ZiPS for Cardinals Hitters
« Part I, Rick Ankiel: Anatomy of a Collapse | Main | Stats and Scouts »Somebody suggested we have introductory posts. Here's mine: My name is Rob and I'm a stat-aholic. I had a more thematic first post in mind, but I was having trouble preaching without sounding preachy, so I'll make it short: Some stats are of questionable value, among them fielding percentage, range factor (Eckstein transaction's still fresh), most "splits" and pitch counts.
But that's not much fun. Dan Szymborski has posted his ZiPS projections for the Cardinals, among other teams. Right now I'm projecting 830 or so runs scored for the 2005 Cardinals. More details if you click below... (trust me and ignore the virus warnings)
Without further ado, here's how the runs tally, based on rates projected by ZiPS, my guesses at playing time and Jim Furtado's Extrapolated Runs:
Name AVG OBP SLG AB XR Mahoney .255 .305 .356 40 4.2 McKay* .239 .285 .332 40 3.6 Molina .273 .332 .341 400 45.2 Hart .271 .315 .382 100 11.6 Luna .281 .342 .357 200 24.3 Pujols .347 .435 .659 600 151.4 Rolen .295 .393 .538 550 111.9 Seabol .271 .321 .445 40 5.6 Cedeno# .265 .322 .363 200 23.3 Edmonds* .287 .402 .588 475 107.2 Gall .280 .337 .444 40 5.8 Mabry* .278 .343 .469 250 39.2 Sanders .245 .310 .447 450 63.3 Taguchi .248 .289 .346 150 14.0 Walker* .254 .361 .432 400 64.0 Nunez# .245 .311 .344 40 4.2 Schumaker* .267 .330 .333 40 4.3 Eckstein .265 .333 .328 550 61.9 Grudzielanek .284 .326 .391 400 48.4 Alomar# .240 .317 .334 75 8.3 Diaz .224 .273 .298 200 15.6 Pitchers .175 .206 .223 325 10.0
Those are my guesses for the pitchers. Add them all up and you get 832 runs. The aggregate AB-H is 4,055 compared to a mean of 4,044 over the past three years, so let's call it 830 runs. As a team that's about 273/349/436, which is a little more OBP and 24 points less SLG than the Cardinals had in 2004.
There are a couple of caveats to this exercise. First, Alomar's on the list, even though it's only 50 at-bats; as long as Cody McKay doesn't get those 50 at-bats, that probably makes this projection a little low (yes, Alomar's been that bad). Second, the Luna projection is probably high, since Szymborski evidently believes Luna's only 23. Finally, I had to use Grudzielanek's Wrigley projection, which probably is a little high, and Eckstein's Anaheim/Los Angeles/Los Angeles of Anaheim hit-by-pitches, which maybe is a little low. So maybe the total should be closer to 825, although presumably Taguchi or McKay will get less playing time if they struggle that much. These calculations aren't that precise anyway.
As something of an aside, I'd guess Walker and Eckstein beat those projections. The Sanders projection is a little scary, but it's justifiable. I hope we'll see the real Jeff Suppan at the plate, the one that Thom Brennaman kept insisting hit .270 in 2004.
Edit: As Flynn noted, I missed Einar Diaz, who was with the Expos last year. Goodness, he's worse than Matheny with the stick. Today's PD makes it sound a tad more likely that Alomar will make the team, so I gave him a few more at-bats, mostly at Hart's expense. Add 'em up and get 827 runs, so with the Luna and Grudz comments still in mind, I'll estimate 825 runs scored.
Posted by Rob at January 6, 2005 08:42 PMRob, in the table what do the symbols "*" and "#" mean? My guess is that one is "LH Batter" and the other is "Switch hitter", but I'm too lazy to look the players up right now.
Posted by: Len Cleavelin at January 7, 2005 06:22 AMEiner Diaz?
Posted by: Flynn at January 7, 2005 09:57 AMYeah Len, all those with *'s on them are lefties, and the # indicates a switch hitter.
Posted by: John at January 7, 2005 10:56 AMYeah, that's right on the symbols.
Shoot, Flynn, I knew I was forgetting somebody. I'll fix that night tonight. Cody McKay won't be happy with the news, though.
Posted by: Rob at January 7, 2005 03:31 PMGod, I would hope Walker and Eckstein could beat those projections. A .361 OBP for Walker? He hasn't been under .400 in decades. I can't imagine he will drop that far under in '05, assuming he stays #2 in the order (please, Tony...).
Posted by: MO Boiler at January 8, 2005 12:26 AMUsually ZiPS seems to be too optimistic. I think you need to average PECOTA (which is usually too pessimistic) with ZiPS to get a good prediction.
Posted by: Iron_Throne at January 8, 2005 12:59 AMI'll agree that ZiPS seem optimistic, particularly for guys like John Gall. But last February or March when I simulated a few 2004 seasons using Szymborski's 2004 projections in Diamond Mind, the Cardinals consistently won 100+ games. ZiPS did have the NL West completely backwards (Gonzalez and Sexson getting hurt was huge), but obviously the Cardinal projection left a strong impression on me, especially since most of the talk a year ago was that the Cardinals were a rudderless shark.
Posted by: Rob at January 8, 2005 11:43 AM