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

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

2006 ZiPS Projections - Pittsburgh Pirates


Name           P   AVG   OBP   SPC   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS
Bay           lf .297 .395 .557 148 542 90 161 35 5 32 99 84 122 16 3
Wilson         rf .266 .363 .482 124 421 64 112 25 3 20 67 44 117 2 1
Casey*        1b .313 .373 .441 140 540 69 169 34 1 11 64 48 46 2 0
Gerut*        rf .269 .348 .446 120 446 63 120 30 2 15 62 50 54 9 6
Eldred         1b .250 .300 .502 133 476 66 119 22 1 32 86 31 135 4 2
Sanchez         3b .290 .344 .401 117 414 52 120 25 3 5 42 32 41 5 3
Paulino         c   .272 .325 .426 112 401 54 109 18 1 14 51 31 69 3 1
Doumit#        c   .264 .327 .424 118 387 55 102 21 1 13 53 27 74 2 2
McLouth*        cf .283 .343 .406 144 508 83 144 29 3 9 55 39 72 28 12
Koonce*        1b .235 .339 .404 124 438 52 103 23 0 17 60 66 117 0 2
Clark*        3b .277 .348 .375 96 328 40 91 18 1 4 34 34 26 1 2
Ward*          1b .257 .311 .416 124 401 40 103 23 1 13 57 31 60 0 2
Duffy*        cf .287 .338 .384 127 484 77 139 19 5 6 46 30 82 19 13
Castillo       2b .277 .325 .394 122 437 55 121 15 3 10 53 31 68 4 5
Bautista       3b .247 .315 .405 126 442 52 109 23 1 15 61 38 104 5 4
Wilson         ss .272 .314 .395 160 628 70 171 31 8 10 68 35 63 7 4
Alfaro         3b .269 .313 .400 119 428 43 115 27 1 9 46 25 65 2 3
de Caster       3b .251 .305 .404 117 386 52 97 25 2 10 47 25 98 4 3
Stansberry       2b .237 .304 .396 133 472 64 112 22 7 13 62 40 118 13 6
Sadler         rf .251 .299 .411 133 474 55 119 27 2 15 58 29 103 11 9
Crespo#        cf .246 .318 .361 119 402 57 99 22 3 6 40 41 77 15 8
Furmaniak       ss .249 .301 .386 141 511 61 127 21 5 13 59 33 115 9 7
Davis#        cf .263 .326 .333 130 505 76 133 20 3 3 39 40 70 32 13
Cota           c   .238 .296 .373 89 303 32 72 18 1 7 37 23 75 1 2
Nunnally*      lf .205 .308 .360 93 283 36 58 10 2 10 35 41 80 6 5
Thompson*      cf .251 .312 .317 121 458 70 115 11 5 3 36 34 69 37 14
Velandia       ss .220 .289 .320 119 372 38 82 23 1 4 35 33 70 1 3
Guzman         ss .252 .278 .334 135 485 64 122 16 6 4 46 18 85 18 10

Name           W   L   ERA   G GS   INN   H   ER HR   BB   K
Gonzalez*        3   1   3.27 47   0   44.0   32   16   3   21   52
Marte*          5   3   3.71 70   0   63.0   49   26   4   34   72
Duke*          14 10   3.73 29 29   181.0 179   75 14   42 117
Torres           7   5   3.82 80   0   92.0   85   39   7   32   56
Maholm*          7   6   4.10 25 25   145.0 144   66 12   48 104
Meadows         2   3   4.21 60   0   77.0   81   36   8   18   43
Capps           4   4   4.27 50   0   78.0   86   37   7   18   40
Perez*          8   9   4.32 25 25   152.0 125   73 21   74 180
Bayliss         1   2   4.50 41   0   66.0   59   33   9   31   62
Strickland       2   2   4.50 30   0   30.0   30   15   5   9   24
Burnett*        7 11   4.60 25 25   135.0 148   69 12   42   61
Snell           7 11   4.62 31 25   156.0 154   80 25   50 131
Corey           4   5   4.69 64   0   71.0   69   37   9   30   62
Santos           7 11   4.75 30 26   146.0 149   77 16   60   95
Grabow*          2   4   4.81 65   0   58.0   57   31   7   26   52
Hernandez         4   7   4.86 66   0   63.0   60   34   7   32   50
Reames           4   6   4.91 38 10   99.0 101   54 10   45   69
Reith           3   5   4.94 44   1   62.0   61   34   7   31   47
Wells           8 13   4.94 30 30   175.0 172   96 21   86 131
White           3   6   4.96 65   0   78.0   86   43   9   29   44
Bullinger         3   4   4.97 56   0   67.0   76   37   9   18   33
Fogg           8 13   4.98 31 31   170.0 192   94 21   60   88
Gorzelanny*      5 10   4.99 26 24   146.0 153   81 18   59 106
Bullington       6 11   5.02 23 22   131.0 142   73 20   43   82
Vogelsong         5   9   5.06 36 18   128.0 130   72 16   62   94
Connolly*        5 10   5.07 26 25   142.0 155   80 19   53   82
Mallette         1   1   5.08 30   0   39.0   40   22   6   18   28
Whiteside         3   4   5.14 52   0   63.0   69   36 14   15   53
Enochs           3   7   5.17 35 13   101.0 110   58 13   41   60
Jacobsen         3   6   5.19 20 16   104.0 116   60 13   40   49
McDade           2   4   5.20 28   4   64.0   71   37   9   25   36
Roa             2   4   5.29 34   3   63.0   73   37 11   17   40
Johnston*        1   3   5.37 48   0   57.0   56   34   8   32   46
Adams           2   5   5.49 53   0   59.0   63   36   5   35   41
Roach           3   8   5.77 34 16   120.0 141   77 23   41   61
Kaye           2   5   5.82 50   0   65.0   72   42   8   36   36
van Benschoten     5 14   5.83 29 28   156.0 171 101 26   78   92
van Dusen*        4 11   5.88 27 20   124.0 143   81 24   48   69
Starling         5 15   6.06 27 27   159.0 190 107 28   68   81
Stewart*        4 12   6.12 23 22   122.0 135   83 21   67   76
Reid           2   8   6.34 29 16   105.0 123   74 25   42   68
Chiavacci         2   7   6.64 26 14   103.0 110   76 21   69   78
Bloom*          2 11   6.73 24 24   115.0 131   86 22   75   64
Peterson         3 15   7.01 27 26   145.0 175 113 33   83   76

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 14, 2005 at 06:31 PM | 40 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. charlie Posted: December 14, 2005 at 07:00 PM (#1777132)
Thanks, Dan. Do you have a projection for Josh Sharpless?
   2. charlie Posted: December 14, 2005 at 07:02 PM (#1777137)
Also, that's a really disappointing projection for Jose Castillo.
   3. Mike Emeigh Posted: December 14, 2005 at 07:06 PM (#1777141)
If Eldred got that much PT in the majors, he'd probably strike out at least 160 times.

Pirate fans will be hugely unhappy if Duke performs in line with that projection, but I think it's reasonable if he stays healthy. I really don't expect him to be a lot better than that. Ditto Maholm. Perez is the only guy who I think is likely to do better than the projection (if he's healthy).

Dan, got any idea what Nixon or Monroe would project to in Pittsburgh? Or Mueller, for that matter?

-- MWE
   4. Mike Emeigh Posted: December 14, 2005 at 07:14 PM (#1777159)
Also, that's a really disappointing projection for Jose Castillo.

Given what he's done his first two years in the majors, it's not unreasonable.

Castillo's BB-Ref comps are an interesting bunch, but they don't really include anyone who has something like his skill set. Tony Bernazard might be the closest (although I think Castillo is better defensively and not quite as skilled offensively) and Bernazard eventually had a couple of decent years.

-- MWE
   5. The Answer to the TWolves (GMoney) Posted: December 14, 2005 at 07:59 PM (#1777218)
Any chance of a Craig Wilson, Jason Bay, Jody Gerut OF next year? Seems like a big dropoff to McClouth or Duffy. Not sure if Gerut or Bay could handle CF.
   6. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 14, 2005 at 08:03 PM (#1777224)
Love the difference in decisions between Duke and Maholm.
   7. philly Posted: December 14, 2005 at 08:07 PM (#1777233)
Dan, got any idea what Nixon or Monroe would project to in Pittsburgh? Or Mueller, for that matter?

Mike, there's a link in the PrOPS thread that Mueller signed with LA pending a physical.
   8. azibuck Posted: December 14, 2005 at 08:11 PM (#1777242)
Mike, I don't think we'll be "hugely" unhappy if Duke puts up those numbers, but what makes you think it's reasonable? It's kind of out of line with his track record, unless he's been a fluke at every single level, including major league.

Not only is Castillo's projection disappointing, it also seems unreasonable. He hit 11 homers in 370 AB's last year, and this projects one less homer in 67 more AB's? Even the AB's are out of line. Barring another injury, and last year's was kind of fluky, he should get at least 500 in 2006.

RWC -- I think Bay could play CF, but that OF will never happen given what Tracy has said (loves defense, hates strikeouts).
   9. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 14, 2005 at 08:32 PM (#1777280)
I'll do Josh Sharpless. Only having a handful of relief innings above the Sally league, he's one of those players that I would hold off on projecting unless someone asks me.
   10. Mike Emeigh Posted: December 14, 2005 at 08:42 PM (#1777293)
Mike, I don't think we'll be "hugely" unhappy if Duke puts up those numbers, but what makes you think it's reasonable?

Well, Duke was both a bit hit-lucky and HR-lucky last year in the majors, in that he allowed fewer hits/BIP and fewer HR/OF FBIP than one might have expected given his BIP and distribution. Hardball Times has an experimental version of FIP (xFIP) that accounts for the fact that HR are relatively predictable based on the # of fly balls allowed and the home park characteristics. Duke's xFIP for 2005 was 3.72 (his actual FIP was 2.98). Duke also had an unusually high percentage of line drives in play (25.1%, highest on the team except for Gorzelanny, who only pitched six innings), a lot of which were caught by someone; that's not likely to be repeated. Based on all of that, I see a mid-to-upper 3s ERA as being quite reasonable.

-- MWE
   11. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 14, 2005 at 08:52 PM (#1777305)
Mike, I don't think we'll be "hugely" unhappy if Duke puts up those numbers, but what makes you think it's reasonable? It's kind of out of line with his track record, unless he's been a fluke at every single level, including major league.


His strikeout rates in both AAA and the majors are less than enthralling and even for a groundball pitcher, it's a lot to ask a 23-year-old pitcher to allow single digit home runs per 200 innings.

It's kind of funny - this is the exact same discussion we had last year when ZiPS projected Oliver Perez to go from his 2004 ERA of 2.98 to 3.84 (and he ended up much worse than that, as everyone here knows). Young pitchers, even tremendously talented ones with great potential and performance, are going to have their growing pains more often than not. Two steps forward, one step backwards is standard practice - guys like Roy Oswalt are the exception.
   12. Freddy Posted: December 14, 2005 at 08:54 PM (#1777309)
I'd say Duke's projected statline would be reason for celebration for a 2nd year player.
   13. charlie Posted: December 14, 2005 at 09:19 PM (#1777354)
Thanks, Dan. Sharpless is relatively likely to wind up in Pittsburgh's pen at some point this year - and, I think, fairly likely to do well once he gets there. But I can see how projecting him would be a problem.
   14. azibuck Posted: December 14, 2005 at 09:27 PM (#1777373)
"guys like Oswalt are the exception."

But Duke is exceptional!

The thing about predicting Perez's 2005 is that the prediction and actual outcome weren't out of line with his record. 2004 was the aberration.

I can't go all old school on you, but Duke is not Perez, and it's a far deeper thing than K rates.
   15. Mike Emeigh Posted: December 14, 2005 at 09:33 PM (#1777392)
I'd say Duke's projected statline would be reason for celebration for a 2nd year player.

It would be, but I think most Pittsburgh fans have higher expectations based on the splashy debut. Ditto Maholm.

-- MWE
   16. Freddy Posted: December 14, 2005 at 09:52 PM (#1777430)
It would be, but I think most Pittsburgh fans have higher expectations based on the splashy debut. Ditto Maholm.

True, and these are the same fans that expect Duffy to "regress" to batting 315-320.

It's surprising to me how similar the projections are for Doumit and Paulino.
   17. Greg Schuler Posted: December 14, 2005 at 10:13 PM (#1777476)
Is the Jim Tracy "My system works, look at the results in LA" filter applied?

I think it might be off on Castillo, but everything else seems reasonable to me. I have read in some print and heard in other media interviews that Littlefield was projecting burnett to contribute to the MLB team this season. That seems highly unlikely, but I'll ask if the ZiPS takes the rehab into consideration, or is that projection for a healthy Burnett?
   18. Russ Posted: December 14, 2005 at 10:28 PM (#1777505)
I love that McLouth projection, but I think he'll surpass it. Duffy's an atheletic guy, but McLouth is a player who can do a lot of things for you in centerfield. And the Pirates could do a hell of a lot worse than running Craig Wilson between first and right and McLouth between center and right. Interesting as well that McLouth is in line to possibly outproduce Gerut next year...
   19. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 14, 2005 at 10:28 PM (#1777508)
Healthy. ZiPS ain't a doctor.
   20. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 14, 2005 at 10:33 PM (#1777514)
I'm glad to see that McLouth projection, because I'm half-expecting Duffy to come to camp with a bad hammy and just totally crash and burn.
   21. Russ Posted: December 14, 2005 at 10:35 PM (#1777523)
A while back, WTM (or was it Mike) suggested that McLouth had a Dykstra-like profile (although maybe not Dykstra-like talent)... I still like that comp for him and it would make him a useful player for a long while (and maybe even he'll challenge for a batting title someday!).

FREE NATE MCLOUTH!
   22. Mike Emeigh Posted: December 14, 2005 at 10:53 PM (#1777560)
A while back, WTM (or was it Mike) suggested that McLouth had a Dykstra-like profile (although maybe not Dykstra-like talent)...


Prolly Wilbur - weren't me.

-- MWE
   23. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 14, 2005 at 11:21 PM (#1777616)
Dykstra would be nice. The comp that immediately came to my mind was Dave Martinez, but that might be selling Nate short.
   24. Passed Ball Posted: December 15, 2005 at 12:26 AM (#1777711)
Is that comp pre or post-steroid Dykstra?
   25. WTM Posted: December 15, 2005 at 01:13 PM (#1778246)
Well, I think it was more like, McLouth LOOKS like Dykstra.
   26. Russ Posted: December 15, 2005 at 02:43 PM (#1778269)
Well, I think it was more like, McLouth LOOKS like Dykstra.

If I remember correctly (it's been a while, and I'm a bit archive lazy), I said that when I pictured Chris Duffy, I always pictured a Lenny Dykstra type player. You must have said something like McLouth looks a lot more like Dykstra than Duffy and I took that a little too strongly.

If you look at their minor league stats, it's obvious that Dykstra had more speed and a better batting eye, so maybe McLouth is Dykstra-lite (but that's still better than the whole Redman or whole Mackowiak that the Pirates have been running out in CF the last few years).

The Martinez comparisons are probably a good lower bound on McLouth's ceiling (think about it, it makes sense), although I think Nate has more power than Martinez (who wasn't that bad of a player, when you look at it).

The big question, I guess, is whether McLouth's walks will go up at some point. His rate is acceptable now, but if it were better, it would make him a lot more valuable.
   27. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 15, 2005 at 03:25 PM (#1778300)
I was just thinking: How bad would things have to get for the team to actually call up Kyle Bloom next season? Are we in alien attack territory, or would a simple structural collapse that buries the locker room be enough to do it?
   28. WTM Posted: December 15, 2005 at 03:25 PM (#1778302)
To be more specific, McLouth has the small size but barrel-chested build that Dykstra had. Anyway, I think Dykstra-lite is a pretty good description of Nate's upside.

One of the more problematic projections, to me, is Perez. He seems far more likely to repeat either 2004 or 2005 than to fall in between. His problem this year wasn't the standard growing pains, like learning to work hitters and make adjustments. It was a loss of control and a significant drop in velocity. If he's throwing 89 mph in 2006, he's not going to sniff a 4.32 ERA.
   29. JolietJake Posted: December 17, 2005 at 07:08 AM (#1781435)
Can you run Ty Wigginton's ZIP projection for me please? Seems to me he would be a better offering for 3B over Sanchez irregardless of his rough D.
   30. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: December 17, 2005 at 07:18 AM (#1781443)
i just have to say: my ####### god is Bay a stud.
   31. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 17, 2005 at 07:57 AM (#1781485)
I have Wigginton projected at 263/336/436.

The defense is more than rough - using Dial's linear-weighted zone rating method and adjusting for team balls in play, I have Wigginton at -9 in 2004 and -10 in a mere 305 innings in '05 (which comes out as an abysmal -48 per 162 games!)
   32. JolietJake Posted: December 17, 2005 at 05:04 PM (#1781684)
Thank you Dan.. we know Ty is a horrible glove man but showing part-time stats in 2004 and 2005 doesn't tell the real tale, in my opinion. He is a career .945 glove guy at 3B.. which is not good, but certainly not -48 by any means. And Freddy's 2005 .979 FPCT over 60 games at 3B isn't anymore accurate than Ty's -48 is. :)

When we consider the G/F ratio of Duke, Maholm, Perez, Wells, and take your pick for #5, there will be a lot of balls on the ground, to be sure. But few RH MLB hitters are going to get on top and pull any of those guys heat like they would to Fogg and Redman in 2005, or Fogg and Burnett in 2004... especially with all the lefties throwing into the RH batters. The spray charts vs Maholm and Duke and Perez show us that.

Wiggy was comfortable above replacement last year to warrant an additional look at age 28, especially after his more than productive numbers late at Indy. His D tightened up there as well. But that is my opinion..
   33. Russ Posted: December 18, 2005 at 03:55 PM (#1782877)
i just have to say: my #### god is Bay a stud.

Guys like Bay (late to the big leagues for a great player) have funny comps:

Age 26 comps:
Marty Cordova, Hack Wilson, Jim Edmonds, Zeke Bonura, Mitchell Page,
Bobby Higginson, Pedro Guerrero, Tim Salmon, Wes Covington, Jason Giambi

FWIW, just eyeballing it, it looks like the better comps for Bay are Tim Salmon with more speed or Jim Edmonds with more power... not too shabby, as long as Bay can stay healthy.
   34. WTM Posted: December 18, 2005 at 06:05 PM (#1782994)
The funny part to me is that Wigginton put up a .789 OPS last year despite getting benched late in the season when he was finally starting to hit. Randa, who apparently is now Littlefield's top choice for 3B, had a .787 OPS, his second best showing in the last five years. Wiggy is 28, Randa 36 and will cost considerably more. So, even taking defense into account (I suspect there's little difference between the two) why is Randa worth signing as a FA and Wiggy not worth a roster spot?

One of the discouraging things about Littlefield is that, once he gets down on a player, even if it's only for oversleeping once, that player is toast no matter what he does on the field afterward.
   35. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 18, 2005 at 11:17 PM (#1783415)
I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I consider Randa pretty good at third and Wiggy pretty not so good.

Does anyone else think Wiggy would be more valuable as a somewhat stiff second baseman rather than a somewhat stiff third baseman who occasionally pegs a fan with a wild throw?
   36. Darren Posted: December 19, 2005 at 03:35 AM (#1783675)
Comps for Bay? B. Giles is a great one. Their unadjusted mL numbers are eerily similar, they both arrived a bit late to the Bigs, and have had similar numbers early on.
   37. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 31, 2005 at 03:39 PM (#1801016)
I don't even think he's in the org anymore, but just because I'm curious, what's the projection for Josh Bonifay look like?
   38. TOLAXOR Posted: January 02, 2006 at 12:40 AM (#1802252)
HOW IS WILSON ON DEFENSE, ESP. LF AND 3B????!!!!
   39. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 02, 2006 at 07:18 PM (#1802986)
Craig's never played third at any level, so I don't think he'd be very good at it. He's a slightly below average corner defender in the OF, maybe a -5 or so, and right around average at first.
   40. Russ Posted: January 02, 2006 at 08:07 PM (#1803019)
maybe a -5 or so

Jesse Barfield was a -5...oh wait, you weren't talking about his SOM arm... never mind...

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Randy Jones
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.5389 seconds
47 querie(s) executed