JJ Wetherholt is one of the biggest All-Star snubs this year, but he still had a pretty great end to the first half of his rookie season. On Friday, he agreed to an eight-year contract extension that runs until the end of the 2034 season. Wetherholt is hitting .259/.356/.399 for a 114 wRC+ and 3.5 WAR, the last number leading the St. Louis Cardinals and ranking second among all second basemen, in a virtual tie with Brice Turang and trailing only Luis Arraez, whose advantage of two-tenths of a win comes from his time as a DH. The eight-year deal guarantees that Wetherholt will make $112.5 million, with the potential to net an additional $20 million from MVP votes and All-Star appearances. He also receives a $2 million signing bonus this fall, which ensures he’ll get something soon if the upcoming CBA negotiation proves to be an extended one.

We can argue all day whether or not Wetherholt is the most glaring All-Star omission this year, but with eight of the top 10 second basemen by WAR not making the cut, and a whole bunch of other positions to dig through, I’d have to write a very different article to tackle that question. But it’s inarguable that Wetherholt is having a marvelous rookie season, and is one of the favorites to win NL Rookie of the Year honors when it’s over. Read the rest of this entry »

The emergence of Statcast (and similar types of tracking data) over the last decade-plus has revolutionized many parts of baseball analysis. A big category that didn’t really exist prior was the notion of “expected” stats. Up until then, numbers were all tallies of results, and proto-expected metrics, like Bill James’ Component ERA, were derived from the classical array of stats. But tracking data opened up new opportunities in this area, allowing us to more closely look at home runs and strikeouts, and see the underlying processes and skills that made those results. While the past is always the past, expected stats are useful when talking about the future.

As someone who made the odd decision to work with baseball projections for half his life, I have a vested interest in finding the best use of this kind of information when predicting the future. Like the Statcast estimates (preceded with an x, as in xBA, xSLG, etc.), ZiPS has its own version, very creatively using a z instead. zStats do have some correlation with xStats, but not a perfect one, as ZiPS uses things like spray data, sprint speed, and plate discipline metrics in its estimates.

It’s important to remember these aren’t predictions in themselves. ZiPS certainly doesn’t just look at a pitcher’s zSO from the last year and say, “Cool, brah, we’ll just go with that.” But the data contextualize how events come to pass and are more stable than the actual stats are for individual players. That allows the model to shade the projections in one direction or the other. Sometimes that’s extremely important, such as in the case of homers allowed for pitchers. Of the fielding-neutral stats, homers are easily the most volatile, and home run estimators for pitchers are much more predictive of future homers than are actual homers allowed. Also, the longer a player “underachieves” or “overachieves” in a specific stat, the more ZiPS believes the actual performance rather than the expected one. Call this the Rule of Isaac Paredes, in honor of a player who constantly stymies zHR. In some ways, we’re projecting how cruel regression toward the mean will be.

More information on accuracy and construction can be found here.

As with the hitters, the best place to start is checking in on some of last year’s overachievers and underachievers. Read the rest of this entry »

The emergence of Statcast (and similar types of tracking data) over the last decade-plus has revolutionized many parts of baseball analysis. A big category that didn’t really exist prior was the notion of “expected” stats. Up until then, numbers were all tallies of results, and proto-expected metrics, like Bill James’ Component ERA, were derived from the classical array of stats. But tracking data opened up new opportunities in this area, allowing us to more closely look at home runs and strikeouts, and see the underlying processes and skills that made those results. While the past is always the past, expected stats are useful when talking about the future.

As someone who made the odd decision to work with baseball projections for half his life, I have a vested interest in finding the best use of this kind of information when predicting the future. Like the Statcast estimates (preceded with an x, as in xBA, xSLG, etc.), ZiPS has its own version, very creatively using a z instead. zStats do have some correlation with xStats, but not a perfect one, as ZiPS uses things like spray data, sprint speed, and plate discipline metrics in its estimates.

It’s important to remember these aren’t predictions in themselves. ZiPS certainly doesn’t just look at a pitcher’s zSO from the last year and say, “Cool, brah, we’ll just go with that.” But the data contextualize how events come to pass and are more stable than the actual stats are for individual players. That allows the model to shade the projections in one direction or the other. Sometimes that’s extremely important, such as in the case of homers allowed for pitchers. Of the fielding-neutral stats, homers are easily the most volatile, and home run estimators for pitchers are much more predictive of future homers than are actual homers allowed. Also, the longer a hitter “underachieves” or “overachieves” in a specific stat, the more ZiPS believes the actual performance rather than the expected one. Call this the Rule of Isaac Paredes, in honor of a player who constantly stymies zHR. In some ways, we’re projecting how cruel regression toward the mean will be. Read the rest of this entry »

When fans woke up on the first morning of May, the Cincinnati Reds led the NL Central with a 20-11 record and were coming off their fifth consecutive series win. Since that point, the Reds have been the second-worst team in baseball with a 19-34 record, and those same fans awoke on the first morning of July with Cincinnati in last place by three games. There’s a bit of good news, however, as the team’s ace, Hunter Greene, will finally make his 2026 MLB debut in Saturday’s holiday game against the Baltimore Orioles. The return of Greene couldn’t come sooner, but is it a case of too little, too late for the reeling Reds?

A lot was expected of Greene coming into the 2026 season. The second overall pick in the 2017 draft out of Notre Dame High School in Sherman Oaks, California, Greene was a long time coming. At that point, he’d already been featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated, in a story by Lee Jenkins, touting him as “the star baseball needs.” His career came close to being derailed by two missed seasons in 2019 and 2020 due to Tommy John surgery, with an assist from COVID to keep him from a 2020 return. Greene’s stuff remained intact after the involuntary time off, and he finally reached the majors in 2022. The 2024 season was his true coming-out party. He posted a 2.75 ERA and a 3.47 FIP in 150 1/3 innings, good enough to rank 10th in the NL with 3.7 WAR. Greene slashed off a walk per nine in 2025, and likely would have received some Cy Young votes if not for two stints on the injured list with a groin injury.

While last year was marred by injury, it wasn’t an arm ailment, and the Reds hoped to get a full, healthy year out of Greene this time around. They needed it, too. Cincinnati was near the bottom of the league in team wRC+ in both 2024 and 2025, and the team hasn’t had a wRC+ of 100 or better since 2010. With the offense expected to be lousy, the Reds likely had to get a lot from their pitching staff in order to be playoff relevant this year. Naturally, that outcome would probably require their best pitcher. But after a single appearance in the spring, Greene had surgery to remove bone chips from his elbow. Now, after spending three months of the season on the shelf, Greene is back. Read the rest of this entry »

With July just days away, we’re entering one of the most exciting stretches of the major league season, with the contours of the playoff race coming into full view, All-Star Week festivities looming, and the trade deadline fast approaching. Unfortunately, that doesn’t exempt us from having to contemplate the drier world of player compensation schema, and for what is unlikely to be the last time as MLB and the MLBPA negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement. Last week, MLB released a new proposal that would massively overhaul how major league players are paid. By my count, this is the league’s third proposal this month, following its more detailed outline of a potential salary cap and a separate framework that would make the largest changes to amateur talent acquisition since the draft was first instituted in 1965.

Any discussion of baseball’s finances tends to be emotionally charged among fans, so I will freely note my personal biases as a prelude to analyzing the league’s proposal. When I pay money to attend a baseball game (something I admittedly do less than I used to before I covered the sport professionally), I’m paying that money to watch the players play baseball, more so than to watch an owner own a team. Even cynical ol’ me had a Panini sticker book back in the day. Now, teams certainly bear many of the costs to get those players onto the field, but the largest expense — namely, the massive stadiums they play in — is one largely borne by taxpayers. If MLB has a revenue problem, that strikes me as something ownership ought to address. If Bob Castellini and Bob Nutting are suffering because Steve Cohen and Guggenheim Baseball Management have access to more potential revenue than they do (ignoring that the Mets’ and Dodgers’ owners paid a lot more for their respective teams because of those revenue streams) and someone needs to write Castellini and Nutting a check, I’m not sure why it should be Shohei Ohtani and Francisco Lindor (or at least, their comparable future versions) rather than the other owners.

That being said, let’s move on to the meat of the deal. Read the rest of this entry »

12:01

Dan Szymborski: Oh thank goodness, there are questions in the queue

12:04

Dan Szymborski: I think so, but it may be closer than they’re comfortable with, especially if they have a quiet deadline

12:04

Dan Szymborski: I’m not *highly confident* the Phillies are five games better than the Braves, but I think that it’s not unlikely

12:05

Dan Szymborski: If that makes sense

Read the rest of this entry »

One of the things I try to emphasize when I talk about projections is that they’re not numbers written in stone, but an array of estimates that’s always moving. Each individual plate appearance or inning pitched, while not a needle-mover on its own, adds to our knowledge of a player and very gently changes his career trajectory. Forecasting a player isn’t all that different from forecasting a hurricane, but thankfully, players cause a lot less mayhem. Except maybe Len Koenecke.

It’s been three months since the start of the season, and we have a lot of new information about players. Since we’re approaching the halfway point of the season, and the fact that I’m getting a few dozen chat questions a week about which players have seen their projections change the most, I thought this would be an appropriate time to do an in-season ZiPS run with the full-fat model that is too compute-intensive to run every day. To keep the list relevant to 2026 MLB goings-on, I narrowed it to players who either have played in the majors this year or are one of the 1,232 prospects on The Board. So my apologies to players such as Peyton Alford, who has seen his 2027 ERA+ projection jump from 88 to 110.

I’ve also separated starters from relievers, with pitchers projected to start in at least a third of their appearances landing with the starters. Since relievers tend to be more volatile than starting pitchers, I wanted to make sure the latter were represented. After all, a bump of 10 points of ERA+ in 180 innings is more impactful for a team than 15 points of ERA+ in 60 relief innings! Read the rest of this entry »

One of the things I try to emphasize when I talk about projections is that they’re not numbers written in stone, but an array of estimates that’s always moving. Each individual plate appearance or inning pitched, while not a needle-mover on its own, adds to our knowledge of a player and very gently changes his career trajectory. Forecasting a player isn’t all that different from forecasting a hurricane, but thankfully, players cause a lot less mayhem. Except maybe Len Koenecke.

It’s been three months since the start of the season, and we have a lot of new information about players. Since we’re approaching the halfway point of the season, and the fact that I’m getting a few dozen chat questions a week about which players have seen their projections change the most, I thought this would be an appropriate time to do an in-season ZiPS run with the full-fat model that is too compute-intensive to run every day. To keep the list relevant to 2026 MLB goings-on, I narrowed it to players who either have played in the majors this year or are one of the 1,232 prospects on The Board. So my apologies to players such as Tre Richardson III, whose projected 2027 OPS+ has improved from 54 to 74. I’ve ranked the players by the largest changes in projected 2027 OPS+ compared to what it was in the preseason. Read the rest of this entry »

Late last week, Major League Baseball proposed to drastically change the game’s player developmental system. Beginning in 2028, the domestic draft would be cut from 20 rounds to 12, and eliminate eligibility for high schoolers — players would need to be at least 20 years old and two years removed from high school to be drafted. Players who choose to play for a JUCO school would need to do so for both seasons, rather than the one-year requirement currently in place. Most players at a four-year college would become draft eligible a year earlier under MLB’s new proposal; right now, they are not eligible for the draft unless they turn 21 by August 1 of their draft year or until after their third year a four-year college. MLB’s proposal would move the age cutoff date back to September 1. More than 40% of the dollars would be pared from the draft pool, with the most recent $358.7 million available slashed to $200 million.

On the international side, MLB proposed instituting a new draft, an idea originally discussed during the last set of CBA negotiations. The draft, which would begin in 2027, would require players to be at least 18 years old by September 1 of their draft year. The draft pool would stay mainly intact otherwise, with the same $200 million available for international draftees as domestic ones, pretty close to the nearly $199 million that was in the final draft bonus pool in 2025.

We don’t need to do any detective work to figure out where the savings go. As was the case with the league’s parallel salary cap proposal, which management disingenuously promoted as a way to improve competitive balance, this proposal is part of the ever-continuing quest of owners to transfer money from the players’ pockets to their own. Based on pretty much every example ever, the money saved will not offset consumer costs, and I’d be shocked if it was redirected to improve the pay of team staffers, who tend to take in reduced salaries for the privilege of working in baseball, or minor leaguers.

J.J. Cooper covered the proposal in greater detail over at Baseball America, so I won’t go too in the weeds on it here today. Instead, I want to spotlight how much money the proposal would cost the game’s top players. Read the rest of this entry »

Top prospects like Jesús Made and Leo De Vries are among the game’s most exciting potential call-ups this season, but most of the players who make the majors in the next couple of months won’t be in the same galaxy as those guys when it comes to their potential. Some may be fringe prospects, others former standouts who fell off team lists — some may have even already been labeled journeymen or organizational players. Nevertheless, a good number of them will contribute in the big leagues down the stretch. Some of last year’s impact rookies, like Caleb Durbin, Isaac Collins, Joey Cantillo, Justin Wrobleski, and Chad Patrick, weren’t Top 100 prospects — most would have struggled to make a Top 500 list. Yet their production mattered, and you can point to a dozen players like that every year.

We’re still a month away from the trade deadline, but relatively few top-tier players are available and the ones who are won’t come cheaply, meaning many teams will have to look internally as they work to improve their rosters. Below, I’ve chosen seven players, either fringe prospects or guys who’ve fallen off the big league radar, who have some combination of projection, performance, improvement, or a pressing team need that makes them intriguing over the rest of the 2026 season. Naturally, this leaves out top prospects like Kade Anderson, who I absolutely adore, and even pretty good ones, like James Tibbs III. Let’s dig a little deeper. Read the rest of this entry »