2016-2017 Off-Season Thread

[Enscheff]

What is the standard deviation of this model. How many numbers are we plotting? Since we are getting statistical I assume he thinks Wins and Losses are Linear which is not possible because his base is 75 wins which means the data set is more likely to lose than win based on the median. So his Bell curve could not be standard. adding + value to his data set would completely change the model and need to be re-calculated. You can't just add numbers to a statistical plot. But I am sure he knows that. He 'sounds' so intelligent with his google degree.

Haha, what point are you even trying to argue? If you know half of what you think you do, then you know perfectly well that a 75 win projection can be approximated as a normal curve centered on the 75 win mark, especially in the context we are discussing. You also know that if the curve is centered on 75, the next most likely outcomes are 74 and 76 wins, followed by 73 and 77 wins. You also know we can add wins to approximate shifting that curve, again, at least well enough for the purposes of what we are discussing.

You don't need to know the exact distribution (we don't have FG's exact win total distribution) to know that. You are arguing just to argue because you have no other valid counterpoints.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

unfortunately you can't have it both ways. You can't "center" it and "approximate" statistics yet tell others that their "approximations" of their median is ignorant. Don't act like a statistical genius when it is clear you are using basic and incorrect statistical methods. I have to deal with Stats everyday for a bank, and yes you can trivialize stats to say what you want, but that makes it no more right than the next person who says the Braves are an 83 win team. Saying the Braves are a 75 win team is you saying the highest probability of happening. So someone saying they disagree with you is the same as them saying they think your probabilities are skewed. I too set my median at 82 wins.

 

[Enscheff]

unfortunately you can't have it both ways. You can't "center" it and "approximate" statistics yet tell others that their "approximations" of their median is ignorant. Don't act like a statistical genius when it is clear you are using basic and incorrect statistical methods. I have to deal with Stats everyday for a bank, and yes you can trivialize stats to say what you want, but that makes it no more right than the next person who says the Braves are an 83 win team. Saying the Braves are a 75 win team is you saying the highest probability of happening. So someone saying they disagree with you is the same as them saying they think your probabilities are skewed. I too set my median at 82 wins.

My explanation was to discourage stupid comments like "they will win 75 games and that's it". You can try to compare brain pans with me all you want, but you know I'm correct when I say 75 wins is the most probable outcome and not an definite value.

It's cute that you think you are somehow chipping away at any assertion I have made by bringing up statistical technicalities that really have no bearing on this discussion though.

Great, then let's put some stakes on it. We will put the over/under at 81.5. Deal?

 

[Oklahomabrave]

Evan Drellich on his Twitter feed says braves and Astros to receive revenue sharing.

 

[clvclv]

Most fans only consider potential upside. It's kind of the point of being a fan.

Hmmmm.

Demeritte, Sims, Riley, Acuna, Albies, Newcomb, Touki, Fried, Alex Jackson, Ricardo Sanchez...guess we shouldn't trade any of them either - tons of "potential upside".

 

[chop2chip]

Evan Drellich on his Twitter feed says braves and Astros to receive revenue sharing.

That's insane that Atlanta and Houston will receive revenue sharing and they are phasing Oakland out.

I'm not complaining, but that seems crazy on the surface.

 

[CJ9]

Evan Drellich on his Twitter feed says braves and Astros to receive revenue sharing.

This feels like a pretty significant deal. I wonder if this means we'll be eligible for competitive balance picks this year?

 

[Enscheff]

That's insane that Atlanta and Houston will receive revenue sharing and they are phasing Oakland out.

I'm not complaining, but that seems crazy on the surface.

I think revenue sharing is based on the size of the market the team plays in. Since the Bay Area is a huge market, the A's weren't supposed to get revenue sharing. They were given revenue sharing until they got a new stadium that would allow them to draw more fans. MLB finally said enough is enough to the A's, and are phasing out their revenue sharing.

 

[striker42]

DBacks have apparently non-tendered Wellington Castillo. I'd love to see us make a run at him.

 

[dak]

DBacks have apparently non-tendered Wellington Castillo. I'd love to see us make a run at him.

This is definitely surprising. He's not great and is a bit redundant with Flowers platoon-wise, but he is better than guys being discussed like Nick Hundley. Braves need to strongly consider him.

 

[dak]

D-backs just signed Jeff Mathis. Great reputation as receiver, but a poor offensive player. Recent trend continues in MLB with clubs de-prioritizing offense at C.

 

[Oklahomabrave]

Padres non tendered Tyson Ross

 

[Hudson2]

This feels like a pretty significant deal. I wonder if this means we'll be eligible for competitive balance picks this year?

I don't understand why we don't get em anyways.

 

[dak]

Evan Drellich on his Twitter feed says braves and Astros to receive revenue sharing.

This seems like a huge, huge deal if I'm understanding correctly. Braves just made the cutoff to get full revenue sharing (13 clubs get it). Presumably, getting the revenue sharing $ alone is a financial boon for the club amounting to $10s of millions of dollars, but that figure is just my speculation. Many of the new CBA provisions are tiered out by revenue level, so I assume this puts us on the right side of all those distinctions. For example, revenue sharing clubs get $1m more each year in international slot $.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Posifan uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of baseball inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a Team, known as complementary variables, such as Wins and Time, can be known.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Withrow non-tendered. Don't understand that at all.

Must be hurt again.

 

[Heyward]

Jon Heyman ‏@JonHeyman
hear pirates want top OF prospect robles plus a top young SP (giolito, lopez, ross presumably would fit) in Cutch package

 

[GovClintonTyree]

How exactly is trading Folty for Sale setting up for continual success? Folty could very well turn into the same 4+ WAR pitcher that Sale currently is as soon as next season, and is controlled for longer.

Anyone trading for Sale is trying to win in 2017, and they will be giving up substantial future wins to gain those wins in 2017. The whole reason the ChiSox are dealing him is because they can't sustain competitiveness with him. The ChiSox are going to trade Sale's current wins for even more future wins, thus gaining sustainability. Their gain in sustainability results in, by definition, a loss of sustainability by the Braves.

It's almost like folks don't understand the most basic concept of trades like this: future wins traded for current wins, with current wins holding the premium in terms of value.

Better explain it to John Coppolella. He's your problem, not us.

 

[thethe]

Better explain it to John Coppolella. He's your problem, not us.

Does Coppy even check fangraphs?

 

[clvclv]

That's insane that Atlanta and Houston will receive revenue sharing and they are phasing Oakland out.

I'm not complaining, but that seems crazy on the surface.

Most of the chatter on XM over the last couple days has been that the owners finally got fed up with Oakland's stadium issues and this is their way of saying "*hit or get off the pot". Several of the people mentioning that also surmised that Tampa Bay should pay close attention to that as well.