That's Why They Play The Games

by Jeff Sullivan on Sep 28, 2010 1:05 PM PDT in Miscellaneous

You know I love projections. I love projections as much as - or more than - most anybody else. Projections are how we get some idea of what we can expect from the season ahead. But one of the problems with talking about projections in February and March is that we have so little to discuss that we end up taking them a little too seriously.

Look at this

Now look at this, and this, and this

None of this is new. Everybody who's ever played with PECOTA or another, actually legitimate projection system for five minutes knows that projections can and do often come out looking ridiculous. This is just a reminder to take them like a salted pretzel. On more than one occasion last spring, I said that the Cardinals could probably win the NL Central even after benching Albert Pujols. Now I look retarded. That's not the Cardinals' fault, or the Reds' fault. It's mine.

Of course, one need look no further than the Mariners to understand just how poorly these things can go. I didn't want to bring that up. But here I am, bringing it up like a sucker.

Projections are great. We'll spend all offseason making them, and linking them, and discussing them. Then the games start and we get to spend all year seeing the things we didn't expect. It's a lovely little cycle we have.

Note now that I'm back from errands: I wrote this very quickly and, looking back, I wish that I would've gone about it differently. This isn't about criticizing the projections. It's about criticizing how we interpret them, and talk about them. The projections, for example, didn't get the NL Central "wrong". I was wrong for acting too confident about the averaged-out outcomes.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'll always love the projections vs. results for the Blue Jays.

by ThundaPC on Sep 28, 2010 1:25 PM PDT reply actions

Speaking of benching Pujols

When is there going to be another podcast?

Mariners and Senators fan in Miami, covering the team in Ottawa at Silver Seven

by Alexander Calloway on Sep 28, 2010 1:26 PM PDT reply actions

I don't think of it as screwing up, am I wrong about that perspective?

This outcome was also a possibility, not precisely how the M’s arrived to this point I guess. But it was a preseason possibility.

by Kermit. on Sep 28, 2010 1:29 PM PDT reply actions

What I mean is I screwed up by being as confident as I was

That was my error.

by Jeff Sullivan on Sep 28, 2010 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Ok, that helps. I was taking this in the wrong direction from the get go.

by Kermit. on Sep 28, 2010 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Hey, everyone, look, we do disagree

If someone had projected Jose Bautista to hit 52 home runs this year, THEY screwed up, not all the people who didn’t.

Projections are not predictions of the future. They are the sum of the knowledge you can have at the time. Things change in the future, but there’s no way of knowing what those things will be when the projections are made. Looking at what happened in a single year and deciding that projections that missed “screwed up” is why people don’t trust projections to begin with, and they should. They’re not cyrstal balls, and we shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t act like them.

by davidcameron on Sep 28, 2010 1:45 PM PDT reply actions

I don't actually think we disagree that much

this post was more about the confidence we put in projections than the projections themselves. I wrote it up quickly and if I worded it poorly, that’s my mistake and I apologize.

by Jeff Sullivan on Sep 28, 2010 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Right, we shouldn't be all that confident about knowing the future

We do the best we can, and then we throw our hands in the air and say “ehh, who knows, right?” That’s kind of the fun of it. If everyone played to their projections, it wouldn’t be any fun.

by davidcameron on Sep 28, 2010 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions

This is only tangentially related

but to your memory, what team outperformed or underperformed its preseason projections to the greatest degree?

I guess the easy answer would be ‘2001 Mariners’, but, well.

by Jeff Sullivan on Sep 28, 2010 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions

Maybe we're just homers, but the M's have to dominate that category

I suppose it depends on whose projections you start with – USA Today, Fangraphs/ZIPS, PECOTA, a bunch of fans.

But how could the ‘01, ’08 and ’10 Mariners not all be in the top 5? What do you do with certain projections that get a lot closer to the mark, like CHONE for the ’10 M’s?

I was going to say the 2009 Mets, but looking at it again, they just can’t compete with either ’01 or ’10.

by marc w on Sep 28, 2010 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions