Projecting the Second Half
| Period | AVG | OBP | SLG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current | .258 | .339 | .333 |
| Balance | .259 | .330 | .329 |
| Total | .258 | .334 | .331 |
| Period | AVG | OBP | SLG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current | .270 | .357 | .488 |
| Balance | .282 | .374 | .531 |
| Total | .275 | .364 | .507 |
| Period | AVG | OBP | SLG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current | .217 | .320 | .367 |
| Balance | .247 | .357 | .409 |
| Total | .231 | .335 | .386 |
| Period | AVG | OBP | SLG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current | .234 | .294 | .431 |
| Balance | .260 | .326 | .465 |
| Total | .246 | .308 | .446 |
| Period | AVG | OBP | SLG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current | .245 | .331 | .604 |
| Balance | .236 | .332 | .469 |
| Total | .239 | .332 | .515 |
| Period | AVG | OBP | SLG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current | .283 | .352 | .476 |
| Balance | .273 | .335 | .448 |
| Total | .279 | .343 | .463 |
| Period | AVG | OBP | SLG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current | .286 | .324 | .549 |
| Balance | .303 | .354 | .567 |
| Total | .293 | .337 | .556 |
| Period | AVG | OBP | SLG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current | .231 | .320 | .481 |
| Balance | .246 | .329 | .443 |
| Total | .240 | .325 | .461 |
| Period | AVG | OBP | SLG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current | .315 | .352 | .517 |
| Balance | .272 | .332 | .425 |
| Total | .294 | .341 | .471 |
| Period | AVG | OBP | SLG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current | .289 | .327 | .504 |
| Balance | .285 | .340 | .496 |
| Total | .287 | .331 | .501 |
| Period | ERA | IP | H | K | BB | WHIP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current | 2.85 | 123 | 109 | 108 | 28 | 1.11 |
| Balance | 3.47 | 87 | 81 | 71 | 22 | 1.18 |
| Total | 3.11 | 210 | 190 | 179 | 50 | 1.14 |
| Period | ERA | IP | H | K | BB | WHIP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current | 3.67 | 137.3 | 130 | 137 | 40 | 124 |
| Balance | 3.21 | 98 | 94 | 86 | 25 | 1.22 |
| Total | 3.48 | 235 | 224 | 223 | 65 | 1.23 |
| Period | ERA | IP | H | K | BB | WHIP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current | 4.71 | 101.3 | 118 | 55 | 44 | 1.60 |
| Balance | 4.44 | 72 | 82 | 42 | 27 | 1.52 |
| Total | 4.60 | 173 | 200 | 97 | 71 | 1.57 |
| Period | ERA | IP | H | K | BB | WHIP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current | 3.78 | 100 | 99 | 78 | 50 | 1.49 |
| Balance | 3.98 | 71 | 70 | 57 | 31 | 1.42 |
| Total | 3.86 | 171 | 169 | 135 | 81 | 1.46 |
| Period | ERA | IP | H | K | BB | WHIP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current | 4.39 | 106.7 | 97 | 66 | 26 | 1.15 |
| Balance | 4.19 | 76 | 76 | 52 | 19 | 1.25 |
| Total | 4.30 | 182 | 173 | 118 | 45 | 1.19 |
| Period | ERA | IP | H | K | BB | WHIP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current | 4.16 | 75.7 | 66 | 64 | 36 | 1.35 |
| Balance | 4.53 | 54 | 51 | 40 | 24 | 1.40 |
| Total | 4.32 | 129 | 117 | 104 | 60 | 1.37 |
4 recs |
14 comments
Comments
Great work
thanks for much for doing this for all of our guys.
One note: This isn’t a criticism of Marcel, since it is what it is, but the one thing that most differentiates it from other systems (to me, anyway) is that it doesn’t use any minor league data. For someone with less than 3 full years in the majors, it just regresses to the mean more. In a system like mine (or ZiPS, or PECOTA) I don’t think Parra would look as good, because while his MILB results were good, they wouldn’t translate to the equivalent of an average major leaguer. Parra would still fare just fine…but it’s a caveat worth considering for anybody who has spent a good portion of the last three years not in the majors.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on
Jul 17, 2008 6:28 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
awesome, this should be a required post for all team blogs. thanks.
by Sky Kalkman on
Jul 17, 2008 7:05 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
maybe you saw this, but
Jessica did it for the Mets, too.
At some point-probably not until next season, sadly-I think I can build this into minorleaguesplits, so you can see a current projection for every player every day of the season.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on
Jul 17, 2008 7:07 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
cool, thanks.
David Appelman’s working on figuring out how to code a daily updated Marcel forecast into Fangraphs, too.
by Sky Kalkman on
Jul 17, 2008 7:20 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
with the data presentation he has...
it should be really easy. it actually wouldn’t be that hard for me at MLS, either, but it would require harnessing a bunch of data I don’t yet have in the same place. and it would require a bunch of my time, which isn’t exactly available in abundance.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on
Jul 17, 2008 7:44 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nice work
As a side note/statistical anomaly, Fielder this year has 15 HRs at home and 3 on the road.
And neck size to baby eating ratio.
by Jordan M on
Jul 17, 2008 11:42 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
You know what goes well with offensive projections?
Defensive projections. It’s simply a weighted average of 2005-2008 zone rating data, with a little regression to the mean thrown in. Plays and Runs are presuming a full season’s of chances, not the chances published per player.
by cwyers on
Jul 18, 2008 12:37 AM CDT
reply
actions
1 recs
Thanks Colin
I’m going to use Craig Counsell as a proxy for Alcides Escobar here, simply to illustrate how much swapping out Escobar for Hardy would improve the team defensively.
Counsell, according to Colin’s ratings, would make 6.85 extra plays per 161 at-bats, or 13.87 extra plays per Hardy’s 326 chances. Over those same 326 chances, Hardy would make 8.51 less plays than average. The run value of those eight and and a half lost plays is (negative) 6.41, while Counsell’s almost fourteen extra plays net 10.44 runs—that’s a difference of almost 17 runs between the two players, meaning Whitefish Bay’s finest has a glove almost two wins better than James Jerry.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on
Jul 18, 2008 5:40 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Runs are prorated out to a full season's playing time...
...on the spreadsheet, not to the chances listed. (Chances are balls in zone – in this case they’re just an artifact of the weighted averages, and not a projection of playing time.)
Really, looking at the chart, Weeks is the guy who you’d replace with Counsell. I’d have to check, but can’t Counsell hit as well as Weeks has this year?
by cwyers on
Jul 18, 2008 10:17 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ah, thanks for the correction
Either way, the difference is large between Hardy and Counsell, who I am assuming is a fairly good defensive comp for Escobar.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on
Jul 18, 2008 10:28 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Rickie
.247 batting with an OBP of .357
I hope so. Given Marcel’s stated accuracy, maybe yes, maybe no.
by ol Pete on
Jul 18, 2008 10:19 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Haha, awesome
Battlekow at Brew Crew Ball put together a projection of each player on the Brewers using the Marcel system. It’s a fine system to use if one expects the players to perform exactly how they did in the first half, but it does not take trends into example at all. What about Dave Bush’s sub-3.00 ERA since May? Nope. Rickie Weeks’ career OBP above .360 after July? Nope. Manny Parra gaining more and more confidence with every start? Not a chance.Who wants to take a guess on which is more predictive: Manny Parra’s pitching line over the last two years, or a blogger’s impression of his confidence? Anyone? Bueller?
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on
Jul 18, 2008 5:44 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
hilarious
“It’s a fine system to use if one expects the players to perform exactly how they did in the first half, but it does not take trends into example at all.”
One, the point is that Marcel most certainly does not expect players to perform exactly how they did in the first half. Two, ignoring trends is a good thing. A GREAT thing.
by Sky Kalkman on
Jul 19, 2008 4:19 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Marcel does not ignore trends.
Marcel considers this year’s data more to be more important than last year’s.
I’ve done day-by-day Marcels in the past (search my archive on THT), it generally turns out the same as the year-by-year Marcels.
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
by salb918 on
Jul 22, 2008 9:16 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs


















