NFBC Message Boards

A small warning.....
This started out as a post and turned into a little bit of a long rant....
Apologies or enjoy....


I don't get the Forecaster. That can be taken in two ways.
One) I don't physically purchase the book or have it delivered to my door.
Two) I get what they're trying to say with their Numerish, but as a whole, I don't 'get' it.
When younger, I was told that it was a 'must own' for any fantasy player. Well, I'm any fantasy player, so I felt the need to buy one.
And the next year, I bought another. And then stopped.

I'll be the first to tell you that when it comes to fantasy baseball, I do not lean on Numerish much.
Mr. Shandler, in effect, had put entire seasons and broken them down to Numerish.
Brilliant!
He was and still should be applauded.
The Numerish as a whole should be commended. They are taking physical acts on a baseball field and reducing them to numbers.
I couldn't do it.

Not only are these numbers ciphered (and siphoned)from physical acts, but with the Numerish compiled from the last season and other seasons, projections are made.
The Forecaster is not the only place that has numbers and projections. It seems that every site, every writer, every magazine, and every hairy Tom and Dick has projections (no pun intended).
These projections are different from each, but only by a little bit.
Sure, all these players have the same numbers, but the Numerish read them each a little differently.
'This is what he has done in his past, and we expect more of the same for the future'.
Really, this is the major factor in most projections.
And whether a projectionist wants to disagree or agree with that statement, for the most part, that is what is there.
No matter the Numerish.

For younger fantasy players it is assumed that these numbers and projections are done by folks smarter than them.
Afterall, LOOK AT ALL THOSE NUMBERS!
But, as we mature as fantasy players we realize that Numerish is just another tool for assessing players on draft lists.
The drafter who watches baseball a lot has just as good of a chance of winning a draft as a person or person's who break these seasons down to numbers.

I've reached the stage where most Numerish is for entertainment, not for drafting purposes.
Which leads me back to the first paragraph in not getting the Forecaster.
Last year, there was a big ruckus after Mr. Shandler wrote an 'I told you so' column on Mike Trout.
Of course, Trout went on to have a tremendous season and in a baseball sense told Mr. Shandler, 'No, I'm the one who told YOU so'.
So, Mr. Shandler uses the Trout mishap in his off season seminars to make light of himself.
All is good.

A personal observation of mine is that Mike Trout is the first player that has reminded me of Mickey Mantle.
That's high praise.
Mickey Mantle is the second best player I've ever seen.
I didn't think ANY player would remind me of Mantle again after watching him play.
To me, Mike Trout has a chance, a chance mind you, to be called the best player in baseball history. That chance is given to few. Very few.

Mike Trout is not a switch hitter. And that, friends, ends any thing I can negatively say about Mike Trout.

As a joke, from somebody near and dear, I receive a copy of the Forecaster each year. It makes me laugh and also reminds me of the first time in getting it, thinking it would open up a new world to me. It didn't, but I do know that it does for thousands.
Anyway, in the snipet for Mike Trout are the words, "regression is the world's most powerful force".
And sometimes, I wish the Numerish would just stick to numbers.
That one little phrase is another thumbing at Trout.
In effect, Mr. Shandler did not see Trout 2012 coming and predicted regression. He was wrong.
When regression came that first month, he pounced. And so did Trout.
And, we have Trout 2013.
Many Mea culpa's later, we're right back where we started. With Mr. Shandler using the 'r' word.
And now, regression is used as a caveat by Mr. Shandler. It is C-R-A-P.

Hardly anybody in the NFBC cares. Trout is the overwhelming Numero Uno.
Over Miguel Cabrera.
Here is part of what Mr. Shandler says about Cabrera....
'He remains the ideal low-risk player to build a team around'.
Crap, Joe Berg could have written that!

Cabrera has many years of steady service. He has been a tremendous hitter throughout. Nobody will argue that.
But here, Shandler is taking the CasaBlanca method of treating Cabrera in lining up the usual suspects for his projection. Cabrera has been good every year, so we expect another.
It's not Numerish that told him that, it was Cabrera punching the clock everyday and then punching out with great results.

Trout has only done that over two years. So he gets a big 'R' next to his name while Cabrera gets a pass.
Trout is many things Cabrera is not.
He is a five category player.
He is young.
He is still learning things.
And most importantly, he can get even better.

Mr. Shandler thinks of Trout with an 'r'. I think of him in the reverse. With progression. A 'P'.
He can be even better.
These writers don't use the word 'progression'. They use 'upside' as if progression is near impossible. Yet, anybody can regress. There glass constantly half empty.
In 1956, Mickey Mantle led baseball in home runs, rbi, runs, and batting average. He finished 10th in stolen bases.
As far as I know, no other player has done that.
Mike Trout could do that. He can still PROGRESS. Cabrera cannot.
Yet, if reading Mr. Shandler, only Trout can regress, Cabrera seems immune.

It would be easier for me to predict that Cabrera will have yet another great year.
I can't.
Projectionists like to ride horses that have been ridden a long time until that horse breaks down.
Then, 'age', 'wearing down', 'slowed bat' become code words for 'He ain't as good as he used to be'.
But, isn't the trick to predict the slow down and not wait till after it has happened?
They won't.
It'd be something remembered by readers if wrong. I say....so what?
Cabrera will be 31 this year. That is not 'old' in baseball years, but it is 'turning the corner'. Some players turn the corner well.
Some don't.
Albert Pujols numbers started slowing down at this age. Like Cabrera, Pujols was a sturdy player, not missing much time.
Until he did.

What was Mr. Shandler's regressive numbers for Trout?
???/110/25/91/35....
Regression must mean different things to different people, since all he's done is add one run scored, added two sb's, and taken away a couple of homers and six runs batted in. That, is stuck in the middle projecting, not regression projecting.
Shandler has warned others of regression, while projecting much the same numbers.
What?!

And very quietly, even after the glowing remarks about Cabrera and no mention of the 'r' word, maybe Mr. Shandler expects less out of Miggy this year.
Miggy played through injury last September, so his stats are five month based. I expected Mr. Shandler's projections to exceed what Cabrera did last year.
They do not.
He projects seven less homers and 17 less rbi.
That's a lot.
Again, what?!

Two players. Two top players. Probably the first two players a lot of readers will look at in the Forecaster.
I am told to take one because of stability and all around wonderfullness (shuddup spellchecker, they get it!)
Yet, on the projections side, expect less numbers.
And from the other, watch out for regression!
All I'm asking is to back up the projections! If really thinking Mike Trout will regress, display that in his projections!
And don't go gooey all over Cabrera and downgrade last year's numbers even when missing most of September last year.

It's my fault.
I tell myself to never take projections seriously. And I shouldn't.
Even for entertainment purposes.
But I do expect somebody to say something in English and have the Numerish projection match that English. That's All.

In the book Moneyball, you would clearly be in the "old-time" scouts camp.

Shandler had an awesome self-deprecating response to the whole Mike Trout regression theory in the beginning of this year's Forecaster. Not sure why Shandler generates so much negative response generally, I always appreciate his outside-the-box thinking even if not always correct and his ability to generate really passionate Fantasy Baseball debate.

I know during these slow drafts I absolutely cannot help myself to look at the projections from the Forecaster and instantly bank those projections for my team as if there are set in stone. As we know, counting those stats before they have hatched so to speak, is the exception rather than the rule, but that does not stop me from being somewhat of a slave to the Forecaster projections. Maybe like you, I just need to stop looking at them, but I don't think I could help myself as I need to see the "correct" answer.

COZ

COZ wrote:In the book Moneyball, you would clearly be in the "old-time" scouts camp.

Shandler had an awesome self-deprecating response to the whole Mike Trout regression theory in the beginning of this year's Forecaster. Not sure why Shandler generates so much negative response generally, I always appreciate his outside-the-box thinking even if not always correct and his ability to generate really passionate Fantasy Baseball debate.

I know during these slow drafts I absolutely cannot help myself to look at the projections from the Forecaster and instantly bank those projections for my team as if there are set in stone. As we know, counting those stats before they have hatched so to speak, is the exception rather than the rule, but that does not stop me from being somewhat of a slave to the Forecaster projections. Maybe like you, I just need to stop looking at them, but I don't think I could help myself as I need to see the "correct" answer.

COZ

As far as fantasy baseball, I would be a mix of 'Old Time Scout' bitten by a Numerish Shepard.
Not so much as to fight Billy Beane in his logic, but enough to still rely on my own eyes.

I read that and enjoyed the opening of the Forecaster. Self depreciating humor is a love of mine as all my drafts this year attest.
Still, there is a small, minute part of him that wants to be 'right' about Mike Trout.
So, he could not resist the 'r' word in his snipet.

Shandler is easy to like and easy to hate. Sort of half of a Deadheadz....or twice the Deadheadz, depending on how one looks at it.
Like you, I respect his 'stuff'. But, like with Joba Chamberlain, he has to just plain admit he's wrong sometimes and move on.
He has a hard time with that.
We're ALL wrong.
The winners of most leagues in the NFBC are not more right, they're less wrong.

With all of the attention that has been given to Billy Beane and moneyball, the bottom line is, what has Billy Beane ever won?

Long story short is the word REGRESSION is the second most misused word in fantasy baseball with VALUE being #1.

In the strictest sense of the word, regression speaks towards elements out of the players control. It has some to mean "PLAY WORSE" but that's not the real way it should be used.

Simplest terms -- good luck should regress to neutral luck and bad luck regresses to neutral luck.

If I flip a coin 10 times and it is heads 7 times, it is 70% heads. Neutral luck is 50%. I flip in 10 more times and it is 5 and 5, then the total is 12 and 8 and it is 60%. The 70% has regressed towards 50% via luck being neutral.

So when we say a player should regress, we should be projecting neutral luck - nothing more, nothing less.

One of the worst lines I hear is, "It is what it is".
No shit!? C'mon!
Everything is what it is until 'it' changes.
I get the sense that Mr. Shandler still does not believe that Trout is what he is and still expects change. Or a regression to the mean.
The problem with that is that Trout's got a mean mean. Or, it could be said that Trout has no mean bones in his body.
He has not shown us Clark Kent stats. Only SuperMan.

Mr. Shandler has seen a lot of great players during his time doing the Forecaster. He has not seen anybody like Trout.
He's incomparable for him. And for some in the Numerish community, incomparable has no place.

The problem with Trout (and all players with fewer than 3 years experience) is we don't know their baseline yet.

Trout's is obviously higher than we've seen in quite a long time - but there is still uncertainty where it will nestle.

ToddZ wrote:The problem with Trout (and all players with fewer than 3 years experience) is we don't know their baseline yet.

Trout's is obviously higher than we've seen in quite a long time - but there is still uncertainty where it will nestle.

First player without a 'baseline'. His is a 'halfcourt' line.

Part of me wants Trout to struggle just because the narrative would take a different turn

but since I own him in the FSTA and LABR leagues -- Go TROUT!!!!

And then you have Lincecum.
"He's too small to keep doing what he's doing"
"Mechanics"
They said it year after year, until...he stopped doing what he was doing.
Was that regression?

Remember the year Jeter started out something like 3 for 88?
But he finished damn near close to the back of the card.
I guess he flipped Todd's coin another 500 times.

Same with Cano 2 years ago.
He had a ridiculous September. He hit something like .450 for the last month of the season.
But advance to the playoffs and the hits averaged out. He had a miserable 2 series.
Regression (to the mean)?