Why the Guardians will win over 100 games this year

[Benway]

Oscar promoted. Straw benched. Amed traded, Gimenez to short, Freeman 2B.
McKenzie miracle recovery. Bell resurgence.
Kwan starts hitting HR.
58-19 incoming!

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

Oscar promoted. Straw benched. Amed traded, Gimenez to short, Freeman 2B.
McKenzie miracle recovery. Bell resurgence.
Kwan starts hitting HR.
58-19 incoming!

We don't need Kwan to hit home runs or Freeman replacing Amed, but the part about Oscar being promoted, Straw being benched, Bell getting back to producing like he did for Washington last year, and McKenzie getting back into the rotation is what it would take.

I would also mention that they need Kwan and Gimenez to hit like they did last season starting next weekend. And Bo to contribute a little something as opposed to the negative production we got from Zunino and are getting from Gallagher.

What is encouraging is the Guardians have lost 16 games by one run, so just a small increase in offense could result in winning a lot more games. If the Guardians had won just half of those one-run losses they'd be 53-36, which projects to 96 wins over a full season. We've lost five games in extra innings.

I'd say the inability of Zunino to provide any offense whatsoever and the extremely slow start by Josh Bell have been the biggest culprits, along with the implosion of Oscar Gonzalez. Kwan and Gimenez regressing didn't help, either, but who'd have thought we would get next to nothing in the first half from Zunino, Bell, and Oscar? Not to mention the original starting rotation being available to start less than 50% of the games in the first half.

Fangraphs has the following WAR figures so far:

Bell 0.0
Zunino 0.0
Gonzalez -0.6
Karinchak -0.4

Karinchak and Oscar were key contributors last year who were not injured but just lost their ability to produce for some reason. The pitch clock and illigal substance checks may have screwed up Karinchak but he should have been able to adjust. The injuries to McKenzie and Quantrill also had an impact.

It's amazing we're actually in first place despite everything that has gone wrong.

 

[Alabuckeye]

Our margin for error is so slim.

Clase has been solid but has blown twice as many saves already as last year.
get back half of those and we’re 6 games over .500.
Quantrill has Not been nails like last year. Nor McKenzie due to injury.

I agree…it’s amazing that we are where we are at considering what hasn't gone right this year.

 

[macbdog]

This thread aged about as well as Carlos Baerga.

 

[Benway]

Look, 55-17 will require a few miracles, ok?
Not the least of which will require Bieber rebounding and not getting traded and Bo Naylor going completely crazy on the AL.

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

55-17 is obviously out of the question; nobody is going to do that. OK, maybe Atlanta.

We've lost too much ground. Getting nothing in the first half from Oscar and Zunino and almost nothing from Bell meant a ton of missing offense at three every day positions. Combine that with lower production from Kwan and Gimenez and Rosario's normal slow start and that's six positions where the offense has been lower or way lower than expected. That doesn't even count Straw.

Only two every day players, Naylor and Jose, have produced up to expectations in the first half.

Throw in Clase not being as reliable, Karinchak blowing up and getting sent down, Plesac melting down, Bieber no longer pitching at an All-Star level, McKenzie pitching just 10 innings so far, Quantrill's ERA doubling and then him getting hurt, and Civale missing a month, and it's a miracle this team is in first place.

If you had told me before the season that at this point Bieber would be 5-6, Clase would already have more blown saves than last year, Karinchak would be demoted to Columbus, McKenzie would make only two starts, Plesac would be released with a 7.59 ERA, Civale would miss a month, and Quantrill would have a 6.45 ERA and go on IL twice, I'd say we were 10 games under .500, even if the offense was the same as last year.

It really is astonishing that we are still competing for the division, much less leading it.

So is the glass half empty or half full?

I'm optimistic Bo Naylor will provide more offense (and defense) than Zunino did before he was cut (super low bar). I'm optimistic that Rosario, Bell, Gimenez, and maybe Kwan will be more productive in the second half than the first. I'm optimistic that they will bring back Oscar and he'll be more productive than Arias (.187 BA and 50 K's).

I'm hopeful, but not optimistic, that we can get something from McKenzie and Quantrill, but I suspect they're both done for the year. I'm hopeful that Karinchak can make his way back at some point and that Clase finds that ideal arm slot that they're saying he lost.

I'm optimistic the Guardians will be a better team in the second half. They always seem to be since Tito has been here. 55-17 won't happen but 40-32 is realistic with good health and more offensive production from catcher, DH, shortstop, second base, and right field.

 

[PIP]

Definitely don’t see it happening

 

[petes999]

But, here is the thing .... we have THE hardest schedule for our division coming up. We haven't really even played most of the serious contenders in Texas, Atlanta, Dodgers, Toronto or Tampa. Luckily, we basically knocked out Det, Sox and KC already and just have to worry about Twins.

From Tankathon SOS (unfortunately, it doesn't paste well.
We are 15th with .503 remaining SOS. Twins have easiest at .466

Our Hardest - Rays - 6, Balt - 4, Dodgers - 3, Texas - 6, Houston - 3, Jays - 7 (28 games)
Twins Hardest - Rays - 3, Arizona - 3, Texas - 7, Reds - 4, Phillies - 3, Milwaukee - 2 (22 games and it includes 2 NL Central teams)

Our Easiest - KC - 6, WSox - 7, Det - 7, Pitt -3, Angels - 4 and Twins 6 (our 6th easiest opponent)
Their Easiest - Oakland - 6, KC - 3, Col - 3, WSox -7, Card - 3, Det - 6 (our 3rd easiest)

We can still win the division but as I said a week or two ago, we needed to be up at this point as it is not just going to be a Central cake-walk.

 

[PIP]

I think the G's top out at 73 wins and lose the division by 1 game.

Tough pill to swallow after all that hard work during the season.

 

[Alabuckeye]

Two flawed teams duking it out to a level of exhaustion. Injuries...who gets hot and who doesn’t…it should be exciting, if only in a macabre sort of death match way.

 

[Anglefan]

But, here is the thing .... we have THE hardest schedule for our division coming up. We haven't really even played most of the serious contenders in Texas, Atlanta, Dodgers, Toronto or Tampa. Luckily, we basically knocked out Det, Sox and KC already and just have to worry about Twins.

From Tankathon SOS (unfortunately, it doesn't paste well.
We are 15th with .503 remaining SOS. Twins have easiest at .466

Our Hardest - Rays - 6, Balt - 4, Dodgers - 3, Texas - 6, Houston - 3, Jays - 7 (28 games)
Twins Hardest - Rays - 3, Arizona - 3, Texas - 7, Reds - 4, Phillies - 3, Milwaukee - 2 (22 games and it includes 2 NL Central teams)

Our Easiest - KC - 6, WSox - 7, Det - 7, Pitt -3, Angels - 4 and Twins 6 (our 6th easiest opponent)
Their Easiest - Oakland - 6, KC - 3, Col - 3, WSox -7, Card - 3, Det - 6 (our 3rd easiest)

We can still win the division but as I said a week or two ago, we needed to be up at this point as it is not just going to be a Central cake-walk.

Schedule strength isn't as relevant in baseball as football and basketball IMO due to the high day to day performance and injury variance, as well as the huge month to month swings that we see all over. You can't predict HOW the good or bad teams will be playing when they roll into each series. You could catch the A's on another win streak or the Dodgers in one of their dud periods. Sure you'd rather be playing worse teams vs better teams. You wouldn't have wanted to catch the Reds over the past month, but they aren't likely to be as tough in the second half. Texas was a monster the first two months, but have cooled significantly. Same with the Rays.

I guess the jist of what I'm trying to say is that there's so much luck and random chance involved that it's only marginally predictive to look at the schedule going forward based on records up to this point. It matters when you catch each team

 

[xmasbuck]

speaking of schedules - now that mlb has changed the schedule so that al and nl central division teams cant make the playoffs by beating up on other bad central division teams (outside of winning the division) i wonder if they will move to change division makeups as part of any expansion that may occur in the next few years

 

[daddywags]

Schedule strength isn't as relevant in baseball as football and basketball IMO due to the high day to day performance and injury variance, as well as the huge month to month swings that we see all over. You can't predict HOW the good or bad teams will be playing when they roll into each series. You could catch the A's on another win streak or the Dodgers in one of their dud periods. Sure you'd rather be playing worse teams vs better teams. You wouldn't have wanted to catch the Reds over the past month, but they aren't likely to be as tough in the second half. Texas was a monster the first two months, but have cooled significantly. Same with the Rays.

I guess the jist of what I'm trying to say is that there's so much luck and random chance involved that it's only marginally predictive to look at the schedule going forward based on records up to this point. It matters when you catch each team

That's true. It's also timing in that, in any 3 game series, you can see their best two pitchers or miss one or both of them. Same goes for our best pitchers.

 

[petes999]

Schedule strength isn't as relevant in baseball as football and basketball IMO due to the high day to day performance and injury variance, as well as the huge month to month swings that we see all over. You can't predict HOW the good or bad teams will be playing when they roll into each series. You could catch the A's on another win streak or the Dodgers in one of their dud periods. Sure you'd rather be playing worse teams vs better teams. You wouldn't have wanted to catch the Reds over the past month, but they aren't likely to be as tough in the second half. Texas was a monster the first two months, but have cooled significantly. Same with the Rays.

I guess the jist of what I'm trying to say is that there's so much luck and random chance involved that it's only marginally predictive to look at the schedule going forward based on records up to this point. It matters when you catch each team

But, all your arguments also holds for the NFL ... cold starts by teams who don't emphasize ST. You have injuries as well. You even have the final game bye week. In NBA, you have rest games for superstars even if discouraged. In the NFL, you also have the blizzard bowls that favor running teams.The thing with MLB is that there are more games (law of large numbers) so things even out and it comes down to who is better/worse more than 16 game NFL.

 

[Anglefan]

There are similarities, but the difference is how much more luck based baseball is on a game to game basis, there is much more variance, which is why baseball needs to play so many more games to ensure the best teams rise to the top. My point is, the SOS data being used isn't as predictive as we may think due to how incredibly heavy the variance is.