Those who predict that teams will win (or lose) 95+ games can only do it by guessing which teams will over/underachieve, or have good/bad luck. To varying degrees, the guesses are educated.

To be honest, I don’t find projections of specific records very interesting. But they’re harmless and somewhat entertaining. And, they’re generally forgotten by the end of the season.

]]>Also, the writer’s statistical analysis shows every really good team from last year with significant reduction in wins for 2014.

Yes, that’s regression to the mean. Another phrase for saying that the teams’ performance last year wasn’t their true talent level.

]]>“article posted by Craig” ….learn how to read.

Hilarious! That’s a reference to THIS post. The INFORMATION with the PROJECTIONS is Clay Davenport’s, and Craig posted a link to CLAY’S PROJECTIONS.

Would you like to try again?

]]>- Admiral Yamamoto ]]>

*Why do I bring this up? Well, when someone, be it Vegas, or Clay Davenport, suggests that the most talented team is going to have an over/under of 91 or 92 wins, this does NOT mean that they expect the league-leader to have 91 or 92 wins. It’s two different questions, exactly the same two questions that I have.*

**Whereas you can estimate that the most talented team will have an over/under of 91 or 92 wins, you should therefore estimate that the league leading team (whoever that happens to be) will likely average some 10 wins more than that.**

Conservative would have been numbers closer to the norm.

While I can’t comment on how many specific simulations Clay ran, when you do some 100,000+ times, there’s going to be outliers. That doesn’t mean an outlier can’t happen in real life, but I’m sure the teams with 95+ wins are a few SD away from the norm.

]]>It’s like the journalistic equivalent of a preemptive strike.

If you do thing A and reaction B happens, a decent number of times*, one could think that in the future if A then B, right? Because there’s been plenty of people who like to mock predictions that are based on hundreds of thousands of simulations, and then use their gut on their own.

The 2012 election and Nate Silver should have showed us how bad people are at predictions, and then we have articles like this one in ’07 from the Chicago Tribute that mocked PECOTA’s prediction of a 72-90 White Sox team that just won the WS. The Pale Hose ended up at 72-90…

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2007/03/computers-dont-have-feelings.html

[*lets not get into statistical significance here]

]]>