Loading ...The 2009 CHONE projections are out. The Reds are predicted to go 82-80.
That’s a couple of projections I’ve seen that have the Reds hovering around .500. I’ll tell you now: I’ll take a .500 season in a heartbeat. I would consider that a fantastic success.
I can’t ever imagine, and hope I never can, considering .500 a fantastic success.
It appears in this projection, the Reds are getting at least a partial boost on the projected strength of the division.
Last year win totals, 2009 projection, difference
Cubs 97, 88, -9
Brewers 90, 81, -9
Cards 86, 83, -5
Stros 86, 72, -14
Reds 74, 82, +8
Pirates 67, 73, +6
23 fewer wins in the division.
The projection takes those wins and gives them to the Nationals (15 win improvement) and Padres (17 win improvement.)
This projection seems to be expecting greater league parity:
They have no team in the NL winning more than 88 games (4 teams did it last year) and only 1 NL team with 90 losses (5 teams had 90 or more last year.)
Five things here. 1) I’ll take the 82 wins
2) Bucs make 0 improvement 3) Astros won’t slide -14
4) 86 to 83 for St. L =3. that’s -21 for the division
and 5) I pray the Cubbies slide -14
Yeah, I had 88 2008 wins in my head for the Cardinals for some reason. But it was 86, 83, -3.
The Cubbies play in large part will depend on how often Bradley and Harden play. If they are both injured as often as they have been historically, the Cubs will slide back, perhaps double-digits in the win column.
I also think a large part of their projected decrease in wins is that they have many players who posted career years last year, especially career years in obp. I’d expect Theriot, Derosa, and Soriano to each have an obp projection lower than their 2008 actual.
I think the Cubs are the best team in the NL, and I think Bradley will have 400-500 kick-ass AB’s. (I wanted him here for LF!)
However, didn’t they trade DeRosa?
Everything you laid out above, Greg, just makes me think that this system is based, above all else, on regression to the mean.
Looks like they expect all good teams to get worse and all bad teams to get better.
i have a prediction:
the cubs may win 100 games, but they will not represent the nl in the world series because they are the cubs. and the cubs have sucked for 100 years, they suck now, and will continue to suck in the future.
i’d be happy with 82 wins. well, happy isn’t the word, exactly. but i would be ok with it. it’s progress, and it means the team will probably be playing meaningful games after the all-star break.
i think the cubs will win 93 games (and be swept in the first round of the playoffs).
i think the astros will challenge the bucs for last place this year and the reds will finish anywhere from 2nd to 4th depending on how bad the brewers pitching staff is and if the duct tape that has been holding together the cardinals’ staff the last few years finally falls apart.
Except Houston who went from good to worse.
Derosa…looks like he was traded. I’d expect a Fontenot/Miles platoon to be worse obp than Derosa (371 and 376 the past two seasons.)
I think Bradley will prove to be too injury prone.
In addition to Harden’s injury risk, if Dempster reverts to his mean, then the Cubs rotation is going to be in all kind of trouble. (I forgot about Dempster…the Cubs gave him a 4 yr/$52M deal this past offseason.)
Right now it seems like we have fewer injury risks at key positions than the rest of our division. Maybe we have a shot at this division…..ain’t February wonderful for excitement?
One of the major factors used in team performance from year to year is regression to the mean.
Gosh, I was just reading about this the other day, too, must have been on Bill James’s website….ah, found it….from writer Dave Fleming, who, in turn, was quoting from Bill James’s 1990 book “The Baseball Book of 1990″…
-Younger teams tend to improve. Older teams tend to decline.
-Teams that tend to decline one year will improve the next year.
-Teams that finish a year strongly tend to carry that success over.
-Losing teams tend to improve. Winning teams tend to decline.
-Teams whose minor league affiliates do well tend to improve.
-Bad luck doesn’t carry over: teams that underperform their Pythagorean W-L will seem to improve when their luck improves.
Their projections had six teams poised to surprise….
Texas Rangers
San Diego Padres
Kansas City Royals
Oakland A’s
Atlanta Braves
Colorado Rockies…
with the Rockies set for most improvement. Reds weren’t mentioned.
Now, if an improving team takes another step forward, it’s either the result of an important personnel improvement, or a young team on the way up.
As for injury risks….Gonzalez is a major risk, Hernandez is high risk, and Harang, Volquez, and Cueto are all at risk…Cordero may be, too.
Most hurtful comment I’ve read, though, was Baseball Prospectus discussing Willy Taveras…
paraphrased: after four years of starting in CF, the Rockies have realized that all Taveras can do is run….and having found no one who would take him in a trade, they nontendered him…only to have him sign one of the surprise contracts of the year with the Reds….who’ve forgotten what quality centerfield play was after spending a year with Corey Patterson in cf….
And, they tell us we have no money…
Steve – stop bringing up sore subjects!!!
Just weeks before Taveras was signed, the Rockies were trying to move him for any nondescript minor league player. Why the Reds signed him up for two years guaranteed contract, especially when you have Hopper, Stubbs, Dickerson, continues to irk me.