PDA

View Full Version : Bill James Projections of our Pitching Staff for 2010


Thatguyoverthere
01-06-2010, 07:05 PM
I was lounging around some baseball sites yesterday and I noticed a link to Bill James' projections of our pitching staff for next season. Curious, I checked it out and couldn't believe how pessimistic some of his predictions were. Now granted, I know he made these projections in October 2009 so it doesn't reflect the loss of Dotel or addition of Putz, and you don't have to remind me that these predictions likely mean nothing, but that doesn't stop me wondering how he came up with them.

http://www.southsidesox.com/2009/10/30/1103413/2010-bill-james-projections-white

Check out some of those numbers, what reasons does he have for Danks (4.33 ERA) and Floyd (4.59 ERA) to regress so much? Yes, their 2008s were better, but I saw a Floyd and Danks who started off poorly and only got stronger as the season progressed. Why would they suddenly fall off? I know he's a stats guy and is pretty respected in some baseball communities, so I'm just wondering what stats upon which he's basing these predictions? On the other hand, he's pretty optimistic about Garcia, and I'd be happy if Peavy produced at that level.

Daver
01-06-2010, 07:19 PM
This knowledge gains you nothing, this knowledge and a dollar and a half can get you a cup of coffee at the gas station.

ode to veeck
01-06-2010, 08:21 PM
This knowledge gains you nothing, this knowledge and a dollar and a half can get you a cup of coffee at the gas station.

LMAO and you could have gone to Starbucks and paid 4 bucks too.

Lip Man 1
01-06-2010, 08:26 PM
James works for the Red Sox...sounds like a conflict of interest to me in the first place for him to be publishing ANY books on baseball while he is in the employ of a particular team. Consciously or unconsciously the numbers could be skewed.

Lip

everafan
01-06-2010, 08:47 PM
Well those are Cy Young numbers for Peavy.

JNS
01-06-2010, 09:53 PM
Although I think Mark will do better than the projections show I can see him going .500 but I don't understand his pessimistic projections for Danks and Floyd.

central44
01-07-2010, 12:22 AM
Meh, i'm not really surprised. Seems like only Sox fans realize how good Danks and Floyd are, which is why the "best rotation in baseball" argument centers around Boston, NYY and the Phillies from a national perspective, with the Giants and Cardinals also getting some attention.

But really...Sox fans know what we have in Danks and Floyd. This team usually does better without high expectations anyway.

Ranger
01-07-2010, 12:35 AM
LMAO and you could have gone to Starbucks and paid 4 bucks too.

Only if you ordered a cappuccino.

Nellie_Fox
01-07-2010, 12:58 AM
Only if you ordered a cappuccino.What about a mocha latté?

cws05champ
01-07-2010, 09:38 AM
What about a mocha latté?

Bill James didn't have a projection for the Mocha Latte...

Dibbs
01-07-2010, 09:45 AM
Ah yes, more predictions. These guys are glorified fortune tellers.

russ99
01-07-2010, 09:49 AM
Last year the James publications staff (not actually Bill James himself) projected the Sox starters on the low side as well.

I think they overvalue the Cell's park effects on pitching numbers.

They even admit in their books that pitching numbers are the hardest to project... Take it with a grain of salt.

sullythered
01-07-2010, 09:57 AM
This means less than nothing.

And unless something happened that I missed, DJ Carrasco and Octavio Dotel aren't on the White Sox.

kittle42
01-07-2010, 10:01 AM
Shocker - people complaining about projections that don't have the Sox staff 1-5 in Cy Young voting at the end of the season!

pythons007
01-07-2010, 10:08 AM
Shocker - people complaining about projections that don't have the Sox staff 1-5 in Cy Young voting at the end of the season!


LOL Its always nice to dream isn't it!

Tragg
01-07-2010, 10:14 AM
This is nonsense.
I'll wait for the PECOTA cards, thank you.

sullythered
01-07-2010, 10:33 AM
Shocker - people complaining about projections that don't have the Sox staff 1-5 in Cy Young voting at the end of the season!
No. If they had the Sox whole staff pitching awesome, specific "projections" would be just as stupid. I'm a guy who somewhat believes in VORP and the like, but to project out actual statistics is arbitrary and absurd.

kittle42
01-07-2010, 12:48 PM
No. If they had the Sox whole staff pitching awesome, specific "projections" would be just as stupid. I'm a guy who somewhat believes in VORP and the like, but to project out actual statistics is arbitrary and absurd.

I agree and don't care much about it, but I'd bet you if all five starting pitchers were projected below 4.00 ERA, some here would be heralding the great statistical analysis of Bill James.

asindc
01-07-2010, 12:59 PM
I agree and don't care much about it, but I'd bet you if all five starting pitchers were projected below 4.00 ERA, some here would be heralding the great statistical analysis of Bill James.

For the record, I would not be among them.

JC456
01-07-2010, 01:35 PM
Ahh, Thank you magic 8 Ball..

SI1020
01-07-2010, 03:16 PM
For the record, I would not be among them. Me either.

EndemicSox
01-07-2010, 05:41 PM
Floyd and Danks can go either direction at this point in time, this year is pretty much the one that will show us all what to expect for the next five or so, imo...

I hope both do well, but if one happens to flop, I believe it will be Gavin. I think MB's projections are pretty close to what he will give a team, more often than not. Peavy is the stud, no doubt...

Then again, these are just fun to talk about, but a guess is a guess...

Oblong
01-07-2010, 05:50 PM
Ah yes, more predictions. These guys are glorified fortune tellers.

These are projections, not predictions. There is a difference.

A projection is based on some sort of empirical data and should be objective. A prediction can include a gut feeling or other things like injuries, playing time, etc.

The point is that this isn't James saying what he thinks will happen. He'd probably be the first one to admit that they'll likely be wrong.

Zisk77
01-07-2010, 05:53 PM
Me either.

Me either, baseball is NOT a mathematical equation.

slavko
01-07-2010, 06:19 PM
USA Today likes us.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/whitesox/2010-01-07-white-organizational-reportsox-_N.htm?csp=25&RM_Exclude=Juno

Pablo_Honey
01-07-2010, 06:21 PM
I'm a bit confused why Gavin's projected to be that bad considering he lowered his walks and homeruns-against while upping his K's. (Maybe James heard he was getting married and thought he would have an off-year a la 2003 Paulie) If anything, I had a feeling Danks was gonna get a negative projection but definitely not Gavin. Oh well, projections are projections, nothing to get all upset about.

sullythered
01-07-2010, 10:58 PM
I agree and don't care much about it, but I'd bet you if all five starting pitchers were projected below 4.00 ERA, some here would be heralding the great statistical analysis of Bill James.

You're probably right about that. It just drives me crazy when they use a tool that specifically records output, and try to replicate it accurately for the future. Go ahead and say, based on past performance, guy A is likely worth more than guy B. That's cool. Just don't make it as specific as make believe future "statistics."

It is as clear an example of "that's why they play the game" as there is.