BBTF's Transaction Oracle Discussion :: 2007 ZiPS Projections

Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

2007 ZiPS Projections - Chicago Cubs

Name P AVG OBP SLG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS
Lee 1b .299 .383 .567 137 501 88 150 36 1 32 97 65 106 10 3
Ramirez 3b .296 .355 .559 144 538 82 159 33 2 35 110 46 63 1 1
Murton lf .299 .361 .446 139 448 65 134 21 3 13 61 42 65 8 3
Barrett c .285 .349 .481 122 403 48 115 28 3 15 63 35 56 0 2
Jones* rf .263 .320 .456 145 520 66 137 24 2 24 77 39 123 9 4
Restovich rf .245 .304 .451 125 408 61 100 23 2 19 60 31 118 2 1
Moore* 3b .248 .319 .425 139 471 65 117 26 0 19 65 45 137 9 5
Pierre* cf .299 .342 .385 160 663 88 198 26 11 3 59 38 41 45 18
Hoffpauir* 1b .239 .305 .416 110 377 55 90 18 2 15 59 34 83 1 1
Theriot 2b .275 .335 .356 124 404 58 111 21 3 2 38 34 46 17 6
Fontenot* 2b .248 .314 .373 121 399 56 99 24 4 6 38 37 84 6 4
Mabry* 1b .239 .307 .383 113 243 22 58 11 0 8 35 23 83 0 0
Craig# 1b .235 .307 .380 118 379 50 89 23 1 10 47 37 107 4 2
Sing 1b .202 .315 .369 113 331 43 67 16 0 13 44 52 106 1 2
Pie* cf .257 .304 .401 124 479 72 123 25 4 12 51 31 105 10 8
Izturis# ss .272 .320 .356 116 475 58 129 23 4 3 43 31 49 12 7
Patterson* 2b .252 .311 .373 131 469 73 118 20 5 9 51 40 101 29 12
Pagan# cf .251 .310 .360 115 411 60 103 18 6 5 39 32 90 17 12
Deardorff 1b .224 .292 .368 104 340 44 76 14 1 11 38 31 99 5 3
Blanco c .225 .276 .398 81 231 22 52 14 1 8 31 15 42 0 1
Soto c .234 .303 .331 109 329 30 77 17 0 5 32 31 75 0 1
Lewis 2b .237 .291 .343 120 376 47 89 19 3 5 37 26 90 9 4
Coats* rf .245 .293 .330 135 436 51 107 23 1 4 41 28 88 10 4
Cedeno ss .256 .286 .358 135 461 49 118 18 4 7 44 18 86 8 7
Bynum* 2b .240 .293 .327 109 367 52 88 15 4 3 31 25 91 20 12
Ojeda# ss .221 .302 .290 113 317 42 70 13 0 3 24 33 39 4 2
Spears* 2b .228 .279 .306 104 360 46 82 18 2 2 26 22 70 4 3
Harvey rf .203 .235 .345 120 449 58 91 20 1 14 53 16 138 4 1
Dopirak 1b .206 .256 .310 103 378 38 78 18 0 7 38 22 89 0 2
Reyes# c .215 .269 .255 91 274 23 59 8 0 1 23 19 42 2 2
Negron* rf .208 .254 .291 121 485 65 101 21 2 5 35 27 80 10 9
Kopitzke c .189 .235 .211 60 175 12 33 4 0 0 10 9 31 1 0

Player Spotlight (Beta) - Matt Murton
Name AVG OBP SLG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS
Optimistic (15%) .315 .388 .515 156 518 80 163 28 5 22 85 56 71 11 3
Mean .297 .361 .447 139 448 65 134 21 3 13 61 42 65 8 3
Pessimistic (15%) .280 .339 .395 110 337 29 94 12 1 8 37 28 54 4 3

Name ERA W L G GS INN H ER HR BB K
Howry 3.42 6 3 76 0 71.0 62 27 7 18 61
Zambrano 3.46 14 8 32 32 213.0 177 82 20 81 198
Wuertz 3.58 5 3 67 0 73.0 58 29 7 28 85
Hill* 3.65 12 8 31 28 175.0 148 71 25 56 190
Dempster 4.09 5 4 63 3 77.0 70 35 5 36 71
Prior 4.09 7 7 22 22 132.0 117 60 20 44 147
Wood 4.10 5 5 20 16 101.0 87 46 13 38 103
Eyre* 4.21 2 2 80 0 62.0 52 29 7 29 66
Ohman* 4.34 2 2 70 0 58.0 46 28 7 31 67
Mateo 4.64 6 9 29 23 130.0 134 67 16 45 93
Rusch* 4.68 6 7 37 16 125.0 132 65 15 42 91
Pignatiell 4.69 5 6 38 14 117.0 117 61 16 44 93
Ligtenberg 4.73 3 4 51 1 59.0 63 31 10 13 49
Ryu 4.80 6 8 24 23 148.0 160 79 19 46 90
Pawelek* 4.87 3 5 14 12 61.0 64 33 4 30 35
Aardsma 4.89 4 5 59 5 92.0 90 50 11 44 66
Guzman 4.90 5 8 27 23 123.0 125 67 17 51 111
Reith 4.94 3 4 38 1 51.0 51 28 7 23 40
Gallagher 4.94 7 10 28 28 162.0 161 89 19 82 123
Miller 4.97 3 5 16 16 87.0 86 48 10 43 61
O’Malley* 4.98 5 8 30 17 121.0 135 67 17 37 60
Novoa 5.05 3 5 65 0 82.0 84 46 13 33 62
Chavez 5.08 5 8 26 17 124.0 132 70 22 41 86
Walrond* 5.24 5 11 31 21 139.0 142 81 19 69 104
Marshall* 5.34 5 9 24 24 128.0 133 76 19 61 85
Brownlie 5.45 5 11 33 15 114.0 126 69 20 41 70
Holliman 5.49 6 13 26 26 146.0 155 89 22 71 93
Veal* 5.49 4 10 26 26 136.0 127 83 15 96 111
Harben 5.56 4 10 27 23 131.0 140 81 13 76 70
Marmol 5.79 4 12 30 25 146.0 146 94 22 92 112

Player Spotlight (Beta) - Rich Hill
ERA W L G GS INN H ER HR BB K
Optimistic (15%) 2.69 16 5 33 30 192 143 59 22 54 218
Mean 3.65 12 8 31 28 175 148 71 25 56 190
Pessimistic (15%) 4.53 7 8 25 23 135 129 68 22 51 131

That last little bit completely floored me, to the extent that I was
trying to find an excuse to post a Player Spotlight that didn’t make
me look like I was on crack. Simply put, ZiPS likes Hill better than
practically every other pitcher in baseball with minimal MLB experience.
The strides he’s made in in the last year have turned his career
around, as we saw after the All-Star break in the majors. The
turnaround from 2005 to 2006 in the minors was just as pronounced,
as Hill went from allowing a home run every 6 innings to allowing a
home run every 33 innings.

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 2007.
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: October 18, 2006 at 07:46 PM | 48 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. Rally Posted: October 18, 2006 at 11:30 PM (#2216882)

1. Matt Murton looks like a fine player
2. Rich Hill, wow!
3. The Cubs need a few more crappy hitting middle infielders.

2. Rally Posted: October 18, 2006 at 11:38 PM (#2216883)

Dan, are you using a standard confidence interval for the player spotlight?

I would think that for a pitcher like Roy Oswalt, the 2.69/3.65/4.53 would look about right, but for Hill it would be somewhat wider. I think he very well could meet that projection (my projection is in the same range), but he might revert to his nibbling, gopher prone ways and get sent back to Iowa.

I could be 100% wrong on this, and even if I'm not I don't know how you'd go about quanifying it. For all I know, Oswalt could have just as much downside, and after years of overwork, turn into Mark Gubicza 1990 or something.

3. Rally Posted: October 18, 2006 at 11:41 PM (#2216885)

Lets put it this way, I'd love to grab Rich Hill for a buck in fantasy next year, save some cash while someone pays $28 for Oswalt, I'll think I have a pretty good chance to get equal production and save money for elsewhere.

But if I've got money at the end and need an arm, I might be the one who spends 28 on Oswalt. No way would I go that high on Hill.

4. Ienpw Posted: October 18, 2006 at 11:46 PM (#2216888)

I doubt Hill goes for a buck in any league.

5. zfan Posted: October 18, 2006 at 11:52 PM (#2216891)

I'm surprised it has O'Malley as better than Marshall.

Moore looks like he's getting close. A good year in AAA, and he's got value. Patterson, too.

Jones: ick. If he didn't just admit his shoulder was coming apart at the seams, they should deal him.

Mike Wuertz: closer?

6. My guest will be Jermaine Allensworth Posted: October 19, 2006 at 12:09 AM (#2216901)

If they got a .320 OBP out of Izturis next year, they'd be ecstatic.

7. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 19, 2006 at 12:14 AM (#2216909)

If they got a .320 OBP out of Izturis next year, they'd be ecstatic.

If they got a .320 OBP out of Izturis next year, they'd ask, ".320 -- is that good?"

8. Kiko Sakata

Posted: October 19, 2006 at 12:17 AM (#2216913)

I'm optimistic on Murton - I think he can get at least close to that optimistic forecast.

I'm very pleased to see the Rich Hill forecast, although the optimistic strikes me as much more unlikely than that - but, of course, I know less about this than Dan.

I was actually pleasantly surprised by the projections of both Scott Moore and Ryan Theriot. While the Cubs won't be winning a World Series with those two putting up those numbers in their everyday lineups, the Cubs aren't going to be winning a World Series with anybody else in those spots in the lineup anyway, so I'd go ahead and run Theriot at least out there every day, and I'd be hesitant to give too much to Aramis (particularly in terms of additional years).

Mike Wuertz: closer?

Absolutely. Although that Dempster forecast isn't all that bad.

Also, one minor request. If it's not too much trouble, I'd find it helpful if you listed guys' ages with their projections. The Cubs threw so many rookies and sorta-rookies out there last year, that it was hard to keep track of these guys' ages, which in a lot of cases is the difference between whether some of these guys are prospects or just organizational filler.

Thanks, Dan. Great, great stuff.

9. Frisco Cali Posted: October 19, 2006 at 01:26 AM (#2217093)

So, what did Wuertz do to Dusty this spring? He had a solid '05, and good overall numbers in '06. To be banished to Des Moines for over half the season is beyond my measly comprehension.

10. Dan Szymborski

Posted: October 19, 2006 at 01:52 AM (#2217176)

Dan, are you using a standard confidence interval for the player spotlight?

No, I had to fashion a ZiPS error model when I originally created ZiPS, using, (blarggh) ZiPS projections for everybody, ever.

I had intended it originally to be a quickie estimate in the spirit of what they did in the Elias Baseball Analysts towards the end of the run, but being armed with Excel, it's hard not to use some of the statistical toys, especially since most of the work with mean projections was done.

Both Elias and Nate use similarity score-type systems which I don't use directly. I used baseball history to get data of course, but I categorize players as a large number of various types.

In this case, purely from a statistical standpoint, Hill's got an enormous amount of positive factors - he's in his late 20s, all his periphs are going in a positive direction, and even when he was getting lit up, he was still very unhittable and without a ton of defensive support.

As I've noted above, this is simply a beta this year. I'm confident in my mean projections, but not on the breakthrough/breakdowns until they have more seasoning.

11. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: October 19, 2006 at 02:03 AM (#2217214)

I thought the Cubs defense was pretty good. Did Hill have bad luck when it came to defense?

12. Dan Szymborski

Posted: October 19, 2006 at 02:11 AM (#2217244)

I thought the Cubs defense was pretty good. Did Hill have bad luck when it came to defense?

The Cubs defense was actually better than I remember (the spreadsheet no doubt remembered better than I, though).

13. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: October 19, 2006 at 03:06 AM (#2217397)

I'm optimistic on Murton - I think he can get at least close to that optimistic forecast.

Ditto. He had 9 HRs in about 230 PAs in the second half of the season. If he gets the chance to start 150 games, 20+ HRs is a reasonable possibility.

Even the mean projection of an .800+ OPS with good OBP would be nice. I'd really love to see the Cubs give him a shot at hitting 2nd in the order this year - it feels like he'd be a good fit. He's got decent speed, he doesn't strike out, he can take the ball the other way, and he works the count.

I don't think there's any way Hill gets close to that optimistic projection. I'd be thrilled with the mean projection, with an ERA in the mid 3s and a reasonable BB/9 rate.

14. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 19, 2006 at 03:10 AM (#2217416)

Wow, that Hill projection is kar-a-zy.

15. stealfirstbase Posted: October 19, 2006 at 04:13 AM (#2217510)

Rich Hill, Kerry Wood and Mark Prior.

If those three approach their projections I'll eat my hat. The headline in the Sun-Times today that made me laugh out loud--seriously guffaw--was that the Cubs trainer says Mark Prior's shoulder has "genetic looseness" and that "surgery is a last option." So that's what they're calling Dusty Baker these days: genetic. I wonder what branch of genetics the Cubs' trainer specialized in, since that's obviously why the team's keeping him around. You know, as a biology student myself I've got a different diagnosis of Prior's arm trouble. If you'll excuse me for delving into technical language, "HE'S GOT A BUSTED WING."

Honestly, did anyone outside the Cubs organization expect Mark Prior or Kerry Wood to throw a healthy pitch this season? Does anyone expect that for next season? If so, what evidence leads you to this conclusion? And does the evidence also lead you to El Dorado?

The offense thins out quickly. I don't think it's unreasonable, though. Matt Murton just might hit that projection. He seems like a good player.

16. DosRafaels Posted: October 19, 2006 at 04:18 AM (#2217515)

If that Hill projection has any merit, and the Cubs get maybe a little more than a year and a quarter of actual playing time from Prior and Wood, Pinella might have walked himself into a pretty good job. I mean the Cubs had no where to go but up, but in a bad NL that will potentially lose some good FAs to the AL, the Cubs might be in contention.

Pinella for Manager of the Year.

17. Cabbage Posted: October 19, 2006 at 04:51 AM (#2217539)

The pitching staff looks like its got potential.

But you know what has an absolute 100% chance of success?
The return of unnecessary cub fan optimism.

18. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: October 19, 2006 at 05:07 AM (#2217545)

But you know what has an absolute 100% chance of success?
The return of unnecessary cub fan optimism.

My optimism is up just by virtue of the Dustbag being gone. It's like, no matter what happens, at least I know he's not responsible for it anymore.

But it's a tempered optimism. Pinella's obviously not going to come in and turn this team into a dynasty. I'll just be happy if they're not so frustratingly infuriating to watch that I have to abandon the team in mid-June out of regard for my sanity. I think one more season of the Dusty and Neifi show could seriously have ended my Cubfandom for the foreseeable future.

19. Andere Richtingen

Posted: October 19, 2006 at 01:26 PM (#2217638)

In this case, purely from a statistical standpoint, Hill's got an enormous amount of positive factors - he's in his late 20s, all his periphs are going in a positive direction, and even when he was getting lit up, he was still very unhittable and without a ton of defensive support.

Hill put up a jaw-dropping line in Iowa this season. I think it makes sense that ZiPS went gaga over that.

I'm optimistic on Murton - I think he can get at least close to that optimistic forecast.

I don't think it's that optimistic. What may be important is the amount of playing time Murton gets against RHP. He wasn't used in any kind of platoon last year, but his PAs were skewed a bit toward LHP. At this point I think we have to expect less of that in 2007, which should work against his rate numbers.

Anyway, it's hard to argue with a projection that puts a 25 year-old almost exactly where he was at age 24.

20. Spahn Insane Posted: October 19, 2006 at 01:29 PM (#2217640)

I'll just be happy if they're not so frustratingly infuriating to watch that I have to abandon the team in mid-June out of regard for my sanity. I think one more season of the Dusty and Neifi show could seriously have ended my Cubfandom for the foreseeable future.

My sentiments exactly. That's pretty much why I found better things to do with my time around Memorial Day last year.

21. Dan Szymborski

Posted: October 19, 2006 at 01:34 PM (#2217648)

For those (probably the non-Cub fans) that didn't see Hill's line in Iowa:

100 IP, 62 H, 3 HR, 21 BB, 135 SO

AAA is AAA of course, but that's an insane performance.

22. The Answer to the TWolves (GMoney) Posted: October 19, 2006 at 02:10 PM (#2217689)

How about an ARod peformance for next year translated to Wrigley Field just for the hell of it?

23. Rally Posted: October 19, 2006 at 02:16 PM (#2217693)

Rich Hill's curve looks like Barry Zito's. His fastball is faster.

I'd rather have Hill than Zito right now.

24. Kyle S Posted: October 19, 2006 at 02:18 PM (#2217697)

I'm curious to see a bunch of the other (and younger) guys lines. Hamels, Liriano, Felix, Verlander, Weaver, Matt Cain. Let em rip Dan!

25. Azteca Posted: October 19, 2006 at 02:54 PM (#2217733)

Theriot's zips line is miserable. And, he turns 27 in a month. His 2006 batting line, however, is probably going to fool someone in Chicago, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him playing everyday for the first two months in 2007.

The pitching looks decent, though. Veal could possibly get 10 starts in the bigs next year, and Gallagher's even closer with 80 AA innings in 06. Not a bad staff.

26. VG Posted: October 19, 2006 at 03:30 PM (#2217780)

I'm surprised it has O'Malley as better than Marshall.

O'Malley was put on the shelf with an arm injury -- is he just rehabbing or did he have surgery?

27. JPWF13

Posted: October 19, 2006 at 03:39 PM (#2217788)

For those (probably the non-Cub fans) that didn't see Hill's line in Iowa:

I picked up Hill in my Roto league after his recall- it was an act of desperation- my staff was going down in flames
he gave me 55 Ip, ERA of 1.96 and WHIP of 0.891 (58/13 K/BB)

Rich Hill rules

28. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: October 19, 2006 at 03:47 PM (#2217799)

O'Malley was rehabbing without surgery. The fact that Dan has O'Malley better than Marshall says more about Marshall than it does O'Malley.

29. VG Posted: October 19, 2006 at 04:05 PM (#2217818)

Thanks, dJF.

30. Spahn Insane Posted: October 19, 2006 at 04:19 PM (#2217838)

That projection for Rusch looks awfully optimistic to me (leaving aside the fact that his health might keep him from pitching at all).

31. The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Posted: October 19, 2006 at 04:38 PM (#2217868)

For those (probably the non-Cub fans) that didn't see Hill's line in Iowa:

100 IP, 62 H, 3 HR, 21 BB, 135 SO

AAA is AAA of course, but that's an insane performance.

His BABIP was .282 overall and .252 vs RHB.

32. Dan Szymborski

Posted: October 19, 2006 at 05:45 PM (#2217939)

Player Spotlight (Beta) - Alex Rodriguez, Cub Version
                   AVG   OBP   SLG   G  AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI  BB   K SB CS
Optimistic (15%)  .309  .416  .582 160 610 130 189 30  2 44 139  98 128 23  4
Mean              .287  .387  .521 154 572 104 164 24  1 36 115  84 129 16  4
Pessimistic (15%) .264  .357  .464 136 489  74 129 18  0 27  86  65 116 13  5

33. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: October 19, 2006 at 05:51 PM (#2217946)

Does Dan know something we don't know?

34. Kiko Sakata

Posted: October 19, 2006 at 06:29 PM (#2217989)

That's not that much better than Aramis (it's a lower OPS but a higher OBP). Honestly, I think Cubs fans would be pretty disappointed with that mean projection from A-Rod (depending, I suppose, on what we gave up to get him). Not that it matters at all - we're not getting A-Rod unless the Yankees decide to give him away.

35. Rally Posted: October 19, 2006 at 07:14 PM (#2218033)

ZIPS don't like Alex much. Optimistic is no better than his 2005 MVP season, Mean looks like his 2006, pretty much the worst year he's had since he became a regular. And if he hit pessimistic, we wouldn't be able to tell A-Rod's stats from Casey Blake's.

36. Dan Szymborski

Posted: October 19, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#2218046)

37. The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Posted: October 19, 2006 at 07:56 PM (#2218062)

No comment on Hill's BABIP? League average was .318 and .315, respectively.

38. The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Posted: October 19, 2006 at 07:57 PM (#2218063)

I guess my real question is: Is it normal for top pitching prospects to have low BABIP in the minors?

39. Rally Posted: October 19, 2006 at 10:16 PM (#2218208)

It is normal for the best pitching prospects to have lower BABIP. How much lower , I don't know, but even if he regresses 100% to league average, with those strikeouts he's not going to give up many hits.

Put a .318 BABIP in that line above and Hill gives up around 70 hits. Still pretty dominant.

40. Rally Posted: October 19, 2006 at 10:27 PM (#2218225)

My projection is not quite as kind to Hill:

IP/Hit/HR/BB/SO/ERA

167/149/22/72/160/4.16

At this stage I don't have anyone projected to where they'll actually pitch, but to a context neutral environment, so even with Wrigley a hitters park, Hill's projection will look better for the Cubs simply for being in the NL, both with its weaker cometition and no DH rule.

Other youngsters:

Weaver:
121/106/15/34/118/3.66

Liriano:
151/131/15/57/160/3.58

Cain:
154/140/21/75/140/4.37

Felix:
177/160/17/66/168/3.82

Verlander:
132/133/14/43/96/4.31

Hamels:
98/86/11/40/96/3.78

Papelbon:
106/94/11/38/89/3.72

and Joe Saunders:
182/184/21/69/117/4.41

41. Dan Szymborski

Posted: October 19, 2006 at 10:43 PM (#2218241)

Of the above, I've only done Papelbon and Verlander. ZiPS likes Paps about the same and Verlander a bit better. It takes awhile for me to get through them all - my spreadsheet is a bloated mess.

When are you going to give you projections a catchy name? It's a pain in the ass to always talk about "Chone Smith's Projections" when you could give us a swanky name.

42. Rally Posted: October 19, 2006 at 11:06 PM (#2218264)

I call them the Rally Monkey projections. I can't shorten it to the Monkey projections because of Tango and Marcel. But then Marcel from friends is the rally monkey, so yeah, I'll try and come up with a better name.

43. Dan Szymborski

Posted: October 19, 2006 at 11:59 PM (#2218321)

You should name it CHONE and decide what it stands for afterwards.

44. Rally Posted: October 20, 2006 at 04:37 AM (#2219263)

Good idea.

45. Dr. Vaux Posted: October 20, 2006 at 05:09 AM (#2219293)

Oh, yeah, Joe Saunders is just as good as Justin Verlander.

46. Mike Emeigh

Posted: October 20, 2006 at 06:18 PM (#2219722)

I call them the Rally Monkey projections.

How about the Trunk Monkey projections?

-- MWE

47. Mike Emeigh

Posted: October 20, 2006 at 06:20 PM (#2219725)

Is it normal for top pitching prospects to have low BABIP in the minors?

Yes. Clay Davenport studied this a couple of years ago.

-- MWE

48. Dag Nabbit: Sockless Psychopath Posted: October 20, 2006 at 07:37 PM (#2219801)

You should name it CHONE and decide what it stands for afterwards.

Good idea

Comprehensive (something) (something) (something) Evaluations.

There. That's 40% of the name.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

2007 ZiPS Projections - Chicago Cubs

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics

Syndicate