Community Projection: Corey Patterson the Oriole

by SC on Jan 10, 2006 12:43 AM EST in News Comment 25 comments

The folks over at Minor League Ball and other SB Nation sites have done this type of thing before, and I think it's always a pretty interesting way to see what people are thinking, so I'm going to try it here.

The idea is simple: Project the stats for [X] for the upcoming season. Hopefully this'll go well enough that we can run through most of the team. We'll start with the newest Oriole, Corey Patterson.

Here are his numbers from the last four seasons:

           AB   AVG   OBP   SLG   HR   SB/CS     BB/K
2002 CHC  592  .253  .284  .392   14    18/3   19/142
2003 CHC  329  .298  .329  .511   13    16/5    15/77
2004 CHC  631  .266  .320  .452   24    32/9   45/168
2005 CHC  451  .215  .254  .348   13    15/5   23/118

What I'm looking for is the following Patterson projection: AVG/OBP/SLG line, HR, SB/CS and BB/K. I won't do the same thing for every player, because who cares how many bases Javy Lopez steals, for instance.

Once we get this, I'll total it up, figure out the community average, and after the season we'll see how close we were. I'm not going to post mine until I put up the total average.

Have at!

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well here I go

Corey Patterson I think will improve his number because of a few factors - 1. Camden Yards 2. Other smaller parks in the AL (although he's losing Houston)3. AL pitching can't throw junk waiting for pitcher to come to bat. 4. Less pressure, able to learn. 5. Age.

So here ya go:

.288/.310/.460 - 26, 18/4, 65/90

PLay like you want it, Live like you need it

by merdon1332000 on Jan 10, 2006 1:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sixty-five walks???

You must be joking. Patterson has had sixty-eight walks in his last 1082 at-bats. He is simply incapable of looking at a pitch.

Wait till you see him flailing at pitches two feet over his head.

You'll be lucky to get his career numbers: .252/.293/.414; maybe 10 HR, 15/7, 30/140.

by Al Yellon on Jan 10, 2006 5:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It seems...

Patterson can't lay off the junk pitches, so why would pitchers in the AL throw quality pitches to him if they know he'll swing at crap in the dirt or up at the shoulders? Switching leauges is not going to suddenly erase this guy's very real flaws.

Of course, it's always possible that after having seen the Cubs give up on him Patterson will get his head together and realize that he has to change his approach, but my guess is there are a few million Cardinals fans hoping the same thing about Sidney Ponson. Let's take this for what it is: a low risk long-shot.

by rebop on Jan 10, 2006 9:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Look at

our hitting coach compared to what the Cubs have. Even with the crappy teams we've had we still are always in the top 10 teams for hitting and mostly ave. I think you'll see a difference by mid year with Patterson and his numbers will show that by the end of the season. If not it's worth the risk anyway.

PLay like you want it, Live like you need it

by merdon1332000 on Jan 10, 2006 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Patterson

.265/312/450/20-7/20/35/ 103 I'm not all that optamistic. He seems like the PoNson of the OF wihout the appetite.

by el gordo on Jan 10, 2006 1:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Corey Patterson

.264/.307/.462, 22 HR, 24 SB/6 CS, 38 BB/126 K

by tank222 on Jan 10, 2006 6:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

C-Pat (ok I made that up...)

.272/.326/.475, 24 HR, 30 SB/9 CS, 50 BB/135 K.

Those aren't horrific numbers but they're not great either. Sadly, they're also optimistic. I'm thinking he struggles for the first few months of the season, then goes on a hot streak to bring his numbers up to where I have him projected.

Beltway Sports Beat: A blog or fans of Baltimore-Washington area sports

by CStoneNo37 on Jan 10, 2006 9:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Guess

.257/.293/.443, 18 HR, 18 SB/7 CS, 31 BB/120 K.

And I'd be satisfied with that.

by Joltin Joe Orsulak on Jan 10, 2006 9:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

WAG

.255/.270/.400, 14 HR, 18 SB/7 CS, 25 BB / 125 K

"You win pennants in the off season when you build your teams with trades and free agents." Earl Weaver

by drj on Jan 10, 2006 10:32 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

My Guess...

.243/.277/.394, 17 HR, 16 SB/7 CS, 30 BB/156 K

The HR/SB/CS/BB/K totals assume a full-time roll, which I don't think he'll have.

Assuming that he will be used only part-time those totals look more like this:

8 HR, 7 SB/4 CS, 16 BB/76 K

He'll be a better fill in than David Newhan during Matos' inevitable injuries, but that's about it.

by rebop on Jan 10, 2006 10:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Matos

Might be heading to the Mets for Kris Benson

http://www.benmaller.com/#mlb_rumors_notes

PLay like you want it, Live like you need it

by merdon1332000 on Jan 10, 2006 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Patterson will be a steal for the Orioles

.272/.315/.485 20HR 25 SB/7 CS 30BB/120K

I think he will improve as he gets older. Cub fans and the Cub organization lumped too many expectations on him and expected him to be a star right away. When he didn't perform the boos started and he is fragile mentally. If he can go into Baltimore and get off to a good start he will get some confidence and you will have an all star caliber player.

Excellent move for the O's. Why not give 2 low level "prospects" to take a flyer on a guy who could be a star and if he doesn't then cut him loose. He isn't paid much either. Good luck Corey!

by JonH on Jan 10, 2006 10:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

SBNation needs a centralized login system.

It's ridiculous to call yourselves a network when all you are are a bunch of sites with a similar theme. I do like the sites and the idea though :)

by JonH on Jan 10, 2006 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Matos

This is his FA year I believe. Some thing magical seems to happen to a player's powers of concentration during such a time. Sort of like what happens with the prospect of a Hanging. I wouldn't be surprised if he had a break out year but I wouldn't be fooled either.

by el gordo on Jan 10, 2006 10:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Read this

The Myth of The "Walk Year"

I have not dug up any of Krautmann's articles, but I've read that others have come to the same conclusion.

"You win pennants in the off season when you build your teams with trades and free agents." Earl Weaver

by drj on Jan 10, 2006 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

good article

I think the myth of walk year exists due to a few unusual cases where a players has a wacky year right before free agency (e.g. Beltre comes straight to mind, Javy Lopez to a lesser extent). I do disagree with one of statements though.

"The main problem with this logic is that it assumes baseball GMs are idiots. Well, maybe they are, but I prefer not to have my logic rest of the stupidity of others. Why would a GM be impressed by a player who has a great "walk year?" Are they so short-sighted or naïve not to realize that - if the "walk" year concept is real - as soon as the player signs another multi-year deal, he'll be a dog until that contract's final year?"

Unfortunately, GMs do become impressed by walk years if the player is young. Beltre and Ponson come immediately mind. Both players had reputations of playing under their potential then had good walk years. Consequently, both landed wealthy contracts that offseason. I don't think its naivety on the part of GMs as much as they anticipate that player X has finally turned a corner and will now become the player everybody expect him to be, blah, blah, blah. Sometimes though it works though Aramis Ramirez had exactly one good season (and a decent walk year) before signing a big contract with the Cubs and he's been pretty good the last two seasons.

by birdman on Jan 10, 2006 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Stupid

GM's are stupid. $250MILL. for ARod? $60 mill. and 6 yrs. for Millwood, $50mill and 5 for Burnett? I could go on. They don't respond to logic, they react, often hysterically, to perceptions of the Market. If GM's were smart there would be no BorASS. J.Lopez, Jeff Weaver, Beltre, Beltran, Ponson, Millwood, Burnett, Pavano, Brown, Hampton, to name a few off the top of my head are just coincidence. It's not so much a matter of dogging it(except in the case of Matos)it's more a matter of dialing it up. They do it all the time in the Playoffs. Look at Tejada . He dialed it down when it didn't look like we were in it any more. Young players aren just trying to make it to FA. Average players can't Dial it up, that's why they're average.

by el gordo on Jan 10, 2006 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

It would be interesting to see what the "walk year" stats are for the "above average" players. I have no idea if they would show that they hike their play in a contract year versus others. I still tend to think it will not be a trend. We just remember the extreme cases.

Speaking of A-Rod, here's a dissenting opinion Evaluating A-Rod. The problem with this article is it does not measure the amount of money A-Rod brings into the organization. If his presence accounts for more than his salary to the organization, I'd say he is worth it. Just saying he's a consisently good player doesn't guarantee he's bringing the bottom line into the black. Anyhow, the Yankees aren't balking at his salary. On the other hand, the Red Sox sure act as if Manny's contract is an albatross.

I do share the perception that GMs can sure act like jackasses. Bidding up marginal players, when some restraint would seem to be benificial to all (isn't that a classic behavioral study?). On the other hand, they are businessmen, and I'd really like to understand some of the rationale for the outrageous decisions.

"You win pennants in the off season when you build your teams with trades and free agents." Earl Weaver

by drj on Jan 10, 2006 8:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

studies

"It would be interesting to see what the "walk year" stats are for the "above average" players."

The article mentioned a study that examined the relationship between contract year and performance. It found no relationship.

"I do share the perception that GMs can sure act like jackasses. Bidding up marginal players, when some restraint would seem to be benificial to all (isn't that a classic behavioral study?)."

Yup, the good ole prisoner's dilemma.

by birdman on Jan 10, 2006 10:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

I meant restrict the study to only above average players (however that would be measured). el gordo's premise seemed to be that these guys can more readily up their game, and decide when to dog it. I still doubt the study would find this to be the case in a contract year.

"You win pennants in the off season when you build your teams with trades and free agents." Earl Weaver

by drj on Jan 10, 2006 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Isolated Skills

One way of doing a half-assed projection is to focus on a player's isolated skills -- isolated power (SLG-AVG) and isolated discipline (OBP-AVG). Take a look at what Patterson's done:

(Year -- Discipline -- Power)
2002 -- .031 -- .139
2003 -- .031 -- .213
2004 -- .054 -- .186
2005 -- .039 -- .133

2004 looks like an outlier in terms of discipline, while 2003 looks like a moderate outlier in terms of power. Barring a continued collapse, I think what we're looking at is probably a (pathetic) isolated discipline of between .030 and .040, but his power has fluctated a bit more. Given what he's likely to average, a .130 isolated power won't make him a useful player, but if he can push it back to 2003/2004 levels (.180 to .200, say), then he'll be a moderate asset, despite a brutally low OBP.

We know he won't walk much, so what's going to make the difference is (1) how well his average rebounds, and (2) how much power he shows. Thus, my projection above takes what I hope is a reasonable projection for average, adds between .030 and .040 for OBP, and (here's the optimistic part) gives him an isolated slugging of .180-.190 or so. I'm hoping this is a realistic yet positive scenario. I just don't see a situation where he hits .260 yet has a .320 OBP -- but at the same time, he'd have to get significantly worse to hit .255 and have a .270 OBP or .288 and have a .310 OBP.

by Joltin Joe Orsulak on Jan 10, 2006 10:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

So...

Looking at the numbers that have come out so far, I think that Rebop's and JonH's projections define the opposite ends of a realistic spectrum of performance for Patterson. Rebop has the downside (SLG could even be a little bit worse), and JonH has the upside (a repeat, more or less of his best discipline and power numbers thus far).

There's also the scenario where he continues to stink as badly as he did last year, but I think all Os fans, at least, are expecting SOME kind of rebound, even if it's only to the levels Rebop suggests.

by Joltin Joe Orsulak on Jan 10, 2006 11:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like the patterson pick up

Look, we got patterson for a song. He's extremely talented. He might be a bust, but at virtually no risk? great little pick up.

by janfrel on Jan 10, 2006 12:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Projecting Patterson

I think he struggles a bit, but shows a few flashes during the year.

.256/.292/.385 15HR 12/5 21/104

by MHef08 on Jan 10, 2006 1:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Patterson

.249/.284/.384, 10 HR, 11 SB/5 CS, 21 BB/122 K

I don't see a struggling player from the NL coming to the AL and immediately finding success. I doubt he'll be given a great chance because it's very doubtful he'll wrestle the starting job away from Matos. I see either Markakis or another OF we get from a late trade winning the LF spot. Patterson will probably warm the bench if he's on the team at all. The O's aren't going to be as patient with him as they were with Sosa.

by BleedingOrange on Jan 10, 2006 1:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs