Seven months from now, we will have seen the sagacity of the work of Cashman and Red Sox GM Theo Epstein, Cubs GM Jim Hendry and <u>the Mets’ Jeff Wilpon.</u>

I thought Minaya had full authority. Gammons is the master of the subtle insult.

Sagacity and Jeff Wilpon, in the same sentence!?! This is like someone in June 1942 writing, "Seven months from now, we will have seen the sagacity of the work of Hitler in planning the invasion and occupation of Stalingrad."

I didn't know this was written by Calcaterra.

I would love to see the full prediction that has the Yankees, Red Sox and Rays in the National League.

"One has the Red Sox as a 110-win team."

Yeah, it's that new fangled Peter Gammons projection system.

I would love to see the full prediction that has the Yankees, Red Sox and Rays in the National League.

That's not what it says; he's saying a National league team projects those three to be 3 of the best 4 teams in the league.

I would love to see the full prediction that has the Yankees, Red Sox and Rays in the National League.

He's saying there's a team in the NL that has run projections (why?) showing those 3 and the Phillies as the best teams.

I don't see any real value in teams running projections. Those projections will suffer from the same limitations as any "amateur" simulations and, even if they didn't, I don't see how they're going to help with real decision-making. If you're the Rays, maybe sims could give you a better sense of whether you're a win behind, even, or a win ahead of the Yanks and Sox and so maybe that helps you decide whether to spend another $3 M on a small upgrade. But even in that scenario, the signal is swamped by the noise and won't be much of a guide.

Obviously there's some value in an objective assessment of the quality of your own team but you don't really need simulations to do that, you can just look at your ZiPS projections.

Still, I guess it keeps the stat nerds employed so they can keep posting on BTF during work hours and that's a fine public service.

I give Gammons a lot of credit. He's been around this stuff a very long time, and yet has still been able to adapt and evolve to new ways of thinking. He says lots of dumb stuff every now and then -- and we all would if we were forced to commit thoughts to 'paper' as much as he does. But you have to give him some credit for being an old dog learning new tricks.

I thought Minaya had full authority. Gammons is the master of the subtle insult.

Sagacity and Jeff Wilpon, in the same sentence!?! This is like someone in June 1942 writing, "Seven months from now, we will have seen the sagacity of the work of Hitler in planning the invasion and occupation of Stalingrad."

Normally this would bring a thread to a scheeching halt, but not only do I have to agree with it, but find it unremarkable that the next six posters didn't trouble to comment on it.

Best case scenario: Santana comes back reasonably healthy, and Manuel doesn't push him. Santana gets 30 starts. Pelfrey doesn't pitch with his 2008 results, but that involved some luck. He does throw 28 starts with an ERA midway between his 2008 and 2009. One of Perez, Niese, and Maine pitches reasonably well. None of them have the arm strength to go 200 innings or anywhere close to it, but the one that thrives, sort of, throws 150 innings with an ERA around 4.25. That's around 25 starts, leaving half the season to be pitched by the 6th and worse starters.

Sagacity indeed.

I can imagine teams wanting to run projections to get a sense of whether it's time to try to finish in the money or not. I assume they have more refined inputs than ZIPs or CHONE or PECOTA, so maybe they can get more refined results, though somehow I doubt it -- projections are always going to involve error bars, at least until someone invents the CASSANDRAs. But if you're running projections that show anybody -- let alone the Red Sox, who seem to me to be clearly no better than second in their own division at this point -- winning 110 games, you're wasting your time.

I can imagine teams wanting to run projections to get a sense of whether it's time to try to finish in the money or not. I assume they have more refined inputs than ZIPs or CHONE or PECOTA, so maybe they can get more refined results, though somehow I doubt it -- projections are always going to involve error bars, at least until someone invents the CASSANDRAs. But if you're running projections that show anybody -- let alone the Red Sox, who seem to me to be clearly no better than second in their own division at this point -- winning 110 games, you're wasting your time.

I'm trying to distinguish between "projections" and "simulations." It of course makes perfect sense to look at your players' projections. But from those projections (and the team's knowledge of hoped for and expected playing time decisions), you can get a good estimate of your team's expected RS and RA and, from those, you have a projection of how good your team is.

Now sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of the parts but I'm not sure sims can pick up on that. Also your strength of schedule or how good the Yanks and Red Sox are will obviously impact on your final results. But the amount of noise in any simulation (playing time uncertainties for other teams, random variation, weather patterns, etc.) should make it such that even if your sim does show you 1-2 wins behind the Red Sox you wouldn't have a lot of faith in that -- or if they show you 1-2 wins better. (By "simulation", I mean, say, 500+ simulations.)

Like I said, if you're the Rays and you're debating whether it's worth it to make a late signing of a good reliever or 4th OF for $3 M, then maybe it helps to know that you come up a win worse than the Red Sox in the sims, so you roll the dice.

I also don't see where such simulations would hurt a team and they don't take much time or cost much money* once you've got everyboy's individual projections, so it's no big deal.

*Unless maybe you were trying to simulate across the dozens of factors which would impact the "across-season" variation.

"One has the Red Sox as a 110-win team."

Yeah, it's that new fangled Peter Gammons projection system.

Or as the Mickey Rivers comment about Reggie's IQ might go "One projection system has the season being extended to 200 games"

But if you're running projections that show anybody -- let alone the Red Sox, who seem to me to be clearly no better than second in their own division at this point -- winning 110 games, you're wasting your time.

Prob safe to assume that 110 was the Sox "extreme, everything going right season sim", out of say 1000 sims, and that Gammons is either misunderstanding or hyping.

That's Racist