PDA

View Full Version : Baseball Prospectus pick Sox 2nd!!!


Bump34
01-28-2010, 03:56 PM
BP has the Twins winning 82 games to win AL Central... the White Sox are 2nd with 79...

Nellie_Fox
01-28-2010, 03:58 PM
Okay, fasten your seatbelts, here we go!

DirtySox
01-28-2010, 03:58 PM
Not that far-fetched.

I think either team could win the division, but I'm leaning Twins as well at this point in time.

munchman33
01-28-2010, 03:58 PM
Well, I don't necessarily disagree with the order. I think if everything goes right for us, we're an 88-90 win team, so 79 is probably close to what we should be (perhaps a little low).

Now, that's a lot lower a total than most experts predict for the Twins. Most people are picking them to win the division with 86-90 wins.

The Milkman
01-28-2010, 03:59 PM
Can we remove the "!!!" from the thread title?

SI1020
01-28-2010, 03:59 PM
So I guess they don't think the AL Central will be any good.

doublem23
01-28-2010, 04:00 PM
Can we remove the "!!!" from the thread title?

I don't see why not, they're picking us to gain a spot in the standing this year!!!

:happybday :bandance: :wooty::gosox::drunken::Rocker::moonwalk:

SephClone89
01-28-2010, 04:00 PM
82 wins for the division title? Christ.

spawn
01-28-2010, 04:01 PM
Okay, fasten your seatbelts, here we go!
:rolling:

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 04:01 PM
Well, it goes without saying, but I feel it should be said anyway: this is PECOTA's take. BP's writers often disagree with PECOTA, and don't treat it as an infallible tool of forecasting.

The writers, I'm sure, feel differently. How much differently? I don't know. I've found PECOTA's projections are often pared to the mean so much that they become a little too subdued, and fail at projecting breakouts and forecasting peaks. I prefer Marcels or CHONE, in all honesty.

DumpJerry
01-28-2010, 04:02 PM
So I guess they don't think the AL Central will be any good.
Not necessarily. It could also mean it is a highly competitive division where the teams beat each up in intradivision games.

GoGoCrede
01-28-2010, 04:02 PM
What did they predict for us last year?

doublem23
01-28-2010, 04:04 PM
Not necessarily. It could also mean it is a highly competitive division where the teams beat each up in intradivision games.

No, it means the Central sucks.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 04:04 PM
No, it means the Central sucks.
Yeah, 2006 was a good year for the Central, and nobody was winning that division with 82 wins.

For the record I think the division isn't so bad.

voodoochile
01-28-2010, 04:06 PM
Long ago these threads were relegated to the WTS forum because it's pure speculation. I see no reason to change that policy now.

The fact I think they are so full of **** that the tips of their cowlicks have long since turned brown has nothing to do with this move... I swear... no... really... :tongue:

DumpJerry
01-28-2010, 04:06 PM
No, it means the Central sucks.
Two teams (Royals and Indians) will be crap this year. The Tigers will be mediocre this year. The Sox and Twins will fight it out for the title.

This presumes, of course, no significant injuries.

The Milkman
01-28-2010, 04:07 PM
I don't see why not, they're picking us to gain a spot in the standing this year!!!

:happybday :bandance: :wooty::gosox::drunken::Rocker::moonwalk:


We'll be the ALC leader in the Wild Card standings!!! Anything can happen!!!

doublem23
01-28-2010, 04:11 PM
Here are the full predictions: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/

Wow, they are harsh to the Angels.

doublem23
01-28-2010, 04:11 PM
What did they predict for us last year?

They pegged us last in the Central, but IIRC, they got pretty close to our actual record.

JohnnyInnsbrook
01-28-2010, 04:12 PM
NOOOOOOO!!!!! THEY PICKED US TOO HIGH!!! I wish they picked us 4th like in 2005... under the radar!!!

asindc
01-28-2010, 04:12 PM
Well, it goes without saying, but I feel it should be said anyway: this is PECOTA's take. BP's writers often disagree with PECOTA, and don't treat it as an infallible tool of forecasting.

The writers, I'm sure, feel differently. How much differently? I don't know. I've found PECOTA's projections are often pared to the mean so much that they become a little too subdued, and fail at projecting breakouts and forecasting peaks. I prefer Marcels or CHONE, in all honesty.

This is not a knock on projection analysis in general, but I do wonder why they even bother with PECOTA if they are not going to make reasonable projections of improvement or decline among individual players. While I don't take as a certainty that the Sox will win the Central, I do think it will take more the 82 games to do so and both the Sox and Twinkees are very capable of that.

mzh
01-28-2010, 04:14 PM
I saw that yesterday on baseball tonight while talking about Gardenhire and the Twins that at least one GM thinks that the Sox are the team to beat in the central. Didn't catch the name of whoever said this though

voodoochile
01-28-2010, 04:14 PM
Here are the full predictions: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/

Wow, they are harsh to the Angels.

They've got the Sox pegged to give up 812 runs. Last year they gave up 732. To say that prediction is a head scratcher is far short of what I actually think.

asindc
01-28-2010, 04:15 PM
Here are the full predictions: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/

Wow, they are harsh to the Angels.

So... everybody else in the AL West, along with Cleveland and Baltimore, will finish with a better record than LAAAAA? I rest my case.

doublem23
01-28-2010, 04:16 PM
They've got the Sox pegged to give up 812 runs. Last year they gave up 732. To say that prediction is a head scratcher is far short of what I actually think.

Perhaps they're not wild on our bullpen plan lead by JJ Putz, fresh off arm surgery, and absolutely no contingency plan in case he's no good.

DumpJerry
01-28-2010, 04:18 PM
Here are the full predictions: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/

Wow, they are harsh to the Angels.

Hmmm.....the Yanks in third? How did the A's rate so high?

They've got the Sox pegged to give up 812 runs. Last year they gave up 732. To say that prediction is a head scratcher is far short of what I actually think.
Yes. If our pitching stays healthy, it should go down. Last year we went August-mid September with a committee at the Five Spot and occasionally at the Four Spot in the rotation which coincided with our descent.

voodoochile
01-28-2010, 04:19 PM
Perhaps they're not wild on our bullpen plan lead by JJ Putz, fresh off arm surgery, and absolutely no contingency plan in case he's no good.

Pena bumps back and Hudson comes up.

Edit: and even if the bullpen takes a step back, the starters have taken a massive leap forward - HUGE!

doublem23
01-28-2010, 04:19 PM
So... everybody else in the AL West, along with Cleveland and Baltimore, will finish with a better record than LAAAAA? I rest my case.

Yeah, team that replace their #1 starter with Joel Piniero should put the champagne on ice already.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 04:20 PM
This is not a knock on projection analysis in general, but I do wonder why PECOTA even bothers with it if they are not going to make reasonable projections of improvement or decline among individual players. While I don't take as a certainty that the Sox will win the Central, I do think it will take more the 82 games to do so and both the Sox and Twinkees are very capable of that.
Yeah, I don't know. I like PECOTA because they absolutely nail some things, but BP treats the system (within their articles) with a good deal of skepticism. They cede to the projections from time to time in analysis, but I think that the attitude given off in their advertising of PECOTA (scary close, or something to that effect) does not match their sentiments as presented in articles.

Dishonest? Perhaps, but they've got to solicit subscriptions somewhere, and PECOTA is something that Fangraphs (who write horrid articles, 40% of the time) and Hardball Times don't have.

I pay for Kevin Goldstein, mainly, and Will Carroll. I know too much about the White Sox -- being a fan and all -- to put too much stock in what they say about us. But, I love MLB, so I like to read various opinions.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 04:21 PM
Pena bumps back and Hudson comes up.

Edit: and even if the bullpen takes a step back, the starters have taken a massive leap forward - HUGE!
Yeah, I think people still aren't quite sold on Floyd. If he pitches a full season of his post-bumpy starts pitching in 2010, he'll win the Cy Young.

doublem23
01-28-2010, 04:21 PM
Pena bumps back and Hudson comes up.

Pena was awful last year and they're probably not wild on Hudson, they wouldn't be the only ones.

I like the way the bullpen is shaping up, but, like just about every other team's, it is more or less a house of cards. They must not like it as much as we do.

asindc
01-28-2010, 04:22 PM
Perhaps they're not wild on our bullpen plan lead by JJ Putz, fresh off arm surgery, and absolutely no contingency plan in case he's no good.

I hear you, but I am curious what the Twinkees' plan is in case Kevin Slowey, fresh off wrist surgery, is no good.

asindc
01-28-2010, 04:23 PM
Yeah, team that replace their #1 starter with Joel Piniero should put the champagne on ice already.

Do you really think that makes them worse than Cleveland or Baltimore?

doublem23
01-28-2010, 04:24 PM
Hmmm.....the Yanks in third? How did the A's rate so high?

They were a young team last year, and they've added Ben Sheets to the fold, and they do, in all honesty, have an interesting collection of talent all over the field.

voodoochile
01-28-2010, 04:24 PM
Yeah, I think people still aren't quite sold on Floyd. If he pitches a full season of his post-bumpy starts pitching in 2010, he'll win the Cy Young.

Pena was awful last year and they're probably not wild on Hudson, they wouldn't be the only ones.

I like the way the bullpen is shaping up, but, like just about every other team's, it is more or less a house of cards. They must not like it as much as we do.

I understand that, but how do they come up with an extra .5 runs per game based on this staff? That boggles my mind to be honest with you. Especially since the defense should be better this year than it was last year (especially the first 4 months of last year when it was really bad).

I just don't see how anyone can look at the improvements to the starters, a wash in the bullpen and improved defense and say, "tack on 80 runs to last year's total."

But, I admit, I'm biased...

Edit: Oh and Pena posted a 3.75 ERA with a 1.36 WHIP. Not great, but not awful either.

Zisk77
01-28-2010, 04:24 PM
Pena bumps back and Hudson comes up.

Edit: and even if the bullpen takes a step back, the starters have taken a massive leap forward - HUGE!


freddy Dolsi as well.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 04:26 PM
I understand that, but how do they come up with an extra .5 runs per game based on this staff? That boggles my mind to be honest with you. Especially since the defense should be better this year than it was last year (especially the first 4 months of last year when it was really bad).

I just don't see how anyone can look at the improvements to the starters, a wash in the bullpen and improved defense and say, "tack on 80 runs to last year's total."

But, I admit, I'm biased...

Edit: Oh and Pena posted a 3.75 ERA with a 1.36 WHIP. Not great, but not awful either.
I don't know. I just don't care much for using ERA to measure a bullpen. I don't think Pena will be that bad, but more Luis Vizcaino than Octavio Dotel.

doublem23
01-28-2010, 04:26 PM
Do you really think that makes them worse than Cleveland or Baltimore?

I personally wouldn't pick them that low, but I can see how people can be down on them, especially in that division, that got a lot better this off-season. The M's made some huge splashes, they're obviously liking the progression of the A's young players, and the Rangers were formidable for most of last season. I know the Angels have been the class of the West the past several years, but they've got some big holes on that roster and paper thin pitching now.

voodoochile
01-28-2010, 04:28 PM
I don't know. I just don't care much for using ERA to measure a bullpen. I don't think Pena will be that bad, but more Luis Vizcaino than Octavio Dotel.

Sure, but he doesn't have to be Dotel unless Putz gets hurt and there are always other possibilities too. Isn't this supposed to be one of Linebrink's good years? :D:

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 04:30 PM
Sure, but he doesn't have to be Dotel unless Putz gets hurt and there are always other possibilities too. Isn't this supposed to be one of Linebrink's good years? :D:
Aye. I have more confidence in Nuņez at this point. But I really like Jhonny, actually. Hope he gets a chance.

voodoochile
01-28-2010, 04:31 PM
Aye. I have more confidence in Nuņez at this point. But I really like Jhonny, actually. Hope he gets a chance.

I wasn't even factoring him into my discussion and I agree he's got a real chance to be a bullpen stud. I love his stuff...

asindc
01-28-2010, 04:32 PM
Sure, but he doesn't have to be Dotel unless Putz gets hurt and there are always other possibilities too. Isn't this supposed to be one of Linebrink's good years? :D:

If we can limit Linebrink to about 20 innings or less in the first half of the season, then maybe.:cool:

Goodman6
01-28-2010, 04:40 PM
BP has the Twins winning 82 games to win AL Central... the White Sox are 2nd with 79...

If BP's prediction come true and if Ozzie is still our manager in 2011, that would mean Ozzie and his crazy comments and losing "B Team" lineups every Sunday will be with us for a very long time. 79 wins would probably mean his DH platoon of Jones, Kotsay, Vizquel, Nix did not work out too well. Will he be held accountable? I doubt it. I think 2005 guaranteed him a life long job with the Sox, good or bad.

JermaineDye05
01-28-2010, 04:40 PM
Central sucks but no way does 82 wins take it.

I pick the Sox (as I do every year) with somewhere between 89 and 93 wins.

kittle42
01-28-2010, 04:55 PM
Hey, hey, almost 50 posts and not a one bemoaning the Sox not being picked to win the division. Cheers to WSI!

thedudeabides
01-28-2010, 04:58 PM
Yeah, I don't know. I like PECOTA because they absolutely nail some things, but BP treats the system (within their articles) with a good deal of skepticism. They cede to the projections from time to time in analysis, but I think that the attitude given off in their advertising of PECOTA (scary close, or something to that effect) does not match their sentiments as presented in articles.

Dishonest? Perhaps, but they've got to solicit subscriptions somewhere, and PECOTA is something that Fangraphs (who write horrid articles, 40% of the time) and Hardball Times don't have.

I pay for Kevin Goldstein, mainly, and Will Carroll. I know too much about the White Sox -- being a fan and all -- to put too much stock in what they say about us. But, I love MLB, so I like to read various opinions.

They are living off a couple of good predictions, mainly the 2008 Rays. Other than that it's pretty awful.

After last seasons predictions, I didn't know anyone took these seriously anymore.

Chone wasn't any better, but I do like their methods a bit more.

Lip Man 1
01-28-2010, 04:59 PM
This is funny.

What morons.

Lip

mzh
01-28-2010, 05:00 PM
BP has the Twins winning 82 games to win AL Central... the White Sox are 2nd with 79...

Only once in Major league history has a team won a division with 82 or less wins, the 2005 San Diego Padres, and with all due respect I think even this weak AL Central is better than that awful year for that division

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 05:04 PM
This is funny.

What morons.

Lip
BP does not subscripe to groupthink.
They are living off a couple of good predictions, mainly the 2008 Rays. Other than that it's pretty awful.

After last seasons predictions, I didn't know anyone took these seriously anymore.

Chone wasn't any better, but I do like their methods a bit more.
I don't think it's awful. What makes you say that?

PalehosePlanet
01-28-2010, 05:07 PM
If we can limit Linebrink to about 20 innings or less in the first half of the season, then maybe.:cool:

I know it will be impossible to make some of you even consider the possibility, but I actually think Linebrink will have a good year, barring injury.

His velocity was back up to normal at the end of last year, so it would appear that he is fully healthy again. If he can get a feel for his split and changeup early in the year, he'll be rock solid.

asindc
01-28-2010, 05:08 PM
BP does not subscripe to groupthink.

I don't think it's awful. What makes you say that?

Well, whatever think they are subscribing to, they should think again.

DSpivack
01-28-2010, 05:09 PM
Well, whatever think they are subscribing to, they should think again.

They have the Nats picked for 82-80!

PalehosePlanet
01-28-2010, 05:12 PM
Only once in Major league history has a team won a division with 82 or less wins, the 2005 San Diego Padres, and with all due respect I think even this weak AL Central is better than that awful year for that division

The Mets won the NL East back in '73 with 82 wins.

doublem23
01-28-2010, 05:24 PM
This is funny.

What morons.

Lip

Lip's trying to pick a fight with all those scary numbers under his bed.

:geezer:

TommyJohn
01-28-2010, 05:24 PM
The Mets won the NL East back in '73 with 82 wins.
And were in the World Series.

doublem23
01-28-2010, 05:27 PM
This is funny.

What morons.

Lip

P.S. Baseball Prospectus were 5 games off the Sox's actual record in 2009. THEY DON'T KNOW ****!!!!!!!!!

Sam Spade
01-28-2010, 05:29 PM
They have the Nats picked for 82-80!
What the hell?

DumpJerry
01-28-2010, 05:30 PM
Only once in Major league history has a team won a division with 82 or less wins, the 2005 San Diego Padres, and with all due respect I think even this weak AL Central is better than that awful year for that division

The Mets won the NL East back in '73 with 82 wins.
The 2006 Cardinals won 83 games and the World Series.

Ok, so they played the Tigers in the World Series, but it should still count....

Noneck
01-28-2010, 05:33 PM
They actually pick the Sox to tie for 2nd. That seems what most experts are thinking.

79 does seem a little low for the over/under, but we shall see soon enough.

Chicago5oooh
01-28-2010, 05:45 PM
P.S. Baseball Prospectus were 5 games off the Sox's actual record in 2009. THEY DON'T KNOW ****!!!!!!!!!

I like PECOTA, I find it interesting but the reality is that being off 5 wins is actually significant. You have a 10 win swing there. If I say the sox will win 85 games this year they can win 80-90 and I will be within 5 games. I still like the system, I just don't pretend it's more than an educated guess.

doublem23
01-28-2010, 05:47 PM
I like PECOTA, I find it interesting but the reality is that being off 5 wins is actually significant. You have a 10 win swing there. If I say the sox will win 85 games this year they can win 80-90 and I will be within 5 games. I still like the system, I just don't pretend it's more than an educated guess.

Me neither, I'm not going to unload my bank account at Vegas based on their projections, I just find it funny that the hater crowd can't fall over themselves fast enough to talk about the years BP is off by like 20 games, but when they're actually in the ballpark, well, we don't talk about those years. :cool:

Chicago5oooh
01-28-2010, 05:55 PM
Me neither, I'm not going to unload my bank account at Vegas based on their projections, I just find it funny that the hater crowd can't fall over themselves fast enough to talk about the years BP is off by like 20 games, but when they're actually in the ballpark, well, we don't talk about those years. :cool:

I didn't mean for the educated guess line to come accross as directed at you. I actually meant that for the haters who, ironically enough, seem to pay these rankings more attention than the rest of us. :scratch:

thedudeabides
01-28-2010, 06:35 PM
I don't think it's awful. What makes you say that?

A slew of reasons, but I'll just give you a couple.

First, it's just not terribly accurate, and they are getting worse. After 2008 they were off an average of 8.5 games per team. If for the last three years you picked every team to go 81-81, you would have been off by an average of 8.5 games. They did very poorly in 2009, as well. I think the averaged squared is something like 9.7 games off per team. That type of margin of error would not be exceptable in most statistical fields. Like I said they live off of their Rays prediction, and a couple of others.

There is also a clear systematic bias against non saber friendly team building. Their predictions consistently undervalue the White Sox, Angels, Twins, Cardinals, and Marlins. Teams that often do well, but do things like value pitching, defense, baserunning, and slugging, but fall short in OBP and pitching peripherals. They never make corrections for these things.

I'll use the Sox for example. Every year they predict Buehrle and Flloyd to do very poorly, because they cant fathom them pitching well at home. They continue to be proven wrong about the Sox pitching every year because of the ballpark factor. They can't get over it.

Their insane arrogance doesn't help. They scream from the rooftops when they get something right, but will never address anything they do wrong.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 06:44 PM
A slew of reasons, but I'll just give you a couple.

First, it's just not terribly accurate, and they are getting worse. After 2008 they were off an average of 8.5 games per team. If for the last three years you picked every team to go 81-81, you would have been off by an average of 8.5 games. They did very poorly in 2009, as well. I think the averaged squared is something like 9.7 games off per team. That type of margin of error would not be exceptable in most statistical fields. Like I said they live off of their Rays prediction, and a couple of others.

There is also a clear systematic bias against non saber friendly team building. Their predictions consistently undervalue the White Sox, Angels, Twins, Cardinals, and Marlins. Teams that often do well, but do things like value pitching, defense, baserunning, and slugging, but fall short in OBP and pitching peripherals. They never make corrections for these things.

I'll use the Sox for example. Every year they predict Buehrle and Flloyd to do very poorly, because they cant fathom them pitching well at home. They continue to be proven wrong about the Sox pitching every year because of the ballpark factor. They can't get over it.

Their insane arrogance doesn't help. They scream from the rooftops when they get something right, but will never address anything they do wrong.
This has been addressed over and over again. They absolutely do analyze it.

hi im skot
01-28-2010, 06:47 PM
This is funny.

What morons.

Lip

If you were trying to make this post a haiku, you came up just a touch short.

Rdy2PlayBall
01-28-2010, 06:52 PM
The winner of this division will get 95 wins, minimum. We will have 2 teams WAY FREEKING under .500 as usual. But we will have 2 good teams and a half.

thedudeabides
01-28-2010, 06:58 PM
This has been addressed over and over again. They absolutely do analyze it.

I know, I read their analysis. You are not the only subscriber. I think they do a poor job analyzing and discussing their flaws. It's usually excuse making.

Do you disagree with anything else I've written?

Corlose 15
01-28-2010, 07:21 PM
Yeah, I think people still aren't quite sold on Floyd. If he pitches a full season of his post-bumpy starts pitching in 2010, he'll win the Cy Young.

I think that's the most optimistic thing I've ever seen you post here.

A lot of people around here a penciling Danks for a breakthrough year, which he may well do, but I'm excited for what Floyd can do this year.

After he stopped tipping his pitches and before his hip started bothering him he was VERY good.

Daver
01-28-2010, 07:23 PM
This has been addressed over and over again. They absolutely do analyze it.


Meh, they make a few excuses and move on, for the most part they are a collective of douchcans that have no interest outside of promoting their own product, even the stuff that I pay for my membership for is getting harder to justify the cost.

Their self invented stats are their real claim to fame, and all of them are nothing more than exercises in mental masturbation that have little basis in either fact or reality.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 07:28 PM
Meh, they make a few excuses and move on, for the most part they are a collective of douchcans that have no interest outside of promoting their own product, even the stuff that I pay for my membership for is getting harder to justify the cost.

Their self invented stats are their real claim to fame, and all of them are nothing more than exercises in mental masturbation that have little basis in either fact or reality.
Even if it's perceived as excuse making, they are addressing their shortcomings, or PECOTA's. Some people act as though they pretend said mistakes don't happen.

Lip Man 1
01-28-2010, 07:55 PM
Double:

They were wrong on the White Sox in 2005, they were wrong on the White Sox in 2006, they were wrong on the White Sox in 2008 and they were wrong on the White Sox in 2009 (last place...really?)

The only time they have been right in the last five years was in 2007.

If I was "successful" one out of every five times in whatever I did (20% of the time - see I know numbers!) I'd be fired from whatever I did for a living.

Daver has these imbeciles pegged correctly.

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

I passed the link along to one of the Sox beat writers and they had some interesting comments. Paraphrasing, they said BP has a bias towards organizations and G.M.'s that think like they do and give them the benefit of the doubt as much as they can, in some cases outright apologizing for them when those G.M.'s have a bad season.

Those organizations (like the White Sox) that don't subscribe to their "mental masturbation" approach to baseball (with kudos to Daver) don't get ****.

They also said they think some of the things they come up with and write are deliberately done to generate controversy for their organization, that they may not even believe what they write themselves.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 07:58 PM
Double:

They were wrong on the White Sox in 2005, they were wrong on the White Sox in 2006, they were wrong on the White Sox in 2008 and they were wrong on the White Sox in 2009 (last place...really?)

The only time they have been right in the last five years was in 2007.

If I was "successful" one out of every five times in whatever I did (20% of the time - see I know numbers!) I'd be fired from whatever I did for a living.

Daver has these imbeciles pegged correctly.

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

I passed the link along to one of the Sox beat writers and they had some interesting comments. Paraphrasing, they said BP has a bias towards organizations and G.M.'s that think like they do and give them the benefit of the doubt as much as they can, in some cases outright apologizing for them.

Those organizations (like the White Sox) that don't subscribe to their "mental masturbation" (with kudos to Daver) don't get ****.

They also said they think some of the things they come up with and write are deliberately done to generate controversy for their organization, that they may not even believe what they write themselves.

Lip
I mean, I really wouldn't criticize you for not knowing what the hell you're talking about if it wasn't so obvious. PECOTA is a projection model. There is no editorializing regarding the model -- the numbers may be skewed towards organizations who value OBP, as that is something most organizations realize the importance of, but they take the output and present it.

Again, BP is not one person. It is not PECOTA. It's a pretty decent baseball magazine that will occasionally get things wrong, will occasionally proselytize, and will occasionally condescend. Are they perfect? No. Would I rather read them than the **** that qualifies for sports journalism these days? Oh my God yes.

Thatguyoverthere
01-28-2010, 08:00 PM
I think that's the most optimistic thing I've ever seen you post here.

A lot of people around here a penciling Danks for a breakthrough year, which he may well do, but I'm excited for what Floyd can do this year.

After he stopped tipping his pitches and before his hip started bothering him he was VERY good.Me too. After he stopped tipping pitches last year, I thought Floyd was hands down the best pitcher on the staff the rest of the way, he just got screwed out of a bunch of wins due to the bullpen. What we saw from him after his rocky start didn't show up in his overall numbers. I think he's going to surprise a lot of people this year.

dickallen15
01-28-2010, 08:01 PM
Looks like they have the Cubs pegged correctly.

Daver
01-28-2010, 08:03 PM
Even if it's perceived as excuse making, they are addressing their shortcomings, or PECOTA's. Some people act as though they pretend said mistakes don't happen.

I have seem them gloss over it completely in the past, they take great strides in defending their contrived stats, to the point where they give the impression that baseball exists to serve them rather than vice versa.

Lip Man 1
01-28-2010, 08:10 PM
Craig:

Given their "success" over the past, say five years, they need to find another model because frankly they suck at what they are trying to do given how often they are "right" be it PETCO, OBP or whatever.

It's clear for example from what Sheehan writes for S.I. that he values strikeouts above all else in pitching staffs. He's stated it. Even though that increases the number of pitches made, makes you work harder, increases the injury risk and forces earlier bullpen use. At the same time he writes how it's "bad" for pitchers to pitch to contact since bad things can happen when a bat meets a ball. (Sounds like a contradiction to me but what do I know, eh? Silly me, I thought the point was to get outs in as few pitches as you can)

The Sox don't have strikeout pitchers, they pitch to contact. And you wonder why he rates them the way he does with whatever system he uses...it's an inherent bias manipulating numbers. I'm not saying it's deliberate, it may be unconscious, but it's there...period.

It's done all the time...among stat-geeks, accountants, TV ratings, company profit spreed sheets.

That doesn't mean it's valid nor accurate. Numbers can be made to say any damn thing you want them to.

Lip

Rdy2PlayBall
01-28-2010, 08:17 PM
Craig:

Given their "success" over the past, say five years, they need to find another model because frankly they suck at what they are trying to do given how often they are "right" be it PETCO, OBP or whatever.

It's clear for example from what Sheehan writes for S.I. that he values strikeouts above all else in pitching staffs. He's stated it. Even though that increases the number of pitches made, makes you work harder, increases the injury risk and forces earlier bullpen use. At the same time he writes how it's "bad" for pitchers to pitch to contact since bad things can happen when a bat meets a ball. (Sounds like a contradiction to me but what do I know, eh? Silly me, I thought the point was to get outs in as few pitches as you can)

The Sox don't have strikeout pitchers, they pitch to contact. And you wonder why he rates them the way he does with whatever system he uses...it's an inherent bias manipulating numbers. I'm not saying it's deliberate, it may be unconscious, but it's there...period.

It's done all the time...among stat-geeks, accountants, TV ratings, company profit spreed sheets.

That doesn't mean it's valid nor accurate. Numbers can be made to say any damn thing you want them to.

LipWho's Craig? Hes a smart guy.

asindc
01-28-2010, 08:40 PM
Craig:

Given their "success" over the past, say five years, they need to find another model because frankly they suck at what they are trying to do given how often they are "right" be it PETCO, OBP or whatever.

It's clear for example from what Sheehan writes for S.I. that he values strikeouts above all else in pitching staffs. He's stated it. Even though that increases the number of pitches made, makes you work harder, increases the injury risk and forces earlier bullpen use. At the same time he writes how it's "bad" for pitchers to pitch to contact since bad things can happen when a bat meets a ball. (Sounds like a contradiction to me but what do I know, eh? Silly me, I thought the point was to get outs in as few pitches as you can)

The Sox don't have strikeout pitchers, they pitch to contact. And you wonder why he rates them the way he does with whatever system he uses...it's an inherent bias manipulating numbers. I'm not saying it's deliberate, it may be unconscious, but it's there...period.

It's done all the time...among stat-geeks, accountants, TV ratings, company profit spreed sheets.

That doesn't mean it's valid nor accurate. Numbers can be made to say any damn thing you want them to.

Lip

Very well said, Lip. I can appreciate stat analysis, but when an organization fails to analyze the stats in proper context or worse, refuses to do so, it just confirms my skepticism towards the organization, not the stats in and of themselves.

Thatguyoverthere
01-28-2010, 08:44 PM
I just want to know why they have the Nationals with a winning record. Huh? :scratch:

DumpJerry
01-28-2010, 08:49 PM
I just want to know why they have the Nationals with a winning record. Huh? :scratch:
They confused them with the Angels who wear the same colors.

chaotic8512
01-28-2010, 09:31 PM
Yeah, any publication saying that the Natinals will finish with both (1) a better record than us and (2) a WINNING record, is not worth taking seriously. Then again, when is BP worth anything anyway?

Also, I don't see the D'backs making a 15-game improvement.

Can we remove the "!!!" from the thread title?

But why? !!! is a great band!!! :D:

jabrch
01-28-2010, 09:37 PM
If I was "successful" one out of every five times in whatever I did (20% of the time - see I know numbers!) I'd be fired from whatever I did for a living.

If you were a lottery picker, you'd be rich! :)

DumpJerry
01-28-2010, 09:40 PM
Can we remove the "!!!" from the thread title?
No. The person who started this thread is a bigger Sox fan than any 10 of us combined.

fox23
01-28-2010, 09:47 PM
I'm sorry to ask such a silly question, but I'm not a stats guy. What the heck is PECOTA?

TommyJohn
01-28-2010, 09:58 PM
I'm sorry to ask such a silly question, but I'm not a stats guy. What the heck is PECOTA?
It's a cheese that you stuff into manicotti.

GoGoCrede
01-28-2010, 10:01 PM
It's a cheese that you stuff into manicotti.

:rolling:

No, no, no. It's a store where you buy pet supplies. Duh.

DSpivack
01-28-2010, 10:09 PM
But why? !!! is a great band!!! :D:

I'm a fan. :cool:

fox23
01-28-2010, 10:10 PM
It's a cheese that you stuff into manicotti.

Ha, I walked into that one, thanks :tongue:

everafan
01-28-2010, 10:12 PM
BP has the Twins winning 82 games to win AL Central... the White Sox are 2nd with 79...

Wow! 79 wins!! That's the highest win total they predicted for us since 06, when they predicted 82 (they predicted 80 in 05). I'm ecstatic!!!

everafan
01-28-2010, 10:17 PM
BP has the Twins winning 82 games to win AL Central... the White Sox are 2nd with 79...

Here are the full predictions: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/

Wow, they are harsh to the Angels.

So last year the Sox allowed 732 runs and this year they will allow 812 with a better starting staff and BP???

everafan
01-28-2010, 10:22 PM
They pegged us last in the Central, but IIRC, they got pretty close to our actual record.

I believe it was 73 wins last year
2008 - 77 wins
2007 - 73 wins
2006 - 82 wins
2005 - 80 wins
2004 -79 wins

So if I counted right they have been 46 games off since 2004.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 10:26 PM
The kinks aren't worked out, I think, on this release, causing everyone's RS/RA numbers to be off. They're getting through it. I think the proportions are workable/representative, but the numbers themselves aren't scaled correctly.

everafan
01-28-2010, 10:29 PM
Well, whatever think they are subscribing to, they should think again.

Well they always hate Buehrle - they take his 2006 season as the norm and throw out his other 9 good seasons because of velocity and pitch location. They also will tell you that the Sox often make midseason moves that they can't account for (Geoff Blum for example may have made up those 19 games they were off in 05). Also they will tell you that he Sox stay healthier than other teams and they can't predict that.

voodoochile
01-28-2010, 10:32 PM
Well they always hate Buehrle - they take his 2006 season as the norm and throw out his other 9 good seasons because of velocity and pitch location. They also will tell you that the Sox often make midseason moves that they can't account for (Geoff Blum for example may have made up those 19 games they were off in 05). Also they will tell you that he Sox stay healthier than other teams and they can't predict that.

See that's why trying to model baseball is silly. Too many factors play into a decision and there are too many games where those factors can fluctuate randomly.

everafan
01-28-2010, 10:33 PM
Double:

They were wrong on the White Sox in 2005, they were wrong on the White Sox in 2006, they were wrong on the White Sox in 2008 and they were wrong on the White Sox in 2009 (last place...really?)

The only time they have been right in the last five years was in 2007.

If I was "successful" one out of every five times in whatever I did (20% of the time - see I know numbers!) I'd be fired from whatever I did for a living.

Daver has these imbeciles pegged correctly.

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

I passed the link along to one of the Sox beat writers and they had some interesting comments. Paraphrasing, they said BP has a bias towards organizations and G.M.'s that think like they do and give them the benefit of the doubt as much as they can, in some cases outright apologizing for them when those G.M.'s have a bad season.

Those organizations (like the White Sox) that don't subscribe to their "mental masturbation" approach to baseball (with kudos to Daver) don't get ****.

They also said they think some of the things they come up with and write are deliberately done to generate controversy for their organization, that they may not even believe what they write themselves.

Lip

Shapiro is a good example - up until this year he was boy genius.

munchman33
01-28-2010, 10:54 PM
I mean, I really wouldn't criticize you for not knowing what the hell you're talking about if it wasn't so obvious. PECOTA is a projection model. There is no editorializing regarding the model -- the numbers may be skewed towards organizations who value OBP, as that is something most organizations realize the importance of, but they take the output and present it.

Again, BP is not one person. It is not PECOTA. It's a pretty decent baseball magazine that will occasionally get things wrong, will occasionally proselytize, and will occasionally condescend. Are they perfect? No. Would I rather read them than the **** that qualifies for sports journalism these days? Oh my God yes.

Grebeck from the minute they predicted negative production for our squad, it was in the heads of 90% of sox fans the results were either biased, based on nothing, or both. No amount of understanding even basic theories of statistics will ever change the minds of these individuals. It will always be tainted, it will always be biased, and it will always be wrong - because they said so.

voodoochile
01-28-2010, 11:04 PM
Grebeck from the minute they predicted negative production for our squad, it was in the heads of 90% of sox fans the results were either biased, based on nothing, or both. No amount of understanding even basic theories of statistics will ever change the minds of these individuals. It will always be tainted, it will always be biased, and it will always be wrong - because they said so.

I don't think it's that simple. I think there are legitimate questions about these results because some of the outcomes are just weird, like the prediction for the Sox to give up 80 more runs this coming season than they gave up last season despite improvements to the starting staff, a bullpen that is at least as good (and might be substantially better with the demotion of Linebrink and a healthy Jenks) and an improved defense.

If the Sox manage to score the 789 they predict yet yield the same number of runs they gave up last year, they would walk away with this division according to those stats, though CG has stated that something is wrong with the model and everyone's run totals were screwed up, so who knows where it falls out at the end of the new run.

I am sure there are some people who just don't believe the statistics they are using because they don't think statistics are worth squat, but to dismiss it as 90% of the fans seems an extreme case of hyperbole. In fact according to the guy you are replying to in support, things are screwed up as stated above. So maybe there's a good reason why people are squawking in disbelief over these projections and it's not simply because we're all a bunch of yokels who don't get them fancy number things ya'll are throwing around like so many bales of hay...

munchman33
01-28-2010, 11:11 PM
I don't think it's that simple. I think there are legitimate questions about these results because some of the outcomes are just weird, like the prediction for the Sox to give up 80 more runs this coming season than they gave up last season despite improvements to the starting staff, a bullpen that is at least as good (and might be substantially better with the demotion of Linebrink and a healthy Jenks) and an improved defense.

If the Sox manage to score the 789 they predict yet yield the same number of runs they gave up last year, they would walk away with this division according to those stats, though CG has stated that something is wrong with the model and everyone's run totals were screwed up, so who knows where it falls out at the end of the new run.

I am sure there are some people who just don't believe the statistics they are using because they don't think statistics are worth squat, but to dismiss it as 90% of the fans seems an extreme case of hyperbole. In fact according to the guy you are replying to in support, things are screwed up as stated above. So maybe there's a good reason why people are squawking in disbelief over these projections and it's not simply because we're all a bunch of yokels who don't get them fancy number things ya'll are throwing around like so many bales of hay...

I stopped reading when you told me it was a slam dunk the bullpen would be better. We lost good production in DJ and Dotel and replaced it with a guy that didn't pitch last year and what? And our closer has been trending down every year. The bullpen could be better next year, but that sure isn't the safe bet.

Predictions are based on numbers - equations. They are not biased. They might weigh factors over others. But anyone who says a prediction from a mathematical equation is biased because the company that released the data hates a particular team is...well that's just really funny to think about. Especially when you consider they call the stats guys "propeller heads!"

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 11:13 PM
Also, for an organization like BP to hate the White Sox, I find it funny that one of its (former) faces is a huge fan. Not to mention the Q&A they held last year before a game.

This BP hates the Sox stuff is hilarious.

voodoochile
01-28-2010, 11:18 PM
I stopped reading when you told me it was a slam dunk the bullpen would be better. We lost good production in DJ and Dotel and replaced it with a guy that didn't pitch last year and what? And our closer has been trending down every year. The bullpen could be better next year, but that sure isn't the safe bet.

Predictions are based on numbers - equations. They are not biased. They might weigh factors over others. But anyone who says a prediction from a mathematical equation is biased because the company that released the data hates a particular team is...well that's just really funny to think about.

I didn't say it was a slam dunk the bullpen would be better. I said "at least as good and might be better". Carrasco had a nice season as a long reliever, but lets not go nuts here, his numbers weren't any better than Pena's for example. Linebrink is no longer a short reliever (it took half the season to figure that out last year, this year, he's the mop up guy). They also still have Hudson and Nunez waiting to come up if someone falters.

You want to be taken seriously, please don't dismiss what others are saying especially if you aren't going to read the whole post and are going to stop reading after your reading comprehension skills fail miserably.

Oh and I take strong issue with your statement about Bobby. Last year he gave up a bunch of HR, but other than that the three previous years were pretty consistent.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=5910

asindc
01-28-2010, 11:18 PM
Also, for an organization like BP to hate the White Sox, I find it funny that one of its (former) faces is a huge fan. Not to mention the Q&A they held last year before a game.

This BP hates the Sox stuff is hilarious.

I, for one, do not think BP hates the Sox and other non-SABR teams, I just think they refuse to put their statistics in proper context when assessing such teams. That is the basis for my criticism of BP and some (not all) other stat proponents.

kittle42
01-28-2010, 11:19 PM
Predictions are based on numbers - equations. They are not biased. They might weigh factors over others. But anyone who says a prediction from a mathematical equation is biased because the company that released the data hates a particular team is...well that's just really funny to think about. Especially when you consider they call the stats guys "propeller heads!"

This BP hates the Sox stuff is hilarious.

I'm not a stathead, but I agree with both of you.

Plus, don't people think they should wait until at least two weeks into the season until they pass judgment on BP's predictions?

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 11:19 PM
I, for one, do not think BP hates the Sox and other non-SABR teams, I just think they refuse to put their statistics in proper context when assessing such teams. That is the basis for my criticism of BP and some (not all) other stat proponents.
I honestly think if you're looking for anyone who is responsible for BP's undervaluing of the White Sox over the years, it would have to be Herm. We're freakishly healthy, and that's something BP can't quantify, and they'd be the first people to admit that.

DSpivack
01-28-2010, 11:20 PM
I stopped reading when you told me it was a slam dunk the bullpen would be better. We lost good production in DJ and Dotel and replaced it with a guy that didn't pitch last year and what? And our closer has been trending down every year. The bullpen could be better next year, but that sure isn't the safe bet.

Predictions are based on numbers - equations. They are not biased. They might weigh factors over others. But anyone who says a prediction from a mathematical equation is biased because the company that released the data hates a particular team is...well that's just really funny to think about. Especially when you consider they call the stats guys "propeller heads!"

I don't think their PECOTA projections have anything against the White Sox. But I just can't take those predictions seriously, not when they project the Nats with a winning record.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 11:21 PM
I don't think their PECOTA projections have anything against the White Sox. But I just can't take those predictions seriously, not when they project the Nats with a winning record.
I don't know. Maybe they'll be really improved. I don't feel like digging through the archives, but I'm sure many scoffed at the Rays projection in 2008.

fox23
01-28-2010, 11:28 PM
I don't know. Maybe they'll be really improved. I don't feel like digging through the archives, but I'm sure many scoffed at the Rays projection in 2008.

The Rays were one of those "sleeper" teams for a little while and a lot of people could see their farm system was producing talented players. No one, and I mean no one, would say the same about the Nats this year.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 11:31 PM
The Rays were one of those "sleeper" teams for a little while and a lot of people could see their farm system was producing talented players. No one, and I mean no one, would say the same about the Nats this year.
Strasburg, Morgan, Zimmerman, Dunn, Flores, etc. I think they've got themselves a good core. I can see 75. I haven't looked at the projections with a microscope, but I'll re-address this when I do.

asindc
01-28-2010, 11:37 PM
I don't know. Maybe they'll be really improved. I don't feel like digging through the archives, but I'm sure many scoffed at the Rays projection in 2008.

Believe me, the Nats won't be experiencing a Rays-like ascension this year, unless the Phils swap offensive rosters with them before ST starts. Their farm is still in shambles, their starting rotation will still be the worst in baseball, and they will miss Nick Johnson. I think they will improve steadily over the next few years, but I will be shocked if they win 82 games this season.

fox23
01-28-2010, 11:40 PM
Strasburg, Morgan, Zimmerman, Dunn, Flores, etc. I think they've got themselves a good core. I can see 75. I haven't looked at the projections with a microscope, but I'll re-address this when I do.

And that's great. 75 is being very generous and still isn't close to competing.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 11:42 PM
And that's great. 75 is being very generous and still isn't close to competing.
Yeah, no one said they were competing. If you think 82 competes in the NL East, I don't know what to tell you.

I like their rotation. I think they're built well for that ballpark and could surprise some people. Will they contend? Good god no. Will they do well? I think they'll do well enough to be seen as a surprise.

fox23
01-28-2010, 11:50 PM
Yeah, no one said they were competing. If you think 82 competes in the NL East, I don't know what to tell you.

I like their rotation. I think they're built well for that ballpark and could surprise some people. Will they contend? Good god no. Will they do well? I think they'll do well enough to be seen as a surprise.

You just said no more than 5 posts ago that the Nats could become the equivalent of the 2008 Rays!!

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2010, 11:52 PM
You just said no more than 5 posts ago that the Nats could become the equivalent of the 2008 Rays!!
If that's what you took from the comment, I don't know what to tell you. By equivocating the perceived absurdity of the 2008 Rays projection with the 2010 Nationals projection, I somehow insinuated that the Nationals could reach the World Series?

Did you have to say "go-go gadget arm" before you could reach that far?

fox23
01-28-2010, 11:58 PM
If that's what you took from the comment, I don't know what to tell you. By equivocating the perceived absurdity of the 2008 Rays projection with the 2010 Nationals projection, I somehow insinuated that the Nationals could reach the World Series?

Did you have to say "go-go gadget arm" before you could reach that far?

Equivocal is certainly a word that describes your method of conveying a thought...

Craig Grebeck
01-29-2010, 12:02 AM
Equivocal is certainly a word that describes your method of conveying a thought...
Well, I'll restate what I said, perhaps it will make sense then.

People scoffed in 2008 about the Rays projection. People are scoffing now. Perhaps they will fulfill their projection.

fox23
01-29-2010, 12:10 AM
Well, I'll restate what I said, perhaps it will make sense then.

People scoffed in 2008 about the Rays projection. People are scoffing now. Perhaps they will fulfill their projection.

And that's fine. My point is that more than a few people saw the Rays improving and suggested they would be able to compete in their division for that year. I have not seen a single person or article that suggests the Nats will even come close to .500 other than the baseball prospectus.

Now clearly I'm not going to take the time to provide articles that show people believing that the Rays were going to be pretty good, and you are not going to provide articles showing people who believe the Nats will be good (I would say if either of us did that, we should find better things to do with our lives). So I wish you the best with your beliefs, and I'll keep mine.

harwar
01-29-2010, 06:16 AM
BP has the Twins winning 82 games to win AL Central... the White Sox are 2nd with 79...

don't poke the bear Dave :)

guillen4life13
01-29-2010, 08:56 AM
As these are proprietary formulas, we don't get to see them. I would really like to see them, though. I also have a distrust because of the track record, but really, it's so hard to predict anything sports related (especially baseball) due to the intangibles like injuries, down-years or unexplained changes in performance, streaks, etc...

I've done my share of studying statistics as an Industrial Engineering major. I have no confidence in this system. I don't think they hold a bias against anyone. I just think that, as far as baseball is concerned, there are too many things that come into play. As such, the best team on paper often turns out not to be the best team on the field. And vice versa. I don't know how any proprietary system could account for such variability.

Moses_Scurry
01-29-2010, 09:03 AM
The kinks aren't worked out, I think, on this release, causing everyone's RS/RA numbers to be off. They're getting through it. I think the proportions are workable/representative, but the numbers themselves aren't scaled correctly.

Question: If everything is off (wrong), and they know that, why are they releasing the data before getting it more accurate? Are people just dying to see crazy projections that admittedly still have "kinks".

SI1020
01-29-2010, 09:26 AM
Grebeck from the minute they predicted negative production for our squad, it was in the heads of 90% of sox fans the results were either biased, based on nothing, or both. No amount of understanding even basic theories of statistics will ever change the minds of these individuals. It will always be tainted, it will always be biased, and it will always be wrong - because they said so. True believers. Absolutely nothing you can tell them. Whether it's politics, religion, sports or whatever. The track record is abysmal. Enough said. Wow me with some accurate prognosticating over at least a three year period and then I'll take another look.

Craig Grebeck
01-29-2010, 09:31 AM
Question: If everything is off (wrong), and they know that, why are they releasing the data before getting it more accurate? Are people just dying to see crazy projections that admittedly still have "kinks".
Again, the RS/RA are proportionately correct, based on what I heard, making their projected wins/losses accurate to the formula. But they need to be scaled back -- it's a problem of playing time on the individual PECOTA cards, I think.

Every message board is asking why their pitching staff is giving up so much, or why they're scoring more.

Having only glanced at their estimates for pitching, I can't really complain. We've got a great staff based on their projections, and I just wish the offense could hold a candle to it.

SI1020
01-29-2010, 09:35 AM
I, for one, do not think BP hates the Sox and other non-SABR teams, I just think they refuse to put their statistics in proper context when assessing such teams. That is the basis for my criticism of BP and some (not all) other stat proponents. I agree.

voodoochile
01-29-2010, 09:37 AM
Again, the RS/RA are proportionately correct, based on what I heard, making their projected wins/losses accurate to the formula. But they need to be scaled back -- it's a problem of playing time on the individual PECOTA cards, I think.

Every message board is asking why their pitching staff is giving up so much, or why they're scoring more.

Having only glanced at their estimates for pitching, I can't really complain. We've got a great staff based on their projections, and I just wish the offense could hold a candle to it.

Actually, that RA total comes in 15th according to the current numbers they have posted. Why do you consider that great or are you looking at individual cards for starters and they have the bullpen as a complete disaster?

ilsox7
01-29-2010, 09:38 AM
True believers. Absolutely nothing you can tell them. Whether it's politics, religion, sports or whatever. The track record is abysmal. Enough said. Wow me with some accurate prognosticating over at least a three year period and then I'll take another look.

Nate is a brilliant guy and his political predictions are amazingly accurate. PECOTA just tries to predict things that, well, can't really be predicted with any degree of accuracy. Might it accurately project general trends? Maybe. But as to specifics, not so much.

Craig Grebeck
01-29-2010, 09:40 AM
Actually, that RA total comes in 15th according to the current numbers they have posted. Why do you consider that great or are you looking at individual cards for starters and they have the bullpen as a complete disaster?
Bullpen is a disaster. I'm looking purely at starters, as I often don't care for the RA estimates for bullpens, given their capricious nature. I don't really need to look at their card to see if Linebrink is going to suck.

I was mainly pleased that they think Peavy will keep his ERA under 4 and everyone else be around there. With a league average offense and a healthy starting five, that team should win 90 games. With the offense they're going with now, not so much.

Craig Grebeck
01-29-2010, 09:42 AM
Now clearly I'm not going to take the time to provide articles that show people believing that the Rays were going to be pretty good, and you are not going to provide articles showing people who believe the Nats will be good (I would say if either of us did that, we should find better things to do with our lives). So I wish you the best with your beliefs, and I'll keep mine.
Well, I guess my only rebuttal -- and this isn't a dig at you -- would be to say that I don't need articles to gauge whether or not a team will be good. Baseball writers are idiots, for the most part.

Bump34
01-29-2010, 09:47 AM
don't poke the bear Dave :)
Only took 116 posts...

thedudeabides
01-29-2010, 09:49 AM
Well, I'll restate what I said, perhaps it will make sense then.

People scoffed in 2008 about the Rays projection. People are scoffing now. Perhaps they will fulfill their projection.


Again, this just proves my point. Whenever, someone defends PECOTA they resort to the 2008 Rays. I'll give them credit for that one, as long as you let me point out how many times they have been way off.

And if people think PECOTA has a bias against the Sox, they are mistaking. They then have the same bias against the Angels. The problem I have with it is their excuses for teams like the Sox and Angels. I have heard the reasoning for the White Sox problems be pinned on their lack of DL time. Rick Wilton, at one of his forums, was trying to use this as their reasoning for being wrong in 2008. They didn't look at any specific injuries, just DL days as a whole. That year the Sox lost Contreras and Crede for most of the season. Konerko missed about 40 games with his oblique/hip problems, Thome missed time at separate occasions for back and heel trouble, and they lost their MVP candidate in Quentin for the stretch run. The explanation that their incredible health is why they were off was lazy, to say the least.

They have also gone on to explain their continued misses on Buehrle as him being very good at holding runners on base. Something they don't account for. Wow. I don't know what else to say.

And the reason people thinks BP hates the Sox has a lot more to do with Joe Sheehan than anything else. He has never passed up a chance to blast the Sox. In 2004 he was claiming that KW was the worst GM in baseball and should be fired. He was so bitter after the Sox won the WS in 2005 that he has never been able to let it go. He has gone as far as writing a column to rip on the Sox championship banners they hung in 2006, to making fun of the Sox Fundamentals sign in left(he thought it was a team motto, not a center for kids). Couple that with PECOTA consistently underestimating the Sox(not a bias towards the Sox, but a system flaw), and you can see why Sox fans have a problem with BP.

Craig Grebeck
01-29-2010, 09:55 AM
Again, this just proves my point. Whenever, someone defends PECOTA they resort to the 2008 Rays. I'll give them credit for that one, as long as you let me point out how many times they have been way off.

And if people think PECOTA has a bias against the Sox, they are mistaking. They then have the same bias against the Angels. The problem I have with it is their excuses for teams like the Sox and Angels. I have heard the reasoning for the White Sox problems be pinned on their lack of DL time. Rick Wilton, at one of his forums, was trying to use this as their reasoning for being wrong in 2008. They didn't look at any specific injuries, just DL days as a whole. That year the Sox lost Contreras and Crede for most of the season. Konerko missed about 40 games with his oblique/hip problems, Thome missed time at seperate occasions for back and heel trouble, and they lost their MVP candidate in Quentin for the stretch run. The explanation that their incredible health is why they were off was lazy, to say the least.

They have also gone on to explain their continued misses on Buehrle as him being very good at holding runners on base. Something they don't account for. Wow. I don't know what else to say.

And the reason people thinks BP hates the Sox has a lot more to do with Joe Sheehan than anything else. He has never passed up a chance to blast the Sox. In 2004 he was claiming that KW was the worst GM in baseball and should be fired. He was so bitter after the Sox won the WS in 2005 that he has never been able to let it go. He has gone as far as writing a column to rip on the Sox championship banners they hung in 2006, to making fun of the Sox Fundamentals sign in left(he thought it was a team motto, not a center for kids). Couple that with PECOTA consistantyl underestimating the Sox(not a bias towards the Sox, but a system flaw), and you can see why Sox fans have a problem with BP.
1. I wasn't resorting to the Rays to defend PECOTA. I don't give a **** whether or not meatheads like PECOTA, as they'll deride anything with numbers. I was just saying that the Nationals could meet their projections, as many doubted the Rays would meet or exceed theirs. I think there's plenty of other accomplishments and projections for PECOTA to stand on.
2. Rick Wilton isn't a writer for BP.
3. I am crediting Herm, as Sox pitchers have been absurdly healthy over the years.
4. Joe Sheehan is not BP. Nate Silver is/was a bigger name and bigger part of BP and he is a Sox fan. So one writer trashes the White Sox? Again, perhaps my skin isn't as thin as other fans, but I'm not going to blame an entire organization.
5. I guess I log onto BP from time to time and see them praising Herm, praising Kenny, praising Hahn, praising the pitching staff and our ability to compete with such an abysmal farm system and I think how can Sox fans resent this magazine for their treatment of the White Sox? Sure, dispute their ideology, but they're very kind to Chicago.

thedudeabides
01-29-2010, 10:14 AM
1. I wasn't resorting to the Rays to defend PECOTA. I don't give a **** whether or not meatheads like PECOTA, as they'll deride anything with numbers. I was just saying that the Nationals could meet their projections, as many doubted the Rays would meet or exceed theirs. I think there's plenty of other accomplishments and projections for PECOTA to stand on.
2. Rick Wilton isn't a writer for BP.
3. I am crediting Herm, as Sox pitchers have been absurdly healthy over the years.
4. Joe Sheehan is not BP. Nate Silver is/was a bigger name and bigger part of BP and he is a Sox fan. So one writer trashes the White Sox? Again, perhaps my skin isn't as thin as other fans, but I'm not going to blame an entire organization.
5. I guess I log onto BP from time to time and see them praising Herm, praising Kenny, praising Hahn, praising the pitching staff and our ability to compete with such an abysmal farm system and I think how can Sox fans resent this magazine for their treatment of the White Sox? Sure, dispute their ideology, but they're very kind to Chicago.

1. You have used the Rays example over and over again. If you have a more examples, use them. Also, I really hope you are not referring to me and other posters who don't like PECOTA as meatheads.
2. Rick Wilton was talking about BP's explanation, not his own. I have read it on BP's site as well. It has been used lazily on plenty of occasions. Also, any good statistical model would make adjustments once they continually make the same mistakes. There lack of recognition in correcting their mistakes is why they are not credible. In building statistical models, when you find an outlier, you watch it. When it happens again it is trending. When that continues it is a statistical bias and it is time to reconfigure your model. They haven't done this and it's why thier predictions are getting worse.
3. I agree with you on Herm, but reference above. PECOTA does not adjust.
4-5. Joe Sheehen is a writer for BP and has trashed them for years, much of it has been petty and unjust. That will absolutely rub fans the wrong way. Not just Sox fans, but fans of any team.

You've asked why I don't like PECOTA and I've laid out reasons. I have more if you'd like. Why is it that you like PECOTA?

Craig Grebeck
01-29-2010, 10:17 AM
1. You have used the Rays example over and over again. If you have a more examples, use them. Also, I really hope you are not referring to me and other posters who don't like PECOTA as meatheads.
2. Rick Wilton was talking about BP's explanation, not his own. I have read it on BP's site as well. It has been used lazily on plenty of occasions. Also, any good statistical model would make adjustments once they continually make the same mistakes. There lack of recognition in correcting their mistakes is why they are not credible. In building statistical models, when you find an outlier, you watch it. When it happens again it is trending. When that continues it is a statistical bias and it is time to reconfigure your model. They haven't done this and it's why thier predictions are getting worse.
3. I agree with you on Herm, but reference above. PECOTA does not adjust.
4-5. Joe Sheehen is a writer for BP and has trashed them for years, much of it has been petty and unjust. That will absolutely rub fans the wrong way. Not just Sox fans, but fans of any team.

You've asked why I don't like PECOTA and I've laid out reasons. I have more if you'd like. Why is it that you like PECOTA?
I'm pretty ambivalent, in all honesty. I think they are useful but not essential. As I said earlier in the thread, they're often so conservative and pared to the mean that they lose their ability to forecast breakouts.

asindc
01-29-2010, 10:24 AM
1. You have used the Rays example over and over again. If you have a more examples, use them. Also, I really hope you are not referring to me and other posters who don't like PECOTA as meatheads.
2. Rick Wilton was talking about BP's explanation, not his own. I have read it on BP's site as well. It has been used lazily on plenty of occasions. Also, any good statistical model would make adjustments once they continually make the same mistakes. There lack of recognition in correcting their mistakes is why they are not credible. In building statistical models, when you find an outlier, you watch it. When it happens again it is trending. When that continues it is a statistical bias and it is time to reconfigure your model. They haven't done this and it's why thier predictions are getting worse.
3. I agree with you on Herm, but reference above. PECOTA does not adjust.
4-5. Joe Sheehen is a writer for BP and has trashed them for years, much of it has been petty and unjust. That will absolutely rub fans the wrong way. Not just Sox fans, but fans of any team.

You've asked why I don't like PECOTA and I've laid out reasons. I have more if you'd like. Why is it that you like PECOTA?

Precisely. The very fact that they would recognize Buehrle's exceptional ability to keep the opponent's running game in check but not account for that demonstrates a stubbornness on their part.

voodoochile
01-29-2010, 10:25 AM
Just want to point out that the Sox good health is not all about Herm. KW does a good job of turning over the lineup and not holding on to players too long. OG does a good job of getting guys rest throughout the season and does a good job with the pitching staff in particular.

I'm not discounting the job Herm does either, but there are lots of factors that go into the Sox being healthier than the average team.

Soxfest
01-29-2010, 11:09 AM
If this happens then KW should be shown the door on October 4th!

Nellie_Fox
01-29-2010, 11:26 AM
I think they are useful but not essential.Truly not trying to be sarcastic or confrontational, but useful for what? Unless you're gambling, I don't see what the purpose of mathematical predictions is. One of the reasons I don't like all the emphasis on mathematical modeling that has come into baseball is that it just kills the enjoyment of the game that I developed as a little kid.

I've taken plenty of classes in statistics and research design. I think most models are much better suited to understanding what happened after the fact than they are to predicting future performance, especially in sports. The random nature of unpredictable events (as has already been mentioned, such as injuries, "career years," off years, etc.) just cannot be factored in.

jabrch
01-29-2010, 12:11 PM
Truly not trying to be sarcastic or confrontational, but useful for what? Unless you're gambling, I don't see what the purpose of mathematical predictions is. One of the reasons I don't like all the emphasis on mathematical modeling that has come into baseball is that it just kills the enjoyment of the game that I developed as a little kid.

I've taken plenty of classes in statistics and research design. I think most models are much better suited to understanding what happened after the fact than they are to predicting future performance, especially in sports. The random nature of unpredictable events (as has already been mentioned, such as injuries, "career years," off years, etc.) just cannot be factored in.

I agree with your second point more than your first. I don't have a problem with statistics from an enjoyment perspective. Certainly since we are really talking about other people's enjoyment - if they enjoy them, then goody!

But my problem with them focuses on reliability. I have very good models for how my customer base will pay bills based on various collections activities that takes into account all the information out there that we know about our customers, including all the data we buy from D&B and Moodys. I can predict with a strong reliability across a very large portfolio the accuracy of the entire portfolio. I have absolutely no way to predict the reliability of 24 individual accounts. I don't believe they do either. Their math and projections are not reliable unless you allow for such a wide range of acceptability. Given that we know teams don't win or lose fewer than 100 games (except for a rare outlier or two) and that you can usually predict even without data if a team is likely to be in the top or bottom of the remaining range, the rest, those teams between 75 and 85 wins all can go one way or the other, and the range of reliability of BP is inside this window.

I love the use of statistics. I hate the misuse of statistics.

DaSox_05
01-29-2010, 02:47 PM
While the order may be correct the win total I think is off. Its going to be a fight between the Twins and Sox, hopefully the Sox come out on top. I think it will be anywhere from 85-90 wins for the division winner.

TommyJohn
01-29-2010, 05:27 PM
Truly not trying to be sarcastic or confrontational, but useful for what? Unless you're gambling, I don't see what the purpose of mathematical predictions is. One of the reasons I don't like all the emphasis on mathematical modeling that has come into baseball is that it just kills the enjoyment of the game that I developed as a little kid.

I've taken plenty of classes in statistics and research design. I think most models are much better suited to understanding what happened after the fact than they are to predicting future performance, especially in sports. The random nature of unpredictable events (as has already been mentioned, such as injuries, "career years," off years, etc.) just cannot be factored in.
Agreed. That is why I don't like the overreliance on statistics-it is not only overkill, it just quantifies everything. And for what reason?

