Dougdirts 2008 Reds Projections

[dougdirt]

Steel, I have done the math. It adds up.

I don't know if you are just trying to disprove it because you don't like it or what, but the numbers work. Whether you think Bailey can attain them or not should have no bearing on what we are talking about. You claim with his peripherals its not possible that he would have this ERA. I have shown otherwise.

Lets just assume that his 140 innings works out to 610 batters faced (2005 and 2006 guys with 138-142 innings have between 555 and 640 BF).

17 HR
53 BB
120 K
610 BF
1 IBB
5 HBP

Those numbers right there put Bailey's true DIPS at 4.20.

[SteelSD]

Steel, I have done the math. It adds up.

I don't know if you are just trying to disprove it because you don't like it or what, but the numbers work. Whether you think Bailey can attain them or not should have no bearing on what we are talking about. You claim with his peripherals its not possible that he would have this ERA. I have shown otherwise.

Lets just assume that his 140 innings works out to 610 batters faced (2005 and 2006 guys with 138-142 innings have between 555 and 640 BF).

17 HR
53 BB
120 K
610 BF
1 IBB
5 HBP

Those numbers right there put Bailey's true DIPS at 4.20.

Actually, using the complete DIPS 2.0 formula to estimate Batters Faced using the arbitrary Hit/9 numbers you came up with, Bailey's DIPS ERA would be 4.14. It's amazing, ain't it? That DIPS ERA just keeps going down. And I'm not at all surprised that a pitcher with the peripherals you suggest would project that sort of DIPS ERA. But DIPS ERA isn't the issue.

Considering your projection of only 124 Base Hits (which is an underestimation of around at least 10 and possibly as many as 25 considering his defense) you're now overshooting his Batter's Faced projection. In fact, to get to 610 BF using the peripherals you suggest, Bailey would have to give up at least 145 Base Hits or project a larger (and more reasonable) BB rate.

You're not "projecting" DIPS ERA in your original post, doug. You're trying to tell us what actual ERA will be without considering how Hit rate, DER, or park would affect it. And you have unintentionally projected either poor or good BABIP luck for pitchers when you concocted a bunch of the Hit rates on your list, doug. Then there's the secondary issue that artifically suppressing Base Hits may also artificially suppress Home Runs.

When you begin with an ERA of 4.31 and then artificially suppress a pitcher's hit rate (as you've done with Bailey), you're also artificially suppressing the ERA.

[cincrazy]

I feel like I'm in math class

[Highlifeman21]

Well when you run statistical formula's they don't take into account things such as injuries, new playing time, new ballparks (sometimes although you can correct that to a point) or even someone having a poor first half and coming on very strong in the second half to only yield a 'meh' type season. There are always tweaks that need to be made based on those types of situations.

Its based around past performance, age, trends, upside, first half versus second half performances as well as special tweaking by me in cases like Bailey with the injuries, Edwin with Narron jerking him around big time, Gonzo and his family situations.

What are you plugging into your magic formula to yield your results?

I understand you need to look at the past in order to project the future, but in the case of Bailey you can't easily dismiss his being ineffective to just an injury and in the case of EE I think it's too generous to blame Narron and assume a new manager will yield much greater production.

I guess I'm incorrect to assume that a projection should be a prediction of healthy results?

[dougdirt]

What are you plugging into your magic formula to yield your results?

Past history, age, trends (such as first half and second half differences), similarities from previous seasons compared to other past similar players, upside (based on prior historical upside for the player or a perceived upside in my given case for rookie type players) and then adjustments made for certain players.

I understand you need to look at the past in order to project the future, but in the case of Bailey you can't easily dismiss his being ineffective to just an injury and in the case of EE I think it's too generous to blame Narron and assume a new manager will yield much greater production.

Actually I can do that with Bailey. His numbers pre injury and post injury (and we know the dates that it happened) and his numbers during injury are so incredibly different that its not even funny. Whether you want to think it or not is completely irrelevent, as well, it is Dougdirts projection system. As for EE, the only real thing that I adjusted was his power numbers and it was just a slight tweak (5% boost over the projection number) based on him not being jerked in and out of the line up and Cincy/Louisville). His average is up just 2 points over last year and his OBP less than 10 points, I don't think overall its that much greater of production.

[Highlifeman21]

Past history, age, trends (such as first half and second half differences), similarities from previous seasons compared to other past similar players, upside (based on prior historical upside for the player or a perceived upside in my given case for rookie type players) and then adjustments made for certain players.

I guess I phrased my question incorrectly...

What numbers/data are you plugging into your magic formula?

Obviously you're basing the projection from what they've done, based on what you think they will do, but it doesn't necessarily reflect what they will do, IMO.

Your projections seem to range from very realistic, to ridiculously optimistic, to mathematically impossible.

I'm wondering how 1 magic formula can yield 3 varying results.

Is that where the tweaking comes in?

[pedro]

I guess I phrased my question incorrectly...

What numbers/data are you plugging into your magic formula?

Obviously you're basing the projection from what they've done, based on what you think they will do, but it doesn't necessarily reflect what they will do, IMO.

Your projections seem to range from very realistic, to ridiculously optimistic, to mathematically impossible.

I'm wondering how 1 magic formula can yield 3 varying results.

Is that where the tweaking comes in?

IMO it's likely a reflection of manipulating the numbers for each player in order to meet predefined assumptions. It may well work out for some of them but because of the methodology the actual formulas for each player won't have much meaning as they are really just SWAG guesses, not formulas that can be tested for accuracy against years of historical data.

[dougdirt]

I guess I phrased my question incorrectly...

What numbers/data are you plugging into your magic formula?

Past stats for all players involved with multiplier/divisor based on their age of that said season. The numbers for minor leaguers have a divisor based on the levels performed at.

Obviously you're basing the projection from what they've done, based on what you think they will do, but it doesn't necessarily reflect what they will do, IMO.

Well no system is going to reflect what they will do. Thats why even the best systems are only 50-60% correct (and by that I mean relatively close).

Your projections seem to range from very realistic, to ridiculously optimistic, to mathematically impossible.

I'm wondering how 1 magic formula can yield 3 varying results.

Is that where the tweaking comes in?

Well tell me which ones are 'realistic', 'ridiculously optimistic' and 'mathematically impossible' (which by the way, is nowhere near my system) and I will try to tell you why they may differ from things you think they should be.

[pedro]

I guess the question is this Doug.

Do your formulas remain constant for all players with the same attributes or are you manipulating them based on an individual player?

If the answer is the latter then what you have isn't really a "system" but a method for arriving at a set of conclusions that you feel are realistic. That is not to say that the conclusions you have reached are necessarily unrealistic but that if applied to a wide range of player data they may not yield consistent projections for similar players because the players themselves, and your predisposition about them, are a variable in the equation that can not be measured by anyone but yourself, thus making your projections less a study in science than a method to validate your opinions.

[Highlifeman21]

Realistic
Dunn
Bruce
Freel
Phillips
Gonzalez
Keppinger
Hatteberg
Valentin
Harang
Arroyo
Belisle
Volquez
Cueto
Burton
Weathers
Cordero

Optimistic
Griffey
Hopper
Votto
EE
Ross
Bailey
Affeldt

Mathematically Impossible
Bailey

[OnBaseMachine]

I think Homer Bailey stole someone's girlfriend.

[Falls City Beer]

I'd say Weathers' numbers are very optimistic. And if Volquez does what Doug predicts, this team is likely headed to the playoffs. If both Weathers and Volquez do what Doug says, then they are assured a playoff spot. If Volquez, Bailey, and Weathers do what he says, then I'd have to rate the Reds the pennant favorites.

[OnBaseMachine]

I could definitely see Edinson Volquez doing what Doug has predicted him to do. In fact, it really wouldn't surprise me if he surpassed those numbers. This kis has great stuff - 95 mph fastball that can touch 97, a devastating changeup, and a curveball, while inconsistent, is a solid pitch at times. I think he's on the brink of breaking out in a major way. I'm very excited about his potential.

[Falls City Beer]

I could definitely see Edinson Volquez doing what Doug has predicted him to do. In fact, it really wouldn't surprise me if he surpassed those numbers. This kis has great stuff - 95 mph fastball that can touch 97, a devastating changeup, and a curveball, while inconsistent, is a solid pitch at times. I think he's on the brink of breaking out in a major way. I'm very excited about his potential.

Of the three I mentioned, I think Volquez is most likely to reach that potential too.

[dougdirt]

Optimistic
Griffey
Hopper
Votto
EE
Ross
Affeldt

What about Griffey is optimistic? Same goes for Hopper for that matter.
My projections for Votto seem to fall in line with PECOTA and the Bill James projections. What seems optimistic about that?
As for Edwin, he has the average and the on base percentage skills that I projected and we both know that (as he has shown them in the past) the only thing is the power. Why do you think he won't hit for power?
As for Ross, I see a normalization of his average next year, he was incredibly unlucky last year.
Affeldt, same as Votto.... projections fall in line right with everyone else minus the innings difference. Why is that being optimistic considering its actually a step backward from last season for him?

Mathematically Impossible
Bailey

Show me how Bailey is mathematically impossible, because it is actually VERY possible.