ZIPS for the A's are out
by rfloh on Oct 28, 2007 5:42 AM PDT
40 comments
Dan Szymborski has released his ZIPS projections for the A's in 2007.
He gets in some nice snark at the Beane bashers:
And Jack Cust, who strikes out way too much to ever hit major league pitching and who statheads don't realize won't ever hit in the majors, was made mincemeat out of by AL hurlers to the tune of finishing 8th in the AL in OPS+.
Speaking of Cust:
Name P Age AVG OBP SLG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS
Jack Cust* dh 29 .264 .394 .470 135 428 65 113 22 0 22 70 92 154 0 1
ZIPS likes Denorfia:
Name P Age AVG OBP SLG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS
AVERAGE LF ------------- lf ---- .271 .344 .447 ------------------------------------------
Chris Denorfia cf 27 .282 .350 .438 132 429 65 121 22 3 13 53 43 84 7 3
AVERAGE RF ------------- rf ---- .270 .341 .448 ------------------------------------------
Crosby:
Name P Age AVG OBP SLG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS
Bobby Crosby ss 28 .240 .305 .353 94 354 48 85 17 1 7 34 32 65 7 1
Kotsay:
Name P Age AVG OBP SLG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS
Mark Kotsay* cf 32 .260 .317 .369 103 412 47 107 22 1 7 49 34 39 3 2
0 recs |
40 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Our offense doesn't look too bad
As long as we avoid giving ABs to Kotsay and Crosby, our offense should be fine. You have to be worried about DiNardo and Halsey being the best options for the 4/5 slots in the rotation, though. It would be nice to have a decent CF or SS option, too, and Zips doesn't like Suzuki at all.
Also, notice Johnson is projected to be 3rd on the team in OPS? That seems pretty optimistic.
by MrIncognito on Oct 28, 2007 6:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
DJ
Either that's pretty optimistic, or our offense DOES look pretty bad.
by jeepers on Oct 28, 2007 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The offense projects to be above avg ...
in 8 of 9 positions (with Denorfia in CF) with above average backups at 1b/dh and C. It lacks star talent, but, overall, it should be pretty darn good. It won't score 1000 runs, but it shouldn't have any problem clearing 800.
by devo on Oct 28, 2007 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How?
That doesn't make any sense. I don't understand how any statistical system could project Crosby, Suzuki, Chavez, and whoever plays CF as "above average" offensively.
by jeepers on Oct 28, 2007 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Suzuki was above average
for a catcher this year.
by rfloh on Oct 28, 2007 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My bad ... 7 of 9 ...
Suzuki and Crosby aren't. Chavez and Denorfia both project to be better than average at their positions, according to ZIPS.
by devo on Oct 28, 2007 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, 7/9 from that projection,
plus Chavez is just a hair above average there, and he's sort of a wild card, both with how he'll perform, and whether it will wind up being mostly Hannahan, who they have as below average by a good bit.
I'd say if Denorfia actually plays CF and puts up those numbers, we're looking at an average offense, which I would certainly take.
by mikeA on Oct 28, 2007 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Won't have any problem clearing
800?
Wha? I'm adding up the projected Runs scored totals of the projected regular starters, and I don't see how they clear 800.
by rfloh on Oct 28, 2007 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the starters aren't projected to play 162
So you'd have to add some bench players producing runs as well.
(I could be wrong, though.)
by EastCoastA on Oct 28, 2007 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This isn't the best way of looking at it ...
but simply put:
The 9 starters are projected to score 576 runs, but they are also projected to total 3,947 ABs. This year they had 5,577 ABs. Project that out and you've got 814 runs. Of course, that's not a realistic projection, since it assumes 100% perfect health without any days off from the starters, but it also assumes that each of these individual players are going to be playing with the same crappy teammates they played with in the recent past, so these should largely cancel out. Additionally, there are several players whose backups project to being better offensively than they are (Crosby, Suzuki, Barton).
by devo on Oct 28, 2007 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dan Johnson
has been getting projection love for years now, even after he's proven to average at best in the majors. I don't really understand it.
That being said, the pitching is indeed rather thin, and there's no help on the way (at least until 2-3 years down the road when Simmons/Cahill are both ready). We'll see how Beane addresses that in the offseason, I guess.
by walk off bunt on Oct 28, 2007 8:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Simmons is probably closer than that ...
but the very earliest he'd arrive is late 08. So he's still no help.
I'm starting to rethink the idea that we need to focus on offense in the offseason ...
by devo on Oct 28, 2007 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I mean, if he can turn some of what we have into an acceptable 4th or 5th starter with some upside, I'd say he's got his old mojo back. But I'm not even sure with his old mojo could he do that, given what tradeable "assets" we have.
by walk off bunt on Oct 28, 2007 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I keep saying, Denorfia is good
He might not recover fully from the injury for some time. That's really the only thing stopping him from being an above-average MLB center fielder next season.
That said, if Calero is a better pitcher than Andrew Brown next season, I'll eat my hat.
by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2007 10:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That and his subpar ...
(though much better than Swisher's) CF glove.
by devo on Oct 28, 2007 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would settle for "not as awful as Kotsay"
I really hope he's good, but it's hard to get excited about a 27 year old who's never played a ML game and hasn't seen a pitch in a couple years.
by MrIncognito on Oct 29, 2007 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's played in 57 MLB games
and had more or less a full spring training's worth of work this year.
by devo on Oct 29, 2007 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
okay, I'll revise my lack of enthusiasm
It's hard to get excited about a 27 year old with a .740 OPS in fewer than 150 ML ABs for CIN, who is 1) in the NL and 2) in the most hitter friendly park in baseball, and hasn't seen a pitch since 2006.
It a lot more likely he'll be really good in 2009 than 2008, if for no other reason than its difficult for guys to bounce back from missing a full year due to injury in a more difficult environment than they're accustomed.
by MrIncognito on Oct 30, 2007 7:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For what it's worth,
the "fewer than 150 ABs" and the OPS are related. A disproportionate number of his at-bats were pinch-hits, which has a noticeable negative effect on hitter performance.
There's really no way to tell anything from a sample size of 140 at-bats over two years. It appears he can hit major league pitching to some degree. That's about all we can say so far.
by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a 740 OPS ==
much better than Mark Kotsay and if combined with respectable CF defense would make him a better option there than Swisher.
And, again, he played in spring training in 2007, where he saw 200 pitches or so. Spring training competition doesn't tell you a whole lot about whether a guy can compete at the highest levels, but it does allow him to get his hacks at live pitching, work on his timing, et al.
His age should be taken in context. He'd have been up last year if not for the injury and he probably would have been able to stick in 06 if his team weren't so stacked in the OF.
by devo on Oct 30, 2007 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
crosby and kotsay
we really need to not have either of these two in our starting lineup, unless it's crosby for his "Vg" defense and we have both bonds and cust for DH/LF.
by xbhaskarx on Oct 28, 2007 11:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They're raving about Jeter's "VD" defense
by JediLeroy on Oct 28, 2007 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hannahan projects better defensively
than Chavez. True, we don't know how Chavez will react to surgery. But that seems a little skewed. I don't understand how you could project caught stealings. I hope these predictions aren't completely accurate, because if they are, the A's will go 143-161 next year. Yes, I know this includes minor leaguers and free agents. And there's no way all those people could play all of those games. But I wanted to sound funny.
I'd like to see their projections with Duke as a starter.
by JediLeroy on Oct 28, 2007 11:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Projecting rate stats is about 1000 times easier
than projecting counting stats. With the questionable exception of home runs, I'd just ignore those parts of the projections.
by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2007 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So here would be our lineup
according to ZIPS
.283/.360/.458/.818 LF Travis Buck
.280/.369/.440/.809 1B Daric Barton
.263/.375/.483/.858 RF Nick Swisher
.264/.394/.470/.864 DH Jack Cust
.259/.341/.453/.794 3B Eric Chavez
.282/.350/.438/,788 CF Chris Denorfia
.273/.335/.418/.753 2B Mark Ellis
.248/.325/.369/.694 C1 Kurt Suzuki
.252/.305/.413/.718 SS Donnie Murphy
Obviously, we can improve at Short Stop, and I think that Suzuki will do better than that projection personally, but good enough. ZIPS thinks that Jeremey Brown and Rob Bowen should be our catching tandem, it seems.
If things broke right, we could have eight members of the "Starting" lineup with OPS's over .800... though that would require good years from Chavez, Denorfia, Ellis and Suzuki...
by Zonis on Oct 28, 2007 1:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
On the other hand, things might just break.
by salb918 on Oct 28, 2007 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, we're probably equally close
to having every member of the starting 9 with mid 700 ops's...
by Zonis on Oct 28, 2007 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
an idea
how about trying Ellis at Short this year, and putting Hanahan at second base, with Chavez at 3rd?
by Zonis on Oct 28, 2007 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this has been brought up so many times
if ellis could play short, i'm sure he would have made an appearance there every once in a while with crosby always out. he doesn't have the arm after shoulder surgery anymore.
by flipgatey3 on Oct 29, 2007 7:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Ellis has a second position, it's first base
Perhaps that might be a way to get Kevin Melillo some at-bats next season-- move Ellis to first on days when Barton is getting the day off.
by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2007 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why not just play Melillo at first?
Unless Melillo is better than defensively than Ellis, you're wasting Ellis' defense.
by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't help you figure out if he's any good
at second base for 2009 if you're playing him at first, instead.
Obviously, if they're in a tight playoff race, this isn't going to happen.
by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2007 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not going to score much that way
If we want to see how good Melillo is, let's let him OPS over .800 in AAA before we start shuffling our ML roster.
by MrIncognito on Oct 29, 2007 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you planning for give tryouts to players
by rfloh on Oct 30, 2007 1:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, your suggestion is
"Trade Ellis, then figure out whether or not to resign Ellis."
This strikes me as a... novel approach.
by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe Chavez's shoulder will let him play SS
Play Chavez at SS, sign Mike Lowell for 3B. If Chavez can play a league average SS, you'd suddenly have a very strong infield, offensively. 3/30 for Lowell?
by jubjub on Oct 31, 2007 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's not that great ...
and he's got plenty of downside. He turns 34 in February and had two down years before 2007's bounce back.
I'd say a repeat of 2007 is more or less a best case scenario, while a return to 2005 is just as likely and 2006's middle ground is probably the best bet.
by devo on Oct 31, 2007 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
No reason for the A's to suddenly get into the geezer market.
Plus which, Chavez would not make a good shortstop. His quality defense at 3B is based primarily on hands and reflexes. He wouldn't have nearly the range of Crosby or even Murphy at short.
by PaulThomas on Oct 31, 2007 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
