More hilarious than ever: PECOTA projects the Orioles at 71-91

[ArtVanDelay]

59 minutes ago, birdwatcher55 said:

We will NEVER be a 70 win team with Buck here.  Pecota is more than a joke. It's total garbage run by a group of geeks who don't know their ass from their elbow. I don't know why OH bothers to post this BS every year.

How many wins do you think Buck is worth?  Give him the Padres roster (or the 2011 Orioles) and he's not winning many more than 70.

[Frobby]

Manny's forecast is oddly pessimistic.    They have his 50% projection at .813 OPS, with only a 20% chance of reaching .867, which is about his average for the last two years.   They also project him at under 30 homers, even in their 90th percentile scenario.    Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[BohKnowsBmore]

1 minute ago, ArtVanDelay said:

How many wins do you think Buck is worth?  Give him the Padres roster (or the 2011 Orioles) and he's not winning many more than 70.

The thing that is hard to separate in these types of questions is the impact that the manager has on the roster talent level over several years.  It's easy to question whether a manager has an impact on a team's record in a given year, particularly as the strategic decisions aren't quite as open-ended as football, which has more of a chess match/rock-paper-scissors format for coaches.  What's more difficult to evaluate is whether players would achieve the same long-term results under a different regime.  I think it's fair to suggest that Jones, Machado, Davis, Britton, etc. may have become better players than they would have otherwise in part due to the effect Buck has had on the clubhouse and the overall direction of the organization.

[weams]

Different stuff plays different ways for different guys. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

Manny's forecast is oddly pessimistic.    They have his 50% projection at .813 OPS, with only a 20% chance of reaching .867, which is about his average for the last two years.   They also project him at under 30 homers, even in their 90th percentile scenario.    Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Particularly for a guy in his low 20's.  Logically it would make sense to weigh his recent seasons more strongly than his age-19 season when he was just breaking into the majors.  I would think at least.

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Particularly for a guy in his low 20's.  Logically it would make sense to weigh his recent seasons more strongly than his age-19 season when he was just breaking into the majors.  I would think at least.

I'd be harsher in my criticism, except I recall they projected a big regression for Nick Markakis in 2009 at the age of 25, and they were right.  

[oriole]

35 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

I don't think this is fair in the context of the prediction people are pushing back on...

Tillman's ERAs since he's been a Major League regular:

2012 - 2.93
2013 - 3.71
2014 - 3.34
2015 - 4.99
2016 - 3.77
Career - 4.13

Predicting a 5.06 certainly seems like going beyond "normal fluctuations" or typical "hit or miss."

You're right, 5.06 does seem like they're predicting an outlier. I can't say I've been a huge fan of Tillman and while I appreciate that he has been putting up respectable numbers, any game he pitches I'm on the edge of my seat for the first inning or so to see if it's going to be one of "those games" for him.  I have a hard time having faith he will have a good game. My pessimistic prediction for him would probably be closer to 4.50 ERA

[BohKnowsBmore]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Manny's forecast is oddly pessimistic.    They have his 50% projection at .813 OPS, with only a 20% chance of reaching .867, which is about his average for the last two years.   They also project him at under 30 homers, even in their 90th percentile scenario.    Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

4 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

The thing that is hard to separate in these types of questions is the impact that the manager has on the roster talent level over several years.  It's easy to question whether a manager has an impact on a team's record in a given year, particularly as the strategic decisions aren't quite as open-ended as football, which has more of a chess match/rock-paper-scissors format for coaches.  What's more difficult to evaluate is whether players would achieve the same long-term results under a different regime.  I think it's fair to suggest that Jones, Machado, Davis, Britton, etc. may have become better players than they would have otherwise in part due to the effect Buck has had on the clubhouse and the overall direction of the organization.

Schoop is another, less extreme, example of this.  They have him at .727 for this season.  He went .788 and .752 over the past two seasons.  He was at .598 in 2014, but that was his first MLB season.  I'd be willing to bet that .775 is more likely for  him than .725.

[weams]

Sometimes these overachieving gym rats get married and have kids and the rocket path reaches an equilibrium. Other times, it does not seem to be an issue. 

Manny is a natural. 

And Buck's teams seem to emphasize the family anyway. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, oriole said:

You're right, 5.06 does seem like they're predicting an outlier. I can't say I've been a huge fan of Tillman and while I appreciate that he has been putting up respectable numbers, any game he pitches I'm on the edge of my seat for the first inning or so to see if it's going to be one of "those games" for him.  I have a hard time having faith he will have a good game. My pessimistic prediction for him would probably be closer to 4.50 ERA

I wonder if the switch to Beef behind the plate impacted the numbers?

[Number5]

Mrs. Dixon's third grade class in Davenport, Iowa does better.  Every year.    Their model is seriously flawed, but they will again attribute their being way off to random luck.  When you took a math test in school, you probably did a "make sense" check of every answer.  If you started with 9 apples, ate one, gave two to Mary, and gave one to Fred, and you come up with an answer that you have 13 apples left (more than you started with) then you know that you did something wrong.  PECOTA is so arrogant, they refuse to even do these "make sense" checks. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I'd be harsher in my criticism, except I recall they projected a big regression for Nick Markakis in 2009 at the age of 25, and they were right.  

Good point.  That said, I could ask if that is a broken clocks being right twice a day situation as there seems to be nothing in his 2006-2008 to suggest anything other than upward trajectory.  Serious question: was there anything in his profile that was indicative of such a regression?  A quick, cursory glance at his FG page shows a pretty high BABIP and HR/FB rates, but nothing necessarily screams that it wasn't going to be his normal level from then on out.  He was a high OBP guy, etc.

[thezeroes]

PECOTA basically makes their respective prediction on Runs Scored and Runs Allowed.  The problem with this is that r/sc & r/al do not come in a vacuum.  In games which are a Slug Fest by both teams the numbers a skewed.  One sided losses and one sided wins usually do not off-set one run wins and losses. 

Pecota is an exercise in debatable facts.  All wins and losses by all  teams do have effects on other teams, especially division opponents.

[ArtVanDelay]

13 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

The thing that is hard to separate in these types of questions is the impact that the manager has on the roster talent level over several years.  It's easy to question whether a manager has an impact on a team's record in a given year, particularly as the strategic decisions aren't quite as open-ended as football, which has more of a chess match/rock-paper-scissors format for coaches.  What's more difficult to evaluate is whether players would achieve the same long-term results under a different regime.  I think it's fair to suggest that Jones, Machado, Davis, Britton, etc. may have become better players than they would have otherwise in part due to the effect Buck has had on the clubhouse and the overall direction of the organization.

I don't believe that those guys needed Buck (or any manager) to become better players.  But that's just me.  And that's not a slight towards Buck.  I think the players themselves, and maybe their hitting/pitching coach, are 100% in control of that. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

5 minutes ago, oriole said:

You're right, 5.06 does seem like they're predicting an outlier. I can't say I've been a huge fan of Tillman and while I appreciate that he has been putting up respectable numbers, any game he pitches I'm on the edge of my seat for the first inning or so to see if it's going to be one of "those games" for him.  I have a hard time having faith he will have a good game. My pessimistic prediction for him would probably be closer to 4.50 ERA

That's fair.  My issue with the projections isn't really based on one player regressing.  Someone will, that's almost a fact or natural law.  My issue is that they seemingly have projected every single pitcher on the Orioles to have a significantly worse season than last year.  And in many cases, Tillman for example, their worst season as a pro.