|
|
|
Transaction Oracle— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
2006 ZiPS Projections - Pittsburgh Pirates
Name P AVG OBP SPC G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS
Bay lf .297 .395 .557 148 542 90 161 35 5 32 99 84 122 16 3
Wilson rf .266 .363 .482 124 421 64 112 25 3 20 67 44 117 2 1
Casey* 1b .313 .373 .441 140 540 69 169 34 1 11 64 48 46 2 0
Gerut* rf .269 .348 .446 120 446 63 120 30 2 15 62 50 54 9 6
Eldred 1b .250 .300 .502 133 476 66 119 22 1 32 86 31 135 4 2
Sanchez 3b .290 .344 .401 117 414 52 120 25 3 5 42 32 41 5 3
Paulino c .272 .325 .426 112 401 54 109 18 1 14 51 31 69 3 1
Doumit# c .264 .327 .424 118 387 55 102 21 1 13 53 27 74 2 2
McLouth* cf .283 .343 .406 144 508 83 144 29 3 9 55 39 72 28 12
Koonce* 1b .235 .339 .404 124 438 52 103 23 0 17 60 66 117 0 2
Clark* 3b .277 .348 .375 96 328 40 91 18 1 4 34 34 26 1 2
Ward* 1b .257 .311 .416 124 401 40 103 23 1 13 57 31 60 0 2
Duffy* cf .287 .338 .384 127 484 77 139 19 5 6 46 30 82 19 13
Castillo 2b .277 .325 .394 122 437 55 121 15 3 10 53 31 68 4 5
Bautista 3b .247 .315 .405 126 442 52 109 23 1 15 61 38 104 5 4
Wilson ss .272 .314 .395 160 628 70 171 31 8 10 68 35 63 7 4
Alfaro 3b .269 .313 .400 119 428 43 115 27 1 9 46 25 65 2 3
de Caster 3b .251 .305 .404 117 386 52 97 25 2 10 47 25 98 4 3
Stansberry 2b .237 .304 .396 133 472 64 112 22 7 13 62 40 118 13 6
Sadler rf .251 .299 .411 133 474 55 119 27 2 15 58 29 103 11 9
Crespo# cf .246 .318 .361 119 402 57 99 22 3 6 40 41 77 15 8
Furmaniak ss .249 .301 .386 141 511 61 127 21 5 13 59 33 115 9 7
Davis# cf .263 .326 .333 130 505 76 133 20 3 3 39 40 70 32 13
Cota c .238 .296 .373 89 303 32 72 18 1 7 37 23 75 1 2
Nunnally* lf .205 .308 .360 93 283 36 58 10 2 10 35 41 80 6 5
Thompson* cf .251 .312 .317 121 458 70 115 11 5 3 36 34 69 37 14
Velandia ss .220 .289 .320 119 372 38 82 23 1 4 35 33 70 1 3
Guzman ss .252 .278 .334 135 485 64 122 16 6 4 46 18 85 18 10
Name W L ERA G GS INN H ER HR BB K
Gonzalez* 3 1 3.27 47 0 44.0 32 16 3 21 52
Marte* 5 3 3.71 70 0 63.0 49 26 4 34 72
Duke* 14 10 3.73 29 29 181.0 179 75 14 42 117
Torres 7 5 3.82 80 0 92.0 85 39 7 32 56
Maholm* 7 6 4.10 25 25 145.0 144 66 12 48 104
Meadows 2 3 4.21 60 0 77.0 81 36 8 18 43
Capps 4 4 4.27 50 0 78.0 86 37 7 18 40
Perez* 8 9 4.32 25 25 152.0 125 73 21 74 180
Bayliss 1 2 4.50 41 0 66.0 59 33 9 31 62
Strickland 2 2 4.50 30 0 30.0 30 15 5 9 24
Burnett* 7 11 4.60 25 25 135.0 148 69 12 42 61
Snell 7 11 4.62 31 25 156.0 154 80 25 50 131
Corey 4 5 4.69 64 0 71.0 69 37 9 30 62
Santos 7 11 4.75 30 26 146.0 149 77 16 60 95
Grabow* 2 4 4.81 65 0 58.0 57 31 7 26 52
Hernandez 4 7 4.86 66 0 63.0 60 34 7 32 50
Reames 4 6 4.91 38 10 99.0 101 54 10 45 69
Reith 3 5 4.94 44 1 62.0 61 34 7 31 47
Wells 8 13 4.94 30 30 175.0 172 96 21 86 131
White 3 6 4.96 65 0 78.0 86 43 9 29 44
Bullinger 3 4 4.97 56 0 67.0 76 37 9 18 33
Fogg 8 13 4.98 31 31 170.0 192 94 21 60 88
Gorzelanny* 5 10 4.99 26 24 146.0 153 81 18 59 106
Bullington 6 11 5.02 23 22 131.0 142 73 20 43 82
Vogelsong 5 9 5.06 36 18 128.0 130 72 16 62 94
Connolly* 5 10 5.07 26 25 142.0 155 80 19 53 82
Mallette 1 1 5.08 30 0 39.0 40 22 6 18 28
Whiteside 3 4 5.14 52 0 63.0 69 36 14 15 53
Enochs 3 7 5.17 35 13 101.0 110 58 13 41 60
Jacobsen 3 6 5.19 20 16 104.0 116 60 13 40 49
McDade 2 4 5.20 28 4 64.0 71 37 9 25 36
Roa 2 4 5.29 34 3 63.0 73 37 11 17 40
Johnston* 1 3 5.37 48 0 57.0 56 34 8 32 46
Adams 2 5 5.49 53 0 59.0 63 36 5 35 41
Roach 3 8 5.77 34 16 120.0 141 77 23 41 61
Kaye 2 5 5.82 50 0 65.0 72 42 8 36 36
van Benschoten 5 14 5.83 29 28 156.0 171 101 26 78 92
van Dusen* 4 11 5.88 27 20 124.0 143 81 24 48 69
Starling 5 15 6.06 27 27 159.0 190 107 28 68 81
Stewart* 4 12 6.12 23 22 122.0 135 83 21 67 76
Reid 2 8 6.34 29 16 105.0 123 74 25 42 68
Chiavacci 2 7 6.64 26 14 103.0 110 76 21 69 78
Bloom* 2 11 6.73 24 24 115.0 131 86 22 75 64
Peterson 3 15 7.01 27 26 145.0 175 113 33 83 76
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 2006.
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.
Dan Szymborski
Posted: December 14, 2005 at 05:31 PM | 40 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's aunt's sorry like Aziz2012 ZiPS Projections - Kansas City Royals (31 - 1:51pm, Mar 23)Last: hokieneerPirates - Acquire Burnett (10 - 11:09pm, Feb 20)Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)2012 ZiPS Projections - Pittsburgh Pirates (41 - 10:02am, Feb 20)Last: Dangerous Dean2012 ZiPS Projections - Minnesota Twins (31 - 8:53pm, Feb 17)Last: A Random 8-Year-Old Eskimo2012 ZiPS Projections - Boston Red Sox (46 - 4:41pm, Feb 17)Last: Jose is an Absurd Sultan2012 ZiPS Projections - San Diego Padres (29 - 2:33pm, Feb 17)Last: Dan Szymborski2012 ZiPS Projections - Arizona Diamondbacks (31 - 2:03am, Feb 14)Last: Dan Szymborski2012 ZiPS Projections - Texas Rangers (21 - 12:43pm, Feb 10)Last: DEF: selfish min-maxer2012 ZiPS Projections - Miami Marlins (31 - 8:16pm, Feb 07)Last: Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome2012 ZiPS Projections - Cleveland Indians (19 - 10:18pm, Feb 02)Last: DevinM2012 ZiPS Projections - Atlanta Braves (28 - 6:25pm, Jan 31)Last: Spahn Insane
|
|
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. charlie Posted: December 14, 2005 at 06:00 PM (#1777132)Pirate fans will be hugely unhappy if Duke performs in line with that projection, but I think it's reasonable if he stays healthy. I really don't expect him to be a lot better than that. Ditto Maholm. Perez is the only guy who I think is likely to do better than the projection (if he's healthy).
Dan, got any idea what Nixon or Monroe would project to in Pittsburgh? Or Mueller, for that matter?
-- MWE
Given what he's done his first two years in the majors, it's not unreasonable.
Castillo's BB-Ref comps are an interesting bunch, but they don't really include anyone who has something like his skill set. Tony Bernazard might be the closest (although I think Castillo is better defensively and not quite as skilled offensively) and Bernazard eventually had a couple of decent years.
-- MWE
Mike, there's a link in the PrOPS thread that Mueller signed with LA pending a physical.
Not only is Castillo's projection disappointing, it also seems unreasonable. He hit 11 homers in 370 AB's last year, and this projects one less homer in 67 more AB's? Even the AB's are out of line. Barring another injury, and last year's was kind of fluky, he should get at least 500 in 2006.
RWC -- I think Bay could play CF, but that OF will never happen given what Tracy has said (loves defense, hates strikeouts).
Well, Duke was both a bit hit-lucky and HR-lucky last year in the majors, in that he allowed fewer hits/BIP and fewer HR/OF FBIP than one might have expected given his BIP and distribution. Hardball Times has an experimental version of FIP (xFIP) that accounts for the fact that HR are relatively predictable based on the # of fly balls allowed and the home park characteristics. Duke's xFIP for 2005 was 3.72 (his actual FIP was 2.98). Duke also had an unusually high percentage of line drives in play (25.1%, highest on the team except for Gorzelanny, who only pitched six innings), a lot of which were caught by someone; that's not likely to be repeated. Based on all of that, I see a mid-to-upper 3s ERA as being quite reasonable.
-- MWE
His strikeout rates in both AAA and the majors are less than enthralling and even for a groundball pitcher, it's a lot to ask a 23-year-old pitcher to allow single digit home runs per 200 innings.
It's kind of funny - this is the exact same discussion we had last year when ZiPS projected Oliver Perez to go from his 2004 ERA of 2.98 to 3.84 (and he ended up much worse than that, as everyone here knows). Young pitchers, even tremendously talented ones with great potential and performance, are going to have their growing pains more often than not. Two steps forward, one step backwards is standard practice - guys like Roy Oswalt are the exception.
But Duke is exceptional!
The thing about predicting Perez's 2005 is that the prediction and actual outcome weren't out of line with his record. 2004 was the aberration.
I can't go all old school on you, but Duke is not Perez, and it's a far deeper thing than K rates.
It would be, but I think most Pittsburgh fans have higher expectations based on the splashy debut. Ditto Maholm.
-- MWE
True, and these are the same fans that expect Duffy to "regress" to batting 315-320.
It's surprising to me how similar the projections are for Doumit and Paulino.
I think it might be off on Castillo, but everything else seems reasonable to me. I have read in some print and heard in other media interviews that Littlefield was projecting burnett to contribute to the MLB team this season. That seems highly unlikely, but I'll ask if the ZiPS takes the rehab into consideration, or is that projection for a healthy Burnett?
FREE NATE MCLOUTH!
Prolly Wilbur - weren't me.
-- MWE
If I remember correctly (it's been a while, and I'm a bit archive lazy), I said that when I pictured Chris Duffy, I always pictured a Lenny Dykstra type player. You must have said something like McLouth looks a lot more like Dykstra than Duffy and I took that a little too strongly.
If you look at their minor league stats, it's obvious that Dykstra had more speed and a better batting eye, so maybe McLouth is Dykstra-lite (but that's still better than the whole Redman or whole Mackowiak that the Pirates have been running out in CF the last few years).
The Martinez comparisons are probably a good lower bound on McLouth's ceiling (think about it, it makes sense), although I think Nate has more power than Martinez (who wasn't that bad of a player, when you look at it).
The big question, I guess, is whether McLouth's walks will go up at some point. His rate is acceptable now, but if it were better, it would make him a lot more valuable.
One of the more problematic projections, to me, is Perez. He seems far more likely to repeat either 2004 or 2005 than to fall in between. His problem this year wasn't the standard growing pains, like learning to work hitters and make adjustments. It was a loss of control and a significant drop in velocity. If he's throwing 89 mph in 2006, he's not going to sniff a 4.32 ERA.
The defense is more than rough - using Dial's linear-weighted zone rating method and adjusting for team balls in play, I have Wigginton at -9 in 2004 and -10 in a mere 305 innings in '05 (which comes out as an abysmal -48 per 162 games!)
When we consider the G/F ratio of Duke, Maholm, Perez, Wells, and take your pick for #5, there will be a lot of balls on the ground, to be sure. But few RH MLB hitters are going to get on top and pull any of those guys heat like they would to Fogg and Redman in 2005, or Fogg and Burnett in 2004... especially with all the lefties throwing into the RH batters. The spray charts vs Maholm and Duke and Perez show us that.
Wiggy was comfortable above replacement last year to warrant an additional look at age 28, especially after his more than productive numbers late at Indy. His D tightened up there as well. But that is my opinion..
Guys like Bay (late to the big leagues for a great player) have funny comps:
Age 26 comps:
Marty Cordova, Hack Wilson, Jim Edmonds, Zeke Bonura, Mitchell Page,
Bobby Higginson, Pedro Guerrero, Tim Salmon, Wes Covington, Jason Giambi
FWIW, just eyeballing it, it looks like the better comps for Bay are Tim Salmon with more speed or Jim Edmonds with more power... not too shabby, as long as Bay can stay healthy.
One of the discouraging things about Littlefield is that, once he gets down on a player, even if it's only for oversleeping once, that player is toast no matter what he does on the field afterward.
Does anyone else think Wiggy would be more valuable as a somewhat stiff second baseman rather than a somewhat stiff third baseman who occasionally pegs a fan with a wild throw?
Jesse Barfield was a -5...oh wait, you weren't talking about his SOM arm... never mind...
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main