BBTF's Transaction Oracle Discussion :: 2007 ZiPS Projections

Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Friday, December 08, 2006

2007 ZiPS Projections - Major League Rule 5 Draft

2007 ZiPS Projections 
——————————————————————————————-

Player      W   L   G  GS   IP    H   ER  HR  BB  SO   ERA
——————————————————————————————-

Burton      4   6  53   0   69   74   39   9  30  43  5.09

Cameron     4   5  42   0   75   71   37   9  36  54  4.44

DeBarr      2   3  39   4   71   81   48  10  40  39  6.08	

Campusano   2   2  45   0   57   52   26   8  26  52  4.11

Holdzkom    3   2  21   0   38   37   18   5  17  26  4.26

Marshall    2   2  63   0   73   82   37   9  21  35  4.56

Simon       3   8  32  13   92  121   76  24  35  47  7.43  

Soria       1   1  45   0   42   52   29   5  16  16  6.21

Speigner    3   4  46   0   70   78   38  10  23  35  4.89

Warden      2   5  50   0   62   68   43  12  37  44  6.24

White       4   9  21  19  119  140   72  13  50  51  5.45
——————————————————————————————-

2007 ZiPS Projections  
———————————————————————————————————

Player        AB   R    H  2B 3B  HR RBI  BB  SO  SB    BA   OBP   SLG 
———————————————————————————————————

Budde        206  19   40  11  0   5  19  13  57   1  .194  .253  .320

Donachie     338  42   72  18  0   5  24  33 100   0  .213  .287  .311

Flores       504  45  108  29  0  14  53  26 155   1  .214  .263  .355

Goleski      424  51   95  25  0  15  54  37 130   4  .224  .291  .389

Hamilton     165  16   43  10  0   5  26  11  36   4  .261  .305  .412

Machado      359  48   86  11  2   3  30  34  45  14  .240  .310  .306

Phelps       426  39  119  21  2  21  72  31 107   2  .279  .338  .486

Smith        250  28   60  11  3   8  30  14  70   5  .240  .284  .404
———————————————————————————————————

Dan Szymborski Posted: December 08, 2006 at 12:37 AM | 37 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. Spiked Owen Posted: December 08, 2006 at 12:55 AM (#2254840)

Dan, I have to ask: exactly how did you create the Josh Hamilton ZIPS projection? 50 ABs in the New York-Penn league is all you really had to use, right?

2. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 08, 2006 at 12:59 AM (#2254845)

That projection for Flores is pretty damned good for a kid in single-A.

3. Dan Szymborski

Posted: December 08, 2006 at 02:08 AM (#2254944)

Dan, I have to ask: exactly how did you create the Josh Hamilton ZIPS projection? 50 ABs in the New York-Penn league is all you really had to use, right?

Since I had to have a projection for Hamilton, I made up 2004-2006 statistics for Hamilton by making ZiPS projections for those seasons.

4. catomi01 Posted: December 08, 2006 at 02:13 AM (#2254949)

generalized question that might have been covered long ago (if so I'd appreciate simply being pointed in the right direction)...if ZIPS is not preictive of playing time, how do different players end up with different amounts of ABs/ IPs....what goes into these?

5. Bitter Calculus Instructor Posted: December 08, 2006 at 02:14 AM (#2254952)

Phelps looks decent at least.

6. Walt Davis Posted: December 08, 2006 at 03:11 AM (#2254987)

I thought Campusano looked like a pretty good pick, but presumably the Cubs have used 10 of their 40 spots for 2B and just couldn't squeeze him on.

7. bibigon Posted: December 08, 2006 at 04:16 AM (#2255066)

Flores projects to a .214/.263/.355 line, as compared to the .224/.299/.369 line that the Red Sox got out of C last year. That's with Flores in a pitcher's park, and the Red Sox in a hitter's park too.

I just thought that was interesting.

8. J. Michael Neal Posted: December 08, 2006 at 05:20 AM (#2255163)

I'm pleased with the Campusano line. That projection isn't as good as what we got from Jaime Walker last year, but it'll do.

Now I just want a first baseman other than Sean Casey.

9. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 08, 2006 at 05:50 AM (#2255214)

10. Orange & Blue Velvet Posted: December 08, 2006 at 07:18 AM (#2255278)

I like Flores a lot and I don't want this to sound like rationalizing because he's been selected but Flores is going to be completely overmatched by big league pitching this year. He'll strikeout even more than that projection suggests.
At least we'll get a chance to watch the kid. I'm certainly going to root for him, especially if Mota's pitching.

11. Iwakuma Chameleon (jonathan) Posted: December 08, 2006 at 07:38 AM (#2255290)

Not sure what Billy's seeing in Goleski if he really projects out that poorly. It's not like hes 22 or even 23 and has a year to kill and then be stashed.

12. bibigon Posted: December 08, 2006 at 08:41 AM (#2255316)

I like Flores a lot and I don't want this to sound like rationalizing because he's been selected but Flores is going to be completely overmatched by big league pitching this year. He'll strikeout even more than that projection suggests.

I'm curious why you think this.

13. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 08, 2006 at 09:03 AM (#2255323)

Flores struck out 127 times in 429 ABs in the A-Ball last season. That's 29.6 percent of his ABs. That projection has him striking out 30.6 percent of time. I think the fact that he's skipping 2 levels is going to increase his strikeout rate more than that.

This is my impression which may or may not be true. It seems to me that Flores is a very streaky hitter and playing at most once a week isn't going to help. I checked on him everyday during the season and he was either hot or cold most of the time. I really like Flores as a prospect though. I think he's going to be a solid major league catcher. I just hope this doesn't stunt his development.

14. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 08, 2006 at 09:44 AM (#2255329)

"Not sure what Billy's seeing in Goleski if he really projects out that poorly. It's not like hes 22 or even 23 and has a year to kill and then be stashed."

I'm guessing that Goleski's lousy '05 really carpet-bombs his '07 projection, but if it really was the result of catastrophic problems with breaking stuff and those problems have now been addressed (as seems possible from his '06 numbers), he might be more productive than the numbers suggest this season.

Quite the collection of limp bats, there. Phelps sticks out like a sore thumb.

Mind running a quick ZiPS for Labandeira, Dan? I think he might easily luck into some PT this year...

15. The Wilpons Must Go (Tom D) Posted: December 08, 2006 at 03:25 PM (#2255392)

Phelps looks decent at least.

IIRC, Phelps projects well every year.

16. Spiked Owen Posted: December 08, 2006 at 03:48 PM (#2255418)

Phelps projection looks good to me:

279/338/486: ZIPS Projection
268/336/473: Josh Phelps' actual stats in 1333 major league PAs

He beat the heck out of AAA pitching last year (308/370/532). He'll be 29, so age isn't an issue.

This is a smart little pickup by the Yankees.

17. The Hop-Clop Goes On (psa1) Posted: December 08, 2006 at 06:58 PM (#2255621)

What's more, Toledo is seriously pitcher-friendly...I've got his park-adjusted line at .330/.390/.567. MLE, then: approx 290/340/480.

18. The Hop-Clop Goes On (psa1) Posted: December 08, 2006 at 06:59 PM (#2255622)

Then again, I now notice, all of those numbers are heavily BABIP-inflated...his actual BABIP last year was .374. Something tells me he's not legging out all those extra singles.

19. Russ Posted: December 08, 2006 at 07:03 PM (#2255626)

This is a smart little pickup by the Yankees.

I can't believe Phelps made it that far... the Pirates are idiots for passing on a chance to improve at 1b/rf for (basically) free.

Well, they're idiots for more than just that, this is just one more example.

20. Walt Davis Posted: December 08, 2006 at 10:39 PM (#2255823)

Josh Phelps in RF? Surely people have enough reasons to laugh at the Pirates already. :-)

There are reasons Phelps had no ML time last year, has never had a 400-AB season, and has been a hot potato the last few years despite a decent bat and chief among them is that he has no defensive value whatsoever. With larger bullpens and therefore shorter benches, even AL teams are wary of carrying DH-only types unless they're a bat the quality of Hafner, Ortiz, Thomas, etc. That's not to say that Phelps wouldn't have helped some teams last year -- Minnesota being the primary one.

Phelps is a decent pickup for the Yanks because, despite presumably much worse defense (he's only got 27 career starts at 1B and the basic fielding numbers look pretty bad), he's probably still better than Andy Phillips and he provides insurance in case Giambi gets hurt in the spring. But I'd still bet against him making the Yanks roster.

21. Johnny Two Screens Posted: December 08, 2006 at 10:43 PM (#2255830)

I would be suprised if Phelps sees that many ABs with the Yanks.

22. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 08, 2006 at 11:08 PM (#2255857)

Phelps was a 30 HR 100 BI guy in my DMB league a few years ago.

That Flores projection looks awesome. He could be a steal.

I'm kinda surpised Sean White looks so crummy. He'll probably relieve, rather than start though, right?

23. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 08, 2006 at 11:09 PM (#2255862)

Oh and if you have time Dan, could you do projections for 1B Nate Gold (Texas) and RHP Brad Knox (Oakland)? They're two guys I thought could have been decent Rule 5 picks, although it would have been hard to find room for guys like that on a 25 man roster.

24. Bitter Calculus Instructor Posted: December 09, 2006 at 02:03 AM (#2256016)

At least the Yankees didn't trade Jay Buhner for this Phelps.

25. ColonelTom Posted: December 10, 2006 at 06:50 AM (#2256900)

How about a Josh Phelps/Ken Phelps platoon?

26. Padgett Posted: December 10, 2006 at 07:03 AM (#2256905)

I'm guessing that Goleski's lousy '05 really carpet-bombs his '07 projection, but if it really was the result of catastrophic problems with breaking stuff and those problems have now been addressed (as seems possible from his '06 numbers), he might be more productive than the numbers suggest this season.

What does Goleski look like minus his horrible 2005? In Davenport's system Goleski's EqA jumped from .252 to .272.

27. Danny Posted: December 10, 2006 at 07:11 AM (#2256909)

I think something is off on Davenport's translations, as they seem far too kind to Goleski. They have him only losing 50 points of OPS from AA to MLB, and according to Dan's park factors, Akron is quite a hitters park.

28. Raskolnikov Posted: December 10, 2006 at 07:24 AM (#2256912)

I'll say it again. Someone in the Mets front office needs to be fired or demoted for losing Flores. It's a bone-headed mistake equivalent to a surgical team leaving a scalpel inside a patient after an operation. There's no excuse for it, none.

29. j. badger Posted: December 10, 2006 at 07:39 AM (#2256923)

I mentioned this on the other thread, but it seems to me that there was (and still is) room on the 40-man roster, making this even more inexplicable. From the list here I count 22 pitchers, 2 catchers, 8 infielders, and 7 pitchers, for a total of 39. This includes Mota, who was re-signed after the Rule 5 draft. Maybe this means that Minaya expected to sign Mota and someone else (Zito?) imminently and wanted to leave space on the roster? Of course that wouldn't explain why one of the miscellaneous relief pitchers couldn't have been left off. What would have happened had Flores been on the roster and then removed after the draft when Mota signed? Would he have become a free agent?

30. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 10, 2006 at 08:53 AM (#2256954)

31. Raskolnikov Posted: December 10, 2006 at 04:46 PM (#2257054)

It's pretty clear that Minaya et al. are gambling that no team is willing to carry a third catcher the entire season. They don't think Flores is ready to be a full time backup yet and are gambling that no team is going to play with a 24-man roster the entire season. Let's see if it works out.

Russlan, that's a terrible gamble. The rewards (retaining a Zambrano or Schmoll) vs risk (losing a young star catcher) is horrible. *Why* are the Mets testing to see if this works out? That's the equivalent of putting Delios Guerra, if he were eligible, on Rule 5 eligibility - retarded. Does someone in the Mets front office walk across interstate highways blindfolded just to see "if it works out."

32. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 11, 2006 at 05:07 AM (#2257646)

What would have happened had Flores been on the roster and then removed after the draft when Mota signed? Would he have become a free agent?
Every team in baseball gets a crack at him through waivers - whereby they (the new team) doesn't have to keep him in the bigs for the whole season, just on the 40 man ... obviously, he'd be lost. Your only options are put him on the 40 and keep him there or hope he's not tabbed in Rule 5. If you put him on the 40, he's effectively losing an one option he might need later + catchers rarely are picked (and stick) in this draft. While I'd likely have protected him (based on my woefully lacking knowledge of the outer- and inner-workings of the Mets' org), I can't fault Minaya and company too much for not doing so.

33. rlc Posted: December 11, 2006 at 11:21 PM (#2258218)

Every team in baseball gets a crack at him through waivers - whereby they (the new team) doesn't have to keep him in the bigs for the whole season, just on the 40 man ... obviously, he'd be lost.

I don't think that's right - the team that claims a Rule 5 draftee still has to keep him on the 25 man roster or offer him back to his original team. See the travels of Jose Bautista, for example.

34. Didi Dodo Doodoo (1k5v3L)

Posted: December 11, 2006 at 11:25 PM (#2258219)

35. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 14, 2006 at 09:11 PM (#2261547)

Der Komm means that once you put a player on the 40 man roster to protect him from the rule 5, and then take him off, he has to clear waivers--and if he doesn't, any team that claims him can keep him on its 40 man roster, not the 25 man active roster, which is the case with rule 5 drafrees.

I don't think that's true the first time you take a guy off the 40 man roster, is it? I thought you could DFA a guy the first time in his career and not expose him to waivers.

36. Dan Szymborski

Posted: December 14, 2006 at 09:19 PM (#2261556)

You always have to pass a guy through waivers to get them off the 40-man roster - the difference between subsquent times is after the first time, you also have to get the player's permission.

37. Danny Posted: December 16, 2006 at 01:00 AM (#2262795)

Damaged Goleski?

Goleski had surgery on Nov. 9 performed by the Indians medical staff to remove bone chips from the wrist, and there is now some question as to whether he'll be ready for spring training--now as property of the Athletics.

Based on Major League Baseball guidelines, all 30 clubs are required to turn in injury reports prior to the Rule 5 draft, stating which eligible players already have or were slated to have offseason surgery.

The A's and Indians agree that Goleski was not on that list, and the two sides are examining the situation with a wait-and-see approach.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, December 08, 2006

2007 ZiPS Projections - Major League Rule 5 Draft

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Sponsor

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics

Syndicate