GotowarMissAgnes wrote:noseeum wrote:
I disagree. The method to the calculation for playing time is arbitrary. Take Liriano. We know why he missed time the last two years. Is 92 innings a reasonable projection for this year? I don't think so, based on what we know of Tommy John surgery. Other projection systems take into account the injury proneness of players as well, but they also look at the individual circumstances.
Marcel's method falls flat for players that have significant injuries that keep them out for a long time.
And the problem is that those looks at individual circumstances may be just as biased as any other approach.
The advantage of Marcel is that you KNOW there is essentially no bias from the guy doing the projections.
And, I would argue that 92 IP is certainly a reasonable guess. 10-20 percent of guys returning from TJ surgey still flame out completely, so we have to factor that into the estimate. And Liriano has had other significant injuries, missing time in both 2002 and 2003. And, you never know what other factors might pop up.
Last year, for example, James predicted Liriano would pitch 152 IP. Marcel predicted 57 IP. He pitched 76 IP in MLB (200 overall), because the Twins kept him in AAA longer than expected.
The problem with the projected playing time is that Marcel isn't making a projection using TJ recovery data or anything else useful. It's projected playing based on his 3 previous seasons of data. If Liriano re-injured his elbow in the last game of the season and was going to miss 2009 Marcel's non-biased equation would still project 92IP. I think these projections are somewhat good for rate stats, but fall woefully short when projecting playing time. They are nearly worthless in that respect imo.
I think the bigger question in your original post is how do the rate stats compare between the different systems.