I'd like to see what the current Marcel projections are for Ramirez.

Mark DeRosa will be in the lineup tomorrow. That and the Cubs pitchers have to be worth an extra couple decimal points on offense compared to other team's pitchers.

Rafael Furcal, Russell Martin, Manny Ramirez, Andre Ethier, James Loney, Matt Kemp, Casey Blake, Blake Dewitt,

Who plays second base in that lineup? (Furcal's healthy, I take it?)

DeWitt's playing 2nd.

Furcal has like 8 ABs since coming back, so who knows.

Manny Marcel: .297/.397/.538, .404 wOBA.

To me, the story in the above link is how close the top three offenses are.

To me, the story in the above link is how close the top three offenses are.

Yeah, it's amazing what happens when a team puts its best foot forward.

To me, the story in the above link is how close the top three offenses are.

Right--regardless of how the math shakes out, those differences are trivial. The point, more specifically, is that the Dodger offense is much better than it gets credit for being, which I agree with. They're a tough opponent.

Is Kuo ever coming back?

1 This assumes Furcal is healthy.

2 I didn't see park effects mentioned here at all.

3 When we get to the W.S., I'd like to see how the AL offenses compare, once you throw in a league quality difference. I imagine it won't be pretty.

1 This assumes Furcal is healthy.

Swap in Angel Berroa and you get 4.94 runs/game. Yeesh, that's ugly.

2 I didn't see park effects mentioned here at all.

Marcel doesn't know about park effects (not explicitly, anyway).

I've posted this before, but it belongs here again:

OPS Since August 1

SL .803
LA .798
CH .789
NY .771
FL .756
PH .751
AT .748
HO .747
AZ .747
WA .740
MI .739
SF .726
CI .720
SD .719
CO .717
PI .674

2 I didn't see park effects mentioned here at all.

Speaking of park effects, how do I reconcile the information from the ESPN park factors which show Dodger Stadium to be the second WORST run environment in baseball, with the Baseball-Reference Park Factors which show Dodger Stadium to be the 5th best hitters park in the league this year ? (Scroll down to 3rd set of number tables, which is where the park factors are shown for each team)

I realize they are not using the same method and not measuring exactly the same thing. But the end result is one tells me it's still a pitchers park and the other tells me it's a hitters park, and the gap is vast. If anyone is capable of giving me a layman's explanation that goes beyond "cuz baseball reference is better"...that would be great. Thanks.

B-ref hasn't created 2008 park factors yet. They just applied last year's ones to this year. All park factored stats, including OPS+ and ERA+ aren't yet official.

B-Ref completely ignores interleague play in calculating park factors and it appears that ESPN includes them. This season the Dodgers played 6 interleague games away from Dodger stadium which average 10 total runs per game. The 9 interleague games played at home averaged 5.3 total runs per game. That looks like part of the story, at least.

EDIT: Looks like DN is correct. The 2008 and 2007 park factors appear to be identical for all the teams I bothered to check.

were the the stats weighted against the quality of competition? because the dodgers played no good team down the strech execpt for arizone. while the cubs played all good teams with the execption of the reds

Speaking of park effects, how do I reconcile the information from the ESPN park factors

The ESPN park factors are garbage. Don't use them.

I've posted this before, but it belongs here again:

The exact point of running Marcels is to avoid selective endpoints like the one you're presenting. Even if it's consistent with the argument in the link, it doesn't mean it isn't garbage data.

I think that 2008 OPS+s (et al) from Baseball Reference won't be official until after the 2009 season. Weren't calculations for those stats switched to three-year park factors?

The ESPN park factors are garbage. Don't use them.

Yeah...ummm thanks for that. Perhaps you missed this part:

If anyone is capable of giving me a layman's explanation that goes beyond "cuz baseball reference is better"...that would be great. Thanks.

Obviously you are too rude and full of yourself to understand the spirit of my question.

The exact point of running Marcels is to avoid selective endpoints like the one you're presenting. Even if it's consistent with the argument in the link, it doesn't mean it isn't garbage data.

Bull ####. Your response was garbage, not the data.

It's selective for a reason. Thats when Manny arrived. You yourself make the case that the team has changed, it's not the same team that started the year. August 1 is a reasonable demarcation point. If you don't think it's relevant to look at how the team as currently assembled has performed SINCE it was assembled as you now see it, you are going to miss an important piece of the puzzle. But thanks for your knee jerk "sample size/selective begin points" reaction. Next time try thinking beyond a "stock" answer, and try to figure out WHY someone might use that Date.

Sheesh.

B-ref hasn't created 2008 park factors yet. They just applied last year's ones to this year. All park factored stats, including OPS+ and ERA+ aren't yet official.

So all Baseball-reference park factors and ERA+ OPS+ should be completely ignored during the season? If so...whats the point of even putting them up? That can only cause confusion and be misleading.

If anyone is capable of giving me a layman's explanation that goes beyond "cuz baseball reference is better"...that would be great. Thanks.

Actually, I did miss that part of your question. Sorry, I was in a rush.

Here's a better explanation. The formula for ESPN park factors is PF = ((homeRS + homeRA)/(homeG)) / ((roadRS + roadRA)/(roadG)). There's no accounting for quality of opposition. For example, the Red Sox will give up a good number of runs at home because they play the Yankees a bazillion times. But that's not the fault of their park, is it?

B-Ref is more complicated: http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/parkadjust.shtml. It accounts for different innings pitched on the road and at home, removes the park and team in question from the dataset, and a few other things.

Obviously you are too rude and full of yourself to understand the spirit of my question.

No, I was in a rush and didn't read your full comment. My bad. Apparently the level of discourse and snark on BTF has descended so far that mistakes are now taken for #############. Now what seems more reasonable to you - that I made a mistake or that I'm an #######? Hint: my screen name is not "kevin." So, I apologize for not reading your post more thoroughly.

Your response was garbage, not the data.

No, the data is still garbage, sorry. It's a small sample, even if you have a reason for using the endpoint (and yes, I know why you chose that endpoint). That's why we regress to the mean - so we don't have to resort to garbage stats like "on Thursdays against lefthanders..." or "so-and-so is a second half player." Garbage stats, the lot of them. Take what you know, and regress to the mean. I know it's not an easy thing to do; part of the reason of the post was to give people that information. Sorry if you think it's a "stock" answer - it's the right answer, in this case.

So all Baseball-reference park factors and ERA+ OPS+ should be completely ignored during the season? If so...whats the point of even putting them up? That can only cause confusion and be misleading.

If you look at the team pages (not sure if they're anywhere else on the site), you can get the one-year factors. Dodger Stadium this year played strongly hitterly according to the one-year numbers.

If you look at the team pages (not sure if they're anywhere else on the site), you can get the one-year factors. Dodger Stadium this year played strongly hitterly according to the one-year numbers.

Those one-year numbers are from 2007 as well--neither the one- or three-year park factors on BB-Ref incorporate any 2008 data at all. Dodger Stadium played as an excellent pitchers' park this year.

Ummm...the standard Marcel doesn't regress to the mean. It's a weighted average of the player's last 3 seasons but that's not what's meant by regression to the mean. (And a straight Marcel for Furcal is pretty useless. And I'm assuming the author didn't bother to do MLEs on the younger players with less than 3 years experience. Not that either's a big issue, the author was going for quick and dirty.)

I find it a little hard to believe that the Cubs team OPS+ is better than all but 2 players in the Dodgers lineup (well, and better than any Furcal season prior to this one), yet the Cubs offense projects as (slightly) worse. Quickly eye-balling it, the Cubs would seem to out-Marcel-OPS+ the Dodgers at C, 1B (hugely), 3B (hugely), some combo of 2B/RF (substantially?) and are probably even in CF. We get killed in LF and lose a bit at SS.

And before someone notes that OPS+ undervalues OBP -- (1) only slightly; (2) the Cubs led the NL in OBP.

Ummm...the standard Marcel doesn't regress to the mean. It's a weighted average of the player's last 3 seasons but that's not what's meant by regression to the mean.

Yes, it does. The standard Marcel uses 5/4/3/2 weights, where the "2" refers to two seasons of league-average performance at 650 PAs a year. For players with a lot of playing time, it's a subtle effect. For players without a lot of playing time, it's a heavy regression. What Marcels doesn't do is regress by component.

And the Cubs are not benching DeRosa in preference of Fontenot - they may bench Fukudome in preference of Fonetdeno or whatever, but DeRosa will hit if he's healthy.

What I'm most curious is to how Sal estimated RPG from the Marcels. (Shocking, I know.)

Those one-year numbers are from 2007 as well--neither the one- or three-year park factors on BB-Ref incorporate any 2008 data at all. Dodger Stadium played as an excellent pitchers' park this year.

This is what I am saying. There is no way to reconcile BB-REF park factors with ESPN, and the explanation in #23 doesn't cover it because the BB-Ref park factors aren't updated for this year. I understand there are limitations and a courseness to the method used in the ESPN Park Factors, (which are essentially the park factors that Bill James and Stats Inc were using back when I used to buy "The Scouting Report") Certainly the ones at BB-Ref are more sophisticated and taking much more into account. BUT THEY AREN'T UPDATED, and therefore are useless to us, as are ALL OPS+ and ERA+ numbers until they are updated.

For me, this is a stunning revelation. What it tells me, for example, is that the Dodgers team OPS+ of 95 is not correct. When the park factors are updated to reflect just how much of a pitchers park Dodger Stadium was this year, that 95 should go up quite a bit, while the team ERA+ should drop as well.

Regulars should always link to their own articles. Otherwise we have to wait for someone to stumble upon it, or the "bad form" of asking someone else to post it. First things I look for are the featured Emeigh, Szymborski and Dial articles.

The Dodger numbers are skewed this year because the Dodger pitchers did particularly well at home, while the offense was the same home and road. This is one of the reasons they use 3 years of data for the "real" numbers. I don't think there's any reason to believe that we should be operating as if Dodger Stadium suddenly has turned back into the batting average killer it used to be.

Regulars should always link to their own articles. Otherwise we have to wait for someone to stumble upon it, or the "bad form" of asking someone else to post it. First things I look for are the featured Emeigh, Szymborski and Dial articles.

I just e-mail mine to repoz.

Certainly the ones at BB-Ref are more sophisticated and taking much more into account. BUT THEY AREN'T UPDATED, and therefore are useless to us, as are ALL OPS+ and ERA+ numbers until they are updated.

Yeah, I agree that Sean probably ought to leave all the park-adjusted metrics off the site until after the numbers are updated, or at least post some sort of disclaimer. But it's not my site.

I don't think that Marmaduchscherer had to be so blunt with shoewizard. But I've never seen someone set shoewizard off like that. Must be a rough day all around.

I don't think that Marmaduchscherer had to be so blunt with shoewizard. But I've never seen someone set shoewizard off like that. Must be a rough day all around.

Yeah....I over reacted a bit, and didn't need to act all butt hurt. Just came down with a bad cold overnight, so not feeling great, but thats no excuse.

Just ran through a similar exercise, using Brian Cartwright's projections (Brian was gracious enough to let me look at the early returns) and XR Basic (I know, I know) as my run estimator. Lineups used:

Cubs

Soriano
Theriot
Lee
Ramirez
Edmonds
Soto
DeRosa
Fukudome
Pitcher

Dodgers

Furcal
Martin
Ramirez
Ethier
Loney
Kemp
Blake
Dewitt
Pitcher

Right now the lineup order is just being used to figure out how to distribute PAs. I also went ahead and changed number of PAs by team based upon team OBP, weighted by lineup order spot. I also used different numbers for each team's pitching, using the team split of BB-Ref for each team's #9 hitter (so it includes a healthy dose of pinch hitting).

I get 5.50 RPG for the Cubs and 5.29 RPG for the Dodgers.

What I'm most curious is to how Sal estimated RPG from the Marcels.

Use the projections to get wOBA, convert that to runs/PA, use lineup order to estimate PA (in a very, very quick and dirty fashion). All very rough.

Yeah....I over reacted a bit, and didn't need to act all butt hurt. Just came down with a bad cold overnight, so not feeling great, but thats no excuse.

I didn't mean to be so curt, but that's what happens when I post in a rush. So, happiness and beer all around. Let's talk about baseball.

Those one-year numbers are from 2007 as well--neither the one- or three-year park factors on BB-Ref incorporate any 2008 data at all. Dodger Stadium played as an excellent pitchers' park this year.

Blow me down.

2008 Multipliers (by PA)

So Dodger stadium was the 2nd most PITCHER FRIENDLY park in the majors, right next to Petco.

This is EXACTLY what the ESPN park factors say too. I guess the ESPN numbers aren't such crap after all.