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.
The stupidest thing I've ever heard.
I do things quietly, don’t want anybody to find out, because it’s the only way to have the players’ trust.
Maybe their players just weren't that good. Projections systems aren't truth.
If you want to look for a cause, I'd look at systematic talent mis-evaluation by the front office, and a horrible injury management/treatment.
He's all yours, L.A. 42 walks a year and a slugging percentage in the mid .400's for just $22 million. All that and a whiny attitude, too. Sure hope the Dodgers don't play too many Sunday night games.
Basically, while it would be nice to have more data, there's a pretty clear suggestion that PECOTA (probably along with other projection systems) tends to overrate the stat-oriented teams
F.O. disagreements about what players to sign, about what doctor to use, whether thoroughly the MDs or the trainer has chief medical authority, thoroughly botched managerial hiring, a rookie GM with no authority, and LL looking to up the 'sexiness quotient' of the product.
I haven't the slightest idea what AGon is talking about.
Reportedly Gonzalez himself was ferrying messages between the manager and different coaches who weren't on speaking terms.
I have a hard time understanding how any serious adult could behave like this.
Not directly related, but I think many would have more faith in projection systems if they did more to report on their accuracy. Granted, any of us can compare the projections with the actual end-of-season results, but that seems like real work and I don't do much of that anymore. Besides, it's an easier task for the folks that already have their spreadsheets loaded. On an anecdotal level, everyone knows which players clearly exceeded or failed to live up to expectations, but I haven't seen anything noting how well projections systems did for specific players, teams, ages or years, which would be interesting, and also helpful in evaluating the systems, and perhaps even the players. If that type of reporting is out there, it doesn't seem to have made it to BBTF.
The system isn't getting anything "wrong". The hypothetical incompetent front office is just assembling a group of players more likely to under-perform than average.
#11 - Oddly, I just posted this piece in another thread earlier today. Basically, while it would be nice to have more data, there's a pretty clear suggestion that PECOTA (probably along with other projection systems) tends to overrate the stat-oriented teams, suggesting that both are missing something that's important in putting together a good team, like scouting information or something to do with "chemistry."
I think it's a big blind spot for the sabermetric community that it basically ignores player development. This seems to be a huge factor in whether players underperform or overperform - the Cardinals, for one example, appear to be an organization that really gets the most out of its talent.
Assume a team with no scouts, who only selected players based on projection systems. They will systematically select players who are more likely to under-perform and less likely to over-perform based on scouting evaluations. Unless scouting has zero value, they have to under-perform the rest of the league who is using both projections and scouts.
Sabermetrics hardly ignores player development. One of the tennants of sabermetric leaning analysts is that cheap young players are way more valuable than expensive veterans. It's true that scouting is much more valuable for young players as they have smaller sample sizes and play in weird conditions, but nothing about a sabermetric leaning front office precludes a team from also having a good scouting deparment.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (10 members)
Page rendered in 0.6284 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed