THT 2007 Season Preview

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 5, 2007 9:51 PM PST in Seattle Mariners News, Regular

Player projections, fantasy baseball advice, rookie standouts, individual summaries for every team - in the words of Dr. Cox, "it's the most fun (you) can have without being forced to cuddle afterwards." And I have it on good authority that, while he has little vested interest in how well the book sells since he doesn't get a cut of the profits, the author of the Mariners chapter is incredibly good-looking and refers to his sculpted arms as the Jaws Of Life, so that's another thing to consider. People always ask me "where does he find the time to write about baseball in between saving all those little children from the filthy, sinful clutches of Player A?" and I say "I don't know, you'd have to ask him" as I look skyward and sigh a sigh of quiet reverence.

From what I've been able to read tonight, the book really is terrific. Even if you're getting sick of seeing projections all over the place, the writing is worth it by itself, and you don't even have to sit on your ass and wait for the book to be delivered if you don't want to - for $9 you can purchase an instant .pdf download instead of a printed version (which the THT crew would actually prefer). This is the age of immediate gratification, after all.

Do it. Do it, if for no other reason than because I told you so. You won't be sorry, and if you are, well that's pretty weird, you freak.

Tweet Comment 42 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

How big is the .pdf file anyways?

Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.

by Goose on Mar 5, 2007 10:28 PM PST reply actions

4.33 MB

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 5, 2007 10:29 PM PST up reply actions

Solid work Jeff.

Just read the Mariner write up, and as usual it's informative, hilarious, and you've got just the right amount of rude and condescending mixed in there. Definitely worth my $9.

We'll Always Have the Kingdome:

by BrettJMiller on Mar 5, 2007 10:37 PM PST reply actions

What is this nonsense of you not getting a cut????

Let me know when they cut you in. I'll order a download. In the meantime, I can't support those Scrooges who are screwing you over. Yes, I'm serious.

by Tom2000 on Mar 6, 2007 2:10 AM PST reply actions

Sorry to hear that

Let me explain some of THT's economics.

We pay nearly five figures every year for statistics from Baseball Info Solutions. We have been doing this for three years now and our website revenue hasn't yet covered the cost of the stats, let alone the usual cost of web hosting and software. That's the reason we felt an economic need to get into the book business. If we hadn't, you wouldn't find stats on our site anymore.

I felt bad about approaching people to write for the preseason book and not offering to pay them, but only one person turned us down. As one blogger put it, "this will be my way of paying you back for using your site all this time." That was nice to hear.

Chris and David literally spent months putting their statistical projections together. They'll be paid a portion of the book revenue, but not nearly enough to make it worth their while economically. FWIW, I probably worked at least 160 hours on the preseason book, and I also won't be paid for my time.

So I don't think we're really like Scrooge McDuck. If you want to say we're more like Daffy Duck, you might have a point.

by studes on Mar 6, 2007 6:23 AM PST up reply actions

That blogger's right.

And I'm very thankful for the opportunity. I just need a viable excuse in case people think I sucked.

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 6, 2007 6:26 AM PST up reply actions

I want to point out that

once upon a time, I made a flippant remark on the Balls, Sticks, and Stuff phlog about how I wanted to figure out a way to track "Wince Shares" for players, and Studes over there from THT not only actually sort of quantified it as a real stat, but even gave special mention to everyone's favorite player, Scott Spiezio.

Therefore Hardball Times is cool. (And of course, the Phillies preview is written by the BSS blog author, too, apparently, though I haven't gotten a chance to pick up the book yet...)

It's funny how the whole "paying you back for something that was free to get in the first place" thing works in the baseball online community sometimes.

Marinerds - a different daily dose of baseblog.

by Deanna on Mar 6, 2007 1:29 PM PST up reply actions

I would have gone with Darkwing Duck

by Slozbury Stouvre on Mar 6, 2007 7:46 AM PST up reply actions

When there's trouble, you

Call DW.

by patsfan on Mar 6, 2007 8:40 AM PST up reply actions

Nice. I loved that show.

Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.

by Goose on Mar 6, 2007 2:00 PM PST up reply actions

I am the terror the flaps in the night

I am the gum that sticks to your shoe
I am the Bloomquist who bats 2nd in your lineup
I am the Hargrove who manages your team
I am DARKWING DUCK!

Er . . . Carry on.

by abelard on Mar 6, 2007 10:25 AM PST up reply actions

LETS GET DANGEROUS!

by Robert on Mar 6, 2007 10:32 AM PST up reply actions

Great read

The 3 year projections leave something to be desires, however

by Fett42 on Mar 6, 2007 5:21 AM PST reply actions

Yeah, well

something certainly seems "off" about them, huh?

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 6, 2007 5:54 AM PST up reply actions

Without going into details

Yeah... but still WELL worth the money, great writeups on all teams.

Plus Felix on the cover makes it irrestistable anyway.

by Fett42 on Mar 6, 2007 6:45 AM PST up reply actions

Definitely.

Felix is an instant sell for this particular clientele.

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 6, 2007 6:48 AM PST up reply actions

Feedback

We'd be interested in hearing what seems "off" about the three-year projections. Thanks.

by studes on Mar 6, 2007 6:04 AM PST reply actions

I haven't looked at them thoroughly yet

but they seem to be highly conservative. It also doesn't look like there's much variability over the three-year period for a lot of guys, which is unusual. But then, I might just be asking for too much here, since you can't predict luck.

I need to take a longer look at the whole set this afternoon. And I'll be really interested to see the correlation work after the year to find out how this methodology compares with Chone, ZiPS, BJH, Marcel, and even PECOTA.

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 6, 2007 6:21 AM PST up reply actions

Thanks

FWIW, the projections don't seem conservative to me. If anything, my impression is that they aren't conservative enough. But then, I'm a careful guy.

Really, you shouldn't expect much variability in three-year projections. In a projection system, the second year will look just like the first, only slightly different due to aging. I would think any multi-year system that shows a lot of variability from year to year is just guessing.

by studes on Mar 6, 2007 6:28 AM PST up reply actions

The conservative thing

applies mostly to prospects, on second glance. It might be a minor league translation thing, or it also might be a Jeff-is-totally-wrong-on-this-one-and-you-should-ignore-him thing. God knows Chris and David know more about this stuff than I do.

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 6, 2007 6:33 AM PST up reply actions

Actually, I agree with that

I actually had the same reaction to the prospects projections. I'll ask Chris about it.

by studes on Mar 6, 2007 6:46 AM PST up reply actions

any in particular?

Well, do any prospects in particular seem too conservative?
The aging curves are done individually so it's hard to talk about prospects in general. For example, Billy Butler is projected to add over 60 points to his OPS over the next few years (which seems like a very healthy growth rate to me) while someone like Stephen Drew is projected to be just a bit better in 2009 than he will be in 2007. The differences have to do with their current age (mostly), their physical characteristics, and how their present strengths and weaknesses typically affect growth rates for players at a similar age.

by chrisconstancio on Mar 6, 2007 7:22 AM PST up reply actions

Staying local

the biggest offender to me is Ryan Feierabend. After him, I don't get the Lowe projection (unless the system takes his unprecedented surgery into account), and I think a lot of people would argue that Adam Jones is far closer to being ML-ready than Jeff Clement, rather than the other way around.

I don't mean for this to sound like a criticism, because you've been at the projections for months and understand them far better than I ever will. "Conservative" was just my first impression is all.

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 6, 2007 9:19 AM PST up reply actions

studes is cautious cat

How in the name of Zeus's butthole did you get out of your cell?

by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 6, 2007 9:26 AM PST up reply actions

No, he's a duck.

Visiting A's Fan

by salb918 on Mar 6, 2007 12:04 PM PST up reply actions

It seemed alot of projections

Has the exact same numbers repeated for all three years for certain categories

by Fett42 on Mar 6, 2007 10:50 AM PST up reply actions

some notes

Oh, it's o.k. I was really looking forward to releasing these results so I could start hearing some feedback and fielding some questions.

Feierabend's projected improvement is actually pretty aggressive relative to others - check out other similar-aged pitchers like Gio Gonzalez or Yovani Gallardo. So I'm not sure how to respond to that case. I did find a relationship between batted ball rates and changes in strikeout rates in young pitchers, and Feierabend profiles well in this sense. Along with better results on balls in play and an improved walk rate, he's projected to shave off half a run from his ERA over two years. That's actually a very good rate - most pitchers don't improve that rapidly during their fifth through seventh years of professional baseball.

Lowe's projected growth is pretty typical for a pitcher entering his mid-20's - very little improvement. Remember, strikeout rates are already declining for many pitchers at this stage of their career, so it's difficult to project great leaps of development at this stage of a career. Lowe might be a special case due his role change and elbow issues, but we don't have a good way to account for that. His overall projection is low because, well, he wasn't very good before 2006.

David Gassko might be a better person to ask about the Clement vs. Jones projections because he handled a lot of the work involved in generating the baseline projections... which is what your question seems to be targeting. Jones is projected to improve much more over the next few years for a number of reasons, but Clement is projected to be the better hitter right now. Because there's so little performance data available for Clement, it probably has something to do with the way we accounted for his 'player type' while regressing.

by chrisconstancio on Mar 6, 2007 10:55 AM PST up reply actions

The thing about Feierabend

...isn't so much the improvement as it is the starting point. Without giving away any numbers, his 2007 projection seems way way way too modest.

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 6, 2007 1:57 PM PST up reply actions

Feierabend

A 4.28 in the Texas League translates to a replacement-level pitcher in the American League.

We're also using batted ball statistics to generate baseline projections and that doesn't help his case. A guy who gives up as many fly balls as Feierabend does is going to project to struggle with home runs in the American League - even at Safeco. We have him projected to allow 19 home runs in 127 innings pitched at the major league level, which is a substantial increase over his minor league rates.

by chrisconstancio on Mar 6, 2007 2:15 PM PST up reply actions

Fair enough.

I happen to disagree with the final assessment, but I can't really argue with the methodology.

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 6, 2007 2:47 PM PST up reply actions

In 2009

Ir predicts Morse and Rivera to have a higher OPS than Ichiro... but then again Ichiro plagues all projections systems.

by Fett42 on Mar 6, 2007 2:24 PM PST up reply actions

I can't even get to THT

Database errors or something.

by Graham MacAree on Mar 6, 2007 6:09 AM PST reply actions

Fixed now

We've been having terrible problems with the site lately. I've starting electronically yelling at our hosting service!

by studes on Mar 6, 2007 6:31 AM PST up reply actions

Weird

Working on IE but not on Opera.

by Graham MacAree on Mar 6, 2007 6:33 AM PST up reply actions

That's bizarre

Never heard of an Opera problem before. Sure it's not a caching issue? Or just timing?

by studes on Mar 6, 2007 6:46 AM PST up reply actions

I will pick up a copy next paycheck

Yes I am that poor

How in the name of Zeus's butthole did you get out of your cell?

by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 6, 2007 9:08 AM PST reply actions

That's a right kerfuffle!

by Phil Hatzenbuehler on Mar 6, 2007 9:29 PM PST reply actions

Well considering Liriano's injury history and the

fact that he's going to throw zero innings in 2007, that's not that unbelievable.

Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.

by Goose on Mar 6, 2007 9:40 PM PST up reply actions

The K-Rod Projection

That projection was a mistake, and we'll have a correction coming up. The innings projections are based on past data, and remember, minor league pitchers don't throw that many innings.

by David Gassko on Mar 8, 2007 12:58 AM PST up reply actions