2024 Projections

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

Yes, blank is zero.

[Snider]

If a column is left blank with no number in it in both your projection files plus the CSV files can we assume the number that would have gone in there is a zero in the old format. I look forward to seeing the players listed in alphabetical order as it did in the old format. It just makes it so much easier since we don’t have to do the extra steps in excel. Thank you.

[RAY@HQ]

In the meantime, there are obvious data issues with low-PA records. Anybody want to bet the high on Corby Mayo's .700 Avg? That comes with a projected .167 Slg so there is obviously a math or linkage problem somewhere. It is not just rookies; I doubt that BBHQ is really projecting Sam Huff to hit .301. On the players with obviously-wrong projections, the PA, AB and BB totals are not compatible. However the database acts differently for guys with up to 102 PA (or not projected to make opening day), it is acting incorrectly.

I did compare yesterday's CSV to pre-changeover projections and the really bad were all low PA; I think Huff is the only one over 100 PA.

Yeah, I put data cleanup at the top of the tech list today. This stuff isn't consequential in the data set, but it still looks awful. We'll have that cleaned up asap.

[GarthHewitt14]

In the meantime, there are obvious data issues with low-PA records. Anybody want to bet the high on Corby Mayo's .700 Avg? That comes with a projected .167 Slg so there is obviously a math or linkage problem somewhere. It is not just rookies; I doubt that BBHQ is really projecting Sam Huff to hit .301. On the players with obviously-wrong projections, the PA, AB and BB totals are not compatible. However the database acts differently for guys with up to 102 PA (or not projected to make opening day), it is acting incorrectly.

I did compare yesterday's CSV to pre-changeover projections and the really bad were all low PA; I think Huff is the only one over 100 PA.

[RAY@HQ]

Yes, this issue has been reported. Please understand that I can't get you timelines to resolve every specific issue. We're making dozens of fixes a day, hopefully you've noticed the amount of progress since Sunday. That will continue, but I can't tell you what's going to happen in what order.