PDA

View Full Version : 2007 Oakland ZiPS Projections


SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-27-2006, 09:13 PM
From Dan Szymborski:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2007_zips_projections_oakland_as/

Wow. This is a seriously weak offense. No offensive player is projected as having SLG% of over .500.

Maybe AL West is Angels for the taking, provided they show SOME improvement in run production.

Ol' No. 2
12-27-2006, 09:22 PM
From Dan Szymborski:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2007_zips_projections_oakland_as/

Wow. This is a seriously weak offense. No offensive player is projected as having SLG% of over .500.

Maybe AL West is Angels for the taking, provided they show SOME improvement in run production.Who cares about SLG? With all their splendid OBP's they'll probably win 110 games.

RKMeibalane
12-27-2006, 09:47 PM
More FOBB nonsense... :rolleyes:

SABRSox
12-27-2006, 10:12 PM
From Dan Szymborski:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2007_zips_projections_oakland_as/

Wow. This is a seriously weak offense. No offensive player is projected as having SLG% of over .500.

Maybe AL West is Angels for the taking, provided they show SOME improvement in run production.

Come on... these are projections, and have absolutely no statistical merit whatsoever.

buehrle4cy05
12-27-2006, 10:28 PM
So why should the A's even play next year?

ondafarm
12-27-2006, 10:51 PM
If you think that's bad take a look at the White Sox predictions

here (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2007_zips_projections_chicago_white_sox/)

If Sean Tracey goes 5-13 then Ozzie has put him in about a dozen too many times. Of course, the win-loss projections have the Sox going 149-156. I believe there is something mistaken in their numbers.

SABRSox
12-27-2006, 11:03 PM
If you think that's bad take a look at the White Sox predictions

here (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2007_zips_projections_chicago_white_sox/)

If Sean Tracey goes 5-13 then Ozzie has put him in about a dozen too many times. Of course, the win-loss projections have the Sox going 149-156. I believe there is something mistaken in their numbers.

ZiPS is a garbage system. He has no way of predicting playing time (and why should he, since it's impossible) so he just gives everyone a full season's worth of playing time (which would never happen on the size rosters he predicts).

The only thing I use it for is fantasy baseball, and even then I use it only as a check (one of many) against my own system.

FedEx227
12-27-2006, 11:03 PM
These are some of the worst projections I've ever seen. The total games started by White Sox pitchers equates to 327.... I understand they are computer projections based on past performance, etc.. but at least throw a friggin multiplyier in there to at least attempt to regulate them.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-27-2006, 11:07 PM
More FOBB nonsense... :rolleyes:

"FOBB"? Heh. You are a thoroughgoing Neanderthal.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-27-2006, 11:09 PM
ZiPS is a garbage system.

Maybe so. But until we have all of the PECOTA projections, it's still fun.

SABRSox
12-27-2006, 11:16 PM
Maybe so. But until we have all of the PECOTA projections, it's still fun.

PECOTA has no merit either. Personally, I'm of the mindset that sabrmetrics be used mainly for historical context, and only limited predictability. Of course, that's not fun for most people, but at least it keeps sabrmetrics credible, as opposed to the soothsaying it is trending toward.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-27-2006, 11:18 PM
More FOBB nonsense... :rolleyes:

My next post will be on Sox BABIP projections for Sox pitchers. Great FOBB stuff which I'm sure you'll enjoy.:bandance:

Dan the Man
12-27-2006, 11:22 PM
I never put any merit in this garbage. For one, on the Athletics' projections, no players with 100 RBI or even 150 hits. Moneyball, right? And the Sox projections have Crede batting .267!? In a contract year? Don't think so.

jabrch
12-27-2006, 11:38 PM
PECOTA has no merit either. Personally, I'm of the mindset that sabrmetrics be used mainly for historical context, and only limited predictability. Of course, that's not fun for most people, but at least it keeps sabrmetrics credible, as opposed to the soothsaying it is trending toward.

SABR - I agree 100% with that. I imagine that we could straightline a three year trend, make some adjustments to it based on what we all know, and come up with projections that over the course of time are no less accurate than ZIPS or PECOTA.

Statistics tell you what happened. Since next season is completely independent from this season, it is highly inaccurate to use last year to predict this year. I use statistics in my job, to analyze machine yield, throughput, productivity, etc. But machines do the same thing every time at a pattern that is predictable and forecastable. Human athletes are not - and do not.

jabrch
12-27-2006, 11:41 PM
If you think that's bad take a look at the White Sox predictions

here (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2007_zips_projections_chicago_white_sox/)

If Sean Tracey goes 5-13 then Ozzie has put him in about a dozen too many times. Of course, the win-loss projections have the Sox going 149-156. I believe there is something mistaken in their numbers.

149 wins would make for a nice season. I'm sure that this is possible - ZiPS says so.

FedEx227
12-28-2006, 12:30 AM
149 wins would make for a nice season. I'm sure that this is possible - ZiPS says so.

But we'd drop 156 games which would be tough to secure a playoff spot with. :angry::angry::angry: WHY DID WE TRADE MCCARTHY!?!?!?

Huisj
12-28-2006, 12:32 AM
This guy's computer thinks Boone Logan is going to have the second best ERA on the team?? uhhh :kukoo:

buehrle4cy05
12-28-2006, 01:17 AM
According to my new formula, called the REALP, the White Sox are projected to 88 wins. It's a very simple equation that any dunderheaded stooge could figure out.

('06 Win total)(Team OBP)(Walks)-(Stolen Base %)(ERA)(Innings Pitched)('06 Loss total)+(1999 win total)(Walks)/(Home Runs)(Triples)(Doubles)(Singles)(HBP)(BB)(Dropped Third Strike)(Balks)(Holds)(OPS)(VORP)(Web Gems)(Billy Beane's hat size)-(Eric Chavez's projected BB total)(Number of Tigers in Idaho)(Fly Ball outs)(ERA)+9,000,322,234,325.00004323453(BB)(Picko ffs)(6-4-3 Double Plays turned)+(Triple Plays)-(7,000,333,223.043628)(BB)(OPS)(OBP)+(OPS)(K)(BB)( Shutouts)(Grand Slams)(Walk-off hits)+(Billy Beane's hat size)(Holds)+(#5 Starter's Saves)(Closer's W/L total)+(Number of Tigers in Idaho/Walks+OPS)=Win total.

ondafarm
12-28-2006, 01:46 AM
And, here (http://http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/rangers_acquired_mccarthy/), is the McCarthy trade analyzed in ZIPS.

And, this (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/phillies_acquired_garcia/) is the Garcia one.

RKMeibalane
12-28-2006, 05:07 AM
My next post will be on Sox BABIP projections for Sox pitchers. Great FOBB stuff which I'm sure you'll enjoy.:bandance:

I doubt that, as I won't be wasting my time on your garbage any longer. Welcome to my ignore list.

Craig Grebeck
12-28-2006, 08:03 AM
PECOTA is actually a lot more advanced than people give it credit for. It finds the comparables and uses past performances and other factors to forecast performance, and it does that very well.

Also, I believe ZiPS was the most accurate in forecasting pitcher performance last season. I believe it pegged our guys pretty well.

Baby Fisk
12-28-2006, 08:07 AM
I doubt that, as I won't be wasting my time on your garbage any longer. Welcome to my ignore list.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/images/300/elderly_black_woman.jpg
"No! You! Did! Ent! Oooh girl!"

itsnotrequired
12-28-2006, 08:18 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/images/300/elderly_black_woman.jpg
"No! You! Did! Ent! Oooh girl!"

Gaylord Perry, LOL.

Ol' No. 2
12-28-2006, 10:37 AM
PECOTA is actually a lot more advanced than people give it credit for. It finds the comparables and uses past performances and other factors to forecast performance, and it does that very well.

Also, I believe ZiPS was the most accurate in forecasting pitcher performance last season. I believe it pegged our guys pretty well.Do the math and you'll find it's no better than taking a player's 3 year average.

Huisj
12-28-2006, 11:00 AM
Do the math and you'll find it's no better than taking a player's 3 year average.

Yeah, it basically seems like it takes a guy's averages from the last few years and then waters down the stats a bit--it makes a good players stats a little bit worse, and it makes a bad players stats a little not better. It never predicts really big years from anyone, and it never predicts really horrible years for guys who are horrible (or who would be if they were actually in the major leagues--I really don't understand how they get the goofy predictions for minor leaguers).

In other words, it seems like nonsense.

Ol' No. 2
12-28-2006, 11:03 AM
Yeah, it basically seems like it takes a guy's averages from the last few years and then waters down the stats a bit--it makes a good players stats a little bit worse, and it makes a bad players stats a little not better. It never predicts really big years from anyone, and it never predicts really horrible years for guys who are horrible (or who would be if they were actually in the major leagues--I really don't understand how they get the goofy predictions for minor leaguers).

In other words, it seems like nonsense.Any statistic with more than three letters in its acronym is immediately suspicious.:D:

ondafarm
12-28-2006, 04:40 PM
Any statistic with more than three letters in its acronym is immediately suspicious.:D: Except "Wins".

Craig Grebeck
12-28-2006, 06:07 PM
Except "Wins".
As long as it has absolutely nothing, nada, zip to do with starting pitching.

:smile: