Win the Division this week.

[deward]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Why would Fangraphs be biased against the Orioles?

No one has ever explained to me why they would purposely dismiss the team.

One of their key guys (Szymborski) is an O's fan. 

When people ask in their chats about the O's projection, the answer usually boils down to their program assuming the O's pitchers will regress closer to career norms over the remainder of the season. 

[dystopia]

4 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

The Texas fade has already begun.  Tampa can’t be far behind.

Tampa is not fading. They’re a good team. 

[dystopia]

6 minutes ago, deward said:

One of their key guys (Szymborski) is an O's fan. 

When people ask in their chats about the O's projection, the answer usually boils down to their program assuming the O's pitchers will regress closer to career norms over the remainder of the season. 

Gibson’s already regressed to his career norm. Kremer’s not much below his career ERA either. The others barely have any MLB experience. What on earth is he talking about? 

[dystopia]

56 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

Come on, Corn.......Legend has it that everyone is biased against the Orioles.  You must be new here....  

There is no sane reason why Fangraphs should be biased against the Orioles. But the evidence clearly points to that. This isn’t some new thing either, they were like this in the 2012-2016 years too. 

[deward]

1 minute ago, dystopia said:

Gibson’s already regressed to his career norm. Kremer’s not much below his career ERA either. The others barely have any MLB experience. What on earth is he talking about? 

Their system in general just seems to think the O's pitching staff has been pitching over their collective heads and thinks it won't last forever. The fact that the O's keep outperforming their pythag W/L also messes with it. Any projection model is going to have blind spots, and the O's just happen to fall in theirs.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, dystopia said:

There is no sane reason why Fangraphs should be biased against the Orioles. But the evidence clearly points to that. This isn’t some new thing either, they were like this in the 2012-2016 years too. 

I don't think the evidence points to anything close to that.

They did underestimate the O's during those seasons but to suggest that the reason why is based on a bias that you can't explain instead of a failure in their projection system seems like a dubious claim.

They overestimated the 2018 team.

 

[dystopia]

2 minutes ago, deward said:

Their system in general just seems to think the O's pitching staff has been pitching over their collective heads and thinks it won't last forever. The fact that the O's keep outperforming their pythag W/L also messes with it. Any projection model is going to have blind spots, and the O's just happen to fall in theirs.

Funny how it’s always the O’s that fall into that “blind spot”. 
 

 

[dystopia]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think the evidence points to anything close to that.

They did underestimate the O's during those seasons but to suggest that the reason why is based on a bias that you can't explain instead of a failure in their projection system seems like a dubious claim.

They overestimated the 2018 team.

 

So their model is either biased or incompetent. Neither is a ringing endorsement. 

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, dystopia said:

Funny how it’s always the O’s that fall into that “blind spot”. 
 

 

Do they?

Were they wrong in 2019?, 2020?, 2017? 

I don't know, but if you say "always" you should probably fact check the statement.

6 minutes ago, dystopia said:

So their model is either biased or incompetent. Neither is a ringing endorsement. 

Or it's just not perfect.

It's not presented as something that's going to be 100% accurate.

Your expectations are not the same as theirs. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Can_of_corn

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, dystopia said:

So their model is either biased or incompetent. Neither is a ringing endorsement. 

 No, their model is based on math. Math isn’t biased nor is it incompetent.

What the FG models really are saying is that they don’t believe the Os are truly a 100 win team and I think those models are right and that’s especially true without Bautista.

Thats what I ultimately take away from these things. People love to poo poo rub differential but it matters. As I said before, winning 10-2 is much more impressive than 5-4 in 10 innings vs a bad team. It just is. Consistently beating other pros easily is a great skill for a team to have. 
 

FG is telling you that the Os play teams close and when that happens, it becomes more of a toss up.

Now, the issue with simulations and things like that are they can’t measure a lot of things that matter in winning but that doesn’t mean they are biased unless you just want to say they shouldn’t use any mathematical model because those intangible things can’t be measured.

[dystopia]

10 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 No, their model is based on math. Math isn’t biased nor is it incompetent.

What the FG models really are saying is that they don’t believe the Os are truly a 100 win team and I think those models are right and that’s especially true without Bautista.

Thats what I ultimately take away from these things. People love to poo poo rub differential but it matters. As I said before, winning 10-2 is much more impressive than 5-4 in 10 innings vs a bad team. It just is. Consistently beating other pros easily is a great skill for a team to have. 
 

FG is telling you that the Os play teams close and when that happens, it becomes more of a toss up.

Now, the issue with simulations and things like that are they can’t measure a lot of things that matter in winning but that doesn’t mean they are biased unless you just want to say they shouldn’t use any mathematical model because those intangible things can’t be measured.

We won 10-3 yesterday. 
 

When your model is as consistently wrong as Fangraphs’ is, then it’s not worth the bandwidth used to create it. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, dystopia said:

We won 10-3 yesterday. 
 

When your model is as consistently wrong as Fangraphs’ is, then it’s not worth the bandwidth used to create it. 

You can think that, but it isn't biased.

[dystopia]

17 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Do they?

Were they wrong in 2019?, 2020?, 2017? 

I don't know, but if you say "always" you should probably fact check the statement.

Or it's just not perfect.

It's not presented as something that's going to be 100% accurate.

Your expectations are not the same as theirs. 

Oh I’m sure they’re great at predicting the O’s record in years they were bad. 

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, dystopia said:

Oh I’m sure they’re great at predicting the O’s record in years they were bad. 

So you admit it isn't "always".  So why say it?

How is it a shock to you that when a team does significantly better than anyone suggested that the projection system Fangraphs uses would have the same issue?

[Hank Scorpio]

I'd much rather be the O's than the San Diego Padres, whose playoff chances @ the beginning of the year were probably in the 85% range.