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 0.4682 seconds
55 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.
1. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless LeaderAnd computers don't lie...the Rays have arrived, yo!
Yes, the Reds are definitely correct in their belief that 2008 is so important that they must play Patterson and Hatteberg over Bruce and Votto to squeeze every last win out...
But overall, this is great work.
I'm a big believer in projections, too.
I don't mean this to sound snarky, but I can't think of any Marlin fans who post here. I can sort of match the team allegiance to most of the regulars, but I'm drawing a blank on a Marlins fan. Surely, one of you knuckleheads must live and die with the two times World Series champs and recent Yankee killers, no?
Don't say it out loud! If the A's go 69-93, I'm never going to hear the end of it. I still don't know why the A's are projecting so well - it's not like their projections are super-awesome.
See, this is why ZiPS is awesome - it has a lowercase letter.
Looking at their lineup, depending on who gets PT... this *should* be the year they get over that .500 hump.
The 2007 Rays went 66-96, and deserved to go 66-96, what's changed?
1: The 2007 Rays had (aside from 2 SPs) a historically awful pitching staff. (subtract KAzmir an dShields and you have a 6.31 ERA- good for an ERA+ of 72 (there team ERA+ of 82 with those 2 guys included is still one of the 5 worst of the last 10 years)
2: The 2007 Rays had an extremely poor team defense
3: While the team on the whole had above average offensive production, catching and OF (every OF aside from Crawford) was very poor.
Now?
1: I'm a big believer in Garza, I also think Edwin Jackson can give 160-180ip of league average performance. I believe the BP will be much improved- that hideous 82 team ERA+ should be anywhere from 90 to 100 in 2008.
2: The worst offenders on dee are either not playing Dee or have been moved to a position they can better handle.
Bartlett at SS is a huge improvement over Harris, anyone replacing Upton at 2B is an improvement.
3: I believe pudgicito will be at least league average for a catcher in 2008...
ARI 104.4-57.5 (I know it doesn't add up perfectly to 162--rounding error)
COL 81.6-80.4
SD 80.9-81.1
SF 79.1-82.9 (surprising until you consider Lincecum averaged a 22-5 record in my sims)
Don't know what projection systems THT, DMB, Szym and others are using, but they are way off. Check them numbers, will ya?
But if you're right, you can tell everyone to stick it! That could be fun.
Oh right, mighty big words from a guy who calls himself Gary Geiger Counter.
Topic? -- All projection system agree who the worst team in the AL is.
Oh, I don't know; PECOTA only puts them a fraction of a game behind Pittsburgh, and that's the least favorable projection model for the Cards. I don't think that's too unfair. I don't think I'd *pick* the Cards for last (unless Pujols goes down for the season), but I think HOU/PIT/STL is pretty much a tossup, with CHC/MIL the pretty clear top 2 and the Reds a solid third, clearly below the top 2 and clearly ahead of the bottom 3, which is what PECOTA reflects.
I'm a little surprised at how many of the projection systems put the Cards a solid third.
so, basically you see him as better than 1968 Bob Gibson? 1978 Ron Guidry? 1985 Dwight Gooden? 1999-2000 Pedro?
22-5 with, what? 3 runs per game support?
1972 Steve Carlton?
You mean the Red Sox?
You mean the Red Sox?
Well, sure, but you Sawx fans are like flies anymore. You don't have the mystery or legend that the rare and elusive Marlins fan has.
Looking at the sum of sims in Part II where all 6,000 projections get put into one great spreadsheet orgy . . .
AL: .507
NL: .497
By division:
ALE .520
NLW .505
NLE .502
ALC .496
ALW .492
NLC .486
Like I said, somehow my projection system likes him quite a bit. Oh by the way, Upton and Young were 1-2 in the MVP voting too.
Chad Bradford and Jay Marshall....might want to look into Byung Hyun Kim as well.
Off to TEP....
So a breakthrough season for BJ Upton and a big bounceback for Michael Young. Should be fun to watch.
I mentioned it in the Yankees comment, but so much of the Yankees' success is going to be based on how Hughes/Chamberlain/Kennedy pitch. I was surprised at how bullish their projections are in almost every system. 450-500 league average innings with the Yankee lineup is a good way to win a lot of games, but there's reason to be skeptical that they'll get anything close to that if you look at the history of some pretty good pitchers and how they did before the age of 23.
As we say at work, the better-sounding the acronym, the worse the product it represents.
Red Sox are seven-time World Series champs. Only two teams have won more.
Ah, but the Athletics franchise has 9!
I call this the PATRIOT Act rule.
Mine was called "Cayce" if anybody cares.
I was about to say, that's half the fun of going through all the work of making a projection system.
Let's see -- the Cardinals and the A's, obviously. I could have sworn there was a third team, but maybe not.
Edit: Or, what Shooty said.
Pretty cool if it happens, though it sure is a rough assignment to be a Blue Jays fan.
I'm too lazy to come up with the formula, but there's the acronym.
You don't talk to the people in Brooklyn enough.
I'm too lazy to come up with the formula, but there's the acronym.
0*0/0=0?
Oh yea, he has zero value but his value is closer to infinity if you consider the intangibles and division by zero
I think you just invented a perpetual motion machine.
Second, the following is a foolish remark if not worthy of being termed ridiculous:
Their biggest weakness may be depth in the starting rotation, but you can say that about everyone except Milwaukee probably.
Milwaukee has pitching depth? Milwaukee? The Milwaukee Brewers? The team in the National League??
Milwaukee has pitching depth like Keanu Reeves has talent. It's kind of there but Chr*st you gotta look hard to find it.
Pitching depth?? Milwaukee???? Honest??????
As you can see this is news to me. I didn't think having a bunch of guys hanging around the clubhouse counted as pitching depth.
I am picking Atlanta, Cincinnati and Washington.
Under on the two NY teams and Cardinals.
To be fair, I didn't explicitly say it was good depth.
I didn't know that Capuano is likely out for the year when I wrote that comment and the Brewers' MLB.com depth chart shows 8 guys as possible rotation candidates. But I will defer to you on this as you clearly know more about your team than I do. It's tough to be up on all 30 teams for something like this.
Diamond Mind consistently under-projects injury time, which will make teams with no depth project better than they should (and vice versa).
Understood. But if you saw the names Sheets (Senor Fragile), Suppan (Senor S*ck), Bush (Senor Stupid), and Vargas (Senor Lento)I struggle to equate that to "depth".
Apologies if my comments were overly harsh.
This is generally true, but I did build depth charts that account for bench and spot starter time so these simulations do account for team depth at least somewhat. No position player is projected to play more than 90% of the time, and I have spot starters behind pitchers in varying percentages. In the case of the Mets I limited Pedro to 170 innings and El Duque to 120.
I don't account for catastrophic injury, but I don't know that any forecast really should.
No offense taken. Compared to the crap I get when I criticize Derek Jeter's defense on our blog that was nothing.
Why do you hate Pakistan?
A question. Did you account for the injuries to Lackey and Escobar in your sims?
Thanks. And thanks for the work.
How serious is Gallardo's injury? Is Parra not a factor this year?
The Brewer's preference would probably be that Bush and Vargas look great in their last few ST starts and make the rotation with Parra sent to the minors. I'm hopeful that the Brewers feel that the NL Central race will be a tight one, and that they should have their most talented starters throw the most innings, and forget about service time and options, etc.
Vargas is out of options, so is almost guaranteed to make the Brewers, either as back end starter or long man out of the bullpen. Bush still has an option, but apparently would have to be placed on revocable waivers to be sent down (I believe that the gentleman's agreement is not to block these moves, we'll see). Villenueva could go either way, depending on his last few ST appearances.
Basically, Sheets and Suppan are locks and Vargas is almost a lock. The bullpen is, in some order, Gagne, Torres, Riske, Mota, Shouse, Turnbow. Stetter, McClung and Choate are options to fill out the rest of the pen. So it's likely that Parra, Villenueva and Bush are fighting for the 5th rotation spot once Gallardo comes back and the other two would be sent to AAA.
I had Lackey missing 15% of his starts and Escobar missing 20%. Not sure if that's enough or not.
Parra has been the best starter in camp and has better stuff than any of the vets but Ned has made it clear he prefers experience.
Apparently experience is being bad takes precedence over the chance of being good.
(Insert Yosemite Sam soundtrack)
I'm with you. No playoffs for Yankees. If by doomed you mean that. 80 wins without A Rod, 87-88 with.
Help, I do not know how most season projections systems work. Are the Cards getting a bonus from their 83 win World Championship season of a couple of years ago? Is there an input in these projections called "magic"?
I think Milwaukee does indeed have starting pitching depth. Consider Milwaukee's 5th starter performance last year. I don't have it in front of me, but it was in the top 5-6 in terms of ERA. Is there a better measure of pitching depth? The team does have depth.
adj w% Team
0.598 NYA08
0.582 BOS08
0.570 NYN08
0.565 DET08
0.556 CLE08
0.550 LAA08
0.542 TOR08
0.525 TB08
0.524 ATL08
0.524 CHN08
0.518 PHI08
0.516 LAD08
0.510 SD08
0.507 ARI08
0.506 MIL08
0.504 OAK08
0.500 COL08
0.487 SEA08
0.478 MIN08
0.471 TEX08
0.470 CHA08
0.468 STL08
0.466 KC08
0.460 CIN08
0.447 HOU08
0.446 SF08
0.440 BAL08
0.430 WAS08
0.420 PIT08
0.416 FLA08
7 of the 8 best teams in baseball are in the American League, and 4 of them are in the AL East.
The Cubs have the easiest schedule and the Orioles have (by far) the toughest schedule.
If they have the 10th best record with a neutral schedule, they could have the 3rd or 4th best this year.
I was surprised about the gap ZiPS had between them and Milwaukee. I just don't see it being that large.
Courtesy of the JSonline Brewers blog today.
Parra, who is fighting for a spot in the starting rotation once the season starts, allowed five runs on five hits in three innings. He walked four, didn't record a strikeout and allowed a home run in the third to Iannetta. After his outing, Parra slumped in his clubhouse folding chair with a dejected expression on his face and said he was simply "thinking too much" and "trying too hard."
"There's really no excuse, man," Parra said. "There's no excuse."
I just watched his outing, it was not too good. I still think he's the best 5th man.
I was counting the Yankees as a conglomerate, not a team. ;-)
Well, sorta. ZiPS likes their rotation depth quite a bit -- I think it was 5 above-average starters and another three guys not far below. But yes, that included Capuano, Bush, Sheets, Suppan so take that as you will.
I think Milwaukee does indeed have starting pitching depth. Consider Milwaukee's 5th starter performance last year. I don't have it in front of me, but it was in the top 5-6 in terms of ERA.
A lot of that is going to depend on how you define 5th starter. Milwaukee avoided the disastrous starters -- they had no games started last years by guys with ERA+ of 85 or below. However, they had a full 89 starts from 3 guys each with an 88 ERA+. So while having the fewest starts <85, they might have been second to Florida in number of starts by guys <90.
But still, we worked through this the other day -- last year the average was an average of 41 starts per team from a guy with an ERA+ of 85 or worse. I don't think we ever tracked down the ERA+ of that group, but I'd wager 75 or worse. That's an ERA of 6. I don't remember if we tracked down the median and there are a few major outliers -- Tampa, Florida, Texas if I remember right.
This means a couple things:
1. Any team that can avoid disaster starts either through an amazingly healthy starting 5 or non-sucky depth has a major advantage.
2. Nobody should ever use the argument "this disappointing team got 40 starts last year from S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z who all sucked; that won't happen again this year."
Anyone in the Central division want to trade divisions with the Jays?
Oh, I disagree. At least if the goal is forecasting/projection. (If the goal is "who's the best team on paper right now" or "how good a job did your GM do in assembling talent" then maybe not)
Ideally a projection would use a ton of randomly generated playing time scenarios as well as things like "young player breakouts" and "cliff-divers". It would also be cool to make in-season playing time more dependent on previous in-season performance -- i.e. the computer currently will limit the guy hitting 350 through May to his assigned playing time while in real life, he's not coming out of the lineup until he craters. Then run the sims million of times. That would give us a better picture of "reality".
Now (1) obviously real-life gets run only once, so it would be rather hard to judge how well your sim reflects "reality" and (2) at best it seems to me that you're only going to bunch the mean projections more tightly while increasing the variance. Also (3) it would be a monumental piece of work with a pretty tiny payoff.
But it will make you look less like a fool when the Giants win the Series because you'll be able to point out that they did just that in the one simulated season where they were 100% healthy and every other team's entire 25-man roster tested positive.
Seriously, a lot of the team "flukes" are probably due to things like health, monumental breakouts, the fact that Billy Grabarkewitz turned in a season of 640 PA (with 95 BB!!) and a 134 OPS+ in a career in which he never had more than 200 AB or an OPS+ over 100 again in a season again.
Parra is the better of the two.
it may have to do with something like the team isn't quite as bad as the naysayers are predicting, above average offense (likely top 5 in the nl) and slightly below average rotation with an above average bullpen. Sounds like a .500 team to me.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main