Checking out Bill James Projections for 2010
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 10:50 AM EDT
in Off-season
77 comments
We're still a week away from the World Series, but now is as good of a time as any to start checking out projections for the 2010 season. I've gotten my hands on the initial set of Bill James Projections for next season, so I thought I'd share them with you. The full set of projections will be available with much, much more in the 2010 Bill James Handbook, which comes out next month and you can pre-order here.
I've broken the projections down a bit into groups, the first set being players who don't really have competition for their position (yet), and the following sets split up among players from 2009 who could be part of a position competition. First, the "starters":
| Name | 2009 Projection | 2009 Actual | 2010 Projection | |
| AVG/OBP/SLG | AVG/OBP/SLG | PA | AVG/OBP/SLG | |
| Jay Bruce | .296/.351/.540 | .223/.303/.470 | 574 | .274/.340/.537 |
| Paul Janish | N/A | .211/.296/.305 | 188 | .223/.301/.319 |
| Brandon Phillips | .263/.313/.431 | .276/.329/.447 | 613 | .269/.322/.434 |
| Scott Rolen | .268/.356/.453 | .305/.368/.455 | 482 | .278/.357/.442 |
| Joey Votto | .307/.386/.536 | .322/.414/.567 | 502 | .311/.397/.550 |
The James projections were way off on Bruce, as most systems were. As you can see though, they are still very optimistic about the young right-fielder. I think that is justified since he suffered from quite a bit of statistical bad luck last season, but I think we all know that he still has some adjustments that he needs to make at the plate before he'll likely achieve that projection. Offensively, Janish is a black-hole, but if he's the only one and he doesn't bat 2nd, his defense is well worth having in the lineup. BP's projection is what it almost always is. I'd like to see more power from Rolen, but I think that ship has sailed. Votto is...well...awesome.
| Name | 2009 Projection | 2009 Actual | 2010 Projection | |
| AVG/OBP/SLG | AVG/OBP/SLG | PA | AVG/OBP/SLG | |
| Wladimir Balentien |
.239/.312/.444 | .234/.305/.385 | 160 | .244/.316/.431 |
| Jonny Gomes |
.251/.356/.486 | .267/.338/.541 | 278 | .245/.331/.486 |
| Darnell McDonald |
N/A | .267/.306/.400 | 174 | .270/.321/.414 |
| Laynce Nix |
N/A | .239/.291/.476 | 214 | .257/.309/.467 |
Based on these projections, there aren't a lot of outstanding prospects for a typically high offensive position like left field. I'd still like to see Gomes brought back, especially given these other options. However, I'm also not convinced that Balentien can't outperform those projections. I'm not sure if he's good enough for an everyday starter role, but I think he could potentially put up a little more power.
| Name | 2009 Projection | 2009 Actual | 2010 Projection | |
| AVG/OBP/SLG | AVG/OBP/SLG | PA | AVG/OBP/SLG | |
| Chris Dickerson |
.268/.360/.454 | .275/.370/.373 | 254 | .276/.372/.429 |
| Drew Stubbs |
N/A | .267/.323/.439 | 544 | .267/.336/.390 |
| Willy Taveras |
.267/.323/.315 | .240/.275/.285 | 277 | .271/.322/.321 |
To be honest with you, I'd give Chris Dickerson the starting job in center field next year, if I thought he would stay healthy. I wouldn't be upset if Drew Stubbs is out there, especially if his power surge last season is real (the James Projections don't think so). Willy Taveras should be gone.
| Name | 2009 Projection | 2009 Actual | 2010 Projection | |
| AVG/OBP/SLG | AVG/OBP/SLG | PA | AVG/OBP/SLG | |
| Ryan Hanigan |
.275/.357/.382 | .263/.361/.331 | 344 | .277/.361/.366 |
| Ramon Hernandez |
.253/.319/.411 | .258/.336/.362 | 120 | .260/.328/.405 |
Surely no one thinks that Hernandez is worth $8 million more than Hanigan next season.
What do you think? Are they way off anywhere? Does this change your opinion of any of the players?
0 recs |
77 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
For some reason, there was no projection for Juan Francisco
but there were projections for Yonder Alonso (258 PA, .279/.359/.453) and Todd Frazier (507 PA, .278/.336/.471). They were the only hitting prospects that were projected.
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The projected difference betweeen McDonald and Stubbs appears to show McDonald as nearly even with Stubbs.
I know that Stubbs is waaaaaaaaaay better than Danrel. Please explain to a non-numbers guy. Chris Dickerson has a bit higher projections that McDonald..Does this mean that Bill James thinks McDoofus is nearly as valuable for 2010 as Stubbs and C-Dick…cause I sure don’t.
Jay Bruce will become a major league baseball STAR, starting in April, 2010.....
by Madville on Oct 22, 2009 11:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
McFlurry's projection isn't anywhere near as good as CDick's
You’re talking about a 66 point difference in OPS. That’s pretty huge.
As for McF, I think it’s interesting that McFlurry is one of the only players whose 2010 projection is significantly better than his actualy 2009 stats. (29 OPS points) That seems extremely optimistic for a guy who’ll be 31. Most of the other projections that are higher than the 2009 stats are for young developing guys (Bruce, Wlad)
For Stubbs, I can understand the lower power projection based on minors numbers. But, if you’re going to base projections off of minors numbers I’d think you’d have to project better than a .336 OBP for him. He never OBPed lower than .350 in the minors and achieved over .360 3 times. I would think something along the lines of .267/.350/.390 is more likely, with a strong possibility of more power.
I'mma let you finish, but....
by nycredsfan on Oct 22, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And another thing
Not sure why Dickerson gets such a benefit of the doubt and Stubbs doesn’t
i.e. CDick was projected last to slug .454 but only got to .373, yet for next year he’s still projected to slug .429.
Stubbs actually slugged .439 this season yet is projected to only slug .390. Except for this season in AAA Stubbs never slugged below .400. IMO he’s getting a raw deal in these projections.
I'mma let you finish, but....
by nycredsfan on Oct 22, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
15 points of OBP
Is a fairly substantial difference in projection.
James may be a bit low on Stubbs’ slugging, but he did Slug 0.360 in Triple A this year, so his skepticism in the recent power surge is at least somewhat justified.
"Some times you get lucky; some times you get Willy Taveras." --Fay
by RedStalk on Oct 22, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if that's the case
Then these projections aren’t worth much. A lot of them are off more than 15 points in OBP. A lot more.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
by BubbaFan on Oct 22, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't think that's what he meant
He meant the difference in projected OBP between the players.
I'mma let you finish, but....
by nycredsfan on Oct 22, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty sure it means that the projection expects Stubbs to come back to Earth for 2010, and put up numbers similar to his minor league career.
Sure, Stubbs is better than Mayor McCheese, and projections should validate that for us.
However, we need to know what Stubbs is and who Stubbs can be
by Highlifeman21 on Oct 22, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
meanwhile...
McFlurry OPSed over 700 last year? I had no idea
"And then there was the USAID guy in Kandahar who drove a giant pink Cadillac, which the locals set on fire one day. If you wanted to destroy something symbolic during a riot, you just could not do better than that. Good stuff." - Ghosts of Alexander
by Cy Schourek on Oct 22, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I used to
Love Bill James, not so much for the projections, but for the analysis he was doing, Win Shares, positional value, etc.
I wouldnt put too much stock in these numbers.
As for LF, I have read that Francisco profiles well there, kind of short defensively, big bat, so I would pencil him in as the starting LF for next year.
I am with you on Dickerson for CF, with Stubbs as a very reliable 4th OF.
by backtocali on Oct 22, 2009 1:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
LF looks a lot rosier with the inclusion of both Heisey and Francisco
but neither figure to be in the conversation for opening day if Gomes is signed. Despite, sub-par defense, Gomes is the only LF candidate with a legitmate chance of putting up an 850+ OPS over a full season next year.
I’m personally irrationally excited about the Reds outfield, which seems to have the right admixture of players to be great defensively and at least league average offensively, even if Gomes leaves. What could bite them is stubbornness, retaining the services of Taveras, Nix or McDonald. You’ve got two breakout stars in Stubbs and Bruce, a potential dark horse in Wlad, a much-needed power bat in Gomes and two potential future team fixtures in Juan Francisco and Chris Heisey. Let ’em play.
Yeah, those guys and the Cincinnati Reds. They're a terrible football team. / Because they're a baseball team? / Exactly. You know who's the worst football team? The Philadelphia Flyers. - Best Show
by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Oct 22, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly right...
But that would require Dusty becoming someone different than he is. Without the injuries to Bruce and Taveras, we’d have never seen Gomes get enough PT to put up the slash stats he achieved. We’d never have seen Stubbs until mid-September— and Dusty would’ve left him on the bench to get the “big league atmosphere” while McDonald started every day in front of his hometown/family.
The pieces are there to be more interesting/exciting/successful, but I can’t be optimistic because I don’t have faith that the man in charge has the ability to use them correctly. Definitely not well enough to bring us into the postseason.
"Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!"
by "Red" Moskau on Oct 22, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ZiPS are out too
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2010_zips_projections_cincinnati_reds/
ZiPS is substantially more pessimistic on Votto, Bruce, Dickerson, and Stubbs, which is disappointing. Everyone else seems comparable, though in general ZiPS projects everyone a bit lower than James. I think ZiPS just projects a lower run environment than James.
-j
by JinAZ on Oct 22, 2009 1:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why on Votto?
Doesn’t make any sense to me.
by jsl413 on Oct 22, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And it gives Kevin Barker 300+ ABs
which is absolutely stupid
by jsl413 on Oct 22, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Taking the Dusty effect into account?
Let me write out a formal proof for you.
by Gray on Oct 22, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It also has Volquez pitching 22 games.
by jsl413 on Oct 22, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It also gives Taveras a 6% chance of hitting .300 for the season
I’d give Volquez a better chance of making 30 starts.
I'mma let you finish, but....
by nycredsfan on Oct 22, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
playing time projections are not based on the reality of the situationg
they can’t be because that requires human interaction. That’s just not plausible for systems that are trying to project 1000 players.
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it also gives Kip Wells 13 starts and over 100 IP
I'mma let you finish, but....
by nycredsfan on Oct 22, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Volquez = statistical projection
based on past season performance. He doesn’t input every injury in here, ZiPS just knows how much Volquez has played in the past. -j
by JinAZ on Oct 22, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ZiPS doesn't estimate playing time
At least, not in a sense that is intended to match reality. He often puts that disclaimer on his projections. -j
by JinAZ on Oct 22, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ZipS hates the Reds.
OPS differences:
Stubbs, -73
Bruce, -105
Votto, -71
BP, -71
I'mma let you finish, but....
by nycredsfan on Oct 22, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My biggest problem is with the Votto projections
What are they based on? 1000+ ABs of major league .924 OPS isn’t enough?
by jsl413 on Oct 22, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually
ZiPS is based on both Major and Minor League numbers.
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And whenever you regress a player with really good numbers
they are always going to look worse than you would expect. Such is the nature of regression.
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shouldn't recent MLB success trump ancient MILB #s?
by jsl413 on Oct 22, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
apparently not
Should recent MLB failure trump MiLB success? (Bruce)
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
Unless there is sufficient reason to believe otherwise, such as bad BABiP luck (which we’ve talked about ad nauseum on RR – it probably wasn’t really “luck” as much as we’d like to think) or injury that would inhibit play. Otherwise, it’s fair to say that more often than not big prospects that fail at the MLB level for 2 years will continue to fail. Occasionally, they’ll find their promised form, but I think this is rare, without doing any research whatsoever and thinking of Brandon Phillips.
Wladdy Bal’s projections are pretty bad, for example, rightfully so (IMO)
by jsl413 on Oct 22, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my point is that when you are looking at a 2nd or 3rd year player
it’s much easier to find comps if you pull in a larger data set. If the type of players that Votto is being regressed to are more likely sub-.900 OPS players, then that’s what history is telling us Votto will likely do. His projection is more likely to be accurate if we base that off of more than just 2 years of data.
Speaking of BABIP, we didn’t really talk much about the fact that Votto’s BABIP last season was .373, the highest of his career despite the fact that his LD rate dropped 3.5%. We should probably be preparing ourselves for a drop-off from Votto next year.
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, Dan said this about Votto
“That’s mostly uncertainty – he doesn’t have a lot of playing time “in the bag” right now."
That is to say, he’s still got to prove it a bit.
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You'd like Marcel better
Every projection system weights things differently. Marcel is a basic baseline projection system, and it completely ignores minor league stats. :) ZiPS puts a lot of effort into minor league equivalencies, so it does a reasonably good job of projecting newer players based on minor league stats. CHONE’s my personal favorite for that stuff, however. -j
by JinAZ on Oct 22, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Figgins?
Let me write out a formal proof for you.
by Gray on Oct 22, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's named after Chone
Because Rally (Sean Smith), how created it, is an Angels fan. And Sean often goes by Chone online too. :)
I’m sure he has something to put behind the CHONE acronym (like PECOTA does), but I have no idea what it means besides being a fun name. :)
-j
by JinAZ on Oct 22, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think it's a lot more fun
if you pronounce is “Cho-NEE” like i do.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Oct 22, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still mispronounce it
…even though I know it’s wrong. Helps that I never have to talk to people in real life about this stuff. :)
-j
by JinAZ on Oct 22, 2009 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ZiPS doesn't hate the Reds
Bill James Projections are typically more optimistic than any other system. Frankly, it’s one of the weakest projection systems out there.
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know, it's just interesting that some guys (Hanigan, Dickerson, the Virus) do the same or better in ZiPS
I'mma let you finish, but....
by nycredsfan on Oct 22, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of those guys do as well in ZiPS as in BJ
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do youthink ZiPS is the most accurate?
by jsl413 on Oct 22, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ZiPS is a pretty good system
But you have to remember that even a pretty good system has a large margin of error when you are talking about an individual player. That’s why most systems use some heavy regression.
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So ZiPS is best applied to long periods of time, and teams, and not seasons?
Or…
What’s the proper way to understand the data?
by jsl413 on Oct 22, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When I look at any projection
I tend to pay attention more to trends than exact numbers. Does a projection think that a player is going to improve or drop off and why might that be? This is one reason I don’t like Bill James Projections, especially for young players because I don’t believe there is enough history built into their formula to really get an idea of what might happen.
I like ZiPS because it tries to find similar players and project players along those paths (I have no idea what BJ’s methodology is). PECOTA does something similar. This helps give us an idea of what direction a player is likely to progress.
Ultimately though, if you are looking for accuracy, projections tend to work best for groups of similar players. If you have 10 players with similar attributes, the average of their projections is fairly likely to be close to the average of their final results. Some will be high, some will be low. The hard part is knowing which players will fall into which group.
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Projection comparisons
typically found that you’re base off averaging across mutliple systems. In general, though, my typical weighting is: CHONE over PECOTA over ZiPS over Oliver over Marcel over James over [others].
There’s some data to back up that sequence, but a thing to keep in mind is that, in general, ranking projection systems is typically an exercise in splitting hairs—they are all pretty much equal in terms of how well they predict future performance.
-j
by JinAZ on Oct 22, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow, I butchered that first sentence
“have typically found that you’re best off average across multiple systems.”
I need a full-time proofreader.
by JinAZ on Oct 22, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So does Slyde.
Let me write out a formal proof for you.
by Gray on Oct 22, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought that's what you were for
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As JinAZ notes, there’s no real evidence that any of CHONE/PECOTA/ZiPS are ahead. Utility mainly comes back to how easy the data is to use for the reader and what’s being reported.
--
Dan Szymborski
dan@baseballprimer.com
by D.Szymborski on Oct 22, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well then I'm glad I just spent the last 20 minutes reading your post.
Stupid jerk.
by Brian B on Oct 22, 2009 2:30 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Also
your face, frankly, has one of the weakest projection systems out there.
by Brian B on Oct 22, 2009 2:36 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I believe my nose projects fairly well out of my face
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm all about the site hits, baby!
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, everyone’s projections tend to be lower than the James projections. I’ve tried on occasion with full “James” (unless something’s different in the last couple of years, he has as much to do with the yearly James projections as Bill Pecota does with PECOTA) data sets and I simply can’t reconcile any kind of consistent offensive environment. It’s almost as if the hitters hit in a league with a 5.25 ERA while the pitchers get to pitch in a league with a 4.50 ERA.
--
Dan Szymborski
dan@baseballprimer.com
by D.Szymborski on Oct 22, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's the best way to make your players look good
by the way, does your system originate at the University of Akron?
Definitely a good argument.
by Slyde on Oct 22, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
From the ZiPS FAQ
ZiPS Q&A
Q. What are ZiPS?
A. ZiPS is a projection system written by Dan Szymborski to project performance in individual baseball players.
Q. What does ZiPS stand for?
A. sZymborski Projection System
Q. That’s lame.
A. That’s not a question.
Q. OK, do you realize how lame that is?
A. Yes. It originates from the Defense-Independent Pitching Statistics that Voros McCracken developed in 1999. Originally, I was just going to do projections for pitchers, but the realization came that doing one without the other was really dumb. Since it was the first attempt at a non-Voros projection system utilizing some of the discoveries in DIPS theory, I decided to name it in honor of DIPS.
Q. Why is the ‘I’ in ZiPS lowercase?
A. Because ZIPS looks like some bad shoe at Wal-Mart for little kids while ZiPS totally reminds me of CHiPs. Which is way cooler for a reason I can’t put my finger on. I actually meant to call it ZiPs but I typoed it the first time I said the term and didn’t feel like changing it.
--
Dan Szymborski
dan@baseballprimer.com
by D.Szymborski on Oct 22, 2009 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know, for his RBI/SB/HR #s
BP ops’d only .776? I didn’t know that was possible with 30 doubles and 20 homers (and 5 triples). He needs to walk more I guess. He doesn’t strike out that much, so if he walked more, he’d be a lot better, eh?
by jsl413 on Oct 22, 2009 2:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Um...
the only way Willy Taveras is going to improve 78 points in OPS is if he’s playing for the Atlantic Independent League next season.
RR: Proud home of the most mods in SBNation.
by chesirecat on Oct 22, 2009 2:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm working on my own projections...
Look for them soon
Jay Bruce will become a major league baseball STAR, starting in April, 2010.....
by Madville on Oct 22, 2009 6:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I occasionally consider dabbling in projectionland myself
Mostly, I want a system based on batted ball stats. I think it could be a nice advance. At least, it has a good enough shot to be a good advance that it’s worth trying. Anyway, good luck getting your system together.
-j
by JinAZ on Oct 22, 2009 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
While you nerds are arguing about projection systems...
I’d like to point out what the above projections say (which is what we’re supposed to be arguing about).
I wholeheartedly disagree with your CF assessment. Given (1) Stubbs’ stupidly good defense, and (2) explanation for his offensive dip at AAA, I think he should be starter. While he isn’t quite as good as we hoped when he was drafted, he’ll still only be 25. I’d make CDick the 4th OF, and I think he’ll get plenty of PT as such.
I think Wlad’s projections might be a product of his lack of PT the past 2 years, especially this year. The other guys he’s being compared to with similar bench-sitting histories can’t be all that great, even as 24 year olds. Given regular PAs, I’d look for him to be a plesent surprise.
Finally, a word about projection systems en masse: I don’t like them for individual players, because they assume all players are going to become more average than they were last year. This obviously is true for a group of players, which is why they’re pretty accurate when looking at groups; but the reason they aren’t when looking at individuals is that they don’t give enough weight to players who are actually improving or declining. So you look at a guy like Stubbs, who was working on a particular part of his offense in AAA (which hurt other parts), and it’s going to screw up his projections. I know they’re trying to be “blind”, but by doing so they become self-fulfilling.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
by sidnancy on Oct 22, 2009 8:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
My projections are based on how the bat comes off the ball 75% of PAs; I bet I'm closer than Bill James when the smoke clears on 2010.
Jay Bruce .315/.370/.565 – 33 HRs 80 RBIs
Brandon Phillips .275/.315/.431 – 24HRs 75 RBIs
Scott Rolen 275/.356/.453 – 15HRs 60 RBIs
Joey Votto 317/.386/.536 – 35HRs 92 RBIs
Drew Stubbs 267/.3353/.439- 25HRs 45 RBIS
Ryan Hanigan .265/.357/.382 – 8HRs 20 RBIs
Jonny Gomes .255/.356/.493 – 22 HRs 60RBIS
Paul Janish .230/.296/.305 – 3 HRs 18RBIS
Laynce Nix .265/.310/.495 – 25HRs 55RBIs
Wlad Balentien 229/.290/.444 18HRs 33RBIS
Chris Dickerson .260/.360/.450 – 9HRS 28RBIS
Darnell McDonald.239/.306/.380 2HRs 13RBIS
Jay Bruce will become a major league baseball STAR, starting in April, 2010.....
by Madville on Oct 22, 2009 10:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
you think nix will get a lot of playing time.
i mean sometimes Walt is like a prison shower, you know it is gonna happen, but it isn’t a good thing.
by justin007000 on Oct 22, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on who gets hurt, who is the manager and who blows who...
Or is that Who blows whom?
Jay Bruce will become a major league baseball STAR, starting in April, 2010.....
by Madville on Oct 23, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come On...
…you think these guys are interns or something? Then again, Corey Paterson was allowed 366 at bats.
by tonywf on Oct 25, 2009 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, It Doesn't Change My Mind...
…most of those predictors just reify what I already knew by watching them and by looking at their numbers. The only one that was significantly off was Bruce, and I think that had more to do with injuries than anything else (well, that and his plate discipline problems). It did convince me of one thing, tough. Willy Taveras is a waste of a roster spot (our new Corey Paterson). Amongst the availables, Dickerson would be our best option in center.
by tonywf on Oct 25, 2009 1:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Dickerson is a wonderful #4 outfielder.
Not enough power for the corners and not enough average and power for CF.
I really would just as soon have Nix as C-Dick…but Stubbs is the best bet…if you want to put together a winning lineup that is.
To understand Israel and the Middle East, you must understand Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. -Glenn Beck (former cocaine addict and pedophile.)
by Madville on Oct 29, 2009 12:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Red Reporter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
