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

Thursday, January 07, 2010

2010 ZiPS Projections - San Francisco Giants

You get your hands on a Ferrari GT 250 from the 1950s.  You painstakingly restore the car to its original form, from tires to roof.  Now, it’s time to get the engine up to snuff.

Something’s not quite right!  So, you put in an engine you found in a 1984 Dodge Dart at the junk yard and after doing your best to install the engine, using duct tape, honey, and twist ties from packages of hot dog rolls, that darn car just will not start!  What’s the problem?  You have no idea.

You might not be a very good mechanic, but you might be Brian Sabean.  The Giants have a ridiculous starting rotation, anchored by Lincecum, perhaps the leading candidate for best starting pitcher of the teens, Cain, one of the best number twos around, one of the best prospects around in Bumgarner, and the interesting Sanchez.  Sure, Zito’s overpaid, but if he’s your 5th starter, your rotation’s probably pretty good.

The offense is not, mainly consisting of Sandoval and the Seven Dwarves.  A team mediocre everywhere and a playoff-ready rotation just screams to overpay for an actual slugger, but Mark DeRosa appears to have been the big target, though the team could still figure out a way to avoid using their best prospect, Buster Posey.  My policy of leaving players on their old team until a definite signing (or the final disk in the spring) has the hilarious side-effect of showing what an amazing idea it was to non-tender Ryan Garko because he had a slump.

No projection for Angel Villalona.  Now, a lot of things can go wrong with a prospect’s career from low-A to the majors, but being arrested for homicide is not a common malady.  If you’re a professional athlete and absolutely feel you need to kill someone, it’s smarter to make the pile first.  Better lawyers.

Offensive Projections

Name               P Age   AVG   OBP   SLG   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS OPS+
Pablo Sandoval#      3b 23 .320 .368 .516 157 597 85 191 43 4 22 110 44 81 2 2   129
Ryan Garko           1b 29 .285 .356 .460 129 435 44 124 23 1 17 67 34 71 0 0   113
Fred Lewis*          lf 29 .274 .352 .427 129 391 68 107 22 7 8 46 44 98 9 4   104
Mark DeRosa         3b 35 .273 .345 .434 121 433 63 118 24 2 14 73 44 88 2 1   104
Nate Schierholtz*      rf 26 .289 .325 .459 131 425 55 123 27 6 11 62 20 68 4 2   103
John Bowker*        lf 26 .269 .338 .434 137 475 62 128 25 4 15 76 47 100 4 3   102
Aaron Rowand         cf 32 .273 .335 .431 132 476 59 130 31 1 14 72 32 104 3 1   100
Buster Posey         c   23 .263 .343 .398 126 467 67 123 25 1 12 67 53 83 3 1   95
Freddy Sanchez       2b 32 .296 .331 .413 126 506 72 150 32 3 7 60 25 67 1 1   92
Edgar Renteria       ss 33 .280 .336 .388 116 443 55 124 23 2 7 52 38 63 6 2   90
Juan Uribe           3b 30 .269 .311 .442 122 398 43 107 24 3 13 58 24 77 1 2   95
Travis Ishikawa*      1b 26 .253 .316 .409 125 403 50 102 21 3 12 63 34 107 2 1   89
Matt Downs           2b 26 .273 .317 .407 118 472 63 129 29 2 10 67 27 67 8 4   89
Jesus Guzman         1b 26 .271 .320 .395 120 479 55 130 23 3 10 64 31 87 1 2   87
Bengie Molina         c   35 .271 .298 .424 117 432 38 117 22 1 14 80 15 49 0 0   87
Kevin Frandsen       2b 28 .271 .328 .380 127 421 53 114 21 2 7 48 23 40 4 3   86
Andres Torres#        cf 32 .254 .315 .397 107 343 50 87 15 8 6 36 29 88 9 3   86
Rich Aurilia         1b 38 .266 .312 .393 83 214 18 57 10 1 5 32 15 34 0 0   84
Stephen Holm         c   30 .253 .320 .373 79 233 25 59 13 0 5 23 21 45 0 0   82
Ryan Rohlinger       3b 26 .254 .315 .382 132 484 60 123 28 2 10 70 36 89 2 2   83
Eugenio Velez#        lf 28 .266 .309 .393 128 448 62 119 23 8 6 54 27 78 20 9   83
Joe Borchard#        rf 31 .234 .298 .397 92 282 36 66 15 2 9 42 24 76 1 1   81
Brett Pill           1b 25 .258 .300 .381 132 504 60 130 30 1 10 83 28 86 3 2   78
Clay Timpner*        cf 27 .265 .312 .361 123 441 53 117 19 4 5 47 29 62 7 6   77
Conor Gillaspie*      3b 22 .254 .321 .331 133 508 55 129 26 2 3 62 49 80 1 2   73
Emmanuel Burriss#      2b 25 .270 .323 .332 106 371 52 100 13 2 2 34 25 49 23 9   73
Roger Kieschnick*      rf 23 .234 .281 .385 137 546 68 128 28 6 14 86 33 149 4 1   73
Darren Ford         cf 24 .231 .303 .318 115 446 70 103 17 5 4 41 44 121 25 10   64
Eli Whiteside         c   30 .241 .281 .357 77 241 24 58 11 1 5 32 11 59 1 1   67
Francisco Peguero     cf 22 .248 .276 .323 92 371 40 92 13 3 3 38 12 79 13 3   57

Defensive Projections

Name           CThr 1b     2b     3b     ss     lf     cf     rf    
Sandoval#      Fr   Av/89       Fr/95                      
Garko             Av/81                                  
Lewis*                                  Vg/141 Pr/167 Av/141
DeRosa             Av/78   Fr/115 Av/93       Av/78       Av/78  
Schierholtz*                              Av/83       Av/83  
Bowker*            Av/142                 Av/112 Pr/134 Av/98  
Rowand                                       Av/89      
Posey         Vg                                      
Sanchez                 Av/86                            
Renteria                           Fr/100                
Uribe                   Av/74   Av/96   Av/96                  
Ishikawa*          Vg/123                                
Downs             Av/117 Av/117 Av/117 Pr/133 Av/117       Av/117
Guzman             Av/117 Pr/185 Pr/166       Av/117            
Molina         Av                                      
Frandsen                 Av/111 Av/111 Fr/139 Av/120       Av/120
Torres#                                Vg/126 Av/44   Vg/115
Aurilia           Av/101       Fr/113                      
Holm           Fr                                      
Rohlinger                     Vg/97                      
Velez#                  Pr/160             Vg/186 Av/179      
Super Joe#                              Av/119       Av/119
Pill             Av/112                                
Timpner*                                Av/125 Av/125 Av/125
Gillaspie*                    Av/151                      
Burriss#                Vg/144       Av/138                
Kieschnick*                                        Av/79  
Ford                                         Av/183      
Whiteside       Av                                      
Peguero                                       Vg/159 Vg/134

* - Bats Left
# - Switch Hitter

ODDIBE (Odds of Important Baseball Events)

