Bill James Handbook Sneak Peak: 2010 Boston Red Sox Projections

by Randy Booth on Oct 27, 2009 6:00 AM EDT in News Comment 45 comments

Boston Red Sox pitcher Clay Buchholz winds up against the Los Angeles Angels in the first inning during Game 3 of an American League baseball division series in Boston, Sunday, Oct. 11, 2009. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

4 months ago: Boston Red Sox pitcher Clay Buchholz winds up against the Los Angeles Angels in the first inning during Game 3 of an American League baseball division series in Boston, Sunday, Oct. 11, 2009. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

Browse more photos »

It's not even the hot stove yet, but damn it, don't tell that to Bill James!

After the jump is a sneak peak at what the Bill James Handbook has to offer for the 2010 Boston Red Sox. If you like projections that don't necessarily mean anything at all, then this is for you!

If you want to get your hands on Bill James' book, you can visit the ACTA Sports website to buy your own copy (which, of course, includes a whole lot more than what's here after the jump).

Things to remember: Mr. James and his staff makes no prediction of where free agents will go or anything like that. So if you question why Jason Bay is on this roster, it's because they use the current roster for each team. That means, obviously, it's the 2009 team ... as bad as that may be to your eyes.

First, the hitters. Nothing too shocking here, really. As a side note, Jacoby Ellsbury is predicted to steal 64 bases and be caught 14 times. Here's your list (I left Chris Duncan off -- felt like that really didn't matter too much):

NAME	AGE	AB	H	2B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	AVG	OBP	SLG
Brian Anderson	28	161	39	9	6	18	14	40	.242	.311	.410
Rocco Baldelli	28	178	47	9	7	25	11	42	.264	.321	.444
Jason Bay	31	576	150	32	32	103	88	159	.268	.374	.504
J.D. Drew	34	498	134	30	22	76	91	119	.269	.385	.474
Jacoby Ellsbury	26	635	192	32	9	62	52	73	.302	.360	.420
Alex Gonzalez	33	230	57	14	6	28	14	42	.248	.305	.387
Nick Green	31	158	39	8	4	18	11	38	.247	.312	.373
Casey Kotchman	27	372	101	25	9	53	36	37	.272	.341	.417
Mike Lowell	36	529	147	35	19	84	46	74	.278	.339	.456
Jed Lowrie	26	384	100	35	9	59	53	80	.260	.350	.438
Victor Martinez	31	560	167	36	18	78	67	74	.298	.377	.464
David Ortiz	34	484	128	34	29	99	77	112	.264	.369	.519
Dustin Pedroia	26	623	191	50	15	75	66	43	.307	.378	.465
Jason Varitek	38	253	58	13	9	34	34	69	.229	.332	.387
Kevin Youkilis	31	557	161	42	23	95	85	128	.289	.394	.492

Now the pitchers. Once again, nothing too shocking here. The relievers will all once again be pretty good, while the starting pitching doesn't look too spectacular. Jonathan Papelbon is projected to have 41 saves. But that's why you play baseball on the field, not on a computer screen (I left Billy Wagner off -- who had really good projected stats -- because as we all know, he won't be a Red Sox in 2010):

NAME	AGE	IP	H	HR	BB	SO	W	L	ERA
Daniel Bard	25	53	40	5	25	70	4	2	3.06
Josh Beckett	30	221	208	24	64	206	15	9	3.62
Michael Bowden	23	130	137	14	46	100	7	8	4.71
Clay Buchholz	25	161	150	17	63	155	10	8	3.91
Paul Byrd	39	68	80	10	12	33	4	4	4.63
Manny Delcarmen	28	58	54	4	27	54	4	3	3.72
Jon Lester	26	206	200	19	80	184	13	10	3.84
Daisuke Matsuzaka	29	195	184	21	83	184	12	10	4.02
Hideki Okajima	34	58	51	6	19	53	4	2	3.26
Jonathan Papelbon	29	68	53	5	18	75	5	3	2.38
Ramon Ramirez	28	73	68	7	31	63	5	3	3.82
Takashi Saito	40	60	52	5	18	62	5	2	3.00
Tim Wakefield	43	96	93	12	33	62	6	5	4.03

0 recs | Comment 45 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Bill James likes Papi to have quite the resurgence.

by Ben Buchanan on Oct 27, 2009 6:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Is it quite a resurgence, or just about the rate stats from his second half of 2009? Hell, it looks like he just think Papi will strike out less in terms of his counting stats. True he assumes he’s more productive in less ABs, but as long as Papi doesn’t suck for two months again, is that really unreasonable?

2009:
150G 541AB 77R 129H 352B 28HR 99RBI 74BB 134SO .238/.332/.462/.794

by brogshan on Oct 27, 2009 8:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Papi was the second-best hitter on the Sox after June 1st

Drew – 84 GS (299 AB) – .957 OPS
Ortiz – 98 GS (363 AB) – .904 OPS
Youkilis – 98 GS (360 AB) – .892 OPS
Bay – 101 GS (354 AB) – .860 OPS

After June 1st, Ortiz hit a HR every 13.88 AB. That’s damn good.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Oct 27, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hah

surviving grady is always good for that

by revived0103 on Oct 27, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some observations.

While it “looks” like just obvious extrapolation from last year, there are some interesting hidden things in these numbers:
a)James seems to think Lester’s K rates last season were somewhat of a fluke. While not predicting the will drop to 08 levels, he predicts a drop in K/9 by a full strikeout.
b)He also seems to think that Clay’s poor K/( last year was a fluke, and thinks (perhaps based on swinging strike %) that Clay’s K/9>Lester’s. I would be willing to bet that will not happen.
c)He predicts a reasonably large regression for Youkilis, with an OPS below 900.
d)Rather surprisingly, he predicts Papi to lead theteam in OPS. This seems weird, given age and the fact that even during Papi’s productive period (June-October) he did not lead the team in OPS.

by Buzzy on Oct 27, 2009 9:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

all those stuck out to me too

I’d very much like to see what kind of system they use. I find it hard to believe that barely anyone is progressing or regressing from their career averages.

I think in Ortiz’ case, it looks like he based it mainly off the numbers of his second half, after he’d gotten over his giant slump.

I think he undervalues Lester and a Healthy Matsuzaka. His stats for Wakefield look generous, but his w-l record doesn’t. In general, I think the win totals for starters look a little low, but I also wouldn’t see Bowden starting 15-20 games.

I don’t see any use to this at all unless I understand the system they use to make projections. Does the book go into that at all or is it just numbers?

by wolf9309 on Oct 27, 2009 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure the book goes into some detail.

@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 27, 2009 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

another thing

despite the seemingly conservative estimate (not a single 900 ops player) the team ops for this lineup:
ellsbury,pedroia,martinez,youkilis,ortiz,bay,lowell, drew,lowrie would be 0.840-the same as this year’s yankee team that led baseball in runs.

by Buzzy on Oct 27, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and

a whopping 903 RBI for the season, as compared to the yankees mere 881 for 2009. but STILL only 94 wins. And the pitching ERA’s don’t look THAT bad. I’m having trouble understanding the math here.

by wolf9309 on Oct 27, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

or rather

907 RBI

by wolf9309 on Oct 27, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah-

a flat average of our starter ERA would be: 3.88 which is really good. Do they estimate WL by estimated Pythag on estimated runs/runs allowed? If so it is hard to imagine this as a 94 win paper team…

by Buzzy on Oct 27, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Possibly Wagner's win totals?

Although I’m glad to see that we’ve found the proper use for the W-L records. :)

@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 27, 2009 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if papi leads the team in OPS

and buchholz leads the team in K’s, either drew and lester died, or we’re in business.

by revived0103 on Oct 27, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only time i look at projected stats is before i draft my fantasy team

by cnubsbl16 on Oct 27, 2009 10:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I wonder what factor this James outfit uses for

taking into account that players are one year older next year?? In a related thought, I wonder what age is the average turning point where aging not longer helps a player get better through the body maturing to its zenith, but weakens him due to age-related deterioration??

by NG on Oct 27, 2009 12:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The standard packages

(PECOTA, CHONE…) do regress for age. They basically look at data on players of a give position over a large set of data and try to acount for fall off, for age as well as batted ball statistics of previous years. Some might even take body type and injury into account. Of course I don’t know the James methodology and all of these things should be taken with a grain of salt.

by Buzzy on Oct 27, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm pretty sure...

…James uses a system where players get better as they get older, and so they are assumed to be evaluated higher as they age, much like compound interest.

Goddamn that DeMarlo Hale.

by Bloggy on Oct 27, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If so, that is clearly faulty logic

at some point in the aging process.

by NG on Oct 27, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt it's that linear

Bill James is too smart not to assume a quadratic effect.

by RSNexile on Oct 27, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

He’s got it all factored in.

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Oct 27, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pretty sure Bloggy was kidding.

Trying to elicite an NG rant.

"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw

by BTLove on Oct 28, 2009 3:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

* taps nose *

Goddamn that DeMarlo Hale.

by Bloggy on Oct 28, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sigh RBIs and Saves.

Why they even include those in some of these projections.

@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 27, 2009 8:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Both reflect on the team as a whole.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Oct 27, 2009 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True.

@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 27, 2009 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

RBIs

do for sure. Saves? I mean if our team was the most awesome team ever, we would have no saves-we would be leading by a zillion runs after the 7th eqach game :)

by Buzzy on Oct 28, 2009 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would guess there is a pretty fair correlation between team wins and team saves.

My assumption is that the zillion run blowout is the outlier.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Oct 28, 2009 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gotta win the close ones.

Goddamn that DeMarlo Hale.

by Bloggy on Oct 28, 2009 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uhh,

driving in runs is how you win games…

"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw

by BTLove on Oct 28, 2009 3:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but I was looking at these as more of individual player projections.

I would have liked to see Runs Created or something like that.

@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 28, 2009 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sarcasm

"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw

by BTLove on Oct 29, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thought you meant that it's a valid stat in the team sense.

@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 29, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh.

Could be. But I don’t think these predictions are meant to be taken as a team.

"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw

by BTLove on Oct 29, 2009 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that's the best "use" for them.

Individual stats vary so much on a year to year basis. Injuries, career years, etc. But across 13/14 hitters, the stats tend to equalize.

Interesting to look at his 2009 projections.

His Ells projection was uncanny, his Lowell, Drew, Pedroia and Varitek were pretty good, he overvalued Ortiz, undervalued Bay and Youk, and Lowrie got hurt.

But on balance, it seems like a fair projection for the team.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Oct 29, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, no one really could have forseen the eyesight issues that Papi had.

And Youk was supposed to regress, according to most projections.

@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 30, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eyesight?

More like bat speed.

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Oct 31, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm.

I’d expect more out of Youk, Vmart and Lowrie. And less ABs from Lowell, probably with less counting stats too.

Hasn’t James historically been pretty bad with pitching? I’d like to see a “sabermatic” rating of sabermatricians…

Manny ain't the only bad man.

by tommy.otm on Oct 27, 2009 9:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This information seems useless

when you take into consideration everything that goes on in a full baseball season. So he can project possible statistics for a future season that could only happen if we take the entire MLB and put them in a bubble where time and space do not matter.

Sometimes you stat geeks just get bored, this is a prime example.

How can James predict that Beckett will have 15 wins and a 3.92 era when he does not know who he will pitching against, what lineup, who is injured or not, whether Beckett will have injuries or down time himself and/or what type of offensive production the Red Sox will give him against a pitching staff/defense that is unknown?

Again, this means absolutely nothing. My 4 year old niece has a better chance of predicting the 2010 season by picking statistics based on her favorite color.

by SoxAcumen on Oct 28, 2009 1:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Because he's probably run the season through a simulator enough times to have each result be a pixel on your screen...

thousand-fold. And they include random chances for injury and assorted stuff like that.

@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Oct 28, 2009 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I get what you are saying

I don’t think prediction is really the idea (I know that sounds silly). It is more to suggest what kind of season one should expect from a given player. In particular, these programs take into account things like BAPIP or HR/FB% and compare them to the recent history of the player to suggest if the player will regress up or down to said larger sample mean (adjusted for age, etc). None of these programs predict or account for future injury aside for adjusting at bats or innings with regard to past injury. Still, no one is suggesting that these, on an individual basis, are good “predictions.” They should more be taken as an aggregate as indications of overall trend.

by Buzzy on Oct 28, 2009 1:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs