2007 mlb season win totals

[miami32]

What are you 12? I call you out, and you act like an idiot now? Let it go man.

[LotsOfOuts69]

[ QUOTE ]
here's a challenge for you: name the mets who fell significantly short of their pecota projections last year.

my list looks like this:

- pedro
- floyd
- zambrano

all of whom were injured.

now the list of guys who beat theirs:

- beltran
- reyes
- chavez
- valentin
- lo duca
- glavine
- wagner
- feliciano
- oliver
- heilman
- maine
- o. hernandez
- bradford
- sanchez
- mota

[/ QUOTE ]

OK here goes....

Beltran:
OK so he hit 10 more HR than before, and had about 10 more RBI than ever before, but his SB was down and if you were projecting his 2006 season off of his 2005 numbers than that obviously was a big mistake.

Reyes:
LOL, dude, its his second full year, hes obviously going to be a great player and should show nothing BUT improvement. Why would he post his rookie numbers or worse?

Chavez: Thats fine, he had a great year, but he was a backup outfielder who ended up playing alot, and he will be a backup again this year.

Valentin: No arguement there, but he didnt exactly make the Mets offense go, he bats 8th. They just want him to stabalize the 2B defense.

Lo Duca: Another good one, he had a great season, but he has always been an all-star so where's the big surprise?

Glavine: His ERA was higher than the past 2 years, and his WHIP was almost identical to the past two years. Where is the amazing improvement?? Just cause the Mets scored some runs for him finally? and he went from 12-12 to 15-7? That had nothing to do with his improvement.

Wagner: LOL at this joke, he had a good end of the season, but blew 7 games for us single handedly. His ERA and WHIP and Blown saves were remarkably WORSE than 2005.

Hernandez and Maine: Well Maine was essentially a rookie and did nothing spectacular, I dont see where either of these guys dramatically improved from last season.

Mets Bullpen: Had a great year, maybe you say it wont be as good next year, it could happen.

Point being that for them to drop 10 games, you need much stronger arguements. This was by far the best team in the NL, no question, and for them to be just as likely to be 86-76 or worse while out of the playoffs as they are to be better than that is a JOKE.

[LotsOfOuts69]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, whats gonna cause the Mets to drop TEN games in the standings?

Dont even say their pitching, they had 14 starters last year, threw out Lima for 5 guaranteed losses, and lost 12 of 14 after the division clinched.

And they still won 97 games.

10 game drop is waayy to much.

[/ QUOTE ]

they have all 6 inning pitchers so they'll depend on the bullpen a lot, but the bullpen dropped off (mota out 50 games, bradford and oliver are gone), pedros gone until august

also they have a tougher division so no easy division wins this year, phillies and braves made a lot of moves in the off season, marlins who knows, nationals will probably suck

so i think 10 game drop off is about right

[/ QUOTE ]

86-76 or worse???

Thats pathetic, their entire staff dropped dead last year. You guys name all these pitchers and stuff, but if they didnt have any injuries last year, or had anyone decent to make a run at the division to keep them interested, they would've won 105+ games.

[TheRover]

i don't think you know what pecota projections are.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't think you know what pecota projections are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't tap the tank.

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't think you know what pecota projections are.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree, and i also think he has no idea how unlikely it is for 15 guys to all outperform their projections in the same year. lotsofouts, you ever hit a parlay of every game on an nfl sunday?

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't think you know what pecota projections are

[/ QUOTE ]

Highly unreliable? He just named 15 examples where they were wrong last season. I don't play the season wins/losses big picture myself. I stick to individual games for the most part. But after watching this pecota stuff you might as well hit the craps table instead.

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't think you know what pecota projections are

[/ QUOTE ]

Highly unreliable? He just named 15 examples where they were wrong last season. I don't play the season wins/losses big picture myself. I stick to individual games for the most part. But after watching this pecota stuff you might as well hit the craps table instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you're going to call them highly unreliable, perhaps you're challenging nate to a forecasting contest this year? i'm pretty sure kelly would tell me to put my whole bankroll on him.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps you're challenging nate to a forecasting contest this year?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a forecaster. Handicapping contest? Bring it! Pecota is probably as good a forecaster as there is but as I stated still highly unreliable. You guys love pecota but it "usually" wrong. You talk about third order wins but the third order leaders only occassionally lead their divisions. This stuff is interesting but it isn't a be all or end all. Putting too much faith is flawed systems can be detrimental to your results. I like BP and read it religously but when I make a wager it isn't based on pecota projections or the third order win stats which are ridden with holes.

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a forecaster. Handicapping contest? Bring it! Pecota is probably as good a forecaster as there is but as I stated still highly unreliable. You guys love pecota but it "usually" wrong. You talk about third order wins but the third order leaders only occassionally lead their divisions. This stuff is interesting but it isn't a be all or end all. Putting too much faith is flawed systems can be detrimental to your results. I like BP and read it religously but when I make a wager it isn't based on pecota projections or the third order win stats which are ridden with holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree that the system is not perfect. no projection system ever will be. i also agree that using pecota is no substitute for handicapping, and that one should not use pecota as the sole basis for his wagering. this is fairly obvious.

i disagree that pecota is usually wrong or highly unreliable, as it has the highest correlation coefficient of any major projection system. if on one hand you have the world's most accurate forecasts, and the other an individual who thinks he is smarter than everyone else (i am not directing this at you, it's just a generalization), who is likely to be more accurate? handicapping is basically an attempt to accurately predict uncertain future outcomes. if you can really do that better than pecota, congratulations, you're going to be rich.

i strongly disagree that you can do a better job projecting a team's season wins by looking at the team and saying "well, this team was really good and they brought the same guys back, so they'll win 95 again" than by applying pecota judiciously. this is just common sense. teams fluctuate heavily with the same personnel. look at the 2002-03 angels. pecota foresaw their decline; most individuals did not. the mets and tigers will probably both win fewer games this year than last.

if you call a system unreliable because it was off on so many mets' forecasts, you had better tell me how you knew that their whole team was going to break out in the same year, what you saw that the computer didn't. hindsight has no value in this discussion. vegas didn't predict 97 wins. no sane analyst outside of queens predicted 97 wins. did you?

do you really have a better way of determining which teams overachieved/underachieved last year and will regress? if so, please share, because it would be an invaluable tool.