2006 Offensive Projection

by The DiaTriber on Jan 2, 2006 11:37 AM EST Comment 12 comments

A quick question and challenge to those able to easily navigate their way through MLB stats:

The insertion of Peralta into the 3 spot is marked as the time that the offense really clicked; while it wasn't until Hafner returned from Buerhle's beaning that the lineup took the shape that most felt was most productive. That lineup, which is what we're currently looking at for 2006 (minus Perez), obviously being:
Sizemore
Crisp
Peralta
Hafner
Martinez
Belliard
Broussard
Blake
Boone

The date of Hafner's return was August 4th, when the Tribe was 57-51. After that date (a loss, which is remembered for Wickman's meltdown in the 9th against the NYY), the Tribe went 36-18. So the last 54 games (or 1/3) of the season was the only time that the lineup was truly in its present state.

With all of that being said, how did the Indians' offense compare, over those 54 games, with the rest of the league?
Where would it rank against the AL, and all of the ML?

Can you factor that production out over 162 games (as the team won at a .666 clip over the final 1/3 of the season, including the late-season collapse) to predict 2006 offensive production if no changes were made to the lineup?

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: 2006 Offensive Projection

I think it's a bit of a reach to project an offense (or anything, for that matter) based on that short a time period.

Now there may be exceptions (for example, Boone's injury), but I'd be more comfortable with using the entire season, adjusting for career averages and age.

As it is right now, the Indians have a good offense, it'll probably be top 5 in the AL, but I think they still need to get Blake out of the everyday lineup.

by Ryan on Jan 2, 2006 12:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Offensive Projection

Let's see if this link will work.

After the All-Star break, the Indians were either the best offense in baseball or among the best. Led the majors in OPS and isolated power, in a dead heat with the Yankees, Phillies and Red Sox in RC27 (runs created per 27 outs). I agree with DiaTribe's basic presmise, that this is something close to the "real" Indians offense, but the news is not all good.

For one thing, they were only 7th in secondary average, meaning that first-place OPS finish largely rests on batting average, which fluctuates wildly. They were only 10th in BB/PA, and they sink all the way to 22nd in BB/K. Those are pretty stinky peripherals, and they certainly suggest that luck played a significant role in the Indians' offensive surge.

One final note is that the Indians are credited with 414.5 "runs created even though they only scored 384 runs. Runs Created is an aggregation of individual plate appareances results (out, walk, hit, etc.) independent of game situations, functioning sort of as an "estimated runs scored." What this tells us is that, at least according to the RC formula, the Indians were scoring nearly half a run PER GAME less than they "should have" been scoring, and they did that over a 74-game stretch. And that was when they were hot.

I'm not saying I believe in clutch hitting. But I will say that if there is such a thing, we sure didn't have it last year.

by Jay on Jan 2, 2006 6:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Offensive Projection

I honestly don't see how we can be outside the Top 5 in the AL in runs scored (with the usual caveat for injury).

We're clearly the best offensive team in the Central. I don't really see how any team in the AL West has made enough moves to be better than us with the exception of Texas and that's only because they play in that hitter-friendly park.

In the East, Toronto is certainly upgrading their offense, but I'm not willing to concede it's better than ours. Obviously give the nod to the Yankees, but to me Boston is going to have a tough time repeating last year. Give them the nod for now I guess.

by cheech99 on Jan 2, 2006 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Offensive Projection

I tend to err on the cautious side with these projections.

Boston, Tampa, and New York could have better offenses from the AL East, and of course Texas (with their ballpark) should put up a lot of runs. Of course, Boston still has several holes to fill, and Tampa still might deal Lugo and/or Huff.

by Ryan on Jan 2, 2006 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Offensive Projection

I think that most would agree that our offense should be improved for 2006, with the continued development of the young players and Boone one more year removed from his injury.

As Jay's link showed, though, the RC formula showed that the Tribe left some runs on the basepaths. By watching the games, one can only think that most of those runs were left on by Broussard and Blake (I'd still like to see LOB leaders for 2005).

Which is why one of those positions has to be upgraded, however slightly it might be. But by who?
Eduardo Perez isn't a regular 1B and the hole still exists.

Is Langerhans that much of an upgrade? Is Hillenbrand? What about Mench or Ibanez to play RF and allow Blake to provide bench depth.

The Indians should be among the top 5 in AL offenses, with a lineup that boasts one of the best 1-5 in the league. So why does it feel like going into the 2006 season with an unchanged offense leaves much to be desired?

by The DiaTriber on Jan 2, 2006 9:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Offensive Projection

Langerhans IS that much of an upgrade because he makes the minimum, by all accounts is a stellar defender and can handle right field, and gives us the necessary 4 viable outfielders for the 25-man roster, giving Blake fewer at bats.

Ibanez, I don't know too much about, but if he can't handle right field, what's the point? Mench I think would cost too much at this point and probably isn't available as he was as Texas has culled down their outfielders.

Further down the line, I think Jay mentioned a while back that the Merloni signing might (again, might) make Blake expendable (feel free to correct me on that Jay).

You get the feeling that Merloni may start off in Buffalo to make sure that ankle is full healed, and then, assuming the outfield is in working order with Crisp, Sizemore, Langerhans, Dubois as a 4th/5th outfielder, maybe they can find a taker for Blake.

That's a lot of speculation, but after OSU piled up 600 yards on ND, I'm pretty jazzed right now.

by cheech99 on Jan 2, 2006 9:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Offensive Projection

I guess Merloni makes Blake expendable IF we have acquired another RF. I'd say Blake is the epitome of "expendable," except that Broussard might be even moreso. I agree that Merloni will start in Buffalo, and I don't think his contract even requires him to be added to the 40-man roster.

by Jay on Jan 2, 2006 11:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Offensive Projection

So why does it feel like going into the 2006 season with an unchanged offense leaves much to be desired?

I can think of a few reasons.

Some people like to complain.
The last memory many fans have is the collapse of the offense in the final series against Chicago. Small sample sizes and statistical anomalies aside, that was painful to watch. Ask Roger about Casey Blake.
I think another concern is whether we can expect all of our young core producers from last year to match or improve upon their 2005 performance. I think Boone will be better, but even if Boone, Blake, and Broussard improve, that would not be enough to offset regression by, say, Peralta, Sizemore, and Crisp. The value of a great player's performance over an average player's is significantly higher than an average player's performance over a bad one.

I think that's unnecessarily alarmist, though, and still expect the Tribe to be among the league's best offenses.

by mkwng on Jan 2, 2006 9:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Offensive Projection

Boy, that #3 has about four tricky points in it. I think the truth of last sentence is dubious or at least often exaggerated. The more important point is that even though all three players surprised us somewhat last season -- Peralta a lot, the other two only a little -- it still doesn't make sense to suggest that three players aged 23-25 are all going to regress.

Would you predict three players aged 33-35 would all improve after an off-year? I doubt it. When a player under 25 has a breakout year, there is a reasonable presumption that it was at least 50 percent "real development" as opposed to "fluke." My money says that the three of them, as a group, match or better their 2005 production in 2006.

As for the "bad three," I do think they'll bounce back if given the chance. Boone has never been a really good hitter, but his turnaround was so severe before/after May 1, it would be hard to believe that injury/rust wasn't playing a dramatic role. He hit an awful lot of line drives after that. I think Blake is still capable (on the high side) of repeating 2004, and Broussard is capable of much more. None of these guys are old.

by Jay on Jan 2, 2006 11:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Offensive Projection

I think Boone has the best chance of the three to make a tangible improvement, because of the injury. The other two I'm not really expecting that much improvement from.

Blake's counting stats were in line with his previous seasons, but as has been pointed out numerous times, he had an abysmal beginning of the season. He's a tough guy to project because he was stuck in the minors for so long.

by Ryan on Jan 2, 2006 11:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Offensive Projection

I think the Tribe will be okay.

If the Indians can get a big year (.950OPS) of out two guys (Hafner and Sizemore, Hafner and Peralta), they'll be fine.

by rick on Jan 3, 2006 2:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: 2006 Offensive Projection

I want to expand on that middle paragraph a little more. If I had to make a projection, I would expect Peralta and Crisp to fall back a little bit while Sizemore progresses enough to pick up the slack. Sizemore is the youngest and most toolsy of the three, and his 2005 performance was not really a surprise -- he hit PECOTA around the 56th percentile, and I think it's worth noting that his projection was largely based on 2004 numbers that were artificially dampened by a severe illness in March/April of that year.

Now Peralta. Last season is generally considered his "age 23" season -- based on his July 1 age. With a June 12 birthday, Peralta had a very young "age 23" year. Do you know what percentage of major leaguers max out at age 22 or 23? Damned few. Men get stronger in their mid-20's, and young hitters get more savvy. Speed peaks earliest, and batting average and doubles actually peak around age 24. None of these things are a big part of Peralta's game. Home runs peak at age 26. Peralta had a prOPS of 822 last year, compared with a real 868 OPS. I think it's reasonable to expect an 840-ish prOPS next season, which means that an 840 OPS the average expectation.

Finally, Crisp. Now age 26, Crisp is not likely to have peaked but is far more likely to have than the other two. Speed, batting average and doubles are huge parts of his game, and he performed around the 70th percentile of his PECOTA projection. All these factors suggest that we can expect at least a small regression next season, which is what I wrote to begin with. That said, Crisp has beaten reasonable projections for him pretty much every season of his pro career ... and at some point, I think we have to take that seriously.

by Jay on Jan 3, 2006 12:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs