Behold, A Rusney Castillo Projection

I don’t think it’s any secret we’ve been talking up the 2015 Red Sox for a while around here. It’s not so much that any of us are rooting for the Red Sox; it’s more that the numbers kept suggesting the Red Sox were in good shape, and we’re nothing if not loyal to the numbers. Our projected standings, based on the author-maintained depth charts, have long held that the Red Sox are a legitimate World Series contender. Yet for so long, one thing was missing: a projection for Rusney Castillo.

It’s not that he wasn’t on the depth chart. It’s that he was previously projected for something like -0.2 WAR, which is to say, Steamer hadn’t yet bothered to work anything out. So our actual numbers were incomplete. Now, granted, -0.2 WAR might be a fine projection for Rusney Castillo, but that seems unlikely, based on his skills and based on the price he fetched from the Sox on the market. Anyway, I just want to let you know what someone else let me know this morning: Castillo’s got real numbers by his name, now. I don’t know precisely when this happened, but our Red Sox page features an official 2015 Castillo projection, and wouldn’t you know it, but it’s favorable.

The strongest clue that Castillo is a pretty good ballplayer is that the Red Sox gave him a seven-year contract worth $72.5 million. Contracts bust all the time, but MLB features 30 teams who all want to get better in the short-term and in the long-term. The organizations most invested in this game came together and created a market in which Castillo got three-quarters of a hundred million dollars. We don’t have much of a performance record. We have a few dozen plate appearances outside of Cuba, scouting reports, and contract terms.

What does Steamer, on its own, choose to believe? It sees a slightly below-average walk rate. It sees a strikeout rate in the vicinity of average. It also sees some power that’s average-plus, along with a better-than-average ability to turn balls in play into hits. Put it together and you get a 112 wRC+. Add at least adequate running and adequate fielding and you have a quality regular player. I think many of us have long been assuming Castillo to be at least average, and now we get to see those numbers show up in the team projections.

What did we learn, if anything, from Castillo’s brief big-league trial? He did smash a couple home runs, towering shots over the Monster, so there’s power there. He swung at pitches at a rate well above the average, making contact a normal amount of time. Of his 30 balls in play, 20 were grounders, so that might indicate something about his swing path. Alternatively, Castillo might not have done a good job of representing himself, after a whirlwind of a year, but all we can go on is what we have.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

Based on the way Castillo was pitched by opponents, they were aggressive with fastballs and strikes. This frequently suggests a lack of concern regarding extra-base hits. But, it could be opponents were just trying to test Castillo’s bat speed. And a probably more obvious theory would be that opponents didn’t know how to pitch to him, either. He was new to the States. He never even played in the high minors.

If it’s scouting reports you want to review, here’s Kiley, from August. Here’s Kiley, from October. Here’s Dan Farnsworth, from September. One selected excerpt:

Since signing and playing for Red Sox affiliates for the last month or so, Castillo has been showing a more controlled BP with opposite field pop and has been surprisingly solid at the plate. The expectations are something around average hit/power tools (.260 to .270 and 15-20 homers) but this is a volatile enough situation that both tools could be below average or above average in the short term (and the long-term, too). Castillo’s game swing is more line-drive and all fields oriented than the swing he uses to showcase his plus raw power, so it remains to be seen if he can find the best of both swings.

Dave, in the past, has suggested that Castillo sounds quite a lot like Shane Victorino. For fun, I took Castillo’s Steamer projection, and compared it to players from the past three years. Now, this concerns just offense, not performance overall. In terms of walks, strikeouts, and power, Castillo matches names like Asdrubal Cabrera, Lonnie Chisenhall, and Allen Craig. That doesn’t take into account Craig’s apparent trajectory. A path like Victorino’s is within reach, but Victorino seems like more of a contact hitter, and Castillo seems like a more aggressive swinger. But. Who knows, you know?

Taking a step back, let’s just assume that Steamer isn’t wildly incorrect in its Castillo evaluation. Like, let’s assume that Castillo doesn’t completely suck. As I write this, the Red Sox now lead all of baseball in projected team WAR. They have a slight lead on the Nationals, and they have a substantial lead on the Mariners, who are projected at No. 2 in the American League. Just as importantly, look at how evenly those same Red Sox project:

2015, Projected C 1B 2B SS 3B LF CF RF DH SP RP WAR
MLB Average 3.0 2.7 2.1 2.3 3.1 2.1 2.8 2.4 1.6 8.9 1.9 32.5
Red Sox 3.1 3.0 5.0 2.9 4.3 3.7 3.8 3.1 2.7 10.8 2.8 45.0
Difference 0.1 0.3 2.9 0.6 1.2 1.6 1.0 0.7 1.1 1.9 0.9 12.5

They now look average or better at every position. They’re simultaneously super-deep and strong at the top, and having a Castillo projection completes the picture. As far as the playoffs would be concerned, the Red Sox could stand to add a higher-level starting pitcher, but for the regular season, they might well already be good enough. There’s no such thing as a collapse-proof team, but the Red Sox are trying to get as close as they can. It seems like it would take a lot to make them sink.

In closing, a poll. I don’t know why this should operate any differently from the Fan projections which we already have, but, I want to see where the community stands. What we have, for Rusney Castillo, is a 2015 Steamer projection. But, having a projection doesn’t mean we don’t still have an incredibly limited record. With so little to go on, Castillo is more difficult to project than the average young position player, so I’m curious to see where the votes are going to fall. I know that the categories are totally subjective, but I’m not worried about that. I don’t think you’re going to be torn between two options.





Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.

66 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Brian Cartwright
11 years ago

for 2015, Oliver projects Rusney Castillo for a 303 wOBA (0.96) 255/303/387

Spa City
11 years ago

Seems a bit low, but I am impressed Steamer was able to get a projection out for a guy with almost no track record.

Now we need Steamer to provide a projection for Kang Jung Ho. Based on a projection system I made up for the purpose of this comment, I project Kang at .270/.330/.420.

Bobby Ayala
11 years ago
Reply to  Spa City

Honestly I’m not sure what to think of a projection system that first could not make a projection, then magically did so without the writers of this site knowing about it. It opens a whole can of worms about exactly how these projections are made and how valid they are.

egschurkMember since 2020
11 years ago
Reply to  Bobby Ayala

It’s the rise of the machines

Spa City
11 years ago
Reply to  Bobby Ayala

It became self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th.

Cool Lester Smooth
11 years ago
Reply to  Bobby Ayala

Reason #823463428767 why I don’t like Steamer.

Remember when Dave wrote an entire article about how Will Middlebrooks was a pretty good pickup, even though he’s sucked for years, since Steamer was projecting him for a 95-ish wRC+, and then they changed the projection to an 84 wRC+ the next day?

ed
11 years ago

No, I don’t remember that. But then, I don’t really check the site that obsessively.

KMav
11 years ago

I had 4 questions coming in with Castillo. Did he have the arm for RF, the jumps and routes for CF, the plate discipline not to be a joke and close to average power in RF or above average in CF. He has so far answered all of those questions.

I still wonder if he won’t deflate like a Patriot playoff football and if he can hit breaking balls when he gets adjusted too, but I think he is worth the contract now[didn’t think so before] and that prime Victorino with a touch less defense is a great comp.

Jonny
11 years ago

“It’s not so much that any of us are rooting for the Red Sox; it’s more that the numbers kept suggesting the Red Sox were in good shape, and we’re nothing if not loyal to the numbers.”

There are several other teams for which the numbers are similarly suggestive but which aren’t receiving quite as much attention from Fangraphs. More fair to say, probably, that the numbers look good and also your writers are interested in Boston for whatever reason(s).

M W
11 years ago
Reply to  Jonny

D.C. is gaga for Betts (and in every chat 100 people throw out hypothetical trades involving him) that’s one major factor. It’s also rare to see a team implode and within 12 months be projected to be solid once again.

Alex
11 years ago
Reply to  M W

You mean like the 2012-13 Red Sox?

ed
11 years ago
Reply to  Alex

Yup. That was pretty rare.

M W
11 years ago
Reply to  Alex

Yes

DL80
11 years ago
Reply to  M W

I think it is also that almost every fan of baseball has a strong feeling about Boston and/or the Red Sox. Most people love them or hate them (just as they do with the Yankees), so it’s guaranteed page views.

Does anyone hate the Padres? (besides Padres fans)

Sean C
11 years ago

Steamer600 has Rusney Castillo as the 16th most valuable OF. Color me excited.

Orsulakfan
11 years ago

Guys, just do everyone a favor. If it turns out that the projections are off and Boston is not as amazing as you think they are (like last year), be loyal to the actual numbers and spend a proportionate amount of space to other teams. I know they might not get the page-views and clicks, but the coverage on this site is out of whack.

arc
11 years ago
Reply to  Orsulakfan

Equal time on every team is a terrible content strategy. From an analytic perspective, from a narrative perspective, from a transaction perspective, from no perspective are each of the teams equally interesting.

Jon L.
11 years ago
Reply to  arc

This calls for a poll. Which are the most boring and most interesting teams to read about?

DL80
11 years ago
Reply to  Jon L.

The Orioles are super boring and have done nothing this offseason (No, “wait for injured players to return” doesn’t count as anything).

I think the Mariners are actually more interesting/exciting than is necessarily represented in the articles here. I think many of the writers consciously or subconsciously don’t write about them because they are worried about the backlash of “This site loves the Mariners so hard!”

I’d love to see an article about whether going to Seattle decreases/ends Cano’s chance to ever be a Hall of Famer.

Other “interesting” teams that may not get written about as much as I’d like: Astros, Cubs, Cardinals, Mets, Indians, and the Hall of Fame (voting, deserving/undeserving members, locks for future inclusion, etc.).

Take it for what you will.

Orsulakfan
11 years ago
Reply to  arc

I know it would result in fewer clicks, etc. But at the same time are teams really inherently more “interesting” or are is there just a constant feedback loop of coverage and fan interest? It’s frustrating to fans of other teams. I don’t find the Red Sox particularly interesting, and certainly last place teams don’t usually attract this much attention. Whatever, the people here can do what they want, but if you wonder why people resent the big-media teams, here’s why. Fangraphs could be fighting the beast rather than feeding it.

arc
11 years ago
Reply to  Orsulakfan

Not “inherently” more interesting, but this site obviously has a particular focus and a particular readership. To that end, some teams are very clearly more interesting than others.

And even if it didn’t have that focus, just for example, inactive teams provide less to talk about than active teams. To my mind, the expectations that coverage be equal is wholly unrealistic.

William
11 years ago
Reply to  Orsulakfan

I’d say there’s a lot about the Red Sox that makes them inherently interesting. Going from last to first to last to being projected as the best team. Simply being a good team. Interesting big league assets that may be traded soon. Significant minor league talent and major league growth assets (including two highly-regarded players in Betts and Bogaerts). A strategy of team building based on accruing depth over top-end talent. A strategy focused on leveraging home-field strengths/minimizing home-field weaknesses (pull RH power, ground-ball pitching). Player acquisition that went against what people initially believed was necessary. Significant roster turnover. A 3B moving to LF, a 2B playing a utility role, a SS who may or may not stick, competition at 1B and at OF.

I don’t know about you, but to me there seems a lot to write about here.

MustBunique
11 years ago
Reply to  Orsulakfan

It may be time to realize that fans of specific teams need to leave as much of their team bias at the door and check back in as a fan of baseball as a whole. I am more interested in the analysis itself and am interested in articles about any MLB team. If I really want to see how the analysis applies to a team that I like, I can take what was written about and apply the concepts to whichever team I want. Perhaps as a cross section of the general baseball loving public I am in the minority, but then again you are here on this site, which is already a unique cross section of MLB fans. Most of the time I am able to read past these comments, and I probably should have here, but I feel they derail legitimate conversation about the topic at hand.

King Buzzo's fro
11 years ago
Reply to  Orsulakfan

All this coming from a Joe Orsulak fan.

Orsulakfan
11 years ago

You’re right MustBunique, I should refrain from this sort of thing. I really wasn’t trying to be a troll. I just hope for more objectivity from a stats-based site is all, and sometimes it makes me annoyed. But I agree that it is pointless to argue about it. I’ll take what I can from this site and try to ignore the annoyances.

rosborneMember since 2016
11 years ago

When will Tomas get a projection?

nerf
11 years ago

Yes, please, Fangraphs. Stop what you’re doing. There are so many other places on the internet with consistent daily analysis, constant chat interaction with readers, podcasts and statistics. I’ll go to some of the other amazing places that have that.

Bleacher Report Graphs
11 years ago
Reply to  nerf

You’ve still got Zoidberg…

Ryan Howard
11 years ago

Am I the only one who laughed at this?

t ball
11 years ago

That chart shows why the Red Sox may not feel the need to go after the rotation ace everyone seems to think they are missing this offseason. The biggest single advantage over “average” projected WAR is in the rotation. They can afford to wait and ride things out until at least spring training, if not mid-season and see where they need to tweak.

Shayce
11 years ago
Reply to  t ball

I don’t know, do you really want to be counting on guys like Masterson, Buchholz and Kelly? Would anyone be surprised if any of those guys get injured (Buchholz) or suck (the other two)?
Their 6th and 7th starter are Workman and Owens. Workman’s okay, but is Owens ready yet?
I could easily see a scenario where Masterson’s 2-pitch mix doesn’t end up working in the AL East, Kelly’s K/BB continues to be bad and Buchholz gets injured in the first few months. What then?
On the other hand, if everything goes right, then the rotation could be solid.
A lot of different outcomes possible…

fjtorres
11 years ago
Reply to  Shayce

The team that walks into spring training is not necessarily the team hoisting the WS Trophy in Oct, even when they wear the same uniform.
Stuff happens in-season that affects player roles and roster construction. Players become available or more affordable or simply have good years.

For all we know the BoSox are waiting to see how Cliff Lee comes back or if the Reds tank and Cueto becomes available.

Besides, teams *have* made it to the WS without dominant #1 pitchers. Don’t even have to look too far back…

Last year’s KC, the 90’s Indians…

arc
11 years ago
Reply to  Shayce

In years past, probably not. But we keep seeing the lesson reinforced that with the wildcard changes, you can get yourself into the playoffs with a lot less than before.

The question then becomes how valuable is a playoff ace. Intuitively, it seems really important. You would definitely want e.g. Clayton Kershaw starting for you, right? Right? But small samples do weird things and that’s why the playoffs have always been “a crapshoot”.

I am not sure that I would feel comfortable with the Red Sox strategy, but I think there’s an argument to be made for it in the new wildcard paradigm that couldn’t have been made before it.

vivalajeter
11 years ago
Reply to  t ball

To me, it looks like 2B is the biggest advantage over average. But aside from that, I don’t think the Steamer projection is going to give their front office faith that their rotation is one of the 5 best in the league.

If you gave their GM some truth serum and asked if he’d swap his rotation with the Mets’ rotation (just for 2015 performance. set aside contracts, service time, etc), I’d imagine he would do that in a heartbeat. But they have the 5th best rotation according to Steamer, while the Mets have the 20th. Heck, if they traded for both Wheeler and deGrom, Steamer would put one of them as the #5 starter and another in the bullpen.

arc
11 years ago
Reply to  vivalajeter

For sure Boston’s starting five is the envy of almost no one. Their overall starting rotation depth, though (pitching prospects + pieces to trade for pitching if necessary), is arguably a different story.

Bryan
11 years ago
Reply to  t ball

But remember that the SP WAR total is much higher than the other positions since it represents (roughly) five full-time players vs. one.

The 1.9 WAR gap is only 21% better than league average. In a sense you could think of that as about 0.4 of a win per starter. Not much. I think the better way to look at that table is as follows:

Position, % Boston is better than league average
2B, 138%
LF, 76%
DH, 69%
RP, 47%
3B, 39%
CF, 36%
RF, 29%
SS, 26%
SP, 21%
1B, 11%
C, 3%

So, relative to Boston’s other projected positional advantages, it’s clear that the starting pitching isn’t a standout.

Pure
11 years ago

Can we please get a button that hides all the projection posts?

Joshua
11 years ago
Reply to  Pure

There’s this weird thing called an ‘article title’ that informs you what each article will be about. This article title has the word ‘projection’ in it, to inform the potential reader that this article will be talking about, at least, one projection.

It may not be a button, but you have the tools in front of you to not have to read about projections.

Sean C
11 years ago
Reply to  Joshua
Jim
11 years ago
Reply to  Pure

Are you so incompetent that you’re incapable of not clicking on them?

williams .482Member since 2016
11 years ago

where is this projected 112 wRC+? Castillo’s player page and the projection leaderboards are both showing a 98 wRC+.

arc
11 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Sullivan

A real knee-slapper!

DL80
11 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Sullivan

Redo the poll! We’ll all vote “Far too low”!

Roger
11 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Sullivan

Wait, so why are we taking Steamer seriously again? It seems like making an oracle out of a black box that changes its inputs and outputs all the time without notice is perhaps not the best way to advance the cause of statistical modeling?

Bobby Ayala
11 years ago
Reply to  Roger

This. I know it’s better than nothing, but as you go through player by player you notice Steamer is insanely pessimistic, projecting regression in almost everyone and career-lows from a lot of guys who have no indicators of such and are young but established.

To pull a random example, Nick Vincent is projected to have career worsts in K, BB, and HR rates, career worst FIP (by over half a run!)

It wouldn’t be so bad if we just knew to take it with a grain of salt, but then these articles projecting what teams are good and bad, what players are worth in trade or by contract, all based on Steamer. It’s like the foundation was poured wrong but we just keep building higher and higher.

J. Cross
11 years ago
Reply to  Bobby Ayala

Bobby,

I think you should consider the possibility that you might be optimistic (a fine thing to be, don’t get me wrong). The offensive levels might surprise (a lower ERA’s each year for the last few) but outside of that the projections are not, on average, pessimistic. Sure, we’ll miss our share but if you’re always thinking that players will do better than Steamer suggests, that’s your optimism talking not a comment on the projections.

Roger
11 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Sullivan

But you only know that that’s what happened because you had some behind-the-scenes communication with the people running Steamer, right? The rest of us just see a changing number on a website, with zero discussion of source data, methodology, etc., all of which are apparently a total proprietary black box. It may seem more transparent to you than to your readers — but from the outside it just looks totally opaque.

J. Cross
11 years ago
Reply to  Roger

Roger, I apologize for the lack of transparency and sudden change here. What happened is that players need a certain minimum of data in order to get a projection. Most of the data shows up automatically, but Cuban data is an exception. Rusney Castillio didn’t have a projection b/c we hadn’t manually inputed the Cuban data for him but then… his Arizona Fall League data arrived and suddenly he had enough data and a projection showed up before we knew it/were ready for it. I can’t promise that we won’t have slip ups like this in the future — there are a lot of moving parts and this is a hobby after all. Feel free to take Steamer as with whatever degree of seriousness you prefer. I think our track record stacks up pretty well but obviously I’m probably not the best person to ask.

Bobby Ayala
11 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Sullivan

Did he play any company softball in the last few years? Maybe we can fold in those stats as well 😛

Cool Lester Smooth
11 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Sullivan

Steamer

This didn’t take too long to become a little wrong.

everdiso
11 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Sullivan

maybe stop falling all over yourselves to rush out an article any time a new stat pops up which makes them look good?

Sinnycal
11 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Sullivan

I was wondering if that was factored in. Honestly, I still don’t get the love for him. If an American minor league player in his mid-20’s put up Castillo’s Cuban numbers in his third season repeating AA, he would universally be viewed as organizational fodder. He could put together a choreographed workout for scouts, but nobody would show up or care. I just don’t see how Castillo’s big contract was anything other than the market wildly–if not embarrassingly–overreacting to Puig and Abreu.

everdiso
11 years ago

“It’s not so much that any of us are rooting for the Red Sox; it’s more that the numbers kept suggesting the Red Sox were in good shape, and we’re nothing if not loyal to the numbers. ”

a word of warning – yes, your site is currently projecting 44.2 war from the sox roster this year……but we should all remember that this roster in reality combined for only 36.4war last year.

that is obviously a massive projected improvement based on nothing other than these same players suddenly becoming 20-25% more valuable this year.

which is especially interesting given how many of their key players have potentially significant age and injury decline issues.

if you’re using steamer to justify all the red sox talk, keep in mind that its impossible not to see their projections as very aggressive for this team.

James
11 years ago
Reply to  everdiso

Yup same roster… Besides their big improvements.

Spud
11 years ago
Reply to  everdiso

How is this the same team? What are you even talking about? They have Hanley in left and Pablo at 3b as well as two of the more promising infield prospects one yr older. Pedroia is stronger and healthier. There is no way this team can be compared to last yrs sox directly like that. That’s dopey

everdiso
11 years ago
Reply to  Spud

the current roster they have now combined for 36.4war last year.

that same group of players is projected by steamer to earn 44.2war this year.

VarianceDealWithIt
11 years ago
Reply to  everdiso

That’s great, it’s really interesting. Now list the projected 25-man roster and show us where the projections are off. I’m especially curious how Rusney Castillo and Mookie Betts will measure up to their 2014 “full” season WAR.

everdiso
11 years ago
Reply to  everdiso

yes, I’m sure you want to guarantee greatness for the unproven players, and no fall off for all the older players.

everdiso
11 years ago
Reply to  everdiso

and now I’ve found even more convenient discrepancies on the sox’ depth chart page.

Uehara’s player page has him at 1.1war over 65ip. for some reason the depth chart page has him at 1.7war over 6.5ip.

tazawa is at 0.7 on his player page and 1.0 on the depth chart, both in 65ip.

that’s another full free win this site manages to “mistakenly” project the red sox for next year.

pft
11 years ago

One good thing for the Red Sox offense is that the pitching the AL East does not look that strong, assuming Tanaka and Pineda go down early for the Yankees. Still, Hanley is hurt quite often, Pablo has not been great in the regular season recentlu, Papi and pedroia one year older, abd Betts/Castillo should face pitchers adjusting to their small sample success, and Vazeshort

pft
11 years ago
Reply to  pft

This got cut-off somehow, I meant to finish by saying Vazquez and XB have yet to prove they can be a force at the plate against MLB pitching. Also, the rotation looks pretty mediocre unless Clay returns to his former self