Experimental Projection System

by John Sickels on Feb 27, 2005 4:35 PM EST in News Comment 34 comments

I am working on a projection system of my own. It is experimental but I want to get some numbers out there before the seasons starts and see how it stands up.

Dallas McPherson-Anaheim Angels
2005 Projection JSPS-2

AB: 445
H: 118
2B: 24
3B: 5
HR: 22
BB: 36
K: 115
BA: .265
OBP: .320
SLG: .490
SB: 6
CS: 4

0 recs | Comment 34 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

compare to other projection systems

How do these numbers compare to the other projection systems out there? Can you put them side-by-side?

by sabernar on Feb 27, 2005 4:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

ZiPS

ZiPS is the only one I have. It's fairly close, just about every category is a littel bit more than John's projections

(John's vs ZiPS)
AB: 445 vs 501
H: 118 vs 138
2B: 24 vs 26
3B: 5 vs 6
HR: 22 vs 27
BB: 36 vs 47
K: 115 vs 153
BA: .265 vs .275
OBP: .320 vs .351
SLG: .490 vs .513
SB: 6 vs 14
CS: 4 vs 8

by kingofthehobos on Feb 27, 2005 5:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

.054 OPS difference

That's pretty significant. I'm curious to see how McPherson does this season.

by sabernar on Feb 27, 2005 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

pecota?

Anyone with PECOTA projections?

by sabernar on Feb 27, 2005 5:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

PECOTA

pecota puts him at a .272/.351/.496 line.

It gives him 324 AB's, 88 hits, 19 2B, 2 3B, 16 HR, 33 BB, 98 K.

pecota is pretty useless when it comes to minor league hitters, or hitter with very little service time. it tends to overstayte how they'll do.

I don't think his BA or OBP will be that high for his rookie year, though. And he'll definitely get more than 324 AB's barring injury, of course.

by AwfulWaffle on Feb 27, 2005 5:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

This is just my own gut feeling based on his minor league record including high strikeout totals. These projections have the power numbers pretty close. He could hit 25-30 HR's. I think his BA will be lower, maybe .230-.250. The good thing for McPherson is that the Angels are so loaded that they can put him down at 6'th or t'th in that lineup with very little pressure.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 27, 2005 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A monster

Dallas is a monster. The ball explodes off his bat. He'll be the AL ROY.

by Goodfella on Feb 27, 2005 6:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Bill James Projections

(John's vs BJ)
AB: 445 vs 532
H: 118 vs 156
2B: 24 vs 33
3B: 5 vs 8
HR: 22 vs 37
BB: 36 vs 47
K: 115 vs 175
BA: .265 vs .293
OBP: .320 vs .351
SLG: .490 vs .594
SB: 6 vs 13
CS: 4 vs 8

by WAC on Feb 27, 2005 6:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Bill James aims high...

I guess. A 594 SLG is huge. That's almost Pujols like for a rookie. I also think that the OBP at .351 is high. I think he'll end up above but closer to John's .320 prediction.

by Sodomann on Feb 27, 2005 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

James is ridiculous

Gammons released a few of James' projections, and almost every rookie was way too high.

YOUNG PLAYER 2005 PROJECTIONS
Kubel, Minn.*         .317    17    .909
McPherson, Ana        .293    37    .945
Mauer, Minn        .314    16    .867
Pickering, KC        .277    34    .967
Wright, Mets        .309    27    .929
Swisher, Oak        .234    24    .792
Bay, Pitt        .289    37    .923
Upton, TB        .294    18    .842
Youkilis, Bos        .271    6    .790
Morneau, Minn        .280    32    .878
*Projection made before season-ending injury

Mcpherson's .945 OPS is way too high, but Pickering's .967 almost made me lose my lunch.

David Wright is a great prospect, but he's not getting .929 in that park, next year.

and James also projected Bonds to end up with 918 homers, so perhaps subtlety isn't his strong point.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1922717

by AwfulWaffle on Feb 27, 2005 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: James

I like a lot of James work. Even moreso I just like the wave of analysis he ushered in and inspired. But I've always found his projection of minor leaguers to MLB to be folly.

by natsfan2005 on Feb 27, 2005 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

James

I'm a huge fan of James, too, but whatever projection system he's using for minor leaguers is biased way to the right of the mean.

many of these minor leaguers will be lucky to achieve those numbers during their primes. I can promise you right now that Calvin Pickering won't ever put a .967 OPS. I doubt he comes within .100 of that.

by AwfulWaffle on Feb 27, 2005 10:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

James projection

Yeah, I think Dave Ortiz is projected by James for a .919OPS. I'm surprised anyone would want their name associated with a system that projects Pickering and McPherson to be all-world and much better than Ortiz. In relative terms his projections are insulting to majorleaguers.

by natsfan2005 on Feb 28, 2005 8:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure

That he's exaggerating that much. He was once a top prospect. He's finally revived himself. .967 is probably stretching it, but he does have great power. I bet he's more in line for an .850 than a .960.

by ohad on Feb 28, 2005 9:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

contrary

Overestimating what most feel Calvin's top end OPS by 100 points is an exaggeration. Only five guys in the AL had an OPS higher than .930 last year.

Now if James forecasted Huston Street to get some time at DH and post a .967ops I might believe that. The kid has off the charts makeup.

by natsfan2005 on Feb 28, 2005 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmmm

What's your problem? You are acting as if i think Street is the Messiah, while you dismiss him because you don't think he's a good prospect. Let it go.

by ohad on Feb 28, 2005 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

37 homers?!?!?!?!

If he hits 37 homers, he'll be running away with ROY, and I'll eat a good portion of my hat. Last rookie to hit 37 homers-Pujols in '01. Before him, some guy named McGwire. Count me as a skeptic on that one.

by Doug on Feb 27, 2005 9:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pecota, James, and ZiPS agree...

All 3 say he will get a .351 OBP. Personally, I think John's .320 is closer, but 3 against 1 is a fairly strong argument. Guess we will have to wait until the end of the year...

by kingofthehobos on Feb 27, 2005 6:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

another data point

Ron Shandler has McPherson's 2004 MLE at .266/.321/.504, closer to my projected '05 numbers.

by John Sickels on Feb 27, 2005 6:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Marcel

Tangotiger's Marcel (I know very little about it, but the guy at Fourth Outfielder uses it) hates McPherson's slugging ability

199 ABs, 8 HRs, .266/.342/.447, at 15% reliability

by kingofthehobos on Feb 27, 2005 7:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Marcel

Marcel just weights the last three years of major league stats with the league average over that time in a 5/4/3/2 manner for hitters (and a 3/2/1/2 manner for pitchers) and then does an age adjustment. So a player's 2004 stats get a 5/14 weight, 2003 stats 4/14, 2002 3/14, and the 2002-2004 league average 2/14.

For rookies, since they have almost no major league stats, the projection is almost entirely the league average.

by Nick Schulte on Feb 28, 2005 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

last years projections

What I'd like to see is some of the projections for the 2004 season and how they matched up with the actual numbers. Is there anywhere I can find that?

by sabernar on Feb 27, 2005 8:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

John?

Are you going to do these for more rookies as well? Do you have a system for pitchers too?

by ohad on Feb 28, 2005 1:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

projections

Are you going to be confining this projection system to major-league rookies, or will you be projecting numbers for top-prospects who will be spending 2005 in the minors as well?

by jhelfgott on Feb 28, 2005 2:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

projections

The system is still experimental. I have tinkered with systems like this in the past, but have never been satisfied enough with the results to make a big deal out of it. However the current version seems to produce decent-looking numbers, so if people are interested I will certainly run more players through it.

by John Sickels on Feb 28, 2005 10:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Don't want to be selfish

But this is great, keep doin em. (plus, i can't wait to see Swisher, and once you get the pitcher formulas, all the young'uns.

by ohad on Feb 28, 2005 4:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:projections

definitely interesting to read, John. I'd like to see more.

by Bobo2 on Feb 28, 2005 1:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

BABIP

James has McPherson with a BABIP of .488 ... that kind of ends the shall-we-take-this-seriously debate.

by Yankfan on Feb 28, 2005 7:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

BABIP

.488? That's really bad right?

by ohad on Mar 1, 2005 9:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Explanation maybe?

BABIP stands for batting average on balls in play. You take away strikeouts and (maybe?) home runs.

The major league BABIP for 2004 was right at .300. I'm guessing Yankfan figured out what Pickering's BABIP would have to be based on James numbers and concluded it would be .488. Since that is totally off the charts, he seems to be saying James numbers are screwy. Of course, Pickering might go on a diet, lose 100 lbs. and beat out all those grounders to second.

by socalcardfan on Mar 1, 2005 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

James is still the most optimistic, but it's not as insane. One thing about the Prospectus system is that they tend to estimate low on plate appearances....at least from what I've seen.

by nygiants5811 on Mar 6, 2005 11:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs