And I’m back…
Not that I ever really left. Kept updating everything behind the scenes, just didn’t say anything about doing it. I guess I hit a point where I felt like I was saying the same things over and over again, and wasn’t coming up with anything new. So I walked away for awhile, maintaining things as much as a reference for myself and inviting anyone who wants to to use it as well.
My personal baseball season gets under way tonight, with my first draft of the years…which I’ll follow with an auction for another league this coming weekend.
I’m still not sure I have anything new to say, but maybe I’m over letting that bother me. At least temporarily.
5 Responses to And I’m back…
While everything on this site is free, a donation through Paypal to help offset costs would be greatly appreciated. -Clay
If you are trying to reach me, drop me an email. Same address as the webpage, but replace ".com" with "@gmail.com".
Archives
- January 2023
- January 2022
- September 2021
- April 2021
- February 2021
- December 2020
- February 2020
- November 2019
- January 2019
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- August 2017
- June 2017
- March 2017
- January 2017
- September 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- September 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- October 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
Clay, Can you address the (seemingly) out-of-consensus pessimism your projections reflect for the Nationals pitching staff, particularly the starters? Every one of them have ERAs (and often peripherals) way above previous established levels. Thanks.
Bugs. I expect they look better now.
Good stuff. I greatly enjoy your work. Minor questions:
1) Some of the 6-year projections for batters look a bit noisy 4-6 years out. E.g., Andrelton Simmons (http://www.claydavenport.com/ht/SIMMONS19890904A.shtml) shows EqA projections of .245, .244, .247, .256, .250, .257 for 2013-2018. The .256 to .250 to .257 progression is what seems odd to me.
2) Some of the pitcher projections look really flat. E.g., Verlander’s projection shows 3.66, 3.69, 3.65, 3.69, 3.69 projected RA for 2013-2017.
Are these because the aging curves are very customized to match the player’s comparables?
In each case, the comparables pretty much are the projection; I am not applying any kind of standard aging curve or smoothing to the projection, just extending the comp list players from their baseline to 1-6 years into the future. And the pitcher numbers, in particular, should look better now that the major bugs have been pinned to the tray.
Welcome back and thanks for all your hard work!