2015 MLB Season O/U Win Totals

[TwistedLogic]

So why alter what they're telling you?

"but projections have their own weaknesses and they constantly miss. I think the 2015 Rays are a team that the projections will miss on."

 

You don't have to agree with me, you can even agree with NJH in calling me dumb and obtuse. Projections aren't flawless. They don't account for psychology, they don't account for growing pains in young players, they don't account for mid-season trades. Based on Blengino's recent study on Hutchison and Odorizzi, there is very clearly a psychological aspect or hesitation present in younger players with even the highest potential. There isn't enough past data for these players for me to be comfortable in their projections. The system simply assumes that every one of the Rays' low service time, high-potential players is going to take a step up. I don't see that happening in the same way that I don't think Travis is simply going to hop out of double-A and be a 2-win player. You can call that cognitive bias or being misinformed or whatever you want.

 

People that take a similar stance to that of yours on these subjects are lucky in that they have a built-in cop out. If at the end of the season, the Rays do finish with less than 77 wins, you can easily say that I simply got lucky in predicting the correct outcome, and that the projections simply missed the mark because a, b and c events happened that the projections simply couldn't predict. I'm only making that argument a year in advance, in saying that I think that the a, b and c's will indeed occur, given the lack of experience or long-term consistency on their roster, and that the projections will miss for those reasons.

[Nox]

You don't have to agree with me, you can even agree with NJH in calling me dumb and obtuse. Projections aren't flawless. They don't account for psychology, they don't account for growing pains in young players, they don't account for mid-season trades. Based on Blengino's recent study on Hutchison and Odorizzi, there is very clearly a psychological aspect or hesitation present in younger players with even the highest potential. There isn't enough past data for these players for me to be comfortable in their projections. The system simply assumes that every one of the Rays' low service time, high-potential players is going to take a step up. I don't see that happening in the same way that I don't think Travis is simply going to hop out of double-A and be a 2-win player. You can call that cognitive bias or being misinformed or whatever you want.

 

People that take a similar stance to that of yours on these subjects are lucky in that they have a built-in cop out. If at the end of the season, the Rays do finish with less than 77 wins, you can easily say that I simply got lucky in predicting the correct outcome, and that the projections simply missed the mark because a, b and c events happened that the projections simply couldn't predict. I'm only making that argument a year in advance, in saying that I think that the a, b and c's will indeed occur, given the lack of experience or long-term consistency on their roster, and that the projections will miss for those reasons.

 

Was pretty tempted to stop reading after a Tony Blengino reference (someone who is openly laughed at in front offices).

 

They don't account for psychology, they don't account for growing pains in young players, they don't account for mid-season trades

 

A) They do account for "growing pains" in young players.

Not taking into account any psychological effects is a better approach than pretending you understand the field and making harmful adjustments.

 

The system simply assumes that every one of the Rays' low service time, high-potential players is going to take a step up.

 

It does so for every team (assuming their model uses a standard-ish aging curve). I don't feel like why I should have to explain why using generalized aging curves for specific players IS the right approach. There's about 1000 articles across all sports on the net that does a decent enough job there.

 

Your last paragraph

 

Or we could not judge a projection system (algorithmic or manually derived) like that at all.

[TwistedLogic]

It does so for every team (assuming their model uses a standard-ish aging curve). I don't feel like why I should have to explain why using generalized aging curves for specific players IS the right approach. There's about 1000 articles across all sports on the net that does a decent enough job there.

 

I understand this. It uses the same method for every team, and it is probably just as accurate or inaccurate on these types of players for every team. My main point has been that the Rays simply have more of these young/inexperienced players than almost any other club in the majors. Assuming projections aren't particularly exceptional at predicting future value for players with as little service time as most of the Rays roster, it stands to reason that there is more give, both upwards and downwards, on their projected end-of-season record than most other cases.

[BTS]

Is it just me or does this back-and-forth offer very little entertainment?

[Boxcar]

Too many words, not enough funny GIFs. Come on Nox, step it up.

[Nox]

Is it just me or does this back-and-forth offer very little entertainment?

 

Don't worry, Ang will post a gif and/or a boner joke within the half hour and you will be placated.

[TwistedLogic]

Was pretty tempted to stop reading after a Tony Blengino reference (someone who is openly laughed at in front offices).

 

The entire study was based literally and exclusively around numbers alone, so I find it pretty hypocritical for you to create an ad hominem based on his reputation.

[Boxcar]

(Tony Blengino is one of his heroes)

[BTS]

Don't worry, Ang will post a gif and/or a boner joke within the half hour and you will be placated.

 

I'd rather he not. His third-world internet etiquette has almost cost me my job on multiple occasions.

[Nox]

Assuming projections aren't particularly exceptional at predicting future value for players with as little service time as most of the Rays roster,

 

There's plenty of minor league data that goes into these. Lots of information to be gleaned from AA and up.

 

it stands to reason that there is more give, both upwards and downwards, on their projected end-of-season record than most other cases.

 

Sure, there might be more variance, but that's fairly symmetrical around the mean. Your stance is essentially saying this symmetry does not exist.

[Nox]

(Tony Blengino is one of his heroes)

 

Oh no.

[TwistedLogic]

Is it just me or does this back-and-forth offer very little entertainment?

 

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/no-u-grandma.jpg

[TwistedLogic]

(Tony Blengino is one of his heroes)

 

I think Blengino is a good writer for FanGraphs. If every writer who's work you appreciate is one of your personal heroes, then that's probably just a you thing.

[Nox]

The entire study was based literally and exclusively around numbers alone, so I find it pretty hypocritical for you to create an ad hominem based on his reputation.

 

That's the entire problem with Tony Blengino. He only uses numbers to make his stance but has very little idea how to do so appropriately.

 

There's a good reason that he hasn't gotten back into a front office since Jack Z canned him (though, that was probably an accidental good firing). And it's not because he's raking money writing for FanGraphs.

[TwistedLogic]

Too many words, not enough funny GIFs. Come on Nox, step it up.

 

http://rs2img.memecdn.com/a-wild-bush-appeared_o_400859.gif

[Boxcar]

In an age of numbers and advanced analytics, scouting is still as important as it has ever been. Here is an excellent article written by Tony Blengino (of FanGraphs) on the scout's side of the ball. If you have the time, it really is worth the read.

 

Blengino posted part two of his excellent series on the behind-the-scenes of draft time. If you're like me and can't wait any longer, this is an excellent, must-read to fill up some of the time left:[/QUOte]

 

I do too, but I used to like him a lot more before I found out about his creepy wikipedia page.

 

Probably a wash between Sullivan and Blengino as my favorite guys from FanGraphs. Probably lean a bit more towards Sullivan because of quantity and the homer angle; large amount of Jays-related pieces there are written by him.

 

Look at dis fanboy

[TwistedLogic]

That's the entire problem with Tony Blengino. He only uses numbers to make his stance but has very little idea how to do so appropriately.

 

Do you disagree with his findings then? I'm not being snide here, I'm genuinely curious if you think he had flaws in his piece, because the way he presented it has made me more optimistic for Hutchison than I was previously.

 

The article and excerpt that I've been referring to:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/two-pitchers-underrated-by-both-era-and-fip/

 

http://i.gyazo.com/599102abdb8b883e902342517f052e8b.png

[TwistedLogic]

Look at dis fanboy

 

His draft series was great

[KingKat]

Scouting is pretty much only useful for high school and some college guys and young internationals.

 

That seems like a bit of a blanket statement. I don't even know how you would even measure the usefulness or non-usefulness of scouting. Are you basically saying that as soon as you can put together decent metrics, you can pretty much throw scouting out the window?

[Nox]

Do you disagree with his findings then? I'm not being snide here, I'm genuinely curious if you think he had flaws in his piece, because the way he presented it has made me more optimistic for Hutchison than I was previously.

 

The article and excerpt that I've been referring to:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/two-pitchers-underrated-by-both-era-and-fip/

 

http://i.gyazo.com/599102abdb8b883e902342517f052e8b.png

 

Honestly, I stopped at the title.

 

"Two Pitchers Underrated by ERA and FIP"

 

Strongly indicative of someone who doesn't understand the point of either (well at least FIP). Those measures are aggregations of past raw events. They are not meant to be "ratings" or measures of true talent (despite the fact that they usually are).

 

Normally, I would get past that and read the rest but I've seen enough of his methods (OPS for hitters, a bizarre obsession with "percentiles") to guess that I wouldn't get much from it.

 

He's about as good at statistics as Dave Cameron is. That's not a compliment.

 

Jeff Sullivan is my favourite writer there too though. So at least there's that.

[Nox]

That seems like a bit of a blanket statement. I don't even know how you would even measure the usefulness or non-usefulness of scouting. Are you basically saying that as soon as you can put together decent metrics, you can pretty much throw scouting out the window?

 

I wouldn't look at a scouting report AA and above as a general rule.

[KingKat]

Not out the window, but pretty much as soon as you have some stats, stats will win in head to head. Of course there's an extent to which you can include scouting grades, but that weight deteriorates very rapidly.

 

Yeah I think I see it much the same way. Putting them head to head and picking one over the other would be dumb once you have access to both. Once you have solid numbers, the scouting stuff just helps you to fill out who the person is and the how the numbers were accomplished but ideally you don't put too much weight on any subjective stuff because you'll never see the end of that rabbit's hole.

[Nox]

Yeah I think I see it much the same way. Putting them head to head and picking one over the other would be dumb when you have access to both. The scouting stuff just help you to fill out who the person is and the how the numbers were accomplished.

 

Except then you're trusting scouts to do a good job of evaluating "who the person is". That's a massively complex question that A) they can't assess and even if they could asses wouldn't know how to interpret properly (though that should be done by the front office in general).

[Angrioter]

Don't worry, Ang will post a gif and/or a boner joke within the half hour and you will be placated.

 

Do you thinks I'm a f***ing clown?

Yes, i f*** with hookers (I pay), old ladies (they pay me), guys (Someone have to get the money for food) and some animals (Goats my favourites), but i'm not a clown.

[TwistedLogic]

I wouldn't look at a scouting report AA and above as a general rule.

 

I agree with this, but I think there's a pretty sizable gulf between not looking at scouting at double-A or above, and JFaS' statement that "scouting is pretty much only useful for high school and some college guys and young internationals."

[Nox]

I agree with this, but I think there's a pretty sizable gulf between not looking at scouting at double-A or above, and JFaS' statement that "scouting is pretty much only useful for high school and some college guys and young internationals."

 

I guess it depends on the definition of "only useful". If he meant, scouting is only more important than measured game events at those levels, he's right.

 

Generally:

 

 

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Level[/TD]

[TD]Scouting[/TD]

[TD]Game Events[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]HS/College/Young Internationals[/TD]

[TD]Very Useful[/TD]

[TD]Not Very Useful[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Rk[/TD]

[TD]Useful[/TD]

[TD]Useful[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]A-/A[/TD]

[TD]Kind of Useful[/TD]

[TD]Useful[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]A+[/TD]

[TD]Not Very Useful[/TD]

[TD]Useful[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]AA[/TD]

[TD]Not Very Useful[/TD]

[TD]Very Useful[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]AAA[/TD]

[TD]Almost Useless[/TD]

[TD]Very Useful[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]MLB[/TD]

[TD]Useless[/TD]

[TD]Very Useful[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[TwistedLogic]

I guess it depends on the definition of "only useful". If he meant, scouting is only more important than measured game events at those levels, he's right.

 

Generally:

 

 

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Level[/TD]

[TD]Scouting[/TD]

[TD]Game Events[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]HS/College/Young Internationals[/TD]

[TD]Very Useful[/TD]

[TD]Not Very Useful[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Rk[/TD]

[TD]Useful[/TD]

[TD]Useful[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]A-/A[/TD]

[TD]Kind of Useful[/TD]

[TD]Useful[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]A+[/TD]

[TD]Not Very Useful[/TD]

[TD]Useful[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]AA[/TD]

[TD]Not Very Useful[/TD]

[TD]Very Useful[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]AAA[/TD]

[TD]Almost Useless[/TD]

[TD]Very Useful[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]MLB[/TD]

[TD]Useless[/TD]

[TD]Very Useful[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

But then how do you classify or weigh situations like that of Bautista, Donaldson and Encarnacion? Bautista's game events made him look like a pretty mediocre player for a long time (162 ISO in 2000+ PA's at the major league level from 2004 to 2009), while scouts always said he had good power. Mechanical adjustments (which fall into the realm of scouting) added .200 points to his SLG and turned him into a .300+ ISO hitter almost instantaneously.

 

I understand that numbers begin to outweigh scouting monumentally at higher levels, and especially at the major league, but I don't think scouting is ever completely irrelevant either.

[Boxcar]

But then how do you classify or weigh situations like that of Bautista, Donaldson and Encarnacion? Bautista's game events made him look like a pretty mediocre player for a long time (162 ISO in 2000+ PA's at the major league level from 2004 to 2009), while scouts always said he had good power. Mechanical adjustments (which fall into the realm of scouting) added .200 points to his SLG and turned him into a .300+ ISO hitter almost instantaneously.

 

I understand that numbers begin to outweigh scouting monumentally at higher levels, and especially at the major league, but I don't think scouting is ever completely irrelevant either.

 

Where were the scouts who thought Donaldson would be an elite player? If anything he was underrated because he didn't have the shiny tools that scouts love. He was never a big time prospect even though his minor league numbers were pretty good. If anything, he exemplifies Nox's point perfectly.

[Nox]

But then how do you classify or weigh situations like that of Bautista, Donaldson and Encarnacion? Bautista's game events made him look like a pretty mediocre player for a long time (162 ISO in 2000+ PA's at the major league level from 2004 to 2009), while scouts always said he had good power. Mechanical adjustments (which fall into the realm of scouting) added .200 points to his SLG and turned him into a .300+ ISO hitter almost instantaneously.

 

I understand that numbers begin to outweigh scouting monumentally at higher levels, and especially at the major league, but I don't think scouting is ever completely irrelevant either.

 

I guess one thing I should clarify is that when I say completely useless at the MLB level I mean the act of having a scout physically sit in the stands and write things down. There's nothing they're going to pick up there that you can't with all the video feeds in an MLB game.

 

That said, even the video scouting stuff doesn't add alot but in some obvious cases it can (not going to trade full value for someone at the deadline who is clearly nursing some sort of injury).

 

But what Boxy says basically holds. I don't have the data on either side but I'd guess preseason 2009 algorithmic projections would have been higher on Bautista than an aggregation of scouts. He hit .235 in 2008! Scrub! (And yes, scouts scouting the numbers is one of the biggest problems with that whole process).

[Laika]

For every scout that said "Wow, Zach Duke's new mechanics are going to make him a killer reliever", you'd get several saying similar things about different players that would not have come to fruition.

 

ex,

"I think with these new mechanics, Ricky will be able to be much more consistent on the mound"

"I think Adeiny is one of the elite defensive shortstops in the game"

"Esmil's new sinker makes him a good candidate to stick in an MLB starting rotation"

 

How do you parse that information? You can't, really. So the lot of it is more or less junk.

 

You're not going to buy into a scout's opinion that Bautista's new leg-kick makes him an elite power hitter any quicker than the data will start to show you that same thing. If you're willing to buy in immediately, you're going to end up with a lot of turds on your roster at the behest of a scout's whim.