Almost time to retire this narrative. WAR (of which stuff similar to wRC+ is a pillar) is becoming more mainstream every day. It's on broadcasts and on ESPN's player pages.
Understood.
Not even criticizing anything. Literally every projection system is going to spit out a few results that your intuition is going to immediately disagree with.
Jesus.
I really wish there was an efficient way to short that on a large scale. If that's what the betting market thinks, they're a bunch of f***tards.
Fangraphs comments are becoming intolerable.
The best public projection system we have doesn't even have him as a top 10 pitcher and JFAs is getting s*** on because he's arguing that he might not be #1? Good grief. f***ing idiots.
Lmao @ Hockey.
Take on ~$7.5 of Matt Hendricks and give up a 3rd round pick for a lateral move from Dubnyk to Ben Scrivens (who only has 1 year of control).
You almost need a new account for re-posting something from that board, regardless of context.
Sadly though, I get the distinct impression that a good number of NHL GM's don't take years of control into account when making decisions.
Teasing out the effect of teammates and linemates is a legitimately hard problem. I can't think of any non-bayesian approach that's going to do a respectable job.
The analysis I've seen leveraging legit looking hierarchical bayesian models actually highlight some pretty interesting things. (DMen have almost no effect at even strength, thus are being vastly overrated by the market right now). The biggest issue with this stuff though is that you need an ungodly amount of computing power to run the necessary monte carlo sims. (hours per season sim of which there are many in an effective MC)
Explain exactly why you can't rank players based on a projection system. It seems like you're suggesting that you can't rank things that don't have a deterministic value and that doesn't make sense.
A couple of more things:
1) you don't need a projection system at all to understand aging curves.
2) Projections are basically irrelevant in modern risk analysis. The only things that can seriously harm a franchise are things you can't predict.
Again, the point you're trying to make is completely muddled.
Steamer's projections are their best guess at ranking players based on talent. Their guess and reality obviously differ but it still represents something more accurate than whatever any of our guts tell us.
Of course it's an estimate. Nobody is saying that it isn't.
But what are they estimating? True talent and future performance measures are interchangeable in this regard (before non player specific adjustments are made to the outputs [park effects]).