CubinNY

I agree. From my perspective the article was cringe worthy, but there are a lot of those this time of year. I don't think Bruce Miles injected much of his opinion in the article at all and that's the mark of a good writer. At least the article wasn't something like this http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-080212-rogers-cubs-spring-training-preview,1,6584653.column

It is better than guessing, which is what all the math in the black box is for, but it's statistically impossible for it to nail player seasons across the board. If god told you in OPS terms exactly how good Matt Murton is, that doesn't mean he'll hit at exactly that level next year; there's expected variance in a given season. Sample size works both ways. I don't think anyone who halfway knows how projections work expects something like PECOTA to be exactly accurate. I think it would be much better to give ranges and confidence intervals. Something like, We predict Matt Murton's OPS will be between .800 and .850 with 95% confidence. We predict it will be between .825 and .850 with 70% confidence. We predict it will be between .700 and 1.000 with 100%. Nonetheless, if God told me what Murton's OPS was going to be, the first thing I'd do is seek medical help. If God was then wrong, the second thing I'd do is question his deity credentials. This is the problem I have with some sabermentricly informed opinions. If the model is wrong it it is the model that is at fault. If the model says such and such a player will perform at X level and the player underperforms or overperforms, it is the model at fault and not the player, unless there are special circumstances. A players "true" performance is what how he actually performs, not what PECOTA says he will do. The value of PECTOA lies in its ability to approximate a player's "true" performance. All you've probably ever seen from PECOTA is the weighted mean projection. In reality, they break it down much further than that. Look at Murton for example. http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/176/murtonjo8.png And that's merely a fraction of his PECOTA card. That's not what I'm arguing for. In fact, it is entirely the opposite. But really, I'm not arguing against PECOTA at all. I think it is an extremely useful tool. The problem lies not in the numbers generated but in the interpretation of the numbers.

I agree. To me the most important part of the ballpark is how the field will look from the stands. Frankly, Yankee Stadium sucks. The fans are too far away. I know I'm in the minority, but I like Shea a helluva lot more than Yankee Stadium. If you are on the field level at least you don't feel like you wasted money. Wrigley is great if you're in the bleachers (third row or higher) or if you are in the field boxes in front of the overhanging mezzanine. Anywhere else and you might and probably do, have an obstructed view. I never like the upper decks at Wrigley.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080223&content_id=2385630&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin You can't make this stuff up. Adam Dunn is in his condo/hotel room/whatever in Sarasota, curled up in the fetal position and in tears. Dunn will be sold for pennies on the dollar. I could see him in Yankee Pinstripes becoming a hero by the end of the season. Dusty's name should be Ytsud. He's that backwards.

Not that I think that it will happen anytime soon, nor am I sure whether or not that was a sarcastic comment, but at this point in spring training, I doubt that they'd wait to allow another sport to have their spotlight. Both teams would want to get the players involved in the trade into the swing of things with their new clubs sooner rather than later. We've been kidding around with 'not taking the spotlight away from' stuff ever since it was actually speculated (I think at OH) that the deal was done but we weren't announcing it to give something its spotlight - may have been the Fukudome signing. It was the hall of fame announcements. I sort of like the idea of getting Roberts. I wish it wasn't at the cost of Sean Gallagher though.

It is better than guessing, which is what all the math in the black box is for, but it's statistically impossible for it to nail player seasons across the board. If god told you in OPS terms exactly how good Matt Murton is, that doesn't mean he'll hit at exactly that level next year; there's expected variance in a given season. Sample size works both ways. I don't think anyone who halfway knows how projections work expects something like PECOTA to be exactly accurate. I think it would be much better to give ranges and confidence intervals. Something like, We predict Matt Murton's OPS will be between .800 and .850 with 95% confidence. We predict it will be between .825 and .850 with 70% confidence. We predict it will be between .700 and 1.000 with 100%. Nonetheless, if God told me what Murton's OPS was going to be, the first thing I'd do is seek medical help. If God was then wrong, the second thing I'd do is question his deity credentials. This is the problem I have with some sabermentricly informed opinions. If the model is wrong it it is the model that is at fault. If the model says such and such a player will perform at X level and the player underperforms or overperforms, it is the model at fault and not the player, unless there are special circumstances. A players "true" performance is what how he actually performs, not what PECOTA says he will do. The value of PECTOA lies in its ability to approximate a player's "true" performance.

The playoffs are a crapshoot, for the most part. Having a "leadoff" hitter wont change that. Having another very good SP might, but that's about the only thing. As presently constructed though, the Cubs are a slight favorite to make the playoffs, and then we have about a 12.5% chance once we get in, just like everybody else. I never said anything about getting a leadoff hitter. I wasn't really talking about Roberts, as I don't really want him. I'm talking more about shortstop and the rotation. I agree that the playoffs are a crapshoot, but relying on that when building a team seems like a bad philosophy to me. "Yeha, we definitely have holes, but we aren't worried about them. The playoffs are a crapshoot!" To me it makes sense to do the best you can to buold a team better than the opposition, not rely on luck. I think that Hendry really does want to get Roberts though. It's like Bruce Miles said, "it takes two". From the sounds of things, when we filter out all the speculation, MacPhail wants more than the Hendry wants to give. From my read, Hendry thinks they are good enough to compete within division so he's not willing to gamble. MacPhail thinks Roberts is worth some top prospects. It doesn't sound like much has changed since this rumor first got legs. We'll see who budges first, if ever.

The statement above is a lot of words that essentially means nothing, isn't it? I'm not exactly sure what "true talent" means though. What value does PECOTA if it cannot make accurate predictions? Or I guess I should say more accurate than other predictions. I'm convinced you didn't actually read the sentence. He was pretty clear. Thinking that PECOTA, or any prediction scheme, is a "crystal ball" is dumb. You then proceed to fault it because it's not a crystal ball. Chew on that for a while. It doesn't taste all that good so I spit it out. I'm questing what value PECOTA has if not for making predictions, since that's what it appears to be used for. If it's not any more useful than a guess based on past performance why does one need all the complicated math. I think it may be time to change the tampon. You're a little cranky.

Intrinsic skill level?

The statement above is a lot of words that essentially means nothing, isn't it? I'm not exactly sure what "true talent" means though. What value does PECOTA if it cannot make accurate predictions? Or I guess I should say more accurate than other predictions.

I endorse this post with the strongest possible recommendation. I would have liked him much better had he been a 19 year old instead of a 21 year old. In 171 IP in A and AA he's given up 199 hits and struck out 82. Those aren't good numbers. They look even worse considering the competition.

how much have you watched Vitters, Samards & Colvin play? Who are you? Joe Morgan

What are the Cubs supposed to say?

Stone must be drinking quite a bit nowdays. It's a shame.

Colvin looks like he's put on a little weight.

Cocaine's a helluva drug.

They probably want to see if the prospects made any progress over the winter.

Nothing. His fate is sealed. He's a bench player until someone gets hurt or he gets traded. He isn't going to replace Fukudome or Soriano. They aren't going to move Fukudome around at all.

If you slide to first base you will get their this much faster.

Once again, the base is closer to the feet than the arms. If someone is trying to get to the base with their arm they have to slow down to do it. A little FYI, Wiki is not a reputable information site.

As per, Pinghitter/UK has the most useful and informative posts in this thread. Get out of the box, run straight, and run through the base. alle sonst Dosis nicht Sache

Who needs Yost when we have the sliding thread?

Reading comprehension not a strong suit, huh? I'd post a longer response, but since I already answered this in the post you replied to, I won't. Me no get it. I'll post my scientific publication record if you post yours.

Agreed.

This is horrible. First off, I earlier explained that friction (at least from the ground) is not in play here. You are diving to touch the bag immediately, not to slide into it. Second...the bold part. A science teacher's head might explode if a student told him this with no explanation. No, you just explained why when you stop running you don't necessarily decelerate. F=ma. There is air-resistance...but that effects you when you are running, too. In fact, continuing to run will INCREASE the frictional forces working against you as you are still connecting with the ground. I'll conceed the point that not taking those last two steps will decrease your speed as you cross the bag. I am not arguing that and never will. But the advantage of being able to reach out and touch the bag as your center of mass is significantly behind the bag offsets that slight loss of speed. If you imagine Wilt Chamberlain diving toward the bag instead of running over it, can you imagine the advantage of having your center of mass behind the bag and still being there? The only difference there is scale. [bragging]Claiming that science says it's impossible with a Geophysicist probably isn't your best bet, btw. [/bragging] Friction is not at play? You are either joking or you've never seen someone slide into first base in a cloud of dust. The center of mass has nothing to do with sliding or running, velocity does. Sliding cannot be faster than running through a base for the following reasons: 1. a person has to stop running to slide thereby slowing down 2. when a person slides more surface area is in contact with the ground thereby slowing down The only reason that people slide into second base, third, and home is: 1. To avoid a tag. 2. so they don't lose contact with the base when tagged. We can have a debate about lunging vs sliding if you want, but there is no debate about running vs sliding. Q: Why don't sprinters or speed skaters slide to the finish line? A: Because sliding slows them down. This is pretty ridiculous.