Dougdirts 2008 Reds Projections

[pedro]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Its a macro that searches through part of the spreadsheet. I wish I knew how to write programs that could go mine the data from say, Thebaseballcube or baseballreference rather than what I actually did and go through and copy and paste 30+ seasons worth of data into the spreadsheet.

I know that you can get copies of the historical data in MySQL format because Ochre has done it. If you had a copy of the data you could then use a tool like TOAD (http://www.toadsoft.com/) to build your queries. Might be something you might want to consider as not only would make what you are trying to do easier it would also help develop a marketable job skill at the same time. Something to think about anyway.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by pedro

I know that you can get copies of the historical data in MySQL format because Ochre has done it. If you had a copy of the data you could then use a tool like TOAD (http://www.toadsoft.com/) to build your queries. Might be something you might want to consider as not only would make what you are trying to do easier it would also help develop a marketable job skill at the same time. Something to think about anyway.

I will definitely look into that, thanks

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

My system rewards or takes away based on age. Up to the age of 27 a player gets rewarded. After the age of 27, a players power numbers generally decline, although slightly at first and its adjusted accordingly.

Age 27 isn't the magical year for power numbers. It's ages 30-31.

1. 26-30 year olds aren't comparative to 28 year olds?

Now hold on a second or two. First, you've claimed that a 28-year old should see a HR decline because he's a year older than 27, but now up to age 30 is fully comparable with ages 26 to 29?

Do you see the differences in your lines of thinking here?

2. IsoD doesn't have much to do with ones XBH rate. Had I projected Dunn to go .254/.300/.525 then yeah, I would see your point. The fact that Dunn walks a ton doesn't have much to do with his XBH rate. Isolated discipline is calculated differently than hits and hit rates.

Actually, for 2007 MLB Batting Title qualifiers, the correlation between IsoD and IsoP (the XBH component) is 0.447. That's not definitive, but it's suggestive that IsoD may have more influence on XBH rates than you suggest. Furthermore, I categorized that sample by power output and the correlation between high IsoD and high IsoP grew as the player sample IsoP did. For players with IsoP numbers above .200, the correlation was 0.537. When that IsoP was narrowed to .250 or higher, the correlation between the discipline and power components grew to 0.685. In short, the data suggests a relationship between high IsoD and high IsoP and also suggests a stronger relationship between the two for the hitters with the strongest XBH rate skills (which is exactly what IsoP measures).

It appears that your assumption about IsoD not being important even during single seasons (especially for higher-XBH rate hitters) is incorrect.

Unfortunately, it appears that inaccurate assumptions are peppered throughout your "system".

3. Not exactly. When people seemingly have career years, I exclude them from the projection.

An effort to find better comps would be optimal versus that subjective process. A guy like Andruw Jones simply isn't a similar hitter.

Right, but his XBH last year was likely lower than it would have been had his knee been healthy. So given that his knee is going to be healthy this year (at least very likely that it is) I went back and gave him a boost in his XBH rate.

Well, that's a subjective adjustment you can feel free to make, but it appears that you're still downgrading the HR totals due to your expected age-driven decline at age 28; which actually isn't an age where power declines.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Now hold on a second or two. First, you've claimed that a 28-year old should see a HR decline because he's a year older than 27, but now up to age 30 is fully comparable with ages 26 to 29?

Where did I say it were fully comparable? I said thats the age range I search for comparables. Age 30 wouldn't be comparable with 26, 28-32 would be the comparables for age 30.

Actually, for 2007 MLB Batting Title qualifiers, the correlation between IsoD and IsoP (the XBH component) is 0.447. That's not definitive, but it's suggestive that IsoD may have more influence on XBH rates than you suggest.

I really don't think it does. It suggests common sense. Generally high end power hitters get walked more. Power hitters tend to walk more than slap hitters. However guys with good patience aren't always going to be power hitters. That is why I calculate XBH rate separately when searching for comparables than including IsoD in it.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Where did I say it were fully comparable? I said thats the age range I search for comparables. Age 30 wouldn't be comparable with 26, 28-32 would be the comparables for age 30.

doug, your comps are bad. Build better comps.

I really don't think it does. It suggests common sense. Generally high end power hitters get walked more. Power hitters tend to walk more than slap hitters. However guys with good patience aren't always going to be power hitters. That is why I calculate XBH rate separately when searching for comparables than including IsoD in it.

Rather than jumping to a conclusion, you should have asked a question. Here are the correlations between high Non-Intentional BB/AB rates and high IsoP for the samples I noted when we remove Intentional Walks from the mix:

Overall: 0.425
IsoP > .200: 0.419
IsoP > .250: 0.534

We remove IBB from the mix and we still have suggestive correlations between high IsoD and XBH rates and still moreso of a correlation between the two with the highest IsoP hitters. Pitcher fear isn't going to just wash those correlations away. High IsoD skillsets are exactly that- skillsets. That IsoD skillset is real and you'd be smart to consider how it might impact future performance and whether or not you should be comparing players low-IsoD rate players with high-IsoD rate players instead of just discounting potential effects of high IsoD performance because it doesn't fit your version of "common sense".

[dougdirt]

So basically what I just said? This is getting to a point of ridiculousness Steel.

I said power hitters walk more than slap hitters and it was common sense. You tell me I am wrong, then give me numbers that guys who hit for less power walk less than guys who hit for power.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

So basically what I just said? This is getting to a point of ridiculousness Steel.

No, doug. Not what you just said. And it's unfortunate that you've attempted to translate it into such. There are skill sets in play and differences between hitter types and that affects projections. You don't seem to want to believe that, but it's true.

I'm not surprised at all because you've consistently ignored IsoD when projecting prospects due to your bias.

I said power hitters walk more than slap hitters and it was common sense. You tell me I am wrong, then give me numbers that guys who hit for less power walk less than guys who hit for power.

If that's how you're translating it, it means that you're seeing IsoP as the driver for IsoD. That's another unfortunate miscalculation on your part, which follows a series of likewise unfortunate miscalculations for your "system", which really isn't a system of anything other than that which you can "tweak" to validate your opinions. An example of even the most tertiary component leaves me unsurprised that you wouldn't post a single formula from your magical "25" mess. You called for challenges of said "system" in your first post, but when push comes to shove you can't even post said "little formula" much less defend it in any kind of logical fashion.

At this point, you could post every "formula" you have without fear of anyone stealing any of it.

You don't need to be a mathemetican to understand what I've been telling you, doug. But it's pretty obvious that you haven't done proper math prior to producing a projection "system" that includes a whole lot of major issues. Only you can fix that. Dump what you have. Start over with better everything.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

No, doug. Not what you just said. And it's unfortunate that you've attempted to translate it into such. There are skill sets in play and differences between hitter types and that affects projections. You don't seem to want to believe that, but it's true.

Walking does not seem to lead to power. Power does seem to lead to walking.

If that's how you're translating it, it means that you're seeing IsoP as the driver for IsoD. That's another unfortunate miscalculation on your part, which follows a series of likewise unfortunate miscalculations for your "system", which really isn't a system of anything other than that which you can "tweak" to validate your opinions. An example of even the most tertiary component leaves me unsurprised that you wouldn't post a single formula from your magical "25" mess. You called for challenges of said "system" in your first post, but when push comes to shove you can't even post said "little formula" much less defend it in any kind of logical fashion.

I called for challenges of my system? I was welcoming opinions as to 'you are crazy' not 5 pages of arguing with steel on whether or not he thinks there is only one precise way to project a players future outcomes, which apparently you think there is.
As for me not being able to defend it in any logical fashion.... What on earth have we spent the better part of the last two days doing then? Because I won't give you my exact math means I haven't shown any indication of explaining how it works? Much less in a logical way? Short of handing over the formula, I think I have logically tried to answer every question asked in here. Is the system perfect? Of course not, because no system is. Like I stated earlier, even the best of the projection systems don't correlate higher than 55% to actual results. Thats basically a coin flip.

Dude, I am done with responding to you in this thread. Like I said in the last post, this is getting a little ridiculous to be honest. Like every little time we talk, you turn one question into 50 and not a single answer is ever good enough to satisfy you regardless of what the question and answer happen to be.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Walking does not seem to lead to power. Power does seem to lead to walking.

That's your subjective assumption. And it doesn't play out mathematically.

I called for challenges of my system? I was welcoming opinions as to 'you are crazy' not 5 pages of arguing with steel on whether or not he thinks there is only one precise way to project a players future outcomes, which apparently you think there is.

Actually, no. There are many objective ways to produce projections. However, you haven't produced an objective "projection" formula. Darts at a board, yes. Objective, no.

As for me not being able to defend it in any logical fashion.... What on earth have we spent the better part of the last two days doing then? Because I won't give you my exact math means I haven't shown any indication of explaining how it works? Much less in a logical way? Short of handing over the formula, I think I have logically tried to answer every question asked in here. Is the system perfect? Of course not, because no system is. Like I stated earlier, even the best of the projection systems don't correlate higher than 55% to actual results. Thats basically a coin flip.

What we've been doing over that past couple of days started with folks noting obvious issues with your "projections". It continued because you couldn't do much of anything to either show your work or defend your projections in a logical manner. You were asked repeatedly to show your work, but the result was a good deal of illogical conclusions driven by assumptions that were just plain wrong (see: 28 years old is the "power" peak).

Dude, I am done with responding to you in this thread. Like I said in the last post, this is getting a little ridiculous to be honest. Like every little time we talk, you turn one question into 50 and not a single answer is ever good enough to satisfy you regardless of what the question and answer happen to be.

Your answers would satisfy me if they made sense from an objective perspective. At this point, I'd expect you to discontinue responses to challenges to your methodology considering the amount of holes in said methodology. And here's your timeline:

1. Claim that you're right for sure and that people can challenge your findings all they want.
2. Claim that you don't have time to post why you're right.
3. Claim that your data is proprietary.
4. Claim that your analysis shouldn't be such a big deal.
5. Claim whatever.
6. Claim that you will no longer respond to a poster who's demonstrated that you have a ton of holes in your "system".

All I can say about #6 is that it's about time. You actually lasted a few more posts that I thought you would. Congrats?

[Ga_Red]

What a fantastic demonstration of brute statistical analysis you have systematically, and patiently,
injected into this thread.

It has been like a mural on a domed ceiling, unintelligible at first, but with each additional
di vincilike brushstroke from your multihued
palette, you have opened the eyes of at least one uninitiated soul to its breadth and beauty when
a Son of Euclid is at work.

Impressive, imaginative, almost immortal presentation. And to think you accomplished
it in a thread you didn't have to author, is
an incredible achievement, as well.

Well done, good sir,
hats off to you.

[Ltlabner]

Wow. This thread went in the toilet.

Sorry Doug that it went from honest questioning of your methodolgy (there are some holes there) to an attempt to bludgen you into submission.

[Heath]

Sorry to moderate here - but steel & doug - this is something that could have went private.

Thread closed.