Comments on: Projecting Kevin Youkilis’ Average

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:10:10 +0000

I almost forgot that Youk has done this before. He had a .402 BA in May 2007. I had him marked down for .285 that year. I never wavered from my original number. After batting .354 the first two months, he finished with a .288 average.

Dont be suckered in by the magical .400 number. Youk will slump soon, and slump hard. Bank on it.

By: R M

R M — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:55:49 +0000

And 190 is only if you cut up a season into 75 at bat chunks….to cover all 75 at bat intervals would be some ungodly number….

By: R M

R M — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:53:13 +0000

Assuming 550 at bats per player, you would be looking at something like 190 75 at-bat samples just for 2008. That would be interesting to do, but would be pretty time consuming. Eric has a valid point though….can a conclusion be made from that specific of a sample? 2008 could be drastically different from other years, and the other 75 at bat samples from 2008 could also tell a much different story….very interesting idea though. I’d like to see how this compares to something done including all the samples and multiple years….

By: bradluen

bradluen — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:58:42 +0000

I’m sure most of you understand this, but:

If you projected KY at say .286 before the season, then unless you think that for the rest of the year he’s going to be worse than you projected, you must now increase his projection for the entire season. You might think he’ll still hit .286 for the rest of the season, but because he’s already done better than that so far, his *whole season* projection necessarily goes up.

(Meaningless guess: he finishes at .307.)

By: Brian Joura

Brian Joura — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:56:10 +0000

Hi Brian – thanks for the comment.

As has anyone who has posted things for public consumption, I’ve been corrected, proven wrong, misquoted and ripped a new one for things that have turned out to be proven true. It goes with the territory and I accept that going in.

But this was the first time that someone acted condescending towards me because I did not spend thousands, and I mean literally thousands of hours with the way I prepared this article, in order to do it the way he thought it should be done.

And so I invited him to do that research instead, said I’d like to read the article (which I would, to see how my sample of 26 compares to the 13,000+ one) , and I get accused of being “touchy” and “testy”

All things considered, I think I have been fairly restrained.

By: Brian Noonan

Brian Noonan — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:42:15 +0000

Brian…you’re writing for a website. People will read and criticize…get used to it.

Just be glad they are reading!

The point Eric brings up is valid…as is your defense about time and data constraints…no need to get testy.

By: Brian Joura

Brian Joura — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:33:40 +0000

And that would have been my response had the individual simply asked:

“Why did you only look at the first 75 at-bats for each of the 26 players?”

He raised the ante and then cried when I responded in kind.

By: fili

fili — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:28:43 +0000

“In an ideal world that might have been what I did. If I lived in a world with no time constraints or had software to do all the calculations for me then this piece would have been different.”
**********
Something like this.

Which would have sufficed.

By: Brian Joura

Brian Joura — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:21:43 +0000

I’m curious – when you post on other free sites suggesting that someone spend thousands of hours on a project – what kind of response do you normally get?

By: Eric Johnson

Eric Johnson — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:16:41 +0000

Jeez, touchy much?