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, October 13, 2006

2007 ZiPS Projections - Boston Red Sox


Name       P   AVG   OBP   SLG   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS
Ramirez     lf .299 .408 .600 142 498 88 149 31 1 39 118 89 111 1 1
Ortiz*    dh .288 .396 .619 151 562 108 162 35 2 49 137 101 119 1 0
Youkilis   1b .276 .384 .428 129 463 79 128 35 1 11 62 76 95 3 2
Pena*      1b .256 .355 .474 140 464 82 119 24 1 25 82 67 127 3 1
Varitek#    c   .266 .357 .456 121 410 55 109 25 1 17 65 56 102 3 1
Lowell     3b .277 .342 .465 152 542 70 150 46 1 18 85 52 63 3 1
Crisp#    cf .299 .352 .456 128 498 79 149 32 2 14 68 39 68 18 6
Nixon*    rf .272 .371 .415 110 357 52 97 24 0 9 50 53 52 1 1
Pena       cf .276 .331 .483 102 323 44 89 17 1 16 58 23 101 2 1
Loretta     2b .302 .367 .404 142 557 75 168 37 1 6 70 50 51 4 2
Choi*      1b .240 .348 .422 106 287 41 69 17 1 11 43 45 72 1 1
Myrow*    3b .250 .339 .412 110 308 51 77 22 2 8 40 40 83 4 2
Pedroia     ss .274 .347 .394 130 482 70 132 33 2 7 52 49 32 2 3
Hinske*    3b .256 .332 .406 137 438 59 112 26 2 12 62 47 100 6 4
Moss*      rf .261 .323 .397 134 499 82 130 34 2 10 58 45 107 4 3
Kottaras*  c   .241 .331 .374 115 382 51 92 28 1 7 45 50 94 1 1
Ellsbury*  cf .275 .341 .374 99 382 58 105 15 4 5 38 34 43 23 12
Gonzalez   ss .256 .304 .404 131 445 52 114 31 1 11 64 27 87 2 1
Murphy*    cf .249 .314 .387 140 486 66 121 37 3 8 57 43 80 6 4
Kapler     rf .263 .310 .397 92 194 35 51 12 1 4 22 12 31 2 2
Cora*      2b .250 .333 .344 108 288 35 72 9 3 4 31 27 32 4 2
Calloway*  lf .250 .317 .371 111 364 43 91 27 1 5 45 34 72 7 5
West       1b .245 .302 .376 125 444 51 109 32 1 8 47 31 67 1 1
Mirabelli   c   .214 .304 .377 63 159 15 34 8 0 6 23 16 81 0 0
Machado     2b .253 .324 .326 114 359 51 91 13 2 3 32 35 44 14 6
Otness     c   .258 .302 .355 110 392 44 101 24 1 4 38 20 40 1 1
Pinckney#  3b .236 .279 .383 119 436 61 103 31 3 9 49 22 84 4 2
Harris*    2b .237 .321 .318 109 299 49 71 13 1 3 24 36 65 13 6
Bacani     2b .227 .311 .327 112 343 45 78 18 2 4 35 33 62 7 5
Miller     c   .197 .281 .351 72 208 29 41 11 0 7 28 21 44 0 0
Durrington   3b .227 .285 .306 113 330 45 75 13 2 3 29 25 71 17 8

Player Spotlight (Beta) - David Murphy
Name           AVG   OBP   SLG   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS
Optimistic (15%)  .268 .334 .443 157 542 75 145 46 5 13 73 52 74 8 4
Mean         .249 .314 .387 140 486 66 121 37 3 8 57 43 80 6 4
Pessimistic (15%) .231 .289 .351 135 467 46 108 31 2 7 48 36 97 5 5

Name       ERA   W   L   G GS   INN   H   ER HR   BB   K
Papelbon   3.66   7   3 47 12   113.0 101   46 14   27 106
Burns     3.95   5   2 53   0   73.0   76   32   6   16   54
Schilling   3.98 15   7 32 27   190.0 196   84 25   28 163
Breslow*    3.99   5   2 55   0   79.0   76   35   6   28   62
Delcarmen   4.06   4   2 57   0   71.0   70   32   4   27   63
Corey     4.10   3   2 52   0   68.0   67   31   6   23   51
Foulke     4.21   4   3 54   0   62.0   62   29   9   15   50
Timlin     4.31   6   4 73   0   71.0   77   34   6   19   44
Beckett     4.55 14 10 30 30   182.0 178   92 26   61 143
Tavarez     4.67   4   4 64   3   81.0   87   42   7   30   49
Clement     4.67   9   8 26 26   156.0 156   81 17   65 126
Hansen     4.73   4   3 52   4   78.0   82   41   5   35   53
Lopez*    4.82   2   2 64   0   56.0   61   30   4   24   31
Snyder     4.86   7   6 30 21   137.0 161   74 17   32   82
Baker     4.90   4   3 51   0   68.0   70   37   9   25   55
Dinardo*    4.90   4   3 25 16   90.0 101   49 10   30   61
Lester*    4.96   8   8 26 26   138.0 141   76 15   64 108
Brooks*    5.13   3   5 50   3   72.0   75   41 12   28   55
Wakefield   5.16 11 12 29 28   178.0 187 102 31   63 114
Buchholz   5.24   5   6 22 22   103.0 113   60 17   36   70
Hansack     5.26   7   9 32 19   137.0 155   80 26   37   91
Martinez   5.31   3   3 47   0   61.0   66   36 11   20   41
Gabbard*    5.40   9 11 27 24   135.0 146   81 17   66   84
Alvarez*    5.71   6 10 25 23   134.0 161   85 25   40   69
Pauley     5.75   5   8 24 24   144.0 177   92 26   42   72
Jarvis     5.77   5   9 27 20   131.0 159   84 26   38   68
Rozier*    6.35   4   8 25 25   129.0 155   91 18   74   52
Bowden     6.40   4   8 25 25   128.0 153   91 18   74   53
Zink       6.49   4 10 26 16   111.0 127   80 14   76   49
Tucker*    6.55   2   3 48   0   66.0   75   48   8   48   40
Evert     6.72   2   6 38   6   83.0   99   62 20   40   56
Bumatay*    6.75   2   4 52   0   64.0   69   48 11   48   48
Henkel     6.93   3   8 19 11   74.0   96   57 18   30   39

Player Spotlight (Beta) - Matt Clement
              ERA   W   L   G GS   INN   H   ER HR   BB   K
Optimistic (15%)  3.77 11   6 26 26   160.0 154   67 13   54 143
Mean           4.67   9   8 26 26   156.0 156   81 17   65 126
Pessimistic (15%)  6.16   6 11 26 26   146.0 172 100 23   78 111

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 2007. 
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: October 13, 2006 at 11:38 PM | 48 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. 1k5v3L Posted: October 14, 2006 at 12:04 AM (#2210492)
[b]
Name         P    AVG   OBP   SLG   G  AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI  BB   K SB CS

Pedroia      ss  .274  .347  .394 130 482  70 132 33  2  7  52  49  32  2  3 
Callaspo
#    2b  .285  .339  .385 135 522  76 149 25  3  7  52  40  27  9  8

[/b] 
   2. Darren Posted: October 14, 2006 at 12:22 AM (#2210531)
Thank God. I was dying to know how Pedroia measured up against Callaspo.
   3. philly Posted: October 14, 2006 at 12:23 AM (#2210532)
It's probably not a good sign that I confused Carlos "soon to be waived again" Pena with Wily Mo "budding superstar" Pena.

First of many projections with Schilling as the only starter with an under 4.50 ERA. That's probably not good either.
   4. Darren Posted: October 14, 2006 at 12:31 AM (#2210549)
Paps is 3.66, Philly. That's got to be around 4.20 if her were full time. Still not a good sign.
   5. MM1f Posted: October 14, 2006 at 12:37 AM (#2210566)
Asterix = LHP/LHB?
# = switch hitter?
   6. RobertMachemer Posted: October 14, 2006 at 12:48 AM (#2210606)
ZIPS is a little pessmistic in regards to Hinske, isn't it? His career numbers are .260 AVG, .337 OBP, and .437 SLG. ZIPS projects him to hit for a .256 AVG, .332 OBP and .406 SLG. What's going on with that? It's not like he's old or something -- he's just had his age-28 season -- so he's still pretty much in his prime, mediocre though it may be.
   7. philly Posted: October 14, 2006 at 01:05 AM (#2210646)
Paps is 3.66, Philly. That's got to be around 4.20 if her were full time. Still not a good sign.

Yeah I basically ignored thatbecause it was mostly a releif projection. Didn't Tango et al in The Book find the "normal" ERA difference was ~0.8? That would put Paps closer to 4.46. I think he can beat that - hell I think Beckett can beat that too - but jeez, even if they bring in a top tier starter the days of yearly projected 100 win teams may be over for awhile. I'll take a 90+ projection, if I can get it. I just hope I can.
   8. karlmagnus Posted: October 14, 2006 at 01:09 AM (#2210657)
Looks much too pessimistic for Wakefield. Obviously there's a chance that his back makes him toast, but 40/41 is no age for a knuckleballer -- the system seems to be closing him down as if he was Randy Johnson. Would expect about a 4.25 ERA, in line with his last few years. Conversely, assumes a non-existent fitness for Clement and Lester (though Lester, if fit in the last months of the season, will be better than that.)

Think it's a bit conservative for Manny and a bit generous for Ortiz too -- would be surprised if manny batted under .300 since he's .318 lifetime.

WMPena surely better than that, too, but I would keep Carlos P around as he may well be useful.
   9. NTNgod Posted: October 14, 2006 at 01:12 AM (#2210661)
ZIPS is a little pessmistic in regards to Hinske, isn't it? His career numbers are .260 AVG, .337 OBP, and .437 SLG. ZIPS projects him to hit for a .256 AVG, .332 OBP and .406 SLG.

The former SkyDome is one of the better parks to hit in, especially for power, IIRC.
   10. RobertMachemer Posted: October 14, 2006 at 01:13 AM (#2210663)
First of many projections with Schilling as the only starter with an under 4.50 ERA. That's probably not good either.
It's not good, certainly, but the system's limitations have to be kept in mind. How does one accurately project Wakefield, a 40-year old knuckleballer? But that's rearranging deck-chairs at this point. This team needs pitching and it needs the pitching it has to stay/become healthy.

2006 starters, before the season:
Schilling
Beckett
Wakefield
Clement -- injured badly
Wells -- traded
Papelbon -- moved to pen, injured
Arroyo -- traded
Lester -- "injured" badly

There just aren't a lot of pitchers left, thanks to trades and injuries. We can hope Papelbon comes back and pitches well, but that's still just four of the eight who were in the mix before the 2006 season began.

It'd be real nice to find out that at least one or both of Hansack and Gabbard are good, but that the Sox are in the position of even hoping for such a thing says a lot about how badly the 2006 season ended up.
   11. 1k5v3L Posted: October 14, 2006 at 03:05 AM (#2210919)
See, Darren, if you believed me a long time ago that Pedroia isn't really mych better than Callaspo, you'd have been at the Pearly Gates by now.

Btw, maybe it's just me not being overly pessimistic, but looking at these zips projections, the Red Sox are going to suck donkey balls next year.
   12. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: October 14, 2006 at 04:15 AM (#2211089)
Btw, maybe it's just me not being overly pessimistic, but looking at these zips projections, the Red Sox are going to suck donkey balls next year.
Hey, they apparently have a 15% chance at getting 11 wins out of Matt Clement, that's not bad.

Seriously, if the Sox offense hits the way ZiPS seem to think it will (two 1000+ OPS guys; five other 800+ OPS guys) they'll be able to find enough pitching to compete. I have little doubt that come Opening Day the AL East will be the same toss-up it's been the last few years
   13. DKDC Posted: October 14, 2006 at 04:49 AM (#2211118)
I count 6 other 800+ OPS guys, and 4 more in the 750-800 range. That's a lot of hitting talent, but when you consider that half of those ten guys have serious durability issues, and only one is an above average fielder, there's reason for concern about the lineup.

