Jump to content

Updated PECOTA: Orioles will finish 15 games out


Frobby

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Well, Boddicker reminded me of Pappas and Vlad is the only Rfer I know that could be legitmately compared to Frank.

It is not a terrible analogy. Pappas was a good but not great pitcher. He won 209 games in his career, with a 3.40 ERA (110 ERA+). Basically, he was a no. 2 starter. I'd say Pappas was a little better than Boddicker (shorter career and a 108 ERA+), but they are close when you consider the eras in which they pitched. Frank is better than Vlad by about the same amount that Pappas was better than Boddicker.

I think it's obvious that the Reds thought they'd get more from other two players they received in that trade than they ended up getting, or they wouldn't have done it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a terrible analogy. Pappas was a good but not great pitcher. He won 209 games in his career, with a 3.40 ERA (110 ERA+). Basically, he was a no. 2 starter. I'd say Pappas was a little better than Boddicker (shorter career and a 108 ERA+), but they are close when you consider the eras in which they pitched. Frank is better than Vlad by about the same amount that Pappas was better than Boddicker.

I think it's obvious that the Reds thought they'd get more from other two players they received in that trade than they ended up getting, or they wouldn't have done it.

Ah, they got fleeced and everyone but they knew it at the time!:laughlol::clap3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the above is based on averages, what it doesn't take into account is that the O's have more players that could "break out" than any other team in the AL East. Based on averages, they correctly "expect" all our young players to have, at most, "good" seasons. But anyone paying attention knows that there's a decent chance that Wieters and Matusz, and perhaps Jones, Reimold, Markakis, Tillman, or Bergesen, could blow these "averages" away. What we're hoping for, and realistically so, is for a couple or more of these breakout seasons that would propel the O's to places no O has gone before in twelve years.

-Larrytt

P.S. For the love of Markakis (God), don't let the resident curmudgeon (that's the nicest way I can put it) hijack *another* thread. When I read this thread, over and over I see the "monkeylisted" note, and responses to it. Can't we ever have an Orioles party without this person drumming the Beat of Doom and dominating all conversations by repeatedly yelling, "The sky is falling!"?

The above is based on averages, but it is also based on the assumption that the probability of the young guys "breaking out" is about the same as the probability of them incurring a sophomore slump.

Besides being an optimistic fan, do you have any reason to suspect that breaking out is more likely than sophomore slumping?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above is based on averages, but it is also based on the assumption that the probability of the young guys "breaking out" is about the same as the probability of them incurring a sophomore slump.

Besides being an optimistic fan, do you have any reason to suspect that breaking out is more likely than sophomore slumping?

Well, if you believe that they are talented, and that their true talent level is greater than their prior performance, why would you believe that the odds of slumping and breaking out are even?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above is based on averages, but it is also based on the assumption that the probability of the young guys "breaking out" is about the same as the probability of them incurring a sophomore slump.

Besides being an optimistic fan, do you have any reason to suspect that breaking out is more likely than sophomore slumping?

I think you missed what I was saying. I wasn't saying it's more likely the O's will do better than the projections, as opposed to doing worse. I was saying they have a better chance of doing much better than projected than most teams, since they have more players that could "break out." The opposite is, of course, also true - younger players may do worse.

But suppose there are two teams, and both are projected to play .500. One team is made up of relatively predictable veterans, and so have little chance of doing much better or worse than projected. The other is made up of talented younger players who may do much better or worse than projected. Which team has a better chance of doing far better than projected? Which one is the more exciting one to watch, knowing the possibilities?

In days of yesteryear, when Frank Robinson came to the plate in a key situation, did most O's fans fixate on, "He's probably going to get out," since the odds were he would, or were they on the edge of their seats, knowing what he *could* do? I'd rather be on the edge of my seat this year, knowing what this team *could* do, then fixate on how they may not.

-Larrytt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above is based on averages, but it is also based on the assumption that the probability of the young guys "breaking out" is about the same as the probability of them incurring a sophomore slump.

Besides being an optimistic fan, do you have any reason to suspect that breaking out is more likely than sophomore slumping?

There's the general assumption that young players tend to improve, and that speaking very broadly baseball players peak in their late 20s. So a representative, but random selection of 24-year-old major leaguers wouldn't be as good as a similar selection of 25-year-olds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you missed what I was saying. I wasn't saying it's more likely the O's will do better than the projections, as opposed to doing worse. I was saying they have a better chance of doing much better than projected than most teams, since they have more players that could "break out." The opposite is, of course, also true - younger players may do worse.

But suppose there are two teams, and both are projected to play .500. One team is made up of relatively predictable veterans, and so have little chance of doing much better or worse than projected. The other is made up of talented younger players who may do much better or worse than projected. Which team has a better chance of doing far better than projected? Which one is the more exciting one to watch, knowing the possibilities?

In days of yesteryear, when Frank Robinson came to the plate in a key situation, did most O's fans fixate on, "He's probably going to get out," since the odds were he would, or were they on the edge of their seats, knowing what he *could* do? I'd rather be on the edge of my seat this year, knowing what this team *could* do, then fixate on how they may not.

-Larrytt

It'll be interesting to see the final PECOTA cards. Using past comparable players they generate scores for each player on improvement, breakout, collapse, and attrition rates. If your supposition is right the O's should be among the leaders in breakout and improvement percentage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you missed what I was saying. I wasn't saying it's more likely the O's will do better than the projections, as opposed to doing worse. I was saying they have a better chance of doing much better than projected than most teams, since they have more players that could "break out." The opposite is, of course, also true - younger players may do worse.

But suppose there are two teams, and both are projected to play .500. One team is made up of relatively predictable veterans, and so have little chance of doing much better or worse than projected. The other is made up of talented younger players who may do much better or worse than projected. Which team has a better chance of doing far better than projected? Which one is the more exciting one to watch, knowing the possibilities?

In days of yesteryear, when Frank Robinson came to the plate in a key situation, did most O's fans fixate on, "He's probably going to get out," since the odds were he would, or were they on the edge of their seats, knowing what he *could* do? I'd rather be on the edge of my seat this year, knowing what this team *could* do, then fixate on how they may not.

-Larrytt

Sorry I guess I did misinterpret. I thought you were assuming a skewed distribution around the mean. If you meant just greater variance, then I see your point.

There's the general assumption that young players tend to improve, and that speaking very broadly baseball players peak in their late 20s. So a representative, but random selection of 24-year-old major leaguers wouldn't be as good as a similar selection of 25-year-olds.
Well, if you believe that they are talented, and that their true talent level is greater than their prior performance, why would you believe that the odds of slumping and breaking out are even?

I'm still not sure I understand these two points. The way its presented in this thread, the probability of breaking out is based upon our best guess (or atleast PECOTA's best guess) at the true talent, not prior observed performance. Is there any reason to believe that a young player like Reimold is more than likely to over perform his PECTOA than underperform? That's an honest question, is the distribution skewed for younger players?

I guess there is the fact that if a younger player over performs, he gets more playing time and if he underperforms, its more likely he is sent to the minors, than it is for an underperforming veteran to get his release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see the final PECOTA cards. Using past comparable players they generate scores for each player on improvement, breakout, collapse, and attrition rates. If your supposition is right the O's should be among the leaders in breakout and improvement percentage.

Not necessarily. While I would say the *odds* of having more breakout performances by O's players is higher than for most other teams, that doesn't mean it will happen. We're talking small sample sizes, with roughly seven players the most likely candidates. If each has a 10% chance of "breaking out," the odds are about 47% that none of them will. If Wieters and Matusz have a 30% chance of breaking out, and the other five (Adams, Markakis, Reimold, Tillman, Bergeson) are each given 10%, it's about 29% none will break out. (A few years ago I could have worked out the odds of, say, two or three breaking out, given the assigned probabilities, but my math is now rusty.)

EDIT - I assumed you meant they would have more breakout players this season than others, and we would have to wait until after the season to see this. Rereading it, if you mean the final PECOTA scores before the season will predict a higher rate of breakout performance, than I agree.

-Larrytt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure I understand these two points. The way its presented in this thread, the probability of breaking out is based upon our best guess (or atleast PECOTA's best guess) at the true talent, not prior observed performance. Is there any reason to believe that a young player like Reimold is more than likely to over perform his PECTOA than underperform? That's an honest question, is the distribution skewed for younger players?

I guess there is the fact that if a younger player over performs, he gets more playing time and if he underperforms, its more likely he is sent to the minors, than it is for an underperforming veteran to get his release.

BP's definition of breakout: "Breakout Rate is the percent chance that a hitter's EqR/27 or a pitcher's EqERA will improve by at least 20% relative to the weighted average of his EqR/27 in his three previous seasons of performance. High breakout rates are indicative of upside risk. "

So it's not the odds that he'll hit his 95% projection or something, it's the odds that his likely performance is 20% better than his established level of performance.

The O's should have quite a few players who're likely to exceed their modest established levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure I understand these two points. The way its presented in this thread, the probability of breaking out is based upon our best guess (or atleast PECOTA's best guess) at the true talent, not prior observed performance. Is there any reason to believe that a young player like Reimold is more than likely to over perform his PECTOA than underperform? That's an honest question, is the distribution skewed for younger players?

I guess there is the fact that if a younger player over performs, he gets more playing time and if he underperforms, its more likely he is sent to the minors, than it is for an underperforming veteran to get his release.

I could be wrong, but here's my take:

Yes. There could be reason to expect this. For instance, PECOTA bases its projections on historical comps, and as a result is entirely extrinsic in its measure: it attempts to gauge "true talent" by locating it in a nexus of similar stats and attributes as they've occurred historically.

With young players, and fewer data points, this is almost always going to be somewhat problematic. First, something like PECOTA is always going to normalize anomalous production. The extrinsic odds that Nolan Reimold is Ben Broussard are always going to be greater than the odds that Reimold is Jason Bay. But if Reimold's true talent is Jason Bay, then he should exceed his PECOTA. PECOTA pegs his as, essentially, reproducing 2009. I would modify Drungo's point to say that we tend to believe that "good players get better." If Reimold is, as we believe, a "good player," then we should expect him to outperform a PECOTA that has to figure he's more likely to be Ben Broussard.

Maybe I'm misreading the way the statistics should be used. I'm a complete novice, so that's a far greater probability than Reimold being Jason Bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BP's definition of breakout: "Breakout Rate is the percent chance that a hitter's EqR/27 or a pitcher's EqERA will improve by at least 20% relative to the weighted average of his EqR/27 in his three previous seasons of performance. High breakout rates are indicative of upside risk. "

So it's not the odds that he'll hit his 95% projection or something, it's the odds that his likely performance is 20% better than his established level of performance.

The O's should have quite a few players who're likely to exceed their modest established levels.

In other words, the possibility of a legitimate anomalous performance. This is what BP said about Jones, and I think it applies to Reimold, and to Wieters, and potentially to Markakis (still):

Player Who Could Surprise: Jones started last year strong (.303/.357/.481 before the All-Star break), but cooled in the second half. PECOTA thinks he can do it all season this year, pegging him for .294/.350/.501. Even more noteworthy is his high "Breakout" score, which suggests a good probability that his production will improve by at least 20 percent over his established level of performance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to get on another topic, i.e., what the heck is wrong with what BP is doing with PECOTA this year? Last year, the average AL team had a .763 OPS and scored 781 runs. This year, BP projects that the average AL team will have an OPS of .790 (27 points higher than in 2009) and yet the average runs scored will be 757 (24 runs lower than in 2009). That is just nonsensical.

Looking at the most current Oriole projections, BP thinks BRob will bat 1st, play 90% of the time, and post an .834 OPS. It thinks Jones will bat 2nd, play 80% of the time, and post an .850 OPS; with Pie posting a .786 the other 20% of the time. It thinks Nick Markakis will bat 3rd, play 90% of the time, post an .877 OPS, and hit 24 homers. And yet, they think Markakis will have only 90 RBI. That makes no sense whatsoever. I guarantee you if the O's top 3 hit like that, Markakis will knock in 115-120 runs.

I don't know why PECOTA is coming up with such high OPS numbers and such low run totals. Neither of those things make sense by themselves, and together they make no sense at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to get on another topic, i.e., what the heck is wrong with what BP is doing with PECOTA this year? Last year, the average AL team had a .763 OPS and scored 781 runs. This year, BP projects that the average AL team will have an OPS of .790 (27 points higher than in 2009) and yet the average runs scored will be 757 (24 runs lower than in 2009). That is just nonsensical.

Maybe they think everyone will run the bases like Aubrey Huff?:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...