Jump to content

Frobby

Plus Member
  • Content Count

    56,031
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    479

Posts posted by Frobby


  1. Well, if you wanted someone who hits LHP well, you could do worse. He has a .907 lifetime OPS and .828 last year. If all it took to get him was Todd Williams that might not be so bad. I woudl rather give a shot to Knott or DuBois, but if that isn't going to happen in any event, Sanders can help this team more than Todd Williams, Freddy Bynum or Adam Stern can.


  2. Jon's already addressed this, but the trends are what they are, Frobby.

    Wagering that the trends are about to reverse themselves is not a very smart bet.

    I honestly don't know what your post means. However, if somebody would like to give me 5 over/under bets:

    1. Roberts .729 OPS

    2. Gibbons .768 OPS

    3. Huff .786 OPS

    4. Markakis .799 OPS

    5. Orioles 754 runs scored

    I will very gladly bet the over on all five of those, and double down on Roberts.

    And just in case you think I'm biased, I think it's worth noting that Marcels, ZiPS, CHONE, Bill James and MLB.com ALL project that Roberts, Gibbons and Huff will beat those numbers, and 3 of the 5 think Markakis will. I realize that PECOTA is thought to be generally more accurate than any of the others, but when it's below ALL of them you have to wonder.


  3. Power hitters with no defensive value and injury histories tend to fall off a cliff in their early 30s. I'd love to hear a logical reason why Gibbons is going to buck that trend.

    Because he's an Oriole, that's why.

    But seriously, Jay isn't in his "early 30's," he's 30. And he's not a great defender, but I don't go along with "no defensive value." That is reserved for David Ortiz and Jason Giambi-types. I just don't see him putting up an OPS that is lower than what he did in his first 2-3 years in the big leagues, unless he is playing hurt for a significant period of time, which shouldn't be necessary as this team is constituted.


  4. I can agree that Markakis' and Roberts' projections are probably too conservative. We've talked about reasons for each of those.

    But Huff and Gibbons? Those look a lot more reasonable.

    Huffs' top 10 comps: Dick Sisler, Pat Putnam, Sean Casey, Chris Chambliss, Paul O'Neill, Eddie Robinson, Larry Sheets, Leon Durham, Sid Bream, Hideki Matsui. Several players who had a few years left, like Chambliss and O'Neill. But 2/3 of the group fell off a cliff after their 30th birthday.

    Gibbons' are much uglier: Troy O'Leary, Robert Fick, Jim Spencer, Wes Covington, Pat Putnam, Jerry Lynch, Johnny Blanchard, Gordy Coleman, Gus Bell, and Dick Sisler. A few of those players had 3-4 good partial platoon seasons left. But most of them were bad or just disappeared. Logically Jay Gibbons is a DH with no defensive value who can't stay healthy, has a career .319 OBP, and has slugged .500 once in his life. Logically he's barely preferable to freely available talent like Knott, House, and Dubois.

    Gibbons has had exactly one season where his OPS was below .780. I think it's highly unlikely he ends up below that this year.


  5. That's because every one of the O's starting position players except Markakis and CPat is on the wrong side of 30.

    It only makes sense to predict a decline for the thirtysomething guys.

    Roberts is 29. Huff and Gibbons are 30. I think the declines forecast for those players seem illogical. The fact that they have Markakis stagnant also seems illogical.


  6. The weighted mean is still the meat and potatoes. Roberts blew in 04 and was not super great in 06 and will be 30 at the end of the year.

    The biggest issue with PECOTA or any other projection system is injuries. For example, it has no idea that Matsui suffered a freak wrist injury and should be healthy and ready to go this year. Likewise, it doesn't know about Roberts arm injury.

    All it knows is he had a bad year, a huge year, and then declined again. The system thinks he is on a huge physical decline, when arguably its just a recovery from injury issue.

    THT loves the Os a lot more:

    Team           Win     Loss    % Chance of winningNew York       95      67      53%Boston         91      71      32%Baltimore      82      80      8%Toronto        81      81      6%Tampa Bay      68      94      0%

    link

    I think the failure to factor in injuries is huge. And I think that it is an area where, even if they tried to factor it in, human judgment could probably do a better job.

    The Hardball Times' projections look a lot better to me. Not just because of my Oriole bias, either. I agree with them that New York is slightly down, that Boston is up, that Toronto is down and that Tampa is up but not by nearly as much as PECOTA would suggest. If I were to quibble, I'd probably take 2 wins away from New York and give them to Toronto.


  7. Whether you realize it or not, you're biased. You like to think you have insider knowledge that means you're better at predicting Roberts or Jay Gibbons, but it's just as likely that you see what we'd like to have happen, not what is probably going to happen. It's not just you, we all do it with guys we watch every day. PECOTA doesn't have a favorite team.

    No, but PECOTA also can't factor in highly relevant information in some cases. I think any unbiased human observer would say that a .729 OPS projection for Roberts is very likely to be too low.


  8. I haven't studied Tampa in depth, but I doubt they will jump all the way to 78 wins. Keep in mind that they have never won more than 70 games in a season and last year they won 61 games. It's quite a stretch to expect them to improve by 17 wins in one year. If they do finish ahead of the Orioles, then heads should roll.


  9. So you're projecting something like 81-84 wins?

    Correct. I have them at 815 runs scored (plus or minus 25), 805 runs allowed (plus or minus 25). They could end up below .500 if the "plus/minus" works against them, but only by a couple of games. 74-88 would really shock (and depress) me.


  10. A few players that PECOTA is kind of pessimistic on compared to the other systems:

    Roberts: .729

    Tejada: .843

    Hernandez: .782

    Markakis: .799

    Patterson: .714

    Payton .729

    Huff: .786

    Gibbons: .768

    Bako: .533

    Knott: not on team

    Gomez: .701

    Also:

    Bynum, 108 at bats of a .659.

    Fahey ,about 70 at bats of a .624

    Stern, about 100 at bats of a .677

    Tiffee, 37 at bats of a .587

    That's an extra 300-ish at bats in the low-mid .600s.

    The only things that stand out, to me, are Roberts and Markakis. Silver already used Markakis as his player most likely to outperform his projection, and the system really doesn't like second basemen who've been hurt and declined.

    I don't quite understand the Roberts projection, though. His top comps are mid-career Ray Durham, Don Buford, Bill Doran, Bobby Avila, Chuck Knoblauch... I think a few of these guys had off years right after their Roberts comparison season but then bounced back. So maybe this is a fluky rating.

    The Roberts projection is the only one that strikes me as outrageous. I think the others are lowish but no individual projection is outlandishly low. I also agree that there will be 300 AB for players like Bynum/Fahey/Stern/Tiffee. When I did my own projections I gave "other" 350 AB at either .650 or .700 OPS (I forget which and now my thread has disappeared.) That has the effect of lowering the team OPS by about .003.

    I am sticking by my guns. I said this team would have an OPS of .778 plus or minus .012, and score 815 runs, plus or minus 25. That was assuming that Knott was on the team but I will stick by my projection anyway. Last year my projections were lower than PECOTA and I was a lot closer to reality than PECOTA was (I said .760 and PECOTA said .772; actual was .763). This year I say they are too low. I also think their runs allowed projection of 823 is likely to be 15-20 runs too high, but at least it's in the ballpark.


  11. Since the PECOTA projections for individual players are not public, it's hard for me to assess where I think they are wrong. However, 754 runs scored seems extremely low to me. Here are some projections I did along with several others:

    (Frobby, Marcels, ZiPS, CHONE, Bill James, MLB.com)

    Millar: .780/.790/.775/.769/.811/.798

    Roberts: .780/.802/.790/.766/.768/.791

    Tejada: .850/.865/.868/.852/.856/.852

    Mora: .750/.805/.794/.743/.784/.820

    Hernandez: .800/.803/.801/.818/.782/.801

    Markakis: .835/.815/.798/.816/.859/.796

    Patterson: .755/.738/.708/.754/.733/.714

    Payton: .745/.731/.735/.755/.737/.728

    Huff: .815/.801/.821/.828/.818/.802

    Gibbons: .800/.797/769/.779/.789/.809

    Bako: .600/.637/.489/.591/---/---

    Knott: .740/.769/.765/.719/---/---

    Gomez: .690/.740/.684/.721/.695/---

    Using a very simple system where the top 10 players are weighed equally and the last 3 each get a 1/3 share, the average OPS comes out to be .781, .787, .773, .778, and .780, respectively. (My own "official" team projection is .778 because it assumes a certain number of AB for each of these players and also 350 AB by "others.") All of these were in the same ballpark and would lead to the O's scoring way more than 754 runs (even if Knott is replaced by someone like Bynum). If someone who has access to PECOTA could tell me where it varies significantly from the above I would appreciate it.

    P.S. - the thread where I did my "offical" best case/mid-case/worst case projections seems to have disappeared. I'm pretty sure I started that thread on Jan. 1. When I run a search for all my threads, there is a huge time gap of about 5 weeks in December/January. Can anyone on the OH staff can explain this to me?


  12. I think catcher is, by far, the hardest defensive position to quantify. And it's not just all the isues vatech1994 mentioned, but also how the game is called. If you think that's unimportant, read Ramon Hernandez's commetns about the difference between preparing for a game at 1B vs. C.


  13. I can understand why you are taking a negative bent, but I feel that the boredom of the offseason and spring training is causing some of these offhand statements by Perlozzo to be blown out of proprtion. Let's see who makes the team and how the roster is actually utilized before getting suicidal over some random statement by Perlozzo about versatility or whatever.


  14. Maybe it's just a case of getting comfortable. Not everyone is a gregarious, outgoing person, and not every 22-year-old kid immediately feels at ease with a bunch of older guys he's trying to beat out for a job. For some people confidence comes with success, not the other way around.

    Not everybody is a type A personality, although scouts have a strong bias for them (maybe for good reason).

    Well, if you read Loewen's interviews, he admits that in prior years he was very reticent to talk with coaches and veteran players. And we've heard the same about Bedard in past years. This is not unusual and it is just part of the maturation process.


  15. Unfortunately the article is not up on line, but in today's Post Dave Trembley came out with a strong defense of Penn:

    "I don't see him as distracted or disruptive. I don't see him as that type of person. I see him as wanting to do so well all the time. The guy, he's real quiet but he's got a lot of fire in him. Just shake his hand. You shake his hand he gives that real firm grip. He's nothing but a very nice young man.

    He came up last September and I think he tried to maybe do a little too much. I've always tried to tell Hayden that your opportunity in the big leagues should not be looked upon as a tryout. Because the guy has got the ability to pitch. But sometimes he puts a lot of pressure on himself and he won't say that to you and he'll come across as he's rather aloof or he doesn't care or things don't bother him. And I've found him to be quite the opposite because I've had many conversations with him one-on-one and he's not like that."


  16. Well do you have an answer for it? Why let Nick sink or swim and not let Penn do the same? Clearly their actions speak louder than their words, else they wouldn't doubt Penn like they do. What are they protecting him from?

    Letting one hitter in your lineup sink or swim is easier than letting one of your starting pitchers do it, I suppose. And Penn has been OK this spring, but he had a late start and really hasn't had the kind of "wow" spring that Markakis had last year.


  17. I started the thread based on Roch's blog comments, but now that I've read what Perlozzo said I don't think this is such a big deal. If Penn doesn't make the team this won't be the reason. He'll probably have 2 more outings this spring and let's see how he fares. He has an uphill battle to make the squad in any event.


  18. The other thing you'd have to consider is likely distribution of fly balls. Maybe it's more important that LF is bigger than RF at OPACY, but I'd like to know where all the fly balls were hit off of current O's pitchers last year. If a majority went to right I'd be inclined to keep Markakis there. In any case they play half their games somewhere that's not Baltimore.

    I can't tell you how many balls were hit to LF vs. RF, but I can tell you that our LF's made 360 putouts and our RF's made 392. That may suggest that a few more were hit to RF than LF. Of course, if Markakis had been in LF and Conine in RF, instead of the other way around, maybe there would have been more putouts in LF.


  19. Left field, particularly at Oriole Park, is a whole different bag than right field. It's a shorter throw, but it's more ground to cover. If the team were compelled to move Nick Markakis over to left and put Gibbons back in right, I don't know if there would be any fallout from that, but I'd be all for it.

    I agree 100%. The idea that Nick hit better because he was moved to RF is absurd. With the current array of OF's we have, Nick is far more valuable to us in LF than RF (at least at OPACY).


  20. I'm not trying to defend Wedge. I really have no opinion on him, although I like what the Indians have tried to do the last two years in regards to platoons. I thought I remember reading that there was a certain randomness from year to year as far as record in 1 run games but I'm not sure. Either way, I don't see how it reflects in any way on his willingness to use platoons.

    I don't watch Cleveland play and I doubt I would recognize Wedge if he passed me on the street. I have no idea whether Cleveland's bad record last year despite the run differential is in any way his fault. But that is a very extreme difference, the biggest in the majors last year by far. No other team departed by its pythagorean record by more than 6 games, except Oakland (+8). So it can't be ruled out.

    And I don't think it has anything to do with how Wedge uses platoons. I was only making a somewhat flip response to Drungo's "what would Eric Wedge do" crack. All in fun.


  21. Are you trying to say that Wedge cost his team like 15-20 wins or something?

    That seems unlikely. But Cleveland's pythagorean record was 89-73 and their actuall record was 78-84. That's an 11-game gap. Some of that is pure chance, but at least some of it could be due to poor decisions in close games. Cleveland was 29-40 in games decided by 1-2 runs, 49-44 in other games.

×
×
  • Create New...