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, January 15, 2008

2008 ZiPS Projections - Boston Red Sox

This might not come as a great shock considering the Red Sox just won the World Series for the 2nd time this decade, but ZiPS sees the Red Sox as the best team in the AL.  Well, technically, I haven’t done the Orioles yet, but I’m taking a wild guess that the Orioles aren’t going to look better than the Sox on e-paper.

No real suprises here.  It’s a deep team.  While they obviously don’t have spare better-than-average 1B, DH or LF/RF backups stashed away, nobody really does, and the team is very deep everywhere else.  The amount of minor leaguers that project to be non-terrible at up-the-middle positions is downright staggering and I’m not even counting guys like Lars Anderson who should pop up in the 2009 projections.


Name               P Age   AVG   OBP   SLG   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS
David Ortiz*        dh 32 .297 .400 .593 153 573 111 170 38 0 44 138 97 121 1 0
Manny Ramirez         lf 36 .278 .381 .493 123 442 75 123 26 0 23 98 71 98 0 1
AVERAGE 1B——————- 1b——.290 .367 .489—————————————————————
Kevin Youkilis       1b 29 .286 .388 .444 134 475 79 136 35 2 12 69 71 100 3 2
AVERAGE LF——————- lf——.289 .358 .469—————————————————————
AVERAGE RF——————- rf——.288 .355 .471—————————————————————
AVERAGE 3B——————- 3b——.285 .352 .462—————————————————————
Dustin Pedroia       2b 24 .292 .359 .431 150 548 75 160 44 1 10 62 51 43 3 1
Jacoby Ellsbury*      cf 24 .297 .349 .392 134 549 87 163 34 3 4 58 37 72 43 6
AVERAGE CF——————- cf——.283 .345 .436—————————————————————
J.D. Drew*          rf 32 .259 .362 .412 104 352 59 91 22 1 10 60 56 77 1 2
AVERAGE 2B——————- 2b——.287 .346 .427—————————————————————
Chris Carter*        1b 25 .278 .339 .438 143 553 56 154 33 2 17 78 50 71 4 2
Jason Varitek#        c   36 .249 .350 .408 112 385 50 96 20 1 13 63 56 102 2 1
Eric Hinske*        rf 30 .248 .335 .437 104 286 44 71 20 2 10 41 35 82 3 1
Mike Lowell         3b 34 .272 .333 .429 150 552 70 150 40 1 15 64 50 63 1 0
AVERAGE SS——————- ss——.285 .339 .418—————————————————————
Brandon Moss*        rf 24 .264 .334 .424 152 550 58 145 51 2 11 72 56 147 4 4
Coco Crisp#          cf 28 .271 .333 .410 138 527 82 143 33 5 10 65 48 79 22 5
Jon Van Every*        cf 28 .253 .322 .448 118 384 37 97 27 3 14 53 36 147 6 6
Jeff Bailey         1b 29 .247 .334 .399 103 348 37 86 22 2 9 50 38 85 3 3
Jed Lowrie#          ss 24 .253 .326 .406 136 522 54 132 47 6 7 58 55 96 3 3
Julio Lugo           ss 32 .267 .335 .382 142 539 77 144 35 3 7 62 52 96 29 8
AVERAGE C———————- c——.270 .329 .414—————————————————————
Tony Granadillo#      2b 23 .259 .322 .389 132 506 72 131 38 2 8 54 37 84 2 1
Keith Ginter         3b 32 .235 .326 .381 90 315 32 74 20 1 8 48 36 59 2 0
Josh Reddick*        rf 21 .266 .305 .433 112 448 43 119 20 2 17 60 24 68 6 7
George Kottaras*      c   25 .243 .316 .389 112 375 35 91 34 0 7 43 39 101 1 1
Bobby Kielty#        lf 31 .255 .325 .362 75 235 30 60 13 0 4 34 24 56 0 0
Bobby Scales#        2b 30 .248 .318 .381 126 423 45 105 26 3 8 49 40 107 9 3
Doug Mirabelli       c   37 .246 .318 .355 88 276 35 68 15 0 5 36 29 65 1 0
John Barnes         sp 32 .270 .310 .382 89 296 32 80 18 0 5 32 16 26 3 3
Junior Spivey         2b 33 .231 .327 .354 58 195 24 45 12 0 4 22 25 52 6 3
Joey Thurston*        2b 28 .264 .316 .377 124 435 51 115 28 3 5 48 27 57 10 10
Gil Velazquez         ss 28 .256 .306 .334 101 293 39 75 16 2 1 27 19 57 3 1
Dusty Brown         c   25 .235 .282 .371 96 345 33 81 24 1 7 39 21 87 1 0
Alex Cora*          2b 32 .241 .311 .330 80 203 27 49 8 2 2 21 13 23 4 2
Chad Spann           3b 24 .235 .289 .364 123 439 37 103 28 1 9 45 30 128 1 4
Andrew Pinckney#      3b 26 .230 .277 .375 122 456 46 105 32 2 10 52 26 111 3 5
Joe McEwing         2b 35 .245 .289 .338 89 302 28 74 17 1 3 31 15 59 5 4
John Otness         c   26 .244 .281 .326 95 344 29 84 20 1 2 29 13 42 1 1
Royce Clayton         ss 38 .236 .286 .311 94 305 32 72 20 0 1 28 20 70 5 2
Kevin Cash           c   30 .188 .266 .307 73 218 19 41 11 0 5 22 21 69 0 1
Argenis Diaz         ss 21 .225 .275 .299 113 479 50 108 28 2 1 34 29 121 5 8

* - Bats Left
# = Switch-Hitter

Name           CThr 1b 2b 3b ss lf cf rf
Ortiz*            Pr            
Ramirez                   Pr    
Youkilis           Av   Av        
Pedroia             Av   Fr      
Drew*                    Av Fr Av
Ellsbury*                  Vg Av Vg
Carter*            Fr            
Varitek#        Fr                
Hinske*            Av   Pr   Pr   Pr
Lowell                 Vg        
Moss*                    Av Pr Av
Crisp#                    Vg Vg  
Van Every*                  Av Fr Av
Bailey             Av       Av    
Lowrie#              Av Av Av      
Lugo               Av Av Av      
Granadillo#          Av Fr Fr      
Ginter             Av Fr Av        
Reddick*                    Fr Av
Kottaras*      Av                
Kielty#                    Fr Pr Vg
Scales#              Fr Fr Pr Fr   Fr
Mirabelli       Pr                
Barnes                     Av   Fr
Spivey               Fr     Fr Pr  
Thurston*            Av     Vg Fr  
Velazquez           Vg Fr Vg Fr Av    
Brown         Av                
Cora*              Vg   Av      
Spann             Av   Av        
Pinckney#              Av        
McEwing             Fr Fr Pr Av    
Otness         Fr   Av            
Clayton                 Av      
Cash           Vg                
Diaz                   Vg  

Player Spotlight - Dustin Pedroia
Name           AVG   OBP   SLG   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS OPS+ DR
Optimistic (15%)  .314 .388 .481 156 570 92 179 49 2 14 90 61 37 7 0 122   7
Mean         .292 .359 .431 150 548 76 160 44 1 10 62 51 43 3 1 102   3  
Pessimistic (15%) .266 .324 .362 131 478 55 127 31 0 5 52 39 43 1 2   76 -1

Top Near-Age Offensive Comps: Ron Hunt, Billy Herman, Newt Hoenikker

Player Spotlight - Jacoby Ellsbury
Name           AVG   OBP   SLG   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS OPS+ DR
Optimistic (15%)  .327 .386 .451 151 618 116 202 44 6 7 83 50 71 60 5 115   8  
Mean         .297 .349 .392 134 549 87 163 34 3 4 58 37 72 43 6   91   5
Pessimistic (15%) .276 .317 .348 115 471 63 130 26 1 2 46 25 72 30 6   71   1

Top Near-Age Offensive Comps: Richie Ashburn, Vada Pinson

Name               Age   ERA   W   L   G GS   INN   H   ER HR   BB   K
Jon Papelbon         27   1.57   5   0 61   0   63.0   41   11   4   15   87
Hideki Okajima*        32   3.09   4   1 63   0   64.0   56   22   7   18   65
Josh Beckett         28   3.77 16   9 30 30   191.0 181   80 21   54 172
Manny Delcarmen       26   3.77   4   2 63   0   74.0   69   31   5   36   68
Mike Timlin           42   3.78   4   3 68   0   69.0   72   29   6   19   40
Daisuke Matsuzaka       27   3.95 15 10 29 28   196.0 189   86 22   60 177
Lee Gronkiewicz       29   4.07   4   3 55   1   73.0   74   33 11   15   57
Javier Lopez*        30   4.19   3   2 72   0   58.0   60   27   3   27   36
Brendan Donnelly       36   4.20   3   3 48   0   45.0   45   21   5   16   36
Curt Schilling         41   4.25 11 10 28 28   178.0 191   84 24   26 146
Bryan Corey           34   4.32   6   4 60   0   73.0   75   35   8   26   55
LEAGUEA AVERAGE RELIEVER——- 4.42———————————————————————-
Craig Breslow*        27   4.44   4   3 55   0   77.0   79   38   8   33   58
Clay Buchholz         23   4.47   9   8 28 27   135.0 134   67 20   53 120
Kyle Snyder           30   4.50   3   3 57   0   66.0   70   33   7   23   48
Tim Wakefield         41   4.62 13 13 30 30   185.0 192   95 26   65 117
Justin Masterson       23   4.68   7   7 22 16   102.0 115   53 11   34   51
Julian Tavarez         35   4.71   6   6 53 12   109.0 121   57 11   41   64
LEAGUE AVERAGE STARTER———- 4.81———————————————————————-
Jon Lester*          24   4.93   8   8 30 29   148.0 158   81 18   75 100
Craig Hansen         24   5.03   5   3 49   2   68.0   72   38   5   42   45
Devern Hansack         30   5.31   7   9 27 20   127.0 143   75 23   45   84
Michael Bowden         21   5.50   7   9 27 27   131.0 151   80 22   52   80
Mike Burns           29   5.53   3   5 42   8   83.0   99   51 14   24   44
Michael Tejera*        31   5.65   5   7 33 14   110.0 129   69 17   45   52
Jon Switzer*          28   5.87   2   4 44   5   69.0   76   45   7   27   37
David Pauley         25   6.02   5   8 26 26   151.0 186 101 28   53   75
Abe Alvarez*          25   6.02   5 10 26 21   121.0 146   81 22   50   61
Edgar Martinez         26   6.05   2   5 47   0   64.0   74   43 14   30   43
Kyle Jackson         25   6.81   3   9 46   0   74.0   81   56 15   66   62
Daniel Haigwood*      24   7.29   2   7 22 21   100.0 117   81 23   84   73
John Barnes           32   8.14   3   9 19 16   84.0 100   76 17 105   47

* - Throws Left

Player Spotlight - Josh Beckett
              ERA   W   L   G GS INN   H   ER HR   BB   K   ERA+   
Optimistic (15%)  3.08 21   7 33 33 216 186   74 20   51 200   152
Mean           3.77 16   9 30 30 191 181   80 21   54 172   124
Pessimistic (15%)  4.65 10 10 24 24 151 157   78 21   52 125   101

Top Near-Age Comps:  Bill Monboquette, Jack McDowell

Player Spotlight - Daisuke Matsuzaka
              ERA   W   L   G GS INN   H   ER HR   BB   K   ERA+   
Optimistic (15%)  3.28 18   9 32 31 222 196   81 21   58 208   143
Mean           3.95 15 10 29 28 196 189   86 22   60 177   119
Pessimistic (15%)  4.91 10 11 24 23 154 164   84 22   57 129   96  

Top Near-Age Comps:  Andy Benes, Bill Singer

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 2008. 
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 listed with their most recent teams unless Dan has made a mistake. 
This is very possible as a lot of minor-league signings are generally unreported in
the offseason. 

ZiPS is projecting based on the AL having a 4.49 ERA and the NL having a 4.40 ERA.

ZiPS Frequently Asked Questions


Nationals

Projections

Blue Jays

Projections

Rangers

Projections

Rays

Projections

Cardinals

Projections

Mariners

Projections

Giants

Projections

Padres

Projections

Pirates

Projections

Phillies

Projections

A’s

Projections

Yankees

Projections

Mets

Projections

Twins

Projections

Brewers

Projections

Dodgers

Projections

Angels

Projections

Royals

Projections

Astros

Projections

Marlins

Projections

Tigers Projections

Rockies Projections

Indians Projections

Reds Projections

White Sox Projections

Cubs Projections

Dan Szymborski Posted: January 15, 2008 at 02:53 AM | 161 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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. philly Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:23 AM (#2668393)
Not a lot of HRs in the regular lineup:

C - Varitek - 13
1B - Youk - 12
2B - Pedroia - 10
SS - Lugo - 7
3B - Lowell - 15
RF - Drew - 10
CF - Ellsbury - 4
LF - Ramirez - 23
DH - Ortiz - 44

That 37 HR outfield should have AL pitchers quaking in fear.
   2. Honkie Kong Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:32 AM (#2668403)
That is one heck of a pitching staff you are projecting.
Drew and Lowell look awful. Basically ZiPS is projecting that Drew is done?
And also, thats a lot of slugging between Ellsbury and Pedroia.
   3. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:34 AM (#2668405)
That 37 HR outfield should have AL pitchers quaking in fear.

The Ramirez-Crisp-Drew combined for 37 HR in 2007 and while I can't speak for levels of fear and horror, the team did finish 3rd in runs scored (and OPS+) despite finishing 9th in home runs.
   4. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:35 AM (#2668406)
That 37 HR outfield should have AL pitchers quaking in fear.

Considering that they won the world series after getting 37 HRs from their starting OFs last year, the AL pitchers probably should be quaking in fear.
   5. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:36 AM (#2668407)
Damn you Szymborski.
   6. pancakehead Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:36 AM (#2668409)
That 37 HR outfield should have AL pitchers quaking in fear
.

Philly buddy
Keep in mind these are PROJECTIONS. I mean come on Ellsbury with only 4 homers? Lowells numbers shrinking for no apparent reason? Thats oviously a joke. The Sox will still have one of the top 3 batting lineups in the league. Maybe the Yankees and Tigers will hit more HRs, but the Sox have the pitching. Projections are cool, but real life is better.
   7. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:37 AM (#2668412)
And also, thats a lot of slugging between Ellsbury and Pedroia.

Lotta net stolen bases for Ellsbury.
   8. pancakehead Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:37 AM (#2668413)
Curse you yarrrrghghg and Dan S.
   9. tyler Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:37 AM (#2668414)
That 37 HR outfield should have AL pitchers quaking in fear.


They'll just channel Jim Rice.
   10. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:43 AM (#2668416)
I mean come on Ellsbury with only 4 homers? Lowells numbers shrinking for no apparent reason? Thats oviously a joke.

Considering Ellsbury only hit 2 home runs in 436 at-bats in the minors, 4 is hardly a stretch. Unless the IL is now a tougher environment than the AL, which I doubt.

As for Lowell, he was good in 2007. And also 50 points about his career BABIP. For his career, his BABIP is only 66 points above his LD%. In 2007, he was 161 points above his LD%. That suggests he's due for a pretty good correction even if you don't consider that he's 34 .
   11. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:43 AM (#2668417)
50 points above, not about.
   12. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:44 AM (#2668418)
Who the hell is Lee Gronkiewicz?
   13. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:45 AM (#2668420)
Unless the IL is now a tougher environment than the AL, which I doubt.

Um, which league has Joba in it?
   14. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:46 AM (#2668422)
Er, HAD Joba. The AL is now the tougher league.
   15. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:50 AM (#2668427)
Who the hell is Lee Gronkiewicz?

Sox sign RHP Lee Gronkiewicz
   16. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:56 AM (#2668432)
By the way, the Papelbon projection is, I believe, the lowest ERA ever projected by ZiPS. The previous record was Gagne at 1.69 before the 2005 season.
   17. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: January 15, 2008 at 03:56 AM (#2668435)
I mean come on Ellsbury with only 4 homers?

I'd say the 3 triples is the questionably low number.
   18. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: January 15, 2008 at 04:01 AM (#2668440)
I remember Gronk from his time at South Carolina - traded heavily on his change when I saw him - he was a pretty dominant (college A-A) reliever. Due to lack of stuff and height, he went undrafted. He's now more of a sinker/slider guy who's got lots of okay pitches, but nothing great. If he were 6-3, he'd probably be pitching out of the back of somebody's rotation.
   19. Mister High Standards Posted: January 15, 2008 at 04:13 AM (#2668443)
That Papelbon projection is absolutly sick. I'll take the over on Mike Lowell, Manny and Jon Lester. The under on Paps and DiceK.
   20. a wider scope of derision Posted: January 15, 2008 at 04:21 AM (#2668448)
I'm amazed how... reasonable those projections on. Especially those projections for the kids (Ellsbury, Buchholz, Lowrie, Lester) look spot on.

I have a lot of faith in that Matsuzaka projection, too.
   21. Robert S. Posted: January 15, 2008 at 04:22 AM (#2668450)
Dan, could you post a pessimistic Schilling projection if you get a chance?
   22. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 15, 2008 at 04:24 AM (#2668454)
Man, that is one seriously deep team. How long of a leash does Lugo have?

Both the Yankees and Red Sox don't really have the home run power that they did a few years ago although I think Manny will hit more than 23.
   23. Mike Webber Posted: January 15, 2008 at 04:37 AM (#2668461)
Well, I guess I'm freezing Dice-K at $26.

Thanks for all these projections Dan!
   24.   Posted: January 15, 2008 at 05:08 AM (#2668476)
The previous record was Gagne at 1.69 before the 2005 season.


Geez, way to be an ass, Dan! ;)

Has ZiPS always been so hardcore about aging patterns? Manny's projection just looks ridiculous.
   25. Mushroy Posted: January 15, 2008 at 05:12 AM (#2668478)
Oh please no. I can understand (or at least imagine) how Javier Lopez could convince Francona that he has some use to a major league club-but the hell did he fool ZiPS?
   26. Marcel Posted: January 15, 2008 at 05:16 AM (#2668480)
I agree on Manny's numbers being low. Even if he really has gone from being a .600 slugging % guy to a .500, I still can't see his batting average (and, subsequently, his OBP) dropping off that much. He's just too damn good a hitter. And I'll definitely take the over on Lester, but I just really like the guy and hope he can reach his full potential. Lowell looks just about right, most of the value for his contract is going to depend on him remaining an above average fielder.
   27. Mushroy Posted: January 15, 2008 at 05:21 AM (#2668485)
To begin answering my own question, he's got fewer innings than anyone except Donnelly. And I guess it'd be asking a lot for a projection to take into account the fact that Lopez is the world's most consistent LORGY.
   28. Marcel Posted: January 15, 2008 at 05:24 AM (#2668487)
Oh please no. I can understand (or at least imagine) how Javier Lopez could convince Francona that he has some use to a major league club-but the hell did he fool ZiPS?


I don't think a 36:27 K:BB ratio is fooling ZiPS. The only reason his ERA is so low is because most of the runs that score off of him are attributed to the pitcher that was in trouble before he comes into the game.
   29. Harvey Berkman Posted: January 15, 2008 at 06:09 AM (#2668509)
Neat, I didn't realize that time I saw Gronkiewicz pitch was his first and only appearance. Seemed pretty scrappy, and put out the fire that no other Jay pitcher could that day.
   30. Skinner! Posted: January 15, 2008 at 06:09 AM (#2668510)
Those are some impressive numbers for Papelbon - too bad he didn't sign with the A's when Beane picked him in that infamous 2002 draft. Imagine who Beane could have traded him for now!
   31. Walt Davis Posted: January 15, 2008 at 06:11 AM (#2668511)
Who gave Kevin the keys to ZiPS?

Backing up Dan on Lowell, just compare his 2006 to 2007 numbers. In 20076, he had 1 more HR and 1 more triple but 10 fewer doubles in about 20 more AB/PA. But he had a whopping 36 more singles. Despite the superior numbers, he actually had slightly fewer extra bases last year than in 2006. And in 2006, that was just a 104 OPS+, right about average for a 3B.

Not that you can ignore it, but last year was enough to raise Lowell's career average from 272/339/463 to 280/344/468. For ZiPS, the age (and maybe league) effect is outweighing the career year effect. That projection is almost exactly 2006 Lowell minus 5 HR and 7 doubles. OK, that might be a smidgen much but I think I'd take this projection over one that had him repeating his 2006 numbers (nobody expects a repeat of 2007 do they?)

Anyway, I didn't like the Lowell extension before I saw the ZiPS numbers (and guesstimated him to about an average 3B) and I liked it even less when I saw them. But the Sox got plenty of money.

Javier Lopez

3 HR in 57 IP (11 for 172 in his career, just 6 for 101 in Coors!) lets you get away with a lot.
   32. philly Posted: January 15, 2008 at 06:11 AM (#2668512)
By the way, the Papelbon projection is, I believe, the lowest ERA ever projected by ZiPS. The previous record was Gagne at 1.69 before the 2005 season.


And Gagne had a 2.70 ERA in ... 13.3 IP. I'll take the +1 run on the ERA, but hopefully 5x on the IP.
   33. greenback calls it soccer Posted: January 15, 2008 at 06:17 AM (#2668515)
Those are some impressive numbers for Papelbon - too bad he didn't sign with the A's when Beane picked him in that infamous 2002 draft. Imagine who Beane could have traded him for now!

LOL. It's not easy rooting for a team out of contention.
   34. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 15, 2008 at 06:25 AM (#2668520)
Ramirez's comps are a bunch of great hitters, but they still lost a lot. Just to illustrate, from their previous 3-year weighted averages, 80% saw a decline in HR rate the following year (median decline 21%), an 11% drop in 2B rate, a 19% drop in 3B rate, a 5% drop in walk rate, a 3% increase in K rate, and a 21 point drop in BABIP. In one year.
   35. John DiFool2 Posted: January 15, 2008 at 06:47 AM (#2668532)
Well, I am the first (usually) to proclaim that an aging player is about to have the microwave go ding on him, but the Drew, Manny, and Lowell projections do seem low to me. It's possible of course that they really are going to age that badly that quickly-I do agree with the Tek one, which actually may be optimistic. Looking at Drew's hit chart for Fenway I saw a ton of MF lefts, some of which could easily turn into Monster balls if he gets more comfortable with the league.

For the kids, I'll certainly take the over on most of them-if Zips is devaluing the vets (as it should), it doesn't appear to be upvaluing the kids at all (which it also should). I mean the "Optimistic" on Pedroia is about what he hit last year (with some extra homers which BTW I expect him to hit); again it is possible of course that what he did last year did not represent genuine development, but I think it did. For the kid pitchers I don't mind-much-because historically rookie hurlers experience an adjustment phase, even someone as gifted as Clay, but that doesn't explain the silly 4.93 ERA for Lester. Zips (yes I will now do some examination of the fine print) of course being a mindless killing machine puts sigificant weight on Jed's poor 2006, which explains the low projection-I'd peg him at .270/.340/.430.

I think Dice-K's is spot on: he'll master his command and control enough during his second go-around I think to get it below 4.00. Beckett probably will fall between the median and the optimistic, absent any blister issues.
   36. limozeen Posted: January 15, 2008 at 07:08 AM (#2668539)
Dan, could we see a ZiPS for Jeff Natale? He seems like a fairly interesting guy to project. Thanks!
   37. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: January 15, 2008 at 11:30 AM (#2668555)
Backing up Dan on Lowell, just compare his 2006 to 2007 numbers. In 20076, he had 1 more HR and 1 more triple but 10 fewer doubles in about 20 more AB/PA. But he had a whopping 36 more singles. Despite the superior numbers, he actually had slightly fewer extra bases last year than in 2006. And in 2006, that was just a 104 OPS+, right about average for a 3B.

You think the 36 extra singles were really really good luck, or do you think they represent an actual change/improvement in approach?
   38. Valentine Posted: January 15, 2008 at 04:08 PM (#2668632)
Some comments...

ZiPS works from full-line statistical data (IIRC), so partial-line and non-statistical data might be relevant for modifying the projections.

* JD Drew's child was seriously ill last year. Something involving major surgery. Hard to know exactly what effect that might have had on him, but he did have a couple good stretchs (including one in September) and might not be so completely burnt toast as ZiPS expects.

* Ellsbury is on a roughly 250 AB tear, dating back to the beginning of August at Pawtucket and extending through the playoffs. The projection is very "fair" based on his history, but the Red Sox faithful can still hope that this streak represents real improvement rather than simply a statistical fluke. I realize his BABIP has been Ichiro-high, which seems improbable. The HR power seems about right.

* Lowell was his usual self in the first half, with the change coming after the ASB. In 2006 he had 20 hits to right field. In 2007 he had 31. He was pulling the ball in the air, going the other way more on ground balls. Most of the change is probably statistical fluke, but I think he was doing things a little differently as well.

* No question in my mind that Manny will beat this projection if healthy. Which probably means that the projection is dead-on accurate.

* Lester's projections get slammed by some terrible pitching at the end of 2006 and during his minor league rehab in 2007 when he was building strength. I'd take this as a "pessimistic" projection, and in fact am surprised it isn't over 5. I'm expecting something in the 4.50 to 4.75 range personally.

* Masterson can beat those numbers as a reliever (as can most starters).
   39. jmurph Posted: January 15, 2008 at 04:45 PM (#2668668)
I'll take the under on (maybe I'm alone here) Ortiz. I'm fine with the rates, and everything, but (and I know ZIPS doesn't do playing time), isn't it about time he misses 20 or 30 games due to the nagging knee problem, or something else related to him being such a big dude?

Also, I remain optimistic on a slight return to form in counting stats for Manny, and I'm hopeful of a bounceback to something approaching mediocrity for Drew, especially with Pedroia, Ellsbury, and Youkilis getting on at such good rates.
   40. Spahn Insane Posted: January 15, 2008 at 05:04 PM (#2668696)
I didn't even know Keith Ginter was still in baseball.

Awesome as Papelbon's been, that's one hell of a projection. Who *projects* to a 1.57 ERA?
   41. Spahn Insane Posted: January 15, 2008 at 05:08 PM (#2668704)
Anyway, I think the Lowell and Ramirez projections look low, the Ortiz projection looks high (at least as to raw numbers, as 39 said), Youkilis and Varitek look about right, and who knows about Drew. Lester might be a bit low.

And my work is done here; I'll let those who actually know something about the Red Sox carry on...
   42. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: January 15, 2008 at 05:12 PM (#2668706)
I didn't even know Keith Ginter was still in baseball.


Isn't Keith Ginter with the Indians?
   43. Dizzypaco Posted: January 15, 2008 at 05:17 PM (#2668714)
One biased opinion:

Low: Ellsbury, Drew, Lowell, Bucholz, Lester.

I think the Ramirez projection is pretty okay. I see Bucholz as a guy that may have problems staying healthy, but will do well if he can.
   44. DKDC Posted: January 15, 2008 at 05:18 PM (#2668715)
I'll take the under on (maybe I'm alone here) Ortiz.

I'd take the under on Ortiz and Varitek.
   45. Josh Posted: January 15, 2008 at 05:33 PM (#2668730)
Isn't Keith Ginter with the Indians?
Ginter is on the Red Sox, but Scales is on the Cubs. Link Also, Kielty is a FA. Not sure if McEwing, Spivey or Clayton (another FA, I believe) are still in the org. But, in May if we are scrambling to see what their ZiPS are, it will be a long season.

There are nits with every projection, but the over/under has all but two spots (RF/3B) above or near average. And those two spots could get to average or above (esp with defense factored) with a little luck. But the team planned for no luck, as there is a lot of depth.

And the pitching? 7 average+ projections at SP? Wow. 8 in the MR department? Jeeeeezus. It is hard to always remember that a 4.47 ERA for a rookie with 1/2 the starts at Fenway is remarkable.
   46. Schilling's Sprained Ankiel Posted: January 15, 2008 at 05:51 PM (#2668746)
What would qualify as a dusting?
   47. DKDC Posted: January 15, 2008 at 06:03 PM (#2668760)
I'd be willing to bet that Ellsbury is closer to ZiPS' .741 OPS than his .903 OPS last year.
   48. jmurph Posted: January 15, 2008 at 06:13 PM (#2668773)
The thing with Ellsbury in this lineup is that his primary function is just to get on base. Even if it's only 1st base (especially with 45 or so steals). So I'll take an OBP heavy .760 or .780 OPS if it means he's getting on at .360 or even higher. Next year.

Now, in the long-term, or for him to be a very good player or near-star, we'll have to hope he develops something like .440 or so power (SLG), though I'm not totally convinced he'll be able to do that.
   49. Josh Posted: January 15, 2008 at 06:26 PM (#2668783)
I'd be willing to bet that Ellsbury is closer to ZiPS' .741 OPS than his .903 OPS last year.
Are you setting the +/- at 822? I think Kevin will want a piece of that. (I don't, but I like to see other people bet.)
   50. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 15, 2008 at 06:35 PM (#2668793)
Didn't see Scales (he was still on the roster on MILB and I don't usually double-check all that until it's time to get everyone on next year's team), but I keep free agents with their last team when doing this first run.
   51. DKDC Posted: January 15, 2008 at 06:52 PM (#2668802)
How about beating the OPS+ by at least 50?

OK, I'm willing to bet against Ellsbury for any amount.

So, he has to match or exceed .791.

Oh, you mean OPS, not OPS+.

Based on Ellsbury's record, there's very little reason to expect him to put up an ~800 OPS, but given the inherent variability of baseball players, I'm not going to put my money where my mouth is.

Barring injury, of course.

Doesn't the .741 already build in some risk of injury?
   52. Mike Green Posted: January 15, 2008 at 06:53 PM (#2668803)
The Ellsbury comparables have to make Red Sox faithful smile, one Hall of Famer and one who was close. Pinson is a bit strange, because he had shown medium range power from age 20-24 (slugging about .500 during those years). Ashburn is a fine comparison, and others might include some of Ashburn's age 23 BB Ref comparables like Terry Puhl and George Case.
   53. Dizzypaco Posted: January 15, 2008 at 07:09 PM (#2668813)
Based on Ellsbury's record, there's very little reason to expect him to put up an ~800 OPS

FWIW, the 2008 Bill James Handbook projects Ellsbury to have an OPS of .810 next year.
   54. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 15, 2008 at 07:21 PM (#2668832)
FWIW, the 2008 Bill James Handbook projects Ellsbury to have an OPS of .810 next year.

Those projections are regularly the most optimistic handily, both for hitters and pitchers, with none of the other major sets of projections being particularly high or low for anything. The Bill James-branded projections love more players than Annie Savoy.
   55. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 15, 2008 at 07:29 PM (#2668844)
Yeah, the Pinson did strike me as surprising. He was just pretty close with everything else. Puhl also appears on my list pretty high up there as does Lloyd Waner.

Puhl was a really good player though. I would've thought a Canuck would appreciate the player that was 3rd all-time in Canadian hits!
   56. Dizzypaco Posted: January 15, 2008 at 07:34 PM (#2668852)
Those projections are regularly the most optimistic handily, both for hitters and pitchers, with none of the other major sets of projections being particularly high or low for anything. The Bill James-branded projections love more players than Annie Savoy.

Is this true? When there was an evaluation of the projection systems, comparing the projections with actual results, I thought they did pretty well - not the best, but not far off.
   57. DKDC Posted: January 15, 2008 at 07:36 PM (#2668854)
Bill James appears to be particularly optimistic on prospects.

For example, he projects Jay Bruce to have a .965 OPS, which is ~140 OPS+. ZiPS and Chone both have Bruce with a sub-800 OPS.

I'm not saying that's impossible, but the top 5 OPS+ since 1980 for a 21-year old:

157 Albert Pujols
155 Ken Griffey
135 Tim Raines
134 Rickey Henderson
130 Miguel Cabrera

Pujols was the only with zero ML at bats coming into his age 21 season (like Bruce).
   58. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 15, 2008 at 08:02 PM (#2668880)
On the subject of Mike Lowell: I see no reason why his season last year should be classified as anything other than a BABIP fluke. 36 singles is a lot, and I know a lot of my fellow Red Sox fans liked to claim last season that he'd altered his approach to better suit Fenway Park. I'm just dubious about the idea that he's turned himself into a .370 hitter at the Fens while remaining essentially the same guy he's always been away from home. Often when a player has a career season -- especialy if he does so in an unusual hitting environment -- a certain subset of fans will claim that he's altered his approach, it's all different now, and ignore the man behind the curtain, because he's just not the same dude. The same thing happened with Derrek Lee after 2005. Then, lo and behold, his next healthy season he had exactly the same OPS+ as he had in 2002 and 2003.

The reason we remember guys like Sammy Sosa, who actually do radically change their approaches late in their careers, is because they're so spectacularly rare. But when something like Lowell's season comes along, we all want to believe that's what we're seeing, and we come up with reasons why our man is a Sosa situation and not a Norm Cash or Darrin Erstad situation. We latch onto club stories about working with hitting coaches, convince ourselves we're seeing a change in approach that's going to overhaul a guy's production, when frequently those things are not there.

Is it possible that Mike Lowell has turned himself into a different hitter in the Fens than he has ever been anywhere else, than he was in 2006? Sure, I suppose so. But color me skeptical. Yeah, that ZiPs looks scary-low, but leave us not forget that this is a 34-year-old third baseman who doesn't run particularly fast and was pretty obviously on the back end of his career until his BABiP went up last season. I never saw any reason to take last season particularly seriously until he showed an ability to repeat it. When I said I didn't like the extension at the time, people accused me of wanting to maximize efficiency over maximizing wins, and I tried to argue that letting Mike Lowell go would do both. Nobody seemed to understand that at the time, but the kind of scenario projected by ZiPs is what I was talking about: if he hits like that, he's just not that good a player, especially given that it's likely that his defense will decline with age.

In short, I won't be falling out of my chair if Mike Lowell posts a .762 OPS next season, and I'd wager it's more likely than another .880 showing.
   59. Dizzypaco Posted: January 15, 2008 at 08:13 PM (#2668889)
Yeah, that ZiPs looks scary-low, but leave us not forget that this is a 34-year-old third baseman who doesn't run particularly fast and was pretty obviously on the back end of his career until his BABiP went up last season.

That's one way of looking at it. His OPS, year by year, starting in 2000: 818, 788, 817, 880, 870, 662, 814, 879. In other words, his OPS has exceeded 800 six times in the past eight years, and came close in a seventh. I know he's 34, but how can you look at a projected OPS of .762 as anything other than pessimistic? I expect him to decline, but .762 seems too far, given his track record.
   60. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 15, 2008 at 08:19 PM (#2668896)

Is this true? When there was an evaluation of the projection systems, comparing the projections with actual results, I thought they did pretty well - not the best, but not far off.


I don't think Nate did Bill James.
   61. 1k5v3L Posted: January 15, 2008 at 08:22 PM (#2668899)
59:

A-rod had 160 OPS+ in his first full season in the majors, at the age of 20. That of course came on the heels of insanely high .358 BA, and he didn't post OPS+ of 160 again until his age 25 season in Texas. Ironically, at age 21, he had the worst season of his career (so far) posting OPS+ of "only" 120.
   62. 1k5v3L Posted: January 15, 2008 at 08:27 PM (#2668902)
Bruce is a left handed power hitter whose home ballpark is extremely friendly to left handed power hitters. If he can maintain decent batting average (given his expected high strikeouts, he'd need to get lucky on BABIP a bit), he can be have a monster season.

I'm very high on Bruce Almighty.
   63. DKDC Posted: January 15, 2008 at 08:36 PM (#2668908)
A-rod had 160 OPS+ in his first full season in the majors, at the age of 20.

ARod certainly figures on that list, but he also had a 200 PA introduction to the majors before his first full season.

The recent track record of 140 OPS+ seasons with ZERO major league experience at that young of an age essentially begins and ends with Albert Pujols.

We should probably fix a minimum AB total. Somewhere around 250 or more.

As long as that 250 includes minor league ABs, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
   64. SoSH U at work Posted: January 15, 2008 at 08:39 PM (#2668909)
?? The two numbers are not remotely similar.


Kevin, you "How about beating the OPS+ by at least 50?"

Hence, the confusion.
   65. 1k5v3L Posted: January 15, 2008 at 08:54 PM (#2668918)
Kevin, you "How about beating the OPS+ by at least 50?"


I believe kevin meant to say ""How about beating the OPS+ by a factor of at least 50?"

kevin gets a lot of crap around here for being a homer, but he's got a firm grip on reality.
   66. Danny Posted: January 15, 2008 at 09:22 PM (#2668948)
You seem to have mistakenly labeled Kielty as a switch hitter.
   67. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: January 15, 2008 at 09:23 PM (#2668952)
You seem to have mistakenly labeled Kielty as a switch hitter.
That's what she said!
   68. 1k5v3L Posted: January 15, 2008 at 09:25 PM (#2668956)
You seem to have mistakenly labeled Kielty as a switch hitter.
That's what she said![/quote]
Kielty will beat that projection by at least 50!
   69. 1k5v3L Posted: January 15, 2008 at 09:26 PM (#2668957)
oh crap.
   70. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 15, 2008 at 09:35 PM (#2668969)
I don't know why you're asking for minor league numbers to be included. he isn't going to be in the minors and that will require some more adjustments.

He wants to win if Ellsbury sucks for 200 ABs and gets sent down.
   71. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: January 15, 2008 at 09:36 PM (#2668970)
* McEwing retired, fwiw.
* Silver doesn't trumpt PECOTA as the end-all, be-all of projection systems. Now, as for others on the BPro staff...
* I believe the Bill James projections for minor leaguers to be optimistic seemingly across the board - that contributed to my decision not to buy that Handbook this year (tough call, given my completist tendencies).
   72. Mike Green Posted: January 15, 2008 at 09:39 PM (#2668974)
Yeah, Puhl was a good player. Move him from the Astrodome of 25 years ago to the Fenway of today and he would look really good. A little bit of Ashburn and a dash of Puhl sounds like a heckuva ballplayer to me.

Speaking of comparisons, Pedroia's aren't shabby either. The risk, of course, is summarized by the career of Brent Gates.
   73. Dan Turkenkopf Posted: January 15, 2008 at 09:47 PM (#2668983)
Where are you guys getting Ellsbury's comps? they aren't up in BB-ref.


Kevin, they're in the Player Spotlight section here where Dan outlines the optimistic and pessimistic projections.
   74. Mike Green Posted: January 15, 2008 at 09:49 PM (#2668985)
Dan has his own comprehensive method, I am sure. I started with Dan's comps and then BB-Reffed Ashburn's age 23 comps. Ashburn's age 23 line could very well have been Ellsbury.
   75. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 15, 2008 at 10:03 PM (#2668993)
Burns just signed with the Pirates as a minor-league FA. How much would that affect his projected ERA?
   76. kwarren Posted: January 15, 2008 at 11:16 PM (#2669060)
I mean come on Ellsbury with only 4 homers?

Considering Ellsbury only hit 2 home runs in 436 at-bats in the minors, 4 is hardly a stretch. Unless the IL is now a tougher environment than the AL, which I doubt.


C'mon Dan, Ellsbury hit 3 HR in 116 ML at bats. Why look at his minor league stats?


Lowells numbers shrinking for no apparent reason? Thats oviously a joke.

No apostrophes for no apparent reason.


As for Lowell, he was good in 2007. And also 50 points about his career BABIP. For his career, his BABIP is only 66 points above his LD%. In 2007, he was 161 points above his LD%. That suggests he's due for a pretty good correction even if you don't consider that he's 34 .

You mean there is an apparent reason? Who knew?
   77. xeifrank Posted: January 15, 2008 at 11:19 PM (#2669066)
Running similarity scores based on HR, K and BB rates for all outfielders age 25 and under who have a 2008 ZIPS projection, the player with the closest similarity score to Jacoby Ellsbury at this point is Michael Bourn of the Houston Astros. Bourn of course plays left field and is one year older than Ellsbury. The closest CFer would be Gomez of the New York Mets, who is only 21 years old.

The other two young BoSox outfielders with their closest ZIPS comp (same criteria as above) are.

Brandon Moss: 1) Gwynn (Mil), 2) Lubanski, 3) Choo (Cle)
Josh Reddick: 1) Mather (Stl), 2) Pence (Hou), 3) Kemp (LAD)

Keep in mind these similarity scores are based on the three rate stats listed above and are for offense only and make no differentiation as to age or outfield position.

vr, Xeifrank
   78. kwarren Posted: January 15, 2008 at 11:24 PM (#2669071)
Ramirez's comps are a bunch of great hitters, but they still lost a lot. Just to illustrate, from their previous 3-year weighted averages, 80% saw a decline in HR rate the following year (median decline 21%), an 11% drop in 2B rate, a 19% drop in 3B rate, a 5% drop in walk rate, a 3% increase in K rate, and a 21 point drop in BABIP. In one year.

Dan, do separate the juicers from the non-juicers when looking at comparitive groups.
   79. kwarren Posted: January 15, 2008 at 11:33 PM (#2669084)
jmurph Posted: January 15, 2008 at 10:45 AM (#2668668)

I'll take the under on (maybe I'm alone here) Ortiz. I'm fine with the rates, and everything, but (and I know ZIPS doesn't do playing time), isn't it about time he misses 20 or 30 games due to the nagging knee problem, or something else related to him being such a big dude?


I am assuming that you would think that if Ortiz had missed 20 or 30 games in the past couple of seasons, it would be "about time" for him to play a complete season. Gotta love that logic.
   80. kwarren Posted: January 15, 2008 at 11:38 PM (#2669089)
Is this true? When there was an evaluation of the projection systems, comparing the projections with actual results, I thought they did pretty well - not the best, but not far off.

They have always been bad. Very bad.

I think they over-rate players diliberately, especially young players, to build up hype and a market for their products. Most of their projections for young players are not even plausible.
   81. kwarren Posted: January 15, 2008 at 11:42 PM (#2669094)
Is this true? When there was an evaluation of the projection systems, comparing the projections with actual results, I thought they did pretty well - not the best, but not far off.

PECOTA is by far the best. Just ask the guys over at baseball prospectus.


Personally, I think Kevin is pretty bang-on with his projections. Very knowlegeable guy. People should listen.
   82. DKDC Posted: January 15, 2008 at 11:43 PM (#2669095)
Bourn of course plays left field and is one year older than Ellsbury.

Bourn played CF in the minors and will play CF for Houston this year. He was blocked by Aaron Rowand in Philly, but he's supposed to be a very good defender.

I think he's actually a very good comp for Ellsbury.
   83. pancakehead Posted: January 15, 2008 at 11:47 PM (#2669103)
Do you hate the Red Sox, or do you think that every player that hit .300 last year will magically lose their hitting ability? You do not have anyone hitting over .300.
   84. xeifrank Posted: January 15, 2008 at 11:50 PM (#2669106)
90. Ok, thanks for the info. I was going off of what position ZIPS had them listed as. :)
vr, Xei
   85. DKDC Posted: January 15, 2008 at 11:54 PM (#2669112)
Do you hate the Red Sox, or do you think that every player that hit .300 last year will magically lose their hitting ability? You do not have anyone hitting over .300.

I'm pretty sure he hates the Red Sox (who doesn't?), but the only starter on the Red Sox with a .300 career BA is Manny Ramirez.

So, yes, a 36-year old Manny will 'magically' lose his hitting ability next year.

I guess it will be sweet validation for this guy when some one on the Red Sox inevitably hits over .300.
   86. Honkie Kong Posted: January 16, 2008 at 12:10 AM (#2669135)
I don't think Nate did Bill James.

I don't think this means what you think!

Sorry, given how this thread was degenerating into a troll fest, I couldn't help myself.
   87. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 16, 2008 at 12:16 AM (#2669145)
Do you hate the Red Sox, or do you think that every player that hit .300 last year will magically lose their hitting ability? You do not have anyone hitting over .300.

OK, then, which player that hit above .300 last year should definitely have a mean projection above .300? The 34-year-old career .280 hitter, the 32-year-old career .289 hitter, or the young guy who just had his first .300 season after MLEs in the .270s?
   88. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 16, 2008 at 12:23 AM (#2669151)
I think he's actually a very good comp for Ellsbury.

I don't think he is at all. Bourn's a year older than Ellsbury and his only quality play so far since the Sally League is scattered at-bats as a 5th outfielder.
   89. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 16, 2008 at 12:29 AM (#2669160)
I think Manny and Ellsbury have a real good chance of hitting over .300. Ortiz has a decent chance as well.

ZiPS thinks they have real good chances to do that, too, of course. I'm incredibly puzzled how someone can look at mean projections of .297, .297, and .292 and think the projection system is claiming that those players "won't" hit .300.

Anyone who looks at this set of projections and feels ZiPS hates the Red Sox should probably be put in a time machine back to 1992 and have to watch what an actual bad Red Sox team looks like (this isn't directed at you Kevin).
   90. pancakehead Posted: January 16, 2008 at 12:29 AM (#2669161)
OK, then, which player that hit above .300 last year should definitely have a mean projection above .300? The 34-year-old career .280 hitter, the 32-year-old career .289 hitter, or the young guy who just had his first .300 season after MLEs in the .270s?


The dominant Big Papi who showed he can hit for amazingly high averages and a ton of HRs last year, Mike Lowell who hit for average and power last year also, Pedroia who easily got over .300 in his rookie season, Youk who would have gotten .300 if not for slumps, Jacoby who pitchers struggled to get out, and Manny who every pitcher fears. All of these guys should be above or near the .300 average in your little world of made up stats. So... Manny and Youk didn't hit .300 last year but they can do it easily this year.
   91. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 16, 2008 at 12:33 AM (#2669165)
Michael Bourn was listed as a LF simply because I originally calculated his projection for Philadelphia before the trade. He'll appear as a CF in the non-prelim builds.
   92. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 16, 2008 at 12:42 AM (#2669174)

The dominant Big Papi who showed he can hit for amazingly high averages and a ton of HRs last year,


The same dominant Big Papi who was below .300 more often than in his career and had a high of .301.

Mike Lowell who hit for average and power last year also,

Mike Lowell also never hit .300 before, isn't young, and there are good indications that he did it with fluky, unsustainable secondary numbers.

Pedroia who easily got over .300 in his rookie season,

And who never had done the equivalent before.

Youk who would have gotten .300 if not for slumps,

And my aunt would be my uncle if she grew a penis.

We're really descending into the morass here. Youk who's never hit .300 in the majors before should be even odds to hit better than .300?

Jacoby who pitchers struggled to get out,

Yet only hit .298 in the minors. Are AAA pitchers superior to MLB pitchers now? That's about as likely as my aunt's penile growth.

Manny who every pitcher fears.

They didn't fear him in 2005 and 2007 then? And he's gotten his new time machine?

But hey, I don't want to disappoint the audience, so I put together a new set of projections.

2008 Fanboy On the Bandwagon Since 2004 Projections - Boston Red Sox

Lowell: 330/420/600
Pedroia: 377/450/400
Ortiz: 368/520/900, 74 HR, 235 RBI
Manny: 336/510/700, QUADRILLION POINT SIX FEAR FACTOR
Ellsbury: 408/470/525
Youkilis: 1.200/1.600/SUMMONED TO OLYMPUS
   93. Honkie Kong Posted: January 16, 2008 at 12:59 AM (#2669193)
Dan,
are you taking pancakehead seriusly? He has been trolling a bunch of "stat" threads these last 2 days. Think its just some Primate bored at work, and trying some mainstream satire.
   94. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 16, 2008 at 01:01 AM (#2669194)
I like that Pedroia projection, Szym, but don't you think you're being a little hard on him in the slugging dept?

He's simply going to be too exhausted to have power after be driven in so much!
   95. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 16, 2008 at 01:03 AM (#2669199)
Dan,
are you taking pancakehead seriusly? He has been trolling a bunch of "stat" threads these last 2 days. Think its just some Primate bored at work, and trying some mainstream satire.


I certainly hope so. Being called negative after posting projections that have the Red Sox as the best team in baseball and comparing Pedroia and Ellsbury to two Hall-of-Famers just befuddles me to no ends.
   96. DKDC Posted: January 16, 2008 at 01:04 AM (#2669202)
I don't think he is at all. Bourn's a year older than Ellsbury and his only quality play so far since the Sally League is scattered at-bats as a 5th outfielder.

Ellsbury is a better prospect, but they are very similar ballplayers.

They are both CFs with plus defense and both are excellent basestealers. Component-wise, they have nearly identical power and walk rates.

The main thing that separates these two is strikeouts. However this difference is pretty important - Ellsbury's lower strikeout rate is worth ~30 points of average and ~60 points of OPS.
   97. Honkie Kong Posted: January 16, 2008 at 01:05 AM (#2669205)
He's simply going to be too exhausted to have power after be driven in so much!

106. Mike Piazza Posted: January 15, 2008 at 07:04 PM (#2669203)
Once again, this might not mean what you think
   98. pancakehead Posted: January 16, 2008 at 01:09 AM (#2669208)
Dan

You must not understand statistics in baseball. It is impossible for Kevin Youkilis to bat 1.200. You need to check up on your baseball knowledge.
   99. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 16, 2008 at 01:13 AM (#2669211)
You must not understand statistics in baseball. It is impossible for Kevin Youkilis to bat 1.200. You need to check up on your baseball knowledge.

OK, now I know this guy isn't for real.
   100. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 16, 2008 at 01:14 AM (#2669213)
The 1.200 isn't his BA, you goofball, it's his OBP!

Actually, it was his Red Sox Nation Awesomness Index, the #1 stat choice for people who can't tell Greenwell from Snackwell.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1242 seconds
47 querie(s) executed