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

Sunday, December 24, 2006

2007 ZiPS Projections - Oakland A’s

Name               P Age   AVG   OBP   SLG   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS
Dan Johnson*        1b 27 .273 .365 .469 139 480 72 131 29 1 21 88 69 74 0 1
Nick Swisher#        lf 26 .250 .364 .470 148 515 95 129 27 1 28 85 87 133 0 2
Matt Watson*        rf 28 .274 .349 .460 111 387 63 106 26 2 14 68 42 58 5 2
Eric Chavez*        3b 29 .260 .352 .453 136 508 78 132 27 1 23 80 72 102 4 1
Mike Piazza         dh 38 .269 .342 .463 96 320 34 86 17 0 15 49 34 49 0 0
Erubiel Durazo*      dh 33 .279 .363 .425 101 341 37 95 20 0 10 46 43 69 1 1
Milton Bradley#      rf 29 .268 .351 .433 108 400 57 107 19 1 15 58 49 84 9 4
Daric Barton*        1b 21 .263 .355 .408 127 434 74 114 29 2 10 61 62 72 1 1
Travis Buck*        lf 22 .271 .331 .439 86 321 39 87 32 2 6 34 28 57 6 2
Keith Ginter         2b 31 .249 .336 .401 102 357 43 89 24 0 10 53 39 67 2 0
Mark Kotsay*        cf 31 .277 .339 .393 115 466 55 129 26 2 8 55 44 55 5 3
Hiram Bocachica       rf 31 .253 .333 .419 85 265 27 67 12 1 10 31 28 65 10 6
Mark Ellis           2b 30 .265 .331 .390 135 480 71 127 26 2 10 54 44 74 2 1
Bobby Kielty#        lf 30 .250 .325 .397 78 252 32 63 14 1 7 36 27 47 1 0
Jason Kendall         c   33 .283 .360 .335 129 505 66 143 23 0 1 47 47 41 7 4
Bobby Crosby         ss 27 .243 .322 .394 109 404 57 98 23 1 12 48 46 87 5 1
Jason Perry*        rf 26 .256 .319 .408 116 395 50 101 20 2 12 54 33 100 2 3
Brant Colamarino*      1b 26 .247 .306 .421 128 477 52 118 30 4 15 70 38 102 1 1
Charles Thomas*      lf 28 .254 .326 .370 115 362 48 92 15 3 7 42 33 71 7 5
D’Angelo Jimenez#      2b 29 .246 .333 .352 111 386 50 95 21 1 6 41 50 57 7 4
Marco Scutaro         2b 31 .254 .316 .374 119 382 46 97 22 3 6 38 34 56 2 1
Antonio Perez         3b 27 .250 .315 .383 113 332 48 83 16 2 8 39 28 77 15 8
John Baker*          c   26 .243 .305 .376 125 428 59 104 26 2 9 55 37 109 2 0
Adam Melhuse#        c   35 .234 .298 .406 45 128 13 30 7 0 5 18 10 34 0 1
Jeremy Brown         c   27 .229 .301 .371 93 315 37 72 18 0 9 37 30 66 0 0
Raul Casanova         c   34 .238 .290 .395 73 248 26 59 12 0 9 34 17 36 0 0
Mark Kiger           ss 27 .241 .322 .340 118 406 56 98 20 1 6 30 46 92 7 3
Kurt Suzuki         c   23 .233 .315 .355 118 420 59 98 26 2 7 44 47 63 3 3
Javier Herrera       cf 22 .240 .292 .381 98 341 53 82 16 1 10 39 23 107 17 4
Kevin Melillo*        2b 25 .236 .307 .366 137 470 57 111 27 2 10 52 46 91 9 5
Ryan Goleski         rf 25 .224 .291 .389 124 424 51 95 25 0 15 54 37 130 4 3
Brian Snyder         3b 25 .228 .315 .328 109 351 41 80 15 1 6 44 44 96 2 1
J.J. Furmaniak       ss 27 .238 .287 .352 123 420 50 100 18 3 8 42 26 91 9 6
Donnie Murphy         2b 24 .218 .260 .363 97 353 33 77 22 1 9 30 17 66 3 3

* - Bats Left
# = Switch-Hitter

Player Spotlight (Beta) - Nick Swisher
Name           AVG   OBP   SLG   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS
Optimistic (15%)  .271 .394 .524 162 565 120 153 34 2 35 115 107 135 1 1  
Mean         .250 .364 .470 148 515 95 129 27 1 28 85 87 133 0 2
Pessimistic (15%) .231 .339 .409 103 359 59 83 16 0 16 47 57 99 0 2  

Name               Age   ERA   W   L   G GS   INN   H   ER HR   BB   K
Huston Street         23   2.59   6   1 68   0   73.0   60   21   4   17   68
Joe Kennedy*          28   3.29   3   2 40   1   41.0   40   15   2   14   30
Justin Duchscherer     29   3.35   6   3 58   0   78.0   73   29   9   19   62
Rich Harden           25   3.44   9   5 25 23   144.0 125   55 11   54 126
Kiko Calero           32   3.54   4   2 63   0   61.0   53   24   6   21   59
Danny Haren           26   4.09 14 12 34 33   211.0 213   96 31   53 167
Ron Flores*          27   4.27   5   5 55   0   59.0   58   28   7   25   45
Brad Halsey*          26   4.32   8   8 38 22   146.0 158   70 15   45   84
Chad Gaudin           24   4.33   8   7 41 17   131.0 136   63 16   45   79
Barry Zito*          29   4.37 13 12 34 34   214.0 209 104 27   90 156
Jay Witasick         34   4.42   2   1 51   1   59.0   59   29   6   29   48
Shawn Kohn           27   4.50   2   3 50   0   70.0   72   35 11   21   50
Scott Dunn           29   4.56   5   5 44   4   81.0   81   41   9   39   66
Erasmo Ramirez*        31   4.58   3   3 42   0   53.0   60   27   8   9   25
Jason Windsor         24   4.59   9   9 27 26   153.0 167   78 19   49   96
Joe Blanton           26   4.66 12 13 32 31   193.0 213 100 24   61 103
Esteban Loaiza         35   4.67 10 11 31 29   187.0 208   97 22   56 113
Alan Embree*          37   4.68   3   3 67   0   50.0   52   26   7   14   38
Dan Meyer*          25   4.88   5   6 20 18   94.0   98   51 14   39   71
Marcus McBeth         26   4.93   3   4 62   0   73.0   70   40 12   33   65
Kirk Saarloos         28   4.98   7   8 29 20   130.0 148   72 16   53   55
Scott Sauerbeck*      35   5.34   0   1 59   0   32.0   34   19   5   17   23
Santiago Casilla       27   5.40   0   1 35   0   40.0   42   24   6   18   31
Shane Komine         26   5.53   6   9 22 21   127.0 148   78 21   49   60
Kazuhito Tadano       27   5.59   3   5 32   7   87.0 100   54 18   27   59
Juan Dominguez         27   5.63   5   9 28 17   112.0 129   70 19   45   58
Jerome Williams       25   5.66   6 12 31 24   148.0 173   93 23   56   64
Brandon Puffer         31   5.79   2   5 51   0   70.0   83   45 12   27   36
Victor Moreno         28   5.84   3   6 39   9   94.0 105   61 13   53   54

* - Throws Left

Player Spotlight (Beta) - Danny Haren
              ERA   W   L   G GS INN   H   ER HR   BB   K
Optimistic (15%)  3.35 19 10 34 34 226 211   84 27   49 186
Mean           4.09 14 12 34 33 211 213   96 31   53 167        
Pessimistic (15%)  4.89 10 12 29 27 171 187   93 29   48 128  

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 24, 2006 at 08:32 PM | 46 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. number 6 Posted: December 24, 2006 at 08:51 PM (#2268137)
Dan Johnson!
Matt Watson!
Keith Ginter!
oh my!
   2. number 6 Posted: December 24, 2006 at 09:01 PM (#2268144)
I detect a lack of Mark Ellis. Did I miss some offseason move/ grievous injury to Ellis, besides his finger?
   3. joker24 Posted: December 24, 2006 at 09:10 PM (#2268146)
Anyone else up for giving Zito 100/6???
   4. The District Attorney Posted: December 24, 2006 at 09:11 PM (#2268149)
Marcus McBeth
What, will the bullpen stretch out to the crack of doom??

Poor Jerome Williams. Oh yeah, that's right, Zito used to be on the A's...

This team lacks... hitting. Especially if Crosby lives up to that projection, they're so screwed. (But where's Durazo? REINSTATE ERUBIEL DURAZO!)
   5. xErikx Posted: December 24, 2006 at 09:11 PM (#2268150)
Yeah, I don't like that Mark Watson projection...and I definitely think Swisher will be better than Johnson. I think ZiPS is underestimating Swisher's power.
   6. Danny Posted: December 24, 2006 at 09:23 PM (#2268156)
Initial observations:

1) Hard to believe Johnson projects better than Swisher.
2) That's a lotta HR for Blanton and Haren.
3) Is there anything Embree can do that Flores (or even Erasmo) can't?
4) I wouldn't be surprised if Durazo is Piazza's equal.
5) I'd be very happy with those performances out of Kennedy, Halsey, Gaudin, and Windsor.
6) A HR for Kendall!
7) Looks like Melhuse is wasting a $1M that could go to Brown or Baker, and Suzuki will have to take one of their spots in AAA anyway.
   7. Walt Davis Posted: December 24, 2006 at 09:25 PM (#2268157)
God that's an awful offense. And none of those projections seem out of whack to me -- at least not in the A's favor. Crosby might be low -- good lord, he's 27! -- time for him to go all Tejada on the league.

Nice staff though -- well, if Harden is healthy and Haren doesn't get hurt. Saarloos hasn't had an ERA that bad since 2002 so I'll take the under.
   8. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 24, 2006 at 09:41 PM (#2268161)
Oops! I skipped Ellis! I'll do and add him and Durazo.
   9. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 24, 2006 at 11:18 PM (#2268209)
Is there anything Embree can do that Flores (or even Erasmo) can't?

I thought Flores had trouble with left-handed hitters -- 2006 .323 BAA, .273 Career BAA. Not good for a LOOGY. Embree is .240 lefty BAA in 2006, .239 Career. Erasmo was .239 lefty 2006 BAA in AAA, so I'm guessing that he's not quite as good as Embree.

Like number6 in #1 I'm amazed that Johnson, Watson, Durazo and Ginter are all going to be better than Kotsay, Ellis, Kendall and Crosby. Not that I think it can't happen, it's just pathetic.
   10. Buzzards Bay Posted: December 24, 2006 at 11:28 PM (#2268213)
Wiley Piatt (981) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
Dave Ferriss (959) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
Juan Marichal (966) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
Mike Hampton (971) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
Mike Hampton (976) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
Mike Hampton (963) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
per BB-Ref
fertile stuff for soothsayers and neo-historians
does the Boras Corp. sell the future,the past or tack to intangibles
love to have spycam on this negotiation
   11. Astro-Bonilla Posted: December 25, 2006 at 12:56 AM (#2268246)
Does anybody else think Durazo-DH + Piazza-C is clearly better than Piazza DH-Kendall-C against RHPs?
   12. Robinson Cano Plate Like Home Posted: December 25, 2006 at 01:08 AM (#2268252)
Can you ask ZIPS what Kennedy looks like as a starter? Or does it not work like that?
   13. Danny Posted: December 25, 2006 at 01:41 AM (#2268263)
I thought Flores had trouble with left-handed hitters -- 2006 .323 BAA, .273 Career BAA. Not good for a LOOGY. Embree is .240 lefty BAA in 2006, .239 Career. Erasmo was .239 lefty 2006 BAA in AAA, so I'm guessing that he's not quite as good as Embree.

Embree's allowed a .238/.299/.371 career line against LHB. In a very small sample (46 PA), Flores is at .273/.304/.364. That's pretty equal. Flores was also at .238/.347/.262 against LHB in AAA last year.

I think the A's could put a very good bullpen together without Witasick and Embree. I don't think they're bad to have around in the abstract, but I think guys like Flores, Halsey, Saarloos (who has a 3.50 career ERA as a reliever), and hopefully McBeth could do just as well--and the money would be much better spent on an OF that can play everyday when Kotsay or Bradley goes down.
   14. Iwakuma Chameleon (jonathan) Posted: December 25, 2006 at 03:21 AM (#2268274)
Eyeballing it, I'm taking the over on Swisher, the under on DJ, the over on Chavvy (if he's finally healthy, I think he could still be a significant offensive producer. That's probably a big if, though), slight over on Piazza, slight over on Ellis, and the under (yes, under) on Crosby. (Dude sucks.)

On the pitching side, over on Street, under on Duke, over on Calero, under Haren, over Blanton, under Loaiza.


Team's got a lot of question marks, much like last year. I don't see us being particularly better, either. The only turnover we're looking at right now, is, what, Thomas and Zito to Piazza and Kennedy? That's a pretty significant downgrade, and you'd have to get some nice gains out of Crosby, Ellis, Chavez, and even Swisher just to make up that difference. Then you'd need Blanton and Loaiza to improve, and a healthy Harden before you can think about improving at all on 2006. I try to stay optimistic in the offseason, but that's a whole lot to ask.
   15. Flynn Posted: December 25, 2006 at 03:53 AM (#2268278)
The A's are going to regret passing on Bonds. That offense might struggle to reach 725 runs.
   16. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 25, 2006 at 04:24 AM (#2268289)
I don't think anyone is going to pick Bobby Crosby for MVP this year.
   17. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: December 25, 2006 at 05:51 AM (#2268326)
I will right now. Dorian hits .308/.395/.544 next year.
   18. Sam M. Posted: December 25, 2006 at 06:11 AM (#2268335)
4) I wouldn't be surprised if Durazo is Piazza's equal.

I would. Shocked, in fact. Piazza will be outstanding, Danny. Not Thomas-like, unfortunately, which is going to make it a downgrade from the A's POV. But I believe he'll take to DH'ing very well and have an excellent year, outperforming that ZiPS.
   19. Walt Davis Posted: December 25, 2006 at 06:41 AM (#2268351)
I would. Shocked, in fact. Piazza will be outstanding, Danny. Not Thomas-like, unfortunately, which is going to make it a downgrade from the A's POV. But I believe he'll take to DH'ing very well and have an excellent year, outperforming that ZiPS.

I wouldn't bet on this. The successful late-career switch from C is always seen as a boon to hitting, but it's rarely been the case. (Of course few have hit this well this late in their careers to even think about it) Piazza had a nice little bounce back last year (OPS+ of 120) but given his previous two seasons I get a quick Marcel OPS+ of 112 without any age decline. Add age and Piazza 2004-2005 seems more likely than Piazza 2006. Last year, that would translate to an OPS in Oakland of about 800.

Durazo's career OPS+ is 125 and in his last full season (granted, that was 2004), it was 136. He's no spring chicken and a huge question mark because of the injury, so I'm not saying I'd project him to hit better than Piazza, but I wouldn't be surprised, much less "shocked." And he just might project to hit righties better than Piazza.

But there should be enough playing time for both (especially if Durazo can fake 1B or Piazza still play some C) so at the moment this is a "tacos or beer" sort of question.
   20. DCW3 Posted: December 25, 2006 at 06:52 AM (#2268357)
Piazza had a nice little bounce back last year (OPS+ of 120) but given his previous two seasons I get a quick Marcel OPS+ of 112 without any age decline.

With an age adjustment and regression I have him projected for a 106 OPS+ next year, which works out to an RCAA of +7 per 150 games (not that Piazza's likely to sniff 150 games)--about three runs better than the average DH.
   21. Sam M. Posted: December 25, 2006 at 08:17 AM (#2268370)
The successful late-career switch from C is always seen as a boon to hitting, but it's rarely been the case.

FWIW, Piazza has done well as a DH, even though these games (49) have disproportionately come during the declining phase of his career as a hitter. In 191 career ABs, Piazza has hit .304/.363/.529. I think that's at least some evidence he will experience a rejuvenating effect, a la Joe Torre. Minimal evidence, perhaps, but he is Mike Piazza. Bet against him at your own risk.
   22. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 25, 2006 at 09:04 AM (#2268373)
I'll take the over on the Bradley projection.
   23. frannyzoo Posted: December 25, 2006 at 09:22 AM (#2268376)
These projections better match a typical 1968 club than a 2007 one. Well, until you get to that Zito line. And the Mets want him why, exactly?
   24. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 25, 2006 at 03:39 PM (#2268394)
I think the A's could put a very good bullpen together without Witasick and Embree. I don't think they're bad to have around in the abstract, but I think guys like Flores, Halsey, Saarloos (who has a 3.50 career ERA as a reliever), and hopefully McBeth could do just as well--and the money would be much better spent on an OF that can play everyday when Kotsay or Bradley goes down.

I think they're looking for Buck to fill this role, for better or worse, possibly in a platoon with Kielty, but maybe even playing every day. It makes some sense to let your best (albeit not great) prospects develop while stockpiling pitching depth. I'm less optimistic about next year than any since 1998.
   25. Walt Davis Posted: December 25, 2006 at 07:35 PM (#2268457)
I think that's at least some evidence he will experience a rejuvenating effect, a la Joe Torre

Torre made the permanent switch from C at age 30 after spending the majority of age 28 at 1B and half of 29 at 3B, which is probably different. Even so, other than his miracle age 30 season, he hit no better and really a bit worse after making the switch -- i.e. a relatively normal age-based decline. Of course we have no idea how long the move may have extended his career and, if nothing else, getting his bat in 150-160 games instead of 130-150 was nice.

Not that you were necessarily using Torre as a comp for Piazza, I was just pointing out that it's not clear Torre's bat rejuvenated with the move.

Piazza's been a great hitter of course and it's certainly possible that, like Thomas, he's got 1 or 2 seasons of his old self left in there. Just don't forget that Durazo was a very good hitter (never as good as Piazza) and Piazza hasn't posted an OPS+ above Durazo's career average since 2002. Of course Durazo hasn't done anything since 2004, so he's no sure bet. It's Piazza's age-based decline plus any DH rejuvenation from a 110ish OPS+ base vs. Durazo's age/injury/inactivity-based decline from a 125ish OPS+ base. Looks pretty even to me.

I'll say that I might well have rather rolled the dice on a platoon of Durazo and Phelps for $1 M (again especially if Durazo can play some 1B or Phelps can play some C/1B ... and I'm not sure either of those is true) and spent my Piazza money elsewhere if I was the A's.

By the way, if Durazo can't play 1B and Piazza can't/won't play C (or the A's won't let him), then it seems impossible for the A's to carry both on their roster.
   26. DCW3 Posted: December 25, 2006 at 08:00 PM (#2268470)
Not that you were necessarily using Torre as a comp for Piazza, I was just pointing out that it's not clear Torre's bat rejuvenated with the move.

And by the time Torre was the age Piazza is now, he'd been retired from playing for over a year.
   27. A triple short of the cycle Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:12 PM (#2268549)
The offensive numbers seem low, even for the A's. The only one who looks optimistic is Dan Johnson.

I don't think anyone is going to pick Bobby Crosby for MVP this year.


I would settle for for Comeback Player of the Year. Any word on his health, Danny?
   28. davis21wylie Posted: December 26, 2006 at 01:42 AM (#2268626)
What's the optimistic on Zito? Because, obviously that's the pessimistic...
   29. DosRafaels Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:04 AM (#2268631)
I know that this is only relevant to us Indians fans, but that Goleski line coupled with Watson's line makes me pretty confident that we will get Go-go back (probably after giving extra compensation for his injuty) and even if we don't that he's not to big of a loss.
   30. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:12 AM (#2268635)
Watson got shipped to Japan months ago. He'll have no impact on Goleski's status.
   31. DosRafaels Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:19 AM (#2268708)
Rats!!
   32. Iwakuma Chameleon (jonathan) Posted: December 26, 2006 at 08:20 AM (#2268774)
Still wouldn't worry. I don't know how Goleski could hit like that and still stick around. He's gonna have to hit on some nice sort of optimistic projection to hang around all year.
   33. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 26, 2006 at 07:45 PM (#2268868)
I think that few doubt a healthy Goleski couldn't top that projection. Not ZiPS' fault - Ryan was awful in '05 (covered in other threads), dragging his numbers down considerably.
   34. danielj Posted: December 26, 2006 at 07:54 PM (#2268874)
There's no way the A's will go into 2007 with that lineup. They must make a trade for a hitter. Almost any hitter. I believe we haven't heard the last of Mets/A's rumors.
   35. danielj Posted: December 26, 2006 at 07:56 PM (#2268876)
BTW, is it me or is Daric Barton starting to look like the next Scott Hatteberg, as opposed to the next John Olerud?
   36. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 26, 2006 at 08:33 PM (#2268888)
BTW, is it me or is Daric Barton starting to look like the next Scott Hatteberg, as opposed to the next John Olerud?

That's a little premature, isn't it? Barton just turned 21 in August after all.
   37. danielj Posted: December 26, 2006 at 08:43 PM (#2268894)
That's a little premature, isn't it? Barton just turned 21 in August after all.

Dan, no, it's WAY premature. I fully expect him to outhit Hatteberg. But the continued lack of power gets a little more concerning each year, and as a 1B/DH with no defensive value, it's pretty important for him to develop some pop. Do you view him in the same light you did two years ago?
   38. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: December 26, 2006 at 09:10 PM (#2268909)
The continued lack of power consists of 147 at-bats in AAA at age 20. Dude slugged .511 in A at 18 and .469/.491 between A+ and AA at 19.
   39. Halofan Posted: December 28, 2006 at 11:13 AM (#2269882)
Wow... Rangers clinch at the All Star Break...
   40. Dan Lee is some pumkins Posted: December 28, 2006 at 11:18 AM (#2269883)
I'll emphatically take the under on Durazo. I wouldn't be surprised if his days as a useful ballplayer were over.
   41. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 28, 2006 at 01:21 PM (#2269884)
Hillenbrand isn't that much worse than Rivera... the Rangers won't clinch until the first week of September.

Every mainstream sportswriter will pick the Angels unless the Rangers acquire a top starting pitcher.
   42. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: December 28, 2006 at 02:29 PM (#2269890)
No way Zito will have an ERA that high, unless he ends up on the Orioles and has to play the Yanks, Sox and Jays all the time.
   43. valuearbitrageur Posted: December 31, 2006 at 06:26 PM (#2271753)
the under (yes, under) on Crosby. (Dude sucks.)


Crosby has a career SLG of .405, and ZIPS has him at .394? It sounds like ZIPS is overweighting last year's injury influenced .338. How does ZIPS adjust for seasons performed while injured?

Because if Crosby isn't hurt, why isn't a return to somewhere near his age 25 line of .346/.456 not likely?
   44. valuearbitrageur Posted: December 31, 2006 at 06:26 PM (#2271754)
the under (yes, under) on Crosby. (Dude sucks.)


Crosby has a career SLG of .405, and ZIPS has him at .394? It sounds like ZIPS is overweighting last year's injury influenced .338. How does ZIPS adjust for seasons performed while injured?

Because if Crosby isn't hurt, why isn't a return to somewhere near his age 25 line of .346/.456 not likely?
   45. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 31, 2006 at 10:37 PM (#2271837)
The problem with miscounting 2006 because, unless I'm missing something, Crosby said he hurt his back while swinging on July 21st. At the time, he was hitting 231/296/348.
   46. valuearbitrageur Posted: January 01, 2007 at 08:45 PM (#2272075)
The problem with miscounting 2006 because, unless I'm missing something, Crosby said he hurt his back while swinging on July 21st. At the time, he was hitting 231/296/348.


Well Crosby was supposedly lying about his injuries last year. I prefer to think he hurt his back in spring training (picking up soap?). That would make his projections a bit better...

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5970 seconds
47 querie(s) executed