Try as we might to make predictions, there is a lot of uncertainty when it comes to sports analysis. That's the case whether you're a traditional scout who relies on experience and the eye test or a data-drunk 21st-century front-office disrupter, or even a hardworking scribe. The trick is to mitigate that uncertainty and avoid the temptation to channel the overconfident Nostradamus when you're sharing your observations.
For all we still don't know about sports, there is one thing of which we can be certain: It's zero-sum. For every game, there is a winner and a loser. For every point (or run) scored, there is one allowed. Every transaction, no matter how small, changes the outlook for every team in the league, if only a little bit. That's one of the greatest challenges in making sense of things in a sport, even one as meticulously documented as Major League Baseball is at the close of the 2010s.
On Thursday, we ran a rankings piece addressing the question of whether the addition of Anthony Rendon to the team with Mike Trout has given the Angels the best one-two punch in baseball. To get at the issue, I created some rough projections for the respective win values of each player for the 2020 season. (The specifics of the method are included in that piece.) We're going to put those data to some other uses here.
At the time this was written, 125 players had latched on to a team with which they did not finish the 2019 season. That accounts for all trades and free-agent signings to date. One way to think about every one of these players is a transfer of wins. When Gerrit Cole signed with the Yankees, bringing with him his forecast win value of 8.6, that was a gain for the Yankees and a loss for the Astros, his 2019 team. There have been 125 of these transfers, though few of that magnitude.
With that in mind, let's run through 10 questions based on an aggregation of win transfers.
1. Which teams have improved the most?
Before I answer this, a caveat: Although I might refer to a team as profiling as, say, a 72.7-win team based on the transfers of wins to date, don't mistake that for an ironclad projection. The depth charts are rough, for one thing, and arriving at a good estimate for playing time for each player in each possible role is a big part of forecasting. Also, we're working with transfers of talent, not the loss of it or even the addition of it.
Players who were in the majors last year but won't be in 2020, because they've retired or signed overseas or something else, show up as wins lost in these numbers, but they aren't wins that will be recovered by anyone. Because there are a large number of wins still out there on the free-agent market that eventually will be associated with a team, that's a lot of production currently in limbo.
Finally, to address the question of wins being introduced to the talent pool, players who will debut in 2020 aren't accounted for here. So if you're a White Sox fan and don't like a number mentioned in conjunction with the team, keep in mind that Luis Robert and Nick Madrigal, among others, play no role in this exercise. We're looking at transfers of wins, not formal projections.
With that out of the way, here are the five teams that have seen the largest net gains from wins transferred thus far in the offseason: Angels (10.0), Reds (5.2), White Sox (4.9), Marlins (4.9) and Padres (3.8).
The Angels made one of the offseason's biggest splashes with their signing of Rendon, but they also bolstered the depth of their rotation by adding Dylan Bundy from the Orioles via trade and reportedly signing Braves free agent Julio Teheran. They added a serviceable reliever with some upside via the waiver wire in former Cardinal Mike Mayers. On the loss side of the ledger, the major subtractions have been Kole Calhoun (still a free agent) and Zack Cozart. The L.A. roster still needs work, but it has been a good winter so far.
Also, give it up for the Marlins: In an effort to add some credible veterans to their position player group, Miami brought in once-productive performers Jesus Aguilar, Jonathan Villar and Matt Kemp. It's better than doing nothing.
2. Which teams have gotten worse?
The five biggest net losers thus far, from bad to worse: Mariners (-4.0), Giants (-4.2), Rays (-5.0), Astros (-5.9) and Nationals (-8.6). That the two bottom-feeders are the reigning pennant winners is not unusual. Contenders add short-term help to bolster their rosters for the postseason, then let those temps go after it's over. Fans of those teams should be more concerned with the remaining cores than with players who have walked after one-year deals.
That said, it's hard to look at these figures and not see a Cole-sized hole in the Astros' offseason and a Rendon-sized void for Washington. Both teams project to contend for postseason berths in 2020, but both of the combatants in the World Series have lost largely irreplaceable players.
Also, though Washington scored a major coup in persuading Stephen Strasburg to re-sign with the team, that does not count as a transfer of wins. The Nats had Strasburg at the close of 2019 and still have him. Same thing with the re-signings of Howie Kendrick and Yan Gomes. So far, Washington and St. Louis are the only teams that have not added any wins from outside their 2019 talent pools. (The Cards' signing of Korean pitcher Kwang-Hyun Kim doesn't count in these numbers because he wasn't in the big league win pool for 2019.)
3. Which teams have gained the most?
This is different from the label "improved" in this way: It's who has added the most wins, full stop, without accounting for wins lost. The top five: Brewers (23.1), Angels (17.0), Padres (16.5), White Sox (11.4) and Rangers (10.5).
Ah, the Brewers. It has been a very active and interesting offseason so far for Milwaukee, one that continued Thursday with the reported signings of Justin Smoak and Eric Sogard. Here is the rundown of players who fall under the gain column for Milwaukee, and this doesn't account for the signing of intriguing starter Josh Lindblom out of Korea: Sogard, Eric Lauer, Brett Anderson, Avisail Garcia, Omar Narvaez, Ronny Rodriguez, Smoak, Luis Urias, Eric Yardley, Ryon Healy, Jake Faria and Keon Broxton.
4. Which teams have lost the most?
As with No. 3, this is simply an accounting of players who finished 2019 with a team but are no longer in the organization. This includes free agents still waiting to sign, so the total of wins subtracted to date is quite a bit larger than the total of wins added. The top five is topped by a familiar club: Brewers (35.2), Nationals (24.3), Astros (22.9), Rays (22.6) and Braves (21.2).
Those are all 2019 playoff clubs, which, as mentioned, should not be a surprise, given the flow of talent from also-rans to contenders that occurs over the course of every season. But when you look back at the list of gainers, only Milwaukee shows up in both places. The Brewers' roster churn has been far more aggressive than that of the other 2019 playoff teams. For that matter, it has been more aggressive than that of any other team in the majors.
To be a completist, here's the list of players Milwaukee has lost thus far in the offseason, though some of these names could end up back with the Brewers by the time spring training arrives: Yasmani Grandal, Mike Moustakas, Eric Thames, Zach Davies, Jordan Lyles, Gio Gonzalez, Chase Anderson, Trent Grisham, Drew Pomeranz, Jeremy Jeffress, Junior Guerra, Tyler Austin, Jake Petricka, Matt Albers, Jay Jackson, Jimmy Nelson, Alex Wilson, Hernan Perez, Tyler Saladino and Travis Shaw.
5. Which teams have been the most active?
The Brewers! You no doubt picked up on that by now. All told, there are 32 names on the two lists of Milwaukee win transfers (see above). In terms of total wins transferred, whether gains or losses, here are the five most active teams of the winter: Brewers (58.4), Padres (34.1), Braves (30.4), Phillies (29.9) and Rays (27.3).
6. How many wins are still out there?
This number will almost certainly have changed by the time you read this, but as of this writing, there were 234.2 wins on the market. That's a pretty fair number. Here's the All-Star team of remaining free agents, with their forecast win values, and it isn't bad:
1B: Edwin Encarnacion (5.0)
2B: Cesar Hernandez (3.2)
SS: Jose Iglesias (3.1)
3B: Josh Donaldson (6.5)
C: Robinson Chirinos (2.8)
LF: Marcell Ozuna (5.1)
CF: Kevin Pillar (1.9)
RF: Nicholas Castellanos (6.0)
SP: Hyun-Jin Ryu (6.9)
RP: Will Harris (1.8)
7. How has the outlook between divisions changed? What about leagues?
There has been no change between the leagues so far. The average AL team has a win value of 81.5 versus 80.5 for the NL, exactly the same as it was when the season ended. As for the divisions, here's the net average change for each one:
NL West: +1.0
AL Central: +0.9
NL Central: +0.4
AL West: no change
AL East: -0.9
NL East: -1.4
8. Which divisions look the most changed?
Glance back at the previous question. There has been no change thus far in the average win value among the five teams in the AL West. That number doesn't tell you much about what -- by that metric -- was baseball's best division in 2019 and projects to be the same next season.
Based on season-ending rosters, here's how these (very rough!) win forecasts would look for the division: Astros 102.1, Athletics 93.5, Angels 78.8, Rangers 74.1 and Mariners 73.2.
After a couple of months of wheeling and dealing, here's where we are: Astros 96.1, Athletics 90.1, Angels 88.9, Rangers 77.7 and Mariners 69.9.
Again, the AL West is exactly as good as it was last season. But the dynamic within the division has changed a great deal -- for the better. That's going to be a fun race in 2020, especially since we know the Angels and Rangers are still big-game hunting in the hot stove league.
9. What are the most glaring holes to be filled?
Well, I don't want to get into specific positions because, as mentioned, my depth charts are still pretty rough. Let's keep it to position groups: infields, outfields, catchers, starters and relievers. A little of this listing is subjective because for me, the loaded term "glaring" refers to possible contenders who have obvious needs to be addressed. Rebuilding clubs are evaluated by different criteria.
Here are my top five roster holes, with the respective unit rankings:
1. Twins' infield (14th): Minnesota doesn't really have a first baseman.
2. White Sox's rotation (24th): If Chicago is going to make a leap, it can't rely solely on the upside of the young starters it has in-house. With the top couple of free-agent starting pitcher tiers almost empty, the Sox have to turn to the trade market.
3. Angels' rotation (22nd): The L.A. front office can't give Joe Maddon too many options in this area.
4. Cubs' outfield (28th): If the Cubs can't get their payroll/roster pipeline unclogged, the White Sox will pass them sooner than later.
5. Rangers' infield (29th): After missing on Rendon, Texas needs to get creative. The time is right for a splashy trade, given the opening of the new ballpark. Plus, the Rangers have a nice group of starting pitchers for once, so they have that as a foundation.
10. Which are the most improved position groups?
Here are the three most improved units in terms of net wins gained for each position group, with the key addition noted:
INFIELD
1. Angels (9.1, Anthony Rendon)
2. Marlins (5.6, Jonathan Villar)
3. Phillies (5.1, Didi Gregorius)
CATCHER
1. White Sox (5.1, Yasmani Grandal)
2. Tigers (2.0, Austin Romine)
3. Braves (1.9, Travis d'Arnaud)
OUTFIELD
1. Padres (5.7, Tommy Pham)
2. Brewers (4.0, Avisail Garcia)
3. Mets (2.2, Jake Marisnick)
STARTERS
1. Rangers (11.8, Corey Kluber)
2. Yankees (9.8, Gerrit Cole)
3. Angels (5.7, Julio Teheran)
RELIEVERS
1. Dodgers (2.4, Blake Treinen)
2. Braves (1.2, Will Smith)
3. Twins (1.2, Blaine Hardy)
Extra innings
1. Here are a couple of residual notes about the aforementioned piece on rating teammate tandems. First, here are three high-profile tandems that did not crack my top 10 but were "asked" about, with their rankings:
No. 13: Anthony Rizzo and Kris Bryant, Cubs (harmonic win value: 5.476)
No. 15: Jose Ramirez and Francisco Lindor, Indians (HWV: 5.314)
No. 17: J.T. Realmuto and Bryce Harper, Phillies (HWV: 5.113)
Also, as I noted in the analysis, I tried to create an opening for reliever combos by rating the tandems on a per-500-opportunity basis. Alas, no relievers climbed near the top 10. But there were some highly rated fireman combos:
No. 20: Roberto Osuna and Ryan Pressly, Astros (HWV: 5.048)
No. 21: Aroldis Chapman and Adam Ottavino, Yankees (HWV: 4.978)
No. 26: Liam Hendriks and Yusmeiro Petit, Athletics (HWV: 4.677)
2. There have been some good numbers-based pieces put out lately about the three-batter-minimum rule that, we assume, will be in effect for 2020. Here's one from Ben Clemens at FanGraphs, which makes a cogent point: It really isn't going to be a big deal. Like the automatic intentional walk, it's going to feel like change for change's sake.
There will be moments, however, when it'll come to the forefront in a way the auto-walk never will. Let's say you're facing the Brewers with two runners on in a tight game, two outs and lefty-hitting Christian Yelich due up. Hitting behind him is Ryan Braun. Your best reliever against lefties is a southpaw with a pronounced platoon split. Do you bring him in to face Yelich (who is really good against lefties) in hopes of getting to the end of the inning, at which time you can change pitchers? The risk is that you might be forced to leave said lefty in to face Braun if Yelich reaches.
Well, it's a question of strategy. And that's what I don't get about naysayers of the new rule, like Maddon, who decry its impact on strategy. There will still be strategy; it'll just be different strategy. The moves teams and players make have always been built around whatever the rules were at the time the decisions were made. That won't change. Strategy is the weakest argument against implementation of the new policy.
3. The hard-working folks at Sports Info Solutions have begun to roll out some new methodology for how they calculate defensive runs saved for infielders. The process, first introduced publicly during spring training before the 2019 season, attempts to separate the various facets of infield defense: positioning (a function of team, not player, per the method), range, throwing and proficiency on balls hit into the air.
The effect is pronounced. The old numbers, which remain up at stat sites such as FanGraphs and Baseball Reference, have Oakland's human vacuum, Matt Chapman, ranked ninth among all defenders in 2019, with 18 defensive runs saved. Per the new method, Chapman bolts into the top overall spot with a startling figure of 34 defensive runs saved.
Is the change an improvement? We'll see. The more granular data are potentially invaluable, but only if they reflect reality. Sports Info Solutions has posted data going back to 2013, so we can start the process of testing it in a variety of ways to see how the discrete elements correlate from one season to the next and for players changing teams.
The problem with public-facing defensive metrics continues to be that they are built of data inferior to what teams use to build their run-prevention models. Sample size is always an issue. That makes understanding and evaluating that aspect of the game problematic, even though we have exponentially more data than ever. When we get to the point that we can take individual defensive data and roll it up into team forecasts for fielding that are as reliable as what we have for hitting and pitching, then we'll know we're most of the way there. Hopefully this will be another step in that direction.