Updated PECOTA: Orioles will finish 15 games out

[NewMarketSean]

79-83 would be a big improvement over the last few years. We'd also love to have that record when the Orioles are finishing the year 3-28.

[DrungoHazewood]

If there's one thing I dislike, it's when someone thinks that they are a "realist" and anyone who has a more optimistic view than they have is being unrealistic.

We're all trying to be realists here. There is PLENTY of objective evidence that the Orioles will be close to a .500 team this year. It is perfectly possible to be a realist and believe that. There are several objective baseball analysts and reporters, who have no vested interest in the Orioles, who are saying so. There are plenty of statistical analyses that support the idea. Once you get there, it is perfectly possible to be a realist and believe that if the O'd get a few breaks, they could win 85 games.

I believe both those things. I also believe that if several things go wrong, the O's could win 75 games or fewer. So what does that make me?

We have a very long history of posters here who've characterized themselves as realists after saying worst-case scenarios were the most likely. I guess that's not too surprising after a decade of losing, but it leads to some projections that are frankly absurd.

I've had people tell me that, basically, they're expecting the 2010 Orioles to be bad because Tony Batista and Matt Riley sucked.

[NewMarketSean]

I've had people tell me that, basically, they're expecting the 2010 Orioles to be bad because Tony Batista and Matt Riley sucked.

That's a really funny, but unfair statement to make in response to some people who are still down on this year's team, record-wise.

I'll be surprised if the O's win 80 games and it has less to do with Batista and Riley and more to do with question marks in pretty much every position except for the OF.

There is talent in place and potential for success but that doesn't make it automatic. Take into account the bad breaks the O's have gotten in the past and their inability to stay competitive in August and September and there is reason people can't rattle off 83-win predictions in 2010.

[Frobby]

BP keeps fooling around with their projections. Now they have the O's scoring 807 runs while allowing 824. That seems more in line with their OPS projection (.797), but I still think a team with a .797 OPS usually is going to score more than 807 runs. For example, here are the AL teams closest to a .797 OPS in the last decade:

2009 Angels - .792 OPS, 883 runs

2005 Rangers - .798 OPS, 865 runs

2004 Indians - .795 OPS, 858 runs

2002 Rangers - .794 OPS, 843 runs

2000 Rangers - .798 OPS, 848 runs

The same disparity between OPS and runs scored exists for all of BP's team projections this year, so I guess it's all relative at the end of the day. They seem to think we'll finish 5th or 6th in runs scored, but 10th or 11th in runs allowed.

[maudibjr]

I'm starting to think its not worth worrying about BP Pecota., anything there going to revise 19 times is not worth my time.

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm starting to think its not worth worrying about BP Pecota., anything there going to revise 19 times is not worth my time.

So you're saying you don't trust anything that doesn't come to a firm conclusion early on and stick to it no matter what? I'm pretty much in the opposite camp - if you have a projection system that doesn't change from November until opening day you've willfully missed out on all of the real world stuff that does change in that period, not to mention the tweaking present in any complex system to make it better.

Maybe you should just ignore all projections until April 1st, if the process of making the sausage disturbs you.

[maudibjr]

So you're saying you don't trust anything that doesn't come to a firm conclusion early on and stick to it no matter what? I'm pretty much in the opposite camp - if you have a projection system that doesn't change from November until opening day you've willfully missed out on all of the real world stuff that does change in that period, not to mention the tweaking present in any complex system to make it better.

Maybe you should just ignore all projections until April 1st, if you're the process of making the sausage disturbs you.

Pretty sweeping statement there sausage man, didn't say anything about any other projection system. I referred only to BP's handling of PECOTA, which has been noted by others to be sloppy. There have been numerous, rather large changes in the last month when there hasn't been all that much real world change. Maybe, just maybe BP could of double checked there numbers and not rushed out there first release.

Perhaps you could reflect when someone criticizes your statistical idol.

[Frobby]

So you're saying you don't trust anything that doesn't come to a firm conclusion early on and stick to it no matter what? I'm pretty much in the opposite camp - if you have a projection system that doesn't change from November until opening day you've willfully missed out on all of the real world stuff that does change in that period, not to mention the tweaking present in any complex system to make it better.

Maybe you should just ignore all projections until April 1st, if the process of making the sausage disturbs you.

Still, doesn't it seem to you that PECOTA has had a lot of kinks in it this year, and that some pretty obvious ones (disparity between OPS and runs scored) still aren't worked out? I remember a few adjustments last year but they were much more minor it seems to me.

[DrungoHazewood]

Pretty sweeping statement there sausage man, didn't say anything about any other projection system. I referred only to BP's handling of PECOTA, which has been noted by others to be sloppy. There have been numerous, rather large changes in the last month when there hasn't been all that much real world change. Maybe, just maybe BP could of double checked there numbers and not rushed out there first release.

Perhaps you could reflect when someone criticizes your statistical idol.

Maybe I was a little over-the-top, so I guess you have a right to whip out the claws. But this idol stuff is definitely out of place. PECOTA is just another system, very good some years, not so good others (like 2009). I like the system's approach, but it's just information. I was reacting to your comment that revisions, or at least public revisions, were a very bad thing.

Still, doesn't it seem to you that PECOTA has had a lot of kinks in it this year, and that some pretty obvious ones (disparity between OPS and runs scored) still aren't worked out? I remember a few adjustments last year but they were much more minor it seems to me.

I think the main difference between this year's PECOTA and other systems and years is that they're being open with the kinks and problems and adjustments. Clay Davenport has been pretty upfront about tweaks he's been making. We generally don't get to see any of the iterative, ongoing changes in other systems, if they even make them.

I don't know if PECOTA has more bugs this year than in the past, or in other systems, or if others have been better about only releasing polished data.

I don't know how anyone can take a projection system all that seriously before mid-March anyway. Too much can and will change.

[maudibjr]

Maybe I was a little over-the-top, so I guess you have a right to whip out the claws. But this idol stuff is definitely out of place. PECOTA is just another system, very good some years, not so good others (like 2009). I like the system's approach, but it's just information. I was reacting to your comment that revisions, or at least public revisions, were a very bad thing.

Sorry was just irked by the sausage line, no problems.

[Frobby]

Here's what I said:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/I still feel these projections have a strong disconnect between OPS and runs scored.

BP keeps fooling around with their projections. Now they have the O's scoring 807 runs while allowing 824. That seems more in line with their OPS projection (.797), but I still think a team with a .797 OPS usually is going to score more than 807 runs. For example, here are the AL teams closest to a .797 OPS in the last decade:

2009 Angels - .792 OPS, 883 runs

2005 Rangers - .798 OPS, 865 runs

2004 Indians - .795 OPS, 858 runs

2002 Rangers - .794 OPS, 843 runs

2000 Rangers - .798 OPS, 848 runs

The same disparity between OPS and runs scored exists for all of BP's team projections this year

Still, doesn't it seem to you that PECOTA has had a lot of kinks in it this year, and that some pretty obvious ones (disparity between OPS and runs scored) still aren't worked out? I remember a few adjustments last year but they were much more minor it seems to me.

And here's what BP says:

On a related topic, we’ve seen statements on the internets that the team triple-slash batting stats don’t mesh up with expected runs scored in the depth chart projected standings. I want to take this opportunity to categorically confirm these claims. The issue is not with the PECOTA projections themselves, but how they’re playing with the depth chart process. Our newest full-timer here at Baseball Prospectus will be addressing this issue later in the week… more on him in a day or two.

[Frobby]

Seems like BP has given up on reconciling team runs scored with team OPS projections:

Another slew of words about the depth charts in general. PECOTA is a system geared for the projection of individual players. It is not run for teams - the depth chart takes playing time estimates from a person, looks up the PECOTA projection for that player, and adds those up for every player on the team to generate “team totals”. That is not the way to optimize the projection for a team. The sum of the individual projections is going to be greater than a proper team projection, and the sum of those is going to be higher than a proper league projection. The reason the league doesn’t end up as high as the projections is not because the individual players projected will all do worse across the board - it is because teams will go deeper on their depth charts than we can reliably predict (and beyond the top two, its generally a crap shoot which minor leaguer gets called up). Some players are going to get hurt and fall dramatically short of the projected playing time, and there are likely to be more high estimates of PT than low ones. We’re listing 2-4 players per position, probably about 30 ’slots’ per team. The Diamondbacks, to pick a team more or less at random, last year used 3 players at shortstop, 4 at catchers and second and third, 5 in center and right, 6 in left, and 8 at first, plus 13 used as a DH or PH at least 5 times, which is somewhere between 39 and 52 ’slots’ depending on how you count the PHs. We list 17 or 18 pitchers per team - the average team in 2009 used more than 24. Attempting to constrain PECOTA to the depth charts - by changing the numbers to match the expected league total - will damage the forecast. There were elements in the depth charts that were doing just that - I’ve been removing them as I find them, but we’re still doing it for playing time. I may change that soon as well; since the new PECOTA does make a specific major league playing time estimate (the “Major” column on the spreadsheets is the expected percentage of his playing time that comes in the majors) it doesn’t need to be nearly so totally reliant on the depth charts.

But we also use those depth charts, rightly or wrongly, to assess a team’s expected wins, we have to find a way to reconcile the individual projections (which tend to produce too many runs for the offense, and not allow enough to the defense). The runs scored and allowed totals that show up for the team have been balanced - the total runs scored and allowed made to be equal, allowing pythagorean win estimates to create a balanced won/loss record for the league. However, the batting line that goes with it is still just the sum of the individual player projections. So yes, there is a disconnect between the team slash line and the runs scored, and there is a disconnect between the sum of the players runs scored and the team runs scored. I haven’t figured out any way around that without compromising the quality of the individual projections.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1521

BP's latest iteration has the O's scoring 793 and allowing 824, finishing 79-83.

[DuffMan]

Seems like BP has given up on reconciling team runs scored with team OPS projections:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1521

BP's latest iteration has the O's scoring 793 and allowing 824, finishing 79-83.

15 win improvement and I feel like some would still be disappointed with that. Still not sure what I'm expecting record wise, but 15 wins is good progress, if they could do that and then improve by another 15 wins in 2011 we would be in the thick of it.

[Frobby]

Someone at BP woke up yesterday and decided they hated us. The individual PECOTAs have been revised and almost every Oriole was downgraded offensively. To name a few:

Markakis .811 (was .877)

Jones .767 (was .851)

Reimold .790 (was .815)

Atkins .756 (was .811)

Wieters .790 (was .840)

They now have us scoring 767 runs, tied for 7th in the AL.

[DuffMan]

Someone at BP woke up yesterday and decided they hated us. The individual PECOTAs have been revised and almost every Oriole was downgraded offensively. To name a few:

Markakis .811 (was .877)

Jones .767 (was .851)

Reimold .790 (was .815)

Atkins .756 (was .811)

Wieters .790 (was .840)

They now have us scoring 767 runs, tied for 7th in the AL.

What the heck is that!? I mean I can understand 10 points maybe even 20, but 50+ point differences for these guys seems a bit extreme.