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

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Cubs - Signed DeRosa

Chicago Cubs - Signed 2B Mark DeRosa to a 3-year contract worth $13 million.

Everybody’s awash in cash, the Red Sox are spending enough to buy the Royals on a pitcher that would generate a ton of resources…revenue-shared resources…, and now the Cubs are giving more than $4 million a year to a really good utility infielder who can start at 2B for a few years while he’s cheap.

Now, this will help the Cubs on the baseball side, mostly because starting a second baseman who shouldn’t be paid $4 million a year is a better idea than starting one of the 50 second basemen they have around that shouldn’t be paid $0 million a year.  It’s still overpaying based on DeRosa’s career season, however, and there’s nothing DeRosa can do that a Joe Inglett can’t.  It’s not as sexy (though signing DeRosa isn’t really all that hot), but giving Keith Ginter a chance to make a comeback is a better idea than this.  ZiPS sees DeRosa as really stable the next 3 years, but the concern about DeRosa isn’t about his play declining but his play to begin with.

2007 ZiPS Projection - Mark DeRosa
———————————————————————————————————
          AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB   BA   OBP   SLG
———————————————————————————————————
Projection   404 54 107 30 1   8 49 32 85   2 .265 .324 .403
2008       363 50   94 25 1   8 43 30 71   2 .259 .324 .399
2009       355 48   93 26 1   7 42 29 72   2 .262 .326 .400
———————————————————————————————————
Opt. (15%)  458 72 132 37 2 12 64 43 85   3 .288 .357 .456
Pess. (15%  264 29   62 16 0   3 25 17 65   0 .235 .286 .330
———————————————————————————————————

Dan Szymborski Posted: November 15, 2006 at 02:13 PM | 13 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. bibigon Posted: November 15, 2006 at 10:30 PM (#2238919)
DeRosa's projection confuses me a bit, specifically on the SLG and BA side. It expects him to hit .265 and slug .403 next year, which is reasonable, since he'll be 32. It then projects a slight decline the next year at age 33, which is also reasonable...

However, then it projects a slight uptick at age 34? What's that about? The aging curve reverses for mediocre middle infielders at that age? What's the story there Dan? Why would a 34 year old be projected to improve on his age 33 projected season?
   2. Danny Posted: November 15, 2006 at 10:37 PM (#2238927)
Why would a 34 year old be projected to improve on his age 33 projected season?

Is it because his poor 2004 season get weighted less (or not at all) in his 2009 projection?
   3. bibigon Posted: November 15, 2006 at 10:45 PM (#2238930)
Is it because his poor 2004 season get weighted less (or not at all) in his 2009 projection?


Oooh, good answer. You're right, that's pretty likely the explanation. At the same time, I don't feel that that is "right" either, in that I don't feel the system should be doing that. I'm not sure how to get around it, but ultimately, the end result has a bit of a smell test problem.
   4. Danny Posted: November 16, 2006 at 05:30 AM (#2239199)
Agreed, and PECOTA's 5-year projections do the same thing.
   5. bibigon Posted: November 16, 2006 at 07:00 PM (#2239581)


Looks a bit less retarded. Perhaps, when dealing with making specific stat projections for hitters years down the road, "not retarded" is the ideal scenario?


This looks better to me by a good bit. It also seems more intuitive. Projection systems use the last four years to get a glimpse of "true talent." Thus the next year's projection already (ideally) represents a players "true talent." There's no reason to repeat the process - what you end up doing if you do that is you dilute the projection system's estimate of their true talent with samples of real performance.

Does this make sense? If not, I can explain further. I don't think that the new projection just looks less retarded - I think it's probably also more accurate.
   6. Nobody ##### with DeJesus Posted: November 17, 2006 at 11:46 PM (#2240780)
the Red Sox are spending enough to buy the Royals

Would any of the Royals crack Boston's starting nine next year?
   7. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: November 17, 2006 at 11:50 PM (#2240782)
Would any of the Royals crack Boston's starting nine next year?

DeJesus and Teahen would.
   8. Nobody ##### with DeJesus Posted: November 18, 2006 at 12:07 AM (#2240791)
Teahen over Youkilis? DeJesus over Crisp?
   9. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: November 18, 2006 at 12:11 AM (#2240794)
Teahen over Youkilis? DeJesus over Crisp?

DeJesus over Crisp, easy.

I thought Youkilis was playing first base?
   10. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 18, 2006 at 12:21 AM (#2240800)
Teahen over Lowell?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis on Acid
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2396 seconds
47 querie(s) executed