Every year I try to project every team’s record and runs scored and allowed, using as much information as is available to me in the waning days of March. I do it because it’s fun, and because the process of making those predictions is very educational for me in the ramp-up to the season. The process, rather than the end results, is what is important, because the chance of getting many teams’ overall records or run differentials correct is fairly slim. The value of the pieces I write at that time is in the analysis, the words; the numbers are for information purposes only.
However, it’s important to learn from any process, so as we close out 2009, I want to take a look back at my predictions for the season and see what lessons can possibly be learned. I’ve written this piece before, so if you want some deeper explanations of process, you can check out the recaps of previous seasons. One key change, as I sit down to this, is that I’m no longer making a global adjustment based on overall run scoring. In the comments section of last year’s piece, I was convinced that the mistakes I’m making that show up in the overall run totals aren’t so much an error in misprojecting run environment globally, but the adding and subtracting of small errors in specific team projections. So the comparisons this will be between my unadjusted predictions and the actual numbers. For what it’s worth, this year was as close to dead-on as I’ve ever been, projecting 22,906 runs in leagues that scored 22,408, a difference of a tick more than two percent. It’s not Nate Silver on Election Night, but it’ll play.
Let’s look at the top and bottom five by the Err score, which is the difference between a team’s projected and actual run differentials:
Actual Predicted Team RS RA RS RA Err Marlins 772 766 797 792 1 Rays 803 754 766 719 2 Braves 735 641 799 703 2 Astros 643 770 731 843 15 Mariners 640 692 641 671 22 Mets 671 757 812 712 186 D'backs 823 748 720 782 137 Indians 847 822 773 865 117 Nationals 710 874 707 757 114 Angels 883 761 741 726 107
Maybe I shouldn’t be, but I am pretty happy with that first list. To peg three teams essentially at their differential-and to be fairly out of step with the field on two of them-is something I’ll hang my hat on. With that said, look more closely at the numbers, and you find that while I had the differentials close to correct, the path to being so wasn’t all that helpful. The Mariners’ figures are close enough, but in the cases of the Rays and Braves, I missed on both runs scored and runs allowed, but by both in a way that allowed be to nearly nail the differential. I remain unsure if this is the most valid means of evaluation-is it more important get the elements of differential correct, or the differential itself?
I’ll take a pass for the Mets, who whiffed by 141 runs on offense because of all their injuries, the collection of which was largely unforeseeable in March. As far as the Diamondbacks and Indians go, I’m open to the idea that I’m systematically overrating “good” organizations, as I seem to miss on those teams to the high side with some frequency. I’ve certainly been accused of bias regularly, and I think there’s a case to be made that I have to be more careful about falling in love with a GM, a front office or a particular team’s offseason, and take a skeptical eye with teams that, in my mind, have a certain progressive seal of approval. That’s not me saying, “I whiffed on the Diamondbacks and Indians because I’m biased,” so much as me saying I’m willing to think about the charge. In the Tribe’s case, remember that they made another dump trade this season, a deal that pushed them into the AL Central cellar by season’s end. That, and all other midseason deals, are a total non-factor in preseason analysis. You cannot predict who will make what deals at the deadline and how that will affect projections.
Another way to look at the problem is to add up the absolute value of all the misses. If you do this, you get Net Error Score (NES) of 3496, which is low for my history with this task. I’m making 60 predictions and missing by an average of 58 or so runs a pop, which doesn’t seem competent. Net Error Score is also a way in which to evaluate the various team predictions; in Err, guessing 30 runs high on runs scored and 30 runs high on runs allowed is a score of “zero,” or a perfect match, In NES, it’s a 60. Here are the rankings by this method:
Actual Predicted Team RS RA RS RA NES Mariners 640 692 641 671 22 Giants 657 611 657 658 47 Padres 638 769 611 792 50 Marlins 772 766 797 792 51 Phillies 820 709 819 774 66 Rangers 784 740 860 888 224 Yankees 915 753 789 675 204 Cardinals 730 640 772 788 190 Mets 671 757 812 712 186 Angels 883 761 741 726 177
I can’t figure the Phillies, who I’m accused of hating pretty rigorously. Their run prevention was a lot better than expected, which has to be largely their good defense, because the pitchers don’t add up to that at all. Even giving them a half-season of Cliff Lee and some decent work by Pedro Martinez wouldn’t account for 70 runs. The bullpen wasn’t that good, and we all know about the year the closer had. Yet they allowed 65 runs fewer than I expected and ran away with the NL East. The other teams on the good side of the ledger don’t tell us much, if anything. On the bad side, you had the Rangers remaking themselves as a pitching-and-defense squad, with Elvis Andrus at the helm. The Cardinals got a dream season from Joel Pineiro and Chris Carpenter‘s return, which explains much of their run prevention. The Mets show once again, as do the suddenly-cheap Padres and the suddenly-addled Giants.
