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

Thursday, December 03, 2009

2010 ZiPS Projections - New York Mets

Well, that didn’t go according to plan.  I think.  If it did go according to plan, I seriously question the planning abilities of the New York Mets.

A few things did go right for the team.  Francoeur flailed enough hits to actually contribute while with the Mets, though I don’t expect that to last given his history of having plate discipline so poor that Brad Pennington couldn’t walk him.  Pagan played legitimately well.

Not many teams can absorb losing Delgado and Reyes for most of the season, Beltran for half a season, and Wright’s loss of power.  The hypothetical team that could would have to have a pretty strong pitching rotation and a great deal of organizational depth.  If the 70-92 record didn’t do it, having a team that was very happy that Nelson Figueroa was hanging around should disabuse any holdouts that think the Mets could have been that team.

So, what do the Mets do?  Delgado’s gone, but it’s hard to resist the urge to go for it when you have Beltran, Wright, Reyes, and Santana on your team.  The team desperately needs a fill-in at 1B better than Murphy and they need someone to catch for a year.  Getting an actual innings-eater is a must and it would be useful if someone would inform Omar Minaya that an innings-eater doesn’t necessarily have to be a pitcher as bad as Livan Hernandez or Tim Redding.

Offensive Projections

Name               P Age   AVG   OBP   SLG   G AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB   K SB CS OPS+
David Wright         3b 27 .307 .396 .507 148 566 104 174 37 2 24 101 84 130 24 7   140
Carlos Beltran#      cf 33 .294 .381 .514 113 432 79 127 28 2 21 83 62 78 16 2   137
Jose Reyes#          ss 27 .294 .363 .455 109 462 79 136 24 10 10 49 49 58 43 11   117
Carlos Delgado*      1b 38 .271 .351 .479 74 284 44 77 15 1 14 56 32 62 0 0   119
Fernando Tatis       1b 35 .277 .345 .458 107 336 46 93 19 3 12 49 30 64 4 2   113
Angel Pagan#        cf 28 .285 .335 .446 92 298 48 85 16 7 6 36 24 53 12 4   107
Chris Carter*        1b 27 .278 .334 .428 128 493 57 137 27 1 15 69 41 79 1 0   102
Gary Sheffield       lf 41 .248 .347 .411 97 302 43 75 14 1 11 45 43 60 4 1   102
Luis Castillo#        2b 34 .290 .368 .349 120 441 72 128 14 3 2 38 55 48 18 5   94
Daniel Murphy*        1b 25 .274 .326 .408 150 525 66 144 34 3 10 69 41 79 6 4   95
Jeff Francoeur       rf 26 .269 .310 .425 155 602 75 162 34 3 18 86 32 111 4 3   94
Jason DuBois         lf 31 .242 .310 .425 116 388 50 94 18 1 17 59 31 113 2 1   94
Josh Thole*          c   23 .273 .335 .360 124 447 48 122 26 2 3 51 40 55 5 2   87
Chip Ambres         rf 30 .252 .317 .393 125 448 57 113 23 2 12 54 42 100 4 4   89
Emil Brown           rf 35 .259 .314 .396 100 351 48 91 19 1 9 55 27 72 5 3   89
Jeremy Reed*        lf 29 .274 .320 .394 139 368 47 101 20 3 6 38 24 52 5 5   90
Andy Green           3b 32 .248 .325 .369 93 290 44 72 13 2 6 29 32 58 4 2   86
Mike Lamb*          3b 34 .266 .314 .377 108 342 41 91 19 2 5 44 23 40 0 1   84
Nicholas Evans       lf 24 .240 .295 .402 130 438 53 105 25 5 12 50 33 113 1 0   84
Fernando Martinez     cf 21 .251 .297 .406 86 335 43 84 21 2 9 41 19 75 4 2   86
Cory Sullivan*        cf 30 .262 .319 .364 127 390 51 102 18 5 4 38 33 70 8 4   83
Jesus Feliciano*      lf 31 .284 .327 .349 112 398 46 113 18 1 2 34 23 43 8 6   82
Ike Davis*          1b 23 .227 .302 .388 122 472 46 107 24 2 16 58 50 154 0 2   83
Alex Cora*          ss 34 .251 .322 .336 85 235 28 59 10 2 2 17 19 26 4 2   77
Robinson Cancel       c   34 .256 .299 .358 69 215 21 55 11 1 3 19 13 31 5 2   75
Anderson Hernandez#    2b 27 .255 .304 .338 129 462 58 118 19 5 3 40 32 81 9 7   72
Ruben Tejada         ss 20 .247 .299 .324 139 527 56 130 23 3 4 42 34 88 11 4   67
Omir Santos         c   29 .247 .289 .342 92 295 28 73 14 1 4 33 15 55 1 1   69
Javier Castillo       3b 26 .246 .288 .343 127 472 43 116 22 3 6 43 27 107 3 3   68
Ramon Martinez       ss 37 .243 .300 .313 49 144 14 35 7 0 1 18 12 20 1 1   65
Rene Rivera         c   26 .226 .268 .353 75 266 23 60 13 0 7 29 14 72 0 1   65
Shawn Bowman         3b 25 .216 .258 .320 70 269 24 58 12 2 4 24 14 93 1 1   54

Defensive Projections

Name           CThr 1b     2b     3b     ss     lf     cf     rf    
Wright                       Av/100                      
Beltran#                                      Vg/97      
Reyes#                            Av/93                  
Delgado*          Fr/103                                
Tatis             Av/116       Pr/116       Fr/120       Fr/120
Pagan#                                  Av/92   Av/105 Av/92  
Carter*            Pr/146                 Pr/108       Pr/137
Sheffield           Pr/75                   Pr/75       Pr/75  
Castillo#                Fr/100                            
Murphy*            Vg/144 Fr/173 Fr/144       Av/129       Av/129
Francoeur                                           Av/97
DuBois             Fr/125                 Pr/129       Pr/129
Thole*        Fr   Fr/111                                
Ambres                                 Vg/104 Pr/131 Vg/104
Brown                                   Av/127       Fr/119
Reed*                                  Av/75   Fr/84   Av/75  
Green                   Av/100 Fr/120 Pr/120 Fr/100            
Lamb*            Av/121       Pr/114                      
Evans             Av/95                   Fr/123            
Martinez                                 Av/93   Fr/93   Av/93  
Sullivan*                                Av/84   Fr/84      
Feliciano*                              Vg/78   Fr/71   Vg/78  
Davis*            Av/105                                
Cora*                  Av/86       Av/99                  
Cancel         Av   Fr/114                 Fr/114            
Hernandez#              Vg/107       Av/108                
Tejada                 Vg/131       Vg/131                
Santos         Av                                      
Castillo                     Av/146 Fr/175                
Martinez                 Fr/61   Fr/61   Pr/61                  
Rivera         Av                                      
Bowman                       Vg/79                      

* - Bats Left
# - Switch Hitter

ODDIBE (Odds of Important Baseball Events)

Name           PO   EX   VG   AV   FR   PO       COMP 1       COMP 2       COMP 3
WrightDavid     3B   85%  14%  1%  0%  0%  AlfonzoEdgardo   JacobyBrook     SantoRon
BeltranCarlos     CF   97%  3%  0%  0%  0%    LankfordRay   AndersonBrady   van SlykeAndy
ReyesJose       SS   86%  11%  3%  1%  0%  FurcalRafael   ApplingLuke   RenteriaEdgar
DelgadoCarlos     1B   12%  38%  28%  19%  3%    AdcockJoe   JohnsonCliff     FairlyRon
TatisFernando     1B   5%  25%  25%  31%  14%    KarrosEric     PippWally     MormanRuss
PaganAngel       CF   24%  27%  33%  15%  2%    KeoughMarty   WynneMarvell   SandersDeion
CarterChris     1B   2%  10%  20%  45%  24%      CoxSteve   McCrawTommy     JohnsonRon
SheffieldGary     LF   5%  17%  21%  27%  30%    SauerHank   SlaughterEnos     WanerPaul
CastilloLuis     2B   20%  18%  22%  25%  15%  RandolphWillie   VinaFernando   BlasingameDon
MurphyDaniel     1B   0%  3%  9%  35%  53%      KrukJohn     DalenaPete   MastellerDan
FrancoeurJeff     RF   1%  4%  11%  26%  59%    JonesJacque ChamberlainWes     JamesChris
DuboisJason     LF   1%  5%  10%  25%  59%  JohnsonDeron   HatcherChris     ClarkBobby
ReedJeremy       LF   0%  3%  5%  14%  79%      UnserDel     MayDerrick WilliamsDallas
BrownEmil       RF   1%  5%  6%  15%  73%    SierraRuben     WardGary     HoagMyril
TholeJoshua       C   1%  13%  31%  42%  13%  NavarroDioner     LevisJesse   KendallJason
AmbresChip       RF   1%  2%  4%  15%  78%  CordovaMarty   SpencerShane     CimoliGino
MartinezFernando   LF   0%  1%  4%  17%  77%    JamesChris   O’NeillPaul   HartsockBrian
GreenAndy       3B   0%  3%  12%  32%  54%  TatisFernando   RoysterJerry   BarnesSkeeter
LambMike       3B   0%  2%  8%  24%  66%  ChristmanMark     StrippJoe   BarnesSkeeter
SullivanCory     CF   1%  2%  12%  34%  50%  PodsednikScott     ScottTonyMcCrackenQuinton
EvansNick       LF   0%  1%  3%  12%  85%    MoutonLyleSmithermanStephe     PoeCharles
FelicianoJesus   LF   0%  1%  2%  6%  91%    WanerLloyd     SpanglerAl     RamosKen
DavisIke       1B   0%  0%  1%  8%  91%      HornSam     SantosChad   WhitesellJosh
CancelRobinson     C   0%  3%  9%  37%  51%  HemsleyRollie   NorrisSteven     CeroneRick
CoraAlex       SS   0%  3%  19%  43%  35%      BoleyJoe   FletcherScott   FernandezTony
HernandezAnderson 2B   0%  0%  1%  6%  93%    MaciasJose   InfanteAlexis   VerasQuilvio
TejadaRuben     SS   0%  0%  5%  24%  71%    ChavezPedro   DiSarcinaGary   InfanteOmar
SantosOmir       C   0%  0%  2%  20%  77%    HeintzChris   HubbardMike DalesandroMark
CastilloJavier   3B   0%  0%  0%  2%  98%  SpringerSteve   GonzalezEdgar ColombinoCarlo
MartinezRamon     SS   0%  0%  1%  14%  85%MaranvilleRabbit   LockhartKeith   BluegeOssie
RiveraRene       C   0%  0%  0%  8%  92%  ColbertCraig   ReynoldsRonn     BrownJason
BowmanShawn     3B   0%  0%  0%  0%  100%    CaliseMike     RustBrian   DuncanCarlos

Name         .300 BA .375 OBP .500 SLG 140 OPS+  45 2B   10 3B   30 HR   30 SB
WrightDavid       60%    77%    53%    47%    15%    0%    19%    24%
BeltranCarlos       40%    57%    60%    39%    3%    0%    11%    1%
ReyesJose         40%    32%    20%    12%    0%    65%    0%    95%
DelgadoCarlos       19%    21%    33%    9%    0%    0%    0%    0%
TatisFernando       20%    14%    16%    3%    0%    1%    0%    0%
PaganAngel         31%    10%    12%    5%    0%    25%    0%    0%
CarterChris       17%    4%    5%    1%    1%    0%    2%    0%
SheffieldGary       7%    18%    3%    1%    0%    0%    0%    0%
CastilloLuis       38%    40%    0%    0%    0%    2%    0%    4%
MurphyDaniel       13%    1%    1%    0%    6%    1%    0%    0%
FrancoeurJeff       8%    0%    2%    0%    8%    1%    3%    0%
DuboisJason         1%    1%    4%    1%    0%    0%    2%    0%
ReedJeremy         20%    3%    1%    0%    0%    1%    0%    0%
BrownEmil         9%    3%    3%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
TholeJoshua       12%    4%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
AmbresChip         4%    2%    1%    1%    1%    0%    0%    0%
MartinezFernando     3%    0%    1%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
GreenAndy         4%    5%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
LambMike         11%    1%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
SullivanCory       8%    3%    0%    0%    0%    5%    0%    0%
EvansNick         0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    4%    0%    0%
FelicianoJesus     28%    5%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
DavisIke           0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
CancelRobinson       9%    1%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
CoraAlex           7%    5%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
HernandezAnderson     3%    0%    0%    0%    0%    5%    0%    0%
TejadaRuben         1%    0%    0%    0%    0%    1%    0%    0%
SantosOmir         3%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
CastilloJavier       1%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
MartinezRamon       10%    3%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
RiveraRene         0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%
BowmanShawn         0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%    0%

Pitching Statistics - Starters

Name               Age   ERA   W   L   G GS   INN   H   ER HR   BB   K ERA+
Johan Santana*        31   3.23 16   9 30 30   206.1 184   74 24   52 203 133
John Maine           29   4.20   9   8 23 22   122.0 113   57 14   57 103 103
Jon Niese*          23   4.57   8   9 26 26   143.2 155   73 14   55 103   95
Mike Pelfrey         26   4.86 10 14 33 33   189.0 216 102 18   69 111   89
Jenrry Mejia         20   4.90   3   5 16 16   75.1   78   41   8   44   54   88
Oliver Perez*        28   4.93   7 10 27 27   142.1 138   78 20   87 132   88
Nelson Figueroa       36   5.06   6 10 28 20   131.2 151   74 17   46   91   86
Fernando Nieve         27   5.19   3   5 24 11   67.2   75   39   9   31   50   83
Tim Redding           32   5.32   6 10 32 25   150.2 171   89 23   58   96   81
Jack Egbert           27   5.46   6 11 29 22   123.2 147   75 15   49   75   79
Tobi Stoner           25   5.58   6 11 26 25   132.1 156   82 18   56   77   78
Bobby Parnell         25   5.67   5 11 52 20   120.2 142   76 14   67   86   76
Adam Pettyjohn*        33   5.67   6 12 27 21   127.0 152   80 22   41   65   76
Bradley Holt         23   5.72   4   8 18 18   83.1   88   53 14   50   67   76
Lance Broadway         26   5.98   5 12 33 22   143.0 175   95 20   67   75   72

Pitching Statistics - Relievers

Name               Age   ERA   W   L   G GS   INN   H   ER HR   BB   K ERA+
Francisco Rodriguez     28   3.13   5   2 74   0   72.0   55   25   6   37   88 138
J.J. Putz           33   3.53   4   3 43   0   43.1   37   17   4   20   45 123
Pedro Feliciano*      33   3.92   4   3 83   0   57.1   54   25   6   24   56 110
Sean Green           31   4.30   3   4 75   0   75.1   75   36   6   36   61 101
Elmer Dessens         39   4.42   2   2 34   0   36.2   37   18   4   13   23   98
Brian Stokes         30   4.54   3   4 77   0   81.1   85   41   8   38   56   95
Brandon Knight         34   4.61   4   5 25   8   68.1   70   35   9   26   57   94
Kyle Snyder           32   4.84   3   4 31   9   70.2   76   38 10   27   46   89
Pat Misch*          28   4.87   5   7 44 13   114.2 127   62 15   36   70   89
Jon Switzer*          30   5.06   2   3 48   0   58.2   64   33   8   24   43   85
Eddie Kunz           24   5.43   3   5 48   0   58.0   64   35   7   33   36   80
Arturo Lopez*        27   5.48   1   2 28   2   42.2   48   26   5   25   26   79

* - Throws Left

ODDIBE (Odds of Important Baseball Events)

Player         PO     TOP   MID   BOT         COMP 1         COMP 2         COMP 3
RodriguezFrancisco RP     71%  26%  3%      LidgeBrad     GossageRich   GarreltsScott
SantanaJohan     SP     92%  7%  1%      ViolaFrank   CandelariaJohn     HubbellCarl
PutzJ.J.        RP     45%  40%  15%    BerenguerJuan     LeskanicCurt     NelsonJeff
FelicianoPedro   RP     34%  50%  16%    McElroyChuck     LavelleGary     MyersRandy
MaineJohn       SP     35%  52%  13%    PavlikRoger       WellsKip     MillerWade
GreenSean       RP     15%  54%  30%    BernardDwight     StewartSammy       PowerTed
DessensElmer     RP     29%  30%  40%      WhiteRick       MesaJose       FowlerArt
StokesBrian     RP     6%  48%  46%    RiedlingJohn   PufferBrandon     ParontoChad
NieseJon       SP     15%  61%  24%      SmithBud     ThurmondMark     TroutSteve
KnightBrandon     SP     8%  41%  50%    GardnerMark   RasmussenEric   CarraraGiovanni
SnyderKyle       RP     4%  30%  66%      ReedJerry     BrockChris       SoffRay
PelfreyMike     SP     6%  56%  38%      LaCossMike       ScottMike   FireovidSteve
MischPatrick     RP     4%  31%  65%      KnottEric     YoungCliff     CrawfordJoe
MejiaJenrry     SP     9%  44%  48%      DurbinJ.D.    NippertDustin     AlbersMatt
PerezOliver     SP     7%  46%  47%      ScoreHerb     SearcySteve       LollarTim
FigueroaNelson   SP     6%  38%  57%      ShowEric     TomkoBrett       PowerTed
SwitzerJon       RP     3%  28%  69%    EischenJoey     HolzemerMark     CrowellJim
NieveFernando     SP     2%  24%  74%    GrimsleyJason     CressendJack     ShieldsSteve
ReddingTim       SP     1%  26%  73%  FernandezJared     OrtizRamon   SpringerDennis
KunzEddie       RP     1%  17%  82%      EyreWillie     DrummondTim     BowlesBrian
EgbertJack       SP     1%  21%  78%    RandallScott       PughTim     AguileraRick
LopezArturo     RP     2%  16%  82%      JarvisMatt   BarzillaPhilip   RodriguezRich
StonerTobi       SP     0%  18%  81%    ArroyoBronson     IrelandEric     HarikkalaTim
ParnellBobby     SP     0%  5%  95%  ManningCharlie     TorresDilson     MillerKurt
PettyjohnAdam     SP     2%  15%  83%  MulhollandTerry     MayDarrell   LorraineAndrew
HoltBradley     SP     2%  17%  82%      KinneyMatt     BonserBoof   ElliottDonnie
BroadwayLance     SP     0%  5%  95%      BauerPeter   FarnsworthJeff   MendozaHatuey

Player         130 ERA+  100 ERA+  K/9 >8 BB/9 <2 HR/9

<1
RodriguezFrancisc 65% 96% 97% 0% 84%
SantanaJohan 62% 98% 79% 30% 51%
PutzJ.J. 45% 79% 83% 1% 79%
FelicianoPedro 27% 72% 71% 1% 58%
MaineJohn 9% 59% 32% 0% 61%
GreenSean 11% 57% 19% 0% 87%
DessensElmer 23% 52% 4% 16% 59%
StokesBrian 4% 41% 2% 0% 74%
NieseJon 2% 39% 3% 0% 77%
KnightBrandon 6% 43% 29% 2% 45%
SnyderKyle 3% 28% 2% 2% 39%
PelfreyMike 1% 22% 0% 0% 77%
MischPatrick 3% 27% 2% 7% 43%
MejiaJenrry 1% 24% 6% 0% 61%
PerezOliver 0% 20% 64% 0% 28%
FigueroaNelson 1% 16% 5% 4% 42%
SwitzerJon 2% 25% 6% 1% 51%
NieveFernando 1% 17% 8% 0% 47%
ReddingTim 0% 5% 0% 0% 15%
KunzEddie 1% 14% 0% 0% 44%
EgbertJack 0% 4% 0% 0% 47%
LopezArturo 1% 13% 2% 0% 60%
StonerTobi 0% 4% 0% 0% 30%
ParnellBobby 0% 2% 1% 0% 45%
PettyjohnAdam 0% 5% 1% 6% 13%
HoltBradley 0% 6% 20% 0% 12%
BroadwayLance 0% 0% 0% 0% 24%

Extrapolated Career Statistics

Name           BA OBP SLG   G   AB     R     H   2B 3B   HR RBI   BB   SO SB CS OPS+
CastilloLuis   .289 .367 .350 2341 8846   1385   2555 273 75   40 633 1093   1140 457 167   92
ReyesJose     .285 .353 .434 2058 8646   1470   2460 459 158 172 804   922   1200 693 186 108
WrightDavid     .292 .389 .473 2733 10245   1819   2989 618 38 387 1686 1635   2539 308 106 128
BeltranCarlos   .280 .362 .485 2414 9292   1645   2603 545 78 402 1593 1204   1753 389 52 120
DelgadoCarlos   .278 .379 .536 2297 8284   1391   2301 536 22 519 1701 1219   1971 14   8 135
SheffieldGary   .291 .392 .512 2638 9408   1663   2737 479 28 515 1704 1506   1218 254 104 139

Player         W   L   S   ERA     G   GS   IP     H   HR   BB   SO   ERA+
SantanaJohan     242   146   1 3.44   566   489 3401   3051   411   950   3248   128

All figures in % based on projection playing time

Disclaimer:  ZiPS projections are computer-based projections of performance. 
Performances have not been allocated to predicted playing time in the majors -
many of the players listed above are unlikely to play in the majors at all in 2009. 
ZiPS is projecting equivalent production - a .240 ZiPS projection may end up
being .280 in AAA or .300 in AA, for example.  Whether or not a player will play
is one of many non-statistical factors one has to take into account when predicting
the future.

Players are listed with their most recent teams unless Dan has made a mistake. 
This is very possible as a lot of minor-league signings are generally unreported in
the offseason. 

ZiPS is projecting based on the AL having a 4.46 ERA and the NL having a 4.41 ERA.

Players that are expected to be out due to injury are still projected.  More information
is always better than less information and a computer isn’t what should be projecting
the injury status of, for example, a pitcher with Tommy John surgery.

Positional offense is ranked by RC/27 and divided into quintiles based on what the
most frequent starting players at each position did in 2007-2009.  Excellent is the top
quintile, Very Good the 2nd quintile and so on.

 

2010 ZiPS Projections Archive

Nationals

Orioles

Padres

Phillies

Pirates

Rangers

Rays

Red Sox

Reds

Rockies

Royals

Tigers

Twins

White Sox

Yankees




These projections were sponsored in part by:

image

Dan Szymborski Posted: December 03, 2009 at 11:18 PM | 186 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 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Walt Davis Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:54 AM (#3406308)
TOL,

Sorry, I'd sort of forgotten about this thread. Thanks for tackling my question and you gave reasonable answers. You didn't seem to quite address the money aspects (including possible long term implications of Polanco shifting from 1/$4.5 to 3/$19) and I'm not sure to what extent you're counting on the starters you want signing pretty cheaply but that's OK -- even you might want some time for non-BTF posting. :-) So good work.

Now, Mr JFish ... again, what do you want Dan to do? He's got a thorough complex model. You aren't suggesting any omitted variables that apply widely. You are vaguely suggesting that spike years should be taken as evidence that a player has changed -- this amounts to saying that, in such cases, older data should basically be ignored -- but other research on that question has found little/no predictive ability of spikes or trends. I think Tango once found that spikes (and collapses?) are retained slightly more than the basic model would suggest but then he was working from a simpler model than Dan's I think.

So basically you are asking Dan to go player-by-player and make specific adjustments on whether they have "changed their approach." Unfortunately, we always hear "changed their approach" stories, of one form or another, whenver a player spikes/collapses only for those seasons to be followed by normal ones.

But yes, Dan's model, like basically any model, can only provide you with a mean projection. Because of the "randomness" of baseball, these projections are not very precise for predicting individual player performance. A good but simple interpretation of the Zobrist projection is "based on past data, players with a weighted 4-year performance similar to Zobrist at Zobrist's age have averaged about a 113 OPS+." Obviously some subset of such players ended up being much better than that. You, whether based on personal qualified observation or magic 8-ball, think Zobrist is one of those guys. There's no problem with that. But unless you can come up with sufficient evidence why the rest of us should expect Zobrist to be better, then that's your personal opinion. And unless you can come up with a systematic reason (which is measurable for all players) why players like Zobrist should be expected to regularly outperform their projections, then you're not contributing to projection models and you really don't have any reason to complain.
   102. Something Other Posted: December 08, 2009 at 05:31 AM (#3406351)
I like much of what you're saying here, but you are mistaken on Garland.
Too true. I corrected that in the post just preceeding yours.
   103. Elvis Posted: December 08, 2009 at 06:02 AM (#3406371)
Re #96

Yes, I don't see the Mets picking up two SP, especially if Lackey is one of them. They have Niese, Nieve and Figueroa already for depth and I don't believe they would put Maine in the bullpen. I know there was talk of it at the end of the 2008 season, but it seems crazy to put the guy with 3 good pitches to the pen. If any starter should go there, it should be the guy with 1 good pitch (Pelfrey).

I would be surprised if either the Mets or Cameron was interested in a second tour of duty. Cameron seems like a great guy, but he is also going to be 37 in January. I would not want to commit either the dollars or years he is likely to get.

Just for the record, I'm against Bengie Molina and Orlando Hudson. Both of them will cost too much and add too little.
   104. jfish26101 Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:00 PM (#3406647)
Walt, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not necessarily suggesting he ignore data but take into consideration extra data like scouting reports. Is that not something that should be taking into consideration when projecting players? It isn't a matter of me suggesting Zobrist made changes, it has been documented by scouts, team officials, and reporters not to mention Zobrist himself. If he can't take scouting reports into consideration with his model then yes I do think he should make some adjustments. He essentially ignored Wright's most recent season giving him a projection above his career averages minus 2009 and penalized Zobrist for past seasons (partial seasons at that). That doesn't add up to me. How does Wright have numbers above his career average (projected to have a 140 OPS+ for 2010 even though his career average from '04-'08 was 136) before 2009 when his most recent season (the one that should be weighted the most, correct?) is well below in every category?

I understand a stat centric site would believe statistics tell you everything you need to know about a player but that just isn't true and, just like the people that believe sabermetrics and stats in general can't project a player, you are wrong if you think that. I also don't think it is fair to categorize any anomaly as “randomness” because there are often very good reasons for the deviation that even the best statistical analyst can’t quantify with a number. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti numbers but there should be a mix and I’m not seeing any weight being given to anything outside of a spreadsheet.

Treating every player the same, ignoring recent reports, and trying to strive for a league wide mean instead of accurate individual projections isn't a good system in my opinion. Sure, I'm not a stat head so most of you couldn't care less what I think (including Dan) but I think it is ridiculous for you to throw some numbers into a spreadsheet and look down on anyone that argues the values it spits out as if it is God handed dine divine providence. If I need an example of a player with numbers that exactly mirror Zobrist for you to acknowledge the fault here than that will never happen. It's pretty convenient to hide behind a stance like that since I doubt there is a player with exactly the same statistical and personal profile.

I don't expect you to agree but to just ignore the other side of player evaluation is a glaring weakness in the work being done here. You should never get so comfortable with what you are doing that you can't still strive for improvements, trying to incorporate the other side of player evaluation could be a pretty good start in my opinion. If I'm wrong about the system treating every player the same despite most players being unique or about you ignoring scouting, then feel free to set me straight. I imagine all I'm going to get is more "you don't understand" or "you don't have any evidence".
   105. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:08 PM (#3406652)
whether they have "changed their approach."

In addition to the "CTA" factor, you would also need the "BSoTL" factor.

And how would you know if the increased performance is because of "CTA" or just "Randomness As Usual", if you will? My gut feel is that you would inject more error into the system than you would fix.
   106. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:11 PM (#3406658)
I don't expect you to agree but to just ignore the other side of player evaluation is a glaring weakness in the work being done here. You should never get so comfortable with what you are doing that you can't still strive for improvements, trying to incorporate the other side of player evaluation could be a pretty good start in my opinion.

I think you miss the general point of modeling, in all fields. Scouting data is inherently subjective and undependable.

I can't tell you how many times I heard you argument for some of the the projections that I'm happiest ZiPS nailed. If I had a dolla for every time someone told me "No way Nelson Cruz will hit that well, Major League curveballs will eat him alive" or "Your projection for Gary Matthews Jr. is terrible. He's clearly put it all together," I could probably buy a team.
   107. jfish26101 Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:13 PM (#3406661)
So treat everything as if it were due to error then? Seems right in line with the approach, why even bother trying to give individual projections at all? How about you just take the league average for each position and find the league average for each pitchers' role (#1, #2...SU, CL) and project every player the same. You are essentially one step from doing that anway, then you can truly treat every change as "random". :D

And I'd wager you were off on just as many, you just aren't as concerned with those evidently.
   108. zack Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:13 PM (#3406662)
There is no reliable, public source for scouting information. You can't project some players using newspaper stories and not others. The user can choose to take such data into account when making decisions, but it makes no sense to feed it to the computer.
   109. Lassus Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:16 PM (#3406665)
jfish - There are by default and bell-curves a lot of terrible scouts and general managers and reporters out there. As far as listening to the players themselves, exactly who has an objective opinion about themselves? All the 39-year-olds who think they can still play? All the AAAA players who are sure they can contribute in the bigs? How do you propose working these opinions into a projection system when you'd need to have a means of weeding out the people who are basing their decisions on terrible subjective opinions? Where the hell would you even start? With your own subjective opinions? That's not a projection system, that's an opinion system.
   110. jfish26101 Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:27 PM (#3406675)
You can get a consensus, don't just flat out ignore it all. There is bad data to correct? And Zack, I agree a computer can't make sense of scouting reports but nearly all analysts at least try to factor them in which is why I said Dan should take some time once the model spits out the value to adjust for recent reports. I wont disagree that there isn't a wide range of skill levels in the scouting world but you can't write off the whole other side of baseball analysis because you can't plug it into a spreadsheet and find means, standard deviations, etc.

Of course I already got the response I figured I would get, "you miss the general point of modeling". I repeat, you aren't trying to be accurate, you are just trying to be more accurate than the next guy by being in the ball park hoping to hit on a few. It's amazing that as long as the stat community has labeled baseball traditionalists as thickheaded, you are equally dense and stubborn.
   111. Frisco Cali Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:29 PM (#3406677)
I'd like to thank Dan for his projections. Even though all of them will probably end up being wrong.
   112. AROM Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:29 PM (#3406678)
jfish,

I'm the guy who runs the CHONE projections at baseballprojection.com. I would be very happy to work in scouting reports to the projections. I don't have them though. Could you get them for me? There are about 1500 hitters on my projection pages. I would like a scouting report, showing the standard 2-8 scale for hitting, hitting for power, running, throwing, and fielding. I'll need them for the last 4 years, so if Zobrist's scouting report has changed I'll be able to model expected preformance increase from that.

I will need all of these linked to the MLBAM player ID codes. If you can get that to me by 8:00 tonight, that would be great.
   113. AROM Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:32 PM (#3406683)
I'd like to offer Adrian Beltre as evidence that we can't just assume Zobrist will be a .950 OPS player from here on out.
   114. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:35 PM (#3406686)
I understand a stat centric site would believe statistics tell you everything you need to know about a player but that just isn't true and, just like the people that believe sabermetrics and stats in general can't project a player, you are wrong if you think that.

No one here thinks this.

Treating every player the same, ignoring recent reports, and trying to strive for a league wide mean instead of accurate individual projections isn't a good system in my opinion. Sure, I'm not a stat head so most of you couldn't care less what I think (including Dan) but I think it is ridiculous for you to throw some numbers into a spreadsheet and look down on anyone that argues the values it spits out as if it is God handed dine divine providence.

It's just a question of objective vs. subjective. Dan's projections are objective and unbiased. If you want to insert your subjective opinion, and change them for your own use, knock yourself out. You may well be right - or you may be wrong.

Speaking of which, what do you say to a little wager to test out your theory? Pick a number of Zobrist's OPS+ for 2010, what you would change it to if you were altering Dan's projection, and I will take Dan's projected 113 OPS+. Whoever is closest to Zobrist's final OPS+ for 2010 wins, subject to a minimum of 400 PA. The loser has to sponsor a $10 baseball-reference.com player page of the winner's choosing. Do we have a deal?
   115. Lassus Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:37 PM (#3406692)
which is why I said Dan should take some time once the model spits out the value to adjust for recent reports.

Which reports, exactly? Where are these coming from?
   116. jfish26101 Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:46 PM (#3406707)
So you are saying Adrian Beltre mirrors Zobrist statistically and skill wise? You are going out on a limb and saying Ben Zobrist's career will mirror Adrian Beltre's?

I think it's laughable the stance you are taking and essentially mocking me for suggesting you could improve your work. I guess it is a generational thing that you feel you are superior and can't improve? Of course we are probably from the same generation so that can't be right. Strasburg is an extreme example but you make up data all the time that you don't have every time you project a minor league player so you are being pretty hypocritical to act as if you couldn't take scouting reports and incorporate them into your approach.

And no I'm not going to wager $10 on a bet, you forget that I'm not an analysts or someone pretending to be an expert. I'm simply a baseball fan that enjoys baseball analysis trying to have a conversation about the possible benefits of trying to incorporate the other half of baseball analysis into an already pretty good projection system. If you want me to pick a number and see who is closer, fine but I won’t be putting money down and that still wouldn’t change my opinion. Zobrist is one player, Dan’s whole system banks on being close more often than being far off, not being accurate. For your little test to be realistic we would both need to pick a number and both be in the same margin of error.

There are plenty of reports easily accessible Lassus and, I imagine, you probably read some yourself.
   117. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:48 PM (#3406711)
I'll need them for the last 4 years, so if Zobrist's scouting report has changed I'll be able to model expected preformance increase from that.

Actually, it'd be more useful if you could have 30-40 years worth (that way, you could study just how much a player with 70 power outperforms someone with 60 power but similar statistics).

Again, it's a lot like hurricane forecasting. Meteorologists come to different conclusions from the model runs, but all them want those models to be objective. When one of them is looking at, say, the latest GFDL run, they need to know that that the model is objective, even if it doesn't account for every possible variable. If the GFDL might contain some guy's opinion that the hurricane totally reminds him of Hurricane Camille or some other guy's opinion that it feels like the storm will curve, the GFDL model becomes a less valuable tool, even if the majority of random subjective opinions inserted are correct.
   118. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:50 PM (#3406712)
There are plenty of reports easily accessible Lassus and, I imagine, you probably read some yourself.

Now, which ones are based on objective information. And if they're based on subjective information, what is the historical success rate of these particular subjective sources?
   119. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 08, 2009 at 04:57 PM (#3406729)
So you are saying Adrian Beltre mirrors Zobrist statistically and skill wise? You are going out on a limb and saying Ben Zobrist's career will mirror Adrian Beltre's?

He's not saying that.

And no I'm not going to wager $10 on a bet

That's fine, I just meant for it to be friendly. We can not bet any money or just forget the whole thing, whatever you want.
   120. jfish26101 Posted: December 08, 2009 at 05:05 PM (#3406742)
Scouting has more than comps in it though. You could take into account studies done centered on body type, aging, mechanics, types/severity of injuries, recovery time, etc all of which are improving every day. I don’t presume to have the answers but I don’t understand why you would write it off. I'm still thankful you create the projections, I'm just trying to make suggestions. There are a lot of things in life, in business...in science that incorporate subjective information even if it is simply to try to form a hypothesis you can test. That is why people strive to get to the bottom of things to find answers.

If Chone doesn't feel Beltre mirrors Zobrist than why use him as evidence Zobrist can't remain a very productive player?

I'm fine for a friendly game but the conditions you set aren't really why I even started the discssion. Trying to see which is more accurate with you taking ZiPS and me throwing a number off the top of my head when the community's evaluation of the success of ZiPS being the number of projections that are within a window of margin for error isn't going to prove anything. I'll take 123 I suppose if I had to throw a number out. :)
   121. Zoppity Zoop Posted: December 08, 2009 at 05:06 PM (#3406743)
I'd wager on a bet that either:

- JFish knows Zobrist personally.
- JFish has Zobrist in a keeper fantasy or sim league.

The amount of angst (spilling over into multiple posts!) over Zobrist "merely" being projected as a star player instead of an MVP candidate is simply unbelievable. You'd think that ZIPS projected Zobrist to have a .600 OPS or something.
   122. jfish26101 Posted: December 08, 2009 at 05:19 PM (#3406766)
Zobrist is an example and yes I have him in a simulation league but it isn't about that. It is no coincidence that I would specifically look for players I'm interested in (Braves players being my favorite team and players I have in the league I run) but I don't have Wright, Weiters, Delgado, Strasburg...many other players I disagree with in either direction. I'm actually more confused by Wright's most recent season having zero effect on his projection than Zobrist being penalized for inconsistent numbers (which I've brought up several times but the focus keeps being shifted back to my disagreement with the Zobrist projection) but I'm trying to have a discussion about method more than one or two specific examples. Dan said that he doesn't leave any data out and that the most recent season is weighted heavily (8-5-3-2 or something like that), that is why I'm confused a player coming off a season with numbers across the board would get a projection above his career average without the most recent season even added.

It's all pointless though, very few of the posts since my initial one have been constructive on either side due to the difference of opinion and approach towards evaluating. I'd wager He's Bought a Bat Like Prince Fielder wouldn't listen to anything I have to say even if I had scouting reports for every player to play baseball in the last 40 years to back up my assertion that Dan should at least look to make some adjustments based on recent reports. :p
   123. billyshears Posted: December 08, 2009 at 05:30 PM (#3406776)
He essentially ignored Wright's most recent season giving him a projection above his career averages minus 2009 and penalized Zobrist for past seasons (partial seasons at that). That doesn't add up to me.


I don't know why it doesn't add up - it's entirely consistent. In both cases, Dan weighed data other than merely from the player's most recent season.
   124. Walt Davis Posted: December 08, 2009 at 07:42 PM (#3406977)
Walt, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not necessarily suggesting he ignore data

Actually you are saying he should basically ignore the earlier data on Zobrist and seriously underweight the earlier data on Wright.

but take into consideration extra data like scouting reports.

As soon as every team shares their scouting information on every player with Dan, he'll likely do so. Otherwise you are asking him to go player by player, do web searches for media reports of "changed approaches", assess whether he believes said media reports, then make subjective changes to player projections for those players which he can find sufficient media information on while leaving the other players unchanged. I assume you can see that's neither feasible nor desirable.

If your point is that teams should mix statistical data and scout observations in assessing a player -- well, duh.

It isn't a matter of me suggesting Zobrist made changes, it has been documented by scouts, team officials, and reporters not to mention Zobrist himself.

This is no different than all the other times this sort of thing has happened. In 2003, we read endlessly about Esteban Loaiza adding the cut fastball to his repertoire and this explaining his 159 ERA+ that year. The next year he was down to 82 and we weren't hearing about his fabulous new pitch anymore.

Look, Zobrist may have changed his approach. His new approach may be hugely successful. It's also possible that, now that pitchers have seen his new approach, they will make adjustments and he'll end up right back where Dan says. Who knows? But his mean projection is a 113 OPS+ and you have to refute thousands of data points to show otherwise.

It's very simple. The standard ZiPS weighting scheme is 8/5/4/2 with further adjustments for all sorts of things. That puts Zobrist at 113. You think Zobrist is better than that -- good for you. The only evidence you've presented in support is references to media reports that he's changed his approach. I'm sure he has changed his approach -- and this changed approach has led him from being a guy projected to be replacement level or worse as a hitter to a guy projected to be one of the better-hitting 2B in baseball, a fact picked up on by ZiPS. But you've presented no relevant evidence that he's better than that other than his recent performance -- which is accounted for in the model.

