2008 projection for Brandon Wood, anyone?

by smittybanton on Jan 22, 2008 5:37 PM EST Comment 21 comments

What up Community! Just wondering what people think Brandon Wood will do in 2008, and where (position and level)? There's a bunch who've fallen from grace. Feel free to project Reid Brignac, Scott Elbert, Adam Miller, Adam Laroche, Sean Rodriguez, Homer Bailey, Hayden Penn, Ryan Sweeney, Carlos Gonzalez, Nick Adenhart, etc. Who's bringing sexy back?

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I see plenty of power

...but not much else with the bat. Something like .245/.300/.470.

I still like his bat long-term, but I think he's going to have to make some adjustments to bring his OB up to a good level.

by Sparky133 on Jan 22, 2008 5:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

MACHINES SAY:

ZiPS: .228/.292/.368
CHONE: 0.231/.288/.411

Computers hate Brandon Wood.

by aCone419 on Jan 22, 2008 7:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ew.

ZiPS is absolutely awful when it comes to hitter projections, especially with young players. Wood only has 33 ABs so far, and he hit .152/.152/.273. He needs consistent playing time, not the 5 ABs every 2 weeks the Angels gave him. He was called up 3 times and rotted on the bench for weeks. That stalled his development, and it probably hurt his numbers. You can't get going on offense while rotting on the bench and getting sporadic ABs. He also had to worry about learning how to play a new position, which also most likely hurt his offensive numbers.

CHONE uses the same formula (3 year samples, and they try to find every comparable player that played the same position, had a similar body type, similar numbers, etc. at the same age that has ever played the game, and they project their numbers with the median level performance based on what those players did). For example, if some players hit .320/.380/.550, and some hit .250/.320/.400, they go with the middle (.285/.350/.470), and call .320/.380/.550 15% optimistic, .250/.320/.400 15% pessimistic and .285/.350/.470 as the median. Injuries aren't taken into account, and if a player has a season derailed by injuries, his projections will be ruined for the next 3 years.

PECOTA (#1 projection system, with Bill James not too far behind) calls for a .245/307/.457 line at the majors as a 23-year-old with full playing time in 2008. Of course, neither projections take injuries into account.

It should be noted that computer projections, especially those that project a player based on what others did, should be taken with a grain of salt. Some players' comparables had inconsistent careers, careers derailed by injuries, 2 or 3 good seasons and 10 bad ones, etc. and they get projected to do the same thing based on what they did. It's really not fair. Some players get projected to start declining at a certain age because some of his comparables did, and again, it's not fair.

Ron Shandler is one of the biggest advocates when it comes to discounting projection systems, even his own, because of these reasons. What we see is what we get. We won't know what Wood is capable of at the majors until he gets there.

I'm also willing to bet that he has a huge season at AAA this year. I think he'll get called up around June or July after he's dominating AAA. People tend to forget that Wood was one of the youngest hitter's at AAA. Usually young players that were young for their league that didn't do quite as well as expected adjust the second time. He already improved his K rate this year, and I am expecting further improvements and a monster season. What Wood does this year at AAA will dictate a lot about his future and his ability to adjust.

by 2008 on Jan 22, 2008 9:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

PECOTA

PECOTA projections change every year. All it takes is a breakout season for them to be spinning a different tune on a player.

by pirates on Jan 22, 2008 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I agree...

They project by comparables also. Meh. Computer projections = a giant waste of time. The playing is done on a field, not on a computer trying to play Nostradamus (and fail miserably).

by 2008 on Jan 22, 2008 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Basis?

I was going to ask you for some evidence about your claim that ZiPS is awful with young hitters, but the fact that you think the Bill James Handbook projections are one of the top two shows that you have no idea of what you speak. The BJH are notorious for making outlandish projections for minor league hitters.

You don't seem to be an idiot, though, I agree with your basic caveats about projection systems, so I will just chalk this up to your continuous and blatant Angels homerism.

by aCone419 on Jan 22, 2008 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You sure?

They're not outlandish if you believe that what you do at the minor leagues is an indicator what you're capable of at the major leagues. If you want to disregard what players do in the minor leagues, then Bill James and his projections are not for you.

Obviously, not everyone pans out, but that's the point. Prospects are such a crapshoot. You don't know if they're for real or not until they reach the majors and show it. All you have to go by is what they do in the minor leagues. If a player dominates the minor leagues, then you can expect him to do the same at the majors, immediately or when he adjusts. If a player doesn't do well in the minor leagues, then you can't expect him to do well at the major leagues. That's pretty much what James is trying to say.

Some prospects don't have stellar minor league careers, yet have stellar major league careers. Some players dominate the minors, but are complete busts at the major leagues. Then some players who dominate the minor leagues have nearly identical numbers to other players who dominate the minor leagues (Ryan Howard and Dallas McPherson immediately come to mind, check out their minor league numbers). Both players had nearly identical numbers, K rate, BB rate, batting average, OBP and SLG...yet one of them turned out to be a superstar, while the other turned out to be a bust and had trouble adjusting and looked overmatched in the ABs he had.

By calling me an idiot for saying Bill James projections are one of the top shows that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. ZiPS and Chone were last when it came to hitter projections. PECOTA and James were both ahead of them. The only thing ZiPS was good at was with pitchers, but then again...calling any projection system the most accurate is misleading, since their definition of accurate is different than what the word actually means.

Angels homerism? Wow, I didn't know being an Angels fan and talking about the Angels suddenly makes me a homer.

by 2008 on Jan 22, 2008 11:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

McPherson Was Not a "Bust"

Um, Dallas McPherson was not a "bust." He was injured. Badly. He suffered a herinated disc in spring training 2003, missed the first month of the season, continued to play through it but it slowly became worse. He underwent three different surgeries, each more invasive and extreme, in an attempt to fix it. The back would lock up on him and affected his swing.

Don't you think it's unfair to declare someone a "bust" who never got a real chance to show what he can do when healthy? That's kinda cruel. Fate dealt him a low blow, and that's the bottom line.

by FutureAngels on Jan 22, 2008 11:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

He turns 28 in July, so if some team gives him a chance, and he comes back healthy and shows what he's capable of (and does well), then he could still have a nice career. He hasn't signed with a team yet.

I agree that it's unfair to label him a bust because of the injuries, but he's almost 28 and hasn't completed a full season yet. He's a bust so far because of his injuries. We'll see what he does when healthy, but it unfortunately won't be with the Angels.

by 2008 on Jan 22, 2008 11:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You are either bad at reading or just weird

I didn't call you an idiot; in fact I specifically said the opposite.

I don't get what your point is about "disregarding what players do in the minor leagues." That is not something that separates the BJH projections from the rest of the pack. ZiPS incorporates MLEs.

Further, I don't know what study you are pointing to (since you still have yet to give any evidence for your rankings, which I am assuming you are getting from somewhere on-line), but my point was that you poo-poo the ZiPS projections for YOUNG hitters while trumpeting the BJH projections, which have a history of having silly YOUNG hitter projections. They may be fine for overall MLB hitters, but that's not the issue at hand.

P.S. Every post doesn't need a lengthy lecture on the fundamentals of projection systems. I am well aware of their goals and limitations.

by aCone419 on Jan 23, 2008 12:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What?

I never said the BJH projections are great when it comes to young hitters. That's not what I said at all. I think you misread what I wrote. I also should've been more clear regarding ZiPS and their young hitter projections. That goes for any system, to be fair. I'll paste Sean Smith's (Chone) own words: "Using only MLEplayers (41 of them) the correlations are .38 (ZIPS) and .34 (CHONE/Marcel). They aren't useless, but do not predict as well as major league stats. Minor league stats should not be ignored, but it appears they are not as predictive of major league stats. Perhaps we can improve projection systems by weighing them less than major league performances." ... In other words, projections for young players suck because there's no telling what they will do. Computer projections for major leaguers are bad as well for the reasons I stated in this thread, but it gets way worse for players entering their rookie year. Gordon's 1.014 OPS season was just a .817 OPS MLE. That's not saying Gordon wouldn't be anything better than a .817 OPS hitter or wouldn't have a .900-1.000 OPS in the majors, it's just the way it's designed. A .310 batting average in the majors would be equal to over .390 or so in the minors, according to MLE. That probably wouldn't actually happen, it's just how it's designed. Projecting minor leaguers is nearly impossible, since some players will become busts, some will pan out and become the stars they were seen as becoming, some will become useful players, just not the stars they were originally seen as becoming, some will surprise everyone and play better than they were expected to, etcetera. Some players instantly start hitting when they reach the majors, while some take time to adjust. The same goes for pitchers. Basically, nobody knows what will happen.

Anyway, the point is, I think it's silly to judge a player that was way young for his league. Wood not only had to learn how to play a new position, he also was called up 3 times and sat on the bench for weeks, getting sporadic ABs. Wood was also the 3rd youngest hitter in his league. If Wood dominates AAA this year, then people will jump on the bandwagon again. Young highly touted hitters that were young for their league that didn't do quite as well like Wood usually adjust after they repeat that level. If Wood adjusts, and dominates as I think he will, that will bode well for his ability to adjust in the majors. If he falters or doesn't show any progress, then that might show that he isn't quite as good as originally thought, but the fact that he was 22 indicates for now that he simply wasn't ready.

by 2008 on Jan 23, 2008 2:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reality Baseball vs. Fantasy Baseball

It does seem that some people can't tell the difference between the real baseball world and fantasy baseball. Players are human beings, not a line of stats in a spreadsheet. Everyone progresses differently. Just my anecdotal observation, but it seems the ones who obsess with the statistics in the name of "objectivity" are usually the ones clueless about context, e.g. the hitter was hurt or the pitcher was working on a new pitch. As you pointed out, Wood was 22 last year. Let's see how many other 22-year old hitters were in their first year in the PCL and how they did. It's pretty silly to give up on a 22-year old just because of some obtuse and dubious statistical measurement that has no meaning in the real world.

by FutureAngels on Jan 22, 2008 11:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Especially...

when its OBVIOUS that he is really talented :-)

Wood has some things to learn but, I amnot dissapointed in him at all. If he would have kept up tghe pace he set in the cal league we would have been looking at a HOF type talent.

Sorry if he disapoints people and only ends up as an outstanding power-hitting 3b or SS.

He remains a great prospect.

by casejud on Jan 23, 2008 1:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm

i'm a bit more optimistic
.260/.340/.480 if he's up full time
crap lines like the other's posted if he gets shuffled back and forth like last yr.

by bk11 on Jan 22, 2008 7:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wood

200 AB. 25 HR. 175 K's.

Well, maybe fewer HR and K's, but I don't see him reducing those K/AB this year.

by coochorama on Jan 22, 2008 8:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wood Compared to Mike Schmidt

The people who want to write off Brandon Wood would probably have written off Mike Schmidt.

Schmidt reached Triple-A in 1972 at about the same age as Wood. Unlike Wood, Schmidt had the advantage of spending pretty much the entire year at Triple-A Portland. His numbers -- an AVG/OBP/SLG of .291/.409/.550. In 436 AB, he struck out 145 times but also took 87 walks.

After the 1972 season ended, Schmidt got a late-season callup. In 34 AB his line was .206/.325/.294. He had 15 strikeouts and 5 walks.

In 1973, the Phillies handed the 3B job to Schmidt. He struggled mightily. His line was .196/.324/.373. In 367 AB, he struck out 136 times, or once every 2.7 AB.

No doubt some would be calling him a "bust" and demanding the Phillies trade him "while he has value." How foolish that would have been.

Now let's look at Brandon Wood's 2007 season.

Overall, his line at Triple-A Salt Lake was .272/.338/.497. But as I've written many times on FutureAngels.com, Salt Lake and certain other ballparks in the PCL are hitter-friendly due to altitude or other conditions. So what I do is back out those five hitter-friendly ballparks and determine the hitter-friendly vs. neutral/pitcher-friendly splits. The results:

High-Altitude AVG/OBP/SLG: .279/.352/.472
Pitcher-Friendly/Other AVG/OBP/SLG: .258/.305/.553

What's interesting about this is his SLG was actually higher in normal parks than in hitter-friendly parks, not exactly what we would expect.

As most people know, Wood had two mid-season callups and rejoined the Angels in September. Unlike Schmidt, he didn't have the continuity of his Triple-A experience, BUT going to the big leagues gave him an opportunity to face what major league pitching is like and take that back to Triple-A so he knew how much farther he has to go to be big-league ready.

The Angels corrected a mechanical flaw in his swing late in the season. He still has to work on pitch selection; pitchers can expand his strike zone so with a two-strike count he'll change balls out of the zone. That can be fixed with experience.

Most likely, Wood goes back to Triple-A to polish his skills without the pressure of a major league season, unlike Schmidt who at age 23 had to suffer in the big leagues. But there will come a point where Wood, like Schmidt, has to play every day. The only way a player can learn to hit big-league pitching is to face it every day. Triple-A is filled with former and future big league pitchers, but not many of them are big-league caliber or they'd be in the big leagues. So the time will come when the Angels will have to give Wood his opportunity and suffer through some growing pains, as happens with pretty much every player making the transition to the majors.

I recently recorded an interview with Abe Flores, the Angels' new farm director. I asked him if the game plan is still for Wood to learn 3B. Abe said they haven't made a final decision, but in his opinion Wood would eventually wind up at SS. Wood is capable of playing either position quite well. His defense won't be an issue, and quite frankly I'd rather see him at SS because he and 2B Howie Kendrick have a lot of experience working together, which would probabl make his major league transition easier.

by FutureAngels on Jan 22, 2008 9:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Just a personal question...

As an Angel fan dont you almost HOPE somebody (Aybar or Figgins) struggles or gets hurt (not seriously, of course) and Wood gets a shot around the all-Star break

My meaning being that I heard Scoscia say something about Wood not being ready yet and with the Angels looking to win, win, win this year they arent keen on breaking in too many kids but, I think Wood doesnt necisaarily have to suffer if he gets a call after a few monthe in AAA. I think he could make an impact. To me he is as likely as anybody to take a big leap forward this year just because he is SO talented. It was a real traet watching him take BP in Tacoma this year. His power is FOR REAL and so is his glove.

by casejud on Jan 23, 2008 1:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not too thrilled with the way the Angels are

handling him. To get him to change positions when he clearly has some learning to do on the hitting side is bad enough. To bring him up 2 or 3 times to get a total of 33 ABs is inexcusable.

by Yoda on Jan 23, 2008 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

SO...

so nobody thinks he has a legit chance to win the SS job out of spring training? If he were to play SS for them, hell, he might be a top 15 player there with his bat. I'm wondering why they wouldn't want him to win the job, they need some guys you can rake.

by TexasHeat on Jan 22, 2008 10:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Brandon Wood in Spring Training

Who said they don't want Wood to win the job in spring training?!

He'll be given every opportunity, but the Angels have watched him play daily for years and know he's not quite ready. If he shows in spring training he's a better player at that point in time than Aybar or Izturis, he'll be given the job. But based on their knowledge of where he was at the end of last year, he's not at that point yet.

by FutureAngels on Jan 22, 2008 11:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ah

Ok, it just seems they are set on those other 2 at SS. Meaning if those 2 guys are barely below ave or ave, they arent running to put Wood in. It just seems that way when I read quotes from Coach and Gm.

by TexasHeat on Jan 23, 2008 9:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs