forums

2027 Roster Discussion

Allabouttheu95 said:
LMAO:

Link Jarret resume @FSU since 23

3 national seeds (1 being top 8)
1 college World Series
2 super regionals
3 regional appearances

Win loss vs JD (7-2)
2024 3-0 fsu
2025 2-1 fsu
2026 2-1 fsu

You legitimately have the worst takes on this board but yet you still come on here with even ****tier takes. It’s quite the phenomenon

I know you are this programs biggest slurper but it’s time to hang it up and focus on recruiting
Click to expand...
Again, i can careless about last year. What are they doing this year? Clearly nothing
 
9oh4Cane said:
Lol, per Erick they are broke and in debt, however they’ve still won 30 more games than us and have hosted the last 3 years

If they are so broke and we are not, then that makes Link’s results even more impressive and JD’s even more pathetic
Click to expand...
Who is defending JD? Yes, they are broke, and we are not broke but fund our baseball program like we are broke. What hitting do they have, and what pitching are they bringing back? Right now, our current team is looking like the FSU team last year. A team with no hitting and a team that will rely on pitching. Not a good recipe in my opinion
Screenshot 2026-07-01 at 7.37.06 PM.png
Screenshot 2026-07-01 at 7.37.43 PM.png
 
sms4 said:
Our possible closer putting in work last night and shoving ! !
Click to expand...
Don’t let the people in here see that. According to the fans, he was a wasted take and someone we didn’t need. Yet if he was on the team last year. He would have been top4 hardest throwers on the team.
 
ErickMarreroU said:
Again, i can careless about last year. What are they doing this year? Clearly nothing
Click to expand...
What the **** are we even talking about, how can anyone have watched this **** we’ve been putting out for 15 years…not to mention this whack *** offseason where we’re losing pretty much everyone worth a **** off of last year’s under achieving team and replaced them with fliers…and say annything other than “yeah I guess we’ll see” (that’s your bull case) or “we’re going to continue to be **** and get our asses kicked by our primary rivals until we make seismic changes”?

You know ball but this is some lame, cope *** logic.
 
Zbrod95 said:
I think Cuvet’s back is going to make him drop. I think that opens up a possibility he returns.

I would try Milano at 1st, move Sheehan to 2nd, Alvarez catches if Sosa leaves, Dubovich gets a OF spot, and I think Peralta becomes your 4th OF imo.

C:Alvarez
1st: Milano
2nd: Sheehan
SS: NA/Rook Shepard?
3rd: N/A
OF: Dubovich
CF: NA/peralta?
RF: NA/Peralta?

The bullpen should be better just by getting healthy and adding to it. Rotation needs a legit SP with Evans leaving.
Click to expand...
Cuvet rarted no 120 in latest draft list. That is like 4th round! i would come back if I were him!
 
D1Baseball is a fan of what we've done in the portal. Not my favorite way to rate things, but from a pure WAR net added standpoint, they have Miami 11th.

IMG_1182.png
 
MiamisMoperiestMopes said:
based on this the guys we lost are basically net positive lol. The war per in is the lowest of the top 17 they have listed (that I can see on your screen).
Click to expand...
Correct. The players we lost we should mostly be ok with losing. WAR per is not as high as some teams, though that is also a product of taking lots of pitchers (they contribute less WAR and D1Baseball's pitching model is, frankly, broken).

I created a WAR model for college baseball that is- in my opinion- much better tuned and in returns results that are more valid.

It's a fun shorthand to see their results more than highly predictive. I certainly hope they are predictive this year since the two teams I follow are listed.
 
SWEaglesFan said:
Have you sent it to D1baseball suggesting they use it?
Click to expand...
I did t intend for my post to come across as arrogant, if it did. I legitimately see there is an error in their coding (specifically on the pitching side of things).

Their model has bugs in pitching code and doesn't adjust the hitting WAR enough for the run environment and park factors. It's entirely possible they're regressing things differently than I do, which is fine. Lots of ways to build one.

That said, there is no way they intended for Sam Cozart to be a negative WAR player. Their own site named him a freshman All-American. Their model uses ERA rather than FIP like mine does, but his ERA is bonkers, so that should actually help in their model. I have him supplying over 3.2 WAR. This is but one easy example.

IMG_1186.png

They have a calibration issue as well, where hitting WAR is over 80% of the wins and their implied win totals have a team made up of entirely replacement level players winning 37% of their games, which is, objectively, far too high. Typically, you would tune your model to where 78-80% of available wins are spoken for (making a team of replacement players winning around 20-22% of their games).

Their pitching model doesn't adjust for leverage index, meaning they apply the same weight for impacting wins to a guy pitching in a 13-1 game as they do a closer protecting a 3-2 lead. One impacts winning to prevent a run far more than the other and should have a leverage index applied accordingly.

I could go on and on with critiques for what their outsourced model has come up with, but it feels harsh for a site doing a ton to grow the game.
 
Lance Roffers said:
SWEaglesFan said:
Have you sent it to D1baseball suggesting they use it?
Click to expand...
I did t intend for my post to come across as arrogant, if it did. I legitimately see there is an error in their coding (specifically on the pitching side of things).

Their model has bugs in pitching code and doesn't adjust the hitting WAR enough for the run environment and park factors. It's entirely possible they're regressing things differently than I do, which is fine. Lots of ways to build one.

That said, there is no way they intended for Sam Cozart to be a negative WAR player. Their own site named him a freshman All-American. Their model uses ERA rather than FIP like mine does, but his ERA is bonkers, so that should actually help in their model. I have him supplying over 3.2 WAR. This is but one easy example.

View attachment 366801
They have a calibration issue as well, where hitting WAR is over 80% of the wins and their implied win totals have a team made up of entirely replacement level players winning 37% of their games, which is, objectively, far too high. Typically, you would tune your model to where 78-80% of available wins are spoken for (making a team of replacement players winning around 20-22% of their games).

Their pitching model doesn't adjust for leverage index, meaning they apply the same weight for impacting wins to a guy pitching in a 13-1 game as they do a closer protecting a 3-2 lead. One impacts winning to prevent a run far more than the other and should have a leverage index applied accordingly.

I could go on and on with critiques for what their outsourced model has come up with, but it feels harsh for a site doing a ton to grow the game.
Click to expand...
Check out collegebaseballinsiders.com

Their stats adjust and use factors that D1Baseball does not, and their growing in the space
 
Caneiack said:
Check out collegebaseballinsiders.com

Their stats adjust and use factors that D1Baseball does not, and their growing in the space
Click to expand...
Cool site. I'll be interested to compare how they calculate. First glance they're also a little light on WAR, it's an easy sanity check.

Wins above replacement total is obvious, then you have the number of wins in D1 baseball. The difference in the two gives you the wins a replacement team would have. Which then gives you a quick and easy win percentage.

A team made fully of replacement isn't winning 30% of their games etc.
 
Caneiack said:
Check out collegebaseballinsiders.com

Their stats adjust and use factors that D1Baseball does not, and their growing in the space
Click to expand...
Not sure if you're also a data nerd like myself, but I found their API to save as json bash and run their api to scrape it all for the players.



Pretty cool site and it had some things I hadn't built yet. Goodness do they lambast smaller conferences on adjustments.
 
Back
Top