Judging by Theo's history, though, there's not much point in discussing this roster when it's going to look completely different by April.
   14. 1k5v3L Posted: October 14, 2006 at 04:55 AM (#2211126)
The big problem with that team's offense (or rather defense) is that every guy who's projected to hit over 20 homers should be DHing next year.
   15. Banta Posted: October 14, 2006 at 06:56 AM (#2211167)
I want to know how come ZIPS is able to project Carlos Pena to having 464 ABs and yet it only projects Papelbon as having 113 innings? I mean, I can understand based on previous useage for Papelbon, but how come that doesn't matter when it figures Pena?
   16. NTNgod Posted: October 14, 2006 at 07:00 AM (#2211168)
but I would keep Carlos P around as he may well be useful.

Carlos Pena elected to become a free agent (he presumably refused an assignment to Pawtucket)...
   17. Dan Szymborski Posted: October 14, 2006 at 08:32 AM (#2211186)
I want to know how come ZIPS is able to project Carlos Pena to having 464 ABs and yet it only projects Papelbon as having 113 innings? I mean, I can understand based on previous useage for Papelbon, but how come that doesn't matter when it figures Pena?

Pena's at-bats in recent years: 451, 513, 481, 482, 572, 503. Why is 464 so many?
   18. 1k5v3L Posted: October 14, 2006 at 01:21 PM (#2211209)
Kevin Jarvis elected to become a free agent on Friday.

Jarvis was rocked in his brief tenure with the Red Sox (7.71 ERA in 28 IP). The veteran spot starter/middle reliever will look to sign with his 10th team in his journeyman career. C Ken Huckaby, IF Alejandro Machado and 1B Carlos Pena also elected free agency.
Source: Boston Herald


There goes Boston's 3rd best starter...
   19. Rob Base Posted: October 14, 2006 at 01:56 PM (#2211216)
Relax. Ted Lilly signing will save the day.
   20. Darren Posted: October 14, 2006 at 03:00 PM (#2211244)
Philly,

I still think your shorting Papelbon. That projection has him making 12 starts, which considering his history, is probably around 70-80 of his IP. Just eyeballing, it looks like a .8 difference would mean about a 3.16 relieving and a 3.96 starting. That's a pretty good projection.

And I don't think they're signing Lilly. Mussina sounds good though.
   21. bibigon Posted: October 14, 2006 at 06:51 PM (#2211336)
If I recall, ZiPS uses a strong version of DIPS in making its projections. That's fine and good, but with someone like Wakefield, who DIPS 2.0 says is likely to beat his BABIP projection on, you're going to get an unduly pessimistic projection

Off the top of my head:

Overly optimistic:
Jon Papelbon
Jason Varitek
Coco Crisp

Overly pessimistic:
Tim Wakefield

This isn't counting guys like Carlos Pena who aren't going to be with the team.

It's probably not a good sign that the one guy I'm counting on doing notably better than his projection is a 40 year old with back trouble.
   22. J. Cross Posted: October 14, 2006 at 07:34 PM (#2211346)

Name         P    AVG   OBP   SLG   G  AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI  BB   K SB CS

Pedroia      ss  .274  .347  .394 130 482  70 132 33  2  7  52  49  32  2  3
Callaspo#    2b  .285  .339  .385 135 522  76 149 25  3  7  52  40  27  9  8

Name            EqAVG   EqOBP   EqSLG

Pedroia          .272   .353    .403
Callaspo#        .281   .335    .383

Going just based on this numbers it looks like Pedroia is much better than Callaspo.
   23. Darren Posted: October 14, 2006 at 07:43 PM (#2211348)
If Crisp is healthy, I think that's pessimistic.
   24. RobertMachemer Posted: October 14, 2006 at 11:40 PM (#2211711)
If Crisp is healthy, I think that's pessimistic.

2004 real.297 AVG.344 OBP.446 SLG
2005 real
.300 AVG.345 OBP.465 SLG
2007 ZIPS
.299 AVG.352 OBP.456 SLG 


Um, why exactly? It's pretty much exactly how he hit in 2004 and 2005. Heck, just assuming he rebounds to that level shows considerable optimism in that it assumes that he'll completely recover from an injury which probably ruined his entire 2006 season. But assuming he is healthy, I don't think it's pessimistic to predict he hit exactly as well as he did in his last two healthy seasons.
   25. TH Posted: October 15, 2006 at 12:38 AM (#2211861)
I don't think it's pessimistic to predict he hit exactly as well as he did in his last two healthy seasons.

Park differences between Fenway and Jacobs Field?
   26. Dan Szymborski Posted: October 15, 2006 at 12:57 AM (#2211938)
If I recall, ZiPS uses a strong version of DIPS in making its projections.

Not really - I weakened strengthened the predictive value of individual $H after some additional research following the first years of ZiPS (2002).
   27. The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Posted: October 15, 2006 at 01:03 AM (#2211960)
Think it's a bit conservative for Manny and a bit generous for Ortiz too -- would be surprised if manny batted under .300 since he's .318 lifetime.

He hit .292 in 2005.
   28. Dan Szymborski Posted: October 15, 2006 at 01:08 AM (#2211975)
If I recall, ZiPS uses a strong version of DIPS in making its projections.

Not really - I weakened strengthened the predictive value of individual $H after some additional research following the first years of ZiPS (2002). Wakefield's projection doesn't suck because ZiPS is assuming a really high $H (in fact, Wakefield's projected $H is the second-lowest among starters I've done so far, behind Zambrano), it sucks because his peripherals are starting to decay and even knuckleballers age.
   29. Dan Szymborski Posted: October 15, 2006 at 01:08 AM (#2211976)
If I recall, ZiPS uses a strong version of DIPS in making its projections.

Not really - I strengthened the predictive value of individual $H after some additional research following the first years of ZiPS (2002). Wakefield's projection doesn't suck because ZiPS is assuming a really high $H (in fact, Wakefield's projected $H is the second-lowest among starters I've done so far, behind Zambrano), it sucks because his peripherals are starting to decay and even knuckleballers age.
   30. The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Posted: October 15, 2006 at 01:12 AM (#2211989)
Hey Dan, does ZiPS use a strong version of DIPS?
   31. Darren Posted: October 15, 2006 at 11:59 AM (#2212420)
Um, why exactly?

Park and age. Of course, I should have mentioned that assuming he's healthy is a BIG assumption.
   32. JoeHova Posted: October 15, 2006 at 02:14 PM (#2212461)
I see that Trent Durrinton is still hanging around.
   33. Mike Green Posted: October 16, 2006 at 02:52 PM (#2213729)
I agree that the projection for Wakefield is pessimistic. There has been very little deterioration in his peripherals over the last 3 years. Knuckleballers age very slowly, particularly ones with as little mileage as Wakefield has on his arm.

The Sox need Hansen to take a step forward.
   34. bibigon Posted: October 16, 2006 at 05:00 PM (#2213900)

I agree that the projection for Wakefield is pessimistic. There has been very little deterioration in his peripherals over the last 3 years. Knuckleballers age very slowly, particularly ones with as little mileage as Wakefield has on his arm.


After initially questioning this projection, I'll now step forward to defend it. Wakefield's peripherals are noticably worse this year than in 2005 for instance. His peripherals really did take a hit, particularly in K/BB ratio.
   35. RobertMachemer Posted: October 16, 2006 at 07:41 PM (#2214137)
After initially questioning this projection, I'll now step forward to defend it. Wakefield's peripherals are noticably worse this year than in 2005 for instance. His peripherals really did take a hit, particularly in K/BB ratio.
Asked absolutely ignorantly: do these things fluctuate much in general? I've not generally paid attention to things like this, but I know that Arroyo's numbers were considerably down in 2005 and bounced back, and I seem to recall a couple years where Mariano Rivera's numbers were down (before bouncing back). Were these two pitchers exceptional?
   36. bibigon Posted: October 16, 2006 at 08:06 PM (#2214171)
Asked absolutely ignorantly: do these things fluctuate much in general? I've not generally paid attention to things like this, but I know that Arroyo's numbers were considerably down in 2005 and bounced back, and I seem to recall a couple years where Mariano Rivera's numbers were down (before bouncing back). Were these two pitchers exceptional?


Well, Arroyo went to the NL from the AL, so I'm not sure I'd give much credence at all those his peripheral changes.

Generally, peripherals are significantly more stable from year to year than ERA is. K rate and BB rate especially tend to not fluctuate a huge amount, while HR rate does.

I don't know how well this applies to Wakefield however, due his pitching style. He may be more subject to peripheral changes which aren't indicative of a talent decline for any number of reasons. Then again, maybe not. It's honestly beyond me to say.
   37. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: November 03, 2006 at 01:39 AM (#2230623)
Javy Lopez does not have a ZiPS projection, either here or in the Orioles article. Do you have his projection please?
   38. Dan Szymborski Posted: November 03, 2006 at 12:30 PM (#2230795)
Lopez - 260/312/399 in Fenway. He's about done.
   39. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: November 03, 2006 at 02:48 PM (#2230858)
Thanks Dan.
   40. Hungry Hungry Hipolito Pichardo Posted: November 03, 2006 at 02:56 PM (#2230865)
From today's Globe sports section, courtesy of Gordon Edes:

James doesn't do pitching projections, but Baseball Info Solutions does. If they're right, it's understandable why the Sox are in the market for pitching. Josh Beckett is projected as a modest 13-10 with a 3.68 ERA, Curt Schilling 12-8 with a 3.50 ERA, and Tim Wakefield 8-8 with a 4.14 ERA. The most encouraging projection is for Jonathan Papelbon, who is making the transition from closer to starter: 14-6, 2.98 ERA.


Two initial thoughts:
1. That would be nice.
2. If Mr. Edes is characterizing Beckett's projection as "modest", and using these numbers as evidence why the Sox should be actively searching out pitching talent, I'd like to be across a negotiating table with him some day.
   41. Dan Szymborski Posted: November 03, 2006 at 04:27 PM (#2230929)
Those projections seem really generous.
   42. dirtdog7 Posted: November 03, 2006 at 05:14 PM (#2230969)
Edes is a fricken moron. Those stats are better than Detroit's from this year!! The Sox would have the best starters ERA in the league!! The only really unrealistic one is Beckett - the entire 2007 Sox season hinges on Beckett turning it around. The Sox aren't going anywhere without a Beckett around 4.00 ERA. Papelbon's #'s look aggressive as well, but possible.

Any chance Moose signs with the Sox??
   43. Darren Posted: November 04, 2006 at 12:56 PM (#2231473)
2.98 ERA is more than aggressive. I would be ecstatic if he put up a 3.98 ERA and stayed healthy. Who knows, though. He consistently had sub-3.00 ERAs as a starter in the minors.

Moose, from what I hear, is a creature of habit who's gotten used to NY. The Mets might have a chance, but the Red Sox are a longshot IMHO. I hope they pursue him though.
   44. villageidiom Posted: November 04, 2006 at 01:50 PM (#2231486)
<i>If those ERA's are correct, then the W/L records are going to be a hell of a lot better than the ones posted there.i>

Considering the current status of their bullpen, those W/L records might be close to reality. They need pitching; they might not be desperate in the starting rotation, but they still need pitching. Even if the starters have good ERAs each of them - especially Beckett - will need help from the bullpen if they want to translate ERAs to wins. And Jonathan Papelbon's not walking through that door.
   45. guru4u Posted: November 28, 2006 at 08:18 PM (#2247676)
Youkilis 1b .276 .384 .428 129 463 79 128 35 1 11 62 76 95 3 2


I am surprised none of the Boston fans are going after this projection. After all, the guy performed better than this last year, has the same lineup, still in the same ballpark, and is still fairly young (will be 28 in 2007). Why the slight regression?
   46. Dan Szymborski Posted: November 28, 2006 at 10:43 PM (#2247834)
I am surprised none of the Boston fans are going after this projection. After all, the guy performed better than this last year, has the same lineup, still in the same ballpark, and is still fairly young (will be 28 in 2007). Why the slight regression?

That's actually a better projection than 2006.

2006 - 381/429
07 ZiPS - 384/428

Considering I'm projecting league offense as the 3-year weighted (8/5/4) offense, he'd be doing it in a slightly lower offense league, too.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Eugene Freedman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3726 seconds
42 querie(s) executed