haltz
-
Posts
371 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by haltz
-
That was the Cardinals m.o. with 2B for quite a while. Grudz, Womack, Miles, Belliard, Vina, Spivey, Hart, Luna, now Kennedy, ugh ... some work out, some don't. It's not a bad strategy. You can't look at Womack's year in a vacuum. Womack had a 93 OPS+ thanks to an inflated batting average. That's a lucky thing, sure, but it also isn't what made that an 855-run offense. [insert John Mabry joke here]
-
Must be that .319 career SLG against the Cubs.
-
What? I just said that you don't. You know that it's probably closer to .360 than .400 or .320. But the thing is that he has to have one, even if we can never completely nail it down. He has to be X amount good at getting on base. This has to have a value relative to the rest of the league. Three years and a regression will get you a basic projection. It's the same thing. Good luck on balls in play will change a players OPS, a good projection will assume average for things which luck is involved and not skill. The components for all those stats are taken from game events. Earned Runs will tell you how many runs crossed the plate that were earned. This is influenced by the pitcher, the defense, the opposing lineups, the park, etc. FIP tells you how good the pitcher was with K, BB, and HR. Pick what you want to describe and use the stat that describes it.
-
The statistical model is trying to reflect reality, not the other way around. But what reality are we talking about? Players have different talent levels, which is obviously not a hard concept. If Matt Murton's true OBA talent is .360, there are going to be years that he under or overperforms, or that is changed due to variance outside his control, or both. This is what projection systems are getting at when they use 50th lines. It's a theoretical construct, but, a perfect 50th line would represent exactly how good that player is at every point in his career. The more data we have, the closer we can get to pinpointing how good that player is. There's no perfect projection, of course. It's just about taking everything that player cannot control out of the equation. We can put the context back in and talk about that "reality" but that's not relevant to the discussion here. E.g., there is a lot of context and things outside a pitcher's control involved in Earned Runs. Career ERA+ works well for judging Roger Clemens' career, but if it represents Ian Snell's true talent at this point then it's a coincidence to a certain extent. Wainwright and Looper have identical FIPs to their ERAs this year. Sometimes these things happen, but it doesn't make ERA a good way to judge a pitcher.
-
A crystal ball projection. Or I should say an "accurate" projection.
-
I don't know about statistical noise. ERA gives you exactly the target value that it purports to. That happens to be a poor estimation of true talent and how a pitcher has pitched. It gets better the larger the sample.
-
Actually trying to log in works wonders apparently.
-
Brian Barden will get a callup probably (well, maybe). Unfortunately, he'll likely be a poor man's version of Rolen 2007. Rolen was having a super year defensively, even by his standards. Being on pace for 34 UZR runs at the ASB makes that 91 OPS+ a little easier to swallow. They should just get crazy and put Pujols over there, and call up Bozied or move Duncan to first or something. But Albert's obviously hobbling around as it is and that wouldn't happen anyway.
