Scholarship table
Just out of curiosity, how do you come up with that math? For every 3 days that a pitcher who will pitch once every 5 days is on the DL we should subtract an entire win from their predicted win total? The Brewers are not going to win every day Garza's on the bump, and they aren't going to lose every day his replacement pitches, but even if that were the case, that'd be 1 loss for every 5 days on the DL.
I recognize where the stats come from - I've been a fan of sabremetrics for 30 years. But sometimes they tend to be very conservative in that they don't account for outliers and try to bring everything back to the middle. Looks like that was the case with the predicted records. I think any system that doesn't account for any team to win more than 91 games has some inherent flaws.I use several of these sites to help in developing my player projections. I like baseballhq.com the best.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny. Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.
Was reading a chat with Jeff Sullivan on Fangraphs today and someone brought up the exact same issue with the 91 win ceiling. This was his response (much better formulated than anything I could come up with):Q: Jeff, I've been looking at the projections page and noticed only one team is projected for 90 wins. Then I went to ESPN and looked at standings for the last 10 years or so. I noticed that every year at least 5-10 teams won at least 90 teams. Are the teams really that close or is it just a by-product of the projection process?9:23A:(Jeff Sullivan): Projection process. You can think of the projections as being somewhat heavily regressed. In reality, we get a season sample size of 1. So the results are going to be a lot more scattered, and instead of observing true-talent records, we'll observe true-talent records +/- luck. Some teams will play above their heads, some teams will play below
Pretty good explanation. But I think he undercuts his websites purpose a little with the statement. Most sabermetricians try to reduce the luck element. So if a guy hits 10-15 more home runs than expected, is it luck or did his flyball rate go up last year and it went unnoticed so some improvement should be expected.
That's the fun of the new stats. They aren't the answer for everything but they should have in the 60% - 65% range of accuracy. Some things you still need to see though. I like to watch BP when going to games and remember watching Adrian Beltre at age 19 on a team that also had Raul Mondesi and Gary Sheffield. Took 10 minutes before I told my buddy "this guy is gonna be in the hall of fame. Even at 19, you could see the swing. Saw the same last summer in Tennessee on vacation when I took in a couple AA games. Javier Baez has the swing. It's been compared to Hanley and Sheffield - but I saw Ernie Banks. You don't need advanced stats for those kind of things.
never understood why they didn't after Miller Park showed how much of a difference it makes all season
My understanding is that they couldn't pass the bonding for the higher cost removable roof. Not saying that was a good decision (it was really as equally a bad decision as all new stadiums are) but that's the reason.
It would've cost an extra $100m to add a retractable roof to the stadium, and neither the Twins, nor the county or state were willing to pay for it.I've never been to Target Field, but I know their home broadcasters often cite how beautiful the stadium is without the roof, stating that they couldn't have the "open" feel if it had a retractable roof.
I'm sure they're right but when a family wants to come in for game(s) from up north in July knowing that the games will be played rain or shine, well the Brewers have found out more are willing to make the trip because of that. I think that's one big reason attendance has increased (beside the product improving since then as well). I don't know what the ROI on $100M is but of course it also helps with attendance the 3 months or so that is fricking cold outside.
I've never been to Target Field, but I know their home broadcasters often cite how beautiful the stadium is without the roof, stating that they couldn't have the "open" feel if it had a retractable roof.
I cruise over there every year to catch the Ms and drink beer and it really is a top notch stadium. Probably my favorite outside of maybe Camden Yards. It's also well located - on lightrail lines with craft brewery options within walking distance. Logistically I get the argument for a roof but it needs to be done right. Miller feels like a hermetically sealed airport terminal with the roof closed. Safeco still has good airflow and breeze with their roof and it makes all the difference.Saw today that E. Santana is changing agents - hopefully that means he'll sign somewhere soon
Comparing Miller Park's roof to anything that's hermetically sealed would be like describing Marge Schott as a diversity-embracing egalitarian.
How bout that Cabrera contract? Holy hell. Guess we know why they traded fielder.
I'm not in favor in principle to these kind of deals. They never work out at the end. ARod, Pujols. IMO, Mr. I was rewarding Miggy and making sure he retires a Tiger. He may not see a WS ring, but he can make sure Miggy is still in Detroit long after Mr. I passes away. BTW, they are all overpaid.