Remember when?

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:59 am

Manny Ramirez hasn't had an rbi since his well publicized pinch hit grand slam.

Remember when Dodger fans looked down their noses at Giants fans for rooting for Barry Bonds?

Mark Reynolds hit two home runs on his birthday last night. The record is three by Nomar Garciaparra.

Remember when Reynolds was said to have struck out too much to be a big fantasy influence?

Josh Hamilton reached base three times last night. The first time Hamilton has accomplished this since the all-star break.

Remember when Josh Hamilton was a first round pick?

Chris Young has one home run off of a lefty this year. Vicente Padilla had the swine flu virus.

Remember when we thought that Young hitting a second homer would surely come before the next swine flu victim?

Chad Billingsley is second in the NL in pitches thrown. Young Clayton Kershaw is 15th.

Remember when agents would be proud to have their young pitchers throw for Joe Torre?

IGAWA DO IT is sitting in last place in the overall standings. They are in NY #5.They are setting a record for least amount of points ever in an NFBC competition. It isn't even close. They have nine dl'ed players on their roster. A certain kind of admiration goes out to this team. Failure is harsh, but when failing, we may as well be the best at it.

Remember when someone said that Chicago had the worst players and New York had the best?

[ August 04, 2009, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

Head 2 Head · Post by **Head 2 Head** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:06 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

IGAWA DO IT is sitting in last place in the overall standings. They are in NY #5.They are setting a record for least amount of points ever in an NFBC competition. It isn't even close. They have nine dl'ed players on their roster. A certain kind of admiration goes out to this team. Failure is harsh, but when failing, we may as well be the best at it.

Remember when someone said that Chicago had the worst players and New York had the best?

This is a team that WON it's NY League (NY8) and finished 40th Overall last year.

Even after this year his lifetime ranking will be better then mine.

[ August 04, 2009, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Head 2 Head ]

rkulaski · Post by **rkulaski** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:19 pm

Remember in March and April when:

J Reyes and Hanley Ramirez were arguably better first round picks than Pujols.

C Marmol was drafted anywhere between rounds 8 to 10 and K Gregg was drafted much, much, much later in most leagues.

B Zobrist was not even drafted after 30 rounds.

D Lee's best days were over. He was a 5th to 6th round pick at best.

I drafted A Sonnanstine before U Jimenez to make the "safe" pick. Youch.

C Wang and Dice K were both on NFBC rosters.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:17 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Mark Reynolds hit two home runs on his birthday last night. The record is three by Nomar Garciaparra.

Remember when Reynolds was said to have struck out too much to be a big fantasy influence?It will be interesting to watch to see who drafts Reynolds next year expecting a +.280 BA!

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:18 am

if he finishes this year at his current b.a. he will be 2 for 3 in that regard. i will say that 100 out of 100 prognosticators will be screamimg regression.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:54 am

Missouri/Missouri for some drafters.

Missouri/Missouri be damned for others.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:19 am

Originally posted by headhunters:

if he finishes this year at his current b.a. he will be 2 for 3 in that regard. i will say that 100 out of 100 prognosticators will be screamimg regression. HIJACK ALERT -- This may turn into Joe Blanton, Part II

And 100 out of 100 prognosticators would be correct to scream regression. Does that mean Reynolds will regress? No, of course not. But does that mean it is incorrect to look at the numbers and suggest he will? No.

First off, based on some admittedly outdated studies I did, you don't have to look at the name of the player, if you say "So and So" will regress, you would be right 70% of the time, that is 70% of the players regress from year to year. i will update this study in the off-season and report back.

To me, the REAL question is not whether Reynolds will regress, but HOW MUCH? That will be the key. The fact he is going to be closer to .280 than .240 for 2 of the past 3 years puts the weighted average closer to .280 than .240.

But here is the real catch with Reynolds. His .280 batting average is being 100% driven by an extremely elevated home run total. Obviously, HR count the same in batting average as singles. With someone with Reynold's profile, you really can't say you expect a drop in power but maintaining teh same average, like you can others. Five fewer HR is 10 points of his average.

So can he maintain his HR pace next season?

Perhaps an oversimplification, but the number of home runs a guy hits is equal to the number of fly balls he hits times the percentage a fly ball leaves the yard. League average for HR/FB is about 11%.

Here are the numbers for some power hitter.

DUNN -- 47% Fly balls, 23% HR/FB

PUJOLS -- 40% Fly balls, 20% HR/FB (though this season he is exceeding both, closer to 2006 levels)

HOWARD -- 38% Fly balls, 32% HR/FB

CABRERA -- 37% Fly balls, 18% HR/FB

and Reynolds?

45% Fly balls, 29% HR/FB.

His percentage of fly balls clearing the fence is outstanding. But can he repeat it?

Here is the top-10 in HR/FB so far in 2009:

Jim Thome 30.5 %

Mark Reynolds 28.6 %

Adrian Gonzalez 24.3 %

Raul Ibanez 23.9 %

Ryan Howard 23.2 %

Albert Pujols 22.4 %

Adam Dunn 22.2 %

Joe Mauer 21.4 %

Carlos Pena 21.0 %

Nelson Cruz 20.8 %

If you call 2009 an outlier, and prognosticate 23% for Reynolds next season, with all else the same, that takes a 44-HR guy down to a 35-HR guy.

So if EVERYTHING else is the same, he loses 9 homers and hits about .262.

To me, THAT's what me and my fellow 99 prognosticators will be looking at.

But we could be wrong....

[ August 05, 2009, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:46 am

Wrong?

C'mon Todd! Say it ain't so!

The only nit I have to pick is an assumption in your post. You assume that the five less home runs will affect Reynolds average by 10 points. Why are you assuming those balls are outs? They are still crushed balls, even if he lacks a few feet next year on five balls, odds are that those batted balls will still go for extra bases and won't affect the average.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:56 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

quote:Originally posted by headhunters:

if he finishes this year at his current b.a. he will be 2 for 3 in that regard. i will say that 100 out of 100 prognosticators will be screamimg regression. HIJACK ALERT -- This may turn into Joe Blanton, Part II

And 100 out of 100 prognosticators would be correct to scream regression. Does that mean Reynolds will regress? No, of course not. But does that mean it is incorrect to look at the numbers and suggest he will? No.

First off, based on some admittedly outdated studies I did, you don't have to look at the name of the player, if you say "So and So" will regress, you would be right 70% of the time, that is 70% of the players regress from year to year. i will update this study in the off-season and report back.

To me, the REAL question is not whether Reynolds will regress, but HOW MUCH? That will be the key. The fact he is going to be closer to .280 than .240 for 2 of the past 3 years puts the weighted average closer to .280 than .240.

But here is the real catch with Reynolds. His .280 batting average is being 100% driven by an extremely elevated home run total. Obviously, HR count the same in batting average as singles. With someone with Reynold's profile, you really can't say you expect a drop in power but maintaining teh same average, like you can others. Five fewer HR is 10 points of his average.

So can he maintain his HR pace next season?

Perhaps an oversimplification, but the number of home runs a guy hits is equal to the number of fly balls he hits times the percentage a fly ball leaves the yard. League average for HR/FB is about 11%.

Here are the numbers for some power hitter.

DUNN -- 47% Fly balls, 23% HR/FB

PUJOLS -- 40% Fly balls, 20% HR/FB (though this season he is exceeding both, closer to 2006 levels)

HOWARD -- 38% Fly balls, 32% HR/FB

CABRERA -- 37% Fly balls, 18% HR/FB

and Reynolds?

45% Fly balls, 29% HR/FB.

His percentage of fly balls clearing the fence is outstanding. But can he repeat it?

Here is the top-10 in HR/FB so far in 2009:

Jim Thome 30.5 %

Mark Reynolds 28.6 %

Adrian Gonzalez 24.3 %

Raul Ibanez 23.9 %

Ryan Howard 23.2 %

Albert Pujols 22.4 %

Adam Dunn 22.2 %

Joe Mauer 21.4 %

Carlos Pena 21.0 %

Nelson Cruz 20.8 %

If you call 2009 an outlier, and prognosticate 23% for Reynolds next season, with all else the same, that takes a 44-HR guy down to a 35-HR guy.

So if EVERYTHING else is the same, he loses 9 homers and hits about .262.

To me, THAT's what me and my fellow 99 prognosticators will be looking at.

But we could be wrong.... [/QUOTE]I feel like I know enough about baseball and Mark Reynolds that I don't have to do any analysis right now to come up with .262 and 35. That makes perfect sense even without any analysis. However, .262 with 35 dingers and 20 stolen bases are some pretty valuable numbers depending on where he gets drafted. I don't think it's anything to thumb your nose at.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:02 pm

That said, would you contemplate taking Reynolds before David Wright? Longoria?

An anecdotal or Missouri/Missouri player would never dream of taking him before those two.

How about numbers guys?

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:20 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

That said, would you contemplate taking Reynolds before David Wright? Longoria?

An anecdotal or Missouri/Missouri player would never dream of taking him before those two.

How about numbers guys? Well, like I said, depending where he gets drafted. I don't think he'll be a first rounder. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think NFBC players are smarter than that.

Still, a 2008 projection of 100-35-100-.262-20 in 590 at bats, would have made him the ninteenth best hitter in baseball according to Euclid so he could be a very viable second rounder.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:27 pm

The second round may be where we find Wright and Longoria as well.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:28 pm

I guessed you numbers guys may enjoy this...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/ ... kbaseball/

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.5241

[ August 05, 2009, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:41 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Wrong?

C'mon Todd! Say it ain't so!

The only nit I have to pick is an assumption in your post. You assume that the five less home runs will affect Reynolds average by 10 points. Why are you assuming those balls are outs? They are still crushed balls, even if he lacks a few feet next year on five balls, odds are that those batted balls will still go for extra bases and won't affect the average. If you want to pick nits, whatever it is that kept those 5 balls in the yard, for doubles or outs, also could affect 5 balls that went for doubles this season, resulting in an out next season, for an end result about the same.

A couple of other things to consider with Reynolds ...

1. The "expected" regression does not have to wait until next season, it could still happen in 2009. We are in effect prorating his current level through October as the baseline.

B. Is 20 bags "in the bag" next season? His success rate is good, but a lot has to go right to repeat that number. Of course, we said the same thing about David Wright. Just saying one of the toughest calls is pegging teh steals for someone who junmps from 11/12 to mid-20s without much of a SB pedigree.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:49 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

The second round may be where we find Wright and Longoria as well. I sort of misunderstood the spirit of your post. I had no idea what Longoria's numbers are because he is not on any of my teams. Upon looking at them, they are as crappy as I expected them to be. I knew Wright's power numbers were low but whether I expect them to bounce back I'm not sure. If I was a power hitter I certainly wouldn't want to be in that park, I'll say.

The point is I'm not ready with everyone's 2010 projection today well enough that I can compare players. Also decisions like that are affected by the draft and your placement. Ironically, if you were at the end of the first Reynolds and Wright might go together well. Or if you had the first pick and got Pujols and Reynolds was still there at the 2-3 turn, imagine a starting trio of Pujols, Reynolds, and Ichiro. You'd be running away with every category. On the other hand, If you got Howard in the first, you probably wouldn't be too jazzed about pairing him with Reynolds.

It's really hard to just say this guy or that guy, but yeah, Reynolds has potential there.

[ August 05, 2009, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:01 pm

Is 20 bags "in the bag" next season? His success rate is good, but a lot has to go right to repeat that number. Of course, we said the same thing about David Wright. Just saying one of the toughest calls is pegging teh steals for someone who junmps from 11/12 to mid-20s without much of a SB pedigree.

The spirit of this entire thread including your post is that Reynolds will meet the numbers he is on pace for. For example, if he finishes with a .250 average this discussion would be moot. Accepting that, he is on pace for 30 steals at the end of this season. If THAT happens, yes, I have no problem projecting him for 20.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:07 pm

Todd, sorry, I didn't read you number one point before responding to two, but yeah, how many steals he gets between now and October is going to make a difference. If he gets 0, I'll be looking at 12 or less. But if everything stays as is, 20 makes perfect sense to me.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:50 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

The second round may be where we find Wright and Longoria as well. Sssshhhhhh! Wright is my "sleeper" for next year!

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:32 am

todd- i guess this is where the written word can be less perfect than spoken. my post never implied that the #'s guys would be wrong. if you are a #'s guy- that is where you must go with reynolds. actually i am on your side on this one. the only thing i laugh at sometimes is when i find some guys being pretty inconsistent with this. davis, reynolds, dunn, howard have a lot in common. the thing i like about your stuff is you are very consistent with your analysis of the projections you come up with. you never say it is 100%- or i know this has to happen. i got reynolds in the 16th round- and feel very lucky. 1st off- if i liked him so much- why not 14th round? most people won't admit that stuff. i just got friggin lucky thats all.

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:44 am

btw- the interesting thing with arizona is reynolds vs young. i foolishly drafted young in a league. i am guesing he can run faster than reynolds. he also ( imho) plays a position that makes it easier to run. 3rd base ( which i played) is just tons of standing around followed by a 2 second burst. at least young jogs in and out to his position and runs down flys. they both k a lot etc. yet young can't hit or run anymore. everyone knows it isn't about just the #'s- but unless you can mind read- what else can you go on. for me sometimes it is gut- and sometimes it works out- but not what a #'s guy is gonna go after. not his job if you will and i understand that. also, this would have been a good year for someone to say- don't draft anyone named young. you would have been what- 75% to the good?