Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JRI who wrote (236165)	4/17/2003 11:32:26 AM
From: reaper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<<Are you really Billy Bean>> no. are you really Allard Baird? <g> look, it has pretty much been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that OPS correlates best to run production (actually, there are some other stats like offensive winning % that are modestly better but friggin hard and long to calculate). and its also true that on average you can pretty reliably predict a hitter's future OPS based on his past OPS progression and his age. of course, the key words here are (i) "correlate to", which is not the same as "determine"; and (ii) "on average" as opposed to "for every player". that's why they bother to play the games, and why we bother to watch, because sometimes Bret Boone comes out of nowhere, sometimes teams go 30-12 in one-run games (the A's last year), and sometimes teams are remarkably efficient at turning their OPS into runs (the Angels last year). the guys at Baseball Prospectus ran computer simulations of the baseball season. i'm pretty sure they run the season 100 times, which of course allows for things like injuries and guys having monster years two standard deviations away from what one would 'expect'. if i recall correctly (and i'll try to link you the article later) the Royals did not make the post-season in ANY of the 100 simulations. yeah, i believe in all this stats stuff, but that really shouldn't surprise anybody given that that's exactly how i look at companies too; i couldn't give a rat's *&^% about their "tools" (story), just show me the financials. Cheers

To: JRI who wrote (236165)	4/17/2003 11:51:07 AM
From: reaper	Respond to of 436258

JRI -- here's the link to the projection article; it was Diamond Mind, not Baseball Prospectus. espn.go.com here's the link to their 2002 projections, diamond-mind.com which i think you will agree were pretty damn accurate. of course they did not project the Angels to make the playoffs ON AVERAGE, but they did have them reaching the post-season in 3 out of 50 simulations (i.e. 6%). that is my concern w/ the Royals, that even while allowing for normal statistical variability the computer simulations are still never throwing out a post-seaon birth for them. of course, projecting the performance of 5 essentially rookie starting pitchers is impossible, so that is where the hope obviously lies. Cheers