Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

2006 ZiPS Projections and Disk for DMB 9.0, Build 1

To load the disk into DMB 9.0, create a new empty database, select “restore” and then choose the zip file.  Everything else here is self-explanatory.

2006 ZiPS Projection Spreadsheet for Excel

2006 ZiPS Projections for DMB 9.0

For the disk, as this is the first build, it’s simply a list of all the players and their appropriate teams.  The latter is up-to-date to the best of my ability - no doubt that with 2000 players and minor league transactions reported very poorly, there will be some mistakes, so by all means, speak up when you come across them.

Dan Szymborski Posted: January 17, 2006 at 03:37 AM | 188 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: January 17, 2006 at 04:59 AM (#1824569)
Damn..... I really need to upgrade from version 8.
   2. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 17, 2006 at 05:45 AM (#1824625)
First error noted! Damon's arm rating is supposed to be FR, not VG.
   3. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 17, 2006 at 05:56 AM (#1824642)
Heh, in my first game played with the season disk (went ahead an made preliminary profiles).

************** Bottom of the 10th inning, Yankees batting
5-5 0 --- 00 Damon homered (X)
   4. Damon Rutherford Posted: January 17, 2006 at 06:29 AM (#1824676)
Thanks, Szym! This is furting awesome!
   5. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 17, 2006 at 06:32 AM (#1824678)
Oh, that game was against the Red Sox.
   6. Gaelan Posted: January 17, 2006 at 08:02 AM (#1824792)
This is great.

As for small errors . . .

Brian McCann is listed as a righted handed batter.
Aaron Harang is missing a starters rating.
   7. Spivey Posted: January 17, 2006 at 08:38 AM (#1824809)
Dan - does this work for Version 9a?
   8. Spivey Posted: January 17, 2006 at 08:53 AM (#1824815)
Rangers: I don't know if Teixeira is supposed to be 'av', but if so that's wrong. Also, Nix should be Vg in CF. Lastly, Dellucci should be listed as poor in left field. These might not be typos, but they're still errors!

A quick glance over the Rangers shows all the main players to be rated for the necessary positions, and I didn't notice any handedness issues off the top of my head.
   9. Spivey Posted: January 17, 2006 at 08:57 AM (#1824819)
Also, Dan, is there any rhyme or reason to the lineups you built? By and large it seems normal (a mix of what should happen combined with what you think teams should do, based on projections) - but then I saw Kameron Loe listed on the farm squad, so I got curious.

Anyways, thanks for all the work you put into this.
   10. bibigon Posted: January 17, 2006 at 09:42 AM (#1824828)
So the first thing I do with these things is sim several seasons to get a general idea of what's what.

When I did it last year, what kept happening that surprised me was Baltimore doing really really well.

This year? I'm doing my 4th run through, and in two of the first three, and in the one I'm running now, Tampa Bay has been near the top of the AL East every time. Finished about 5 games back or so.
   11. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: January 17, 2006 at 01:46 PM (#1824853)
It should be noted, however, that bibigon is playing the t-ball variation, where pitching and plate discipline don't matter.
   12. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 17, 2006 at 02:04 PM (#1824859)
Also, Dan, is there any rhyme or reason to the lineups you built? By and large it seems normal (a mix of what should happen combined with what you think teams should do, based on projections) - but then I saw Kameron Loe listed on the farm squad, so I got curious.

As I said above, the only thing done is to get all those players on the right teams as best I could - the farm/majors distinctions aren't there at the moment, which is my next project. A lot of newly-projected players and newly-signed minor league free agents appear on the active rosters at the moment.
   13. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 17, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#1824872)
So the first thing I do with these things is sim several seasons to get a general idea of what's what.

I'm sure that a lot of what you're looking at so far is simply the current roster makeup. No doubt part of Texas' excellence in sims so far and the White Sox underperformance is the fact that the Rangers get 35 players (and 21 pitchers) to choose from and the White Sox only get 22 (better shape than the Marlins and their 6-man pitching staff!), not even all of them really major leaguers. I *did* quickly auto-generate profiles just to do a quick sim, but the DMB manager occasionally makes odd choices like, for example:

- Uribe to 3rd and Valido (239/272/323) at short
- Benching Pena and Griffey to play Chris Denorfia
- Jhonny Peralta to 3rd to make room for Brandon Phillips
   14. SG Posted: January 17, 2006 at 02:51 PM (#1824876)
Can i change my screen name to Szymborski's #1 fan? Thanks Dan, I know this is a ton of work.
   15. John DiFool2 Posted: January 17, 2006 at 03:20 PM (#1824886)
IIRC DMB is "deterministic", right? IOW players will play exactly the same amount of
games they actually played, and will hit exactly what they really hit. Someone correct
me if I'm wrong. This is the main reason why I have yet to buy the game...
   16. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 17, 2006 at 03:28 PM (#1824892)
IIRC DMB is "deterministic", right? IOW players will play exactly the same amount of
games they actually played, and will hit exactly what they really hit. Someone correct
me if I'm wrong.


You're quite wrong, John. DMB isn't the least bit deterministic.
   17. SG Posted: January 17, 2006 at 03:28 PM (#1824893)
John, not really. There are options to limit bench-playing time, you can set your own depth charts to allocate percentage of time played at each position, and set up your pitching staff as desired. There's a pretty significant variance in team performance and individual performance when you run through a lot of trials, which is why i like it. In 1000 runs last with Dan's projections last year, even Tampa Bay managed to win an AL East title once.
   18. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 17, 2006 at 03:43 PM (#1824907)
Some more changes. Brian McCann is now batting lefthanded and Adam Greenberg has been added.
   19. chris p Posted: January 17, 2006 at 03:48 PM (#1824913)
************** Bottom of the 10th inning, Yankees batting

red sox would ahve won already if you hadn't messed up damon's arm rating.
   20. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 17, 2006 at 03:59 PM (#1824923)
Made Cubs and Diamondbacks profiles and played a game.

Brandon Webb got roughed up, allowing 8 runs in 4 innings. Good Cub debuts for Pierre (3 for 6, 3 runs, RBI) and Jones (4 for 5, 2 doubles, a triple, 4 RBI). Cedeno went 2-for-5 with a run so he's safe from a Dusty bench until the 3rd game at least. Zambrano struck out 11 in 8 innings.
   21. dutch Posted: January 17, 2006 at 03:59 PM (#1824924)
I just downloaded the zips file and could use some help. I've never come across the "zips" word before so I was curious exactly what it is? Also, do the projections include just Major leaguers? I noticed some players with rather high projections (Freddy Guzman with 49 steals), so I thought maybe that minor league stats may be incorporated.
   22. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 17, 2006 at 04:01 PM (#1824925)
ZiPS is my projection system.

Minor leaguers are included - ZiPS is a computer program not meant to predict who will get jobs.
   23. 1k5v3L Posted: January 17, 2006 at 04:01 PM (#1824927)
yay. good bye work.
   24. Mooser Posted: January 17, 2006 at 04:15 PM (#1824940)
First time user of this. Can someone tell me how close the sims using the ZIPs projections last year , came to DMB's official projections in March
   25. Danny Posted: January 17, 2006 at 05:26 PM (#1825029)
Some AL Leaderboards (hope this is legit)

Starter ERA
1) Santana,Johan
2) Halladay,Roy
3) Harden,Rich
4) Schilling,Curt
5) Johnson,Randy
6) Burnett,A.J.
7) Hernandez,Felix
8) Sabathia,C.C.
9) Buehrle,Mark
10) Beckett,Josh
11) Verlander,Justin
12) Kazmir,Scott
13) Blanton,Joe
14) Sowers,Jeremy
15) Byrd,Paul

Reliever ERA
1) Nathan,Joe
2) Soriano,Rafael
3) Street,Huston
4) Rivera,Mariano
5) Rodriguez,Francisco
6) Miller,Matt
7) Ryan,B.J.
8) Rincon,Juan
9) Betancourt,Rafael
10) Cordero,Francisco
11) Shields,Scot
12) Duchscherer,Justin
13) Calero,Kiko
14) Hansen,Craig
15) Cabrera,Fernando
   26. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 17, 2006 at 05:37 PM (#1825046)
Some AL Leaderboards (hope this is legit)

ZiPS always loves the A's, Danny.

Big comeback year for Schilling.

Sowers' ROY performance trumped by Verlander's ROY performance.
   27. Danny Posted: January 17, 2006 at 05:39 PM (#1825052)
Top 5 by Position by RC/27 (AL)

C
Martinez,Victor
Varitek,Jason
Lopez,Javy
Mauer,Joe
Johjima,Kenji

1B/DH
1) Ortiz,David
2) Hafner,Travis
3) Teixeira,Mark
4) Thome,Jim
5) Giambi,Jason

2B
1) Loretta,Mark
2) Castillo,Luis
3) Roberts,Brian
4) Cantu,Jorge
5) Iguchi,Tadahito

3B
1) Rodriguez,Alex
2) Glaus,Troy
3) Chavez,Eric
4) Youkilis,Kevin
5) Lowell,Mike

SS
1) Young,Mike
2) Tejada,Miguel
3) Peralta,Jhonny
4) Guillen,Carlos
5) Jeter,Derek

LF
1) Ramirez,Manny
2) Wilkerson,Brad
3) Matsui,Hideki
4) Gload,Ross
5) Catalanotto,Frankie

CF
1) Sizemore,Grady
2) DeJesus,David
3) Wells,Vernon
4) Snelling,Chris
5) Ford,Lew

RF
Guerrero,Vladimir
Nixon,Trot
Gomes,Jonny
Ordonez,Magglio
Bradley,Milton* (Moved from CF, where he ranked 1st)
   28. 1k5v3L Posted: January 17, 2006 at 05:41 PM (#1825055)
So the A's will play Milton in RF, and Kotsay in CF?!
   29. Danny Posted: January 17, 2006 at 05:42 PM (#1825056)
So the A's will play Milton in RF, and Kotsay in CF?!


That's the word.
   30. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 17, 2006 at 05:43 PM (#1825061)
4) Youkilis,Kevin
5) Lowell,Mike


The Red Sox don't need no stinking shortstop. They've got two 3B!

4) Gload,Ross

That's awesome. Did Podsednik get the boot?

Is Gomes really playing RF this season for the Rays?
   31. Danny Posted: January 17, 2006 at 06:19 PM (#1825122)
Is Gomes really playing RF this season for the Rays?


No idea, but I'd guess not. Probably should have moved him and Youkilis to 1B/DH.
   32. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 17, 2006 at 06:24 PM (#1825131)
Oh, and Ross Gload would have to be having a monster season with the bat to be considered a valuable left-fielder. He's a decent first baseman, but he's one of the worst defensive outfielders I've ever seen. Maybe worse then Manny Ramirez.
   33. SG Posted: January 17, 2006 at 06:37 PM (#1825143)
First time user of this. Can someone tell me how close the sims using the ZIPs projections last year , came to DMB's official projections in March


Mooser, here's a comparison of 1000 runs with both ZiPS and DMB that I did last year.
   34. bibigon Posted: January 17, 2006 at 06:57 PM (#1825178)
It should be noted, however, that bibigon is playing the t-ball variation, where pitching and plate discipline don't matter.


No, it's just a random set of flukes it appears. The results have no since been reproduced.

I'm sure that a lot of what you're looking at so far is simply the current roster makeup. No doubt part of Texas' excellence in sims so far and the White Sox underperformance is the fact that the Rangers get 35 players (and 21 pitchers) to choose from and the White Sox only get 22 (better shape than the Marlins and their 6-man pitching staff!), not even all of them really major leaguers.


That's actually not the problem I'm having. I went through every roster and made the appropriate adjustments. I still had the computer auto generate the profile, but everyone's playing with a 25 man roster at least in the sims.
   35. Mooser Posted: January 17, 2006 at 07:36 PM (#1825254)
Thanks SG in Atl, very informative. I was trying to determine which set of projections have been more accurate, and based on 2005 results, both ZIPs and Diamond Mind appear about equal. Tippett should include ZIPs simulations in their year end review of projections, it would certainly be a better comparison than certain ones, like "Spring Training Standings"
   36. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 17, 2006 at 07:45 PM (#1825279)
Tippett should include ZIPs simulations in their year end review of projections, it would certainly be a better comparison than certain ones, like "Spring Training Standings"

Understandably, Tom might not want to publicize something free that kinda competes with something he sells. I hope that most of you are buying the DMB projection disk anyway and that this has encouraged enough people to buy DMB or upgrade to the most recent version that I'm having a positive effect on his sales. It's a terrific product, which would be damn well near perfect if not for a few minor issues.
   37. John DiFool2 Posted: January 17, 2006 at 09:01 PM (#1825457)
Thanks for the info. [What game was I thinking of, I wonder]
Now, not to start an argument, but does DMB model "clutch
performance"? IOW will Papi Ortiz hit well in the late innings
of close games, or does DMB assume that is all random, and he
might very well gag in such situations in their sim? Their
website did not mention clutch performance in their FAQ...
   38. Spivey Posted: January 17, 2006 at 09:07 PM (#1825475)
John: You can change their clutch rating (for hitters) or jam rating (for pitchers) to make them clutch or super clutch. I don't know exactly how they account for it in their stats. I don't think Dan includes clutch ratings, and if you want to play with clutch/jam ratings you have to click the little box when you're setting up the game.

Unlike stratomatic, it doesn't look like they have any unclutch options - just 'tough' and 'super'.
   39. John DiFool2 Posted: January 17, 2006 at 09:12 PM (#1825490)
Ah thanks. Looks like I will be springing for this one then. :-)
   40. Spivey Posted: January 17, 2006 at 09:20 PM (#1825513)
Dan: Don't you think this double counts defense? You told me in one of the ZIPS threads that you already use DER to adjust pitcher ERA's. But if you're trying to run sims on DMB, that will double count the defense because that ERA (that presumably already has defense accounted for) will then proceed to get worse/better based on the fielders behind the pitcher.

Could you let me know if you account for this by not using a DER adjusted ERA in the DMB build?
   41. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 17, 2006 at 09:40 PM (#1825564)
But if you're trying to run sims on DMB, that will double count the defense because that ERA (that presumably already has defense accounted for) will then proceed to get worse/better based on the fielders behind the pitcher.

DMB runs sims on a pitch-by-pitch basis, so it's looking at the likelihood that specific events (hit, ball, strike, grounder, fly ball, etc.) will happen in specific circumstances, not at the likelihood of individual players putting up specific statistics.

When you generate a player, the game asks you to pick a home park and era, so it understands where you're coming up with your figures.
   42. KRA Posted: January 17, 2006 at 09:41 PM (#1825567)
You listed games played for hitters in the team previews. Is there a reason that isn't included in this version?
   43. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 17, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#1825582)
Dan: Don't you think this double counts defense? You told me in one of the ZIPS threads that you already use DER to adjust pitcher ERA's. But if you're trying to run sims on DMB, that will double count the defense because that ERA (that presumably already has defense accounted for) will then proceed to get worse/better based on the fielders behind the pitcher.

This is hard to answer without direct knowledge of how the software generates all those even tables. When generating an event table, how much of it is based on the entered ERA and how much determined by components? Luke Kraemer or someone could answer that question, but wouldn't, for a number of very good reasons.

I try to minimize the effects by simply being conservative with defensive ratings along with being conservative in my own ERA estimates (since I regress to the mean my estimates of team defense).
   44. SG Posted: January 17, 2006 at 09:53 PM (#1825595)
According to this discussion on the DMB forums,ERA is basically meaningless when it comes to projecting a pitchers' performance in the game, and that it mainly comes down to their components against (hits, walks, HR, Ks, etc.,). I can't find it right now though.
   45. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 17, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#1825599)
Another change I made was I had Shawn Wooten as W00t3n for awhile, but I figured that would just be obnoxious.
   46. SG Posted: January 17, 2006 at 09:58 PM (#1825608)
Obviously I did find it, or I wouldn't have linked it, so disregard the last sentence in post 44.
   47. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 17, 2006 at 10:01 PM (#1825616)
ERA is basically meaningless when it comes to projecting a pitchers' performance in the game, and that it mainly comes down to their components against (hits, walks, HR, Ks, etc.,)

Right, although I'm not sure what stance Mr. Tippett takes on DIPS.
   48. SG Posted: January 17, 2006 at 10:05 PM (#1825625)
Right, although I'm not sure what stance Mr. Tippett takes on DIPS.

Tippett did a very interesting research project on DIPS.

His conclusion:

The process of separating pitching stats into defense-independent and defense-dependent groups is illuminating. The notion that pitchers don't have as much control over in-play outcomes as they do over defense-independent outcomes is both obvious (in retrospect) and very important. Voros McCracken deserves a lot of credit for introducing this way of thinking.

The bottom line, though, is that I am convinced that pitchers do influence in-play outcomes to a significant degree. There's a reason why Charlie Hough and Jamie Moyer and Phil Niekro and Tom Glavine and Bud Black have had successful careers despite mediocre strikeout rates. There's a reason why the top strikeout pitchers have also suppressed in-play hits at a good rate. Using power or control or deception or a knuckleball, pitchers can keep hitters off balance and induce more than their share of routine grounders, popups, and lazy fly balls.
   49. Spivey Posted: January 17, 2006 at 10:28 PM (#1825664)
ERA is basically meaningless when it comes to projecting a pitchers' performance in the game, and that it mainly comes down to their components against (hits, walks, HR, Ks, etc.,)

This brings up another point.

When I've played with historical season disks, it seems like certain players tend to 'sim' better than others (guys with the same OPS, RC/27, etc.). Mainly, guys who are good BA, good OBP, low strikeout, and don't have a lot of their slugging tied up in homeruns.

Has anyone else noticed this?
   50. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 17, 2006 at 10:33 PM (#1825673)
When I've played with historical season disks, it seems like certain players tend to 'sim' better than others (guys with the same OPS, RC/27, etc.). Mainly, guys who are good BA, good OBP, low strikeout, and don't have a lot of their slugging tied up in homeruns.

Has anyone else noticed this?


I've actually noticed the opposite - that Ken Phelps All-Star types tend to sim well.

Actually, now that I think about it, Ken Phelps types tend to do either really, really well or really, really poorly, depending on whether or not they can get their homers in.

But to answer your question, I've seen guys like Ichiro! and Don Mattingly and Tony Gwynn have poor years in DMB.
   51. Spivey Posted: January 17, 2006 at 10:43 PM (#1825696)
JRE: I see Gwynn do pretty well - as well or better than he should, anyways. Mattingly's career OBP for the game is .344, so he doesn't really fall into the category of what I'm talking about. Maybe I'll look at it in depth some time.
   52. SG Posted: January 17, 2006 at 10:45 PM (#1825700)
Spivey, when I start running my 1000 sims for the greatest teams project I'll keep all the batting and pitching registers. There'll be a lot of data in there that may be useful for all kinds of players.
   53. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 17, 2006 at 10:45 PM (#1825705)
One thing I noticed in our league is that the walkaholic infielders like Myer, Yost, Bishop tend to underperform.
   54. Spivey Posted: January 17, 2006 at 10:52 PM (#1825725)
Thanks, SG.
   55. Runscreated Posted: January 18, 2006 at 12:42 AM (#1825973)
Awesome! Zips helped me big time in my stats league. Saved me many hours of logging in stats to a spreadsheet. Give me a couple of days and I will be ready to draft.
   56. CoastalFan Posted: January 18, 2006 at 05:46 AM (#1826285)
Okay - semi silly question. I forgot how to turn off the boxscore auto save option - does it use a lot of hard drive space? I know it sims faster with the boxscore option turned off.
   57. Cheer and boo and raise a hullabaloo Posted: January 18, 2006 at 06:26 AM (#1826312)
Great stuff, as always. Thanks for all the work. I'll be using these excellent projections for fantasy stuff again this year. This time I might try using them in DMB, running a bunch of sims, and using those stats for things like RBI, Saves, Holds, et cetera. Do people think that would improve accuracy for those things? The downside is I would have to make more assumptions about playing time, and it would eliminate the predictions for people that get called up mid-season.
   58. CoastalFan Posted: January 18, 2006 at 06:36 AM (#1826319)
Perhaps an error - Aaron Harang is without a starter durability rating for the Reds. Can one go in and change that manually?
   59. Spivey Posted: January 18, 2006 at 06:45 AM (#1826326)
Perhaps an error - Aaron Harang is without a starter durability rating for the Reds. Can one go in and change that manually?

Yes, it's an error.

You can fix it yourself by doing the following:

Click on View > Organizer > Players (tab at bottom of window that pops up)

Then left click on Harang's name. Then click the modify button on the top of the window. A list of things to modify will come up - press ratings. A list of his ratings you can modify come up. In the pitching category, the first option will be starter durability rating - you should probably set it to fair (Fr).
   60. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 18, 2006 at 06:47 AM (#1826331)
Yup. The VG was supposed to be in start, not relief. Just go to the organizer and pick modify/ratings.
   61. Gaelan Posted: January 18, 2006 at 07:01 AM (#1826339)
If the ZIPS opponents batting average numbers already take into account the projected defense behind the player then simulating with diamondmind will double count it. Now how much of an effect this is depends entirely on how much defense is weighed both in terms of the projections and by diamondmind. My intuition is that both are fairly conservative and hence the doublecounting is probably not a very big negative.
   62. Gaelan Posted: January 18, 2006 at 07:09 AM (#1826345)
Is Juan Rivera truly and Ex fielder in left?
   63. Anthony Giacalone Posted: January 18, 2006 at 05:29 PM (#1826656)
One thing I noticed in our league is that the walkaholic infielders like Myer, Yost, Bishop tend to underperform.

HEY! Quit listing all of my infielders! Me and my five league crowns are offended. That said, I've tended to notice that OBP guys without power tend to lag a bit. That was certainly the case for Bishop and Lu Blue, two original members of my 1927 squad. They just don't get enough walks to make them viable. Buddy Myer, however, was a god!

The biggest thing that affects DMB player seasons in draft leagues is park effects. Dial has complained non-stop (what new?) about Bobby Doerr. But this should show us that Doerr was tremendosly helped by Fenway. When you move him to even a neutral park (Wrigley in the 1930s-1940s for example), then he becomes a .260 hitting gold glover with occassional flashes of power.
   64. SG Posted: January 18, 2006 at 06:01 PM (#1826714)
Okay - semi silly question. I forgot how to turn off the boxscore auto save option - does it use a lot of hard drive space? I know it sims faster with the boxscore option turned off.



Coastalfan, go into the Organizer and then organization, and then the rules tab. In there you can change the options of what to save. I think it uses about 300 meg of space if you save everything.
   65. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 18, 2006 at 11:35 PM (#1827457)
So anybody got projected standings, runs scored, runs allowed using this yet?
   66. Mooser Posted: January 19, 2006 at 02:24 AM (#1827768)
About 10 sims in. Surprises are how good Tampa may be, and Oakland's superior pitching. Rich Harden is usually the best AL starter.
   67. Runscreated Posted: January 19, 2006 at 03:54 PM (#1828288)
Dan,
Did ZIPS downgade the Coors Field effect for hitters this year as compared to last year?
   68. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 19, 2006 at 05:00 PM (#1828400)
Yes - Coors ain't the home run park it used to be, though it's still a big BA park.

Dan
   69. Gaelan Posted: January 19, 2006 at 05:51 PM (#1828473)
I want to reiterate how great I think this is. I can't really conceive of how much time went into inputing the data.

I have a question about the defensive ratings. What is the source of the defensive ratings.? There seem to be more extreme ratings (Ex and Pr) than in a disk prepared by diamondmind.
   70. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 19, 2006 at 07:18 PM (#1828653)
Did I give more than DM? I thought I was being conservative. Looking at the excellent ratings. Only leftfield has a good number of EX ratings, but I'm fairly free at rating really good centerfielders at left even if they're not playing there at all.

On the PR side, there are more, but that's in part because again, I'm pretty generous at allowing players to play positions. Looking at 2B for instance, only Ramon Vazquez, Todd Walker, Jose Castillo, and Bobby Hill will play 2B at all in the majors in the future and only 1 or 2 of those guys as a regular.

All the other PR ratings are simply guys who have played a little 2B at some point that could fake 2B in an emergency, like Ty Wigginton or Mike Lamb. And they'll do it pretty badly.

Another thing to remember is that I tend to project a lot of players so there are a lot of players that are too bad to play a position in the majors, guys like Vinny Rottino or Juan Tejeda.
   71. SG Posted: January 19, 2006 at 07:21 PM (#1828655)
So anybody got projected standings, runs scored, runs allowed using this yet?

Through 100 runs.

                                                                                                High
Team            W       L       RF      RA      DIV     WC      DIV%    WC%     Made%  Missed%  Wins
<u>American League</u>
East                                                                                    
Toronto         86      76      778     728     41      4       41.0%   3.5%    44.5%   55.5%   104
New York(A)     85      77      822     788     32      6       32.0%   5.5%    37.5%   62.5%   102
Boston          82      80      839     823     23      5       22.5%   4.5%    27.0%   73.0%   97
Baltimore       75      87      766     815     3       1       2.5%    0.5%    3.0%    97.0%   91
Tampa Bay       73      89      744     814     2       1       2.0%    0.5%    2.5%    97.5%   90
                                                                                        
Central                                                                                 
Cleveland       92      71      841     734     71      7       71.0%   7.0%    78.0%   22.0%   108
Minnesota       85      77      730     690     19      17      19.0%   17.3%   36.3%   63.7%   98
Chicago(A)      83      79      774     747     10      14      10.0%   13.8%   23.8%   76.2%   99
Detroit         75      87      758     812     0       2       0.0%    1.5%    1.5%    98.5%   89
Kansas City     66      96      724     860     0       0       0.0%    0.0%    0.0%    100.0%  79
                                                                                        
West                                                                                    
Oakland         96      66      785     631     74      10      74.0%   10.3%   84.3%   15.7%   109
Los Angeles(A)  87      75      750     699     15      25      14.5%   24.5%   39.0%   61.0%   103
Seattle         81      81      724     760     11      6       11.0%   6.0%    17.0%   83.0%   106
Texas           79      83      802     819     1       5       0.5%    5.0%    5.5%    94.5%   95
                                                                                        
<u>National League</u>
East                                                                                    
New York(N)     93      69      790     678     55      15      54.8%   15.0%   69.8%   30.2%   108
Philadelphia    90      72      788     692     32      23      31.8%   22.8%   54.7%   45.3%   104
Atlanta         84      78      774     734     9       15      9.3%    14.5%   23.8%   76.2%   100
Washington      80      82      720     706     4       1       4.0%    1.0%    5.0%    95.0%   101
Florida         46      116     602     976     0       0       0.0%    0.0%    0.0%    100.0%  60
                                                                                        
Central                                                                                 
St. Louis       94      68      780     655     69      11      68.8%   10.5%   79.3%   20.7%   110
Chicago(N)      87      75      772     713     18      20      17.5%   20.0%   37.5%   62.5%   103
Pittsburgh      84      78      728     704     12      8       12.3%   7.5%    19.8%   80.2%   105
Houston         78      84      696     724     0       2       0.3%    2.0%    2.3%    97.7%   92
Milwaukee       75      87      678     725     1       1       1.0%    1.0%    2.0%    98.0%   92
Cincinnati      71      91      767     856     0       0       0.0%    0.0%    0.0%    100.0%  83
                                                                                        
West                                                                                    
San Francisco   85      77      785     743     49      0       48.5%   0.3%    48.8%   51.2%   103
Los Angeles(N)  83      79      741     723     28      2       28.0%   1.5%    29.5%   70.5%   101
Colorado        79      83      801     830     15      1       14.5%   1.3%    15.8%   84.2%   93
Arizona         77      85      730     774     6       2       6.0%    2.0%    8.0%    92.0%   98
San Diego       76      86      705     744     3       1       3.0%    0.5%    3.5%    96.5%   89


That Marlins line is, interesting.
   72. SG Posted: January 19, 2006 at 07:25 PM (#1828665)
The pre tags suck since the upgrade.
                                                                                                High
Team            W       L       RF      RA      DIV     WC      DIV%    WC%     Made%  Missed%  Wins
American League
East                                                                                    
Toronto         86      76      778     728     41      4       41.0%   3.5%    44.5%   55.5%   104
New York(A)     85      77      822     788     32      6       32.0%   5.5%    37.5%   62.5%   102
Boston          82      80      839     823     23      5       22.5%   4.5%    27.0%   73.0%   97
Baltimore       75      87      766     815     3       1       2.5%    0.5%    3.0%    97.0%   91
Tampa Bay       73      89      744     814     2       1       2.0%    0.5%    2.5%    97.5%   90
                                                                                        
Central                                                                                 
Cleveland       92      71      841     734     71      7       71.0%   7.0%    78.0%   22.0%   108
Minnesota       85      77      730     690     19      17      19.0%   17.3%   36.3%   63.7%   98
Chicago(A)      83      79      774     747     10      14      10.0%   13.8%   23.8%   76.2%   99
Detroit         75      87      758     812     0       2       0.0%    1.5%    1.5%    98.5%   89
Kansas City     66      96      724     860     0       0       0.0%    0.0%    0.0%    100.0%  79
                                                                                        
West                                                                                    
Oakland         96      66      785     631     74      10      74.0%   10.3%   84.3%   15.7%   109
Los Angeles(A)  87      75      750     699     15      25      14.5%   24.5%   39.0%   61.0%   103
Seattle         81      81      724     760     11      6       11.0%   6.0%    17.0%   83.0%   106
Texas           79      83      802     819     1       5       0.5%    5.0%    5.5%    94.5%   95
                                                                                        
<u>National League</u>
East                                                                                    
New York(N)     93      69      790     678     55      15      54.8%   15.0%   69.8%   30.2%   108
Philadelphia    90      72      788     692     32      23      31.8%   22.8%   54.7%   45.3%   104
Atlanta         84      78      774     734     9       15      9.3%    14.5%   23.8%   76.2%   100
Washington      80      82      720     706     4       1       4.0%    1.0%    5.0%    95.0%   101
Florida         46      116     602     976     0       0       0.0%    0.0%    0.0%    100.0%  60
                                                                                        
Central                                                                                 
St. Louis       94      68      780     655     69      11      68.8%   10.5%   79.3%   20.7%   110
Chicago(N)      87      75      772     713     18      20      17.5%   20.0%   37.5%   62.5%   103
Pittsburgh      84      78      728     704     12      8       12.3%   7.5%    19.8%   80.2%   105
Houston         78      84      696     724     0       2       0.3%    2.0%    2.3%    97.7%   92
Milwaukee       75      87      678     725     1       1       1.0%    1.0%    2.0%    98.0%   92
Cincinnati      71      91      767     856     0       0       0.0%    0.0%    0.0%    100.0%  83
                                                                                        
West                                                                                    
San Francisco   85      77      785     743     49      0       48.5%   0.3%    48.8%   51.2%   103
Los Angeles(N)  83      79      741     723     28      2       28.0%   1.5%    29.5%   70.5%   101
Colorado        79      83      801     830     15      1       14.5%   1.3%    15.8%   84.2%   93
Arizona         77      85      730     774     6       2       6.0%    2.0%    8.0%    92.0%   98
San Diego       76      86      705     744     3       1       3.0%    0.5%    3.5%    96.5%   89
   73. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 19, 2006 at 07:27 PM (#1828668)
That Marlins line is, interesting.

To say the least. ZiPS thinks the 2006 Marlins might be the worst team in the modern era.

And, while I'm not as high on the White Sox' chances as most Sox fans (I think the Indians will probably win the division), I'm fairly confident that they're better than the Twins.
   74. SG Posted: January 19, 2006 at 07:27 PM (#1828670)
I give up.
   75. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 19, 2006 at 07:29 PM (#1828672)
The pre tags suck since the upgrade.

Try using the brackets ([]) instead of the carat thingies.

testing -

Team       W    L   RF   RA  DIV  WC   DIV%   WC%   MadeMissedWins
New York(N)  93  69  790  678  55   15  54.8%  15.0%  69.8%  30.2%  108 
   76. SG Posted: January 19, 2006 at 07:40 PM (#1828692)
Ok, let me try that JRE.
High
Team            W       L       RF      RA      DIV     WC      DIV
%    WC%     Made%  Missed%  Wins
American League
East                                                                                    
Toronto         86      76      778     728     41      4       41.0
%   3.5%    44.5%   55.5%   104
New York(A)     85      77      822     788     32      6       32.0%   5.5%    37.5%   62.5%   102
Boston          82      80      839     823     23      5       22.5
%   4.5%    27.0%   73.0%   97
Baltimore       75      87      766     815     3       1       2.5
%    0.5%    3.0%    97.0%   91
Tampa Bay       73      89      744     814     2       1       2.0
%    0.5%    2.5%    97.5%   90
                                                                                        
Central                                                                                 
Cleveland       92      71      841     734     71      7       71.0
%   7.0%    78.0%   22.0%   108
Minnesota       85      77      730     690     19      17      19.0
%   17.3%   36.3%   63.7%   98
Chicago
(A)      83      79      774     747     10      14      10.0%   13.8%   23.8%   76.2%   99
Detroit         75      87      758     812     0       2       0.0
%    1.5%    1.5%    98.5%   89
Kansas City     66      96      724     860     0       0       0.0
%    0.0%    0.0%    100.0%  79
                                                                                        
West                                                                                    
Oakland         96      66      785     631     74      10      74.0
%   10.3%   84.3%   15.7%   109
Los Angeles
(A)  87      75      750     699     15      25      14.5%   24.5%   39.0%   61.0%   103
Seattle         81      81      724     760     11      6       11.0
%   6.0%    17.0%   83.0%   106
Texas           79      83      802     819     1       5       0.5
%    5.0%    5.5%    94.5%   95
                                                                                        
<u>National League</u>
East                                                                                    
New York(N)     93      69      790     678     55      15      54.8%   15.0%   69.8%   30.2%   108
Philadelphia    90      72      788     692     32      23      31.8
%   22.8%   54.7%   45.3%   104
Atlanta         84      78      774     734     9       15      9.3
%    14.5%   23.8%   76.2%   100
Washington      80      82      720     706     4       1       4.0
%    1.0%    5.0%    95.0%   101
Florida         46      116     602     976     0       0       0.0
%    0.0%    0.0%    100.0%  60
                                                                                        
Central                                                                                 
St
Louis       94      68      780     655     69      11      68.8%   10.5%   79.3%   20.7%   110
Chicago
(N)      87      75      772     713     18      20      17.5%   20.0%   37.5%   62.5%   103
Pittsburgh      84      78      728     704     12      8       12.3
%   7.5%    19.8%   80.2%   105
Houston         78      84      696     724     0       2       0.3
%    2.0%    2.3%    97.7%   92
Milwaukee       75      87      678     725     1       1       1.0
%    1.0%    2.0%    98.0%   92
Cincinnati      71      91      767     856     0       0       0.0
%    0.0%    0.0%    100.0%  83
                                                                                        
West                                                                                    
San Francisco   85      77      785     743     49      0       48.5
%   0.3%    48.8%   51.2%   103
Los Angeles
(N)  83      79      741     723     28      2       28.0%   1.5%    29.5%   70.5%   101
Colorado        79      83      801     830     15      1       14.5
%   1.3%    15.8%   84.2%   93
Arizona         77      85      730     774     6       2       6.0
%    2.0%    8.0%    92.0%   98
San Diego       76      86      705     744     3       1       3.0
%    0.5%    3.5%    96.5%   89 
   77. Danny Posted: January 19, 2006 at 08:17 PM (#1828776)
Oakland probably benefits most if there's "double-counting" of defense, but I like what I see. Thanks, SG.
   78. Mooser Posted: January 19, 2006 at 08:29 PM (#1828815)
I got essentially similar results. It looks like Toronto's moves pushed them over the top. I noticed that their success was largely related to the power numbers of Glaus and Wells. Pitching was consistently good each sim.
   79. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: January 19, 2006 at 08:39 PM (#1828836)
Is Juan Rivera truly and Ex fielder in left?

If "Ex" means "Excellent", my vote is "yes".
   80. Dr. Vaux Posted: January 19, 2006 at 09:18 PM (#1828961)
If defense is double counted, though, New York A and Texas get better, because their run-allowing is being penalized twice.

It really cute that even Pat Gillick says the Phillies can't win the division when it's so obvious that they can. And I know these sims don't even have Madson as a starter, because he doesn't ZIP as one.
   81. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 19, 2006 at 09:32 PM (#1828980)
SG's sims seem to predict a strong regression to the mean.

I was looking at runs allowed by AL teams, and while ZIPS doesn't predict a real change in total runs allowed (10,720 predicted runs for 2006 v. 10,616 runs actual runs scored in 2005), it does predict that most bad-pitching teams will get better, while most good-pitching teams will get worse.

For instance, ZiPS predicts that the White Sox will allow 129 more runs in 1006 than they did in 2005, a huge jump, and one that I'm doubtful of.

On the other end of the spectrum, ZiPS predicts that Kansas City will allow 75 fewer runs and Tampa Bay will allow 121 fewer runs in 2006, which probably explains why Tampa is simming so well.

Essentially, it seems to predict that all but one AL pitching staff has a "true ERA" somewhere between 4.00 and 5.00, which I guess might make sense.

A notable exception - Oakland. ZiPS predicts that Oakland's pitching/defense will actually improve somewhat (27 fewer runs allowed next season). That seems hard to believe.
   82. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 19, 2006 at 09:44 PM (#1828999)
Do remember that this is the first build - I'd much prefer SG do the official sims with a later build.
   83. SG Posted: January 19, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#1829005)
Yeah, I wouldn't consider these official. This is just a trial run. There's a lot of roster churn still to come. I'll re-run them again in spring training and compare it to Diamond Mind's.

I'm shocked by Oakland so far though. They seem to be the strongest team in the AL. I was also surprised by Pittsburgh. There may be hope in the Steel City.
   84. Bad Doctor Posted: January 19, 2006 at 10:17 PM (#1829044)
Just guessing, but I'll bet depth is what gives Oakland such a strong average showing. They have about the lowest difference between high win output and average, and I'd bet they're #1 in the difference between low win output and average. Out of a hundred seasons, every team is going to have a handful of years decimated by injuries and/or surprisingly bad pitching ... but Oakland's quality depth in the rotation, bullpen, corners, and centerfield would probably keep them afloat and in the race in these seasons, whereas other teams would lose 15 or 20 games from their average showing.
   85. Bad Doctor Posted: January 19, 2006 at 10:18 PM (#1829048)
I'd love to see the numbers from Seattle and Pittsburgh's big years. Must have been King Felix and Duke going '85 Gooden on the league.
   86. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 19, 2006 at 10:20 PM (#1829050)
Out of a hundred seasons, every team is going to have a handful of years decimated by injuries and/or surprisingly bad pitching ... but Oakland's quality depth in the rotation, bullpen, corners, and centerfield would probably keep them afloat and in the race in these seasons, whereas other teams would lose 15 or 20 games from their average showing.

Your point is well-taken, but you should know that injuries are a very small factor in DMB. Even with injuries turned on, it's rare to see a player lose more than a few days to injury, and I've never seen a player lose more than about a month.

It's something to consider when you look at older teams like the Yankees or Giants.
   87. Danny Posted: January 19, 2006 at 11:16 PM (#1829154)
For instance, ZiPS predicts that the White Sox will allow 129 more runs in 1006 than they did in 2005, a huge jump, and one that I'm doubtful of.


The White Sox projected 5 starters had a 3.69 ERA in 2005, collectively. In 2004, however, those same 5 starters had a 4.54 ERA. I think some regression should be expected. Cotts will likely regress some. They also lost Rowand, which will hurt.

A notable exception - Oakland. ZiPS predicts that Oakland's pitching/defense will actually improve somewhat (27 fewer runs allowed next season). That seems hard to believe.


Loaiza replacing Saarloos should cancel out some of the regression from Haren and Blanton. Harden should get more starts, and they have Saarloos taking the replacement starts now instead of Etherton, Glynn, and Kennedy.

The bullpen should be very good again. Saarloos' improvement over Cruz/Yabu should cancel out regression from Street.

The defense looks to be improved with more playing time for Crosby and Ellis instead of Scutaro, Payton replacing a half season of Byrnes/Kielty, Bradley should be better than Swisher in RF, and Swisher is supposedly pretty good at 1B. If Kotsya improves from his down year, they should have a great defense.

I certainly don't expect the A's to lead the league in RA by that large a margin, but they should be near the best in pitching/defense.

I have to disagree about the A's being deep in the corners, though. An injury to an OF, Swisher, or Johnson means Kielty/Perez at DH. Unless they sign Thomas AND he can stay healthy...
   88. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 19, 2006 at 11:37 PM (#1829189)
The White Sox projected 5 starters had a 3.69 ERA in 2005, collectively. In 2004, however, those same 5 starters had a 4.54 ERA. I think some regression should be expected. Cotts will likely regress some. They also lost Rowand, which will hurt.

The key for the White Sox will be their defense. I agree that losing Rowand hurts (possibly more than Thome will help), but otherwise, the entire defense is returning, and I don't think the difference between Aaron Rowand and Brian Anderson is over 100 runs.

I fully expect some regression, but not the dramatic difference that ZiPS projects. I'd actually be interested to see how Dan graded the White Sox defense.

As for the bullpen, while Cotts (and to a lesser extent, Politte) should regress somewhat (although I think they'll both still be useful) and I'll be surprised if Dustin Hermanson is useful at all, but they're getting a full season from Bobby Jenks, I like Jeff Bajenaru more than ZiPS does, and Brandon McCarthy will give them the solid long man that they were missing all last season.

Loaiza replacing Saarloos should cancel out some of the regression from Haren and Blanton. Harden should get more starts, and they have Saarloos taking the replacement starts now instead of Etherton, Glynn, and Kennedy.

I don't like Blanton or Loaiza as much as ZiPS does. In fact, I don't think it's at all guaranteed that he'll be better in 2006 than Saarloos was in 2005 (108 ERA+).

But that's all just quibbling. I don't doubt the A's will be very, very good at preventing runs in 2006. I was just surprised that ZiPS thinks they'll be even better than they were last year, because a lot went right for the A's in that regard.
   89. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 19, 2006 at 11:55 PM (#1829227)
Pierzynski - AV/FR Arm
Konerko - FR
Iguchi - VG
Crede - AV
Uribe - AV
Pods - VG
Anderson - AV
Dye - VG
   90. Danny Posted: January 19, 2006 at 11:57 PM (#1829231)
Dan, how do you rate the A's defenders (is that in the spreadsheet somewhere)?
   91. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 20, 2006 at 12:07 AM (#1829256)
Pierzynski - AV/FR Arm
Konerko - FR
Iguchi - VG
Crede - AV
Uribe - AV
Pods - VG
Anderson - AV
Dye - VG


This is what I'd have -

Pierzynski - AV/FR
Konerko - AV (he really did look better last year)
Iguchi - AV
Uribe - VG (although I'd toy with EX)
Crede - VG (alghough I'd bump him down to AV if I gave Uribe an EX)
Podsednik - AV/FR
Anderson - AV/AV (mainly because I have very little idea what he can do out there)
Dye - AV/VG (I was impressed with his throwing ability)
   92. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 20, 2006 at 12:12 AM (#1829263)
I have A's as best defensive team, I believe.

C - Kendall - AV/FR arm
1B - Swisher - VG
2B - Ellis - EX
3B - Chaves - VG
SS - Crosby - VG
LF - Kielty/Payton - AV/VG
CF - Kotsay - AV
RF - Bradley - EX (I might change this down to a VG)
   93. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 20, 2006 at 12:17 AM (#1829268)
I gave Dye and Anderson VG arms and Pods FR.
   94. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 20, 2006 at 12:20 AM (#1829273)
I have A's as best defensive team, I believe.

No kidding.

I don't know if those ratings are right, but if so, that's the best defensive DMB team I've ever seen.
   95. Mister High Standards Posted: January 20, 2006 at 12:29 AM (#1829293)
When discussing defense in dmb its important to include error rates as well.
   96. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: January 20, 2006 at 12:36 AM (#1829302)
When discussing defense in dmb its important to include error rates as well.

It depends on the era. Errors used to be a lot more common (and hence, players who made few errors were more valuable) in previous eras than they are now.
   97. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 20, 2006 at 01:01 AM (#1829322)
I think I'm changing Bradley to VG - this was a carryover from last year and is a violoation of my policy of not going too nuts over really good defensive players moving to easier positions.
   98. Russ Posted: January 20, 2006 at 01:11 AM (#1829327)
Depending on how ZiPS dishes out the playing time, I could see the Pirates going around .500 next year. They have one great player and a lot of average-to-below average hitters with only one sucking mass (Burnitz). The bench is deeper (Craig Wilson, Freddy Sanchez, Nate McLouth, Jody Gerut).

Probably the most important thing is that the defense could be ridiculously off the hook, which greatly aids the pitching. According to the sims, the Pirates are about 4th or 5th in RS. That has to be some sweet defensive rating going on. I'd guess that everyone in the Pirate starting lineup is average or above with the glove (with maybe 2-3 excellent guys, depending on Burnitz in RF). On defense, Castillo + Wilson = Crazy Delicious.

I'd actually be pretty excited about the Pittsburgh offseason if they hadn't blocked my mancrush Nate McLouth with Burnitz. We'll see if my prediction about them going cheap on the draft this year comes true...
   99. Dr. Vaux Posted: January 20, 2006 at 01:24 AM (#1829340)
What's odd is that this sim gives almost identical results to ZIPS+PT except for the Rangers. I wonder what the big difference is?
   100. Gaelan Posted: January 20, 2006 at 05:44 AM (#1829679)
Did I give more than DM? I thought I was being conservative. Looking at the excellent ratings. Only leftfield has a good number of EX ratings, but I'm fairly free at rating really good centerfielders at left even if they're not playing there at all.


Well I certainly didn't count but I played a game with the blue jays and they had three Excellent fielders in the outfield (Johnson, Wells and Rios) and none of them are excellent according to diamondmind. So its just my impression that their are more excellent ratings.

Well I guess I'll go check. For the 2005 season only one RF (Kearns), two CF (Rowand and Logan) and two LF (Podsednik and Crisp) are given Ex ratings so it appears diamondmind is more stingy giving out only two or three ex ratings for each position.
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
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.7539 seconds
47 querie(s) executed