I don't know why you guys are acting like the Mets are some laughing stock that has zero percent chance at making the playoffs.
They're 3 years removed from 97 wins.
Song of Solomon 5:4
I don't know why you guys are acting like the Mets are some laughing stock that has zero percent chance at making the playoffs.
They're 3 years removed from 97 wins.
]
o
Compare that team to the team going into 2010:Originally Posted by metsguy234
C - Paul LoDuca was easily better than Omir Santos/Henry Blanco/whoever
1B - Carlos Delgado was easily better than Daniel Murphy
2B - Jose Valentin in 2006 and Luis Castillo is probably a wash
3B/SS - same
LF - Bay's better.
CF - Beltran's the same but will miss time, who knows how much, and GMJ is terrible and Pagan isn't Beltran.
RF - Nady/Chavez > Francoeur
I'd say the rotation is better now than it was then, but it could easily be worse. The bullpen then was way better.
In other words, what the Mets did in 2006 has little bearing on what they will do in 2010 considering it's a much different team.
Song of Solomon 5:4
Well they're one year removed from 88 wins and missing the playoffs by 1 game.
]
o
Again, very different team.
C - Schneider, as hard as it may be to believe, was better in 2008 that whatever group of catchers the Mets throw it there this year is likely to be.
1B - Delgado > Murphy
2B - Castillo will be better than he was then.
3B/SS - same
LF - Bay's better
CF - Same comment as above
RF - Mets got a .283/.347/.423 line out of RF in 2008. Jeff Francoeur did that approximately in 2007, but overall is worse than that, and if not, he'll be about that, so, worse or push here.
Rotation is likely to be worse. Santana probably isn't going to put up a 166 ERA+. Pelfrey, Perez and Maine may all be able to approximate their slightly above-average performances, but maybe not. Bullpen is at best a push.
Song of Solomon 5:4
The Mets won 70 games last year when they lost Maine, Wright, Beltran, Delgado, Cora, Schneider, Santana, Putz, Perez, Church, Sheffield, Ramon Martinez, Fernando Martinez, Jon Niese, Fernando Nieve, and others for extended periods of time.
I think all of those guys combined could easily add 14 wins.
]
o
They're not likely to be as bad as they were in 2009 because it's unlikely that they're going to face such terrible luck with injuries again. However, even with your 14 win guess (which probably isn't very accurate considering some of those players won't be on the team in 2010, some didn't miss much time, and some are simply roleplayers), that would make them an 84 win team, which would be a team with an outside shot at contention.
Federal Anti-iGang Agent
I could see 84 wins.
Song of Solomon 5:4
Yeah. I never said they're the favorites to win the NL East. They aren't some terrible team though like some people are treating them as.
]
I Rustle Your Jimmies!
Calling the Mets a team of garbage players that will be lucky to lose less than 100 games this season would be the understatement of the year
Registered User
Mariners are one year removed from being awful
Does that mean they will only win 61?
o
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1495
I read some comments about the A's pitchers having ridiculous BABIP's, so the double-counting of defense is part of the reason they're projection is as good as it is. Needless to say, due to these errors, it's safe to ignore the projections until they're fixed. (The projections right now do look different than they were yesterday, though the A's are still in first. All the other things mentioned though apply - depth charts aren't done in depth yet, rosters still aren't set, etc.)Reading through the comments of yesterday’s announcement that the PECOTA projections have been released, it is evident that there is a lot of concern over several aspects of the data, ranging from the projected standings to individual quirks. We understand and appreciate that this reflects a lot of passion for what we do here at Baseball Prospectus. To be blunt: we messed up, and are working to fix the issues.
One issue involves the run environment: individual player projections do not match up with the run totals on the projected standings.
Another problem revolves around BABIP, as defense was being double-counted (double-counted).
These and other issues are being worked on and we hope to have an update provided by the end of the day, to unmess up. Please stay tuned for further updates.
For a lead role in a cage
Some stuff here about it too: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/inde...ings/#comments
o
Everyone should read this, particularly the person that titled this thread "PECOTA: A's will win the AL West."
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...nd-predictions
However, we need to make a distinction: projections are not predictions. Projections are information about what we think we currently know, while predictions are speculation about things that we probably cannot know.
This may sound like semantics, but there is an important difference here, and it's often lost in the way projections are discussed. Too often, projections are treated as predictions of the future. You'll see people say things like "CAIRO thinks the Blue Jays are going to only win 67 games this year," for instance.
But that's not really true. CAIRO thinks that the Blue Jays are on course to win 67 games, and if they don't do something about it between now and the end of the season, that is their likely destination. But, like a map, the entire point of a projection is to inform the the user so that he can then alter the course if he so desires.
o
BABBLE BABBLE BABBLE
Interesting, Miwlaukee 79-83. I would like to know why......
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Abraham Lincoln
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote