2024 Projections

[Snider]

In your old version for the projections or the CSV files - you had a date either at the top or bottom which showed when the projections were updated. That date was helpful for us since we could tell if we were downloading or recording projections which had some changes or not. I would look at that date and know right away if anything changed. Will that date be returning?

I know you don’t want to give specific dates or times as to when some of our issues might get resolved. So could you just set expectations on whether my issues are high priority mid priority or low priority? The following are my personal current issues for the content on the site today versus the old format.

Getting rid of players in your projections who have zero at bats or negative at bats or are blank or have retired.

Being able to print CDG output in grid form with catchers to relief pitchers being able to printed horizontally on one or two pages. Same question on depth charts - in grid form to be printed.

The players listed in your projections or CSV files alphabetically with someone like CJ Abrams at the top and Mike Zunino at the bottom for example.

The date question above,

Are these low, medium or high priority issues to get us/me back to where we were before the change. I appreciate your help and know you are working on many issues right now. Thank you and please know that I know you and your people are doing the best they can right now.

[RAY@HQ]

Everything data cleanup related is our top priority right now.

I don't know if we'll add the date field again, I haven't looked into what's involved in that. But the files are being regenerated daily, you can be confident of that.

[Snider]

At what point should I check back with you on the date question and whether that feature will or will not be coming back for sure? I don’t want to bug you on it repeatedly. It would be extraordinarily helpful to have that date feature back for the reasons stated above. Thank you.

[RAY@HQ]

At what point should I check back with you on the date question and whether that feature will or will not be coming back for sure? I don’t want to bug you on it repeatedly. It would be extraordinarily helpful to have that date feature back for the reasons stated above. Thank you.

I understand why it's helpful. I will provide an update when I have one.

[RAY@HQ]

Back to the date issue... I should point out that the date is embedded in the CSV filename, so that's another indicator of when the projections were created.

[tuna411]

is there any way to organize by position in the cdg which has outfield as a whole instead of lf, rf, cf?

[RAY@HQ]

is there any way to organize by position in the cdg which has outfield as a whole instead of lf, rf, cf?

I've requested this, yes.

[Snider]

Ray - At this point in the cycle in prior years if a player was estimated to get 95% PT he was awarded a certain number of AB's. The good part about that was if that same player continued to project to get 95% PT - his AB's and other stats would not change in your projections. That way if you recorded his projections in a spreadsheet and saw that his AB's didn't change you could move quickly to the next hitter. Will the same be true for this version of projections? In other words as an example CJ Abrams is expected to receive 95% PT for Washington. With that 95% PT you are currently projecting him to accumulate 616 AB's. If he continues to project 95% PT is it safe to say that his projection will not change from what you have in your system now. I am hoping the answer is the projection will not change because it is much easier to only change the players in our spreadsheets who have their playing time changed depending on when you record the projection? Does my question make sense? With everything that has changed and being so different - I never had to ask that question before. But now who knows what will be the protocol going forward. Thanks

[RAY@HQ]

We have had this discussion in the past, but you are not summarizing it correctly. While it is far more common for the playing time component of the projection to change than the performance part of the projection, it is NOT impossible for the performance element to change. It's not common, but it can and will happen in some cases. That is not something that has changed with the new site. This is the same as it has been since I started handling the projections some 10+ years ago.

[Snider]

Sorry if I have asked this question before - I don't remember your answer. I am old and somewhat forgetful. Let me try again. Right now in your PT and projection system CJ Abrams is expected to get 95% PT with 616 AB's. That is as of today 2/12/24. If he is projected to receive 95% PT on March 22nd would you expect his AB's of 616 to change between now and then? Yes or no??

[RAY@HQ]

My response above addresses this as best I can.

[Snider]

Ray - Just a clarification. I'm using Jake Cronenworth as an example but there are many hitters like this. You have him with a 0.395 SLG Pct. But when you add up his total bases which total 224 in 559 AB you get a SLG of 0.401. Which one should we use? Should we add up the total bases and divide by at bats or should we just use the SLG that you have and adjust the total bases accordingly? Thank you.

[RAY@HQ]

That's likely a rounding error. The values for hits, doubles, triples, AB, etc in the database are likely all fractional/decimal values, which results in these small differences. There's no meaningful difference between a projected SLG of .395 vs. .401, or at least, one is not "more right" than the other. I don't see why you would bother calculating that on your own.

[Timmeh49]

That's likely a rounding error. The values for hits, doubles, triples, AB, etc in the database are likely all fractional/decimal values, which results in these small differences. There's no meaningful difference between a projected SLG of .395 vs. .401, or at least, one is not "more right" than the other. I don't see why you would bother calculating that on your own.

Yeah, I noticed this. Based on things you've written elsewhere, I'm guessing you make projections for the counting stats based on full time play (maybe 650 PA or something like that), then scale for part time play. But then the counting stats end up as decimals. However, the file/web pages round the integers, so that calculated percentages won't exactly match. Also, I found that this isn't a "new web design" thing, as past projection files show the same characteristic.

Interestingly, projected pitching stats all appear to be integers. Well, at least earned runs are: the listed ERA exactly matches calculated ERA (9*ER/IP).

[Snider]

Why does Darell Hernaiz have 55% PT allocated to him at shortstop for Oakland but zero at bats projected from him in your CSV download and projections file? You did reduce the PT and at bats of his main competitor - Nick Allen accordingly but did not add it back to Hernaiz? Why is that?

I am also of the philosophy if there are a few strange data points - it also throws into question the credibility of the entire data base. It seems as if your projection files are about 5-10% lower (OPS/BA/SLG HR/PA which is a lot) from a performance perspective and 5% lower on apples to apples basis on a PT perspective than many of the others out there from Mastersball to ATC to the Bat X. You were always right in line with most of them. Just an observation - not sure if something changed in your system.

You have Sean Bouchard projected to hit 0.165 for the season in 291 AB's. I promise you if he hits under a buck seventy he won't get over 300 PA's.

I downloaded your projections before the BIG change two weeks ago today. Some players had their PT increased due to events during the offseason. But from a performance perspective - counting stats per plate appearance 95% of the players had their performance reduced from slightly to something more substantial on the hitting side. Every player that I have downloaded had some number changed within his projections from AB's to runs to hits to HR's etc.. I haven't gotten to the pitchers yet. Why is that and again no criticism just an observation.