in case you missed the edmonds projection results, they're down below. couple of quick points of followup.
first, despite being a bunch of cardinal diehards, we did not come with the "high" projection in any category, as compared to the statistical models; we were 2d highest in avg, 2d lowest in obp, 2d highest in slg, middle of pack in hr and rbi, and tied for lowest in runs scored. that (as brian gunn pointed out in the comments thread) illustrates this community's "group level-headedness" (to coin another new phrase). round of applause for ourselves.
on a related note, commenter Perry referenced this project as an interesting application of the concept introduced in the wisdom of crowds, a noteworthy book from 2004. this may well have been john sickels' inspiration for the community-projection idea (i stole the idea from sickels), but whether or not that's the case, i think we meet the critera that define a "wise crowd." per the comment (from Perry): "`Wise crowds' need (1) diversity of opinion; (2) independence of members from one anoher; (3) decentralization; and (4) a good method for aggregating opinions." the only real questionable call here is whether or not we meet criterion #1 -- can we be considered to have diverse opinions even if we all agree on which team we like best? given the back-and-forth on aj burnett, juan encarnacion, mark mcgwire, power pitchers, and many many other subjects, i would say yes, we're sufficiently diverse to be deemed wise.
unless edmonds hits .240 with 18 home runs; then we're just another mindless, clueless mob. withhold applause until october.
for the weekend, i propose that we run the same exercise on mark mulder. now here's a player upon whom opinions vary widely even within cardinal nation. his era improved in 2005 and his won-lost record remained good, but his peripheral stats deteriorated last year, raising a lot of red flags. can he continue to win despite a low k rate and rising walk/9 and hit/9 rates? or will those fading peripherals catch up to mulder this year?
same rules as last time: no peeking at "scientific" projection models like ZIPS, james or PECOTA; base your projection only upon your own common sense and/or intuition. only one projection per poster, and only hard numbers (no ranges) for these six categories:
- innings
- w-l record
- era
- whip
- hr allowed
- ks
| ip | w-l | era | whip | hr | so | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 207.1 | 19-7 | 3.47 | 1.14 | 21 | 159 |
| 2003 | 186.2 | 15-9 | 3.13 | 1.18 | 15 | 128 |
| 2004 | 225.2 | 17-8 | 4.43 | 1.36 | 25 | 140 |
| 2005 | 205 | 16-8 | 3.64 | 1.38 | 19 | 111 |
you might also want to check mulder's davenport card at baseball prospectus; his 2005 splits at espn.com; and/or his list of comparable pitchers at baseball-reference.
i'll leave this thread open all weekend and tally the results monday morning. if we can get about 50 responses again (we got 46 for edmonds) i'll be very pleased; have at it folks.