Let me put that in a clearer way. I believe there is an inherent bias coming from the modern "analytical" baseball writer that favors particular ways of putting together a team.

When one is attempting to create numbers to encapsulate a player's complete performance, there is necessarily going to be a lot of "noise". And as much as these "analysts" like to present their work as objective, there is obviously subjectivity as different components are weighted.

These formulae are being constantly tweaked. What I believe actually happens is that a guy like Kenny Williams signs a player who these writers consider a bum and they twitter and talk about how dumb Kenny is, whereas if Beane or Friedman or Epstein were to sign the same player, they would begin looking at why they signed him and perhaps being to "realize" that he had more value than they previously suspected and in turn look to adjust their numbers to reflect that "fact".

It sort of reminds me of a guy who was in my fantasy league for many years. He used to write a preseason preview for our league called Pavilion (his team was the St. Louis Browns) and every year he had his own team finishing first. When other members objected, he simply said, "Of course I think my team is going to finish first. If I hadn't I would have drafted differently."."

The White Sox regularly exceed projection systems.

Why do you think that is?

Amazing ability to avoid injuries, especially pitchers

Let me put that in a clearer way. I believe there is an inherent bias coming from the modern "analytical" baseball writer that favors particular ways of putting together a team.

When one is attempting to create numbers to encapsulate a player's complete performance, there is necessarily going to be a lot of "noise". And as much as these "analysts" like to present their work as objective, there is obviously subjectivity as different components are weighted.

These formulae are being constantly tweaked. What I believe actually happens is that a guy like Kenny Williams signs a player who these writers consider a bum and they twitter and talk about how dumb Kenny is, whereas if Beane or Friedman or Epstein were to sign the same player, they would begin looking at why they signed him and perhaps being to "realize" that he had more value than they previously suspected and in turn look to adjust their numbers to reflect that "fact".

It sort of reminds me of a guy who was in my fantasy league for many years. He used to write a preseason preview for our league called Pavilion (his team was the St. Louis Browns) and every year he had his own team finishing first. When other members objected, he simply said, "Of course I think my team is going to finish first. If I hadn't I would have drafted differently."."

Amazing ability to avoid injuries, especially pitchers

I see part of the problem being that these guys pretend that they are clinicians in creating their numbers, working under the same exacting standards of the scientific method that true mathematicians in more important fields must pass in order for their work to be accepted in the industry.

The saber world is the equivalent of the astrophysics world accepting that greek guy on all history channel alien shows into its mainstream.

75-90

I see part of the problem being that these guys pretend that they are clinicians in creating their numbers, working under the same exacting standards of the scientific method that true mathematicians in more important fields must pass in order for their work to be accepted in the industry.

The saber world is the equivalent of the astrophysics world accepting that greek guy on all history channel alien shows into its mainstream.

The systems publicly available are fine.

It's hardly whining. It is a valid criticism. They present their product as unassailable. There is enough money in that industry to expect a product that more resembles perfection.

The blame shouldn't be on the creators of projection systems. It's the analysts/writers who accept them as gospel where you should direct your whining.

What makes a baseball writer or analyst different from a front office scout?

Did the scout get his Masters at the prestigious Alexander Cartwright University of Baseball? The baseball writers could only afford to get an Associates at DCC, Doubleday Community College?

That's just it. They're not scientists or analysts. They're writers. It's no different than suggesting what Malcolm Gladwell does is scholarship. And I like Gladwell. He's an interesting writer. So is Voros McCracken.

What makes a baseball writer or analyst different from a front office scout?

Did the scout get his Masters at the prestigious Alexander Cartwright University of Baseball? The baseball writers could only afford to get an Associates at DCC, Doubleday Community College?

What makes a guy who works at Goldman Sachs different than a guy who sits at home and writes a blog about stocks?