|
|
|
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:
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
2012 ZiPS Projections, Final Edition (23 - 11:21am, May 31)Last: craigsaboe2012 ZiPS/RBI Baseball (20 - 10:58am, May 03)Last: tjans2012 ZiPS Projections Spreadsheets, v. 1 (62 - 4:38pm, Apr 10)Last: nemodomi2012 ZiPS Projections - Oakland A's (69 - 5:57am, Apr 10)Last: Athletic Supporter gangnam style2012 ZiPS Projections - Kansas City Royals (31 - 1:51pm, Mar 23)Last: hokieneerPirates - Acquire Burnett (10 - 12:09am, Feb 21)Last: YR Misses Reggie Bars2012 ZiPS Projections - Pittsburgh Pirates (41 - 11:02am, Feb 20)Last: Dangerous Dean2012 ZiPS Projections - Minnesota Twins (31 - 9:53pm, Feb 17)Last: A Random 8-Year-Old Eskimo2012 ZiPS Projections - Boston Red Sox (46 - 5:41pm, Feb 17)Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit2012 ZiPS Projections - San Diego Padres (29 - 3:33pm, Feb 17)Last: Dan Szymborski2012 ZiPS Projections - Arizona Diamondbacks (31 - 3:03am, Feb 14)Last: Dan Szymborski2012 ZiPS Projections - Texas Rangers (21 - 1:43pm, Feb 10)Last: DEF: NPW (WWRJD)2012 ZiPS Projections - Miami Marlins (31 - 9:16pm, Feb 07)Last: Misirlou is bad, he's nationwide2012 ZiPS Projections - Cleveland Indians (19 - 11:18pm, Feb 02)Last: DevinM2012 ZiPS Projections - Atlanta Braves (28 - 7:25pm, Jan 31)Last: Gern Blanston
|
|
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)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?
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.
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.
Would any of the Royals crack Boston's starting nine next year?
DeJesus and Teahen would.
DeJesus over Crisp, easy.
I thought Youkilis was playing first base?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main