Name           PO   EX   VG   AV   FR   PO       COMP 1       COMP 2       COMP 3
SandovalPablo     3B   53%  33%  10%  3%  1%LindstromFreddie   RamirezAramis LansfordCarney
GarkoRyan       1B   7%  24%  27%  32%  10%    SheetsLarry   MorelandKeith   JohnsonLamar
SchierholtzNate   RF   5%  14%  21%  31%  29%    GloadRoss     BassKevin   CarterSteve
LewisFred       LF   5%  17%  23%  31%  24%      BumbryAl   TuckerMichael   BarrettJohnny
DeRosaMark       3B   10%  23%  29%  25%  13%      BoyerKen     GarnerPhil   DeCincesDoug
RowandAaron     CF   13%  19%  33%  26%  9%    AllenEthan   BrandtJackie   WilliamsDick
BowkerJohn       LF   2%  10%  19%  33%  37%  SpilborghsRyan   HughesKeith   TuckerMichael
SanchezFreddy     2B   11%  14%  21%  28%  26%    AdairJerryGrudzielanekMark   TrilloManny
PoseyBuster       C   6%  37%  35%  20%  2%    SuzukiKurt     RamosJohn       SaxDave
UribeJuan       3B   2%  10%  19%  32%  37%    TrubyChris     FelizPedro   SeabolScott
RenteriaEdgar     SS   10%  17%  32%  26%  15%  FletcherScott   UrbanskiBilly     RojekStan
DownsMatt       2B   4%  10%  18%  33%  35% PhillipsBrandon   LansingMike GarrisonWebster
MolinaBengie     C   3%  16%  29%  35%  17%    LyonsBarry       DiazBo     BooneBob
IshikawaTravis   1B   0%  1%  3%  25%  72%    JacksonRyan LankfordDerrick     DeedsDoug
TorresAndres     CF   1%  5%  22%  43%  29%  WebsterMitch     MorenoOmar     LittleMark
GuzmanJesus     1B   0%  0%  1%  15%  83%      BelkTim   JacksonRyan   TolentinoJose
FrandsenKevin     2B   2%  5%  12%  29%  52%    HajekDaveWhiteheadBurgess StennettRennie
VelezEugenio     LF   0%  1%  3%  11%  85%      SmithIra     VarshoGary   MartinezManny
AuriliaRich     1B   0%  0%  1%  12%  87%    JordanBrian     WoodJason   PhilleyDave
HolmSteve       C   1%  8%  24%  45%  22%    TackettJeff   BennettGary   McDonaldKeith
RohlingerRyan     3B   0%  1%  5%  23%  71%    AlfaroJason   GrindellNate   SeitzerBrad
PillBrett       1B   0%  0%  0%  5%  95%  NavarreteRay     WestJeremy   McGowanSean
BorchardJoe     RF   0%  1%  1%  7%  91%    HowittDann   BufordDamon     SmithMark
BurrissEmmanuel   2B   0%  0%  2%  12%  86%  CastroBernieMachadoAlejandro ReynoldsHarold
TimpnerClay     CF   0%  1%  2%  12%  85%  SchumakerSkip   EllisonJason   GlanvilleDoug
KieschnickRoger   RF   0%  0%  0%  2%  98%      MartinAl     PoeCharles   HamiltonJon
GillaspieConor   3B   0%  0%  0%  3%  97%  CiofronePeter     AybarWilly   BaldirisAarom
WhitesideEli     C   0%  0%  2%  13%  85%  MosqueraJulio   CharlesFrank   ColbertCraig
FordDarren       CF   0%  0%  0%  5%  95%    CurryMike     DuncanJeff   ScottLorenzo
PegueroFrancisco   CF   0%  0%  0%  2%  98%  HaynesNathan   McGeeWillie     MoranJavon

Name         .300 BA .375 OBP .500 SLG 140 OPS+  45 2B   10 3B 30 HR   30 SB
SandovalPablo       79%    36%    61%    27%    43%    2%    15%    0%
GarkoRyan         29%    24%    16%    5%    0%    0%    3%    0%
SchierholtzNate     36%    4%    13%    2%    1%    12%    0%    0%
LewisFred         17%    20%    5%    2%    0%    19%    0%    0%
DeRosaMark         18%    15%    9%    3%    0%    0%    1%    0%
RowandAaron       16%    7%    7%    1%    4%    0%    1%    0%
BowkerJohn         11%    7%    4%    1%    0%    3%    1%    0%
SanchezFreddy       42%    6%    3%    1%    4%    0%    0%    0%
PoseyBuster         5%    9%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
UribeJuan         12%    1%    10%    0%    0%    0%    1%    0%
RenteriaEdgar       23%    8%    1%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
DownsMatt         14%    1%    1%    0%    1%    0%    0%    0%
MolinaBengie       18%    1%    10%    0%    0%    0%    2%    0%
IshikawaTravis       3%    1%    1%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
TorresAndres       6%    3%    2%    0%    0%    32%    0%    0%
GuzmanJesus       10%    1%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
FrandsenKevin       13%    3%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
VelezEugenio       8%    0%    0%    0%    0%    32%    0%    4%
AuriliaRich       20%    5%    1%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
HolmSteve         8%    4%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
RohlingerRyan       2%    0%    0%    0%    1%    0%    0%    0%
PillBrett         3%    0%    0%    0%    1%    0%    0%    0%
BorchardJoe         1%    1%    1%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
BurrissEmmanuel     11%    2%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    12%
TimpnerClay         7%    1%    0%    0%    0%    2%    0%    0%
KieschnickRoger     0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    10%    0%    0%
GillaspieConor       1%    1%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
WhitesideEli       3%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
FordDarren         0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    4%    0%    24%
PegueroFrancisco     2%    0%    0%    0%    0%    1%    0%    0%

Pitching Statistics - Starters

Name               Age   ERA   W   L   G GS   INN   H   ER HR   BB   K ERA+
Tim Lincecum         26   2.68 16   6 34 33   225.0 177   67 13   78 260 162
Matt Cain           25   3.51 13   9 34 34   217.2 197   85 20   80 179 124
Madison Bumgarner*      20   4.05   8   6 28 26   133.1 137   60 12   42   86 107
Jonathan Sanchez*      27   4.15 10 11 30 28   156.0 141   72 17   77 169 105
Randy Johnson*        46   4.33   6   8 21 20   114.1 116   55 17   32   98 100
Barry Zito*          32   4.48 11 14 32 32   184.2 183   92 21   83 132   97
Ramon Ortiz           34   4.77   5   8 33 17   126.1 137   67 17   39   83   91
Kevin Pucetas         25   4.80   6 10 28 27   144.1 161   77 16   46   74   91
Joe Martinez         27   5.16   5   9 24 21   111.2 134   64 12   38   64   84
Henry Sosa           24   5.37   2   4 15 14   63.2   72   38   9   31   36   81
Matt Kinney           33   5.55   6 13 27 26   146.0 167   90 28   48   97   78
Clayton Tanner*        22   5.72   6 13 26 24   122.2 146   78 17   62   68   76
Steve Hammond*        28   6.24   6 16 29 27   145.2 178 101 27   69   78   70
Steve Johnson         22   6.93   4 16 27 25   124.2 149   96 28   83   83   63

Pitching Statistics - Relievers

Name               Age   ERA   W   L   G GS   INN   H   ER HR   BB   K ERA+
Sergio Romo           27   3.21   5   3 52   0   53.1   44   19   5   19   54 136
Brian Wilson         28   3.47   5   3 67   0   70.0   61   27   5   30   72 125
Jeremy Affeldt*        31   3.48   2   1 74   0   64.2   56   25   5   29   58 125
Eugene Espineli*      27   4.08   3   3 54   0   64.0   69   29   5   19   36 107
Alex Hinshaw*        27   4.10   2   2 60   0   59.1   50   27   6   37   64 106
Osiris Matos         25   4.52   2   3 49   0   61.2   65   31   7   22   45   96
Brandon Medders       30   4.65   3   4 59   0   69.2   71   36   8   37   51   93
Dan Runzler*          25   4.72   2   3 55   0   55.1   51   29   6   41   53   92
Waldis Joaquin         23   4.76   3   5 53   0   62.1   63   33   5   39   48   91
Merkin Valdez         28   5.04   1   2 42   1   44.2   47   25   5   26   35   86
Steve Palazzolo       28   5.22   2   4 33   0   50.0   54   29   6   28   32   83

* - Throws Left

ODDIBE (Odds of Important Baseball Events)

Player         PO     TOP   MID   BOT         COMP 1         COMP 2         COMP 3
LincecumTim     SP     99%  1%  0%  BlackwellEwell       RijoJose   PascualCamilo
RomoSergio       RP     64%  32%  4%      JenksBobby       DavisRon     LeskanicCurt
WilsonBrian     RP     59%  35%  5%      WardDuane     RadatzDick       SelmaDick
AffeldtJeremy     RP     50%  43%  7% ChristiansenJason     LaRocheDave     OroscoJesse
CainMatt       SP     85%  15%  0%      SeleAaron     LeaCharlie     MillerWade
BumgarnerMadison   SP     47%  47%  6%      MulderMark       DukeZach     TroutSteve
EspineliEugene   RP     24%  51%  25%      MeauxRyan     JeffcoatMike     CasianLarry
HinshawAlex     RP     24%  54%  22%    WilliamsMitch   AlmanzaArmando     WagnerBilly
SanchezJonathan   SP     44%  48%  7%    LangstonMark     JohnsonRandy     KoufaxSandy
JohnsonRandy     SP     29%  49%  22%    KoosmanJerry     WellsDavid     FinleyChuck
ZitoBarry       SP     18%  62%  20%    BohanonBrian   AlvarezWilson     HamptonMike
MatosOsiris     RP     10%  49%  41%    MabeusChris   PattersonDave     AcevedoJose
MeddersBrandon   RP     8%  42%  51%    DoughertyJim   SaladinMiguel   GryboskiKevin
RunzlerDan       RP     9%  42%  50%  AlmanzaArmando     ClarkeStan     JohnsonTyler
JoaquinWaldis     RP     8%  39%  54%    VasquezCarlos     WigginsScott     JacksonGrant
OrtizRamon       SP     18%  43%  40%    SparksSteve       RossMark     YoshiiMasato
PucetasKevin     SP     9%  55%  36%      JohnsonJoe   FireovidSteve       BeggChris
ValdezMerkin     RP     5%  25%  70%      SmithRoy     ReichertDan   HendersonRyan
MartinezJoe     SP     5%  39%  56%    SorensenLary     MoehlerBrian MacdonaldMichael
PalazzoloSteve   RP     3%  24%  73%      GreenSean   VaughanWilliam       BauerGreg
SosaHenry       SP     4%  26%  70%      MilackiBob   JacobsenLandon       KylesStan
KinneyMatt       SP     2%  19%  79%  MartinezDennis     HellingRick   TollbergBrian
TannerClayton     SP     0%  13%  87%      GramanAlex     KozlowskiBen     GeorgeChris
HammondSteven     SP     0%  2%  98%    ProchaskaMike       TeutNate     RobertsChris
JohnsonSteven     SP     0%  0%  100%    BaylissJonah   KnightBrandon     RomanoMike

Player         130 ERA+  100 ERA+  K/9 >8 BB/9 <2 HR/9

<1
LincecumTim 91% 100% 97% 1% 99%
RomoSergio 56% 92% 76% 7% 80%
WilsonBrian 52% 93% 85% 1% 91%
AffeldtJeremy 50% 91% 48% 0% 83%
CainMatt 43% 98% 20% 0% 82%
BumgarnerMadison 13% 72% 1% 5% 80%
EspineliEugene 19% 69% 1% 20% 87%
HinshawAlex 24% 66% 90% 0% 72%
SanchezJonathan 13% 73% 91% 0% 61%
JohnsonRandy 7% 51% 37% 17% 29%
ZitoBarry 2% 42% 4% 0% 57%
MatosOsiris 10% 52% 5% 4% 59%
MeddersBrandon 5% 36% 5% 0% 59%
RunzlerDan 6% 36% 71% 0% 64%
JoaquinWaldis 5% 39% 12% 0% 83%
OrtizRamon 5% 34% 7% 15% 38%
PucetasKevin 1% 28% 0% 4% 55%
ValdezMerkin 3% 23% 15% 0% 63%
MartinezJoe 0% 16% 0% 3% 62%
PalazzoloSteve 2% 21% 1% 0% 61%
SosaHenry 1% 12% 0% 0% 40%
KinneyMatt 0% 5% 2% 3% 5%
TannerClayton 0% 2% 0% 0% 32%
HammondSteven 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%
JohnsonSteven 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%

Extrapolated Career Statistics

Player         W   L   S   ERA     G   GS   IP     H   HR   BB   SO   ERA+
CainMatt       186   157   0 3.68   518   516 3285   2944   336   1291   2750   118
LincecumTim     198   85   0 3.25   441   437 2913   2335   196   1067   3331   134
SanchezJonathan   99   114   0 4.48   358   292 1639   1513   184   845   1759   97
ZitoBarry       193   179   0 4.11   496   494 2988   2767   324   1294   2215   107

Name           BA OBP SLG   G   AB     R     H   2B 3B   HR RBI   BB   SO SB CS OPS+
RenteriaEdgar   .283 .340 .394 2293 8760   1261   2477 469 28 150 1015   769   1244 290 110   92
SanchezFreddy   .294 .329 .409 1072 4098   544   1204 258 23   56 488   200   506 13 10   93
RowandAaron     .274 .334 .435 1660 5583   757   1529 347 18 172 753   357   1182 68 28   98

All figures in % based on projection playing time

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 2009. 
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 4.46 ERA and the NL having a 4.41 ERA.

Players that are expected to be out due to injury are still projected.  More information
is always better than less information and a computer isn’t what should be projecting
the injury status of, for example, a pitcher with Tommy John surgery.

Positional offense is ranked by RC/27 and divided into quintiles based on what the
most frequent starting players at each position did in 2007-2009.  Excellent is the top
quintile, Very Good the 2nd quintile and so on.

 

2010 ZiPS Projections Archive

Indians

Mariners

Marlins

Mets

Nationals

Orioles

Padres

Phillies

Pirates

Rangers

Rays

Red Sox

Reds

Rockies

Royals

Tigers

Twins

White Sox

Yankees




These projections were sponsored in part by:

image

 

Dan Szymborski Posted: January 07, 2010 at 05:56 AM | 131 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. FP Santangelo was underappreciated Posted: January 07, 2010 at 06:09 AM (#3430461)
.
   2. Banta Posted: January 07, 2010 at 06:18 AM (#3430467)
.
   3. oldjacket Posted: January 07, 2010 at 06:49 AM (#3430494)
Jonathan Sanchez is MIA.
   4. Flynn Posted: January 07, 2010 at 06:49 AM (#3430495)
I am extremely pessimistic about the '10 Giants. I suspect we are in for a nasty regression as the pitching proves to be not as good as last year (though still good) while the hitting stays the same.
   5. Banta Posted: January 07, 2010 at 06:59 AM (#3430500)
At least fix the typo if we aren't allowed to joke about it.

PC strikes again. It's a ####### double standard that doesn't help anyone. It draws more attention to the perceived difference.

I do apologize for distracting the thread, however. This will be my final post on the subject. It can be redacted as well, as I'm only really interested in addressing the person who deleted my post.
   6.     Hey Gurl Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:03 AM (#3430504)
Banta, it probably has something to do with:

These projections were sponsored in part by:


Advertisers can be picky about what kind of content is in pages with their ads. Part of the reason we're not supposed to swear here.
   7. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:06 AM (#3430506)
Oops! Sanchez will be there. The comps will no doubt elicit a reaction.
   8. Banta Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:06 AM (#3430507)
Oddly enough, Shock, that makes me feel better. I get it now, it's like we're on primetime network TV!

And to say something on topic, Lincecum's year projection is pretty ridiculous. I wonder how much it will improve his career projection if he hits it.
   9. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:13 AM (#3430511)
Dan, this is a great chance for an instructive explanation on ZIPS. How is it that Jonathan Sanchez has a fantastically stellar set of comps (far better than Lincecum)? Is it suggesting that Sanchez has the skill set to be a late-blooming ace? If so, then what's up with the career projection?

As Denzel Washington's lawyer character said in Philadelphia, "Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old."
   10. davekemp Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:28 AM (#3430518)
You could fill out a starting lineup with one star (129 OPS+), four average hitters (100-104 OPS+), one player with upside (95 OPS+) and two middle infielders (90-92 OPS+).

So...you have 8 hitters that "average" OPS+ just a shade above 100. Granted, I'm not factoring in defense or looking at bench. But that's not a horrible place to start from if you buy into ZIPS, regardless of how you got here.
   11.     Hey Gurl Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:31 AM (#3430520)
Not Dan, but it's comparing players at their various ages. Johnson through age 26 had very similar stats to Sanchez:

RJ: 406 IP, 349 K, 223 BB, 98 ERA+
JS: 413 IP, 429 K, 214 BB, 96 ERA+

Langston's first good season wasn't until he was 26, and of course we all know about Koufax (though that comp still seems odd.)

He's compared to lefties that were mediocre at a young age but struck out lots of guys and walked lots of guys. Lincecum is compared to guys that were awesome at that age. The fact that the latter comps wound up being better is probably a funny coincidence.
   12. RollingWave Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:39 AM (#3430523)
or is it... Lanky explosive righty pitchers who were awesome right off the bat ... what's a good comp that lasted a long time? (then again, Jose Rijos wasn't very good right off the bat, but he was pushed into the majors in his teens)
   13. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:11 AM (#3430528)
You could fill out a starting lineup with one star (129 OPS+), four average hitters (100-104 OPS+), one player with upside (95 OPS+) and two middle infielders (90-92 OPS+).

Well, John Bowker, listed as one of your 'average' hitters, is out. He's a converted first baseman that is so far from playing an adequate LF that it's comical that he even got a CF rating. I'm not familiar with what's inside the ZIPS box but I presume that the system oversells him by dint of being unaware that he's been a strict platoon player in MLB - to the tune of 90%+ of his career PA's coming with the platoon advantage.

That being said, I suppose that the following might not be the worst offense in the NL next season:
CF Rowand
2B Sanchez
LF Lewis
1B Sandoval
3B DeRosa
RF Schierholtz
SS Renteria
C Posey

While bearing in mind that of the listed 8 hitters (as well as everybody else with any shot of making the team), only 2 players are projected for more than 500 ABs (Sandoval (rightly) and Sanchez, with 506). Color me unoptimistic about Fred Lewis' chances of exceeding a 100 OPS+ or getting 400 ABs. Every single one of these guys (excepting Sandoval) is either a late-20's "prospect" or a regular on the wrong side of 30 - in other words, a strong candidate to decline. There's not a single Giants hitter who'd make me want to take the over on the ZIPS OPS projection. And beyond that (poor) lineup, Uribe's a worthwhile backup, and I think Ishikawa merits a roster spot, but it gets pretty incredibly ugly down the bench.
   14. Murderfish Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:48 AM (#3430532)
Yet another stupid comment from "Shock." When will this guy learn to shut up?
   15. tropicofcancer Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:51 AM (#3430533)
Explain Runzler's projection cuz it makes zero sense
   16. giantsrainman Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:02 AM (#3430534)
Minor point, if you are going to include Bengie Molina, Ryan Garko, Rich Aurilia, and Steve Holm because the Giants were their last team and they are currently unsigned free agents why did you then not include Randy Winn?
   17. Bhaakon Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:05 AM (#3430535)
Well, John Bowker, listed as one of your 'average' hitters, is out. He's a converted first baseman that is so far from playing an adequate LF that it's comical that he even got a CF rating.


Bowker is not a "converted firstbaseman," he's a career outfielder who was forced to play first base (poorly) because Lewis and Winn were playing well and the team was grasping at straws to help the offense. Also, Bowker has actually player center field as a professional (24 AA games in 2007), which is probably where the projection is coming from.
   18. giantsrainman Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:09 AM (#3430536)
Tropicofcancer:

Just swap Dan Runzler's projection with Alex Hinshaw's and then they both will actually make sense. By the way Eugene Espineli's projection is the one that makes the least sense of all. The guy has crapped out of baseball and sucked in his very limited time in the majors.
   19. OCF Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:15 AM (#3430537)
Bowker is not a "converted firstbaseman," he's a career outfielder

In NCAA ball, Bowker played LF, strictly. He was also something like the third-to-fifth best hitter on the team, behind (at least) Troy Tulowitzki and the actual best hitter on that team, Jason Vargas.
   20. Tuque Posted: January 07, 2010 at 11:18 AM (#3430545)
Lincecum's comparables are pretty terrifying, I have to say.
   21. Boxkutter Posted: January 07, 2010 at 11:57 AM (#3430550)
Explain Runzler's projection cuz it makes zero sense


My buddy just drafted Runzler in our dynasty DMB sim league, he is not going to be very happy when he sees these numbers since he planned on Runzler being a major part of his bullpen in 2010.
   22. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 07, 2010 at 12:36 PM (#3430552)
- I should have had Winn.

- Bowker played a bunch of games there in 2007.

- Runzler was absolutely horrible before 2009 and most of his play in 2009 and 80% of that play was as a 24-year-old in A-ball.

- Espineli has been usable since becoming full-time reliever. If 16 IP of 87 ERA+ eliminated you from future use, then you're going to be chopping off a crapload of usable relievers.

- Swapping Hinshaw and Runzler only makes sense if you think things such as level of play, age, sample size, and prior history are irrelevant.

- Bowker's had such little playing time in the majors that the platoon splits have absolutely jack-#### predictive value. The ideal split for predicting Bowker's platoon splits, if you only had major league data is 97% generic, 3% actual. His splits in the minors were normal.

- ZiPS sees Sanchez as super-risky, but his top comps are sort of fun. As one might imagine, the rest of the list is significantly worse (and thus, the projections are considerably worse), but it was crazy to see Sanchez have 2 of the best starters of all-time in the top 3 and 2 guys traded for each other.
   23. xanthan Posted: January 07, 2010 at 02:34 PM (#3430594)
Love the numbers, Dan. I've been waiting anxiously to see them.

A semi-OT Q: Mind running Adam LaRoche's projection for us? He's been linked to the Giants this offseason and I'm not sure there is a big difference between him and Garko.
   24. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 07, 2010 at 02:55 PM (#3430601)

And to say something on topic, Lincecum's year projection is pretty ridiculous. I wonder how much it will improve his career projection if he hits it.


ZiPS has always loved Lincecum. Had him at 10-5, 3.28 going into 2008. I was actually quite a bit anxious at the time, as I was projecting a player with limited major league time to be 4th in baseball in ERA:


2008

Pitcher ERA
Peavy 2.99
Webb 3.01
Santana 3.04
Lincecum 3.28


I didn't do a 2007 projection (I felt I could get away with not doing one), but even that would've been a 3.71.
   25. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 07, 2010 at 03:29 PM (#3430622)
Thomas Neal will also appear on the final disk. I have his projection as 257/336/402. I imagine the internet statnerd crowd would like to see him more (the McCovey Chronicles Boys in particular want to see him beat Velez), but the California League is a really easy place to hit and high-A, so Neal would likely have a very big adjustment if he became a major leaguer all season.
   26. xanthan Posted: January 07, 2010 at 03:35 PM (#3430627)
McCovey Chronicles Boys in particular want to see him beat Velez


...with a shovel.
   27. giantsrainman Posted: January 07, 2010 at 03:38 PM (#3430633)
Dan,

You system missed Pablo Sandoval's breakout in 2008 and thus way under forecasted him for 2009. Your system is again under forecasting him in 2010 as there is just no good reason to expect him to not continue to get better. Last year his OPS+ was 142 and it is heading north and is not going to drop to 129. In my view Miguel Cabrera is the best comp for the Panda.

Likewise you are missing Dan Runzler's breakout in 2009 and thus are way under forecasting him for 2010. I was right last year on Panda and I am going to right again this year on Runzler.
   28. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 07, 2010 at 03:51 PM (#3430648)
You're overrating the effect of breakouts.

If breakouts for young players were that much more significant, then the weighting that is the most accurate would weight the most recent season far more than it does. Recent years are more important for younger players, but not to the degree that you can just throw out the second season prior, which is what you have to do to project Runzler as an awesome pitcher.

The majority of Runzler's breakout was as an A-ball repeater that was way too old for the league. He's pitched all of 20-some innings at age-appropriate competition. If your model isn't wary of situations like this, your model isn't taking uncertainty into account. You end up with Vaughn Eshelmans being All-Stars.

That the model didn't see Sandoval's eventual performance as the likeliest one doesn't make the assumptions incorrect - projections are realistically a range of probabilities, not a single number. (And conversely, a "correct" projection can actually be a bad one). There is no Calvinism in baseball.
   29. giantsrainman Posted: January 07, 2010 at 04:14 PM (#3430686)
I understand the risk of designing a system to make quicker calls on breakouts. But to me finding breakouts is what matters and there is just not much value to me in a system that can't. I think this also applies to detecting the beginning of serious decline. Perhaps it is not possible to design a system to detect these quickly enough or accurately enough but this is what I want from projections and until such a system exists I will continue to depend upon my eyeballs and judgment and the eyeballs and judgment of baseball professionals.
   30. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: January 07, 2010 at 04:21 PM (#3430700)
Well, you should use both stats and scouting and few (incl. Dan) would disagree with that. FWIW, I (as a non-Giants fan) think the Sandoval projection is pretty good.
***
Dan, will there be a write-up of the Uribe re-up? I think he's turned into an underrated player...
   31. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: January 07, 2010 at 05:42 PM (#3430795)
Okay, wrong on Bowker, I guess. I looked up his career fielding on b-r to confirm my memory but didn't look closely enough I guess. I'm surprised he's a career outfielder though, because he's really pretty bad at it.

Sorry if I offended you by implying that ZIPS wasn't perfect, Dan. Keep up the good work.
   32. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: January 07, 2010 at 06:19 PM (#3430872)
Echoing James. I am amazed that Sanchez has the comps he has, especially given that Lincecum's are markedly inferior (as are the rest of humanity's).
   33. oldjacket Posted: January 07, 2010 at 06:24 PM (#3430882)
Bowker was a pretty terrible defensive first basemen during his emergency trip there. Not sure why he should be considered a terrible defensive OF, though.
   34. jfish26101 Posted: January 07, 2010 at 06:28 PM (#3430890)
Does ZiPS take into account things like BABIP and LOB% with its projections? Variations of FIP/tRA? GB/FB and LD rates? Perhaps if I understood exactly what ZiPS uses to make it's projections, I'd better understand the projections that seem off to me.
   35. JPWF13 Posted: January 07, 2010 at 06:30 PM (#3430894)
Echoing James. I am amazed that Sanchez has the comps he has, especially given that Lincecum's are markedly inferior (as are the rest of humanity's).


Dan is to Sanchez what Sam M is to Ollie Perez.....

how close was Ollie to being a Sanchez comp?
   36. zenbitz Posted: January 07, 2010 at 06:54 PM (#3430943)
On behalf of McCovey Chronicles, I hereby apologize for giantsrainman. He doesn't really understand regression to the mean or the fact that some possibility of collapse will drag the best players predictions down, every time.

GRM - didn't you make predictions for many Giants for 2009? You could post them here comparing to Zips 2009.

(for the record, my projection for Sandoval 2010 is in the Matt Holliday thread here: .330/.370/.512 shockingly close to Zips!.. I drastically underestimated everyone else's walk rate but that's understandable)

Very interesting to note the defense projections here which indicate that Uribe is a better SS than Renteria and Sandoval is as good as DeRosa or Uribe at 3B.

Giants are certainly going to be unaffected by OF injuries. They have about 7 roughly interchangable parts (although only 2 decent CF... and one makes Rowand look like a decent hitter)
   37. rfloh Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:08 PM (#3430969)
29. giantsrainman Posted: January 07, 2010 at 10:14 AM (#3430686)
I understand the risk of designing a system to make quicker calls on breakouts. But to me finding breakouts is what matters and there is just not much value to me in a system that can't. I think this also applies to detecting the beginning of serious decline. Perhaps it is not possible to design a system to detect these quickly enough or accurately enough but this is what I want from projections and until such a system exists I will continue to depend upon my eyeballs and judgment and the eyeballs and judgment of baseball professionals.


A serious question, how many baseball professionals projected Panda's breakout? How many baseball professionals projected Panda to become anything close to being the player he has become?

How many baseball professionals are projecting Runzler to breakout?

I'm all for listening to what the pros, the coaches, the scouts, etc, have to say, the problem with a manichean choice of baseball professionals over ZiPS or any projection, is that the pros often aren't exactly unanimous in their judgement, nor are they necessarily more accurate. Also, the converse of a manichean choice of projection systems over the pros.
   38. oldjacket Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:11 PM (#3430972)
The scouts love Runzler according to Andrew Baggerly.
   39. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:17 PM (#3430975)
BP loved Sandoval as well.
   40. zenbitz Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:22 PM (#3430977)
There were plenty of folks saying about Sandoval that "he doesn't need plate discipline, he can hit anything - like Vlad". and "his lack of walks won't hurt him".

However, that is said about every high-average protostar who swings at everything.

To my knowledge, NO ONE predicted that Sandoval would adjust to pitches out of the strike zone by taking more walks. But his walk rate went from ~3% in 2008 to 8.3% in 2009. (minors walk rate ~5%)

Also, it more or less montonically increased during 2009. Zips expects it to be more like 6%.
   41. Alex_Lewis Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:40 PM (#3431001)
I love the name Ewell Blackwell. People just don't go for broke when naming their kids these days. It's all Tucker and Kymberly.
   42. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:43 PM (#3431003)
No it's not--it's DaTucker and LaKymberly.
   43. Alex_Lewis Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:44 PM (#3431004)
LaTrina is the worst name I've ever encountered.
   44. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:53 PM (#3431016)
It really looks like Sandoval's efforts to improve defensively paid off. His numbers were better than might have been expected (DeRosa's probably still better though).

On behalf of McCovey Chronicles, I hereby apologize for giantsrainman. He doesn't really understand regression to the mean or the fact that some possibility of collapse will drag the best players predictions down, every time.

That's OK. Even if he's not interested in the answer, many others less used to the vagaries of projection the future might be.

Also, LaRoche to SF is 277/352/494.
   45. Alex_Lewis Posted: January 07, 2010 at 07:59 PM (#3431025)
Also, LaRoche to SF is 277/352/494.


I'll take that! It's wrong, but I'll take it.
   46. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:02 PM (#3431028)
However, that is said about every high-average protostar who swings at everything.

In recent years, I'm thinking first of Jeff Francoeur 2005 and Corey Patterson 2003.

Both were highly prized prospects who scouts loved. Both had huge breakouts (age 21 and 23) as youngsters. Scout after scout, media figure after media figure, told us about these players were for real and they could get away with swinging at everything because they were special players.

Sandoval took his breakout and improved in every aspect. Most don't.
   47. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:03 PM (#3431029)
I'll take that! It's wrong, but I'll take it.

It's a 120 OPS+. His OPS+s in recent years are 123, 122, 109, 130, so it's not like ZiPS is being all that aggressive here.
   48. Alex_Lewis Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:05 PM (#3431033)
Sandoval took his breakout and improved in every aspect. Most don't.


Why is that, do you reckon? Talent? Desire? Sure *seems* like Pablo cares more than either Francouer or Patterson. Patterson often seemed half-asleep and Francouer, well, I think he's kind of dumb. That's totally subjective. Pablo seems neither dumb nor inattentive. Is it a matter of hand-eye coordination? I suppose it's impossible to know.
   49. Alex_Lewis Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:07 PM (#3431035)
It's a 120 OPS+. His OPS+s in recent years are 123, 122, 109, 130, so it's not like ZiPS is being all that aggressive here.


I know, it's logical. But I have a hard time believing that LaRoche will be putting too many balls in the Bay. Still, it's possible, and I'm all for it.
   50. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:12 PM (#3431042)
It's a 120 OPS+.


This is what gets me about the Red Sox trading LaRoche for Kotchman. To me that trade was a gross overpay, whether Kotchman fit in better as a backup or not.
   51. oldjacket Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:15 PM (#3431044)
Also, LaRoche to SF is 277/352/494


So slightly better than Garko, probably coupled with slightly better defense.
   52. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:17 PM (#3431047)

How many baseball professionals are projecting Runzler to breakout?
runzler is an absolutely awesome reliever. i don't disagree with the methodology that ZiPS uses to project his 2010, but in this case, he's better than that. if he halves his ERA projection, i would not at all be surprised.
   53. giantsrainman Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:20 PM (#3431049)
Zenbits:

I understand regression I just don't find it useful with regards to what I want from projections. I am interested in getting the most projections as close to right on as possible and am willing to live with the misses that happen due to collapse.
   54. Ron Johnson Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:20 PM (#3431050)
To pile on to Dan's point, a quick'n dirty study I did years ago showed that somewhere around 85% of young players having a "breakthrough" year regressed to something approaching career norms. Dan's almost certainly got a more nuanced take on this.

As for projection systems trying to pick out breakthrough players, that's how Gary Huckabay designed his (Vlad -- the fist projection system used by BP and around for a couple of years on RSB before that)

His system was in fact far better than any that I've ever seen at picking breakout player. But it wasn't actually a good projection system because it found reasons for optimism about an awful lot of players.

It also had the cute habit of trying to give Barry Bonds 900 plate appearances a year. A good idea of course but a tad tricky to manage.
   55. giantsrainman Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:30 PM (#3431066)
Zenbit:

With 2 notable exceptions (Sandoval and Lincecum) the rangels provided by the various projection systems provided the boundries for my projections with my judgment used to decide to go highend , lowend, or in the middle of these ranges. I think I ended up with as many high as low. Bow with both Panda and Franchise I projected both to exceed the high end of their projections and they both did.
   56. tropicofcancer Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:36 PM (#3431077)
Dan, have you ever played sports before?
   57. jfish26101 Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:37 PM (#3431079)
What kind of question is that? How is that relevant?
   58. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:44 PM (#3431090)
Through high school, though it would hardly matter if I didn't. When taking a cancer-fighting drug, do people demand to know if the chemist had cancer before? Evidence is evidence. Arguing on a basis of an appeal to authority is one of my most hated fallacious arguments and I hope that if I ever make one, someone punches me in the face.

Does ZiPS take into account things like BABIP and LOB% with its projections? Variations of FIP/tRA? GB/FB and LD rates?

BABIP yes. BABIP's been a big part since I started doing projections in 2002. I also use GB/FB/LD where available.

For ERA, I model the expected BABIP for the pitcher and then a variant of component ERA (so that hits are included). Actual ERA is contained as well, which varies depending on the sample size used (Component ERAs project actual ERA better than actual ERAs do, but a blend of mostly component and some actual does even better).
   59. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:47 PM (#3431099)

As for projection systems trying to pick out breakthrough players, that's how Gary Huckabay designed his (Vlad -- the fist projection system used by BP and around for a couple of years on RSB before that)


Modern projection systems do try to find breakouts, of course, we just communicate them in a different manner. For instance, the 13% chance of Sanchez having a 130 ERA+ or the 9% chance of Posey having a .375 OBP are in essence predicting breakouts.
   60. Bhaakon Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:49 PM (#3431105)
What kind of question is that? How is that relevant?


If Dan's a jock, then clearly we can't take his math seriously.
   61. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:50 PM (#3431107)
With both Panda and Franchise I projected both to exceed the high end of their projections and they both did.
Well, that's great but:
* your sample size is low (as described here, anyway). See if it happens again. And again. And again. And... - if it does, come back to us.
* while I'm criticizing your confidence, I'm not criticizing your methodology for a quick and dirty method. You're more invested in watching these players than the system - you should be able to add a little bit to the projection (see my earlier comment) if you're unbiased. [The brilliant Tom Tango has done some work on this front...] Projection systems, though, can cover a much broader territory than any individual...
   62. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:54 PM (#3431115)
So has any team ever non-tendered their 2nd best hitter before?
   63. zenbitz Posted: January 07, 2010 at 08:55 PM (#3431116)
grm who was the last player you projected to be worse than how he turned out.
   64. TOLAXOR Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:02 PM (#3431137)
WHY DO I KIND OF WISH THAT RANDY JOHNSON'S COMP WAS RANDY JOHNSON???!!
   65. Alex_Lewis Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:02 PM (#3431138)
grm who was the last player you projected to be worse than how he turned out.


He's a Burriss fan, isn't he?
   66. tropicofcancer Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:04 PM (#3431141)
Because you would you know that sometimes when something clicks, everything you've done in the past is washed away. Baseball (and sports in general) is so much mental, and when you begin to improve upon that aspect your natural talent can start to manifest itself in ways you never thought possible. When someone goes through five (5) levels with an ERA under 1 in every stop, I think you can accurately conclude that he's figured it out. I don't care how small the sample size is or what the past numbers have shown; the dude throws 96 from the left side with a filthy slider and NO ONE in professional baseball could touch him last year. How many guys have that repertoire in the majors today? Almost none. Then this dude--who never actually takes in a game but crunches numbers incessantly (many of which are useless)--tries to claim that he's going to be a below average relief pitcher next year. This matters because some of us are in sim leagues in which we're forced to use this piece of sh!t projection system. And yes, people complain about it on a regular basis. So watch a game, use some common sense, and I hope you quit doing this when Runzler becomes a dominant force for years to come
   67. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:10 PM (#3431149)
Because you would you know that sometimes when something clicks, everything you've done in the past is washed away.

And if that, in fact, was true for major leaguers, then it would show up in the results. In the world of MLB reality, when something suddenly clicks, most players regress back to where it was before.

I don't care how small the sample size is or what the past numbers have shown;

That's not an argument, that's evidence that you're an idiot.

This matters because some of is are in sim leagues in which we're forced to use this piece of #### projection system.

I'm sorry that the projection systems (PECOTA, ZiPS, CHONE) attempt to project reality, not your arbitrary fantasies. Or goal is to be accurate, not please the rubes (and from the cogent arguments you present, rube would be a very kind dig).

Maybe you guys should switch and get CHONE projection disk from SG (oh, wait, Sean is in on the Get Runzler Conspiracy by projecting him to have a 4.85 ERA). Or maybe get together with the other owners in your league and make the What We Want Players We Like To Be Projected At disk and be confused when 80 starters are projected to have an ERA under 4 and 60 guys are going to hit 30 home runs.
   68. Alex_Lewis Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:13 PM (#3431153)
Because you would you know that sometimes when something clicks, everything you've done in the past is washed away. Baseball (and sports in general) is so much mental, and when you begin to improve upon that aspect your natural talent can start to manifest itself in ways you never thought possible. When someone goes through five (5) levels with an ERA under 1 in every stop, I think you can accurately conclude that he's figured it out. I don't care how small the sample size is or what the past numbers have shown; the dude throws 96 from the left side with a filthy slider and NO ONE in professional baseball could touch him last year. How many guys have that repertoire in the majors today? Almost none. Then this dude--who never actually takes in a game but crunches numbers incessantly (many of which are useless)--tries to claim that he's going to be a below average relief pitcher next year. This matters because some of us are in sim leagues in which we're forced to use this piece of sh!t projection system. And yes, people complain about it on a regular basis. So watch a game, use some common sense, and I hope you quit doing this when Runzler becomes a dominant force for years to come


And I thought *I* liked Dan Runzler...
   69. tropicofcancer Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:16 PM (#3431160)
What happened to the DMB projection system? That was the only realistic one, viz., because it accounted for breakouts and gave people the benefit of the doubt rather than sh!tting all over them for no apparent reason. Runzler's minor league numbers: 133 IP, 84 H, 177 Ks., 2.37 ERA. 5.7 H/9. 12.0 K/9. Those numbers can only be described as.....pure filth. End of story. You fvcked up.
   70. Zoppity Zoop Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:18 PM (#3431167)
Dan's been extremely generous putting up with your nonsense. I would strongly urge you to either put together an argument and stop acting like a whiny little 5-year-old or bugger off.
   71. giantsrainman Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:24 PM (#3431176)
Zenbit:

A large piece of the Giants pitching staff last year including Zito, Wilson, Affeldt, Howry, Medders, and Miller. I also under forcasted Sandoval even though I exceeded all of the projection systems. This year I see Panda reaching .400 wOBA.
   72. tropicofcancer Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:25 PM (#3431177)
Hahah who the hell are you? And I'd say that an argument displaying ridiculous minor league numbers such as those is more than sufficient.
   73. jfish26101 Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:25 PM (#3431178)
Haha, and you thought I was bad Dan?
   74. Posada Posse Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:26 PM (#3431181)
What happened to the DMB projection system? That was the only realistic one, viz., because it accounted for breakouts and gave people the benefit of the doubt rather than sh!tting all over them for no apparent reason. Runzler's minor league numbers: 133 IP, 84 H, 177 Ks., 2.37 ERA. 5.7 H/9. 12.0 K/9. Those numbers can only be described as.....pure filth. End of story.


Er, you forgot to mention the decidedly unfilthy 4.9 BB/9.
   75. oldjacket Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:27 PM (#3431183)
LOL at TOC.

"How dare you nerds have opinions about baseball!"

Seriously, if you don't like the projection, ignore it and love Runzler in a manly fashion anyway. You just got mad at an algorithm.
   76. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:37 PM (#3431198)
But I have a hard time believing that LaRoche will be putting too many balls in the Bay.


If it's any consolation, he'll probably put 3/4 of them there in the space of two or three weeks.
   77. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:39 PM (#3431203)
What happened to the DMB projection system? That was the only realistic one, viz., because it accounted for breakouts and gave people the benefit of the doubt rather than sh!tting all over them for no apparent reason. Runzler's minor league numbers: 133 IP, 84 H, 177 Ks., 2.37 ERA. 5.7 H/9. 12.0 K/9. Those numbers can only be described as.....pure filth. End of story. You fvcked up.

Are you really going to crow about how a 24 year old dominated A-ball on his second go round?

The guy walks the ballpark. If you had a dollar for every flame-thrower who couldn't find the plate that imploded when they reached MLB you'd be a very rich man.
   78. Cris E Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:42 PM (#3431207)
Because you would you know that sometimes when something clicks, everything you've done in the past is washed away.

The trouble with throwing out everything before the "click" and moving ahead is that those numbers are what got the guy into pro ball. They're going to be pretty good, reflecting the fact that he was good enough to sign and promote to whatever spot he was standing when the clouds parted. Also, the click is usually a lot more drawn out than that, maybe more of a long grating sound or a Vincent Price hinge creak that lasts a few months. Oh, and you'll need to produce an example or three that didn't involve the addition of 3" to the bicep by cutting back on pizza.

At any rate, this is silly: if you want to talk about a click that destroys everything that came before it then you should start reading up on arm injuries.
   79. The Essex Snead Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:51 PM (#3431215)
[77] Maybe if he had those dollars he'd be able to create his own magical projection system, full of chocolate gumdrops and licorice dildos and superstar journeymen bird-killing flamethrowers that crap cancer-curing thunder.
   80. giantsrainman Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:52 PM (#3431219)
Zenbit:

On the flip side (again having kept my projections within the range of the projection systems I overestimated Winn, Renteria, Aurilia, Ishikawa, Burriss, Frandsen, Schierholtz, and Bowker. I was pretty close on Timmy, Matty, Dirty, Molina, Rowand, and Velez. Now that I think about It I underforecasted Uribe and Torres as did any and every one I know. If I had not let the projection systems and my heart influence me I would have never gone as high as I did on Ishikawa, Burriss, Frandsen, Schierholtz, and Bowker. My eyes and judgement told me they were not ready to perform at the MLB level like their MLE's and or SSS MLB's would indicate but I let the projection systems and my heart lead me a stray. I did indeed just flat out miss the decline in Winn, Renteria, and Aurilia but I was hardly alone in this.
   81. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 07, 2010 at 09:54 PM (#3431223)
Maybe if he had those dollars he'd be able to create his own magical projection system, full of chocolate gumdrops and licorice dildos and superstar journeymen bird-killing flamethrowers that crap cancer-curing thunder.

It will also project Ben Zobrist to hit .313/.421/.657.

Also, licorice dildos!
   82. Tripon Posted: January 07, 2010 at 10:00 PM (#3431233)
Its a projection system, not a wish casting system.
   83. jfish26101 Posted: January 07, 2010 at 10:01 PM (#3431235)
Being shitty and sarcastic right back just makes you all seem no better then they are. Perhaps that Zobrist comment was in reference to me? Funny how some of you can't let things die down or take them for face value. I'll still take the over on that projection and I never even hinted his numbers would be that good which is just another case of you being just as ridiculous as the guys telling Dan he ***** up or that if he played sports, he would understand. At least I tried to be civil, to bad I didn't get the same treatment for long.
   84. giantsrainman Posted: January 07, 2010 at 10:04 PM (#3431240)
Zenbitz:

To be complete I overestimated Randy Johnson as I like everyone else I know wasn't expecting almost 2 HRs per 9 innings.
   85. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: January 07, 2010 at 10:12 PM (#3431244)
is it possible to get a projection for brock bond? it's not a huge thing, i don't think, but the guy did hit .330 in AA last year with a 69/67 K/BB ratio.
   86. oldjacket Posted: January 07, 2010 at 10:21 PM (#3431254)
I second the Brock Bond request. For one thing, I would just like to see how a minor leaguer with such a high OBP and no power or speed projects in the majors.
   87. xanthan Posted: January 07, 2010 at 10:24 PM (#3431261)
oldjacket,

I'll go out on a limb and say not well
   88. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 07, 2010 at 10:28 PM (#3431269)
Perhaps that Zobrist comment was in reference to me?

jfish, I apologize. I didn't mean to offend you - it was meant as a joke. I probably should have thrown in a ;-) after it to let you know that.
   89. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: January 07, 2010 at 10:36 PM (#3431280)
licorice dildos


Warn me when you're going to write something like that while I'm at work in a quiet office.

TOC, are you the same guy who argued that Carlos Peguero should be on Goldstein's Top 11 List (despite Peguero's 172 K's in 544 PA in High-A) because, hey, Mark Reynolds did it? It wouldn't surprise me at all.
   90. jfish26101 Posted: January 07, 2010 at 10:37 PM (#3431283)
By the way, thanks for the reply Dan, missed it earlier. I was asking because of Cain, his BABIP, BA against, and LOB% all are well above the average and his Ks have fallen a good bit over the past couple of years. Going off his FIP/tRA, along with the above numbers, he looks like someone who might regress some. At 25, he is young enough to go the other direction but it seems like he was awfully lucky last year. You obviously didn't project him to have a year as good as the one he just had but you rarely due when players excel. That Lincecum projection is pretty filthy but you knocked Greinke a good bit (63 points of ERA+) for past performance I suppose? Curious what Pujols will get after back to back 180+ OPS+ seasons.

Lincecum/Pujols have longer track records, I suppose you can argue Cain has a longer track record than Greinke to get the benefit of doubt despite those high FIP/tRA numbers but I just have a hard time understand how these things add up. At least with the Zobrist argument we had, part of my side was scouting reports and improvements in his hitting approach. If it's purely numbers based, Cain looks to me like someone who should regress.
   91. oldjacket Posted: January 07, 2010 at 10:43 PM (#3431296)
Hopefully this limb can support us both.

There's just no reason why an mlb pitcher wouldn't just challenge a guy like Bond.
   92. JPWF13 Posted: January 07, 2010 at 10:44 PM (#3431299)
And I thought *I* liked Dan Runzler...


It's like Sam talking about Ollie Perez, or how some deluded Mets fanboys talked about Parnell earlier this year

come back to me when Runzler can get his walks under control
   93. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 07, 2010 at 10:52 PM (#3431318)
Sam talking about Ollie Perez

Do you mean Howard? Or do you mean Daniel Murphy? Or did I miss something?
   94. JPWF13 Posted: January 07, 2010 at 11:01 PM (#3431330)
133 IP, 84 H, 177 Ks., 2.37 ERA. 5.7 H/9. 12.0 K/9. Those numbers can only be described as......


not as good as Ian Kennedy
you also forgot his 4.87 bb/9

generally speaking coming to the MLB:
1: That k/89 will go down
2: that bb/9 will go up
3: That BABIP will gravitate to league average
4: that HR/9 will go up

We are talking about a guy with all of 20 innings AA and above who is 24.
There were 16 guys in the Cal league last year with more than 10 k/9 (45+ ip)
9 in the FSL One guy had 14/9

He's walked way too many batters for someone whose seen mostly A ball guys
He's walked 12 in 20 AA/AAA/MLB innings

Another active lefty with filthy stuff at age 22, threw 198 MLB innings, with 239 Ks, and an ERA+ of 145, and his control was not as bad as Runzlers in the minors, but its eaten him alive in the majors.

So again, come back to me when he controls the strike zone
   95. JPWF13 Posted: January 07, 2010 at 11:10 PM (#3431338)
Do you mean Howard?


My bad, Megdal talking about Ollie

is it possible to get a projection for brock bond? it's not a huge thing, i don't think, but the guy did hit .330 in AA last year with a 69/67 K/BB ratio.


I think most projection systems kill these guys

I'd guess his projection would look a lot like Thole's: .273/.335/.360
   96. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 07, 2010 at 11:49 PM (#3431396)
Haha, and you thought I was bad Dan?

Heh, you're not bad. I think you're wrong at times, but you're certainly not an ####### about it.
   97. Steve Phillips' Hot Cougar (DrStankus) Posted: January 07, 2010 at 11:59 PM (#3431405)
licorice dildos


Which flavor?

Also, twizzlers suck.
   98. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: January 08, 2010 at 12:04 AM (#3431410)

Also, twizzlers suck.
well, yeah. they're not meant for insertion.
   99. Sam M. Posted: January 08, 2010 at 12:05 AM (#3431411)
It's like Sam talking about Ollie Perez

Do you mean Howard?

My bad, Megdal talking about Ollie


I'm glad someone rose to my defense here! Thanks, Joe! Just for the record: I haven't given up all hope that Ollie can turn in a decent season or two at some point, but that's about it: some bit of hope, for decent performance.

The less said about the whole Daniel Murphy thing, the better . . . .
   100. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 08, 2010 at 12:08 AM (#3431413)
Bond's added to the disk - he'll be 265/344/334 for an OPS+ of 80. OPS+ percentages:

160+ - 1 in 21,772,426
140+ - 1 in 14,964
130+ - 1 in 918
120+ - 1 in 249
110+ - 1%
100+ - 5%
90+ - 19%
80+ - 53%
60+ - 86%

ZiPS reports a lot of wacky things. Bond's odds of hitting 60 home runs in 2010:

1 in 1,751,072,931,543,390

Essentially, these are about the odds that a pandemic kills every male between 8 and 80 with the exception of Bond, whose genetic makeup protects him from the disease and MLB decides to go on with the season, consisting of Bond and 800 of the finest 8-year-olds in little league.

Of course, this scenario is preposterous; Dan Runzler would no doubt find a cure.
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
Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9637 seconds
47 querie(s) executed