Pickles
-
Posts
5797 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pickles
-
-
3 minutes ago, Just Regular said:
Who are the three best ballplayers on the Orioles + Yankees today?
I'd say the O's three best players are Gunnar, Adley, and Burnes in that order.
I'd say the Yankees three best players are Judge, Soto, and Cole.
-
1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:
Old Yankees who have continued to be good and good for a long stretch will absolutely still be shown to be good in projections.
Why is that an issue? If this algorithm all of a sudden said Burnes was going to be Gibson and they ignore his recent performances, wouldn’t that bother you?
Of course success is going to be looked up favorably in a projection system. Do you think that system should say Bryan Baker is going to be a sub 2 ERA pitcher this year, when there is very little in his profile that suggests he will do that?
No, I think the algorithm is at its worst when projecting young players and old players.
Stop with all the absurd strawmen and respond to the things I'm actually saying.
We don't need all your hypotheticals. Do you take the under on the O's at 87 wins? And do you think the Yankees will finish 7 games ahead of the O's this year?
If you answer no to either one, then you agree with me and agree the projections are flawed.
-
4 minutes ago, Frobby said:
I’m sure they do it far more systematically than you or I could. Baseball has a lot of variation. It’s very difficult to predict how a season will go.
Systemic approaches have value; they also have weaknesses.
This is one of the instances where a weakness becomes apparent.
-
Just now, Frobby said:
You are saying these systems don’t factor in age or trend line, but they do. If you think they systematically favor older players, show us some real evidence of that, not some one-off projection of one player or one team in one year.
No, I'm saying they don't do it well enough. So let's not argue strawmen.
And no, I don't have time nor inclination to do a league-wide study on the issue. I've given one example which demonstrates my thesis. How many examples would you like?
-
3 minutes ago, dystopia said:
People will bend over backwards to defend garbage "projections" and analysis on here. It's pathetic.
Can't wait until PECOTA, ZiPS, and similar junk is given zero bandwidth and attention and it fades into the obscurity it deserves.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Frobby said:
Rizzo missed the final 55 games last year with a concussion. So, good chance he gets more PA this year than last year. He was worth 2.3 rWAR in 2022, then 0.5 in 2023. So, 1.4 doesn’t strike me as crazy. Not saying that’s exactly where I’d land if I put my finger to the wind, but it’s not far off.
As I stated to SG, none of the individual projections are going to seem crazy. It's the cumulative effect.
-
4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
He had a terrible year no doubt..but his 2022 was very solid, including his statcast numbers. I don’t think it’s absurd to think he could have a bounce back, especially considering this:
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.
-
5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:
I think you are missing a key point point and that’s that the track record has to be recent, say the last 2-3 years and even with that, are there signs of decline within those numbers?
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.
-
11 hours ago, Frobby said:
I would never bet on the under against the O’s. I don’t want any conflicts of interest when I’m rooting.
And I will take the over.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Frobby said:
I think you are making some assumptions on how those systems work that are incorrect. These systems f don’t just take an average, they look at age, trend line, comparable past players and other data. For example, ZiPS’ methodology is described here.
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?
-
2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:
Stanton’s ZIPs projection is .9 WAR. 767 OPS.
You caught me in a lazy citation, but I believe my larger point holds true.
Especially among pitchers.
-
1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:
The algorithm doesn’t know if the players are big name guys.
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.
-
42 minutes ago, Frobby said:
Tell him I said hello.
The longer you've been retired, you've progressively become more snarky.
I like it.
-
1
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, 24fps said:
History. They ran middle-third payrolls from 2012-2017 during their last competitive run. $150 million might not even reach middle-middle in the next couple of years, so I don't feel like I'm going out on too much of a limb here. Does anybody really believe that the new ownership group is going to go full private equity teardown on the Orioles?
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.
-
3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
So many roster questions pertaining to this trade and other moves are out there…and none of them were asked.
Probably because they knew he wouldn't answer them anyway.
-
16 minutes ago, Billy F-Face3 said:
Some women would be delighted if that were to happen.
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.
-
9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
That absolutely have to beat that package or else they would have Cease.
I think they will be able to get the Yankees to pay up if they don’t get Snell or Montgomery.
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.
-
7 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:
Just to be clear, I'm 100% behind the Burnes trade and like it better than a deal for Cease that would include Cowser or Kjerstad. Just saying that I don't think Ortiz would have headlined a deal for two years of Cease.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Big Mac said:
Without researching every teams projected rotation right now, I'd bet there are about 26-27 teams at least that would kill to have Dean Kremer as their #5 starter.
I'd turn the focus to getting another impact reliever.
Change that number to 30. There is not team in MLB whose rotation wouldn't be upgraded by the addition of Dean Kremer.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Frobby said:
Then perhaps you’ll explain why the Brewers’ press release lists Hall first and discusses him first.
https://www.mlb.com/press-release/press-release-corbin-burnes-traded-to-baltimore#:~:text=Send Right-Handed Pitcher Corbin Burnes to the Orioles&text=MILWAUKEE - The Milwaukee Brewers have,right-handed pitcher Corbin Burnes.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.
-
2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Well to be fair, when that was being discussed, we weren’t talking about one year rentals. That conversation was largely around Cease and they absolutely had to give up someone better than Ortiz or Hall to headline that deal.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:
You do know the Orioles would get two years of Cease though, right?
I doubt Mayo or Basallo were ever in consideration by Elias, but I would have sent Kjerstad or Cowser as the headliner for two years of Cease. I know Cease is coming off a down year a bit, but he's a great bounce back candidate.
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.
How’s the East look now?
in Orioles Talk
Posted
It's not about "rewarding success."
It would be equally absurd to accuse me of saying the algorithm "penalizes for upside."
It's about the algorithm being at its worst when projecting old and young players. I'm not making generalized statements about the projections being BS. I'm giving a very solid specific example. I've given an example from the current Yankees team. There are many more out there, but I don't think they're needed.
Basic logic tells us that young and old players have the most variable in their performances. Thus, they're going to be the most difficult to project.