Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: More Televised Winter Baseball, Please

2010 WAR Projection for the DBacks - Batters

For the last couple of days, I've been trying to do a WAR based preview of 2010 for the DBacks based on the CHONE projections. However, the CHONE linear weights are a bit different than those used to calculate WAR on Fangraphs and they really sold our batters short.

Well, today I found out Fangraphs will be implementing WAR projections for 2010, so all that's left for me is to list our players, add up their values and present it here. So far we only have WAR projections for batters, so there will be a second part where I look at pitcher WAR.

What you need to know about WAR is that while it's a good place to look at your team's talent in a vacuum, the correlation between WAR and actual wins is 0.83, which means it's a solid but not great predictor (for example, for pythag it is 0.91). If you want to know more, read this, and of course, if you want to know more about WAR in general, check out the FanGraphs glossary.

So let's get started. After the jump, I go position by position, assuming around 700 plate appearances to equal a full season. I'll list the CHONE projected numbers in table format, listing the number of plate appearances, the triple slash stats, Runs above average (Batting), Defense projection according  to TotalZone, Replacement level (set to 20 runs per 600 PA), positional adjustment, RAR (batting + defense + replacement + position) and WAR (10 runs = 1 win).

Star-divide

Catcher:

You might think Montero will get more PA than this and he might well, CHONE is not an expert on playing time. If you want me to run the number with different playing time projections, I'll try to do it.

PA

Triple slash

Batting

Defense

Replacement

Position

RAR

WAR

Miguel Montero

398

.276/.342/.456

6.4

-8

13.3

9.3

21

2.1

Chris Snyder

352

.233/.335/.403

0.2

2

11.7

8

22

2.2

 

4.3 WAR from the catcher position is great.

First Base:

I have no idea how we'll play the whole first base mess. There are plenty of question marks here, like will Conor Jackson play first, will Jeff Bailey make the team, will Brandon Allen hit well enough to play full time, or will he hit well enough to platoon against righties. I'll just list all the projections and take a wild guess about who will play and how much.

PA

Triple slash

Batting

Defense

Replacement

Position

RAR

WAR

Conor Jackson

469

.276/.358/.425

7.3

-2.3

15.6

-9.3

11.3

1.1

Jeff Bailey

417

.258/.360/.444

8.8

0

13.9

-8.7

14

1.4

Brandon Allen

460

.256/.317/.441

0.5

-3

15.3

-10.6

2.3

0.2

 

It appears that Jeff Bailey is projected to hit much better than Allen, who looks suspiciously like a replacement level player at this point in time. Again, this is just a projection, and if I'm trying to get the best team based on these, I'll give Bailey most of the playing time. If we figure Bailey gets 417 PA and Allen gets the rest, we have 1.5 WAR from first base.

Second base:

PA

Triple slash

Batting

Defense

Replacement

Position

RAR

WAR

Kelly Johnson

485

.273/.351/.443

8.1

5

16.2

2

31.2

3.1

Ryan Roberts

405

.262/.353/.403

3.2

-4

13.5

1.8

14.5

1.5

Tony Abreu

415

.293/.337/.434

2.6

-1

13.8

1.8

17.2

1.7

 

The reason Johnson isn't projected for more playing time is last year's injury. Let's agree with CHONE there, and give the remaining at bats to Abreu. That should give us 4 WAR for the season.

Shortstop:

PA

Triple slash

Batting

Defense

Replacement

Position

RAR

WAR

Stephen Drew

597

.271/.328/.431

1.8

0

19.9

6.7

28.4

2.8

 

Since we're probably not going to carry Ojeda on the roster, the remaining 100 or so at bats at short will also go to Abreu, and prorating his projected WAR and adding it to Drew results in 3.2 WAR for the year.

Third base:

PA

Triple slash

Batting

Defense

Replacement

Position

RAR

WAR

Mark Reynolds

556

.260/.345/.498

16.9

-5

18.5

2.2

32.6

3.3

 

Mark is projected for 556, but since he's been a true ironman for us, I'll pencil him in for 630, which would bring his projected WAR to 3.7. If we give the remaining at bats to Roberts, he should get us to 4 WAR.

Left field:

PA

Triple slash

Batting

Defense

Replacement

Position

RAR

WAR

Conor Jackson

469

.276/.358/.425

7.3

1

15.6

-5.6

18.4

1.8

Gerardo Parra

520

.288/.338/.406

-1.8

3

17.3

-6.7

11.9

1.2

Eric Byrnes

448

.251/.308/.411

-3.8

6

14.9

-5.1

12

1.2

Cole Gillespie

441

.253/.342/.402

1

5

14.7

-6.1

14.6

1.5

 

Looking at this, Jackson should get most of the at bats at left field. If we pencil him in for the projected 469 and fill up the rest with Ryan Roberts, left field should give us 2.5 WAR.

Center field:

PA

Triple slash

Batting

Defense

Replacement

Position

RAR

WAR

Chris Young

387

.229/.320/.387

-4.9

-3

12.9

1.9

6.9

0.7

 

Yeah, this is terrible. Our two candidates for center field, Parra and Young, are both projected to be bad next year, Parra a little bit less so. If we give Parra 430 PA and give the rest to Young, the final prorated tally gets us to 1.5 WAR from center field. Bad, but not like last year.

Right field:

PA

Triple slash

Batting

Defense

Replacement

Position

RAR

WAR

Justin Upton

511

.296/.372/.515

23.2

4

17

-6.3

37.9

3.8

 

Upton battled some injuries in the last couple of years, but I don't think there's a reason we can't expect him to give us 600 PA, which would bring his WAR to 4.5. Even if we get no value above replacement for the remaining 100, that's a good total.

So, according to CHONE projections and my playing time guesstimates, we can expect around 25 WAR from our batters. Of course, we need to let our pitchers bat, and looking at the last few years, that's good for about -3.5 WAR. Let's see how that stacks up with numbers from the last few years.

Year

Batter WAR

2009

15.6

2008

10.6

2007

10.8

2006

12.1

2005

13.5

 

It's a significant increase. The MLB average for the last five years is just under 19.5, and if you look at last year, only nine teams eclipsed 21.5 WAR. Six of them were playoff teams.

Look out for my pitcher WAR article next week, but as a preview I can tell you that if our pitchers repeat last year's 17.9 WAR, it would mean CHONE projects us (with the aforementioned playing time guesstimates) to win almost 90 games next season.

I'd appreciate all kinds of input in the comments. Thanks for reading!

Comment 72 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Nice

90 wins? I’d take that. Obvious comment: this depends on is having basically little or no playing time for our position players lost to injuries. Mind you, the Dodgers and Rockies basically managed that last year, while we had our fair share, so seems like turnabout’s fair play there! :-)

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Jan 7, 2010 10:37 AM EST reply actions  

Good thing is

Unlike on the pitching side, injuries to batter don’t imply replacement level performance. We have some nice backup options in both the infield and the outfield.

by paqs on Jan 7, 2010 11:53 AM EST up reply actions  

This does seem to be one of the theme

Of this winter’s acquisitions – flexibility and the ability to provide position depth. I think at almost every position on the field we have someone who can play and be better than replacement level. Obviously, at some spots we’d still take a hit (Upton >>> Parra, say), but it’s still better than nothing.

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Jan 7, 2010 3:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Bailey?

I wasn’t familiar with him, and after following the link I see why. I don’t see any reason to want him on the roster this season, let alone in the lineup.

Key to the game: Score More

by pygalgia on Jan 7, 2010 11:57 AM EST reply actions  

How about

The fact that he has the best projected WAR of our 1B?

"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."

by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 7, 2010 7:03 PM EST up reply actions  

It's just a projection

It’s probably too optimistic, but nevertheless I think it’s a safe bet that Bailey will hit better than Allen next year. And since all our moves seem to be of the win-now variety, I think if Allen hits like he hit last year, he’ll be off to Reno.

by paqs on Jan 8, 2010 2:41 AM EST up reply actions  

What

is the expected number of wins for a team of all replacement-level players?

by mfan2010 on Jan 7, 2010 12:26 PM EST reply actions  

Replacement Player Team

I believe a replacement level team is expected to win around 40-45 games.

by Amit on Jan 7, 2010 1:25 PM EST up reply actions  

According to these guys

it’s between 45-48, usually 46-47.

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Jan 7, 2010 1:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Right

In these rough calculations, it’s usually rounded up to 50.

by paqs on Jan 8, 2010 2:46 AM EST up reply actions  

Kelly Johnson

Where does CHONE come up with Kelly Johnson being +5 for defense at 2B? He has been -7.0, -10.6, and -0.1 the last three years. The fans’ projection has him at -3.6 for 2010.

Meanwhile, Abreu has been at +3.0 and +0.5 the last two seasons, and is projected at -1.0. It almost seems like CHONE has the defensive numbers backwards for Johnson and Abreu.

by Amit on Jan 7, 2010 1:29 PM EST reply actions  

I wondered the same

Part of the difference is that Paqs said these are TotalZone ratings, not Urz/150, which is usually the defensive metric that gets thrown around here. Even so, that’s a much different way of looking at those two players.

Also, I was surprised to see how much CHONE likes Johnson offensively. Bailey too.

by Counsellmember on Jan 7, 2010 1:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Right

As for Abreu, these UZR samples are really small, and from what I’ve read, he’s not a very good defensive player.

by paqs on Jan 8, 2010 2:48 AM EST up reply actions  

What you've read

Says the opposite of what I’ve read. :-P

"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."

by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 8, 2010 4:03 AM EST up reply actions  

Because clearly

Someone out there has decided that our intarwebz cannot be the same. It’s a conspiracy!!!! Call ’Hacks. :-P (Teehee)

"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."

by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 8, 2010 4:01 PM EST up reply actions  

paqs — where have you read he’s a poor defensive player? I’d be interested in reading the contrary opinion.

"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8

by njjohn on Jan 8, 2010 9:14 AM EST up reply actions  

Just Dodgers fans

Take that with the appropriate amount of salt. For what it’s worth, his totalzone numbers from 2006 are excellent, and there are no meaningful samples after that.

by paqs on Jan 11, 2010 9:43 AM EST up reply actions  

The Dodger fans I know are TO’d the org dumped him.

"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8

by njjohn on Jan 11, 2010 1:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Fair enough

The defense isn’t the problem with him anyway, it’s plate discipline.

by paqs on Jan 11, 2010 4:08 PM EST up reply actions  

What might be some implications

that Bump Bailey is projected to be our third best hitter?

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Jan 7, 2010 3:39 PM EST reply actions  

Weird but true. Per CHONE.

He had a .785 OPS in .270 minor-league at-bats last year, and it expects him to be over .800 in the majors next year, at age 31? Go figure, Chone. However, he is only responsible for 1.4 WAR, which does put him close to dead-last among the starters, ahead of only Chris Young. So, even if he bombs, it wouldn’t be too significant to the overall WAR total.

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Jan 7, 2010 6:25 PM EST up reply actions  

A couple of things

a) Yeah, it’s most likely optimistic

b) He’s underrated by OPS because he’s an OBP guy

c) His expected line for Arizona is projected for Chase

by paqs on Jan 8, 2010 2:53 AM EST up reply actions  

Also

d) His cups of coffee in the majors were productive. wRC+ of 104 (wRC+ is like OPS+ but based on wOBA)

e) He destroyed AAA in ’08

by paqs on Jan 8, 2010 3:01 AM EST up reply actions  

One advocate

says the big implication of Bump Bailey projecting as our third best hitter is:

“Go figure, Chone”.

..um, anyone else?

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Jan 7, 2010 10:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Er... What was I advocating?

Must have missed that.

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Jan 7, 2010 11:44 PM EST up reply actions  

I worked it out

I was advocating that our team should win 90 games this year. That seems like a really good idea to me – I trust we can all get behind it…

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Jan 8, 2010 10:57 AM EST up reply actions  

Well done

I can “get behind” it if you’re able to separate faith and reason. Otherwise, dont save a seat for me on “the bus” :-)

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Jan 8, 2010 6:28 PM EST up reply actions  

I'll go!

We’re not a very good hitting team.

by paqs on Jan 8, 2010 2:54 AM EST up reply actions  

Ta da!

 In order to pre-empt smoky backfire from the dreamy “Ninety Wins or Bust” Double-Wide Bus Tour, allow me to gently reinforce your winning induction :-)

The Bailey projection doesnt prove we’ll be a bad hitting team (and you didnt suggest that). As Jim noted, it’s just a projection, and as you outlined, Bump’s probably a little better than some of us thought. But for an org relying on a broad based positional core, the prospect of a virtually unheard of 31 year old journeyman projecting as our third best hitter, is sobering.

Or should be.

Let me go further. I dont believe the Bailey estimate necessarily invalidates the reality or value of our broad based core. There are some good things happening. But it’s a troubling piece of information, from an esteemed evaluator, that should help inform credible perspective.

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Jan 8, 2010 6:22 PM EST up reply actions  

But for an org relying on a broad based positional core, the prospect of a virtually unheard of 31 year old journeyman projecting as our third best hitter, is sobering.

Only if you completely buy into the projection- which you seem to be clinging onto with undue adoration. Every system has its quirks and outliers. See also the CHONE projection for Shelley Duncan – a 30-year old with a career .701 OPS, who has never had even 75 at-bats in a season, is projected to hit 22 homers and have an OPS of .822.

I’ill happily wager you, Bailey will not be the D-backs third-best hitter this year. You game? If not, then it just proves that Bailey’s numbers say a lot more about CHONE than about the D-backs, despite efforts to paint them that way.

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Jan 8, 2010 7:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Only if you completely buy into the projection – [emphasis mine]

Er, no. Nobody “completely buys into” the projection. Another instance where you fail to address a straightforward position, preferring to construct a strawman that you feel comfortable boxing about the ears. “Completely” buying into the projection purposely distorts the dialogue and illuminates nothing, beyond a capacity to “completely” miss the point.


- which you seem to be clinging onto with undue adoration.

See what I mean? Now, mentioning a projection is “clinging to it with undue adoration”? I didnt claim Bailey was going to hit .804. Never said he would finish third in OPS either. I suggested it’s an interesting data point relative to the rest of our team. Sadly, your obsession to twist and mock such gently presented data, once again exposes the pseudo-intellectual nature of your efforts.

Every system has its quirks and outliers.

So your solution, of course, is to disparage any individual data point you dont like. Like CHONE’s wild and crazy Bailey projection (104 ops+), when Bailey is a career 97 OPS+ hitter? Yes, by all means, let’s poop all over that, because goodness knows, the exact accuracy of that is the primary issue. Not the Diamondbacks offense. No, the effrontery of this Bailey projection (and Shelley Duncan) is what merits full investigation here. To the exclusion of everything else. Sheesh.

It doesnt matter whether the .804 OPS belongs to Jeff Bailey, or Pearl Bailey. It’s just a theoretical data point. What “matters” is that CHONE projects only two Diamondbacks above that figure. Simple enough? I ask, because others seem to grasp this point rather quickly.

I’ill happily wager you, Bailey will not be the D-backs third-best hitter this year. You game?

lol. You must not enter into many bets with adults. I’ll happily wager you that Stephen Drew will not be the Dbacks ninth -best hitter this year. You game? If you refuse the bet, it proves(yes, PROVES PROVES PROVES!!!), what CHONE says about the Diamondbacks is meaningless.

(Of course I’m being facetious. That’s the difference, really. I would never hide behind, let alone construct, such a dishonest argument.)

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Jan 9, 2010 5:07 AM EST up reply actions  

Yes, by all means, let’s poop all over that, because goodness knows, the exact accuracy of that is the primary issue. Not the Diamondbacks offense. No, the effrontery of this Bailey projection (and Shelley Duncan) is what merits full investigation here. To the exclusion of everything else. Sheesh.

So far, that’s all you’ve given us. Summary of your argument to date: “Bailey is projected as the team’s third-best hitter. I said, Bailey is projected as the team’s tnird-best hitter. Oi! Over here! Bailey is projected as the team’s third-best hitter.”

If you want to discuss the fact that, excluding Bailey entirely, the team’s offense is still projected to reach 20 WAR, let’s do it.

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Jan 9, 2010 9:14 AM EST up reply actions  

And once again, 'Hacks turns the argument personal
I would never hide behind, let alone construct, such a dishonest argument.

For, of course, you never make things up without a bit of evidence to back them. LOL

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Jan 9, 2010 9:41 AM EST up reply actions  

'Hacks, you have been asked several times before

To confine your discussion to baseball topics. As you failed to do so here, opting instead to deliver a string of ad hominem attacks, I have hidden that comment.

I look forward to your critique of paqs’ analysis.

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Jan 9, 2010 5:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Good analysis

Can we do some Afgan war projections next?

Bring back the Baltimore Chop!

by dima1109 on Jan 7, 2010 5:43 PM EST reply actions  

NO

Key to the game: Score More

by pygalgia on Jan 7, 2010 9:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Please, for all that is (or may be) holy

NO.

What's your name? Sandwich. What's your first name? TUNA.

by emilylovesthedbacks on Jan 8, 2010 1:02 PM EST up reply actions  

I’d suggest Nascar and Unnamed co-write it :)

"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8

by njjohn on Jan 8, 2010 1:04 PM EST up reply actions  

+1

Good one!

"I've been around long enough to know how ignorant I am. I don't assume the universe obeys my preconceptions. Huh! But I know a frelling fact when it hits me in the face!"

by unnamedDBacksfan on Jan 10, 2010 3:13 AM EST up reply actions  

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Jan 8, 2010 2:13 PM EST up reply actions  

the latest Vegas odds have

The Afghans as a +3 favorite over the next two years…

I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....

by piratedan7 on Jan 9, 2010 2:24 AM EST up reply actions  

Thanks for the link

I downloaded the spreadsheet and started looking at it, with the intent of doing a report, but my eyes glazed over and the next thing I knew, I was lying on the floor of the office… It’s a bit obscurist: think I’ll leave the analysiu to paqs!

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Jan 8, 2010 10:59 AM EST up reply actions  

I did the same

There are some insane numbers out there.

by paqs on Jan 11, 2010 9:45 AM EST up reply actions  

By the way, good post, paqs. Thanks.

"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8

by njjohn on Jan 8, 2010 9:15 AM EST reply actions  

2010 NL West WAR

I published my NL West WAR study a few weeks ago as some of you may know. I also had a few reservations about the CHONE projections, especially when it came to playing time. I understand why they are shortchanging players on playing time, as CHONE looks at playing time from an actuary point of view taking into consideration catastrophic injury. Still, one size fits all adjustments don’t seem right. Anyways…

I have the Diamondbacks pitching totals for 2010 at 17.8 and the hitting at 17.7 quite a bit lower than Jim’s totals. I do a couple of things different. #1 I dock each team a little more for (negative) pitchers hitting and typical AAA at bats which are below replacement level. I also make a “strength of division” adjustment to the team replacement level wins. For the NL West I have it adjusted down from 48 to 46.5.

Therefore, 46.5 + 17.7 + 17.8 = 82.0

Any WAR projection that comes out with the Diamondbacks at 90 wins (or something close to that) probably needs to be revisited.

I have… for now…
COL 89.0
LAN 86.0
SF 84.0
ARI 82.0
SD 66.5

by Xeifrank on Jan 9, 2010 1:26 PM EST reply actions  

Sorry, paqs study not Jim’s, should’ve looked at that more closely.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 9, 2010 1:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, you're probably closer to the truth

Most of the difference is in the suckitude, I guess

by paqs on Jan 11, 2010 9:52 AM EST up reply actions  

Couple of thoughts

Your numbers were before the acquisition of Kelly Johnson; does replacing Ojeda with him in the line-up have a significant impact on your number? I’m thinking perhaps not, as you had Ojeda as the best second-baseman in the division, but paqs has Johnson at 3.1 WAR. It would seem logical it would have some effect, since everyone below Johnson will get shuffled down, with the worst player getting dropped off the roster. This was also before the arrival of Bob Howry, and the same applies there.

Off your 46.5 baseline, paqs numbers would be 46.5 + 21.5 + last year 17.9 WAR = 86 wins, which is probably not so far removed from your projection, by the time you adjust them for the new arrivals. Not quite sure where the 90 came from, but I’m sure he’ll explain!

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Jan 9, 2010 1:59 PM EST up reply actions  

I will have to redo it

… and see how it changes things. Probably won’t be much of a change between Kelly Johnson and Ojeda. UZR has Johnson as slightly negative on defense and CHONE has him +5. But the depth should help out some as you mention.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 9, 2010 7:52 PM EST up reply actions  

Interesting information, as usual
#1 I dock each team a little more for (negative) pitchers hitting and typical AAA at bats which are below replacement level.

That’s your misc suckitude adjustment, right? I think that’s a really smart thing to do, and note you dont adjust all teams down equally. Any second thoughts on LA’s adjustment in light of McCourt developments (ie will LA upgrade inevitable suckitude/injury as seamlessly as in the past)?

Just eyeballing AZ with LA individually, some of the pitching WARs strike me as off. Is Kuroda really projected the same as Edwin Jackson (2.5)? That surprises me quite a bit. Stults at 1.7 also seems unusually high.

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Jan 9, 2010 5:43 PM EST up reply actions  

re: eyeballing

Given Stults around 150IP, 1.7 WAR seems very reasonable. I am expecting the Dodgers to sign a 4th/5th starter bumping one of the younger guys (Stults, Elbert, McDonald etc…) out of the rotation. Stults or any other 5th starter probably won’t pitch 150IP for the Dodgers. For simplicity I didn’t list every single pitcher that would be likely to make a few starts.

Yes, the pitchers and AAA hitters is the “sucktitude” adjustment. Just didn’t know what else to call it. :) The better the bench and the healthier the history of the hitters the less of the sucktitude adjustment. It’s somewhat subjective, but I try my best.

vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 9, 2010 7:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Thanks

Good explanation. I didnt realize you (or anyone else) had Stults at 150 innings, but if I understand, he sounds like more of a placeholder than you’re actually assigning the 1.7 to Stults personally. That sounds reasonable to me, provided LA pursues depth as they have in the past.

If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09

by Diamondhacks on Jan 9, 2010 8:38 PM EST up reply actions  

I am expecting the Dodgers to sign a 4th/5th starter

Looks like they did
Dodgers agree to deal with Russ Ortiz

I look forward to the revised projections. :-)

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Jan 10, 2010 5:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Greatest.
Signing.
Ever.
That totally makes my day. That suckitude is about to go through the roof, Xei.

"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8

by njjohn on Jan 10, 2010 5:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Hopefully...

that sucktitude stays in Albuqurque at most.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 18, 2010 3:07 PM EST up reply actions  

One other question

Am I right in assuming that the replacement level wins deduction for the NL West, implies the division is overall stronger than average?

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Jan 9, 2010 8:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes

Lower the number, stronger the division, and I admit that the number I came up with is somewhat backfitted. But without doing this you will get some strange findings, especially in a division like the AL East. The Yankees, Red Sox and Rays cannot win something like 107, 105 and 98 games respectively. That math is just too hard given the unbalanced schedule and all.

AL East: 41.5
AL Central: 45.0
AL West: 44.5
NL East: 46.5
NL Central: 48.0
NL West: 46.5

by Xeifrank on Jan 9, 2010 10:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Can you answer a couple of questions for me?

1) How did you get these replacement level numbers?

2) How did you get these suckitude numbers? I mean, if there are enough above replacement level players on the 40 man roster (based on one projection or another), there’s no need for below replacement level at bats, right?

by paqs on Jan 12, 2010 9:29 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Answers

1) Subjectiveness, in otherwords I made a best guess estimate. I am in no way saying I pegged the number correctly, but I believe there is disparity not only between the AL and NL (which WAR takes into account with a 0.5 WAR penalty) but also some disparity between divisions. It is my own style for projecting “Team” WAR.

2) A look at depth, injury history, past seasons, regression…

vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 16, 2010 12:56 PM EST up reply actions  

2nd baseman

I believe you left Rusty Ryal off of the list!!!

by sportzphan on Jan 15, 2010 11:02 PM EST reply actions  

Unfortunately it’s unlikely he’ll make the team.

"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8

by njjohn on Jan 16, 2010 12:13 AM EST up reply actions  

Yeah

but I don’t know that leaving Ryal out of paqs’ evaluation is that big an issue. I’m still not clear on how splitting ABs between Montero, (CHONE projected WAR of 2.1), and Snyder, (CHONE projected WAR of 2.2), equals a 2010 WAR of 4.3 at the catchers’ position.

by Alfred E. Neuman on Jan 16, 2010 9:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Well

Their projected PA add up to about 750, which covers the catchers PA and some expected pinch hitting PA. You can lower it to 4, it’s all very imprecise anyway.

by paqs on Jan 18, 2010 3:50 AM EST up reply actions  

Could be I’m missing something, I’m no sabermetrician, but

what I’m saying is that simply adding the WAR of catcher A and catcher B does not seem to be the correct calculation for projecting WAR from the catchers spot.
 
If total catcher position PA equals 750, then 398 = 53% and 352 = 47%. Therefore, (.53 X 2.1) + (.47 X 2.2) = Total catcher position WAR. (1.113) + (1.034) = 2.147. Rounded off, we get a WAR of 2.2 from the catcher position in 2010.

by Alfred E. Neuman on Jan 18, 2010 7:44 PM EST reply actions  

No

Because the 2.1 WAR and 2.2 WAR figures are calculated with the number of PA in mind. So the 2.1 for Montero isn’t for 750 PA, it’s for 398.

by paqs on Jan 19, 2010 2:20 AM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the AZ SnakePit, the SB Nation blog about the Arizona Diamondbacks. "When you think about the past all the time, when you get to the present day you are thinking about the past so it becomes your future again." -- Kirk Gibson.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Hl_small
New Primary Logo in 2012
Small
Free D-backs autograph session this Friday
Tmottbg_small
Exclusive Behind the Scene Tour of CHASE
Tmottbg_small
March 10 Spring Training Opportunity
Syd-barrett_small
Diamondbacks Claim Craig Tatum Off Waivers; 40 man roster full
Shoewizard-baby-72x72_small
Whats the deal with Josh Collmenter ?
Ryro_hangten_small
A Sad Day In The World Of Scrappy-ness: David Eckstein Retires
Ryro_hangten_small
Former Diamondback Craig Counsell Retires
Small
DBacks Fantasy Camp Autographs
Small
Salary Cap Dynasty League Openings

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Manager

Lucha_small Jim McLennan

Bench coaches

Madmen_icon_small snakecharmer

My-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-brony-not-the-element-of-efficiency_small kishi

Scarlett_small soco

Us1jack_small DbacksSkins

Players

Wailord_by_xous54_small Wailord

Hl_small Marc Fournier

Golden_dome_small Dan Strittmatter

Avogadro_small Zavada's Moustache

Small blue bulldog