Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    79
    vCash
    1500

    Will underachievers in 2013 come back strong in 2014?

    In 2013, there were many teams that had high expectations, like the Blue Jays, the Angels, the Giants, and the Nationals, either based on a strong 2012 (Nationals, Giants), or offseason moves (Blue Jays, Angels), but none of the four had a very good 2013 campaign. The question is, though, will they bounce back to make a run in 2014? And will overachievers like the Red Sox fall back to earth?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,834
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by BoRedSox View Post
    In 2013, there were many teams that had high expectations, like the Blue Jays, the Angels, the Giants, and the Nationals, either based on a strong 2012 (Nationals, Giants), or offseason moves (Blue Jays, Angels), but none of the four had a very good 2013 campaign. The question is, though, will they bounce back to make a run in 2014? And will overachievers like the Red Sox fall back to earth?
    Current projections from FanGraphs

    Red Sox 88 wins, first in AL East

    Giants 85 wins, second in NL West

    Nationals 84 wins, tied for first in NL East

    Angels 83 wins, 3rd in AL West

    Blue Jays 82 wins, 4th in AL East

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    BMore
    Posts
    8,003
    vCash
    1500
    Do these people bounce back?

    Pujols

    Stanton

    Hamilton

    Heyward

    Cespedes

    Crawford

    Hanley Ramirez

    Hamels

    Jose Bautista

    Jose Reyes

    Josh Johnson

    Anthony Rizzo

    Starlin Castro
    NL HR Leader & NL MVP

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,115
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by JNev View Post
    Do these people bounce back?

    Pujols

    Stanton

    Hamilton

    Heyward

    Cespedes

    Crawford

    Hanley Ramirez

    Hamels

    Jose Bautista

    Jose Reyes

    Josh Johnson

    Anthony Rizzo

    Starlin Castro
    Rizzo bounce back from what? That was his rookie season.

    And Hanley had his best season in forever last year.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pistolvania
    Posts
    30,487
    vCash
    1500
    Nats are going gone scary good

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    41,123
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KingPosey View Post
    Rizzo bounce back from what? That was his rookie season.

    And Hanley had his best season in forever last year.
    No it wasn't.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,703
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckwheat View Post
    No it wasn't.
    It was his first full season, so the underlying argument still remains.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,834
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KingPosey View Post
    Rizzo bounce back from what?
    A .258 BABIP in 2013 despite a nearly 20% line drive rate?
    Probably

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    45,415
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by filihok View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BoRedSox View Post
    In 2013, there were many teams that had high expectations, like the Blue Jays, the Angels, the Giants, and the Nationals, either based on a strong 2012 (Nationals, Giants), or offseason moves (Blue Jays, Angels), but none of the four had a very good 2013 campaign. The question is, though, will they bounce back to make a run in 2014? And will overachievers like the Red Sox fall back to earth?
    Current projections from FanGraphs

    Red Sox 88 wins, first in AL East

    Giants 85 wins, second in NL West

    Nationals 84 wins, tied for first in NL East

    Angels 83 wins, 3rd in AL West

    Blue Jays 82 wins, 4th in AL East
    Lol 88 wins for the AL East winner?

    How often does that happen in the AL east?

    Projections like that are just a pure guess and have as much merit as the guesses as I could put out there.

    I'll be stunned if the AL East winner has less than 94.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,834
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Tragedy View Post
    Lol 88 wins for the AL East winner?

    How often does that happen in the AL east?

    Projections like that are just a pure guess and have as much merit as the guesses as I could put out there.

    I'll be stunned if the AL East winner has less than 94.
    No.
    It just shows that you don't understand what projections are and how they work.


    http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site...-an-identifier
    Suppose that you have a league of 30 teams, each of which plays 5 games against each opponent. That’s 145 games for each team. You have also been told that every team is identical in talent. That is, our expectation is that every team is a .500 team. If you insist for something stricter: each team has the identical players, who are somehow able to co-exist at the same time. I will ask you two questions:

    1. What is the over/under forecast for each team (or similarly, what is the average forecast for each team)? The answer is going to be 72.5 wins (or .500), for each of the thirty teams.

    2. How many wins will the league-leader have after 145 games? The answer is not so obvious, but what is absolutely true is that it will be at least 73 wins. And, it’s going to be alot more than that. I ran a quick simulation of 100 seasons, and the answer was just over 85.5 wins (.591).

    That is, if every team was equal, we’d STILL expect some team to win, on average, about 13 more games than their true talent would suggest. And this is COMPLETELY explained by random variation.

    ***

    Why do I bring this up? Well, when someone, be it Vegas, or Clay Davenport, suggests that the most talented team is going to have an over/under of 91 or 92 wins, this does NOT mean that they expect the league-leader to have 91 or 92 wins. It’s two different questions, exactly the same two questions that I have.

    Whereas you can estimate that the most talented team will have an over/under of 91 or 92 wins, you should therefore estimate that the league leading team (whoever that happens to be) will likely average some 10 wins more than that.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,121
    vCash
    1500
    I think the Nationals bounce back. As for the Blue Jays I think they stay the same.
    Favourite Teams:

    Boston Red Sox: 5-8, games this week vs. Chicago White Sox (3), Baltimore (3)
    Indianapolis Colts: 11-5, 2013 AFC South Champs, great season guys.
    Looking for new NBA team to cheer for
    Ottawa Senators: 37-31-14, season over, good effort guys.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    45,415
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by filihok View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tragedy View Post
    Lol 88 wins for the AL East winner?

    How often does that happen in the AL east?

    Projections like that are just a pure guess and have as much merit as the guesses as I could put out there.

    I'll be stunned if the AL East winner has less than 94.
    No.
    It just shows that you don't understand what projections are and how they work.


    http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site...-an-identifier
    Suppose that you have a league of 30 teams, each of which plays 5 games against each opponent. That’s 145 games for each team. You have also been told that every team is identical in talent. That is, our expectation is that every team is a .500 team. If you insist for something stricter: each team has the identical players, who are somehow able to co-exist at the same time. I will ask you two questions:

    1. What is the over/under forecast for each team (or similarly, what is the average forecast for each team)? The answer is going to be 72.5 wins (or .500), for each of the thirty teams.

    2. How many wins will the league-leader have after 145 games? The answer is not so obvious, but what is absolutely true is that it will be at least 73 wins. And, it’s going to be alot more than that. I ran a quick simulation of 100 seasons, and the answer was just over 85.5 wins (.591).

    That is, if every team was equal, we’d STILL expect some team to win, on average, about 13 more games than their true talent would suggest. And this is COMPLETELY explained by random variation.

    ***

    Why do I bring this up? Well, when someone, be it Vegas, or Clay Davenport, suggests that the most talented team is going to have an over/under of 91 or 92 wins, this does NOT mean that they expect the league-leader to have 91 or 92 wins. It’s two different questions, exactly the same two questions that I have.

    Whereas you can estimate that the most talented team will have an over/under of 91 or 92 wins, you should therefore estimate that the league leading team (whoever that happens to be) will likely average some 10 wins more than that.
    Nice.

    So in other words, complete crap?

    I love projections and the people who spew them because it means absolutely nothing.

    People sit at a desk and have this smutty personality that they've done some number crunching and so they know what's going to happen. Then the Sox go from 69 wins to the World Series and all the "experts" with their "projections" look like ****ing clowns.

    Never bought into that crap nor will I ever.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,834
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Tragedy View Post
    Nice.

    So in other words, complete crap?
    No, I wouldn't say that your comprehension of projections is complete crap.
    But it could certainly be improved.

    The chances of a flipped coin landing on heads is 50%, correct?

    Flip a coin 10 times. 75% of the time you do this you won't get exactly 5 heads and 5 tails.

    And it's not because the projection (50%) is wrong.
    It's random variation.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,718
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by todu82 View Post
    I think the Nationals bounce back. As for the Blue Jays I think they stay the same.
    I'll actually agree with this. I didn't buy into the Blue Jays hype last year and I still don't. They will hover around /500 if they sign Jiminez or Santana I think.

    Nats with Fister as their 4th starter is pretty ridiculous. They should go HAM and sign Burnett and move Detweiler to the pen.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,115
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by filihok View Post
    A .258 BABIP in 2013 despite a nearly 20% line drive rate?
    Probably
    He's had one full MLB season, that is his baseline. If he's worse this season THEN you can ask f he will bounce back. You don't point to the few ABs he got the year prior or A ball stats. That's dumb.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •