Diamondbacks Bullpen

B. O. N. D. · Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:58 pm Post subject:

I've got a little tickle telling me that whatever Hank says.... Laughing

_________________
Oops in the 2 hole!

matt · Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:00 pm Post subject:

EvilJuan · Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject:

The following projections are from shoewizard:

_________________
Is It Next Season Yet? Sad

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1660

I gotta say, I'm quite impressed with shoewiz's projections. Good stuff.

Of course, he's wrong on RJ, and Davis will be better, but who's counting.

Also, where is your Scott Hairston projection?

I also think we need to release "Replacement Pitcher"

rgndvo · MLB Rookie Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 117

RJ posts a 1.27 whip but a 4.40 ERA? That seems unlikely to me.

TAP · Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject:

shoewizard · Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject:

shoewizard · Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject:

In phone conversation, Levski pointed out to me that Davanon probably won't be ready opening day, and could miss the first month of the season or more. That being the case, it's entirely possible the team keeps Hairstong as the 4th outfielder and he plays part time.

If that were the case, then of course I would need to cut Davanons playing time in half, and give it to hairston who could be here after all. But he still won't have a full time role unless Byrnes is traded, which is looking less and less likely.

I'll wait a while and see what plays out and go back in and revise.

My projections are very much playing time based....so I will be revising several times throughout the spring, prior to the first game of the year.

rgndvo · MLB Rookie Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 117

dirtygary · Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:35 pm Post subject:

A couple things...

Shoe's projections of Chris Young at .279 avg? Maybe a little high. I'm guessing mid-high .260's. The middle of the Shoe & 2 other projections. But I'm thinking he'll be above that for much of the year, and kinda tail off at the end.

The initial projection that had our pitchers a combined 10 over .500, but gave us crappy OPS's. We don't have the shut-em down kinda rotation to get by in games where we only put across 2 or 3 runs. If our pitchers are +10, than that guy has to give us better offense all the way around for that to hold up.

I think Stephen Drew will be in the .279-.282 range, and his defense will be more consistent than expected.

Quentin will probably be in the .260's, but if he gets 500 AB's he should see at least 20 mistakes that he hammers. Not bad for league minimum, but needs to improve either of the categories.

Snyder should at least be mid-.250's.

O-dawg should wind up low-.280's, same with CoJack (but he's going to have a monster OBP).

These projections are all based on absolutely nothing, just guessing based on observations.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun

shoewizard · Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject:

Someone on the MLB board asked me how I did with the projections last year, so I thought I would post here as well:

I had posted my projections on the old AZ Central. I only did hitters,not pitchers in that projection.

On a Macro basis, the offense was better than I forecasted. I had a .743 Team OPS and 733 runs scored, and the actual OPS was .755 and they scored 773 runs. Thats not terrible, but I would like to be less than 10 points of OPS and less than 30 runs away from actual runs to feel like I was accurate last year. Some of the young guys, specifically Jackson, Drew, Quentin, Hudson and Snyder did MUCH better than I projected,and that accounts for most of why I fell short. In this case, I was happy to be wrong. Smile

Here are some of the guys, listed by OPS. First number is forecasted, second number is actual.

Group 1: Pretty Close, I would consider these "good" projections

Estrada .784-.772
Counsell .685-.674
Gonzalez .812-.795
S. Green .802-.778 (.778 as a d back .776 overall)
D. Easley .742-.741

The message here is give me a big enough sample size and I'll tell you what you are gonna get. This is why people love proven veterans. You know what you are gonna get, and just as cost certainty is important to a team, so is production certainty. You need to be able to count on certain guys to give you at least a minimum expected performance, and veterans are easier to project, plain and simple. The tradeoff is of course there is less breakout upside, and teams often find themselves overpaying for that "production certainty"

Group 2: So-So....not terrible, but not "good" projections.

Jackson .759-.809
Hudson .757-.809
Tracy .862- .794
Snyder .717-.773

Well, these are all young players, and considering how little major league experience they have, it's not hard to miss. SNyder had less than 200 at bats....he most likely would have come back down some more before given another 100-150 at bats.

Group 3: Oops....I missed on these guys by wide margins

OK, Byrnes blew me away last year, and this year I have him at .775
If I am off by 86 points again, I am sure it will be down not up Twisted Evil

As for the others, the sample sizes are just too small, but clearly having Drew and Quentin outperform was fun to watch.

Byrnes .709-.795
A. Green .675-.560
Drew .768-.874
Quentin .762-872
Clark .841-.643

shoewizard · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:35 am Post subject:

I just want to add something about 2007 projections:

The Fanboy in me is certain the offense will be better than my projections. That is because between Jackson, Quentin, Drew, Young and even Tracy, I am almost sure ONE of them will break out and do much much better than I have projected. Take anyone of those guys and bump their OPS 50 points and all of a sudden the offense looks like an 800 run team. And I think there is alot greater chance of one or two of those guys outperforming projections by 50 points than there is of them underperforming by 50 points.

And as Levski will tell you, my pitching projections are "pessimistic"...(I'll go with conservative) The big strategy for the front office and Josh Byrnes has clearly been to gamble on the "bounceback" season, buying low on guys like Livan, Davis, and now RJ. Josh has placed a pretty big bet that their will be some significant regression to the mean, and all three of those guys are going to have significantly better ERA than last year.

But overall, it's hard for me to imagine the team ERA being better than 4.36. I already shaved half a run off of Davis' 2006 ERA, and more than Half a run off RJ's 2006 ERA. And having Edgar at that many innings at a 5.02 ERA would be pretty darn good for a 5th starter, considering the average 5th starter has over a 6 ERA

I am feeling pretty excited about 2007. The potential is there to Rock alot of peoples worlds.

TAP · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:00 am Post subject:

Dangerfield · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:27 am Post subject:

You know, you could add another 50 pts, to Byrnes' ops, if you included his sb's....just saying.... Laughing

Byrnes projection-300/330/550-880 30 hr 102 rbi 30 sb's...30/30 club for men...and the board goes do..do...do...do...do...do...do...saxphone interlude....
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it

dirtygary · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:02 pm Post subject:

So JB has been gambling on a regression to the mean... What happens if two out of the 3 regress to their mean, while one of them continues the downward spiral? Gotta figure one of them could very well blow up the whole projection.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun

shoewizard · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:20 pm Post subject:

Dangerfield · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:09 pm Post subject:

shoewizard · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject:

So I'm at .775 OPS and you are at .880

I've got $1000 that says I'm closer, minimum 500 plate appearances.

You got game?

TAP · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:17 pm Post subject:

Dangerfield · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject:

Okay Judge Smails, lets do 800 ops. 250.00 to children's hospital. 500 ab's, and it has to be with the Dbacks. That's close to being a C.I. over your projection.
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it

shoewizard · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject:

You went from .880 to .800?

I'm confused.

No.......YOU said .880....I Said .775

If you want to change your projection, be my guest. My wager was against your projection of .880....which you have already wisely backed down from Wink

Dangerfield · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject:

I like my projections, but I'm not degenerate enough to bet on them, and I hate losing, even if its for a good cause. 800 is a good ops for Byrnes, 880 is what he's capable of. Especially if the line-up is rolling, and he's not in the 4 hole.
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it