USA Today's panel projects 82-80 record, 3rd place for Angels

[failos]

7 minutes ago, AngelStew43 said:

I'll say 90-72, and in the playoffs. 

Well aren’t you the optimist

[ten ocho recon scout]

I think 3rd is fair. We're banking on a lot going right this year (again).

If Ohtani is healthy, thst makes things very interesting though

[Pancake Bear]

2 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

Lol. Wtf are you talking about.  Where have I said anything about a rebuild?

I was speculating. I never said you wanted a rebuild. I said you were unrealistic. That part is definitively true.

[Pancake Bear]

42 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

I think 3rd is fair. We're banking on a lot going right this year (again).

If Ohtani is healthy, thst makes things very interesting though

I'm not. I'm banking on a lot not going wrong. People seem to not realize this: We have a very high floor. Our ceiling is dependent on how several players perform.

If Ohtani plays to his capabilities and nothing disastrous happens, we sweep the division easily.

[jsnpritchett]

1 minute ago, Pancake Bear said:

I was speculating. I never said you wanted a rebuild. I said you were unrealistic. That part is definitively true.

So if I say they still have a ton of question marks and it's entirely possible they finish around .500, that is "definitively" unrealistic in your mind?  That's absurd.

[jsnpritchett]

Just now, Pancake Bear said:

I'm not. I'm banking on a lot not going wrong. People seem to not realize this: We have a very high floor. Our ceiling is dependent on how several players perform.

If Ohtani plays to his capabilities and nothing disastrous happens, we sweep the division easily.

In your opinion.

[Pancake Bear]

38 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

So if I say they still have a ton of question marks and it's entirely possible they finish around .500, that is "definitively" unrealistic in your mind?  That's absurd.

Blarg said they're almost certainly gonna finish third in the West. You said you agree. Moving the goalposts much? 

I'm not saying it's impossible they finish third. I'm saying that's an unlikely scenario and would be a low probability result based on their current projections. 

[Pancake Bear]

39 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

In your opinion.

Well, based on data. What's your opinion based on? Hot air?

[jsnpritchett]

1 minute ago, Pancake Bear said:

Blarg said they're almost certainly gonna finish third in the West. You said you agree. Moving the goalposts much? 

I'm not saying it's impossible they finish third. I'm saying that's an unlikely scenario and would be a low probability result based on their current projections. 

The projections I posted have them at 82-80 and in 3rd place.  That's around .500.

And your opinion about a "high floor" is just that: an opinion.  There's no data that establishes the definitive floor of future performance.

[T.G.]

Just for the record... my opinions are based on cool air.

[Blarg]

5 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

Blarg said they're almost certainly gonna finish third in the West. You said you agree. Moving the goalposts much? 

I'm not saying it's impossible they finish third. I'm saying that's an unlikely scenario and would be a low probability result based on their current projections. 

Nope, I said it was reasonable to assume they will finish third. There is a way to reach a higher ranking but the current roster has to perform better than projected and they will need help from the minor leagues. This could happen. Or not. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

I kept telling you guys (except Lou) that you'd be disappointed with this offseason. Now that disappointment is manifesting itself as pessimism. 

Sure, 3rd is a fair estimate for where this team will finish, but that is ignoring that they are significantly closer to 1st than to 4th. This is easily the best team they've had on paper since 2014.

[Pancake Bear]

29 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

The projections I posted have them at 82-80 and in 3rd place.  That's around .500.

And your opinion about a "high floor" is just that: an opinion.  There's no data that establishes the definitive floor of future performance.

What you posted isn't a projection, it's some writers hypothesizing. There is zero data involved. Are you assuming there's something scientific about how the USA Today writers go about their guesses?

[Pancake Bear]

25 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Nope, I said it was reasonable to assume they will finish third. There is a way to reach a higher ranking but the current roster has to perform better than projected and they will need help from the minor leagues. This could happen. Or not. 

Third would not be a normative result, it would be a "more things went bad than good" result. That's why what you guys are packaging as realism is in fact pessimism. 

[Pancake Bear]

33 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

The projections I posted have them at 82-80 and in 3rd place.  That's around .500.

And your opinion about a "high floor" is just that: an opinion.  There's no data that establishes the definitive floor of future performance.

Do you not understand that a prediction is not a projection? It's an opinion. Pecota is a projection because it's based on assimilating historical data based on norms. See them difference?

[jsnpritchett]

1 minute ago, Pancake Bear said:

What you posted isn't a projection, it's some writers hypothesizing. There is zero data involved. Are you assuming there's something scientific about how the USA Today writers go about their guesses?

No, I'm not assuming that there's something "scientific" about their projections, you dumbfuck.  I literally said, "I'm assuming it's just based on their personal opinions, averaged out across the panel" in the initial post.  Can you read? They're still projections (and, again, if you'd READ, they literally call them PROJECTIONS in the inserted graphic).  I am (and I assume they are) using the term colloquially.  Predictions and projections are used interchangeably by a lot of people (even in market research, my professional field, a lot of people interchange them).

For the life of me, I don't know why you're making such a big deal out of this.

[jsnpritchett]

6 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

Do you not understand that a prediction is not a projection? It's an opinion. Pecota is a projection because it's based on assimilating historical data based on norms. See them difference?

Ha.  Hadn't seen this before I posted my response.  But trust me, you don't need to give me a lesson in predictions, projections, forecasting, etc.  It's literally part of my job.  Now shut the fuck up, please.

[eligrba]

[Pancake Bear]

11 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

Ha.  Hadn't seen this before I posted my response.  But trust me, you don't need to give me a lesson in predictions, projections, forecasting, etc.  It's literally part of my job.  Now shut the fuck up, please.

[jsnpritchett]

1 minute ago, Pancake Bear said:

Only mad that you don't seem to actually be capable of reading--and that you yourself don't actually seem to know what you're talking about.  Other than that, nah, I'm good.

[Pancake Bear]

1 hour ago, jsnpritchett said:

Only mad that you don't seem to actually be capable of reading--and that you yourself don't actually seem to know what you're talking about.  Other than that, nah, I'm good.

Lol. Just for the heck of it I'll give you one more shot.  

Are you saying the writers at USA Today are comparable to Pecota in predictive value? Because that's sure what it reads to me like what you're saying.

[jsnpritchett]

3 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

Lol. Just for the heck of it I'll give you one more shot.  

Are you saying the writers at USA Today are comparable to Pecota in predictive value? Because that's sure what it reads to me like what you're saying.

Jesus Christ, you're dense. AGAIN: I LITERALLY SAID IN THE FIRST POST THAT I THOUGHT THIS SEEMED LIKE THE PERSONAL OPINIONS OF THE SIX PEOPLE ON THE PANEL. At no point have I mentioned "predictive value." I said that some people use the terms projections and predictions interchangeably in the real world.

Again, I have no idea why you're taking this so seriously and why you keep arguing points that no one is making.  Either you're just trolling or you're just dumb.  

[Pancake Bear]

17 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

Jesus Christ, you're dense. AGAIN: I LITERALLY SAID IN THE FIRST POST THAT I THOUGHT THIS SEEMED LIKE THE PERSONAL OPINIONS OF THE SIX PEOPLE ON THE PANEL. At no point have I mentioned "predictive value." I said that some people use the terms projections and predictions interchangeably in the real world.

Again, I have no idea why you're taking this so seriously and why you keep arguing points that no one is making.  Either you're just trolling or you're just dumb.  

Blarg: "It's a pretty safe assumption the Angels finish 3rd. They have sucked bilge water the last four years straight. Both the A's and Astros have been wrestling for the division lead in that time and looks like they are not suffering much roster loss from 2020. The Mariners and Rangers are going to suck hard so that leaves the Angels in third place."

You, quoting the above: "Pretty much how I feel, as well."

So you say it has no predictive value, yet you agree with the assessment of it that the Angels will finish third in the West while ignoring the actual predictive data that suggests the most likely result based on the value of each roster is that the Angels will finish second in the division and be a playoff team. 

I'm just responding to what you said, but sure, I'm a troll. 

 

[Chuck]

USA Today's projections are to USA Today's Boob Nightengale's Breaking News on Twitter. 

[jsnpritchett]

3 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

sure, I'm a troll.