User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 1.0213 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Projection systems all around seem to like the Reds for this season, what's up with that?
They've had about 15 ballyhooed prospects over the last three years - maybe all of them have been disappointing in the majors so far, but the projections haven't given up!
Actually I suppose that's fairly possible.
Trust the process!
Possible yes, but highly improbable.
http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/tmpred06.htm
I can't speak for PECOTA, but CAIRO basically thinks the pitching/defense will be the same as last year. The big bump is around 80 more runs scored. It looks like getting full seasons from Jay Bruce and Joey Votto and more Drew Stubbs and less Willy Taveras means good things for the offense, but I still think they're a tad high.
Two other notes. The Cubs and Rangers projections in CAIRO are about two wins low due to some incorrect defensive ratings. They're more like 86 and 81 wins respectively based on a subsequent re-run. That bumps them up to second place in their divisions.
Oh, I wouldn't consider Royal Hablanos nothing!
Slowly pulls knife away from ribcage. . .
It's a very bad sign if your projections are coming up with a lot of 90+ win teams. Yeah, I know they happen, but they more often tend to be 88-win teams with a little bit of good luck than they tend to be 105-win teams with bad luck. The standard deviation for team wins in a 162 game season is something like 6 just from random variation alone, so you should always see projections that are "tighter" in spread than what's observed.
(That was actually one of the big issues with the '09 team projections that Andy points out - the spread was just way too high on those. That's been corrected - we have a tighter spread in projections that's more in line with where it "should" be.) Vegas Watch has consistently placed PECOTA as one of the top forecasts for team wins in years before that.
The run totals on the standings page are all systemically high for some reason. This shouldn't affect the win totals much or the ordinal ranking of teams at all. But to forestall the "wow, that offense really turned it around!" or "wow, that pitching staff blew up!" comments... no, those are just RS/RA numbers for a 5 run per game league. Consider this an action item for me.
is saying -- then if it's spitting out such radical values as Cahill's ERA being south of 4 with a K/BB around 1.2, the system is out of whack. While it's not impossible for that to happen, to have it happening repeatedly with one team results in a projection that is, in essence, the equivalent of projecting a team to win 100 games.
That's not the only team with significant problems, either. It's just the most obvious one.
Well, they will have Yuniesky for the whole season.
I agree with that, for what it is worth. I think AA is doing the right things, but it means a whole bunch of losses this year.
The Cubs are kind of a clusterfeck, but there's no way they should project to 77 wins in the central.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
The Cards should be favored over the Cubs in the Central, but pitching's not the reason for that.
EDIT: Didn't realize how severe Busch's park factor(.919) was last year (or Wrigley's--1.146). Wow--that probably explains most if not all of that RA differential (don't know how many years of park factors the BP projection takes into account). Regardless, I don't see the Cards with an edge on the mound.
That's bad, but if they were running a casino, the first thing I'd do is bet the over on the Angels.
1. I have nothing but admiration for Colin, even though our time at THT didn't overlap by much if at all.
2. The fact that Colin wrote this tells me that he's going to be honest about the shortcomings of various BPro metrics (and metrics in general).
3. My most generalized criticism of sabermetrics is that analysts are often unclear, intentionally or not, about the shortcomings and error bars in their numbers - especially projections.
4. The presentation of this disclaimer on the blog, and not directly accompanying the projections, is problematic and I hope BPro is even *more* upfront about the error bars associated with projections such as these.
That's one funny, snarky post, Crispy.
A lot of that may come from the bullpen, all of whose members were good last year (except Randy Williams). Or less likely, maybe Javier Vazquez will be significantly worse than the Jose Contreras/Bartolo Colon conglomeration was last year.
Javier Vazquez will be on the Yankees. You mean Freddy Garcia? Although we'll likely see Dan Hudson and Carlos Torres make some starts, too...
It's hard to imagine that the addition of Jake Peavy (who made all of four starts for the Sox in '09) would make the staff worse.
CAIRO, except for the 102-win Yankees, looks reasonable.
Looking at the spreadsheet, there seems to be little correlation between the raw stats and the EQ stats for players on the same team. Looking at the A's, for example:
Player ERA RA EqERADevine 2.68 2.82 2.44
Cahill 3.86 4.07 3.89
Anderson 3.77 3.97 4.20
The same is true of the batting stats. Cust's numbers all go down from raw stats to Eq Stats (which makes no sense given the league/park), while Buck's numbers go up. Maybe this is due to component park factors?
Going back to Cahill and Anderson, they're projected to throw the same number of innings (158), yet Cahill has the better projected VORP (28.4 to 22.9) despite his worse ERA and RA. Is this due to the EqERA problem?
It has the whole league giving up a lot more runs for whatever reason.
Inexplicable. Adam Eaton's not in the league anymore!
Over the past six years, PECOTA has underestimated the White Sox win totals by about 8 wins per year (47 total). The number of wins by which the White Sox exceeded the number of wins predicted by PECOTA, by year:
2004: 4
2005: 19
2006: 8
2007: 0 (heckuva job, Silver!)
2008: 11
2009: 5
I don't feel particularly good about the White Sox's chances this year (I love the starting rotation*, but Andruw Jones at DH? what in the?). It's best to think of the predicted 79 wins as a floor, and their analysis of White Sox players as simply setting forth the worst case scenario. (If a player was good last year, they'll regress; if a player was bad last year, it's because he's a bad player.) Of course, maybe they're learning something -- they don't list the Indians as winning 95 games and running away with the AL Central.
*Not a lot of people know this, but the White Sox acquired a guy named Jake Peavy. He's pretty good.
I was hinting at that in number 15.
Their analysis is hidden behind the pay wall, so I can only guess at that. I know that PECOTA has traditionally hated Mark Buehrle and Gavin Floyd, though.
If you're right, that puts the 2010 White Sox somewhere around 85 wins, if they can stay reasonably healthy, which comports with my own gut feeling on this team.
Of course, maybe they're learning something -- they don't list the Indians as winning 95 games and running away with the AL Central.
Heh. PECOTA has always loved the Tribe, hasn't it?
It's a bug that's been identified and fixed. I can't tell you yet when the fix will propagate to the main site. There's some other things that we're looking into right now as well.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main