projections forum

[jpenrod]

is it possible to start a new forum strictly for people to make projections on how current players may finish out thier career? I would think that it would be best suited to do these type of threads in "Current Events", but some people see to think that the "Hall of Fame" forum is the place for such threads. I just think it is a distraction from the great discussion in the Hall of Fame Forum to have a thread discussing the merits of a player that has only been in the league for 3 years. Another option would be to restrict discussion in the Hall of Fame forum to players that at least meet the qualifications for the HOF.

I really do not know what is practical but these endless threads in the HOF forum really seem distracting.

[Jake83]

is it possible to start a new forum strictly for people to make projections on how current players may finish out thier career? I would think that it would be best suited to do these type of threads in "Current Events", but some people see to think that the "Hall of Fame" forum is the place for such threads. I just think it is a distraction from the great discussion in the Hall of Fame Forum to have a thread discussing the merits of a player that has only been in the league for 3 years. Another option would be to restrict discussion in the Hall of Fame forum to players that at least meet the qualifications for the HOF.

I really do not know what is practical but these endless threads in the HOF forum really seem distracting.


Certain posters shouldn't be allowed to start threads if they have shown in the past they are not capable of starting threads

[Sultan_1895-1948]

-------------

[Erik Bedard]

is it possible to start a new forum strictly for people to make projections on how current players may finish out thier career? I would think that it would be best suited to do these type of threads in "Current Events", but some people see to think that the "Hall of Fame" forum is the place for such threads. I just think it is a distraction from the great discussion in the Hall of Fame Forum to have a thread discussing the merits of a player that has only been in the league for 3 years. Another option would be to restrict discussion in the Hall of Fame forum to players that at least meet the qualifications for the HOF.

I really do not know what is practical but these endless threads in the HOF forum really seem distracting.

Well, this may not be the best way to handle this problem, but I agree with you that we shouldn't have to deal with it if we don't want to.

[538280]

I would be in favor of anything trying to stop the ruining of our HOF Talk forum.

[Mattingly]

I don't know about a new forum, but if someone has quality posts to contribute about active players, I think that a "Projections" thread under CE (Current Events) would be quite welcome. :)

[jpenrod]

I don't know about a new forum, but if someone has quality posts to contribute about active players, I think that a "Projections" thread under CE (Current Events) would be quite welcome. :)

Yeah, I do not know that a new forum would be really the right thing or even necessary, but it seems that something could be done to make sure that some threads are placed in a more "appropriate" forum like CE.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I don't know about a new forum, but if someone has quality posts to contribute about active players, I think that a "Projections" thread under CE (Current Events) would be quite welcome. :)
Matt, you really should check out what's going in the HOF forum. Please.

[Mattingly]

Matt, you really should check out what's going in the HOF forum. Please.
Any thread starters to look into? I see various threads, but nothing about their names strike me as unusual.

[jalbright]

Any thread starters to look into? I see various threads, but nothing about their names strike me as unusual.
Start with those begun by Sockeye, or the imitations by Sockeye1. There have also been several mocking threads about the HOF qualifications of some Little Leaguers (Quentin Guevara is one, I believe). Some of Sockeye's threads are rational choices, some far less so. Also, he's done a raft of the calls most think are obvious and uncontroverisal like Ken Griffey Jr. Really, lately, the vast majority of threads about single individuals with a poll in the HOF forum fit into the issue CCN is talking about. Also, there was a thread about Sockeye's the size of Sockeye's HOF. Whatever one thinks of Sockeye (I'll let you judge), he's stirred up a good bit of anger directed his way.

Jim Albright

[Mattingly]

Thanks, Jim. I've peeked at those a little bit, but need to further review. :)

EDIT: perhaps we could start by having Sockeye post a "Hall of Fame Projections" thread under the HoF forum, just to debate whether this would even prove viable.

[jalbright]

Your questions to Mattingly drew a little more light on his methods. In this thread: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=43398&page=2 , I managed to get him to discuss nine guys who were similar to Shawn Green in his view, and I did some analysis of those nine examples (see posts 30, 40, 42-44, 47, 56 and 57). He doesn't like being reminded of my findings, but with one exception, I must say he's been civil with me since that time. That doesn't mean my view of him has changed much, nor do I have reason to believe his view of me has been significantly altered either. One thing you might notice in going through posts 30-57 in the Green thread is what I previously called Sockeye's combativeness.

Jim Albright

[Mattingly]

Your questions to Mattingly drew a little more light on his methods. In this thread: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=43398&page=2 , I managed to get him to discuss nine guys who were similar to Shawn Green in his view, and I did some analysis of those nine examples (see posts 30, 40, 42-44, 47, 56 and 57). He doesn't like being reminded of my findings, but with one exception, I must say he's been civil with me since that time. That doesn't mean my view of him has changed much, nor do I have reason to believe his view of me has been significantly altered either. One thing you might notice in going through posts 30-57 in the Green thread is what I previously called Sockeye's combativeness.

Jim Albright
I'm far from some "projections" person, but to me, I'd like to know what the formula, as in spreadsheet formula is, so that instead of looking at the end results, I'd much prefer to see how these were come by. I'm seeing things like percentages, numbers. To me, I'd need the following (at least):

How old a player is;
When he's likely to retire (for active players, this can obviously be very much debatable, barring unforesee injury);
How his hitting has been up to that point;
What the likely drop-off would be from his current age to his expected age of retirement.

I'm sure there's more, but that's basically it for me. I can't go by the end result alone. If I could see the innards of what's being discussed, I would have more info. Perhaps we could even evaluate various "similar" types of players at a certain age, then see for ourselves if those projections proved to be true. Billy Williams' example was used. If Gehrig, then perhaps Foxx could be used as a "similar" player. For active, perhaps the Frank Thomas-Albert Pujols thing could be resurrected, seeing what his projections would be like, then seeing if they hold true in the end.

I have a few spreadsheet programs here, so if we could debate about the formula and whether one was right, another is wrong, I'd be in favor of this. Without any idea at how the stats were realized, I'm pretty helpless and clueless on the whole thing, unfortunately.

[MasonDixon]

I would be in favor of anything trying to stop the ruining of our HOF Talk forum.

I completely agree. The forum's a mess right now.

[jalbright]

I'm far from some "projections" person, but to me, I'd like to know what the formula, as in spreadsheet formula is, so that instead of looking at the end results, I'd much prefer to see how these were come by. I'm seeing things like percentages, numbers. To me, I'd need the following (at least):

How old a player is;
When he's likely to retire (for active players, this can obviously be very much debatable, barring unforesee injury);
How his hitting has been up to that point;
What the likely drop-off would be from his current age to his expected age of retirement.

I'm sure there's more, but that's basically it for me. I can't go by the end result alone. If I could see the innards of what's being discussed, I would have more info. Perhaps we could even evaluate various "similar" types of players at a certain age, then see for ourselves if those projections proved to be true. Billy Williams' example was used. If Gehrig, then perhaps Foxx could be used as a "similar" player. For active, perhaps the Frank Thomas-Albert Pujols thing could be resurrected, seeing what his projections would be like, then seeing if they hold true in the end.

I have a few spreadsheet programs here, so if we could debate about the formula and whether one was right, another is wrong, I'd be in favor of this. Without any idea at how the stats were realized, I'm pretty helpless and clueless on the whole thing, unfortunately.

I'm not big on projections, mainly because the ones I see have had such huge errors (like Sockeye's +/- 1 season for 32 year olds, maybe more--that's huge from an evaluative standpoint. Yet, Sockeye persists in using this as his method for making decisions about active players.

He rather resolutely refuses to spell out much, in part because he claims this is proprietary stuff he's actually making money off of (questionable IMO given the lack of substantiation). Even from a projection level, and what he's told us, he:
1) hasn't told us who he used in his study of various age groups (or at least the criteria for inclusion;
2) hasn't specified if there are minimum criteria before he's willing to make a projection (he did Teixiera, with only 3 seasons in)
3) shows no evidence of looking specifically at recent performance in his projections (some use multiple seasons e.g. 1/2 the most recent, 1/3 the year previous, and 1/6 2 years previous). It has to make some difference in our expectations if a guy came up three years ago and had three similar years versus a guy who came up five years ago, tore up the league for two, was beaned early in the third and missed most of that year and hasn't done diddly since, as one example.
4) seemingly doesn't put the data into any context to determine if a guy is still performing well and thereby cut/end his playing time.

With all those issues, even if the "new" method is more accurate, it's hard to be impressed.

Jim Albright

[digglahhh]

Jim has his "Albright's Musings thread"

Why Sockeye can't consolidate his projections into a "Sockeye's HOF Projections" thread is beyond me.

We may be quibbling over nothing though. He seems to have gone alphabetically and he should be just about done. If he goes back to the top or something, then we're really in trouble.

[jpenrod]

Jim has his "Albright's Musings thread"

Why Sockeye can't consolidate his projections into a "Sockeye's HOF Projections" thread is beyond me.

We may be quibbling over nothing though. He seems to have gone alphabetically and he should be just about done. If he goes back to the top or something, then we're really in trouble.

He still has pitchers.

[Mattingly]

He still has pitchers.
I'm not too sure about that.
I'm not big on projections, mainly because the ones I see have had such huge errors (like Sockeye's +/- 1 season for 32 year olds, maybe more--that's huge from an evaluative standpoint. Yet, Sockeye persists in using this as his method for making decisions about active players.

He rather resolutely refuses to spell out much, in part because he claims this is proprietary stuff he's actually making money off of (questionable IMO given the lack of substantiation). Even from a projection level, and what he's told us, he:
1) hasn't told us who he used in his study of various age groups (or at least the criteria for inclusion;
2) hasn't specified if there are minimum criteria before he's willing to make a projection (he did Teixiera, with only 3 seasons in)
3) shows no evidence of looking specifically at recent performance in his projections (some use multiple seasons e.g. 1/2 the most recent, 1/3 the year previous, and 1/6 2 years previous). It has to make some difference in our expectations if a guy came up three years ago and had three similar years versus a guy who came up five years ago, tore up the league for two, was beaned early in the third and missed most of that year and hasn't done diddly since, as one example.
4) seemingly doesn't put the data into any context to determine if a guy is still performing well and thereby cut/end his playing time.

With all those issues, even if the "new" method is more accurate, it's hard to be impressed.

Jim Albright
Bah, too many words. I'll consolidate them for you very succinctly:

http://www.whitetreeaz.com/vintage/banjsalv.jpg http://www.mnsi.net/~puppet/elixir.gif

[wamby]

I would be in favor of anything trying to stop the ruining of our HOF Talk forum.

This is a bit ironic, because a couple of us have been talking about asking for a sub-forum in the History forum, because of the direction that forum has been going.

[Mattingly]

This is a bit ironic, because a couple of us have been talking about asking for a sub-forum in the History forum, because of the direction that forum has been going.
What kind of subforum have people been requesting? You're in the right place to post this.

[wamby]

What kind of subforum have people been requesting? You're in the right place to post this.

Should I post it here or in a PM?

[Mattingly]

Should I post it here or in a PM?
If it's something confidential, such as your not wanting to have others' names being mentioned, you can send me a PM. If it's stuff that people have been talking about and you'd like known, then post it here on the boards.

Your choice. :)