My goal is to predict runs scored and allowed, and let wins and losses fall where they will. With no team possessing a :clutch” skill, it’s reasonable to figure that wins and losses, with maybe a small adjustment for bullpen quality, will be what the RS and RA say they will be. For completeness, though, here are the W/L predictions, formatted just like the above charts:
Team Actual Predicted Pirates 62-99 62-100 Brewers 80-82 79-83 Blue Jays 75-87 76-86 Rays 84-78 86-76 Dodgers 95-67 92-70 Mets 70-92 92-70 Indians 65-97 84-78 D'backs 70-92 88-74 Nationals 59-103 74-88 Angels 97-65 83-79 Padres 75-87 61-101
—
This is my last column for Baseball Prospectus. My contract ends today, making me like any number of free agents looking for work. No hard feelings or recriminations, just two entities doing business.
When I left BP-temporarily, as it turned out-in 2002, I wrote a big piece about it. I’m not doing that today. I just want to thank everyone who reads us, who listens to us on the radio, watches us on TV, buys books, writes comments, sends in e-mails… all of the people who have helped us build Prospectus into what it is today. I never in a million years thought I’d get to write about baseball for a living, but I did. I did thanks to Gary Huckabay and Clay Davenport; Christina Kahrl and Rany Jazayerli; Dave Pease and Keith Woolner and Keith Law and Nate Silver and so many other people who built Prospectus in the 1990s. In the 2000s, we benefited from the grace of men such as Rob Neyer, Peter Gammons, Billy Beane, Brian Kenny, Jeff Erickson, Bernie Miklasz, Chris Stone, Michael Epstein, and Louie Belina, who spread the word about what we were doing, who helped us make the leap from niche to mainstream, even as the mainstream was coming our way. I cannot ever thank these people, or the hundreds like them who simply pointed at BP and said “read those guys,” enough.
From where I sit, I have a particularly personal view of the role chance plays in a life. If I hadn’t gone back to USC, if I hadn’t gotten an e-mail account and found rec.sport.baseball, if I hadn’t joined NASA and met Rany, if I hadn’t done any number of things, I have no real idea of what I’d be doing today. I can’t even guess at it. I got blindingly lucky, beyond anything I personally deserve, to have fallen in with such a talented, dedicated, hardworking group of people, and for that, I am forever in their debt, as I am in yours, readers. Thank you, for everything.
“What are you thinking about?”
“Tomorrow.”
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
As the Man in Black sang, "Do what you do, do well.
You have and I'm sure, you will.
Your business will be a better place if Joe Sheehan is still a part of it. Work this out.
Signed,
A loyal reader of so many of you from the r.s.baseball days.
Hope you pop back up soon!
Joe-Thanks for countless hours of thought-provoking and entertaining reading.
And to my fellow readers, let not assume BP didn't want Joe. He could be getting a sweet deal from say ESPN, Fox, etc.
Tom
www.elguaposghost.com
Maybe my Yanks will sign you. Cashman + Sheehan + $$$$ would be a deadly combo.
This is a huge loss for BP and to BP.
Seriously he is by far the author I read the most on this site. Not sure what things will be like without him. He connects the stats with the human element in a way that no other writer here does.
The only way I can accept this is if he gets a sweet front office job, which he 100% deserves.
-- Maury
I had figured BP was an employee-owned entity. So is it? Do investors own it? Some rich broad's tax write-off? What kind of business operation am I buying from here?
None of my business whether Joe thinks he's worth more than the owners think he is, or if Joe is being reticent for some reason about an MLB job he's about got lined up, or if Joe's been voted off the island.
But I don't think it's out of line to ask what is the ownership structure of BP.
With respect, how is the ownership structure of Prospectus Entertainment Ventures any of our business?
If it were a public company, then the ownership structure would be a matter of public record, and you could peruse the 10-K at will.
However, it is a privately held firm, and while I guess it is not out of line for us to inquire about the ownership, they are not really required to reply.
As I see it, we "vote" on the quality of the organization every time we decide to purchase a book or premium subscription, and every time we read an article.
For BP I really believe this is the stathead equivalent of losing a Greg Maddux circa December, 1992...
http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1593
and
http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1670
I've been subscribing since '05 and I'll miss reading prospectus today several days a week.
Bring Joe back!
Seven years ago I sold the newsletter for $19.95 for 50 guaranteed offseason issues and had about 250 subscribers by the time it ended. The marketplace was different then, but so was my profile. BP launched Premium in part because of the success of the newsletter, I came back, and I never tested the question of what might have happened next.
It brings up two ideas, one specific, one general:
1) I wonder how many people feel the way the three people in this thread do. How many people would pay $5 a year to read whatever the hell my output would be in a year? Does that number x $5 make the notion viable? What if it were $10? What if it were $19.95? Can you price a product like that in a way to make it a better option than traditional paths, for both you and the readers, short of aiming for 100 subscribers at a thousand bucks a head?
2) Is this, perhaps, a new model for content, where individuals sell access to only their own stuff for a vanishingly small price, and hope to get there on volume? Is it possible to compete with larger entities selling a half-dozen, a dozen, four dozen writers? I've screamed "differentiate on quality" for 15 years now, but I'm not convinced that the market rewards doing so. Large entities can leverage economies of scale to rule the world at $4.95/month or $.99/song. Individuals can't compete with those rates, even if they don't have the overhead that even a lean entity like BP accumulates.
Whenever I think about this stuff, I come around to the idea that subscription content is probably underpriced. A BP subscription costs about four cents an article, and then everything else (stats access, PECOTA cards, archives, et al) is free. If you hate everyone and everything but, say, Kevin Goldstein, you're paying maybe 20 cents for each Future Shock/Top 11/Minor League Update. Bargain. If you'd pay $5/year extra for Joe Sheehan, that *sounds* like a lot, but it's about three cents a byline.
I don't know if I have a point. I guess I'm just thinking about business models, writers, and where the next steps take you. I've been involved in Internet content for as long as anyone, as deeply as anyone, and I don't have an answer. I just think the issue is interesting.
I've read all over BP how excited everyone at BP is for the changes that are coming to the site, to BPers' roles. If I knew there was a chance that losing Joe Sheehan was one of these "changes," I'd have commented sooner that this is nothing to be excited about.
I've been here a while and have seen BP's emeritus roster expand to include Gary, Rany, Nate, Klaw, Fox, Woolner and now Sheehan.
Unless some of those other guys are coming back regularly, or unless you're bringing Neyer on board, the huge hole at Prospectus Today will be impossible to overlook when I consider whether to pay for another subscription.
Bring Joe Back!
I know BP is changing but this is NOT for the better.
God bless you, Joe
As for BP, one of the great things BP does is promote skepticism, skepticism of conventional wisdom and folklore. In this case, I'm skeptical that a BP without Joe Sheehan will have the quality I've come to expect. I am interested to see if you will prove me right or wrong.
That's a very fair statement, but also bold enough to probably make BP's manangement cringe a little bit. I applaud the leadership here for letting it be said. That's what makes this site a thought leader.
Joe, thanks the for the great writing. You will be missed greatly. You certainly deserve the career you've earned and you will be read wherever you go.
BP leadership, many of your readers have an idea of what you are going through. Running a business in this economy isn't quite what we signed up for when we left college with our dreams and ideals intact. After all is said and done though, your product is worth every penny you charge me and for that I am grateful. Keep up the good work, keep investing in your product and I will definitely keep coming back.
You wouldn't pay more than $15 if the result was Sheehan working for the Yankees?
Thanks for the many hundreds of compelling and provacative efforts over the years. Daily Prospectus (Today) was an oasis of originality and boldness in an environment rapidly filling with drab echoes. Your dedication to keeping your column fresh via unique phrasing and blunt imagery is what kept us coming back; if your strong voice emboldened nattering commenters, take it as a compliment. You'll be sorely missed. Stay classy.
I'll keep the subscription, but only because of Christina, Kevin, Steven (where has he been?), Jay and to a lesser degree, Marc (and the fact that I have disposable cash).
(Will C, note your conspicuous absence from the must read writers in all the posts above. It's not your content, but your attitude.)
I always appreciated your columns and your responses Joe.
I hope this gets reversed somehow. But if not, thanks for the years, Joe, and good luck. I'll look forward to reading you elsewhere.
Also, as per prior comments, none of us should assume that this came about due to any kind of dispute, or from lack of interest from Prospectus Entertainment Ventures in retaining Joe. For all we know, Joe may be moving on to a terrific opportunity, or perhaps Joe just wanted to change gears.
Joe, thanks for generating consistently interesting content. I did not always agree with you, but even when I disagreed, I typically enjoyed reading your columns. Should things work out that way, I'll be glad to see you back in the BP fold. If not, then I wish you every success, and I hope that I'll get the pleasure of reading you again soon.
Best of luck Joe Sheehan. I'll miss your columns and your chats.
Joe, when you had a subscription newsletter, I subscribed. Never done that before or since (paid for a subscription newsletter) but your writing is so entertaining and informative that I'd do so again, if you go that route again.
Best wishes. Cream always rises to the top, I look forward to finding your writing at some other reputable source.
Seriously, I'm bummed, but good luck,man!
I can't wait to see where you end up Joe. I've read just about every article on BP since '99, but yours and Christina's were always the ones I read immediately, with excitement, as soon as they were posted. This is a great loss.
No insult to the other writers on the site, but in terms of pure writing ability, it feels like a bunch of five-star talents have been gradually replaced by four-star prospects. Those guys are still worth going to the park to see, but it's hard to get quite as excited about it.
There's been a bit of chatter about people's subscriptions also. My two cents are that while I will miss Joe, that is no good reason to deprive myself of the writing of KG, CK, Will, Eric Seidman, and others. Thanks for the reminder about the subscription, mine is coming due soon. I'm renewing today.
The Baseball Prospectus brand means a lot to me. BP and Rob Neyer were my initiation into the stathead world in the late 1990s.
Now... as we support our favorite team, we understand that players come and go. Seinfeld quipped that we root for laundry. Sometimes your team signs or develops a superstar. BP's moves to add Will and KG were inspired, expanding my enjoyment of the site and the annual. And of baseball in general.
But sometimes your team's best player leaves in free agency. In my view, this has happened a lot at BP. For whatever reason, Baseball Prospectus hasn't adequately replaced these guys. We used to see more columns (as opposed to research articles or the recurring UTK or TA or Hit List) written in the big-picture style shared by Joe and Gary and Nate and Rany and Klaw.
(This season KG proved he could write those pieces, with articles like "Throw Hard or Go Home" and "The Alex Gordon Problem" and *especially* "Getting Dealt." But KG rarely has time for producing such content while also compiling Ten Packs and running BP’s business side.)
It’s not just that BP’s lost its best columnists, but that the site is no longer the vanguard of stathead content on the web. Yes, it’s great for BP that ESPN pays them to share content. But how is that a good thing for BP subscribers? And while BP's website has become more sophisticated, it is archaic next to the data manipulation capabilities and presentation you see at B-Ref and Fangraphs.
Baseball Prospectus, here is one longtime reader’s challenge: My subscription was scheduled to expire on March 1st. I just renewed it because of the goodwill I owe you for more than a decade’s worth of enjoyment. But know that the online baseball community has caught up to you in terms of content and presentation. Make 2010 so great for BP readers that I won’t think twice when my subscription comes up next March.
Life is about change. Some change is better than others of course, but nothing stays the same.
BP will continue to be a terrific baseball website, just a little less so today.
I can't believe ... what I just saw ...
"As far as the Diamondbacks and Indians go, I’m open to the idea that I’m systematically overrating "good" organizations, as I seem to miss on those teams to the high side with some frequency. I’ve certainly been accused of bias regularly, and I think there’s a case to be made that I have to be more careful about falling in love with a GM, a front office ... "
Have to give it to Joe ... he at least has the guts to confront the issue of BIAS.
It just not your numbers, however, that illustrate the BIAS at BP.
In the last 5 years BP has picked the Boston (4), Cleveland (4), and Oakland (3) a total of ELEVEN times to win their divisions and have been right exactly TWICE. Overrating 'good' organizations? I'd say so.
Just pass the memo to your virtual office mates.
Joe your contrarian views were refreshing and will be missed.
I feel like a pretty enlightened fan, but some of the in-depth statistical articles are so far out there that I have to scroll down through miles of plot charts and graphs to finally arrive at the conclusion they're trying to make.
Joe, Christina, John, Kevin, and Will are the only ones who help inform a fan's thinking on what's relevant in our baseball universe, doing so in a way that doesn't make the casual reader have to read the same sentence five times to understand it - and Joe was the best of the bunch.
Maybe I'll change my mind, but Prospectus Today was always my first (and often only) click.
Best of luck, Joe! Hopefully you keep sharing your insights with fans - your chats were always the most entertaining, especially with your willingness to spice it up a bit with College Hoops every year during March Madness.
I don't expect BP to cater to my preferences, but there was a time when I read every word of every article. Now I find myself coming back only for prospect and injury news. Did I leave BP or did BP leave me? I'm not sure. I'll be watching the 'changes' intently.
Looking foward to reading you in the future. I hope it is at BP. if not it will be wherever you land. Best of luck.
So, just thanks, Joe, it's been great.
Seriously, considering that every single person who's commented on this article is disappointed to see Joe go, I'm going to go ahead and say that this was a very poor decision by the Prospectus Overlords. I'll certainly be thinking twice about re-subscribing.
Please let us know where you land so I can follow your baseball related thoughts elsewhere.
And with the exception of CK, they're all gone. Too bad. For us.
I look forward to seeing you again, wherever you may take yourself.
You will be missed at BP.
I always liked Joe despite some obvious biases he refutes by acting like the biased are against him. I guess that does make him a fun read, but I can understand this move from BP's perspective. Signing Joe to a long term deal when he has already reached his peak is going to kill them in the future. Sure, maybe they make it again with him this year, but this would look awful silly in 2012.
I will of course continue to subscribe to and read BP. I love the idea of reading the work of the new contributors, and assessing their efforts and witnessing the good work that I'm sure many of them will do. And I'll read Fangraphs, etc., too. I seem to have a lot of time to read baseball analysis. Funny, that. I don't seem to have enough time for a lot of other important things in my life...
Joe, write when you get work...
I wasn't being coy--I don't have anything lined up right now, and I'm open to opportunities as they arise. I'm optimistic that I'll be able to write and talk about baseball should I choose, and this comment thread has certainly helped with that attitude.
For those of you who have asked, the best way to get news about my future will probably be through my Twitter feed, @joe_sheehan. You can also just yell questions at me if you run into me on the streets of New York.
Thanks again, and have a happy, healthy and successful 2010!
Seriously, you're still a young man (compared to me!), and I've got a feeling you're going to catch on with another team and we'll be able to enjoy your writing in another venue for many years to come.
I will not be renewing my subscription.
--Tynan Granberg
...I'm just sayin'...
HQ is $100 a year. Ridiculous.
I'd love to see someone compile a list of your all-time best BP pieces. Meanwhile, best wishes to you, and thanks for all the great columns!
Well, a plead in Spanish to see if it works. JS is probably the main reason I love BP so much and that I suscribed all the way from Venezuela.
Also, kudos on at least pondering the possibility that you (and perhaps other BP writers) might overrate teams that operate a certain way (sabre-ish) and underrate those that operate another way. Though that doesn't really explain your tendency to pick the Mets. ;)
If you don't have anything else lined up, why either quit or be forced out? If you're forced out, BP just made a huge mistake - you're a large value-add to this site that we know and love. If you just up and quit - best wishes, and I'm surprised you couldn't work out a limited contract to stay on a short-term or part-time basis.
Either way, go forth and find amazing things to do - it's a small world, and I'm sure I'll see your name again, somewhere, somehow, in the future.
You have done it the right way; you left all of us wanting more.
Good luck. Change is sometimes the best thing. Live long and prosper.
"Joe Sheehan could write about lint and make it interesting."
Joe - Thank you for the insight, the passion, and the inspiration. You wrote the book on articulating the online rant, and I read it cover to cover.
Please forward me your (virtual) address when you find a new home.
I'm still a satisfied subscriber, btw, as I also enjoy many of the other writers.