Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

[BlueJayPower]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

Weighted runs created isn't park adjusted. They play in the Rogers Centre. wRC+ adjusts for that. They're likely between the 3rd and 7th? best offenses. Probably the best in the division. Not the best in the league.

Sorry they're tied for second in wRC+ (I missed the +). But you should know that; it was your link!

[AC]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

Sorry they're tied for second in wRC+ (I missed the +). But you should know that; it was your link!

Lol everyone from 2-5 is at 107.

[BlueJayPower]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

Lol everyone from 2-5 is at 107.

Right that's what I meant when I said they were tied for second. And again I don't have the stats but I think they've missed more time due to injuries (to offensive players) than all of those teams around and ahead of them.

[AC]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

Right that's what I meant when I said they were tied for second. And again I don't have the stats but I think they've missed more time due to injuries (to offensive players) than all of those teams around and ahead of them.

This happens every year. Strongly doubt it's luck.

[BlueJayPower]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

This happens every year. Strongly doubt it's luck.

I can't say whether it is or isn't luck. All I said was that they probably have the bet lineup "when healthy".

[AC]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

Yeah, I know, but that doesn't mean a ton if it's unlikely to be healthy.

I'd think closer to 5-7 offense, still best in the ALE.

[wwharton]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

Even if that were true (which it isn't IMO, and stats would back me up in that), not sure why you would think it does not carry weight with the current discussion, when it is DIRECTLY RELATED to the current discussion.

How can stats back up what would happen if everyone is healthy?

You can try to put together projections of what the Orioles offensive production would be with a full healthy year of Weiters, Hardy and Machado (if we're only talking offense) if you want, but none will have much weight behind them. They'd have to be using games where 2 of the 3 played hurt or basically extended spring training in season, and would likely be using the other (Weiters) one's stats from before this year bc he was on pace for a historic season before going down... of course he wasn't going to reach those numbers, regression to the mean and all, but that furthers the point about how stats can't be adjusted to account for injury to make the claim you're trying to make.

And that's just the Orioles. There are other teams in the Majors who, if everyone is healthy, would likely also have better lineups. The thread is about if the division is mediocre. The only reason that has been a discussion is because of how injuries have effected many of the teams in the division. So therefore, saying how any of the teams would be 100% healthy doesn't hold much weight... even if you type it in all caps.

[AC]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

Yeah, I don't agree with the "if everyone was healthy" thing either. I think durability can be a skill. I'd look at what has actually happened, injuries or not. Jays are slightly ahead. And with Reyes/Melky/Bautista/Edwin/Lawrie and co, is that really unreasonable?

[BlueJayPower]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

How can stats back up what would happen if everyone is healthy?

You can try to put together projections of what the Orioles offensive production would be with a full healthy year of Weiters, Hardy and Machado (if we're only talking offense) if you want, but none will have much weight behind them. They'd have to be using games where 2 of the 3 played hurt or basically extended spring training in season, and would likely be using the other (Weiters) one's stats from before this year bc he was on pace for a historic season before going down... of course he wasn't going to reach those numbers, regression to the mean and all, but that furthers the point about how stats can't be adjusted to account for injury to make the claim you're trying to make.

And that's just the Orioles. There are other teams in the Majors who, if everyone is healthy, would likely also have better lineups. The thread is about if the division is mediocre. The only reason that has been a discussion is because of how injuries have effected many of the teams in the division. So therefore, saying how any of the teams would be 100% healthy doesn't hold much weight... even if you type it in all caps.

I wasn't going to break this down at first, but I can't help it after reading several of your unbelievable posts.

A) Stats CAN back up how good a team is when everyone is healthy. There are a TON of stats that can be averaged out among team starters and yes using three year weighted averages give you an excellent estimation of what would have likely happened given that the sample size is large enough (which it is).

B) Taking Wieters, Machado and Hardy's projections actually WOULD hold weight, which of course is a negative for your argument. Wieters "historic season" of an .837 OPS - try not to laugh if you're reading this kids - was cut short after 26 games. Nowhere is that in the hemisphere of a significant sample. Wieters, who can only really hit lefties, has a career OPS of less than .750 OPS. Machado also has less than .750 OPS for his career. Hardy missed a about a week, but I guess that COULD have been the week he was going to bat .1000 with 16 homeruns LOL. Btw, he ALSO has a less than .750 career OPS!

C) What other teams, if healthy, would have had better lineups?

D) I know what the thread is for, and nowhere in the title does it say "because of injuries" so your point makes no sense.

E) I didn't write it in all caps.

[BlueJayPower]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

Yeah, I don't agree with the "if everyone was healthy" thing either. I think durability can be a skill. I'd look at what has actually happened, injuries or not. Jays are slightly ahead. And with Reyes/Melky/Bautista/Edwin/Lawrie and co, is that really unreasonable?

Durability is absolutely not a skill

[AC]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

Durability is absolutely not a skill

Same players miss the time every year. Sure, there are flukey injuries. There are also flukey home runs. Doesn't mean that home runs aren't a skill.

[BlueJayPower]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

Same players miss the time every year. Sure, there are flukey injuries. There are also flukey home runs. Doesn't mean that home runs aren't a skill.

Lol ok. I can't continue this argument. Let's just agree to disagree. All the best to you man.

[wwharton]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

I wasn't going to break this down at first, but I can't help it after reading several of your unbelievable posts.

Seriously, get off your high horse. If my posts are "unbelievable" to you, simply explain why and keep it moving. Clearly I disagree with you, but I don't need to add any exaggerations on it to make it more known.

A) Stats CAN back up how good a team is when everyone is healthy. There are a TON of stats that can be averaged out among team starters and yes using three year weighted averages give you an excellent estimation of what would have likely happened given that the sample size is large enough (which it is).

B) Taking Wieters, Machado and Hardy's projections actually WOULD hold weight, which of course is a negative for your argument. Wieters "historic season" of an .837 OPS - try not to laugh if you're reading this kids - was cut short after 26 games. Nowhere is that in the hemisphere of a significant sample. Wieters, who can only really hit lefties, has a career OPS of less than .750 OPS. Machado also has less than .750 OPS for his career. Hardy missed a about a week, but I guess that COULD have been the week he was going to bat .1000 with 16 homeruns LOL. Btw, he ALSO has a less than .750 career OPS!

Weiters projected to be a high average and power hitter. He obviously has been slow to develop to that projection (and some, including myself, would say those projections were overblown) but no one would throw a red flag if he ended up hitting .290 with 30 HRs this year (numbers I just made up, of course). Those mythical stats incorporate a decline from his hot start and would still be an outlier to your 3 year average.

Machado is a 22 year old who's been in the majors for less than 2 full years. His first full year he lead the majors with 51 doubles (went down with the knee injury so can't even say that was a FULL year). It'd be silly to average his "career" stats bc of a) sample size and b) potential.

Hardy may have been on the DL for a week but he played hurt for some time (partially bc Manny was out early in the season), and now has a thumb injury that he played with until sitting the last couple of games. Healthy enough to play is not 100% healthy.

There could be similar detailed break downs for the Jays. This isn't about one homer's opinion on his team's potential vs another's. I'm simply stating that stats can't accurately say where these lineups would be with everyone 100% healthy. Stats are great for many things... this is not one of them.

C) What other teams, if healthy, would have had better lineups?

It's hard to say off the top of my head. I'd put the Nats up there. Maybe the Cards, I don't know.

D) I know what the thread is for, and nowhere in the title does it say "because of injuries" so your point makes no sense.

You said, "The Jays probably have the best lineup in the majors when healthy though".

So, to phrase my reply a different way, if everyone in the AL East was healthy, the division wouldn't be considered mediocre as most, if not all of the teams would have been better.

E) I didn't write it in all caps.

Again, your quote, "when it is DIRECTLY RELATED to the current discussion."

those are all caps ^

[AC]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

This is probably exhibit A on not how to use projections. They eliminate bias and give you the average predicted outcome. What people ignore are the error bars and range of projections. You could add up Machado's RoS 3 fWAR, Wieters' RoS 3 fWAR, and everyone else's, and you could think, "that's what would have happened," but really, that's just the mean projected outcome. Those 3 wins could realistically range from 1.5 to 6.

How projections are calculated (some, at least) is a **** TON of simulations are ran and the average outcome is tabulated. Projections are not 'what will happen.' Projections are 'the most often occurring outcome based on a series of simulations.'

[BlueJayPower]

Re: Is the AL East really "mediocre"?

You'd be surprised how most actual projections are. You can plug in whatever stats Matt Wieters could have had and what he was projected for. You can also claim that Hardy has been injured and all that. It still doesn't change the fact that Wieters hasn't done anything significant in the majors aside from a 26 game sample in which he was just good not great. Hardy playing injured, ok, but he's traded more base hits for home runs. His OPS isn't far off his career norms. Nitpicking a "51 doubles" stat is reaching for sure. I can also say he has .313 career OBP in and .747 OPS over more than 1200 plate appearances, and he's been consistent since he started. His number haven't shown improvement, and aren't anything special from a 3B!

Of course we can only guess what could have been. But those guesses are educated. What we know is that the Blue Jays have a better collective team offense than the Orioles and almost every other team in the majors. It's in the stats! On top of that they've had major contributor on the DL for significant lengths of time. Reyes, Lind, Encarnacion, Rasmus, Lawrie. The guys you mentioned don't compare offensively to the first three guys on my list; only the last two.

Again, nowhere in this thread's title does it say "the AL East is mediocre because of injuries". You're not making sense man!