My O's 2020 offensive projection

[thezeroes]

.238/.269/.340/.609 Hanser Alberto's stat line versus RH PITCHING .241/.307/.414/.721 2019 Orioles stat line against RH PITCHING .255/.289/.361/.651 Hanser Alberto's stat line against RH STARTERS .246.309.418.727 2019 Orioles stat line against RH STARTERS Hanser Alberto did better than team average against RH STARTERS,  If he were to improve his walk total by enough to get to .300 OBP only a few players remaining from 2019 would have a better OPS than him and they all bat LH.

[wildcard]

30 minutes ago, thezeroes said:

.238/.269/.340/.609 Hanser Alberto's stat line versus RH PITCHING .241/.307/.414/.721 2019 Orioles stat line against RH PITCHING .255/.289/.361/.651 Hanser Alberto's stat line against RH STARTERS .246.309.418.727 2019 Orioles stat line against RH STARTERS Hanser Alberto did better than team average against RH STARTERS,  If he were to improve his walk total by enough to get to .300 OBP only a few players remaining from 2019 would have a better OPS than him and they all bat LH.

I don't think the goal is to match the O's 2019 offensive numbers.  I think the goal is to do much better.

[HowAboutThat]

I don’t know how to make projections. Is it just a linear prediction based on past performance? If not, then how is a performance that doesn’t fit a linear projection calculated? Do we predict offensive improvement from Sisco because his walk rate increased and his K rate went down? If so, how much? Do we predict Hays to be injured “this long” because he was injured “that long” in the past? I have no idea.

I agree that our offense will be OK( but not from catcher) and our defense will be improved, and that the facepalms will mainly be cause by pitching, But I can’t get beyond that.

[Aristotelian]

5 minutes ago, Philip said:

I don’t know how to make projections. Is it just a linear prediction based on past performance? If not, then how is a performance that doesn’t fit a linear projection calculated? Do we predict offensive improvement from Sisco because his walk rate increased and his K rate went down? If so, how much? Do we predict Hays to be injured “this long” because he was injured “that long” in the past? I have no idea.

I agree that our offense will be OK( but not from catcher) and our defense will be improved, and that the facepalms will mainly be cause by pitching, But I can’t get beyond that.

Some use the term wishful thinking. It is more art than science.

[HowAboutThat]

4 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Some use the term wishful thinking. It is more art than science.

Yes, I was wondering how much was taken from the playbook of Spock, who once said, “I’m going to guess.”

And guessing is great. It makes it so much easier to while away the idle moments between the final out of the World Series and the first pitch of spring training.

But it does have its drawbacks…

[wildcard]

I think every GM and people on his staff,  and any fan who wants to think along with them projects what their players will do.   It tells them where their team is and where it is headed.    Many media services also project.    Any projection will not be accurate to what happens during the season.  There are too many unpredictable circumstances.  

 I am sure GM projections are more complex than what I or other fans do.  But they are all based on past performance in one way or another.   Some add in potential.   Past performance includes looking at durability or the lack there of.   

I personally look at the last three years of each player.   I also throw questions out to the OH like - Can Mountcastle  perform to Mancini's rookie year?   Then I weigh the answers and compare them to the player's past performance.  

This season I think platoons will be important.  There are several players with dramatic splits.  But I can't know what Hyde/Elias will do.

I enjoy doing it every spring and I post it because it gives us something to consider and talk about.  No one has to agree with me.  I will listen to the comments and sometimes that will change the way I think about a player or team.

I think the bottom line is to have fun with it.

[Moose Milligan]

8 hours ago, Philip said:

Yes, I was wondering how much was taken from the playbook of Spock, who once said, “I’m going to guess.”

And guessing is great. It makes it so much easier to while away the idle moments between the final out of the World Series and the first pitch of spring training.

But it does have its drawbacks…

It's educated guessing.  And if you're a fan of the team/players, it's wishful thinking, too.  So in this case, it's a combination of educated guessing/wishful thinking.  Don't let anyone else tell you any different.

[Frobby]

9 hours ago, Philip said:

I don’t know how to make projections. Is it just a linear prediction based on past performance? If not, then how is a performance that doesn’t fit a linear projection calculated? Do we predict offensive improvement from Sisco because his walk rate increased and his K rate went down? If so, how much? Do we predict Hays to be injured “this long” because he was injured “that long” in the past? I have no idea.

I agree that our offense will be OK( but not from catcher) and our defense will be improved, and that the facepalms will mainly be cause by pitching, But I can’t get beyond that.

I used to do a thread each year where I’d make a best case, mid-case and worst case projection for each player, and then pick a range of projection for the whole team.   In my team projections I would assume that three guys had their best case and one guy had his worst case, and then I’d do another run assuming that one guy had his best case and three had their worst case.     Usually those would be about 24 OPS points apart.   

Up to 2017, I also used to assemble a spreadsheet of all the different projections from various sources plus my own and a few other posters.    Here’s the one I did in 2017:

As you’ll see, the various systems had the O’s in the range of .743 to .756 OPS.    They actually came in at .747.    So, not too bad.    But of course they were way off on certain individual players.   

[interloper]

On 1/25/2020 at 9:36 PM, Can_of_corn said:

Of course you don't find a nearly identical sample size with wildly different results relevant.

I'd be shocked if you did.

Obviously Hays is somewhere between the .555 and the .900 OPS. However the .900 is more in line with his upside and prospect level prior to the injuries, etc. Not that he'll OPS .900 for his career, just that we can confirm that there's still some thump in his bat. I imagine he'll go forward OPSing .555 and .900 in various months, like most players do at times.  

Personally, I wouldn't use his 2019 September for much of anything other than him passing the eyeball test on defense as a CF, which was encouraging/refreshing to see. If he gives us .750 I'll be pretty pleased.

[wildcard]

18 minutes ago, interloper said:

Obviously Hays is somewhere between the .555 and the .900 OPS. However the .900 is more in line with his upside and prospect level prior to the injuries, etc. Not that he'll OPS .900 for his career, just that we can confirm that there's still some thump in his bat. I imagine he'll go forward OPSing .555 and .900 in various months, like most players do at times.  

Personally, I wouldn't use his 2019 September for much of anything other than him passing the eyeball test on defense as a CF, which was encouraging/refreshing to see. If he gives us .750 I'll be pretty pleased.

If you are going to be that precise -555 to 900 -  I think we have to expand the high end.   During his minor and major league career he has had OPS of 958, 960, 956 and last Sept in the majors 947.  There is really no reason to limit the range of possible performance to 900.

[interloper]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

If you are going to be that precise -555 to 900 -  I think we have to expand the high end.   During his minor and major league career he has had OPS of 958, 960, 956 and last Sept in the majors 947.  There is really no reason to limit the range of possible performance to 900.

Sure, I was just using the ballpark numbers from your discussion with CoC. 

What we've learned is at least that Hays has the ability to get scorching hot for a month in the majors, which isn't nothing. That's definitely a good thing. But it doesn't tell us a whole lot either.