2010 CHONE Notables


Well, the 2010 offseason is now in full swing. In addition to being the "Hot Stove" time of year, the offseason is also the "Projections" time of year. I will try to keep track of the most unique and debate-worthy elements of these various projection teams (CHONE, ZiPS, Bill James, etc.). Recently (yesterday?), BaseballProjection.com released the CHONE predictions. The Cubs predictions present a few elements worthy of examination:

Player Age G   AB   R Hits 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO  PA   AVG   OBP   SLG
Lee     34 132 509 78 144 29  1 24  82  3   2  61 106 573 0.283 0.363 0.485

Clearly, CHONE (nor any sensible baseball fan) does not foresee Derrek Lee repeating his monstrous 2009 year (.306/.393/.579). This adds fodder for my tragic, self-loathing trade Lee proposal (as a Cub's fan, I'm disgusted with myself, but as a sabermatrician, I'm inclined to propose it).

Player Age  G   AB  R  Hits 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO PA   AVG   OBP   SLG
Fox     27 128 384 57 107 23  1  20 67   2   2  28 85 420 0.279 0.340 0.500

On a similar note, Jake Fox. Big man. Big bat. Could he take the reigns from Lee? CHONE makes it look possible.

Player   Age G    AB  R  Hits 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO PA   AVG   OBP   SLG
Bradley  32 114 386 62 106 19  1  17 56   4   3  61 92 454 0.275 0.383 0.461

Lastly, my nearly-namesake, Milton Bradley. His numbers were down in 2009, but his slash (.257/.378/.397) really hid the potential. I still think his contract is nuts and that the Cubs will try to trade him like mad; but if he can produce a (.275/.383/.461) slash, is he really worth selling so soon? I don't know.

In his blog, Sabernomics, JC Bradbury states that GMs don't buy low or sell high, but rather players tend to be accurately valued according to potential, not recent performance. I think this may be true, considering most trade proposals I've seen coming the Cubs way tend to be mutually beneficial, but still, given his off-field conflicts, I think Bradley's "stock" is still low and that he could provide better production than, say, Pat Burrell.

What am I saying? Keep Bradley.

Share this:

CONVERSATION

0 comments:

Post a Comment