You continue to argue that you can't predict player performance with a high degree of certainly. I continue to nod my head in agreement. Still, we have some statistical tools at our disposal that have proven to give some insight on the subject. You don't agree? That's your prerogative. I will continue to tout updated ZiPS projections as an objective estimate of future performance and you will continue to exclaim, "These players aren't robots"! Everything will be as it should be. In many areas, such as business or science, statistics are very powerful and have been shown to be very useful. They are why casinos make money and people release political polls and predict particle behaviors, etc. Now look at sports betting, using the same tools the results are totally different. No one, from anyone's uncle's gut the MIT PhD likely employed at the MGM can predict sports at the same level as other things. There is a reason the sports book is hidden in the back of the casino and you have to walk past 10,000 slot machines to get there. Some people refuse to accept this. Its like they ignore that there must be some fundamental difference between these things. We know the statistics work, so what could the problem be? Maybe the assumptions? Maybe everything doesn't just regress to the mean as ZIPs would predict. Again, what does ZIPs really tell you? Its pretty obvious to me, I can look at any player and tell you about what their ZIPs will look like, its basically intuitive. Just look at an average line between the current season and career numbers and round towards the career numbers. I really don't see what the value is in it. How is Weeks doing this year, worse than usual. OK, then from now on he will do better but he has been so bad his final line will still be below his average line. How is Braun doing this year, better than usual. OK, then from now on he will do a little worse but has been so good his final line will be above his average line. That is ZIPs. Its quite fine to reference ZIPs, but to present as some almighty end all be all is ridiculous, especially if you look at the actual past performances of ZIPs and you see it is very useful for the group and basically worthless for the individual, and by that I mean it performs equally as well as any person's gut feeling. Once Weeks starts looking like the player he has been in his career then I would trust the ZIPs line a lot more. But ZIPs already assumes he is that same player performing the same way with as much variation in performance as any other 70 game sample in his career. If you watch him hit you know that is not true. Just today, last AB, he was thrown a AAA hanging curveball that he should have crushed. Instead, infield fly. Obviously every player will miss a meatball, but ZIPs just assumes that miss is the same as any of the other infield flys over Weeks career but he is just having an unlucky time when many of them happened to be bunched together. I think he is not playing at the same level that caused him to accumulate his previous stats right now so I dont trust any stat that uses that data until I see some evidence he has become that player again. ZIPs says Weeks is a die who is just rolling a lot of 1s right now. So it says for this set of 500 rolls the average will be lower than 3.5 since we already have all these 1s, but from now on we expect 1s to occur 1/6 of the time. I am saying Weeks has turned into a die with two 1s and 3,4,5,6. Using this model you would not expect the same results. I came to this conclusion by watching Weeks miss mistake pitches and chase bad pitches more than in the past, something ZIPs does not do since it does, infact, consider the players to be robots.