Pickles

I don't think anybody is "defending" PECOTA. I think most people would take the over on 87 wins, and most people do not project the Yankees to finish 7 games ahead of the Orioles. I agree with you that the projections are "biased" but that's not the right word to use and doesn't explain what the issue is. The projections even with their flaws are not useless. If people were on here trying to claim these things are biblical truth, or scientifically formulated, I could see the push back. Everybody understands they have their shortcomings; the disagreement is just about how flawed are they.

As I stated to SG, none of the individual projections are going to seem crazy. It's the cumulative effect.

He might. None of the individual projections are going to be outrageous on their own. It's a cumulative effect though. Old Yankees are going to regularly be projected to be better than they likely are, and young Orioles are going to be projected to be worse than they likely are. That's how you end up with the Yankees being projected to win the division by 7 games, when few human minds, working in intuitive ways that are unavailable to a mathematical algorithm, would make such a projection.

I understand that well. It's still flawed and imperfect. Take a guy like Rizzo for example PECOTA has him at 525 PAs and a 1.4 WAR. Last year he was at 420 PAs and 0.5 WAR, and sinking like a stone as the season progressed. A lot of that projection is based on looking backwards to what Rizzo WAS.

I didn't mean you personally; I meant the royal you. Likewise, I never gamble. I'm too cheap. My point is though that the "flaw" of the system is pretty easy to spot in regards to this particular projection.

Oh I didn't mean a literal "average." I just used that as shorthand. The projections are going to "favor" guys who have a "track record." That's why it's going to skew winning projections to teams with more "established" players. And if anyone doubts it, I posit the simple proposition: I'll take the over on the O's winning 87 games. How much do you want to bet?

You caught me in a lazy citation, but I believe my larger point holds true. Especially among pitchers.

Well, it kind of does, and that's ironically what people are arguing about here with quite using the right terms. It's not about "bias." And it certainly isn't directed at franchises. It is about how the mathematical formula is written to make these projections. The formulas universally assume a "regression to the mean." Well, that phrase has a whole different meaning to different players at different stages in their careers. A guy like Stanton for instance, if you assume he's just his "average" self for totality of his career, well that's probably pretty rosy imo, but that's a regression to his mean. Older guys with track record, even as they're breaking down, will have higher projections than younger guys with more upside who haven't performed yet, or have only been performing for a short time. Guess which team has a lot of older guys with longer track records (who make more money)? Guess which team has a younger team with less track records? The projections aren't "biased." They're just flawed. But hardly imperfect. I'd love to bet an over on the O's at 87 wins.

The longer you've been retired, you've progressively become more snarky. I like it.

That is how he made his money though. It's a fair question imo. Here's a great article: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-two-rubensteins/ I haven't see this on the board yet, but I imagine someone has posted it somewhere.

I've actually been thinking about it. I've been one of the most conservative voices on the board in regards to a prediction of Holliday reaching the MLs. I think the Ortiz trade probably speeds up his schedule.

Probably because they knew he wouldn't answer them anyway.

Good Lord. That's rather ribald for this board. LOL.

Last year in the beginning of the year I said I hoped they would draw 2 million if competitive all season. I was told that was probably way too ambitious. Well they made it to 1.9 but of course they were more than competitive. As stated above, a linear progression would put them at about 2.5 million this year. That's probably a little too ambitious but I'd like to see 2.4.

We'll see what they get. I still don't believe they'll get a top 20ish guy for him. The only variable is if they keep him this season and he has a very strong first half. Then ok, yeah, they'll do better than what the O's offered likely. But that's a hell of a risk for them. Edit: If you were the White Sox would you have accepted Ortiz/Hall for Cease? I would have.

Well, the White Sox are stupid. As I'm about to say to Sports Guy, we'll see what they get when they move him, but they're not going to get a top 20 guy and a top 60 guy, which is imo an equivalent Cowser/Ortiz deal. And if the O's had offered Hall/Ortiz for Cease, which seems likely, they should have hopped all over it.

Change that number to 30. There is not team in MLB whose rotation wouldn't be upgraded by the addition of Dean Kremer.

Well, maybe they do. I think they're wrong, but whatever. It doesn't really detract from my point. The Orioles were able to significantly upgrade their rotation and the best prospect they lost was Joey Ortiz. They were not forced to part with one of the top 5 outfielder picks, nor did they have to go into their top 3. I said they should be able to do that, and they were.

Until the Sox actually materialize a better prospect than Ortiz or Hall for Cease, then I don't think it is possible to say the O's definitely have to beat that package. We'll see what they get when they finally move Cease. As I predicted so long ago, they're going to be disappointed.

Two years of Cease may be more valuable than Burnes. That could be argued either way. Burnes is definitely the better pitcher but two years is better than one. Of course, a lot of it is dependent on things we don't know: Namely, which Cease shows up from year to year. I know what people, including yourself, were willing to do for Cease. My point is that Elias got a better pitcher while giving up less than most were willing to. Sure it's for one year and not two, but tbh, because of where we are competitively, I'd take the better pitcher with the shorter window.

And yeah, this is all fine. My point isn't necessarily that Ortiz is more valuable than Hall, though I certainly think he is, or even that the Brewers value Ortiz more than Hall, which appears maybe they don't. My point is that you didn't have to give up a better prospect than Joey Ortiz to significantly upgrade the rotation. I said that 300 pages ago, and that proved to be true.

Well, in the end of the day, we got the better pitcher while giving up lesser prospects. Now the years might change the equation some, but my point 300 pages has so far held to be true: The White Sox won't receive a significantly better prospect as a headliner than Joey Ortiz for Cease. Edit: Unless you want to argue that Hall is equivalent in value to Cowser. You could make that case, but I don't think it's a strong one. Also important to note, most were willing to add to Cowser/Ortiz, many significantly, i.e. Povich. Elias played the waiting game and it worked out well for the Orioles.

I don't really consider Hall a prospect though I think he might still technically classify as one. I think Ortiz was the more valuable piece.

Many such cases.

Dude should be ecstatically happy. He got what we wants!