Keith Law on Aroldis Chapman
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Prev: Phillips Upset
Next: Under Over predictions ?
From: Dan Szymborski on 11 Mar 2010 17:29 On Mar 11, 4:00 pm, David Short <David.No.Sho...(a)Spam.wright.Please.edu> wrote: > On 3/11/2010 2:03 PM, RJA wrote: > > > > > On Mar 11, 12:26 pm, Dan Szymborski<dszymbor...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 11, 7:45 am, t...(a)nomail.please (JustTom) wrote: > > >>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:39:22 -0800 (PST), Dan Szymborski > > >>> <dszymbor...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> For purely selfish reasons, > > >>> ??? > > >>> I didn't think the O's were in on him? > > >> No, but now I'll be expected to publish a projection for him! > > >> I was hoping that he'd stay in the minors and I wouldn't have to worry > >> about it until next year a la Dayan Viciedo. > > >> Dan > > > Where are the 2009 Reds predictions? We can then determine if you > > should really be worried about this. > > I think Dan publishes his stuff at the baseball think factory. > > http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/2010_zips... > looks like the reds. > > Dan publishes his predictions and takes the heat for them. Yup, BTF has been my "base of operations" for a long time, though I'm now also contributed to ESPN and Perpetual Post. Dan
From: David Short on 11 Mar 2010 18:04 "Dan Szymborski" <dszymborski(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >On Mar 11, 4:39 pm, RJA <agentvau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Unless I'm totally underestimating the standard deviation (if it >> exists in this case), the majority of the predictions aren't even >> close. I guess expecting them to be close is asking a lot though with >> so much in play. > >As projection systems go, ZiPS actually had an excellent year! > >For both humans and computers, the error bars are extremely large. And that's the nature of sports. The error bar on NFL games is around two touchdowns. That's using the Vegas point spread which is pretty darn good. If there isn't luck or noise in sports, it wouldn't be any fun to watch. dfs
From: David Short on 11 Mar 2010 18:05 "RJA" <agentvaughn(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6f0ccc44-3961-4510-b04b-66ceb77bc04a(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > >We should have a thread on predictions for the regulars and the >rotation and see how it comes out in the end. heh. yeah that sounds like a pretty good idea. dfs
From: HTP on 11 Mar 2010 18:40 On Mar 11, 3:05 pm, "David Short" <David.No.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote: > "RJA" <agentvau...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6f0ccc44-3961-4510-b04b-66ceb77bc04a(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > > > > >We should have a thread on predictions for the regulars and the > >rotation and see how it comes out in the end. > > heh. yeah that sounds like a pretty good idea. > > dfs I've been thinking for years about kicking in my own make-these- predictions-if-you-dare thread complete with a points system, as an addendum to DavidS. Maybe i will this year.
From: RJA on 11 Mar 2010 22:56
On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, Dan Szymborski <dszymbor...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 11, 5:17 pm, tom dunne <dunn...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 11, 4:00 pm, David Short > > > To be fair, Dan publishes the results of his prediction system and > > takes the heat for them. I don't think ZiPS can evaluate weird things > > like Votto missing several weeks of games because of anxiety over his > > father's death as being an isolated incident; it sees that he played > > 131 games last year at a certain level of production and figures he's > > going to miss 20 games this year, with slightly lesser production. I > > think if we asked Dan (hello, Dan!), he'd expect Votto to exceed the > > ZiPS numbers a bit this year. In general, I try not to think of ZiPS > > necessarily as Dan's opinions, just the results of his software. > > Others are less charitable :) > > Yeah, computer has no idea why someone missed games, only that he > did. Typically, major stretches of missed time are injury-related, > which helps. Baseball players don't miss a year to run the family > hardware store or go off to fight Germans anymore! > > (Sorry to turn this into a projection thread!) > > Dan Perhaps but I was referring to the percentages rather than the counting numbers. |