2010 Player Projections - Zack Greinke

by Jeff Zimmerman on Mar 9, 2010 11:26 PM EST

I figure it is about time to run the AL Cy Young award winner.

Standard Projections
Season	Type	W	L	ERA	G	GS	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	SO
2010	Bill James	13	12	3.32	33	33	225	211			21	57	209
2010	CHONE	12	9	3.26	30	30	193	178	76	70	15	49	188
2010	Marcel	12	8	3.24			189	174	71	68	16	51	183
2010	All Fans (126)	16	8	2.83	37	37	219	172	74	69	17	52	226
2010	Other Fans (101)	15	8	2.85	37	37	218	172	74	69	17	53	222
2010	Team Fans (25)	17	7	2.75	36	36	221	170	73	68	16	50	237

Advanced Projections
Season	Type	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	AVG	WHIP	BABIP	LOB%	FIP
2010	Bill James	8.36	2.28	0.84	0.250	1.19	0.309		3.31
2010	CHONE	8.77	2.28	0.70	0.246	1.18	0.314	73.8%	2.98
2010	Marcel	8.71	2.43	0.76	0.246	1.19	0.311	76.5%	3.24
2010	All Fans (126)	9.29	2.14	0.70	0.218	1.02	0.284	75.5%	2.83
2010	Other Fans (101)	9.17	2.19	0.70	0.219	1.03	0.283	75.7%	2.88
2010	Team Fans (25)	9.65	2.04	0.65	0.214	1.00	0.285	75.0%	2.64

Value Projections
Season	Type	Starting	Start-IP	RAR	WAR
2010	All Fans (126)	63.4	219	63.4	6.8
2010	Other Fans (101)	62	218	62	6.7
2010	Team Fans (25)	68.1	221	68.1	7.5

Poll

Will Zack Greinke preform better than CHONE's projection of: 12-9, 3.26 ERA, 2.98 FIPs, 188 Ks, 8.8 K/9, 2.3 BB/9,

Better

478 votes

Same

92 votes

Worse

15 votes

585 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 41 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Still too much noise in his numbers for an accurate prediction...

I think ZG’s projections still carry too many artifacts from his return years where he was finding his way. Any system that relies on comps is going to be flawed because Greinke’s comps are imperfect at best, useless at worst. I for one think that this is Greinke’s level. In fact he may even be better than he was last year. Whether he has better numbers, I doubt it, but I think that the development of his change-up can make him an even better pitcher.

After his outing last week, I went all in. ZG will be the best pitcher in baseball by a wide margin.

by billexgordler on Mar 9, 2010 10:07 AM EST reply actions

Thankfully, CHONE doesn't rely on comps

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2010 11:09 AM EST up reply actions

Also

pitching projections generally (I don’t know CHONE specifically, but I suspect this is something like what Sean does) are weighted more heavily to recent seasons since pitcher true talent varies more season-to-season. While some systems will use 4+ seasons for hitter, most systems only use 3 for pitchres. Zack has been in the majors full time the last three seasons.

The weighting is also more radical — 3/2/1 for ptichers. So even if you think that the time Zack spent in the ’pen in 2007 is “noise” (it can be adjusted for, actually), it only effects the “1.”

Moreoever, Zack has pitched a lot of innings the last two seasons, which increases the sample.

In other words, most systems have about as much information on Zack as they do on any full-time starting pitcher.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2010 11:14 AM EST up reply actions

D'oh, one more thing

why would a Spring Training outing matter for any pitcher, whether it’s Zack Greinke or Kyle Farnsworth?

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2010 11:15 AM EST up reply actions

I'll do my best...

Projections are A) the most likely outcome and B) tend to break down at the extremes of the curve.

As the most likely outcome, they are really only a starting point of the discussion. Every player misses his projection (even if the WAR matches at season end, the components are different…). Every player. So presumably these posts are a forum for discussing how we think the players will perform given the most likely outcome.

Also, since these projections are by nature conservative, they always break down at the extremes of the curve. There are always outliers on either end of the curve. Zack based both on his talent and his performance last year lives at one end of that curve. Projection systems can’t and don’t account for quantum leaps. It would be foolish for them to account for them, because they so rarely happen, whereas outliers happen all the time. It is my opinion that, based on what I saw last season and how closely I’ve followed Greinke throughout his career, he has taken a quantum leap. Last year is his new level.

I don’t need to go through Greinke’s history to explain why it’s possible that Greinke will continue to be historically good. Suffice to say that he has always had this potential.

I knew about the CHONE weighting before-hand, but thanks for the refresher.

As for the spring training outing: it’s not meaningful at all. It was only a reminder to me of how dominant he was last season, and how he accomplished that with an average change up. My opinion is that if he’s able to improve his change-up so that it’s above-average to plus- then he can help make up for whatever regression erodes his slider’s and fastball’s value. I think that he will improve his change-up and that he will become a true four-pitch pitcher and he will improve his walk and k rates, while his HR rate worsens slightly. I think he will get better support from his defense. I think that he will post a sub-2.75 ERA and a sub 1.10 WHIP. I believe this because he has shown that he can do it and because someone’s going to go low this season, and it may as well be him. And because I’m a huge fan.

Caveat to above: I fully know that all of my hopes are unsupportable by data and history. I also realize that there are tens of reasons why none of what I said is likely to happen. Furthermore, I understand that it’s fun to speculate and use subjective information to set my own expectations for a season.

by billexgordler on Mar 9, 2010 12:39 PM EST up reply actions

You also forgot that Kendall is catching for him this year

biggest reason for Greinke to beat projections

(also, just kidding)

- .... .- - .----. ... / .-- .... .- - / ... .... . / ... .- .. -..

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Mar 9, 2010 1:14 PM EST up reply actions

The only reason I brought up CHONE’s methodology is that you brought up “comps” as a problem for projecting Greinke (but CHONE doesn’t use comps) and that his history makes it “harder” to project him (but the relevant years for Greinke have about a robust set of data as you’d get for any pitcher). That’s all.

And yeah, I like to engage in subjective speculation as a fan, too. It’s just when I do that, I don’t assert that there are “objective” reasons why projection systems can’t account for something.

No biggie, that’s just why I responded the way I did.

And if Greinke “only” gets to yh 6-7 WAR projected for him, that’s still a historically good player — fans have really lost perspective when they think that a 6 or 7 win projection is “underselling” a player.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2010 1:18 PM EST up reply actions

i wasn't clear...

I meant that the noise in his numbers was subjective stuff (recovering from a weird psychological hiatus, trying to find his way in the world, etc) that carries no truck in projection systems. And that those soft issues would affect both his comps (for PECOTA) and his projections.

(and i wasn’t being facetious when i thanked you for the refresher. I definitely need it. as long as you keep hammering it into my head, i’ll be fine…)

There’s pretty clearly no way to not sound like a(n?) hysterical fan when you’re predicting historically great performances. And I don’t expect anyone rational to agree with me. After all, my own feelings only crystalized when I read the box score from his first ST outing. Not rational. All I thought when I saw that box score was that he could care less how he does and he’s still dominant. And he kept his best pitch in his holster. Again, not rational. And my feelings could change in a few weeks.

I don’t think that a 6-7 WAR projection is “underselling” ZG. The word “underselling” implies intent. The projection systems are dumb (in the most non-critical sense of the word). I simply think that the 2010 version of Zack Greinke is exactly the type of player that projection systems struggle with: near-historical talent; non-baseball-related hiatus followed by a gradual re-introduction to the rotation; historically great season.

Consider Will Carroll’s health ratings where Greinke received the lowest health risk rating that Carroll’s ever seen. He doesn’t fit in the box.

Maybe ZG peaked in his age-25 season. I have no idea.

by billexgordler on Mar 9, 2010 1:51 PM EST up reply actions

I don't know if he peaked

it’s just really hard to repeat a great season like that. It’s usually a combination of skill and randomness coalescing at the same time. Would anyone have predicted Pedro’s 2000 after his 1999? They shouldn’t have, but it happened. But usually, it doesn’t.

I don’t usually talk much about Zack because since he’s so awesome, he’s sort of less interesting to me, and other people are much better at waxing poetic about that kind of stuff. But this gets me going on another tangent that’s been running through my head that really isn’t suitable for where I blog.

It’s interesting that you should bring up Zack’s past “issues”, because I’ve thought about this off-and-on recently from the other perspective — that of defending Zack. It was because I read somewhere that someone said that was “one concern” they had about him going forward. To which I would respond:

1) the time off also means less miles on his arm (and, yes, his physical health [knock on wood] is one of the most exciting and underrated things about Zack),

2) that was FOUR years ago,

3) it was also when he was, what, 21? Yes, most of it was a mental health issue, but it’s also an age when people are figurin out what they want to do. It’ s like Bill James writes of Robin Yount’s “crisis” at about the same age: mental health stuff aside, this was also about Zack deciding that, yes, he really did want to be a pro baseball pitcher. And I think all the evidence we have from the past three years point to a guy who is super-competitive and driven, contrary to what some people might want to see as a stereotype. Goofy quotes and interviews aside, this guy is very much a competitive jock, in a good way.

4) I’d be willing to bet money that if we had more knowledge of about this stuff league wide, we’d find a LOT of players, and very good ones, who have dealt with/are dealing with similar issues, they just haven’t been as public. And that’s not even in reference to the mysterious mass increase in players who have “discovered” that they need Adderall coincidentally with the banning of greenies.

Not sure where all that’s going… oh, yeah. Anyway, I simply don’t think that his past issues are really worth taking into account when “worrying” about Zack. But, on the other hand, I don’t think they make him all that incomparable, either, relative to other great young pitchers.

Not sure what that means, but I wanted to type it all out, somewhere.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2010 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Good post

I was at Pedro’s one-hitter in New York in ‘99. Had great seats off first base. Watching that performance was the most impressive athletic feat I’ve ever seen live. Since then I’ve had a thing for the dominant pitcher. Of which there are few. And Zack is one. And he’s interesting to me in his dominance.

I guess I’d only say that 1) I agree that his past issues aren’t worth taking into account when “worrying” about Zack but 2) I disagree that they don’t make him all that incomparable. I think that you’re underestimating the severity of Greinke’s problem. While it’s certain that there have been many many players who have dealt with psychological issues, I think that it’s less certain that many players have dealt with as serious a problem with as much success.

We know Zack’s problem was bad because he walked away from the game. This does not happen often. And if you’re suggesting that there are players who have experienced and overcome a similar problem without seeking help, then I probably disagree.

by billexgordler on Mar 9, 2010 8:29 PM EST up reply actions

I don't know, obviously

if they had a problem that serious, of course they got help if they’re still in the game. But it is possible to do so without it being public knowledge. And such things are common enough that it’s hard not to imagine at least some other good players who deal with it on a similar level.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 10, 2010 1:35 AM EST up reply actions

And neither do i, obviously...

…it’s such a gray area filled with degrees and shades, but I would only say that during the year that Greinke, one of the most talented players of the decade, was fighting his problem, he was a terrible pitcher. Only borderline ML-quality. So for another player to be afflicted in the same way and yet still remain MLB-level good, he’d have to be insanely talented. Far more talented than Greinke. Which I’m not sure there is such a thing.

by billexgordler on Mar 10, 2010 8:59 AM EST up reply actions

okay, I'm going to redo this as part of a FanGraphs post

souped-up a bit

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 10, 2010 10:44 AM EST up reply actions

I think better....

in the W-L and ERA.

look he was the real deal last season, I don’t think it was a 1 year thing…but will he be like Saberhagen, good season followed by down season, maybe.

I think he stays under 3.00 ERA, and wins 15. Ks near 200
I think the team will gel some and score a few more runs this season but they will be streaky.

by Rickfansince76 on Mar 9, 2010 10:36 AM EST reply actions

I think Zack will be close to the same ... his main worries will be the D behind him and if the O can score some runs.

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Mar 9, 2010 10:42 AM EST reply actions

Another note -- Zack is the top projected pitcher by Chone for WAR

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Mar 9, 2010 10:43 AM EST reply actions

I would be pretty surprised if he added more than a full run to his ERA in one season

That would be some vicious regressing to the mean, especially considering that the defense behind him should be marginally better this season. I’m not expecting back to back CYAs, but a sub 3.00 ERA, 200+ Ks, and 15 wins is about what I would project.

I just realized that is exactly what Rickfansince76 posted. D’oh!

by Soria's Unibrow on Mar 9, 2010 11:11 AM EST reply actions

It also looks like CHONE sees some DL time for Zack

30 starts? 193 IP? Say it ain’t so!

by Soria's Unibrow on Mar 9, 2010 11:14 AM EST up reply actions

estimating playing time is difficult

CHONE just takes a stab — for some of the “forecasting competitions” (there are various ones), he wants to use community playing time projections, I believe

This is something people always complain about with projection systems, understandably, but it’s really nothing to get worked up about. THe rate stats are the main thing to look at.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2010 11:17 AM EST up reply actions

As a rule of thumb -- regression to the mean does not apply to your favorite player

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2010 11:18 AM EST reply actions

i love looking at the "team fans" line to kind of see that

by AtTheWall on Mar 9, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions

The gap is actually much smaller in Greinke's case than for most players I've looked at

everyone loves Zack

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2010 11:44 AM EST up reply actions

0.283 Babip with with the Royal's D?

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Mar 9, 2010 11:46 AM EST up reply actions

well, okay. that's kinda nuts

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2010 11:48 AM EST up reply actions

Best pitcher in baseball

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2010 11:26 AM EST reply actions

Guess how many pitchers have started 37 games in a season from 2007-2009?

That’s right, none.

How about 36?

None.

In 2009, Only Justin Verlander started 35.

In 2008, only CC Sabathia started 35.

In 2007, only Dontrelle Willis (!) started 35.

Okay… just went to the bdb… only pitcher since 1991 to start 37 games in a season was Greg Maddux in 1991. I have him at 6.5 WAR over 263 IP.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2010 12:01 PM EST reply actions

To be fair

That’s one of the calculations that Fangraphs just came up with. I don’t think there was a choice on games started.

by NotAHippie on Mar 9, 2010 12:15 PM EST up reply actions

yeah, I know

and they’re going to adjust everything before the season starts

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2010 12:17 PM EST up reply actions

In other words, ignore the games started for now and look only at innings pitched?

219 IP is a little high, but not completely unreasonable given Greinke’s health and the fact that Cy Young candidates tend to have fewer 2 1/3 IP outings.

by Gopherballs on Mar 9, 2010 12:20 PM EST up reply actions

Everyone thinks 'better,' huh?

3.26 ERA is a damn good season, and would be the second best season of his career. I’ll root for him to be sub-3.00 again with the Royals defense behind him, but to get there is going to require either another super-human performance or a lot of luck. I think 3.26 is a fair estimate, and would still put him near the top of the league.

by kcdc1 on Mar 9, 2010 12:28 PM EST reply actions

I'm waiting for Zack to have that 3.26 ERA

And then we hear the cries of Zack being a one season wonder, since he couldn’t duplicate his 2.16 ERA.

by NotAHippie on Mar 9, 2010 12:31 PM EST up reply actions

Zackkkkkkkkkkkkk

Count dem K’s

by Isaiah85 on Mar 9, 2010 12:36 PM EST reply actions

13, there appears to be 13 Ks in his name

- .... .- - .----. ... / .-- .... .- - / ... .... . / ... .- .. -..

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on Mar 9, 2010 1:16 PM EST up reply actions

See? Way too optimistic.

No way he averages more than 12.5 K/9.

by kcdc1 on Mar 9, 2010 1:18 PM EST up reply actions

Have to stay optimistic

Debbie downers are overrated

by Isaiah85 on Mar 9, 2010 2:04 PM EST up reply actions

The only reason to think

he won’t be under 3.00 ERA is if one doesn’t believe in the 09 improvement in his HR allowed rate. To me, from a “stuff” standpoint, his improvements in BB and K rates are legit and sustainable.

Problem with the HR rate – if that was a fluke, then that could cause his ERA to rise quicker than if the other two rates were flukes.

Bottom line: I’m gonna say an ERA somewhere between 2.25 and 2.75

Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!

by loyal2sdad on Mar 9, 2010 2:10 PM EST reply actions

Well, there are two components to HR/9 rate -- one in a pitcher's control, one probably not (or marginally so)

The two components are the rate at which the pitcher allows flyballs (FB%) and the rate at which flyballs leave the park (HR/FB). Research shows that pitchers significantly control the rate of flyballs allowed — this is the flip side to groundball pitchers, as pitches with sinking action and/or location low in the zone tend to induce groundballs, while other pitches and higher locations tend to induce more flyballs. In other words, the higher the groundball rate, the fewer flyballs, and the fewer home runs. League average is around 43% and Greinke has been modestly under that with a career rate of 40.5% (which is also his 2009 rate). If Greinke can increase his groundball rate, it should positively affect his HR/9 rate.

For HR/FB, however, research has shown that pitchers have no to little control over this rate. While rates will fluctuate from year to year, most pitchers regress over time to around 10-11%. In fact, since 2002 (as far back as Fangraphs batted ball data goes), the vast majority of starters (min 1000 IP) fall between 10-11% and only a handful are under 9%. Jason Schmidt, who was significantly helped by pitching half his games in San Francisco, is the only pitcher under 8% at 7.5%. CC Sabathia is next lowest at 8.4%. Thus, even the starter with the lowest HR/FB rate still gave up homers 7.5% of the time. Greinke, on the other hand, had a HR/FB of 4.5% in 2009 and his career rate is 8.7% (888 IP). Going forward, I think you have to expect Greinke’s HR/FB to be closer to his career mark than his 2009 rate — which would still be somewhat of a historically anomaly. He could post a HR/FB that low again, but I would never take that bet.

by Gopherballs on Mar 9, 2010 2:55 PM EST up reply actions

totally agree

but it’s worth noting that parks also come into play — Kauffman has been a slightly hitter’s park overall the last few years, but supresses HR/FB, although not enough to keep a pitcher a 4.5%

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Mar 9, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions