Community Projection Review: Matt Capps
| PLAYER | POS. | COMMUNITY | ZiPS | ACTUAL |
| Matt Capps | RP | 73.3 IP, 63 K, 17 BB, 2.93 ERA |
90 IP, 68 K, 15 BB, 3.40 ERA | 53.7 IP, 39 K, 5 BB, 3.02 ERA |
The community did pretty well here; it didn't foresee that Capps would miss time, but it still pwned ZiPS, which did an even poorer job of foreseeing Capps' injury problems and projected that Capps would appear in a remarkable 90 games. Capps has been a workhorse in the past, but no one in baseball has pitched in at least 90 games since Salomon Torres did it in 2006 and only eight pitchers in the history of baseball have done it; this year's appearance leader, Pedro Feliciano, was in 86, and appearance leaders are often specialists like him. Capps has never really been a specialist, and the saves he earned in 2007 should have told ZiPS that. I have no idea what ZiPS was thinking there--that's just a brain fart for a system that's normally pretty reasonable.
What's especially weird about projecting 90 appearances for Capps is that one would think his high appearance totals in 2006 and, to a lesser extent, 2007 would have made Capps less likely to do it in 2008, not more. Of course, that's speculation on my part, since so few pitchers in their early 20s have done what Jim Tracy had Capps do.
Tracy's treatment of Capps in the 2006 season, in particular, was incredibly irresponsible; Capps' 85 appearances that year as a 22-year-old were the 25th most in a season by a pitcher, of any age, in the history of baseball. The only other pitchers in their early 20s to throw nearly that many games were the 21-year-old Oscar Villareal (who pitched 86 games as a 21-year-old in 2003, then spent the next two years with more forearm, elbow, shoulder and hip injuries than an octogenarian after a fall down a flight of stairs) and Mitch Williams, who appeared in 85 games as a 22-year-old in 1987 and never got better or pitched in more than 76 games in a season after that.
In other words, Tracy's use of Capps was thoroughly bizarre and downright historic. Perhaps it's no wonder, then, that ZiPS throws up its hands. I'm certainly not directly blaming Tracy for the injury, as I don't know of any studies of correlations between appearances (as opposed to innings) and injuries, and even if there were they probably wouldn't have much to say about Capps, who poses a really extreme example. It may well Capps' shoulder problems this year are just a coincidence.
The point, though, is this: why? There's no excuse for Tracy's behavior. Even when the 2003 Angels had an even better reliever than Capps in Francisco Rodriguez and a nail-biter of a pennant race against the Athletics, they only let Rodriguez pitch in 69 games. The Pirates weren't in a pennant race in 2006. Not even close. In Tracy's defense, Capps stayed healthy in 2007 and much of 2008, but that doesn't excuse Tracy's behavior.
Anyway, no one really nailed this one; the only person who got close in the innings pitched department was Scoreboard, who thought Capps would rack up 20 walks. Probably the best projection overall belonged to Thegetupkids who, despite what appears to be a complete lack of musical taste (just kidding) guessed that Capps would post a 3.00 ERA to go with 68 strikeouts and ten walks. These numbers might have ended up pretty accurate if Capps had played the whole season.
0 recs |
9 comments
|
Comments
to me, the most remarkable stat about Capps in 2008...
… was the only five walks allowed… especially considering that 2 of them came in his first appearance of the season, and none after he returned from the DL.
by humbucker on Oct 23, 2008 11:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that Zips was predicting
90 appearances for Capps but rather 90 innings pitched. That is still a lot of innings for a reliever but it is not that unusual.
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 24, 2008 11:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ZiPS doesn't exactly predict PT.
It only estimates PT based on PT in past seasons. Since Capps had been used a lot in the past, it axiomatically assumed he’d continue to be used a lot in the future, and generated a projection for that amount of PT.
That’s why the team listings for ZiPS typically have seven or eight OFs all getting 400+ AB, and a similar number of pitchers with 20+ starts. All those guys were getting comparable amounts of PT in the majors/minors in past seasons.
by Vlad on Oct 27, 2008 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea why so many people thought the closer on a terrible baseball team with a vanilla manager would rack up more than 70 innings.
by scoreboard on Oct 24, 2008 1:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice hindsight
“So many” people probably just punched up his numbers at bbref and saw that he pitched 80 and 79 innings the two years before. And we all knew how vanilla Russell was because of his lengthy major league track record. What does vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry managing have to do with closer usage anyway?
Capps through 80 games in 2008 — 39 IP
Pirates throught 80 games — 38-42, thoroughly horrible.
Unreasonable to think he’d have put up another 33 innings if he stayed healthy.
by azibuck on Oct 24, 2008 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh, right...
and it’s not hindsight if you say so in march.
by scoreboard on Oct 24, 2008 11:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You didn't say anything (here) in March.
And we were talking about other people. That you knew was neither here nor there. You, in hindsight, seem to have expected everyone else here to know Russell was vanilla, and that somehow applied to his closer usage. If your projection for Capps was based solely on the Pirates being terrible and Russell being vanilla, then your projection was horribly wrong since he would have beaten your projection by the break if he didn’t go on the DL.
And even though Charlie is Mr. Negative, the rest of us are all sunshine and light. I guess we just didn’t collectively think they’d be “terrible”. And until the deadline, we were pretty much correct.
by azibuck on Oct 25, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 













