Monday, July 9, 2012
2012 Yankee Position Player Projections vs. Actuals at the All Star Break Part 2
Continuing on from the first post, here’s how Mark Teixeira has performed vs. his projections.
| Projection | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SB | CS | BB | SO | GDP | HBP | avg | obp | slg | wOBA | BR | BR/650 | BRAR |
| cairo | 347 | 298 | 49 | 78 | 17 | 1 | 17 | 55 | 2 | 1 | 41 | 57 | 7 | 5 | .263 | .359 | .493 | .368 | 52 | 97 | 17 |
| davenport | 347 | 302 | 48 | 79 | 16 | 1 | 19 | 54 | 2 | 1 | 40 | 59 | 6 | 6 | .263 | .360 | .509 | .375 | 53 | 100 | 16 |
| marcel | 347 | 299 | 48 | 78 | 16 | 1 | 17 | 53 | 2 | 1 | 39 | 58 | 7 | 6 | .259 | .352 | .489 | .363 | 51 | 95 | 16 |
| oliver | 347 | 300 | 43 | 76 | 17 | 1 | 15 | 49 | 1 | 1 | 38 | 54 | 7 | 5 | .254 | .345 | .464 | .351 | 48 | 89 | 12 |
| pecota | 347 | 299 | 49 | 81 | 17 | 0 | 17 | 50 | 1 | 0 | 42 | 60 | 7 | 6 | .271 | .371 | .501 | .379 | 54 | 101 | 19 |
| zips | 347 | 298 | 47 | 78 | 17 | 1 | 17 | 58 | 1 | 1 | 40 | 59 | 7 | 6 | .263 | .359 | .495 | .368 | 52 | 97 | 17 |
| average | 347 | 298 | 49 | 78 | 17 | 1 | 17 | 53 | 1 | 1 | 40 | 58 | 7 | 6 | .263 | .357 | .494 | .367 | 52 | 97 | 16 |
| 2012 | 347 | 300 | 49 | 75 | 20 | 1 | 15 | 49 | 2 | 1 | 37 | 50 | 7 | 4 | .250 | .334 | .473 | .347 | 48 | 89 | 15 |
| diff | 0 | -3 | 3 | 0 | -2 | -4 | 1 | 0 | -3 | -8 | 0 | -2 | -.013 | -.023 | -.021 | -.020 |
BR: Linear weights batting runs
BR/650: BR pro-rated to 650 PA
BRAR: BR above replacement level, adjusted for position
wOBA: Weighted on-base average
diff: Difference between 2012 and average projection
Teixeira’s been another disappointment so far this year, although he’s hit .275/.373/.544 over his last 51 games after hitting .212/.269/.364 in his first 30. I was hoping for a bounce back above and beyond his projections somewhere in the area of that first line, but it doesn’t look like it’s meant to be. Teixeira’s been about two runs worse than his projection so far, so hopefully he’ll be a bit better as the season moves on.
Moving onto happier things, you can make the case that Robinson Cano has been the most valuable player in the AL so far this year.
| Projection | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SB | CS | BB | SO | GDP | HBP | avg | obp | slg | wOBA | BR | BR/650 | BRAR |
| cairo | 366 | 336 | 53 | 102 | 23 | 2 | 14 | 54 | 3 | 2 | 23 | 45 | 10 | 4 | .303 | .352 | .504 | .368 | 55 | 97 | 25 |
| davenport | 366 | 338 | 49 | 100 | 22 | 3 | 15 | 61 | 3 | 2 | 23 | 45 | 9 | 5 | .297 | .351 | .510 | .370 | 55 | 99 | 27 |
| marcel | 366 | 335 | 53 | 103 | 23 | 2 | 14 | 55 | 4 | 2 | 23 | 46 | 10 | 4 | .306 | .356 | .512 | .372 | 56 | 99 | 27 |
| oliver | 366 | 337 | 47 | 102 | 24 | 2 | 11 | 51 | 3 | 2 | 22 | 41 | 11 | 4 | .304 | .350 | .486 | .361 | 53 | 93 | 23 |
| pecota | 366 | 341 | 48 | 100 | 22 | 2 | 12 | 51 | 3 | 2 | 21 | 45 | 10 | 4 | .295 | .344 | .482 | .357 | 52 | 92 | 22 |
| zips | 366 | 336 | 51 | 100 | 23 | 3 | 14 | 57 | 3 | 2 | 22 | 42 | 10 | 4 | .299 | .347 | .506 | .365 | 54 | 97 | 25 |
| average | 366 | 336 | 53 | 102 | 23 | 2 | 13 | 55 | 3 | 2 | 22 | 44 | 10 | 4 | .303 | .351 | .503 | .366 | 54 | 97 | 25 |
| 2012 | 366 | 332 | 57 | 104 | 26 | 1 | 20 | 57 | 1 | 1 | 31 | 53 | 10 | 2 | .313 | .374 | .578 | .404 | 65 | 115 | 29 |
| diff | 4 | 2 | 3 | -1 | 7 | 2 | -2 | -1 | 9 | 9 | 0 | -2 | .011 | .024 | .075 | .038 |
Cano hit .301/.344/.452 in 157 PA from April 6 to May 15, and since then he’s hit .323/.397/.677 in 209 PA, with 17 HRs. He ranks sixth in the AL in batting runs behind David Ortiz, Josh Hamilton, Miguel Cabrera, Mark Trumbo and Mike Trout, but he’s also the only middle infielder in the group. He’s got a legitimate case for MVP right now and hopefully he’ll have an even better one by year’s end.
You have to ding him a bit for his less than impressive hitting with runners in scoring position, but that appears to be correcting itself. He’s about four runs ahead of his projections in terms of batting runs, and most impressively to me is slugging .075 points better than projected. I really have no idea why the Yankees haven’t extended him yet, because his price tag is going to keep going up.
The last player I’ll look at in this post is Nick Swisher.
| Projection | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SB | CS | BB | SO | GDP | HBP | avg | obp | slg | wOBA | BR | BR/650 | BRAR |
| cairo | 318 | 271 | 43 | 70 | 16 | 1 | 12 | 42 | 1 | 1 | 41 | 65 | 8 | 2 | .259 | .356 | .455 | .354 | 44 | 90 | 14 |
| davenport | 318 | 273 | 38 | 72 | 14 | 1 | 14 | 41 | 1 | 1 | 43 | 65 | 7 | 2 | .265 | .369 | .478 | .370 | 47 | 96 | 14 |
| marcel | 318 | 272 | 42 | 72 | 16 | 1 | 13 | 42 | 1 | 1 | 39 | 65 | 7 | 3 | .264 | .356 | .465 | .357 | 45 | 91 | 14 |
| oliver | 318 | 272 | 38 | 71 | 16 | 1 | 11 | 41 | 1 | 1 | 40 | 64 | 8 | 2 | .260 | .354 | .441 | .349 | 42 | 87 | 12 |
| pecota | 318 | 272 | 41 | 68 | 15 | 1 | 12 | 39 | 1 | 1 | 43 | 70 | 7 | 3 | .251 | .359 | .444 | .354 | 43 | 89 | 13 |
| zips | 318 | 270 | 41 | 68 | 15 | 1 | 13 | 44 | 1 | 1 | 43 | 70 | 8 | 2 | .253 | .358 | .456 | .356 | 44 | 90 | 14 |
| average | 318 | 271 | 43 | 70 | 15 | 1 | 12 | 41 | 1 | 1 | 41 | 66 | 7 | 2 | .259 | .358 | .458 | .357 | 44 | 90 | 14 |
| 2012 | 318 | 279 | 36 | 73 | 21 | 0 | 13 | 36 | 1 | 1 | 32 | 70 | 5 | 2 | .262 | .336 | .477 | .349 | 44 | 91 | 14 |
| diff | -7 | 3 | 6 | -1 | 1 | -5 | 0 | 0 | -9 | 4 | -2 | 0 | .002 | -.022 | .019 | -.008 |
Swisher’s traded some OBP for SLG which is generally not a great idea. But his overall value has been right about where it projected to be. I suppose one could conceivably make the case that with some combination of Raul Ibanez, Russell Martin and the LF of the day behind him the slugging to drive in the five guys in front of him is worth more than being on base for the people behind him to knock him in would be. But that also means he’s making more outs and costing the better hitters more PA as well.
Next post will cover the rest of the key position players, including one who has shocked the world by remaining a Yankee at the All Star Break.
Page 1 of 1 pages:








