Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Friday, January 05, 2007

Arizona - Acquired the Big Unit

Arizona Diamondbacks - Acquired P Randy Johnson from the New York Yankees for P Luis Vizcaino, SS Alberto Gonzalez, P Ross Ohlendorf, and P Steven Jackson.

Kind of a win-win for both teams, but I do think Arizona’s getting the better end of the deal.  A lot of people (including just about every Yankee fan) disagrees with me, but I think that if he’s healthy, Johnson will be just fine.  Nobody sustains as odd a windup/stretch split as the Unit had in 2006:

Bases Empty: 206/271/324
RISP: 348/399/608

Backs are always iffy, but Johnson’s back has been a problem going back more than a decade - the guy can still pitch and there’s nothing wrong with simply being as good as he was in 2005.  The “such-and-such season is almost never done at 43 or 44” is a bogus argument - Johnson’s an unusual, special, Hall-of-Fame pitcher, a better pitcher than Nolan Ryan.  There’s no magic Gambler’s Fallacy God that strikes down 42 or 43-year-olds that are still good pitchers.  Most guys going into their age-43 season don’t have peripherals as good as Johnson and most guys going into their age-43 season weren’t the best pitchers all-time at ages 38 and 40 and top 10 all-time when 41.

The Yankees, however, didn’t clearly want the drama and used to opportunity to pick up some organizational depth.  I can’t blame them because when you’re spending a fifth of a billion in payroll, you don’t want to deal with any rotation surprises.

There are no top prospects here and all 3 of the prospects, while they would rank higher on the list of practically every other organization in baseball, were just barely in Sickels’ top 20 Arizona prospect list.  The Diamondbacks can deal these players without even sweating the prospect depth.  A team in their position should be willing to gamble as they don’t have many huge salary commitments and we’re talking about a deserving, slam-dunk Hall of Famer who shouldn’t be quite done yet.  I’d rather have Unit than Gil Meche or Vicente Padilla and $5 million the next few years.  By the time Arizona has to pay big money to their impressive stable of youngsters, Johnson will be retired and his contract mostly off the books, depending on what goofy deferred scheme Arizona does with Johnson (I think Matt Williams and Mark Grace are owed money through the year 2600 or something).

2007 ZiPS Projections
——————————————————————————————-
Player     W   L   G GS   IP   H   ER HR BB SO   ERA
——————————————————————————————-
Jackson   7 10 26 26 168 206 107 26 59 72 5.73
Johnson   17 10 33 33 216 195   87 28 57 206 3.63
Ohlendorf   6 13 28 27 183 221 113 30 47 86 5.56
Vizcaino   4   6 68   0   66   66   35   9 28 56 4.77  
——————————————————————————————-

 

2007 ZiPS Projections
———————————————————————————————————
Player     AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB   BA   OBP   SLG
———————————————————————————————————
Gonzalez   463 60 115 20 2   4 45 35 45   2 .248 .308 .326
———————————————————————————————————

Dan Szymborski Posted: January 05, 2007 at 02:34 PM | 304 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 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. MSI Posted: January 05, 2007 at 04:48 PM (#2274738)
Yes I have to believe that if the back surgery was anything more than relatively minor and he couldn't pitch, there wouldn't be a bru ha ha trying to get him. He will also go back to the National League. But I know what it's like when a team becomes disapointed with a player and the management and fans just don't want him anymore. I guess the Yankees get salary relief and organizational depth (I don't think any of those players, save for maybe Ohlendorf, will make it to the Yankees for a few relief innings in a few years from now). But I think it weakens the Yankees chances next year, pray they don't get Clemens. 200 innings is subtly a lot to kick the can on, and I agree that Wang has to come down sometime. Mussina had a great year last year, will he do it again? Pettite I'm sure will be fine, and Igawa good at first but not in the long run. Pavano: ? Their pen seems a lot stronger and they have Hughes and some other young'uns coming up. So they don't even need Clemens.
   2. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: January 05, 2007 at 04:52 PM (#2274743)
It might be helpful with regard to interpreting the ZiPS projections if there were a column for the player's age. Not sure if it's doable, though. Just sayin'.
   3. Bwef Posted: January 05, 2007 at 04:59 PM (#2274751)
Has anyone considered the possibility that the Yankees are interested in Mulder? They have had a tendency to sweep in after the bidding has slowed and grab a top FA. Waiting on Clemens seems to speculative for the Yankees to wait on. He might not come back at all (ha, ha). He might go back to the accomodating Astros, especially if they get off to a decent start and show a little more offense.
   4. bibigon Posted: January 05, 2007 at 05:04 PM (#2274758)
If the ZiPS projections from Vizcaino and Johnson are on target, then this is going to be a great season.
   5. AROM Posted: January 05, 2007 at 05:09 PM (#2274763)
I wouldn't pay more than 1-2 mil plus an option on Mulder. If other teams want to take the gamble, that's fine, but I think he's the next Steve Avery. Put a fork in him.

As is, the Yankees don't need to sign a stopgap. Seems like they have 5-6 decent minor league options including Ohlendorf now. They can put Pavano in the #5 spot if he's able to pitch, and if somebody doesn't step up and claim the spot by mid season, they can call up Hughes if he's on track or make a trade - they have the minor league depth now to get whoever is the best mid year option.

But they'll probably sign Roger. Its seems that's been the plan all along. They want a high priced, 44 year old future HOF in the rotation. But not Johnson, so there's only 1 other option.
   6. PooNani Posted: January 05, 2007 at 05:19 PM (#2274777)
as extreme as the split is, theres plenty of reason to think its not a fluke and merely due to age/his back. and if one is to look at the runners on split and expect it to drop dramatically, how about the .239 BABIP with bases empty?

anyway im just glad i wont have to watch him pitch again
   7. bibigon Posted: January 05, 2007 at 05:26 PM (#2274783)
as extreme as the split is, theres plenty of reason to think its not a fluke and merely due to age/his back. and if one is to look at the runners on split and expect it to drop dramatically, how about the .239 BABIP with bases empty?


Wait, why does the extreme nature of the split indicate that it's due to age/injury? Has Johnson historically had a poor split which has been exacerbated now?

It's almost important to keep in mind that the two explanations aren't mutually exclusive - the most likely explanation I see that is that it's largely a fluke, but there is an element of talent to it as well.
   8. The Ghost's Tryin' to Reason with Hurricane Season Posted: January 05, 2007 at 05:40 PM (#2274799)
For a lot of teams, trading Randy would make sense, but I don't see the value for the Yankees. The money is nothing to them, and distraction is the name of the game there. I suppose Randy wanting out prominently played into it.
   9. catomi01 Posted: January 05, 2007 at 05:41 PM (#2274800)
im a yankee fan, and i'd rather have RJ than the package they got for them...really, it depends on how the money they saved gets spent...i'd be a big advocate of signing clemens in may/june...and then suddenly you have a rotation including him and hughes along with the others...i'd advocate signing weaver to fill in the gap between now and then so that no one has to count on pavano/rasner/proctor in the rotation, but thats a luxury they dont need, and there is no way jeff weaver will be broguht back to yankee stadium.
   10. AROM Posted: January 05, 2007 at 05:51 PM (#2274810)
I wonder if any pitcher has ever had a RSIP/bases empty split like Johnson and pitched a full season before. Johnson had a 5.00 ERA with outstanding peripherals. Seems like any lessor pitcher with a split like that would't make it through a season in the rotation.
   11. Cris E Posted: January 05, 2007 at 05:52 PM (#2274811)
Maybe they should sign Weaver for $10m and then imediately trade him (you'd need to talk this out in advance of course) to someone like PIT (along with a suitcase of cash) for someone they want. It would effectively be buying a player, but more interesting for armchair GMs.
   12. Cris E Posted: January 05, 2007 at 05:55 PM (#2274819)
That whole Runners On split of Johnson's smells like Hatteberg's Stolen Base Allowed % from back when he could catch but not throw. There had to be a reason for it that AZ feels can be fixed. I'm guessing NYY isn't so sanguine about that or they and Randy are ready to be apart regardless of his 07 status.
   13. Stately, Plump Buck Mulligan Posted: January 05, 2007 at 06:06 PM (#2274828)
"Johnson had a 5.00 ERA with outstanding peripherals. Seems like any lessor pitcher with a split like that would't make it through a season in the rotation."

It's funny how similar Johnson's '06 season was to Javier Vazquez's '06 season.

8.17 K/9 (Johnson: 7.55)

3.29 K/BB (Johnson: 2.87)

1.02 HR/9 (Johnson: 1.23)

4.84 ERA (Johnson: 5.00)

Opponents hit .230/.291/.358 against him with nobody on base, but .299/.353/.479 with men on. (Johnson: .206/.271/.324 with nobody on and .321/.363/.564 with runners aboard.)
   14. PooNani Posted: January 05, 2007 at 06:15 PM (#2274839)
doesn't seem like his teammates were a big fan of him either
   15. Hurdle's Heroes (SuperBaes) Posted: January 05, 2007 at 06:15 PM (#2274840)
Johnson 17 10 33 33 216 195 87 28 57 206 3.63

That's a HUGE ZIPS projection.
   16. greenback calls it soccer Posted: January 05, 2007 at 06:27 PM (#2274858)
I wonder if any pitcher has ever had a RSIP/bases empty split like Johnson and pitched a full season before.

Somebody on another board sent me looking for other geezers' splits and I couldn't find anything. OK, that's not very helpful.

With the luxury tax, this saves the Yankees somthing close to $20M for one season. That's a lot of money, even for the Yankees.
   17. frannyzoo Posted: January 05, 2007 at 07:48 PM (#2274946)
I'm just absolutely dreading the "we're getting the band back together" D'Back marketing campaign here in the Southwest. At least it won't involve the loathsome Thom Brennaman, as he will now be inflicted upon Reds fans when not spewing garbage on Fox.

Small consolation though...it's still gonna suck in that "Emmett Smith comes to the Desert" sort of way. As for the ZIPS, 200+ innings is very, very optimistic imho. Hell, he only had 205 innings last year and that was before the surgery and another half year of agedness. Not to mention all the times he'll be pulled in the 5th trailing 8-3.
   18. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: January 05, 2007 at 08:00 PM (#2274963)
What if the problem with pitching from the stretch wasn't his back, but his knee? It seems at least plausible that pitching from the stretch might cause him to land in a different manner from how he lands from the windup. And I didn't hear about any knee surgery this off-season.

At least Arizona is closer to Washington, so Big Gangly can be nearer to the illegitimate child he ignores. Family is important.
   19. Sam M. Posted: January 05, 2007 at 08:13 PM (#2274976)
His back only hurts when pitching from the stretch but is cool when the bases are empty?

It's not that. It's that his stuff crosses the line between effective and hittable when Johnson doesn't have the wind-up, and it is reasonable to speculate that this may be related to his back problems. There may well have been something physical that prevented him from getting the necessary movement and/or velocity on his pitches when he wasn't able to wind up. Granted, it's just speculation, but why just assume luck when (a) the split is so extreme, and (b) it isn't an irrational thought in the first place to suppose that "stuff" is affected by pitching from the streth and by a bad back, and thus that the combination of the two might be especially problematic for a pitcher like Johnson.

So the thing is, his back hurt whether he pitched from the stretch or not. But if he could use the full wind-up, he could overcome the pain and get something resembling his old-fashioned stuff on the ball.

Or it could be the knee. Or he could just be in a free fall to mediocrity, and the stretch in 2006 is just a leading indicator of what he's gonna be like soon all the time. Personally, that's where my money is.
   20. Josh Posted: January 05, 2007 at 08:19 PM (#2274978)
He had the same SO rate with men on base as with men off, and only a small bump in BB rate. That makes me think that his stuff wasn't particularly different - though it clearly isn't conclusive.
   21. Steve Treder Posted: January 05, 2007 at 08:21 PM (#2274980)
Or he could just be in a free fall to mediocrity, and the stretch in 2006 is just a leading indicator of what he's gonna be like soon all the time. Personally, that's where my money is.

Mine too. I'm not buying that 2007 projection. Yes, The Big Unit is a special case, but 43 years old is 43 years old, and there is a point at which every athlete's physical problems finally reach critical mass and he declines, and/or hurts so bad he's unable to play very often.

It isn't a question of whether this will happen to RJ, only when. Yes, it might not happen in 2007, but there is a lot of reason to suspect that it might. I sure as hell wouldn't bet $16 million, a serviceable reliever, and a handful of prospects, even Grade B prospects, on it not happening in '07.
   22. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: January 05, 2007 at 08:23 PM (#2274983)
He had the same SO rate with men on base as with men off, and only a small bump in BB rate. That makes me think that his stuff wasn't particularly different - though it clearly isn't conclusive.

Since he was giving up so many more baserunners with runners on, doesn't that mean he was striking out a significantly smaller percentage of batters faced than he was with the bases empty?
   23. 1k5v3L Posted: January 05, 2007 at 08:32 PM (#2274991)
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=119

Now, those sorts of splits aren’t always about luck. There could be something about pitching out of the stretch that is driving that discrepancy, perhaps something related to Johnson’s balky back or his heavy use of his slider. But let’s take a deeper look at the numbers:

* Johnson struck out 20.6% of batters with the bases empty, and 19.8% with someone on base. Not much difference there.
* He yielded an unintentional walk to 7.1% of batters with the bases empty, and 9.9% with the bases occupied. That difference is a little more substantial, but it’s also a natural adaptation that a lot of veteran pitchers like Tom Glavine make: there’s more incentive to challenge a hitter when there’s nobody on base, leading to comparatively lower walk rates.
* Johnson’s BABIP with the bases empty was .239. With runners on, it was .369. This is almost certainly a matter of luck.
* So perhaps the big difference is that Johnson was getting hit up for extra bases more often with runners on base? Well, this is true: his home run rate was nearly twice as high with runners on (4.6%) than with the bases empty (2.5%). But the funny thing is that Johnson was actually doing a better job of keeping the ball on the ground with runners on. His groundout-to-airout ratio was 1.09 in those situatuons, as opposed to 0.78 with the bases empty. In other words, more bad luck.

I’ve got news for you: the Yankees might not be trading their #4; they might be trading their #1. Johnson’s ERA PECOTAs out at 3.52, which is the best in the Yankee rotation by some margin. You can take that PECOTA with a certain grain of salt because it’s so hard to find appropriate comparables for Johnson. But the names that PECOTA does come up with — Roger Clemens foremost among them — are a reminder that you shouldn’t bet against a great pitcher until you absolutely have to.
   24. Josh Posted: January 05, 2007 at 08:32 PM (#2274992)
Since he was giving up so many more baserunners with runners on, doesn't that mean he was striking out a significantly smaller percentage of batters faced than he was with the bases empty?
It was on a per batter faced basis - about 20% either way.

Interestingly, or not, his xbh% (as a % of hits) goes wildly up (including a marked increase in HRs) with men on, all in addition to his babip.

I've no idea how to interpret this, fwiw. When he was hit he was hit hard - but he wasn't hit particularly more often with men on.
   25. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: January 05, 2007 at 08:33 PM (#2274994)
It was on a per batter faced basis - about 20% either way.

Ah, that wasn't clear.

I've no idea how to interpret this, fwiw. When he was hit he was hit hard - but he wasn't hit particularly more often with men on.

He was hanging up a lot of meatballs. That's all I can tell you.
   26. Josh Posted: January 05, 2007 at 08:34 PM (#2274995)
Bah - Silver did the same analysis. I generally don't like attempting anything original. Besides laziness, I rarely attempt to explain things as well.
   27. Mike Green Posted: January 05, 2007 at 11:14 PM (#2275087)
It seems to me that the ZIPS projection for Johnson's innings pitched is quite optimistic, given his health and age. Even Nolan Ryan had a greatly reduced workload at this age. The performance figures, on the other hand, look to be entirely reasonable bearing in mind the difference in the leagues. Is 170 innings of 3.7 ERA work worth $14 million plus a reliever and two Grade B prospects?

It all depends on how close a team is to winning. In the NL West, the Snakes look to be as good as anyone else but their long-term prospects appear even brighter than their chances in 2007. I would call the trade a gamble.
   28. J. Cross Posted: January 05, 2007 at 11:32 PM (#2275094)
Or he could just be in a free fall to mediocrity, and the stretch in 2006 is just a leading indicator of what he's gonna be like soon all the time. Personally, that's where my money is.

The "luck" hypothesis is far more likely and far less contrived. I think people just like to search for explanations even when a situation doesn't require one. It appeals to our sense of story telling and logic for everything to have a cause.
   29. J. Cross Posted: January 05, 2007 at 11:45 PM (#2275103)
btw, I think it's worth noting a common strategy in Arizona's pitching acquisitions. Each of Livan, Davis and Johnson are coming off a very disappointing season after past success. Davis and Livan probably aren't studs at this point but they're solid 3 and 4 starters. Webb, Johnson, Livan and Davis is a big rotation upgrade for a team that's rotation ran 1-deep last year.
   30. AROM Posted: January 05, 2007 at 11:47 PM (#2275105)
But the names that PECOTA does come up with — Roger Clemens foremost among them — are a reminder that you shouldn’t bet against a great pitcher until you absolutely have to.

Uh oh. The Yankees just traded possibly their best pitcher, a 43 year old comparable to Roger Clemens. What on earth could they possibly do to replace him?
   31. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 05, 2007 at 11:58 PM (#2275111)
The "luck" hypothesis is far more likely and far less contrived. I think people just like to search for explanations even when a situation doesn't require one. It appeals to our sense of story telling and logic for everything to have a cause.

Saying that he was unlucky in 2006 is *less* contrived than saying he was old, injured, and on the decline?
   32. J. Cross Posted: January 06, 2007 at 12:04 AM (#2275114)
Saying that he was unlucky in 2006 is *less* contrived than saying he was old, injured, and on the decline?

Indeed. It's contrived to say that his BABIP while pitching from the stretch is the "leading indicator" of his decline. BABIP while pitching from the stretch has never been known to be or shown to be an indicator of anything except bad luck.
   33. Steve Treder Posted: January 06, 2007 at 12:16 AM (#2275116)
BABIP while pitching from the stretch has never been known to be or shown to be an indicator of anything except bad luck.

Clearly true, in the general sense.

But this isn't the general sense we're dealing with here. It's a single, specific, particular player, for whom the specifics of his age and his physical health are manifestly relevant.

Obviously whatever component of his game caused The Big Unit's 2006 overall performance to be inferior to his prior standard might be attributable to simple misfortune, and therefore it's entirely possible that he'll bounce back to his prior standard in 2007. If this were a pitcher of typical age and health status, that would obviously be the prudent conclusion to draw.

But this is a guy entering his age-43 season with specific significant injury issues. To assume the most-likely scenario to be that his age-42 troubles were an aberration and that he'll be injury-free at age 43 just seems fanciful to me. Far more likely is that a bad moon is rising, and the troubles he encountered at age 42 were our first glimpse of it.
   34. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: January 06, 2007 at 12:19 AM (#2275117)
Did BPro just use PECOTA as a verb???? Ugh.
   35. 1k5v3L Posted: January 06, 2007 at 12:20 AM (#2275118)
A poster on SOSH plotted RJ's BABIP for his career and last 4 years in various situations:

Link to SOSH Thread, see post #133

RJ absolutely sucked with runners on 3B. It's unreal.
   36. J. Cross Posted: January 06, 2007 at 12:24 AM (#2275120)
To assume the most-likely scenario to be that his age-42 troubles were an aberration and that he'll be injury-free at age 43 just seems fanciful to me.

I wouldn't assume that he'll be injury free. I'm just saying that trying to force a connection between a high BABIP while pitching from the stretch and a back injury is real stretch. That doesn't mean that his K-rate won't plummet next year or that he won't fall down in the shower and not be able to get back up.
   37. 1k5v3L Posted: January 06, 2007 at 12:25 AM (#2275121)
Fwiw, I've spoken with a person who has knowledge of RJ's recovery from the surgery, and the report out is that RJ is feeling great; in fact, RJ's claiming he's feeling significantly better than he did after his back surgery with Seattle. He's supposed to start throwing around Jan. 15th, and the Dbacks are now cautiously optimistic that he'll be ready to start for them right around opening day, instead of early to mid-May, as they originally anticipated. I wouldn't write off the old goat just yet. He's supremely motivated to put his last two season behind and end his career on a high note in AZ.
   38. Flynn Posted: January 06, 2007 at 12:26 AM (#2275122)
Doesn't Unit basically have no knees at this point? It wouldn't take much to convince me that throwing from the stretch is significantly more stressful on the knees than throwing from the windup.

When I get home, I might do a CBW-style comparison.

I have a theory that when historically great pitchers lose it, it happens fast. Unit's 43 years old, has back and knee issues and a declining fastball. He certainly gave up a lot of home runs in a park very helpful to left-handed pitchers. If I was a betting man, I'd put a large sum of money on Unit being cooked.
   39. Steve Treder Posted: January 06, 2007 at 12:29 AM (#2275125)
I'm just saying that trying to force a connection between a high BABIP while pitching from the stretch and a back injury is real stretch.

I don't think it's all that much of a stretch (no pun intended). There's a reason pitchers throw from the windup whenever they can; the stretch is unquestionably more stressful and/or less conducive to velocity.
   40. J. Cross Posted: January 06, 2007 at 12:38 AM (#2275128)
Sure, but

1) that's a reason to believe that pitchers would in general be less effective from the stretch not a reason to believe that the effects of aging/injury would show up first in the stretch. These two *could* go together although I've never seen the connection made and don't know why Johnson would be different than other aging pitchers.

2) Even if we grant that ineffectiveness in the stretch would be meaningful, as Silver points out, Johnson didn't have a worse K-rate or GB-rate in the stretch. Mostly we're just talking about BABIP and HR/FB here. Two things that are generally largely attributable to luck.

The real stretch is believing that Johnson's injury age decided to show itself only in these most luck-driven components of pitching from the stretch.
   41. Johnny Tuttle Posted: January 06, 2007 at 12:44 AM (#2275129)
Flynn, your theory interests me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Care to elaborate on the great pitcher, rapid decline theory?
   42. Steve Treder Posted: January 06, 2007 at 12:53 AM (#2275135)
The real stretch is believing that Johnson's injury age decided to show itself only in these most luck-driven components of pitching from the stretch.

Fair enough. Again I agree with all your points in a general sense.

But once again this isn't that; it's this particular player. Sure, the BABIP-from-the-stretch thing by itself might be a red herring. But in this case I think it would be more wise to be sensitive to the good possibility of it being a red flag instead: a manifestation of RJ's particular difficulty in putting batters away in tough spots with runners on. Maybe it was from a loss of velocity when pitching from the stretch, or perhaps it was that he tended to fall behind and had to come in with a lot of 2-0 and 3-1 get-me-overs. Maybe this problem, which just showed itself in tough spots and long innings in '06, will get worse and start showing up more generally from now on.

Or maybe not, of course. But I would look at RJ's splits less in context of how they compare to the mass of all other pitchers, and more in context of what we know about him specifically, most relevantly his age and health status. Projection systems and general findings are always best in expecting what will happen in a macro sense, but they don't necessarily override the particulars in individual cases.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: RJ is an historical outlier in terms of his greatness and longevity, but he isn't immortal. He *is* going to hit the end of the line sometime, it's only a question of when and how suddenly, not if. Given his age and his health status, it's prudent for us to *not* give him the same benefit of the doubt we give to the mass of pitchers, who while not as good, are also much younger and have much cleaner bills of health.
   43. standuptriple Posted: January 06, 2007 at 12:55 AM (#2275138)
Johnson's stubborness has to come into play too. He can no longer rely on the fastball to get guys out. It just doesn't have the zip it once did. Pitching out of the stretch only magnifies it. If it weren't for his height/angle he'd be getting destroyed out there. He doesn't make the adjustment and tries to "throw". I can't see him picking up another 4-5mph out of the surgery, but facing the NL West is probably his best play to ride off into the sunset.
   44. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 06, 2007 at 01:14 AM (#2275152)
He's supposed to start throwing around Jan. 15th, and the Dbacks are now cautiously optimistic that he'll be ready to start for them right around opening day, instead of early to mid-May, as they originally anticipated.

Cautiously optimistic that he'll be ready for opening day doesn't quite equate to a ZiPS that forecasts 33 starts and 216 IP. So 28 and 180 sounds more like it.

facing the NL West is probably his best play to ride off into the sunset

Maybe. Then again, the non-Arizona NL West teams scored a total of 3,086 runs last season. The non-NY AL East teams scored 3,110. Doesn't sound like quite the drastically different environment it's made out to be.
   45. bibigon Posted: January 06, 2007 at 01:17 AM (#2275154)
I don't think it's all that much of a stretch (no pun intended). There's a reason pitchers throw from the windup whenever they can; the stretch is unquestionably more stressful and/or less conducive to velocity.


So you're theory, if I have it correctly, is that pitching from the stretch, primarily impacted the elements of pitching which are subject to the most luck, and had a pretty negligible impact on the elements of pitching which are least subject to luck.

If Johnson's K rate declined to being like 5 K/9, and his BB rate jumped to being like 4 BB/9, then I could see a case for it, but that's not what happened... His K rate remained about the same - and his BB rate took only a minor hit. Explain why Johnson's apparently reduced velocity from the stretch would impact his BABIP, but not his K rate? Or make him more prone to giving up flyballs?

The anti-Johnson vitriol has reached hilarious levels in this thread.
   46. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 06, 2007 at 01:20 AM (#2275158)
Yeah, I'm going to have to come down on the side of the people who think that this is more luck than injury. Yes, Johnson's a specific guy, but I see no compelling evidence that these generalities don't apply in this specific case.
   47. Steve Treder Posted: January 06, 2007 at 01:26 AM (#2275159)
So you're theory, if I have it correctly, is that pitching from the stretch, primarily impacted the elements of pitching which are subject to the most luck, and had a pretty negligible impact on the elements of pitching which are least subject to luck.

Oh, come on. I don't have any full-blown "theory." In the first place, the sample sizes here are too small to get all worked up about much of anything.

What I'm saying is that RJ's overall statline declined in '06 from his previous standard. Whatever split components of that manifested the worst decline might simply be a function of randomness, but they also might not, and in light of the particular facts we know of this particular player's age and health status, dismissing whatever happened as nothing but mere randomness doesn't seem very wise. And there's no law against speculating as to why this player's particular circumstances *might* have contributed to that particular split.

The anti-Johnson vitriol has reached hilarious levels in this thread.

Oh, get over it. Speaking for myself, I'm a huge Big Unit fan.
   48. Steve Treder Posted: January 06, 2007 at 01:28 AM (#2275162)
Yes, Johnson's a specific guy, but I see no compelling evidence that these generalities don't apply in this specific case.

So you think that projection for Johnson is about what we'll actually see in '07?
   49. Darren Posted: January 06, 2007 at 01:57 AM (#2275171)
So you're theory, if I have it correctly, is that pitching from the stretch, primarily impacted the elements of pitching which are subject to the most luck, and had a pretty negligible impact on the elements of pitching which are least subject to luck.

Like Treder, I don't have any full-blown theory either, but let's not oversimplify things. HR rate is flukier than BB or K, but it tracks reasonably well year to year, far better than things like hits or ERA. And his xFIP suggests that his HR rate wasn't particularly flukey.

What's more, it's not uncommon to see good pitchers put up good DIPS stats but give up suprisingly many hits/high ERA when they're pitching while injured. Recent examples include Schilling in 05 and Sheets in 06. Not that this proves anything concretely, but it leads me to believe that the injury might be the reason for the 'bad luck.'
   50. Darren Posted: January 06, 2007 at 01:59 AM (#2275172)
And Peavy 06.
   51. 1k5v3L Posted: January 06, 2007 at 02:38 AM (#2275194)
Even though I'm sure everybody's already sick and tired of discussing the RJ thread (it's SO much more interesting to follow the Oh-ka-ka to Shea journey!), Tim Marchman's article deserves a link

Trade of Big Unit Is a Step In the Right Direction

If Johnson goes out and pitches 200 innings with a 3.50 ERA, though, there are going to be a lot of people saying, "I told you so." We'll see how things play out.


You know it's coming, Timmah, get ready for it.
   52. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: January 06, 2007 at 02:50 AM (#2275199)
Actually, if Johnson posts a 3.50 ERA in the National League, nobody's going to bat an eye. It's the National League. That's considered like a 4.50 ERA in the AL. No big deal.

But a sub-3.00 ERA, that'll get people pissed off.
   53. bibigon Posted: January 06, 2007 at 02:50 AM (#2275200)
What's more, it's not uncommon to see good pitchers put up good DIPS stats but give up suprisingly many hits/high ERA when they're pitching while injured. Recent examples include Schilling in 05 and Sheets in 06. Not that this proves anything concretely, but it leads me to believe that the injury might be the reason for the 'bad luck.'


Randy's BABIP wasn't unusually high in 2006 - just the distribution of the hits. His projection has relatively little to do with DIPS, and much more to do with his component ERA.
   54. 1k5v3L Posted: January 06, 2007 at 02:58 AM (#2275208)
But a sub-3.00 ERA, that'll get people pissed off.


I can see Cashman kicking the living crap out of his dog...
   55. 1k5v3L Posted: January 06, 2007 at 03:13 AM (#2275218)
From Jon Heyman at SI.com:

The Yankees probably had no alternative but to send Randy Johnson to Arizona as he wanted to play closer to home, has a no-trade provision and isn't know for his flexibility. But beyond that, the Yankees liked the Diamondbacks' pitching prospects better than what the prospect-poor Padres could offer. Scott Linebrink was about the best they could come up with.


That's the information I had when the RJ to AZ trade rumors first surfaced. Basically, RJ didn't say exactly "Trade me to AZ, faggot" (unlike Shea) but he more or less told Cashman that he wasn't going to OK a trade to any other team but the Dbacks. The Padres, Dodgers, Giants rumors were basically a bunch of B.S. calls from Cashman to those teams, to create the impression that the Yankees actually had a choice. In reality, their choice was a) do everything they can to trade RJ to AZ; or b) have him join Pavano on the DL for all of 2006, who would then be lounging next to his pool in his PV home.

Scott Miller from CBS Sportsline reports the most the Padres were offering was Linebring and Chase Headley, and they were asking for $7m from NY. However, Rob Neyer claims in his chat that the Padres were never really after RJ, and Sandy Anderson, when asked on SD radio if the Padres had really offered Linebrink and prospects for RJ, basically laughed it off as a joke. The Yankees really never had much leverage here; their only leverage came from the fact that the Dbacks actually DID want to acquire RJ back, both to strengthen their rotation, but also to try to work out a better resolution to the $40m deferred money. Then there was the potential PR hit of going to the press and saying "We, the Yankees, wanted to trade RJ to AZ; RJ wanted to go to AZ; however, the Dbacks didn't want him". That might've made the Dbacks front office uncomfortable, especially since they have an agreement that RJ will join them after he retires.
   56. 1k5v3L Posted: January 06, 2007 at 03:15 AM (#2275219)
If a particular pitcher's BABIP numbers go hooey with men on base, might it have something to do with the infield behind him incompetently positioning themselves with men on base? I really don't know.


Past a diving Jeter?
   57. 1k5v3L Posted: January 06, 2007 at 03:24 AM (#2275224)
According to Tim Leonard from mlb.com, the Yankees wanted Alberto Callaspo from the Dbacks, but AZ refused to include him in the deal. As RB in NYC (With Job!) pointed out, Cashman did ask for the sky...
   58. OCF Posted: January 06, 2007 at 03:31 AM (#2275228)
On the rate of decline of historically great pitchers:

Cy Young put up a 194 ERA+ at the age of 41. Granted, that was fluke far above the previous several seasons. Then he had a 113 as a full-time pitcher at 42 (reasonably in line with his late 30's performance and a modest decline), then he started losing playing time, with 102 and 97 ERA+ in part-time performaces. One version of the tale I hear is that he was so fat and immobile that he couldn't really field his position any more and they started tormenting him with bunts. But I wouldn't really call it rapid decline.

Walter Johnson had ERA+ of 148, 137, 106 at age 36, 37, 38. Then at 39 he had a bad (79 ERA+) 100-inning season and hung them up at the end of the year. So maybe that fits the "rapid decline" model.

Pete Alexander was wondrously effective through age 41. At age 42 he still packed a 120 ERA+ but his IP fell by a half. At the end of that season, he was traded away to a bad team; he put in 20 forgettable innings with his last game in May. The only rapid decline here was in his playing time and his importance to his teams.

Dazzy Vance's career didn't even start until he was past 30. From age 39 to 40 to 41 his ERA+ went from 189 to 113 to 90; after that he wasn't a full-time starter any more but he kicked around for three more years as a part timer, until he was 44, keeping his ERA+ in the 90's. Even at the very end, he was still striking hitters out at a well above league average rate. (Vance is one of the more interesting comparisons to R. Johnson.)

Many very good pitchers from the 20's and 30's - guys like Root, Fitzsimmons, Lyons - faded very, very gradually into the sunset, pitching 140 effective innings a year for year after year. Schedules, rotations, and economics won't allow this model today, but if it were possible, many older pitchers would be effective.

Lefty Grove last had 30 starts at age 37. He had four years after that with 21-23 starts a year, and his ERA+ went 160, 185, 113, 96.

Warren Spahn at ages 40 through 42, had three consecutive years as a rotation starter with a 124 ERA+. At 43, that dropped preciptiously to a 67 ERA+ and he lost his rotation spot. He pitched one more year and had a partial bounce-back, but only to an 89 ERA+. One thing I can pick up in his line is that his walk rate suddenly jumped upwards. So maybe Spahn counts as sudden decline.

And then there's Ryan versus Carlton: there was the year they both passed Walter Johnson for the strikeout record and passed it back and forth between them - but you didn't know which one would hang on longer to claim the record in the end.

Ryan pretty much stayed Ryan - the same pitcher he always had been - right up until his elbow snapped at the age of 46. No sudden decline there.

Carlton did have a sudden decline, and you can spot it exactly in his record - although I don't remember the nature of the injury (and injury it obviously was). In 1985, at the age of 40, he was in the middle of what promised to be his best season in several years in mid-June. Then he didn't pitch again until September, and when he did come back in September, he got rocked. He spent the next two years plus 10 innings pitching badly for five different teams; his career ended involuntarily when the last of those teams released him and no one else made him an offer.

I speculate that the example of Carlton was on Flynn's mind when he said what he said.
   59. Raskolnikov Posted: January 06, 2007 at 03:51 AM (#2275241)
Actually, if Johnson posts a 3.50 ERA in the National League, nobody's going to bat an eye. It's the National League. That's considered like a 4.50 ERA in the AL. No big deal.

Um, in that case, that doesn't bode well for Andy Pettite...
   60. 1k5v3L Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:00 AM (#2275246)
Andy Pettitte knows how to win. He has the "glare".

Plus, Pettitte's schnozola will bring back all the Jewish fans who abandoned the Yankees after all the "Big Unit" talk drove them to jealousy-induced madness.

I kid, I kid...
   61. JC in DC Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:07 AM (#2275249)
It still stuns me that Base is banned.
   62. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:07 AM (#2275250)
Andy Pettitte knows how to win. He has the "glare".

Plus, Pettitte's schnozola will bring back all the Jewish fans who abandoned the Yankees after all the "Big Unit" talk drove them to jealousy-induced madness.

I kid, I kid...


Anti-semitism! It's hilarious!

Jackass.
   63. 1k5v3L Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:09 AM (#2275251)
Ah, great... let the accusations fly again.

Not cool on my part, not cool. I apologize.
   64. greenback calls it soccer Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:15 AM (#2275254)
the particular facts we know of this particular player's age and health status

Again: Roam around aging/declining greats like Ryan or Carlton at Retrosheet or BR-PI and you won't find much precedent for Randy Johnson's 2006 BE/ROB/RISP splits (actually the closest I could find was Pedro in 2006). The alternative explanation, that Randy Johnson is somehow not just unusual but unique, doesn't lend itself well to the use of statistical splits either. That is there may well be some problem that mainly manifests itself when pitching from the stretch, but these numbers on their own are useless.
   65. Darren Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:15 AM (#2275255)
How about if you take a breath once in a while and consider what exactly you're posting, instead of just letting whatever idiotic thought enters your head dribble out?
   66. greenback calls it soccer Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:16 AM (#2275256)
Well, I love you too, Darren.
   67. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:20 AM (#2275258)
Well, I love you too, Darren.

It just goes in one ear and out the other, doesn't it, greenback?
   68. Darren Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:23 AM (#2275260)
Nooooooo! Not you, greenback06!
   69. robinred Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:26 AM (#2275262)
How about if you take a breath once in a while and consider what exactly you're posting, instead of just letting whatever idiotic thought enters your head dribble out?

Where'd the fun be in doing it that way?
   70. NTNgod Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:28 AM (#2275264)
How about if you take a breath once in a while and consider what exactly you're posting, instead of just letting whatever idiotic thought enters your head dribble out?

"Darren's Plan To Cut Internet Traffic IN HALF Overnight"
   71. 1k5v3L Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:30 AM (#2275265)

"Darren's Plan To Cut Internet Traffic IN HALF Overnight"


It worked with Sox Therapy.
   72. Xander Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:36 AM (#2275266)
Actually Darren's post is much funnier if you do read it as a response to Greenback.
   73. William K. Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:42 AM (#2275270)
btw, I think it's worth noting a common strategy in Arizona's pitching acquisitions. Each of Livan, Davis and Johnson are coming off a very disappointing season after past success. Davis and Livan probably aren't studs at this point but they're solid 3 and 4 starters. Webb, Johnson, Livan and Davis is a big rotation upgrade for a team that's rotation ran 1-deep last year.


It's not just pitching acquisitions where this "Buy Low, Sell High" strategy is being used. Josh Byrnes acquired Johnny Estrada, who hit .261/.303/.367 for the Braves in 2005 and was injured after a collision with Darrin Erstad, for Oscar Villareal and Lance Cormier. After Estrada bounced back to hit .302/.328/.444 in hitter-friendly Chase Field in 2006, Byrnes traded him with Claudio Vargas and Greg Aquino for Davis, Dana Eveland and Dave Krynzel. So in essence, it was 3 internally developed relievers (Villareal, Cormier, Aquino) + a waiver pickup (Vargas) for a solid 3/4 innings-eater and a pitching prospect who has had an ERA below 3.00 in all his minor league seasons. I'm not going to quibble about whether 1 season of Davis is a better deal than 3 seasons of Vargas but this was a good return on the gamble.

As for getting Johnson, the D-backs had the NL's 6th best ERA last season despite (because of?) being a 1-Webb show. Having 3 (potentially 4) pitchers who can reach 200 innings is a big issue now that they have traded one of their better relievers in Vizcaino. Yeah, it's a big gamble and a bet I wouldn't have made, but with $10 million, how many pitchers who has a chance (however slim) to get 17 wins are out there?
   74. Daryn Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:42 AM (#2275271)
How about if you take a breath once in a while and consider what exactly you're posting, instead of just letting whatever idiotic thought enters your head dribble out?

Where'd the fun be in doing it that way?


That's what Kramer thought, too. Birds of a feather.
   75. Darren Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:43 AM (#2275272)
"Darren's Plan To Cut Internet Traffic IN HALF Overnight"

If you and Repoz starting taking breaths, we'd have no content on BTF. So maybe this advice doesn't apply to everyone.
   76. bibigon Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:46 AM (#2275273)
Oh give him a pass on this one - it was pretty harmless.
   77. 1k5v3L Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:46 AM (#2275274)
I see Darren has been taking lessons on best use of the gerund from George W. Bush.
   78. robinred Posted: January 06, 2007 at 04:51 AM (#2275278)
That's what Kramer thought, too. Birds of a feather.

You got me. I often do scream racial epithets at large public gatherings, blissfully unaware that people's cell phones and fingernail clippers often have video cameras.
   79. Darren Posted: January 06, 2007 at 05:05 AM (#2275286)
Why don't you call me a fag or a kike and get it over with Levski?
   80. 1k5v3L Posted: January 06, 2007 at 05:17 AM (#2275294)
I don't know what kike means, Darren.

And apparently you're suffering from delusion of grandeur; I actually don't care that much for you, one way or another.
   81. JC in DC Posted: January 06, 2007 at 05:44 AM (#2275307)
And apparently you're suffering from delusion of grandeur; I actually don't care that much for you, one way or another.


More likely he's just suffering from fatigue with your crass sense of humor. I mean, I understand you like to poke at different teams and their fans and all, and I don't begrudge anyone that (as Darren knows and laments), but that your jokes routinely are of the sort above (schnozola?) is disturbing and offensive.
   82. 1k5v3L Posted: January 06, 2007 at 05:55 AM (#2275309)
Well, I'm not concerned about the disturbing part, but I do regret that it came out as offensive as it did. Should've taken a deep breath, as Darren suggested, and let rLr wax poetic on the power of Andy's nose. Mind you, I wish the best to Andy in NY, and the Yankees too.
   83. jyjjy Posted: January 06, 2007 at 07:42 AM (#2275330)
It's funny all of the statistical wrangling and meaningless projections going on the last few weeks. Anyone who saw the man pitch enough last year knows exactly what was going on. It probably wasn't even something about pitching from the stretch, he would just lose it and get thumped HARD. This would happen randomly and rather often. The rest of the time he was quite good. Those BABIP #'s with runners on, impressive as they are, are actually a diluted representation of how bad he was when this happened. Those #'s include a lot of ABs where he hadn't lost it and someone got on but he dealt with it just fine. It OBVIOUSLY wasn't bad luck if you saw most of his starts. Toss all the stats and historical comparisons you want at it but watching him pitch made it very, very clear. That is why Yankee fans want him gone and they all think it was a good trade. Honestly when the trade talks first started I thought to myself, "How much of his salary will we have to pay for someone to take him?" If it wasn't for the fantastic run support and 17 wins(maybe the meaningless projections too, if AZ is hip to such) I'll bet that would've remained the question.
   84. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 06, 2007 at 07:45 AM (#2275331)
It probably wasn't even something about pitching from the stretch, he would just lose it and get thumped HARD. This would happen randomly and rather often.

The problem is that this, whatever you think you saw, runs entirely counter to the evidence.
   85. jyjjy Posted: January 06, 2007 at 08:06 AM (#2275337)
Yes, I always doubt consistent and predictable phenomena that I witness with my own eyes over the course of an entire baseball season. It was obvious the first month, it was obvious the second month, the third month he put together a couple of great starts in a row and I'll admit I got my hopes up but months 4-6... they really kind of put the issue to rest. It's not what I think I saw, it happened over and over and over until you would just cringe when you saw it was his turn to start.
   86. J. Cross Posted: January 06, 2007 at 08:17 AM (#2275344)
Well, if the vast majority of people who watched all of Randy Johnson's starts last year had the same reaction as jyjjy, I'd take that as a piece of objective evidence. However, I'd also wonder how often a surly, well-paid, high-expectations pitcher puts up a 5.00 ERA and the teams fan say something along the lines of: "Well, I watched him all year and he was just hit unlucky but really pitched pretty well." I'm guessing that's pretty rare so (not taking anything away from the scouting abilities of fans which I *do* believe in) I'd take the view of the fans (if that's what it is) with a grain of salt and, although I'd give it some consideration, I'd weigh it less heavily than the statistical evidence to the contrary.
   87. jyjjy Posted: January 06, 2007 at 08:48 AM (#2275355)
Here's some statistical evidence for you.
OPS against;
none on 1 or 2 outs: .524
none on: .593
one man on first: .854
runners on: .927
2+ runners on: 1.000
bases loaded: 1.167

Worst luck ever? You decide.
   88. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 06, 2007 at 08:55 AM (#2275361)
Or crappy pitching out of the stretch? Hmm.
   89. J. Cross Posted: January 06, 2007 at 09:03 AM (#2275362)
I think I explained my views on those splits. Check out Levski's post quoting Nate Silver's analysis. That Nate Silver is a pretty smart dude (up there with MGL and Tango and others I'm probably neglecting as one of the top baseball analysts, IMO) and someone capable of properly weighing all types of evidence.
   90. jyjjy Posted: January 06, 2007 at 09:17 AM (#2275367)
Oh, sure, It could've been that. I dunno, just seeing him on the mound during the meltdowns made me think at least some of it was mental though. The above numbers support such, the worse the situation got the more he got smacked around. I'm just saying that it wasn't luck or at least far from all luck as some have been arguing and the projections are based on. I don't dislike the guy and hope he does well for AZ. He WAS great most of the time but there were 20-30 innings mixed in where most of the position players on the team might have pitched better.
   91. jyjjy Posted: January 06, 2007 at 09:27 AM (#2275369)
The "luck" hypothesis in this case is remarkably contrived. It goes something like this "Look at this stat! see? Bad luck! Oh, here's another good one! see, how bad that luck is?? Wait, wait, you have to see this, just look at that remarkable bad luck in these numbers over here! let me see if i can find some more... yup over there, in that corner, even more bad luck!" It's ludicrous.
   92. J. Cross Posted: January 06, 2007 at 09:30 AM (#2275370)
Like I said, I don't think that the above numbers support what you're saying. I think the numbers a very strong case for the "unlucky" theory. I could buy an argument that ZiPS is too optimistic based on observations/medical information but I don't believe that there's one based on the numbers.
   93. J. Cross Posted: January 06, 2007 at 09:32 AM (#2275371)
I suppose that my argument that a random assortment or stars has formed what we perceive to be constellations strikes you as rather contrived as well?
   94. jyjjy Posted: January 06, 2007 at 09:49 AM (#2275373)
When "luck" itself starts forming statistical trends like the one I pointed out that's when you have to start questioning wether it's luck. I just looked up those stats and listed them because I thought to myself "What stats could progressively separate the "good" Randy from the "bad" Randy and show it clearly?" So I looked it up and wrote them down for you to look at. If you seriously think .524->.593->.854->.927->1.000->1.167 can be accounted for by luck then go ahead and think that. I know what I saw and the batters sure knew what they saw.
   95. J. Cross Posted: January 06, 2007 at 10:14 AM (#2275379)
I do think it can be (and is most easily and logically) explained by luck, yes. That "trend" also can't be explained by the stretch/full wind-up theory (and I see that you say above that it's probably not about that) so this is a 3rd theory which we can dub the "meltdown theory." I'd tend to think that these meltdowns arent' the same as the usual occasional badness of bad pitchers because you won't see them with those kinds of splits so what exactly do the meltdown indicate and why did he have them?

It's probably also worth mentioning that the extraordinarily small sample sizes for some of those numbers you site. The bases loaded number is based on 6 at bats. 6!

I could also site:

Runner on third: 1.933 OPS
1st and third: 1.532 OPS
2nd and third: .866 OPS

Wow, he really managed to pull it together when that trail runner moved along! Pretty dramatic. Hard to argue with that statistical evidence.
   96. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: January 06, 2007 at 10:27 AM (#2275380)
He'll win 35 games in Arizona
   97. jyjjy Posted: January 06, 2007 at 10:44 AM (#2275381)
If there were 6 bases and that trend still held it would be some truly remarkable odd luck. I can't help that he only had 6 ABs with the bases loaded, we are working with one season here.
Anyways, tons of Yankees fans on here, find me one that saw most of his starts and says he didn't have frequent meltdowns. Seriously, just one and I'll give it to you. Read some of the dozens of articles about "What's wrong with Randy?" that were written by the NY media over the course of the season. I'm not making this up, honest. It was documented to an obscene level. Consistent inning long clusters of remarkable "bad luck" over the course of a season is simply not plausible.
I never claimed to know why it happened. My personal hunch is that it was more than just pitching from the stretch but it might've been just that. I don't know.
   98. jyjjy Posted: January 06, 2007 at 10:54 AM (#2275382)
BTW, the bases loaded # was the only number I used where the sample size was lower than 80 ABs. The 3 you pulled out to mock my point were all 15 or below.
   99. shoewizard Posted: January 06, 2007 at 03:41 PM (#2275410)
Steve said this in #44

Projection systems and general findings are always best in expecting what will happen in a macro sense, but they don't necessarily override the particulars in individual cases.

I couldn't agree more. I love projections. I love them as a starting point, to then move up or down from in a subjective manner based on my own interpretations of whatever factors may exist that might not be accounted for strongly enough in the projection system. I realize that systems like ZIPS or PECODTA take a heck of a lot into account, but the "adjustments" still have to be smoothed out in order to make the system work on a league wide basis. It is only through subjective interpretation that we can make sense of it all on a player to player basis. Of course some are better at "making sense of it" than others. ;)
   100. shoewizard Posted: January 06, 2007 at 05:01 PM (#2275434)
Thought a few of you might find .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)interesting.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9045 seconds
66 querie(s) executed