Eric Hinske

[Mel]

OKay blue bird nuts what's the skinny?

Eric Hinske is available in my other fantasy league. His numbers look decent. I only have room for him at my Util. position, currently being shared by Aidan Beltre (complete bust so far this year) and Paul Konerko (likely 40 HR candidate).

Do you think I should grab Hinske in favor of Konerko? Or is this an unusually good start for him. His career numbers don't quite stack up to his 2005 numbers so far.

Any opinions?

[leaferfan87]

Your safe bet would be to stick with Konerko. His stats will likely hold up better over a 162-game season than Hinske.

[KB in Kelowna]

Konerko, I doubt Hinske will ever put up or improve his rookie year numbers. Call it a hunch.

[Canucklehead]

OKay blue bird nuts what's the skinny?

Eric Hinske is available in my other fantasy league. His numbers look decent. I only have room for him at my Util. position, currently being shared by Aidan Beltre (complete bust so far this year) and Paul Konerko (likely 40 HR candidate).

Do you think I should grab Hinske in favor of Konerko? Or is this an unusually good start for him. His career numbers don't quite stack up to his 2005 numbers so far.

Any opinions?
Keep Konerko. Hinske could very easily tail off and have a bad season like last year. Konerko is the better player.

[Mel]

Thanks for the tips. I'm always trying to improve my team for the sake of tinkering. Bad habit. I'll stick w/ Konerko.

:thumb:

[Daryl Shilling]

I really agree with the previous opinions in this thread. When it comes to trying to predict statistic, for every complex formula, for all of the weights and measures people introduce to try and perfect the concept, the number one predictor of future stats is a player's previous statistics.

Predicting the standings is the exact same thing. Each year, magazines and shows bring in their "experts" (read: former players), who pick apart the previous season's changes, try to determine who has the most heart, determination (and many such boring things), and then predict the final standings.

And for all of that, it's still more accurate to just predict that the clubs will finish in last year's order.

Daryl

[Mel]

Daryl, If I my ask.... what's your take on Beltre. He put up hall of fame numbers last year but has yet to impress this year.

Was last year an aberration? Looking at his career numbers it kind of seems that way.

[Daryl Shilling]

Daryl, If I my ask.... what's your take on Beltre. He put up hall of fame numbers last year but has yet to impress this year.

Was last year an aberration? Looking at his career numbers it kind of seems that way.

I think the most important thing to remember is that Beltre is still quite young; he only just turned 26 last month, so we're bound to see improvement in his numbers. He's under-performing not only to last year's numbers, but even his career numbers so far, so I think you're going to see him be better by the end of the year.

I think we'll see something along a .280 to .290ish BA, a .350ish OBP, and a SLG of about .500. I don't think we'll see the gaudy numbers he posted last year in those regards. I bet we'll see 20ish HRs, as 48 isn't very likely, given his career path so far.

He'll still be a very solid pick, either way, even if he doesn't match his 2004 stats.

Daryl

[Mel]

Thanks Daryl, I am not an avid follower of baseball. I thought I had a stud in Beltre based on his 2004 numbers and Yahoo ranking... till I noticed his suspiciously slow start, and then took a peak at his career numbers. I felt like I'd been had.

But I think he's bound to heat up, so I'll hang on to him and work him into my util position on a rotation, until he hopefully gets on a roll. (my other league, not ours). In the mean time I have Rolen minding 3rd so I guess I can't complain. (this is an 8 team league).

thanks :thumb:

[Leafs_Fa_Life]

Rolen's hurt.

[Mel]

Rolen's hurt.

Ugh, thanks for the quick notice LFL. I had no idea. With a few minutes to spare I got Rolen to my bench and rotated a few guys.

It doesn't seem to be serious, but I guess I'm "stuck" with Beltre at 3rd for a few days.

Thanks for the advice all :wave:

--------------

You know this is really a fantasy ball thread, so I'm gonna move it there.

I have given myself a warning. Thread moved to fantasy sports :laughing:

[PDO]

I really agree with the previous opinions in this thread. When it comes to trying to predict statistic, for every complex formula, for all of the weights and measures people introduce to try and perfect the concept, the number one predictor of future stats is a player's previous statistics.

Predicting the standings is the exact same thing. Each year, magazines and shows bring in their "experts" (read: former players), who pick apart the previous season's changes, try to determine who has the most heart, determination (and many such boring things), and then predict the final standings.

And for all of that, it's still more accurate to just predict that the clubs will finish in last year's order.

Daryl

So close Daryl, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.. there are three major things to take into consideration.

#1 - 1 run/goal games. In any sport.. they're pretty much luck. Look at a team that won a lot of 1 goal games, and they'll likely fall flat on their face the next year. In fact, the only team in the NHL that's shown any consitency in winning 1 goal games in the past 10 years is the NJD.. it's the same in baseball, from what I've understood. That means teams like Nashville and St. Louis are in a lot of trouble.

#2 - Players added and subtracted. Espeacilly in basketball, but also in baseball, hockey and to the least extent football. Looking at Miami, you add Flash and Shaq and it's an instant contender.

#3 - Maturing players. Self explanatory.. players hit their prime around 29 years old.

[Daryl Shilling]

So close Daryl, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.. there are three major things to take into consideration.

#1 - 1 run/goal games. In any sport.. they're pretty much luck. Look at a team that won a lot of 1 goal games, and they'll likely fall flat on their face the next year. In fact, the only team in the NHL that's shown any consitency in winning 1 goal games in the past 10 years is the NJD.. it's the same in baseball, from what I've understood. That means teams like Nashville and St. Louis are in a lot of trouble.

#2 - Players added and subtracted. Espeacilly in basketball, but also in baseball, hockey and to the least extent football. Looking at Miami, you add Flash and Shaq and it's an instant contender.

#3 - Maturing players. Self explanatory.. players hit their prime around 29 years old.

Please don't take me so literally. I didn't say that it's not worth looking at those things; they're all worth looking at. If the Oilers acquired Dany Heatley and Joe Thorton they would certainly win more games than before. What I'm saying is that if you're trying to predict the standings in a league, you will be more accurate if you simply go by last year's standings.

For example, take the case of The Hockey News. Testing their picks of which teams will make the playoffs, since 1997, they have a correlation of 0.605, and that's pretty good. They certainly know hockey, and they ought to after having gone through all of the roster changes, and many of the issues you mentioned. However, if over the same period you did the same thing, only instead of picking apart acquisitions, the number of 1 goal games, which players have matured, who drank Coke or Pepsi, and decided that the teams that make the playoffs are simply the previous teams, you will have a correlation of 0.625.

After all of that work, you're still just as well off picking with last year's standings. You'll be more wrong with a couple of teams, but more correct on far more teams. My suggestion is an approach which uses both concepts. Look at the standings first, predicting along those lines, and then adjust by looking at the deletion or addition of any key players.

Daryl

[PDO]

After all of that work, you're still just as well off picking with last year's standings. You'll be more wrong with a couple of teams, but more correct on far more teams. My suggestion is an approach which uses both concepts. Look at the standings first, predicting along those lines, and then adjust by looking at the deletion or addition of any key players.



Sorry, when I was wording it I meant to say "in addition to" what you've said. I missed that, and it was my fault.

[Leafs_Fa_Life]

Mel, aren't you glad you didn't take Hinske? His .718 OPS is just pathetic for a first basemen :doh: