The Bill James System Projections - WAR Edition

by paqs on Nov 9, 2010 9:29 AM EST

Following up on blue bulldog's excellent fanpost, and the Bill James System Projections for the 2011 season, I decided to plug the numbers into my trusty WAR calculator, and see how many wins the projections translate to.

First of all, please do not take this as a prediction that the DBacks will win 'X' games next year. It will only tell you that if the players perform as projected, with no injuries and neutral luck (ha!), the DBacks would be expected to win a certain amount of games.

Calculating WAR

I'll be using FanGraphs version of WAR for this exercise, largely because it's simple and they already added the Bill James numbers to the player pages. The calculation is explained in detail here.

A couple of notes. Since I have no idea what baseline Bill James used (i.e. what is average), I used NL averages for 2010 for pitchers and hitters. For defense, I used Totalzone projections from August, taken from here.

Hitting

I went with the players we have as of now, so everything might change based on trades, free agents signings etc. Let's start with the data and work from there:

Pos	Name	PA	Bat	Defense	Position	Replacement	WAR
C	Montero	444	6.5	-5	9	15	2.6
1B	Allen	559	10	-3	-12	18	1.3
2B	Johnson	589	13	2	2.5	19	3.7
3B	Reynolds	606	13	-3	2.5	20	3.3
SS	Drew	655	6.5	-7	8	22	3
LF	Parra	435	1.5	4.5	-6	14	1.4
CF	Young	637	8	3	2.5	21	3.5
RF	Upton	603	24	8	-7.5	20	4.5

IF	Abreu	238	-5.5	-0.5	1	8	0.3
OF	Gillespie	222	-0.5	-0.5	-3	7.5	0.4

PA is the number of plate appearances in the projection. The 'Bat' column represents batting runs above average, taken as the 'wRAA' column in the FanGraphs page and park adjusted (take away around 5 runs per 700 PA for Chase Field). Defense, as I wrote earlier, is from TotalZone, and it's scaled to playing time, as are the Positional and Replacement adjustments.

I couldn't find the projections for Hester, Ryal etc., but since they were largely at replacement level last year, we can keep them there for now. This comes out at 24 WAR for our position players. Not bad.

Pitching

Again, these are the players we currently have, who were included in the Bill James Projections.

Name	FIP	IP	WAR
Kennedy	3.99	194	3.1
Hudson	4.14	201	2.9
Saunders	4.47	215	2.2
Enright	4.61	144	1.3
Bullpen
Demel	3.44	45	0.6
Carrasco	4.01	72	0.4
Boyer	4.08	60	0.3
Sweeney	3.82	43	0.2
Gutierrez	4.38	56	0.1
Vasquez	4.71	52	-0.2

This comes out at around 11 wins.

Putting it all together

35 WAR added to the 48 games a replacement team is projected to win gives us an 83-79 record. If that sounds very optimistic for a 65 win team, consider the fact that we underperformed our WAR significantly the last couple of years.

So, according to Bill James' projections, a winning season is possible. But can we get to the 90 or so wins it takes to get to the playoffs? Adding a 2 WAR starter and a 1.5 WAR closer gets us halfway, but we'd need a monster bat to get the other half. Considering the LF/1B positions yield 1.5 WAR each, we would need a 5 WAR player to get to 90 WAR. Werth? Crawford? I'll leave that to your imagination.

Tweet Comment 39 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Nobody likes Esmerling but me, it seems...

Oh well. It’s always been at outside chance at him being a back-end arm with his walk rate, but it’s not a totally lost cause yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU_9zTD9B98&feature=related
Apparently there's an epilepsy warning on this video. But it's so incredibly cool.

by Dan Strittmatter on Nov 9, 2010 9:48 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

Why use TZ

when FanGraphs uses UZR?

Mr. Science Boy

by DbacksSkins on Nov 9, 2010 9:50 AM EST reply actions

There's a nice TZ projection available

With UZR, I would have to do some kind of regression. How would you use UZR?

by paqs on Nov 9, 2010 10:03 AM EST up reply actions

I suppose

since all of our guys are fairly young, you could assume they field at their career average rate and use James’ projections for playing time. In most cases, that’s probably going to underrate them defensively, since, for example, guys like Reynolds and Drew were way better than their career norms last season.

Just seems odd to me to use fWAR but then a TZ projection.

Mr. Science Boy

by DbacksSkins on Nov 9, 2010 10:20 AM EST up reply actions

Career average?

I’m not sure how smart it is to factor what Drew did 5 years ago. The way projections work is they do a 5/4/3 regression for the last 3 years, and then another regression towards league average (or toward the Fan Scouting Report).

I could do that, but it’s a bit too much work.

by paqs on Nov 9, 2010 10:32 AM EST up reply actions

Drew with a -7?

Seriously?

Leads/ties blown by the Diamondbacks bullpen in '10: 41

by Jdub220 on Nov 9, 2010 10:13 AM EST reply actions

There's a LOT of '08 in that

paqs mentioned above that they do a 5/4/3/ regression of the last three years, the regressed again towards league-average. But you’re right, it still doesn’t make sense. With Drew, that means that you get:

(8.7 * 5) + (2.7 * 4) + (-15.8 * 3) = 43.5 + 10.8 – 47.4 = 6.9

So perhaps it was supposed to be a +7?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU_9zTD9B98&feature=related
Apparently there's an epilepsy warning on this video. But it's so incredibly cool.

by Dan Strittmatter on Nov 9, 2010 11:40 AM EST up reply actions

That would bring him to a 4.5 WAR player

Which makes sense, because Stephen Drew is freaking awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU_9zTD9B98&feature=related
Apparently there's an epilepsy warning on this video. But it's so incredibly cool.

by Dan Strittmatter on Nov 9, 2010 11:40 AM EST up reply actions

That's UZR

And you forgot to divide by 12.

by paqs on Nov 9, 2010 3:33 PM EST up reply actions

Two valid points

Argh darned statistical regression projection nonsense blaaaaaaaah.

Regardless, I’d say that Drew is much better than a -7 defender on pure eyesight. His transfer amazes me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU_9zTD9B98&feature=related
Apparently there's an epilepsy warning on this video. But it's so incredibly cool.

by Dan Strittmatter on Nov 9, 2010 6:29 PM EST up reply actions

That's ok

It’s not as if you study that stuff.

He is and I’m sure you’ll see that in the next TZ projection. The Fan Scouting Report has him at +2, that sound more like the truth. He was a statue out there a couple of years ago though.

by paqs on Nov 10, 2010 2:37 AM EST reply actions

All true points

But he was also apparently Gold Glove-caliber, as he was definitely better than Jeter is now.

/uselessaward

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU_9zTD9B98&feature=related
Apparently there's an epilepsy warning on this video. But it's so incredibly cool.

by Dan Strittmatter on Nov 10, 2010 8:39 AM EST up reply actions

Gold gloves lol

by paqs on Nov 10, 2010 8:48 AM EST up reply actions

lollerblades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU_9zTD9B98&feature=related
Apparently there's an epilepsy warning on this video. But it's so incredibly cool.

by Dan Strittmatter on Nov 10, 2010 10:37 AM EST up reply actions

great post

one adjustment i think needs to be made is that you have to account for negative pitcher hitting WAR. i think maybe around a 4 or 5 WAR negative adjustment is normal. which really hurts us even more.

i think the montero allen parra projections are what i have in mind. i feel like drew, johnson, young should be around 4 WAR a piece. hopefully upton can break the 5 WAR plateau. but yeah, those projections don’t seem to bode too well for us next year right? an extra 1.5 WAR reliever, and don’t use esmerling? it’ll definitely be extremely tough for us to get to 90 wins next year.

by blue bulldog on Nov 10, 2010 12:47 PM EST reply actions

Sure

I don’t think it’s that much, since our pitchers can hit a little bit. Historically, it’s been around -3 WAR, and I don’t expect it to get below that.

And 90 wins? I think it’s a pipe dream. Most people here will be happy if we get to 80, which is why these projections look pretty good to me.

As a reference point, the August projections from baseballprojections.com have us at 26 WAR, or 74 wins.

by paqs on Nov 11, 2010 2:54 AM EST up reply actions

lol i always hold on to hope

actually, i feel like we should be able to reach 82 wins next year. i mean, obviously predictions are subject to future trades/FA moves…..but i still feel like if we make some solid moves in winter we can be above 500 next year

by blue bulldog on Nov 11, 2010 6:37 AM EST up reply actions

It's certainly possible

We just have to get rid of all the strikeouts /KT

by paqs on Nov 11, 2010 6:47 AM EST up reply actions

lol

there’s nothing wrong with getting rid of strikeouts. it just depends on how you get rid of them. like, if we get rid of mark reynolds and get ryan zimmerman back. i’d totally be in support of that haha.

i guess we’ll see. reynolds for a couple of bullpen arms doesn’t really seem to make sense to me. i think there’s a rumor that we are trying to swing a deal whereby we get rid of reynolds and get back bullpen arms and contact hitters……i guess it’s just too hard to say not knowing any names

but damn…..A’s already made their move and traded mazzaro and a low-A prospect away for dejesus. that doesn’t really bode well, as i thought dejesus would be a much more sought after commodity than reynolds.

by blue bulldog on Nov 11, 2010 11:28 AM EST up reply actions

DeJesus is a good player

But he’s on the last year of his deal and his value is limited because he plays corner outfield.

by paqs on Nov 12, 2010 2:40 AM EST up reply actions

He's not limited to a corner outfield spot though.

And he can handle center, he’s about average there.

Leads/ties blown by the Diamondbacks bullpen in '10: 41

by Jdub220 on Nov 12, 2010 8:47 AM EST up reply actions

also, we're talking perception

when it comes to trade value. i think from a pure ability standpoint, reynolds can probably put up better WAR than dejesus, and plays a rarer position. but the point is, i was under the impression that the market would put a higher price on dejesus this winter than reynolds.

regardless of the relative position, i think a lot of ppl thought dejesus would bring a better haul than mazzaro and some random low-A prospect that put up decent peripherals. and that fact alone bodes poorly for our potential trade haul of reynolds.

by blue bulldog on Nov 12, 2010 12:15 PM EST up reply actions

+1

My question is, if the price for DeJesus was so low, why didn’t we jump all over that?

Leads/ties blown by the Diamondbacks bullpen in '10: 41

by Jdub220 on Nov 12, 2010 12:47 PM EST up reply actions

because

we aren’t billy freaking beane. we also don’t really have the pitching depth to give up mazzaro (who, while i don’t think is anything special or will ever be anything special) is still at least a back end arm. even if we give up barry enright, who would we use to replace him?

by blue bulldog on Nov 12, 2010 12:57 PM EST up reply actions

Any living, breathing human being?

Who cares? Enright <<< DeJesus.

Leads/ties blown by the Diamondbacks bullpen in '10: 41

by Jdub220 on Nov 12, 2010 3:48 PM EST up reply actions

+1

Who would replace Enright? The same people that are going to replace him mid-season when he has to be moved to the ‘pen. Wade Miley and Jarrod Parker, or, if they’re not ready, the poo-poo platter (purposefully mis-spelled) of Mulvey or Valdez.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU_9zTD9B98&feature=related
Apparently there's an epilepsy warning on this video. But it's so incredibly cool.

by Dan Strittmatter on Nov 12, 2010 5:26 PM EST up reply actions

i guess you have a point

actually, enright could even go to the A’s. his flyball tendencies will play a lot better in oakland

by blue bulldog on Nov 13, 2010 1:37 AM EST up reply actions

Not a bad point in theory

But the AL would completely destroy him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU_9zTD9B98&feature=related
Apparently there's an epilepsy warning on this video. But it's so incredibly cool.

by Dan Strittmatter on Nov 13, 2010 8:52 AM EST up reply actions

But he'd also get to face

the M’s and Angels a bunch of times… and their wRC+’s are worse than any lineup in the NL West.

Leads/ties blown by the Diamondbacks bullpen in '10: 41

by Jdub220 on Nov 13, 2010 10:30 AM EST up reply actions

I don't think that will be the case in 2011

Crawford, Werth, and Beltre are all being targeted by the Angels, and the Mariners are going to add a Berkman-type at DH and put Figgins back at third base, allowing them to get someone much better than Jose Freaking Lopez at second. Smoak should also have a good year at first for them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU_9zTD9B98&feature=related
Apparently there's an epilepsy warning on this video. But it's so incredibly cool.

by Dan Strittmatter on Nov 13, 2010 11:50 AM EST up reply actions

But the M's will still be awful at the dish.

And the Angels won’t be great either, even with CC, Beltre, or Werth.

Leads/ties blown by the Diamondbacks bullpen in '10: 41

by Jdub220 on Nov 13, 2010 12:03 PM EST up reply actions

Fair enough

It’s just hard to imagine Enright succeeding without the pitcher giving him an easy K… Because he really struggles to strike out anybody else…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU_9zTD9B98&feature=related
Apparently there's an epilepsy warning on this video. But it's so incredibly cool.

by Dan Strittmatter on Nov 13, 2010 12:17 PM EST up reply actions

The M's

pretty much have like… 5 pitchers’ spots. They’re baaaaaaaaaaad.

Leads/ties blown by the Diamondbacks bullpen in '10: 41

by Jdub220 on Nov 13, 2010 6:03 PM EST up reply actions

Justin Marks isn't a random prospect

I’ve heard him as a #3/#4 starter according to a few people. Odds may not be great, but he’s worth keeping in mind in this haul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU_9zTD9B98&feature=related
Apparently there's an epilepsy warning on this video. But it's so incredibly cool.

by Dan Strittmatter on Nov 12, 2010 2:30 PM EST up reply actions

so he's basically like...

our bradley/rowland?

by blue bulldog on Nov 13, 2010 1:37 AM EST up reply actions

More advanced.

Like… Mike Belfiore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU_9zTD9B98&feature=related
Apparently there's an epilepsy warning on this video. But it's so incredibly cool.

by Dan Strittmatter on Nov 13, 2010 8:53 AM EST up reply actions

If that sounds very optimistic for a 65 win team, consider the fact that we underperformed our WAR significantly the last couple of years.

But that could go either way — might it also suggest that we’ll underperform our WAR again??

Mr. Science Boy

by DbacksSkins on Nov 16, 2010 11:22 AM EST reply actions

Maybe we will

Much of that comes from the fact we suck in the clutch? Will that change? I don’t know.

by paqs on Nov 18, 2010 8:28 AM EST up reply actions

Calculating WAR

I’ll be using FanGraphs version of WAR for this exercise, largely because it’s simple and they already added the Bill James numbers to the player pages. The calculation is explained in detail here.

A couple of notes. Since I have no idea what baseline Bill James used (i.e. what is average), I used NL averages for 2010 for pitchers and hitters. For defense, I used Totalzone projections from August, taken from here.

Something to mention: it was noted at BTBS that the different systems use different baselines to calculate WAR. While this may not directly affect your numbers, it does indirectly. Tangotiger noted that FanGraphs calls a replacement-level team around 45-117, while Rally (B-R) calls replacement level more like 52-110 (the 2004 Diamondbacks were below replacement level! WOO!!!).

Not relevant, but BP calls replacement level 41-121 and Bill James has them even worse. (Again, according to Tangotiger) Think, like, 1899 Cleveland Spiders worse.

Mr. Science Boy

by DbacksSkins on Nov 29, 2010 1:58 PM EST reply actions