Rob

73. Dan Uggla 74. Gary Sheffield 75. Jonathan Paplebon 76. Daisuke Matsuzaka 77. Hunter Pence 78. Tim Lincecum 79. Rich Hill

It'd be much easier to fix if I weren't excel-[expletive] and had to input each "=RANK(H,H:H)", individually, throwing the specific row number into each equation. But I'm 20% done, so it shouldn't be too much longer. individually? if i'm understanding you correctly, hover your mouse over the lower right hand corner of the cell so you get a + showing as your cursor, and click and drag downward to as many cells you want have that formula copied to (it adjusts the formulas to associate with cells in the same row). or you could just double-click when you get the + showing and it will copy down as far as there are cells populated adjacently. Oh, thank you very much. Though I feel much like the idiot now, having adjusted 500 or so things...

fixed.

If we all just put him on ignore, we don't have to listen to him espousing nonsense like those maniacs on street corners screaming that the world is coming to an end.

It'd be much easier to fix if I weren't excel-[expletive] and had to input each "=RANK(H,H:H)", individually, throwing the specific row number into each equation. But I'm 20% done, so it shouldn't be too much longer.

Trying my best to dissect your wonderful work here... and I came up with a question. When you're calculating "Rk" on the Overall worksheet, I understand that you're just averaging each player's rank above average and replacement in PECOTA, James, and ZiPS. But there are only five columns you're averaging (ZiPS above replacement level seems to be the missing one). Was this intentional, or what?

Remember, when this is over, that you invited this response. -------- -In 2007, the league average for SB attempts in the NL was 130. -In 2007, the Chicago Cubs attempted to steal a base 119 times. Not a huge difference, but clearly below league average. Now, one could assume that the amount of sb a team attempts is largely a function of how fast their players run. But don't fall in this trap, lest you want to get laughed at by Dusty Baker-managed baseball teams. You see, a team can attempt to steal a lot of bases because they have some players who are specifically good at it. Hello New York Metropolitans. Other teams can attempt to steal lots of bases because they think, in general, that it is a good thing to try to do a lot. Some teams do this even though they are obviously bad at it. There's Dusty again. Now, you may also notice that the success rate of stealing bases by the Chicago Cubs (72%), like their amount of attempts, is below league average (74%). Me, the method actor that I am, decided that in order to fulfill my facade of false-intelligence, put on my thinking cap. I thought to myself, "what could these two sets of numbers possible have to do with each other?" Accidentally, I came up with the conclusion that one informs the other. I was like, "maybe, that rascal Lou realizes that his team isn't very good at one thing, so he's instructing his team to do that thing less". I know, a stretch considering his lack of success as a baseball manager. Then, in what was almost a blinding explosion of rational, sensible thought on my part, I thought of something else: Lou Piniella was born in 1943. I see that you have trouble processing information so I'll put it bluntly: he's old. When I think about old people, my first thought is most definitely not "jesus, I wish those old geezers would just make up their mind and stick to it instead of waffling all the GD time." So, if Lou Piniella has shown himself willing to "manage" the amount of times his team does something based on its relative success rate, and sans any traumatic head injuries over the off-season, I'm thinking maybe he's going to stick to that. Yes, regardless of what he says to some dumb stiff. -------- Now, back to the guy from Wisconsin's Cleveland. You're very clearly trolling my posts, not out of something I say specifically (which I actually wouldn't mind, it's flattering), but just because you don't like "me". "blah blah blah you're an arrogant jerk stop pointing out how dumb some of the things people say on here are blah blah blah." Great, I've heard it. But unless you'd actually like to consider contributing something of value, I suggest you keep your mouth shut (keyboard... less typed...) to avoid one of these dust-ups again. Interestingly enough, I seem to recall a study that showed that Lou's teams in general performed much better than one could logically assume when attempting steals, sac bunts, and hit-and-runs. I think it was either in The Book on The Book, or maybe Baseball Between the Numbers...

I can't really answer that without spoon-feeding it to you, now can I? I'd suggest googling your inquiry.

Lou does some stupid things, but I thought we needed a little perspective.

The way I read it, the only people they really insulted were the editor and Theriot. Maybe I'm just biased, though.

I'm working on some stuff right now... I think I can remake my team from this... ARod Pujols Rollins Vlad #12 pick #13 pick to this... ARod Santana Braun DLee #1 pick #7 pick #12 pick And I should be able to pick up VMart, Upton, and Hart with those three picks.

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 last quote makes me feel good. Darn tooting. At this point, I'm not sure he's worth Gallagher alone.

Taking a page out of Smoltz's book. I fully endorse this.

I like him, he's done well with guys like Theriot, Murton and Pie. But then again, he's at AA and AAA only...gotta get that high up first (looking at you, Harvey). Von Joshua is damn good, but I think the only person who can save Harvey at this point is Larry Rothschild. Harvey seems to completely lack the ability to recognize pitches, and to make consistently make contact. That's not exactly the profile of the guys Von Joshua has been successful with (Cedeno, Murton, Soto, Theriot, Fontenot, Hoffpauir, etc... all have pretty good contact skills, and most are fairly patient.)

It seems IMB has been resurrected, and we no longer have to worry as to the league's viability... until the next time he pisses somebody off.

That's a very sexist implication on his part.

Makes sense, I suppose. I imagine it would help if we posted our leagues up once we have them, to get a more standard distribution?

He's just not a very good fantasy player. In real life, you take him out of PetCo, and you have something. In fantasy, with 5x5 stats and the fact that he's in PetCo for half his games, he pretty much sucks. I shouldn't talk. I took Geovany Soto in the 6th round last night. My lunch beers resulted in a 3rd round Adam Dunn pick.

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.

61. Garrett Atkins 62. Felix Hernandez 63. Aaron Rowand 64. Geovany Soto 65.Chris Young (the weirdly proportioned pitcher) 66. Roy Oswalt

Wow, I never noticed that. You've already done a few favors for me. Although the FFIX problem ended up being my disc. I'm probably just gonna drop the 20 USD for it off of Amazon new. Hey now, I said I should be paying, not that I could afford to. There are a lot of bar owners and strippers that are counting on paying rent with that money.:lol: Looks like you changed the baselines for replacement level and average around a bit. Is this just a function of adding more leagues to your evaluation, or due to the new playing time projections?

On the Draft-O page, your format is slightly buggered in the pitching projections totals. The ZiPS box starts in front of what should be the James "W+H" cell. nitpick ever> Seriously man, fantastic job. The more I've been messing around with this beast, the more I keep learning. And it's already saved me from making a bad trade. Despite the formatting error that took me a whopping total of 12 seconds to fix, you've really outdone yourself. I really feel like I should probably be paying good money for this...

Neither option is particularly good, but Pie is the better overall hitter. I'd rather he get more PA than the abysmal Ryan Theriot.

No, in all honesty... Theriot and Fuld are servicable backups, but neither is even particularly good at that. The fewer PA those two see this season, the better off our team is.