tangotiger

You are wrong. Come over to my blog from time to time, and we'll straighten you out.

You have equations. This one: 1.8*OBP2+SLG2 = 1.12 And this one: -OBP2-SLG2 = -.9 Add the first equation to the second equation and you get: 0.8*OBP2 = .22

In 2007, I asked fans from the blogosphere to give me their forecasts for players on their 40-man rosters. I also had in hand the forecasts for Marcel and seven other forecasting systems (PECOTA, ZiPS, Shandler, Bill James, Pete Palmer, MGL, Chone). The Marcels finished right in the middle, right alongside the Community Forecasts. And there was very little separating these two from the leaders (Chone, MGL, PECOTA I believe). I reported all results and published all data on my blog. To the extent that you want to call Marcel useless for being boring, you have to call all other forecasting systems useless for being {insert adjective}. Maybe some systems are too extreme, and others are too biased against young players. Etc, etc. The main point of Marcel is strictly to provide the minimum competence level against which all other forecasts (including those by the fine people of the blogosphere through Community Forecasts) are judged. And to that end, the results of all forecasting sysems are very dull.

The 2008 balloting is now underway. All participation appreciated. Same link as usual for the main page.

The project: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/with-the-game-on-the-line-i-want/ The players: http://www.fangraphs.com/clutch.aspx

As long as you read things in context, there's no issue. I really can't help it if some people try to read things intentionally out of context!

This is my standard set of words. I think it's apparent by the ordering that "fair" is between "average" and "poor". Furthermore, I have GREAT and POOR as uppercase, so it again is apparent that those two are the boundaries. No one will mistake "fair" as somehow being between Average and Good, or being below Poor, especially the way I have it laid out.

Time to put up or shut up: http://www.tangotiger.net/clutch/

Fans' Scouting Report – Results http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/scoutResults2007.html Thanks to all who participated.

Current ballot counts: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/the_2007_scouting_report_by_the_fans_for_the_fans/ Cub support is good, but a bit lower than I expected. If anyone's been waiting to participate, it'd be much appreciated.

Thanks for the support. Much appreciated.

(This post approved by Tim.) ======================================= I am now running Community Forecasts, and participation among hardcore fans is appreciated. http://www.tangotiger.net/community/ I've already taken an initial look at Redsox, Jays: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/community_forecasts1/ As soon as I get 20 ballots for the Cubs, I'll do likewise.

Yes.

Oh, one of the issues that I'm addressing is the validity of the Fans' opinions (as this has been discussed on my site at length). What I'll be doing is canvassing for "superfans", fans that would be considered amateur scouts, dedicated to baseball, and spending the extra time to collect information. This will form a basis against which the hardcore fans will be compared to. *** I've seen professional scouting reports from MLB teams. One thing is clear is that scouts are overworked, providing limited useful information, when they focus on players for jsut a game or two. For one player, the scout changed his opinion on Francoeur's arm from "average" to "great" in the span of 3 months. Other reports that I saw also had that kind of inconsistency. A more focused look, like the superfan being told to just focus on the Cub infielders for 30 games, would be much more insightful. *** Any suggestions you'd like to present to improve the project, I'd be interested in.

Goal: I've already answered that question. So, let me repeat my answers, and expand some: 1. Collect data from hardcore fans, as a way to represent how a hardcore fan thinks 2. Use this data as a historical reference point 3. Use this data to find similar players on other teams 4. Use this data to compare players across positions 5. Use this data to see how opposing fans think of their own players 6. Compare this scouting data to performance data (like UZR and Dewan) The last one is interesting. UZR correlates year-to-year with an r=.50 (r-squared = .25). Fans to UZR correlates at r=.35 (r-squared of .12). When I run UZR+Fans against next year's UZR, I get an r of .60 (r-squared of .36). If the Fans and UZR were completely independent (that is, Fans are not influenced by the data as UZR sees it), we would have expected an r-squared of .37. If Fans were completely dependent on UZR, it would have remained at .25. We got .36. The Fans are providing additional information that UZR would need so that it has a better population to regress to. As for your points, they are valid. I don't disagree with them. *** 99%+ of the respondents evaluated only one team.

If you read the project: http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/ You would know I said this: So, it's only fans of the Cubs that would evaluate the Cub players. There is of course a team-bias issue, which I calibrate that each team is equally biased. (For example the average score was 3.3 for each team, which I reset down to a 3.0. But, perhaps some team fans are more biased than others.) On my blog, I go through all the possible issues of the project. *** As for the "you", most of the comments made were dismissive rather than skeptical. Comments on Jeter clearly show that no effort was made to look at the results. Earlier comments came in with preconceived notions on the project, likening it to ESPN, without any questions as to who the voters are, or the quality control I institute. If you don't see any benefit from the outset, this project is not for you. If you see potential, but are worried about bias and other sampling issues, this project is for you. Detail your concerns, and we can try to handle them. If you think results at the player level will be sketchy, but at the group level (say like, how are SS perceived relative to 1B), then that's another benefit. If you think seeing who else Juan Pierre or Aaron Rowand compares to, this is for you. *** As for USSoccer's comment about what is clear about Ramirez: you've illustrated my point that you should ignore the opinion of any one person, in favor of a group of people. Now, not just any group, but given the choice between listening to one superfan, or 44 NSBB fans, I'll take the 44 fans here. *** What is interesting is that these message boards are aimed at fans talking to other fans about their opinions on their team, players, and games. All I'm doing is collecting some of that information. If you don't care what your fellow fans are thinking, that's fine.

Your comment about Jeter is completely off-base. I'll repeat this once more: Yankee fans rated him as an average SS! Can you at least click on the link I provided so you can see for yourself? *** Ok, now are arguing about the semantics. Yes, preconceived notions are opinions formed without adequate evidence. Opinions are subjective and influenced by preconceived notions, and influenced by opinions of other people. I am looking for MLB fans with opinions. If you want to argue that most fans' opinions are influenced by preconceived notions and/or the opinions of others, that that forms their large basis, fine. I don't agree or disagree. However, I believe that the fans who fill out my ballot are relying much more on their fair observation, and try to minimize, as best they can, the other influences. Like I said, it's incumbent on me to show that. If you choose to dismiss the results outright, that's your choice, and this project was not aimed at you. I personally find it fascinating when I click on Juan Pierre's page and see this: http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/sim2006_6550.html Prior to coming to Chicago, it would have been interesting to know that, wouldn't you say? In fact, this is the sim report of Juan Pierre last year, based on the Marlins fans: http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/sim2005_334393.html Notice how many overlapping players there are? Again, you can argue that the overlapping players proves that the fans simply represented the conventional viewpoint without any of their own input. Fine, again. But, this project does at least represent that in a quanitifiable form that will have historical significance, if I can reach the serious hardcore fan.

CubInNY is right. However, by only reaching out to hardcore nuts like people here, I hope to not attract the people who wouldn't take this seriously. Nonetheless, it takes a good 5 minutes to fill it out, so that's a disincentive right there. *** And when USSoccer says it's "nothing but opinions", he's right! That's what a I want! It's not a knock against the system. Do people know what a preconceived notion is? Preconceived notions don't change year-to-year! Opinions do. I want opinions, not preconceived notions. The Mets fans had a preconceived notion that Kaz Matsui was a GG in Japan. Did you see how they rated him? Do people have preconceived notions about other rookies or new players on the team? Do those sway their eventual opinions? I can go case-by-case showing that's not true. I suppose it's incumbent on me to make the case. However, some people who respond here have incredibly strong preconceived notions that this poll is no better than an ESPN poll. I don't expect to sway those people, just those who are on the fence. *** As for Izturis, the results on my site are based on Cub and Dodger fans. I do have the results separately as well, but I haven't posted that yet.

Izturis had data from two teams. You can look at his Dodgers data as well. The listing is not dependent on playing time, any more than a batting average of .500 will still show up at the top if the guy is 1 for 2. Ryan Zimmerman is a rookie. Betancourt was one last year. Do fans have preconceived notions on that? Your definiton of preconceived notion doesn't make sense, since their preconceived notion seems to change! That's not a preconception. That's just an opinion at that moment in time. As for Jeter, yes the Yankee fans have him as their best fielder. But, he's far lower than other SS. He's like a 63, and Everett was an 89 or something. If you click on the SS link, you will see how far down Jeter is. http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/pos2006_SS.html I count 20 guys ahead of him and 20 behind him.

And it is opinion like that, that is relevant for the historical record. Those that think that Pierre is a plus CF are in the definite minority. I have the good luck of seeing two of the top play-by-play (PBP) metrics (Dewan and UZR), and both agree that Pierre is one of the top CF in MLB! Clearly, either the bias of the fans against Pierre is so great, or the bias in the data is just as great. Who to believe? Who knows. That's why it's important to gather data, the fans opinions, which has nothing at all to do with the data that is analyzed by these PBP systems. After enough years of performance data, and fans' observation, we can have a better understanding.

Perhaps you should spend more time looking at the results. Start with ARod, and see how he did in 2005 and 2006. Then, go to Andruw Jones and Torii Hunter. After you've spent 10-20 minutes looking at the results, please post your informed opinion. Is it not an opinion poll? Hasn't it been shown time and time again that fan's opinions are heavily influenced by preconceived notions*? * and bias It seems you have the preconceived notions. Did you look at the ARod results in 2005 and 2006? Did you not see the huge shift? Do people's preconceived notions change every year? Andruw dropped substantially, as did Torii Hunter. Junior too. Look at the results. They reflect a CHANGE in the opinion of the fan. It's a snapshot reflect of how the fan feels and thinks he sees. Look at the data, analyze, and then provide your opinion.

Perhaps you should spend more time looking at the results. Start with ARod, and see how he did in 2005 and 2006. Then, go to Andruw Jones and Torii Hunter. After you've spent 10-20 minutes looking at the results, please post your informed opinion. *** This also has historical value. For example, Adam Everett could conceivably be out of the league in 4 years, and having never won the Gold Glove. Yet the Astros fans consider him to be the best fielder in the game. In 10-20 years, we'll have the Fans' Scouting Report to look back to, to confirm that view. Right now, I say Gary Pettis or Paul Blair or Curt Flood or Richie Ashburn or Tris Speaker, and who knows what the true feeling of the fan at the time was. *** Finally, this report should be given more weight than any single fan. If someone wants to say that Pierre had a good arm, then I've got 40 fans to tell me otherwise, so I know not to listen to that person. While it's easy for a Cub fan to be right about his Cub players, how would they know how to react fairly to say Brandon Inge to be traded here?

Thanks for the correction. As for Rolen, no reason to look around for the leaders, as they are all listed on the page you clicked. Ichiro and Everett led. Rolen always does well in these things, and Rolen also led the league in UZR from 2000-2005. I'd like to hear from you guys on the Cubs. UZR has the Cubs as the third best fielding team in the league. The Fans rated Cubs as one of the worst-fielding teams in the league. Specifically, it would be about Pierre, since he's the one that does the best in UZR, and does below-average for a CF according to the Fans. So, how did the Cubs fielding look generally, and how did Pierre look specifically?

Results are up! http://www.tangotiger.net/scouti...nners.html Thanks to all who participated. (Last-minute balloting will continue for a few more weeks.)

Last year's results can be found here: http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/scoutResults2005_CHN.html I urge you not too look at the data too closely, if you intend to vote.