|
|
|
Transaction Oracle— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
2006 ZiPS Projections - Seattle Mariners
Name P AVG OBP SPC G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS
Sexson 1b .264 .373 .533 151 550 90 145 32 1 38 114 92 157 1 1
Jacobsen 1b .260 .349 .494 97 342 49 89 18 1 20 65 44 94 1 1
Ichiro!* rf .319 .366 .429 162 686 104 219 23 8 12 80 50 68 29 10
Snelling* cf .294 .364 .449 72 245 41 72 15 1 7 36 25 38 1 3
Johjima c .273 .342 .480 124 444 59 121 27 1 21 67 44 52 3 3
Ibanez* lf .277 .346 .440 154 584 80 162 31 2 20 87 62 94 6 3
Beltre 3b .269 .321 .463 158 607 76 163 35 1 27 101 45 102 4 2
Reed* cf .266 .340 .379 144 504 68 134 31 4 6 55 55 67 21 12
Choo* cf .256 .334 .382 126 442 71 113 16 5 10 52 51 86 19 11
Everett# dh .236 .311 .400 127 453 49 107 19 2 17 67 42 85 4 4
Leone 3b .224 .315 .385 99 340 55 76 18 2 11 45 44 96 5 3
Strong cf .260 .336 .337 102 365 51 95 13 3 3 32 38 62 17 8
Bohn lf .237 .302 .393 133 456 62 108 22 2 15 54 35 114 15 7
Lopez ss .257 .291 .402 115 428 59 110 29 0 11 57 18 50 8 5
Morse ss .247 .298 .376 116 396 44 98 20 2 9 47 27 80 4 1
Dobbs* 3b .261 .296 .373 121 399 40 104 17 2 8 48 19 58 7 4
Brown 3b .229 .311 .359 115 376 53 86 21 2 8 42 36 78 10 7
Bloomquist 3b .254 .299 .329 87 252 31 64 14 1 1 24 16 41 13 2
Hansen* 1b .208 .319 .292 77 96 9 20 2 0 2 11 16 22 0 0
Christianson c .219 .285 .339 79 274 34 60 12 0 7 31 24 75 1 1
Balentien lf .209 .247 .377 113 393 47 82 20 2 14 49 16 132 7 2
Reese 2b .219 .288 .295 96 288 25 63 11 1 3 23 28 66 6 1
Betancourt* ss .240 .270 .347 161 605 58 145 27 10 6 56 22 51 14 13
Jones ss .217 .271 .330 131 461 57 100 19 3 9 46 27 111 8 6
Guzman# 3b .215 .280 .324 117 413 53 89 17 5 6 42 33 91 5 8
Bourgeois# 2b .224 .281 .281 132 459 49 103 16 2 2 31 32 69 12 3
Rivera c .228 .259 .314 100 334 29 76 15 1 4 31 13 63 1 0
Name W L ERA G GS INN H ER HR BB K
Soriano 5 1 2.45 34 2 55.0 43 15 2 12 57
Guardado* 4 2 3.60 56 0 55.0 48 22 7 15 49
Sherrill* 6 4 3.67 50 0 54.0 47 22 6 17 56
Hernandez 13 7 3.75 29 26 163.0 143 68 12 65 150
Mateo 3 3 3.94 52 0 80.0 76 35 12 16 55
Hasegawa 4 3 3.97 56 0 68.0 67 30 5 22 33
Nelson 2 2 4.17 51 0 41.0 34 19 3 23 42
Livingston* 10 9 4.27 28 28 179.0 193 85 22 35 98
Pineiro 10 10 4.43 29 29 189.0 195 93 21 58 123
Jimenez* 5 5 4.50 47 1 82.0 86 41 10 24 54
Washburn* 9 10 4.55 29 29 176.0 183 89 23 51 102
Heaverlo 4 5 4.71 45 0 84.0 87 44 6 40 52
Bazardo 8 9 4.73 26 26 156.0 181 82 17 41 78
Moyer* 10 12 4.90 33 33 202.0 218 110 29 62 109
Carvajal 1 2 4.91 38 0 66.0 65 36 6 34 54
Green 3 4 4.93 53 0 73.0 73 40 7 38 44
Putz 3 4 4.94 58 0 71.0 72 39 9 31 51
Atchison 4 5 4.97 47 3 87.0 85 48 12 39 72
Kida 3 4 5.01 39 4 79.0 85 44 12 26 48
Franklin 8 14 5.07 32 31 197.0 215 111 31 63 96
Flannery 3 5 5.18 56 0 66.0 68 38 9 30 45
Foppert 3 6 5.22 22 20 88.0 84 51 13 47 75
Buglovsky 4 7 5.24 30 20 127.0 138 74 14 56 61
Meche 7 13 5.25 31 30 168.0 175 98 26 73 114
Baek 5 10 5.32 24 20 115.0 130 68 20 35 66
Cortez 3 5 5.37 41 1 62.0 66 37 9 27 42
Cruceta 6 12 5.55 32 23 146.0 160 90 26 60 107
Nageotte 5 8 5.66 25 12 89.0 91 56 12 54 64
Moss* 5 13 5.79 27 25 140.0 149 90 19 82 76
Fruto 2 5 5.84 47 0 74.0 79 48 12 41 51
Blackley* 5 14 6.34 26 25 142.0 153 100 26 87 97
Thornton* 2 6 6.37 40 8 82.0 77 58 10 74 70
Gonzalez* 1 7 7.48 49 0 65.0 70 54 14 56 45
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 20, 2005 at 06:11 AM | 23 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
2012 ZiPS Projections, Final Edition (23 - 11:21am, May 31)Last: craigsaboe2012 ZiPS/RBI Baseball (20 - 10:58am, May 03)Last: tjans2012 ZiPS Projections Spreadsheets, v. 1 (62 - 4:38pm, Apr 10)Last: nemodomi2012 ZiPS Projections - Oakland A's (69 - 5:57am, Apr 10)Last: Athletic Supporter gangnam style2012 ZiPS Projections - Kansas City Royals (31 - 1:51pm, Mar 23)Last: hokieneerPirates - Acquire Burnett (10 - 12:09am, Feb 21)Last: YR Misses Reggie Bars2012 ZiPS Projections - Pittsburgh Pirates (41 - 11:02am, Feb 20)Last: Dangerous Dean2012 ZiPS Projections - Minnesota Twins (31 - 9:53pm, Feb 17)Last: A Random 8-Year-Old Eskimo2012 ZiPS Projections - Boston Red Sox (46 - 5:41pm, Feb 17)Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit2012 ZiPS Projections - San Diego Padres (29 - 3:33pm, Feb 17)Last: Dan Szymborski2012 ZiPS Projections - Arizona Diamondbacks (31 - 3:03am, Feb 14)Last: Dan Szymborski2012 ZiPS Projections - Texas Rangers (21 - 1:43pm, Feb 10)Last: DEF: NPW (WWRJD)2012 ZiPS Projections - Miami Marlins (31 - 9:16pm, Feb 07)Last: Misirlou is bad, he's nationwide2012 ZiPS Projections - Cleveland Indians (19 - 11:18pm, Feb 02)Last: DevinM2012 ZiPS Projections - Atlanta Braves (28 - 7:25pm, Jan 31)Last: Gern Blanston
|
|
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. Walt Davis Posted: December 20, 2005 at 07:38 AM (#1785921)That Jacobsen projection looks pretty nice as does the Snelling (will he ever be healthy?). Anyway, overall that doesn't look like a bad offense.
And that looks like a rational projection for King Felix -- what's wrong with ZIPS??!!
The M's offense should be better than last year due to not wasting at bats on Miguel Olivo, Pat Borders, or the other 12 starters they used at Catcher last year. On top of that hopefully Reed, Lopez, and Betancourt take steps forward. Now if Bavasi would stop trying to be last years D'backs and throwing money at players such as Washburn (This years Russ Ortiz) or Carl "I don't believe in dinosaurs" Everett (Troy Glaus I'd guess if you are going for the D'backs comp).
Hey maybe we can get a smarter GM next year like the Diamondbacks did too...
Only a .266 average for Reed. I was hoping that last year was an aberation given that he's posted some high batting averages in the minors, but ZIPS thinks otherwise.
Beltre - Ick.
Reed - Better, but I think he'll have to improve more than that to avoid the onset of early career crisis.
J. Lopez - Ick.
Betancourt - ICK!!! Return of St. Rey???
R. Soriano - I hope they do put him in the pen, for his own health.
Putz, Meche, Foppert, Meche, Washburn - Ick, ick, ick, ick and a fully expected ick.
This team sure is feast or famine, huh.
I don't think the Reed trade will happen.
David Cameron, an expert on the M's, says Jeff Clement and Adam Jones are potential regulars. That will be 2007. Take a look at the Future Forty over at USS Mariner.
I don't see more than 75 wins for 2006.
Matt Lawton's hitting style is nightmarishly similar to Ruben Sierra's [from the left side]. Can't touch an outside fastball. Can't touch a high fastball. Make a mistake down and in... that's where he makes his money, but other than that, yuck. Lots of slow rollers to second.
The guy was putting 1.000 OPSes like they were nothing in Japan's most extreme pitcher's park. Even some of the lowest (reasonable, as some people still consider Japan like A-ball level with the projections they throw out) projections I've seen have him as a Top-10 Catcher in the Majors.
The impression I got is that it looks like a learning curve projection for Reed. It predicts him with an 75 IsoD, but his IsoP does still seem low.
I take it there's little-to-no factoring for his wrist (injured for much of the season and believed generally to have been June-on)? That's considered the main reason why his swing flattened out and slowed down after May. If you guys do try to take played-through injuries into account but maybe didn't realize Reed's, I felt it should be pointed out.
Tejada Curve; plain and simple. In fact, it's a little above his Tejada curve...
There's next-to-nothing to go by on Betancourt stat-wise (1 total Pro season split between AA, AAA, and MLB, and you have to remember that he hadn't played at all for over a year after defecting from Cuba), so it's one of those situations where you have to have go by Scouting Reports as being 20 billion times (I know, it's an exaggeration) more reliable than statistical projections. But 43 of his 145 hits are XH, if you look at the projection, more closely.
Complete Bull. Lawton's a bench signing, no more. The only way we trade Reed is if we're getting Papelbon or Lester plus a vet starter from the Red Sox, and even then, it's unlikely unless we get another solid CF to replace him (like Patterson).
Reasonably speaking, a .500 record has been considered worst-case. Felix and Johjima, alone, get us just over .500 in Pythag projections.
Which is crazier: the value you've put on Reed or the belief that Patterson is a solid CF. It's a toss up.
Wouldn't be the first time all 4 were above .500
It's where Bavasi drew the line; not the value I've personally put on him. Just Bronson Arroyo or Clement is considered by just about every reasonable fan as seriously selling low. Considering Boston's relative desperation for CF, though, asking for Papelbon or Lester is a good position to stand. It's not like they have a lot of viable options (that they are seeking).
And defensively, Patterson's in the same class as Reed, as both are among the best defensive CF in baseball. From what I've seen of Cubs' fans feelings on his 2005, they think that Baker simply screwed him up trying to make him a leadoff hitter. If you want to go by their ZiPS projections, Reed and Patterson are practically equal in value. Both have very high upside as early as next year, given age and potential. I see little reason not to consider Patterson a solid CF, at least in comparison to Reed.
And of course, none of that is relevant if the rumors don't materialize.
While I certainly understand where you are coming from, here is my counter-argument.
Nearly every single team in the American League improved for 2006. Some might've improved more than others, and some might've still made stupid decisions, but I would argue that Chicago, Minnesota, Detroit, Kansas City, Toronto, New York, Oakland, and Texas have all made moves to improve themselves, while Cleveland and Anaheim (er, Los Angeles) have remained relatively stable---and, considering how good they were last year, that's not a good sign for the rest of the AL. Tampa Bay will improve simply based on adding Upton and Young, as well as improvement from young pitchers. Boston and Baltimore are arguable (I personally think the Red Sox's offseason hasn't been the disaster that others believe it has been, while Baltimore perhaps added the best free-agent acquisition of them all: Leo Mazzone).
Did Seattle improve themselves? Yes, they will be better in 2006 than they were in 2005, in terms of raw ability. However, there are only so many wins to go around---someone has to lose some games. And Seattle is still worse than the other three teams in their division, and still worse than Chicago, Cleveland, Minnesota, Boston, New York, and Toronto at least. Unfortunately for them, that makes .500 an unreasonable proposition.
But there are only so many wins to go around
While I certainly understand where you are coming from, here is my counter-argument.
Nearly every single team in the American League improved for 2006. Some might've improved more than others, and some might've still made stupid decisions, but I would argue that Chicago, Minnesota, Detroit, Kansas City, Toronto, New York, Oakland, and Texas have all made moves to improve themselves, while Cleveland and Anaheim (er, Los Angeles) have remained relatively stable---and, considering how good they were last year, that's not a good sign for the rest of the AL. Tampa Bay will improve simply based on adding Upton and Young, as well as improvement from young pitchers. Boston and Baltimore are arguable (I personally think the Red Sox's offseason hasn't been the disaster that others believe it has been, while Baltimore perhaps added the best free-agent acquisition of them all: Leo Mazzone).
Did Seattle improve themselves? Yes, they will be better in 2006 than they were in 2005, in terms of raw ability. However, there are only so many wins to go around---someone has to lose some games. And Seattle is still worse than the other three teams in their division, and still worse than Chicago, Cleveland, Minnesota, Boston, New York, and Toronto at least. Unfortunately for them, that makes .500 an unreasonable proposition.
But there are only so many wins to go around
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main