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

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

2007 ZiPS Projections - Philadelphia Phillies


Name               P Age   AVG   OBP   SLG   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS
Ryan Howard*        1b 27 .298 .397 .627 158 557 100 166 28 1 51 142 90 180 0 0
Pat Burrell         lf 30 .262 .373 .487 141 485 73 127 23 1 28 105 86 141 0 0
Chase Utley*        2b 28 .280 .356 .492 154 592 105 166 33 4 28 101 61 113 13 3
Wes Helms           1b 31 .286 .355 .450 128 262 28 75 15 2 8 42 24 62 0 2
Jimmy Rollins#        ss 28 .277 .335 .440 158 678 121 188 42 7 18 72 58 79 35 6
Aaron Rowand         cf 29 .274 .341 .428 116 409 65 112 23 2 12 52 23 83 11 3
Shane Victorino#      lf 26 .275 .333 .414 152 469 87 129 20 6 11 59 34 79 9 5
Jayson Werth         rf 28 .242 .327 .414 110 343 83 83 19 2 12 52 40 112 9 3
Carlos Ruiz         c   28 .258 .325 .407 114 383 39 99 19 1 12 52 33 55 4 3
Pedro Swann*        lf 36 .260 .311 .417 95 338 44 88 22 2 9 45 22 80 4 1
Juan Tejeda         1b 24 .257 .317 .394 127 459 57 118 22 1 13 61 35 95 1 2
Chris Roberson       cf 27 .276 .319 .384 128 409 62 113 20 3 6 38 23 88 17 8
Chris Coste         c   34 .255 .305 .387 96 333 39 85 17 0 9 44 19 62 2 1
Brennan King         3b 26 .248 .293 .412 113 403 44 100 25 1 13 48 23 80 3 1
Josh Kroeger*        rf 24 .250 .291 .417 140 492 57 123 31 3 15 58 27 124 7 3
Rod Barajas         c   31 .238 .284 .409 87 298 38 71 18 0 11 41 16 54 0 0
Jim Rushford*        1b 33 .256 .323 .353 111 391 44 100 21 1 5 45 33 43 2 1
Dusty Wathan         c   33 .251 .311 .374 75 219 28 55 9 0 6 30 16 40 1 1
Michael Bourn*        cf 24 .254 .323 .339 148 540 87 137 17 7 5 41 54 121 29 10
Matt Padgett*        lf 29 .234 .286 .400 98 325 40 76 19 1 11 45 21 110 2 1
Peter Bergeron*      cf 29 .254 .312 .369 97 347 43 88 16 3 6 30 28 70 6 6
Brandon Gemoll*      1b 26 .247 .290 .383 104 324 33 80 22 2 6 38 18 79 2 2
Javon Moran         cf 24 .284 .316 .356 74 278 36 79 10 2 2 14 11 40 13 9
Shawn Garrett#        1b 28 .241 .290 .376 115 402 53 97 20 2 10 53 25 105 8 4
Jason Jaramillo#      c   24 .238 .295 .359 120 407 36 97 26 1 7 45 31 66 0 1
Jose Hernandez       ss 37 .249 .301 .350 86 217 24 54 7 0 5 28 15 61 1 1
Abraham Nunez#        3b 31 .238 .315 .310 111 294 42 70 10 1 3 31 31 52 1 1
Danny Sandoval       ss 28 .253 .295 .328 118 411 41 104 20 1 3 41 22 59 8 5
Adam Donachie         c   23 .213 .285 .311 106 338 42 72 18 0 5 24 33 100 0 1

* - Bats Left
# = Switch-Hitter

Player Spotlight (Beta) - Ryan Howard
Name           AVG   OBP   SLG   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS
Optimistic (15%)  .322 .430 .694 162 572 118 184 32 2 59 175 106 172 0 0    
Mean         .298 .397 .627 158 557 100 166 28 1 51 142 90 180 0 0
Pessimistic (15%) .269 .362 .538 145 513 79 138 21 0 39 104 73 180 0 0

Top Comps: Harmon Killebrew, Cecil Fielder

Name               Age   ERA   W   L   G GS   INN   H   ER HR   BB   K
Tom Gordon           39   2.88   7   2 72   0   75.0   60   24   7   25   78
Geoff Geary           30   3.73   4   3 67   0   82.0   85   34   8   23   53
Cole Hamels*          23   3.78 12   7 28 28   162.0 144   68 22   54 169
Brett Myers           26   4.08 12   9 33 33   205.0 200   93 31   64 186
Arthur Rhodes*        37   4.20   3   2 50   0   45.0   43   21   4   24   42
Jamie Moyer*          43   4.30 13 11 32 32   201.0 216   96 28   52 117
Freddy Garcia         31   4.33 13 11 32 32   214.0 211 103 26   59 166
Jon Lieber           37   4.43 13 12 31 31   193.0 213   95 29   33 114
Clay Condrey         31   4.56   6   5 55   0   75.0   85   38   9   21   35
Julio Santana         34   4.62   4   5 36   0   39.0   36   20   4   21   48
Adam Eaton           28   4.72   9   9 26 25   141.0 150   74 21   44 104
Evan Fahrner         29   4.83   3   4 46   0   69.0   69   37   9   36   57
Fabio Castro*        22   4.92   3   3 40   2   64.0   59   35 10   35   50
Ryan Madson           26   4.97   7   9 56 11   114.0 126   63 16   43   79
John Ennis           27   4.98   4   5 48   5   85.0   90   47 11   36   58
Brian Sanches         28   5.05   3   3 51   1   73.0   75   41 13   32   59
Rick White           38   5.11   4   4 66   0   74.0   83   42 11   27   45
Yoel Hernandez         25   5.14   4   5 42   1   63.0   66   36   9   30   50
Justin Germano         24   5.15   8 10 27 26   166.0 194   95 29   38   93
Matt Smith*          28   5.16   3   3 45   4   68.0   68   39 11   36   53
Scott Mathieson       23   5.18   7   9 27 26   153.0 164   88 28   57 113
Jim Crowell*          33   5.20   3   3 48   4   71.0   79   41 11   24   42
Ryan Cameron         29   5.47   4   6 52   1   74.0   78   45 14   36   58
John Stephens         27   5.52   4   7 22 18   106.0 122   65 20   35   64
Zach Segovia         24   5.68   6 13 25 25   157.0 184   99 31   52   80
Eude Brito*          28   6.02   6 11 34 21   139.0 154   93 25   72   83
Jim Ed Warden         28   6.24   2   5 50   0   62.0   68   43 12   37   44

* - Throws Left

Player Spotlight (Beta) - Brett Myers
              ERA   W   L   G GS INN   H   ER HR   BB   K
Optimistic (15%)  3.39 16   7 34 34 218 197   82 27   60 203  
Mean           4.08 12   9 33 33 205 200   93 31   64 186
Pessimistic (15%)  5.02   8   9 28 27 165 175   92 30   61 141

Top Comps:  Mike Witt, Steve Rogers

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 26, 2006 at 07:24 PM | 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. DCW3 Posted: December 26, 2006 at 08:52 PM (#2268901)
Yeesh, if that optimistic line is Howard's 85% projection, I'd like to see his 90% or 95%. At what level does he break Hack Wilson's record?
   2. philly Posted: December 26, 2006 at 08:57 PM (#2268903)
Well a leadoff hitter with a better OBP than Rollins' projected .335 would certainly help.

Who is expected to slot in at #2 these days - Rowand at .341 or perhaps Victorino at .333?
   3. Frisco Cali Posted: December 26, 2006 at 09:41 PM (#2268917)
Chris Coste, meet Earth. Earth, this is Chris Coste.
   4. PhillyBooster Posted: December 26, 2006 at 09:42 PM (#2268918)
Hamels: 12-7
Myers: 12-9
Moyer: 13-11
Garcia: 13-11
Lieber: 13-12

My counter-intuitive critique of the Phillies for years now has been that they don't have enough bad pitchers.

When I see teams like the Yankees or the Mets (and, my thumb-nail summary of the Phils is "Exactly how the Yankees would look with half the payroll"), they have a rotation that can be pretty easily divided one through five into ace-subace-workhorse-passable-scrub. Every year, I look at the Phillies rotation and see five #3 pitchers. This year, Myers is a solid #2, and Hamels is a wildcard, but in general the pattern holds.

In any given year, you see Milton/Lidle/Wolf/Padilla/Floyd/Madson/Tejeda etc. and think "Well, there's another solid middle of the rotation guy!" I mean, really. Would anyone be surprised if Lieber turned out to be the team ace in 2007? Would anyone be surprised if he finished with a losing record as the #5 starter?

Now, one might think that a team that fields five #3s would fare about as well as a team with a traditional 1 through 5 rotation -- and with more consistency! But it never works out that way. The team with a scrub will skip him every third time, and then cycle through a bunch of guys before they hit on an Aaron Small or Brian Bannister or whomever will step up for that year. Replace a replacement level pitcher with Aaron Small v.2005 and suddenly your playoff bound! Replace a league average pitcher with the next best available, and suddenly Paul Abbott is going 1-6 in 10 starts.

The only thing keeping the Phillies out of the post-season is one or two reallllly bad pitchers.
   5. Frisco Cali Posted: December 26, 2006 at 09:43 PM (#2268919)
And really, what happened to Ryan Madson last year? Lots o' folks thought he would be pretty solid as a starter.
   6. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: December 26, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#2268920)
Yeesh, if that optimistic line is Howard's 85% projection, I'd like to see his 90% or 95%. At what level does he break Hack Wilson's record?

The 1124 OPS got my attention. No player's done that this millennium who hasn't been asked to appear at a Congressional hearing.

Chase Utley's line looks unusually low. In each of his 2 full seasons in the Majors, he's had a 375+ OBP and 525+ SLG. I think I'll take the over.

I can't imagine anyone in Philadelphia not hoping for the under on Abraham Nunez ABs. Amazingly, he was quite a bit worse than that in more ABs for the Phillies last year. What's considered replacement level?
   7. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: December 26, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#2268921)
The 1124 OPS got my attention. No player's done that this millennium who hasn't been asked to appear at a Congressional hearing.

Bonds has never been asked to appear at a Congressional hearing.
   8. Thirty-two Posted: December 26, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#2268925)
I'll take the 294 ABs from Nunez if it means we also get that line for Tom Gordon. He looked decidely "shot" after coming off the DL last year.

The 411 ABs for Danny Sandoval, on the other hand...
   9. DCW3 Posted: December 26, 2006 at 10:01 PM (#2268927)
I can't imagine anyone in Philadelphia not hoping for the under on Abraham Nunez ABs. Amazingly, he was quite a bit worse than that in more ABs for the Phillies last year. What's considered replacement level?

In the Marcel projections for 2007 I did, Nunez comes in with an overall projection of -29 runs per 150 games, the worst projection of any of the 336 players I did projections for. Nobody else is worse than -26. I think replacement level, at least where BPro sets it, is around -18 per 150.
   10. Dr. Vaux Posted: December 26, 2006 at 10:13 PM (#2268932)
Those Garcia and Moyer projections are taking CBP into account?

Yes, I know they are. They sure seem good, given that... they'd seem good if they were projected for Shea!
   11. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: December 26, 2006 at 10:18 PM (#2268935)
The 1124 OPS got my attention. No player's done that this millennium who hasn't been asked to appear at a Congressional hearing.

Bonds has never been asked to appear at a Congressional hearing.

Wow, you're right. The only guys who've managed an 1124 OPS in that time are Bonds, Sosa, and Giambi. I was trying to think of what tied them together other than something vague like being accused of steroid use, which could apply to just about anyone at this point. Sosa appeared and Giambi was excused from the hearings. I just took it for granted that Bonds had been excused, but it looks like he was never subpoenaed at all.

I'll just change it to: The 1124 OPS got my attention. That's really, really high.
   12. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: December 26, 2006 at 10:23 PM (#2268937)
I just took it for granted that Bonds had been excused, but it looks like he was never subpoenaed at all.

He wasn't asked due to the ongoing investigation and grand jury stuff that was already happening to him.
   13. kwarren Posted: December 26, 2006 at 10:31 PM (#2268938)
The 1124 OPS got my attention. No player's done that this millennium who hasn't been asked to appear at a Congressional hearing.

Even Howard's 15% optimistic projection pales when compared to Bonds actual performance from 2000 to 2004 - 1.128, 1.378, 1.381, 1.278, 1.421.

Ryan Howard's MLE OPS for 2003 to 2006:

2003 - Age 23 - .803
2004 - Age 24 - .831
2005 - Age 25 - .965
2006 - Age 26 - 1.084

A .253 OPS increase from age 24 to 26. Awesome!!

And the forgotten boy, Pujols who apparently couldn't measure up to Howard in 2006:

2001 - Age 21 - 1.013
2002 - Age 22 - .955
2003 - Age 23 - 1.106
2004 - Age 24 - 1.072
2005 - Age 25 - 1.039
2006 - Age 26 - 1.102
   14. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: December 26, 2006 at 10:33 PM (#2268941)
Every year, I look at the Phillies rotation and see five #3 pitchers. This year, Myers is a solid #2, and Hamels is a wildcard, but in general the pattern holds.

From memory here . . .

Average ERA+ for a #1 pitcher in 2005-6: around 120
Brett Myers's ERA+ in 2006: 118.
Brett Myers's ERA+ in 2005: 122.

He's a perfectly average ace pitcher. He's John Lackey with a less fortunate wife.

To be fair, if you factor in whoever it was that filled in for him when he missed a few starts last year the Phillies got a little below average production from their ace, but far closer to normal #1 production than normal #2 production.

team with a scrub will skip him every third time, and then cycle through a bunch of guys before they hit on an Aaron Small or Brian Bannister or whomever will step up for that year.

Actually, that's hardly ever true nowadays. Though most teams don't have a perfectly strict 33-33-32-32-32 rotattion, the fifth starter slot will end up with about 29-30 starts.

Still, I liked your overall point though.
   15. shock Posted: December 26, 2006 at 10:56 PM (#2268948)
Has ZiPS ever projected someone to hit over 50 HR's?! Insanity.
   16. JPWF13 Posted: December 26, 2006 at 10:58 PM (#2268950)
From memory here . . .

Average ERA+ for a #1 pitcher in 2005-6: around 120
Brett Myers's ERA+ in 2006: 118.
Brett Myers's ERA+ in 2005: 122.

He's a perfectly average ace pitcher. He's John Lackey with a less fortunate wife.


ON BPro unfiltered a few days ago, Silver mentioned his mystery man, top 10 or 15 in projected future value as a SP according to Pecota, teh man no one ever discusses as a No 1.
Then he gave the list, he was right one name did jump out at me, who I didn't expect- Brett Myers...

The next day Silver mentioned that his "unexpected" man hadn't been Myers, it was Lackey...

Myers name still jumps out to me from the list- but it shouldn't, he's young, he has good peripherals (especially considering how conducive that stadium is to HomeRuns) and he's reasonably durable.
I don't know how significant his personality issues are- but he has to be one of the more valuable properties in baseball now.
   17. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 26, 2006 at 11:43 PM (#2268957)
The gap between Utley and Howard seems crazy to me...I'd imagine that Howard's OPS would only be around 50 points higher than Utley's next year, instead of 165.
   18. Who Swished In Your Cornflakes? Posted: December 26, 2006 at 11:49 PM (#2268962)
Apparently new Angel Shea Hillenbrand projects even better than Howard over the last 10 years. The AP lists him as having a .287 career average, 104 home runs and 1,428 (!!) RBI.

Hillenbrand Agrees to Join Angels
   19. Who Swished In Your Cornflakes? Posted: December 26, 2006 at 11:50 PM (#2268964)
I forgot to mention that Hillenbrand has 459 career RBI.
   20. Who Swished In Your Cornflakes? Posted: December 27, 2006 at 12:06 AM (#2268975)
Apologies for hijacking the thread. This'll be the last one: I just realized the link doesn't work. It's on Yahoo's baseball page, though.

Back on topic... Ryan Howard projects as a beast. I'll take the under on Utley. And I can't believe Flash Gordon projects that well, in that park, at age 39.
   21. Jesse Barfield's Right Arm Posted: December 27, 2006 at 02:12 AM (#2269031)
Is it possible to get a Brian Mazone projection? If the Phillies trade Lieber, he would be one of the first guys to step in if any of the other starters get hurt.

Really, under .848 for Utley when he went above .900 the last two years and will be 28.

The problem for the Phils will not be the lack of an ace, but the lack of a bullpen. After Gordon and Geary, the three best bullpen projections are Condrey (a AAAA guy), Santana (who isn't even on the team anymore) and Castro, a Rule 5 guy from last year.

Some of the guys that have been talked about for the last 2-3 bullpen spots are Madson (4.97), White (5.11), Smith (5.16), Segovia (5.68), Brito (6.02), and Warden (6.29). Don't worry Phillybooster, the Phils will have plenty of bad pitchers.
   22. Astro-Bonilla Posted: December 27, 2006 at 02:27 AM (#2269046)
Wow...15% chance of 175+rbis for Howard. Wish they still had Abreu getting on base 40% of the time in front of him...
   23. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: December 27, 2006 at 11:54 AM (#2269243)
I'll take the under on Utley

Why, exactly? I'd take the over, and I'd take seconds.
   24. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 27, 2006 at 03:46 PM (#2269295)
I'd like to see the optimistic for Hamels. Compared to other pitching phenoms, he seems under the radar. I think he might be the best of them all, though. Hell, the line above in that park is pretty incredible.
   25. Greasy Neale Heaton (Dan Lee) Posted: December 28, 2006 at 11:00 AM (#2269881)
and Warden (6.29). Don't worry Phillybooster, the Phils will have plenty of bad pitchers.

Warden's got a shot, albeit a small one, to be pretty good. He changed his arm angle last year in the Indians organization and everything just fell into place for him. He did have a crazy-low BABIP (.206!) that's probably unsustainable and a higher walk rate than you'd like, but he has definitely improved as a pitcher.

Fun stat about Jim Ed Warden: He has 48 wild pitches in 371 career minor league innings. That's three less than Juan Marichal had in his entire MLB career.
   26. PhillyBooster Posted: December 28, 2006 at 04:57 PM (#2269935)

Average ERA+ for a #1 pitcher in 2005-6: around 120
Brett Myers's ERA+ in 2006: 118.
Brett Myers's ERA+ in 2005: 122.

He's a perfectly average ace pitcher. He's John Lackey with a less fortunate wife.



"Average ERA+ for a #1 pitcher" is somewhat misleading. It includes the best pitcher on the Royals, but excludes the second best starter on the Yankees.

In 2006 there were more than 16 starting pitchers in the NL who had an ERA+ above 118 (including some like Arroyo and Harang, who were on the same team). So, no, I don't think he was an "average ace" in 2006. And that assumes that 2006 was a true talent level. Pre-2005 stats cast doubts on that. I stick with "Solid #2".

UNRELATED NOTE: My "16 better pitchers" includes, for example, Josh Johnson who had a lower ERA and a 139 ERA+ in 157 innings. I know that in hitting, they will give you the batting title if you fall short of the required ABs, but you'd still be the leader if they add in enough "0 fers". I guess there's nothing comparable for pitchers. Should there be for someone like Johnson who falls 5 innings short? What would you add?
   27. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: December 28, 2006 at 06:03 PM (#2269993)
"Average ERA+ for a #1 pitcher" is somewhat misleading. It includes the best pitcher on the Royals, but excludes the second best starter on the Yankees.

In 2006 there were more than 16 starting pitchers in the NL who had an ERA+ above 118 (including some like Arroyo and Harang, who were on the same team). So, no, I don't think he was an "average ace" in 2006. And that assumes that 2006 was a true talent level. Pre-2005 stats cast doubts on that. I stick with "Solid #2".

UNRELATED NOTE: My "16 better pitchers" includes, for example, Josh Johnson who had a lower ERA and a 139 ERA+ in 157 innings. I know that in hitting, they will give you the batting title if you fall short of the required ABs, but you'd still be the leader if they add in enough "0 fers". I guess there's nothing comparable for pitchers. Should there be for someone like Johnson who falls 5 innings short? What would you add?


Several comments. I don't see how you get 18 pitchers with an ERA+ of 118 or better. I can find twelve such men (Webb, Oswalt, Arroyo, Carpenter, Zambrano, Harang, Jennings, Lowe, Smoltz, Schmidt, Young, and Myers) with at least 162 IP. You say you include guys who don't qualify for the ERA title though. OK, here's what I find from 100 to 161.7 IP:

Josh Johnson (157 IP, 139 ERA+)
Anibal Sanchez (114.3 IP, 152 ERA+)
Roger Clemens (113.1 IP, 197 ERA+)
Ben Sheets (106 IP, 118 ERA+)

That's it. And that's only 16. For the record, Brett Myers tossed 198 IP. Three of these guys didn't even have 60% as many innings as that. That's not a minor consideration. Let's take , for example. The Marlins began the year with Brian Moehler in the rotation, replaced him for one start with one start from Petit before moving to Sanchez. Moehler and Petit were pretty bad, giving the entire slot an ERA of 4.39, considerably worse than what Myers gave Philly. That's why innings pitched matters -- the other guys who fill the slot generally ain't very good. As long as I'm talking about Sanchez, he also had a BABIP of .240 last year. I'd like to see him replicate that over a full season before I say he's better than or as good as Myers. I'd take Johnson and Clemens over Myers, but then again I could flip it around and take Myers over Chris Young of the Padres, who barely edged Myers in ERA+ while tossing 10% fewer IP. Also, according to John Dewan's article in the 2007 THT, Young got to pitch in front of the best defense in the league. The Phillies are listed with one of the worst defenses in the NL last year.

Where are those other two pitchers? Drop it down to 90 IP and I find two more starters - Maine and Billingsley. Neither threw half as many IP as Myers and they posted ERA+s of 120 and 122 respectively. It's one thing to let a guy with 157 IP and far superior rate stats like Johnson in the discussion, but . . . . well, for the sake of your argument I certainly hope I missed a few pitchers.

Here's another way of looking at it. You say he's a "solid #2." How? Let's look at what kind of production teams got from their #2 compared to Myers. He threw 189 IP with an ERA+ of 118. Here's a complete list of all NL teams that had a 118 ERA+ with at least 162 IP (15% fewer than Myers threw):

Cincinnati.

That's it. Just the Reds. One out of sixteen. Meanwhile five teams didn't get that from their #1 starter. Let's lower it some -- 162 IP and an ERA+ of 100. Then you get nine teams (StL, Cin, Hou, SD, LA, SF, AZ, Col, Mil). However, in practically every case the #2 starter was clearly inferior to Myers. Milwaukee's pitchers had ERA+s of 112 & 102; in StL, Suppan threw 1 more inning with an ERA+ 11 points lower; Matt Cain in SF was almost exactly the same as Suppan; ditto Penny in LA; in AZ, Batista was a little worse than them. Cincinnati's #2 was better than Myers, and Colorado & San Diego had comparibles, but that's a only 3 of 16.

Flip it in Josh Johnson's favor: 118 ERA+ and 120 IP. How many teams had two of those:

Cincinnati, and . . . hmmmm, Florida doesn't because Sanchez had under 120 IP, and Willis had an ERA+ under 118. . . Atlanta's close with Smoltz as a #1 and James threw 119 IP with an ERA+ of 116. . . San Diego and Colorado's close but not quite there with the rate stats. . . . Just Cincinnati then.

Well, the good news if you drop it down to 120 IP and 100 ERA+ you get a bunch -- 11 (and if you move it to 119 IP you get 12 with Atlanta), but look at those standards. Not even two-thirds as many innings as Myers, and far less impressive rate stats.

To put it simply: more teams had their ace pitch worse than Brett Myers than had their #2 man outpitch him. If you want to argue he isn't an average ace, feel free, but there's no way in heck he's merely a solid #2.

(belatedly checking). OK, by my reckonin' teams earned a cumulative 123 ERA+ from their ace slot last year in the NL, and 107 ERA+ in the #2 slot. The Phillies had the fourteenth best production from their ace slot, as the guys who filled in for Myers (Bernero and Fultz) were terrible. . . . So, I guess I'm saying Myers wasn't an average ace last year. If he can stay in the rotation all year long and pitch a hair better than he did last year, though, he would be an average ace.
   28. JPWF13 Posted: December 28, 2006 at 06:41 PM (#2270033)
but there's no way in heck he's merely a solid #2.


No, he'd be a great number 2, as is he's a slightly below average No.1
   29. PhillyBooster Posted: December 28, 2006 at 08:44 PM (#2270183)
The Phillies had the fourteenth best production from their ace slot, as the guys who filled in for Myers (Bernero and Fultz) were terrible.


So we're arguing whether Myers qualifies as the 14th best ace (out of 16), or the 3rd best #2 starter (19th best overall, which I consider a "solid #2")?

It doesn't look like much of a disagreement.

For the record, my "pitched better than Myers" list included 15 of the 16 names you have above (Johnson, Sanchez, and Clemens, but not Sheets), plus Maine, Billingsley, and Gorzellany, who were all very solid in their first half in the AAA before being called up to the majors. Also, while I didn't include him, I would trade Myers straight up for Dontrelle Willis.
   30. WeGotWood98 Posted: December 30, 2006 at 02:18 AM (#2271177)
For the record, my "pitched better than Myers" list included 15 of the 16 names you have above (Johnson, Sanchez, and Clemens, but not Sheets)


You think Myers is better than a healthy Sheets?

Sheets' rate stats last year were absolutely dominant. Over 200 innings he would have been right behind Santana as the best pitcher in baseball, and easily the Cy Young in the NL.

The problem of course is...he didn't pitch 200 innings and the injuries hes had are potentially going to repeat.
   31. Walt Davis Posted: December 30, 2006 at 04:04 AM (#2271225)
I'm having a hard time with that Howard projection. His expected line represents on-contact rates of 418/879. His 15% optimistic line is 460/1163. McGwire's best (probably, a quick check) was 429/1082. Thome's best was 428/953. Ruth's best was 456/1029. Bonds' best was 407/1073.

I'm pretty sure (without checking) that Howard's 15% optimistic projection would be the best on-contact season ever. I just don't believe it.

My guess, and obviously it's just a guess, is that last year is the best Howard is capable of -- not too shabby. I doubt he even has a 15% chance of hitting better than last year.
   32. DCW3 Posted: December 30, 2006 at 04:36 AM (#2271233)
I'm having a hard time with that Howard projection. His expected line represents on-contact rates of 418/879. His 15% optimistic line is 460/1163.

I think you may be looking at the wrong column. I have Howard's mean line with on-contact rates of .440/.926, and his optimistic line at .460/.985. His 1.445 OPS on contact in the optimistic projection would still be the fifth-best on-contact season ever, but considering that he was at 1.413 last year, it's probably not out of the question.
   33. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: December 30, 2006 at 04:51 AM (#2271245)
I have Howard's mean line with on-contact rates of .440/.926, and his optimistic line at .460/.985. His 1.445 OPS on contact in the optimistic projection would still be the fifth-best on-contact season ever, but considering that he was at 1.413 last year, it's probably not out of the question.


Not out of the question, but color me skeptical.
   34. PhillyBooster Posted: December 30, 2006 at 03:28 PM (#2271355)
Since AA, we Phillies fans have considered Howard to be Fred McGriff (if McGriff had been blocked by Jim Thome for his first few seasons). Last year was (incrementally) better than any season McGriff ever put up, so I've got to see that as his ceiling. There's no chance that he improves on last year.
   35. Walt Davis Posted: December 30, 2006 at 10:02 PM (#2271448)
I think you may be looking at the wrong column. I have Howard's mean line with on-contact rates of .440/.926, and his optimistic line at .460/.985.

You're right, obviously I punched in the wrong numbers. OK, more believable but still seem too high to me for projections.
   36. PhilliesCampAlumnus Posted: February 09, 2007 at 07:44 PM (#2294887)
ZIPs is the biggest waste of time. The fact people even spend time looking at crap like this makes me sad...
   37. HowardMegdal Posted: February 09, 2007 at 07:53 PM (#2294896)
"The fact people even spend time looking at crap like this makes me sad."

Do you consider sadness over people viewing ZIPS to be a waste of time? What about telling those people that their viewing of ZIPS is making you sad- is this a good use of your time? What about my questioning your complaining about the sadness of people who read ZIPS projections- is that a waste of time? Which of these is the biggest waste? And how sad does the entire process make you?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3243 seconds
47 querie(s) executed