Quote:
Originally Posted by Neags23
That's not really my point. All projection systems are generally within 5% to 7% of each other. I'm more asking why the game is advertised as using ZiPS when it seems clear that it's really not, or if there is an explanation of like "We started with ZiPS, then put our own spin on them." In which case... why mention ZiPS at all?
And yes, in these two examples, they're acceptably close. There are lots of players that are not.
Andrew Triggs, for example, has ZiPS projections of 4.38/4.18 & 1.4. OOTP projects as 3.51/3.62 & 4.5. That's definitely not "based" on ZiPS. It's not even close. And if you look through players, you'll find a lot like that.
|
It is based on ZIPS, but then we make changes to get players to fit on the rosters, start on the right levels and play in their right roles.
f.e. Triggs just based on his ZIPS projections and nothing else started off in AA in OOTP iirc.
So we use ZIPS as the base, but it's not purely ZIPS, because if we used nothing but pure ZIPS projections, the rosters would look incredibly weird and just not be right. We'll also sometimes make changes if guys consistently over/under-perform in our test seasons.
Another factor is that I believe the ZIPS projections we used we got directly from Dan and they were an earlier version that what you see on Fangraphs f.e. So a lot of the changes are just updates that Dan made to his projections after we'd already imported them into OOTP.
Also, as mentioned above, the ratings also come out slightly different just because of how they're imported into the game as well. That's especially true for pitchers.
Then there's the issue that the pitcher's projections are influenced by the gb% and how we calculate that is quite a bit different than how some other places do. So the out of the box pitcher projections just won't match 100% perfectly.