Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The End Of Sabanball: Details, Barbarians, And Precision

Programming Note

Wednesday afternoon, around 4:30, I'll be a guest on "The Closers" on KFRU AM in Columbia, talkin' Royals. The station has a listen live feature, if you live outside the area. A wonderful opportunity to hear how horrible my voice sounds. Call your friends!

Links

  • Joe McEwing for Hall of Fame!
  • Gary Thurman featured on a blog dedicated to the 1988 Topps set. Lots of memories looking at these, since I got a complete set of '88 Topps for Christmas that year.
  • USS Mariner simmed the AL West 100 times and ... the A's won the division the most?
  • Lastly, has anyone seen the multiple Range Rover ads featuring the Flaming Lips song "Do You Realize"? I was stunned the first time I saw them. Why? Google the lyrics to that song.

Comment 77 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

make us all proud
make sure you can pronounce Selig and Palmeiro.
Success is counted sweetest by those who ne'er succeed. - Emily Dickinson

by buddyball on Feb 12, 2008 10:43 PM EST reply actions  

flaming lips
not that bad, it's a happy song with a happy tune.  happy tunes sell cars.  my personal favorite advertising song miscue was mcdonalds using the shins new slang.  i have to assume they were drawn in by the pleasant tune and the mention of fries and neglected the fact that the lyrics is "new slang when you notice the stripes, the dirt in your fries, hope it's right when you die, old and bony," wherein the term 'new slang' seems to be most tied to a sort of existential disillusionment.  that and the original words to "let's go outback tonight" is "let's pretend we don't exist, let's pretend we're in antarctica."  not nearly as ironic, but a little funny every time and you see it a lot more.

by kcdc on Feb 12, 2008 11:58 PM EST reply actions  

Well,
The big question he asks in the song a little intense for a mind-numbing car ad:

Did you realize that everyone you know will die?

I'm still kicking myself for missing them when they were in KC.

by Bornin85 on Feb 13, 2008 10:06 AM EST up reply actions  

are the Mariners your #2 team?
Or just a fan of the blog writing at those sites?

Have to say I see more references to USS Mariner and Lookout Landing here than that team would perhaps warrant unless you have some sort of allegiance to the squad.

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Feb 13, 2008 6:59 AM EST reply actions  

no, not really
but i do check their blogs a lot

by Freneau on Feb 13, 2008 12:38 PM EST up reply actions  

The Mariner blogs
are really well done. Some great baseball writing to be seen on LL and USSM, that's for sure.
Obama-Buck 2008!

by NHZ on Feb 13, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Car commercials
Kinda reminds me of the car commercial that uses the Dandy Warhols song "Bohemian Like You." They use the line "You've got a great car...." but edit out the line, "what's wrong with it today?"
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 13, 2008 10:20 AM EST reply actions  

Steroids hearings
Roger Clemens is destroying our national innocence. I don't know if he's guilty or not, but one thing is clear from these hearings. He is guilty of being an idiot.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 13, 2008 11:06 AM EST reply actions  

I still don't get what the point of this is
They have drug testing now. What exactly is to be gained by this?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 13, 2008 1:52 PM EST up reply actions  

Open thread?
Is this to be considered the open thread for the RR radio appearance?

by wentToARoyalsGameBeforeRR on Feb 13, 2008 5:37 PM EST reply actions  

I'm Listening
Where's Will?
I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Feb 13, 2008 5:40 PM EST reply actions  

Will's radio appearance
Introduced with the audio replay of Denkinger calling Orta safe at first in the 9th inning of game 6, 1984 World Series.  Such a grudge.  They just won't let it go.  Get over it, losers.  :)
I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 5:41 PM EST reply actions  

HERE WE GO...
Are they on their way?

Is Will on his way?

by wentToARoyalsGameBeforeRR on Feb 13, 2008 5:42 PM EST reply actions  

Niiiiiice
Trade Pujols, begin the rebuild...

by wentToARoyalsGameBeforeRR on Feb 13, 2008 5:43 PM EST reply actions  

Will doesn't share the Royals pitching optimism?
I don't get what that's based on.  I think I showed pretty well that even with Meche and Bannister regressing, more innings from Greinke and some other minor improvements lead to a better team ERA.
I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 5:46 PM EST reply actions  

Guillen = Reggie Sanders
Wow, Will is really laying into the Royals.
I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 5:47 PM EST reply actions  

Well...
At least he said Tomko may be a nice guy...

by wentToARoyalsGameBeforeRR on Feb 13, 2008 5:48 PM EST reply actions  

Wow...
Sooooooooooooooooooo Optimistic!

by doublestix on Feb 13, 2008 5:48 PM EST reply actions  

contridictory my man...
LOL! Kinda sounded pessimistic then said 80 wins!

by doublestix on Feb 13, 2008 5:51 PM EST up reply actions  

What's Wrong With
Will's voice? Sounds normal enough to me.
I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Feb 13, 2008 5:51 PM EST reply actions  

Almost completely negative
  • Pitching will be worse
  • Guillen is just Reggie Sanders all over again
  • Hillman's strategy will hurt the team
  • Royals have a chronic lack of power
  • 80 to 82 wins
Wow, Will showed a tremendous amount of unrelenting negativity.  After the interview was over, even one of the radio hosts called him "Debbie Downer."  This lead the other guy to say something like "anyone who has followed the Royals for years must have their spirit defeated."

Also, one of the radio hosts appropriately pointed out, how do you make all of those analyses about the team and then say they are going to win 80 to 82 games?  The analysis he gave would not logically lead to the conclusion that this team will score more runs than it allows.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 5:56 PM EST reply actions  

Pitching worse?
I didn't really get that the pitching would be worse out of that.  That Tomko wouldn't be the answer (but what kind of question is that?), yes, but I don't think he was overly down on current Royals pitching.  (Though past pitching, sure.)

by wentToARoyalsGameBeforeRR on Feb 13, 2008 5:58 PM EST up reply actions  

What he said
  • I really don't see the optimism about the pitching staff
  • Meche will be worse
  • Bannister will be worse
  • Tomko doesn't improve anything
  • I don't see how this pitching staff is any better in 2008
Perhaps one could argue that all of these negative points add up to "the Royals pitching in 2008 will be just as mediocre as it was in 2007."
I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 6:02 PM EST up reply actions  

yea
that makes sense

I did say you could imagine the lineup getting better.

by Freneau on Feb 13, 2008 5:59 PM EST up reply actions  

And
I can imagine myself with Heidi Klum (in fact, I have).  But the surrounding analysis of the hitters made it sound like one shouldn't expect much improvement from the offense overall, particularly with Hillman running the team out of innings.
I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 6:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Seal Imagines Himself
With Heidi, too, only he really gets to be with her.
I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Feb 13, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Conceptualize this
The Seal-Klum marriage leads me to believe that it is genuinely possilble that our entire universe is merely just a dream in Seal's mind.
I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 6:12 PM EST up reply actions  

so will their kids take Seal's last name
which is non-existent
Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Feb 13, 2008 6:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Perhaps
Maybe they will all just be one-namers like dad.  Or perhaps the girls will have two names with mom's last name and the boys will have just one name.  Or maybe their names will just be symbols.  I was always hoping that Prince's thingamajig would catch on as a new naming convention, but it never did.
I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 6:19 PM EST up reply actions  

I Can't Sing
Like Seal, but I'm a lot better guitar player; could I have some super-model leftovers? Carol Ault? Cheryl Tiegs? Christie Brinkley?  
I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Feb 13, 2008 11:28 PM EST up reply actions  

The only way to find out is to ask
Track them down and put the moves on them.
I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 11:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Not quite Debbie Downer
FWIW, I think it's just personality.  Major doses of realism, honesty, and self-awareness --- but ultimately with hope.  I appreciated the self-deprecation, but I don't think everybody else realizes that his humorous self-deprecation isn't really negativity.  (At least that's my opinion)

by wentToARoyalsGameBeforeRR on Feb 13, 2008 5:56 PM EST reply actions  

Was that
...just "humorous self-deprecation" or was it honest, straightforward analysis of how bad this team is going to be in 2008?
I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions  

I can't say
...that this was the best interview to spread Royal Fever.  On the bright side, at least the site won't now be flooded with homeristic bandwagon jumpers now.
I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 6:06 PM EST reply actions  

I'm glad
That in addition to saying they could win 90, you also said they could win 65.  Without going too much into this, that team has two starting pitchers and then three pitchers who I think will each have ERA's worse than Brett Tomko this year.  Even if everything goes just right for the position players, with that rotation (and bullpen), I don't see how they could win 85.  I'd put the over/under at 80 and bet big on the under.
I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 6:14 PM EST up reply actions  

so apparently RR was negative
optimism never suited us well before anyway
Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Feb 13, 2008 6:17 PM EST reply actions  

There were brief flashes
...of positivity, like the glittering light from a discarded piece of cheap costume jewelery sitting atop a pile of fetid garbage at the local dump.

(I'm exercise my imagery and metaphore/simile skills)

;)

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 6:21 PM EST up reply actions  

^exercising
Damn, I wish we could edit comments.
I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 6:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Just Let
It go into the cyberdump.
I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Feb 13, 2008 11:32 PM EST up reply actions  

That May Be
The kindest description of my mind one could summon.
I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Feb 13, 2008 11:42 PM EST up reply actions  

likewise
it was on just a bit too late in my area
This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Feb 14, 2008 12:20 AM EST up reply actions  

Don't get too down, Will
The two most accurate projection system from last year, ZIPS and PECOTA, agree with you:

Player:    ZIPS/PECOTA
Meche:     4.55/4.55
Greinke:   4.76/4.27
Bannister: 4.84/5.19
Tomko:     4.34 (as Padre)/ 5.20
[Projections for the 5th starter candidates are too ugly to post]

Personally, I think Meche, Greinke, and Bannister each beat these projections (and Greinke by a lot), and projection systems obviously deal in probabilities, not certainties, but there is a legitimate argument based on objective analyses (which consider more than just last year's performances) that the pitching staff as a whole will perform worse in 2008 than 2007.

by Gopherballs on Feb 13, 2008 8:06 PM EST reply actions  

Do you think
...that the pitching staff as a whole will perform worse in 2008 than 2007?  (using the measure(s) of your choice)

And do you think that one can at the same time argue that the pitching next year will be worse and that we'll win 80 to 82 games next year?

By the way, how many games do you think the Royals will win next year?

[G, in all honesty, your knowledge of advanced stats and metrics is impressive and the analysis you do with them is very good.  Sometimes I agree with it and sometimes I don't.  But it seems like your comments are long on "it can be argued that" or "it would be reasonable to say that" and short on actual predictions or otherwise going out on a limb.]

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 8:58 PM EST up reply actions  

my thinking is that the pitching will be
about the same, while the offense will get about 50-60 runs better

last year the strength of the staff was the bully:

we've added mahay, but lost riske

i don't think Gobble will be as good (3.02 ERA) or Soria (2.48)

by Freneau on Feb 13, 2008 10:09 PM EST up reply actions  

one more thing to chew on
perhaps its possible that any pitching improvement will come from the back end of the rotation, last year, despite the success of Meche and Banny, the overall ERA of the SPs was 4.88, 11th in the AL

the ERA of the 'pen was 3.85, 6th in the AL

by Freneau on Feb 13, 2008 10:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Pitching improvements in 2008 over 2007
  • Greinke's increased innings (Greinke >>> O. Perez)
  • Back end of the rotation
And I don't see the bullpen getting a lot worse.  Gobble has changed.  He's not pitching in the same style or in the same role as before 2007.  I don't think Soria takes a significant step backwards.  And there is a lot of depth to deal with any poor performances.

I would suggest anyone wanting to see what effect improvements in some pitchers and regression in others will have on the overall ERA (or other measure) of the 2008 Royals actually crunch the numbers with their indvidual predictions including innings pitched, weight them appropriately and see what kind of stats kick out.  Before I crunched the numbers with my predictions, I thought the pitching staff wouldn't improve overall.  But after I crunched, the numbers, I see clear overall improvement.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 11:00 PM EST up reply actions  

The bullpen will be improved slightly
We also added Yabuta, which means that any decline we see from Gobble or Soria will be pretty substantially mitigated.  If pitching stays about the same, then I think that would mean the starting rotation declines slightly.  While I think that Meche and Bannister might tread water this year, I think our back end of the rotation situation has improved immensely from 2007, given that we have about half a dozen pitchers vying for two spots.

I agree with your prediction about the offense.  The repressed optimist in me might say 70ish runs better.

by DarthYoshi on Feb 13, 2008 10:15 PM EST up reply actions  

That translates to
...79 wins.
I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 13, 2008 10:42 PM EST up reply actions  

I Have No Problem
With that approach. Opinions don't have to be absolute. We are dealing with perhaps the most difficult to fathom sport there is this side of Saskatoon City League Curling. My money is on the Beavers.
I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Feb 13, 2008 11:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Don't really care about actual predictions
Making a bunch of "actual predictions" is not really my thing.  Picking one number and then arguing that number is "right" and someone else's number is "wrong" even though both fall within realistic projections is rather tedious and pointless (kind of like making up trade proposals).  I am more interested in discussing the reasons why a particular player may improve his performance (or why it may not happen).  I prefer to focus on a player's skills and how they relate to past and future performance, rather than the other way around.  I actually value scouting as much as stats, but because good statistical information is readily available but good scouting information is harder to find, I am sure I discuss stats more frequently.

As for going out on a limb, this is not sports talk radio.  I do not see the point in arguing something that I really do not believe just to stir things up and debate for the hell of it.  In any event, I have certainly been in the minority on many offseason issues, especially on everything Guillen (his poor defense, his underrated offense, his contract), Bannister, and DeJesus.  

On how the team will perform overall, I have not run any numbers (and I usually don't -- again, not my thing), but just by eyeballing the roster, I am probably pretty close to Will.  I think the offense improves primarily due to the Guillen, improvement from Gordon and Butler, and a rebound from DeJesus, but with out machines currently occupying three lineup spots (Pena, Buck/Olivo, and Shealy/Gload), the improvement is more in the range of 35-45 runs.  If Hillman minimizes those players' plate appearances, the number should go up.

I also think the defense will be good, but a step down from last year with Guillen playing everyday (he really needs to DH when Greinke starts), Grudz aging, Butler likely playing more 1B, and Pena likely losing playing time to Callaspo (or a SS to be acquired).  

While the relatively worse defense should negatively affect the pitchers' performances, whether the staff ultimately improves or not frankly depends on how Hillman picks and uses the staff.  In comparison to his 2007 numbers, Greinke is hurt by swapping out the relief innings for starter innings (his strikeout rate should go down and his HR rate should go up, as he loses 2-3 MPH off his fastball as a starter).  And considering his young age and the reduced number of innings the last two years (120 IP and 112 IP), Hillman might limit him to 160-180 IP (183 IP is his career high).  But I think his natural development makes him improve overall, even though his FIP might slide into the higher 3.00s.  I think Meche's walk rate should slip by 0.5 and his problem of throwing too many pitches did not go away (4.0 P/PA), but he keeps the strikeouts and groundballs and still posts a FIP in the low 4.00s.  Bannister and his extremely low BABIP regress to a FIP near 4.50, and Tomko pitches somewhere around 4.75-5.00.  Of the fifth starter candidates, I think Bale or Nunez could stay under 5.00 until Hochevar is ready, but the rest are strictly replacement level and no real improvement over last year.  As for the bullpen, Greinke and Riske to Mahay and Yabuta is a downgrade (although Yabuta is a question mark), but Tsao could make a large impact if healthy, so it should be strong even if not quite as good as last year.  Overall, I would expect a marginal improvement of 5-10 runs, but if de la Rosa, Davies, and the other replacement level starters get 30+ starts, the runs allowed will go up.  

So if you need a number to play with, I'll go with 77-79 wins.

by Gopherballs on Feb 14, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Going out on a limb
If you don't want to make predictions or go out on a limb, that's fine.  There's nothing wrong with deconstruction.  But it is is nice to create something as well as deconstruct.

As for going out on a limb, this is not sports talk radio.  I do not see the point in arguing something that I really do not believe just to stir things up and debate for the hell of it.

What does making predictions have to do with "arguing something that I really do not believe"?  As well as critiquing the comments/observations/predictions of others, you could also provide affirmative statements of belief/opinion/predictions of your own and then defend them or not.  No one is saying that you should argue something that you reall do not believe.  I don't think anyone does that.  Certainly not here.

So if you need a number to play with, I'll go with 77-79 wins.

So basically a minimal overall improvement. I disagree.  We'll see what happens.  See, isn't it nice to actually go out on a limb and state a concrete prediction?

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 14, 2008 4:26 PM EST up reply actions  

In what alternative baseball universe
is adding 8 to 10 wins considered only "minimal improvement overall"?

If you are really interested, you can go back and read my comments on my expectations for Greinke, Meche, Bannister, Tomko, Guillen, Teahen, TPJ, etc.

As for being critical, if I read something with which I generally agree (like your comments the other day on ranking the order of what is more important to a pitcher), I tend not to add "ditto" comments, as they really do not add anything to the conversation.

And, no, predictions for the sake of predictions are still a waste of time.

by Gopherballs on Feb 14, 2008 5:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Win prediction baseline
In what alternative baseball universe
is adding 8 to 10 wins considered only "minimal improvement overall"?

The baseline for any win total prediction should be the prior year's Pythagorean win total, which was 74.  So, 77 to 79 wins would be 3-5.  Yes, that is minimal.  Quite frankly, since you were talking about how many more runs the royals would score and how many fewer runs the Royals would allow, I assumed you were looking at they're Pythagorean win expectancy.  I think one should be.

As for being critical, if I read something with which I generally agree (like your comments the other day on ranking the order of what is more important to a pitcher), I tend not to add "ditto" comments, as they really do not add anything to the conversation.

I have no problem with being critical.  I am frequently critical.  And, like you, I comment more where I have disagreement than where I agree.  But what I said above was that it is nice to put something out there in the way of one's own opinions about how good or bad a player is and how well he'll do (going out on a limb) as opposed to merely intellectual deconstruction.  I'm all for the latter, but I think one should supply the former as well.

And, no, predictions for the sake of predictions are still a waste of time.

Predictions for predictions sake?  I'm saying that if you can criticize the opinions, analysis and predictions of others, you should at least provide some of your own.  Go out on a limb, put your ass on the line and then by season's end you'll either be right or wrong for all to see.  I think it is good to add accountability to rhetoric.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 14, 2008 5:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Therein lies your mistake
Simply using last year's Pythagorean winning percentage as the baseline for the next year is a mistake because it incorrectly assumes that last year's pythag was based on the players' actual performance and ignores the role of luck (both good and bad).  The better way is to start with player projections for the upcoming season, figure out runs scored and runs allowed based on those projections, and then run the pythag formula.

For runs scored, my eyeball estimate came up with 740 (assuming full season from Pena) and 750 (assuming half season).  For runs allowed, I got 770.  That lead to pythags of 77 and 79 wins.  For writing up the post, I compared them to last year's RS and RA, which is what Will had done above.  

As for supporting my opinions, again, you can go back and read my comments explaining why I think Bannister should regress a lot (but should not fall off a cliff), Meche should regress a little, Greinke should improve even if his ERA doesn't, Guillen should come close to repeating his 2007 line, Teahen should improve modestly, and TPJ should post the same line that he has the last five years.

I really do not care if that means I went out on a limb or not.

by Gopherballs on Feb 14, 2008 6:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Hillman simply CANNOT fall in love with the
out-machines we have

neither can dayton

I wanna know what love is, I want you to show me

by LeoBloom on Feb 14, 2008 6:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Not a mistake at all
Simply using last year's Pythagorean winning percentage as the baseline for the next year is a mistake because it incorrectly assumes that last year's pythag was based on the players' actual performance and ignores the role of luck (both good and bad).

Last year's Pythagorean winning percentage is, by definition based strictly on performance.  It is calculated using only runs scored and runs allowed.  The team's actual winning percentage is determined by performance and luck.

The better way is to start with player projections for the upcoming season, figure out runs scored and runs allowed based on those projections, and then run the pythag formula.

That is precisely what I did.  I made predictions for each of the Royals players with allowance made for the fact that players outside of the top 30 will get some playing time.  Then I calculated how these individual predictions affect overall hitting and pitching stats for the team.  I used this to estimate the RS and RA for the 2008 team, which led to my prediction of 765 RS and 755 RA which means 82 wins.

I really do not care if that means I went out on a limb or not.

It's a lot easier to be vague than specific.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 14, 2008 6:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Pythag record
That lead to pythags of 77 and 79 wins.

Which is, as I stated above, a minimal improvement over last year's pythagorean recrod.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 14, 2008 6:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Actually,
last year's pythag is also affected by "luck". If a hitters produces a career high OPS as a result of an unsustainable BABIP of 400, this is reflected in the pythag record.

Simply using last year's pythag as the basis for projections is considered lazy analysis by most statheads.

visiting A's and Mets fan

by rfloh @ Royals Review on Feb 15, 2008 7:18 AM EST up reply actions  

Please
Projecting each individual player and using that to come up with team runs scored and runs allowed and using that to come up with a Pythagorean expected win total is not lazy.  That's the best way to develop a win total prediction and that is the way most statheads would do it.

But, if you are comparing this year's Pythagorean expected win total to last year, you should be comparing it to last year's Pythagorean win total, not the actual team record.  One should compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.  Of course individual performances include luck.  But the actual record includes both that kind of luck, and the luck that causes a differences in RS/RA and a team's actual record.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 15, 2008 2:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Please read my post properly
I said using just last year's pythag is lazy.

I did not say individually projecting players is lazy.

"But, if you are comparing this year's Pythagorean expected win total to last year, you should be comparing it to last year's Pythagorean win total, not the actual team record.  One should compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.  Of course individual performances include luck. But the actual record includes both that kind of luck, and the luck that causes a differences in RS/RA and a team's actual record"

That's why you just forget last year's pythag. Once you have done the projection based on individual players, there is no need to look at last year's pythag.

visiting A's and Mets fan

by rfloh @ Royals Review on Feb 15, 2008 11:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Comparing
That's why you just forget last year's pythag. Once you have done the projection based on individual players, there is no need to look at last year's pythag.

In creating a projection/prediction for the 2008 team, you do not need to take into account the 2007 Pythagorean record.  But, if one wants to see if we are expect the team overall to improve or not, or how much they have improved, then one must compare the projected 2008 Pythagorean record to the 2007 Pythagorean record.

For instance, if one is predicting a Pythagorean record of 77 wins, that might seem like a significant increase over last year's 69 wins.  But, in reality it is a minimal 3 win improvement over last year's Pythag of 74 wins.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 16, 2008 12:15 AM EST up reply actions  

Okay, so the Iowa winter has finally gotten
to you, Will.  I caught the entire thing but couldn't respond right then and there.  I thought you did a good job albeit a little on the negative side.  You rallied with your 80-82 prediction and you did bury a positive comment in there with the mention of offensive improvement.  Other than that your voice and speech patterns sounded a little forced.  

All in all, you did a great job Chief.  Keep up the good work.  I have email ready to seen to you tommorrow about my time at Spring Training last season.

by grudz69 on Feb 14, 2008 12:47 AM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.

Managers

Cimg0036_small Freneau

Editors

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

Authors

Royalsretro_small RoyalsRetro

Headshot_small Old Man Duggan