95 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

Rob Shields and Mike Weber are back once again! Topics tonight include the Orioles, and the NBA.

Guests:
7:20 Matt Kremnitzer, Camden Depot
7:40 Michael Pina, Sports on Earth

 

http://www.blogtalkr...t-with-rob-mike

[BSLChrisStoner]

Some discussion on the BP PECOTA thread from today.  Ricker with a shout out.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Good interview with Matt, enjoyed his thoughts.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Re: Machado... love his long-term offensive potential...

 

My anticipation is that we see his offense take a leap production wise with gains in both his on-base %, and slugging %. I look for his LD%, and ISO to increase, and for his K% to decrease.

[SportsGuy]

Good interview with Matt, enjoyed his thoughts.

Yep...can't disagree with much that he said.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Spurs just need to make the playoffs and be healthy when they start. As long as that happens, they have a shot. Agree with the idea that Leonard will need to elevate, and lead though.

 

Like the call on Memphis.

 

Really is crazy how loaded the West is.

[mweb08]

Some discussion on the BP PECOTA thread from today.  Ricker with a shout out.

 

Shout out or call out? 

[You Play to Win the Game]

You summed up what my issue is... you said PECOTA is useful for people to look at a glance who don't follow teams every day. Well, if a number of fans do that for the O's, and don't follow the team closely, how would they understand the individual components of our team that give many O's fans or analysts who DO follow the O's closely hope beyond what the computers say? That was really my whole point today. I probably went a bit overboard, that isn't uncommon... but that's really what I was trying to get at.

I use KenPom, and a bunch of other advanced stats in baseball, too. But I'm not a slave to them at all. For instance, look at my stance on Gonzaga. So I really don't see the irony. I wasn't slamming advanced stats at all, I was saying that when an advanced metric or model consistently gets it wrong, it's fair for me as an individual to notice that and choose not to look at it until there are improvements.

Speaking of which, is this the season where we should start to get more data with the Field F/X technology?

[mweb08]

You summed up what my issue is... you said PECOTA is useful for people to look at a glance who don't follow teams every day. Well, if a number of fans do that for the O's, and don't follow the team closely, how would they understand the individual components of our team that give many O's fans or analysts who DO follow the O's closely hope beyond what the computers say? That was really my whole point today. I probably went a bit overboard, that isn't uncommon... but that's really what I was trying to get at.

I use KenPom, and a bunch of other advanced stats in baseball, too. But I'm not a slave to them at all. For instance, look at my stance on Gonzaga. So I really don't see the irony. I wasn't slamming advanced stats at all, I was saying that when an advanced metric or model consistently gets it wrong, it's fair for me as an individual to notice that and choose not to look at it until there are improvements.

Speaking of which, is this the season where we should start to get more data with the Field F/X technology?

 

That's when it's especially useful, but it's useful regardless.

 

And someone could easily view your usage of KenPom just like you view people's usage of PECOTA and the like. The point being, people, by and large, really aren't the slaves to things like that as is sometimes thought. It's quite insulting to talk about people who use projections or advanced stats in whatever sport as if they are a slave to it, but that is an all too common approach by people who don't care for those stats/systems. 

[You Play to Win the Game]

I think my general tenor was a bit over board earlier in that PECOTA thread though, I can definitely own up to that. Sort of a throw the baby out with the bath water mindset, when really, it's about just acknowledging that the O's are an outlier for tangible reasons you can point to, and realizing that maybe it's not just the best tool for this particular team, but it is useful in most cases. Really, as Pedro said, I'm just annoyed at being told we suck continuously.

[You Play to Win the Game]

That's when it's especially useful, but it's useful regardless.
 
And someone could easily view your usage of KenPom just like you view people's usage of PECOTA and the like. The point being, people, by and large, really aren't the slaves to things like that as is sometimes thought. It's quite insulting to talk about people who use projections or advanced stats in whatever sport as if they are a slave to it, but that is an all too common approach by people who don't care for those stats/systems.

I wasn't doing that at all.

As for it being most useful - that's is my beef with PECOTA as it pertains to the O's... it's not useful at all for the fan who doesn't understand how the O's win games.

[mweb08]

I think my general tenor was a bit over board earlier in that PECOTA thread though, I can definitely own up to that. Sort of a throw the baby out with the bath water mindset, when really, it's about just acknowledging that the O's are an outlier for tangible reasons you can point to, and realizing that maybe it's not just the best tool for this particular team, but it is useful in most cases. Really, as Pedro said, I'm just annoyed at being told we suck continuously.

 

It's also possible that the O's have been an outlier for more random reasons. Maybe some of it has been tangible reasons, but a lot of it has been simple variance. 

 

As for the last line, well, as I said, most of us didn't expect nearly as good of results in 2014 and especially in 2012, and most of us admitted that there was some luck/variance on our side, again, especially in 2012. So our opinions have been quite pessimistic compared to the results too. I also think some of us tend to focus a lot more on the negative projection, predictions, and opinions than the positives ones.

[You Play to Win the Game]

It's also possible that the O's have been an outlier for more random reasons. Maybe some of it has been tangible reasons, but a lot of it has been simple variance. 
 
As for the last line, well, as I said, most of us didn't expect nearly as good of results in 2014 and especially in 2012, and most of us admitted that there was some luck/variance on our side, again, especially in 2012. So our opinions have been quite pessimistic compared to the results too. I also think some of us tend to focus a lot more on the negative projection, predictions, and opinions than the positives ones.

Well, yeah... we're Baltimore sports fans.

[mweb08]

I wasn't doing that at all.

As for it being most useful - that's is my beef with PECOTA as it pertains to the O's... it's not useful at all for the fan who doesn't understand how the O's win games.

 

I was probably too brash at times in this thread. But for every Schoenfeld there seems to be several who are just slaves to the computer. I'm tired of it.

 

Disagree with it not being useful at all. 

[You Play to Win the Game]

Yeah, well I wouldn't expect you of all people to ever come down on the side that an advanced metric or system has flaws, so I'm not going to keep going in circles about it. Bottom line is, I don't think it's random variance. I think that defensive value is not adequately captured, and roster management/bullpen management, etc also isn't properly captured, and those are some huge characteristics of the O's and I'm comfortable saying those things throw off stuff like PECOTA for the O's. I know "random variance" is a nice go to in order to maintain how "useful" PECOTA is for team projections, even for the O's, but I'm sticking with my take on this one. They have not been able to get the O's right for a few years now, and they won't be getting them right this year again. This will be my last post on the subject.

[You Play to Win the Game]

And it could be easy to construe that as me taking my bat and ball and going home, but really I just hit a walk off homer and the game is over.

[mweb08]

Yeah, well I wouldn't expect you of all people to ever come down on the side that an advanced metric or system has flaws, so I'm not going to keep going in circles about it. Bottom line is, I don't think it's random variance. I think that defensive value is not adequately captured, and roster management/bullpen management, etc also isn't properly captured, and those are some huge characteristics of the O's and I'm comfortable saying those things throw off stuff like PECOTA for the O's. I know "random variance" is a nice go to in order to maintain how "useful" PECOTA is for team projections, even for the O's, but I'm sticking with my take on this one. They have not been able to get the O's right for a few years now, and they won't be getting them right this year again. This will be my last post on the subject.

 

Ridiculous part in bold man. This is the type of posts that I'm referring to. I guess you just couldn't admit that you did say exactly what you said you didn't say, so you just doubled down on it. Where did I say it was perfect? I admit flaws in advanced metrics plenty. Do I even make predictions simply based on these projections? I was probably more optimistic than most about the O's going into last year. But I guess I'm just another slave to the computer and maybe I don't even enjoy sports too to go along with what Pedro and Nickle were saying in the other thread. That crap has gotten old. 

[Pedro Cerrano]

Really though doesn't it get old saying: "Computer stat says this, so this is what I think"?

[mweb08]

Really though doesn't it get old saying: "Computer stat says this, so this is what I think"?

 

Maybe if that's actually what I did. I don't even think that's what you think I do, yet you post that anyway.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Wasn't really directed at you, just a general rhetorical question for some people that act that way.