PDA

View Full Version : First projected White Sox record...some of you won't like this


DaveFeelsRight
01-11-2009, 01:53 PM
Early projected AL Standings using THT projections:

http://www.replacementlevel.com/inde...cted_standings (http://www.replacementlevel.com/index.php/RLYW/comments/extremely_early_projected_standings)

Noteable things:

White Sox finish dead last in the central
Yankees win 100+ Games
Boston takes the WC
Tampa only wins 88 games
Cleveland wins the AL Central
Angels win the AL West, but at UNDER .500
Mariners go 78-84
Mets win the East, Phillies the WC
Cubs and Rockies win the Central and West
San Francisco goes over .500
Orioles finish as the worst team in baseball

russ99
01-11-2009, 01:56 PM
Early projected AL Standings using THT projections:

http://www.replacementlevel.com/inde...cted_standings (http://www.replacementlevel.com/index.php/RLYW/comments/extremely_early_projected_standings)

Noteable things:

White Sox finish dead last in the central
Yankees win 100+ Games
Boston takes the WC
Tampa only wins 88 games
Cleveland wins the AL Central
Angels win the AL West, but at UNDER .500
Mariners go 78-84
Mets win the East, Phillies the WC
Cubs and Rockies win the Central and West
San Francisco goes over .500
Orioles finish as the worst team in baseball

1. Too many guys on the Sox have not played much at the major league level, so they would be difficult, if not impossible to project with any accuracy.

2. If half the kids pan out and the other half can't cut it, (with the Sox current roster) IMO the best case scenario is .500. So while 90 losses may be a stretch, 80 may not be. Right now, I'd go Twins first, Indians second, Sox 3rd, KC 4th, Det last.

JB98
01-11-2009, 01:57 PM
These projections are usually good for a hardy chuckle on a Sunday afternoon.

DSpivack
01-11-2009, 02:07 PM
Projected records are always a joke, but what strikes me about this one is that it's from a Yankees blog, and yet the Yankees are projected to be far and away the best team in baseball. :rolleyes:

DirtySox
01-11-2009, 02:15 PM
Sweet! Strasburg is ours!

Marqhead
01-11-2009, 02:16 PM
Projections suck.

Corlose 15
01-11-2009, 02:24 PM
Projections suck.

You know, if Marquez makes the rotation out of spring training then your name takes on a double meaning.

I'm sure you're riveted at that possibility.:D:

WhiteSox1989
01-11-2009, 02:24 PM
Stupid. They have nothing to back it up, because as someone said too many guys on the White Sox (so far) have little to no experience in the Major Leagues.

Besides, I like that no one expects much from the White Sox year after year.

hi im skot
01-11-2009, 02:27 PM
:shrug:

Marqhead
01-11-2009, 02:31 PM
You know, if Marquez makes the rotation out of spring training then your name takes on a double meaning.

I'm sure you're riveted at that possibility.:D:

That though had not entered my head. The possibilities are mind boggling!

doublem23
01-11-2009, 02:35 PM
Stupid. They have nothing to back it up, because as someone said too many guys on the White Sox (so far) have little to no experience in the Major Leagues.

True, but there is plenty of data to suggest that young starters with limited experience struggle. It's not like they're just guessing.

These projections would be much more relevant, however, if it weren't early January. Call me when Spring Training starts.

DumpJerry
01-11-2009, 02:35 PM
I just canceled my season tickets. No way I'm sitting through a last place team's performance for 81 games.

WHILEPITCH
01-11-2009, 02:40 PM
I had this dream recently where Owens was Rickey Henderson 2.

Nice to be back in reality now. Well, not so nice actually.

Martinigirl
01-11-2009, 03:00 PM
The title of your post says "some of you won't like this", may I ask who reads WSI that you think would like it?

I think most of us know better than to take any of these predictions seriously. Did anyone predict we would win the division last year?

voodoochile
01-11-2009, 03:01 PM
Different projections same website:

http://www.replacementlevel.com/index.php/RLYW/comments/extremely_early_2009_projections_marcel_edition

Pertinent comment:

It looks like Wilson Betemit is their starting SS?

That says all I need to know about the value of these projections...

PalehosePlanet
01-11-2009, 03:05 PM
They took the early projections directly from The Hardball Times. It has nothing to do with the fact that it is a Yankees fan site.

KyWhiSoxFan
01-11-2009, 03:08 PM
The projections have the Angels with a losing record -- but still winning the West. Huh?

WhiteSox1989
01-11-2009, 03:10 PM
True, but there is plenty of data to suggest that young starters with limited experience struggle. It's not like they're just guessing.

These projections would be much more relevant, however, if it weren't early January. Call me when Spring Training starts.

I guess so. But I would at least wait until Spring Training to make these assessments.

It's not even a sure thing that this is the set roster for the White Sox.

Boondock Saint
01-11-2009, 03:12 PM
:shrug:

What he said. Projections suck, no matter who they come from.

NLaloosh
01-11-2009, 03:15 PM
Let's see it's a Yankees blog....hmm....and they predict that the only 2 good teams in the A.L. will be the Yankees and the Red Sox. No other team will even win 90 games.

And, this New York blog also predicts that the Mets (who have done almost nothing in the offseason) will have the best record in the NL.

OKAY.

LoveYourSuit
01-11-2009, 03:19 PM
I just canceled my season tickets. No way I'm sitting through a last place team's performance for 81 games.


The ticket office doesn't open on Sundays, how did you cancel?

:tongue:

oeo
01-11-2009, 03:22 PM
The Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets are the only good teams? :?:

Boondock Saint
01-11-2009, 03:29 PM
And, this New York blog also predicts that the Mets (who have done almost nothing in the offseason) will have the best record in the NL.

OKAY.

Look, I don't mean to call you out of anything, as I hate these projections as much as anyone. But, with that said, you do realize that the Mets have picked up Francisco Rodriguez and JJ Putz, right?

Rdy2PlayBall
01-11-2009, 03:48 PM
Good thing I'm putting a lot of bad teams in my Ozzie plan. I'll only see a couple bad losses. :tongue: But seriously, there is no way the Sox are going to do that much worse, I mean come on!... I think our offense is a step up now without Uribe, and at the end of the season we wanted Richard pitching over Javi! Just because everyone is young doens't mean they are going to suck. If the Sox can just catch one starting pitcher I say they can do just as good as last year. :rolleyes:

LoveYourSuit
01-11-2009, 03:51 PM
We play better as the underdog..... keep it coming then.

DumpJerry
01-11-2009, 03:52 PM
The ticket office doesn't open on Sundays, how did you cancel?

:tongue:
I sent an email followed up by a phone call to Brooks' cell phone followed up by flooding the ticket office with 372 voice mail messages.

I think they got the message I'm upset that they will finish in last place behind the Royals.

soxwon
01-11-2009, 04:48 PM
We Are Much better than last year, all the kids will be great, trust me, we win this division by 5 gams and march to the series
09 sox young, fast n hungry. I dont care for anyone who says otherwise.
KW is allways criticized and the sox ALLWAYS win (except 07).
Naysayers see ya, we dont need ya.
only optomists here, ONLY.

whitesoxwilkes
01-11-2009, 04:53 PM
We Are Much better than last year, all the kids will be great, trust me, we win this division by 5 gams and march to the series
09 sox young, fast n hungry. I dont care for anyone who says otherwise.
KW is allways criticized and the sox ALLWAYS win (except 07).
Naysayers see ya, we dont need ya.
only optomists here, ONLY.

Has DA REVERAND had any midwinter visions?

SoxGirl4Life
01-11-2009, 04:55 PM
We Are Much better than last year, all the kids will be great, trust me, we win this division by 5 gams and march to the series
09 sox young, fast n hungry. I dont care for anyone who says otherwise.
KW is allways criticized and the sox ALLWAYS win (except 07).
Naysayers see ya, we dont need ya.
only optomists here, ONLY.

Here? As in WSI?? :rolling:

LoveYourSuit
01-11-2009, 05:16 PM
We Are Much better than last year, all the kids will be great, trust me, we win this division by 5 gams and march to the series
09 sox young, fast n hungry. I dont care for anyone who says otherwise.
KW is allways criticized and the sox ALLWAYS win (except 07).
Naysayers see ya, we dont need ya.
only optomists here, ONLY.



Sorry to ask, but how old are you? 12?

itsnotrequired
01-11-2009, 05:29 PM
Sorry to ask, but how old are you? 12?

DA REV answers to no one

kittle42
01-11-2009, 05:35 PM
Sorry to ask, but how old are you? 12?

I've often wondered this, but we've met and he's actually in his 40s, I believe.

BleacherBandit
01-11-2009, 05:41 PM
He could be a 40 year old who doesn't act his age. Probably like the idiots who created these projections....

Seriously, the NL West has avoided having their division winner be under .500 for the last few years when it has been terrible. How do they expect AL West to do that?

soxnut1018
01-11-2009, 05:42 PM
Last year the same site said the Tigers would finish first with 94 wins, and the White Sox would be below 80. And they said Tampa would win 75, so I guess it's time to:whiteflag: :rolleyes:

pmck003
01-11-2009, 05:51 PM
I liked the posts there - if you think about 09 as a "rebuilding" year but there is still a chance that the Sox could be awesome? I don't believe in rebuilding as much as that your going to have a few years that you have to overpay for some veterans, and we/the Sox have a few that fit into that, but in-line with KW's philosophy the Sox are already developing their future core. Only question for me is if they sign a guy like Ben Sheets to make a stronger push this year; at least the Sox would move up in these projections. I dunno scouting enough to say if it would be smarter to get Sheets/other or let a younger player(s) have a year to go with it. For the expectations/excitement level with a fan like me I'd love to have Sheets/other but like I said

Dan Mega
01-11-2009, 06:00 PM
we are much better than last year, all the kids will be great, trust me, we win this division by 5 gams and march to the series
09 sox young, fast n hungry. I dont care for anyone who says otherwise.
Kw is allways criticized and the sox allways win (except 07).
Naysayers see ya, we dont need ya.
Only optomists here, only.

preach it

amen!

RTI_SoxFan
01-11-2009, 06:01 PM
This says the Sox are going to win 71.9 games... that is impossible! That is why these are absolutely garbage.

WhiteSox5187
01-11-2009, 06:04 PM
You can't - or shouldn't - make any predictions before a final roster is set.

Having said that, unless the Sox make some big moves (ie sign a guy like Sheets), I don't think it's a stretch to say that the Sox are about a .500 team.

BleacherBandit
01-11-2009, 06:19 PM
Am I going to get castigated if I mention this? If this is too dramatic, please tell me but....

Jerry Owens will be 28 years old next season
Josh Fields will be 26 years old next season
BA will be 27 years old next season
Chris Getz will be 25 years old next season
Gavin Floyd will be 26 years old next season

Except for maybe Getz, who really has had only played in 10-12 games, our younger players are getting to the age where I really can't plead youngness as an excuse for mediocrity. Some of our younger players like Jerry Owens and Josh Fields have had a few seasons to prove their consistency, and I cannot look at their impacts with such an open mind as before. That being said, I think that KW has to really think about his options this year. The younger players he has availiable cannot be ruled as unproven (well at least 3 or 4 of them). However, obviously Gavin has proven himself and BA has defensively, but I think by at least half way through the season, the organization should have a feeling for each player's abilities.

Obviously, this is barring players like Lillibridge, Viciedo, Flowers, Poreda and Marquez, but it isn't clear whether they are an option next year either.

Huisj
01-11-2009, 08:39 PM
This says the Sox are going to win 71.9 games... that is impossible! That is why these are absolutely garbage.

Not only that, but they will lose 90.2 games for a total of 162.1 games. I wonder if tickets for that extra 0.1 game we get will be discounted.

TDog
01-11-2009, 08:46 PM
Guesses influenced by prejudices don't mean much.

Corlose 15
01-11-2009, 09:07 PM
Am I going to get castigated if I mention this? If this is too dramatic, please tell me but....

Jerry Owens will be 28 years old next season
Josh Fields will be 26 years old next season
BA will be 27 years old next season
Chris Getz will be 25 years old next season
Gavin Floyd will be 26 years old next season

Except for maybe Getz, who really has had only played in 10-12 games, our younger players are getting to the age where I really can't plead youngness as an excuse for mediocrity. Some of our younger players like Jerry Owens and Josh Fields have had a few seasons to prove their consistency, and I cannot look at their impacts with such an open mind as before. That being said, I think that KW has to really think about his options this year. The younger players he has availiable cannot be ruled as unproven (well at least 3 or 4 of them). However, obviously Gavin has proven himself and BA has defensively, but I think by at least half way through the season, the organization should have a feeling for each player's abilities.

Obviously, this is barring players like Lillibridge, Viciedo, Flowers, Poreda and Marquez, but it isn't clear whether they are an option next year either.

Lillibridge will definitely be on the team this year and is 25. Danks is 23, Quentin is 26, Ramirez is 27. Floyd has had success Getz hasn't done much but has good minor league numbers and Fields was at least adequate for a bottom of the lineup hitter the last time he was healthy.

There is a pretty good young core being developed here.

DumpJerry
01-11-2009, 09:45 PM
You can't - or shouldn't - make any predictions before a final roster is set.

Having said that, unless the Sox make some big moves (ie sign a guy like Sheets), I don't think it's a stretch to say that the Sox are about a .500 team.
How so? I case nobody has noticed, the Twins have made no moves whatsoever this offseason (yet). The Royals and Tigers have made minimal moves. The Indians have added (mostly) injury prone pitchers.

We're the only team that is doing anything in the AL Central (so far).

soxwon
01-11-2009, 10:18 PM
He could be a 40 year old who doesn't act his age. Probably like the idiots who created these projections....

Seriously, the NL West has avoided having their division winner be under .500 for the last few years when it has been terrible. How do they expect AL West to do that?

going on 53 this june, sorry bleacher and Love your , you dont know me very well.
if you did you know im the most OPTOMISTIC fan around here, few can match it.
some say im delusioninal or childish, so be it, its no ones right to judge OPTOMISM, anyone who challenges optomisim, is a pessimist, and we have enough of them in this world.
I try to keep up the faith in everyone, the belief we are the best, we are not allways at times, butwe are CAPABLE of it. I love this team with a million heartbeats, they are MY team, and most of us here are good fans, but others meh, not so much, its up to me to weed out theses pissimists and send them to a fiery hellhole.
Go sox and thanks to my flock for the support.
Da Rev

Lip Man 1
01-11-2009, 10:22 PM
Projections are like rear end's...everybody has one. None of them mean anything as far as what actually takes place on the field itself.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
01-11-2009, 10:27 PM
Optimism; it is spelled o-p-t-i-m-i-s-m

soxwon
01-11-2009, 10:35 PM
Optimism; it is spelled o-p-t-i-m-i-s-m


irrelivent-a, not in Da Revs sox world, words are correctly spelled the way i want them to.
I march to the beat of a different drum.

Lip Man 1
01-11-2009, 10:54 PM
Use of capital letters and spaces would also be appreciated if you'd like more folks to actually read (and understand) what you are trying to say.

Lip

cards press box
01-11-2009, 11:09 PM
Projected records are always a joke, but what strikes me about this one is that it's from a Yankees blog, and yet the Yankees are projected to be far and away the best team in baseball. :rolleyes:

Man, I am truly sick of this Yankee nonsense. Wallace Matthews of Newsday raised this question: do the Steinbrenner led Yankees want to compete with other teams or do they just want to be coronated as champs in December? It seems that "projections" nearly three months before opening day are part of this same coronation mentality. Many free agents are still on the market and the teams have yet to go to spring training.

Perhaps Ozzie Guillen's greatest strength is that he, like Whitey Herzog, understands that baseball is all about competition, not coronation. Of course, teams must have a requisite amount of talent to compete at the major league level. Guillen, though, understands that a team doesn't always need household names. Before 2008, how many fans heard of John Danks, Carlos Quentin or Alexei Ramirez. Anyone who saw the "blackout game" against the Twins knows what a competitor Danks is. I think Guillen and Kenny Williams should keep doing what they're doing and keep assembling a good young, talented core of players.

The Sox will outperform this "projection," just as they outperformed the "projections" flying around the internet in 2008.

By the way, how about the Cards' victory over Carolina yesterday! One more victory and the former Chicago Cardinals will go to the Super Bowl!

soxwon
01-11-2009, 11:13 PM
Use of capital letters and spaces would also be appreciated if you'd like more folks to actually read (and understand) what you are trying to say.

Lip

well noted, but Lip, those that are on the same mindset as me, understand me the way it is written, one must train their own minds to articulate the knowledge of Da Rev and his followers.
Go sox

Britt Burns
01-11-2009, 11:25 PM
Projections before the roster is even close to being set. Gotta love the offseason.

whitesox901
01-11-2009, 11:51 PM
Projections suck.

Agreed

Lundind1
01-12-2009, 12:01 AM
It's crap like this that makes all the wins just so much sweeter as the season draws on. I think 2009 will be a great season for White Sox baseball. I can't stand predictions. By all rights and respects, the Sox were supposed to only win 71 this past season.

Bull, Garbage, Don't get caught in the hype

Kudos to the Sox fans who wrote vehemently against the crap that was being spewed by some baseball know-nothings.

kittle42
01-12-2009, 12:04 AM
Use of capital letters and spaces would also be appreciated if you'd like more folks to actually read (and understand) what you are trying to say.

Lip

We're not writing term papers.

BleacherBandit
01-12-2009, 12:11 AM
going on 53 this june, sorry bleacher and Love your , you dont know me very well.
if you did you know im the most OPTOMISTIC fan around here, few can match it.
some say im delusioninal or childish, so be it, its no ones right to judge OPTOMISM, anyone who challenges optomisim, is a pessimist, and we have enough of them in this world.
I try to keep up the faith in everyone, the belief we are the best, we are not allways at times, butwe are CAPABLE of it. I love this team with a million heartbeats, they are MY team, and most of us here are good fans, but others meh, not so much, its up to me to weed out theses pissimists and send them to a fiery hellhole.
Go sox and thanks to my flock for the support.
Da Rev

I'm not a pessimist, but a realist. I try to rationally take things into perspective, and that doesn't always translate to the White Sox winning the division.

Right now, we need another veteran, right-handed pitcher. Once that happens, maybe I'll adopt a (similar) perspective.

guillensdisciple
01-12-2009, 12:22 AM
I would rather listen to a full album of the Hansons then read up on any pre-season predictions. Especially those that are three months ahead of any scheduled baseball game.

Better get on that album.

Tragg
01-12-2009, 12:27 AM
I think there's a 30% or so chance we win 70ish games: we could really struggle with our 4th and 5th starters.

And if Williams lets Guillen load the team up with hackers (like he did in 2007), the Sox could struggle scoring runs. Even last year, we were saved by Owens injury - Owens was starting and Quentin was on the bench (and Uribe started over Missle).

areilly
01-12-2009, 12:29 AM
The Sox will outperform this "projection," just as they outperformed the "projections" flying around the internet in 2008.

Or they could fall short of it, much like their 2004, 2006 and 2007 projections.

oeo
01-12-2009, 12:44 AM
Or they could fall short of it, much like their 2004, 2006 and 2007 projections.

I'm certain that these projections suck, and more than just Sox fans will agree with me.

If your new found pessimistic, badass attitude thinks otherwise, then I just have to laugh. Take a look at that crap.

WhiteSox5187
01-12-2009, 01:50 AM
How so? I case nobody has noticed, the Twins have made no moves whatsoever this offseason (yet). The Royals and Tigers have made minimal moves. The Indians have added (mostly) injury prone pitchers.

We're the only team that is doing anything in the AL Central (so far).
Well, the Indians also had the best record in the second half of baseball last year and have only gotten better. While the Twins haven't gotten any better, they haven't really gotten any worse, nor have the Tigers (could they get any worse?) or the Royals. While people will be quick to point out that Javy and Swisher sucked (which is odd because people hailed the coming of Swisher as the second coming of Rowand), the fact is that now we have 3/5ths of a starting rotation. While Javy wasn't good at all in the clutch, he still is good for 200 IP, 200 Ks and about 12 wins. We now are relying on the likes of Lance Broadway, Clayton Richard and Marquez (I should include Poreda in there too, a guy with one good pitch) to put up those numbers. And it's not as though ONE of them has to do that, TWO of them have to do that. If we were to go out and accquire a guy like Sheets (who could still give you 12 wins potentially even if he only throws 150 innings) or Garland (who will put up Javy's numbers minus the K's), then I'd feel a bit better about our chances because you'd have four guys who you know what you're going to get out of them (unless Floyd and Danks suffer setbacks).

Another thing that I'm unnerved about is the fact that we don't have pitchers in our rotation who strike out a lot of guys, so we are reliant upon good defense. Our infield is potentially set to have a butcher like Fields at third, a question mark in Rameriz at short (though that's a very small question mark in my mind!), another question mark at second and Paulie at first. The OF is not much better with Quentin in left who struggles to get a good read off of the bat, presumably Owens in CF and Dye in RF whose knees are counting down the days until he becomes a DH. That is not EXACTLY a stellar defense out there with a pitching staff that really relies on good defense.

One more thing, once Jenks went down our bullpen reverted back to its 2007 form. I don't think you can count on the trio of Jenks-Linebrink-Dotel to go a whole season without getting hurt, and we saw what happened when one of them went down. If TWO of them go down, it is a recipe for disaster.

So, those are my concerns for the Sox heading into 2009 - oh and we still don't have a leadoff hitter and have big question marks offensively at 2B, CF and don't know if Quentin will be able to hit for power - other than that, we're fine.

In my mind at least, those are enough question marks to suggest "The Sox might be a .500 club at best," key word there is "might." We still might wind up addressing a lot of our needs before spring training and it is possible that Kenny is a bit better of a talent evaluator than I am; I thought at best we were an 83 win club last year and we almost won 90. So while I'm wary of how we look right now, I can't say I'd be stunned if we had a big set back from last year. This is why we play the games though!

Frater Perdurabo
01-12-2009, 07:10 AM
We're not writing term papers.

I be. :tongue:

white sox bill
01-12-2009, 07:55 AM
We were projected bottom of division last yr too IIRC. Under the radar again. Good job KW.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 09:56 AM
We were projected bottom of division last yr too IIRC. Under the radar again. Good job KW.
Personally, I'd rather have most people believe we have a good team. But, that's just me.

jabrch
01-12-2009, 10:13 AM
I'm not a pessimist, but a realist.

There are a million shades of gray.

oeo
01-12-2009, 10:15 AM
Personally, I'd rather have most people believe we have a good team. But, that's just me.

This is a (terrible) simulation, not anyone's opinion.

Besides, I don't care what anyone thinks of the White Sox. If they're winning games, who cares?

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 10:17 AM
This is a (terrible) simulation, not anyone's opinion.

Besides, I don't care what anyone thinks of the White Sox. If they're winning games, who cares?
The poster I quoted praised KW for the ballclub being "under the radar." I don't want to be under the radar year after year. I want people to know we've got a good team, and I don't think that's the case (as of now -- spare me the argument about it being January 12).

If we're projected at or near the bottom of the division to start 2009, I'm not going to be celebrating. Whether or not you believe in projections, you've got to be drinking some pretty strong kool-aid to believe in this team without 2-3 somewhat major moves.

areilly
01-12-2009, 10:18 AM
I'm certain that these projections suck, and more than just Sox fans will agree with me.

If your new found pessimistic, badass attitude thinks otherwise, then I just have to laugh. Take a look at that crap.

I was actually agreeing that projections are useless. In 2006, the Sox were supposed to win the World Series and you can see how far that got them. In 2004 they were projected to win the Central, and again we all know how many games those projections helped them win in September.

If citing other cases where that idea (your idea, as it were) was absolutely correct makes me pessimisitic and badass, well, then that's just swell.

oeo
01-12-2009, 10:24 AM
I was actually agreeing that projections are useless. In 2006, the Sox were supposed to win the World Series and you can see how far that got them. In 2004 they were projected to win the Central, and again we all know how many games those projections helped them win in September.

If citing other cases where that idea (your idea, as it were) was absolutely correct makes me pessimisitic and badass, well, then that's just swell.

The way I read it was based off of your most recent posting history, which has been pessimistic. Sorry that I made that mistake, but don't act like you made it clear what you were trying to say.

jabrch
01-12-2009, 10:25 AM
After reading these projections...

I'm going to Vegas in 2 weeks. If I see 72 wins as the O/U for the Sox, I smell a very large wager coming. I'd also buy a ticket on LAA over 80 and I'd definitely buy the Yanks UNDER 102. Atlanta over 80 would be attractive. Florida over 69 is also a good bet...

I'm not sure what the Vegas O/Us look like yet (anyone have them? - I can't get to them through my work firewall).

My point - these "simulations" suck. They are based on one person's opinions of who is getting how much playing time for what team. As the author himself said, "don’t take these too seriously."

oeo
01-12-2009, 10:26 AM
The poster I quoted praised KW for the ballclub being "under the radar." I don't want to be under the radar year after year. I want people to know we've got a good team, and I don't think that's the case (as of now -- spare me the argument about it being January 12).

If we're projected at or near the bottom of the division to start 2009, I'm not going to be celebrating. Whether or not you believe in projections, you've got to be drinking some pretty strong kool-aid to believe in this team without 2-3 somewhat major moves.

How can I believe these projections? There's only three good teams out of the entire league, the rest are mediocre to not very good? I'm sure...

I'll put my money up against these projections.

I believe that this team has not downgraded as much as it appears. We've lost an innings eater and a good SS (the only major loss). Maybe the replacements are young and unproven, but they're not major downgrades. Somehow we're going to lose 17 more games?

The Twins haven't done anything but grow up, and they lose 8 games? The Tigers are not any better than they were, somehow their win total improves? They still don't have a bullpen, and their rotation is still shaky.

These projections are ****ing terrible around the league, end of story.

jabrch
01-12-2009, 10:27 AM
Besides, I don't care what anyone thinks of the White Sox. If they're winning games, who cares?

Exactly...the opionion of a random douche with a computer, some software and a website means...well...nothing. What was the results of this guy's simulations last year? I'm guessing he didn't have us in the playoffs...

jabrch
01-12-2009, 10:28 AM
I'll put my money up against these projections.

Just go to Vegas. Ask for the sheet to bet on the Replacement Level Yankees Weblog win totals. Let me know how that works out for you. :-)

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 10:39 AM
How can I believe these projections? There's only three good teams out of the entire league, the rest are mediocre to not very good? I'm sure...

I'll put my money up against these projections.

I believe that this team has not downgraded as much as it appears. We've lost an innings eater and a good SS (the only major loss). Maybe the replacements are young and unproven, but they're not major downgrades. Somehow we're going to lose 17 more games?

The Twins haven't done anything but grow up, and they lose 8 games? The Tigers are not any better than they were, somehow their win total improves? They still don't have a bullpen, and their rotation is still shaky.

These projections are ****ing terrible around the league, end of story.
I'm not talking about these projections in particular. Can you read? Again, my original post was in response to white_sox_bill, who praised Kenny for fielding a team that was under the radar.

What I'm saying is, by April, if we're still considered by most people to be a bottom of the division team, I'm not going to be happy. Will we lose 17 more games? I think it's very, very possible barring some major additions.

oeo
01-12-2009, 10:45 AM
I'm not talking about these projections in particular. Can you read?

It's all the same crap.

What I'm saying is, by April, if we're still considered by most people to be a bottom of the division team, I'm not going to be happy. Will we lose 17 more games? I think it's very, very possible barring some major additions.

I know that's what you said. What I'm saying is I don't give a **** what 'most people' think, as long as we win ballgames. The same thing white_sox_bill was saying. The White Sox were disrespected throughout 2005, did that make the title any less sweet?

And please explain how we lose 17 more games. Again, Swisher to whoever and Crede to whoever are not going to be downgrades. They were both not very good on both sides of the ball in 2008. If we can pick up an innings eater to take over Javy's role, then the only major loss will be Orlando Cabrera. He was pretty good for us, but not a difference of 17 games.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 10:49 AM
It's all the same crap.



I know that's what you said. What I'm saying is I don't give a **** what 'most people' think, as long as we win ballgames. The same thing white_sox_bill was saying. The White Sox were disrespected throughout 2005, did that make the title any less sweet?

And please explain how we lose 17 more games. Again, Swisher to whoever and Crede to whoever are not going to be downgrades. They were both not very good on both sides of the ball in 2008. If we can pick up an innings eater to take over Javy's role, then the only major loss will be Orlando Cabrera. He was pretty good for us, but not a difference of 17 games.
With our rotation, it's certainly feasible that we lose 17 more games. Crede was quite good defensively, errors be damned. Swisher was poor both defensively and offensively, but his production is still better than that of Jerry Owens.

We've got Richard and Marquez penciled in the rotation right now. Richard and Marquez. Richard and Marquez.

Jeff Marquez. The same guy who couldn't strike out four batters per nine in AAA last season. That Jeff Marquez.

A team with Josh Fields, Jerry Owens, Jeff Marquez, and Clayton Richard playing major roles will not succeed.

oeo
01-12-2009, 11:01 AM
With our rotation, it's certainly feasible that we lose 17 more games. Crede was quite good defensively, errors be damned. Swisher was poor both defensively and offensively, but his production is still better than that of Jerry Owens.

Errors be damned? :rolleyes: Yep, I absolutely loved his 2 out errors which extended innings. Actually lost us a series in Toronto.

I'm not a fan of Owens, but here's an example of your love affair with OPS. Swisher was terrible. Owens isn't good either, but he brings you something on the basepaths which you have to account for too (which you won't). Again, not a major downgrade.

We've got Richard and Marquez penciled in the rotation right now. Richard and Marquez. Richard and Marquez.

Jeff Marquez. The same guy who couldn't strike out four batters per nine in AAA last season. That Jeff Marquez.I said we need an innings eater. Can you read?

Also, I guess Jeff Marquez can't improve. Damn, what a shame.

A team with Josh Fields, Jerry Owens, Jeff Marquez, and Clayton Richard playing major roles will not succeed.But a bad Joe Crede/Juan Uribe, a bad Nick Swisher, and outside of the first month and a half- a bad Contreras/Clayton Richard can? What I'm saying is not that we have a great team, but that it's not a marked downgrade from 2008. I mean if you want to look at career numbers from Crede, Swisher, Griffey, etc., then yes, we're making a huge downgrade to Fields, Owens, etc. But let's not act like we got much production from any of those guys.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:06 AM
Errors be damned? :rolleyes: Yep, I absolutely loved his 2 out errors which extended innings. Actually lost us a series in Toronto.

I'm not a fan of Owens, but here's an example of your love affair with OPS. Swisher was terrible. Owens isn't good either, but he brings you something on the basepaths which you have to account for too (which you won't). Again, not a major downgrade.

I said we need an innings eater. Can you read?

But a bad Joe Crede/Juan Uribe, a bad Nick Swisher, and outside of the first month and a half- a bad Contreras/Clayton Richard can? What I'm saying is not that we have a great team, but that it's not a marked downgrade from 2008. I mean if you want to look at career numbers from Crede, Swisher, Griffey, etc., then yes, we're making a huge downgrade to Fields, Owens, etc. But let's not act like we got much production from any of those guys.
Owens sucks on the basepaths and now has leg injuries. Sounds great!

I misread your statement. My apologies. There are not any/many adequate innings eaters on the market. They are rare, and we ditched one of them for prospects.

Juan Uribe was awesome at third base, and Crede was good defensively. Errors are amplified, but he made many more plays to make up for it. It is a marked downgrade, as defensively we've turned into a bad joke. AJ, Konerko, Thome, and Dye are a year slower and a year older, and are probably on the downside of their careers. We need to build around a younger core, which we have, to some extent, but we've then filled the rest of the roster with filler and retreads. Vazquez is a huge loss. Huge. Crede is Brooks Robinson compared to Fields, and Jerry Owens shouldn't be in this organization.

oeo
01-12-2009, 11:09 AM
I misread your statement. My apologies. There are not any/many adequate innings eaters on the market. They are rare, and we ditched one of them for prospects.

Jon Garland is still on the market, wants to come back, and the way the market looks, is not going to get that big contract we thought he would get a year ago.

We'll see if the interest is there from the Sox, but if not...Kenny has proven us wrong before. People were not very inclined of a rotation with Contreras, Floyd, and Danks last year, either.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:10 AM
Jon Garland is still on the market, wants to come back, and the way the market looks, is not going to get that big contract we thought he would get a year ago.
I said adequate innings eaters, i.e. ones that don't have a knot in their right arm, or haven't become worse and worse at striking men out.

oeo
01-12-2009, 11:11 AM
I said adequate innings eaters.

Vazquez is adequate, but Garland is not? Huh?

Innings eaters are innings eaters. The one thing they do well is give 200+ innings.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:13 AM
Vazquez is adequate, but Garland is not? Huh?
Without question. I'd take Vazquez on the bump every single time over Garland. Vazquez was, up until his last three starts of the season (all on short rest) a very good pitcher. I haven't looked it up, but I believe his ERA was around 4.08 heading into the first week of September.

Plus Vazquez strikes people out, which is imperative if the team's defense remains so below average.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:14 AM
Innings eaters are innings eaters. The one thing they do well is give 200+ innings.
I don't think Jon Garland will throw 200 innings this season. His WHIP was 1.5 last year, he's complained of a knot in his shoulder, and has a ton of mileage.

voodoochile
01-12-2009, 11:21 AM
Owens sucks on the basepaths and now has leg injuries. Sounds great!

I've seen you spout this line as truth several times now. Do you have any kind of link to suggest that Owens' problems will be recurrent or that they were a one year thing? He spent two trips on the DL last year but when he came back from the second one, he seemed to be back to form and started hitting for average as he had in the past as well as improving his SB%.

Do you have a link to an article suggesting Owens will continue to suffer leg problems and that his days of running willy nilly are probably behind him or are you just blowing smoke to make your point seem better?

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:22 AM
I've seen you spout this line as truth several times now. Do you have any kind of link to suggest that Owens' problems will be recurrent or that they were a one year thing? He spent two trips on the DL last year but when he came back from the second one, he seemed to be back to form and started hitting for average as he had in the past as well as improving his SB%.

Do you have a link to an article suggesting Owens will continue to suffer leg problems and that his days of running willy nilly are probably behind him or are you just blowing smoke to make your point seem better?
I'm not blowing smoke. Owens has one skill, speed. Nagging leg injuries kill guys like him. It's not like Owens has other skills to fall back on.

voodoochile
01-12-2009, 11:25 AM
I'm not blowing smoke. Owens has one skill, speed. Nagging leg injuries kill guys like him. It's not like Owens has other skills to fall back on.

Nagging... again you use a word that suggests you have inside information about the status of his legs. Do you? If it's not inside information, can you post a link to where you learned that Owens' problems will be something to plague him for the rest of his career?

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:27 AM
Nagging... again you use a word that suggests you have inside information about the status of his legs. Do you? If it's not inside information, can you post a link to where you learned that Owens' problems will be something to plague him for the rest of his career?
Two trips to the DL in one season. Those injuries tend to stick around for awhile.

At the very least, they have probably sapped some speed from him. A little means a lot, in this case, with a one-trick pony like Owens. Less infield singles, less stolen bases, less speed to make up for poor jumps in the outfield.

voodoochile
01-12-2009, 11:37 AM
Two trips to the DL in one season. Those injuries tend to stick around for awhile.

At the very least, they have probably sapped some speed from him. A little means a lot, in this case, with a one-trick pony like Owens. Less infield singles, less stolen bases, less speed to make up for poor jumps in the outfield.

I see so it's just speculation on your part. You might consider mitigating your statements with some kind of disclaimer that it's your opinion that his legs will never be the same as they were prior to the injury.

Oh and I was wrong, I guess he only spent one trip to the DL last season, though maybe that only lists the Major League trips. Do the minors bother with DL status or just rest you until you are healthy enough to play?

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/playerInjur?categoryId=416157

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 11:38 AM
I see so it's just speculation on your part. You might consider mitigating your statements with some kind of disclaimer that it's your opinion that his legs will never be the same as they were prior to the injury.

Oh and I was wrong, I guess he only spent one trip to the DL last season, though maybe that only lists the Major League trips. Do the minors bother with DL status or just rest you until you are healthy enough to play?

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/playerInjur?categoryId=416157
On your second question, I'm not certain. On my opinion in general, I don't think it is radical at all to believe that Owens will never be the already below average player he was in 2007. Leg injuries murder the careers of guys like him.

doublem23
01-12-2009, 12:10 PM
We're missing a key point to this argument. Even if Jerry Owens were the fastest man alive, he'd still be a terrible baseball player.

DaveFeelsRight
01-12-2009, 12:13 PM
what happens if, i dunno, the moons align and owens has a rickey henderson type year?

voodoochile
01-12-2009, 12:15 PM
We're missing a key point to this argument. Even if Jerry Owens were the fastest man alive, he'd still be a terrible baseball player.

Ah but he's OUR terrible baseball player...

doublem23
01-12-2009, 12:17 PM
Ah but he's OUR terrible baseball player...

:cool:

I'd rather he not.

voodoochile
01-12-2009, 12:17 PM
what happens if, i dunno, the moons align and owens has a rickey henderson type year?
I'd be happy with him playing in a platoon situation and hitting .275/.330 with 40 SB. I think those numbers are reachable batting exclusively against RHP. He'd also solve the leadoff hitter problem 100+ games this season if he could do that...

LoveYourSuit
01-12-2009, 12:18 PM
The way I read it was based off of your most recent posting history, which has been pessimistic. Sorry that I made that mistake, but don't act like you made it clear what you were trying to say.


What does it matter to you. :angry:

Is this your purpose in life to determine optimistic/pessemistic White Sox fans and call them out for it?

Let me review your "recent posting history"....... I bet I will find crap like this 90% of the time. It get's old. Just like my act of being "bitter, angry and pessemistic," your **** gets old too.

Get a life man.

:rolleyes:

LoveYourSuit
01-12-2009, 12:23 PM
Owens sucks on the basepaths and now has leg injuries. Sounds great!

I misread your statement. My apologies. There are not any/many adequate innings eaters on the market. They are rare, and we ditched one of them for prospects.

Juan Uribe was awesome at third base, and Crede was good defensively. Errors are amplified, but he made many more plays to make up for it. It is a marked downgrade, as defensively we've turned into a bad joke. AJ, Konerko, Thome, and Dye are a year slower and a year older, and are probably on the downside of their careers. We need to build around a younger core, which we have, to some extent, but we've then filled the rest of the roster with filler and retreads. Vazquez is a huge loss. Huge. Crede is Brooks Robinson compared to Fields, and Jerry Owens shouldn't be in this organization.


We don't agree too often because It appears you hate every player who ever strapped on a uniform ...... but you are dead on with this post.

Especially regarding Javy.

I so wanted the guy gone after that game 1 outing ..... but seeing how the FA list is so dry of quality arms who who fit this team's budget, I actually want Javy to be with us Today (as of 01/12/2009). I don't see anything of better quality in the trade market where we would not have to pay thru the nose as far as us giving up talent to get somoeone.

Gammons Peter
01-12-2009, 12:36 PM
What's everybody getting all worked up about? We have no third baseman, no second baseman, no centerfielder and three starting pitchers (none of them true aces) of course we are going to be picked for last

oeo
01-12-2009, 12:39 PM
What does it matter to you. :angry:

Is this your purpose in life to determine optimistic/pessemistic White Sox fans and call them out for it?

Let me review your "recent posting history"....... I bet I will find crap like this 90% of the time. It get's old. Just like my act of being "bitter, angry and pessemistic," your **** gets old too.

Get a life man.

:rolleyes:

:lol:

I'm surprised you didn't send me hostile PM's again.

What's everybody getting all worked up about? We have no third baseman, no second baseman, no centerfielder and three starting pitchers (none of them true aces) of course we are going to be picked for last

So when our third baseman, centerfielder, first baseman, and fifth starter were nonexistent for most of 2008, that was better than the unproven talent we now have?

Daver
01-12-2009, 12:42 PM
what happens if, i dunno, the moons align and owens has a rickey henderson type year?


I don't even want to do the math to figure out how many HBP's Owens would have to acquire to come even close to a Henderson type OBP.

LoveYourSuit
01-12-2009, 12:50 PM
:lol:

I'm surprised you didn't send me hostile PM's again.




So you do remember..... very nice.

I figured that since you don't learn via the private route, might as well take it public.

JorgeFabregas
01-12-2009, 12:56 PM
So when our third baseman, centerfielder, first baseman, and fifth starter were nonexistent for most of 2008, that was better than the unproven talent we now have?
CF OPS in 2008: .734
If Anderson is trotted out daily he MIGHT match that this year and would provide better defense than the Swisher/Anderson/Wise combo last year. That position could be better. In reality, there's probably going to be some sort of platoon situation and the Sox will probably be worse at this position than last year unless they pick someone up.

3B OPs in 2008: .765
I would wager Fields will bat something similar while providing significantly worse defense than the Crede/Uribe combo (even though they weren't particularly good in the field).

1B OPS in 2008: 762
I'd say Konerko has a good chance to rebound somewhat.

5th starter: Well, at least we had something approaching a 4th starter last year. This year we have question marks in two starting slots instead of one. I will be shocked if Richard or Marquez match Javy's production.

Plus I don't think the SS/2b combo is going to be as good as last year.

I do think we were better off last year, but hopefully Kenny is not done yet.

Craig Grebeck
01-12-2009, 04:53 PM
I don't even want to do the math to figure out how many HBP's Owens would have to acquire to come even close to a Henderson type OBP.
I'm pretty sure he'd have to wear Bonds armor, gain 30 lbs. (sapping his speed), and stand out of the batter's box on homeplate.

Dibbs
01-12-2009, 06:47 PM
It could definitely happen, but I doubt it. We all laughed at BP when they projected the 2007 team at 72 wins, but they got that right.

Lip Man 1
01-13-2009, 12:28 PM
And the "fine folks" at BP also blew the Sox records for 2005 and 2008 big time too.

The point is anything can happen and no one has the real ability to project anything when it comes to baseball.

Lip

Tragg
01-13-2009, 02:03 PM
I'd be happy with him playing in a platoon situation and hitting .275/.330 with 40 SB. I think those numbers are reachable batting exclusively against RHP. He'd also solve the leadoff hitter problem 100+ games this season if he could do that....330 obp and 40 steals does not solve the leadoff problem.

jabrch
01-13-2009, 02:03 PM
It could definitely happen, but I doubt it. We all laughed at BP when they projected the 2007 team at 72 wins, but they got that right.


I'm sure many folks here could put numbers on paper based their knowledge without running bull**** simulations and be right at an equal or better rate.

voodoochile
01-13-2009, 03:16 PM
.330 obp and 40 steals does not solve the leadoff problem.
If we could get that from 110 games this year, I'd be happy.

spawn
01-13-2009, 03:26 PM
It could definitely happen, but I doubt it. We all laughed at BP when they projected the 2007 team at 72 wins, but they got that right.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut.

soxinem1
01-13-2009, 03:29 PM
Really great projections. OAK beating a .500 LAAAAA team? Not bloody likely.

NYM become the toast of the town, COL and SFG fight for the division, CWS totally tank like they are the 1989 or 1999 White Sox....

TB wins 91 games and finishes 3rd? It is almost impossible for three teams in a division to win 90 games each.

Well, like the others, we'll see......

JorgeFabregas
01-13-2009, 03:38 PM
TB wins 91 games and finishes 3rd? It is almost impossible for three teams in a division to win 90 games each.
It happened in 2006. But the projections do look funky (IIRC they had only one team from the AL Central or West finishing above .500).

areilly
01-13-2009, 03:43 PM
TB wins 91 games and finishes 3rd? It is almost impossible for three teams in a division to win 90 games each.

This made me curious so I did some digging...

The third-place 2008 Yankees won 89. The 2006 ALC had three 90-win teams. The 2007 ALW were a Padres win away from pulling it off. The Cubs were a game short of the '04 NLC doing it. 2002 NL West had three 90-game winners, as did the AL West that same year.

Three divisions in 84 races ended with three teams at or above 90, and another three were a hair shy of it.

Still, given the state of the AL East, it's not an unrealistic outcome.

soxinem1
01-13-2009, 03:54 PM
This made me curious so I did some digging...

The third-place 2008 Yankees won 89. The 2006 ALC had three 90-win teams. The 2007 ALW were a Padres win away from pulling it off. The Cubs were a game short of the '04 NLC doing it. 2002 NL West had three 90-game winners, as did the AL West that same year.

Three divisions in 84 races ended with three teams at or above 90, and another three were a hair shy of it.

Still, given the state of the AL East, it's not an unrealistic outcome.

Thanks for the fact check. I really meant to say 91 games. Not to split hairs, but to finish third when you play your own division so much now, with three pretty talented teams, with 91 wins sounds a little farfetched. I think they cancel each other out a little more.

areilly
01-13-2009, 03:58 PM
Thanks for the fact check. I really meant to say 91 games. Not to split hairs, but to finish third when you play your own division so much now, with three pretty talented teams, to finish third with 91 wins sounds a little farfetched. I think they cancel each other out a little more.

I agree, but considering the miserable state of the Orioles and Toronto's apparent immobility this offseason I don't know how far off the idea really is. Now, would I rather it were Boston or New York (or both!) missing the playoffs instead of TB? Absolutely. :D:

soxinem1
01-13-2009, 04:07 PM
I agree, but considering the miserable state of the Orioles and Toronto's apparent immobility this offseason I don't know how far off the idea really is. Now, would I rather it were Boston or New York (or both!) missing the playoffs instead of TB? Absolutely. :D:

I like TB, but no way they sneak up on anyone this year. I think they might be the odd team out in the AL East. Especially if Burnett and Sabathia make a difference. With Lowe going to ATL, I think it helps both BOS and NYY.

I think TOR is writing off 2009. DePodesta even keeps talking about 2010 like 2009 is a formality.

It might be a battle of the bullpens. If that is the case, on paper, TB loses.

In reality, we will see.

Eddo144
01-13-2009, 04:18 PM
Really great projections. OAK beating a .500 LAAAAA team? Not bloody likely.
The Angels won a ton of close games last year, outplaying their true level. Guerrero is aging less-than-gracefully. Teixeira's gone. Hunter's a year older and coming off what was basically a career year.

Meanwhile, the A's added Matt Holliday and Jason Giambi. They're an improved team.

The division should be fairly weak, so a just-above-average A's team finishing in first place and an average Angels team finishing at .500 is totally plausible.

NYM become the toast of the town, COL and SFG fight for the division, CWS totally tank like they are the 1989 or 1999 White Sox....
The Mets were extremely close the last two years and still have the most talent in the National League. Their biggest flaw last year was their bullpen, and they added JJ Putz and Francisco Rodriguez to shore that up. Additionally, the Phillies will be without Utley and now JC Romero for a few months.

The Giants already had some good young pitching and added Randy Johnson, who was good last year. Admittedly, I don't know much about the Rockies. That division is also weak, so not many outcomes would surprise me.

The White Sox are pinning all their hopes on Carlos Quentin, who had an amazing year, but has a history of injuries. They also won with two emerging young pitchers, Danks and Floyd, and young pitchers aren't the most reliable year-to-year. They have no established starters at the back end of the rotation and have big holes at CF, 3B, and 2B. Their established hitters - Dye, Konerko, Thome, Pierzynski - are all getting older. A collapse is not that unlikely, sadly.

TB wins 91 games and finishes 3rd? It is almost impossible for three teams in a division to win 90 games each.
Others have done more investigating to this comment, but off the top of my head, I immediately recalled the 2002 AL West and the 2006 AL Central, and that the Yankees nearly won 90 last year. Tampa is still a very good team, but the Red Sox were nearly as good last year and the Yankees added two (maybe three) premiere free agents and still might land Manny.

jabrch
01-13-2009, 04:32 PM
The division should be fairly weak, so a just-above-average A's team finishing in first place and an average Angels team finishing at .500 is totally plausible.


What does Vegas think of this? I highly doubt they concur.

The White Sox are pinning all their hopes on Carlos Quentin, who had an amazing year, but has a history of injuries. They also won with two emerging young pitchers, Danks and Floyd, and young pitchers aren't the most reliable year-to-year. They have no established starters at the back end of the rotation and have big holes at CF, 3B, and 2B. Their established hitters - Dye, Konerko, Thome, Pierzynski - are all getting older. A collapse is not that unlikely, sadly.

As I said before, if there is a sheet in Vegas when I am there in 2 weeks, and the Sox O/U is set at 72, I smell a VERY large wager.

doublem23
01-13-2009, 04:46 PM
What does Vegas think of this? I highly doubt they concur.

OK, will you stop bringing up Vegas? Their objective is not to get their projections correct, it's to equalize the betting on either side of the number.

They're not in the "Sports Projection" business they're in the "How Are People Going to Bet" business. Refering to them as some sort of end-all, be-all authority on sports projections is hilariously misguided.

kittle42
01-13-2009, 05:01 PM
They're not in the "Sports Projection" business they're in the "How Are People Going to Bet" business. Refering to them as some sort of end-all, be-all authority on sports projections is hilariously misguided.

Yes, but what would Vegas say about that? :tongue:

DaveFeelsRight
01-13-2009, 05:28 PM
TB wins 91 games and finishes 3rd? It is almost impossible for three teams in a division to win 90 games each.

i remember the 2002 AL/NL west and the 2006 AL central with 3 90 win teams.

downstairs
01-13-2009, 05:47 PM
OK, will you stop bringing up Vegas? Their objective is not to get their projections correct, it's to equalize the betting on either side of the number.

They're not in the "Sports Projection" business they're in the "How Are People Going to Bet" business. Refering to them as some sort of end-all, be-all authority on sports projections is hilariously misguided.

Exactly. People like to throw money down on their favorite teams. How many of us have put $5 or $10 on the White Sox, just to do it? Even in years we KNEW they wouldn't win.

Teams like the Cubs and Yankees have inflated odds- because they have to. Far too many people bet their hearts or for fun to make odds mean anything.

In fact, if you want to have a better chance betting- simply bet against popular teams. You'll be playing with better odds than reality.

doublem23
01-13-2009, 05:50 PM
I like to bet against all 30 teams. I'm right 97% of the time.

jabrch
01-13-2009, 05:50 PM
OK, will you stop bringing up Vegas? Their objective is not to get their projections correct, it's to equalize the betting on either side of the number.

And in most cases, they two are the same. I understand exactly what Vegas does Dubs. The line on the Cubs to win it all is highly biased by the money flows. Same with NYY and Bos. But If you take numbers that are so far outside of the Vegas line, and look at it with any sort of objectivity, you can tell if the gap is money flow, or if the gap is dumb. If the Vegas line for the Sox is in the low to mid 80s, and the bull**** projections are at 72, something is wrong - and I'll side with Vegas.

They're not in the "Sports Projection" business they're in the "How Are People Going to Bet" business. Refering to them as some sort of end-all, be-all authority on sports projections is hilariously misguided.

There are certain underlying fundamentals that drive how a large volumes of bets are placed Dubs. It's hilariously misguided of you to imply otherwise. Do you believe that lines are off by 10 wins from reality because of money flow? You can't be that stupid.

I'll bring up Vegas all I want to. Because Vegas does a very good job of setting a # every year that moves very little. Thus, they got it right. Projected money flow is one thing - but don't for a second think that a Vegas line is set without considering what will result from the actual event. Vegas also looks at odds in more than a single event. They have trap bets all the time, where they are exposing themselves to not just sweeping the vig to draw in players on more games.

Again - I'm not citing a Vegas line that I feel is out of line. I'm citing a gap between a projection and what Vegas will say, that is way out of line with anything that is required to make the difference of money flow/vig.

jabrch
01-13-2009, 05:55 PM
In fact, if you want to have a better chance betting- simply bet against popular teams. You'll be playing with better odds than reality.

Except Vegas doesn't give you odds against a team. (normally) There are some odd prop bets - but not ones that pay well.

I get money flow. But that doesn't explain a difference between a set of projects calling a 71 win season and a Vegas lin in the 80s, does it? Are you telling me Sox fans money is that heavy relative to other team's fan's money? Citing the Cubs, Yanks and Red Sox is one thing (and even there - find me a gap of 10 between a projection and a line and I'll show you a bad projection.

People are quick to explain Vegas - and they are right. But the amount needed to flow the betting to keep the vig all that changes hands is not as large as 10+ games - EVER. Not that many gamblers are betting with their hearts, and many actually bet with their heads.