Power of projected lineup for 2007

[TheDude]

Assuming the Cubs make no other moves to the starting lineup in the field, if we look at a projected healthy lineup of:

 

1 - Soriano CF

2 - Murton LF

3 - Lee 1B

4 - Ramirez 3B

5 - Jones RF

6 - Barret C

7 - DeRosa 2B

8 - Izturis SS

 

Based on 3-year splits (extrapolated to starter ABs for Murton, Izturis, Lee, and DeRosa), it looks like this lineup could put out the following numbers (Hits: 1B/2B/3B/HR):

 

1 - Soriano 168:90/40/3/35

2 - Murton 148: 100/30/3/15

3 - Lee 173: 90/40/3/40

4 - Ramirez 173: 100/35/3/35

5 - Jones 142: 90/25/2/25

6 - Barret 113: 70/25/3/15

7 - DeRosa 137: 100/25/2/10

8 - Izturis 143: 100/25/5/3

 

Totals:

178 HRs

740 1Bs

245 2Bs

24 3Bs

 

If you figure the bench and pitchers contribute another (projections based on bench/pitchers 1600 ABs and a .240 BA):

 

30 HRs

300 1Bs

50 2Bs

5 3Bs

 

We're looking at a total of 2549 total bases. It's purely speculative, I'll just make it 2550 for simplicity. That would be good enough for tops in the NL in 2006.

 

Naturally my pojections are simplistic, and maybe inflated on the optomistic side (not by much though).

 

The point I am trying to make is not that this new offense will be the best in the NL in 2007, but it looks to be in the top 5 for total bases. Total Bases has a very strong correlation to Runs scored (consider that the top 5 teams in the NL in total bases in 2006 are also the top 5 in Runs, and in the same exact order).

 

Lots of folks are looking for more change, primarily for Jones and Izturis. But as is, the 2007 lineup looks very strong if you assume no season ending injuries and use 3-year splits as projections (lifting ABs to starter numbers between 400-600 depending on lineup slot). The only player I boosted production above 3-year splits for is Murton, who you would expect to have some growth, I gave it to him in doubles and singles.

 

Anyone think my projections are reasonable? Not reasonable? Just curious if you think the lineup as stands would hold-up, again assuming normal health.

[cheapseats]

According to the Lineup Analysis tool at Baseball Musings, the lineup you proposed would be good for 802 runs over the course of a 162-game season, which would have made the Cubs the 13th team overall in runs scored last season.

 

But that assumes everyone plays to their three year splits, which may not happen.

 

It assumes that everyone plays every day, which certainly will not happen. Blanco will get around 32 starts, for example. What happens if Lee gets hurt again or Aramis misses time?

 

It's likely that we've got somewhere between the 15th and 20th best offense in MLB in terms of runs scored without making another addition. In the NL, we'll probably rank somewhere between 6th and 8th.

[erik316wttn]

Why not lead Murton off and drop Soriano down to the heart of the order where his power can be better utilized?

 

Murton

Barrett

Lee

Aram

Soriano

Jones

DeRosa

Izturis

Pitcher

[TheDude]

According to the Lineup Analysis tool at Baseball Musings, the lineup you proposed would be good for 802 runs over the course of a 162-game season, which would have made the Cubs the 13th team overall in runs scored last season.

 

But that assumes everyone plays to their three year splits, which may not happen.

 

It assumes that everyone plays every day, which certainly will not happen. Blanco will get around 32 starts, for example. What happens if Lee gets hurt again or Aramis misses time?

 

It's likely that we've got somewhere between the 15th and 20th best offense in MLB in terms of runs scored without making another addition. In the NL, we'll probably rank somewhere between 6th and 8th.

 

Lots of flaws with that tool and that projection is way off. Even if you assume it isn't off, you can't compare AL and NL teams for Runs scored and get a realistic comparison. That tool is assuming .150 OBP and .150 SLG for the pitcher's spot - and the AL is certainly not going to have that issue. 805 runs in the NL is 6th best. I'd be shocked if the Cubs aren't in the top 5, and would expect closer to 830 Runs out of the team running that 1-8.

 

I looked at the tool, played around with it for an hour. I'm not overly impressed.

[TheDude]

Why not lead Murton off and drop Soriano down to the heart of the order where his power can be better utilized?

 

Murton

Barrett

Lee

Aram

Soriano

Jones

DeRosa

Izturis

Pitcher

 

I'ts been stated in numerous threads. I've done the number crunching before, and don't want to repeat it again. Soriano's splits at leadoff for his career dwarf his splits at 3, 4, or 5 in the lineup. It's not even close.

 

It the guy had his worst years in Texas surrounded by Texiera and Blalock in a power lineup in a hitter's ballpark, but had his best year ever leading off in Washington, surrounded by a lot of duds in the worst hitter's park in baseball, I would not even consider Soriano as anything but a leadoff hitter.

 

He defies convention and the best coaching move is to ignore convention in his case. Put him where he will produce based on a history of production, not where he is supposed to produce but has come up short in over 1000 ABs sample size for his career.

[radarluv1]

i know nothing about projections like this, but is .240 and 30 HRs from the bench/pitchers accurate? seems high, since pitchers and utility IFers are going to be taking most of the extra ABs. you have to figure 2-3 PA's/game from the pitching spot right?

[David]

Isn't your total base count neglecting to include walks? Am I missing something?

 

 

Are you counting out 2550 total bases without including walks? And is that number, not including walks, good enough to have been #1 in the NL in 2006 like you said?

 

Am I totally clueless? Are walks not counted in total bases (as I've always been sure they were)?

[cheapseats]

That tool is assuming .150 OBP and .150 SLG for the pitcher's spot - and the AL is certainly not going to have that issue. 805 runs in the NL is 6th best. I'd be shocked if the Cubs aren't in the top 5, and would expect closer to 830 Runs out of the team running that 1-8.

 

I looked at the tool, played around with it for an hour. I'm not overly impressed.

 

The tool assumes .150 OBP and .150 SLG? No, I plugged in the actual OBP and SLG of Cubs pitchers last year.

 

You expect 830 runs? Really? Do you think Soriano makes that much difference?

 

You do know that the 2004 team with Lee, Alou, Sosa, Ramirez, Patterson (who had a pretty good year), Barrett, Gonzalez/Nomar (both better offensively than Izturis) and Walker/Grudz didn't score even 800 runs?

 

You do realize the 2006 team was 2nd worst in the NL in runs scored?

 

I'd be happy if this were a top 5 offense, but it's not. I'd be thrilled if this was an 830-run offense, but it's not.

[TheDude]

That tool is assuming .150 OBP and .150 SLG for the pitcher's spot - and the AL is certainly not going to have that issue. 805 runs in the NL is 6th best. I'd be shocked if the Cubs aren't in the top 5, and would expect closer to 830 Runs out of the team running that 1-8.

 

I looked at the tool, played around with it for an hour. I'm not overly impressed.

 

The tool assumes .150 OBP and .150 SLG? No, I plugged in the actual OBP and SLG of Cubs pitchers last year.

 

You expect 830 runs? Really? Do you think Soriano makes that much difference?

 

You do know that the 2004 team with Lee, Alou, Sosa, Ramirez, Patterson (who had a pretty good year), Barrett, Gonzalez/Nomar (both better offensively than Izturis) and Walker/Grudz didn't score even 800 runs?

 

You do realize the 2006 team was 2nd worst in the NL in runs scored?

 

I'd be happy if this were a top 5 offense, but it's not. I'd be thrilled if this was an 830-run offense, but it's not.

 

The 2006 offense did not feature Lee or Soriano. That is two enormous bats. It also featured just over 1000 utterly futile ABs from Perez/Cedeno/Womack/Hairston/Bynum. Izturis and DeRosa may not light the world on fire, but 1000 ABs from those two has to be an upgrade.

[TheDude]

Isn't your total base count neglecting to include walks? Am I missing something?

 

 

Are you counting out 2550 total bases without including walks? And is that number, not including walks, good enough to have been #1 in the NL in 2006 like you said?

 

Am I totally clueless? Are walks not counted in total bases (as I've always been sure they were)?

 

Total bases doesn't include walks, just hits. Example, 2006 Juan Pierre had 271 Total Bases from 204 hits. 156 Singles (156), 32 Doubles (64), 13 Triples (39), and 3 Homeruns (12).

[David]

Isn't your total base count neglecting to include walks? Am I missing something?

 

 

Are you counting out 2550 total bases without including walks? And is that number, not including walks, good enough to have been #1 in the NL in 2006 like you said?

 

Am I totally clueless? Are walks not counted in total bases (as I've always been sure they were)?

 

Total bases doesn't include walks, just hits. Example, 2006 Juan Pierre had 271 Total Bases from 204 hits. 156 Singles (156), 32 Doubles (64), 13 Triples (39), and 3 Homeruns (12).

 

Gotcha. I always thought they were. That said, isn't this analysis flawed for that very reason?

 

I understand the correlation between TB and runs scored, but hasn't the Cubs' issue been that they've hit well enough to be middle of the pack, but have been so terrible in terms of walks/OBP that they simply haven't scored as many runs as would be expected?

 

If this analysis only takes into account, basically, SLG%, it's probably making the Cubs look better than they really are.

[TheDude]

i know nothing about projections like this, but is .240 and 30 HRs from the bench/pitchers accurate? seems high, since pitchers and utility IFers are going to be taking most of the extra ABs. you have to figure 2-3 PA's/game from the pitching spot right?

 

I figured the pitchers contribute 4 HR a year, being generous to the Cubs staff thanks to Zambrano. 2006 staff hit 8 HR, heavily inflated by Zambrano.

 

Then you have bench players contributing another 25 or so. 2006 Cubs bench players with between 100-250 ABs (Blanco, Mabry, Theriot, Bynum, Pagan, Perez) for example, had 25 HR combined, and none of those guys really qualified as a 'power bat' off the bench. A few more guys like Moore, Womack and Coats hit HRs in very limited ABs as well.

 

The 2006 pitchers and bench names I just mentioned above had 37 HR combined, but Perez and Mabry had about 100 ABs more than anitcipated due to injury. I did not even count Hairston, Walker, or Nevin as bench for this analysis, taking all their ABs and assuming starter based on injury fill-in.

 

30 HRs seems a fair speculative guess for a bench and pitchers spot.

[CubinNY]

That tool is assuming .150 OBP and .150 SLG for the pitcher's spot - and the AL is certainly not going to have that issue. 805 runs in the NL is 6th best. I'd be shocked if the Cubs aren't in the top 5, and would expect closer to 830 Runs out of the team running that 1-8.

 

I looked at the tool, played around with it for an hour. I'm not overly impressed.

 

The tool assumes .150 OBP and .150 SLG? No, I plugged in the actual OBP and SLG of Cubs pitchers last year.

 

You expect 830 runs? Really? Do you think Soriano makes that much difference?

 

You do know that the 2004 team with Lee, Alou, Sosa, Ramirez, Patterson (who had a pretty good year), Barrett, Gonzalez/Nomar (both better offensively than Izturis) and Walker/Grudz didn't score even 800 runs?

 

You do realize the 2006 team was 2nd worst in the NL in runs scored?

 

I'd be happy if this were a top 5 offense, but it's not. I'd be thrilled if this was an 830-run offense, but it's not.

 

Nice work. I think this is the point that many people were trying to make in the first 50 or so pages of the Soriano thread. Soriano is a definate upgrade, but for the Cubs to be an elite offensive team they will still need someone to get on base in front of the big hitters. Soriano brings the pain with his SLG, but he is not an OBP guy.

 

I believe it would be wise for the Cubs to take the most advantage they can from this lineup and move Soriano down. Producing runs is the name of the game, 40/40 is nice but unless it leads to a lot more runs the Cubs will still have a mediocre offense.

[TheDude]

Isn't your total base count neglecting to include walks? Am I missing something?

 

 

Are you counting out 2550 total bases without including walks? And is that number, not including walks, good enough to have been #1 in the NL in 2006 like you said?

 

Am I totally clueless? Are walks not counted in total bases (as I've always been sure they were)?

 

Total bases doesn't include walks, just hits. Example, 2006 Juan Pierre had 271 Total Bases from 204 hits. 156 Singles (156), 32 Doubles (64), 13 Triples (39), and 3 Homeruns (12).

 

Gotcha. I always thought they were. That said, isn't this analysis flawed for that very reason?

 

I understand the correlation between TB and runs scored, but hasn't the Cubs' issue been that they've hit well enough to be middle of the pack, but have been so terrible in terms of walks/OBP that they simply haven't scored as many runs as would be expected?

 

If this analysis only takes into account, basically, SLG%, it's probably making the Cubs look better than they really are.

 

That's a valid point, which is why the tool previously referenced by another poster uses both OBP and SLG.

 

But, for what's it worth, consider this:

 

Team ranking in Runs/TB

---

Yankees 1/2

Indians 2/4

White Sox 3/1

Phillies 4/5

Braves 5/6

Rangers 6/8

Mets 7/9

Tigers 8/7

Red Sox 9/10

Dodgers 10

 

So of the top 10 teams in Runs scored, 9 also were top ten in TB, with minimal variation in the rankings.

 

There are naturally exceptions - Toronto was 3rd in baseball in TB, but 12th in Runs. But, Toronto was also 5th in OBP and 2nd in OPS in all of baseball - it's really a complete mystery that they didn't score runs, and they are truly an exception.

 

So you're right, it can happen. But generally speaking, there is a very strong correlation in TB and Runs among the best offenses in baseball.

[erik316wttn]

Why not lead Murton off and drop Soriano down to the heart of the order where his power can be better utilized?

 

Murton

Barrett

Lee

Aram

Soriano

Jones

DeRosa

Izturis

Pitcher

 

I'ts been stated in numerous threads. I've done the number crunching before, and don't want to repeat it again. Soriano's splits at leadoff for his career dwarf his splits at 3, 4, or 5 in the lineup. It's not even close.

 

It the guy had his worst years in Texas surrounded by Texiera and Blalock in a power lineup in a hitter's ballpark, but had his best year ever leading off in Washington, surrounded by a lot of duds in the worst hitter's park in baseball, I would not even consider Soriano as anything but a leadoff hitter.

 

He defies convention and the best coaching move is to ignore convention in his case. Put him where he will produce based on a history of production, not where he is supposed to produce but has come up short in over 1000 ABs sample size for his career.

 

Fair enough. I'll take your word for it.

[TheDude]

Nice work. I think this is the point that many people were trying to make in the first 50 or so pages of the Soriano thread. Soriano is a definate upgrade, but for the Cubs to be an elite offensive team they will still need someone to get on base in front of the big hitters. Soriano brings the pain with his SLG, but he is not an OBP guy.

 

I believe it would be wise for the Cubs to take the most advantage they can from this lineup and move Soriano down. Producing runs is the name of the game, 40/40 is nice but unless it leads to a lot more runs the Cubs will still have a mediocre offense.

 

I think you have to leave Soriano at leadoff, given his career splits. He is likely to put an OBP of .340 (career OBP at leadoff in 2052 ABs), which is lower than the .360 mark you want from a leadoff hitter, but he is likely to make that up in self-generated Runs because of his slugging. His career OPS at leadoff, again in 2052 ABs, is .884.

 

Can you really find better than .884 OPS at leadoff? The only other guys I can think of capable of that are Sizemore and Jeter.

 

In terms of having guys on base in front of your power 3-4, Murton is a great solution.

 

I think Jones and Barret are a solid enough 5-6 that you don't need to move Soriano down. It doesn't accomplish much of anything.

[CubinNY]

Why not lead Murton off and drop Soriano down to the heart of the order where his power can be better utilized?

 

Murton

Barrett

Lee

Aram

Soriano

Jones

DeRosa

Izturis

Pitcher

 

I'ts been stated in numerous threads. I've done the number crunching before, and don't want to repeat it again. Soriano's splits at leadoff for his career dwarf his splits at 3, 4, or 5 in the lineup. It's not even close.

 

It the guy had his worst years in Texas surrounded by Texiera and Blalock in a power lineup in a hitter's ballpark, but had his best year ever leading off in Washington, surrounded by a lot of duds in the worst hitter's park in baseball, I would not even consider Soriano as anything but a leadoff hitter.

 

He defies convention and the best coaching move is to ignore convention in his case. Put him where he will produce based on a history of production, not where he is supposed to produce but has come up short in over 1000 ABs sample size for his career.

 

Fair enough. I'll take your word for it.

 

Corelation does not equal causaltiy. There are any number of alternaitve explanations that can account for his production.

[David]

 

Can you really find better than .884 OPS at leadoff? The only other guys I can think of capable of that are Sizemore and Jeter.

 

I have to take exception to this. Leadoff is not a position. You can definitely find better than .884 at the corner OF spots.

 

I'm not knocking the Soriano signing, although I think the contract was extremely excessive and would rather have had Drew. At this point, IMHO, we'll need another good bat to be able to call this a good offense.

[Shilzzz]

did you have cesar freaking izturis with 25 homeruns?

 

how?

[cheapseats]

 

I'm not knocking the Soriano signing, although I think the contract was extremely excessive and would rather have had Drew. At this point, IMHO, we'll need another good bat to be able to call this a good offense.

 

Exactly. We were second-to-last in runs scored in the NL last year, and all of a sudden some people think we have a top-tier offense.

 

On top of that, there are some who believe we're suddenly contenders, even though we gave up the second highest number of runs in the NL last year.

 

There is still a lot of work to do before this team is built to score more runs than it gives up.

[Soriano12]

Well, some computer application said our offense will not be that good....

so I guess we should just go by that and not even bother with the season.

[CubinNY]

did you have cesar freaking izturis with 25 homeruns?

 

how?

 

He has Ceaser with 3 I believe.

[CubinNY]

Well, some computer application said our offense will not be that good....

so I guess we should just go by that and not even bother with the season.

 

Holy hyperboli, Batman!

[goonys evil twin]

Well, some computer application said our offense will not be that good....

so I guess we should just go by that and not even bother with the season.

 

I think a better option would be to try and make the offense better and still play the season.

[TheDude]

 

Can you really find better than .884 OPS at leadoff? The only other guys I can think of capable of that are Sizemore and Jeter.

 

I have to take exception to this. Leadoff is not a position. You can definitely find better than .884 at the corner OF spots.

 

I'm not knocking the Soriano signing, although I think the contract was extremely excessive and would rather have had Drew. At this point, IMHO, we'll need another good bat to be able to call this a good offense.

 

I have Soriano at CF. .884 OPS out of CF is top 5, with Beltran, Jones, Sizemore, and Wells.