2035 Omaha Hawks

[agrudez]

What did they do last year?
For the second year in a row, the Hawks won 82 games - this past year, unlike the one prior, this granted them a playoff berth where they managed to upset Yellow Springs before getting dismantled by Calgary in a clean sweep.

On offense, they were led clearly by the duo of Morales and Munoz (though much of his production came from 1B defense as opposed to offense) - the only bats that finished the year with 2 or more WAR (4.4 and 3.4 respectively). Combined, these two accounted for a staggering 75% of the team's WAR generated by the lineup.

Pitching wise, they were led by Barnard, Canales and Mtume whom were the only 3 pitchers to finish with 2 or more WAR (4.2, 2.6 and 2.4 respectively). Combined, these three accounted for 129.5% (yeah... you read that right!) of the team's WAR last year - reminding us all that Troy Downy (-1.5 WAR) and Joe Clements (-2.5 WAR) should not be pitching in the majors in 2035.

All in all, the team's net 17.6 WAR seems a bit low for an 82 win team. In fact, somewhat ironically, it is VERY close to what Huntsville posted last year (17.2 WAR) and they only won 65. Twin Cities (whom won 81 games in Omaha's very division) aggregated 35 WAR last year - a whopping 198.8% of Omaha's total. And now, I can hear the chants now... "WAR! *huhg* Bad math, y'all, what is it good for? Give me RIBBIES AND WINZ!" and, whatever, opinions are like holes (mine included), but I think - regardless of where you come down on the debate - it is very, VERY tough to discount as stark a disparity as that is. Because, after all, even the most fervent user of WAR (ie. me, I guess) only values it as a comparative stat - which is exactly how it was used here.

What did they lose in the offseason?
Moving past what I might think about the 2034 Hawks, let's now delve into the 2035 rendition.

In the offseason, they made 1 trade (losing Elston in the process), lost 1 in the Rule 5 (Piel) and lost two in the expansion draft (Sanchez and Aoki. Elston and Aoki are the best of that crop, but when push comes to shove I think they're a depth AAAA SP and RH platoon option, so not much in the way of loss there.

In addition, they also watched 5 players walk away in FA: McCoy, O'Andrews, Colbert, Sanchez and Robertson. Of that group, McCoy and Colbert are immediately forgettable and maybe addition by subtraction. O'Andrews is an interesting bullpen option ratings-wise, but he was the definition of replaceable last year. Sanchez posted a tremendous ERA, but it wasn't backed up by measures like FIP to expect a repeat next season and Robertson is a RH platoon option behind the plate. So, once again, not much spilled milk to cry over here.

Who greatly under performed or over performed in 2034?
For this measurement, we are going to be primarily looking at ERA-FIP for pitchers and oBABIP for hitters as a quick and dirty way to look at things.

In general, Omaha's pitching seemed to greatly benefit from ERAs lower than their FIP. In fact, as a staff as a whole for pitchers that met my min IP criteria for consideration, the team had a net -10.47 ERA-FIP. With 15 pitchers considered, that means they had, on average, ERAs .698 points lower than their FIP. While at first blush this is a pretty decisive indicator that the team was lucky defensively last year, it is worth it to at least take a quick peek at the position player defense the team enjoyed to see how much of a factor that may have played. That said, a cursory look shows that only 3 of the 8 defensive positions had an aggregate positive ZR for Omaha last season: 1B (a staggering +13), C (+2.7) and LF (+0.9). Their net ZR across all positions was +0.6 despite the absolutely absurd positive contribution from their 1B position. And, arguably most importantly, up the middle (2B, SS, CF), they posted a depressing -8.5 ZR aggregate. So... no, that does not appear as if they had a stellar defense to support their seismic ERA-FIP delta. The biggest benefactors on the staff of this were Chandler (-1.11), Spencer (-1.93), Sanchez (-1.52), Stoller (-2.22), Rin (-1.74) and Woods (-2.48) with only Stoller, Rin and Spencer remaining for next year (still, this is an examination of how the 2034 performance might relate to 2035 performance, so even those whom left are relevant in the discussion).

On offense, the narrative isn't quite as pronounced as on the pitching side; however, it is - mercifully - flipped, as the team generally appears as if they had a lower oBABIP than you might hope for. Of those whom met AB min requirements (18 candidates), the team's average oBABIP was .271 with some big names having considerably terrible showings in the stat, like Gulliver (.196), Pichon (.227), Lue (.234), Tremblett (.233) and Morales (.248). Of those, only Tremblett is no longer a Hawk - which bodes well for some rebounded offensive production next season in Omaha.

All in all, the fact that the team last season - with a seemingly below average defense - managed ERAs well over half a run lower than their FIP is much more "positive luck" than the team's oBABIP "bad luck". The team also benefitted from a +2 PYTH which isn't terribly pronounced; however, if you mark just over .500 as the prerequisite for playoff contention, that PYTH likely tipped a wildcard in their favor. To me, the 2034 Hawks were clearly not an 82 win team deserving of a playoff spot. How much further down they would have finished in a more Monte Carlo type simulation is some point of conjecture; however, I'm willing to toss out a guess of halfway between Huntsville (whom aggregated the same team WAR as them) and Twin Cities (who doubled them up) for a ~72 win team. The reason this is important is because it means, going into the preview for next year, I am already needing to see a 10 win improvement in acquisitions or dev to offer a playoff bound prediction.

What are they gaining in the offseason?
Okay, now we finally get past 2034 and start talking about 2035. In the offseason, Omaha picked up two in the Rule 5 (Adams and Vazquez) neither of whom I view as ML players. They also traded for Wilkins in a trade and signed two free agents: Santana and Velasquez.

In Wilkins, I see a strong acquisition that I believe can be a positive contributor as the strong side of a 3B platoon. If properly deployed, a 1-2 WAR season certainly seems in the cards for him to me - which will help considerably in replacing Tremblett whom posted 0.8 in 293 ABs last year despite being (as mentioned above) one of the more oBABIP unlucky of the Hawks last season. Santana is a solid pickup for a utility IF role and can even potentially play the strong side of a 2B/SS platoon if push came to shove. The last time he was given a role like this was in 2031 for MON when he posted 2 WAR with the same ratings. And last, but certainly not least, the addition of Velasquez is one that is really tough to argue with. Putting aside contract shenanigans, we're talking about - clearly, to me - one of the best closers in the league that has managed a fairly consistent ~2 WAR in that role for a long time now - and there is no reason to expect it not to continue in 2035.

All in all, Omaha - without a doubt - gained more than they lost this offseason. Though whether they gained enough to offset everything documented above is another matter. Of course, there is also the low hanging fruit of the addition by subtraction of dropping Joe Clements off at the next bus station with 20 dollars and a couple of Olive Garden coupons in his pocket. Of course, having said all of this, it might not even matter because there was a lot of flux mid-season for Omaha last year that might be skewing the analysis as it relates to being a predictive asset for 2035.

How do they look next year?
Rotation: Mtume-Barnard-Clulow-Stoller-?

Mtume, Barnard and Clulow are a very solid returning 1-3 punch - neither of which overly benefitted from the aforementioned team wide ERA-FIP conundrum - whom I expect to perform much as they did last season. For the #4 spot, Stoller was listed in that section; however, he was a young kid that barely pitched much last year (53.2 IP) so I wouldn't at all be surprised if his ERA stayed similar and FIP came down to better correlate with it. Honestly, this is a very good rotation with these 4 and as long as Clements (/shudder) isn't the #5 I think the rotation for Omaha will be a clear strength. To me, I see Wagner as the best option of what they currently have in the majors for ST. He clearly isn't exciting, but he won't be a huge negative like largely what they got in that slot last year. If he can cobble together a high 4 FIP and ~1 WAR that seems like a win.

Bullpen: Canales-Velasquez-Muirhead-Sanchez-Spencer-Rin

At the top, this bullpen is terrific. Canales might've pitched above his head a bit (imo), but he won the reliever of the year award last year so it's tough to knock him and Velazquez - as mentioned earlier - is a stud. Muirhead, as well, rounds out a very enviable top 3 - and a curiously heavy left-handed one, too. Behind them; however, things get a little rough. After mentioning how LH heavy the top 3 are (Muirhead and Velazquez both being Southpaws), the 'pen comes back with Spencer and Sanchez whom are both, imo, LOOGYs. Unrelated, but related, the last member, Rin, looks like a ROOGY, too. So, idk how that combination of pitchers can get deployed. Maybe you can piecemeal through a 6th/7th inning with Sanchez/Spencer/Rin alternating batters for handedness before getting to the big guns? I'm not sure how viable that is, but maybe that is the thought process. In general, I'd feel better if the Big Three had better stamina, but with 4-1-4 for Canales, Velazquez and Muirhead respectively I suspect that the rest of the 'pen can expect a pretty heavy workload - which at present does not play into Omaha's favor.

Infield v. RHP: C Wagner-1B Munoz-2B Morales-3B Wilkins-SS Monger

Defensively, other than Munoz (whom is absurdly good at 1B - for whatever that is worth) this is a pretty mediocre unit. In this era of SB-insanity, Wagner is a mediocre arm behind the plate. Morales is good at 2B, but really feels like he would be better at 3B. Wilkins won't embarrass himself at 3B, but won't impress, either. And Monger is going to be thoroughly underwhelming at SS. The hope, of course, is that they produce enough offensively to make up for the defense. In that regard, I can't imagine that Morales will disappoint and a repeat of his 4+ WAR season last year seems very achievable. I could see Munoz and Wilkins both flirting with a .750-.800 OPS in a platoon which is great for the latter, but not as much for the former when accounting for position. Wagner seems like he's a lock to repeat his steady ~700ish OPS, too. The big wildcard there is Monger - whom posted a .79 OPS in half a season of action last year on the back of a .32 BABIP. Personally, with some more dev I think an .800ish OPS is achievable for him as well - rounding out a pretty solid offensive infield. At the moment the team doesn't seem to be employing any platoons in ST despite my strong opinion that they should be using one at both 3B and 1B - nor do they have any viable RH candidates for those positions on the roster. That, to me, seems like pretty low hanging fruit that is being ignored.

Outfield vs. RHP: LF Barajas-Starks Jr.-RF Rojas-DH Olivarez

Currently the team has Olivarez in RF for ST, but I can't imagine that insanity will persist (ST is a great time to try and teach positional flexibility - I use it the same way, too). Once that swap is made (sending Rojas to one of the corner spots) then I actually really like this defense as a whole. Starks lost last season to an injury, but appears to be back to his old self and is, imo, one of the more exciting players in the entire league. I could easily see him leading the Hawks in WAR - even beyond Morales. In the corners, offensively, Barajas looks like a bankable .800 OPS and Rojas will be fine in a #8 slot, defense first type role while putting up a low .700 OPS. At the DH spot, I think the team would do well to work in Lue as a platoon mate with Olivarez and - if so - feel that an .800ish OPS combined from that duo is definitely achievable.

Okay... wrap this thing up - what's the prediction?
After looking at their fortunes in 2034, I came to the conclusion that this squad did not deserve their outcome last season. I wonder if Niles - or some others around the MBBA - might not even agree. That said, after looking at what they are bringing out in 2035, it is tough to not like this squad. Offensively they lack that one, true crushing hitter (with Morales being that closest); however, it's very feasible that they have can post an .800+ OPS all the way from 1-7 in the lineup (with 8-9 posting low .700s to boot) with some judicious use of platoons where needed. In the rotation, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they finished the year with 4 pitchers with <4 FIPs and multiple WAR on their resume and they might have one of the best trios in the bullpen in the league. On the adverse side, past their top bullpen arms are a ton of question marks, their infield defense leaves a bit to be desired and they currently don't have the personnel to pull off those judicious platoons we just discussed. That last sentence is painful, because every single one of those issues could have easily been fixed for cheap in FA - but weren't.

Still, at the end of the day, I think this team is vastly better than their 2034 selves and will not only make the playoffs again in 2035, but actually deserve it this time, too. They still more than likely will finish in 3rd in the Heartland, but the gap between them and YS/LOU will be considerably smaller than it was last year.

Prediction: 88 wins, 3rd in the Heartland, playoff appearance

[RonCo]

Well, lou isn't inthe division this year. I worry the hawks will be 1st.

[bigmike13]

nice write up

[niles08]

Very very nice write up! I enjoyed all the statistics and in depth analysis and as you mentioned several players are gone!

I agree I could have done some platooning but just didnt make any moves really in free agency and am essentially out of roster spots lol but free agency is by no means over so maybe I actually have offers in on a few guys already

I am also thinking I will probably start Mack at DH against righties rather than Gulliver or Olivarez.

I have Tyler Moore who I am unsure of what to do with lol.

I went into the offseason with plans to move Monger to 2B, Moralesto 3B and find a replacement SS but instead did none of that lol

[niles08]

I mean I technically have Gulliver who i plan to play against lefties at first.

[agrudez]

I mean I technically have Gulliver who i plan to play against lefties at first.

Really? He's a 1-1-1-1 as an infielder - that might be rough.

[niles08]

I mean I technically have Gulliver who i plan to play against lefties at first.

Really? He's a 1-1-1-1 as an infielder - that might be rough.

Yea it wouldn't be a permanent move but first base is arguably the easiest to play so if I had to play him there 6 innings to give him 2 at bats, and then sub him out I could if needed but Munoz is going to be given a chance to sort it out against lefties I think. That is unless a move is made rather quickly on one of the feelers I have had out there. Patrick Lue might also see some time at 1B against Lefties with Rojas taken the DH spot against left handed pitching.

Either way, I would be thrilled with 88 wins as it looks like the rebuild that has been my entire career in the BBA may be finally coming to an end.

[RonCo]

So... no, that does not appear as if they had a stellar defense to support their seismic ERA-FIP delta.

If my hot-of-the presses data from the game logs is right, in actual performance the Omaha defense was as high as third best in the league, making 52 plays better than average.

[agrudez]

You're going to have to describe what exactly you did there because the 5 word blurb sounds like you found out their total outs - strikeouts... and they were a below average strikeout team. I know some don't like ZR as much as I do, but for Omaha their poor ZR correlates very well with poor defensive ratings - I am confident in stating that they were objectively poor defensively last season.

[RonCo]

Something like this, only for all BIZ type (GB/FB/LD) and for every team individually: http://montybrewster.net/MBBA/phpBB3/vi ... 96#p135896

[RonCo]

I do not trust OOTP Zone Ratings, but--despite working with Matt and the dev team fairly closely to understand how they are being calculated--I'm not smart enough to say what's wrong with them in any definitive way. This is the main reason why I've been undertaking the process of this silly script--which is turning into a fairly intensive rabbit hole of work.

[RonCo]

There may or may not be an overview of some high-level findings in the Media Guide this year, however, and I might or might not have taken that "third best defense in the league" thing from it.

[agrudez]

I look forward to reading it - specifically your methodology. I look at that chart and the comment "making 52 plays better than average" and I still can't help but feel like all you're doing is confirming that they were a low strikeout pitching staff.

[RonCo]

I count "Average" based on the actual balls in play in any one zone.

Example:

Omaha's fielders had 55 opportunities to convert a ground ball in zone 6M to an out. They registered 51 outs (92.7%). The league average for that zone was 89.1%. So their conversion rate in that zone was 3.6% better than average. 3.6% of 55 opportunities is 1.98 more plays they converted to outs than the league average.

Do that for every zone in the field, and you get 52 plays better than average.

[niles08]

Glad to hear in some shape or form we at least were good at something lol...my defense REALLY struggled in center field last year after Starks went down and I had to continue to rotate people through because whoever got the call to start in CF ended up hurt.

[niles08]

With that being said...I would agree that we did not deserve to win 82 games...and the season before that even we didn't deserve it. We caught fire in August/September 2033 after being 20 games under .500 through then. In 2034, we caught fire again but then sputtered at the end and then caught fire again to win 8 in a row.

[RonCo]

So there is some influence of opportunity, but at best it accentuates the size of variance from average rather than the "better than" or "worse than."

By this measure, in raw percentage terms, the Omaha defense converted more BIZ into outs in the opportunity they had than an "average" defense would have.

The better question is sample size. We're talking 55 BIZ in this one zone. So it's a questionable number. But we're talking 1,948 ground balls in all infield zones (spread out over all defensive players), so it is what it is.

[RonCo]

To give away a small slice of the media guide article:

Omaha's defensive performance:

Ground Balls: 51 plays above league average
Fly Balls: 3.5 plays BELOW league average
Line Drives: 4.5 plays above league average

Total 52 plays

[RonCo]

If you have suggestions/ideas on making this a better measure I'm open to them. My goal here is to find a way to feed this back to the development team in a way that they can use.

Here, for a greater example, is the entire Omaha infield on ground balls to each zone. Look at shortstop as an interesting example...they're slightly below average in the home zone ("6") but mostly better than average in the more rangy zones (6D, 56D 6MD, 6M, 56M, 6S, 56S, 6MS)...of course the 56 zones are also the realm of the 3B.

2034-GB-Omaha.PNG (28.04 KiB) Viewed 565 times

[usnspecialist]

To give away a small slice of the media guide article:

Omaha's defensive performance:

Ground Balls: 51 plays above league average
Fly Balls: 3.5 plays BELOW league average
Line Drives: 4.5 plays above league average

Total 52 plays

interesting, cant wait to see this data broken down by team (selfishly because I know there were some polarizing thoughts on my team and their defensive performance).