Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Schoenfield: Could the Dodgers win 110 games?
Just like the 2011 Red Sox were better than the '27 Yankees?
Silly assumptions give you silly results.
Beyond that the reliever WAR includes leverage index - except you can't give everyone high leverage innings next year even if they all pitch at their best rates.
Add it all up and we get 72.7 wins. Assuming a replacement-level standard of 50 wins, we’re talking 112 wins or so.
If every player on the team matches his best season from the last 3 years, measured by the stat site most favorable to him, how many wins does that get you? The Dodger's 110 might not even be the best out there. The average team under the same conditions would obviously come out way above 81 wins. Not sure if "average" would work out to 90, 95, or even 100.
I think we can safely pencil them in as a playoff team (using a "more likely than not" standard), but they will not win 110 games unless absolutely everything goes their way, including Matt Kemp remaining intact.
Really? I think they are on the list of 8 likely NL playoff teams (Nationals, Braves, Phillies, Cardinals, Brewers, Reds, Giants and Dodgers) I don't see anything that clearly separates any team from that group. Add in a surprise team or two, and I can see them not making the playoffs.
I think they are on the list of 8 likely NL playoff teams (Nationals, Braves, Phillies, Cardinals, Brewers, Reds, Giants and Dodgers) I don't see anything that clearly separates any team from that group. Add in a surprise team or two, and I can see them not making the playoffs.
No. My money's on 81 wins, and a 3rd place finish. And I'll really enjoy it, too.
Gee, put Jabbar, Chamberlain, and Russell on the same team, and you would score 125 pts a game and get every rebound! Oh wait, you can't add WAR or counting stats to assemble a team??
The Dodgers are now the team that America would most like to see fail. Congrats, Yanks -- you finally made it off the hot seat.
I would have guessed the Diamondbacks over the Phillies, and I think the Dodgers, Nationals and Cardinals are better than the others, but I agree they're all within striking distance of each other.
The Dodgers are about 20 titles short of that title. Not to mention they have Vin Scully and Magic Johnson, as opposed to Michael Kay and the family Steinbrenner.
That some of these career highs were in the last century and that Mo is unlikely to pitch 100 innings in a season again might suggest it's a bit unrealistic. :-)
If Cain, Posey, and Bumgarner get lost in the Bermuda triangle on their way to spring training the Dodgers would have an outside shot at 110.
Actually, though, the Red Sox ownership remains far more unlikeable than any of these guys
I actually flipped flopped between those two. I gave it to the Phillies since they are only a year removed from being very good.
playing as their 2005 selves:
Honestly, it would be awfully difficult to beat a team with Wilt, Jabbar, and Russell. I don't care if they played the same position, I wouldn't want to face all three at the same time.
War is not a good predictive stat anyway, as your point points out. Of course the article ended up using fWar for most of the pitchers, which ignores the defense that is going to be behind them.
I'd pin their over-under in the low 90s.
Speaking of fWAR and predictive value, anybody have a study showing whether fWAR is better than ERA+ wrt predicting a pitcher's future season?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.6202 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed