Ow, My Eyes

by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 20, 2009 4:07 PM EST

The Pirates' 2009 ZiPS projections are out. Keep the children away from the computer.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I apologize in advance!

--
Dan Szymborski
dan@baseballprimer.com

by D.Szymborski on Jan 20, 2009 4:09 PM EST reply actions

It’s not your fault. :)

by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 20, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions

I know, but I hate having to deliver bad news, especially since you guys have been down for so long. And since I’m doing the Rangers now, I get to reveal another dreary set very soon!

--
Dan Szymborski
dan@baseballprimer.com

by D.Szymborski on Jan 20, 2009 11:04 PM EST up reply actions

What ever happened to regress to the mean? I think zips predicts this team to regress from the mean.

Ladies & Gentlemen, your 2009 Buccos: Regress from the mean!

Thanks for making these projections public, Dan. I really like the new addition where you breakdown a player’s probability of reaching certain statistical marks.

by Chad Bahamas on Jan 21, 2009 8:44 AM EST up reply actions

Hey

At least we’re going to be a Modest Mouse album.

charity standing orders

by BadMaafala on Jan 21, 2009 9:44 AM EST up reply actions

2009

This looks like a 59-103 team. But — as the cliche goes, updated for the 21st century — they don’t play the game on a screen. We might be 10 wins better.

by bolton on Jan 20, 2009 4:46 PM EST reply actions

2009

I dont think we’ll reach 59. I think we’re in ’62 Mets territory.

by Orrington on Jan 20, 2009 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

ZiPS is even lower on the Pirates than I thought it would be. I don’t think Andy LaRoche will hit THAT badly again. I keep on trying to talk myself into the pitching staff being better than those projections, but I just can’t. Maybe Maholm can beat that projection, but it’s quite possible that least year will turn out to be the best of his career.

by wickethewok on Jan 20, 2009 5:43 PM EST reply actions

To nit pick

How will Moskos throw 100 innings?

And Tabata at 445 or so at bats seems like a lot, but that would be nice (not if he puts up that line, though)

by DITO on Jan 20, 2009 6:08 PM EST reply actions

Read the disclaimer at the bottom.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 20, 2009 6:11 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks, Charlie

If my comment was just ignored because it was stupid, I don’t know how long it would have been until I figured that out.

by DITO on Jan 21, 2009 6:46 PM EST up reply actions

I don't get it...

Doesn’t this guy know that we have a new pitching coach who is going to lead us to the Promise Land? At least, that’s what the PPG said.

by Illinois Pirate Fan on Jan 20, 2009 6:40 PM EST reply actions

zips

i dont agree with this report….il agree that i think this franchise has taken a step back on there way to .500 but we arent horrible i think our pitching isnt going to be as horrible as everyone says and everyone is dissing moss and morgan and what not..i understand there not all stars but youre dissing them based on what ..neither of them hada full season to start…not better than bay or nady was but hey were see what happens

by J King on Jan 20, 2009 7:42 PM EST reply actions

Not good.

I don’t like nor do I agree. But the numbers are the numbers. But numbers especially detailed projections have more elements involved than just the numbers. But numbers are a great starting point.

Though I find it very hard to believe that we will have only 2 pitchers under the NL ERA Avg. of 4.38

A really BIG Thanks goes to Dan and anyone who helped putting this all together

by BSpar on Jan 21, 2009 9:34 AM EST reply actions

Just Curious

I don’t know anything about ZIPS or sabermetrics, but what did ZIPS project for Tampa Bay in 2008?

by thegunner on Jan 21, 2009 11:19 AM EST reply actions

2008 ZiPS for Tampa:

Link. They were released before the big trade with the Twins, which was covered here.

Undershot a little bit, but much more accurate than the conventional wisdom on the team at the time, and ZiPS caught a large part of the bounce from their 2007 performance.

by Vlad on Jan 21, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions

Thanks, Vlad ...

but I’m just not a big believer in either computer projections or sabermetrics. I believe that there are just way too many variables that can influence outcomes.

I think that one of the most telling revelations of ZIPS is the first paragraph of the 10/2007 projection on Tampa Bay where ZIPS seems to indicate that the San Diego Padres were in for a good 2008 season.

Like I say, there are just way too many variables that can influence outcomes.

by thegunner on Jan 21, 2009 1:25 PM EST reply actions

If they were perfect...

…then we wouldn’t need to bother with playing the games. We could just read the lists in April and see who won.

Projections aren’t perfect, but used properly, they’re a very valuable tool. If you’d prefer to just go with blind guesswork, you’ll be wrong a lot more often than you’re right.

by Vlad on Jan 21, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions

Why aren't you a big believer in sabermetrics?

I take the projections with a grain of salt, esp. for younger players, but why aren’t you a big believer in sabermetrics?

by azibuck on Jan 21, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions

Too Many Variables

Injuries, personal problems, inability to advance from AA or AAA to the “bigs”.

Computer projections aren’t doing most major companies much good today when those companies couldn’t see a recession/depression on the horizon.

Companies once had five year plans, but those went out the window a long time ago.

by thegunner on Jan 21, 2009 5:12 PM EST up reply actions

So, you're just talking about projections, not sabermetrics?

Are you a believer in sabermetrics outside of projections? If not, why not?

by azibuck on Jan 22, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions

There Is Some Value ...

to statistical analysis (call it “sabermetrics” if you like) other than the old, traditional Elias stats sanctioned by the commissioner’s office.

However, hell may freeze over before the commissioner’s office ever adopts any of them.

I do NOT place great value on sabermetrics. I look at the player first, what kind of tools he has (the five traditional “measureable” skill areas), what kind of work ethic and “innards” he has, and how he handles himself on the field in game situations.

I then look at his stats to see if something “interesting” jumps out at me.

I believe that the “hero” of Moneyball was Paul DePodesta, not Billy Beane. And I don’t view DePodesta as a sabermetric stathead. I view him as someone who saw a few players that were undervalued who had some fairly specific skills. I believe that DePodesta convinced Beane that there were certain qualities to look for that had long been overlooked.

by thegunner on Jan 22, 2009 11:35 AM EST reply actions