Dougdirts 2008 Reds Projections

[TRF]

Here is my opinion. doug has added a human element and attempted to infuse that element into a mathematical formula. his problem is he can't produce said formula. He thinks he has, but his formula isn't any different than most standard formulas. He thinks Bailey's BB rate will improve despite his entire minor league history. He wants to base it on a small sample size of a few good starts when he was healthy at the end of the year.

I'll say this, Bailey does seem to respond to higher competition. It isn't unfathomable that he could improve.

IMO due to the overall lack of innings from Bailey last year, his PECOTA is probably on the safe side. I think PECOTA seriously underestimated Belisle.

doug's always been overly optimistic of reds prospects. I've hammered him over Stubbs for a year now. Just means that doug tends to be a bit of a homer (pun intended). I can see what he was trying to do with his projections.

But he failed to show his math properly. He didn't quantify his "human element". How do you give a number value to EE's wakeup call? How do you properly display what stretching out a pitcher can do for him in his second year of starting (Belisle)? What about the effect of 4 rookies on one roster? How about the influence of a new manager? Is there an effect there? Managers can have a DIRECT effect on a pitchers numbers. Look at Arroyo/Belisle from last year. Managerial decisions probably cost Belisle at least 10-15 IP.

I applaud the effort, but unless he can show the math better, he gets a C.

[jojo]

Of the three I mentioned, I think Volquez is most likely to reach that potential too.

My pick to click between Volquez, Bailey and Cueto is Cueto. I'll take plus command of slightly lesser stuff every time. Cueto's command could be a weapon unto itself. He posted a BB/9 of 1.80ish in 160 IP last season. That's Saberhagen-like command. If ever there was a guy people should be getting crazy over-optimistic about, I don't get why it's not Cueto.

That said, Cueto might be the least likely arm to get a legitimate chance this season though because of his age/size/lack of AAA innings.

[pedro]

Here is my opinion. doug has added a human element and attempted to infuse that element into a mathematical formula. ......

I applaud the effort, but unless he can show the math better, he gets a C.

X-Doug = Success!

[pedro]

I'll say this. As a whole Doug's projections are probably overly optimistic, a problem that I have myself when I make a pre-season guess how my favorite team will do, but I don't think any of them individually are so off that they are impossible.

[dougdirt]

Here is my opinion. doug has added a human element and attempted to infuse that element into a mathematical formula. his problem is he can't produce said formula. He thinks he has, but his formula isn't any different than most standard formulas. He thinks Bailey's BB rate will improve despite his entire minor league history. He wants to base it on a small sample size of a few good starts when he was healthy at the end of the year.

As far as Bailey's walk rate, I actually gave credit to his large improvements from 2005 to 2006 while not deducting much from his 2007 numbers that went up slightly from the 2006 ones. The formula that I use picked out comparables who also improved their walk rates somewhat.

I'll say this, Bailey does seem to respond to higher competition. It isn't unfathomable that he could improve.

I think its unfathomable that people think he will stagnate at his current level. There seems to be a lot of that going around these parts.

doug's always been overly optimistic of reds prospects. I've hammered him over Stubbs for a year now. Just means that doug tends to be a bit of a homer (pun intended). I can see what he was trying to do with his projections.

I don't think I am overly optimistic on Reds prospects. As far as Stubbs goes, its not like I am the only person around who likes Stubbs. Not even close really. I just view things differently and its not because he is a Reds prospect.

But he failed to show his math properly. He didn't quantify his "human element". How do you give a number value to EE's wakeup call? How do you properly display what stretching out a pitcher can do for him in his second year of starting (Belisle)? What about the effect of 4 rookies on one roster? How about the influence of a new manager? Is there an effect there? Managers can have a DIRECT effect on a pitchers numbers. Look at Arroyo/Belisle from last year. Managerial decisions probably cost Belisle at least 10-15 IP.

Well without throwing out 25 different formula's, I can't really quantify my 'human element' in numbers. Lets use Edwin for example, his numbers project out an XBH rate based on the last two seasons worth of stats and what similar players have done when they put up numbers like those. I gave his XBH rate a 5% increase because I think his overall numbers from the last two years have suffered somewhat from being jerked in and out of the lineup by a crazy manager. That is where you see the big improvement in his slugging percentage at.

I applaud the effort, but unless he can show the math better, he gets a C.

Again, there is way too much math for me to go through to 'show the math' on the board. Frankly, even I don't have that much free time to type out every formula for projecting each stat right now.

As for a C.... I will take it. That is passing right?

[pedro]

Well without throwing out 25 different formula's

There's the answer to our question right there.

[dougdirt]

There's the answer to our question right there.

What was the question for that answer?

[pedro]

What was the question for that answer?

Link

[jojo]

Doug, it might be informative if you picked one guy and walked us thru how you generated the projection for him. That would probably answer/head off a lot of the questions that are popping up.

[RedsManRick]

The biggest problem with any projection heavily influence by people is that we have trouble being pessimistic or projecting bad luck. Sure, those projections are quite possible (save perhaps for Bailey's), but it's extremely unlikely that everybody will fare that well. Somebody will have bad luck. Somebody will get hurt and miss a lot time. Somebody will simply regress in skill. However, it's very difficult to project those sorts of things.

Junior is the perfect example. Sure, I can see him getting 550 PA and hitting 30 HR. But from a likelihood perspective, he could get 200 PA and 11 HR -- but who's going to choose to project that. I've heard it said often that if you go down the list of teams and just assign a wins number to each team, at the end of the day you'll find the average team wins 85 games -- or something like that. That's what these projections strike me as an example of.

[Falls City Beer]

My pick to click between Volquez, Bailey and Cueto is Cueto. I'll take plus command of slightly lesser stuff every time. Cueto's command could be a weapon unto itself. He posted a BB/9 of 1.80ish in 160 IP last season. That's Saberhagen-like command. If ever there was a guy people should be getting crazy over-optimistic about, I don't get why it's not Cueto.

That said, Cueto might be the least likely arm to get a legitimate chance this season though because of his age/size/lack of AAA innings.

Well, I was comparing the three arms that stood out to me as optimistic in doug's projection: Weathers, Bailey, and Volquez.

I think one should expect two different things from Volquez and Cueto; Volquez will likely get a starters' number of innings while Cueto will likely only see bullpen time (if any). However, I could easily see better things in the pen for Cueto than what you will see from Volquez in the rotation, relatively speaking.

[Highlifeman21]

What about Griffey is optimistic? Same goes for Hopper for that matter.
My projections for Votto seem to fall in line with PECOTA and the Bill James projections. What seems optimistic about that?
As for Edwin, he has the average and the on base percentage skills that I projected and we both know that (as he has shown them in the past) the only thing is the power. Why do you think he won't hit for power?
As for Ross, I see a normalization of his average next year, he was incredibly unlucky last year.
Affeldt, same as Votto.... projections fall in line right with everyone else minus the innings difference. Why is that being optimistic considering its actually a step backward from last season for him?


Show me how Bailey is mathematically impossible, because it is actually VERY possible.

Griffey is 1 year older. If he OPS's North of .800, and plays in 120+ games, I'll be floored.

Norris Hopper won't bat above .300 in 2008, and his OBP will be .315 at best. I expect his SLG to be similar, if not lower than his OBP, so honestly, I'm looking at an OPS of .650 at best. Defenses will adjust to his bunting and IF slap hitting. It's inevitable.

I just don't see Votto OPSing North of .850, which is still damn good for a "rookie". He had a big enough cup of coffee last year for him not to be a rookie, but IMO anything North of .850 is really optimistic. Didn't Bill James have Jay Bruce North of .900? I honestly could care less what PECOTA and BJ think Votto will do, b/c unfortunately he won't be an everyday player for Big Dust, and that will impact his numbers. I think Votto will OPS North of .800, and could be as high as .850, but he won't crack that.

As for Edwin... an .863 OPS seems rather optimistic. .825 is the best I'd give him. .365 OBP seems right, I agree with that, but I only see his SLG around .460 instead of just shy of .500. For him to SLG near .500 in 540 AB with 26 HR means that he's going to hit a crap load of 2B, and for whatever reason I don't see it happening. EE's averaged 63 1B a year, 25 2B a year, 1 3B a year, and 14 HR a year. That's (we'll call it) 160 TB for a year, unless my math is way off. He's also averaged 373 AB a year. So we're now adding an additional 167 AB. So if he's averaging 160 TB per 373 AB, projected over 540 AB that would be... 232 TB. To SLG .498, as you've projected, he'd need an additional 35 TB than what he averages. That's either 9 more HR, or 18 more 2B than usual. I just don't see it happening. It's not impossible, but not very probable. Even if I see his SLG around .460, that means he needs 249 TB in 540 AB, which again isn't impossible, but may be a tad optimistic on my part.

Ross is horrible. That's all I need to say.

I see Affeldt being misused by the Reds. I see him being our only LHP starter, and that's a role that won't lead to success for him. If he's a starter, his ERA won't be on the good side of 5.00. It just won't be a good thing. If he's a reliever, then I feel your projection isn't bad.

[jojo]

Well, I was comparing the three arms that stood out to me as optimistic in doug's projection: Weathers, Bailey, and Volquez.

Ya. My comment was meant to piggyback onto what you said rather than to imply a difference in opinion.

[dougdirt]

Griffey is 1 year older. If he OPS's North of .800, and plays in 120+ games, I'll be floored.

So 1 year of age is worth .100 OPS points to you? Considering he went for .871 last year and if he only drops 71 points you will be floored then I have to assume you guess he is going to go for at best in your guess a .780 OPS?

As for Edwin... an .863 OPS seems rather optimistic. .825 is the best I'd give him. .365 OBP seems right, I agree with that, but I only see his SLG around .460 instead of just shy of .500. For him to SLG near .500 in 540 AB with 26 HR means that he's going to hit a crap load of 2B, and for whatever reason I don't see it happening. EE's averaged 63 1B a year, 25 2B a year, 1 3B a year, and 14 HR a year. That's (we'll call it) 160 TB for a year, unless my math is way off. He's also averaged 373 AB a year. So we're now adding an additional 167 AB. So if he's averaging 160 TB per 373 AB, projected over 540 AB that would be... 232 TB. To SLG .498, as you've projected, he'd need an additional 35 TB than what he averages. That's either 9 more HR, or 18 more 2B than usual. I just don't see it happening. It's not impossible, but not very probable. Even if I see his SLG around .460, that means he needs 249 TB in 540 AB, which again isn't impossible, but may be a tad optimistic on my part.

My hit total for Edwin is for 30 doubles, 2 triples and 26 HR to go along with 99 singles. Thats 269 total bases in 540 at bats.

Ross is horrible. That's all I need to say.

Hes better than you give him credit for. He strikes out a ton, but when he hits the ball he hits it hard. Last year his BABIP was incredibly low, which killed his average. I don't think its going to be sub .230 again so long as he keeps up his line drive rate nearing 19%.

I see Affeldt being misused by the Reds. I see him being our only LHP starter, and that's a role that won't lead to success for him. If he's a starter, his ERA won't be on the good side of 5.00. It just won't be a good thing. If he's a reliever, then I feel your projection isn't bad.

My projection has him getting about 7 starts then moving to the relief role.

[SteelSD]

As far as Bailey's walk rate, I actually gave credit to his large improvements from 2005 to 2006 while not deducting much from his 2007 numbers that went up slightly from the 2006 ones. The formula that I use picked out comparables who also improved their walk rates somewhat.

You have a "formula" that "picked out comparables"? That I'd like to see, because such a "formula" would be comparable to extremely advanced computer programming.

And the reason for the bolded text in the quote is this:

Homer Bailey BB/9 Rates:

2005: 5.38
2006: 3.25 (-2.14 vs. 2005)
2007: 4.85 (+1.60 vs. 2006)

Is 2.14 improvement is "large" while a regression of 1.60 is "slight"?

<Steel sits back and waits for doug to invoke the "hamstring" clause>

I think its unfathomable that people think he will stagnate at his current level. There seems to be a lot of that going around these parts.

No, there's not a lot of that going around. I think the big difference between you and most folks is that you expect constant improvement from young players while others realize the difficulty of leaping (and it is a leap) from the minors to the top rung of professional baseball. That's not some "stagnation" decree from others. It's simply the concept of being cautious with what we expect from players who are trying to make the leap.

I don't think I am overly optimistic on Reds prospects. As far as Stubbs goes, its not like I am the only person around who likes Stubbs. Not even close really. I just view things differently and its not because he is a Reds prospect.

"Viewing things differently" without noting your methodology and argumentum ad populum aren't valid defenses of an opinion.

Well without throwing out 25 different formula's, I can't really quantify my 'human element' in numbers. Lets use Edwin for example, his numbers project out an XBH rate based on the last two seasons worth of stats and what similar players have done when they put up numbers like those. I gave his XBH rate a 5% increase because I think his overall numbers from the last two years have suffered somewhat from being jerked in and out of the lineup by a crazy manager. That is where you see the big improvement in his slugging percentage at.

Twenty-five different formulas? What? Why would you possibly need 25 different formulas? Can you show us even three to five actual formulas? Shouldn't be that hard as all you'd have to do is cut-and-paste from your projection spreadsheet.

Oh, and on your projection for Encarnacion...

If we look at only Encarnacion's prior two seasons and then calculate a 5% improvment in his XBH numbers, we get the following based on his XBH per AB rates:

2B: 36
3B: 1
HR: 19

Unfortunately, given a .291 Batting Average over 540 AB, that leaves us with a Slugging Percentage of .470. So where exactly are the extra 15 Bases coming from? Even piggybacking on PECOTA for Encarnacion and adding 5% to his HR rate, we'd be looking at 24 rather than 26 Home Runs. In short, a proven comparitive method like PECOTA wouldn't project 26 Home Runs for Encarnacion even if we multiplied his PECOTA total by 1.05. So where is that additional adjustment coming from.

Again, there is way too much math for me to go through to 'show the math' on the board. Frankly, even I don't have that much free time to type out every formula for projecting each stat right now.

That's interesting, because you were real quick to produce the "quick-and-dirty" DIPS formula to defend your "projections". So why are a few others so hard to come by? Heck, I'm sitting here staring at my DIPS 2.0 spreadsheet and can submit that to anyone who asks for it just by pulling up my email.