Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

ESPN: Szymborski: Projecting the AL Standings (INSIDER)

Seasons are simulated a million times using a Monte Carlo method, the percentile performance of player projections and estimates of roster construction. There are other bits of mathematical nerdery involved (linear algebra for the win!), but I’m sure you want to get down to the results, so here we go.

And the NL.

 

DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 27, 2013 at 07:36 PM | 113 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: espn, sabermetrics, zips

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: March 28, 2013 at 07:47 AM (#4398201)
"To continue reading this article you must be an Insider."

Bite me.
   2. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 28, 2013 at 08:00 AM (#4398203)
Bite me.


Truer words have never been typed.

Please stop linking to ESPN Insider ####.
   3. Hack Wilson Posted: March 28, 2013 at 08:16 AM (#4398209)
For those thinking of subscribing, Insider predicts an Astros v. Marlins World Series. So now is the time to subscribe!
   4. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 28, 2013 at 08:26 AM (#4398214)
I assume bselig/bselig no longer works?
   5. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 28, 2013 at 08:33 AM (#4398220)
Nope
   6. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: March 28, 2013 at 08:40 AM (#4398226)
Please stop linking to ESPN Insider ####.

Agreed. I don't see the point of these.
   7. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: March 28, 2013 at 08:51 AM (#4398233)
Dan linking to his for-profit articles seems completely counter to the spirit of this site. I don't begrudge Dan making money, but I do begrudge advertising disguised as discussion.
   8. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:00 AM (#4398241)
Dan is free to submit any link he likes, just like everyone else. If you don't like the link, don't click through it. Jesus.
   9. Cowboy Popup Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:02 AM (#4398243)
Dan gives us ZIPs for free. He can do whatever the hell he wants as far as I am concerned.
   10. zonk Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:03 AM (#4398244)
Yeah... not sure I get the angst... This is why we can't have nice threads, people.
   11. greenback likes millwall Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:07 AM (#4398246)
the percentile performance of player projections

Has anybody ever validated the fit of these distributions?

I also don't have ESPN Insider, but I'd hope the variance for each team is wider than that from a simple binomial.
   12. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:11 AM (#4398255)
Yeah... not sure I get the angst... This is why we can't have nice threads, people.


You don't have a problem with people submitting articles for their own for-profit ventures?
   13. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:19 AM (#4398262)
Yeah... not sure I get the angst... This is why we can't have nice threads, people.


The non-political threads on this site are among the most rational ones on the internet. Don't disrespect the threads.
   14. zonk Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:20 AM (#4398263)

You don't have a problem with people submitting articles for their own for-profit ventures?


Not really... at least, I don't see this as an issue. Dan was, for a very long time, writing directly for this site and he remains a pretty active user. It's not like there's an autocharge.

Some random new user that just registered last week and whose first submission is to a pay site (or heck, even to non-pay for clickthrough) - yeah, poor form... but this? Not at all.
   15. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:21 AM (#4398264)
Angst is too strong...I just find it odd. The point of posting these links is mostly to have a discussion about the linked material. Since most of us can't read the article, what is there to discuss?
   16. JJ1986 Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:23 AM (#4398267)
Not only does Dan give us a bunch of stuff for free, but he has on many occasions pointed posters here towards basically free Insider subscriptions.
   17. BourbonSamurai Is a Lazy Nogoodnik Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:27 AM (#4398271)
It says Insider on the damned link title. If you don't feel like paying for insider and it offends your very soul that some people do and might want to discuss an article from it, don't click on it you bunch of commies.
   18. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:33 AM (#4398276)
Not really... at least, I don't see this as an issue. Dan was, for a very long time, writing directly for this site and he remains a pretty active user. It's not like there's an autocharge.

Some random new user that just registered last week and whose first submission is to a pay site (or heck, even to non-pay for clickthrough) - yeah, poor form... but this? Not at all.


I just think that submitting a link to your own article shouldn't be allowed if you're getting paid to write the article.

The level of prior contributions to this site should not be a factor.

   19. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:35 AM (#4398279)
It says Insider on the damned link title. If you don't feel like paying for insider and it offends your very soul that some people do and might want to discuss an article from it, don't click on it you bunch of commies.


Precisely. There are so many better ways to hack at Dan's ankles than this.
   20. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:35 AM (#4398280)
Angst is too strong...I just find it odd. The point of posting these links is mostly to have a discussion about the linked material. Since most of us can't read the article, what is there to discuss?

We'll find something!
   21. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:35 AM (#4398281)
It says Insider on the damned link title. If you don't feel like paying for insider and it offends your very soul that some people do and might want to discuss an article from it, don't click on it you bunch of commies.


I've somehow missed the discussion of the content of this article.
   22. Derb Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:03 AM (#4398311)
A few years ago, Dan posted on here a link where we could get a year of Insider and the magazine for like $5. Maybe it was $10. Not sure. It was worth that to me. When the time came to renew, they wanted over $50. Not worth that...

Hopefully another deal comes up like the one mentioned above.
   23. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:09 AM (#4398318)
I've somehow missed the discussion of the content of this article.


The Braves will win 122 games. It will be awesome. Evan Gattis will win the MVP.
   24. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:10 AM (#4398320)
We'll find something!

Favorite kinds of whiskey?

Good cocktails?
   25. Publius Publicola Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:15 AM (#4398328)
Precisely. There are so many better ways to hack at Dan's ankles than this.


But since nobody here gets Insider, why post the link if nobody can read it? What Dan should do is cut and paste the entire content into the header, so then we can comment on it and create buzz that will morph into advertising dollars.
   26. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:16 AM (#4398332)
But since nobody here gets Insider, why post the link if nobody can read it? What Dan should do is cut and paste the entire content into the header, so then we can comment on it and create buzz that will morph into advertising dollars.


And in the process violate his terms of contract with the four letter network that pays him. Probably not.
   27. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM (#4398333)
Insider stuff has been linked before with few problems before - the article is clearly marked, in capital letters. I was extremely judicious about these links before and since i've stopped being actively involved, I think I've asked for 1 or 2 total in 9 months.

A few years ago, Dan posted on here a link where we could get a year of Insider and the magazine for like $5. Maybe it was $10. Not sure. It was worth that to me. When the time came to renew, they wanted over $50. Not worth that...

The key is renew safely before deadlines. From about 2007-2009, I was in the habit of extending 3 years every time a $1 or $5 sale comes up somewhere. I currently have my subscription active until I'm nearly 50 and I probably spent like $50 total.
   28. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM (#4398335)
And in the process violate his terms of contract with the four letter network that pays him. Probably not.

Nothing specific, but I have the moral and ethics clause which I presume would cover it.

They can also use my image in television promotion! Which would be a very odd choice.
   29. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:22 AM (#4398337)
But since nobody here gets Insider, why post the link if nobody can read it?

If we didn't have discussion on the articles in the past, I wouldn't bother now.
   30. Randy Jones Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:22 AM (#4398338)
But since nobody here gets Insider


Speak for yourself. I've had Insider for 6 or 7 years and paid less than $30 or $40 that ESPN tries to charge for a single year. Just wait until the magazine is on sale and buy several years. Insider is free with the subscription and you can get a digital only subscription and have the monthly email you get automatically filtered to the trash.
   31. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:23 AM (#4398339)
They can also use my image in television promotion! Which would be a very odd choice.

"We live in our Moms' basement and get all pale and pasty so you don't have to".
   32. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:25 AM (#4398344)
They can also use my image in television promotion! Which would be a very odd choice.


"The Real StatDorks of Baltimore County" might make for compelling viewing one day. Who knows? If it works for "The History Channel..."
   33. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:35 AM (#4398349)
Just wait until the magazine is on sale and buy several years. Insider is free with the subscription and you can get a digital only subscription and have the monthly email you get automatically filtered to the trash.

Statnerds have even infiltrated the magazine - we've gotten a lot of stuff in. I couldn't imagine getting a chart showing the success of the odds ratio in predicting team vs. team records (I estimated every game going back to 1901) a few years ago.

Instead of doing digital edition only, I would recommend looking at one of those places that sends magazines to troops overseas.
   34. Swedish Chef Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4398354)
I just think that submitting a link to your own article shouldn't be allowed if you're getting paid to write the article.

Hell, if you're getting paid you managed to convince somebody about the article's merits and it may not be total crap. I say we amend that to self-linking being allowed only for those getting paid for the article.
   35. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:48 AM (#4398359)
Insider stuff has been linked before with few problems before - the article is clearly marked, in capital letters.


I understand this. Still, linking to your own article just seems wrong, especially when you've been paid to write the article.

   36. Derb Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:49 AM (#4398360)
I have nothing wrong with Insider. I actually enjoyed it for the two years I had it. Liked the magazine, too, for what it was worth. Some issues were better than others, as some of the themes just weren't my cup of tea. Still, for what it was worth, I liked it. I just don't want to pay the amount they charge for it. If I ever find another deal, I'll resubscribe.
   37. Greg K Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:49 AM (#4398361)
Good cocktails?

I've got a big bottle of Chartreuse I've been nursing for a while. Suggestions on best ways to drink it?
   38. Derb Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:51 AM (#4398363)
I understand this. Still, linking to your own article just seems wrong, especially when you've been paid to write the article.


I disagree. If writing is my job, I want as many people as possible to read what I wrote. Therefore, I would link it everywhere that seemed logical to link, such as linking a baseball article on a baseball site.

I have a buddy who is a writer for a newspaper. He doesn't post all of his articles on Facebook, but maybe a couple times a month he writes an article that he wants to make sure people are aware of, so he will post a link on his Facebook. I see nothing wrong with that.
   39. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:52 AM (#4398364)
I say we amend that to self-linking being allowed only for those getting paid for the article.


The term for that is "advertising."

That is exactly what I don't want.
   40. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:58 AM (#4398369)
If writing is my job, I want as many people as possible to read what I wrote. Therefore, I would link it everywhere that seemed logical to link, such as linking a baseball article on a baseball site.


So you would want free advertising. I can see why you would want that. Still, viewing advertisements is annoying as hell for most people.
   41. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:02 AM (#4398372)
The term for that is "advertising."

That is exactly what I don't want.


Dude. This entire "Newsblog" site is a viral marketing mechanism for writers. Why on earth you want to distinguish Dan's ESPN Insider work (and links) from MCoA's "Replacement Level Red Sox Blog" links is beyond me. Yeah, Dan gets paid. Good for Dan. I like when writers I've been mooching off of free for decades get a little come-back in their wallets.

The only links here that aren't regular "advertising" for their writers, either submitted by themselves or others, are Repoz's political trolls.

EDIT: to sound less homoerotic
   42. Lassus Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4398384)
Dan, I'd like one answer for free, being the big-government leech I am: what is the projected win difference between the Yankees and the Mets? I don't even need the totals!

   43. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:13 AM (#4398388)
I don't want to see self submitted articles in the hot topics section.

This is doubly true for articles that are hiding behind paywalls.
   44. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4398391)
I've got a big bottle of Chartreuse I've been nursing for a while. Suggestions on best ways to drink it?

Can't help you there. Not a big fan of herbal liqueurs.

I'd suggest getting a bunch of recipes from the web or a good cocktail book and try them out. For what it's worth, my book has about 20 recipes for Chartreuse cocktails (between green and yellow).
   45. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:17 AM (#4398393)
17.
   46. Esoteric Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:18 AM (#4398394)
As one of the people most known around here for jumping down the throats of self-linkers...let's get a grip here, folks.
   47. Lassus Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:19 AM (#4398396)
Thanks. Finishing that far below the Mets is really going to be hard on the Bronx.
   48. JJ1986 Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:20 AM (#4398398)
17.


I'd guess the Mets are around 75. Fewer than 60 wins seems really pessimistic for the Yankees.
   49. zonk Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:23 AM (#4398404)
I get the sense lots of people aren't going to the like the future.... where we are all employees of the AppGoogBookAzon borg and all income will be derived from the clickthroughs you get via the only future-state means of communication: web chatter of some sort or another from some device or another.

...and then there will the C.H.U.D.s...
   50. The Good Face Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4398407)
I get the sense lots of people aren't going to the like the future.... where we are all employees of the AppGoogBookAzon borg and all income will be derived from the clickthroughs you get via the only future-state means of communication: web chatter of some sort or another from some device or another.

...and then there will the C.H.U.D.s...


If that's the case, I'm joining the C.H.U.D.s.
   51. Randy Jones Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4398411)
As one of the people most known around here for jumping down the throats of self-linkers


I have no problem with Dan or anyone else who is a regular poster/contributor on BTF linking to their own writing. I do have an issue with people who create accounts here simply to link to their own blogs. They can #### off.
   52. robinred Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4398412)
17 seems like a lot to me; I tend to think the NYs will be closer together in Ws than that.

   53. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4398424)
I don't want to see self submitted articles in the hot topics section.

This is doubly true for articles that are hiding behind paywalls.


For Dan, who has given a buttload to this site, I don't mind at all. For those without a history at the site, I'm less sympathetic.

EDIT: What Randy said.
   54. spike Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:50 AM (#4398429)
Complaining about what the site editor chooses to link to is some serious biting the hand that feeds.
   55. formerly dp Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:58 AM (#4398440)
I'll give #51 a third.
   56. spycake Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:08 PM (#4398450)
The key is renew safely before deadlines. From about 2007-2009, I was in the habit of extending 3 years every time a $1 or $5 sale comes up somewhere. I currently have my subscription active until I'm nearly 50 and I probably spent like $50 total.

Wait a minute - Dan, you have to pay for a subscription to Insider? I assumed that would be a fringe benefit for you.
   57. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:23 PM (#4398466)
Complaining about what the site editor chooses to link to is some serious biting the hand that feeds.

Concur.

17 seems like a lot to me; I tend to think the NYs will be closer together in Ws than that.

It has to something like 87 NYY, 70 NYM. I'd put the Yankees a touch lower, and the Mets around 75.

But the Mets do have 70 win potential, if the OF remains a black hole, and the young SPs don't deliver.
   58. SoSH U at work Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:38 PM (#4398480)
I have no problem with Dan or anyone else who is a regular poster/contributor on BTF linking to their own writing. I do have an issue with people who create accounts here simply to link to their own blogs. They can #### off.


That sums my position. It seems like a pretty obvious distinction.
   59. McCoy Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:42 PM (#4398482)
Can't we just complain that the sim has the Cubs winning too many games?
   60. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM (#4398487)
I've got a big bottle of Chartreuse I've been nursing for a while. Suggestions on best ways to drink it?


Pour it into a glass then slowly tip said glass over, while positioned at the edge of your mouth, until gravity takes over and the liquid pours into your mouth. Careful not to tip too fast, as that could lead to spilling. The distance of the glass to your mouth can be tricky as well, I recommend resting the edge of the glass on the top of your bottom lip. It's a pretty standard method of getting liquid into one's body.
   61. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:46 PM (#4398489)

TOR 94
TB 88
BOS 84
NYY 83
BAL 82


As a Sox fan I would be quite happy with that result.
   62. Answer Guy Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:49 PM (#4398494)
"The Real StatDorks of Baltimore County" might make for compelling viewing one day.


I may have to audition for this show, although I actually live in the City of Baltimore.
   63. McCoy Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:55 PM (#4398499)
I've got a big bottle of Chartreuse I've been nursing for a while. Suggestions on best ways to drink it?

Green or Yellow?

If it is green give it to your ex-girlfriend as a present. If it is yellow give it to your old boss you never liked.
   64. I am going to be Frank Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:04 PM (#4398507)
I'm not sure how it works but I have insider - paid for it years ago. So a couple years ago my credit card on file expired and they kept asking for a new one so they could renew. I never put it in, yet I still have insider. I'm not complaining. Its not the greatest and I probably wouldn't pay for it but as much as people slag on ESPN they do produce a lot of content. Most of it dreck but some of it is worth reading (and paying for).
   65. Esoteric Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:12 PM (#4398514)
I have no problem with Dan or anyone else who is a regular poster/contributor on BTF linking to their own writing. I do have an issue with people who create accounts here simply to link to their own blogs. They can #### off.
Exactly my point. This is Szym we're talking about here, not some random link-pimper.

Actually, the more annoying part is that it's Insider-only. I wish I had access to Insider, because there are some very interesting baseball articles on ESPN that are only available that way (the most interesting ones, unsurprisingly). But beyond that, if any single Primate has earned the right to link to his own material here, it's Szymborski -- if for no other reason than that it's essentially the same stuff he was doing here at Primer for so many years!
   66. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:14 PM (#4398517)
TOR 94
TB 88
BOS 84
NYY 83
BAL 82


Dan's computer likes the Orioles more and the Yankees less than CAIRO does. Bias!

Toronto are clearly the favorites, with the Rays next. Baltimore are clearly the back of the pack, but not so far back that I'd want to bet any substantial amount of money that they'll finish last. It should be a fun year. Everyone is at least a wild card contender, and not just because crappy teams can make the play in game.

(Now watch someone win the division by 18 games.)
   67. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:14 PM (#4398518)
17 seems like a lot to me; I tend to think the NYs will be closer together in Ws than that.

It has to something like 87 NYY, 70 NYM. I'd put the Yankees a touch lower, and the Mets around 75.


Actually, 83 NYY and 66 NYM. Ouch!
   68. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4398521)

Dan's computer likes the Orioles more and the Yankees less than CAIRO does. Bias!


Looks like certain of the Yanks' significant injury developments post-date that CAIRO projection of 87 wins.
   69. JJ1986 Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:20 PM (#4398523)
Dan's computer likes the Orioles more and the Yankees less than CAIRO does. Bias!


Looks like certain of the Yanks' significant injury developments post-date that CAIRO projection of 87 wins.


SG ran everything again yesterday or the day before. Yankees got 85 wins in CAIRO.
   70. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4398529)
Looks like certain of the Yanks' significant injury developments post-date that CAIRO projection of 87 wins.


Indeed:

Every time I run these numbers, the Yankees get worse, as another player ends up having his expected playing time drop due to injury. The Yankees exemplify why settling for "good enough" in the offseason is dangerous.
   71. Lassus Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:26 PM (#4398533)
Actually, 83 NYY and 66 NYM. Ouch!

OK, I know I'm kind of an out-of-control optimist, but I'm very comfortable taking the over on the Mets there.
   72. SG Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:34 PM (#4398541)
Yeah, I've re-run everything.

The 2013 MLB Projection Blowout

AL East using the average of the five projections ended up as:

Toronto: 89
Tampa Bay: 88
New York: 85
Boston: 82
Baltimore: 79

You do not have to be an INSIDER to view this.
   73. zonk Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4398546)
Can't we just complain that the sim has the Cubs winning too many games?


Every prediction/sim I've seen -- and I mean every. single. one has the Cubs winning a good 10 games more than I expect.

I am really struggling to understand why that is because the only team in the NL I see being worse than the Cubs is the Marlins.

I'm actually pretty happy with the moves Thed made this offseason - it's precisely what I've done - snatched up a bunch of cromulent arb-expensive players, short-term deals on players that are readily tradeable, and a few reclamations here and there... but it's still a crappy team -- a crappy team with very promising and still very young players at 1B and SS -- but a crappy team with at best, two mid/upper-mid rotation pitchers and a bunch of questions virtually everywhere else.
   74. SG Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:46 PM (#4398553)
I am really struggling to understand why that is because the only team in the NL I see being worse than the Cubs is the Marlins.


I think the Rockies and Mets are just as bad, if not worse.
   75. Lassus Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4398556)
I think the Rockies and Mets are just as bad, if not worse.

Do you have them better or worse than Dan?
   76. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4398557)
Every time I run these numbers, the Yankees get worse, as another player ends up having his expected playing time drop due to injury. The Yankees exemplify why settling for "good enough" in the offseason is dangerous.

No kidding, although it was going to take the equivalent of their 2008 offseason series of moves for the Yankees to tread water even without those injuries. You just can't count on players as old as the Yanks' are to escape the normal declines of aging, and when you add to that the loss of Swisher, Chavez and Soriano you're not looking at any 90 win season to begin with, even if Jeter, A-Rod, Teixeira and Granderson were all available for opening day. To project 85 to 90 wins for this team is little more than a fanboy fantasy.
   77. Dan Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:51 PM (#4398559)
I'm actually pretty happy with the moves Thed made this offseason - it's precisely what I've done - snatched up a bunch of cromulent arb-expensive players


Are you keeping them tied up in your basement?
   78. SG Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:03 PM (#4398569)
Do you have them better or worse than Dan?


What's Szym have them at? I've got them at 73.
   79. Andere Richtingen Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4398573)
Yeah, I've re-run everything.

Are those W+/- numbers really just one standard deviation? As in 32% of the time the Reds won >101 or <79 games?
   80. SG Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:09 PM (#4398576)
Are those W+/- numbers really just one standard deviation? As in 32% of the time the Reds won >101 or <79 games?


Yeah, although it would be heavier on the <79 games side. I've got a pretty big spread in assumed team strength in each simulation to account for all the stuff we just can't know.
   81. Lassus Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:14 PM (#4398582)
What's Szym have them at? I've got them at 73.

Apparently 66, if the quoting above in #67 is proper.
   82. SG Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:22 PM (#4398593)
Apparently 66, if the quoting above in #67 is proper.


And B Pro has them at 82. Quite a spread.
   83. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:27 PM (#4398595)
Lots of whining in this thread.
   84. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:56 PM (#4398612)
I've got the Mets at 12.
   85. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 28, 2013 at 03:17 PM (#4398623)
Wait a minute - Dan, you have to pay for a subscription to Insider? I assumed that would be a fringe benefit for you.

I paid for it before I started working for them. I think technically I can expense the price I actually paid (I'd have to ask), but it's a little hard to as I paid small amounts and I'm not sure which goes to what year. And it's like $5. They're generous in fringe benefits in other ways, so the effort of finding out if I can or not and asking isn't really worth the benefit.
   86. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 28, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4398625)
They're generous in fringe benefits in other ways


The ESPN escort services in all the major cities are *off the charts.*
   87. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: March 28, 2013 at 03:27 PM (#4398629)
You don't need an escort service, you just say "I work for ESPN."
   88. Mirabelli Dictu (Chris McClinch) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 03:30 PM (#4398635)
I've got the Mets at 12.


12 wins sounds... low.
   89. formerly dp Posted: March 28, 2013 at 03:37 PM (#4398638)
I've got the Mets at 12.
Losses?
   90. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 03:56 PM (#4398650)
MLB-level players?
   91. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 28, 2013 at 03:57 PM (#4398651)
Games played. The level of suck will precipitate a cosmic event.
   92. cardsfanboy Posted: March 28, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4398655)
Not that it matters, but let me join the chorus that says there is zero things wrong with Dan linking his own work. He has consistently shown restraint in these matters, he's earned the right for the amount of previous work he's done. I will agree with the argument that Insider articles suck, as it's difficult to discuss them since not everyone has a subscription t.(I just got mine a few months back. If you ever see the ESPN magazine on a discount, it's really worth the subscription..only drawback is if you subscribe to three years you have to call in to activate the Insider subscription as their site is only capable of acknowledging 2 year or less subscriptions)

As to the article... I'm somewhat upset that everyone seems to think the Cardinals are the most predictable team in baseball(at least ESPN does) Our rotation could be outstanding or utter garbage or a whole range in between.


Also, we need a predictions thread before the season starts?
   93. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: March 28, 2013 at 05:12 PM (#4398692)
You don't need an escort service, you just say "I work for ESPN." "You're with me, Leather."
   94. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 28, 2013 at 05:54 PM (#4398716)
You don't need an escort service, you just say "I work for ESPN."

Heh, it's funny, there's something to that. I mean, not that I go picking up women with that line (I've already got one that sort of puts up with me), but just that the title makes people way more interested in you. I don't bring it up or anything, but the GF tends to and I'm not going to give her a hard time because it kind of makes me actually in her league, which is nice.
   95. Walt Davis Posted: March 28, 2013 at 06:49 PM (#4398744)
I currently have my subscription active until I'm nearly 50 and I probably spent like $50 total.

Sheesh, you don't even get free access?

I'm not a fan of self-linking, even if it's Szym. But I suppose Szym contributed one or two things to this site that might just barely outweigh this assault on my delicate sensibilities.

That said, why the heck does Szym have to self-link. WTF Repoz, you can find the Outer Bumfuck Eagle-Picayune story on how dreamy Jeter is but you can't find ESPN?

I will say I was deeply disappointed that we didn't have links to every team's ZiPS projections over on fangraphs. We ling there all the time, why not for stuff we actually discuss?
   96. cardsfanboy Posted: March 28, 2013 at 07:02 PM (#4398748)
I will say I was deeply disappointed that we didn't have links to every team's ZiPS projections over on fangraphs. We ling there all the time, why not for stuff we actually discuss?


I'll second that. I missed those type of discussions and it's a great way to grab insight into each individual team and their team fanbase attitude toward their season.
   97. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 28, 2013 at 07:13 PM (#4398754)
I will say I was deeply disappointed that we didn't have links to every team's ZiPS projections over on fangraphs. We ling there all the time, why not for stuff we actually discuss?

Yeah, Jim and I had discussed doing it, but had forgotten to confirm it and if guys are getting mad at me doing 1 link in the last 6 months, how about 30!
   98. cardsfanboy Posted: March 28, 2013 at 07:15 PM (#4398756)
Yeah, Jim and I had discussed doing it, but had forgotten to confirm it and if guys are getting mad at me doing 1 link in the last 6 months, how about 30!


Have Jim link it then. :)
   99. Good cripple hitter Posted: March 28, 2013 at 07:22 PM (#4398759)
I will say I was deeply disappointed that we didn't have links to every team's ZiPS projections over on fangraphs. We ling there all the time, why not for stuff we actually discuss?


I'm deeply disappointed that last year's ZiPS update of RBI baseball was apparently a one-shot deal. And just when the Jays plausibly could've been included.

The loss of ZiPS and the exodus of Sox Therapy to another blog means that (AFAIR) the only original content being produced here is the Hall of Merit stuff, and even that is mostly completed. That to me is far more upsetting than Dan self-linking to Insider stories that are clearly marked as being behind the paywall.
   100. Srul Itza Posted: March 28, 2013 at 07:26 PM (#4398761)
[I currently have my subscription active until I'm nearly 50


When is that, next week or next month?
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1289 - 12:09pm, Apr 16)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogVerducci: Overuse of young pitchers fueling MLB's Tommy John surgery problem
(16 - 12:08pm, Apr 16)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(19 - 12:05pm, Apr 16)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogGothamist: Yankee Stadium Is Selling Nachos In A Helmet For $20
(53 - 12:04pm, Apr 16)
Last: Canker Soriano

NewsblogNightengale: Pujols nears 500 home runs...and no one seems to care
(20 - 12:00pm, Apr 16)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(99 - 11:52am, Apr 16)
Last: base ball chick

Jim's Lab NotesWe're Moved! (And Burst.net can bite me!)
(88 - 11:45am, Apr 16)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(847 - 11:44am, Apr 16)
Last: DA Baracus is a "bloodthirsty fan of Atlanta."

NewsblogOMNICHATTER: Wednesday April 16, 2014
(3 - 11:41am, Apr 16)
Last: SoCalDemon

NewsblogBud Selig calls replay start 'remarkable'
(17 - 11:32am, Apr 16)
Last: Ulysses S. Fairsmith

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-16-2014
(6 - 11:30am, Apr 16)
Last: Mike Emeigh

NewsblogKimbrel given night off with soreness in shoulder | braves.com: News
(16 - 11:02am, Apr 16)
Last: Russ

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(130 - 10:47am, Apr 16)
Last: Fear is Moses Taylor's Bacon Bits

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(216 - 10:18am, Apr 16)
Last: Fear is Moses Taylor's Bacon Bits

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for April 14, 2014
(149 - 9:43am, Apr 16)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.1020 seconds
52 querie(s) executed