Comparing Dodger Pitching Projections for 2009
by meercatjohn on Feb 16, 2009 10:06 AM PST
Email
PrintWe haven't had much of a debate about the subject but over at Dodger Thoughts they have been discussing our projected pitching staff over and over. A selected few think our staff is in big trouble but they are shouted down by the many. So taking their cue I've assembled the projections for what I think are the three most respected projected systems. These are all pay sites so I'm only going to post the ERA. Per Paul Scott below let me make this clear. THT is a free site that charges $10 for the projections to be downloaded. HQ and BP are full pay sites. For that reason I'm only going to show the ERA projections and not the underlying statistics they used to come up with projections.
[Update] I've added the IP to get a better idea of where the numbers are coming from.
You have The Hardball Times which brought you x-FIP with the most negative projections. Their x-FIP darling Troncoso does not fare well. Pecota from Baseball Prospectus seems to sit in the middle. The good news is that my favorite site for projections, Baseball HQ has a very optimistic forecast for us.
The crazy outliers are Cory Wade for THT compared to the other two. James McDonald is liked by HQ but hated by THT and Pecota. I've been a HQ believer in the pitching projections all this decade and they have done me well in my roto battles. I myself was a bit worried about our rotation and while Wolf/Schmidt do not inspire much confidence I'm relieved to see that HQ thinks our big three are really a big three.
| FirstName | LastName | THT | HQ | Pecota |
| Jonathan | Broxton | 2.82/73 | 2.95/58 | 2.83/65 |
| Hong-Chih | Kuo | 3.35/77 | 3.62/87 | 3.43/70 |
| Chad | Billingsley | 3.75/174 | 3.28/203 | 3.55/180 |
| Hiroki | Kuroda | 4.15/173 | 3.9/189 | 4.16/175 |
| Clayton | Kershaw | 4.3/150 | 3.78/174 | 4/155 |
| Yhency | Brazoban | 4.31/42 | 4.8/ | / |
| Randy | Wolf | 4.79/160 | 4.6/174 | 4.5/130 |
| Travis | Schlichting | 4.84/64 | / | 5.41/60 |
| Scott | Elbert | 4.85/52 | 3.27/44 | 4.63/45 |
| Jason | Schmidt | 4.98/78 | 4.34/58 | 4.88/65 |
| Claudio | Vargas | 4.98/108 | 5.28/29 | 4.6/80 |
| Ramon | Troncoso | 5/67 | 3.89/44 | 4.3/40 |
| Cory | Wade | 5.38/76 | 3.41/58 | 3.92/50 |
| Eric | Stults | 5.59/146 | 4.97/29 | 4.8/55 |
| James | McDonald | 6.29/131 | 3.89/44 | 5.11/70 |
| Charlie | Haeger | 4.96/157 | 5.32/44 | 5.85/40 |
| Guillermo | Mota | 4.29/62 | 4.5/58 | 4.52/50 |
15 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
THT
is not, and never has been, a pay site.
It is not a pay site
Sure, you can buy their book (completely separate from their site – all of which is free) or download a portion thereof (what you are talking about for $10), but calling THT a “pay site” in the same way as BP or HQ is simply not fair.
re:
The post is related to projections and the projections are $10. So is not, and never has been is an incorrect absolute.
by meercatjohn on Feb 16, 2009 10:45 AM PST up reply actions
This is not that hard
For BP and HQ (and ESPN) you go to their site and you can get some web-based content for free, others sections and articles require a subscription.
You cannot “subscribe” to THT and 100% of their web-based content is free. Yes, you can buy a few books from them each year and you can also buy, separately, a portion of their preview book as an excel file. But that’s it. No portion of their website is restricted from access on condition of payment.
The sentence “Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Headquarters, and The Hardball Times are all pay sites.” is very clearly not correct. THT is completely different from the other two sites (and from ESPN).
Perhaps all you meant to say was “access to each organizations projections is a for fee, and therefor I am only printing part of of it.” That is fine and is probably all you meant. But it is absolutely not fair to THT to lump them in with BP and HQ by stating “[t]hese are all pay sites…”
re:
Maybe you can represent THT when they sue me for false misrepresentation. They can pay you the $10 I just sent them for the projections.
by meercatjohn on Feb 16, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions
re:
It is the kool-aid of choice for optimistic Dodger fans.
by meercatjohn on Feb 16, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
HQ has Elbert with a 3.27 ERA?
I assume they think he’ll be a reliever then, because thats beyond optimistic if its a starter projection.
by Brendan Scolari on Feb 16, 2009 12:59 PM PST reply actions
I should probably combine
the ERA/IP together because some of the low ERA’s are a direct result of fewer innings. THT has McDonald with 131 innings thus the 6.29 ERA. HQ manually tweaks their numbers and it is obvious that THT does not. McDonald would never get 131 inning if he was pitching that poorly.
Troncoso has 69 inning per THT, 44 innings per HQ, and 40 innings per Pecota.
What does it matter?
I guess I could pay for these sites (and $10 contribution to THT), to get the answer, but what does the number of innings matter for the projecting of performace, other than defining whether one is a SP or reliever? As you say, no way James is put out there for 131 innings if he is cunnythumbing to the tune of 6.29 ERA. Are these parts of a larger model?
If you're a reliever you're ERA will be lower than if you were a starter.
The IP help to make more sense of the projections like McDonald’s and Elbert’s.
by Brendan Scolari on Feb 16, 2009 7:14 PM PST up reply actions
plus
MARCELS, CHONE and OLIVER (and all three are accessible through Fangraphs or their originating site and freely downloadable excel/cvs.)
PECOTA is the only truly different projection system, with the heart of its engine being comparables. All others use some sort of [year span] numbers regressed to [some mean]. At least one (BBHQ) starts with a regression, but then employs highly questionable subjective input. MARCELS is one of the simplest. None-the-less, the free projection systems come very close (and sometimes beat) the for-pay ones in correlation to actual results.
As the free projection systems are becoming more numerous, someone should employ a WOC model and average all freely available models and see how that tracks.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on True Blue LA
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
