wrveres wrote:Total up a couple of the teams 'runs'. Add up all the players on Baltimore, for example. If it shows more than 900 total runs, you got bad projections. No team should ever total more than a 1000 obvioussly. And I'd gamble you should not "project" any team to score more than 900 runs. Certainly not Baltimore. But go ahead and do it, any team, it doesn't matter. If the total is over 900 . you got bad projections.
Good point! Actually, it makes sense to do this for the entire league, since it can catch problems with your projections not being "normed" to the real world. In the Baseball Prospectus tests you see that for one system if you calculated the average ERA for its entire sample of pitchers, the overall league ERA was projected to be something like 3.50. It's been decades since the overall league ERA as that low, so the projection was normed inappropriately, and all the ERAs should probably be inflated by some constant factor.
That raises another point which I think someone hinted at...if you are using projections, it's important to understand the system. Some projections do not even try to estimate playing time or injury liklihood. That can really give you goofy results, even if the system is good for projecting rate stats like Average or Slugging.
You know, Agnes, every projection I've ever seen could barely beat this Marcel, and there lies the problem. The basic assumptions are incorrect, whether you choose to believe it or not.
I'll tell you another thing, there's nothing worse you can do for your projections than trying to balance out the runs scored and pitchers runs given up. So much of a team's ERA comes from scrubs called up from the minors or picked up off the streets due to injury, ineffectiveness, or any other thing that causes lost time. The point is, there's no way you can predict these things except with abnormal situations (like Pedro's yearly jaunt on the DL). KC used 29 different pitchers last season. 29! And most of those extra pitchers caused the team's ERA to over 5.00.
Since there's no way to predict totally who's going to be called up or picked up, you are forced to put about a 5.00 ERA in the original 12 or 13 guys you are pretty sure will start the season in the majors. So you have to give some guys who you'll think will be pretty good next season and give them a 4.50 ERA such as Anderson and May for KC, but what you are doing is tacking on the other 16 or 17 pitchers' miserable stats who were called up onto the Anderson, Mays, and any other KC pitcher who may start the season on the staff.
What you are doing is trying to fit the facts into an incorrect assumption. I have no clue what the numbers are, but I'll bet close to half the pitchers used this season will be called up from the minors at some point after the season starts. Do you think you can name them all? Half? And what do you think they're combined ERA will be? I'll bet you it is 5.00 minimum -- well enough to affect any team's ERA I got to say.
Baseball Notebook does this. I don't know if anyone here has used it before, but they pride themselves in the offense and pitching numbers being equal, and it leads to some ridiculous projections. With my projections even, I was looking at the Red Sox and realized that for me to fit their team under a realistic ERA for them of 3.85 I'd need to raise the Schilling and Pedro's ERA over a half a point, and this was after already raising Lowe's, Kim's, and Wakefield. This is ridiculous. You are just penalizing pitchers for the sins of pitchers who will be called up at some point in the minors.
In short, I can understand how someone reached that 3.50 for a league, although mine doesn't come anywhere close to that. They'll probably have every team scoring 5 runs a game too. Unless you know every player who'll get hurt or lose any time at all and who exactly will be called up to replace them, it is suicide to use this balanced approach. I do think 3.50 ERA to 5 runs a game scored is a bit of a stretch, though. Still, don't be so harsh on them, or at least for that.