BP predicts the '07 records

[Mephistopheles]

Rest of the NL

 

East

Philadelphia 87-75

New York 85-77

Atlanta 81-81

Florida 79-83

Washington 66-96

 

West

Arizona 88-74

San Diego 86-76

Los Angeles 80-82

Colorado 80-82

San Francisco 78-84

 

With their payroll if the Cubs fail to contend in a league this crummy then Hendry should be shot out of a cannon

 

Do you honestly believe every single one of those predictions and believe there will not be one single 90-win team in the whole darn league?

 

good job showing your completely ignorance to what these are. i guess i shouldnt single you out, most people here dont get them either.

[BigbadB]

the only prediction that i definitely disagree with so far is the one for the D'Backs, but even that's not a total stretch.

 

White Sox seem really low too.

 

The White Sox team is one in a perfect position to fall off a cliff. I think Seattle is better than they give them credit for as well.

[badger1679666666]

What does BP base their predictions on?

[BigbadB]

good job showing your completely ignorance to what these are. i guess i shouldnt single you out, most people here dont get them either.

 

Uncalled for.

[Drew Doughty]

the only prediction that i definitely disagree with so far is the one for the D'Backs, but even that's not a total stretch.

 

White Sox seem really low too.

 

The White Sox team is one in a perfect position to fall off a cliff. I think Seattle is better than they give them credit for as well.

 

i agree, but that's quite a nose-dive to take in one year with no huge turnover on the roster.

[BigbadB]

the only prediction that i definitely disagree with so far is the one for the D'Backs, but even that's not a total stretch.

 

White Sox seem really low too.

 

The White Sox team is one in a perfect position to fall off a cliff. I think Seattle is better than they give them credit for as well.

 

i agree, but that's quite a nose-dive to take in one year with no huge turnover on the roster.

 

The White Sox might be the toughest team to predict. Not only are they in the toughest division in baseball, they seem like they are in a state of transition. They brought in a bunch of youngsters, but a lot of them won't help right away. But, they also have a few aging stars that aren't getting any younger.

[Drew Doughty]

the only prediction that i definitely disagree with so far is the one for the D'Backs, but even that's not a total stretch.

 

White Sox seem really low too.

 

The White Sox team is one in a perfect position to fall off a cliff. I think Seattle is better than they give them credit for as well.

 

i agree, but that's quite a nose-dive to take in one year with no huge turnover on the roster.

 

The White Sox might be the toughest team to predict. Not only are they in the toughest division in baseball, they seem like they are in a state of transition. They brought in a bunch of youngsters, but a lot of them won't help right away. But, they also have a few aging stars that aren't getting any younger.

 

I suppose that's why they're aging :D

 

They're difficult to predict, but I can't see them being what...20 games worse than the year before. I could possibly see it happening if say...Thome gets injured and Dye falls back down to earth (which is a possibility), but without major injuries, I don't think they're the ones on the bottom of that four-team pile-up in the AL Central.

[radarluv1]

the only prediction that i definitely disagree with so far is the one for the D'Backs, but even that's not a total stretch.

 

White Sox seem really low too.

 

The White Sox team is one in a perfect position to fall off a cliff. I think Seattle is better than they give them credit for as well.

 

i agree, but that's quite a nose-dive to take in one year with no huge turnover on the roster.

 

The White Sox might be the toughest team to predict. Not only are they in the toughest division in baseball, they seem like they are in a state of transition. They brought in a bunch of youngsters, but a lot of them won't help right away. But, they also have a few aging stars that aren't getting any younger.

 

i think 90 losses would take a major injury or three. i wonder if ozzie would survive a season like that.

[RichHillIsABeast]

good job showing your completely ignorance to what these are. i guess i shouldnt single you out, most people here dont get them either.

 

You're going to burn in hell for that one, Mephistopheles. :lol:

[98navigator]

Yankees 93-69

Red Sox 93-69

Blue Jays 80-82

Devil Rays 77-85

Orioles 74-88

 

Twins 91-71

Indians 89-73

Tigers 85-77

White Sox 72-90

Royals 67-95

 

Angels 87-75

Athletics 81-81

Rangers 80-82

Mariners 73-89

 

All the projected records are usually updated a few times throughout the spring with new playing time forecasts.

 

Wow, they see the White Sox falling off the map. It wouldn't surprise me.

 

Is this a subscription service or do you have a link that's available to the public? I'd love to share these projections with friends (not that I believe in them but it would be good for converstional purposes)...

Edited February 26, 2007 by 98navigator

[BigbadB]

Guess they really didn't like the Erstad signing. :D

[Outshined_One]

Guess they really didn't like the Erstad signing. :D

 

But...but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but...but...HE PLAYED FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!!

[JGalt73]

Is this a subscription service or do you have a link that's available to the public? I'd love to share these projections with friends (not that I believe in them but it would be good for converstional purposes)...

 

There is no single link, they are complied from BP's subscription projection pages. For an idea of what a single page tells you... click here.

[98navigator]

Is this a subscription service or do you have a link that's available to the public? I'd love to share these projections with friends (not that I believe in them but it would be good for converstional purposes)...

 

There is no single link, they are complied from BP's subscription projection pages. For an idea of what a single page tells you... click here.

 

Ok, thanks!

[Bull]

Rest of the NL

 

East

Philadelphia 87-75

New York 85-77

Atlanta 81-81

Florida 79-83

Washington 66-96

 

West

Arizona 88-74

San Diego 86-76

Los Angeles 80-82

Colorado 80-82

San Francisco 78-84

 

With their payroll if the Cubs fail to contend in a league this crummy then Hendry should be shot out of a cannon

 

Do you honestly believe every single one of those predictions and believe there will not be one single 90-win team in the whole darn league?

 

Also, if I'm not mistaken most predictions gravitate toward the mean. It's not surprising that no team has an excessive amount of wins.

 

Do they use pythagorean wins based on RS/RA? This would account for the lack of outliers. IIRC, the Cubs often underachieve relative to pythagorean predictions

[Mephistopheles]

good job showing your completely ignorance to what these are. i guess i shouldnt single you out, most people here dont get them either.

 

Uncalled for.

Perhaps, I guess I should have said "there's a fairly obvious reason when you grasp the concept of what those projections are." Edited February 26, 2007 by Mephistopheles

[BigbadB]

That's better.

[Coach C]

Royals 67-95

 

Well, looks like they could potentionally avoid the 100 losses mark this year.

[Balsa]

Royals 67-95

 

Well, looks like they could potentionally avoid the 100 losses mark this year.

It'll be all thanks to Teahen. :o

[Rob]

Rest of the NL

 

East

Philadelphia 87-75

New York 85-77

Atlanta 81-81

Florida 79-83

Washington 66-96

 

West

Arizona 88-74

San Diego 86-76

Los Angeles 80-82

Colorado 80-82

San Francisco 78-84

 

With their payroll if the Cubs fail to contend in a league this crummy then Hendry should be shot out of a cannon

 

Do you honestly believe every single one of those predictions and believe there will not be one single 90-win team in the whole darn league?

 

Also, if I'm not mistaken most predictions gravitate toward the mean. It's not surprising that no team has an excessive amount of wins.

 

Do they use pythagorean wins based on RS/RA? This would account for the lack of outliers. IIRC, the Cubs often underachieve relative to pythagorean predictions

 

Close.

 

They use pythaganport with AEqR and AEqRA

 

Pythaganport - A modified form of Bill James' pythagorean formula. Instead of using a fixed exponent (2, 1.83), the "pythagenport" formula derives the exponent from the run environment - the more runs per game, the higher the exponent. The formula for the exponent was X = .45 + 1.5 * log10 ((rs+ra)/g), and then winning percentage is calculated as (rs^x)/(rs^x + ra^x). The formula has been tested for run environments between 4 and 40 runs per game, but breaks down below 4 rpg.

 

AEqR -The number of equivalent runs scored by a team, adjusted for the quality of their opponent's pitching and defense.

 

AEqRA - The number of equivalent runs allowed by a team, adjusted for the quality of their opponent's offense.

[BigbadB]

Royals 67-95

 

Well, looks like they could potentionally avoid the 100 losses mark this year.

It'll be all thanks to Teahen. :o

 

The Royals are an improved team. Meche, Bannister, Perez, Grienke and potentially Hochevar sometime midseason is a much better rotation than they had last year. Riske and Dotel is an improved pen.

 

Alex Gordon, Ryan Shealy and Teahen all playing together makes for an improved offense. I don't think they'll lose 100. They definitely won't have a winning record, but they are improved.

[Danny82]

Does anyone know what BP's NL Central predictions for 2006 were?