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, December 22, 2006

2007 ZiPS Projections - New York Yankees


Name               P Age   AVG   OBP   SLG   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS
Bobby Abreu*        rf 33 .287 .414 .466 150 534 89 153 34 1 20 98 114 122 28 7
Jason Giambi*        dh 36 .241 .400 .490 125 394 70 95 17 0 27 97 91 97 1 0
Alex Rodriguez       3b 31 .287 .387 .497 156 589 108 169 26 1 32 126 88 138 16 3
Hideki Matsui*        lf 33 .293 .367 .474 133 498 85 146 31 1 19 100 58 77 1 1
Derek Jeter         ss 33 .302 .378 .440 152 625 111 189 34 2 16 92 66 110 21 4
Robinson Cano*        2b 24 .315 .343 .493 143 568 81 179 41 3 18 97 24 68 3 2
Jorge Posada#        c   35 .264 .368 .451 127 417 59 110 22 1 18 84 63 93 1 1
Josh Phelps         1b 29 .279 .338 .486 119 426 39 119 21 2 21 72 31 107 2 1
Craig Wilson         rf 30 .255 .344 .478 114 368 59 94 18 2 20 61 32 124 1 1
Melky Cabrera#        lf 22 .295 .355 .445 157 584 93 172 28 3 18 92 55 67 12 5
Johnny Damon*        cf 33 .290 .353 .437 149 611 112 177 31 4 17 88 60 82 16 6
Russ Johnson         3b 34 .261 .354 .406 95 310 39 81 19 1 8 39 43 47 2 2
Bernie Williams#      rf 38 .267 .343 .410 127 439 66 117 24 0 13 69 51 66 0 1
Aaron Guiel*        lf 34 .243 .329 .429 119 382 57 93 21 1 16 54 40 93 3 1
Kevin Thompson       cf 27 .253 .333 .417 109 391 61 99 25 3 11 44 45 78 17 9
Mitch Jones         lf 29 .234 .309 .449 128 457 57 107 25 2 23 80 46 155 3 3
Kevin Reese*        lf 29 .260 .319 .405 102 393 60 102 24 3 9 44 29 85 8 5
Terrence Long*        lf 31 .267 .318 .390 104 326 36 87 15 2 7 44 23 56 2 1
Andy Phillips         1b 30 .245 .312 .411 108 326 56 80 14 2 12 57 29 59 2 2
Bronson Sardinha*      rf 24 .250 .319 .391 148 537 61 134 22 3 16 73 54 126 3 3
Jason Conti*        cf 32 .256 .315 .395 92 332 52 85 18 2 8 48 25 77 2 1
Nick Green           2b 28 .254 .320 .366 104 279 39 71 15 2 4 29 22 66 3 2
Andy Cannizaro       ss 28 .258 .330 .343 113 376 54 97 23 0 3 34 36 45 5 2
Brett Gardner*        cf 23 .255 .332 .324 145 522 88 133 17 5 3 40 60 105 40 15
Eric Duncan*        1b 22 .219 .297 .385 110 384 41 84 14 1 16 48 41 97 3 2
Keith McDonald       c   34 .240 .313 .345 64 200 22 48 12 0 3 26 19 47 1 0
Danny Garcia         2b 27 .245 .318 .343 128 400 44 98 23 2 4 41 33 65 15 7
Sal Fasano           c   35 .217 .265 .411 75 207 23 45 7 0 11 34 10 49 0 0
Kevin Howard*        3b 26 .245 .288 .370 115 408 42 100 17 2 10 50 23 70 3 5
Felix Escalona       ss 28 .235 .289 .352 103 344 39 81 19 0 7 45 20 63 2 0
Miguel Cairo         2b 33 .243 .300 .332 75 226 28 55 12 1 2 26 12 26 10 2
Rob Stratton         rf 29 .228 .270 .381 54 197 10 45 9 0 7 28 11 76 1 1
Wil Nieves           c   29 .252 .282 .344 92 326 33 82 14 2 4 33 12 41 2 1
Ben Davis#          c   30 .216 .264 .344 69 218 19 47 10 0 6 25 14 51 1 1
Raul Chavez         c   34 .206 .245 .276 67 199 14 41 8 0 2 20   9 32 0 0

Player Spotlight (Beta) - Melky Cabrera
Name           AVG   OBP   SLG   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS
Optimistic (15%)  .314 .382 .514 162 601 112 189 35 5 25 122 65 59 15 3    
Mean         .295 .355 .445 157 584 93 172 28 3 18 92 55 67 12 5
Pessimistic (15%) .278 .329 .399 120 446 61 124 19 1 11 56 34 58 6 5

Name               Age   ERA   W   L   G GS   INN   H   ER HR   BB   K
Mariano Rivera         37   2.01   8   1 68   0   76.0   61   17   3   15   66
Chris Britton         24   3.63   3   1 57   0   72.0   64   29   6   25   65
Randy Johnson*        43   3.71 19   9 34 34   223.0 202   92 27   54 196
Mike Mussina         38   3.91 13   8 30 30   184.0 189   80 21   43 148
Philip Hughes         21   4.06 12   7 31 31   164.0 164   74 15   58 127
Andy Pettitte*        35   4.10 15   9 32 31   193.0 204   88 24   50 140
Kyle Farnsworth       31   4.16   4   2 72   0   67.0   60   31   9   29   67
Mike Myers*          38   4.25   2   2 67   0   36.0   36   17   4   15   23
Chien-Ming Wang       27   4.28 12   9 29 28   183.0 202   87 16   48   79
Colter Bean           30   4.45   6   5 55   3   83.0   78   41   8   46   74
Scott Proctor         30   4.60   5   4 73   1   90.0   90   46 13   33   76
Carl Pavano           31   4.64   8   7 20 20   128.0 150   66 16   30   66
J.B. Cox             23   4.71   4   3 37   0   65.0   70   34   6   26   34
Jose Veras           26   4.74   5   4 52   4   76.0   78   40 11   32   51
Humberto Sanchez       24   4.75   7   7 19 18   108.0 106   57 12   51   88
Brian Bruney         25   4.75   3   3 48   0   53.0   47   28   5   35   51
Kei Igawa           27   4.77 13 11 30 30   200.0 225 106 33   49 135
T.J. Beam           26   4.93   4   4 53   1   84.0   88   46 12   34   59
Dusty Bergman*        29   4.97   4   3 48   0   67.0   76   37   8   21   40
Charlie Manning*      28   5.00   5   6 48   4   90.0   95   50 12   41   62
Ron Villone*          37   5.07   4   6 67   3   87.0   88   49   9   49   65
Darrell Rasner         26   5.12   4   5 20 17   102.0 121   58 14   25   46
Jesus Colome         29   5.19   2   3 40   0   52.0   55   30   7   25   33
Jeff Karstens         24   5.25 10 11 31 29   185.0 210 108 33   56 100
Sean Henn*          26   5.36   6   7 24 21   121.0 131   72 17   59   70
Tyler Clippard         22   5.42   9 12 28 28   161.0 178   97 29   60 117
Mark Corey           32   5.45   4   6 59   1   76.0   86   46 11   32   47
Jeffrey Marquez       22   5.46   8   9 23 22   127.0 149   77 14   55   65
Aaron Small           35   5.48   7   8 28 19   128.0 155   78 22   33   61
Ben Kozlowski*        26   5.55   5   6 33 17   128.0 147   79 20   51   72
Chase Wright*        24   5.60   7 10 36 21   151.0 172   94 19   77   81
Francisco Butto       25   5.68   3   4 41   4   84.0   97   53 14   36   51
Kris Wilson           30   5.91   7 10 29 23   140.0 174   92 32   34   72
Jeff Kennard         25   6.29   5   8 49   0   83.0   96   58 16   43   54
Mike Brunet           30   6.43   3   5 23   0   35.0   41   25   7   16   28
Tommy Phelps*        33   6.52   3   6 21 13   80.0 101   58 16   29   35
Matt Childers         28   6.55   3   7 41 11   99.0 124   72 21   36   47
Scott Erickson         39   7.04   3   6 22 12   78.0   97   61 17   41   31
Ramiro Mendoza         35   7.42   2   4 25   7   57.0   78   47 15   16   17
Danny Borrell*        28   7.46   2   5 16 14   76.0   98   63 21   32   40
Matt DeSalvo         26   7.56   4 11 25 23   125.0 142 105 25   98   73

Player Spotlight (Beta) -  Phil Hughes
              ERA   W   L   G GS INN   H   ER HR   BB   K
Optimistic (15%)  3.24 15   6 34 34 186 172   67 13   57 150
Mean           4.06 12   7 29 29 164 164   74 15   58 127
Pessimistic (15%)  5.05   8   8 26 26 132 144   74 17   56   95

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.

Players are noted with their most recent teams unless Dan has made a mistake. 

ZiPS is projecting based on the AL having a 4.51 ERA and the NL having a 4.37 ERA.

Dan Szymborski Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:06 AM | 90 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. Jeff Miller Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:21 AM (#2266816)
Wow Melky projects better than Damon. Optimistic projection puts him as a Matsui-level hitter. Maybe we shouldn't trade him after all.
   2. The Original SJ Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:24 AM (#2266820)
I'll take the over on Rivera's losses and the under on the homers.
   3. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:24 AM (#2266822)
No one slugging better than .500? I seriously doubt that.
   4. The Original SJ Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:26 AM (#2266823)
Oh, and if Randy Johnson throws 220+ innings at a 3.73 ERA I will make out with the primate of your choice.
   5. Orange & Blue Velvet Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:28 AM (#2266825)
Wow Melky projects better than Damon.
And much to my amusement, a certain Mets outfield prospect.
   6. Jeff Miller Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:30 AM (#2266829)
I'll take 122 RBI out of Melky any day of the week
   7. MSI Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:30 AM (#2266832)
JOsh Phelps is that good? I did always like him....
   8. MSI Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:31 AM (#2266833)
Oh and Randy Johnson isn't doing that good.
   9. Darren Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:33 AM (#2266834)
Trade Melky for a reliever! Please please please!
   10. Darren Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:34 AM (#2266835)
Also, it's the payroll! It's all payroll! $200 million! $200 million! Big advantage!
   11. Raskolnikov Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:34 AM (#2266836)
Haha, wonder how rlr will react when he sees that the "Big Useless" projects to be his best starter.
   12. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:36 AM (#2266838)
With all the players on this list who won't snif an inning or a plate appearance in a Yankee uniform in 2007, we don't have room for an Igawa projection?

And as much as everyone loves Melky, there's no way he'll touch that optimistic projection for the simple reason that he's not going to play every day.
   13. Darren Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:37 AM (#2266840)
Oh, and if Randy Johnson throws 220+ innings at a 3.73 ERA I will make out with the primate of your choice.

SJ and kevin up in a tree...
   14. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:37 AM (#2266841)
There are various laws of war that would speak to the point.

Oops, I never did one for Igawa!

Doin' and includin'.
   15. Darren Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:39 AM (#2266842)
I hope the damn Orioles enjoy that Britton projection.

You look at Mariano and you think, how can a 37-year-old project to have a 2.01 ERA? Then you remember he's had a sub-2.00 ERA for 5 damn years in a row. It's unfathomable, the stinking one-pitch mummy freak. How the hell?
   16. G A Delgado Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:41 AM (#2266843)
A-Rod will hit better than that, no way is he slugging under .500.
   17. The Original SJ Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:42 AM (#2266844)
SJ and kevin up in a tree...

Is that what you really want? If Johnson does puts up those numbers, the Yanks will win their 40th straight division title.
   18. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:45 AM (#2266847)
How the hell?

He's a Cyborg.
   19. bibigon Posted: December 22, 2006 at 02:04 AM (#2266859)
As a Sox fan, I can only hope these are true.

Oh, and I'll take the over on A-Rod and Damon, and the under(but not by a huge amount) on RJ and Melky.
   20. Kanst Posted: December 22, 2006 at 02:20 AM (#2266872)
I wonder where Zips gets the optimistic on Melky from. Also Zips expects Hughes to be pretty exceptional at keeping the ball in the park that HR Rate is around Wang levels and Wang led the league last year.

I think a couple of the hitters are a little pessimistic and some of the pitchers a little optimistic although I could see RJ breaking an ERA of 4 if he doesnt have to pitch in April and the back heals up nice
   21. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: December 22, 2006 at 02:32 AM (#2266877)
Haha, wonder how rlr will react when he sees that the "Big Useless" projects to be his best starter.

*tears up Christmas card for Szymborski's computer*

Better upgrade your virus protection, Szym. Your computer is spitting out stupid projections.
   22. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 22, 2006 at 03:21 AM (#2266903)
Well, like him or not, while Johnson wasn't unlucky with hits, he was certainly unlucky with the runs resulting from the hits, walks, homers, and strikeouts, with a component ERA of 3.67. He's not going to be a dominating ace anymore, but his peripherals are still good enough that sans injury, he'll be just fine.
   23. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: December 22, 2006 at 03:28 AM (#2266907)
Well, like him or not, while Johnson wasn't unlucky with hits, he was certainly unlucky with the runs resulting from the hits, walks, homers, and strikeouts, with a component ERA of 3.67

I didn't really think it was unlucky. It seemed like he would be going along fine until one of his various maladies began to bother him, which caused all his pitches to go up and away to right-handed hitters. It wasn't luck that got him. It was his physical inability to pitch effectively for very long.
   24. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 22, 2006 at 03:44 AM (#2266909)
Well, we'll see!
   25. The Wilpons Must Go (Tom D) Posted: December 22, 2006 at 03:52 AM (#2266911)
If ARod slugs under .500, the pinstripes will be replaced with tar and feathers. I think he will slug over .500, but the tar and feathers I would not rule out.
   26. Morph Posted: December 22, 2006 at 03:58 AM (#2266914)
I love the Cano projection; disagree with A-Rod’s predicted output. Alex was out of sync almost all season and still managed 35 jacks. I'm not trying to be an arrogant Yankee fan here, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if he hit 45-50 in 2007.

I'm also confident Wang's E.R.A. will be below four. He pitched great after a second half adjustment [suggested by Mike Mussina] to his delivery from the stretch. He pitched much better with men on base after that adjustment, and should carry it over into next season.
   27. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 22, 2006 at 04:28 AM (#2266920)
So Igawa projects to around a 90 ERA+. I suspect that 200 IP of 90 ERA+ will be more valuable than Wright's 140 innings of 98 ERA+, won't they?
   28. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 22, 2006 at 04:34 AM (#2266922)
Incidentally, the Yankees had some stunningly bad performance out of their starters last year. Seems to be that if they can keep away from giving guys like Chacon, Small, Lidle (no offense intended here, of course) and Ponson starts they can afford a fair bit of regression from Wang and the like. In fact, those four guys made 26 starts, lasted around 4 and 2/3 IP per start and had a total ERA of 6.98; even replacement level performance would constitute an improvement
   29. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 22, 2006 at 05:32 AM (#2266935)
This is the first time I haven't hated a ZIPs projection of Jeter. He'll beat that SLG. though.

Cano has a .319 career batting average, I'll be disappointed if "only" hits .315.

I am very pleased I was open about my don't trade Melky feelings.

Dan, I think Igawa's projection here is worse then Chone's. Do you have the Japanese leagues rated lower in difficulty or does ZIPs not like something in particular about Igawa?
   30. bibigon Posted: December 22, 2006 at 06:24 AM (#2266954)
This Igawa projection is the first one I've seen which seems to make a lot of sense to me based on his stuff. I'm somewhat surprised that ZiPS has him projected so negatively however, as this does seem to be a good chunk worse than other systems.
   31. Zack F Posted: December 22, 2006 at 06:35 AM (#2266959)
This is the first time I haven't hated a ZIPs projection of Jeter.


I wonder what percentile of his ZIPS projection Jeter reached this year...
   32. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: December 22, 2006 at 07:00 AM (#2266967)
1) I just aced my lSAT and I'm wasted
2) DA YNEKES RULZ!
3) I WILL DONTATE MY LEFT TESTITCLE TO SCIENCE IF NO YANK SLUGS 500
   33. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 22, 2006 at 07:03 AM (#2266973)
Why donate it? You could probably get John Kruk to pay you something for it.
   34. bibigon Posted: December 22, 2006 at 07:12 AM (#2266978)
1) I just aced my lSAT and I'm wasted


Score?
   35. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: December 22, 2006 at 07:23 AM (#2266980)
180. WHY WAS I SUCH A ####### IN COLLEGE. WHYWHY WHY
   36. bibigon Posted: December 22, 2006 at 08:21 AM (#2266988)
You got a 180? That's a ticket into any school other than the big three, and maybe even them, regardless of how you did in college. There aren't many 180s out there.
   37. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: December 22, 2006 at 11:35 AM (#2267005)
How the hell?


The issue, and I'm certain that everybody will agree with me on this one, is that Mo is a robot. And robots should not be allowed in organized baseball. However you feel about PEDs and so forth, I think we can all agree that animatronic humans don't belong in baseball, at least at this point in time. As a result, I expect the Yankees to be stripped of all their titles, World, league, or otherwise, since Mo first joined the staff. I will be glad to inform the Orioles, Braves, Indians, Red Sox, and Padres of their unexpected retroactive success.

NO ROBOTS IN BASEBALL!!
   38. Davo Dozier (Mastroianni) Posted: December 22, 2006 at 12:28 PM (#2267009)
So I read Phil Hughes a Condom's post, and thought, "There's no way we got our LSAT scores back already. That can't be right; I'll check to prove him wrong". So then I checked and saw my score. So thanks for making that the most anticlimactic moment of my entire life, Phil. :)

(My score was much lower than a 180--I'm in awe of you Phil--but easily high enough to get into the college of my choice.)
   39. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:11 PM (#2267012)
The issue, and I'm certain that everybody will agree with me on this one, is that Mo is a robot.
Robot, Cyborg, whatever. I love that man. Love him, love him, love him.
   40. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:11 PM (#2267013)
I'm now in a doctoral program and I never even took an LSAT. Which is to say, even if you failed miserably on it, all is not lost!
   41. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 22, 2006 at 02:04 PM (#2267026)
I did not know the Yanks still had Ramiro Mendoza and I had no idea that Scott Erickson was still playing baseball.

Also, Congrats Dzop.
   42. Kyle S Posted: December 22, 2006 at 02:16 PM (#2267028)
Careful, don't let backlasher see this thread :)
   43. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 22, 2006 at 02:50 PM (#2267045)
This Igawa projection is the first one I've seen which seems to make a lot of sense to me based on his stuff. I'm somewhat surprised that ZiPS has him projected so negatively however, as this does seem to be a good chunk worse than other systems.

His 2006 translates quite well for Yankee Stadium (13-10, 3.75), but he allowed a *lot* of homers the previous 2 years, 28 per 200 IP - that's more than Darrell May allowed there and a lot more homers than any Japanese pitcher that's come over - only Yabu is even in the same time zone.
   44. Rants Mulliniks Posted: December 22, 2006 at 02:56 PM (#2267052)
I can't say I'd expect Cabrera to develop 20 hr power this year, but I think he's due for a big improvement. He was only 21/22 last year, and hit .280 with excellent BB/PA, BB/SO and SO/PA rates.
   45. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 22, 2006 at 02:56 PM (#2267053)
So, was the drop in HR rate in 2006 a fluke, or did he make an adjustment? If the latter, will that adjustment translate across the Pacific?
   46. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: December 22, 2006 at 03:06 PM (#2267064)
Careful, don't let backlasher see this thread :)


I know. That that cooler (and throbbing, hungover) heads are prevailing, I feel like a bit of a deuchebag.

Oh well.
   47. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: December 22, 2006 at 03:18 PM (#2267071)
Seems to be that if they can keep away from giving guys like Chacon, Small, Lidle (no offense intended here, of course) and Ponson starts

I always appreciate careful, RB. But I think a person would have to work pretty hard to be offended at this evaluation of Lidle's performance in 2006.
   48. Mike Green Posted: December 22, 2006 at 03:23 PM (#2267077)
It's fun to see Cano nestled in between Giambi and A-Rod for the team lead in slugging.

Every year of the last 5, the bookmakers put the Yankees over/under at 100 wins and I scoff. Not this year. This is one fine well-constructed club. I like Humberto Sanchez much better than ZIPS does, but that is mostly subjective.
   49. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 22, 2006 at 03:26 PM (#2267079)
I always appreciate careful, RB. But I think a person would have to work pretty hard to be offended at this evaluation of Lidle's performance in 2006.
On the one hand, Erik, you're right. On the other, this is Primer.
   50. NJ in DC (Now unemployed!) Posted: December 22, 2006 at 03:42 PM (#2267093)
'zop, as someone preparing to take the June LSAT, I would much appreciate it if you could tell me what sorts of things you did as far as books or courses, if any. I usually test pretty well, but logic games look like they're going to be a #####.
   51. Kyle S Posted: December 22, 2006 at 03:47 PM (#2267098)
Oh, I also wanted to mention that the last thing Primer needs is another lawyer... :)

just kidding. congrats, dzop. if you end up at hahvahd, let me know - one of my best friends just got in there for next year. is that even a top 3 school? i know yale and u chicago are up there.
   52. PooNani Posted: December 22, 2006 at 04:04 PM (#2267116)
Russ Johnson projection an error?

.261/.354/.406

34 year old journeyman hit .275/.380/.445 in Columbus
   53. bibigon Posted: December 22, 2006 at 04:15 PM (#2267129)
is that even a top 3 school? i know yale and u chicago are up there.


Harvard, Yale, and Stanford are the big three as far as law schools go.
   54. CrosbyBird Posted: December 22, 2006 at 05:29 PM (#2267190)
You got a 180? That's a ticket into any school other than the big three, and maybe even them, regardless of how you did in college. There aren't many 180s out there.

An obscenely high LSAT isn't enough to cover really crappy grades. I was outright rejected from several schools well below the top three, and waitlisted (ultimately rejected) from NYU with not a 180, but pretty close.
   55. CrosbyBird Posted: December 22, 2006 at 05:38 PM (#2267195)
I usually test pretty well, but logic games look like they're going to be a #####.

I got a perfect score on my logic games section. I'd recommend doing tons of them, and using practice tests that explain the answers. I didn't have time to take a formal course so I just took a full practice test plus reviewed and read strategies every day for a month. I used the Princeton Self-Study review book with the CD-ROM and thought it was very worthwhile.

I found a big part of why logic games are so brutal is that if you don't have a good plan of attack, you run out of time. Once I learned good diagramming techniques, I found myself having time to spare on the sections because at least a quarter of the questions were answered directly from my diagrams.
   56. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 22, 2006 at 05:40 PM (#2267198)
Russ Johnson projection an error?

No, Johnson's a good role player who has the unfortunate knack at getting injured at precisely the wrong times in his career.
   57. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 22, 2006 at 05:45 PM (#2267202)
You got a 180? That's a ticket into any school other than the big three, and maybe even them, regardless of how you did in college. There aren't many 180s out there.

Don't know about Law School, but I was near perfect (720/800/6) on my GREs, and got rejected by several second tier schools because of my grades. FWIW, the 800 was in Math, and I was applying in Statistics.
   58. Danny Posted: December 22, 2006 at 06:15 PM (#2267231)
I know. That that cooler (and throbbing, hungover) heads are prevailing, I feel like a bit of a deuchebag.

After just finishing my first set of exams yesterday, it feels good to be hungover again.
An obscenely high LSAT isn't enough to cover really crappy grades. I was outright rejected from several schools well below the top three, and waitlisted (ultimately rejected) from NYU with not a 180, but pretty close.

My GPA was below the median in college, and I had a very different experience.

I completely agree with post 55, though. Just take a lot of practice tests.
   59. PooNani Posted: December 22, 2006 at 06:15 PM (#2267234)
I took the liberty of going through the past few years of ZiPS projections and compare to their actual projections

ch-ch-check it
   60. bibigon Posted: December 22, 2006 at 06:15 PM (#2267235)
Don't know about Law School, but I was near perfect (720/800/6) on my GREs, and got rejected by several second tier schools because of my grades. FWIW, the 800 was in Math, and I was applying in Statistics.


Law school is different than most other things - they give more weight to the LSAT than other programs give to analogous standardized tests.
   61. DCA Posted: December 22, 2006 at 06:20 PM (#2267242)
FWIW, the 800 was in Math, and I was applying in Statistics.

Either 1 in 8 or 1 in 12 (I can't remember which) test-takers gets an 800 on the GRE Math. Anyone contemplating grad school in a quantitative field should be able to get an 800, so it's really a minimum competence requirement not an indicator of excellence. I'm far more impressed by the verbal and writing scores, those might actually distinguish you from other candidates, if your program cared.
   62. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: December 22, 2006 at 06:22 PM (#2267246)
Columbia > Stanford.
   63. greenback likes millwall, they don't care Posted: December 22, 2006 at 06:45 PM (#2267270)
Either 1 in 8 or 1 in 12 (I can't remember which) test-takers gets an 800 on the GRE Math. Anyone contemplating grad school in a quantitative field should be able to get an 800, so it's really a minimum competence requirement not an indicator of excellence.

Yeah, I work with an academic refugee who said every single math grad student he met at Indiana U. had an 800 on the GRE Math. Now that I think about that, I wonder if this guy collected GRE scores.
   64. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: December 22, 2006 at 06:51 PM (#2267281)
Columbia > Stanford

FWIW, not according to US News and World Report, which rates the top 5 as Yale-Stanford-Harvard-Columbia-NYU. Having not paid attention to these things in the more-than-a-few years since I attended law school, I'm surprised to see NYU that high. When I was applying, it was considered to be more in the 10-15 range.
   65. Fat Al Posted: December 22, 2006 at 06:55 PM (#2267284)
NYU has been in the US NEWS top 10 (and often top 5-6) since at least the early 90s.
   66. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: December 22, 2006 at 07:31 PM (#2267327)
As I said, it's been more-than-a-few years. But my recollection is that, of the schools behind NYU in this current ranking, Chicago, Penn, Cal, Michigan and Cornell (at least) ranked higher.
   67. Free Rob Base Posted: December 22, 2006 at 08:40 PM (#2267386)
Thats a heck of a lot of OBP. I think Yanks win the title for highest projected team OBP. Its probably not close.
   68. Walt Davis Posted: December 22, 2006 at 08:53 PM (#2267403)
Yeah, I work with an academic refugee who said every single math grad student he met at Indiana U. had an 800 on the GRE Math.

Hopefully it's tougher now, but when I took the GRE (about 20 years ago), I don't think the math section asked anything beyond high-school level algebra and basic geometry. I'm pretty sure there were no trig or calculus questions on there. In short, I'm pretty sure I could have done better (I still got an 800) on the math section if I'd taken it my junior year in high school rather than 10 years later.
   69. greenback likes millwall, they don't care Posted: December 22, 2006 at 09:06 PM (#2267414)
The GRE had calculus questions on it when I took it about 10-12 years ago. It was pretty basic though. I'm not sure how you can put a group theory or analysis proof on a multiple choice exam.
   70. bibigon Posted: December 22, 2006 at 09:38 PM (#2267440)
The GRE math is currently easier than the SAT math is. I taught both for Princeton Review, and pretty consistently, our students scored better on the GRE than they had on the SAT.

That's why the GRE isn't worth as much in terms of admissions as the LSAT is. The LSAT is focused on differentiating between the top scorers - even though it's only there's only a 60 point scale(from 120-180), a score like a 169 is already in the 97.5th percentile. That's why a 180 is so rare and impressive. I believe there are on the order of about 100 180s per year.
   71. Gonfalon B. Posted: December 22, 2006 at 10:28 PM (#2267489)
Seems to be that if they can keep away from giving guys like Chacon, Small, Lidle (no offense intended here, of course) ...

"God must have needed an 85 ERA+."
   72. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: December 22, 2006 at 11:44 PM (#2267546)
The GRE math is currently easier than the SAT math is. I taught both for Princeton Review, and pretty consistently, our students scored better on the GRE than they had on the SAT.

I took the GRE this past February and scoring high on the Math is stupid easy. I hadn't taken a math course or thought about math for almost ten years. I studied one of those books for about 5 days. I had no idea what I was doing on the test. I got a higher Math score than I did on the SAT, which I took when I was still a math student. They may as well not bother with it.

I kind of enjoyed the Verbal section, though. It was sort of interesting.
   73. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: December 23, 2006 at 01:38 AM (#2267566)
That that cooler (and throbbing, hungover) heads are prevailing, I feel like a bit of a deuchebag.

Self awareness is a good thing. Congratulations on your big score.
   74. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: December 23, 2006 at 01:38 AM (#2267567)
I thought dzop was a climatologist and not a lawyer wannabe. Does Szym always do projections for 41 pitchers?
   75. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: December 23, 2006 at 01:52 AM (#2267573)
I thought dzop was a climatologist

I am, but I'm strongly considering leaving at the end of this academic year.
   76. kwarren Posted: December 23, 2006 at 03:17 AM (#2267604)
No one slugging better than .500? I seriously doubt that.

Well with four plays projected with SLG between .486 and .497 it's almost a certainty that one of them at least will SLG .500 simply through random variation.
   77. kwarren Posted: December 23, 2006 at 03:20 AM (#2267607)
No one slugging better than .500? I seriously doubt that.

Well with four players projected with SLG between .486 and .497 it's almost a certainty that at least one of them will SLG .500 simply through random variation. I don't these projections can be used to suggest that no one will slug more than .500
   78. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 23, 2006 at 03:39 AM (#2267613)
"Well with four plays projected with SLG between .486 and .497 it's almost a certainty that one of them at least will SLG .500 simply through random variation."

Also, when Melky reaches that optimistic projection and slugs .514, he'll be one of the players to do it. I'd say The Rod, Giambi and Matsui (Matsui better, or I'm gonna go back to hating him) probably all slug .500. Maybe Cano or Abreu gets there instead of Matsui.
   79. Zac Schmitt Posted: December 23, 2006 at 12:51 PM (#2267700)
So I read Phil Hughes a Condom's post, and thought, "There's no way we got our LSAT scores back already. That can't be right; I'll check to prove him wrong". So then I checked and saw my score. So thanks for making that the most anticlimactic moment of my entire life, Phil. :)

(My score was much lower than a 180--I'm in awe of you Phil--but easily high enough to get into the college of my choice.)


i proctor the lsats administered at my school and got the check for it a few weeks back.

i bet arod exceeds .500 by a bit. what, you want evidence? too bad. you'll take "gut feeling" and like it.
   80. Jeff K. Posted: December 27, 2006 at 10:17 PM (#2269558)
A-Rod beats .500 slugging. Easily, and anyone who wants to bet on it can contact me through BTF mail.

The last season he substantially missed .500 (.496 in 1997) was when he was ####### nineteen years old.

Congrats, PH. I should have known that the 79 post thread in TO was an LSAT jerkoff session.
   81. Posada Posse Posted: January 01, 2007 at 02:08 AM (#2271896)
Alright, Jorge doesn't fall off the cliff just yet, yay!
   82. 1k5v3L Posted: January 01, 2007 at 02:14 AM (#2271897)
Hey Dan,

I know this may be asking a nudge too much on New Year's day, but what would be RJ's zips in AZ in 2007 and 2008? Opt 15% and Pess 15% would be wonderful to see.

Since you'll have to run those projections for when the trade is completed anyhow, do you mind getting a leg up on the competition and posting those for us early?

Thanks!
   83. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: January 01, 2007 at 03:28 AM (#2271905)
I graduated from college (Electrical Engineering) in 1991 and plan to start back to school for a Masters in Applied Mathematics this summer. What kind of GRE prep do you guys recommend, online or otherwise? Are any of the free sites any good?
   84. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: January 01, 2007 at 06:01 AM (#2271936)
Wait, GRE Math is easier than SAT Math? Is that even possible?
   85. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: January 01, 2007 at 06:05 AM (#2271937)
Also, since I'm just reading these projections now, 18 HRs for a guy who hit 7 HR last year in 460 ML ABs seems wildly optimistic for me, even for a young guy like Cabrera.
   86. Honkie Kong Posted: January 01, 2007 at 01:32 PM (#2271970)
sigh, there was a time when GRE was out of 2400 and I got 2400 out of 2400! those were the days!!
GRE prep is a breeze, just make sure to take lot of practise tests, and have strict time control
   87. Russ Posted: January 01, 2007 at 09:12 PM (#2272086)
Wait, GRE Math is easier than SAT Math? Is that even possible?


Supply and demand. The good engineering/CS/science/math schools are looking at SAT scores for high school students, as noted above, no self-respecting program that requires any sort of mathematical skill (pure and applied math or stats) even looks at the GRE math section scores. The math subject exam is much more relevant. Therefore, the GRE math section is really aimed at trying to weed out the truly mathematically incompetent in the biological and social sciences, which is why it ends up being easier than the SAT math.
   88. 1k5v3L Posted: January 05, 2007 at 03:03 AM (#2274443)
Hey Dan Szymborski,

Whose leg does a dog have to hump around here to get Johnson's zips for AZ?
   89. It's just Steve Posted: February 20, 2007 at 07:26 AM (#2300363)
Dan Szymborski,

Can't help but think your projections on Melky are way, way too optimistic. He's never posted better than an .800 OPS at any level higher than A-ball, other than 135 PA's at Columbus last spring. I also don't see where he gets close to 600 AB's as a fourth outfielder. You are obviously using more objective empirical evidence that carries more weight than my pure conjecture, but I would be willing to bet heavily that Melky does no better than an .830 OPS with a sub-10 VORP and fewer than 70 RBI's.
   90. It's just Steve Posted: February 20, 2007 at 07:36 AM (#2300366)
Ah, I see... Zips disclaimer. Okay, didn't mean for the personal affront.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
tshipman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.7988 seconds
47 querie(s) executed