Community Projection Results: Johan Santana

by Eric Simon on Feb 11, 2008 2:33 AM EST Comment 36 comments

Last week I solicited your projections for Johan Santana's first season in Queens. I had actually intended to ask for them quite a bit sooner but I thought it prudent to wait for the trade and requisite contract extension to be finalized before possibly jinxing the whole thing with a premature post about it. Twenty of you submitted your best guesses for Santana's performance next year, which is the most we have received for any projection to this point.

Your estimates ranged from "awesome" to "absurdly awesome", with the staunchest pessimist projecting a 3.15 ERA and 1.07 WHIP.

System	GS	IP	H	BB	K	HR	W	L	ERA	WHIP	FIP
AA	33	217	176	48	240	22	19	6	2.71	1.03	2.98
Bill James	32	216	174	57	228	24	16	8	3.00	1.07	3.33
CHONE	--	217	192	55	219	25	--	--	3.36	1.14	3.44
Marcel	--	193	164	48	198	23	14	9	3.31	1.10	3.44
PECOTA	32	225	184	60	239	25	16	8	2.94	1.08	3.32
ZiPS	34	230	200	47	236	29	18	8	3.21	1.07	3.40

As usual, I have included the results of the fancy projection systems alongside our own, and though we are very optimistic about Santana's future, the other systems are bullish as well. PECOTA is the only one that has been updated to reflect Santana's trade to the Mets, so we might reasonably assume that the other systems might shave a quarter run or more off of their ERAs were they augmented to adjust for the weaker league, friendlier turf and superior defense that Santana will enjoy next year. It's extremely encouraging that our line is so similar to PECOTA's, only differing somewhat significantly in walks allowed (our mark is 20% below PECOTA's).

For anyone who is interested, I used 3.2 as the league factor in calculating FIP.

Pitchers and catchers report to spring training on Thursday, though David Wright is already there.

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Johan Effect

I realize this probably won't be a popular sentiment on this blog, but I do not believe that Johan Santana will be able to carry the Mets to an NL East title. After Johan, there are a myriad of question marks in the rotation. Will Pedro return to form? Can John Mayne build off last season's success? Was Oliver Perez's season last year a fluke? Outside of that, the team also has an aging lineup that has some holes. Delgado is not the player he once was, Louis Castillo is overrated, father-time will catch up with Alou. I say this admitting that I am an Atlanta Braves fan, however, I honestly believe the Braves will take the division this year. It will definitely be a dogfight all year long, with the Mets eventually earning a Wild Card berth.

Chris Iafolla http://heardinthecheapseats.com/

by Chris Iafolla on Feb 11, 2008 9:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Aging lineup

That's great to point out the three older people in the lineup but you don't mention that Jose and Wright will potentially get better (as they are still young), Beltran, Church, Schneider are all in baseball's "prime" age.... to characterize the lineup is specious reasoning, especially considering your lineup depends on an aging, injury prone 3rd baseman and an old centerfielder with back problems.

Your pitching question? Okay, Pedro's health is a question mark and there are questions about Perez's consistency. Maine has had two good seasons in a row so it's hard to knock on him now, especially since he's only expected to be a #3-#4 starter now. Think the Braves don't have question marks in their rotation? How about "Does Glavine have anything left?", "How is Chuck James' shoulder?", "Can Hudson put together back to back good seasons?", "Is Hampton ever going to pitch again?", "Is either Jo-Jo or Jurrgens going to prove themselves major league pitchers?".

Everyone has questions. Santana answered the Mets' biggest one.

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 11, 2008 9:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Aging Lineup

That "injury-prone" 3rd baseman put up nearly identical numbers to David Wright last year in 20 less games and competed for a batting title to the last day of the season. And to say the Braves lineup depends on Kotsay is plain not true. He is projected as their 8 hole hitter, few teams depend on their 8 hitter. Texeria is essentially replacing the bat of A. Jones. Your point on the Braves pitching staff is valid and fair, but I think my point is the Braves have more overall depth than the Mets in the rotation. With Smoltz, Hudson, Glavine, Hampton, James, Reyes, Jurrjens and Bennett--Atlanta has some flexibility if some of the concerns you pointed out crop up. We shall see, but at least neither team has the rotation troubles the Phils have this year!

Chris Iafolla http://heardinthecheapseats.com/

by Chris Iafolla on Feb 11, 2008 10:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Aging lineup

Tex isn't really replacing the bat of Jones considering Tex was with the Braves for half the season. It's more like the blackhole of Jones is being replaced by the blackhole of Kotsay. Now you're moving your 4th place hitting down to the 8 hole and everyone else moves up a notch. Which isn't horrible but it does add pressure to some younger players.

Additionally, I'm not sold on your shortstop. I really think he hit way above his head and is going to come down relatively abruptly. That being sad, I'm concerned about Kotsay because I really think the SS should be batting 8th but, because Kotsay is there, he has to bat higher (2nd, I assume? I can't imagine anyone else that would really fit the role).

And let's compare rotation depth:

Smoltz, Hudson, Glavine, James, Reyes + Jurrgens and Bennett

(I refuse to count Hampton. I've talked to many a Braves fan that agrees with me that Hampton may never throw a pitch again).

Santana, Pedro, Maine, Perez, El Duque + Pelfrey and Vargas

I see essentially identical depth there.

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 11, 2008 10:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Aging Lineup

I share your concerns on Escobar. I think he is a solid player that showed some great intangibles last season. That being said, I'm not sure getting rid of Renteria was the right move. Escobar will hit leadoff against lefties and second against righties. On the Hampton issue, I have to believe he will make it back this year. History says I will be proven wrong, but the guy has had such tough luck that I hope he can take the mound this year. On the Tex issue, he was always meant to serve as Andruw's replacement--having him for half of last year was a temporary luxury (though I'm not sure Andruw was a luxury at any time last year).

Chris Iafolla http://heardinthecheapseats.com/

by Chris Iafolla on Feb 11, 2008 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wright vs Chipper

Oh, forgot to address that part of your response. Yes, Chipper put up great numbers but that wasn't the point of the comment. The point was about aging/injury prone players. Chipper is an aging/injury prone player and, at this stage of his career, you can only expect a downward trend in his numbers plus more injuries. David Wright is, what, 25 and has never shown tendency to be injured. His stats are more than likely trending upward.

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 11, 2008 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

also...

d wright is a great man, where as larry jones is a stupid jerk face piece of garbage.

by kendynamo on Feb 11, 2008 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wright vs. Chipper

No doubt, Wright is going to be a great player that only improves in the coming years. Keep in mind though, Chipper went 10 consecutive seasons without a trip to the DL. His recent string of injuries was more a product of tough luck than anything else (slipping on the soaking wet field in SF, colliding at third base on a baserunning play). I'm not sure you will see Chipper trend downward for another two years or so. In fact, last year was possibly his finest all around season outside of his MVP year.

Chris Iafolla http://heardinthecheapseats.com/

by Chris Iafolla on Feb 11, 2008 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Chipper

And that was my point, to be honest. The previous poster just pointed out players injury-prone and aging in the Mets lineup but conveniently ignored Chipper.

I think it's going to be a tight race between the three teams in the NL East but I do think the Mets have to be the slight favorite starting the season. Of course, in a tight race like that, it only takes a few things going wrong to suddenly become an also-ran.

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 11, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Chipper

Agreed, it will be close all year long--should make it entertaining.

Chris Iafolla http://heardinthecheapseats.com/

by Chris Iafolla on Feb 11, 2008 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i hate the braves

die

by kendynamo on Feb 11, 2008 10:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Aging Lineup

Easy buddy, just talking baseball here. As I admitted, Lunkwill had some valid points. I think the Mets and Braves will compete closely for the division title all season long. Look forward to seeing how it all shakes out.

Chris Iafolla http://heardinthecheapseats.com/

by Chris Iafolla on Feb 11, 2008 10:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

if it makes you feel any better

i wasnt really asking YOU to die. just the atlanta braves themselves. and it's not actual death that im wishing, but figuratively. maybe i'd give them bad diarrhea if i had the power but thats about it.

by kendynamo on Feb 11, 2008 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Poisoning?

Hey, a little bit of bad corned beef in their after game spread goes a long way. :)

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 11, 2008 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

The Braves will be good, but lets remember that if the Mets have pitching questions, then Atlanta sure does too. The Braves bullpen has been a mess for the last two years, John Smoltz and Tom Glavine are a combined 83 years old, and Mike Hampton may give you nothing.

Basically, the Mets and Braves each have one sure thing in the rotation: Santana and Hudson. I'll take Santana over Hudson any day of the week.

Nonetheless, I expect the Mets and Braves to battle well into September with the division title loser taking the WC. As for Philadelphia....3rd place. There, I said it.

Flushing, Queens: soon to be known as Johan's-burg!!!

by Greenpoint Ian on Feb 11, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

HAHA!

Careful there, J-Roll.... :)

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 11, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Two Sure Things

I think until Smoltz proves otherwise, you have to consider him a sure thing as well. I agree, I'd take Santana over Hudson as well, but only based on history. If you look at the numbers, Hudson actually had a better year last year than Santana, and he should have had about 3-5 more wins with any run support to speak of. I agree, Philly will take third place. Should be a good race!

Chris Iafolla http://heardinthecheapseats.com/

by Chris Iafolla on Feb 11, 2008 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dunno about that....

Don't get me wrong, I like Hudson. But first you have to start out with AL vs NL. Then you have to realize Santana was harder to hit, struck out batters, and had excellent control. The only thing Hudson really beats him out on his home run prevention.

And, of course, you have to look at track record. Hudson, by track record, is an excellent pitcher. Santana, by track record, is the best pitcher in baseball (arguably).

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 11, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hudson vs. Santana

I think we are essentially arguing the same point here. I 100% agree that Santana is a better pitcher than Hudson--do doubt about it. I merely think that last season they were fairly comparable. One thing I did want to point out, is that strike outs are an extremely overrated stat for a starting pitcher. My favorite pitcher of all time is Greg Maddux. Maddux was (and still is) ruthlessly efficient with his pitches. An out is an out, regardless of how you got there. I think we tend to play up the benefits of a power pitcher far too much in this day and age.

Chris Iafolla http://heardinthecheapseats.com/

by Chris Iafolla on Feb 11, 2008 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Strikeouts

I couldn't disagree more. Greg Maddux actually used to put up decent strikeout numbers, but that notwithstanding he is the exception to the rule. There will always be pitchers who succeed despite low strikeout rates and pitchers with high strikeout rates who fail miserably. However, I don't think that the importance of strikeouts to a pitcher's success can be overstated. An out is *not* an out, because a strikeout virtually never advances the baserunner(s). Further, the potential of a batted ball to become something other than an out -- a single, an error, a homerun -- is what makes the strikeout so important.

Striking out a batter means that you don't have to rely on your defense -- or chance -- to determine the fate of the batter. Strikeout and walk rates are the single best predictors of future success for a pitcher. It's no coincidence that the best pitchers almost invariably have high strikeout and low walk rates.

by Eric Simon on Feb 11, 2008 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Strikeouts

Fair enough in terms of the likelihood of a batted ball becoming an error, or moving a runner over. However, I think far too much weight is placed on the strikeout ratio. Is a 92 pitch, 9IP, shutout with 5 K's any less dominating than a 135 pitch, 9IP, shutout with 12 Ks? The answer is no. Certainly, the ability to strikeout a batter has its luxuries, but is is not a measuring stick by which we should judge the success of a pitcher. Maybe it is because I long for the old-school pitcher, and loathe the ESPN era when baseball is boiled down to home runs and strikeouts, but I still maintain the strike out is a highly overrated statistic.

Chris Iafolla http://heardinthecheapseats.com/

by Chris Iafolla on Feb 11, 2008 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Again

The results are the results. The bottom line, and there is an overwhelming body of research to support this, is that high-strikeout pitchers are more likely to enjoy future success than low-strikeout ones.

Let's say you had to navigate downtown Baghdad amid a hail of insurgent gunfire, and you could choose as your vehicle either (a) a Sherman tank, or (b) a 1982 Chevy Nova that had been set on fire. The Nova might get you through the city's smoldering wreckage unscathed, but I think we'd all agree that you're far more likely to survive the trip were you to choose the tank. That's my analogy to your high strikeout/low strikeout shutout scenario. On any given day, either route might lead you to your destination, but that doesn't mean there's an equal chance of either actually occurring.

by Eric Simon on Feb 11, 2008 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

rolling on the floor

laughing my ass off

My my, what a terrific analogy. Nice work, Eric.

We've got ourselves a ball club, the Mets of New York town!

by kingcritical on Feb 12, 2008 12:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Strikeouts

Again, I am not talking about future indicators of success, surely that cannot be argued. A pitcher with a live arm has a better chance of success, and often can get away with mistakes a finesse pitcher cannot. However, using the strikeout as a measure of current success is not the best measuring stick. This debate started with Hudson and Santana. To recap the numbers are: Tim Hudson 2007: 128 ERA+ in 224+ IP, 16-10, 132Ks Johan Santana 2007: 130 ERA+ in 220 IP, 15-13,235 Ks Does the fact that Santana struck out 100 more batters somehow equate to a better season? No. My point is that all things considered equal, strikeouts do not indicate one guys is another pitcher than the other, simply that they had to throw more pitched to get an out. In other words, if two pitchers had identical numbers, but one happened to strikeout more batters, who had the better season? The answer is neither. On a side note, I like the Armas signing for you guys, it gives you a little more depth on the rotation. He has a world of talent if he can ever harness it and stay of the DL.

Chris Iafolla http://heardinthecheapseats.com/

by Chris Iafolla on Feb 12, 2008 8:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Strikeouts

I think I see what you're saying and I don't think either of you are wrong. Eric is suggesting general bodies of data and likelihoods. Chris isn't talking about generalities but specific pitchers. What Chris is suggesting is that if you have a successful strikeout pitcher and also a successful contact pitcher, they're both successful so who cares? If both are winning 20 games a season with 2.50 ERA's, they're both equally great.

Eric, however, is arguing that historically, a higher strikeout rate/ KK per BB ratio is more indicative of greatness to come and rightly so. That is a fact.

As for Armas, I really like the signing too. He's erratic but talented.

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 12, 2008 9:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Strikeouts

Thanks Lunkwill Fook, you summed that up a lot more eloquently than I did. By the way, we had talked a lot yesterday about rotation depth and comparing the Mets and Braves. I think this signing gives the Mets the edge in that department.

Chris Iafolla http://heardinthecheapseats.com/

by Chris Iafolla on Feb 12, 2008 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The difference

That's arguable. I think the main difference is that it gives the Mets another "veteran" to call on whereas the majority of the Braves depth is talented minor league pitchers with no real MLB track record. So, I guess it depends on which angle you're coming from. Would you rather have talent or knowability out of your 7th or 8th starters?

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 12, 2008 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

espn glorifies the K?

maybe the HR, but K's i think were alway esteemed since baseball antiquity.

ive heard nolan ryan's K record called over rated but K's as a stat seem rated just about right to me.

or you can keep arguing. i enjoy it very much when eric busts out the science.

by kendynamo on Feb 11, 2008 11:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you're looking at the wrong numbers

Tim Hudson 2007: 128 ERA+ in 224+ IP
Johan Santana 2007: 130 ERA+ in 220 IP

That was the closest they've come in many years, and it's still hardly a clear win for Hudson. Also, note that ERA+ is relative to the performance of the rest of the league, not all of MLB.

by anonymous on Feb 11, 2008 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs