Turnaround City
Posted by John Autin on June 16, 2011
Last year, 3 teams lost 97 games or more: Pittsburgh, Seattle and Arizona.
This year, each of those teams has a winning record through June 15.
Here are the records of those teams last year ... this year (through June 15) ... and their projected win differential if they maintain their current pace:
- Pirates: 57-105 ... 34-33 ... +25 wins
- Mariners: 61-101 ... 35-34 ... +21 wins
- Diamondbacks: 65-97 ... 37-32 ... +22 wins
And here are the most valuable position player and pitcher for each team so far, based on Wins Above Replacement (WAR):
- Arizona: Miguel Montero, 2.1 WAR; Ian Kennedy, 2.5 WAR
- Pittsburgh: Andrew McCutchen, 3.8 WAR; Joel Hanrahan & Paul Maholm, 1.4 WAR
- Seattle: Adam Kennedy & Justin Smoak, 1.3 WAR; Michael Pineda, 2.4 WAR
Topics for discussion:
- Is it very unusual to have such a sharp improvement from the 3 worst teams (or the bottom 10%) in just one year?
- What are the main factors in the turnaround for each team?
- Which team has the best chance to finish above .500, or even [gasp!] in the postseason?
June 16th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
fascinating that hanrahan, the pirates closer, has as much WAR as maholm and more than any pirates starter not named maholm
June 16th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Topics for discussion:
1) Is it very unusual to have such a sharp improvement from the 3 worst teams (or the bottom 10%) in just one year?
For three teams to be doing it, I would say yes.
2) What are the main factors in the turnaround for each team?
I've said it before, the single most important off-season acquisition by any team was Kirk Gibson. The changes he's made on the roster and especially in the clubhouse are night and day.
That said, Gibson and his staff don't play, and the performance on the field is just a reflection of the changes and is borne more out of luck (and maybe some fear..LOL). In reality, the team isn't very good and unlikely to sustain this level of play much longer.
3) Which team has the best chance to finish above .500, or even [gasp!] in the postseason?
Seattle. Last year was a fluke.
Most likely to finish below .500 is Arizona
June 16th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Out in the western divisions, it may be possible to make the playoffs and still finish below .500 (but we're still way too early to make that prediction).
June 16th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Pirates pitching is dramatically better.
Didn't Arizona get a new hitting coach?
June 16th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
1. I am inclined to think so, although rosters can and sometimes do change significantly over the course of the baseball year (Although without looking I am not sure exactly how "different" these teams are player-wise from last year). Maturity and experience also play a role.
2. Chuck nailed number 2.
3. Pirates. Not sure if I believe that because they have been bad for so long, or if it is wishful thinking because I am a Cubs fan and we will likely finish in the cellar.
*Is it more common for poor teams to make a quick turnaround (like mentioned above) or for successful teams to drop off the map ('04 and '05 Dodgers, 93-69 to 71-91 respectively)
June 16th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Stan...
Yes..Don Baylor
June 16th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Reminds me of the Braves worst-to-first season in 1991.
June 16th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
@5: I think it is more common to fall (drop off the map). You only have a set window with your core guys and if you get a major injury or lose FAs (especially pitching) then it is very hard to maintain those 90 wins. Getting 90 wins is difficult.
However, if you stink, you are getting good draft picks and you only have up to go. I think it is easier to improve on a terrible record with experience, new players, etc. then to try and maintain excellence when your players only get older, you are getting poor draft picks, etc.
June 16th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
It's too early to take any of these teams seriously, as the Marlins have recently shown.
Speaking of them, I wouldn't mind a post dedicated to them as it seems (at least for a team that was at one time 29-19 this season) like they have to be on some sort of historic slump right now. 1-14 in their last 15 games, I believe.
June 16th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I'm inclined to think the Mariners have the best chance at finishing over .500 this year simply because their pitching has been excellent. If they can score 3 or more runs, they generally win.
I believe they are the last time to use just 5 starters this year and all have been excellent so far. The bullpen is also quite fresh and if you look at Pauley/Wright/Laffey/League...its quite impressive so far. We'll see if the pitching can keep it up.
June 16th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
McCutchen is on pace for an MVP-caliber season (extrapolate his WAR out to 162 games and you get 9.5). Of course, he won't win the MVP, because A) he plays for the Pirates, B) about 1/3 of his WAR is coming from the defensive side of the ball, and C) he's not dominant in any one traditional state. Still, a hell of a season for him, and one that is going quietly unnoticed in most circles (including my own).
June 16th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
The '91 Braves were +29, and the '91 Twins were +21, next highest that year was the Cards at +14.
From '92 to '93, the Phils were +27 and the Giants were +31 (but didn't make the playoffs), and the Mariners were +18 (also didn't make the playoffs). Keep in mind that expansion may have had something to do with this.
June 16th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
@11, BSK -- Good point on A.McCutchen. He opened my eyes a bit with his play against the Mets recently, especially on defense. (Although I try not to observe too much just by watching.)
McCutchen got off to a slow start (.219 BA in April), but over the last 6 weeks he's at .340 / .432 / .540.
June 16th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Four reasons why I think Arizona is for real as a .500 club:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ARI/2011.shtml
1) The bullpen is one of the few areas that can be improved quickly without spending a fortune, partly due to the volatile nature of reliever performance. Arizona’s 2010 bullpen was historically, soul-crushingly bad: 5.74 ERA, 1.62 WHIP. This year’s edition is at 3.69 and 1.32. The key imports were J.J. Putz, usually a stud when healthy, signed as a free agent; and David Hernandez, a former SP with a career 10.4 K/9 in the minors, acquired in the Mark Reynolds deal. Hernandez bombed in 27 starts with the O’s, but he pitched much better last year after shifting to relief, as often happens -- 10.9 K/9 and 3.2 K/BB ratio -- and has been effective this year.
2) Balance: Arizona is 20-15 at home and 17-17 away, outscoring their opponents in both splits. They have a winning record in both blowouts and 1-run games. Their regular lineup has no one with an OPS+ over 135, but 6 hitters at 117 or better and a 7th at 101. They’re 4th in the league in OBP, 1st in SLG.
3) Prime time: Their regulars are veteran but still young; none is older than 30 (Ryan Roberts) or younger than 23 (Justin Upton, with almost 500 games in the majors).
4) One-two punch in the rotation: Ian Kennedy continues to build on the strides he took last season; this year he has a 122 ERA+, almost 7 IP per start, and a signature game (a 3-hit shutout with no walks and 10 Ks against the Phillies). Kennedy was a 1st-round draft pick in 2006 and laid waste to the minors (1.95 ERA, almost 10 K/9 and a 3.5 K/BB ratio in about 250 IP), but wasn’t healthy in 2008-09. Daniel Hudson, plucked from the White Sox for Erratic Edwin Jackson, has a 133 ERA+ in 206 big-league innings and 30 starts, with good ratios. His ERA+ this year is just 104, but the underlying stats -- 23 walks, 81 Ks and 4 HRs in 92 IP -- suggest that number is headed north.
Arizona doesn’t have much depth in the rotation after those two and the surprising wild-card Josh Collmenter. If they don’t get any further help for the #4-5 spots, I think they’ll wind up around .500. But if they get a little lucky with a starter or two from somewhere, I think they’ll contend for the NL West in a weak year.
June 16th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
How likely is that Bedard will remain healthy? And how likely is it that Pineda will continue to pitch as well as he has? (I realize he has a fine pedigree, but some regression seems likely.)
And meanwhile that offense is still terrible, if not as historically bad as last year. One might hope Suzuki and Figgins will improve, but who knows...
***
Having watched Andrew McCutchen a bit during the pre-game at spring training this year, he seems like a cool character. I'm a fan. I figured Pedro Alvarez would have to break out as well for the Pirates to make a jump, but they're doing it without him so far. Hard to believe Jose Tabata is still just 22. Actually, the Pirates are getting a lot of value out of Yankee castoffs.
June 16th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Re: JA's discussion topic #3:
I think the Pirates actually have the best chance to finish above .500 (, but I think probably Seattle has a better chance to win their division and make the playoffs. The Pirates have almost 40% (37/95) of their games left against the Astros, Cubs, Dodgers, and Padres.
June 16th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
The 1914 season saw two big upturns by NL teams -- Braves +25 wins (69 to 94 and the pennant), Cards +30 wins (51 to 81) -- but none of 20+ wins in the AL.
June 16th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
About every 5 years a team goes from 97+ losses to a .500+ record. I found a couple of times when two teams did it. In 1985-86, the Indians went from 60-102 .370 to 84-78 .519 and the Rangers went from 62-99 .385 to 87-75 .537. In 1992-93, Seattle went from 64-98 .395 to 82-80 .506, and the Dodgers went from 63-99 .389 to 81-81 .500.
The Athletics have done it three times: 1946-47 in Philadelphia, 1967-68 straddling the move from Kansas City to Oakland, and 1979-80.
June 16th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
#10 "I'm inclined to think the Mariners have the best chance at finishing over .500 this year simply because their pitching has been excellent. If they can score 3 or more runs, they generally win."
Well, let's see. Here's the mariners record when they score they score a certain number of runs:
0 Runs: 0-3
1 Runs: 1-12
2 Runs: 2-9
3 Runs: 9-5
4 Runs: 6-3
5 Runs: 4-1
6 Runs: 2-1
7+ Runs: 11-0
They are 32-10 when they score 3 or more runs, which I think must be an excellent ratio. However, nearly 40% of their games (27/69) they score less than 3 runs, which is also a pretty big ratio. And they are 15-8 in games where they score 3 or 4 runs.
If they can score 5 or more, they are 17-2, which is great, but they score 5 or more a lot less than some other teams:
Seattle: 19 games (17-2)
Texas: 29 games (24-5)
Cleveland: 26 games (23-3)
Tampa: 26 games (21-5)
I chose Texas because that's who Seattle is chasing, Cleveland has a similar record and is also a surprise team and Tampa was the next lowest scoring AL team (Seattle is next to last) with a winning record. So, yeah, they do really well when they score 3 or more runs but I'm not sure they can do that often enough to stay in contention.
June 16th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
@8
"I think it is more common to fall (drop off the map).
However, if you stink, you are getting good draft picks and you only have up to go. I think it is easier to improve on a terrible record"
I think you got everything covered 🙂
June 17th, 2011 at 8:41 am
Last year the pirates were -279 runs. They actually out performed their pythagorean projection by 4 wins. In terms of improvement in run differential this has to be one of the greatest ever to this point in the season. Of course as somebody pointed out; it is easier to improve from being really lousy.
June 17th, 2011 at 10:33 am
We can credit Clint Hurdle all day long but guys like Walker, Tabata, and Alvarez were basically rookies and were bound to be better this year (ok, maybe not Alvarez). Also the turnaround of Charlie Morton from all-time terrible to quality starting pitcher has already been worth about 5 wins.
June 17th, 2011 at 10:34 am
@18, Gerry -- Good turnaround finds!
The big upturn by the 1986 Clevelanders famously prompted Sports Illustrated to pick them as division winners in '87. Instead, they finished last at 61-101. If I recall correctly, this was the impetus for Bill James's essay on the "Plexiglas Principle" -- teams that have a big swing from one year to the next tend to regress toward the mean in the 3rd year.
June 17th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I credit Clint Hurdle and Ray Searage for about 80% of the Pirates' turnaround this year. The pitching staff remains as the same cast of characters from the end of last year with the exception of Kevin Correia. Looking at the difference between 2010 and 2011 in terms of ERA+:
Paul Maholm 121 / 78 (+43)
Charlie Morton 118 / 53 (+65)
Jeff Karstens 142 / 81 (+61)
James McDonald 79 / 114 (-35)
So on a team that is largely the same as last year, how do you explain such a turnaround besides the coaches? I can guarantee that it isn't the addition of Matt Diaz or Lyle Overbay...
Do they have a shot at .500? Maybe. The cynic in me created over the last 18 years dampens the enthusiasm of the Pirates fan that's excited to watch every inning of every game again.