PECOTAs are out

[Geech]

not really a good estimate of an offense though as distribution of good hitters makes a huge difference. ie a lineup of all .300 equ would produce more runs than a lineup that was half .350 and half .250. I think this would apply to pitchers too - I would rather have five #3s than two great starters, one #3 and two terrible starters. at least for the regular season.

 

Any evidence of this? Fiddling around with the Lineup Anlyzer seemed to indicate otherwise.

 

That's assuming universal health.

 

If the lineup has nothing but .300 EqA's, the production would be easier to replace if somebody went down to injury.

 

I don't think that's what he was arguing.

[nilodnayr]

I looked at all of the offenses in the division, in two different ways. First I just averaged the projected eight starters for each team. Secondly I then did a weighted average for variances in each spot in the lineup.

 

Straight Average:

1. .278 St. Louis Cardinals

2. .278 Chicago Cubs

3. .275 Milwaukee Brewers

4. .273 Cincinnati Reds

5. .270 Houston Astros

6. .267 Pittsburgh Pirates

 

The fact that Pujols has a projected EqA at .349 and the Cubs have no one over .300 meant a lot. If Pujols goes down or even has a "down" year, they're done for. The Cardinals were slightly better here, averaging out at .2783 and the Cubs were down at .2775. The weighted average didn't do much and improved each teams by about .0075. I'll look ath EqERA in the rotations in a bit.

 

How does every team in the NL central have an EqA that much higher than league average?!?!?

[Mephistopheles]

because pitchers, bench players and journeymen aren't averaged in, duh. That and all the good players get every at bat they possibly can, etc. Also the way these things are figured they are the weighted mean projections which are usually a bit higher than the 50th percentile projections - about 3 points higher to be precise. Edited January 17, 2007 by Mephistopheles

[nilodnayr]

because pitchers, bench players and journeymen aren't averaged in, duh.

 

Well then Marquis and Zambrano give us the edge over STL. :)

[Mephistopheles]

In other news, the PECOTA cards should be out soon.

[imb]

Zambranos walk rates and innings pitched have a lot to do with that.

 

he struck out more in 2006 in fewer innings than he had in 2005.

 

His k/9 has gone up 4 straight years.

and his groundball rates have gone down causing an expected increase in his home run rate.

 

Uh, neat.

 

All the guy said was that Zambrano's k rate had declined, which it hasn't. No one was talking about his gb% or hr allowed.

[Mephistopheles]

And if you read, you will notice that I was talking about Zambrano's BB rate and high inning totals for a young pitcher - and he responded with K rate.

 

It's a perfectly acceptable response. He was saying Z's K rates have gone up so its offset the BB rate and his PECOTA shouldn't be so negative. I then went and mentioned a couple other reasons that the picture is more like Jessica Simpson than Jessica Alba.

[imb]

And if you read, you will notice that I was talking about Zambrano's BB rate and high inning totals for a young pitcher - and he responded with K rate.

 

It's a perfectly acceptable response. He was saying Z's K rates have gone up so its offset the BB rate and his PECOTA shouldn't be so negative. I then went and mentioned a couple other reasons that the picture is more like Jessica Simpson than Jessica Alba.

 

I think you jumped into the wrong conversation here buddy. I replied to someone who said his k rate was declining.

[Guest]

not really a good estimate of an offense though as distribution of good hitters makes a huge difference. ie a lineup of all .300 equ would produce more runs than a lineup that was half .350 and half .250. I think this would apply to pitchers too - I would rather have five #3s than two great starters, one #3 and two terrible starters. at least for the regular season.

 

Any evidence of this? Fiddling around with the Lineup Anlyzer seemed to indicate otherwise.

 

the sims I have run indicate differently. the reason is that outs are precious commodities. while you don't need all power hitters, having batters that are sure outs is a huge liability. I haven't run anything with eqas of course.

[Guest]

And if you read, you will notice that I was talking about Zambrano's BB rate and high inning totals for a young pitcher - and he responded with K rate.

 

It's a perfectly acceptable response. He was saying Z's K rates have gone up so its offset the BB rate and his PECOTA shouldn't be so negative. I then went and mentioned a couple other reasons that the picture is more like Jessica Simpson than Jessica Alba.

 

I think you jumped into the wrong conversation here buddy. I replied to someone who said his k rate was declining.

 

 

wow, calm down. he is offering an alternate explanation.

[Mephistopheles]

Actually I am pretty sure you quoted the wrong post.

[imb]

Actually I am pretty sure you quoted the wrong post.

 

negative

 

Zambrano's high ERA is likely attributable to his declining K rate. I don't see EP slugging near .500 in the majors.

 

 

i dont know what this means, his k rate has gone up every year since 2003.

[Productive Outs]

bonds: .267/.441/.535, but only 229 PAs

[Mephistopheles]

not really a good estimate of an offense though as distribution of good hitters makes a huge difference. ie a lineup of all .300 equ would produce more runs than a lineup that was half .350 and half .250. I think this would apply to pitchers too - I would rather have five #3s than two great starters, one #3 and two terrible starters. at least for the regular season.

 

Any evidence of this? Fiddling around with the Lineup Anlyzer seemed to indicate otherwise.

 

the sims I have run indicate differently. the reason is that outs are precious commodities. while you don't need all power hitters, having batters that are sure outs is a huge liability. I haven't run anything with eqas of course.

 

EqA is value per out, so it should average out evenly under that assumption.

[Guest]

Actually I am pretty sure you quoted the wrong post.

 

negative

 

Zambrano's high ERA is likely attributable to his declining K rate. I don't see EP slugging near .500 in the majors.

 

 

i dont know what this means, his k rate has gone up every year since 2003.

 

yes, its already been acknowledged how incredibly smart you are. move on now.

[Guest]

not really a good estimate of an offense though as distribution of good hitters makes a huge difference. ie a lineup of all .300 equ would produce more runs than a lineup that was half .350 and half .250. I think this would apply to pitchers too - I would rather have five #3s than two great starters, one #3 and two terrible starters. at least for the regular season.

 

Any evidence of this? Fiddling around with the Lineup Anlyzer seemed to indicate otherwise.

 

the sims I have run indicate differently. the reason is that outs are precious commodities. while you don't need all power hitters, having batters that are sure outs is a huge liability. I haven't run anything with eqas of course.

 

EqA is value per out, so it should average out evenly under that assumption.

 

so run production would be the same?

[Chocolate Milk]

Actually I am pretty sure you quoted the wrong post.

 

negative

 

Zambrano's high ERA is likely attributable to his declining K rate. I don't see EP slugging near .500 in the majors.

 

 

i dont know what this means, his k rate has gone up every year since 2003.

 

yes, its already been acknowledged how incredibly smart you are. move on now.

 

Easy there.

[imb]

Actually I am pretty sure you quoted the wrong post.

 

negative

 

Zambrano's high ERA is likely attributable to his declining K rate. I don't see EP slugging near .500 in the majors.

 

 

i dont know what this means, his k rate has gone up every year since 2003.

 

yes, its already been acknowledged how incredibly smart you are. move on now.

 

slow your roll girlfriend, i was just pointing it out

[Coach C]

Almost forgot.

 

Anybody got Travis Hafner's?

[nilodnayr]

Almost forgot.

 

Anybody got Travis Hafner's?

 

296/407/585

[nilodnayr]

Also http://www.fangraphs.com now has under the "season stats" tab, Bill James, CHONE, ZiPS, and Marcel projections. Edited January 27, 2007 by nilodnayr

[Coach C]

Almost forgot.

 

Anybody got Travis Hafner's?

 

296/407/585

 

Yeesh.... That's pretty solid. Hopefully the fella can stay healthy.

[nilodnayr]

Almost forgot.

 

Anybody got Travis Hafner's?

 

296/407/585

 

Yeesh.... That's pretty solid. Hopefully the fella can stay healthy.

PECOTA is the least optimistic but all projection systems are pretty close. Nothing really earth shattering, he'll put up about 1000 OPS again.

[Coach C]

Almost forgot.

 

Anybody got Travis Hafner's?

 

296/407/585

 

Yeesh.... That's pretty solid. Hopefully the fella can stay healthy.

PECOTA is the least optimistic but all projection systems are pretty close. Nothing really earth shattering, he'll put up about 1000 OPS again.

 

Easily.

 

I can see him doing 300/410/590 with 50 HR's and 130 RBI's if he manages to play 150+ games.

 

He could have easily eclipsed that last year, had it not been for that unfortunate hand injury.

[nilodnayr]

Almost forgot.

 

Anybody got Travis Hafner's?

 

296/407/585

 

Yeesh.... That's pretty solid. Hopefully the fella can stay healthy.

PECOTA is the least optimistic but all projection systems are pretty close. Nothing really earth shattering, he'll put up about 1000 OPS again.

 

Easily.

 

I can see him doing 300/410/590 with 50 HR's and 130 RBI's if he manages to play 150+ games.

 

He could have easily eclipsed that last year, had it not been for that unfortunate hand injury.

 

Probably more like 40 HRs and 120 RBIs if his slg is 590 and he plays 150 games.