Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Friday, December 02, 2005

2006 ZiPS Projections - New York Mets


Name           P   AVG   OBP   SPC   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS
Delgado*        1b .287 .398 .535 143 508 81 146 37 1 29 107 81 129 0 0
Wright         3b .312 .393 .520 161 583 107 182 32 1 29 113 74 99 29 7
Floyd*        lf .267 .359 .482 136 490 68 131 25 1 26 83 62 95 10 3
Beltran#        cf .275 .360 .458 156 607 90 167 34 4 23 90 79 100 25 11
Nady           rf .282 .344 .475 125 400 60 113 21 1 18 65 33 71 2 2
Diaz           rf .286 .338 .486 146 535 82 153 25 2 26 87 40 137 10 6
Daubach*        1b .249 .356 .442 122 382 58 95 26 0 16 61 61 110 1 0
Mientkiewicz*    1b .272 .369 .397 137 448 48 122 33 1 7 48 66 59 2 3
Self*          1b .262 .357 .376 128 412 62 108 24 1 7 45 60 97 3 3
Matsui#        ss .270 .339 .385 115 441 55 119 26 2 7 49 42 87 8 2
Piazza         c   .239 .328 .411 113 394 37 94 20 0 16 57 52 63 0 1
Cordero         1b .255 .333 .395 103 329 35 84 16 0 10 46 37 67 1 1
Castro         c   .233 .314 .424 80 172 20 40 12 0 7 28 21 47 1 0
Nye           3b .269 .336 .380 121 413 45 111 24 2 6 46 39 77 3 3
Keppinger       2b .294 .342 .367 110 412 58 121 17 2 3 40 29 25 7 5
Reyes#        ss .281 .311 .400 137 590 91 166 19 15 7 64 26 68 59 11
Lambin#        2b .256 .319 .414 121 403 56 103 26 1 12 51 36 96 4 4
Milledge       cf .285 .331 .394 104 383 72 109 21 0 7 42 22 86 19 11
Redman*        cf .282 .326 .372 147 486 58 137 19 5 5 50 31 42 13 7
Valent*        rf .237 .328 .367 131 401 49 95 23 1 9 45 54 87 0 1
Woodward       ss .261 .323 .387 87 261 28 68 14 2 5 29 23 57 3 3
Harper*        1b .233 .289 .434 116 403 55 94 16 1 21 65 30 138 0 1
Brazell*        1b .257 .289 .412 127 495 58 127 21 1 18 66 19 108 2 1
Cairo         2b .262 .314 .352 107 321 30 84 18 1 3 28 18 36 9 3
Calloway*      lf .246 .316 .360 114 378 44 93 20 1 7 39 37 80 9 7
Basak         ss .239 .309 .370 124 427 58 102 23 3 9 46 40 107 13 9
Bacani         2b .249 .331 .338 104 293 33 73 15 1 3 29 31 59 7 8
Baldiris       3b .249 .310 .334 135 485 61 121 20 3 5 44 38 79 5 3
Hernandez#      ss .268 .307 .343 134 507 68 136 15 4 5 44 26 111 26 11
DiFelice       c   .213 .287 .346 82 263 21 56 14 0 7 31 24 58 1 1
Santiago       c   .238 .279 .357 93 328 33 78 14 2 7 40 18 58 1 2
Pagan#        cf .250 .306 .335 130 508 69 127 16 6 5 44 40 111 22 16
Awfulman#      2b .208 .313 .306 84 173 18 36 9 1 2 16 27 29 2 3
Hall*          cf .229 .316 .306 103 327 39 75 12 2 3 26 39 81 14 10
Gil           ss .227 .273 .320 64 194 19 44 9 0 3 19 10 54 2 3
Lydon         cf .228 .290 .283 133 508 66 116 12 5 2 37 41 111 33 20
Hietpas         c   .187 .268 .269 92 283 22 53 14 0 3 23 25 78 1 1
Urinal Ice       rf .204 .237 .309 100 265 30 54 12 2 4 25 10 50 6 5

Name           W   L   ERA   G GS   INN   H   ER HR   BB   K
Wagner*          5   1   2.54 70   0   71.0   51   20   6   19   82
Martinez         16   7   3.20 31 31   211.0 175   75 19   53 206
Padilla         5   3   3.52 62   1   92.0   85   36   8   26   63
Takatsu         4   3   3.60 50   0   50.0   42   20   6   21   45
Moreno           4   3   3.78 41   0   50.0   43   21   3   20   46
Looper           5   4   3.82 73   0   73.0   74   31   6   22   45
Bell           3   2   3.86 55   0   70.0   63   30   7   23   69
Koo*            0   0   4.00 35   0   27.0   25   12   2   14   22
Glavine*        13 12   4.13 33 33   205.0 213   94 17   67   98
Heilman         7   6   4.18 42 19   140.0 129   65 11   64 116
Fortunato         5   4   4.19 51   2   73.0   58   34   8   43   83
Seo           10 10   4.21 32 31   188.0 193   88 22   49 125
Hernandez         5   6   4.36 66   0   64.0   60   31   7   33   51
Benson         10 10   4.37 28 28   173.0 175   84 19   53 104
Bannister         9   9   4.38 27 27   156.0 160   76 17   45 113
The Run Fairy*    2   3   4.50 54   0   56.0   54   28   5   26   33
Trachsel         10 12   4.50 29 29   182.0 206   91 23   68   99
Hamulack*        4   4   4.50 51   0   56.0   53   28   5   30   46
Zambrano         9 10   4.53 30 27   165.0 152   83 14   94 122
Keppel           3   5   4.69 13 12   71.0   79   37   8   18   31
McGinley         4   7   4.81 44   2   88.0   91   47 16   24   69
Graves           2   3   5.00 54   0   54.0   62   30   9   17   29
Colyer*          2   3   5.02 52   0   52.0   46   29   5   38   49
Ishii*          6 11   5.05 26 25   139.0 131   78 15   87   91
Yates           4   8   5.07 36   8   71.0   66   40   7   44   58
Humber           3   6   5.23 15 15   74.0   86   43 11   20   41
Lindstrom         4   7   5.29 31 19   114.0 126   67 16   44   66
Perisho*        3   5   5.33 56   2   49.0   47   29   6   28   38
Junge           5 10   5.37 26 19   119.0 128   71 20   47   79
Ring*          2   4   5.43 49   0   53.0   54   32   7   28   38
Santiago         4 10   5.49 38 11   105.0 125   64 12   41   44
Lee             2   5   5.70 51   0   60.0   60   38   9   37   46
Strayhorn         1   7   7.36 36   0   44.0   51   36 10   30   27
Hill           1   4   7.42 31   0   40.0   39   33   6   39   31

Disclaimer:  ZiPS projections are computer-based projections of performance. 
Performances have not been allocated to predicted playing time in the majors -
many of the players listed above are unlikely to play in the majors at all in 2006. 
ZiPS is projecting equivalent production - a .240 ZiPS projection may end up
being .280 in AAA or .300 in AA, for example.  Whether or not a player will play
is one of many non-statistical factors one has to take into account when predicting
the future.

Dan Szymborski Posted: December 02, 2005 at 07:34 PM | 77 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

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.

   1. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: December 02, 2005 at 07:47 PM (#1756899)
Great stuff, Szym.

A couple of questions/comments.

1. How did Pedro rank among MLB starters? How many starters has ZiPs projected to have a better ERA than him next year?

2. Why exactly does Nady project so well? He hasn't shown he can be that good.

3. Urinal Ice is excellent!
   2. Sam M. Posted: December 02, 2005 at 07:48 PM (#1756901)
So you're projecting the rotation to be Pedro and a bunch of .500, pretty much interchangeable, pitchers?

Sounds about right. Hopefully, the offense will be good enough to lift some of them to .550 pitchers, though.
   3. CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:00 PM (#1756934)
God damnit. David Wright is going to be really friggin annoying over the next 15 years.
   4. Craig in MN Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:06 PM (#1756954)
Urinal Ice

Can I get a hint for this one?
   5. Joshemy Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:06 PM (#1756956)
Urinal Ice is very funny.

Also, if Matsui hits .270/.339/.385 in 2006, he can have the 2B job.
   6. Kyle S Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:14 PM (#1756981)
Pretty nifty prediction for Mr. Wright.
   7. HowardMegdal Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:21 PM (#1757006)
I feel like this reality wins the MEts about 95-97 games (I am adding only a catcher of Hernandez or Molina to the mix)... does that seem right to everyone?

I also think these are pretty accurate- with the exception of missing the boat on Heilman/Seo, who I think took the step forward to frontline pitchers this past season. Time will tell, obviously...
   8. billyshears Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:24 PM (#1757016)
Pretty nifty prediction for Mr. Wright.

Isn't it just projecting Wright to be the same player in 2006 as he was in 2005? Not that I disagree with or would be especially disappointed with that result.
   9. The District Attorney Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:25 PM (#1757021)
Also, if Matsui hits .270/.339/.385 in 2006, he can have the 2B job.
At least if Anderson Hernandez hits 268/307/343, anyway. Yucko. Double yucko on Beltran.
   10. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:32 PM (#1757042)
I think the pitching projections are a bit pessimistic. I can definitely see Pedro, Glavine, Heilman, Wagner and Seo out-performing their projections.

The offense looks about right. I think its optimistic on Matsui, Nady and Victor, but a little negative on Delgado, Beltran (understandably so) and Cliff.
   11. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:35 PM (#1757053)
Does Beltran stick anyone else as a trifle pessimistic? I mean, the guy has slugged .500 or better the four seasons prior to 2005, seems like projecting him for a .458 SLG is a big downgrade coming off one bad season
   12. Steve G. Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:47 PM (#1757082)
If anything's pessimistic about the Beltran projection, it's the baserunning. 25/36 steals for a guy who's almost universally regarded as the best baserunner in the game?
   13. Mark S. is bored Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:47 PM (#1757083)
Benson              10  10   4.37  28  28   173.0  175   84  19   53  104 
Bannister            9   9   4.38  27  27   156.0  160   76  17   45  113 


I think I see why Omar wants to trade Benson. Same ERA and better peripherals from Bannister.
   14. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:49 PM (#1757089)
Urinal Ice

Can I get a hint for this one?


I am guessing Mike DeFelice
   15. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:49 PM (#1757091)
Oh wait... he is already there. Ok I don't know
   16. laurent1056 Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:51 PM (#1757095)
Ice Williams! Our man, our pal, and smooth New York Baseball operatior.
Gerald Williams.
   17. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:56 PM (#1757105)
- So far, only Santana has a better projection, ERA-wise, than Pedro.

- Urinal Ice, as usual, is Gerald Williams.

- Drops in speed score at Beltran's age tend to be bad for future CS%. ZiPS doesn't know about injuries and is likely underestimating Beltran's success rate.

- Beltran has only slugged .500 once in a Shea context; Kauffman was a very good hitters' park until they moved the fences back.
   18. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: December 02, 2005 at 08:57 PM (#1757110)
Ahhhh
   19. Mark S. is bored Posted: December 02, 2005 at 09:00 PM (#1757115)
Delgado*           1b  .287  .398  .535 143 508  81 146 37  1 29 107  81 129  0  0 
Mientkiewicz*      1b  .272  .369  .397 137 448  48 122 33  1  7  48  66  59  2  3 


Not a bad upgrade. I'm curious what Jacobs projection is.

Nady               rf  .282  .344  .475 125 400  60 113 21  1 18  65  33  71  2  2 
Diaz               rf  .286  .338  .486 146 535  82 153 25  2 26  87  40 137 10  6


Who to play in RF? Also known as what can I get in a trade for Nady (who is 3 years older, more expensive and closer to arbitration).
   20. stealfirstbase Posted: December 02, 2005 at 09:00 PM (#1757118)
Looks like Mr. Takatsu is making a comeback. Is he even on the Mets anymore?

Also, that could be a good team.
   21. Old Matt Posted: December 02, 2005 at 09:16 PM (#1757158)
Takatsu's contact option was not picked up. He will not be on the Mets in 2006.
   22. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: December 02, 2005 at 09:25 PM (#1757173)
Who to play in RF? Also known as what can I get in a trade for Nady (who is 3 years older, more expensive and closer to arbitration).

How are they defensively? I recall Nady being fairly good, but I don't know anything about Diaz's D.

Nady to the Giants for Alfonzo? Please? As a Cal man, I have always rooted for Nady. I hope he hits that projection.
   23. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: December 02, 2005 at 09:29 PM (#1757180)
Personally, I think the Mets need to revamp the bullpen. Its a bit scary right now. I mean, other than Heilman and Wagner, I don't think there's a single guy I trust to be effective next year. Kool-Aidâ„¢ is done. Padilla was a fluke. Bell will never get a chance and if he does, he'll just blow it. And we still don't have a LOOGY.

Yes, I realize its early, but Omar needs to add one more reliable arm in there and start inviting relievers to ST like its going out of style.
   24. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: December 02, 2005 at 09:30 PM (#1757185)
David Wright is awesome.

I don't think he's going to steal 29 bases, though.
   25. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: December 02, 2005 at 09:30 PM (#1757187)
Nady to the Giants for Alfonzo?

How about Kris Benson for Ray Durham instead?
   26. The District Attorney Posted: December 02, 2005 at 09:35 PM (#1757196)
How are they defensively? I recall Nady being fairly good, but I don't know anything about Diaz's D.
Keep it that way. Ignorance is bliss with respect to Diaz's defense.
   27. 1k5v3L Posted: December 02, 2005 at 09:37 PM (#1757202)
whoa, alex pagan really breaking out next year. get him some clearsil.

i think mcginley would make a pretty solid pick in the rule 5 draft.
   28. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: December 02, 2005 at 09:44 PM (#1757216)
How about Kris Benson for Ray Durham instead?

That wouldn't be as bad as it seems... I am interested in seeing Durham's ZiPS projection - with his age and injury history, I think he is due for a big fall.

Of course, Sabean would probably give you Durham for Trachsel and The Run Fairy, and then sign a crap FA to play second just to get rid of another draft pick.

Sigh.
   29. Free Rob Base Posted: December 02, 2005 at 09:47 PM (#1757224)
That Wright SLG seems low. He had 70 extra base hits last year -- I would be surprised if he hit 8 fewer (over 10% decline).
   30. 1k5v3L Posted: December 02, 2005 at 09:48 PM (#1757227)
I thought Benson was Baltimore bound... Or is it that Omar is wanting a throw in along with Julio to play with Jorge out in the school yard?
   31. Mark S. is bored Posted: December 02, 2005 at 09:58 PM (#1757242)
I thought Benson was Baltimore bound... Or is it that Omar is wanting a throw in along with Julio to play with Jorge out in the school yard?

The rumor making its way around is that when other teams heard Benson was available for trade with this deal, they called Omar and offered to top the Baltimore deal.
   32. 1k5v3L Posted: December 02, 2005 at 10:04 PM (#1757251)
wow. another team offering to save omar from his stupidity?

my guess is the other team is telling omar they'll give them someone better than julio for benson, as long as omar sends milledge out too.
   33. Sam M. Posted: December 02, 2005 at 10:08 PM (#1757262)
Omar is wanting a throw in along with Julio to play with Jorge out in the school yard?

So who gets to play the part of the radical priest? Sounds like a reason to do the Barry Zito trade . . . .
   34. cynic Posted: December 02, 2005 at 10:19 PM (#1757274)
Why exactly does Nady project so well? He hasn't shown he can be that good.

Maybe it's guessing Nady will play more against lefties than righties? I'm not sure who gets the other AB -- Diaz, perhaps, or Redman. Neither is ideal as Diaz is also a righty and Redman can't hit (but his '04 UZR is fantastic), but an .810 OPS with average defense seems like a reasonable expectation for the 2006 aggregate Met RF.
I feel like this reality wins the MEts about 95-97 games (I am adding only a catcher of Hernandez or Molina to the mix)... does that seem right to everyone?

95 seems like an awful lot. I know the Mets outplayed their Pythagorean last year (unlucky), but I think they were fairly lucky when it came to injury. Pedro and Glavine pitched almost the whole year and the guys who did get injured were more or less fungible (and some guys who we wished had been injured were not). Floyd and Reyes, who are not exactly Cal Ripken, stayed healthy all year. And, may Sam M strike me down where I stand, David Wright stayed healthy too.

If either Pedro or Wright had missed significant time, I think the Mets would have been lucky to finish at .500. So I'm more inclined to use last year's actual result as a baseline. At the moment I'm guessing 89 wins, but I don't think Omar's done yet. I get the feeling the rotation is going to look very different come Opening Day. Not based on anything, just making stuff up (maybe Gotham Baseball is hiring? OK, unnecessary potshot).
I also think these are pretty accurate- with the exception of missing the boat on Heilman/Seo, who I think took the step forward to frontline pitchers this past season. Time will tell, obviously...

I'm more pessimistic on most of the relievers than Zips is, just because of the inherent lack of data. I think Glavine's ERA is a bit high, too, mostly because he's consistenly outperformed his component ERA's over the course of his career and I'm inclined to believe this is an ability (related to his philosophy of nibbling and going down/away all the time). As for Heilman and Seo establishing a new level of ability, well, I'll be a lot more convinced at the end of this season. I'm not sold yet.

Most of the hitters look more or less right to me, except Matsui. I don't see him cracking a .700 OPS. I'd love to be wrong, but I've been burned twice expecting production from him, and I'd rather not do it again.
How are they defensively? I recall Nady being fairly good, but I don't know anything about Diaz's D.

All you need to know about Victor Diaz' defense is that his nickname is Mini-Manny.
   35. cynic Posted: December 02, 2005 at 10:31 PM (#1757299)
Yes, I realize its early, but Omar needs to add one more reliable arm in there and start inviting relievers to ST like its going out of style.


I'm not terribly worried (yet). Wagner and Heilman will probably be very effective in the 8-9 innings. I'd offer arbitration to Kool-aid and Pooper as they should be good value bets for the middle innings and I'm happy to take draft picks for them. Zambrano isn't going anywhere, so he's the mop-up guy. I'd give Bell and McGinley a shot, but I think the Mets will give Ring another chance to contribute.

In short, yes, another quality reliever is in order, and more options are needed in case the current ones falter, but there's plenty of time yet. If he's got nothing else to do, then by all means, snap up some arms. But I'd rather see him spend time patching up 2B and upgrading the rotation before signing some above-average relievers to multi-year deals.
Sabean would probably give you Durham for Trachsel and The Run Fairy, and then sign a crap FA to play second just to get rid of another draft pick.

I'd rather trade Benson than Trachsel (and Heredia isn't on the team anymore). They seem to have similar performance, and Trachsel makes way less. For whatever the rumor mill is worth, it seems the Mets feel the same way.

Benson for Julio and a B+ prospect sounds like a pretty reasonable deal as long as they use the salary savings elsewhere, though I think they could probably do better.

Incidentally, with the sums being thrown at relievers these days, what's anyone's best guess on what Kevin Millwood will make? He'd look good taking over the #2 spot from Glavine (and potentially help Nibbles pick up more wins pitching against #3 starters).
   36. 1k5v3L Posted: December 02, 2005 at 10:34 PM (#1757307)
Millwood, at least 40m over 4 years.
   37. cynic Posted: December 02, 2005 at 10:42 PM (#1757318)
Sounds about right, though I would have expected him to sign for more than he did last year, too.
   38. Jay Is Simply Without Words Today... Posted: December 02, 2005 at 11:01 PM (#1757357)
I know the Mets outplayed their Pythagorean last year (unlucky), but I think they were fairly lucky when it came to injury.

Uhhh actually Beltran, while not missing much time, was actually hurt almost the entire year. The Mets also deserve credit for handling Pedro fairly conservatively as well, not pushing him later in the year when they were out of it.

Floyd is due for something horrific to happen to him though.
   39. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 02, 2005 at 11:05 PM (#1757367)
i think mcginley would make a pretty solid pick in the rule 5 draft.
ZiPS projects 16 HRA in 88 innings. Having watched him pitch for Norfolk, that sounds very believable.
   40. 1k5v3L Posted: December 02, 2005 at 11:12 PM (#1757375)
ZiPS projects 16 HRA in 88 innings.

He'll make Russ Ortiz seem like a Cy Young contender.
   41. cynic Posted: December 02, 2005 at 11:18 PM (#1757393)
Uhhh actually Beltran, while not missing much time, was actually hurt almost the entire year. The Mets also deserve credit for handling Pedro fairly conservatively as well, not pushing him later in the year when they were out of it.

Beltran was hurt, sure, but if he were really hurt (i.e., couldn't play), the Mets might have been in far worse shape. Plus, one injury out of three key position players (Floyd, Beltran, Wright) where one of them is injury-prone strikes me as pretty good.

I don't see Pedro staying healthy for three more years. Not because he's particularly fragile or anything, just because of his age and the fact that he's a pitcher. He could miss time this year, or next, or the year after, but he's going to miss some time. Can the Mets minimize the damage with good handling, especially if they're in a pennant race? We'll see.
ZiPS projects 16 HRA in 88 innings. Having watched him pitch for Norfolk, that sounds very believable.

No doubt. But with an almost 3:1 K:BB and a solid WHIP, isn't that a pitcher you'd take for 50 grand and the minimum salary? I would.
   42. 1k5v3L Posted: December 02, 2005 at 11:22 PM (#1757398)
I'd much rather gamble on McGinley than sign an overrated loogy like the Run Fairy to be my lefty out of the pen. Worst thing that could happen, you send him back to the Mets for $25k. Or, since it's the Mets, you can probably have him in a trade for your average Alex Pagan clone who's failed to make it out of A ball in four years running. As long as he's latin.
   43. Mike Green Posted: December 03, 2005 at 12:04 AM (#1757456)
It's especially difficult to project the ERA of Trachsel and Glavine. Each have a multi-year record of substantially outperforming their DIPS ERA or FIP.

Last year, the Mets allowed just over 4 runs per game. If they do that again this year, the division title should be theirs. Somehow, I doubt that they will.
   44. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: December 03, 2005 at 12:58 AM (#1757505)
People seem pessimistic about Matsui's projection. I don't understand why:

BA/OB/SLG/AB/2B/3B/HR
Projection: .270/.339/.385/441/26/2/7
2004: .272/.331/.396/460/32/2/7

He was pretty awful last year, but 2 years ago he was basically the exact same player he's projected to be now. Given that his scouting reports were pretty good when he came here, I think it isn't unreasonable to assume that last year was the fluke. Not that his projected line is so great for an everyday player, but I'd certainly take that from a second basemen playing at Shea who is going to be batting at the bottom of the lineup. In fact, I think Matsui is likely their best option at this point, assuming he isn't beheaded by the fans if he gets off to a slow first week.

Also, I think this team is in some trouble if Pedro is the only starter capable of posting a sub 4 ERA. I'm hoping those projections are wrong.
   45. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 03, 2005 at 03:15 AM (#1757620)
I think the pitching projections are a bit pessimistic. I can definitely see Pedro, Glavine, Heilman, Wagner and Seo out-performing their projections.

You seriously think there's a better than 50-50 shot Wagner is better than those numbers?

I tend to agree with cynic....The Mets need another significant addition before they are a clear favorite in the NL East. Right now they are still in the "good enough to make the playoffs, but far from a sure thing" category.
   46. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 03, 2005 at 03:30 AM (#1757635)
Except that Trachsel has outperformed his DIPS ERA (on which ZIPS ERA is based, by my understanding) by a significant margin in each of his seasons with the Mets. Why wouldn't he do it again? As of right now, the Mets are clearly better than the Phillies, they're better than the Astros unless Clemens doesn't retire (and probably even then), and they're probably better than the Brewers, too. I don't know how the projetions are going to look when I run them, but my seat-of-pants impression is that the Mets have little excuse not to win the wild card in 2006 if they stay reasonably healthy. Of course, that's if the pitchers don't collapse because of their age. They're probably better than the Braves on paper, too, but I don't ever pick someone other than Atlanta to win the division anymore. Last year, the Phillies projected for 87 wins, the Mets and Marlins both 84, and the Braves 83. All projections were right-on except the Braves, and lo and behold, who won the division? (and if anyone can dig up the thread, I picked 'em despite the projection...)
   47. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: December 03, 2005 at 03:54 AM (#1757680)
Considering that Wagner's career ERA is 2.4 and that he's kept it below 2.54 for the past 4 years, I would think that, assuming he's healthy, he's a good bet to outperform his projection.
   48. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 03, 2005 at 05:34 AM (#1757756)
Just some thoughts:

I think all the starters do better than the projections. That may be the Met fanboy in me but that's my feeling.

That's an ugly projection for Beltran. If you include his 2004 playoffs with his 2004 regular season, he hit .279/.380/.581 with 48 stolen bases in 51 attempts. If that's all Beltran can do as a Met when healthy, his contract is going to be one of the worst in baseball history.

ZIPS thinks more of Nady and Diaz than I do. I'd be surprised if either player cracked the .800 range. If Matsui and Castro can hit those projections, Minaya should stand pat with regards to the lineup. Castro at around 1 million dollars and those numbers is much better than Hernandez or Molina at 7-8 million. I think Castro has a good shot at hitting those numbers. Matsui, not so much.

Cairo's projected OPS is .666. I don't think I need to comment further.
   49. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 03, 2005 at 05:53 AM (#1757761)
Considering that Wagner's career ERA is 2.4 and that he's kept it below 2.54 for the past 4 years, I would think that, assuming he's healthy, he's a good bet to outperform his projection.

Well, Wagner's career DiPS ERA is 2.86. I'm not saying he's going to bomb out and suffer horrible hit luck or anything, but to say a guy with a career 2.40 ERA is going to be post a 2.54 ERA in a season (which is barely another a couple of runs over that 2.40 on the projected number of innings) hardly seems unreasonable. Look at this way:

Wagner's ERA in 71 IP if...
17 ER Allowed: 2.15
18 ER Allowed: 2.28
19 ER Allowed: 2.40
20 ER Allowed: 2.54
21 ER Allowed: 2.67

Those four runs Wagner allows between 21 and 17 could be completely meaningless (all allowed in games the Mets were up by 3) or they could decide the season (if they somehow cause the loss in four games). But ultimately, the prediction has a HUGE margin of error given the small number of innings being thrown, worrying too much about the precise number borders on the absurd
   50. Spivey Posted: December 03, 2005 at 06:17 AM (#1757775)
I think the pitching projections are a bit pessimistic. I can definitely see Pedro, Glavine, Heilman, Wagner and Seo out-performing their projections.

The offense looks about right. I think its optimistic on Matsui, Nady and Victor, but a little negative on Delgado, Beltran (understandably so) and Cliff.


I think you fail to understand regression. That explains every player listed besides Nady. As for Nady, I think it's a slightly optimistic projection, but keep in mind he should be entering his prime (generically speaking), and he had an OPS+ of 106 last year which would have probably given him like a 790 or so OPS last year.
   51. Spivey Posted: December 03, 2005 at 06:18 AM (#1757777)
I mean a 790 or so OPS in Shea.
   52. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: December 03, 2005 at 07:54 AM (#1757833)
I think you fail to understand regression. That explains every player listed besides Nady.

I understand why the projections are what they are. That, however, doesn't preclude me from disagreeing with them.
   53. J. Cross Posted: December 03, 2005 at 08:29 AM (#1757852)
next year's squad (I hope):

1. Reyes#.............ss .281 .311 .400
2. Beltran#...........cf .275 .360 .458
3. Wright.............3b .312 .393 .520
4. Delgado*...........1b .287 .398 .535
5. Floyd*.............lf .267 .359 .482
6. Diaz/Nady..........rf .286 .340 .480
7. Hernandez...........c .285 .330 .460 (made up)
8. Grudzielanek.......2b .290 .335 .405 (also made up)

Pedro...........211 IP, 3.20 ERA
Vazquez.........214, 3.95 (translated, roughly)
Glavine.........205, 4.13
Seo.............188, 4.21
Trachsel........182, 4.50

Bullpen: Wagner, Heilman, Tavarez, Padilla, Bell and others.

As you can see I changed Heilman's projection in moving him to full-time relief. I think Glavine might be a little better than that projection but I think Trachsel's is about right. I also think the team above could be good enough to make the playoffs with it's share of health/luck but if there's one more change I'd like to see it's a Trachsel upgrade. How about we get whatever the heck we can (and I'm not expecting much) for Trachsel, Zambrano and Matsui and spend a few extra bucks to sign Millwood?
   54. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 03, 2005 at 09:27 AM (#1757885)
Millwood's so up and down from year to year that I question how much better than Trachsel he is. My gut feeling is that the Mets sign Burnett and trade Trachsel, only because he makes less than Benson.
   55. Spivey Posted: December 03, 2005 at 09:45 AM (#1757899)
This is the same Glavine that Mets fans thought was done in June of last year, right?
   56. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: December 03, 2005 at 09:55 AM (#1757901)
Yes.
   57. J. Cross Posted: December 03, 2005 at 10:11 AM (#1757904)
My gut feeling is that the Mets sign Burnett and trade Trachsel, only because he makes less than Benson.

I could certainly live with that.

This is the same Glavine that Mets fans thought was done in June of last year, right?

Yes, it's funny how 109 innings with a 2.22 ERA can convince the fans that a hall of famer has a little left in the tank.
   58. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 03, 2005 at 10:48 AM (#1757911)
This is the same Glavine that Mets fans thought was done in June of last year, right?

Yes, it's funny how 109 innings with a 2.22 ERA can convince the fans that a hall of famer has a little left in the tank.


< Rob Base>

PWN3D

< /Rob Base>
   59. Rob Base Posted: December 03, 2005 at 05:37 PM (#1758030)
This is the same Glavine that Mets fans thought was done in June of last year, right?

Yes, it's funny how 109 innings with a 2.22 ERA can convince the fans that a hall of famer has a little left in the tank.


< Rob Base>

PWN3D

< /Rob Base>


I love it.
   60. Spivey Posted: December 03, 2005 at 06:26 PM (#1758084)
PWN3D

How am I pwned? You guys are the idiots who thought he was done in the first place. I doubt he keeps that HR/IP rate up he had last year. If it goes back to recent norms for him, his ERA will be around 4-4.2. I think that's what should be expected.
   61. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 03, 2005 at 07:00 PM (#1758126)
How am I pwned? You guys are the idiots who thought he was done in the first place. I doubt he keeps that HR/IP rate up he had last year. If it goes back to recent norms for him, his ERA will be around 4-4.2. I think that's what should be expected.

First, I wouldn't take my "PWN3D" comment seriously. I did it because for some reason it makes me laugh. I guess it is true that simple minds are amused by simple things.

Second, Tom Glavine was one of the best pitchers in the second half of the season. Here are his peripherals during his 109.1 second half innings.

7-6, 2.22 ERA, 4.86 k/9, 2.95 k/bb, .41 hr/9, 1.01 WHIP.

Now, obviously, Glavine hasn't all of a sudden become so much better at this age. But he has posted an ERA of 3.60 or better in 6 of the last 7 seasons. I don't think Met fans are being unrealistic in thinking that Glavine should be able to post an ERA in the 3.50-4.00 range.

You guys are the idiots who thought he was done in the first place.

That's because we fans are whiny <expletive deleted>, especially if the player is a guy we don't like that much and Glavine will never be a Met fan favorite.
   62. J. Cross Posted: December 03, 2005 at 09:34 PM (#1758361)
btw, if you adjust Manny's pecota to a Mets pecota he ends up around 385/553 compared to Floyd's 359/482. Over 550 PA's (both players are risks to miss some games with gimpy legs) that's a difference of what, 20 runs? It seems entirely possible that Floyd could make up 15 runs in the field and 5 on the base paths compared to Manny.

I know it sounds absurd, but Manny might be about break even compared to Floyd and not an upgrade at all.
   63. Spivey Posted: December 03, 2005 at 09:37 PM (#1758366)
It seems entirely possible that Floyd could make up 15 runs in the field and 5 on the base paths compared to Manny.

15? Floyd was an above average defender last year, and actually rated as one of the best in baseball. If healthy (which of course, is an issue), he's probably like 25 runs better than Manny.
   64. Spivey Posted: December 03, 2005 at 09:37 PM (#1758367)
I mean 25 runs better in the field...
   65. Sam M. Posted: December 03, 2005 at 09:43 PM (#1758380)
I know it sounds absurd, but Manny might be about break even compared to Floyd and not an upgrade at all.

I don't think it's absurd in the slightest. In fact, I wouldn't trade Floyd even up for Manny unless the Red Sox evened up the salaries, and maybe not even then (given that we are defensively challenged in RF, too). The only reason I might do it is because of Floyd's history of being fragile. The idea of giving up something more than Floyd is crazy talk.
   66. Шĥy Posted: December 03, 2005 at 09:44 PM (#1758381)
My gut feeling is that the Mets sign Burnett and trade Trachsel, only because he makes less than Benson.

I could certainly live with that.


I wouldn't be happy with that. Trachsel at his current salary is much better than Burnett at 5/50. Burnett won't add that much value over Trachsel.
   67. Шĥy Posted: December 03, 2005 at 09:46 PM (#1758383)
I wouldn't trade Floyd even up for Manny unless the Red Sox evened up the salaries, and maybe not even then (given that we are defensively challenged in RF, too). The only reason I might do it is because of Floyd's history of being fragile.

This talks all seems moot since Floyd would almost definately block a trade to Boston.
   68. Sam M. Posted: December 03, 2005 at 09:49 PM (#1758390)
Trachsel at his current salary is much better than Burnett at 5/50. Burnett won't add that much value over Trachsel.

It pretty much depends on how much faith you have in the crop of Mets' pitching prospects. If you are high on Bannister, Humber, Pelfrey, et al., then you don't want someone blocking them, and you're happy to have Trachsel (and Glavine) for one more year and then open spots in the rotation.

Or, you might think they need to start planning for the departure of those two guys, and signing Burnett now improves them for 2006 and solidifies the rotation thereafter.
   69. Spivey Posted: December 03, 2005 at 09:59 PM (#1758402)
Burnett is still a very good pitcher...I think 5/50 is reasonable for him based on this market.

Him, Pedro, Benson, Zambrano and Glavine would be a very nice rotation. I already think that the Mets are the best team in the NL East (and 2nd in all of the NL). That would put them very close to STL IMO.

As for the prospects, you can only expect a couple to pan out. Humber and Pelfrey probably won't be ready until 2008 (and that's moving pretty fast, without struggles). At that point Pedro will be reaching the end of the line, Benson will be too, Glavine will likely have retired, and Zambrano very well might not even be on the team anymore.

Petit's good but I don't think he'll make any significant contributions until halfway into the 2007 season. I don't see their prospects as reasons to not sign Burnett.
   70. The District Attorney Posted: December 03, 2005 at 10:06 PM (#1758407)
Petit also isn't a Met.
   71. chris p Posted: December 03, 2005 at 10:08 PM (#1758409)
where's the projection for manny?
   72. Spivey Posted: December 03, 2005 at 10:15 PM (#1758421)
Petit also isn't a Met.

Was he traded for Delgado?
   73. J. Cross Posted: December 03, 2005 at 11:03 PM (#1758487)
Burnett is still a very good pitcher...I think 5/50 is reasonable for him based on this market.

Agreed. I think Burnett is actually underrated by some. He projects well and has filthy stuff. I think he could be an ace (ofcourse it's possible he could merely be above average) so I wouldn't worry TOO much about who he's blocking. I think he'll end up getting more than 5/50.

where's the projection for manny?

Manny's ZIPS with the Red Sox is 389/563. I translated that to 385/553 with the Mets. (I think Manny has enough power and hits to all fields enough that he doesn't need the extra RHB at Shea penalty.)
   74. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: December 03, 2005 at 11:18 PM (#1758507)
This is going to be a fun team to watch. It's nice to see some effort put into the battle of NY. The numbers look really good. I think Beltran will rebound strongly and the Mets--barring major injuries--will jump to 90-95 wins.
   75. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 04, 2005 at 02:05 AM (#1758853)
I'd much rather gamble on McGinley than sign an overrated loogy like the Run Fairy to be my lefty out of the pen. Worst thing that could happen, you send him back to the Mets for $25k.
Eh, there are better gambles - a guy like, say, Rohlicek is more likely to find control than McGinley is to gain velocity. YMMV - at minimum, he's a solid insurance policy.
   76. J. Cross Posted: December 04, 2005 at 05:48 AM (#1759122)
I'd rather use a decent RHP than Heredia or McGinley just because they're lefties. I think there are better options.
   77. Rob Base Posted: January 25, 2006 at 03:03 AM (#1836842)
Levski, I've got some bad news - they DFA'd Alex "the Angel" Pagan. :-(

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9282 seconds
47 querie(s) executed