GotowarMissAgnes wrote:05worldserieschamps wrote:1. Acording to me, the last 3 years are the only real years of importance when evaluating a player for the upcoming season, yes. Which makes perfect sense. 4 Years ago, a player is, well, 4 years younger(obviously). A 35 year olds stats at the end of his prime shouldnt be considered. They just arent a good indicator. Likewise, a player near his prime's stats shouldnt matter when he was 25-26. And once again, when a player is 27, his stats from his rookie season,when he was barely in the Majors shouldnt be held against him. In some cases, a player's stats are better 4 years ago in some cases, visa versa. Im not saying a player cant have an out of the blue year and relive(whether be good or bad) what happened 4 years ago. But a player shouldnt have his projections based on that.
So, tell us. Why should we buy your view, when it is directly contradictory to every one of the good projection systems. ZiPS uses a minimum of 4 years. PECOTA uses not only an entire player's career, but the entire career information on closely comparable players, and it's the best around. Every good projection system uses at least 4 years, and often more than that.
But, you want we should use your method.05worldserieschamps wrote:
2. No, Big H0rt. Im not using Paul Konerko's 3 best years. GotoWarMrsAgnes argued that Paul Konerko was achieving about what he should have in 2007, as it was right in line with career averages. Then I pointed out than from 2004-2006, his OPS was .894, .909 and .932. I simply pointed out that anyone that actually thought Konerko was going to go back to his career average of .848 was an idiot.(pre-2007) But of course, he had a terrible year and went .841. That happens. My entire point though, was that Konerko(along with others) had freak down years/injuries that caused the White Sox to lose as many games as they did. Im not saying they were good or would have won 90+ games, just that they should not have won 72 games.
While no one predicted Konerko to fall that far, many predicted a fall to about .875 or so, including James and PECOTA. And, the good projection system do not say silly things like "oh, that was a freak down year." and do silly things like throw that important piece of evidence out the window. Instead, they update their model to reflect the fact that Paul Konerko has given evidence that he can have that bad of a year. And that's why pretty much no one is predicting Konerko to rebound the way you are. All of the systems have adjusted their expectations downward, and have Konerko in the .860-.870 range for OPS--a rebound, but a much milder one than you seem to think will happen.05worldserieschamps wrote:
3. Yes, in 2002 his average was good. But his OPS was one of his lowest. And, againm you're right that his RBI were trending up until 2003, but again, like 2007, HE HAD A DOWN YEAR. No one projected him to have that kind of year in 2003 just like no one projected him to have that kind of year in 2007. I'd love to see any projections that did. Thats my whole point! They were down years, and guess what? In 2004, he bounced back! Which is exactly what I expect him to do this time. Thats enough about Konerko. I think anyone in their right mind sees that Konerko just had an awful year and not to expect it again.
No one projected him to fall as far as he did in 2007, but almost every system projected a decline. ZiPS projected a 30 point decline in OPS for Konerko in 2007, and James and PECOTA projected a 50-60 point decline in OPS for Konerko in 2007.
So, once again, you're wrong. Despite the fact Konerko's OPS had risen 3 years in a row. EVERY good projection system projected a fairly large decline in his OPS in 2007. And every one of them projects only a small rebound this year (ZiPS, in fact, predicts another decline). Maybe, just maybe, these systems and the guys that made them know a little bit more about this than you do.
1. I have already told you why you should buy my view. Players change. I have no problem with using a players entire career when comparing it with another player's(a similar players) career. But can you honestly tell me that when evaluating a player(for fantasy or not) that the first thing you look at is his rookie season? Or his sophomore year? Those years don't really have any relevance what so ever. I love stats, but sometimes you have to look at a player and not the numbers. Maybe there are two players with similar stats, but you can't always compare them because maybe one gets in the cage and works his butt off and improves over the next season. There are other things to consider besides just stats. Simple as that.
So you can look at a players career, whatever. But there is no reason to cite stats that happened 5+ years ago, and you have yet to give me any good reasons for doing so.
2. Can you tell me why you thought there would be that much of a drop. Now, Im not saying that I expected his OPS to be well over .900 like it had been(though I had no reason not to expect that), but I still expected it to be around .900, give or take a few. And a 30 point decline would put him right there. Even a 50 point decline would put him about .280 or so. I have no problem with those projections, but a near 100 point decline is ridiculous, and there was no reason to expect it. Therefore, since even the projection systems didnt touch that, PAUL KONERKO HAD A DOWN YEAR. It is literally a fact. Again, Im not arguing that he shouldnt of declined at all(again, though I had no reason to believe he wouldnt), just that that decline was unexpected, which was the original argument.
Im also not expecting a huge rebound. Just a modest one that gets him back to that .875+ Paul Konerko that gives us 35 HR and 100 RBI. Thats it.
3. I have no doubt that those projections systems are smarter than me. And not once have I said they were or would be incorrect. My only point during this argument was Paul Konerko(along with many other White Sox) had unexpected down years. Even if Konerko would have gone down to .880-.900 like the projection systems said, that would not have been bad. But the entire argument is this: the Sox had some unexpected things happen(down years, injuries, etc.) that forced them to be as bad as they were. And even a modest rebound from these things makes them instantly better. Add these off season additions in: Dotel, Swisher, Linebrink, Cabrera, it makes them a lot better.