PDA

View Full Version : BP Has Spoken


Lip Man 1
02-09-2009, 11:32 PM
According to fan comments at White Sox.com, the good morons at Baseball Prospectus, the same folks who were totally, completely and unequivocally wrong in 2005 and who were "only" off by 11 games in their "prediction" last season (they said 78, the Sox won 89 games) have come out with their "expert" opinion on the 2009 White Sox.

Drum roll please...

BP says the White Sox will finish dead last in the Central Division in 2009.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

My reply...cousins should not be allowed to breed.

Lip

JorgeFabregas
02-09-2009, 11:33 PM
Did they say "only" or are you quoting someone else?

Lip Man 1
02-09-2009, 11:41 PM
Jorge:

It was sarcasm. I apologize for not making that word in teal.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
02-09-2009, 11:43 PM
I'd say they are off by 5-6 games. They underestimate our pitching.

Also, keep in mind this is the PECOTA projection and doesn't represent BP in general, but rather Clay Davenport (as he no doubt believes in his program).

Dibbs
02-09-2009, 11:48 PM
I wonder what would happen if the Twins and Sox switched entire teams. I am guessing somehow their "rankings" would still project the Sox in last.

jabrch
02-09-2009, 11:52 PM
I only wish they ran a sports book.

Milw
02-10-2009, 12:03 AM
I don't believe in Baseball Prospectus predictions, but let's be fair here: they did peg us on the nose in 2007...

whitesox901
02-10-2009, 12:06 AM
last? :rolling:

I'm betting that's Detroit's spot again

guillensdisciple
02-10-2009, 12:10 AM
White Sox will win the world series this year.

Just another poster to put up on the pre-game board. Guarantee magazines will put us somewhere near last place as well.

I am going to love every minute of this year.

There is no way I am going to teal that first statement.

LoveYourSuit
02-10-2009, 12:10 AM
I think anyone in this divisioin can finish 1-5 next season. It's a "pick em."

Even the Royals might surprise a few people.


I could see many "experts" not liking us because of the "unknown" at #4 & #5 in the rotaiton. The top of the order quesiton mark is a huge too. But eveyone has issues like this on their 25 man rosters. Maybe they see us putting way too much stock on guys with break thru season from last year like Gavin, Danks, CQ, & Ramirez.

Other than the Indians, no one has improved much in the central.

I still think we have as good a chance as any of those 5 teams.

Let's play the games.

Craig Grebeck
02-10-2009, 12:13 AM
If I had to guess right now I'd peg us finishing second or third to the Indians/Twins. We will probably win 82-84 games, in my mind. I'm being extremely optimistic, and I'd understand (as I noted above) if BP pegged us for 79-80.

DumpJerry
02-10-2009, 12:24 AM
I'll call my rep first thing tomorrow morning and cancel my season tickets.

doublem23
02-10-2009, 12:32 AM
I don't believe in Baseball Prospectus predictions, but let's be fair here: they did peg us on the nose in 2007...

We don't talk about years BP gets things right, because that disproves our belief that they don't know anything.

May as well just pick names out of a hat for the Central this year. Everybody has glaring weaknesses. No one is head and shoulders above or below the pack right now.

RadioheadRocks
02-10-2009, 12:35 AM
:cleo

"Baseball Prospectus, I'll thank you not to do MY job, mon!"

oeo
02-10-2009, 12:38 AM
I don't believe in Baseball Prospectus predictions, but let's be fair here: they did peg us on the nose in 2007...

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once and awhile.

They may have gotten our win total right, but their reasoning was way off base. That team wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination, but it was still beaten up by injuries.

whitesox901
02-10-2009, 12:41 AM
A lot of people online think the Indians are going to be strong contenders, but I don't understand why

Ron Burgandy from Motown sports says it best:

I agree with those that question Cleveland as division favorites. The Tribe are getting little to no above-average offensive contribution out of LF, RF, 1B, and DH, with 2B and 3B question marks as well. That's not the recipe for a division champion. Meanwhile, on the mound, Cleveland enters the year without Sabathia, while Cliff Lee will undoubtedly decline, possibly severely. Unless Carmona bounces back to #1 form (which the computers all suspect will not be the case), then the starting rotation is extremely pedestrian. Unless the Tribe's rebuilt bullpen performs at Herculian levels, I just don't see how they can overcome their offensive deficiencies and mediocre rotation.

soxinem1
02-10-2009, 12:45 AM
Good, now we can fly under the radar.

Honestly, the AL Central has a good bit of depth for 2009. No team sucks, and no team is great (on paper).

Most AL Central teams made some interesting moves this off-season, except MIN.

Besides, the Twins crap out some call-ups who become Sox killers, so that guarantees them an extra five wins right there.

And I would not write off DET. A lot of things just went wrong last year, and the 0 wins by Willis and Bonderman can easilly turn into at least 30 in 2009.

kittle42
02-10-2009, 01:04 AM
The Sox kinda suck on paper.

So does the rest of the Central.

No story here.

UofCSoxFan
02-10-2009, 01:44 AM
The Sox kinda suck on paper.

So does the rest of the Central.

No story here.

I don't have BP online but they were talking about it on the radio and if I remember correctly the difference between the 2nd and last place team was like 5 or 6 games. Basically the three best teams in the AL, and probably in baseball for that matter, will likey reside in the AL East. The rest is up for grabs.

I think the Sox definitely can repeat as division champs, but if Danks and Floyd suffer slumps in their second FULL years in the bigs, if TCQ struggles with his wrist (ala Derek Lee a couple years back), if age catches up to Dye and Thome, if Alexei stuggles in his second year/playing a more demanding defensive position, if our pen plays the whole year as they did pretty much the 2nd half last year....then yeah I could see us in last place.

I am very optimistic going into this year, but as seems typical of our Sox teams of late, there are a lot of questions. We could easily be better than last year or worse than 2007 depending on how the above factors break. I'm not about to fault BP just because I'm not thrilled with their prediction because frankly it is a possibility. At the same time, I don't really care about it either and am looking forward to this year a lot.

Lip Man 1
02-10-2009, 03:14 AM
Milw:

We'll admit that BP got it right for 2007 when the eggheads admit in print that the blew it as big as you possibly can in both 2005 and 2008. (I mean 11 games off? C'mon...)

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

And I need to ask for information from the folks who follow this more closely then I do, but it seems to me BP is inherently going to dismiss and downgrade the White Sox simply because they don't play the game the way BP thinks it should be played! (Heaven forbid!!!!!!!!!)

I've seen two consistent themes in the weekly analysis pieces that BP does in the print edition of Sports Illustrated during baseball season (again if I'm wrong in this someone please correct me). They are:

1. You MUST (in their opinion) have strike out pitchers up and down your staff. Anytime a ball is put in play according to them, it's "bad." Because a ball in play can go over the fence or in the gap or even fall in between two infielders. The White Sox do NOT and have not since the early 90's, had a staff of strike out guys. They pitch to contact (which is why defense is so important to the Sox and could be a crucial factor in 2009)

2. BP swears by OBP, they think it's better to take a walk with two guys on base in a close game then take a hack at a meatball fastball on 2-0 and maybe drive in two runs. Kenny is trying to improve the team OBP (and has a bit over the years) but at this point in time the Sox are a power team. They strike out (also a no-no to the good professors who never played the game) and hit home runs, period. (Hopefully some of that changes as Ozzie wants more speed, and contact hitters at the top and bottom of the lineup)

According to BP's "philosophy," what the Sox do is completely and totally wrong. Therefore they can't possibly win anything, therefore their "double secret probation" formula always says "they'll suck..."

There's an old saying, 'fool me once shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me...' You'd think with the number of times the Sox have made these guys look totally stupid they'd change their philosophy or formula or approach to the game.

Na.....if they did that they'd look dumber then they've already shown themselves to be.

Lip

NLaloosh
02-10-2009, 05:47 AM
The only way that the Sox can fall to last place is if the starting rotation falls apart.

With a rotation and depth of Buehrle, Floyd, Danks, Colon, Marquez, Richard and Poreda there's no chance of that happening,right?

It seems to me that if just 1 of the big 3 go down the Sox could be in trouble. I wouldn't count on Colon, Marquez, Richard, Poreda or Contreras to be very good or for much of the season either. A ton rides on the backs of the big 3 and they'll probably come through but just 1 of them falters it could get ugly.

white sox bill
02-10-2009, 07:42 AM
Last place! Under the radar again Kenny. We got 'em where we want 'em!

WhiteSox1989
02-10-2009, 08:22 AM
I'd rather have people think it's going to be a horrible season than to be guessing the Sox will win the world series.

OmarLittle
02-10-2009, 08:28 AM
Milw:

We'll admit that BP got it right for 2007 when the eggheads admit in print that the blew it as big as you possibly can in both 2005 and 2008. (I mean 11 games off? C'mon...)

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

And I need to ask for information from the folks who follow this more closely then I do, but it seems to me BP is inherently going to dismiss and downgrade the White Sox simply because they don't play the game the way BP thinks it should be played! (Heaven forbid!!!!!!!!!)

I've seen two consistent themes in the weekly analysis pieces that BP does in the print edition of Sports Illustrated during baseball season (again if I'm wrong in this someone please correct me). They are:

1. You MUST (in their opinion) have strike out pitchers up and down your staff. Anytime a ball is put in play according to them, it's "bad." Because a ball in play can go over the fence or in the gap or even fall in between two infielders. The White Sox do NOT and have not since the early 90's, had a staff of strike out guys. They pitch to contact (which is why defense is so important to the Sox and could be a crucial factor in 2009)

2. BP swears by OBP, they think it's better to take a walk with two guys on base in a close game then take a hack at a meatball fastball on 2-0 and maybe drive in two runs. Kenny is trying to improve the team OBP (and has a bit over the years) but at this point in time the Sox are a power team. They strike out (also a no-no to the good professors who never played the game) and hit home runs, period. (Hopefully some of that changes as Ozzie wants more speed, and contact hitters at the top and bottom of the lineup)

According to BP's "philosophy," what the Sox do is completely and totally wrong. Therefore they can't possibly win anything, therefore their "double secret probation" formula always says "they'll suck..."

There's an old saying, 'fool me once shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me...' You'd think with the number of times the Sox have made these guys look totally stupid they'd change their philosophy or formula or approach to the game.

Na.....if they did that they'd look dumber then they've already shown themselves to be.

Lip

Show me where BP has said this.

Thome25
02-10-2009, 09:07 AM
I love that the so called experts are picking against us yet again.......they're almost always wrong. When the "experts" think we'll do well we usually disappoint and vice versa.

This probably means we'll be having another fun summer from a certain baseball team that hails from the southside of Chicago.:D:

AZChiSoxFan
02-10-2009, 09:27 AM
Milw:

We'll admit that BP got it right for 2007 when the eggheads admit in print that the blew it as big as you possibly can in both 2005 and 2008. (I mean 11 games off? C'mon...)

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

And I need to ask for information from the folks who follow this more closely then I do, but it seems to me BP is inherently going to dismiss and downgrade the White Sox simply because they don't play the game the way BP thinks it should be played! (Heaven forbid!!!!!!!!!)

I've seen two consistent themes in the weekly analysis pieces that BP does in the print edition of Sports Illustrated during baseball season (again if I'm wrong in this someone please correct me). They are:

1. You MUST (in their opinion) have strike out pitchers up and down your staff. Anytime a ball is put in play according to them, it's "bad." Because a ball in play can go over the fence or in the gap or even fall in between two infielders. The White Sox do NOT and have not since the early 90's, had a staff of strike out guys. They pitch to contact (which is why defense is so important to the Sox and could be a crucial factor in 2009)

2. BP swears by OBP, they think it's better to take a walk with two guys on base in a close game then take a hack at a meatball fastball on 2-0 and maybe drive in two runs. Kenny is trying to improve the team OBP (and has a bit over the years) but at this point in time the Sox are a power team. They strike out (also a no-no to the good professors who never played the game) and hit home runs, period. (Hopefully some of that changes as Ozzie wants more speed, and contact hitters at the top and bottom of the lineup)

According to BP's "philosophy," what the Sox do is completely and totally wrong. Therefore they can't possibly win anything, therefore their "double secret probation" formula always says "they'll suck..."

There's an old saying, 'fool me once shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me...' You'd think with the number of times the Sox have made these guys look totally stupid they'd change their philosophy or formula or approach to the game.

Na.....if they did that they'd look dumber then they've already shown themselves to be.

Lip

Word, except you also left off 2006. I don't remember for sure, but since BP "predicts" the Sox to suck every year, I'm guessing that they "predicted" the Sox to suck in 2006 as well. Of course, the Sox won 90 that year.

As others have already stated with regard to BP "getting it right" in 2007, well congrats to the blind squirrel for finding the acorn and congrats to the broken clock for being right twice every day.

ChiSoxFan81
02-10-2009, 09:44 AM
I don't believe in Baseball Prospectus predictions, but let's be fair here: they did peg us on the nose in 2007...

Even a broken clock is right twice a day....

Flight #24
02-10-2009, 10:04 AM
Show me where BP has said this.

They don't get as explicit (or ludicrous) as Lip makes it out to be, but they value OBP over avg and discount things like RBI totals. There is some merit to their ideas: it is important to get on base, and RBIs are dependent on guys being in position ahead of you rather than just on you the batter. But taken to the extreme, that logic would say it's better to go 1-2 with 2 walks than 2-4. But that 2-4 is much more likely to actually drive in runs if there are guys on base ahead of you.

The other issue is that they use averages over the season, so when they say a .280 hitter with a .350 OBP isn't as valuable as a .250 hitter with a .380 OBP, it's because over a season, while the .280 hitter may be more likely to drive in runs in any individual situation, the .380 OBP guy is going to get on base more and be in position to score more often. It's the problem with applying season averages to individual situations.

jdm2662
02-10-2009, 10:07 AM
They don't get as explicit (or ludicrous) as Lip makes it out to be, but they value OBP over avg and discount things like RBI totals. There is some merit to their ideas: it is important to get on base, and RBIs are dependent on guys being in position ahead of you rather than just on you the batter. But taken to the extreme, that logic would say it's better to go 1-2 with 2 walks than 2-4. But that 2-4 is much more likely to actually drive in runs if there are guys on base ahead of you.

The other issue is that they use averages over the season, so when they say a .280 hitter with a .350 OBP isn't as valuable as a .250 hitter with a .380 OBP, it's because over a season, while the .280 hitter may be more likely to drive in runs in any individual situation, the .380 OBP guy is going to get on base more and be in position to score more often. It's the problem with applying season averages to individual situations.

Nick Swisher showed us last year what happens when you rather walk with runners on instead of swinging... It worked out well for him, didn't it?

jackbrohamer
02-10-2009, 10:12 AM
BP has just handed Dave Van Dyck at least 3 months' worth of material for the Cubune. He never let up on covering BP in 2007 when when it out to be accurate. 2008, not so much.

OmarLittle
02-10-2009, 10:29 AM
They don't get as explicit (or ludicrous) as Lip makes it out to be, but they value OBP over avg and discount things like RBI totals. There is some merit to their ideas: it is important to get on base, and RBIs are dependent on guys being in position ahead of you rather than just on you the batter. But taken to the extreme, that logic would say it's better to go 1-2 with 2 walks than 2-4. But that 2-4 is much more likely to actually drive in runs if there are guys on base ahead of you.

The other issue is that they use averages over the season, so when they say a .280 hitter with a .350 OBP isn't as valuable as a .250 hitter with a .380 OBP, it's because over a season, while the .280 hitter may be more likely to drive in runs in any individual situation, the .380 OBP guy is going to get on base more and be in position to score more often. It's the problem with applying season averages to individual situations.

i'll take 1-2 with 2 BB's over 2-4 every time. Unless that second hit is a HR.

Craig Grebeck
02-10-2009, 10:29 AM
Milw:

We'll admit that BP got it right for 2007 when the eggheads admit in print that the blew it as big as you possibly can in both 2005 and 2008. (I mean 11 games off? C'mon...)

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

And I need to ask for information from the folks who follow this more closely then I do, but it seems to me BP is inherently going to dismiss and downgrade the White Sox simply because they don't play the game the way BP thinks it should be played! (Heaven forbid!!!!!!!!!)

I've seen two consistent themes in the weekly analysis pieces that BP does in the print edition of Sports Illustrated during baseball season (again if I'm wrong in this someone please correct me). They are:

1. You MUST (in their opinion) have strike out pitchers up and down your staff. Anytime a ball is put in play according to them, it's "bad." Because a ball in play can go over the fence or in the gap or even fall in between two infielders. The White Sox do NOT and have not since the early 90's, had a staff of strike out guys. They pitch to contact (which is why defense is so important to the Sox and could be a crucial factor in 2009)

2. BP swears by OBP, they think it's better to take a walk with two guys on base in a close game then take a hack at a meatball fastball on 2-0 and maybe drive in two runs. Kenny is trying to improve the team OBP (and has a bit over the years) but at this point in time the Sox are a power team. They strike out (also a no-no to the good professors who never played the game) and hit home runs, period. (Hopefully some of that changes as Ozzie wants more speed, and contact hitters at the top and bottom of the lineup)

According to BP's "philosophy," what the Sox do is completely and totally wrong. Therefore they can't possibly win anything, therefore their "double secret probation" formula always says "they'll suck..."

There's an old saying, 'fool me once shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me...' You'd think with the number of times the Sox have made these guys look totally stupid they'd change their philosophy or formula or approach to the game.

Na.....if they did that they'd look dumber then they've already shown themselves to be.

Lip
They have admitted it, and do so quite often at the end of the season. Hell, Will Carroll even posted a congratulatory note in Unfiltered when we won the division in 2008. They analyze their predictions and admit their mistakes. Really, they do.

1. You are wrong. They would never say that putting a ball in play is the end all be all, but rather that strikeout pitchers can sometimes be more valuable with a terrible defense behind them. Many BP writers believe in the power of the groundball.

2. They don't believe that. You are taking this to the extreme.

What don't you understand about PECOTA? It is a computer system that projects these things. The writers didn't get together and decide this.

Keep in mind two things: 1. Their writers disagree, a lot. BP is not about groupthink. Just because one writer states something doesn't mean it's the opinion of the entire staff. I don't like Joe Sheehan, but I love Kevin Goldstein and Will Carroll -- both great writers (the former doesn't use stats often and is strictly a scouting guy). 2. Nate Silver is a huge White Sox fan. HUGE.

Last place! Under the radar again Kenny. We got 'em where we want 'em!
Again, I'd rather people think we were a good team.

I'd rather have people think it's going to be a horrible season than to be guessing the Sox will win the world series.
Why? Is this how Pirates fans feel?

doublem23
02-10-2009, 10:39 AM
i'll take 1-2 with 2 BB's over 2-4 every time. Unless that second hit is a HR.

That's taking a lot of variables out of the equation. Where in the order is this hitter? What were the game situations? What kind of pitcher was pitching? Thinking you can break baseball down to a series of black and white, yes/no situations displays a very profound misunderstanding about the game.

munchman33
02-10-2009, 10:44 AM
A lot of people online think the Indians are going to be strong contenders, but I don't understand why

Ron Burgandy from Motown sports says it best:

They've got a few kids (most notably Sowers) who would easily fill 4 and 5 in our rotation and push Colon out. Don't discount them, they'll be right there with us all year, as will the Twins.

oeo
02-10-2009, 10:58 AM
They've got a few kids (most notably Sowers) who would easily fill 4 and 5 in our rotation and push Colon out. Don't discount them, they'll be right there with us all year, as will the Twins.

I'll take Richard over Sowers. :shrug:

In fact, at this point, Sowers is comparable to Lance Broadway (bad). So...meh.

areilly
02-10-2009, 11:03 AM
Milw:

We'll admit that BP got it right for 2007 when the eggheads admit in print that the blew it as big as you possibly can in both 2005 and 2008. (I mean 11 games off? C'mon...)

In 2006 BP had the Sox winning the World Series. . .

Idiots, the whole lot of them!

munchman33
02-10-2009, 11:07 AM
I'll take Richard over Sowers. :shrug:

In fact, at this point, Sowers is comparable to Lance Broadway (bad). So...meh.

What in the world are you basing that on? Numbers in the majors? The fact that his fastball is only around 90? I know it isn't overall talent. Sowers has a ton. He's got really good control and really good command three of his pitches. At this point his only problem is when runners get on, he gets frazzled. He'll get over that. There really isn't a basis for a Broadway comparison, or even a Richard comparison. He's a lot further along than those guys, and he's working with a lot more.

oeo
02-10-2009, 11:23 AM
What in the world are you basing that on? Numbers in the majors? The fact that his fastball is only around 90? I know it isn't overall talent. Sowers has a ton. He's got really good control and really good command three of his pitches. At this point his only problem is when runners get on, he gets frazzled. He'll get over that. There really isn't a basis for a Broadway comparison, or even a Richard comparison. He's a lot further along than those guys, and he's working with a lot more.

I'm basing it on showing jack **** in the major leagues. I honestly don't know a thing about the guy, but you said he would push Colon, Richard, etc. right out of our rotation. Based on what? You say talent...well, until that talent shows up in the bigs, how can you be so confident?

sullythered
02-10-2009, 11:27 AM
What in the world are you basing that on? Numbers in the majors? The fact that his fastball is only around 90? I know it isn't overall talent. Sowers has a ton. He's got really good control and really good command three of his pitches. At this point his only problem is when runners get on, he gets frazzled. He'll get over that. There really isn't a basis for a Broadway comparison, or even a Richard comparison. He's a lot further along than those guys, and he's working with a lot more.
In a pretty big sample size, Jeremy Sowers numbers pretty much suck, across the board. No thank you.

munchman33
02-10-2009, 11:29 AM
I'm basing it on showing jack **** in the major leagues. I honestly don't know a thing about the guy, but you said he would push Colon, Richard, etc. right out of our rotation. Based on what? You say talent...well, until that talent shows up in the bigs, how can you be so confident?

Sowers has a problem with baserunners. Not a talent problem. It's mental, and it's easily fixed.

Our guys need to work passed their talent deficiences. No brainer who'd win the job.

kittle42
02-10-2009, 11:31 AM
I'd rather have people think it's going to be a horrible season than to be guessing the Sox will win the world series.

I wouldn't, because the latter means the Sox axtually would have had a good offseason.

kittle42
02-10-2009, 11:33 AM
In 2006 BP had the Sox winning the World Series. . .

Idiots, the whole lot of them!

I need to go back to some 2006 posts...I bet some people here were loving those predictions back then.

doublem23
02-10-2009, 11:35 AM
Sowers has a problem with baserunners. Not a talent problem. It's mental, and it's easily fixed.

Our guys need to work passed their talent deficiences. No brainer who'd win the job.

His career BAA is .283. Looks like he's got a problem with hitters, too.

wsgdf
02-10-2009, 11:50 AM
They have admitted it, and do so quite often at the end of the season. Hell, Will Carroll even posted a congratulatory note in Unfiltered when we won the division in 2008. They analyze their predictions and admit their mistakes. Really, they do.



Thanks for your entire post.

If people would take 15-20 minutes to actually READ some of the articles on Baseball Prospectus there would be a lot less foaming at the mouth every Spring when the PECOTA projections come out.

jabrch
02-10-2009, 11:58 AM
i'll take 1-2 with 2 BB's over 2-4 every time. Unless that second hit is a HR.


Neither of those exist over the course of a season. Give me a guy who will get 200+ hits. He's probably able to hit against any type of pitching. The guy who walks, let's name him "Nick" will only be able to walk against a pitcher who makes mistakes.

Walks are nice. Hits are better.

kittle42
02-10-2009, 12:02 PM
Thanks for your entire post.

If people would take 15-20 minutes to actually READ some of the articles on Baseball Prospectus there would be a lot less foaming at the mouth every Spring when the PECOTA projections come out.

I am neither a BP fan nor a BP hater. However, I will guarantee you that no matter how much reason you throw at the BP haters around here, they won't change their minds.

In other news, if the PECOTA projections spit the Sox out at 1st or 2nd every season, everyone here would love BP.

kobo
02-10-2009, 12:05 PM
What don't you understand about PECOTA? It is a computer system that projects these things. The writers didn't get together and decide this.


Exactly. This isn't the writers sitting down and making predictions, it's a computer program that is taking what it believes will be the Opening Day lineup and then predicting the season based on that lineup. We don't even know who is going to end up in CF, 3B, or 2B, so I don't understand why people are so upset over a computer program's projection.

spawn
02-10-2009, 12:10 PM
In other news, if the PECOTA projections spit the Sox out at 1st or 2nd every season, everyone here would love BP.
I've stopped taking pre-season predictions seriously, so it really wouldn't have an effect on me. :shrug:

goon
02-10-2009, 12:11 PM
What in the world are you basing that on? Numbers in the majors? The fact that his fastball is only around 90? I know it isn't overall talent. Sowers has a ton. He's got really good control and really good command three of his pitches. At this point his only problem is when runners get on, he gets frazzled. He'll get over that. There really isn't a basis for a Broadway comparison, or even a Richard comparison. He's a lot further along than those guys, and he's working with a lot more.

Yep. Sowers is a good pitcher, yet if you recall, Danks and Floyd were in the same position last season and nearly everyone on this board were skeptical of them preforming well, which is totally fair. In 2007 Sowers collected an ERA of 6.42 in 67 IP, in 2008 his ERA was 5.58 in 121 IP... and it's not like he got better as the season went on, he sucked all year, I sincerely doubt he would push ANYONE out of ANY rotation, let alone former Cy Young winner veteran like Bartolo Colon.

doublem23
02-10-2009, 12:13 PM
Here are their full predictions:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/

Yeah, they've got us in last place, but we're 5 games behind Minnesota, who they project in 2nd place... So they're not exactly expecting us to be buried.

AZChiSoxFan
02-10-2009, 12:19 PM
In other news, if the PECOTA projections spit the Sox out at 1st or 2nd every season, everyone here would love BP.

Moot point. Your if/then statement is invalid due to the fact that there's no possibility of the "if" portion of your statement ever happening.

BTW, do the Sox still only have a 94.67655435786545459081% chance of winning the div LAST year?

areilly
02-10-2009, 12:26 PM
Moot point. Your if/then statement is invalid due to the fact that there's no possibility of the "if" portion of your statement ever happening.

BTW, do the Sox still only have a 94.67655435786545459081% chance of winning the div LAST year?

"When (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4921)."

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 12:40 PM
Neither of those exist over the course of a season. Give me a guy who will get 200+ hits. He's probably able to hit against any type of pitching. The guy who walks, let's name him "Nick" will only be able to walk against a pitcher who makes mistakes.

Walks are nice. Hits are better.
Yes, hits are definitely better than walks, but hits also count towards OBP. And the bolded statement is most definitely not true, or else the same hitters wouldn't lead the league in walks every year.

The ability to draw walks is definitely a skill that is independent of the pitcher. The ability to not walk people is also a skill pitchers have. This is no different than the ability to get hits and the ability to not allow hits.

TDog
02-10-2009, 12:48 PM
I'd say they are off by 5-6 games. They underestimate our pitching.

Also, keep in mind this is the PECOTA projection and doesn't represent BP in general, but rather Clay Davenport (as he no doubt believes in his program).

The projection reflects the Baseball Prospectus (I assume we're not talking about British Petroleum) opinion that certain past statistics are predictive of certain future outcomes, which is why Baseball Prospectus should be ignored. British Petroleum, on the other hand ... never mind.

Iwritecode
02-10-2009, 12:49 PM
I wouldn't, because the latter means the Sox axtually would have had a good offseason.

:o:

BTW, just because someone predicts a team to win the WS doesn't mean they had a good off-season. Look at the 2008 Tigers.

Lip Man 1
02-10-2009, 12:56 PM
Grebeck and others:

If Will Carroll (big Sox fan that he is) did in fact "apologize" for being so stupid at the end of 2008, they I give him props.

Now all they need to do is admit that it's impossible to predict anything given a situation that involves 162 games with about 700 variables (players) and tens of billions of possibilities.

(Of course if they did that they wouldn't be able to sell their magazine to others who feel baseball can be turned into advanced algebra.)

Remember these are the same folks who insisted after the fact it was impossible for the Twins to win three straight division titles or the Sox to win the World Series or the Diamondbacks to get to the playoffs a few years ago (when they beat the Cubs) because they didn't fit their projections. (I read BP's comments about Arizona specifically in S.I. and remember it very well.) Kind of makes Will's "apology" a little lame no?

Lip

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 01:02 PM
Now all they need to do is admit that it's impossible to predict anything given a situation that involves 162 games with about 700 variables (players) and tens of billions of possibilities.
Lip, if you truly believe this, then why do you give a crap what BP predicts? Or what anyone predicts, for that matter?

Hendu
02-10-2009, 01:06 PM
Neither of those exist over the course of a season. Give me a guy who will get 200+ hits. He's probably able to hit against any type of pitching. The guy who walks, let's name him "Nick" will only be able to walk against a pitcher who makes mistakes.

Walks are nice. Hits are better.

Sure, give me a guy who will get 200+ hits...there were only two of them in the AL last season. Most players use a combination of hits and walks to get on base. It's not an either/or scenario except a couple players at the extremes.

Craig Grebeck
02-10-2009, 01:20 PM
Grebeck and others:

If Will Carroll (big Sox fan that he is) did in fact "apologize" for being so stupid at the end of 2008, they I give him props.

Now all they need to do is admit that it's impossible to predict anything given a situation that involves 162 games with about 700 variables (players) and tens of billions of possibilities.

(Of course if they did that they wouldn't be able to sell their magazine to others who feel baseball can be turned into advanced algebra.)

Remember these are the same folks who insisted after the fact it was impossible for the Twins to win three straight division titles or the Sox to win the World Series or the Diamondbacks to get to the playoffs a few years ago (when they beat the Cubs) because they didn't fit their projections. (I read BP's comments about Arizona specifically in S.I. and remember it very well.) Kind of makes Will's "apology" a little lame no?

Lip
Of course they know it is impossible to completely accurately predict something with so many variables. For ****'s sake Lip, give it up. Everybody makes predictions, they just do so using PECOTA.

And Will, to my knowledge, is not a Sox fan. Nate is a big, big Sox fan (though he writes exclusively about politics these days, and with good reason -- he's a pretty amazing statistician).

Your memory is foggy when it comes to AZ. They didn't say it was impossible after the fact, they said AZ simply wasn't as good as their record. I believe the shellacking they received at the hands of the Rockies proved that, no?

Craig Grebeck
02-10-2009, 01:20 PM
The projection reflects the Baseball Prospectus (I assume we're not talking about British Petroleum) opinion that certain past statistics are predictive of certain future outcomes, which is why Baseball Prospectus should be ignored. British Petroleum, on the other hand ... never mind.
Certain past statistics are predictive of probable future outcomes. There's nothing "certain" about predictions.

FedEx227
02-10-2009, 01:22 PM
I really can't believe people care about this?

Do you guys care when a random blog by a 12 year old picks the Sox in 4th?

It's a ****ing projection, get over it. Just because it's from BP we have to bitch and moan about where they place the Sox, who really cares.

Jim Shorts
02-10-2009, 01:22 PM
Grebeck and others:

If Will Carroll (big Sox fan that he is) did in fact "apologize" for being so stupid at the end of 2008, they I give him props.

Now all they need to do is admit that it's impossible to predict anything given a situation that involves 162 games with about 700 variables (players) and tens of billions of possibilities.

(Of course if they did that they wouldn't be able to sell their magazine to others who feel baseball can be turned into advanced algebra.)

Remember these are the same folks who insisted after the fact it was impossible for the Twins to win three straight division titles or the Sox to win the World Series or the Diamondbacks to get to the playoffs a few years ago (when they beat the Cubs) because they didn't fit their projections. (I read BP's comments about Arizona specifically in S.I. and remember it very well.) Kind of makes Will's "apology" a little lame no?

Lip

I don't know if Carroll ever apologized for being so wrong before. However, I do know, as I've heard him many times on live sports radio, that he has no problems what so ever publicly announcing his disregard for everything Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen. So, if he did apologize, I don't buy it.

Outside of that, he's just not a good interview. Few complete stat guys are good interviews.

doublem23
02-10-2009, 01:26 PM
Certain past statistics are predictive of probable future outcomes. There's nothing "certain" about predictions.

The hilarity of it all is that old-timers will always tell you how baseball is great because it remains so unchanged over the years, unlike football or basketball which constantly reinvent themselves. Then, when you say that X and Y caused Z in the past, so it's not unreasonable to assume that X and Y might cause Z again, THEY FLIP THEIR ****ING LIDS.

doublem23
02-10-2009, 01:32 PM
I really can't believe people care about this?

Do you guys care when a random blog by a 12 year old picks the Sox in 4th?

It's a ****ing projection, get over it. Just because it's from BP we have to bitch and moan about where they place the Sox, who really cares.

Because some people have an axe to grind against BP and think that because they "somehow" didn't get all their predictions right in the past that means that everything they do and stand for is completely irrelevant.

And then these same posters go and quote guys like Phil Rogers or Joe Cowley as legitimate sources of baseball information.

TDog
02-10-2009, 01:34 PM
Certain past statistics are predictive of probable future outcomes. There's nothing "certain" about predictions.

If you are using a statistical formula that is wrong more often than it is right, your statistical analysis is meaningless. That is true in marketing, economics and baseball.

OmarLittle
02-10-2009, 01:46 PM
Neither of those exist over the course of a season. Give me a guy who will get 200+ hits. He's probably able to hit against any type of pitching. The guy who walks, let's name him "Nick" will only be able to walk against a pitcher who makes mistakes.

Walks are nice. Hits are better.

I think you have it reversed.

The guy who walks more is the more patient hitter ie. he will be able to do well against better pitchers because he isn't going to swing at garbage.

Obviously I'd prefer a hit over a walk but players who have a high OBP tend to see better pitches which results in better opportunities to get hits.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 01:55 PM
If you are using a statistical formula that is wrong more often than it is right, your statistical analysis is meaningless. That is true in marketing, economics and baseball.
So PECOTA may be wrong more often that right regarding the White Sox, but what of the other 29 teams? If it were wrong more often than right on the whole, no one would ever read BP.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 01:56 PM
Outside of that, he's just not a good interview. Few complete stat guys are good interviews.
Carroll's not a "stat guy". He's primarily an injury report (at least he is for Football Outsiders).

areilly
02-10-2009, 01:56 PM
The guy who walks more is the more patient hitter ie. he will be able to do well against better pitchers because he isn't going to swing at garbage.

http://mlb.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_430897.jpg

"Thanks for the vote of confidence, bro!"

kittle42
02-10-2009, 01:57 PM
So PECOTA may be wrong more often that right regarding the White Sox, but what of the other 29 teams? If it were wrong more often than right on the whole, no one would ever read BP.

Shh! That would require actual investigation!

TDog
02-10-2009, 02:09 PM
So PECOTA may be wrong more often that right regarding the White Sox, but what of the other 29 teams? If it were wrong more often than right on the whole, no one would ever read BP.

If the White Sox were a lone anomaly, and BP had not corrected for that anomaly, that too would be a flaw in the formula. Because BP had the Rays winning their division and going to the World Series where they would lose to the Phillies, maybe no one cares that the formula is more often wrong than right about the White Sox.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 02:13 PM
If the White Sox were a lone anomaly, and BP had not corrected for that anomaly, that too would be a flaw in the formula. Because BP had the Rays winning their division and going to the World Series where they would lose to the Phillies, maybe no one cares that the formula is more often wrong than right about the White Sox.
Now that's just false. In any sort of overarching analysis, there will be outliers. If indeed the White Sox were the lone anomaly (I doubt they are, but whatever), then that would be an unbelievably good sign for the system; it can correctly predict 29/30 of the league, which is damn near impossible.

wsgdf
02-10-2009, 02:23 PM
I don't know if Carroll ever apologized for being so wrong before. However, I do know, as I've heard him many times on live sports radio, that he has no problems what so ever publicly announcing his disregard for everything Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen. So, if he did apologize, I don't buy it.

Outside of that, he's just not a good interview. Few complete stat guys are good interviews.


???

Will Carroll is the sports injury/PED guy, he's not a stat guy. Usually when he's on the radio he's talking about someone's torn labrum.

Kevin Goldstein is the prospect guy - he used to write for Baseball America.

Joe Sheehan (general baseball writer) has written many articles praising Ozzie - especially his usage of the pitching staff.

Also - I think most of the writers at BP will say that Kenny has risen to the upper tier of GMs even if they don't always understand why he makes certain individual moves.

kittle42
02-10-2009, 02:37 PM
Predictions are fun. Predictions using numbers are also fun. Handicapping is fun.

So why do people get so up in arms?

Marqhead
02-10-2009, 02:49 PM
Predictions are fun. Predictions using numbers are also fun. Handicapping is fun.

So why do people get so up in arms?

Who are you to question the masses?

I enjoy reading positive things about my team, but I ignore everything in general except the box scores.

kittle42
02-10-2009, 03:25 PM
Who are you to question the masses?

I enjoy reading positive things about my team, but I ignore everything in general except the box scores.

Yeah. I mean, let's take football recruiting, for example. In some publications, my school was ranked upwards of 5th in the conference (really good for us). In others, 9th. Do I go ranting and pissing all over the places like Rivals, etc. who usually seem to have my boys ranked on the lower end? No, because in the end, it doesn't matter.

Marqhead
02-10-2009, 03:27 PM
Yeah. I mean, let's take football recruiting, for example. In some publications, my school was ranked upwards of 5th in the conference (really good for us). In others, 9th. Do I go ranting and pissing all over the places like Rivals, etc. who usually seem to have my boys ranked on the lower end? No, because in the end, it doesn't matter.

Chip on the shoulder. The Sox can't get any respect.

My question is, what have they done to deserve respect?

TDog
02-10-2009, 03:29 PM
Now that's just false. In any sort of overarching analysis, there will be outliers. If indeed the White Sox were the lone anomaly (I doubt they are, but whatever), then that would be an unbelievably good sign for the system; it can correctly predict 29/30 of the league, which is damn near impossible.

I thought the sarcastic tone of my post was clear. I don't believe the White Sox have been a BP anomaly. Predicting last-place teams, of course, can be a lot easier than predicting first-place teams, but while I thought it should be obvious to everyone that based on the personnel of the Tigers last season they would finish with a losing record, even I didn't expect them to finish last.

BP's statistical model might be right once in a while, but so might some junior high school kid who is going by his gut or an outcast from that room full of monkeys who someday will type the complete works of Shakespeare at random.

BP's predictions are worthless. Good thing people don't pay money for them.

Fenway
02-10-2009, 03:29 PM
and they say Boston will win 98???? yarightsure

www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/index.php




According to fan comments at White Sox.com, the good morons at Baseball Prospectus, the same folks who were totally, completely and unequivocally wrong in 2005 and who were "only" off by 11 games in their "prediction" last season (they said 78, the Sox won 89 games) have come out with their "expert" opinion on the 2009 White Sox.

Drum roll please...

BP says the White Sox will finish dead last in the Central Division in 2009.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

My reply...cousins should not be allowed to breed.

Lip

turners56
02-10-2009, 03:57 PM
According to fan comments at White Sox.com, the good morons at Baseball Prospectus, the same folks who were totally, completely and unequivocally wrong in 2005 and who were "only" off by 11 games in their "prediction" last season (they said 78, the Sox won 89 games) have come out with their "expert" opinion on the 2009 White Sox.

Drum roll please...

BP says the White Sox will finish dead last in the Central Division in 2009.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

My reply...cousins should not be allowed to breed.

Lip

...Have they gotten into a habit of just making the Sox out like a horrible team? I think they're still banking on their 2007 prediction...

OmarLittle
02-10-2009, 04:01 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_430897.jpg

"Thanks for the vote of confidence, bro!"

Yeah you are right I'd rather have a guy like Juan Pierre with his 200 hits.

SoxfaninLA
02-10-2009, 04:47 PM
Chip on the shoulder. The Sox can't get any respect.

My question is, what have they done to deserve respect?

3 division titles and a world championship since 2000. Only one year since 2000 with a record below .500. 6 first or second place finishes since 2008. We are hardly the Red Sox or Yankees but its not like you're talking about the Royals or Pirates here. The Sox have been a very competitive team in this decade, that should garner a little respect.

Kenny is not perfect, and one could easily argue that this team should have more playoff appearances in his time as GM, but this has been one of the better teams in baseball under his watch, despite the fact he makes a lot of moves that people tend to mock when they happen but look pretty good when all is said and done.

A lot of Sox fans have chips on their shoulder, its part of the psyche of the fanbase. Finishing 2nd to the Yankees all those years in the late 50's/early 60's, playing second fiddle to a team with the longest history of futility in the history of baseball in their own town, having the big story when they won their first palyoff series in 88 years be that the other team lost, I can see lots of reasons why fans have a chip on their shoulder.

SoxfaninLA
02-10-2009, 04:48 PM
Yeah you are right I'd rather have a guy like Juan Pierre with his 200 hits.

Either way they are both brutal bench players, which is essentially what Pierre and Dirty 30 are at this point of their careers.

Iwritecode
02-10-2009, 04:57 PM
3 division titles and a world championship since 2000. Only one year since 2000 with a record below .500. 6 first or second place finishes since 2008. We are hardly the Red Sox or Yankees but its not like you're talking about the Royals or Pirates here. The Sox have been a very competitive team in this decade, that should garner a little respect.

Kenny is not perfect, and one could easily argue that this team should have more playoff appearances in his time as GM, but this has been one of the better teams in baseball under his watch, despite the fact he makes a lot of moves that people tend to mock when they happen but look pretty good when all is said and done.

A lot of Sox fans have chips on their shoulder, its part of the psyche of the fanbase. Finishing 2nd to the Yankees all those years in the late 50's/early 60's, playing second fiddle to a team with the longest history of futility in the history of baseball in their own town, having the big story when they won their first palyoff series in 88 years be that the other team lost, I can see lots of reasons why fans have a chip on their shoulder.

Should be history of professional sports. :D:

OmarLittle
02-10-2009, 05:16 PM
Either way they are both brutal bench players, which is essentially what Pierre and Dirty 30 are at this point of their careers.

I wouldn't write off Swisher yet.

SoxfaninLA
02-10-2009, 05:23 PM
I wouldn't write off Swisher yet.

I would. His low batting average and clown attitude are going to go over like a lead balloon in what is widely considered the most professional clubhouse in baseball. The media in NY is going to rip him apart after watching a couple third strikes sail right down the middle of the plate. I liked Swisher in Oakland and was excited when the Sox traded for him, but he looked horrible last year. The book is out on Swisher, he looks for the walk first. I would be shocked if he ever gets that OBP over 340 again.

russ99
02-10-2009, 05:30 PM
BP is all about projecting future success vs. past performance.

Since about 35%+ of our club has little or no past performance, how can they pick us higher?? Big grain of salt.

One thing I must mention is the overall fantasy-baseball community's projections/warnings on John Danks. He not only passed, but blew away the "additional innings" threshold of a young starter, where a large majority of young pitchers have arm issues or serious injuries the year afterward.

So they're obviously quite wary of our starting staff as constructed, with 2 guys with big injury concerns and uncertain return dates (Colon, Contreras) 1 young guy way over the workrate limit (Danks), 1 guy just under that limit (Floyd) and one rock in Burls.

And also with just a bunch of uninspiring rookies to fill in, except for Poreda if he can get improvement on his secondary pitches.

Oh, and Dirty 30 rocks. We sold too low and way too early and IMO we'll rue the day we ditched him and kept Konerko. But hopefully in a few years Brandon Allen will make that argument moot.

Lip Man 1
02-10-2009, 05:56 PM
For what it's worth department.

One member of the Sox front office called the BP folks (direct quote) "idiots." They also said they hope the players see it as they play better when they are the underdog.

One member of the Chicago media e-mailed me saying they agree with those who disdain BP...saying that "if you throw enough darts against a board sooner or later you can claim to have hit something."

SoxfaninLA captured the reasoning why I get upset over these moronic stat- geeks perfectly.

Lip

Lip Man 1
02-10-2009, 06:00 PM
FedEx:

The problem is this isn't being done by a 14 year old with nothing better to do.

"Supposedly" this is a legit publication that claims to be the be-all, end-all when it comes to prognosticating.

:rolleyes:

Like I've always said if you are going to come across like your manure doesn't stink, have the gonads to publicly admit when you completely **** up.

That's all I'm asking. Do that on a consistent basis (especially when the Sox make them look like fools) and I'll say live and let live.

I hate their arrogance, that's what really pisses me off. Then after the fact they always seem to find a way to manipulate things or make excuses about how their predictions would have been right "if only..."

:rolleyes:

Lip

kittle42
02-10-2009, 06:02 PM
Like I've always said if you are going to come across like your manure doesn't stink, have the gonads to publicly admit when you completely **** up.

I hate their arrogance, that's what really pisses me off. Then after the fact they always seem to find a way to manipulate things or make excuses about how their predictions would have been right "if only..."

And this is the part of the "anti-stat" argument I agree with.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 06:11 PM
Like I've always said if you are going to come across like your manure doesn't stink, have the gonads to publicly admit when you completely **** up.

That's all I'm asking. Do that on a consistent basis (especially when the Sox make them look like fools) and I'll say live and let live.

I hate their arrogance, that's what really pisses me off. Then after the fact they always seem to find a way to manipulate things or make excuses about how their predictions would have been right "if only..."

:rolleyes:

Lip
Look, I don't particularly care for BP either, save for Carroll and Silver. But I do anxiously await you posting every one of Steve Rosenbloom's early predictions, because you've just described him perfectly as well. And a plethora of other baseball writers, both local and national.

Face it, just about everyone who writes about sports for a living acts this way; if they constantly pointed out how wrong they were, no one would choose to read their work.

doublem23
02-10-2009, 06:32 PM
For what it's worth department.

One member of the Sox front office called the BP folks (direct quote) "idiots." They also said they hope the players see it as they play better when they are the underdog.

One member of the Chicago media e-mailed me saying they agree with those who disdain BP...saying that "if you throw enough darts against a board sooner or later you can claim to have hit something."

SoxfaninLA captured the reasoning why I get upset over these moronic stat- geeks perfectly.

Lip

Well, I'm sure anyone who puts stock in BP probably isn't concerned much with what any baseball writer in Chicago thinks (and with good cause). Guys like Rogers and Cowley are nice at getting a little soundbyte after the game, but if you're looking for any real insight into the game, good luck.

As for the Sox front office, well, I doubt they'd call them idiots if PECOTA put the Sox in first, so whatever. These are the same people, however, that are trying to convince people that a team that probably will start Jerry Owens/Dewayne Wise/Brian Anderson, Josh Fields, and Chris Getz everyday and might feature Clayton Richard and Jeff Marquez as starting pitchers is somehow not, at best, potentially terrible.

I'll never understand this whole thing anyway. I don't consider myself a "stathead," but some statistical analysis has greatly increased my enjoyment of baseball. I mean, I love to watch the game, of course, but there's another level of pleasure I derive for sorting through stats. I don't know why people have to be so all or nothing, but whatever. No one's going to change their minds so there's no point to this.

If the Sox do derail, I would expect all the "BP are idiots!" crowd to eat their crow in October, but I doubt that will happen.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 07:35 PM
Well, I'm sure anyone who puts stock in BP probably isn't concerned much with what any baseball writer in Chicago thinks (and with good cause). Guys like Rogers and Cowley are nice at getting a little soundbyte after the game, but if you're looking for any real insight into the game, good luck.

As for the Sox front office, well, I doubt they'd call them idiots if PECOTA put the Sox in first, so whatever. These are the same people, however, that are trying to convince people that a team that probably will start Jerry Owens/Dewayne Wise/Brian Anderson, Josh Fields, and Chris Getz everyday and might feature Clayton Richard and Jeff Marquez as starting pitchers is somehow not, at best, potentially terrible.

I'll never understand this whole thing anyway. I don't consider myself a "stathead," but some statistical analysis has greatly increased my enjoyment of baseball. I mean, I love to watch the game, of course, but there's another level of pleasure I derive for sorting through stats. I don't know why people have to be so all or nothing, but whatever. No one's going to change their minds so there's no point to this.

If the Sox do derail, I would expect all the "BP are idiots!" crowd to eat their crow in October, but I doubt that will happen.
Doub, that was beautiful, particularly the bolded part. I would imagine most "statheads" didn't get interested in stats before they started following baseball; rather, they turned to stats to supplement the enjoyment they already were getting from watching the games. I know that's my story.

everafan
02-10-2009, 07:39 PM
I don't believe in Baseball Prospectus predictions, but let's be fair here: they did peg us on the nose in 2007...

No they didn't. They got lucky with the record, but they said the starting pitching would be horrible (it wasn't) and the offense would see a slight decline from a very good 2006 (it was horrible).

everafan
02-10-2009, 07:44 PM
In 2006 BP had the Sox winning the World Series. . .

Idiots, the whole lot of them!

They had the 06 team winning 82 games.

Marqhead
02-10-2009, 07:44 PM
3 division titles and a world championship since 2000. Only one year since 2000 with a record below .500. 6 first or second place finishes since 2008. We are hardly the Red Sox or Yankees but its not like you're talking about the Royals or Pirates here. The Sox have been a very competitive team in this decade, that should garner a little respect.

Kenny is not perfect, and one could easily argue that this team should have more playoff appearances in his time as GM, but this has been one of the better teams in baseball under his watch, despite the fact he makes a lot of moves that people tend to mock when they happen but look pretty good when all is said and done.

A lot of Sox fans have chips on their shoulder, its part of the psyche of the fanbase. Finishing 2nd to the Yankees all those years in the late 50's/early 60's, playing second fiddle to a team with the longest history of futility in the history of baseball in their own town, having the big story when they won their first palyoff series in 88 years be that the other team lost, I can see lots of reasons why fans have a chip on their shoulder.

An excellent list of reasons for the large chip, that wasn't my point though. The Sox have done some great things in recent years, but this particular offseason they have done nothing to impress the "experts" or give anyone a credible reason for picking them to do well, or win the division.

Predictions are just that, they predict what might happen. People get all up in arms about what is esentially nothing. I think the Sox will have a fine year, I don't care what anyone else says. Lets play the games.

russ99
02-10-2009, 07:57 PM
An excellent list of reasons for the large chip, that wasn't my point though. The Sox have done some great things in recent years, but this particular offseason they have done nothing to impress the "experts" or give anyone a credible reason for picking them to do well, or win the division.

Predictions are just that, they predict what might happen. People get all up in arms about what is esentially nothing. I think the Sox will have a fine year, I don't care what anyone else says. Lets play the games.

I don't understand the chip/indignant mentality this year. If we had a team as in spring of 2006, or even last spring, I'd understand a little bit of taking issue with a lower prediction.

But so much is up in the air this year. We all hope the Sox do well this year, but there are so many question marks at multiple positions and pitching roles, we have no idea how things will turn out, so even bad predictions are a possibility.

I'd love the Sox prove everyone wrong and have a great year and either be in contention late or make the playoffs, but I understand it could be just as likely the Sox have a transitional year to shed the 2004-2007 era and get ready for the 2010-2013 one.

Daver
02-10-2009, 08:02 PM
I'll never understand this whole thing anyway. I don't consider myself a "stathead," but some statistical analysis has greatly increased my enjoyment of baseball. I mean, I love to watch the game, of course, but there's another level of pleasure I derive for sorting through stats. I don't know why people have to be so all or nothing, but whatever. No one's going to change their minds so there's no point to this.


I can tell you why I am, and I'm sure others are the similar, when you get a true propellerhead discussing baseball they will cling to imaginary stats like VORP and Win shares that truly have no base in actual reality to prove their point, and refuse to acknowledge any point made that is not supported in math.

Stats have a use, but like anything else they can be over used to the point of being annoying, and even useless. What does tracking the number of line drives a play hits over the course of a season really tell you? Well nothing, so you break it down even further into hits, outs, and foul balls, and this tells you what? Nothing, so the next step is to determine what kind of pitches all these line drives were hit against, and it just keeps going. It's crap, nothing more than mental masturbation that adds nothing to any discussion that could not be acheived by using simple stats.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 08:14 PM
I can tell you why I am, and I'm sure others are the similar, when you get a true propellerhead discussing baseball they will cling to imaginary stats like VORP and Win shares that truly have no base in actual reality to prove their point, and refuse to acknowledge any point made that is not supported in math.

Stats have a use, but like anything else they can be over used to the point of being annoying, and even useless. What does tracking the number of line drives a play hits over the course of a season really tell you? Well nothing, so you break it down even further into hits, outs, and foul balls, and this tells you what? Nothing, so the next step is to determine what kind of pitches all these line drives were hit against, and it just keeps going. It's crap, nothing more than mental masturbation that adds nothing to any discussion that could not be acheived by using simple stats.
This is a really good point, Daver. For someone who has been called a "propellerhead", I don't particularly care for VORP or other stats that combine a whole lot of variables into one figure. That's why I only visit BP's site if I see a link to an interesting article there.

Statistics are most useful to learn new things. Research, dating back to Branch Rickey's time, has shown that on-base percentage correlates to run scoring better than batting average does. Will an intelligent analyst tell you it's the only thing to look for? Of course not. There are many things that go into a successful baseball team. But what you definitely can do is look at someone like Jerry Owens or Juan Pierre and realize he's not a very good hitter because he doesn't get on base enough of the time. Does speed and the ability to simply make contact make up for that? Somewhat, but not enough to make them good hitters. That is where looking at stats can be very useful.

Marqhead
02-10-2009, 08:15 PM
I don't understand the chip/indignant mentality this year. If we had a team as in spring of 2006, or even last spring, I'd understand a little bit of taking issue with a lower prediction.


I wasn't referring specifically to this year. (Most) Sox fans have a large chip on their shoulder due to the miriad of reasons listed previously.

I agree with Doub in that certain stats definitely enhance my enjoyment of the game. I'll also agree with Daver, I get annoyed when the stats are over the top, or when the way they are calculated is simply ridiculous, or subjective.

Pitchers and catchers: 5 days. Thank god.

russ99
02-10-2009, 08:21 PM
Pitchers and catchers: 5 days. Thank god.


Best thing I've seen all week, and that includes 60+ temperatures. :D:

AZChiSoxFan
02-10-2009, 08:37 PM
Your memory is foggy when it comes to AZ. They didn't say it was impossible after the fact, they said AZ simply wasn't as good as their record. I believe the shellacking they received at the hands of the Rockies proved that, no?

GMAB. What a joke. No, it didn't prove that because these same mensas also used their "logic" to say that the D-backs would get shellacked by the scrubs.

AZChiSoxFan
02-10-2009, 08:43 PM
I really can't believe people care about this?

Do you guys care when a random blog by a 12 year old picks the Sox in 4th?



No. The problem that many of us have with BP is despite the fact that the preseason picks on a random blog by a 12 year old would almost assuredly be more accurate than those of BP, the 12 year old doesn't have an ego the size of Montana like the clowns over at BP do.

AZChiSoxFan
02-10-2009, 08:48 PM
"When (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4921)."

Congrats. What about the answer to my question in that post?

Craig Grebeck
02-10-2009, 10:18 PM
GMAB. What a joke. No, it didn't prove that because these same mensas also used their "logic" to say that the D-backs would get shellacked by the scrubs.

No. The problem that many of us have with BP is despite the fact that the preseason picks on a random blog by a 12 year old would almost assuredly be more accurate than those of BP, the 12 year old doesn't have an ego the size of Montana like the clowns over at BP do.

Congrats. What about the answer to my question in that post?
So have you ever actually read an article on BP?

SoxfaninLA
02-10-2009, 11:08 PM
An excellent list of reasons for the large chip, that wasn't my point though. The Sox have done some great things in recent years, but this particular offseason they have done nothing to impress the "experts" or give anyone a credible reason for picking them to do well, or win the division.

Predictions are just that, they predict what might happen. People get all up in arms about what is esentially nothing. I think the Sox will have a fine year, I don't care what anyone else says. Lets play the games.

Fair enough, I agree with you that we have done nothing this offseason that would make people say "wow that team got a lot better, they are looking like a lock for 90 wins!". I took the chip this as an overall statement about the mindset of much of the fanbase.

Completely agree about predictions, there is no point in getting worked up about them. The Yankees and Cubs seem to win the offseason world series every year recently and we have seen how that has worked out for them lately.

For the record I could easily see this team finishing anywhere from 1st to 3rd. I do think even with the question marks this team has the division is weak enough where this can be a first place team. However, I think if Cleveland's bullpen stays healthy and performs like they should they are probably the favorite in the division. I do think the Sox are better than the Tigers and Royals.

cws05champ
02-11-2009, 10:05 AM
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=paSrlgPH0UHto1JLWa1-pQQ

Here is a link to the PECOTA projected wins vs actual going back to 2003. FWIW the average error in # of wins for the whole league is:
2003: 5.91
2004: 7.71
2005: 5.14
2006: 4.94
2007: 4.31

I'm not a big stat guy or BP guy, but stats have their place and use. As with everything else, stats should be used in conjunction with actually watching games and educated guesses. Stats and these projections are not the be all end all.

wsgdf
02-11-2009, 12:24 PM
GMAB. What a joke. No, it didn't prove that because these same mensas also used their "logic" to say that the D-backs would get shellacked by the scrubs.

They're also the first ones to tell you that anything can happen in a short series.

The PECOTA projections are only about probability.

The more you flip a coin the closer you should get to 50% heads 50% tails.

That doesn't mean you can't flip 10 heads in a row.

And they obviously know that - because they write about it all the time.

FedEx227
02-11-2009, 12:30 PM
FedEx:

The problem is this isn't being done by a 14 year old with nothing better to do.

"Supposedly" this is a legit publication that claims to be the be-all, end-all when it comes to prognosticating.


No, not really. That's how you perceive them, but they've never claimed to be that.

FedEx227
02-11-2009, 12:32 PM
They're also the first ones to tell you that anything can happen in a short series.

The PECOTA projections are only about probability.

The more you flip a coin the closer you should get to 50% heads 50% tails.

That doesn't mean you can't flip 10 heads in a row.

And they obviously know that - because they write about it all the time.

BUT THEY ARE COCKY, based off.... well I don't know... but RAWR!

OmarLittle
02-11-2009, 01:49 PM
No, not really. That's how you perceive them, but they've never claimed to be that.

Yeah in this thread there seems to be a lot of hate directed at BP for being arrogant, and all knowing but no one has actually backed it up.

kittle42
02-11-2009, 02:04 PM
Yeah in this thread there seems to be a lot of hate directed at BP for being arrogant, and all knowing but no one has actually backed it up.

Because they don't read it. I don't, but I'm not here attacking it, either.

Tragg
02-11-2009, 02:51 PM
They've revised their spreadsheet because it wqas 73 in 2005, not 80.

They have been way off 50% of the time on the Sox.

kittle42
02-11-2009, 02:53 PM
They have been way off 50% of the time on the Sox.

The deviations abouve as they relate to every team is a much better indicator of their accuracy.

Tragg
02-11-2009, 03:09 PM
The deviations abouve as they relate to every team is a much better indicator of their accuracy.
I don't agree.
From reading their stuff and from what I know about their tendencies and biases, their methodology will work better on some teams than on others. For example, their work on defense is poor. Their pitching analysis is less sophisticated than their hitting. And they favor high obp teams over equal run producing teams with less obps.
Thus, for example, a team that is excellent defensively will be underrated in their computer model.

Eddo144
02-11-2009, 03:16 PM
I don't agree.
From reading their stuff and from what I know about their tendencies and biases, their methodology will work better on some teams than on others. For example, their work on defense is poor. Their pitching analysis is less sophisticated than their hitting. And they favor high obp teams over equal run producing teams with less obps.
Thus, for example, a team that is excellent defensively will be underrated in their computer model.
True, but that's a limitation of all the data anyone has. There's really no good objective way to measure defense, sadly.

Tragg
02-11-2009, 03:31 PM
True, but that's a limitation of all the data anyone has. There's really no good objective way to measure defense, sadly.
The eye is better than the computer in that regard.
They have other biases too - strike out pitchers, e.g.

Eddo144
02-11-2009, 03:35 PM
The eye is better than the computer in that regard.
They have other biases too - strike out pitchers, e.g.
Most of their other "biases" are based of lots of testing, though. The fact is that strikeout pitchers, on the whole, are more likely to put up similar numbers year-to-year. OBP is weighted more strongly because it, too, is more consistent year-to-year than AVG is. It's not like they just sat down and said, "We like strikeouts, let's use that!"

As for the eye being better than computer, for defense, yes. But are you going to project divisions based purely on defense?

Tragg
02-11-2009, 03:42 PM
Most of their other "biases" are based of lots of testing, though. The fact is that strikeout pitchers, on the whole, are more likely to put up similar numbers year-to-year. OBP is weighted more strongly because it, too, is more consistent year-to-year than AVG is. It's not like they just sat down and said, "We like strikeouts, let's use that!"

As for the eye being better than computer, for defense, yes. But are you going to project divisions based purely on defense?
It should be a factor...they really ignore it, or to the extent they include it, they'd have been more accurate not to include it.
I think their preference of strikeouts is partially related to the inability to judge defense - if you strike them out, D doesn't matter. And so that's sort of a "pure stat" independent of the players behind you.

As for OBP, I'm an obp guy too....but they overrate it. You aren't going to win with 9 Frank Cattalonatos. A single and a walk are not equal - a hit is better than a walk.

AZChiSoxFan
02-11-2009, 04:01 PM
They're also the first ones to tell you that anything can happen in a short series.

The PECOTA projections are only about probability.

The more you flip a coin the closer you should get to 50% heads 50% tails.

That doesn't mean you can't flip 10 heads in a row.

And they obviously know that - because they write about it all the time.

So awesome to have a stack of pet excuses readily available for use.

BP - "the D-backs should only have won 68.254987692154121241454 games this year, instead of the games they actually did win. They played over their heads. They will get it handed to them by the scrubs."

D-backs win series 3 games to 0.

BP - "Anything can happen in a short series. Thus, even though our computer based prediction was wrong, we are still right."

Awesome.

AZChiSoxFan
02-11-2009, 04:02 PM
The deviations abouve as they relate to every team is a much better indicator of their accuracy.

:o::?:

wsgdf
02-11-2009, 04:29 PM
So awesome to have a stack of pet excuses readily available for use.

BP - "the D-backs should only have won 68.254987692154121241454 games this year, instead of the games they actually did win. They played over their heads. They will get it handed to them by the scrubs."

D-backs win series 3 games to 0.

BP - "Anything can happen in a short series. Thus, even though our computer based prediction was wrong, we are still right."

Awesome.

Are those actual quotes?

No. I didn't think so.

Pretty awesome to have a bunch of made up pet quotes to defend your position.

Awesome.

doublem23
02-11-2009, 04:36 PM
Have you ever bothered to check how they've done in other short series? I mean, OK, they were wrong once (OMFG), but the D-Backs/Cubs aren't the only short-series in the history of baseball.

Craig Grebeck
02-11-2009, 05:41 PM
So awesome to have a stack of pet excuses readily available for use.

BP - "the D-backs should only have won 68.254987692154121241454 games this year, instead of the games they actually did win. They played over their heads. They will get it handed to them by the scrubs."

D-backs win series 3 games to 0.

BP - "Anything can happen in a short series. Thus, even though our computer based prediction was wrong, we are still right."

Awesome.
Again, have you ever read BP?

Daver
02-11-2009, 06:03 PM
Again, have you ever read BP?

Yes, I have.

kittle42
02-11-2009, 06:14 PM
Yes, I have.

I read it for the articles! :D::D::D:

AZChiSoxFan
02-11-2009, 06:23 PM
Are those actual quotes?

No. I didn't think so.



Is my point wrong though? No. Did BP state that the D-backs were lucky/overrated/play over their heads (it was in fact something like that, although I don't remember the exact term) and would lose to the scrubs? Yes. Who won the series? The D-backs, easily. Does BP in fact state that anything can happen in a short series? Yes. Does that work out to a convenient excuse whenever a series prediction goes wrong? Yes.

Look, here's the point. Tons of people make preseason predictions. Most of them are off base, including those made by the fine folks at BP. It's just that the fine folks at BP are so arrogant about their predictions and then even when they are wrong, they won't just say that they were wrong. In May of 2005, Steve Phillips was still saying that the Sox were not for real. Well, at least by August he had the guts to say that he was just totally wrong. That's more than we got from the fine folks at BP, even after the Sox clinched.

One more thing, I hate the arrogance and these clowns acting like they invented baseball analysis. At least give Earl Weaver some credit for having the same ideas long before the fine folks at BP put them into print.

AZChiSoxFan
02-11-2009, 06:25 PM
Again, have you ever read BP?

Yes.

AZChiSoxFan
02-11-2009, 06:33 PM
Have you ever bothered to check how they've done in other short series? I mean, OK, they were wrong once (OMFG), but the D-Backs/Cubs aren't the only short-series in the history of baseball.

Wow, they've only been wrong in one series???? That would be most impressive, if it were only true.

I'm tired of the fact that The A's have lost virtually every postseason series they've played in the BB era and having to hear "anything can happen in a short series." No, maybe it's that all of your theories that prove that there's only one way to win, are in fact not all that accurate.

wsgdf
02-11-2009, 06:40 PM
Is my point wrong though?


Of course it is. Otherwise I wouldn't be disagreeing with you.

:dtroll:

kittle42
02-11-2009, 06:44 PM
Wow, they've only been wrong in one series???? That would be most impressive, if it were only true.

I don't know why I'm in such a rage over posting today.

However, I'll continue.

He never said that.

I'm tired of the fact that The A's have lost virtually every postseason series they've played in the BB era and having to hear "anything can happen in a short series." No, maybe it's that all of your theories that prove that there's only one way to win, are in fact not all that accurate.

I don't think BP has ever said there is only one way to win. I think the theory of Beane-backers is that the statistical model he employs is a solid away to build a team generally and lead sto more success on the whole than other teams generally, if fairly strictly adhered to. However, I'd be surprised if the writers didn't also think that the Yankees' buying WS titles for years was a good model for the Yankees.

FedEx227
02-11-2009, 06:54 PM
And what's even worse is that Beane and the As have admitted they change based off where they can get the most value.

Look at the majority of their roster now, it's not the High OBP-Only power guys, for awhile they were trying to get burnt-out high draft picks (Chris Denorfia).

Right now it's kind of odd to figure out the base of their roster but they have guys like Rajai Davis who are mostly speed with very below average OBP. So it's obviously they've switched their ideals quite a lot in the past years. In fact Rajai Davis stole 25 bases in only 196 at-bats. That would've been unheard of from Oakland 5-6 years ago.

It's all about value and finding traits certain terms are undervaluing. So the mere notion that they think there is "only one way to win" is a complete lie that you've made up in your head to try and further your hate for all things Beane and all things stats.

Daver
02-11-2009, 07:00 PM
And what's even worse is that Beane and the As have admitted they change based off where they can get the most value.

Look at the majority of their roster now, it's not the High OBP-Only power guys, for awhile they were trying to get burnt-out high draft picks (Chris Denorfia).

Right now it's kind of odd to figure out the base of their roster but they have guys like Rajai Davis who are mostly speed with very below average OBP. So it's obviously they've switched their ideals quite a lot in the past years. In fact Rajai Davis stole 25 bases in only 196 at-bats. That would've been unheard of from Oakland 5-6 years ago.

It's all about value and finding traits certain terms are undervaluing.

To the A's it's all about what's cheap, it has been for years, from building better teams through chemistry to trying to out think the opposition, as long as payroll stays near the bottom.

Craig Grebeck
02-11-2009, 07:07 PM
Is my point wrong though? No. Did BP state that the D-backs were lucky/overrated/play over their heads (it was in fact something like that, although I don't remember the exact term) and would lose to the scrubs? Yes. Who won the series? The D-backs, easily. Does BP in fact state that anything can happen in a short series? Yes. Does that work out to a convenient excuse whenever a series prediction goes wrong? Yes.

Look, here's the point. Tons of people make preseason predictions. Most of them are off base, including those made by the fine folks at BP. It's just that the fine folks at BP are so arrogant about their predictions and then even when they are wrong, they won't just say that they were wrong. In May of 2005, Steve Phillips was still saying that the Sox were not for real. Well, at least by August he had the guts to say that he was just totally wrong. That's more than we got from the fine folks at BP, even after the Sox clinched.

One more thing, I hate the arrogance and these clowns acting like they invented baseball analysis. At least give Earl Weaver some credit for having the same ideas long before the fine folks at BP put them into print.
You say you've read BP, but then you post things like this.

FedEx227
02-11-2009, 07:08 PM
One more thing, I hate the arrogance and these clowns acting like they invented baseball analysis. At least give Earl Weaver some credit for having the same ideas long before the fine folks at BP put them into print.

They do. ALL THE TIME.

As well as Branch Rickey.

But you read BP, so you would know that.

Craig Grebeck
02-11-2009, 07:11 PM
They do. ALL THE TIME.

As well as Branch Rickey.

But you read BP, so you would know that.
A quick search of BP's article database ("Earl Weaver") yields 140 results for articles.

DrCrawdad
02-13-2009, 12:17 AM
Dave van Dyck (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-13-prospectus-cubs-white-soxfeb13,0,1199465.story) is on top of that BP "prediction" that the Sox will finish in last-place. Wonder if van Dyck noted that BP has been been wrong in their predictions on the Sox in 4 of the last 6 years.

BP has just handed Dave Van Dyck at least 3 months' worth of material for the Cubune. He never let up on covering BP in 2007 when when it out to be accurate. 2008, not so much. - jackbrohamer, 2/10/2009

kittle42
02-13-2009, 12:22 AM
Non-story.

Nellie_Fox
02-13-2009, 01:20 AM
Dave van Dyck (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-13-prospectus-cubs-white-soxfeb13,0,1199465.story) is on top of that BP "prediction" that the Sox will finish in last-place. Wonder if van Dyck noted that BP has been been wrong in their predictions on the Sox in 4 of the last 6 years.This didn't need its own thread with the BP forecast thread still active. Merged.

Craig Grebeck
02-13-2009, 01:21 AM
dave van dyck (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-13-prospectus-cubs-white-soxfeb13,0,1199465.story) is on top of that bp "prediction" that the sox will finish in last-place. Wonder if van dyck noted that bp has been been wrong in their predictions on the sox in 4 of the last 6 years.
p-e-c-o-t-a

n-o-t b-p

MisterB
02-13-2009, 03:21 AM
p-e-c-o-t-a

n-o-t b-p

PECOTA is wholly the intellectual property of BP - it's their "product" - and like any other product, it's quality should reflect on the company that "manufactured" it.

If the Pinto sucks, blame Ford. What's the difference here?

Craig Grebeck
02-13-2009, 09:23 AM
PECOTA is wholly the intellectual property of BP - it's their "product" - and like any other product, it's quality should reflect on the company that "manufactured" it.

If the Pinto sucks, blame Ford. What's the difference here?
Because people act as though BP has an axe to grind with the White Sox, when that's hardly the case. PECOTA is a computer projection system that is more and more accurate year in and year out; yes, they've missed the White Sox projection more often than not, but on a whole it's been a very quality system. They miss on the White Sox because of the style of our pitching. Based on the thousands of hours of research they've put into starting pitching, they've found that pitchers who pitch to contact are far less consistent and reliable than pitchers with high K rates. That's not BP philosophy, that's fact. Yes, Mark Buehrle is a great starting pitcher, but he's been bit in the ass by terrible defense in the past, and I wouldn't rule that out this season.

Tragg
02-13-2009, 09:47 AM
They miss on the White Sox because of the style of our pitching. Based on the thousands of hours of research they've put into starting pitching, they've found that pitchers who pitch to contact are far less consistent and reliable than pitchers with high K rates. .That's inconsistent.
If the "thousands of hours" of research is really accurate, they wouldn't miss on the White Sox so badly. It boils down to defense - because they can't program D into a computer, K rates are a bit more accurate than anything else.

Pecota doesn't have an axe to grind with the Sox, but their writers tendencies and biases are decidedly toward the Beane/Shapiro types and they don't understand Williams. And I will point out here as I did on their site, Williams 7-Shaprio 1.

Craig Grebeck
02-13-2009, 09:50 AM
That's inconsistent.
If the "thousands of hours" of research is really accurate, they wouldn't miss on the White Sox so badly. It boils down to defense - because they can't program D into a computer, K rates are a bit more accurate than anything else.

Pecota doesn't have an axe to grind with the Sox, but their writers tendencies and biases are decidedly toward the Beane/Shapiro types and they don't understand Williams. And I will point out here as I did on their site, Williams 7-Shaprio 1.
How come they are becoming more and more accurate with regards to the rest of the league?

Does PECOTA often underestimate the White Sox? Yes. That does not mean BP has an axe to grind.

And can people please, please stop referring to Beane as some posterchild for BP? He went after high OBP guys in Moneyball because they came cheaply. He then went after defense first players because they were so cheap. The A's don't reflect the BP ideology (and I'm confident that those who believe this don't read it), they reflect their budget restrictions.

OmarLittle
02-13-2009, 10:02 AM
How come they are becoming more and more accurate with regards to the rest of the league?

Does PECOTA often underestimate the White Sox? Yes. That does not mean BP has an axe to grind.

And can people please, please stop referring to Beane as some posterchild for BP? He went after high OBP guys in Moneyball because they came cheaply. He then went after defense first players because they were so cheap. The A's don't reflect the BP ideology (and I'm confident that those who believe this don't read it), they reflect their budget restrictions.

Thank you. This needed to be said.

thedudeabides
02-13-2009, 11:12 AM
Because people act as though BP has an axe to grind with the White Sox, when that's hardly the case. PECOTA is a computer projection system that is more and more accurate year in and year out; yes, they've missed the White Sox projection more often than not, but on a whole it's been a very quality system. They miss on the White Sox because of the style of our pitching. Based on the thousands of hours of research they've put into starting pitching, they've found that pitchers who pitch to contact are far less consistent and reliable than pitchers with high K rates. That's not BP philosophy, that's fact. Yes, Mark Buehrle is a great starting pitcher, but he's been bit in the ass by terrible defense in the past, and I wouldn't rule that out this season.

The White Sox were third in the AL in K's last year.

MisterB
02-13-2009, 12:32 PM
How come they are becoming more and more accurate with regards to the rest of the league?

PECOTA actually had a down year in 2008, it's least accurate yet.

PECOTA average error (in wins):
2003 - 5.91
2004 - 7.71
2005 - 5.14
2006 - 4.94
2007 - 4.31
2008 - 8.50

A quick check of the Chicago teams reflects this: it underestimated the Sox by 12 (or if you don't count game 163, 11) and the Flubs by 6 - average error 9 (or 8.5).

In the end, it's all just so much theoretical onanism with little bearing outside of betting parlors. (and internet message boards :D:)

SoxfaninLA
02-13-2009, 12:39 PM
Because people act as though BP has an axe to grind with the White Sox, when that's hardly the case. PECOTA is a computer projection system that is more and more accurate year in and year out; yes, they've missed the White Sox projection more often than not, but on a whole it's been a very quality system. They miss on the White Sox because of the style of our pitching. Based on the thousands of hours of research they've put into starting pitching, they've found that pitchers who pitch to contact are far less consistent and reliable than pitchers with high K rates. That's not BP philosophy, that's fact. Yes, Mark Buehrle is a great starting pitcher, but he's been bit in the ass by terrible defense in the past, and I wouldn't rule that out this season.

Style of pitching is one thing and I think the other is the health of our players. Guys like MB don't strike a ton of guys out and tend to pitch to contact, but at the end of the day his numbers look pretty good, but he is a special player and not a lot of guys can get away with this style unless you have excellent control.

The health of our players is the other thing that I think tends to throw these projections out of whack. The fact is a lot of our important players are on the wrong side of 30, and players past this age are more prone to injury. Luckily for us, outside of 2007, we have not had a ton of injury issues because we have the best trainer in the game. So while PECOTA projects guys like Thome and Dye to miss 50 games a year, they end up playing 150 and it makes a big difference. I have not read the PECOTA projections in-depth the past several years so the exact numbers are probably off but the general idea is the same.

Craig Grebeck
02-13-2009, 01:31 PM
The White Sox were third in the AL in K's last year.
Replace Javy with _______ for this season. There will be far, far less Ks.

PalehosePlanet
02-13-2009, 01:48 PM
I listened to Nate Silver the other night on XM's Home Plate show.

He basically stated that The Sox, Cleveland, Detroit and Minnesota are basically a toss up for the division title. He stated that KC would definitely finish last. Therefore, I don't know if he's changed his mind since BP's printed version of the standings or what.

He also stated something that boggled my mind. He claims that while KW is not a good winter GM that he's a very good April through October GM. He pointed out that KW would go out and get a player during the season if need be to help put the team in a better position for a pennant run.

Now, I think this was true prior to the '04-'05 offseason but extremely false since. Besides the moves that winter (JD, Iguchi, Hermansen, etc...) KW also picked up Floyd, Danks, Alexei, Quentin, Linebrink, etc.. in the following three offseasons.

And he lives in Chicago, has a "soft spot" for The Sox, but says that!?

Again, blew my mind, and to me he lost a ****load of credibility with that assessment.

areilly
02-13-2009, 02:04 PM
Again, blew my mind, and to me he lost a ****load of credibility with that assessment.

Yeah well, you know, that's just, like, his opinion, man.

ode to veeck
02-13-2009, 02:05 PM
you can't program baseball into a computer, let alone defense or pitching
BP to me is nothing more informative than the latest sox trade a uribe for rowland rumor mill mongering or scrubs news

thedudeabides
02-13-2009, 02:12 PM
Replace Javy with _______ for this season. There will be far, far less Ks.

Right, but my point was that doesn't explain last years prediction. You said the Sox have a tendency to pitch to contact. They were third last year in k's, fifth in 2005, 8th in 2006, and 11th in 2007. Outside of 2007, I don't see them having a tendency to pitch to contact.

wsgdf
02-13-2009, 02:29 PM
Therefore, I don't know if he's changed his mind since BP's printed version of the standings or what.


The PECOTA standings are done on a computer.

Nate Silver is NOT said computer.

PalehosePlanet
02-13-2009, 02:38 PM
The PECOTA standings are done on a computer.

Nate Silver is NOT said computer.

He is not the computer, but he IS the creator of said PECOTA.

sullythered
02-13-2009, 03:02 PM
Yeah well, you know, that's just, like, his opinion, man.
Best. Movie. Ever.:D:

wsgdf
02-13-2009, 03:35 PM
He is not the computer, but he IS the creator of said PECOTA.

Yes but he doesn't fudge the projections to align with his opinion. He just runs them.

He'll often says things like :I think Quentin will beat that projection... it's his injured year in AAA that the system doesn't like.

Actually, just last year in the interviews I remember, Silver thought the Sox would beat their PECOTA projection.

As far as the projected standings themselves go - rosters and starting lineups aren't even complete yet... so of course these are premature.

It's not like BP has a front page article on their website saying HERE THEY ARE THE GREATEST EVER ANNUAL BPRO PROJECTED STANDINGS. They're buried in the Fantasy links.

hawkjt
02-13-2009, 03:56 PM
U. of Chicago guy who has attended a ton of White Sox games.
Clearly, he puts his projections together with empirical evidence only ...just like he favored a certain south side U of Chicago guy in the election but had his projections strictly based on empirical polling.

The guy definitely is objective with his formulas...but he knows that numbers can be wrong when projecting future events.

areilly
02-13-2009, 04:20 PM
The guy definitely is objective with his formulas...but he knows that numbers can be wrong when projecting future events.

No he doesn't! Have you forgotten?!? He incorrectly predicted the 2009 Chicago White Sox wouldn't lead the league in wins, World Series wins, home runs, best pitching ever, grindyness and being totally awesome under the radar grinder grit 2005.

TommyJohn
02-13-2009, 05:08 PM
No he doesn't! Have you forgotten?!? He incorrectly predicted the 2009 Chicago White Sox wouldn't lead the league in wins, World Series wins, home runs, best pitching ever, grindyness and being totally awesome under the radar grinder grit 2005.

I can see what drives Lip and others nuts about stat geeks.

Craig Grebeck
02-13-2009, 05:40 PM
I can see what drives Lip and others nuts about stat geeks.
And I can see why "stat geeks" are often so defensive, when many misrepresent/undermine/don't care to read the pieces they are critiquing.

Lip Man 1
02-13-2009, 05:49 PM
At least in Van Dyke's story he pointed out (unlike last year's one) that the genius' at BP blew it with the Sox in 2005, blew it to the tune of being 18 games wrong in 2006 and blew it to the tune of being 11 games wrong in 2008.

If that's considered a good prediction rate (and apparently the eggheads at BP do) these guys should have been out of business years ago.

Like my friend in the Sox front office said a few days ago they are (direct quote) "idiots.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
02-13-2009, 05:57 PM
At least in Van Dyke's story he pointed out (unlike last year's one) that the genius' at BP blew it with the Sox in 2005, blew it to the tune of being 18 games wrong in 2006 and blew it to the tune of being 11 games wrong in 2008.

If that's considered a good prediction rate (and apparently the eggheads at BP do) these guys should have been out of business years ago.

Like my friend in the Sox front office said a few days ago they are (direct quote) "idiots.

Lip
Did you read anything anyone has posted recently? They've done a good job with other teams around the league. Also, you may have missed this the first 1000 times it was posted, but the opinions of the writers aren't reflected in PECOTA. Do they use it? Yes. Do they swear by it? No -- especially on a team by team basis. It is cited often, but (just as often) the writers will disagree with a team's projection.

As has been stated earlier, PECOTA has some faults, and they'll be the first to admit that (it has a hard time including one of the key members of the organization, Herm). The writers will still make preseason predictions based on their thoughts, opinions, and evaluations.

Lip, since you hate PECOTA, BP, etc. so much, please enlighten me: what is PECOTA exactly (and don't say IT'S A COMPUTER! INTERNETS OR INTERTUBES) and what writers at BP do you have a problem with in particular? What stances do they need to re-evaluate (and don't say COMPUTERS DON'T PLAY BASEBALL OBP = COMPUTER BINARY JARGON)?

DrCrawdad
02-13-2009, 08:00 PM
At least in Van Dyke's story he pointed out (unlike last year's one) that the genius' at BP blew it with the Sox in 2005, blew it to the tune of being 18 games wrong in 2006 and blew it to the tune of being 11 games wrong in 2008.

If that's considered a good prediction rate (and apparently the eggheads at BP do) these guys should have been out of business years ago.

Like my friend in the Sox front office said a few days ago they are (direct quote) "idiots.

Lip

PECOTA has been wrong on the Sox 4 of the last 6 years.

FedEx227
02-13-2009, 08:06 PM
You mean a computer that inputs hundreds of different metrics can't accurately predict one out of 30 MLB team's exact record 6 months in advance.

What the **** can you believe in anymore!?

TommyJohn
02-14-2009, 03:05 PM
PECOTA has been wrong on the Sox 4 of the last 6 years.

BP lost me in 2006, then did forever when some ******* wrote his "Dear Ozzie: Sorry we were right" *******ry back in 2007. They hit the nail on the head once and they become arrogant jagoffs about it. **** them and their computer bull****.

AZChiSoxFan
02-14-2009, 04:08 PM
BP lost me in 2006, then did forever when some ******* wrote his "Dear Ozzie: Sorry we were right" *******ry back in 2007. They hit the nail on the head once and they become arrogant jagoffs about it. **** them and their computer bull****.

Classic. Love it.

to FEDEX and GREBECK, this is exactly what I'm talking about. When BP wrote this crap, it showed what they are really about. They happened to get it right about the Sox ONE time and they gloated to high heaven about it. in 2005, and 2006, and 2008..........it was only the sound of crickets chirping.

BP = complete, utter, total Tools

Craig Grebeck
02-14-2009, 04:37 PM
Classic. Love it.

to FEDEX and GREBECK, this is exactly what I'm talking about. When BP wrote this crap, it showed what they are really about. They happened to get it right about the Sox ONE time and they gloated to high heaven about it. in 2005, and 2006, and 2008..........it was only the sound of crickets chirping.

BP = complete, utter, total Tools
They often go back and examine why and how their projections were off. It's been stated countless times in this thread.

MISoxfan
02-14-2009, 04:50 PM
So what if they examine why they were wrong, that is not the same thing as eating crow. They loudly proclaimed how right they were in 2007 and quietly tried to figure out what caused the flukes in the other seasons.

Eddo144
02-14-2009, 06:21 PM
So what if they examine why they were wrong, that is not the same thing as eating crow. They loudly proclaimed how right they were in 2007 and quietly tried to figure out what caused the flukes in the other seasons.
And just what writers or columnists do go back and eat crow. I know Lip is very fond of Steve Rosenbloom (at least he links to his stuff quite often); have you ever heard him take back any of his snarky comments.

At least when BP makes a prediction, they've put some research and thought into it. When guys like Rosenbloom do it, they're going of gut instinct and loads of bias.

The funny thing is I don't particularly care for BP, except for Silver and Carroll, but the vitriol spewed in their direction makes me defend them.

Craig Grebeck
02-14-2009, 06:26 PM
The funny thing is I don't particularly care for BP, except for Silver and Carroll, but the vitriol spewed in their direction makes me defend them.
Me too. I don't even like Carroll all that much. I only subscribe for Goldstein's stuff -- he does a great job of forecasting prospects and gives great insight.

TDog
02-14-2009, 06:53 PM
Certainly baseball stats can be fun to fool around with. And I enjoyed Earnshaw Cook's classic work Percentage Baseball. But I don't understand the loyalty people have for Baseball Prospectus.

Having read Cook, most times people demand a sacrifice bunt because "that's the way baseball should be played" (you saw it all the time in the game threads last summer, even when the Sox were losing by more than one run), I have documentation in my head to argue why a sacrifice bunt is probably a bad idea. When the Astros used their first out in their last inning of 2005 to move the tying run into scoring position, I was grateful because I knew it was a low-percentage move for the Astros. But Cook was looking at statistics and outcome to show chances for success with baseball strategies.

As much fun as it may be, what Baseball Prospectus does won't even work to come up with correct standings after the fact. You see a difference between actual wins and "expected wins." If you are taking previous statistics to project future wins, the reliability is further skewed and your projections mean nothing. Some statistics are more predictive than others. Cook wrote about the importance of getting on base. But different hitters get on base at different rates for different reasons that may not apply from year to year. Batting averages tend to be more predictive of future success than on-base percentages (and players with both high batting averages and high on-base percentages are much better for your lineup than players with slightly higher on-base percentages and much lower batting averages) -- and since they are only averages, almost always weighted heavier in favor of failure, deceptiveness is built into the both stats. An eighth place hitter in the National League may well have the best on-base percentage on your team. He also may rarely score. Move him to leadoff, and he could become a black hole in your lineup.

A great baseball team is generally more than the sum of its parts. It is quite the human game. At the same time, the game has a geometry from which statistics naturally flow. I understand that. I understand having fun with baseball in the abstract. I just don't understand the loyalty to Baseball Prospectus' projections.

Frater Perdurabo
02-14-2009, 07:33 PM
I wouldn't even mind if at the end of the season the propellerheads were to say:

"We predicted team A to win X games, their stats say they should have won Y, but they won Z. Now, here's why we think they won Z..."

Propellerheads think numbers alone explain everything and don't provide useful QUALITATIVE analysis.

Numbers are a useful tool, but when your only tool is a hammer, suddenly every problem looks like a nail.

MISoxfan
02-14-2009, 07:51 PM
And just what writers or columnists do go back and eat crow. I know Lip is very fond of Steve Rosenbloom (at least he links to his stuff quite often); have you ever heard him take back any of his snarky comments.

At least when BP makes a prediction, they've put some research and thought into it. When guys like Rosenbloom do it, they're going of gut instinct and loads of bias.

The funny thing is I don't particularly care for BP, except for Silver and Carroll, but the vitriol spewed in their direction makes me defend them.

Because when Rosenbloom makes a prediction there aren't thousand of readers believing it to be gospel.

Eddo144
02-14-2009, 08:16 PM
Because when Rosenbloom makes a prediction there aren't thousand of readers believing it to be gospel.
So your bigger problem is with BP's readers then, isn't it?

And you know what? I don't want to hear writers apologize for their predictions. First, who cares? Second, it was a prediction, there's a good chance it will be wrong. Third, it's bad business. Would you expect a law firm to publicly announce cases it lost? Or a doctor to put a sign in front of his practice listing the number of patients he had that have died? Should movie posters give quotes from bad reviews?

Eddo144
02-14-2009, 08:17 PM
I wouldn't even mind if at the end of the season the propellerheads were to say:

"We predicted team A to win X games, their stats say they should have won Y, but they won Z. Now, here's why we think they won Z..."

Propellerheads think numbers alone explain everything and don't provide useful QUALITATIVE analysis.

Numbers are a useful tool, but when your only tool is a hammer, suddenly every problem looks like a nail.
Eh, most sabermetrically inclined people will give qualitative analysis. They'll say something like, "Sure, Team A outperformed its projected and estimated wins. This is likely due to a bullpen that was better than expected in one-run games. Or timely clutch hitting."

MISoxfan
02-14-2009, 10:56 PM
So your bigger problem is with BP's readers then, isn't it?

And you know what? I don't want to hear writers apologize for their predictions. First, who cares? Second, it was a prediction, there's a good chance it will be wrong. Third, it's bad business. Would you expect a law firm to publicly announce cases it lost? Or a doctor to put a sign in front of his practice listing the number of patients he had that have died? Should movie posters give quotes from bad reviews?

I do have a bigger problem with the most readers of baseball prospectus than I do with the writers, and I've never claimed otherwise. This isn't some sort of profound insight brought to light by your clever use of italics. However, the reason the readers treat the PECOTA projections as gospel is that baseball prospectus presents it as such.

I don't expect them to apologize when they are wrong. Those comparisons are not even close. A doctor doesn't rub it in everyones face when he successfully removes a wart either. It is a good sports journalist job to eat crow every once and awhile, especially if he's an ass the one time he nailed it.

Lip Man 1
02-15-2009, 12:28 AM
BP likes to talk about how much thought they put into their projections but when all is said and done they are flat out guesses, nothing more... just jazzed up with some gobbledigook voodoo.

And with their rate of success they'd have a better chance to be right if they attached numbers on a dart board, called out a team name and threw a dart, then assigned the "projected win total" to said name.

Anyone who puts any stock in these egomaniacs may be more foolish then BP in trying to sell snake oil in the first place. And people are actually PAYING for this stupid gibberish??? WOW!

Lip

Craig Grebeck
02-15-2009, 03:02 AM
bp likes to talk about how much thought they put into their projections but when all is said and done they are flat out guesses, nothing more... Just jazzed up with some gobbledigook voodoo.

And with their rate of success they'd have a better chance to be right if they attached numbers on a dart board, called out a team name and threw a dart, then assigned the "projected win total" to said name.

Anyone who puts any stock in these egomaniacs may be more foolish then bp in trying to sell snake oil in the first place. And people are actually paying for this stupid gibberish??? Wow!

Lip
lip, since you hate pecota, bp, etc. So much, please enlighten me: What is pecota exactly (and don't say it's a computer! Internets or intertubes) and what writers at bp do you have a problem with in particular? What stances do they need to re-evaluate (and don't say computers don't play baseball obp = computer binary jargon)?


gobbledigook voodooooo

Frater Perdurabo
02-15-2009, 07:56 AM
gobbledigook voodoo.

gobbledigook voodooooo

I sure hope you two aren't trolling for a fight with a particular admin. :tongue:

Eddo144
02-15-2009, 08:19 AM
However, the reason the readers treat the PECOTA projections as gospel is that baseball prospectus presents it as such.
What writer doesn't? When Jon Heymen or Jayson Stark or Steve Rosenbloom predicts how a team will do, do they not say "So-and-so will finish in third place"?

If anything, BP treats their projections less like gospel; every year, the writers include a Who Will Outperform/Underperform Their Projections section. If the writers themselves are acknowledging PECOTA could be wrong before the season even starts, how are they presenting it as gospel?

Eddo144
02-15-2009, 08:22 AM
BP likes to talk about how much thought they put into their projections but when all is said and done they are flat out guesses, nothing more... just jazzed up with some gobbledigook voodoo.

And with their rate of success they'd have a better chance to be right if they attached numbers on a dart board, called out a team name and threw a dart, then assigned the "projected win total" to said name.

Anyone who puts any stock in these egomaniacs may be more foolish then BP in trying to sell snake oil in the first place. And people are actually PAYING for this stupid gibberish??? WOW!

Lip
Do you really believe that's true? Maybe for the White Sox, but for the other 29 teams? Again, I'm no fan of BP, but overall, PECOTA is right more often than it's wrong.

Lip, it sounds like your problem is with any preseason predictions, no? What makes any columnist better than BP? Please actually give me examples of other columnists not being "egomaniacs", don't just strike back at BP.

wsgdf
02-15-2009, 09:36 AM
I wouldn't even mind if at the end of the season the propellerheads were to say:

"We predicted team A to win X games, their stats say they should have won Y, but they won Z. Now, here's why we think they won Z..."


Baseball Prospectus does that every year for every team.

Lip Man 1
02-15-2009, 11:32 AM
Eddo:

Phil Arvia of the Southtown is not an egomanic and neither is Barry Rozner.

There's two examples for you, guys who don't write a column afterwards when they are "right" on something and basically say "told you so White Sox" a la the doofuses at Baseball Prospectus.

Those clowns need to get away from their slide rules and actually do something different....like maybe actually WATCH a game.

Lip

FedEx227
02-15-2009, 11:34 AM
Why are you nitpicking the one time they said "We were right" then negating the other columns they right explaining how the PECOTA predictions were wrong?

areilly
02-15-2009, 12:16 PM
BP likes to talk about how much thought they put into their projections but when all is said and done they are flat out guesses, nothing more... just jazzed up with some gobbledigook voodoo.

:?:

Sounds like someone's all hopped up on goofballs.

CWsox45
02-15-2009, 01:37 PM
After reading way too many blogs, message boards, and websites about the proclaimed “geniuses” at Baseball Prospectus. I decided to go back and do some research in the BP archives. What I found was somewhat interesting regarding BP’s PETCOTA forecast.

I took a look at the projected records for all 30 teams, dating back to 2005. Below I have posted how many games off BP was on their projected win total. Basically if BP underestimated the win total, the number will be positive. (Ex. 2005 White Sox: BP projected the Sox to have 80 wins, they won 99. So the number would be 19 indicating they vastly underestimated the Sox win total, and were off by 19 wins.)

If BP overestimated the win total of a specific team, the number will be negative. (Ex. 2005 Cubs: BP Projected the Cubs to finish with a 89-73 record. At the end of the 2005 season the Cubs finished with a 69-93 record. Meaning their number would be -19, indicating they lost 19 more than BP indicated)

(Hope that makes sense.)

Below are the projected BP standings from 2005-2008. The teams are listed by PETCOTA’s prediction as to where they would finish in their division at the conclusion of the regular season. I have bolded the 8 play-off teams from each season.

Here are the last 4 seasons, from 2005-2008:


2005:

AL NL
Red Sox: -4(WC) Phillies: -2
Yankees: 0 Braves: 8
Orioles: -4 Marlins: 2
Blue Jays: 7 Mets: 2
Rays: -1 Nationals: 7

Twins: -3 Cardinals: 8
Indians: 8 Cubs: -20
White Sox: 19 Astros: 9
Tigers: -5 Reds: -3
Royals: -13 Brewers: 8
Pirates: -5

A’s: 0 Giants: -10
Angels: 12 Padres: -2
Rangers: 0 Dodgers: -12
Mariners: -8 D’Backs: -2
Rockies: -6

2006:

AL NL
Yankees: 3 Mets: 9
Red Sox: -7 Phillies: -1
Blue Jays 8 Braves: -6
Orioles: -7 Marlins: 7
Rays: -8 Nationals: 1

Indians: -10 Cardinals: 3
Twins: 12 Cubs: -19
Tigers: 12 Brewers: -9
White Sox: 8 Astros: 1
Royals: 1 Pirates: -12
Reds: 2

A’s: 0 Dodgers: 1 (WC)
Angels: 8 Giants: -4
Rangers: 0 Padres: 10
Mariners: -1 D’Backs: -1
Rockies: 2

2007

AL NL
Yankees: 1 (WC) Phillies: 2
Red Sox: 4 Mets: 2
Blue Jays 3 Braves: 2
Rays: -9 Marlins: -8
Orioles: -6 Nationals: 7

Twins: -12 Cubs: 0
Indians: 6 Brewers: -2
Tigers: 3 Cardinals: -3
White Sox: -1 Astros: -7
Royals: 3 Pirates: -8
Reds: 0

Angels: 8 D’Backs: 2
A’s:4 Padres: 3
Rangers: -5 Dodgers: 2
Mariners: 15 Rockies: 14 (WC)
Giants: -8

2008

AL NL
Yankees: -8 Mets: -4
Red Sox: 4 (WC) Braves: -14
Rays: 9 Phillies: 6
Blue Jays: 8 Nationals: -14
Orioles: 2 Marlins: 13

Indians: -10 Cubs: 6
Tigers: -17 Brewers: 2 (WC)
White Sox: 12 Reds: -6
Twins: 14 Cards: 9
Royals: 2 Astros: 14
Pirates: -5

Angels: 15 D’Backs: -5
A’s:-5 Dodgers: -3
Mariners: -14 Rockies: -8
Rangers: 6 Padres: -15
Giants: 4


So there you have it. To give them the benefit of the doubt, personally in my opinion if BP was within +/- 5 games I consider it a fairly accurate projection. With that in mind, here is how the numbers broke down from 2005-2008:

2005: 16/30=53.3%
2006: 13/30=43.3%
2007: 17/30=56.7%
2008: 10/30=30%

4 Year Total: 56/120=46.7% Accurate. (Teams W/L +/- 5)

Next let’s take a look at how accurate BP has been at predicting the division winners in the last four seasons:

AL East: 25%
AL Central: 0%
AL West: 75%

NL East: 50%
NL Central: 100%
NL West: 25%

In total, over the past four seasons BP has predicted the correct division winner 45.8% of the time, but has yet to predict the AL Central winner correctly from 2005-2009.

(sorry about the spacing of the standings. I couldn't get it work properly.)

Eddo144
02-15-2009, 01:44 PM
Eddo:

Phil Arvia of the Southtown is not an egomanic and neither is Barry Rozner.

There's two examples for you, guys who don't write a column afterwards when they are "right" on something and basically say "told you so White Sox" a la the doofuses at Baseball Prospectus.

Those clowns need to get away from their slide rules and actually do something different....like maybe actually WATCH a game.

Lip
So it does come down to your dislike of nerds, then? Seriously, there are more lucrative fields for statisticians to go into, they went into baseball because - gasp! - they enjoyed watching the games.

Get off your high horse, Lip. If you hate them so much, just ignore them. Imagine if I started a thread every time Rosenbloom or Mariotti made a stupid prediction - it would be ridiculous.

Eddo144
02-15-2009, 01:56 PM
Eddo:

Phil Arvia of the Southtown is not an egomanic and neither is Barry Rozner.

There's two examples for you, guys who don't write a column afterwards when they are "right" on something and basically say "told you so White Sox" a la the doofuses at Baseball Prospectus.
And Lip, you would be more credible if you actually named some writers at BP who have acted like "doofuses". The articles have by-lines, and BP isn't some hive mind. Rather, they do have dissenting opinions from one another.

My guess is you've seen one thing that one or two writers wrote that sounded arrogant, and attributed it to the whole organization. You wouldn't want someone to judge WSI by the ridiculous ramblings of a few posters, would you?

MISoxfan
02-15-2009, 01:59 PM
Most of the people who don't like baseball prospectus also don't care for the writers you keep bringing up for comparisons.

Eddo144
02-15-2009, 02:07 PM
Most of the people who don't like baseball prospectus also don't care for the writers you keep bringing up for comparisons.
Well, I figured that. Very few people like Rosenbloom. I was directing it more at Lip, who I have seen link to Rosenbloom, in a positive way, in the past.

jabrch
02-15-2009, 02:38 PM
And Lip, you would be more credible if you actually named some writers at BP who have acted like "doofuses". The articles have by-lines, and BP isn't some hive mind. Rather, they do have dissenting opinions from one another.

My guess is you've seen one thing that one or two writers wrote that sounded arrogant, and attributed it to the whole organization. You wouldn't want someone to judge WSI by the ridiculous ramblings of a few posters, would you?

I judge a club by its membership.

Craig Grebeck
02-15-2009, 03:56 PM
Eddo:

Phil Arvia of the Southtown is not an egomanic and neither is Barry Rozner.

There's two examples for you, guys who don't write a column afterwards when they are "right" on something and basically say "told you so White Sox" a la the doofuses at Baseball Prospectus.

Those clowns need to get away from their slide rules and actually do something different....like maybe actually WATCH a game.

Lip
Lip, since you hate PECOTA, BP, etc. so much, please enlighten me: what is PECOTA exactly (and don't say IT'S A COMPUTER! INTERNETS OR INTERTUBES) and what writers at BP do you have a problem with in particular? What stances do they need to re-evaluate (and don't say COMPUTERS DON'T PLAY BASEBALL OBP = COMPUTER BINARY JARGON)?

la de da la de da

Tragg
02-15-2009, 03:59 PM
The articles have by-lines, and BP isn't some hive mind. Rather, they do have dissenting opinions from one another.


Anyone say that PECOTA is flawed? Ever?
Anyone say that Phythagorean wins are a lazy measure of team strength? (which they are - calling that a statistical tool is ridiculous).

So, while they disagree in the margins, they all share the same guiding philosophy and reverence to their institutions. Too inflexible and too much group think. And they are biased to the progeny of Beane. Daniels, Theo, DePodesta, Shapiro, Toronto guy - they love all of them.

I subscribe to BP because they like baseball (and it shows) and have interesting articles and I like reading statistical analysis. It's a good sign. But it has its limits.

Craig Grebeck
02-15-2009, 04:02 PM
Anyone say that PECOTA is flawed? Ever?
Anyone say that Phythagorean wins are a lazy measure of team strength? (which they are - calling that a statistical tool is ridiculous).

So, while they disagree in the margins, they all share the same guiding philosophy and reverence to their institutions. Too inflexible and too much group think. And they are biased to the progeny of Beane. Daniels, Theo, DePodesta, Shapiro, Toronto guy - they love all of them.

I subscribe to BP because they like baseball (and it shows) and have interesting articles and I like reading statistical analysis. It's a good sign. But it has its limits.
That isn't true! I can throw **** against the wall and see what sticks too Tragg. Many of the writers praise KW very, very often. They know PECOTA has flaws, that goes without saying. They know it isn't perfect, and they will often note the program's inherent biases and shortcomings. I'm convinced you do not ever read anything on there.

Eddo144
02-15-2009, 04:37 PM
Anyone say that PECOTA is flawed? Ever?
Anyone say that Phythagorean wins are a lazy measure of team strength? (which they are - calling that a statistical tool is ridiculous).
Well, they've released at least two more versions of pythagorean wins, so I'd say they understand that using it is flawed.

And for the most part, using pythagorean wins is pretty accurate. It's more accurate than using last year's wins, for example. Sure, there are writers outside of BP who make better predictions, but those are mostly subjective and don't really have a method.

So, while they disagree in the margins, they all share the same guiding philosophy and reverence to their institutions. Too inflexible and too much group think. And they are biased to the progeny of Beane. Daniels, Theo, DePodesta, Shapiro, Toronto guy - they love all of them.

I subscribe to BP because they like baseball (and it shows) and have interesting articles and I like reading statistical analysis. It's a good sign. But it has its limits.
I agree, it has its limits. The problem is that most of its official stats are proprietary, which makes them hard to criticize. When I'm looking for advanced statistics, I like www.fangraphs.com and www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php (particularly the latter), which are more open to suggestion. Come to think of it, those are free sites, so Lip can't criticize them based on trying to sell their product.

CWsox45
02-15-2009, 04:47 PM
That isn't true! I can throw **** against the wall and see what sticks too Tragg. Many of the writers praise KW very, very often. They know PECOTA has flaws, that goes without saying. They know it isn't perfect, and they will often note the program's inherent biases and shortcomings. I'm convinced you do not ever read anything on there.

Refer to my post to see some of those flaws. However they are accurate at times, just under 50%.

The point of my post was I just want people to realize that these forecast models are not perfect. Some people read this and firmly believe that their teams chances for a great season are severely crippled because a computer forecast model said so.

I often read BP for their reports on prospects, some of the reports by Goldstein are fairly accurate, however when it comes to their large assortment of statistics, I pick and choose which ones are actually legitimate in evaluating players at the Major League level.

Eddo144
02-15-2009, 04:52 PM
Refer to my post to see some of those flaws. However they are accurate at times, just under 50%.

The point of my post was I just want people to realize that these forecast models are not perfect. Some people read this and firmly believe that their teams chances for a great season are severely crippled because a computer forecast model said so.

I often read BP for their reports on prospects, some of the reports by Goldstein are fairly accurate, however when it comes to their large assortment of statistics, I pick and choose which ones are actually legitimate in evaluating players at the Major League level.
This is the appropriate attitude. Of course they won't be accurate 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean they don't have things that are worth reading. No vitriol, no insults, just honest criticism. Nice work, CWsox45.

Lip Man 1
02-16-2009, 12:42 PM
Eddo:

I don't waste my time reading what someone who probably never played the game is trying to "sell" me (both literally and figuratively) however it was well posted here in a thread, BP's response to Ozzie. Use the search feature and find that thread yourself.

That's all I needed to read.

If that's not arrogance then I don't know what you consider it to be.

You or anyone else who feels baseball has to be turned into advanced mathematics has the right to do so. I also have the right to talk about how goofy that makes those who think they can "predict" ANYTHING about a human game from a series of made up mathematical formula.

When it becomes relevant what Paul Konerko did against left handed pitchers, in the 8th inning or later, with a last name having seven letters or less, every other Tuesday, at home, at night, with a half-moon out, then I'll change my attitude.

Till then, the joke's on the "fans" who actually spend real actually money reading the crap they put out.

At least Rosenbloom or any other writer who makes a prediction doesn't charge you for it and they actually WATCH the team.

BP is selling you a goofy bill of goods Eddo and you are falling completely for it.

Why don't you try astrology instead?

:D:

Lip

Lip Man 1
02-16-2009, 12:51 PM
Eddo:

And in another post you seem to imply that because BP has a method, that makes them "better" then someone who actually watches the team, looks at the trades and free agent signings and then makes a prediction.

I don't know what to say to that attitude honestly. It sounds like someone who puts more faith in numbers then in what their senses tell them.

I guess it doesn't matter that the "method" is subject to interpretation (unlike real mathematical formula proved over time and subjected to rigorous examination by scientific methods...) and relevance.

But so be it.

Lip

Eddo144
02-16-2009, 12:58 PM
Eddo:

I don't waste my time reading what someone who probably never played the game is trying to "sell" me (both literally and figuratively) however it was well posted here in a thread, BP's response to Ozzie. Use the search feature and find that thread yourself.

That's all I needed to read.

If that's not arrogance then I don't know what you consider it to be.

You or anyone else who feels baseball has to be turned into advanced mathematics has the right to do so. I also have the right to talk about how goofy that makes those who think they can "predict" ANYTHING about a human game from a series of made up mathematical formula.

When it becomes relevant what Paul Konerko did against left handed pitchers, in the 8th inning or later, with a last name having seven letters or less, every other Tuesday, at home, at night, with a half-moon out, then I'll change my attitude.

Till then, the joke's on the "fans" who actually spend real actually money reading the crap they put out.

At least Rosenbloom or any other writer who makes a prediction doesn't charge you for it and they actually WATCH the team.

BP is selling you a goofy bill of goods Eddo and you are falling completely for it.

Why don't you try astrology instead?

:D:

Lip
Lip, do you actually bother reading what I've said. I don't read BP. I've never given BP a dime. However, I take great offense to your irrational hatred of them.

I'm done with this now.

spiffie
02-16-2009, 12:58 PM
Eddo:

I don't waste my time reading what someone who probably never played the game is trying to "sell" me (both literally and figuratively) however it was well posted here in a thread, BP's response to Ozzie. Use the search feature and find that thread yourself.

That's all I needed to read.

If that's not arrogance then I don't know what you consider it to be.

You or anyone else who feels baseball has to be turned into advanced mathematics has the right to do so. I also have the right to talk about how goofy that makes those who think they can "predict" ANYTHING about a human game from a series of made up mathematical formula.

When it becomes relevant what Paul Konerko did against left handed pitchers, in the 8th inning or later, with a last name having seven letters or less, every other Tuesday, at home, at night, with a half-moon out, then I'll change my attitude.

Till then, the joke's on the "fans" who actually spend real actually money reading the crap they put out.

At least Rosenbloom or any other writer who makes a prediction doesn't charge you for it and they actually WATCH the team.

I suppose as long as you don't buy a printed version of the newspaper with the prediction in it. Otherwise they get kind of mad when you take the paper without paying for it.

FedEx227
02-16-2009, 01:13 PM
Eddo:

I don't waste my time reading what someone who probably never played the game is trying to "sell" me (both literally and figuratively) however it was well posted here in a thread, BP's response to Ozzie. Use the search feature and find that thread yourself.

That's all I needed to read.

If that's not arrogance then I don't know what you consider it to be.

You or anyone else who feels baseball has to be turned into advanced mathematics has the right to do so. I also have the right to talk about how goofy that makes those who think they can "predict" ANYTHING about a human game from a series of made up mathematical formula.

When it becomes relevant what Paul Konerko did against left handed pitchers, in the 8th inning or later, with a last name having seven letters or less, every other Tuesday, at home, at night, with a half-moon out, then I'll change my attitude.

Till then, the joke's on the "fans" who actually spend real actually money reading the crap they put out.

At least Rosenbloom or any other writer who makes a prediction doesn't charge you for it and they actually WATCH the team.

BP is selling you a goofy bill of goods Eddo and you are falling completely for it.

Why don't you try astrology instead?

:D:

Lip

Yeah, I bet this guy: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050909/images/curr_rosenbloom.jpg was a hell of a player in his day.

Craig Grebeck
02-16-2009, 03:45 PM
Eddo:

I don't waste my time reading what someone who probably never played the game is trying to "sell" me (both literally and figuratively) however it was well posted here in a thread, BP's response to Ozzie. Use the search feature and find that thread yourself.

That's all I needed to read.

If that's not arrogance then I don't know what you consider it to be.

You or anyone else who feels baseball has to be turned into advanced mathematics has the right to do so. I also have the right to talk about how goofy that makes those who think they can "predict" ANYTHING about a human game from a series of made up mathematical formula.

When it becomes relevant what Paul Konerko did against left handed pitchers, in the 8th inning or later, with a last name having seven letters or less, every other Tuesday, at home, at night, with a half-moon out, then I'll change my attitude.

Till then, the joke's on the "fans" who actually spend real actually money reading the crap they put out.

At least Rosenbloom or any other writer who makes a prediction doesn't charge you for it and they actually WATCH the team.

BP is selling you a goofy bill of goods Eddo and you are falling completely for it.

Why don't you try astrology instead?

:D:

Lip
I just adore this line of thinking. I don't understand what gives you the idea that they don't watch the games.

NERDS!

areilly
02-16-2009, 04:01 PM
I don't waste my time reading what someone who probably never played the game is trying to "sell" me (both literally and figuratively) however it was well posted here in a thread, BP's response to Ozzie.

I had wondered what ever became of LSJ1993 (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2047846#post2047846).

doublem23
02-16-2009, 04:08 PM
This thread is ridiculous.

I just don't understand why people who hate baseball stats get so worked up over them. Why can't you just ignore them?

Nellie_Fox
02-16-2009, 04:09 PM
This thread is ridiculous.And becoming Roadhouse-worthy.

FedEx227
02-16-2009, 04:34 PM
This thread is ridiculous.

I just don't understand why people who hate baseball stats get so worked up over them. Why can't you just ignore them?

Thank you.

I hate soccer, when I see a Barclay's Premiere League thread, I'm not very inclined to click on it.

When you see "BP" "stat" "numbers" or anything of the such in the thread title, just stop clicking it.

If you can't bring any relevant discussion to statistics and only drive the argument in a completely different direction to the point where instead of us discussing statistics we're defending them, then just ignore it and move on.

Lip Man 1
02-16-2009, 05:54 PM
Fed Ex:

You don't have to have played in the pro's to be able to judge a team.

I've never played women's basketball yet I still know as much about the Idaho State team from doing their broadcasts as anyone who does or ever did including the coaches.

Poor example you have given, me thinks.

Lip

nodiggity59
02-16-2009, 05:55 PM
Predicting baseball records February is like predicting the weather 7 months in advance, or the stock market.

It's pretty much a waste of time.

As a GM, coach, or player you just do the best you can every day and let the chips fall. As a fan, you just enjoy the game.

I feel sorry for folks who aren't content just watching the games and actually think they can predict for ****, and then waste time fighting about it.

Everything will be clear in 7 months...

FedEx227
02-16-2009, 06:01 PM
Fed Ex:

You don't have to have played in the pro's to be able to judge a team.

I've never played women's basketball yet I still know as much about the Idaho State team from doing their broadcasts as anyone who does or ever did including the coaches.

Poor example you have given, me thinks.

Lip

Poor example to back up an equally asinine claim that none of these guys ever played the game of baseball or even watch the games.

And wait... aren't you the same person who said:

Eddo:

I don't waste my time reading what someone who probably never played the game is trying to "sell" me (both literally and figuratively)

So what the hell is your point then?

Lip Man 1
02-16-2009, 06:13 PM
My point is that no I don't read BP but know enough about what they do and the way they do it from reading other sites and comments to have formed an opinion. An opinion that was solidified by their end of season reply to Ozzie.

Totally arrogant, totally unprofessional.

And frankly because they don't appear to me to actually watch baseball their opinion means less to me than a member of the media who has to do it for a living even if I disagree totally with what they say. They still have to actually go to a game to form said opinion or write a story or do an interview.

Every thing BP pontificates can be done without ever watching a game...literally. You just wait for the numbers to come in, rearrange them to fit their statistical analysis and presto "prediction."

Hell that can be done in your mother's basement can't it?

Lip

Craig Grebeck
02-16-2009, 06:17 PM
My point is that no I don't read BP but know enough about what they do and the way they do it from reading other sites and comments to have formed an opinion. An opinion that was solidified by their end of season reply to Ozzie.

Totally arrogant, totally unprofessional.

And frankly because they don't appear to me to actually watch baseball their opinion means less to me than a member of the media who has to do it for a living even if I disagree totally with what they say. They still have to actually go to a game to form said opinion or write a story or do an interview.

Every thing BP pontificates can be done without ever watching a game...literally. You just wait for the numbers to come in, rearrange them to fit their statistical analysis and presto "prediction."

Hell that can be done in your mother's basement can't it?

Lip
See, when you admit you don't read BP or never have and then make blanket statements like the bolded section, your opinion looks misguided at best.

"I've never read Native Son, but from what I've read on certain biased websites I believe it to be poor in terms of character development."

TDog
02-16-2009, 06:45 PM
See, when you admit you don't read BP or never have and then make blanket statements like the bolded section, your opinion looks misguided at best.

"I've never read Native Son, but from what I've read on certain biased websites I believe it to be poor in terms of character development."

Rhetorically, you make a good argument, but the analogy is faulty.

Lip wrote that because BP's predictions are based solely on numbers, they can be made without watching the game, which make them meaningless and reason not to read BP. BP defenders concede this point, saying the predictions reflect no bias because they are based solely on numbers. It sounds like the two of your are in agreement except on the fundamental issue of the importance of those numbers that BP uses.

I side with Lip on this matter.

Can BP come up with a mathematical formula after the season is done that plugs in every team's statistics and comes up with accurate win-loss records for Major League Baseball? No such formula exists. If you get it to work with one team, it won't work with the next. But if you take such a formula that failed to give you correct win-loss totals for the recent season and make a few guesses as to what people will do in the upcoming season, why do people care what the formula predicts?

Expected wins is not a statistic.

spiffie
02-16-2009, 06:50 PM
How many days until Opening Day?

Daver
02-16-2009, 06:51 PM
How many days until Opening Day?

Too many to spare us more of this thread.

FedEx227
02-16-2009, 06:52 PM
How many days until Opening Day?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I love spiffle.

chaerulez
02-16-2009, 09:07 PM
Why do people care about before season projections or predictions?

Frater Perdurabo
02-16-2009, 09:15 PM
Why do people care about before season projections or predictions?

It's something to argue about. :tongue:

DSpivack
02-16-2009, 09:22 PM
Too many to spare us more of this thread.

How many days until Opening Day?

49? By my count, anyway.

CWsox45
02-17-2009, 01:51 AM
This is the appropriate attitude. Of course they won't be accurate 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean they don't have things that are worth reading. No vitriol, no insults, just honest criticism. Nice work, CWsox45.

Thank you Eddo.

The best news out of all of these predictions is that they have yet to correctly predict the AL Central division winner in the last four years. Looks like Cleveland might be in trouble! :bandance: