claydavenport.com
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.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
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!