2009 PECOTA Depth Chart Projections [Archive]

philkid3

02-10-2009, 03:06 PM

I happen to agree with him. I dont see how the Angels could finish under 80 wins without some catestropic injuries which this doesnt account for anyhow.

G Man
That doesn't answer my question. How can something be bull before it happens?

Especially from a projection system that I'm willing to bet is more reliable than the projections done by anyone posting in this thread (though, admittedly, in its rough draft form).

sturg1dj

02-10-2009, 04:30 PM

That doesn't answer my question. How can something be bull before it happens?

Especially from a projection system that I'm willing to bet is more reliable than the projections done by anyone posting in this thread (though, admittedly, in its rough draft form).

he is saying the projection is bull, and the projection did happen...its right there

it could be dead on...but right now it looks like bull

general question...who did the Marlins lose in the offseason, because they are being picked to finish in last.

philkid3

02-10-2009, 05:08 PM

he is saying the projection is bull, and the projection did happen...its right there
But it's a prediction of something that hasn't happened yet and can quite conceivably happen. So how is it bull?

NYMets523

02-10-2009, 05:12 PM

The Braves and Phillies with the same record is surprising. The Braves only won 72 games last year. I think 88 is a bit of a leap.

Buczilla

02-10-2009, 05:17 PM

general question...who did the Marlins lose in the offseason, because they are being picked to finish in last.

That one does kinda stick out like a sore thumb.

philkid3

02-10-2009, 05:18 PM

The Braves and Phillies with the same record is surprising. The Braves only won 72 games last year. I think 88 is a bit of a leap.

So was the 24 game leap they picked for the Rays last year (and they actually outperformed that). The Braves were also one of the unluckiest teams in baseball last year, if memory serves, and we know how those things tend to turn out the next season.

And, again: first draft.

philkid3

02-10-2009, 05:21 PM

That one does kinda stick out like a sore thumb.

That was the second most surprising thing to me. They're not actually coming out much different in any projections I've really looked at, so my first hunch may have just been overrating them.

NYMets523

02-10-2009, 05:27 PM

So was the 24 game leap they picked for the Rays last year (and they actually outperformed that). The Braves were also one of the unluckiest teams in baseball last year, if memory serves, and we know how those things tend to turn out the next season.

And, again: first draft.

The Rays entire OF wasn't a platoon though.

sturg1dj

02-10-2009, 06:48 PM

But it's a prediction of something that hasn't happened yet and can quite conceivably happen. So how is it bull?

um because he doesn't agree with it

I think your definition of bull is a little too strict.

philkid3

02-10-2009, 06:48 PM

The Rays entire OF wasn't a platoon though.

That's not a very good argument.

philkid3

02-10-2009, 06:50 PM

um because he doesn't agree with it
Does he have a better track record than PECOTA?

I think your definition of bull is a little too strict.
Unless it's the same as "I'd be surprised if that came true, but it's certainly possible and Nate Silver does tend to know what he's talking about more often than most people in the end," I don't think so.

Zito75

02-10-2009, 07:04 PM

D-Backs in the NL West? I don't think so. They don't even have Connor Jackson signed yet.

NYMets523

02-10-2009, 07:16 PM

That's not a very good argument.

It's the same as just saying they were unlucky.

Zagi-CRO

02-11-2009, 03:39 AM

PECOTA projection

American League, ranked by projected 2009 record

East
Boston Red Sox 98 64
New York Yankees 97 65
Tampa Bay Rays 92 70
Toronto Blue Jays 81 81
Baltimore Orioles 75 87

Central
Cleveland Indians 84 78
Minnesota Twins 79 83
Detroit Tigers 78 84
Kansas City Royals 75 87
Chicago White Sox 74 88

West
Oakland Athletics 82 80
Los Angeles Angels 79 83
Texas Rangers 73 89
Seattle Mariners 70 92

National League, ranked by projected 2009 record

East
New York Mets 93 69
Atlanta Braves 88 74
Philadelphia Phillies 88 74
Washington Nationals 79 83
Florida Marlins 73 89

Central
Chicago Cubs 95 67
Milwaukee Brewers 85 77
St. Louis Cardinals 80 82
Cincinnati Reds 78 84
Houston Astros 66 96
Pittsburgh Pirates 64 98

West
Arizona Diamondbacks 90 72
Los Angeles Dodgers 83 79
San Francisco Giants 79 83
Colorado Rockies 78 84
San Diego Padres 74 88

Zagi-CRO

02-11-2009, 03:46 AM

Dalkowski, do you still love PECOTA??? :rainy:

ALC
CWS last place??
ALW
OAK first place??
NLE
Phillies third place??
NLW
SFG under 0.500??

Something is bad... :hissyfit:

gman5431

02-11-2009, 05:48 AM

I think its bull because i dont see the Angels being under .500. I dont see why thats a problem just because some stat projection thing says they are.

G Man

NYMets523

02-11-2009, 07:12 AM

Dalkowski, do you still love PECOTA??? :rainy:

ALC
CWS last place??
ALW
OAK first place??
NLE
Phillies third place??
NLW
SFG under 0.500??

Something is bad... :hissyfit:

White Sox in last place is not a stretch. They have old talent. The Indians and Tigers will likely be better, too.

Oakland in first is plausible. The Angels are not a juggernaut and the A's really improved their offense.

I don't buy the Phillies third but it's possible they win 88 games.

Giants being under 500 is nothing surprising. They have a minor league lineup.

Dalkowski110

02-11-2009, 07:27 AM

Dogdaze

02-11-2009, 01:30 PM

I love these projections. :thumbsup:

philkid3

02-11-2009, 01:43 PM

Something is bad... :hissyfit:
How do you know when the season hasn't been played yet?

And, of course, this isn't even the final draft.

I think its bull because i dont see the Angels being under .500. I dont see why thats a problem just because some stat projection thing says they are.

G Man
Because it can't be bull because neither one of you is right yet. And I'm willing to bet you're right less often than Nate Silver.

philkid3

02-11-2009, 01:46 PM

Determining there's a mistake in a set of projections before the season has even been played is madness. It's one thing to be surprised and think it might be wrong, it's another to dismiss it. Especially when it's a system with a proven track record.

plask_stirlac

02-11-2009, 02:27 PM

They could reach that projection, but it's unlikely. The Nats could win 117 in theory, or the Red Sox could lose 104. If you saw one of those would you object or question?

I remember the projections last year. Baltimore did not finish very well, but were much better than PECOTA last year with a very good offense. Or maybe that was Sheehan. Oh well... Tigers 89-73.

They also had the Mariners at 78 wins, lower than most but not 61. The Twins and Astros were also playoff contenders to the end, not 74 win teams.

philkid3

02-11-2009, 03:02 PM

They could reach that projection, but it's unlikely.
Give evidence to support this. I would absolutely take the over, but I'm not going to dismiss it as silly when I don't have a better track record than Silver.

(And I wouldn't take the over by much. If they're more than an 85 win team I'll be surprised.)

The Nats could win 117 in theory, or the Red Sox could lose 104. If you saw one of those would you object or question?
If they were projected by the most reliable system out there it would make me scratch my head and I might question them a little. At least want to know why they're so extreme. But I'm certainly not dismissing them as bull without a reason better than my gut.

And those are also a whole lot more extreme than a team that had 84 third order wins one season having 79 wins the next with no immediately obvious reason for improvement and having lost a tremendous player.

I remember the projections last year. Baltimore did not finish very well, but were much better than PECOTA last year with a very good offense. Or maybe that was Sheehan. Oh well... Tigers 89-73.

They also had the Mariners at 78 wins, lower than most but not 61. The Twins and Astros were also playoff contenders to the end, not 74 win teams.
Yup, everything ever will have mistakes. PECOTA is no different. But we don't know what those mistakes are before the season is played and it's still closer to right than any of us. I'm not sure what the point is.

This is, again, the rough draft. And even if it wasn't, you don't know what's right or wrong until the season is played, so you can't dismiss it yet. That's illogical.

Zagi-CRO

02-12-2009, 12:24 AM

"Dalkowski, do you still love PECOTA???"

Yes. Do the words "rough draft" mean anything to you? How about "these projections will be revised over the course of the regular season to reflect roster changes"?

Then it's funny not serious projection.
Projection for a baby.
Their methodology is poor. I'll always bet against PECOTA projection with my computer projection.
ALWAYS!!

Zagi-CRO

02-12-2009, 12:25 AM

How do you know when the season hasn't been played yet?

And, of course, this isn't even the final draft.

Because it can't be bull because neither one of you is right yet. And I'm willing to bet you're right less often than Nate Silver.

When it will be 'the final draft'... in OCtober? :rainy:

philkid3

02-12-2009, 12:39 AM

Then it's funny not serious projection.
Projection for a baby.
You're not making any sense. Because it's a rough draft it's for a baby? What does that even mean?

Their methodology is poor.
Go in to detail as to how their methodology is poor.

I'll always bet against PECOTA projection with my computer projection.
ALWAYS!!
I'll take that bet. Do you have anywhere where your projections were published last year? Prove yours are more accurate.

A cursory glance at Vegas Watch will show you how reliable PECOTA is in the past. Are you aware of this?

philkid3

02-12-2009, 12:40 AM

When it will be 'the final draft'... in OCtober? :rainy:

When the season starts. How can you dismiss PECOTA's methodology if you don't know simple things about it?

Zagi-CRO

02-12-2009, 12:49 AM

When the season starts. How can you dismiss PECOTA's methodology if you don't know simple things about it?

I saw their results...it's poor projection... only I can say.

philkid3

02-12-2009, 12:53 AM

I saw their results
That's the results, not the methodology. You can't criticize the methodology if you don't even know what it is.

And are you familiar with how accurate their results are? Here's an introduction if you're not (http://vegaswatch.net/2008/09/evaluating-april-mlb-predictions-2008.html) (and here's more (http://vegaswatch.net/2008/09/evaluating-april-mlb-predictions-2008.html))

Looking at someone's predictions and deciding they're not going to turn out well doesn't mean their methodology is flawed. Finding a flaw in their methodology is what makes it flawed. If you merely disagree with the projections, it could very well mean YOUR methodology is flawed. And with something that has the track record of PECOTA, that's more likely.

I can't look at your predictions and say I don't agree so they're flawed. I'd have to look at your methodology for that. And as far as who is more accurate, you or me, we wouldn't be able to determine that until the end of the season.

....it's poor projection...
Based on what?

You also didn't give where your system has been published in the past so we can see for ourselves that it's more reliable.

Zagi-CRO

02-12-2009, 12:56 AM

You're not making any sense. Because it's a rough draft it's for a baby? What does that even mean?

Go in to detail as to how their methodology is poor.

I'll take that bet. Do you have anywhere where your projections were published last year? Prove yours are more accurate.

A cursory glance at Vegas Watch will show you how reliable PECOTA is in the past. Are you aware of this?

A methodolgy isn't important. if the result seems bad who cares about methodology?

This is my CGP for 2009:

Author: Zagi-CRO CPG Division League Interleauge
ALE Boston Red Sox 98 64 41 31 44 26 12 8
ALE New York Yankees 96 66 41 31 43 27 12 8
ALE Tampa Bay Rays 87 75 37 35 39 31 11 9
ALE Toronto Blue Jays 78 84 33 39 35 35 10 10
ALE Baltimore Orioles 66 96 28 44 30 40 8 12
ALC Chicago White Sox 85 77 38 34 37 33 11 9
ALC Minnesota Twins 83 79 37 35 36 34 10 10
ALC Kansas City Royals 81 81 36 36 35 35 10 10
ALC Detroit Tigers 81 81 36 36 35 35 10 10
ALC Cleveland Indians 79 83 35 37 34 36 10 10
ALW Los Angeles Angels 94 68 45 27 38 32 11 9
ALW Oakland Athletics 73 89 35 37 30 40 9 11
ALW Seattle Mariners 69 93 33 39 28 42 8 12
ALW Texas Rangers 66 96 31 41 27 43 8 12
NLE New York Mets 96 66 42 30 42 28 12 8
NLE Philadelphia Phillies 95 67 41 31 42 28 12 8
NLE Atlanta Braves 89 73 39 33 39 31 11 9
NLE Florida Marlins 71 91 31 41 31 39 9 11
NLE Washington Nationals 62 100 27 45 27 43 8 12
NLC Chicago Cubs 100 62 45 27 43 27 12 8
NLC Cincinnati Reds 82 80 37 35 35 35 10 10
NLC Houston Astros 81 81 36 36 35 35 10 10
NLC St. Louis Cardinals 79 83 35 37 34 36 10 10
NLC Milwaukee Brewers 76 86 34 38 33 37 9 11
NLC Pittsburgh Pirates 64 98 28 44 27 43 8 12
NLW Los Angeles Dodgers 87 75 39 33 37 33 11 9
NLW Arizona Diamondbacks 87 75 39 33 37 33 11 9
NLW San Francisco Giants 85 77 38 34 36 34 10 10
NLW Colorado Rockies 73 89 33 39 31 39 9 11
NLW San Diego Padres 68 94 30 42 29 41 8 12
2430 2430

CGP with division, leauge and interleague projections.

philkid3

02-12-2009, 12:59 AM

A methodolgy isn't important. if the result seems bad who cares about methodology?

Because the point isn't to have results that seem good. The point is to have results that ARE good. And I've only encountered one projection system arguably more reliable than PECOTA. Have you even bothered with checking their track record yet?

And if the methodology isn't important, why did you say it's bad?

You're avoiding responding to a lot of my questions.

philkid3

02-12-2009, 01:02 AM

Zagi-CRO

02-12-2009, 01:06 AM

Because the point isn't to have results that seem good. The point is to have results that ARE good. And I've only encountered one projection system arguably more reliable than PECOTA. Have you even bothered with checking their track record yet?
And if the methodology isn't important, why did you say it's bad?
You're avoiding responding to a lot of my questions.

Yes, the point IS to have GOOD results. And I dont agree with projections like this:
West
Oakland Athletics 82 80
Los Angeles Angels 79 83
Texas Rangers 73 89
Seattle Mariners 70 92

Oakland will win!?? LAA will be UNDER 0.500???
I'm surprised, what could I say?
Cos of this... I said that's for a baby.

Zagi-CRO

02-12-2009, 01:09 AM

You're avoiding responding to a lot of my questions.

Phil, I'm really sorry... I said for many times, my English IS BAD... I cant have discussing with you at the same level, because of language...:cry:

philkid3

02-12-2009, 01:10 AM

Yes, the point IS to have GOOD results.
How do you know they're bad before the season is played?

philkid3

02-12-2009, 01:11 AM

Phil, I'm really sorry... I said for many times, my English IS BAD... I cant have discussing with you at the same level, because of language...:cry:
That's fine, I'm up for a while, I'll ask questions one at a time.

Zagi-CRO

02-12-2009, 01:12 AM

Zagi, I don't think you seem to understand the concept that you should judge projections -- guess work or otherwise -- by how accurate they are AFTER the season, not how accurate they are to what you think will happen BEFORE the season.

I understand and agree with you.
A day before Opening Day I'll announce my CGP for 2009. Ok?
And you could publish PECOTA on the same day. Ok?
And... we are waiting the October.

Zagi-CRO

02-12-2009, 01:16 AM

How do you know they're bad before the season is played?

ok...it seems bad for ME, maybe I was too subjective

philkid3

02-12-2009, 01:25 AM

ok...it seems bad for ME, maybe I was too subjective

And that's the thing. Being surprised by projections is subjective and fine. Dismissing then because they don't look good isn't. PECOTA has an extremely good track record. I gave you a couple links that detail a little of that.

That said, it's going to change a lot before the season starts. This is a rough draft version that would doubtfully be as accurate as PECOTA is known for.

Projection systems should always be challenged, but they can't be dismissed as inferior until something proves itself as superior.

Zagi-CRO

02-12-2009, 01:34 AM

And that's the thing.
Projection systems should always be challenged, but they can't be dismissed as inferior until something proves itself as superior.

yes, you have right. my intention is to discuss various approaches in order to make my own prediction.

gman5431

02-12-2009, 05:39 AM

Who is Nate Silver? Never heard of him. Well i'm willing to pick the over of wins at 79 for the Angels this year if you want the under. Thats what my posts here boil down to.

G Man

Zagi-CRO

02-12-2009, 06:22 AM

Who is Nate Silver? Never heard of him. Well i'm willing to pick the over of wins at 79 for the Angels this year if you want the under. Thats what my posts here boil down to.

G Man

"My real name is Nate Silver and my principal occupation has been as a writer, analyst and partner at a sports media company called Baseball Prospectus. ...

gman5431

02-12-2009, 06:46 AM

"My real name is Nate Silver and my principal occupation has been as a writer, analyst and partner at a sports media company called Baseball Prospectus. ...

O ok, thats cool. Get me a job? I love baseball.

G Man

philkid3

02-12-2009, 07:38 AM

if you want the under.
If you're refering to me, I'd take the over. Especially while the projections are still in rough draft form.

Dalkowski110

02-12-2009, 08:20 AM

"When the season starts. How can you dismiss PECOTA's methodology if you don't know simple things about it?"

Bingo. Yet he keeps dismissing it regardless. IMO, Zagi just thinks his own system and way of thinking in general is somehow better no matter what facts you give him. I say that based on experience debating with him and it should not be taken as an insult.

gman5431

02-12-2009, 10:11 AM

If you're refering to me, I'd take the over. Especially while the projections are still in rough draft form.

Guess you think 79 wins for LAA is bull too haha

G Man

philkid3

02-12-2009, 10:45 AM

Guess you think 79 wins for LAA is bull too haha

That would be an incorrect guess.

d32123

02-12-2009, 11:10 AM

Did they just change their projections or something?

philkid3

02-12-2009, 11:12 AM

Did they just change their projections or something?

Yup. They will be changed fairly constantly from now until the beginning of the season. For instance, in another thread I cited a post where I quoted the Rays at 88 wins, but when the season actually began (the quote was after the season began but from an old post), they had them at 90.

And, currently, the Angels are at 84 wins.

Things will continue to change as things are added, mistakes are corrected and rosters are changed.

d32123

02-12-2009, 11:19 AM

Yup. They will be changed fairly constantly from now until the beginning of the season. For instance, in another thread I cited a post where I quoted the Rays at 88 wins, but when the season actually began (the quote was after the season began but from an old post), they had them at 90.

And, currently, the Angels are at 84 wins.

Things will continue to change as things are added, mistakes are corrected and rosters are changed.

Okay thanks for the response! I will make sure to keep tabs on these projections.

holyroman

02-12-2009, 11:37 AM

philkid3

02-12-2009, 11:59 AM

2.They projected the Astros last year at 72-90 they finished 86-75.
. . . with a pythagoreaon of 77-84.

That is an embarrising job predicting.
Yeah. (http://vegaswatch.net/2008/09/evaluating-april-mlb-predictions-2008.html) Seriously. (http://vegaswatch.net/2008/09/evaluating-april-mlb-predictions-2008.html)

Yup, no team that's been flukey one year has ever come back down to earth even worse the other way the next year. Any system that sees that happening instantly loses it's credibility just for that, no matter what the track record or if it's a rough draft or if a game hasn't even been played yet. Pack it up, terrible.

holyroman

02-12-2009, 12:13 PM

. . . with a pythagoreaon of 77-84.

Yeah. (http://vegaswatch.net/2008/09/evaluating-april-mlb-predictions-2008.html) Seriously. (http://vegaswatch.net/2008/09/evaluating-april-mlb-predictions-2008.html)

Yup, no team that's been flukey one year has ever come back down to earth even worse the other way the next year. Any system that sees that happening instantly loses it's credibility just for that, no matter what the track record or if it's a rough draft or if a game hasn't even been played yet. Pack it up, terrible.

Thanks for proving my point. BP was way off on the Astros last year. And last year was not a fluke for the Astros if you look at the last 10 years. 2007 was the fluke when they only won 73 games. They have been a consistently better team than that.
I would bet you right now that they are close to 10 games under right now for the 2009. That is with me running no projections looking at none of their data. This prediction is off base with historical record and the talent of this team and the talent in their division.
You obviously have a problem with people not agreeing with a prediction.
If these were Vegas odds I would put 5 grand down today.

philkid3

02-12-2009, 12:20 PM

Thanks for proving my point. BP was way off on the Astros last year.
Thanks to the Astros being flukey.

And, even if they weren't, that is one team. You realize there are more teams in baseball? And that PECOTA is more accurate at projecting what those teams will do than arguably any other public system (obligatory MGL mention)?

You know that it's always going to miss a few teams by a lot? And yet it's still consistently more accurate than you or anyone else here.

Do you also know this is a rough draft? You cannot reasonably dismiss a projection system because of one (debatable) mistake from one year on one team in its rough draft form before a game has been played and it projects a team to regress to the mean (and then some), no matter how much you love that team. I advise actually looking in to the track record of the system, more than just the Astros, and also the theory of regression to the mean.

And last year was not a fluke for the Astros if you look at the last 10 years. 2007 was the fluke when they only won 73 games. They have been a consistently better team than that.
No, they were flukey last year because they outperformed their pythagorean by like 10 wins.

You obviously have a problem with people not agreeing with a prediction.
I do have a problem with illogical dismissal based on fandom, yes. Disagreement I don't have a problem with, as I actually disagree with many things at this moment. Mostly because it's a rough draft. I have no sound reason to dismiss PECOTA, though.

gman5431

02-12-2009, 12:36 PM

philkid3

02-12-2009, 12:39 PM

Guess Abreu was worth 5 wins.

G MAn

Had this discussion with someone else earlier, but there's no way that adjustment is all Abreu. If it is I have serious questions as to his projection. At some point I'll probably care enough to look at it.

I mean, Fangraphs' projections for Abreu come out as under, what, 1.5-2 WAR? And I believe the new replacement level for WARP is pretty similar. So that would mean the plate appearances he's replacing would have been something like 3 wins below replacement. I doubt that.

I would bet money that it's not all Abreu. Something additionally was either done to the Angels specifically or the projections in general.

gman5431

02-12-2009, 12:43 PM

1.5-2 WAR?

Is that Greek? I just watch games and drink a few choice beverages dogg. I dont have any clue what that means.

G Man

holyroman

02-12-2009, 12:51 PM

[QUOTE=philkid3;1427608]Thanks to the Astros being flukey.

And, even if they weren't, that is one team. You realize there are more teams in baseball? And that PECOTA is more accurate at projecting what those teams will do than arguably any other public system (obligatory MGL mention)?

You know that it's always going to miss a few teams by a lot? And yet it's still consistently more accurate than you or anyone else here.

Do you also know this is a rough draft? You cannot reasonably dismiss a projection system because of one (debatable) mistake from one year on one team in its rough draft form before a game has been played and it projects a team to regress to the mean (and then some), no matter how much you love that team. I advise actually looking in to the track record of the system, more than just the Astros, and also the theory of regression to the mean.

No, they were flukey last year because they outperformed their pythagorean by like 10 wins.

QUOTE]

I only brought up the prediction of the Astros record. I am not calling PECOTA not a good system.
What I am saying is last year was not a fluke for the Astros. 2007 was a bad year and they used that to make a bad prediction for 2008.
Now they are somehow seeing the Astros fall off the map again. I am saying I disagree. losing 21 more games than last year.
So this particular prediction will be way off for me. that I am sure of.
PECOTA proved to me that one of if not their worst prediction was on the Astros last year. This year they are going the wrong way by giving them even less wins, so I disagree.
And as you say they are predicting them at less than the mean.
and as you say they mad a mistake last year.
I am predicting they are way off on this one.
I am guessing that I know more intangibiles about the astros players/rosters/ and other intangibles than they do based on their prediction.

For instense their prediction is based on the following platoon at third base.
Geoff Blum: 55 percent
Koby Clemens, Chris Johnson and Aaron Boone: 15 percent each

and catcher position.
J.R. Towles: 55 percent
Toby Hall: 35 percent
Humberto Quintero: 10 percent

I won't even get into how wrong they will be about who gets starts on the pitching staff.

philkid3

02-12-2009, 01:08 PM

1.5-2 WAR?

Is that Greek? I just watch games and drink a few choice beverages dogg. I dont have any clue what that means.

G Man

Wins Above Replacement

philkid3

02-12-2009, 01:10 PM

[QUOTE=philkid3;1427608]I only brought up the prediction of the Astros record. I am not calling PECOTA not a good system.
Then that's fine, but I still think you're missing the regression to the mean aspect to the Astros. Look at their pythagorean record!

holyroman

02-12-2009, 01:50 PM

It's a good thing the games aren't played on paper.
Where would the fun be in that.
Come on first pitch!!

:crazy

philkid3

02-12-2009, 01:54 PM

It's a good thing the games aren't played on paper.
Where would the fun be in that.
Come on first pitch!!

:crazy

:laugh

Believe it or not, we agree on this thoroughly.

redlegsfan21

02-12-2009, 03:26 PM

I kinda find it hard to believe the Reds will finish under .500. They are the only team in the NL Central that seems to have improved themselves. Even PECOTA has their pythagoreaon at/above 500.

philkid3

02-12-2009, 07:51 PM

I'm with that and I'm to the extent that I will be surprised if they're not projected to finsih over .500 by April.

Zagi-CRO

02-13-2009, 03:20 AM

O ok, thats cool. Get me a job? I love baseball.

G Man

Sure, why not.... ;)

Zagi-CRO

02-13-2009, 03:24 AM

Did they just change their projections or something?

Sure.

As my CGP /computer-generated-projection/... CGP changes everyday when I register any player trade...
So, projection is in constant changes....

Zagi-CRO

02-13-2009, 03:26 AM

The Astros at 65-97 is Bull____ too.

1.That would be "projected" as the second worse record in baseball.

2.They projected the Astros last year at 72-90 they finished 86-75.

That is an embarrising job predicting.

My refreshing CGP projection for NLC /as of Feb, 13/

NLC Chicago Cubs 100 62
NLC Cincinnati Reds 82 80
NLC Houston Astros 81 81
NLC St. Louis Cardinals 79 83
NLC Milwaukee Brewers 76 86
NLC Pittsburgh Pirates 64 98

Zagi-CRO

02-13-2009, 03:27 AM

Guess Abreu was worth 5 wins.

G MAn

Obviously... :rainy:

Last news: Adam Dunn in the NAts!!

In my forecast the Nats instantly raises their wins from 62 to 66.
Adam Dunn is worth 4 wins more..
But someone has to regress with wins-- Kansas 81/80, Phillies 95/94 Florida 71/70 and La Dodgers 87/86

gman5431

02-13-2009, 05:26 AM

Sure, why not.... ;)

Alright cool... send me a message and illl hit you up.

G Man

plask_stirlac

02-13-2009, 09:41 PM

Well the system just added 5 wins to the Angels? Abreu?

I'm not sure the numbers realize how badly the Angels can and likely will beat Texas and Seattle, maybe Oakland. I can't dismiss it, hasn't it happened since Vlad arrived? If they switch the rosters I still might take the Angels. LA's worst season was 2006, 89 wins, and Seattle and Texas' best was 88 wins (Seattle '07). Texas was second last year, I know Oakland got new guys but lost Harden and Street (if Street were named Eric Gagne he'd be approved of). Texas had its best success against Oakland, Seattle, and KC, so they beat up other struggling teams.

I'm not going to prove PECOTA wrong, I'm just saying LA dropping 21 wins or finishing 10 worse than their low since 2004 (89) was a long shot.

I'm all for good projections, and any 2008 pre-season prediction of Cliff Lee winning about 7 and hitting the minors again I would have probably endorsed, or Carlos Gomez playing 70 games total, or Santana winning 23, or Putz having a sub-1 ERA and saving 50.

philkid3

02-13-2009, 09:58 PM

Well the system just added 5 wins to the Angels? Abreu?
It's doubtfully only Abreu. It's going through a lot of constant tinkering. That's how it works.

I'm not sure the numbers realize how badly the Angels can and likely will beat Texas and Seattle, maybe Oakland. I can't dismiss it, hasn't it happened since Vlad arrived?
They didn't exactly "badly beat" Texas last year. 110-106 composite score, 12-7.

They were outscored in their matches against Oakland by 19 runs while winning one more game than the A's did.

And, while Vlad has murdered Texas, Anaheim has not for his entire stay. 10-9 against the Rangers in 2007; 11-8 (and outscored) in 2006; 9-10 (as in losing record) against them in 2004. And Anaheim has, of course, been the better team in all of those years. They don't exactly have some pre-destination to beat the Rangers, even if such a think were worth factoring in.

And they set a record for wins above third order record, and you know what tends to happen when teams do that.