2007 ZIPS projections
by lboros on Jan 6, 2007 1:02 PM EST
in St. Louis Cardinals News
Email
Printthe long-awaited st louis ZIPS projections are up at BTF. lot of punchless bats on the roster, per this forecast, but the young arms look very sound. jeff weaver projects to a 4.28 era in this telling; anthony reyes, about 40 points lower. by these lights randy keisler (this year's version of dennis tankersley) should prob'y be in the discussion alongside chris narveson as a candidate for the #6/#7 starter role; and in a dire emergency, ZIPS doesn't think blake hawksworth would be a disastrous option. the system also thinks troy cate and andy cavazos are both ready to contribute at the big-league level, and that ricardo rincon's got nothing left. other interesting projections: ryan ludwick and nick stavinoha.
i'll have a lot more to say about these on monday.
also: no post from Erik this weekend. if the baby hasn't arrived by this evening, they're gonna induce pregnancy.....d'oh, i mean labor. induce labor. i'm an idiot . . . . best wishes to Mrs. Erik for an easy delivery and a healthy mom + child.
143 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Doh!
by mikedallas23 @ Viva El Birdos on Jan 6, 2007 1:10 PM EST reply actions
Carp's optimistic
Interesting Dan is working on a module to try to estimate pitcher's conversions from the pen to starters. Wonder how he's going to do that.
Reliever to Rotation Module
Reliever to Rotation Module
That's precisely how I went about it. Since a ton of pitchers have mixed roles, it first estimates starts and relief stats on the data and then extrapolates what's needed from there.
by DSzymborski on Jan 7, 2007 12:49 AM EST up reply actions
Ok, so we can argue whether it will happen
no, i don't
you'll note, by the way, that ZIPS projects brad thompson to have an era 70 points lower than weaver's, albeit in a relief role. if, to account for the change in role, we bloat thompson's era by 33 percent --- ie, by 1.20 or so --- he's only a moderate downgrade from weaver (4.80 era), but he carries none of the risk. more important, he preserves the cards' spending flexibility, so that they can acquire a better pitcher later on if the opportunity arises. if you commit the $9m right now, to jeff weaver, it becomes almost impossible to upgrade; weaver's your #2 starter come hell or high water. and he's not a #2 starter.
If you have the money...
But regardless the Cards have $14mm available, so even if they spend $9mm in '07 they could still pick up just about anyone at the deadline because $5mm is more than enough to pay the pro-rated portion of all but the most expensive players.
In '08 Izzy and Eck's contracts run out and Molina goes to arbitration, so projecting a $100-$105mm payroll they'll have around $25mm to spend on a shortstop, a closer and two starters. The closer job can go to Kinney or TJ or some 22 year old currently in Palm Beach (the days of $10mm/yr closers have to be coming to an end soon). With Weaver on board they'll need a starter and a shortstop and they'll have $16mm to spend. That seems like an ok position for the organization to be in...
Look, I don't like Weaver that much, but when you've got money in the bank and two starting pitchers that project to bench or worse than bench, it seems prudent to overpay a bit.
Oh yeah..
Overpaying one of Scott Boras' more mediocre clients isn't the most elegant roster move, it won't win Jocketty the 'genius' title, and it might even get him bashed a little, but it'll likely be worth a couple wins over Thompson/Looper. Last year two wins would have kept the Cards out of the playoffs entirely.
c'mon guayzimi
the 1-year ZIPS projection looks decent. he's still not a good baseball player.
Alright...
I won't speak of it again... until next June when we'll revisit the wisdom of starting a season with Wells and Thompson/Looper in the rotation and $15mm in the bank. Despair will have engulfed Cardinal Nation by that time and a healthy portion of crow will be on the menu.
As long as we
I don't think
I think he's simply saying why the hell would we want to overpay for a bad player. I would like to see them get someone, even if it is Weaver, but I sure hope Duncan and TLR are confident they've got his problems solved and we're not going to see the 6 ERA guy anymore if we do give him any more than 2 years.
There's still other options out there too. Many of the guys we've talked about on here, either as trade options or free agents are still available. Even some of the other players like Ohka, Pineiro and others, who might also be bad, might only command a one or two-year deal. That might be a better way to go than Weaver for 3.
(On that note, I do hope Weaver comes back, but again, not a three-year deal.)
what i'm advocating
if the cardinals stay patient, they'll find another, better solution to the short-term problem. maybe it'll be brad thompson; if not him, then somebody else --- jon lieber, kris benson, next july's weaveresque DFA, whatever.
this really isn't a one-year projection
That career ERA is good enough for a 96 ERA+, which makes him an average starter.
by Rob H on Jan 6, 2007 9:41 PM EST up reply actions
Where did you get that rule of thumb?
BP says +25% here:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5471
Since I don't have his projection minus those 5 starts just take his career number and add +25%.
3.14 * 1.25 = 3.925
I wish we had more "failures" like this guy. He needs the same chance in spring as the rest. Lets see what he can do.
I'm not saying...
The guy used to be a starter... He famously pitched 60 innings or so of scoreless ball. He was converted to a reliever by the braintrust because they felt he didn't have good enough pitches to go along with the sinking fastball. If that assessment has changed I would think a competition with Wells for the #5 slot would be appropriate; not counting on him as The Guy and having Looper or the waiver wire as a backup plan.
As for your projection, I'll go ahead and take the over on the 3.92...
In 2005
Carpenter
Mulder
Morris
Suppan
Marquis
There was no room for any rookie to break in that year. He was put in the pen simply because the only other option was to leave him in the minors.
My person ERA projection as a starter for this year would be ~4.50. About the same as Mulder/Weaver are likely to provide.
I'd rather have a mediocre to bad #5
Yabut....
Abreu only cost the Yanks $5 million for 2006, I thought. So you could spend $10mill on a Weaver and still have $5mill to pay a frontline guy for working August and September. That assumes the Cardinals are really interested in spending $15 million more for '07...
Not that blowing $10mill on a bad player is desirable, as we've established in this thread, my point is that you only need $5 or $6 million to get a superstar type player.
oh my
probably not
Ted Simmons
by Yadier on Jan 6, 2007 2:13 PM EST reply actions
Who in the hell is....
I keep pretty much up to date on the Cards minor league affiliates on a day to day basis and have NEVER heard of this dude.
by Big Red on Jan 6, 2007 2:14 PM EST reply actions
He's an aging...
On the plus side I once saw him hit a ball 500 feet onto a parking lot when he was with the Portland Beavers. I always thought he was an all or nothing masher, but his numbers don't indicate that. There's no chance he'll ever get a single at bat with the Cards, imo.
my first thoughts on ZIPS...
- Thank God for Pujols and Carpenter. It's so nice to just sit back and know they're going to be the best at what they do, year in, year out.
- Good-to-decent rate stats for Rolen and Edmonds (as well as JRod and Dunc), though Edmonds is only scheduled for 120 games or so...could mean a lot of So.
- They like Reyes a lot, and the rest of the rotation too, actually. Reyes only gets 150 innings here, and some of the other ones are screwy too (Tankersley, etc.). I really, really wish we had a Wainwright-as-starter projection.
- Disappointing numbers for Yadi, Kennedy, Jenc, and Eck (especially those first two).
If you noticed...
by redbirdnation on Jan 6, 2007 5:34 PM EST up reply actions
Item 3
I did finish my little start/relief toy. It has Wainwright at 11-8, 3.85 in 166 IP as a starter.That would be terrific.
that would be awesome
Chris Duncan
...that would still probably make Duncan a pretty bad player, given that he plays the outfield like he's trying to solve a Rubik's Cube while being strafed by World War I biplanes...
LOL.
thnx, i'll take it
like that troy cate projection...and i'm thinking there's no reason to sign p dub to platoon with dunc when we have ludwick and stavinoha
ZIPS
I thought Wilson...
Think about this though
Although that is some shaky D coming off the bench and you're relying completely on Encarnacion to play CF when Jimmy is out. Unless Marrero makes the team, he can play Center.
Either way, Taguchi is a black hole.
Someone help me out.
Yep, and they sweetened
by MdRedbirdFreak on Jan 7, 2007 7:45 PM EST up reply actions
Ex-Cards
Cardinals Caravan
Really good line-ups this year. I'll be going to the ones in Champaign and Bloomington.
i'm mildly bummed
last year i went, they had john rodriguez, larry bigbie, rick horton and tom lawless...it was fun and all, but that other group is pretty exciting
That's the one we're getting
And congratulations on your impending dadhood, Erik. Just make sure you make him bend the bill of his Cardinals cap.
by 26thMan on Jan 7, 2007 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
JRod needs to start
I am big on JRod
What I don't get
So in a couple of years follow Gall out the door with no real value to the team and no value in return.
Juan the Swan
What about OBP?
Career is even a larger delta.
OBP .378 vs .316
I'll admit that JRod is a small sample size but I would rather he get a chance to show what he can provide that vs JuanE who we pretty much know will suck.
I'd still rather have JRod
I have a thread going over there picking out all the Redbirds from different systems.
http://cardsclubhouse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17167&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
It'd be a strange platoon
vs. LHP .901
vs. RHP .798
Encarnacion career OPS:
vs. LHP .759
vs. RHP .757
That sample size
2005 OPS:
vs LH: .737 (27 AB)
vs RH: .834 (122 AB)
2006 OPS:
vs LH: 1.240 (13 AB)
vs RH: .772 (170 AB)
Memphis OPS:
vs LH: .612 (23 AB)
vs RH: 1.018 (42 AB)
I can't find anymore minor league splits, I know all those samples are small.
Also I have Encarnacion's career OPS as this:
vs LH: .837
vs RH: .734
As an aside, for all you people that want to throw a gazillion dollars at Weaver. Overpaying for marginal talent sucks. Whatever your opinion on JRod and Thompson is, Looper and Encarnacion certainly aren't worth $28.5 million over the two of them, if anything at all.
It makes me angry every time I think about it.
fear of the unknown
Personally, I don't get it. I would rather take a chance that the young player will do well instead of some old guy that you know will be average at best. (i.e. Juan E, Weaver). At least Mulder has the potential of upside. He may also be out of the game in a year.
Enc splits
Baseball Reference gives Enc's career splits here.
Of course you're right that the sample size for Rodriguez is small. But it isn't for Encarnacion, and he just doesn't profile as a guy who screams out for a platoon. He's mediocre, but consistently so.
You're exactly right
If you could sign Craig Wilson for a few million, and So cleared waivers (or something else that Tony would never go for, e.g.: Taguchi will be taking up roster space with his .686 OPS), and Juan was utilized in more like 350 ABs, you could do something like this:
Wilson, Encarnacion, Spiezio/Marrero/whoever against LHP
Rodriguez, Edmonds, Duncan against RHP
Which could turn a messy and questionable OF situation into something that looks fairly productive. (downright ugly on D though)
I don't know, replace JRod with Trot Nixon, and Wilson with the Gooch (obviously, he'll be on the team so the above was complete fantasy). I'd take that. Rodriguez still has an option anyway.
JRod and Duncan
by wannabeGedman on Jan 6, 2007 11:42 PM EST up reply actions
What's misleading about stats for JRod
That's why I like Duncan. He was protected too somewhat but there were times when he had to go out there on a regular basis regardless of the situation. And generally he came through better than expected.
I too would like to see JRod given more opportunity to show what he can do. But I suspect Tony's decision is based on what he has observed about the players' strengths and weaknesses.
by Fred McTaggart on Jan 7, 2007 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
Jerome Williams
(A) Fight for the 5th starter or
(B) Go to AAA and try to work out the problems that cropped up last year.
He was a top rated prospect through 2003 and pitched at 4.25 at Wrigley in 2005. Granted last year he was horrible, but we are talking about a guy would pitch all of 2007 at age 25. Lot of upside imo... He has decent to good years since 99 and would come cheap. He was mentioned today in passing at mlbtraderumors.com...
Just another cheap shot in the dark.
"In Walt We Trust"
Ex Cub Factor
Wainwright the starter
I did finish my little start/relief toy. It has Wainwright at 11-8, 3.85 in 166 IP as a starter.
That's some 1-2-3
yeah
(carp/wells/reyes/wainright/weaver + looper/flores/johnson/thompson/hancock/kinney/Izzy); FWIW Springer and kinney's ERA's are interchangable and make no difference to the pyth total.
The Zip calc IP didn't really make sense to me, but keeping ZIP ERA's and increasing IP for some of the starters to reasonable #'s based on career stats or pulled-from-arse TLAR #'s (IE 221 for carp, 200 weaver, 180 for wells, wainwright, reyes) and reducing the numbers for the bullpen esp izzy, I came up with 654 ER allowed. Using 780 as a guesstimate RS stat, I ended up with a 96-66 pyth record. Not what I'd hoped for, but I'll take it. Esp since i think our offense is going to strongly outperform the 2006 offense in 2007. Enc is gonna be a stud and duncan is going to continue to improve, and albert will get 600 AB's ;)
However, to me this is a very strong argument for signing weaver; we've lost Suppan and Marquis, two guys whom in the past ate 200+ innings each, and we have replaced them with 3 guys who really haven't shown the ability to pitch 200 innings in a year. Weaver has exceeded 220IP 3 times and 199.2 5 times. If he could put up a 4.28 era over even 199 IP he'd be worth the $12M it would probably take to get him to sign a 2 year contract just to keep josh hancock or jorge sosa from having to pitch 100 innings...
I wonder how Thompson projects as a starter. If Dan can put that up (I'll email and ask) I'll plug Springer into my spreadsheet in his place and see how many wins that costs us, but I can almost garuantee that thompson's 3.6 ERA over ~95 innings in relief is going to be very hard to replace cheaply.
Thompson as starter
Thompson doesn't really translate as well as Wainwright does - the strikeout loss pushes him down into the danger zone. He goes from 3.60 in relief to 8-8, 4.47 as a starter.
by DSzymborski on Jan 7, 2007 12:58 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks Dan
Thanks again for all the hard work. Interesting stuff, as always.
thanks!
WHO CARES ABOUT ZIPS
one more thing eck will resign and stay in st.louis
by BRINGBACKWILSON on Jan 6, 2007 11:46 PM EST reply actions
I do to...
Stats
As to next year, we will win, and it will be a much more enjoyable affair, despite some opportunities missed. As Joe Morgan said, "The Cardinals have Pujols. The greatest hitter in the world!"
by Yadier on Jan 7, 2007 1:17 AM EST reply actions
Actually the stats said don't.
This is the weakness of the cards front office is they often would rather have a declining vet over a younger player just to have something that is known. Even if whats known is bad.
Well...
I do not understand all this hatred for Juan, he put up last year the numbers expected from him (with a wrist injyry in the last two months to diminish his effectivness), both on offense and on defense, yes we could have traded for someone better, but who was available at an affordable price? Remember that he is credited with a total of 16 WS, or 4 WSAB, 94 OPS+, so these numbers, although not spectacular, are solid ground to put your feet onto and plug other experiments in. On top of this, he's easily tradeable, due to his reasonable price.
I'm not Juan's advocate, but if you want to use numbers, use them all!!
GO CARDS!!!
Juan did as expected.
One of two things went wrong, either:
- The cards expected more out of Juan than they got.
- They knew what they were going to get but were unwilling to accept the same production from young players.
which players?
Well..
Kenny Lofton signed a 1/3.5 contract, and while his 750-800 OPS is OBP driven, it's not like that's a bad thing. He's a true CF, too.
There were plenty of trade options, I'm sure.
Juan's not exactly winning gold gloves either, while he's an ok player, $15 million for about the worst regular RF in the NL is not helping a bleak situation.
You should trip and fall over a decent glove corner outfielder, with a replacement level OPS. If there isn't a great option (and Gooch/JRod platoon would have been just fine) it's not like it's a good idea to compound the problem with a hamstringing contract for a marginal player.
I'm going with Driver on this one, I think it's a philosophical issue.
Looper and Juan aren't worth $28.5 million over Thompson and J-Rod, or even Ludwick and Kinney. Not that I am advocating Suppan for Suppan money, that contract was downright terrible, but there's most of your Suppan money right there.
Both of those contracts were knee-jerk moves for middling players that were "proven" (to be averageish, at best) when there were just as good, maybe better, especially considering the payroll implications, options, in-house.
Pay difference makers difference maker money, fill in the holes from within or with one-year contracts.
Ok, I found a free agent tracker from last year
Eric Byrnes - 1/2.5
Jeff Conine - 1/1.7 +option
Brian Giles - 3/30 +option
Jose Guillen - 1/5.5 +option
Matt Lawton - 1/400k
Orlando Palmeiro - 2/1.9
Reggie Sanders - 2/10
Kenny Lofton - 1/3.5
Rondell White - 1/2.75
Jacque Jones - 3/15 (I couldn't find it, but I am pretty sure it's real similar to Juan's)
With the benefit of hindsight, some of those were bad. But, I swear I thought Byrnes and Lofton were no-brainers in that group, and I thought Lawton and Conine wouldn't have been bad either (I would have been wrong on Lawton, obviously).
Still even if none of those look better than Juan (lots should), JRod/Gooch gets the job done for 1/15th of the price.
if you buy play-by-play defense
Doesn't
Of course, my anecdotal evidence means next to nothing in this case. But, I'd be willing to bet that he is more, slightly above average than anything. Anyway, without a boring bunch of crap about defensive systems, if the results aren't intuitive I generally like for a couple of systems to agree with each other, if that makes sense.
Of course, I haven't seen Dewan's stuff for this year, that's only what I've heard.
Unfortunately, as a corner outfielder this hardly makes up for a .443 SLG and a .317 OBP. That's not the kind of OF you go out of your way to devote significant fractions of the payroll to on a three-year commitment.
There's also not much in his stats to suggest that .270/.320/.450 would be any kind of a surprise, quite expected actually.
not only UZR
And if he's fifteen runs above average on defense, and somewhere around twelve runs below average on offense, it does make up for it. If you believe UZR, Juan's pretty close to average, which is a bargain at $5 mil. annually.
With Juan you're paying for bulk at-bats--he's pretty durable--and a pre-established level of performance. Without a lot of impact bats in the system (read: there's one, and he's in high A) that's not a bad gamble to take.
huh,
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2006/4/1/165843/2304
MGL also said this in a WS thread:
So cannot hit a lick. Versus a RHP, he is less than worthless. No defense that he can provide can make up for that. J-Rod or whomever is a much better alternative. Tony has dissed J-Rod for a while now, for some reason I am not aware of.
When it comes to young or "unproven" players (or non-regulars), Tony thinks he can somehow mix and match through intuition or some such thing, such as who is hot or cold or who is 3 for 7 or 0 for 5 against whom. Of course, all of that is nonsense. That is his biggest weakness as a manager.
How is this level of performance anything more than a stop-gap, and how does JRod not give you very close to this for next to nothing?
How about these numbers? (per the same blog)
- So Taguchi .288.322/.412; -1.56 pNRAA; -2.24 pNRAA/GP
- John Rodriguez .295/.382/.436; +11.44 pNRAA; +6.41 pNRAA/GP
- Juan Encarnacion .273/.329/.439; -9.58 pNRAA; -11.39 pNRAA/GP (I think this is his 2006 PECOTA projection, which he slightly underperformed)
Maybe we are just throwing out numbers at this point (me at least) and it sucks that the defensive systems can't come to any sort of a conclusion (actually until 2006, it looks like they had with the exection of mgl) but I still can't imagine that he was more valuable than the aforementioned pNRAA's of JRod and Gooch, or that Lofton and Byrnes (natural CFers) weren't twice the value.
Whatever you want to think about Juan's defense, you are cutting it awfully close in a marginal value sense considering his salary. I maintain that it was a pretty bad signing, and the Birds are better off hitting JRod against RHP this year.
I should say
and his comments end
PMR
But Prospectus's numbers are a little crazy and have been for some time. I know people may really hate Juan, but do we really believe that Chris Duncan is a better defensive outfielder? Duncan is slow, he has poor instincts, and he's prone to lapses in judgment and just terrible misplays. So even if you absolutely despise Encarnacion, he's like Duncan only not slow. And yet somehow Duncan was worth two runs on defense in half a season! People have been committed for less.
As for Dewan, it beats me; but Juan's always looked subjectively to me like a good outfielder, so I guess I've just had the mirror image of the experience everybody else has.
I thought mgl
Also, if he's 15 runs above on defense and 12 below on offense that 'doesn't make up for it.' That takes him to 3 runs above. Not even half a win. Add the 2.6 runs he cost on the basepaths and JEncs is replacement level.
At this point
This is basically the point, 1 win isn't worth $10M, and I wouldn't say that he is necessarily worth that, in a chaining sense of replacement.
whoa, whoa
And,
A guy who is below with his bat and less than a win or two with the glove is a replacement player. Defensive specialists are a dime a dozen.
No, no he's not
A guy who is eight runs above replacement with the stick--twelve runs below average--and ten or fifteen runs above average with the glove is absolutely not replacement level. He's basically average, and--I don't know where this got started--he's not below replacement level in any facet of his game.
Now, he can still be a waste of money, but let's at least get the terms right.
Which
I'm not saying that Juan is a poor outfielder, but due to a definite lack of consensus and nothing anecdotally that suggests that he is Ichiro out there, I'm not going to assume that he is saving runs on the order that he is not producing them like his contract would suggest he is needing to be.
Considering what his real world replacement is, and the other options that offseason, spotting him +10 annually with the glove (that's generous I think), and that he can be expected to give you a .770 OPS every. single. season. that his contract was preposterous and ultimately prohibitive.
It's pretty moot, as we're stuck with the guy, but I hope this doesn't stop the braintrust from acquiring a more productive corner OF before his contract is up.
Juan's Contract
Considering the going rate for mediocrity (and worse), Juan's contract was very reasonable and if he wasn't the best available outfielder, he was close enough not to worry about some minor advantage. For all the displeasure over the money, the dollars doled out haven't been an obstacle to acquisitions and I don't see any reason to expect that to change. The Cardinals could've found a more cost-effective player, but why would fans want that if there's no place to spend the extra dough?
by Rob H on Jan 7, 2007 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
I thought as a lefty-masher
I don't want the Cardinals to get into the pissing war that is "paying the going rate for medicrity" that's what medicore franchises are doing.
Fans should want the team to spend wisely regardless, every single long-term contract has an opportunity cost of years and dollars.
keep in mind
... Larry Bigbie.
I'm not in the 'down with Juan' camp
That's the biggest (and most valid, imo) knock against Juan. He posts some absolutely horrific OBPs and that's the single most important contributor to scoring runs. If JRod can post 40-50 pts higher OBP than Juan then there's a very real chance that he makes up any defensive advantage that Juan has.
jrod
I just never bought the argument that Juan was a significantly better RF than JRod. Juan has a better arm but never seems comfortable digging a ball out of the corner. Every other game he seems to give out a free base from a ball in the corner. Here are the career defensive numbers for Rodriguez and Juan E. in RF--
Jrod (fpct / RF / ZR)
.939 2.48 .853
Juan E. (fpct / RF / ZR)
.985 2.07 .905
It seems to make great sense to take ABs from Juan and give them to Jrod. We'll see what kind of shape Juan's wrist is in when he shows up in Jupiter.
Looper starter
by DSzymborski on Jan 7, 2007 9:00 AM EST reply actions
Personally
well,
Carpenter and the "four question marks" are good for 53 wins.
Thank the Lord for Albert. I still say we need outfield help.
Good Luck Mrs. Erik
I could not help register and post today after reading that if the baby does not come they were going to "induce pregnancy". Well I am not a doctor but I think that has already be taken care of :) Not trying to be a critic, this just struck me as pretty funny. I hope all went well.
Go Cards!
by birdeye on Jan 7, 2007 10:01 AM EST reply actions
Regarding Juan
ZIPS and similar stats
To the extent that the stats play out correctly, the facts are clear anyway. Who couldn't project that Albert Pujols will hit .320, etc., etc.? To project anything for Tagert whatever-his-name-is is pure nonsense.
by Fred McTaggart on Jan 7, 2007 12:12 PM EST reply actions
Do you kick puppies for fun?
And stats are a pretty hallowed component of modern baseball. If you don't see how they relate to the game on the field...well I'm not sure where to begin correcting that misconception.
Also, your comments are really a pain in the ass to come across in the threads. You sound very abrasive and arrogant. I'm not pointing this out to be an asshole, but if I was sounding like an ass, I'd want someone to tell me so I could explain how that wasn't my intention.
Your comments
I'm sorry if my comments come across that way to you. I certainly don't intend to do anything except give my opinion on the issue at hand. If there's something in the tone of my posts that upsets you, I'll do what I can to change that.
If it's merely that I'm disagreeing with you or the general tone of the board, it seems to me that that's what a forum should be about. I'm not writing to make you happy or unhappy; I'm merely stating my opinion. Is that all right?
by Fred McTaggart on Jan 7, 2007 1:47 PM EST up reply actions
it's the Tarot cards and nonsense
and yes my kicking puppies line was unneeded.
Your more then welcome to disagree but offer some kind of reasoning. saying that it's easy to predict pujols is not a valid reason to throw out all projection systems. What about Jimmy's line? That's a very resurgent line after seeing Edmonds last year.
I did not mean to be rude
The "nonsense" was in reference to obscure players with very little information available on which to base any projection.
I appreciate the role of statistics in baseball; I have been playing around with baseball numbers for the past 58 years, but I see them mainly as a way of confirming what I've already seen--Stan Musial was damn good! As for using numbers to predict an upsurge for Edmonds for next year, I simply don't understand that at all. What my numbers tell me is the Edmonds has been a damn good player for many years, and if he stays healthy (which was not last year), he'll be the same player I know and love...minus one more year of age.
Now there is an element of baseball (or any sport) that's closer to Tarot and other forms of mysticism. When players catch fire, or enter the zone or make catches like the one Jimmy made against the Astros, or win the WS after winning only 83 games during the regular season, that's mysticism. And you can't convince me that you can predict that with any numbers.
That's my reasoning.
by Fred McTaggart on Jan 7, 2007 4:26 PM EST up reply actions
Ya, the type of
Interesting
Might be a fun project, but personally I don't have that much time on my hands and suspect it has been done by someone else somewhere along the way.
A project like that, however, would be the easiest check (though I freely admit it wouldn't help for projecting the Stavinoha's of the world)...
Evaluating the Forecasts
From Fred:
> Who couldn't project that Albert Pujols will hit .320, etc., etc.?
All's I know is that a monkey would forecast Pujols to hit .331—I'm thinking the smart money's on the monkey, in this case.
yeah
albert has to be the most consistent player ever over there first 6 years, or at least who puts up the production he does
He'll be easy
Thanks.
Thanks again.
Marcel
From what I've read about ZiPS, it regresses to age- and talent-comparable players. In the case of Pujols, he lists Frank Thomas and Jeff Bagwell as the two most similar players. At age 27, Thomas batted .308/.454/.606 and Bagwell hit .290/.399./.496, after putting up monster seasons (both batted over .350 and slugged over .700) at age 26 in strike-shortened 1994. ZiPS is projecting Pujols to fall off a bit like they did.
I'd be surprised if that happened, and expect he'll come closer to that 85 percentile optimistic projection.
The Hardball Times
Here is a link to the first article
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/projection-roundtable-part-1-of-5/
erm...
but again we were underdogs all the way in the playoffs, lets see how a season can be.
o and btw stop ripping on juan encarnacion he aint that bad, and heck if he wasnt a cardinal maybe we arent world champions.
Silliness is
Take care, and enjoy!!!!
by Yadier on Jan 7, 2007 4:40 PM EST reply actions
I don't know.
And that is the problem in the country now. People who don't beleive in something "'cause" and that's the only reason.
here's one reason:
Tony and Walt obviously make use of numbers in making their decisions but they combine these numbers with personal observation, medical records and common sense.
To complain that Juan has a bad contract or that JRod doesn't get enough playing time based on a computer projection ignores too many of the other elements that are important in baseball and in life.
by Fred McTaggart on Jan 7, 2007 10:14 PM EST up reply actions
TLR not good at getting the most out of players.
Izzy clearly didn't have it, yet he was allowed to lead the league in blown saves rather than give Wainwright or Looper a chance.
Mulder showed lots of signs of being hurn, yet the team just kept running him out there rather than give Reyes a chance.
Marquis, How could Naverson, Thompson, or ... done worse?
Juan, already beat to death in this thread.
Tony gets a lot out of aging vets, but he doesn't know when to cut his losses with one. Now its going to be interesting to watch next year. At the end of 06 and in the playoffs he suddenly ran the kids out there, mostly due to a lack of other options. However, they showed him they coudl do the job. Will this put some of his fears about playing young players to rest? We will see.
WJ seems to be on board with the youth movement.
Jaffe's study at BTF
Pretty cool stuff in his 3 part article evaluating managers.
That's exactly where I find fault with the system
I have no idea whether Tony is stubborn or wrong-headed or anything else. I have no idea whether Brad Thompson could have done better than Mulder or Marquis. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I get as frustrated as anyone else when things don't go well. But the manager is hired to deal with all of those personnel issues, and the bottom line is that he has had more success with those decisions than any St. Louis manager since Whitey Herzog.
by Fred McTaggart on Jan 8, 2007 8:31 AM EST up reply actions
Who's bashing Juan?
"JRod should get more playing time/they were better options last winter" doesn't = "Juan Encarnacion lights animals on fire"
Juan E's Contract
If he made 4MM a year instead of 5MM I think we would all think higher of his value. And its JUST 1MM, other teams have much worse contracts. Just Sayin.
by Born in 82 on Jan 8, 2007 1:58 AM EST reply actions
Its not the contract.
Then you're looking at
Using the current configuration of outfielders, here is how I would project playing time:
- Jimmy: 145 games/135 starts; has two stints where he can't play for a week, but no DL time
- Lurch: 145 games/125 starts; a few token starts against lefties, loses a few against righties to Speezer
- Brekky: 130 games/105 starts; loses starts to JRod, but comes in as PH or for defense; loses 20+ games due to a lower leg injury, caused by sliding aggressively, trying to cut off a ball in the corner; overall stats look better, after losing at bats versus righties
- The Gooch: 145 games/40 starts; proves that he can't hit on a consistent basis, but still gets playing time because LaRussa likes his fundamentals (and he plays better defense than the alternatives)
- JRod: 120 games/40 starts; starts off hot, enough for LaRussa to give him a chance subbing in for Brekky against some righthanders
- Speezer: 55 games/20 starts (OF-only); picks up mostly versus-LH starts in leftfield; plays quite a bit as part of double switches
- (Assorted OF options): 21 starts
(One major assumption I made was that one of the coaches gets to Brekky and gets him to hustle in the outfield. This, combined with fewer "vulnerable" at-bats versus righties, transforms him into a fan favorite.)
right
you're coming at it from the opposite end, which is, he's signed to this contract, so he should play every day. and that's not really the right way to go about it, either prior to signing him or now. prior to signing him, the proper approach is to evaluate him based on expected performance, and refuse to pay more, rather than say, "well, it's going to take $5M to sign him, so I guess he's our everyday RF from here on out." now that he is signed, that money is going to be paid regardless, and so is JRod's salary. we already have to pay them both regardless of how much PT they each get, so why not go with the one we think is going to perform better on the field?
I see your point, nycbirdo
That said, Encarnacion is a better defensive player and could be extremely good if he is mentored properly (see above). With Jimmy advancing in years (and, really, it's the mileage in his case) & Duncan manning LF on most nights, LaRussa needs to limit the amount of games where Edmonds is tasked with covering the entire outfield. If Rodriguez can take the starts against the really tough righthanders (with a few games against journeymen thrown in to maintain his confidence), it makes Brekky look that much better. (Actually, it doesn't make him look better - it makes him better if you limit his problem areas.)
Also, I tried to keep this grounded in reality. LaRussa has shown little confidence in JRod, has entrusted Taguchi with way too many at bats despite his limitations, & has been known to give away playing time to Marlon Anderson/Eduardo Perez-types just to improve his strategic flexibility, offensive production/defensive ability be damned! Juan will continue to get playing time because Tony trusts him more than the alternatives.
Enc
Platoon
In fact, a platoon can be called for regardless of Juan's consistent splits IF you have another alternative that is simply better versus only one of the splits. E.g., if JRod hits righties to the tune of +.050 OPS or more over Juan, but hits below Juan's consistent mediocrity versus lefties, wouldn't it make sense to consider a platoon?
Similarly, if we didn't really have a better alternative than Juan versus lefties, he'd be the guy for those starts, right?
A .75x OPS for a corner outfielder is definitely nothing to write home about, but it's still above replacement level...so until we DO come up with a better alternative, a L/R platoon would seem to be indicated with the pieces we currently have.
That probably won't happen since Tony seems to have about as much faith in JRod as a starter as some of us do in Duncan earning a Gold Glove for his OF defense, but...
Juan
Don't get me wrong, I don't have any huge ideas about what they would do with the outfield for 2007. I just think Juan could be more valuable, in the long run, as a trade piece, than playing RF in Busch next year.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