He essentially ignored Wright's most recent season giving him a projection above his career averages minus 2009 and penalized Zobrist for past seasons (partial seasons at that).

First of all you realize Dan is not making decisions on individual players right? You understand his role is to build the best model he can, right? And the model doesn't ignore Wright's most recent season at all -- of course it gives it the greatest weight of any information just as the model does for every player. And it doesn't "penalize" Zobrist for past seasons, it properly weights past seasons in its projection. Are you suggesting we ignore past seasons for every player? Or only your personal pet peeves?

That doesn't add up to me. How does Wright have numbers above his career average (projected to have a 140 OPS+ for 2010 even though his career average from '04-'08 was 136) before 2009 when his most recent season (the one that should be weighted the most, correct?) is well below in every category?

Because funny things happen on the way to the projection? Dan doesn't actually model OPS+ of course but the components. Dan doesn't model OBP and SLG directly either I don't think, but, if you apply the 8/5/4/2 weight to Wright's OBP, you get a projection of 395, above his career average. Apply it to his SLG and you get 499, which is below his career average. He's moving into his age 27 seasons when players tend to peak so there is reason to think that both of those numbers will be a little higher than that. Dan is projecting that a guy with a career 136 OPS+ through age 26 is going to improve slightly at age 27 -- nothing too surprising about that really.

Now look -- I think Wright's projection is probably too high as well. But so what? That's my opinion. Until I present solid evidence to think that about Wright but not others with Wright's projection, I'm not going to convince anybody else. Until I can present a systematic explanation for why Wright _and other players like him_ are over-projected, I am in no position to criticize the model. I don't have to believe everything the model says (I'm a sentient human being after all) but "I think you're wrong on David Wright and some bozo who writes for the NY Post agrees with me" is not valid criticism of the model.

I understand a stat centric site would believe statistics tell you everything you need to know about a player

Oh grow up.

there are often very good reasons for the deviation that even the best statistical analyst can’t quantify with a number.

Anything can be quantified. True, often only crudely. But Dan can easily build into his model an indicator variable that says "jfish thinks this guy is super-duper" and see if that improves the explanatory power of his model. He can put in an indicator variable for "some sportswriter noticed this guy was having a real good season, wrote a story in which the player gave credit for his improvement to [insert hitting coach, pitching coach, hypnotist, new training regimen, new diet, new girlfriend, new wife, new child, finally getting over the divorce, new city, returning to old city, father passing away, father recovering from illness, or -- most unbelievable of all -- changing his approach due to FIP].

Nobody who models "believes" models. There are big error bars on any projection. Dan provides rough guidelines to those errors right in his report. What is your confusion?

Meanwhile, while you accuse others of believing only in statistics, you apparently are naive enough to believe media reports. Given a choice between a good model based on tons of data vs. a series of post-hoc media explanations for something unexpected, every sentient human being should lean very heavily towards the model.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti numbers but there should be a mix and I’m not seeing any weight being given to anything outside of a spreadsheet.

Because this information is not available on every current player much less players from the past. This information is highly subjective and of low reliability (i.e. very high variance, surely worse than a model) and, by the time it gets to you or me or Dan, has been filtered through half-a-dozen other perspectives and is completely worthless.

But teams? Teams can easily build scouting information into their models. I can show them how to do it in less than an hour if they don't know already. It might improve their player projections and it could also be a great piece of information in evaluating which scouts are any good.

Treating every player the same, ignoring recent reports, and trying to strive for a league wide mean instead of accurate individual projections isn't a good system in my opinion.

Propose a feasible alternative and show it works better.

I think it is ridiculous for you to throw some numbers into a spreadsheet and look down on anyone that argues the values it spits out as if it is God handed dine divine providence.

Oh grow up.

If I need an example of a player with numbers that exactly mirror Zobrist for you to acknowledge the fault here than that will never happen.

That would be useless anyway so don't waste your time. You really don't understand how this works, do you?

What you want to provide are, at a minimum, good convincing arguments that Zobrist should out-perform his projection. You don't seem to have any other than media reports of a change in his approach. You don't appear to have any claim to expertise in hitting technique and are not offering personal observations of this changed approach nor arguments for why such an approach should be so successful. You've shown no grasp of baseball history and the many, many times a player popped up with an amazing season only to fall back heavily the next year -- note in Zobrist's case he's projected to fall back to being one of the, what, 5-best hitting 2B in baseball?

For crying out loud, I think I was about 13 when I realized that one year of baseball stats is pretty much meaningless and concluded that I needed to see a player do it two years in a row before I believed in him. Older and wiser I realize it's more like 3-4 years.

I'd imagine I was 12 when I realized media reports were completely unreliable.

I don't expect you to agree but to just ignore the other side of player evaluation is a glaring weakness in the work being done here.

You realize you haven't provided a single piece of this "other side of player evaluation" right? You haven't seen Zobrist's scouting reports have you? You aren't a trained baseball scout are you? All you're basing your opinion on is 1.5 seasons of data and a few stories in the paper. Your evaluation is every bit as numbers-based as the model. You've simply chosen to ignore his earlier numbers and the justification you've offered for doing so is thoroughly unconvincing in my opinion.

You should never get so comfortable with what you are doing that you can't still strive for improvements

OK, now you're an #######. Dan works his ####### ass off improving his system. Not only does he do that, but he shares his results freely with the public. He also builds a database that other people can use to run their own simulations and use to play Diamond Mind with. Where the #### do you get off?

trying to incorporate the other side of player evaluation could be a pretty good start in my opinion.

How? How? How? For every player in professional baseball. With reliable observational evidence. How?

"you don't understand" or "you don't have any evidence".

It is clear you don't understand and you don't have any evidence. You suggest we listen to your criticism -- which amounts to "scouting information could be useful" which everyone agrees with already. Meanwhile you really might want to listen to criticism yourself. You don't understand, you are not offering evidence, your criticisms of the model are baseless because you are unable to point to any missing factors.

You are of the opinion Zobrist is better than that. Good for you. You may be right. Get back to us when you've been correct about 100 players and wrong about only 50 (warning: I will require the players to over/under-perform for at least 2 seasons, preferably 3, before I accept your evidence) and I'll actually believe that you have some insight.

Meanwhile I'll gladly make a bet with you for a $10 b-r sponsorship. If Zobrist puts up a 120 OPS+ or better in 500+ PA, you win and I sponsor the $10 page of your choice. If it's less than that, I win and you sponsor the $10 page of my choice. If he doesn't make it to 500 PA, we both sponsor a $5 page. (this way b-r wins regardless)
   125. AROM Posted: December 08, 2009 at 08:42 PM (#3407113)
If Chone doesn't feel Beltre mirrors Zobrist than why use him as evidence Zobrist can't remain a very productive player?


On Zobrist, My projection is that he will be a very productive player, but not nearly as good as he was in 2009. I did not say that he would mirror Beltre's career, but that is one of many examples to illustrate that using multiple years is better than expecting a player to repeat his career year.

scouting reports but nearly all analysts at least try to factor them in which is why I said Dan should take some time once the model spits out the value to adjust for recent reports.


I think value could be found in scouting reports, but I'm projecting 1500 players (just the hitters alone). My guess is Dan's list is about the same size. I want YOU to take some time to think about what kind of work would be involved in adjusting that many projections based on some kind of consensus on scouting opinions.

I don't think you have the slightest clue what kind of time would be involved. This is really rich: "I think it's laughable the stance you are taking and essentially mocking me for suggesting you could improve your work. I guess it is a generational thing that you feel you are superior and can't improve?"

So you suggest I spend a few thousand hours to improve my work, I say no, and you think it's because I have some false sense of superiority?
   126. BobbyS Posted: December 08, 2009 at 09:11 PM (#3407166)
...then make subjective changes to player projections for those players which he can find sufficient media information on while leaving the other players unchanged.

So is this NEVER done? Players are simply put into the formula, and whatever it spits out is the projection we see here? From most of what I read (including the interview over at FanGraphs), this is correct and makes sense.

But, I ask only because statements that Dan has made himself have made me wonder. Such as:

When asked about Brad Hawpe's projection: "Hawpe's just not the type that ages well. When his bat speed slows just a tinge, his $H is going to drop like a rock. He was 15 points above his normal as it is."

Is there something in Zips that says all players at age 30(31ish) with a body/swing/etc like Hawpe will show this type of digression and post numbers under anything in his last 3 or 4 years? Or are there some red flag type things that tag him as a 'type' of player and the system recognizes that...warranting a certain drop in Avg., OBP, and SLG (~20 points in each for Hawpe)? Are there other examples we can see showing similar results?


I should say, I actually like the projection for Wright showing improvement at an age of progession/peak, especially with his seasons prior to 2009.
   127. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 08, 2009 at 09:36 PM (#3407202)

When asked about Brad Hawpe's projection: "Hawpe's just not the type that ages well. When his bat speed slows just a tinge, his $H is going to drop like a rock. He was 15 points above his normal as it is."


I didn't mean to send mixed messages. I don't rely solely on ZiPS to evaluate things.

In Hawpe's case, ZiPS seems High BABIP, Mid BA, Low Singles, Fairly Slow Batters in Early 30s as big risks for dropoff.

When I'm referring to his bat speed slowing, that's not part of any projection system, simply my observation as to why it's the case.

I can give you more examples in a bit - I have to catch up on the news of the day.
   128. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 08, 2009 at 09:45 PM (#3407216)
Meanwhile I'll gladly make a bet with you for a $10 b-r sponsorship. If Zobrist puts up a 120 OPS+ or better in 500+ PA, you win and I sponsor the $10 page of your choice. If it's less than that, I win and you sponsor the $10 page of my choice. If he doesn't make it to 500 PA, we both sponsor a $5 page. (this way b-r wins regardless)

I tried this already Walt - I would take the bet with you myself, just for the fun of it, but I agree with every last thing you said, so...
   129. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 08, 2009 at 09:48 PM (#3407222)
So you suggest I spend a few thousand hours to improve my work, I say no, and you think it's because I have some false sense of superiority?

Come on, AROM, we pay ALOT of money for those projections you post. It's literally the least you could do.
   130. billyshears Posted: December 08, 2009 at 10:02 PM (#3407239)
So you suggest I spend a few thousand hours to improve my work


I think you're giving in too much - he's suggesting you spend a few thousand hours to alter your work. He has no idea if it would improve your work, because he has no idea how you should quantify the various scouting and media reports he wants you to incorporate into your model so as to actually make them predictive.
   131. jfish26101 Posted: December 08, 2009 at 11:00 PM (#3407331)
:D

I'm just trying to have a discussion, why are you being ridiculous Walt? I must have struck a nerve and said something right about the superiority complex going on here. 140 or so posts and you have to go on a expletive tirade? That isn't doing anything, perhaps you are the one that needs to grow up? Haha

When I have some time, I'm going to take Dan's disk and compare their OPS+ and ERA+ (since that is sort of how he sorts them by here) and see how many he actually hits. You say he is right 100 times for every 50 he is wrong, we will find out. ;)

Edit: By the way, I've never said Zobrist will duplicate the season he just had but it's quite a drop off being projected. I think you all took a couple lines, made up your minds about what I was trying to say, and ran with it. :( I'll work up a spreadsheet some time in the next month with 08, 07 and whatever disks I can find (and have the time to do) to see.
   132. Something Other Posted: December 09, 2009 at 06:19 AM (#3407674)
Never mind the bollocks, it looks like the second-tier starting pitchers are drifting out of Omar's grasp.

Heyman also says the Mets are suffering "sticker shock" over what some of that tier might sign for. Wasn't it common knowledge that Wolf would get something like 3/27?
   133. The District Attorney Posted: December 09, 2009 at 06:46 AM (#3407688)
I agree with you that Zobrist is most likely the rare player who legitimately improved his hitting at a relatively advanced age, and will beat his ZiPS projection. That type of thing is why you, me and everyone else in the world don't take mathematically derived projections as gospel. Since a mathematical system is not going to be able to distinguish between two players with identical results and tell which one of them "really learned something", there is always going to be the need for you to utilize your own brain when you look at projections, and choose which projections do and don't make sense to you. End of.

Or, let me just sum the whole thing up in five words for you...
I’m not seeing any weight being given to anything outside of a spreadsheet.
That's because it's a spreadsheet.
   134. Ignatius J. Reilly Posted: December 09, 2009 at 07:03 AM (#3407694)
It's more like Francoeur is the girl who gave the Braves fans herpes and even though us Mets fans have been ####### Frenchy for awhile now, we've yet to show, but we know it'll most likely happen eventually.

Still waiting on the Valtrex to kick in.
   135. thetailor Posted: December 09, 2009 at 07:09 AM (#3407696)
I don't see how this wasn't solved in like a minute.

That's because it's a spreadsheet.


Exactly. And...

If the [the model] contain[s] some guy's opinion, the model becomes a less valuable tool, even if the majority of random subjective opinions inserted are correct.


So, JFish, that is that. Nobody looks at these as gospel. In fact, I LIKE the fact that they don't know what I know. It gives me a reasonable basis to start with, and I can tick up or down from there based on what I think I know about the player that the model doesn't. The important part is that the original projections are just that - simple, mathematical regressions w/o contamination.

That said, I got through looking at the Mets pitchers annnnnnnnnd it's time to do another round of analysis, Goldilocks-style:

Too Optimistic
Francisco Rodriguez: 3.13 ERA, 72 IP, 37 bb, 88 k
John Maine: 4.20 ERA, 122 IP, 57 bb, 103 k
Jennry Mejia: 4.90 ERA, 75 IP, 44 bb, 55 k

Too Pessimistic
Oliver Perez: 4.93 ERA, 142 IP, 87 bb, 132 k
Nelson Figueroa: 5.06 ERA, 131 IP, 46 bb, 91 k
Brian Stokes: 4.54 ERA, 81 IP, 38 bb, 56 k
Mike Pelfrey: 4.86 ERA, 189 IP, 69 bb, 111 k

Just Right
Johan Santana: 3.23 ERA, 206 innings, 52 bb, 203 k
Jon Niese: 4.57 ERA, 143 IP, 55 bb, 103 k

Any thoughts?
   136. thetailor Posted: December 09, 2009 at 07:11 AM (#3407699)
Oh, and if you'd like to read the long version of these (with an explanation of why I think what I think on each guy) I posted them over here.... didn't want to copy and paste, as it would have been too much text. Did them for the hitters as well.
   137. AROM Posted: December 09, 2009 at 06:47 PM (#3408199)
When I have some time, I'm going to take Dan's disk and compare their OPS+ and ERA+ (since that is sort of how he sorts them by here) and see how many he actually hits. You say he is right 100 times for every 50 he is wrong, we will find out. ;)


What constitutes being right or wrong? If you mean exact match (OPS+ projected: 120, actual 119) then he'll be right about 2-3% or the time I guess. Give him 50 points either way and he's probably right 95% of the time. Kind of meaningless without first declaring your criteria.

But that's not what Walt was talking about. He's suggesting you take 150 players. Tell us which ones are better than ZIPS says and which are worse. And if you're right 2/3 of the time at the end of the year (or 2 years to satisfy Walt) then you've provided some evidence that you know things that the computer doesn't, that can improve projections.
   138. Something Other Posted: December 10, 2009 at 01:33 AM (#3408699)
thetailor: great work. From your article on the pitching projections:

We honestly have about three guys who can pitch on the entire staff. And I have no idea why the Mets as an entity, or the writers, or the blogosphere, are not worried about it. Granted, I am optimistic about Pelfrey, and Perez, and Stokes -- but luck can break both ways and there are reasons to be pessimistic about some of the better projections.
Agreed. I was starting to feel like I was the only one crying Wolf (sorry).

It's particularly interesting to me that you believe the SP is in real trouble despite believing, unlike most, that Ollie has a pretty good chance to be a pretty good pitcher in 2010.
   139. Freeballin' (Tales of Met Power) Posted: December 10, 2009 at 02:18 AM (#3408719)
If Ollie is pretty good, the Mets will have a good rotation. Santana will be good even if he's not great, and Pelfrey is valuable if he can throw 200 innings of 4.75 era.
   140. thetailor Posted: December 10, 2009 at 04:20 AM (#3408779)
Yep. Well, just looking at what ZiPS has to say, our rotation shapes up like this:

Santana, 133 ERA+
Maine, 103 ERA+
Pelfrey, 89 ERA+
Perez, 88 ERA+
Niese, 95 ERA+

Then, of course, SOMEONE is going to get injured. At least one person. Probably a couple. Every replacement guy on the list below is projected to an ERA above 5 (except Mejia, who won't see Citifield this year).

SP6: Figueroa, 86 ERA+
SP7: Nieve, 83 ERA+
SP8: Stoner, 78 ERA+
SP9: Parnell, 76 ERA+
SP10: Mejia, 88 ERA+

The Phillies have TEN pitchers projected to have an ERA better than 5.00 (incl. Moyer, Pedro, and even Rodrigo Lopez). Even the Nationals have five -- and their starters 6-10 have ERA+ marks projected around 85, 83, 81, 81, and 80. Yes... better than ours.

I say this every year - but there are going to be at least eight guys starting for the Mets this year, and probably closer to ten or twelve. In order to be competitive, I think we're going to need one of Pelfrey/Perez to beat their projection significantly, AND to add a starter, AND for Maine to be healthy (or to add a second starter). But that's just me.
   141. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 10, 2009 at 04:27 AM (#3408781)
In order to be competitive, I think we're going to need one of Pelfrey/Perez to beat their projection significantly, AND to add a starter, AND for Maine to be healthy (or to add a second starter). But that's just me.

Basically, you think the Mets should add two starters because there's basically no chance of all those things happening. I agree.
   142. HowardMegdal Posted: December 10, 2009 at 05:28 AM (#3408808)
In order to be competitive, I think we're going to need one of Pelfrey/Perez to beat their projection significantly, AND to add a starter, AND for Maine to be healthy (or to add a second starter). But that's just me.

Agree with this.

Basically, you think the Mets should add two starters because there's basically no chance of all those things happening. I agree.

No chance? Disagree. But to count on it happening would be a mistake. Unfortunately, the alternative involves signing Joel Pineiro and Jason Marquis. So I'm not sure the aim shouldn't be to hope that fortunate scenario happens, at least get a better sense of what you have in Perez/Pelfrey/Maine, and head into 2011 either bolstered by their emergence, Niese/Nieve surprising, Holt/Mejia taking leap forward, or getting someone/someones from what has to be a more inspiring free agent class.

Also, I had no idea Dan hated Ben Zobrist so much.
   143. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 10, 2009 at 05:48 AM (#3408812)
Unfortunately, the alternative involves signing Joel Pineiro and Jason Marquis.

How about something along the lines of Jon Garland and Pedro Martinez? You'd probably be able to get those guys for less than 15 million altogether. Garland is as good a bet for 175 innings as anyone and I think he can be counted on for a 95+ ERA+.

I think Pedro's 2008 season was something of fluke (his father's health issues might have affected his game more than he let on) so I think he'll be good for whatever number of innings he throws.

That's something that allows the Mets to "go" for it this year without giving up too much of the future, and not locking themselves into long term deals.
   144. Something Other Posted: December 10, 2009 at 06:30 AM (#3408834)
It should be possible to broaden the options by dealing with the Reds for either Arroyo or Harang. Word is they want to maintain payroll which, once you count arb raises, may mean dealing one or more of their more expensive contracts. Both Arroyo and Harang are expensive (about $13m in 2010 if you count buyouts for 2011) accounting for about a third of the Reds c. $75m 2010 payroll. I'd rather have either one of them than Marquis or Piniero for the longer deals for too much money I suspect they'll both get.
   145. Something Other Posted: December 10, 2009 at 06:31 AM (#3408835)
   146. PreservedFish Posted: December 10, 2009 at 06:43 AM (#3408838)
Arroyo or Harang makes sense to me.
   147. Blackadder Posted: December 10, 2009 at 06:48 AM (#3408841)
Don't. Feed. The. Troll.

I think it's a little sad how often the long baseball related threads consist of lots of sensible people trying to set some moron straight.

Oh yes, and of course I add the obligatory thanks to Dan for putting in the time to provide us all with such great info.
   148. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 10, 2009 at 07:08 AM (#3408845)
Arroyo or Harang makes sense to me.

Arroyo is about the same pitcher as Jon Garland value wise although they get things done differently. If you think Garland is going to collapse because of the lack of strikeouts, Arroyo is a better option than Garland. Arroyo will give you 200 averagish innings and he's signed at 1y/13m or 2y/22m if you pick up the option.

Harang put up 142/43 k/bb ratio in 162 IP last year. He didn't keep the ball in the yard but a guy with those K/BB ratios is always interesting. He is owed 1y/14.5 or 2y/25 if you pick up the option.

If the Reds truly want to dump them and are willing to eat some money, I wouldn't hate either move. That's a medium-sized if and even if they were, they might not trade them to the Mets. But there's reason to believe they'd be good moves.

That said, I wouldn't mind just signing Garland.
   149. Elvis Posted: December 10, 2009 at 01:54 PM (#3408925)
Santana, 133 ERA+
Maine, 103 ERA+
Pelfrey, 89 ERA+
Perez, 88 ERA+
Niese, 95 ERA+


I think Perez beats that projection (although Pelfrey may not). I also think Maine beats that, but you have to balance that out by wondering how many innings he can be counted on. But if the Mets add Lackey and have three guys (Niese, Figueroa and Nieve) ready to step in and give respectable numbers, I would be okay with that. I'd rather have Lackey's superior talent than two guys who are likely to be league average (or slightly above) but who can deliver 350-400 IP. Adding two starters should be the backup plan if they can't sign Lackey.

I'm not worried about the Phillies having 10 reliable pitchers. There's no guarantee that they re-sign Pedro and counting on 47-year-old Jamie Moyer (coming off an injury) for any quality innings seems unwise.
   150. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: December 10, 2009 at 02:19 PM (#3408954)
counting on 47-year-old Jamie Moyer (coming off an injury)

Except that Moyer is one of several options for a #5 starter, which isn't quite the same as "counting on".
I'd love to see the Phils make a pitch for Martinez with the idea that he and Moyer would be spot starters, maybe 20-22 starts each and 12-15 relief appearances (all the long relief needed plus an occasional inning) to the tune of 125-150 innings each. Both seemed to do best last year when they got extra rest. The Phils would use a 4+ pitcher rotation, with M&M;sharing the 5th slot and filling in for the inevitable injury.
It might be divisive in a "everybody knows their role" mindset, but if any team could handle it, I think the Phils players could and Manuel and Dubee could manage it.

EDIT: And if I were the Mets, Martinez would seem to be a good fit, as long as you know you won't get 30 starts or 200 innings.
   151. Win one for Agrippa (haplo53) Posted: December 10, 2009 at 02:21 PM (#3408957)
I've liked Harang in the past, but injury-wise he'd be a pretty big gamble at $14.5m.
   152. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2009 at 02:39 PM (#3408977)
You all really want to watch a Harang/Molina battery next year, don't you?
   153. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 10, 2009 at 02:41 PM (#3408983)
I've liked Harang in the past, but injury-wise he'd be a pretty big gamble at $14.5m.

Yeah, but only 1 year. Even if he's a complete bust, he doesn't hamper the Mets ability to retool in 2011.
   154. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 10, 2009 at 02:54 PM (#3408996)
There sure are a lot of people here who like Ollie Perez to bounce back next year. I agree he could bounce back, but isn't it just as likely he never pitches well again? This isn't a case of someone with a long track record of consistent success - one very good year, two lost years, two average seasons, and now another lost one.

Granted, I don't think any of you are necessarily penciling in 180 innings of 4 ERA ball from Perez, and no one is making any grandiose, Megdalesque predictions, but if I were running the Mets, I would consider anything positive I got from Perez next year as a bonus, and no way I would enter the season with him as anything but my fifth starter.
   155. Elvis Posted: December 10, 2009 at 05:25 PM (#3409161)
I'd like to turn that around and ask why anyone would expect significantly worse than what Perez produced in 2008? That year he had 194 IP, a 4.22 ERA and a 100 ERA+

Obviously, last year was screwed up by the WBC and being out of shape. But he was already showing signs of improvement before getting hurt in his next to last start. In 7 starts after the All-Star break, Perez had a 4.19 ERA. Then he got hurt and tried to pitch and had the disastrous start against Philly before they shut him down for the year.

There have been no reports of any setbacks from his knee surgery and when he had the operation the prognosis was that he would be ready for the start of Spring Training. The only thing we've heard is that for the first time he is staying in this country during the off-season, where the club can do a better job of monitoring his progress.

I think 175 IP and a 4.50 ERA are reasonable projections for a healthy Perez. That combination of IP and ERA in the National League last year gave you something along the likes of Johnny Cueto, Paul Maholm and Derek Lowe, or a pretty good 4th SP.
   156. PreservedFish Posted: December 11, 2009 at 01:19 AM (#3409631)
I'd like to turn that around and ask why anyone would expect significantly worse than what Perez produced in 2008? ... Obviously, last year was screwed up by the WBC and being out of shape.


Those are lame ass excuses. He sucked royally last year and he might do the same in 2010.

Honestly, there is no way to make a thoughtful prediction for Ollie. He is a nut and he is also a huge question mark in terms of health and stuff.
   157. Freeballin' (Tales of Met Power) Posted: December 11, 2009 at 01:24 AM (#3409634)
Weeeeellll, "nut" may be a little strong. It's possible that it's just extremely difficult to pitch effectively at the major league level.
   158. PreservedFish Posted: December 11, 2009 at 01:34 AM (#3409640)
Yes, of course. But with Ollie more than any other pitcher I remember there are ALWAYS questions about his mindset, his mechanics (from a standpoint of preparation and consistency), his plan of attack, etc. This all being entirely seperate from equally important questions about health, velocity, and such.
   159. Freeballin' (Tales of Met Power) Posted: December 11, 2009 at 01:37 AM (#3409642)
ever try to stand on a mound and throw it 60 feet and get it anywhere near the plate? what these guys do is really an amazing feat, even the half-competent ones.

not getting on you, PF, just reflecting.
   160. Lassus Posted: December 11, 2009 at 01:38 AM (#3409644)
There sure are a lot of people here who like Ollie Perez to bounce back next year. I agree he could bounce back, but isn't it just as likely he never pitches well again?

Yes, and this is why he's better than Harang, who's guaranteed to suck. He'll bounce like a dead arm dropped from six feet on a pile of gravel.
   161. Something Other Posted: December 11, 2009 at 08:26 AM (#3409799)
Obviously, last year was screwed up by the WBC and being out of shape. But he was already showing signs of improvement before getting hurt in his next to last start. In 7 starts after the All-Star break, Perez had a 4.19 ERA.
Whoa. That was the 4.19 ERA he compiled by walking 35 guys in 42 innings. There's no reason whatever to think Perez was close to putting anything together, just as there's no reason to believe he'll put it together in 2010.

I would consider anything positive I got from Perez next year as a bonus, and no way I would enter the season with him as anything but my fifth starter.
Even this is optimistic, imo, but with the plethora of 5th starters the Mets have available (Figueroa, Niese, Nieve, Maine) the backup plan's already in place in case Ollie can't make it out of ST.

With a year as utterly godawful as Perez had in 2009, and with his long erratic history, doesn't the default position of any FO that doesn't want to wind up with a 180 inning hole in its rotation have to be that anything he contributes is gravy?

I've liked Harang in the past, but injury-wise he'd be a pretty big gamble at $14.5m.
That's why, given the choice, I'd go with Arroyo. Harang will never again be the pitcher he was from 2005-2007, so why chase a ghost that will never materialize?
   162. jfish26101 Posted: December 11, 2009 at 04:13 PM (#3410041)
Troll? Moron? Haha Quite a friendly community you have going here. ;) Amazing to me that I'm just trying to have a discussion about the method and everyone seems to think I'm trashing Dan's system or something because I don't agree with it 100% and suggested it could be improved. It isn't every projection I find peculiar, it's just a few on each team which is why I said it wouldn't be a bad idea to make some small adjustments for information a computer can't take into account. If you all agree that scouting can be helpful in projecting a player, I don't see what is wrong with suggesting you try working with what is out there unless you think BA, BP, Baseball HQ, PP, etc all have no idea what they are doing.

Mr. Smith, not sure but are suggesting a projection should be considered accurate if it is within 50 points of OPS+? Being within 2 standard deviations of the actual right number isn't accurate to me, I wouldn't consider a projection within half of that accurate. Being labeled "projections" infers that these numbers are what Dan (or at least his system) thinks the player will do next year so the actual result should be very close to the projection. Less than one standard deviation, if Dan knows that maybe I can give a criteria and try putting something together if I have time.
   163. billyshears Posted: December 11, 2009 at 05:36 PM (#3410139)
It isn't every projection I find peculiar, it's just a few on each team which is why I said it wouldn't be a bad idea to make some small adjustments for information a computer can't take into account. If you all agree that scouting can be helpful in projecting a player, I don't see what is wrong with suggesting you try working with what is out there unless you think BA, BP, Baseball HQ, PP, etc all have no idea what they are doing.


You keep missing the point. It's not that people think this is a bad idea. It's that neither you nor anybody else has any good idea as to how to gather and incorporate this information in a systemic way that actually improves the accuracy of the predictions.
   164. The District Attorney Posted: December 11, 2009 at 05:40 PM (#3410142)
it wouldn't be a bad idea to make some small adjustments for information a computer can't take into account.
How is a computer supposed to take into account things that a computer can't take into account?
   165. jfish26101 Posted: December 11, 2009 at 05:57 PM (#3410165)
Scouting isn't necessarily a systematic process though. If you have that stance, you will probably never be able to incorporate it into the projection model. Look back to Chone and Dan's posts earlier where they say they would need detailed scouting reports for every player in baseball over the last 30-40 years so they can find even begin, that simply isn't possible so an easy cop out. I'm not sure yet if Chone was suggesting a projection within 50 points of OPS+ in either direction is accurate but I certainly can't agree if he is.

You take the values it spits out and make small adjustments. I'm not saying take someone like Zobrist or Wright and increase/decrease their OPS+ by 20-30 points, even the number I threw out was only 10 points higher. Just suggesting small adjustments on numbers the clearly look too low/high based on known factors like changes in park (which may be incorporated already?), league (from AL to NL which may also be incorporated?), injuries, trends, etc. I fully understand it is less objective then letting a computer tell you what the player will do but the stuff does matter in projecting players future performance.
   166. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 11, 2009 at 06:03 PM (#3410171)
Scouting isn't necessarily a systematic process though. If you have that stance, you will probably never be able to incorporate it into the projection model.

That's what people are saying.
   167. HowardMegdal Posted: December 11, 2009 at 06:04 PM (#3410174)
Megdalesque predictions, but if I were running the Mets, I would consider anything positive I got from Perez next year as a bonus, and no way I would enter the season with him as anything but my fifth starter.

Ah, my 16 wins and 3.5-3.7 ERA prediction for 2007 haunts me still. What did he end up with that year, anyway?
   168. jfish26101 Posted: December 11, 2009 at 06:05 PM (#3410176)
Scouting isn't necessarily a systematic process though. If you have that stance, you will probably never be able to incorporate it into the projection model.

That's what people are saying.

Then the model is obviously flawed not being able to take into account something as important as scouting into the projection. If everyone agrees scouting is important, why the hell would you put any stock in a projection system that ignores it?
   169. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 11, 2009 at 06:32 PM (#3410205)
Ah, my 16 wins and 3.5-3.7 ERA prediction for 2007 haunts me still. What did he end up with that year, anyway?

Sorry, Howard. It's less that prediction than the Koufax thing (which, admittedly, some of us took out of context a little).

Anyway, don't make me bust out his xFIP or RA+ for 2007. ;-)


Just suggesting small adjustments on numbers the clearly look too low/high based on known factors like changes in park (which may be incorporated already?), league (from AL to NL which may also be incorporated?), injuries, trends, etc.

Again, not to speak for Dan, but Park and League areincorporated already. Don't know about injuries, but doubt it. Trends? Well, besides the fact that this is already implicity incorporated in the projection, insofar as the main input is stats from the past four years, but three year trends (e.g. Derek Jeter's declining OPS from 2000-2002) are generally NOT predictive, unless there is a *clear* underlying reason, such as age, and that would already be incorporated as well.

Here's a link to an article that talks about Zobrist.

Within the article, the interviewee gives a scouting opinion on Zobrist, saying that he sees his power dipping next year, because he likely doesn't have the physical stregth to maintain that from year to year. This is "scouting" information as you're defining it, right? So how do we account for it? Should I adjust Zobrist's ISO down a bit? How much? 5%? Dave Cameron's more of an analyst than a scout, so maybe I discount it? So maybe 1 or 2%? Or do I ignore it because it went against my preconceived notion of what Zobrist's 2010 will look like? And how do I consistently incorporate it? Do I tag anything from "Dave Cameron" a certain way? Do I give him more weight if he gives an opinion on the Mariners, because that's the team he follows most closely? Or maybe I don't, because he'd be biased?

Then the model is obviously flawed not being able to take into account something as important as scouting into the projection.

All models are wrong, some models are useful. Dan (and Sean's, and others) projection systems will always be wrong sometimes. If they were able to get (as Dan, I think, noted) *actual* scouting reports, you know, from scouts, not something mentioned offhand to a reporter that makes its way into a Notes column and may or may not have been taken completely out of context or changed slightly, AND you could come up with a framework for how to numerically quantify said scouting reports, then take the time to incorporate this into your process, well, sure, you could probably improve projections this way.

However, given the hurdles in properly, scientifically incorporating that data, not to mention getting information that isn't filterted through the press and for all we know was only released to the reporter in question because they are posturing for a trade or a contract negotiation or something, why is it so hard for you to understand why these systems don't incorporate this stuff.
   170. billyshears Posted: December 11, 2009 at 06:39 PM (#3410211)
I fully understand it is less objective then letting a computer tell you what the player will do but the stuff does matter in projecting players future performance.


But models are objective. They take into account proven factors that improve the accuracy of the projections. The problem with subjective observations is that we don't know that they will make the projections better. If you go through the model and apply adjustments based on one's subjective opinions on certain players, it ceases to be a model.

If everyone agrees scouting is important, why the hell would you put any stock in a projection system that ignores it?


The value of a model is that it gets rid of the very noise that you're trying to introduce. It says here's our best guess as to what the player will do based on quantifiable factors. You think Zobrist will maintain his performance because he changed his approach. But maybe there's a hole is his new approach that pitchers haven't yet figured out how to exploit. We just don't know the answer yet. A model relies on what is known to be true. You can make your own adjustments based on what you think to be true. But what you think has a pretty fair chance of being wrong.
   171. jfish26101 Posted: December 11, 2009 at 06:53 PM (#3410227)
Then I see very little value in this model in actually projecting players. The last few posts basically say they know the system is not accurate, I'd rather have a system that takes the noise and tries to make sense of it. I guess we can chalk it up to difference of opinion but the whole point of a projection system to me is to project what the player will do, not what he may due based on half of the story. :( I appreciate the people willing to stay civil, thanks.

I'd still like to know what Dan/Chone think is acceptable to still be considered accurate because I'm curious just how accurate/inaccurate it is. If we are using OPS+, I think within 8-10 is fair. 50 points is the difference between an average hitter and a MVP type hitter...even 20-30 is the difference between an average hitter and an All-Star.
   172. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 11, 2009 at 07:02 PM (#3410238)
The last few posts basically say they know the system is not accurate, I'd rather have a system that takes the noise and tries to make sense of it.

Again, the short answer is that if you follow your method here, you don't know if you're making sense of the noise, or just adding more of it. You just. don't. know.
   173. jfish26101 Posted: December 11, 2009 at 07:15 PM (#3410248)
True, I'm not denying that. You could be wrong but I'd rather not just ignore it completely. Maybe after I've run the numbers and compared them to RL I'll feel differently. ;)
   174. billyshears Posted: December 11, 2009 at 07:30 PM (#3410266)
Then I see very little value in this model in actually projecting players. The last few posts basically say they know the system is not accurate, I'd rather have a system that takes the noise and tries to make sense of it.


I think the value is that it gives you the best guess of a player's projections based on what is known to be true. Then I can take my own subjective opinions and make adjustments. If the model incorporated Dan's subjective opinions, I'm less able to do that because I wouldn't know what projections are based solely on objective data and what projections are based on Dan's subjective opinions of unquantifiable data. I may trust my own subjective opinions, but I have no idea of the value of Dan's subjective opinions. If I'm putting together a model just for me, I can incorporate subjective elements and be perfectly happy. But if I'm evaluating a model done by somebody else, I want it to be purely objective because I don't know if somebody else's subjective opinions actually do improve the projections.

This is not saying the system is inaccurate, because we don't know if anybody's subjective opinions actual help the model. We're saying the system is as accurate as it can be given what we know.
   175. depletion Posted: December 15, 2009 at 09:33 PM (#3413990)
NYT and mlbtraderumors have the Mets about to close a deal with Ryota "Chiba Lightning" Igarashi.
If he pitches anyhting like he did for the Tokyo Yakult Swallows, the Mets will be OK.
   176. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 15, 2009 at 09:42 PM (#3414001)
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.
   177. danielj Posted: December 15, 2009 at 09:51 PM (#3414011)
NYT and mlbtraderumors have the Mets about to close a deal with Ryota "Chiba Lightning" Igarashi. If he pitches anyhting like he did for the Tokyo Yakult Swallows, the Mets will be OK.

If the Mets are signing him, he'll be a backup catcher in 2010.
   178. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 15, 2009 at 10:00 PM (#3414024)
If the Mets are signing him, he'll be a backup catcher in 2010.

Nice.
   179. Digit Posted: December 15, 2009 at 10:46 PM (#3414079)
http://twitter.com/npbtracker/status/6710080930

Despite Mets reports, Sponichi has Red Sox in the lead for Igarashi with 2-year, $2-3m deal.
   180. Lassus Posted: December 15, 2009 at 11:07 PM (#3414096)
There is something wrong when I'm pissed we might not be getting this guy and I don't know a single fact about him other than his name.
   181. depletion Posted: December 17, 2009 at 04:12 PM (#3416017)
mlbtraderumors have the Mets with deal "in principle" with Ryota "Godfather of Soul" Igarashi.
I'm worried about the unknown knowns. These are things we know, but don't realize we know. Like how uncool we really are.
   182. PreservedFish Posted: December 18, 2009 at 02:34 AM (#3416544)
There is something wrong when I'm pissed we might not be getting this guy and I don't know a single fact about him other than his name.


And the Mets landed him! AP LINK

I think he needs a "Japanese _____" in order to identify him. Omar says he has a splitter. I suggest "the Japanese JJ Putz."
   183. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: December 18, 2009 at 02:39 AM (#3416545)
Yanks sign OBP Jesus for a one year 5.5MM deal. That's a better use of money than Benji Molina...if Omar starts the year with Murphy at first, he should get fired.
   184. Freeballin' (Tales of Met Power) Posted: December 18, 2009 at 02:42 AM (#3416547)
to be fair, I assume OBPJ is going to primarily DH
   185. Famous Original Joe C Posted: June 29, 2010 at 08:48 PM (#3574549)
Zobrist at midseason: .293/.372/.414, 112 OPS+

If you had only listened to those scouts, Dan.
Page 2 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
aleskel
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.0262 seconds
62 querie(s) executed