Baltimore Orioles Marcel Projections for 2010
by Stacey on Jan 13, 2010 3:17 PM EST
in News & Rumors
Email
PrintThe 2010 Marcel Projections have been released and I pulled out all the Orioles and have listed them below. Marcel projections are one of the more simple projections, based on the three year average of the player regressing to the mean and with age factored in. For more details or projections for non-Orioles, clicky clicky.
The projections for the rookies are going to look at little wonky since there isn't as much data on which to base their information, which is why they have a low reliability factor. I was going to figure in the triple slash numbers for the hitters but ran out of time. Perhaps I'll add them in later.
Enjoy.
Hitters
| Last | First | Age | reliability | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SB | CS | BB | SO | wOBA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tatum | Craig | 27 | 0.24 | 238 | 211 | 25 | 52 | 9 | 1 | 6 | 26 | 3 | 1 | 22 | 38 | 0.311 |
| Andino | Robert | 26 | 0.54 | 314 | 285 | 41 | 71 | 13 | 1 | 6 | 28 | 4 | 3 | 25 | 65 | 0.298 |
| Atkins | Garrett | 31 | 0.85 | 466 | 419 | 54 | 112 | 20 | 2 | 14 | 64 | 2 | 1 | 40 | 72 | 0.329 |
| Aubrey | Michael | 28 | 0.36 | 252 | 228 | 29 | 61 | 12 | 1 | 8 | 30 | 3 | 1 | 21 | 37 | 0.333 |
| Izturis | Cesar | 30 | 0.8 | 451 | 414 | 45 | 107 | 15 | 3 | 4 | 32 | 14 | 5 | 28 | 42 | 0.292 |
| Roberts | Brian | 33 | 0.88 | 629 | 551 | 91 | 155 | 42 | 4 | 12 | 59 | 31 | 7 | 69 | 99 | 0.349 |
| Turner | Justin | 26 | 0.08 | 211 | 186 | 26 | 49 | 9 | 1 | 5 | 25 | 3 | 1 | 21 | 36 | 0.33 |
| Wigginton | Ty | 33 | 0.83 | 461 | 421 | 51 | 114 | 22 | 1 | 16 | 51 | 3 | 4 | 32 | 76 | 0.334 |
| Jones | Adam | 25 | 0.8 | 511 | 466 | 73 | 129 | 22 | 5 | 15 | 63 | 10 | 4 | 34 | 97 | 0.335 |
| Markakis | Nick | 27 | 0.88 | 625 | 552 | 86 | 164 | 39 | 2 | 18 | 86 | 10 | 4 | 64 | 97 | 0.366 |
| Montanez | Luis | 29 | 0.43 | 257 | 234 | 29 | 59 | 13 | 1 | 6 | 27 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 45 | 0.307 |
| Pie | Felix | 25 | 0.66 | 350 | 313 | 45 | 82 | 14 | 3 | 9 | 39 | 6 | 3 | 30 | 72 | 0.324 |
| Reimold | Nolan | 27 | 0.63 | 406 | 356 | 49 | 99 | 19 | 2 | 14 | 46 | 8 | 2 | 43 | 73 | 0.356 |
| Scott | Luke | 32 | 0.83 | 507 | 448 | 60 | 114 | 27 | 2 | 22 | 68 | 3 | 1 | 54 | 104 | 0.345 |
| Wieters | Matt | 24 | 0.62 | 392 | 355 | 42 | 103 | 17 | 1 | 10 | 46 | 3 | 1 | 32 | 78 | 0.341 |
Look for the pitching projections below the jump
Pitchers
| Name | Age | reliability | IP | W | L | SV | H | R | ER | ERA | HR | SO | BB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matt Albers | 27 | 0.61 | 67 | 3 | 5 | 71 | 38 | 36 | 4.77 | 7 | 48 | 30 | |
| Brad Bergesen | 25 | 0.58 | 122 | 7 | 6 | 122 | 56 | 51 | 3.87 | 12 | 78 | 37 | |
| Jason Berken | 27 | 0.57 | 120 | 6 | 10 | 145 | 79 | 75 | 5.55 | 17 | 78 | 44 | |
| Alberto Castillo | 35 | 0.25 | 34 | 2 | 1 | 35 | 17 | 16 | 4.37 | 4 | 26 | 13 | |
| Armando Gabino | 27 | 0.04 | 44 | 2 | 2 | 47 | 26 | 24 | 4.91 | 6 | 34 | 18 | |
| Mike Gonzalez | 32 | 0.54 | 66 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 57 | 30 | 25 | 3.61 | 7 | 66 | 28 |
| Jeremy Guthrie | 31 | 0.81 | 178 | 9 | 12 | 184 | 94 | 88 | 4.5 | 27 | 113 | 56 | |
| David Hernandez | 25 | 0.53 | 109 | 5 | 8 | 117 | 61 | 59 | 5.04 | 21 | 80 | 44 | |
| Jim Johnson | 27 | 0.57 | 67 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 65 | 30 | 29 | 3.96 | 6 | 47 | 25 |
| Brian Matusz | 23 | 0.33 | 82 | 6 | 4 | 85 | 43 | 40 | 4.39 | 10 | 68 | 28 | |
| Cla Meredith | 27 | 0.61 | 65 | 3 | 3 | 70 | 33 | 30 | 4.29 | 6 | 45 | 22 | |
| Kameron Mickolio | 26 | 0.17 | 33 | 2 | 2 | 32 | 16 | 15 | 4.09 | 3 | 27 | 13 | |
| Kevin Millwood | 36 | 0.81 | 176 | 10 | 10 | 198 | 96 | 88 | 4.73 | 23 | 120 | 63 | |
| Troy Patton | 25 | 0.05 | 48 | 3 | 3 | 46 | 24 | 22 | 4.03 | 5 | 39 | 18 | |
| Dennis Sarfate | 29 | 0.47 | 46 | 2 | 2 | 43 | 26 | 24 | 4.6 | 5 | 42 | 25 | |
| Chris Tillman | 22 | 0.42 | 93 | 4 | 6 | 97 | 51 | 48 | 4.69 | 15 | 67 | 33 | |
| Koji Uehara | 35 | 0.43 | 93 | 4 | 5 | 99 | 49 | 45 | 4.35 | 11 | 68 | 28 |
78 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
who the heck is craig tatum?
"I doubt he could reach [second base]...mostly cuz his fucking arm was in Aybar's nuts." – twistedlogic
i don't know but he's going to hit 6 Taters
500 PAs for Luke? See you in the cellar.
"Whoooooooaaa Doggie!" -- Gary Thorne
Who the fuck is Marcel?
Has he made any adjustment for limited 2009 playing time? matusz going 6-4 over a whole season? Gonzalez getting 9 saves? Wieters hitting 10 HRs???
I’m sure there’s some semi-logical explanation here, but it’s pretty hard to take any of these seriously with this shit.
I obviously didn't read the thing about the reliability factor
but still these look like shit. Fucking 10 HRs for Wieters???
Even worse than that
is four for Izturis. Yeah, right – the last time he hit four homers was in 2004!
Anyway, yeah, it’s just a projection system that doesn’t have a ton of intelligence put into it. Gonzalez wasn’t the Braves’ closer last year, so his saves totals are going to look low. Wieters only hit 9 homers last year, so it will also look low. Matusz didn’t pitch that much last year, so it too looks low.
I mean, there’s just not that much complaining you can do when you realize how these numbers came about. They won’t look right for the Orioles because so many of their players are so young.
My advice: focus on Guthrie, Millwood, Gonzalez (non-saves), Roberts, Markakis, Atkins, and Scott. Everyone else is going to look stupid because there isn’t enough data for this exercise.
"I like baseball, movies, good clothes, whiskey, fast cars ... and you. What else you need to know?"
Yeah
that’s my thing – there needs to be some intelligence or practical observation added to this shit. Otherwise it’s just a computer running worthless numbers.
And if the guy knows they are stupid (he should…) he just shouldn’t put them out for players that his system can’t adjust for – young players, pitchers in new roles, etc.
clearly
the nerds creating these stats know nothing about sports. I am sure Texeria will be hitting 85 HRs this year according to them.
Urban
Not sure
if you’re trying to be ironic or just mean, but Teixeira’s MARCEL home run output is 31 home runs. No projection system has him even at 40, including the Fans Scouting Report.
"I like baseball, movies, good clothes, whiskey, fast cars ... and you. What else you need to know?"
yea these are all fucked up
even missing a lot of time, jones had more than 63 rbi. not to mention markakis topped 100 in 2007 and 2009. and only 13 saves from the bullpen?
by twistedlogic on Jan 13, 2010 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
I think I mentioned it before
but I’ve always wanted to be on a bowling team named “Mimes in the Gutter.” Our shirts would portray drunken mimes passed out on dirty street corners.
Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt
Best part of “Shakes the Clown” — reviewed by one Boston paper as “The ‘Citizen Kane’ of alcoholic clown movies” — is when the clowns attack the mimes (led by an unbilled Robin Williams!).
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Churchill,1942-- a rebuilding year.
The caveman thing really irks me
It’s played out, and my insurance money is going to these idiots.
The googly eyes thing is worse, they’ve managed to make everyone think of their freaking ripoff insurance everytime a googly eye is seen.
(don’t worry, I’m drinking my coffee, I’ll be OK in a bit)
by CoachOfEarl on Jan 14, 2010 10:35 AM EST up reply actions
"In case shit" is a good business to be in.
They obviously have enough of all of our money that they can do a lot of stupid ass commercials.
booo...
friends and baseball do not mix.
i mean, the show…obviously if you want to watch or discuss baseball w/ more than one friend, you are free to do so.
"If they pitch to you, make them pay."
--Diamond Dave to the Phenom
by j.q. higgins on Jan 14, 2010 6:48 AM EST up reply actions
Marcel Quiz: Is he...
1) an annoying mime whose sole virtue was inspiring a good line for people responding to sicko-heavy breathers on the phone (“Who is this, Marcel Marceau?”)
2) an annoying author of 7 infamous vols. in which nothing happens, driving Russell Baker to distraction ( “In vol. 1 the young Charles Swann goes to visit his aunt in Combray. In vol. 2 he gets in the door…”) and Monty Python to stage the All-England Summarize Proust Contest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwAOc4g3K-g (uncensored version!)
3) a not-annoying novelist, playwright and film director, some of whose autobiographical writing was later adapted with great success by Claude Berri and Yves Roberts (Jean de Florette and La Gloire de mon pere both had good art-house runs here)
4) Rene’s brother, the not-annoying but also not very successful pitching coach for Team USA in the 2009 WBC.
No help from the studio audience please…
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Churchill,1942-- a rebuilding year.
I was also curious
Who’s gonna get all of the saves… And are we really going to finish that far over .500 ( I tallied up the pitchers wins, but i may have miscalculated..) with 13 saves and Luke Scott leading the team with 22 home runs?
What up?
Yeah
You’re right… I forgot how many games there were in a season… wishful thinking..
What up?
by snakethejake on Jan 14, 2010 12:08 AM EST up reply actions
haha yea
i was thinking the same thing with those saves. and apparently jason berken is going to be a starter. and only be 6-10.
by twistedlogic on Jan 13, 2010 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
If Berken makes enough starts
to get 16 decisions, something went horribly wrong in 2010. Likely the worst of the projections I have seen on this site. Matusz only throwing 80 some innings?? Even with the projections’ criteria this just doesn’t add up.
by sickuvitall on Jan 13, 2010 10:40 PM EST up reply actions
75 wins and 13 saves
although maybe hes projecting that we’ll trade jason berken for george sherrill and he’ll lead us in saves yet again.
by twistedlogic on Jan 13, 2010 11:40 PM EST up reply actions
Hey Stacey
Way to get folks fired up!!! Love your stuff sure am glad you didnt come up with these projections though! =)
I am guessing these projections are floor projections. Meaning that they are the very low end of expectations. Stats are fun, sure. However the Orioles would have a tough time winning 45 games with these numbers! HA!!!!
"Just like an a**hole! Everyone has one and it's usually full of *hit!!!!" -Warren Sapp
"People have been listening to Jim Palmer talk since before I was born because he is right. Sit down, shut up and listen to what he has to say."- I said it so bite me.
No mimes in baseball
This is abuse of mathmatics. It’s useless garbage like Marcel’s work is why I sometimes hate math associated with sports. I can not wait for spring training when real baseball information is available for oriole fans. Stacey, I normally enjoy the information you package and present. I know its tough to present information when there is very little quality information to provide your readers. Keep up the good work .
Wow you people have some strong opinions on this
It’s based on PAST performance. It doesn’t take into account that Mike Gonzalez was signed to be a closer. It doesn’t take into account that Matusz is slated to be a full time starter in 2010.
They’re not a crystal ball and they’re not supposed to be taken seriously. It’s just a fun thing to look at. Nobody is suggesting that this proves what the Orioles will or will not be in 2010.
I guess with so many other
more feasible projection systems in place, these seem almost elementary in the way they are devised. It was fun to look at though…and even more fun to laugh at!!
Well but that's the point.
It’s completely worthless. It’s just running numbers through a machine and reporting whatever it spits out without any accounting for reality. Nobody’s asking them to be a crystal ball, but it would be nice if they reflected reality a little bit.
agreed
that’s why i think projections are pretty worthless
by twistedlogic on Jan 14, 2010 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
It’s based on some logic. After all, past performance is a logical way to START to predict future performance. As Stacey points out, it’s a just woefully caveman like projection system. But it isn’t just throwing random numbers into a machine and reporting what it spits out.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
I think that for a player in his prime
Such as Markakis or Roberts, it’s not a totally bad measure. But since it’s based on the past three years performance it’s not much use to players that have one year or less experience. I mean, it’s not much USE anyway, I just think they’re fun to look at.
I will lead these Peoples to the promised land, also known as "Slightly Ahead of the Blue Jays." ~WietersRunDry
Yes, it doesn’t do well with rookies because there isn’t a lot of data. I was going to say it doesn’t do well with old players but MARCEL does include an age weight. And I imagine it doesn’t do well with catchers who tend to decline very fast.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
How does
basing it on past performance mean that it includes logic? It’s just feeding numbers into a system and reporting them without any adjustment, finessing, accounting for position/role changes. That’s what I meant by including some logic. I never said the numbers were random – I just said that all it was doing was throwing numbers into a machine and reporting what it spits out. I fully stand by that.
Seriously...
You got to understand the mathematics behind it, yall. There’s a formula and it’s definitely got flaws but what doesn’t?
Something Magic Happens...
Tim Graham
There are flaws
and then there are problems that render the “mathematics” worthless. Like i’ve said about 50 times here – a projection system that can’t acknowledge that Matusz is going to throw more than 80 innings is worthless for players like him (young, injured, or moving to new roles). Mathematics or not.
I agree and disagree...
The longer a player has been in the bigs with the same team the more accurate the numbers will be. It’s based on a three-year average with age factored in so players like Matusz will end up way off whereas guys like Markakis, you will find, will end up pretty close to the prediction. Even the guy who posted them says they’re not all that accurate but worth passing along.
Something Magic Happens...
Tim Graham
ok...
I didn’t say anything to dispute that. I just said I don’t understand why he even bothers producing this shit for players that don’t fit that mold since they obviously don’t reflect reality. Stick to the players that it works for. That’s all.
How does basing it on past performance mean that it includes logic?
Because it’s been empirically proven that past performance is a reasonable predictor of future performance.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
reply fail.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
Well right, but he's not applying ANY logic to the numbers.
He’s just feeding them into a system and reporting what it spits out without any acknowledgement that they are not accounting for reality. That’s not logic. ALL projections are based on past performance, but other projection systems are able to recognize that Matusz is going to pitch more than 80 innings this year.
To be completely fair
Tango has explicitly stated that he knows its a simple system that could use all kinds of different improvements, but he just isn’t that interested in this aspect of sabermetrics.
Also, as a Computer Scientist, a program without “any” logic wouldn’t do anything…so it does literally have some logic to it.
"I like baseball, movies, good clothes, whiskey, fast cars ... and you. What else you need to know?"
Tom Tango
he’s a big time stats consultant and the proprietor of Marcel. Click the clicky clicky link up top, it takes you to him.
"I like baseball, movies, good clothes, whiskey, fast cars ... and you. What else you need to know?"
Well, the creator admits that this a simple system despite being a “big time” consultant. Even genius programmer can create a simple iphone. That’s not insult on his intelligence. He or she just decided to to something simple.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
To me there’s a difference between something being simple and something being worthless (which for rookies, injured players, players changing positions/roles this projection system definitely seems to be). I don’t get how your iphone point works – the iphone is awesome and not simple. ?
a “big time stats consultant” produced this???
You seem to be wondering how a “big time stats consultant” could create something so simple and crude, thus implying he can’t be all that “big time” if this is all he could do. I’m saying it’s really not all that surprising. He could have created something more complex but he just decided to do something simple.
And I meant iphone app. My bad.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
Ughhhhh
I’m not wondering how a big time stats guy could produce this. I’m wondering why he would release it for guys that it obviously doesn’t work for when he knows it looks stupid! Why not just exclude the players that it doesn’t work for??
If you look at the website
You can see that he compares his projections to other systems and they’re really not that much more reliable. It’s sort of part of the point.
I will lead these Peoples to the promised land, also known as "Slightly Ahead of the Blue Jays." ~WietersRunDry
With these projection systems, I wouldn’t be fixated with one particular projection in order to judge its accuracy. It’s better see how many players it accurately predicts in a group of players.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
I used that as an example.
The above is litered with players where it doesn’t take reality into account – that a player will be playing every day for a full season, that a pitcher will be in the rotation for a full season, that a pitcher will be a closer, etc. Other projections seem to take those facts into account whereas this one does not.
cool, whatever, if you don’t like it, that’s fine.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
like stacey already said, it doesn’t handle rookies well. besides, a simple eyeballing of a very subsample of stats isn’t going to tell you something about the metric’s accuracy. but i get it, you don’t like MARCEL, fine, whatever.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
tell marcel
i can’ t do shit about it.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
I see logic as using evidence based reasoning. Using past performance counts as evidence based reasoning for me. You seem to have something different in mind with the word logic. That’s cool, whatever.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
Well I don't want to split hairs
but I didn’t use the word logic originally – you did.
Well but that’s the point. It’s completely worthless. It’s just running numbers through a machine and reporting whatever it spits out without any accounting for reality. Nobody’s asking them to be a crystal ball, but it would be nice if they reflected reality a little bit.
but I didn’t use the word logic originally – you did.
You brought up the word first (see below) so that’s what I responded to, but whatever, I don’t see how it matters anyways.
He’s just feeding them into a system and reporting what it spits out without any acknowledgement that they are not accounting for reality. That’s not logic. ALL projections are based on past performance, but other projection systems are able to recognize that Matusz is going to pitch more than 80 innings this year.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
okay so then whats the point of posting this projection?
if all of the other ones are “smarter?” just so we can have another projection? we’ve already got plenty.
by twistedlogic on Jan 15, 2010 10:19 AM EST up reply actions
because some people like to look at them
calm down already
I will lead these Peoples to the promised land, also known as "Slightly Ahead of the Blue Jays." ~WietersRunDry
nahaha
that wasn’t a reply to you posting them. i was asking why anyone would go through the “trouble” to crunch these numbers when there are like 4073847013 better ones out there.
by twistedlogic on Jan 15, 2010 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
It’s just something fun to look at, worts and all. .
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
you love it.
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.
What's this shit?
Are these numbers based on a half season or something? How come our top HR hitter has only 18 dingers?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
