tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7965585998403674176.post-63425478457872924432008-03-27T21:30:00.004-04:002008-03-28T10:49:04.765-04:002008-03-28T10:49:04.765-04:00After thrilling us with their <a href="http://vegaswatch.net/2008/03/look-out-for-seattle.html">AL predictions yesterday</a>, ESPN released their NL team capsules today. They're all linked from the <a href="http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/mlb/index">MLB Index</a> (although the Rockies' link is broken; their preview is <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/preview08/team?team=col">here</a>). I don't really care about the actual previews at all, but the win predictions for each team from ESPN's analysts sure are fun.<br /><br />These previews have predictions from Jayson Stark, Tim Kurkjian, Buster Olney, Keith Law, and Steve Phillips. I'll get to the more interesting specific predictions next week, but first some more general stuff.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Average Win Predction</span><br />This is not complicated. If all 30 teams play a full season, the average team will win 81 games. I don't think this requires any further explanation.<br /><br />Kurkjian: 82.1<br />Stark: 82<br />Olney: 81.3<br />Phillips: 81.1<br />Law: 81<br /><br />Congratulations to Keith Law. The only ESPN analyst who can add. Give that man a raise.<br /><br />That money should probably come out of the paychecks of Kurkjian and Stark. I would like to see the process these individuals go through when making their predictions. I am pretty sure they look at the list of teams, arbitrarily assign a win total to each one, and that's that.<br /><br />Here is my question: what's the point? Clearly, the guys who don't consider numbers at all are <a href="http://vegaswatch.net/2007/09/evaluating-april-mlb-predictions.html">not good at this</a>. Would it be that hard to add up your predictions and make sure that they're, uh, possible? Also: do they not have editors? If they do, do <span style="font-style: italic;">they</span> not know how to add?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">PECOTA Correlation</span><br />Law: 0.93<br />Kurkjian: 0.81<br />Olney: 0.80<br />Phillips: 0.80<br />Stark: 0.78<br /><br />This is not rocket science. Law's predictions will most likely do very well. He clearly at least put some thought into this. The others will do about as well as yours or mine would do if we arbitrarily picked numbers for each team. I find it amusing that ESPN trots out these predictions like they mean something. They do not.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Standard Deviation</span><br />Phillips: 10.7<br />Olney: 10.4<br />Kurkjian: 10.1<br />Stark: 9.7<br />Law: 9.0<br /><br />For reference, PECOTA's standard deviation is 8.4.<br /><br />Phillips is so absurd. Here's my favorite little stat from all of these: he has <span style="font-weight: bold;">14 </span>teams winning 88 or more games. Think about that for a second- that's one team away from half of baseball. Here is my prediction: Steve Phillips' predictions will not fare well in <a href="http://vegaswatch.net/2007/10/evaluating-april-mlb-predictions-again.html">this post</a> at the end of the year.Vegas Watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02353166004125421683VegasWatch@gmail.com9