CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
Thank you Ben and Sam!
Thanks--we didn't have any stats we could use to build a projection for him.
thanks. Barraclough didn't have MPH because of level pitched; Capps didn't have it because we have Barraclough's stats in there instead. Added to the list.
thanks--<a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=28388#errata">this is already on the errata list</a>
thanks--added to the list.
Thanks--added Motte and Nikorak, will check on Hochevar's comps.
you are right, he's six foot one. Added to the list, thanks!
thanks, I've added this to the list.
thank you for the kind words.
I have these, thanks to both of you for commenting.
Thanks, added to the list.
Russell, I don't think we're doing any other events this year. Thanks.
I hope you like it! Thanks.
The PDF is exactly the same as the printed book. Thanks.
Thanks. We have pushed the publication date earlier every year and want to continue to do so.
This article was written one week before Gattis was traded to the Astros. Thank you for subscribing.
Sorry about that. We rolled this out as quickly as we could, and notified subscribers about it as much as we could.
The link should work now, thanks.
We've asked them for an update. I'm not sure what the issue is. Sorry for the delay.
Thanks for buying and for letting us know--the layout and print size is different this year and we're interested in everyone's feedback on it.
Sorry, I didn't look closely enough. It's already fixing to be sold, I guess, by being listed. The e-book has been prepared for all the usual sales channels and it should show up there soon. Thanks!
I see the Nook e-book is already being sold. Should be on Amazon, itunes bookstore, and all the usual places any day now. Thanks Jim
Yes there will... it should be available soon.
Thanks for buying it! No SOS date--as soon as stores have them they'll be moving them out.
OFP = Overall Future Potential
You bet. Probably not Tuesday morning or anything, but pretty soon. Thanks.
We're a month and a half ahead of where we were last year for this book and we hope to continue improving our timetable. Thanks.
Futures Guide 2014 is now available! You can click the linked book name, or visit the front page and click the left sidebar to get to Amazon. Thanks for your patience.
We'd have told you which day if we knew! But we're going to get it done asap.
Yes we will. You can buy it from us directly or it will be available on Amazon. Thanks.
Don't think we're doing an app this year, sorry.
Have a look at the Henderson Alvarez player card--you can get there by clicking his name in this comment. His Baseball Prospectus 2014 player comment should be visible to all. Sorry about that.
just to follow up, have a look at the Henderson Alvarez player card--the comment that was written for Baseball Prospectus 2014 should be visible to all.
We do get a commission for each amazon purchase.
We love bookstores! By all means get Baseball Prospectus 2014 from one, and thanks for buying and reading it.
I think this is a good idea. In fact that's what we did with Dollar Sign on the Muscle. However as we are working with a conventional publisher for baseball prospectus 2014 it is their call, not ours. I will pass the suggestion along. Thanks!
I'll see what we can do. Thanks!
How's the stock its printed on? That's supposed to be better this year. Thanks!
Soccer is dreadfully boring, though... I think what Zach wrote holds.
Great! I haven't heard it, but Kevin's son Patrick read the audible.com version and Kevin is very happy about the way it turned out. We'll add a link in our next announcement. Thanks.
Should be available Thursday from Amazon.com. We will announce and have links on the homepage at that time. Thanks.
We actually do our own layout and save an OpenOffice document to PDF for the printer.
Still changing both the e-book and the paperback. We might be a little earlier on the e-book.
thanks John. email me, I will send you a copy for submitting the correction.
oops, thanks. fixed.
looks like we fixed it--please give it another try. Sorry about that!
Tell your friends ... you're going to love it!
Scott, the MOBI file is compatible with what you'd get from the Kindle bookstore. The only difference is if you buy it from us you'll have to know how to put it on your Kindle yourself. Thanks!
Scott, there will be a Kindle version. I updated the formats text in the post to be specific about this. It will be available at the end of the month on Amazon. Thanks.
Different stats being named the same thing is a bug, not a feature.
There were many good candidates--we didn't cover everyone.
He's projected to get a little over half the plate appearances, and also not hit as well in those, is most of it.
there are lots of good candidates. We didn't cover everyone.
Good questions. They are rest of season. They'll be somewhat different--in-season PECOTA updates use the season so far as an input.
Yes, you do need to have a Facebook or Twitter account to use the Lockerdome site. Thanks.
Forget who asked the question, or why. Just consider the question on its own merits.
Thanks for the kind words. We are happy to provide it to all. Be sure and tell your friends.
The ebook should be ready tomorrow sometime. Just to recap, almost everything in there is available in the Top 10s on the site, so you can look at those immediately.
It's not easy to make matrixes of numbers legible on a Kindle.
It is virtually all on the site. If you don't want it in a convenient e-book or printed format, this product is probably not for you.
Thanks! We hope you enjoy it. In general, the less data PECOTA has to work with, the less I'd bet on its projections--but then that's true of any system. We're planning looking at this very issue more closely as the year goes on.
We've got our top men on it. It will be soon.
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback.
To follow up on what Jason said, most of the book content has already been published and is available to Baseball Prospectus Premium subscribers. The things you'll get in here that you can't anywhere else are
* Top 101 Prospects of 2013 rankings, write-ups, and notes in a single place--you can get all these individually from Baseball Prospectus 2013 and the website, though.
* In the paperback, full statistical treatment of all 300 Top 10 Prospects including PECOTA projections for both 2013 and 2014. We won't be publishing this in any other form.
He's #2 in the Cleveland Top 10 in the book.
We will update the top 10s on the site to match the Top 10s in the book. However, we won't do that for a couple of weeks.
I blame Juan Segura.
Please try it again. We are having a heck of a time keeping these online but we'll keep working on it.
Please give the link another try... sorry about that.
now that's a great idea.
No problem, jfranco77--we don't want to adversely affect the financial planning of our subscribers, so we'll just set a $65 cover price on the new book.
Fixed PWARP, thank you.
me too. Wearing the Offspring T-shirt to work tomorrow...
Hrbek's statue is very slim-ifying. I approve of this trend.
Well, I don't want to leave the kids out in the cold, with no Rob Deer merch of their own. Only one of them can have the autographed game-used bat.
Barry, the "hidden" comment floor is -4, but if it makes you feel any better, hidden comments are quite widely read at BP.
I have over 600 Rob Deer cards. This piece reminds me that I need to account for them in my estate planning.
Production error, sorry about that. Helton's 2013 player comment and statistical workup will be freely available on his player card soon.
we are working on the second set of PECOTA information, the percentiles included.
SQL is a top five life skill. You can do so much with it even if you're only mediocre at it like I am.
Thanks--this is fixed.
Just to follow up on what Joe said, I can confirm PECOTA does attempt to project playing time based on previous performance, but it has no access to depth chart data--the book is at the printers before many of those decisions are made. We implement a 250 PA floor so there aren't a bunch of double-digit plate appearance projections for guys that aren't projected to play very much.
Thanks for letting us know what you think, everyone. Please keep it coming--we are taking notes for BP2014.
Sorry about that--got OF, LF, CF, and RF lumped together correctly now. Thanks for letting us know!
Sorry--we would like to bring it back but we aren't going to be able to get it done in 2013.
A quick note on player comments, in response to a few questions we've gotten: the 2013 player comments are written and will be available in the soon-to-be-released Baseball Prospectus 2013 book and e-book. We aren't going to be able to publish these comments on the player cards until after the annual's sales season.
Glad to hear it. If anyone else has any trouble accessing anything, please email firstname.lastname@example.org and we'll get it sorted. Thanks!
It is only good if you don't use the google.
You left a comment. :(
We all are.
I give this troll 3/10.
I understand Steve Buechele is available.
Here they are: http://bbwaa.com/voting-faq/
This one was free. Please tell your friends to come look. You'll need a Premium subscription for most of them. Thanks.
Thank you Richard. I appreciate the kind words and hope you enjoy the rest of the off season slate.
Its an action shot!
Typically my thinking about questions like this stops after your second sentence.
You are very welcome. Thank you for voting!
sorry, please try again. you can see all the voting at
Actually, *this* is why we run Manager voting--so we can have questions like this.
Because Greg Spira wanted to, essentially.
I don't disagree with your point that the best way to get MOTY is to manage a surprise contender.
The system is troll-able.
its too bad it isn't a week ago--you could have appeared biased in the Internet Baseball Awards
Prepare to act on the question, everyone... the Greg Spira Internet Baseball Awards are coming soon.
We wrote about this in 1997... as far as I could tell it was about as egregious as it sounded.
There is certainly risk in claiming a player. The Red Sox could pull back anyone they put on waivers, or they could work out a deal with the claiming team. They could also let a player go, and he becomes the claiming team's responsibility without any requirement that they negotiate further.
The Dodgers didn't necessarily claim Beckett and Crawford.
We did revise the playoff odds a little bit recently... Colin has more about that here. At the same time we re-ran the odds from the start of the season on with the updated methodology.
According to the graph and report, Boston's gone from about 7% on Aug 13 to about 3% on Aug 20, hence the deltas. We'd have given them about a 35% chance using the current odds process on the data we had at the start of the season.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question... hopefully that answered it?
Thanks. That's sort of a compressed view of the leading team's line. We have some pretty significant limitations on what we can put in there, unfortunately. Give clicking and dragging a range of dates a try, though.
the Rays are regularly assessing everything in baseball, in addition to rolling.
I vote for Ben Lindbergh.
using Internet Explorer? we will get it fixed, but apparently the fix isn't simple and there's a lot of stuff ahead of it. Sorry for the inconvenience.
oops, fixed thanks
It is now available: Statistics > PitchFX Hitter Profiles. Thanks!
Yes, we will add a direct link to these from the player cards. Will reply to myself here when its done.
Sure we'll link it up. I'll reply to myself here when its done.
hi there, we're looking at the server problem now. sorry about the download issues.
please email us at email@example.com . we are reading and responding to inquiries over the holiday weekend.
Jason Kendall was such an amazing player before the injury.
This is not what this website was established to argue against. John's just laying out salary expectations for Cano, not making any judgment about if he is or isn't worth the money.
hi, just to follow up on what Joe said, the readers of this site vote comments up and down. I think censorship implies that BP had something to do with the comment ratings on this (or any) comment and want to make sure people know that this is not the case.
We are doing research on a better way to express the injury projections and consider it an important feature. Thanks.
i think so--updated, thanks.
have a look at the Clutch Performer pdf, Agent007. The statistical introduction will give you an overview of WARP and its various components. Thanks.
The number is your cool ranking.
fixed, thanks Brandon
thanks! this is done.
we would have included him if he was suggested last week!
oops--I missed him in Baseball Prospectus 2012. He should not be here. His inclusion gives Joe Terdoslavich fans who don't want to pay for the book a serious amount of leverage.
we will get that fixed as well.
Fixed, thank you.
Thanks Dodger300, Odorizzi is fixed and the pdf is updated.
this year's foreword seems to be polarizing.
come back tomorrow and it'll be all ready for you.
Coming Thursday. Thx
which annual are you thinking, stewbies? I'll have to go back and see how we did it... because I don't remember that. We did used to use Clay Davenport's defensive statistics, which center around 100, and I could see that looking like games played per position.
Llarry, I can try.
The app is almost ready... it should be available very soon, sometime this coming week, it sounds like. Maybe even Monday.
We're unable to update the Kindle version, sorry. This will be a standalone PDF.
No problem. We have asked our publisher for an update on that availability and we'll let you know. Sorry for the delay.
We are working on them!
We do have some top prospects in the supplement. We'll post a player list soon.
Thanks, we're looking at this.
Well, the stars and scrubs chart was a visual representation of information that we do currently have, but we don't have it all rolled up in a chart. Does that answer the question?
hi there. We switched graphing solutions and have not recaptured a lot of the old PECOTA charts. We are planning on releasing charting upgrades throughout the year. Thanks.
hi, we're still finishing the comps stuff... everything else should be up there now. thanks.
Thanks for the comment. If I remember correctly we've never provided that before. We can look into adding that somewhere.
We can look at these case-by-case--email firstname.lastname@example.org with your info and tell us what you are interested in doing.
Thank you for all the excellent things you have done for BP, Steve, and best of luck on your future endeavours.
Shoot. Our plan to pay our people better included monetization of traffic via annoying slideshows.
hi there. This is a result of the third point on the list that Rob mentioned. The pitcher WARP calculation had a bug in this year's version of PECOTA.
LynchMob, we do have some PECOTA results analysis that we're planning on running next week. Thanks!
we may miss comments posted on old articles, sorry. Please email us at the contact us link if you require this type of assistance.
You can always get to the latest Fantasy updates in the right sidebar of
the spreadsheet was updated on Feb 29, and here's the link to download it directly
The effect of this bug was to slightly deflate NL pitcher performance, and the projections in the book were affected by the bug.
Softy Electric is also correct, and in general projections will improve over time and the latest projections from the site will always be better than the projections in BP2012.
I'm not sure that follows. A hitter with a lower power and contact rate could be similar across the board otherwise and be a very good comp to an all-star despite being a pinch-hitting washout, i would expect.
We are looking at the manager stats issue and will have something on it soon. Thanks.
hi Jivas, I tried to explain what the comparables actually are below. Thanks.
Most of the book is written without access to the projections, so its not so much a matter of contradicting (or reinforcing) the projection as not referring to it at all. This is how the book has always been produced. We do hope to have the projections done earlier next season.
Thanks for buying the book.
Last part first, we don't mind occasionally deviating from the projection in the player comment. The writer might have a different expectation and that's fine with us. Also, player comments written about the projected lines are boring.
A projected player's PECOTA comparables are the players that are the most similar to him in power on contact, contact rate, walks and strikeouts, height, weight, handedness, and position (for hitters) or start/relief split (for pitchers). This can result in some pretty dissimilar-quality players. We are planning on offering some more detail about that part of the process.
LinkedIn has an annoying tendency to start sending you mails they think you'll be interested in at various times without you indicating this interest. They've decided you are interested in baseball, or Joe Hamrahi is in your network, or someone who is in Joe Hamrahi's network is in your network, or etc. I have had the same thing happen to me in a different field.
What I did to resolve the problem is click the opt-out link at the bottom of the email. If you find this unacceptable, please do let LinkedIn know.
They aren't done yet, but we will update when we know more.
linkedin sends irritating email. I get some on a regular basis I don't seem to be able to unsubscribe to.
We don't market at all through social networks unless you friend us, subscribe to us, follow us, or whatever mechanism is appropriate on your part to indicate interest.
I believe it's going to be $9.99.
there are up to three weeks remaining before the app is available. hopefully it will be quicker than that. thanks
up to three weeks remaining in production.
The tables needed to be split up to display on a kindle. Does that explain what you are seeing?
Rob, we're not sure yet... I'll post an update to this thread when I know. Thanks!
Sorry you're having trouble with the ebook... please email us at email@example.com with the details and we will let our publisher know.
I will check and update here. Thanks.
Hi, this is still in production. I will see if we can get eta from publisher.
Hi. We haven't heard about the tables being garbled.
Where are you seeing this? Definitely contact whoever sold you the book, but we're happy to check if we can. Thanks for buying!
Thank you to our editor Eric Nelson and everyone at Wiley for the numerous formats offered this year. We're very excited about it too.
Thanks! I updated the text.
SS/Sim is in the PFM.
the csv is sortable in any standard spreadsheet. You can use the 'POS' column to get position. Is that what you are looking for?
we don't yet but we'll announce when we do.
The Feb 11 spreadsheet has 1B. Thanks.
Rob just added 'display by batting order' and 'display by fielding position' buttons, so now you can see the hitters either way. Please let us know what you think.
Sorry, I shouldn't have promised a date so close to PECOTA release. We're still reviewing the data and deciding on the best way to present it. Thanks, and have a great weekend.
you bet--this may be related to Devin Mesoraco not being in PFM, which another commenter reported above. We're looking at it.
hi, we're looking at this. Thanks.
That's weird--we're looking at it. Devin Mesoraco's projection is in the spreadsheet if you need it immediately.
That is Kemp's actual projection.
Sorry about that--we'll check it out.
We'll be publishing some test results on PECOTA tomorrow. We hope they help allay your concerns.
hi, please see this comment. Thanks!
hi Ron, good question
Sorry, we expected to have it ready this morning but some of the changes we made ended up causing some confusion.
The playing time estimates themselves are done and reflected in the PECOTA spreadsheet, and we'll have depth charts and PFM ready asap.
hi, we'll have those up soon. Thanks.
we have been working on Darvish and the other Japanese imports. We will have him in there soon.
Hi all, we've got a post up on current Fantasy status... we'll keep it updated as events warrant. Please drop by http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15999 if you've got a fantasy question or comment.
We will have updates on Upside, 10-year projections, etc soon.
Yes! We are working on this right now. We're not at the point we can say exactly what we'll be able to do with it, but we should be able to update you soon.
No, you'd be alright bemoaning his accomplishments. Bob Dylan is awful.
best of is behind schedule but coming soon... thanks.
good idea! we are looking at it now.
We sure did. We have no idea if its useful or not.
Sure--we'll get that removed.
Thanks everyone--sounds like it might be browser specific and I don't use FF anymore. Please send us a note when you see this and we'll get it sorted.
there's a lot of love in this room.
Our current search only searches text from articles, and as we've expanded to other types of content it doesn't cover them. A revision of the search function has been on our list for a while but we'll see if we can make it work better for you incrementally.
Sorry, we were not aware of this issue. You should always get both total and new comment count for any article (provided there are new comments). Could you please email relevant details to firstname.lastname@example.org and we will try to fix? Thanks.
We will have an update on PECOTA, PFM, fantasy status by early next week.
We will have an update on PECOTA, PFM, fantasy status by early next week.
Thanks for asking. Unfortunately, there won't be any "bundled" sales of the various flavors of book; each product will be sold separately.
Thanks for asking. I've actually learned a lot about this through the Best of Baseball Prospectus Vol 1 process.
It is probably difficult to convert an ebook to a PDF, as the ebook won't have page numbers or headers and footers. The Baseball Prospectus 2012 ebook is also going to have a layout that's optimized for readers, which will almost certainly necessitate some elements moving around.
It is very easy to convert a physical book to a PDF, provided you have the source files. Then the question becomes, is it worthwhile to set up sales and support for the PDF? That all depends on how many people would actually buy it.
Thanks for asking... I'm hoping I'll be able to finish the Best Of conversion in the next two weeks.
We're working on those translations now... more on them soon.
This article is free for all--please point your friends and relations at http://bbp.cx/a/15826 (or use the sharing buttons at the top of the page). Thanks!
Amazon is often conservative about shipping estimates for as-yet-published books, but Baseball Prospectus 2012 is on schedule and should ship around the same time it has historically, if not earlier.
thanks Lloyd... we don't want anyone to be disappointed at the change while it's still in process.
Thanks John... we have an in-depth examination of PECOTA comparables coming this pre-season.
our hard-working writers are going to take the rest of 2011 off... I'm expecting we'll have something to say about the relief pitching prospects the White Sox got in 2012, but for now--they're relief pitching prospects!
Have a happy and safe New Year, everyone.
(and I also think you have a wonderful display name)
I think this is a wonderful idea.
tell your friends! this one's free so they can all read it.
we've added "Transactions" to the links at the top of every page. Thanks!
its in there now!
to follow up on this you can click the Baseball Prospectus logo on the top left of any page to get back to the homepage.
There isn't one, but we will add one.
Its true--our nefarious goal is to increase sales.
I could hear the swearing from the Padres chapter author from here... Baseball Prospectus 2012 will account for this trade.
It will be there, but it'll take some additional time to make it there. Wish we could get it there sooner.
Greg, we've done some preliminary work on the ebook, but we didn't want to wait on releasing the other stuff while we finished it. Its definitely in the plans.
having the best beta testers pays off for us again--thanks everyone.
What do you all think of the product? How'd we do on size, ratio of old/new content, additional value provided by re-formatting and re-packaging everything, etc?
Thanks for the comments--we've already included some of them in the editing. I was planning on submitting the books tonight for final print but unfortunately it doesn't look like that will happen.
thanks, Juris. That isn't currently in there but we'll take a look.
I think we've got plenty of material for Volume 3 if people like 1 and 2.
ScottyB, would it ever. I have been unable to get Amazon to list the book before we submit it. If anyone at Amazon is reading this, I'd love to talk to you.
We're finishing it up right now and will be submitting for printing very soon.
They'll be available at bn.com if history is any indication. Theoretically this book is in the right program with our publisher to make it to brick-and-mortar bookstores at some point but I think we'll have to do pretty good sales numbers for that to happen.
it would be awesome to make some of those.
thank you. Please email me your address, dianagram--we are sending you a set for Christmas
It will definitely be there--I would hope in time for Christmas but we can't guarantee it.
we might not have the most commenters on the internets, but we have the best commenters on the internets. Thanks everyone.
Richard--the paperbacks should be at other outlets in a few weeks.
please click 'found' instead of Matt Swartz, or you can go here
The link to the results is at the top of the article, or you can visit
directly. For more information about the awards please visit the IBA home page at
Yes, you can vote (or you could have). We require any level of BP account to vote, but a Basic (free) account would be sufficient.
IBA results are coming soon.
if you have an account please click 'manage my profile' in the blue login bar on any page, and there is an option for newsletter subscription.
good options for tlr at 2 min, 54 sec
and 3 min, 25 sec
ScottyB, here's yours: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/iba/81a8
When you go to bbp.cx/iba, hopefully you're sent to your ballot?
Sorry--you'll have to re-vote one of your ballots and then it'll be there.
Sorry about that... please reload and give this another try.
coming soon, promise
Yes, they're coming soon.
you can use the URL: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/odds?oddsdate=2011-07-31
change the oddsdate to find the odds on any day of the 2011 season.
we'll have a better way to do this up sometime pretty soon.
we're waiting until then to raise the base subscription price!
If we don't think a stat expresses anything useful we're not going to go out of our way to include it.
darn it, I did forget to mention that we remembered the Cardinals this time.
thanks for reading!
no, it wouldn't be a limited offer if it were retroactive.
We are offering interested new parties and loyal subscribers the option to add a year of BP to their account for about a 20% savings. If you don't expire for six months you can still purchase at the lower price now.
we don't guarantee Hit List will be published at a certain time any day, but its coming. Thanks for your attention and patience.
You should not be seeing such an ad at BP--no sound or "site surveys" rolling over the content. Please send us any detail about the ad's content by using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of any page and we'll get it pulled. Sorry for the inconvenience.
There were, for teams without games played the previous day--we'll handle that a little differently starting Monday. Thanks!
thanks so much for the kind words!
nothing to do with fantasy... WiQ was not getting very many readers.
Firefly ran for 1.5 seasons or so? WiQ for 10x that.
We are hoping to release the new Hit List next week.
You're the first we've heard from--anyone else having a problem with the colors? Thanks!
thanks for the version info! It's a general incompatibility between the library we're using for that functionality and many flavors of IE, I believe.
that's very strange. let me see why.
thanks for the reports. We do have specific problems with some of the comment functionality (plus/minus, post reply) in some versions of IE, but everything on the compensation page should work for virtually any recent browser--please give us a holler if not.
there's an IE specific problem with that functionality--sorry about that.
We're not sure where we're going to put it yet, but you can use the green bar below the login line for the short term. Thanks!
you should already be able to sort by any of those columns just by clicking one. its not going to work until the page finishes loading, though.
thanks. Jeff Euston will explain the payroll status in his intro article, coming soon.
thanks for the feedback. You should be able to get to everything Cot's knows about a player on his player card, but let me see if we can get something about the player's current contract in here.
thanks--we're still cleaning up the page frame, but you'll be seeing it other places soon.
We do not have service time in here--I will see about adding it.
We will certainly announce then and go into some detail about how they were generated.
We should have a new reliever stat report ready for you fairly soon. We're still talking about the various components. Sorry for the delay.
I'd like to comment on the timing of this article, and our abrupt retirement of SIERA.
Earlier this year, Matt Swartz sent me and email saying that he wanted to take SIERA somewhere else. I told him that we didn't have a problem with that. I also told Matt that we planned on running SIERA for the rest of 2011, and that we would be retiring the stat after that.
When Matt recently announced that he was re-publishing SIERA at Fangraphs, we were fine with that, and it didn't change our plans at all. What we weren't expecting was for SIERA to be re-formulated and published under the same name. The Internet now has two different sets of numbers attached to the same stat name on two different websites. This is absolutely certain to generate unnecessary and frustrating confusion on the part of people who aren't closely following the topic. Now we can expect questions: why doesn't your SIERA match their SIERA? Theirs is newer, and they say it is better--why are you still running old numbers? Which SIERA am I expected to use? This is not a position we want to be in.
At this point you can argue that SIERA itself suffers when there are multiple versions floating around. We weren't sure what we were going do about an ERA estimator when we decided to retire SIERA, but faced with the prospect of playing a contributing role in a confusing system, we decided that changing our timetable and replacing SIERA immediately was the right thing to do. Our options at that point were to quietly replace SIERA with something else or to announce what we were doing. We decided that Colin should fast-track his SIERA retirement article and we would use that to announce the change. When the article was ready on Friday, we posted it.
Thanks for the feedback so far, all--and John's right, this is more of an alpha thing, but we didn't want to change the name of our testing user group.
That's right, actually--we've just released them to our Beta testers. Please have a look and let us know what you think, folks, and thanks again for your patience.
We were happy to include in negotiations with our partners at ESPN the rights to display the content we were creating for them to our own subscribers. The way we look at it, they're paying us (and the individual authors) to write more for you.
we're expecting those to be completely populated in April.
ensuring that comments can be left for the Adjusted Standings
dang, we missed a great opportunity here...
Definitely--sorry, that's what the TAB and CSV buttons are for. I should have mentioned them earlier.
PA has been added to the bio box for the projection. We'll get those projections higher on the cards as well.
players generally don't show up in team tracker until they've played in the majors but we should certainly have his projections on his card--we'll get it fixed.
This was something we did for the book, but we haven't done it for the website.
you bet--more graphs are coming to the cards. If anyone's having any trouble seeing the WARP and fantasy graphs on a current player's card, we'd love to hear from you. Thanks!
Oh, in the annual--I thought you meant the current cards.
Sorry to reply to myself but in answer to your question about availability, we're finishing recapturing all of these processes. That's what took so long this year but it's all going to be exactly the same next year (other than any improvements we make in the interim, but we're not going to rewrite it again) so we should finally be quite early with our data.
hi there, you can use the "Raw CSV Data" or "Raw TAB Data" orange buttons at the top of either the PFM or the depth chart home page to download all the raw playing-time-adjusted data that the PFM uses. Sorry for the lack of clarity on that.
We could put 10-yr UPSIDE in the PFM, yes... what we did is compute UPSIDE fairly close to the original definition (though its by year, not 5-year) but what I'd really like is for us to figure out the best way to answer the question UPSIDE was designed for with the information we now have available to us.
I'm not sure, but I'll check and re-reply.
We're looking at Trout--I agree those numbers don't look right. We're not listing any comps for him either which is another part of the problem. (Of course, he's not the easiest player to find comps for.)
Which version of IE? Thanks for the note--we'll get it fixed.
I'll get an answer on this.
1-year UPSIDE is available in the PFM spreadsheet. Please have a look. That's different than classic UPSIDE, of course, but rather than exactly match the former definition we wanted to look at the question that UPSIDE is trying to answer and see if we've learned anything we can apply in the last few years.
Really? Like who?
Sure--I posted about Comps and Upside in a new post so more people would see it.
2012 will be the first time in years that we are using the same code and processes that we did the previous year, and I'm really hopeful that'll solve the delays we've had. I wish I could offer something more concrete.
Please feel free to reply in the comment thread(s) or send me an email if you want to discuss this further, your choice. Our responsiveness has not been very good, mainly because we're trying to concentrate on the releases as much as humanly possible, but now that we're getting close we will do a better job.
The most likely answer is playing time--the rate stats should be similar but the counting stats could be way off. Does that explain it?
You can download the latest playing time projected PECOTAs by clicking the "Raw CSV Data" or "Raw TAB Data" buttons in the Player Forecast Manager, and we just added those buttons to the Depth Charts homepage.
They'll be back very soon.
We'll have more graphs soon--not sure which ones yet.
We will have card updates tomorrow.
I was working on a longer explanation for the delays, but that's a good way to not get it completed quickly, so I'll try to sum up very briefly here.
We weren't as prepared for the complexity of what we tried to do this off-season as we thought we were. All of our translations and projections (and many of our statistics themselves, as you know if you've read the statistical introduction from Baseball Prospectus 2011) were re-built from the ground up with contemporary components on BP hardware. Where before we had individual BPers running all sorts of different processes on different machines, we've now got 98% of our stuff in SQL and Perl running on a dedicated server that many BPers can get to.
We put too much on Colin Wyers' shoulders this offseason, which is why you haven't heard from him in quite a while. We expected to make up some time with the transition of the database and processes to the central server, but that took a lot longer than we'd budgeted schedule-wise and because of that, we weren't able to leverage the efforts of the rest of our technical staff like we had planned.
When you look at where we are now structurally versus where we were in late March of 2009 and 2010 I like to think there are reasons for optimism, but I regret some forward-looking statements I've made in the past so I don't want to make any here, and I certainly understand it's cold comfort for those of you who were counting on the features we've been unable to release so far. I wish we'd been able to produce all of the components of the projections when they were reasonably expected.
Sure, we can go into detail. Please give me a day or two.
please email us at email@example.com with any other questions
you can set minimum dollars displayed to something very low--i use -99--and that'll show you everyone. I just got 854 players in the csv using that method.
we'll have some form of these, yes
You should see percentiles now.
We may adjust the placement of different data sets on the card--we know the projections where they are now is a bit of a departure from previous placement.
Sorry for the confusion. In the past we have run new projections when we were tinkering with the system or needed to add players. We haven't done either of those things this year--thus the projections haven't changed at all and no new spreadsheet has been generated.
The spreadsheet does not include playing time adjustments from the depth charts--for those, subscribers can generate a CSV from the PFM with any statistics you like. Does that meet your needs?
please try again--you should see them now. thanks!
we will have full translations. however, they won't necessarily match what the Davenport Translations, and we don't yet have an ETA. sorry for the inconvenience.
10-year projections will be available this week.
the projections are in a couple of places. the summary is next to a player's photo, and you can see the rest if you scroll down to "Projected Playing Time", which is about halfway down the card.
we'll get this fixed.
we're working on this--sorry about that
sure thing--we'll add more graphs to the card but we wanted to make sure people could see them first.
Please try that link again--sorry for the confusion.
As Brandon said, you'll work from the comfort of your own bunny slippers unless you're close enough to a BP staffer to get them their drycleaning.
No hard deadline, but we have a limited number of openings and we tend to get a lot of applicants every time we post something like this.
he was a horribly busted #1.
Ensuring that comments can actually be left for the Playoff Odds Report...
we haven't updated the player card projections for 2011 yet. Sorry for the confusion.
I doubt it, but we'll try.
I think we got this fixed.
Padres had one player with OBP above .350 last year, and there are compelling reasons not to bat Adrian Gonzalez leadoff.
Full voting results will come with the AL wrapup.
it was--more on that later today
I would love to have all of those guys back in the fold. We don't think our readers would love the multiplier to the Premium subscription price that would be required.
I didn't mean to give the communication problems we had this year the short shrift. Colin will be enumerating specific changes to our production process going forward this week which I believe will resolve your concerns, but please do let us know after you see what he has to say.
In addition to what was said in the article itself, I would put this thought in the "If I only knew then what I knew now" file.
Some of those old-school Avalon Hill games were just awesome when one could round up enough players. I remember a Civilization/Advanced Civilization game that lasted about 12 progressively goofier hours.
Bring one of those "Scream" voice disguisers for the scout to use.
We know you have questions and we will get you more information just as soon as we possibly can.
great suggestions! please comment rate them accordingly.
I've heard that the maverick publisher of Joe's book thinks industry standard precious dozen-word subtitles are ridiculous.
don't forget Benji Gil for RoY!
We almost never delete comments.
Joe is speaking for himself, not BP. Thanks, everyone, for your comments and suggestions, and for reading.
fixed, sorry about that
hi... we're working on the blog integration. for now you can use the links at the bottom of the blog posts (more [title], etc) and the paging elements at the top and bottom of the post to go to others in the series, but we've got a lot more to do there. we should have blogs completely locked in by the end of the month. we just didn't want to hold off introducing them since we had a lot of good content to get readers immediately. thanks.
I think that's exactly right. Most of the web either shuts down or produces minimal content on the weekends.
yes it is--stats will be updated soon. sorry for the delay.
please send us a screen shot or advertiser name if you see one--we're not supposed to have any. Sorry about that.
We have a lot of stuff we're working on adding to the cards. They should soon have a lot more information than the DT and PECOTA cards used to.
yes, current year stats will be on the new cards as they were on the dt cards.
you bet--thanks for the comments
1. mostly true--however, the PECOTA historicals have minor-league lines and some different stats available, and we didn't want to remove them entirely until we were closer to completely replicating that data in the rest of the card.
2. the easiest way to do this is to find a guy who played on that team from the index and then click 2009 CLE on his card. we'll have a team browser in there soon.
So far today, PFM loads and the rest of the site are behaving much better, so the changes we made last night, coupled with the completion of most fantasy drafts, might have resolved the issue.
We served about 25% as many PFM sessions as articles this month, and our article traffic wasn't low. That's never happened before. We're going to be better prepared for something like that next year. Sorry again for the delays.
people using the PFM in realtime is almost certainly the issue. Not that you shouldn't be able to do that--of course you should--but we just had an awful time keeping up. There are several different directions we could take the tool which would make it much more useful for that, and we're talking them over.
sorry for the massive slowdown--we will make it up to you.
it is certainly our expectation that the worst is now behind us, but we'll make sure it's not a problem next year. glad you were able to make use of it this weekend.
The drop rate accounts for comps leaving baseball. We could roll those into the projections as below-replacement-level, but considering the drop rate and the future projection in concert is almost certain to be more useful and interesting to the average person.
We initially did do comps for every year. People didn't like the long-term output, and it took a lot longer to generate.
We're now doing it the way PECOTA has always done it--once, up front--and we'll definitely be doing some further research on this topic.
Comps are done once, that is true.
Yeah, uh... no, I don't really care to comment about that.
We want sortable stats all over our cards, but we didn't make a bigger announcement of this because like you, I'm not sure if they have any value at all in the PECOTA tables. Nevertheless, they're there, and if anyone comes up with a good use for them, please let us know!
It may not be gone forever--we'll have a look as the dust settles.
They are, but not for long. More on this later.
10 year performance graph has percentiles--red is 50th--while the 10 year projections are weighted mean. We need to make this more clear.
hi there, which browser and os are you using? can you send us a screencap at firstname.lastname@example.org? sorry for the inconvenience.
True--we're not totalling the two lines for IP. We'll get it fixed. Thanks.
OK, just click his name now--all links go to new cards
sorry about that, buffum--since we're about to move the cards out of beta, I'll update that link in a few.
Hi all. All pitchers have now been published.
Rather than reply to each individual comment, Mike Juntunen is right about his observations of the system overall.
On the specific topic of long-term projections, PECOTA will ignore dropped seasons altogether, rather than factoring them in. If you see a player whose long-term projections look optimistic, keep in mind that his drop rate determines whether he'll be in the league at all that year.
Nate explains it better than I do here:
hi--the beta squad is looking at them now. we should roll them out early this week.
coming Sunday morning... thanks
Understood--the cards certainly present a much wider selection of information than the one-year weighted means (or 50th percentile) projections.
Let me put it this way: if most of the value of the fantasy or premium subscription for our subscribers who use our stats for draft prep is rolled up in the PECOTA cards, we surely need to work on an additional product offering, because I can't imagine that being efficient.
Nobody's content with the way the PECOTA rollout went this year, ourselves definitely included. I've apologized for it personally, and will continue to do so. We were in a hard place, and we made some estimates of difficulty and execution that turned out to be optimistic, and if we had the ability to go back and achieve a more normal rollout, we certainly would do that.
We're not done talking about the PECOTA process and the lessons we've learned from it yet, but our top priority is getting the PECOTA package completely released.
Understood--the timing is certainly not what we planned, and I am sorry for the delay.
If the one-year projections are not enough for your draft prep, or if you have any other questions or concerns, please send me an email at email@example.com anytime.
This is correct--that's an artifact, we changed it a while back, and we'll change the note to match. Sorry about that.
Name will definitely be in the final card page title.
I had LASIK ten years ago. No problems other than slight haloing at night for the first few months, and my vision is still outstanding.
They're all in there now--sorry about that.
You can always click the BP logo in the upper left to get back to the front page in the new layout. We've got a breadcrumb beneath the button bar in the header, and there's a smaller logo link in the footer. Will those fill your needs here?
Sorry about that--we switched to a new back-end on March 3. We've changed the front-page links--now you can click 'more' to get to previous posts in the new format, and there's a separate link for stuff written on March 3 or before.
The parent comment had as its lead 'the comparisons appear designed to show the newer PECOTA is better'. They weren't--they were what we had to publish. More coming.
That's an interesting idea!
Clay Davenport will be updating the playing time projections every other day through the start of the season. Keep in mind he's doing it based on his guesstimates of how much playing time each player will get throughout the course of the season--that means he might be allocating considerable playing time to a player who isn't slated to start, if he thinks the guy who is starting the season at that position isn't up to the job and won't last long.
We do have internal discussions about playing time that become part of Clay's updates, and John provided a bunch of info earlier this month on that front.
If a player has a depth chart playing time estimate, we use that. If not, we use the PECOTA projected playing time. We thought this would be the best solution, but it is confusing and we haven't figured out how to make it less so.
I have never, ever agreed with 100% of the projections from any projection system I've ever seen. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. As they say, that's why they play the games.
To follow up on this--I'm not much of a natural marketer, but the reason we haven't been more forthcoming about serious issues in the 2010 projections is that we're not aware of any serious issues in the 2010 projections. Seriously.
If you are in a non-keeper league, as far as I know there's no reason you shouldn't be able to make use of the projections in the book, or the ones released on the site in late January, to inform your draft strategy.
The long-term projections (and, by extension, the upside), the comps, the weighted means, the percentiles--we've had problems with all of those to some degree, and we're still working on fixes. But if what you'd generally use is the output from the PFM, none of those are relevant.
If you really think that we're trying to pull the wool over your eyes by producing test results that we've massaged, or made 2009-specific changes only for the purpose of passing tests on 2009 data, please send me an email and I will refund your money.
We've had serious execution and communication problems this year, and I must again apologize for those, but I'd sooner go out of business than resort to something like that.
We don't know. The weighted means (at least for 2009) have more bias than the fiftieth. We're going to have to look at it more closely.
I abjectly, completely apologize for the problems we have had with this process this year. Honestly, it kills me that we've had these issues. We so appreciate your support, and we want to bring you the best.
I've been working on that message in a larger format, with more background included. In the meantime, I understand and agree with many of the points people are making here. We're working hard to make things better than ever, and I'm sure we'll get there, but it's been much more difficult than we anticipated.
If you want to send me an email about PECOTA, or anything else, I'm at firstname.lastname@example.org.
We'll get them in there. Thanks.
We're looking at this. Thanks.
we have included the projections printed in Baseball Prospectus 2010 as the second lines in the error reports above.
Perhaps! Who knows, maybe readers will like the game--feel free to search for it and check it out as far as I'm concerned.
But "I love that game, it's my favorite baseball game ever"... come on, that's like me saying "I love Baseball Prospectus, it's my favorite baseball website ever" on some other site.
Caveat searchor, and if you don't think the response was strong enough, feel free to use your comment rating abilities accordingly!
The parent message is brought to you by the developers of Out of the Park Baseball.
this is coming today.
thanks--this is really hard to do with our current front page, which is why we have the rolling title format that we used to use with Unfiltered, but we'll have a better system in place soon.
we still haven't worked out exactly how these will end up working. We'll have all the appropriate features available for them soon, though. Thanks!
sorry--that broke in some browsers a while back. it's on our list.
this is correct--we haven't updated the linker to point at 2010 cards yet. will do so soon. thanks.
Mike, can you send us your newsletter at email@example.com? Thanks.
Thank you for the kind words, bmcgehee, but to everyone who thinks we shouldn't have released the cards without checking them more closely: I agree, and would probably feel the same way in your place. We made a mistake, and we're working to fix it.
They don't. Player card data only, unless Colin comes back with bad news.
Please see this update on the ten year projections:
hi all, We're collaborating with Nate on this, and we'll update you the minute we have something. It is our top priority.
good question--I don't know! I'll see what we can find out.
That's correct--they're pulling from the same data.
Please keep in mind that Wiley has exclusive rights to publish the comments, as well as the rest of Baseball Prospectus 2010, for a year. It's not a matter of us not being willing to publish them online--we simply do not have the right to do so.
The playing time projections come from our Depth Charts, behind which a real person is looking at team context and estimating where a team will allocate its playing time.
PECOTA is projecting Rajai Davis' playing time based on his part-timer status over the last few years. Especially for anyone who has been riding a bench or otherwise missed time over the last couple of seasons, you'll want to use the Depth Chart playing time projections instead.
that's correct--we got it backwards.
Honestly, not sure. We'll have an ETA soon and try like the devil not to miss it. Now that we've made it through an entire card production run with all the new moving pieces we have, it should be quicker than the hitters were.
The comments from the annuals? You see through 2009, right?
We can't publish the player comments from Baseball Prospectus 2010 until 2011--our publisher quite reasonably would have an issue with that. I'd surely like to get more player-specific content on these cards, though, and we're talking over ways to do that.
There are comments from some years missing, and it's a goal of ours to get all those filled in in 2010 as well.
Another thing we'd like to do is add comment threads for each player card. We're looking at how to implement that.
whoops! we'll fix this. thanks for the catch.
oops--my mistake. this has been fixed.
SSSIM is in there--please have a look.
Folks, didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle above, so: SSSim is now available--please have a look if you're of a Scoresheet mind.
I believe so... we'll be posting a post-mortem explaining some of the issues we've encountered over the last few years.
Also, I am still waiting on my copy of Duke Nukem Forever. Demos look great though!
Seriously, I apologize again for the delay.
SSSim is now in WMS and PFM! Please have a look, and thanks for your patience.
Hello--the 2/24 update has been posted. Clay will be dropping by as soon as he can to touch on specific questions; running the update kept him occupied throughout the day. I can tell you that Upside has been adjusted to more closely resemble the scale of previous years.
To get this information into the cards, we're going to have to re-run some of our backend stuff. They won't be ready until about noon Pac tomorrow. I'm really sorry for the delay.
UPSIDE questions--we'll get you an answer asap
Let's revisit this after we get the above stuff out the door, but we'll definitely do it soon.
that's an interesting request.
we'll see what we can do.
PECOTA cards/PFM/depth chart update note coming sometime soon.
I guarantee Amazon has no idea that my order was associated with BP, nor would they care if they knew. I just put in the old personal credit card info and clicked 'submit' the same as anyone else.
Any implication that friends of BP are getting their orders first was unintended. (After all, anyone posting here is a friend of BP!) What we can tell you is that there are many people we've heard of that are having their orders filled, and we're not just relying on second-hand reports because some of ours have been shipped too.
We've gotten multiple reports of Baseball Prospectus 2010 shipping from both Amazon and Barnes and Noble. I got email from both outlets that my orders shipped earlier today.
We want everyone to get their books as soon as possible, but please keep in mind that we aren't dealing with Amazon, BN, or any other outlet directly and we have never been successful in our attempts to influence their fulfillment process in the past. Do contact them directly if you have questions or concerns--that's one thing that *has* worked for people. (If nothing else, you might get a $10 credit like coleman did.)
There will be a lot of new content. We'll have plenty more information for you on down the line as the book progresses.
We're planning to publish the book as a paperback and as a PDF.
protecting nobody really makes the draft more exciting in scoresheet, I can tell you that
oops--our bad. will be fixed momentarily.
hoping for this week, but that's not a promise. more likely next week.
Each player has two lines for their different roles--you'll need to add up the IP, but all other stats are the totals.
you haven't seen our inboxes.
they are the result of combining the pecota weighted means projections with our depth charts.
you can always get to the depth charts from the fantasy header link at the top of most bp pages, but we're changing things around to make them much easier to find.
if you have questions about how to use the pfm please make sure you've read the instructions
which are linked to at the top of the pfm. let us know what's missing, wrong, or unclear and we'll get it fixed. we'll add comments to the pfm as well so you can use that to post your thoughts.
best comment of 2010
how does your favourite RSS reader handle password-protected content, everyone?
The number is your subscriber number. If you use the comment threads for a while you'll probably associate these with the frequent commenters to some degree and be able to track through changes they make with their actual display name, for example.
Rob Deer could play defense.
If you don't want to get the newsletter, you certainly don't have to! Rather than marking the newsletter as spam, though, please consider taking 30 seconds to simply turn it off:
- click "manage your profile" in the blue subscription bar below the header of any BP page
- under the "newsletter preference" header, change the selection from "text newsletter" to "no newsletter"
that's about where the media links have always been, only we have more of them now so they take up a lot more space.
we're looking at ways to address the thoughts you've all had on this thread. thanks.
by their very existence Snow Patrol are more or less completely mocking themselves and their fans
who wants article rating? let us know in this thread if you do.
We could have done either but the real problem is I don't have a good way for visitors to the site to get to static places of interest. A link to Prospectus Idol that never moves and is easy to find on the front page would make the method of announcing results totally insignificant.
We need something like the Top 11 Prospects or Team Health Reports links on the front page for Prospectus Idol. And Transaction Analysis. And other stuff too, I'm sure.
We have never published voting rules per se, and wouldn't bother--if for no other reason than that there's no way to police the process that isn't ridiculous.
If you want to vote on best performance this week, that's fine. If you want to vote based on your favourite candidate overall regardless of this week's performance, that's also fine. If you want to vote for the most dashing headshot, or whoever randomly first appears on the voting list... well, I'd personally prefer you didn't, but can't and won't try to stop you.
Geoff Young has been doing very good work on the web for a long time now. We're happy to have him here.
Of course, it's not an either-or thing. Expect to see more from our Idol winner (and selected others) after the contest is over.
Sorry about that--there was a coding error. Now it looks the way it's supposed to.
What I really meant to do here is encourage people to come up with another idea for finding the new comments in comment threads. If there's anything else anyone has seen on other sites--like, say, a link for each new comment that one could click to head directly to it (kind of a comment 'table of contents')--we could have a look and see if we could implement it here.
Where are you seeing the other Christopher Miller?
Gene Harris had an extremely straight fastball.
I saw Derek Bell play third base, Archi Cianfrocco play shortstop, and AJ Burnett throw a really lousy no-hitter.
We're not going to do this.
From the subject of this post I was expecting discussion of worst and best case scenarios for Anthony Gwynn's stay with the Padres.
no, it's not, but all we're counting is yes votes, so it doesn't matter if you read it or not.
Hi all. In response to several points you've raised:
* Elimination: let's not over-engineer the process here. If for whatever reason you like an article and/or contestant and want them to continue, click the thumbs-up. You can read the articles in random order from the landing page, or you can pick and choose articles based on whatever criteria you choose.
* Timeframe: I'm sorry we didn't do a better job of communicating the voting deadline for this first week, and we'll do this on a comprehensive basis in the future.
As far as length of voting period, we know you might not have time to read everything the first two or three weeks, but we're not planning on changing it. The winners need to know they're working on an article with a hard deadline.
The contest needs to be weekly. Both BP and our partners are looking for the contestants to produce a content on topics that might not be of their choosing on a regular basis by the playoffs this year. There's a huge difference between someone who can produce a few excellent articles on topics of their choosing a year and someone who can do it on weekly assignment. We love to work with both types but we're looking for the latter in this contest.
We didn't think of it early enough this year to give much more time even if we wanted to. Next year, if we run a contest like this again, we'll be more organized.
* Headshots: everyone's always telling us "hey, if you all are professional sportswriters, you ought to have headshots." We could put in a switch that can change them to smilies like we have on the subscription page if that'll help.
I have been told several times by other readers that not every single article or post we write is read.
The articles appear in a random order for each reader, which scrambles itself further every so often.
They were actually posted Sunday midafternoon, but ... we know it was a lot of articles to read in a short period of time. We want this to run weekly, though, and the winners have got to have some time to do their next entry, so that limits our options.
We'll get the voting period in all the Idol materials from now on, though. Sorry about that.
Sorry for the lack of clarity there. I was saying that to make the top 10 Byron had to be comfortably in the top 5% of initial entrants. We had hundreds of entries.
The same is true of our other nine continuing contestants. We're very proud of this group of people, mean to say.
It's just your vote status as of the deadline.
The winner? Sure, once they win the editors will help them out as they do all of our other authors.
We don't want to autotune their submissions during the contest, but we'll definitely do whatever we can to perfect their content outside of BP Idol.
you can use that URL even if you aren't a subscriber. we'll have a front page link up very soon.
This has been fixed in the article text. Sorry about that.
sure--we wanted to get something like this in there but ran out of time.
Why wouldn't they necessarily be for sale, if there's a need at first base and the return is a cost-controlled superstar-performing major-leaguer?
I'm not saying the Padres need to trade Gonzalez. I'm not saying it's particularly likely they get a reasonable return for him. There are teams out there that could put together a package of players who overall project to fit together to be more important to the next good Padres team than Gonzalez. If the Padres can talk a team into sending them several top-notch prospects who are under team control even longer than Gonzalez, that's a deal they've got to look at.
Are you making that argument, Drew? I'm sure not, and if you aren't willing to either, I don't think we're disagreeing about anything.
You don't trade him for contracts. You trade him for prospects, and lots of them--think the Glenn Davis to Baltimore deal.
I have no problem with divergent viewpoints. If you've read us for long, you've probably noticed instances where some of our authors don't agree with others on some things. I'm totally in favor of that, provided they can back their opinions up. Informed disagreement is great.
All sides need to be informed for that to work, though, making my stance "saying something and backing it up with logic and evidence of thought is wonderful", not "alternative viewpoints are wonderful".
You could use that excuse to put the most abject moron in the world on the air to tell people what they think.
I'd like to use this opportunity to encourage everyone to click "manage my profile" in the blue subscription bar below the BP logo and set your Display Name to your real name.
Also, please stop submitting entries to the contest.
There are people out there that are special enough for us to move the deadline, but we'd just dispense with the formalities and give you a gig instead.
(If you're not sure whether you fit into that category or not, you probably don't--as Simon says, *shrug* "sorry".)
Good idea--this is done. Thanks!
I schedule the procedure.
Still reading. Please be patient--we'll make sure everyone knows what comes next when we get there.
This is true--we always meant the 22nd.
There's a lot of love here.
Kent Hrbek can!
Sorry for the confusion. The deadline is April 22, not April 15.
Yes, we'll automatically count anything in April.
Sure, we'll donate for renewals too.
It's a long story.
We could! I like to wait until later so rosters and positions have solidified. As you probably know, HACKING MASS positional eligibility is based on the depth charts, and those were pretty set when we turned it on.
Of course, you know where most players are going to be playing much earlier than the last week of spring training, and you can certainly be thinking over your roster in advance of the actual contest.
There are a few guys--new players or players who didn't play in 2008--who are missing from Team Tracker. Sorry, I should have mentioned this. We'll try to get them in there beforehand but in every case once they have any 2009 playing time they'll be there.
Please stop with the f-bombs. The comments threads aren't Romper Room, and we don't want to muzzle posters, but this is the kind of thing that makes us consider it.
No, but HACKING MASS is coming soon.
HACKING MASS will be ready for entries soon.
We are not running Predictatron this year.
All of the ratings have been available for weeks in the THR Matrix. No reason to wait for the individual articles if you are preparing for your draft.
We'd like to encourage our readers to keep the comments attached to articles at least somewhat on topic with the articles themselves. It'll make the comments threads more relevant and useful to everyone.
Is Barry Bonds any more likely than Rickey Henderson to play? No way we're doing a Rickey Henderson card...
For fantasy purposes you are better off looking at the PFM and depth charts. They combine PECOTA\'s projected rates of production with situational and playing time estimates.
You can find links to both on the Fantasy page:
Thanks for subscribing!
If you had to pick one, PECOTA would advise that you pick the Weighted Mean projection--the bottom stat line in the projections section. You can see more information on how this section works here:
Sure--we\'ve got some things in mind to allow for that. No ETA as of yet though.
Later today is the plan. You\'ll see the update time on the cards and the Fantasy page change when it happens, if it\'s not otherwise announced.
You know, the whole Moyer thing seemed a lot funnier while sleep-deprived.
Moyer has no projection and his card just had a bunch of bad data in those fields. I hadn\'t even considered that it would have utility other than that. We\'ll put it back in the next run of the cards, but it won\'t have a projection at all.
PERA does not equal DEF.
DEF can definitely be negative if a guy had a worse than average defense behind him when he was on the mound, according to the play-by-play numbers. We\'ll get DEF in the glossary soon.
We\'ll do that... it wasn\'t our intention to require the book as a decoder ring for the cards or anything, we just hadn\'t gotten there yet.
Sorry, one thing I forgot to mention that a reader emailed me about: the 2008 SuperVORP data point is still off for some players (Johan Santana, for example). We\'re not sure what\'s going on there but we expect to have it resolved by our next update. We\'re shooting for sometime next week on that.
By Thursday night, we\'re projecting 99% of the problems you\'ve seen with the presentation of PECOTA will be resolved. That includes any and all issues outstanding with PFM and the depth charts as far as team affiliation and missing players go, a new weighted means spreadsheet, and almost every PECOTA card issue. (A few, such as Alex Rodriguez having \"2...\" instead of years on his seven-year WARP chart, aren\'t going to be addressed until later, but they should generally be cosmetic in nature.)
On a couple of other popular topics:
* the current year\'s player comments from our annual have absolutely, positively never been available on the PECOTA cards, and I hope we didn\'t lead anyone to believe anything other than that with any of our marketing for either the Fantasy or Premium products. If we did, please let me know, and I apologize in advance.
* Will Carroll has put together a largely independent organization for Puck Prospectus. Andrew Rothstein and team have been working virtually autonomously and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. We\'re very happy to be working with the Puck Prospectus crew, but they\'re doing just about all of the work. I can see how it\'d look like the PECOTA problems and Puck Prospectus might be related timing-wise, but I can assure you they had nothing to do with each other.
Our top priority has been and remains producing quality baseball content for our readers.
Thanks for reading, and I apologize again for the troubles.
We\'ll have to look at this in some detail, but we\'ll get an answer on this.
Folks, we hear you, and we\'re working on it.
We had hockeyprospectus.com a long time ago. We let it lapse and someone registered it and is sitting on it. Sad news.
The depth chart home page now has the comment count for all of the underlying team comment pages displayed.
Sure, that\'s one way it could be done. One way or another I\'d certainly like to offer more of the book content on the site in 2010. We\'ll be looking at our options there as the year progresses.
I talked about this a little above.
Our publisher doesn\'t want all of the player comments from the current book in the wild during the annual\'s sales cycle, which is certainly understandable.
We do have their permission to make less widespread use of player comments from this year\'s book, which we\'d like to implement soon, and the general issue is something we\'ll be thinking about going forward.
There are lots of guys with 2014 and 2015 stat issues, as mentioned in the original post. We should have those fixed with the next run of these, which I hope happens soon. Sorry about that.
Better there than on the mound!
Mets fans can tell you that\'s where he belongs.
This is fixed.
I think OWARP and DWARP are mislabeled--working on fixing that.
Thanks for all the replies.
These will be off for a few days, until we get the pitcher cards up.
I don\'t have a good ETA for that.
Good point. Sorry, I should have elaborated sooner.
As Juris guessed above, Nate creates the data and then we\'ve got to massage it to create the cards. The process will take a day or two once we\'ve got the data.
We don\'t have the data yet, but I\'m expecting it today.
To answer another question in the thread, hitter comps should definitely be there this year.
Thanks for your patience, and sorry for the delay.
We actually get affiliate fees if you buy through a link on the website, so please do that if you are so inclined.
L comes before M in the Baseball Prospectus alphabet.
We\'re working on the spreadsheet--more very soon, hopefully.
We\'re also looking at the composition of the newsletter and will gladly read any suggestions you have.
No, there\'s not, but there should be.
Thanks for participating in what has been a very interesting discussion here. There\'s a lot of confusion about the comment rating system, which is understandable, since we haven\'t gone into much detail about how it works.
We\'ve got a lot of comments attached to some of our articles and Unfiltered posts. I expect a lot more as we ramp back up to in-season content production over the next couple of months and people have more content to comment on. We\'re happy about that, but we were concerned about the moderation that might be required to keep things reasonably civil and on-topic. As the very minimal code of conduct (see link at the top of any comments section) says, we\'ve all seen commenting systems buried under a blizzard of extraneous tangents, name-calling, and trolling elsewhere, and we didn\'t want to have that happen here.
We decided to look to our subscribers--who, by the way, are the best--for help.
We keep track of the + and - assigned to each comment by any subscriber, and when they get to a certain threshold, we consider that a vote of no-confidence by the user community and minimize that comment. For the completists and the curious, the thread is still available for view, but a click is required to expand it.
When the complaints about comment ratings started yesterday we checked the code and we actually had a bug in there that was hiding some comments that we didn\'t intend--the threshold was being computed incorrectly. We\'ve fixed that, and I apologize for the inconvenience.
We\'re not censoring anybody. Nobody from BP is going through the comment threads and clicking the minus on anything the least bit negative about BP (or anything else, for that matter). We\'re big boys, and we know we\'re far from perfect, so if you\'ve got a gripe or critique we\'re fine with you voicing it here. We *do* have the ability to garble something that we believe to be outside the limits of our code of conduct. We\'ve done that 11 times so far, out of nearly 9000 comments left by our subscribers.
If your comment has been minimized (and it wasn\'t a result of our computation bug), your fellow subscribers have decided that it isn\'t adding to the conversation. I\'ve been looking through the minimized comments along with everything else since commenting was introduced and I believe that overall, the community has been doing a good job policing itself in this fashion.
If you\'ve got questions, concerns, or suggestions, we\'d love to hear them. You can click the \'contact us\' link at the top of any comments section to send them to us.
In-N-Out makes good burgers.
Their fries are useless, though.
They\'ve never known how to do anything but a fish taco, and since I don\'t like fish tacos that much...
Now Sombrero\'s Mexican, on the other hand, does most things well. Plus, they\'re Blink-182 approved.
Rubio\'s is very overrated--the Joe Carter of taco shops.
Yes--anything without the \"BP\" whirligig dingus on the front page is free. We should put something in the actual article that lets subscribers know they\'re reading a Premium article, though.
Working on the nav/formatting stuff... where are you seeing bad logos and Rays team name? I thought we had all those updated long ago and in looking I can\'t find them. Thanks!
Great idea... we\'re working on this.
Our publisher would not like that. 2008 comments will be on the cards soon, though.
The number is your userid in our system. As Evan guesses it\'s more-or-less sequential. Thanks for being with us for so long, Evan!
not quite this many! you can see all results for previous IBA voting by clicking on the year links at
You can click the link at the top of the article to get to the complete voting results. Derek Jeter got 11 votes.
This is one of the most awesome comment threads ever.
Which browser and os are you using? If anyone else with print problems could submit the same info we can use that to track the problem down.
Sorry again for the inconvenience.
Thank you for the comments. Please keep them coming!
Actually, try printing from your browser--it should be formatted OK. There\'s an Unfiltered post up today with more info.
we\'re updating the print functionality... it\'ll be back very soon. Sorry for the inconvenience.
We\'ll have this under much better control by the next IBAs--we\'re working on it.
Yes, you can point this out.
We\'ll probably change this behaviour sometime soon. We\'re still considering our options.
Thanks for commenting!
Oops, they\'re not working for everyone yet. Sorry about that... we\'re working on it.
He\'s a special player.
We haven\'t decided how we want to handle this yet. We may go with a higher (or lower, depending on how you look at it) threshold than -1. Please use the Beta bar above to send us your thoughts on this, or any other comments you might have about the comments functionality. Thanks!
Schlom\'s comment is not flagged as inappropriate. When a comment has a negative rating as assigned by commenting participants, as Schlom\'s does, it isn\'t displayed by default.
Benji Gil for AL RoY!
Oops--we\'ll fix. Thanks.
Welcome to Baseball Prospectus article comments!
what do you mean, jacked up? i thought it made perfect sense.
what kind of jacked up statement is that?
Intensity is what the public demands of us.
this is a comment that was evil . what i\'ve done with it is rot13ed it so its still here, but nobody without some determination can read it.
Luke, can you detect multiple line feeds and turn them into a single paragraph break?
The numbering could get confusing if it changes on accolade sort. I think a lot of users will ignore the \'reply\' function and use the comment number instead (like \"hey #1, you\'re on crack\"). I think we *probably* need to keep the numbering as it is but maybe that\'s too confusing. Maybe we should just table the issue and not allow for sort by accolade until we get a better idea how people are going to use this thing.
How do you envision this working as far as masking low-rated comments? I like how Digg does it with negatives just taking up a single line of space and displaying comment poster and rating, but allowing for a user to click on the comment to see it anyway if they\'re interested.
Mgmt, please play with this thing.
heck yeah i\'m crazy!
crazy like a FOX.
and fair and balanced to boot.
even Rob Deer or a Pirates fan could see that.
are you crazy?
hey, that\'s just ridiculous.
come on, dude, you\'re nuts. don\'t you think you need to take into account Tha Catch?
you can\'t be serious.
dpease ok, let\'s see how this works.
can i introduct paragraph breaks?
SHOULD i be able to introduce paragraph breaks?
i can\'t decide. i guess i\'td be good. i don\'t want my users to need to enter code on their own to simulate \'em. it\'s a tough call.
this is a long comment. lets see how long comments look and feel. this is a long comment. lets see how long comments look and feel. this is a long comment. lets see how long comments look and feel. this is a long comment. lets see how long comments look and feel. this is a long comment. lets see how long comments look and feel. this is a long comment. lets see how long comments look and feel. this is a long comment. lets see how long comments look and feel. this is a long comment. lets see how long comments look and feel. this is a long comment. lets see how long comments look and feel. this is a long comment. lets see how long comments look and feel. this is a long comment. lets see how long comments look and feel. this is a long comment. lets see how long comments look and feel. this is a long comment. lets see how long comments look and feel.
crazy like a FOX>
here\'s anotehr test. hows wrapping work?
no, dude, he\'s good.
come on now brozef lets get it straight, edmonds is top of the heap. who else are the padres going to play, Jody Gerut? give me a break!
lets keep this in mind: Jim Edmonds was a Pro\'s Pro. As a member of the Los Angeles Angels, the St. Louis Cardinals, and the San Diego Padres everyone looked up to him. It wasn\'t just his VORP and it wasn\'t just his EqA. He\'s a respected man in the clubhaus too.
boy oh boy, did jim edmonds look horrible in san diego. as a member of the padres he was slow on everything, at bat and in the field. i like the guy and enjoyed a lot of his great career but he made me wish for the good old days of brady clark.
hi, this is a comment on this article.
I got your test right here!
here\'s a reply
hi, i loved this article. compelling and rich.