Comments on: Another set of simulations using projections

By: zackr

zackr — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:52:57 +0000

Seriously? You guys are seriously arguing that because sims can predict better than humans (how about the VOLUMES of info you’d need to prove that), they’re valid? You really are drinking the cool aid… and I’m a huge proponent of sims. Are we factoring in to the sim how the Yankees will make deadline moves to get better halfway through the season, or that Oakland may easily trade the few guys he has left to fleece someone at the trade deadline… etc. etc. My point is that the chaos of the baseball season is so vast that statements like #2 are ridiculous. If you can’t see that, then I feel sorry for you as baseball must be pretty predictable and boring, of course, until all your predictions fall apart. The intelligence in Dave, Derek, Jason, Jeff, and everyone else that contributes or has contributed here is the admission that tools like sims only a small part of what a team like the Mariners needs to look at to be a success. How about zooming out a bit before we become caricatures of ourselves…

By: seagood3

seagood3 — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:01:56 +0000

[violation of button terms]

By: 300ZXNA

300ZXNA — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:05:56 +0000

21- First off, I get the sense that you’re trying to bait me into an argument splitting hairs. I know I am not the only person who has noticed the following pattern:

1. The M’s management sees we won nearly 90 games last year.
2. While our pythagorean points to luck, our front office believes that truly is the baseline for this years team, had we not made any changes.
3. We added Bedard while “only giving up some prospects” meaning that we basically have last years team intact.
4. Take a ~89 win team, add another ace to the mix, and voila, we are a contender for the division.

Point is, while they haven’t explicitly stated it as being 50/50, they are still delusional as to the true talent of this team and its playoff chances.

By: cwel87

cwel87 — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:33:31 +0000

22 – you mean the Miguel Cairo factor! True veteran grit.

And McLaren was quoted on sending Balentin back down to Triple-A, saying, “He left a real nice impression. He stayed inside the ball, used the whole field and showed some power. I want him working on his defense, try to steal a few bases, and improve on his all-around game.”

Sadly, McLaren has no desire for anyone else in the organization to work on their defense, or else we wouldn’t be sending dead-men-walking Sexson and Ibanez out to field like little league champions.

By: NBarnes

NBarnes — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:15:33 +0000

the only time the 116 win Mariners had a losing streak was when Guillen was hurt

Ooooooh, correlation! I know what comes next!

By: Mr. Egaas

Mr. Egaas — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:07:33 +0000

50/50 chance I’ll win the lotto too. I’ll either win it, or I won’t.

By: eddie

eddie — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:15:26 +0000

It’s almost as if a team needs to have players who haven’t been measured in the past in order to surpass their projections. For instance, the Colorado Rockies were picked for 79 wins yet made the world series, in part because of the outstanding play of their young players.

Jettison Vidro, Bloomquist, Wilkerson and Sexson and play Balentien, Morse, Clement, LaHair and hope for the best.

And also, there’s the intangibles, the good guy in the clubhouse, the Carlos Guillen factor (the only time the 116 win Mariners had a losing streak was when Guillen was hurt).

By: diderot

diderot — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:10:12 +0000

18–
Must have missed it…who in the front office said we were 50/50 to win the division?

By: scraps

scraps — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:08:22 +0000

17: Really? Post 2 looks accurate to me. After all — though this point is often lost early in debates about projections — post 2 isn’t making promises, simply noting something evident in the likelihoods.

By: Mat

Mat — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:02:06 +0000

These projections are fun to look at, but are years and years away from being close to reliable enough to warrant a statement like #2. If you look at statistical projections for 2007 and compare them to the results of the 2007 season, the Diamond Mind and PECOTA projections did better at projecting the season than any human analyst that I could find (certainly better than the poll of espn baseball analysts), and Nate Silver made his PECOTA projections worse by trying to adjust for things he thought that PECOTA didn't capture. I didn't check SG's '07 projection blowout, but I would suspect they were similarly good. The projections are nearly to the point where they can't get any better. There's a certain amount of variance innate to a series of 162 win-loss events, and nothing can predict the future with 100% certainty. But if you're going to just off-handedly dismiss simulation results, you basically have to dismiss the idea that anyone has any idea which teams are the best. And if things were really that random, the Yankees and Red Sox wouldn't have half of the last ten World Series titles.