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

Monday, December 05, 2005

2006 ZiPS Projections - New York Yankees


Name           P   AVG   OBP   SPC   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS
Rodriguez       3b .301 .400 .559 162 621 115 187 27 2 43 130 92 131 19 6
Giambi*        1b .250 .401 .488 133 424 67 106 17 0 28 82 94 106 0 1
Matsui*        lf .294 .372 .477 161 608 98 179 41 2 22 103 75 87 2 2
Sheffield       rf .271 .371 .468 148 547 91 148 27 0 27 101 81 67 7 4
Jeter         ss .299 .368 .442 153 633 110 189 31 3 18 84 60 108 15 5
Posada#        c   .254 .358 .424 140 465 64 118 25 0 18 73 73 100 1 2
Phillips       1b .260 .326 .471 115 412 70 107 20 2 21 69 38 75 2 2
Bellhorn#      2b .234 .351 .386 127 435 61 102 25 1 13 53 76 145 4 2
Cano*          2b .286 .317 .438 150 587 89 168 29 6 16 80 25 77 3 2
Lawton*        lf .254 .350 .390 135 497 81 126 23 0 15 72 65 69 14 10
Johnson         3b .254 .339 .390 105 331 47 84 24 0 7 42 41 56 4 4
Reese*        cf .263 .330 .406 132 525 80 138 34 4 11 62 47 87 12 9
Vento         rf .265 .326 .401 129 479 58 127 30 1 11 63 36 91 2 3
Jones         lf .231 .306 .433 134 490 73 113 25 1 24 75 48 164 2 4
Williams#      cf .241 .332 .362 138 494 62 119 22 1 12 63 68 75 2 3
Stinnett       c   .240 .313 .380 51 129 12 31 6 0 4 18 12 33 0 0
Cabrera#        cf .269 .310 .367 137 521 74 140 18 3 9 60 28 91 8 2
Escalona       2b .247 .311 .357 112 361 51 89 20 1 6 40 24 56 3 1
Crosby*        lf .253 .307 .367 108 297 37 75 12 2 6 35 20 47 6 3
Nieves         c   .270 .297 .368 107 389 44 105 19 2 5 40 13 52 2 1
Thurston*      2b .271 .309 .374 132 454 65 123 17 3 8 53 22 58 5 8
Sardinha*      rf .237 .305 .355 120 439 53 104 20 1 10 49 39 112 7 3
Duncan*        3b .221 .299 .365 130 447 63 99 15 2 15 55 47 140 7 2
Martinez*      1b .219 .296 .359 131 379 46 83 14 0 13 54 38 65 2 1
Porter*        rf .236 .297 .356 113 365 38 86 22 2 6 32 30 102 7 6
Womack*        2b .245 .288 .300 127 436 55 107 14 2 2 34 24 55 19 6
Parrish         c   .217 .281 .309 77 272 28 59 10 0 5 26 22 66 1 1
Guillen         rf .230 .269 .300 117 434 53 100 11 2 5 37 18 84 5 3
Sierra#        rf .205 .245 .305 88 249 21 51 10 0 5 31 14 50 1 0
Sanchez         ss .213 .243 .266 85 263 21 56 9 1 1 21   9 29 1 1
Flaherty       c   .192 .222 .288 50 146 11 28 8 0 2 14   5 30 0 1

Name           W   L   ERA   G GS   INN   H   ER HR   BB   K
Rivera           8   1   2.49 71   0   76.0   60   21   3   17   70
Johnson*        18   7   3.52 33 33   215.0 193   84 26   44 211
Farnsworth       3   2   3.73 73   0   70.0   56   29   7   29   82
Brown           11   6   3.92 23 23   147.0 149   64 11   40 107 (.38 $H in ‘05!)
Mussina         14   8   3.97 29 29   186.0 188   82 23   35 149
Pavano         12   8   4.18 27 27   181.0 193   84 19   37 103
Bean           6   5   4.38 59   0   74.0   66   36   8   35   76
Chacon           9   7   4.40 32 20   131.0 125   64 13   54   78
Wang           8   7   4.40 23 23   141.0 148   69 15   39   79
Bergman*        5   4   4.44 35 20   142.0 152   70 18   33   91
Anderson         3   3   4.64 52   1   64.0   63   33   8   24   46
Embree*          3   3   4.67 68   0   52.0   54   27   8   13   40
Rodriguez         4   4   4.83 60   0   54.0   53   29   6   25   41
Sturtze         4   4   4.86 51   2   76.0   78   41 10   30   47
Mendoza         2   3   4.91 32   0   55.0   63   30   9   12   29
Small           8   9   4.97 29 22   145.0 165   80 23   33   74
DeSalvo         6   6   5.01 22 21   124.0 123   69 15   61   94
Proctor         4   5   5.05 61   1   82.0   83   46 15   29   73
Redding         8   9   5.08 28 24   133.0 147   75 16   48   81
Karstens         9 11   5.09 27 26   168.0 196   95 27   38   97
Manning*        4   6   5.13 43   6   86.0   88   49 10   43   60
Wright           9 12   5.13 29 29   156.0 163   89 18   72 109
Smith*          4   5   5.30 37   6   73.0   74   43   8   38   59
Leiter*          8 12   5.33 31 28   162.0 165   96 17   91 103
Henn*          6   8   5.34 24 24   128.0 138   76 15   60   77
Munro           7 10   5.37 39 18   124.0 146   74 19   36   69
May*            8 11   5.45 33 25   170.0 195 103 34   45 101
Nomo           7 11   5.63 24 24   144.0 154   90 22   71   95
Marsonek         3   5   5.67 48   2   73.0   83   46 12   30   44
Beam           4   6   5.72 35 10   96.0 109   61 20   32   72
Franklin*        4   7   5.88 46 17   127.0 140   83 24   57   79
Borrell*        2   4   6.57 15 12   63.0   78   46 14   24   31
De Paula         2   6   6.97 26 22   115.0 141   89 36   43   75


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 05, 2005 at 03:58 PM | 94 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. Sean McNally Posted: December 05, 2005 at 04:28 PM (#1761502)
Wow! ZiPS hates the Yankees!
   2. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 05, 2005 at 04:31 PM (#1761506)
Relax, Sean, everybody hates the Yankees.

That Kevin Reese projection is kind of intriguing, though. What's Juan Pierre's ZiPS? Jason Michaels'?
   3. SG Posted: December 05, 2005 at 04:32 PM (#1761508)
Who is Santana?

I'd take the lines from Phillips, Farnsworth, Mussina, and Pavano in a heartbeat. The others, eh.
   4. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 05, 2005 at 04:33 PM (#1761509)
Also, I'd take that line from Phillips, and I think it's way past time for (some) Yankee fans to stop going on about wanting to see what bubba Crosby could do with 400 PAs.
   5. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: December 05, 2005 at 04:33 PM (#1761510)
Michael Kay is predicting the Yankees will win 120 games next year!
   6. jonm Posted: December 05, 2005 at 04:38 PM (#1761516)
Look at Pavano's numbers: a league average starter. It just boggles my mind that Cashman would not trade him for Reed or Granderson. I hope that it's just gamesmanship.
   7. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 05, 2005 at 04:40 PM (#1761519)
Cabrera out performs Crosby huh? Can't say that surprises me. Not too stunned that Reese is projected to too. Jeter beats that OBP projection handily this year.

Santana and Bean seem to be some of the best relievers on the team, one I've never heard of and the other is definately not going to get to pitch.

The Matsui projection would be pretty good, but Sheffield loses alot of power in his.
   8. Rob Base Posted: December 05, 2005 at 04:42 PM (#1761521)
The Matsui projection would be pretty good, but Sheffield loses alot of power in his.

He can no longer be tricked by Barry Bonds into taking steroids.
   9. SG Posted: December 05, 2005 at 04:42 PM (#1761522)
I doubt that Detroit would give up Granderson for Pavano. Logan or Monroe possibly. I'd also guess that the Reed for Pavano proposal included more cash than the Yankees were willing to give up. They're losing money you know.
   10. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 05, 2005 at 04:42 PM (#1761523)
Gamesmanship, perhaps. But maybe it has something to do with not wanting to eat a big chunk of the contract. MLB is full of average starters getting $6-8M per year for 3-4 years. Pavano's contract may have been a mistake, but it isn't really all that outrageous in context.
   11. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 05, 2005 at 04:42 PM (#1761524)
Santana is actually a Phillie - I accidentally stuck him on the Yankees. The projection is for Philadelphia, though.
   12. SG Posted: December 05, 2005 at 04:43 PM (#1761525)
Hey Chacon is my Deity, check your Primer email.
   13. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 05, 2005 at 04:44 PM (#1761527)
Sg beats me to the punch twice in 10 minutes. I knew I should have taken that typing class back in HS.
   14. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 05, 2005 at 04:54 PM (#1761543)
I'd take those lines from Chacon, Wang, and Mussina, too, in a heartbeat. I realized yesterday that if you give Chacon Pavano's 2005 BABIP, his ERA for last year is 6.26! With an average one, it would have to be way over 5.00. Pavano, I do expect to bounce back to being average, because he had bad hit-luck last year and also made his last two bad starts when he was already hurt.
   15. SG Posted: December 05, 2005 at 05:02 PM (#1761553)
I realized yesterday that if you give Chacon Pavano's 2005 BABIP, his ERA for last year is 6.26!

You can do this if you ignore the fact that Chacon's G/F ratio was 0.90 last year and Pavano's was 1.60 and fly ball pitchers historically demonstrate lower BABIP.
   16. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 05, 2005 at 05:05 PM (#1761557)
I suppose I'd also take Cano's line, although given his age, I wouldn't mind seeing a little bump in his overall numbers.
   17. AROM Posted: December 05, 2005 at 05:08 PM (#1761564)
Kevin Brown...

His contract is finally over, right?

Anyone know if he's retired or trying to find a job?
   18. The District Attorney Posted: December 05, 2005 at 05:11 PM (#1761570)
Giambi should hit better than .250 (and thus have higher OBP as well.) That might be taking into account his crappy '04, which I think you can totally throw out.

Jaret Wright... maybe not a good signing

Kevin Brown???? They wish.
   19. Joel W Posted: December 05, 2005 at 05:16 PM (#1761580)
On Jeter's OBP: I'll take a bet that his OBP is not going to be more that .010 more than that. Last year he had more walks than he had the previous two years, and his average was .310. The thing about Jeter is that he's one of the few very good average hitters in the league, but at 32 I don't see it going higher and I definitely don't see him walking 80 times.
   20. Kyle S Posted: December 05, 2005 at 05:17 PM (#1761582)
I realized yesterday that if you give Chacon Pavano's 2005 BABIP, his ERA for last year is 6.26!

If you give me Pavano's 2004 BABIP, I'd be a major league starter! Sweet!

Kevin Brown no longer resembles a major league pitcher. To what population are you regressing his BABIP, dan?
   21. Joel W Posted: December 05, 2005 at 05:18 PM (#1761583)
Also, a team should definitely take a flyer on Brown. Maybe as a reliever?
   22. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 05, 2005 at 05:33 PM (#1761609)
I have Brown going from his .381 BABIP down to a .301.
   23. PooNani Posted: December 05, 2005 at 05:51 PM (#1761629)
that solves everything
   24. 1k5v3L Posted: December 05, 2005 at 06:24 PM (#1761698)
Another MVP season for A-rod, eh?
   25. Kyle S Posted: December 05, 2005 at 06:36 PM (#1761724)
.301, eh? Is that fairly close to the Yankee staff average?
   26. Mike Green Posted: December 05, 2005 at 06:39 PM (#1761727)
Six starters with ERAs under 4.5? I don't think so. Maybe under 4.75 if the Yanks get lucky. It'll be a slow decline for the Yanks toward their Pythagorean, as the Sandman ages. What a great player he is!
   27. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:13 PM (#1761779)
Is it a straight-line accuracy that if Giambi raises his BA, he raises his OBP?

It seems to me that he could take ABs in which he used to get a BB and get good wood on the ball - expanding his strike zone or whatever. If this were true, BA and OBP are more independant of each other, right?
   28. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:18 PM (#1761795)
I think Jason's 2005 OBP was influenced by his walk-a-thon early in the year where he didn't look comfortable on inside fastballs and HBP numbers.
   29. 1k5v3L Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:21 PM (#1761804)
By the way, I think the Yankees should trade Cano now (his value will probably never be higher) for a centerfielder, and just sign Bellhorn for a couple of years to play 2b for them.
   30. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:29 PM (#1761817)
Sure, levski.

I want to see a Cano-for-Pierre swap, just to see Yankee fan primates' heads explode.
   31. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:29 PM (#1761818)
"I think the Yankees should trade Cano now (his value will probably never be higher) for a centerfielder"

And I think the Yanks should hold on to the guy who is making 300,000 dollars next year and see if he can build on his success last year. Bellhorn's career EQA is .269, Cano's is .275. One's got no range, the other has good range. One is 31 next year, the other is 23. Cano has significant upside, whether or not people on this board want to admit it or not. Cano isn't going to be enough to get anyone we want, and is too promising to piss away on anyone the Yanks can get. There's one guy left in the Yankee infield on the right side of thirty (A-rod's 30 next year IIRC), one guy who will be able to play his position in the next four years on the team and you think they should get rid of him? No F'in way man.
   32. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:31 PM (#1761823)
See, Chacon, your problem is replying as if levski were seriously talking this way.
   33. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:33 PM (#1761825)
(A-rod's 30 next year IIRC)

Rodriguez turned thirty this past July.
   34. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:35 PM (#1761827)
Color me shocked if Small gets 22 starts. Or even 10.
   35. 1k5v3L Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:35 PM (#1761828)
Cano has had a fairly short career tho. Anyhow, upon considering the available CF options, a Cano for Torii Hunter would've made the most sense, but with L. Castillo in Minn, that ain't happening. The Yanks would be wise to resign Bellhorn tho, as an insurance for the time when Cano's EQA drops below .269 and the Yankees faithful turn on him. Especially with Tony Womack taking over as Tom Gordon in the pen...
   36. 1k5v3L Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:36 PM (#1761832)
And no, I wouldn't trade Cano for Pierre. Pierre isn't worth nearly as much.

So, considering there isn't a CF worth taking a flier on in a trade, the Yanks are really better off keeping Cano and just dishing the cash to get Jesus...
   37. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:42 PM (#1761843)
the Yanks are really better off keeping Cano and just dishing the cash to get Jesus

Who's in the Jesus sweepstakes, anyway? That's been pretty quiet this winter.

Red Sox
Cubs
Yankees

Anyone else? The Dodgers (assuming they dump Bradley)? The Giants?
   38. SG Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:44 PM (#1761850)
Color me shocked if Small gets 22 starts. Or even 10.

Somebody didn't read the DISCLAIMER!
   39. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:44 PM (#1761851)
Also, the Yankees don't have Bellhorn anymore. He's a FA.
   40. 1k5v3L Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:45 PM (#1761855)
Larry, I did say the Yankees should SIGN Bellhorn. I know he's a FA.

I'd say Bellhorn would come pretty cheap. I won't be shocked to see the Cardinals give him a shot as a platoon player at 2B if the Yankees don't offer him arbitration...
   41. PooNani Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:46 PM (#1761856)
Angels should be in the sweepstakes if they can get rid of that corpse in center field
   42. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:46 PM (#1761857)
I read it. My comment wasn't to call ZIPS into question, but to let everyone know my mental state.
   43. The District Attorney Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:47 PM (#1761862)
Hopefully, the reason you haven't heard much about Damon is that no one is willing to give him the Beltran-like contract he's asking for.
   44. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:47 PM (#1761863)
"Who's in the Jesus sweepstakes, anyway?"

Tigers came out of nowhere to "get" Magglio. I really don't think the Yanks are going to sign Damon. I sure as hell can't think of any other options really. I wonder how far his price is going to fall before someone signs him.
   45. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:48 PM (#1761866)
If I took the usage numbers too seriously, that's over 400 starts for Yankee pitchers! Even with Steinbrenner's money, I don't know how he could accomplish that.
   46. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:50 PM (#1761871)
Kelly Stinnet looks like a far better hitter then Flaherty. I hope Cashman knows this.
   47. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:51 PM (#1761876)
At what price/years does Damon become a good signing?

I think he's a good one for about 3/$30 million.
   48. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:52 PM (#1761878)
Angels should be in the sweepstakes if they can get rid of that corpse in center field

If they get rid of Finley, they've got internal options in center in Erstad, Figgins, and Rivera. I don't know why they'd bring in another CF.

Of course, I don't know why they brought in Finley to begin with.
   49. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:52 PM (#1761879)
Bellhorn rules!
   50. SG Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:53 PM (#1761880)
Kelly Stinnet looks like a far better hitter then Flaherty. I hope Cashman knows this.

VORP differential of about 16 runs between Stinnett(5.3) and Flaherty(-9.6).
   51. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:54 PM (#1761883)
At what price/years does Damon become a good signing?

I think he's a good one for about 3/$30 million.


In this market, he'd be underpaid at 3/$30. Seven years is too long, but $4/50 is more realistic.
   52. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:54 PM (#1761884)
One's got no range, the other has good range.

Cano's got no range? I hadn't been aware of that.

I see ZiPS projects the Aaron Small pixie dust to wear off.
   53. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: December 05, 2005 at 07:55 PM (#1761885)
I've loved the Unit for a long time, but if he can put up 18 wins and a 3.57 ERA, I will eat my hat.
   54. 1k5v3L Posted: December 05, 2005 at 08:01 PM (#1761903)
According to Sean McAdam, the Yankees have made an offer of 39m/3 years to Jesus.

That's a start; they'll probably end up getting him at 5 years and 65m.
   55. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: December 05, 2005 at 08:02 PM (#1761908)
I've loved the Unit for a long time, but if he can put up 18 wins and a 3.57 ERA, I will eat my hat.

How about Darren's hat?
   56. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: December 05, 2005 at 08:07 PM (#1761922)
but $4/50 is more realistic.


If the Yankees can sign Damon; hell, if they can sign ANYBODY for 50 years for under five bucks, I think they should.
   57. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: December 05, 2005 at 08:08 PM (#1761925)
According to Sean McAdam, the Yankees have made an offer of 39m/3 years to Jesus.

I'd take it. With Damon, years are much more important to me than cash.
   58. 1k5v3L Posted: December 05, 2005 at 08:10 PM (#1761932)
Yeah, I'm sure the Yankees will take it too. But I doubt they get him for fewer than 5 years. The BoSox would give him at least 4, easily.
   59. SG Posted: December 05, 2005 at 08:10 PM (#1761934)
According to Sean McAdam, the Yankees have made an offer of 39m/3 years to Jesus.

Boo.
   60. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: December 05, 2005 at 08:11 PM (#1761939)
If the Yankees can sign Damon; hell, if they can sign ANYBODY for 50 years for under five bucks, I think they should.

I knew someone would call me on my misplaced dollar sign.

No way that Damon signs for less than four years, and I would be somewhat surprised if he signed for less than five.
   61. Lujack Posted: December 05, 2005 at 08:37 PM (#1762010)
If Damon can get 4/50, then Konerko is a steal at 5/60.
   62. nycfan Posted: December 05, 2005 at 08:38 PM (#1762015)
You can do this if you ignore the fact that Chacon's G/F ratio was 0.90 last year and Pavano's was 1.60 and fly ball pitchers historically demonstrate lower BABIP

Plus Chacon has a pretty solid history of allowing a low BABIP as a starter. His three years in Colorado they were .294, .261, and .276. In Colorado, that's pretty good.

I don't know why some people are so down on Cano. He doesn't walk a lot, but he also doesn't strike out all that much. Players always seem to improve their K/BB a lot their second year, and Cano's discipline was never this bad in the minors. He'll probably never be a star, but if he can consistently hit .285/.330/.460 then he'll be a pretty solid second basemen.
   63. shoewizard Posted: December 05, 2005 at 10:03 PM (#1762282)
In looking at Sheffields projection, the one thing that does not seem right is that his W/K ratio (81/67)stays that good while his B.A. and power drop so much.

He hasn't struck out more than he walked in any season since 1993...but last year he came close, 78BB/76K

If anything, the Bb-K ratio in the projection is probably off. If he is going to drop down that much in B.A., he will probably see a corresponding decline in his BB-KK ratio whereby he actually K's more than he walks for the first time in 13 years.

If he maintains something like the 81-67 projected above, that would probably indicate his bat speed, eye, etc, all have not slipped, and therefore there would be no reason to think his averages would drop significantly.

Either he is declining or he's not. The projection above seems to contradict itself.
   64. shoewizard Posted: December 05, 2005 at 10:14 PM (#1762313)
Oh....and he may be a dick, but he is just about becoming a first ballot hall of famer.

He is most likely going to retire with over 500 homers and over 1700 RBI, and have an OPS+ in the top 60 all time. (He currently ranks 48th)

He may not actually get in on the first ballot, because he is not warm and fuzzy like the voters prefer...but he is that caliber player, IMHO
   65. Morph Posted: December 05, 2005 at 10:23 PM (#1762336)
How anyone can put any credence into this blows my mind. I'm sure the effort is there and it's appreciated, but some sense of the human element has to be acknowledged. Kevin Brown, if he even pitches, is going to have a better year than Wang next season? Because Shawn Chacon found little sucess in the pitching abyss, he is magically going to regress? I state emphatically that if Andy Phillips doesn't learn how to hit a Major League curve, he'll fail to hit 2 homers, let alone 21 with a full slate of M.L.B. AB's. How in the Lord's name is Alan Embree, wherever the hell he pitches, going to come close to those numbers? Reading TRENDS season to season is more important most of the time than analyzing the whole career of a player, especially when talking about his worth over one season.

Trend: Jason Giambi wreaked havoc in the second half. The only reason why his numbers weren't on M.V.P caliber was because of a pathetic first two months. What is a greater indication of Giambi's future, short term [this year] performance? Obviously, the last few months, but with ZIPS, he gets hurt with what ultimately amounts to dead, meaningless stats.

Trend: Shawn Chacon escapes Coors Field and pitches lights out down the stretch and very well in a play off start. Why is he getting penalized for pitching in the ultimate hitter's park? Realize Chacon is a guy who relies on "bad contact" and with so much "good contact" being made at his home games, it scared him from pitching to the bat in the strike zone. His whole style was wrecked, even on the road, where bad habits and a possible loss of confidence seeped into his overall game. Hence the weak peripherals, especially walks to strike outs.
   66. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 05, 2005 at 10:43 PM (#1762377)
Granted, being a flyball pitcher makes Chacon likely to have a lower BABIP than if he were a ground ball pitcher. But, there's no evidence of any such thing as "bad contact" as something a pitcher can rely on.

MGL's going to kill you, by the way... (figuratively speaking, of course :) )
   67. AROM Posted: December 05, 2005 at 10:43 PM (#1762378)
I think Chacon escaping Coors field has been accounted for. A 4.40 ERA in the AL with Yankee defense behind him is not bad at all.

Trends: There are those who argue that they are meaningless. Less than meaningless, actually, because they mislead. A player's total record, weighted properly and adjusted for age and other various things, will give you a much better prediction of his future than a trend.
   68. Dizzypaco Posted: December 05, 2005 at 10:47 PM (#1762385)
The main reason ZIPS projected Chacon not to do very well this year is that he isn't actually a good pitcher. He got lucky for half a season. No one with those kind of peripherals is good consistently.
   69. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 05, 2005 at 10:49 PM (#1762391)
Just for the record, ZIPS's projection of Chacon is about what I think he'll actually do.
   70. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: December 05, 2005 at 10:54 PM (#1762400)
Trend: Shawn Chacon escapes Coors Field and pitches lights out down the stretch and very well in a play off start. Why is he getting penalized for pitching in the ultimate hitter's park?

So, you're putting more weight on the fifteen appearances he made in a Yankee uniform than on the 150 appearances he made in a Rockie uniform?

I like Chacon, and I tend to take DIPS with a big grain of salt, but I think a 4.40 ERA is about right, especially for a pitcher with his low "K" rate playing in front of Yankee defense.
   71. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 05, 2005 at 11:41 PM (#1762502)
"To what population are you regressing his BABIP, dan?"

Weasels. Appropriate, ain't it?

Jesus doesn't chase big money. If you give him two dollars, he'll just keep multiplying them until he has what he needs, like the loaves and the fishes.

I think the absolute best-case scenario for Cano is Jose Vidro, and while that's good, it shouldn't necessarily be "untouchable". Especially since I expect the Yanks to dump him for pennies on the dollar after a consolidation year in '06.
   72. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 06, 2005 at 12:07 AM (#1762555)
A 4.40 ERA is likely to be just about league average. I don't think that's being harsh on Chacon at all. He's been close to a league average pitcher on the road for his career, but not quite. He's young enough to still improve a bit, and throwing in a little Coors hangover effect adjustment on his career road numbers probably makes this projection just about right. I hope that he and Wang pitch 180 - 200 innings each instead of 140, but I'll take the 100 ERA+'s from the two of them right now if you tell me where to sign. How many teams get that from their 4th and 5th starters?

Just for grins, ERA+ of all Yankee starters who pitched >100 innings in the past five years:

2005 -- 117, 111, 101, 93
2004 -- 110, 104, 98, 92
2003 -- 128, 112, 109, 106
2002 -- 134, 120, 117, 108, 101
2001 -- 142, 128, 112, 83

Throwing out things like Brown's projection and adjusting Johnson down a touch for age, I'm guessing that this would give the Yanks a rotation of something like 120, 110, 105, 101, 99. If they get 900 innings of that, it's a HUGE upgrade over what they've had the last two years. Even if they just get a 120 out of Randy and 100's out of everybody else, it's still an improvement.
   73. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 06, 2005 at 01:55 AM (#1762775)
Yeah, I'm a little perplexed why everyone is describing Chacon's projection as negative. Like #72 said, the lgERA in Yankee Stadium last year was 4.45 and 4.50 the year before. A 4.40 ERA would be around 100-105 ERA+ right in line with his career 100 ERA+. If he posts that number and stays healthy, he'd be a fine member of the rotation.

I can't see how anyone but a fool would expect Chacon to be closer to his 2005 Yankee form than his career. If you want to give him credit for some kind of Coors' effect, perhaps bump him up to a 110-115 ERA+, but any more than that is craziness
   74. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 06, 2005 at 02:41 AM (#1762852)
This will be a most interesting thread to resurrect come the end of the season. I've already bookmarked it for just such a purpose.
   75. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: December 06, 2005 at 02:48 AM (#1762870)
Shawn Chacon wears his cap at a wacky angle. This was disastrous in Coors Field, obviously. However, the prevailing wind patterns in Yankee Stadium are such that the air currents coming off his cap cause him to be a much more effective pitcher.
   76. Morph Posted: December 06, 2005 at 03:14 AM (#1762932)
Chacon is a much better pitcher than 4.40, and I believe he'll prove it this coming season. As I said, I think his crap walk to strike out ratio can be attributed to being overly "bat shy" in the earlier portion of his career. Rlr, I don't understand your joke. It's pretty much common knowledge what an awful pitcher's park Coors Field is, not only because of the homers allowed, but because of the fact the outfielders play amazingly deep, allowing for more bloop hits and line drives to dunk and drop in. Disregarding this in the case of Chacon is hypocritical. Pitching to contact is what he does best. Coors Field basically harvested on all of his weaknesses as a pitcher.

I also can't get over Kevin " Burn in Hell" Brown sporting the fourth lowest ERA on the team. Shouldn't there be a completely, utterly washed out variable here? This guy didn't have a fork in his back, he had a steak knife.

Arrghhh... and I don't see what is so hard to understand what I mean by following trends in a player's performance over the final two or three months of a season. Jason Giambi gets killed in ZIPS because he had a parasitic year [literally and figuratively] in 2004. What that has to do about his perfomance in 2006 is beyond me.
   77. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: December 06, 2005 at 03:28 AM (#1762954)
I was making no comment on what I expect Chacon to do. I happen to think he'll be pretty decent. I'm not about "substantive contributions." I'm about "silly comments."

But what sort of ERA did Roger Clemens put up with the Yankees defense in the early Aughts? As I recall, mostly in the high 3s. I don't think its unreasonable to expect Shawn "Not As Good As Roger Clemens" Chacon to put up a higher ERA than that in front of what probably isn't a significantly better defense. And, like lots of people have said, a 4.40 ERA would be pretty good and certainly would win a lot of games, considering they should have a good offense.
   78. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 06, 2005 at 03:31 AM (#1762960)
This will be a most interesting thread to resurrect come the end of the season. I've already bookmarked it for just such a purpose.

Excellent - the controversial picks always seem to make my projections look better than they are. Anecdotally, it's the easy ones that ZiPS screws up. Most notably, 3 of the projections I've gotten the most e-mails about was Weaver having a better ERA than Brown after the trade, Troy Percival's big projected ERA drop in 2005, and projecting Oakland's rotation to be fine.

Seriously, though, I have the RMSE down to 0.86 for 2005 projections; I replicated BP's examinatino from 2 years ago for pitchers with 130 IP and the 0.86 would tie PECOTA for the best that year. Gonna look at the hitters next. I've managed to reduce the errors every year so far.
   79. Morph Posted: December 06, 2005 at 03:40 AM (#1762964)
I'm not about "substantive contributions." I'm about "silly comments."


Lol, well still though, I take people knocking the Straight Gangsta way 2 personally.
I see it as Chacon saved the season last year, being the most consistant pitcher on the team [second half, Small had some rough patches] and allowing me 2 forget Jaret Wright made more money in a year than I will set eyes on my entire life.

Plus, I was at his first start where he tripped over the mound and everyone wondered what the hell just happened.
   80. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 06, 2005 at 03:43 AM (#1762969)
Jason Giambi gets killed in ZIPS because he had a parasitic year [literally and figuratively] in 2004. What that has to do about his perfomance in 2006 is beyond me.

Giambi is funny example to try and prove your point, since I'm pretty sure when the Yankees '05 projections were released there were a lot of people saying "no way Giambi does that well, he's finished."
   81. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: December 06, 2005 at 03:45 AM (#1762971)
I'm not knocking the man. I really like him and his wacky cap. As a matter of fact, I am known to wear my cap a little askew, too. But I don't really see him being any better or, really, as good as he was last year for New York. Which isn't to say he won't be good, because I expect he'll be plenty useful.
   82. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 06, 2005 at 03:52 AM (#1762977)

I also can't get over Kevin " Burn in Hell" Brown sporting the fourth lowest ERA on the team. Shouldn't there be a completely, utterly washed out variable here? This guy didn't have a fork in his back, he had a steak knife.


Utterly washed out guys don't allow only 5 HRs with a 19:50 BB:K in 73.1 innings. A .381 $H is completely unsustainable - Voros looked at all stints of hitters pitching and the result was something like .315.
   83. PFJ Posted: December 06, 2005 at 04:20 AM (#1763012)
MW you have heard of DIPs right?
   84. 5.00, .280/.320/.400, 4th outfielder Posted: December 06, 2005 at 04:21 AM (#1763015)
I think Chacon/Small should be traded now at their highest value. If we need to we could sign Washborn and trade one of the above for Wilkerson/Michaels.
   85. Darren Posted: December 06, 2005 at 04:23 AM (#1763018)
Wow, that's an interesting factoid, Dan. I would never have thought to look at it that way. What would Brown look like with that .315 BABIP?
   86. PFJ Posted: December 06, 2005 at 04:29 AM (#1763027)
Wow, that's an interesting factoid, Dan. I would never have thought to look at it that way. What would Brown look like with that .315 BABIP?

Uing the DIPS excel sheet I got, and using a .315 BABIP ( still a little high) I came up with a 4.20 ERA
   87. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 06, 2005 at 02:30 PM (#1763467)
Of course, the real question with Brown is whether (or how often) he'll be physically capable of taking the mound.
   88. Mike Emeigh Posted: December 06, 2005 at 02:58 PM (#1763500)
A .381 $H is completely unsustainable

Of course - but the question is why Brown had a .381 $H. It could mean that Brown was unlucky in the extreme, and that his true talent level now is closer to what Dan's projecting. But it could also mean that Brown is no longer capable of holding major league hitters below a BABIP level which would allow him to be successful - in which case he won't get to pitch very much, if at all.

-- MWE
   89. Dizzypaco Posted: December 06, 2005 at 03:48 PM (#1763574)
Of course - but the question is why Brown had a .381 $H. It could mean that Brown was unlucky in the extreme, and that his true talent level now is closer to what Dan's projecting. But it could also mean that Brown is no longer capable of holding major league hitters below a BABIP level which would allow him to be successful - in which case he won't get to pitch very much, if at all.

I agree. Curt Schilling went through the same thing last year. While most pitchers can't control BABIP, I think there are a few where its not just luck - the pitcher still has decent control but can't get any movement or speed on his pitches, and balls are rocketed all over the park.
   90. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 06, 2005 at 03:52 PM (#1763581)
But again, I have a hard time believing that a pitcher that is striking out batters and not allowing home runs is a whole lot worse at controlling balls in play than a position player who may have pitched in high school or little league.
   91. Joel W Posted: December 06, 2005 at 06:40 PM (#1763936)
It's sort of like a really bad losing streak at blackjack. You know that the house will win eventually, but when you're only winning 30% of hands, it's just bad luck. I know, eventually, I'll be getting the same negative expectation odds that everybody does.

I know that Curt Schilling and Kevin Brown can't keep hitters at really low levels of BABIP anymore, but they can probably do better than the ridiculous BABIPs they had last year.
   92. NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!) Posted: December 06, 2005 at 07:14 PM (#1763997)
Just about everything hit off of Kevin Brown last year was a "line shawt", FYI.
   93. Morph Posted: December 06, 2005 at 09:19 PM (#1764307)
Yes, I have heard about DIPS and do think it is a very helpful and useful stat in the evulation of pitchers. Do I think it is infallible? Of course not, I doubt anybody does. In response to Biff, I was expecting Giambi to bounce back in 2005 but like anyone else was in the process of writing him off by May. In retrospect, it should have been taken into account that he missed the second half of 2004, and combined with mental/physical duress, made him appear to be a player he really wasn't. I hope I don't give the impression that I'm on a high horse here, if anyone disagrees with what I think go right ahead.
   94. Rob Base Posted: July 06, 2006 at 12:02 PM (#2089060)
Chacpwn3d

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6368 seconds
66 querie(s) executed