What drove me over the edge was an article I saw in 2005, shortly after the White Sox won the World Series. A Mr. Peepers look-a-like posted a long article, heavy with stats, about how "mediocre" teams have won the World Series lately. He included the Sox, Angels, Marlins and Diamondbacks in his assessment. He whipped out all of his stats to show it. What lost me was when he said that it used to be an anomaly-and used the 1969 New York Mets as an example, complete with myriad stats. That just did it for me. We long have read about the "Miracle Mets" and how they pulled off one of the greatest and celebrated upsets in sports. Now, though, they were no longer the "Miracle Mets" but the "Mediocre Mets who got lucky because they played well above all the preset statistical formulae." I thought "Why? Why can't they just be the Miracle Mets and leave it at that? Why must we come up with mathematical reasons why they won? Who cares? It is a great story in sports, let's leave it at that."

Lip Man 1
01-29-2010, 08:00 PM
TJ:

Well Said.

Lip

Tragg
01-29-2010, 09:35 PM
4. Joe Sheehan is not BP. Nate Silver is/was a bigger name and bigger part of BP and he is a Sox fan. So one writer trashes the White Sox? Again, perhaps my skin isn't as thin as other fans, but I'm not going to blame an entire organization.
Nate Silver is a Tigers fan.

Sheehan is ridiculously biased in many ways; anti-Sox, pro-GMs who hire BP writers/analysts et al.

I enjoy reading BP, particulary their non-quantitative stuff; but they lack introspection and self-analysis: when their theories do not turn out to be accurate, they rarely question the theory and routinely blame "the stars"

tick53
01-30-2010, 10:20 AM
They were wrong (not by much) last year with the team only having 74 wins.

asindc
01-30-2010, 10:38 AM
They were wrong (not by much) last year with the team only having 74 wins.

I would give them more credit for last year if they had anticipated Dye's dramatic 2nd half decline and TCQ missing 63 games.

gobears1987
01-30-2010, 10:50 AM
I think either team could win the division, but I'm leaning Twins as well at this point in time.

They have no pitching.

gobears1987
01-30-2010, 10:53 AM
I don't know. I just don't care much for using ERA to measure a bullpen. I don't think Pena will be that bad, but more Luis Vizcaino than Octavio Dotel.

So long as it isn't Damaso Marte, I'll be fine.

Luke
02-02-2010, 03:52 PM
Boers and Bernstein are talking about the PECOTA predictions right now. Apparently BP screwed up the projections a bit, and is trying to fix them.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1495

They updated projections have the Sox going 80-82 and the Twins at 83-79. The Nats got bumped down to 76 wins.

Ranger
02-02-2010, 04:26 PM
Pena was awful last year and they're probably not wild on Hudson, they wouldn't be the only ones.




Pena really wasn't all that bad last year. With the Sox: WHIP, K/9, BB/9, K/BB, and runners LOB all a little better than average. Where he was not so fortunate was in BABIP (about 30 points higher than normal). I'm not saying he was great, but it seems some people are overstating how bad he was.

voodoochile
02-02-2010, 04:50 PM
Pena really wasn't all that bad last year. With the Sox: WHIP, K/9, BB/9, K/BB, and runners LOB all a little better than average. Where he was not so fortunate was in BABIP (about 30 points higher than normal). I'm not saying he was great, but it seems some people are overstating how bad he was.

Personally I think Pena needs to stick with his hard stuff more. Stop trying to be a 3-4 pitch pitcher. You don't need them when you're a one inning reliever. He has a real nice fast ball and should focus on it.

DaveFeelsRight
02-02-2010, 05:13 PM
this is how i feel about pena

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsoY4pk47mo

fram40
02-03-2010, 10:00 AM
Boers and Bernstein are talking about the PECOTA predictions right now. Apparently BP screwed up the projections a bit, and is trying to fix them.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1495

They updated projections have the Sox going 80-82 and the Twins at 83-79. The Nats got bumped down to 76 wins.

at least now I understand why the specific numbers did not match (e.g., Nats at 82 wins and Sox with 812 RA) when I checked the link this morning

Hilarious - discussing the reliablilty of BP's projections - and then BP admits their projections are erroneous. I have no more confidence in their updated projections than their original ones.

Craig Grebeck
02-03-2010, 10:07 AM
at least now I understand why the specific numbers did not match (e.g., Nats at 82 wins and Sox with 812 RA) when I checked the link this morning

Hilarious - discussing the reliablilty of BP's projections - and then BP admits their projections are erroneous. I have no more confidence in their updated projections than their original ones.
I guess I missed where they admitted their projections were erroneous. Care to post evidence?

fram40
02-03-2010, 10:13 AM
I guess I missed where they admitted their projections were erroneous. Care to post evidence?

According to Luke - quoted in my Post - BP admitted that their projections were off. So they posted updated projections.

Luke
02-03-2010, 01:17 PM
I guess I missed where they admitted their projections were erroneous. Care to post evidence?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1495

Readjusted projections

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

Craig Grebeck
02-03-2010, 01:18 PM
I thought you meant PECOTA in general.

voodoochile
02-03-2010, 01:25 PM
I thought you meant PECOTA in general.

Just curious, much has been made of the W/L projections they post and how accurate they are with a few stunning examples of them nailing it but a whole bunch of examples of them being no better than chance. Not to get into that, has anyone done an analysis of how accurate their RS/RA projections are?

Since the W/L totals are based on those numbers, it would be interesting to see if they are accurate with the run projections while missing on the W/L projections which would indeed show something is wrong with the model.

If not, it merely proves what PECOTA detractors have been saying is that modeling baseball is too tough to do for accurate predictive purposes.

Luke
02-03-2010, 01:58 PM
Just curious, much has been made of the W/L projections they post and how accurate they are with a few stunning examples of them nailing it but a whole bunch of examples of them being no better than chance. Not to get into that, has anyone done an analysis of how accurate their RS/RA projections are?

Since the W/L totals are based on those numbers, it would be interesting to see if they are accurate with the run projections while missing on the W/L projections which would indeed show something is wrong with the model.

If not, it merely proves what PECOTA detractors have been saying is that modeling baseball is too tough to do for accurate predictive purposes.

According to Wikipedia and its source, Vegas Watch, PECOTA was off by by the following average amounts:

2003: 5.91 wins
2004: 7.71 wins
2005: 5.14 wins
2006: 4.94 wins
2007: 4.31 wins
2008: 8.50 wins

I didn't see the specific variation for 2009, but again, according Vegas Watch, PECOTA had the worst accuracy of all the systems.

http://vegaswatch.net/2009/09/evaluating-april-mlb-predictions-2009.html

voodoochile
02-03-2010, 02:42 PM
According to Wikipedia and its source, Vegas Watch, PECOTA was off by by the following average amounts:

2003: 5.91 wins
2004: 7.71 wins
2005: 5.14 wins
2006: 4.94 wins
2007: 4.31 wins
2008: 8.50 wins

I didn't see the specific variation for 2009, but again, according Vegas Watch, PECOTA had the worst accuracy of all the systems.

http://vegaswatch.net/2009/09/evaluating-april-mlb-predictions-2009.html

Yeah, that's an average standard deviation of 6.1 wins which isn't exactly earth shattering. By the time you get to 99% accuracy, you're at 18+ wins which is 99-63 which again is pretty basic stuff. You don't need a projection to predict like that.

But again, I wasn't asking about the W/L projections but the run projections which the W/L feed off. How accurate are those run projections.

Anyone got a link to the various year's projections?

Jim Shorts
02-03-2010, 03:40 PM
The bottom line with me is that Will Carroll will bend over backwards to pile on anything White Sox. I heard him say as much on the radio in Indianapolis. He has a bias and he doesn't hide, except when on or near Chicago's southside.

RCWHITESOX
02-03-2010, 04:24 PM
The Sox are going to win the division and thats that.

Ranger
02-03-2010, 10:24 PM
Nate is a brilliant guy and his political predictions are amazingly accurate. PECOTA just tries to predict things that, well, can't really be predicted with any degree of accuracy. Might it accurately project general trends? Maybe. But as to specifics, not so much.

Good analysis. It's much easier to predict voting trends based on demographics and other factors than it is to predict the outcome of games. There are rarely any suprises when it come to the reasons people vote the way they vote.

Agreed. That is why I don't like the overreliance on statistics-it is not only overkill, it just quantuifies eeverything. And for what reason?

What drove me over the edge was an article I saw in 2005, shortly after the White Sox won the World Series. A Mr. Peepers look-a-like posted a long article, heavy with stats, about how "mediocre" teams have won the World Series lately. He included the Sox, Angels, Marlins and Diamondbacks in his assessment. He whipped out all of his stats to show it. What lost me was when he said that it used to be an anomaly-and used the 1969 New York Mets as an example, complete with myriad stats. That just did it for me. We long have read about the "Miracle Mets" and how they pulled off one of the greatest and celebrated upsets in sports. Now, though, they were no longer the "Miracle Mets" but the "Mediocre Mets who got lucky because they played well above all the preset statistical formulae." I thought "Why? Why can't they just be the Miracle Mets and leave it at that? Why must we come up with mathematical reasons why they won? Who cares? It is a great story in sports, let's leave it at that."

Stats are nice in examining what a player has done, but they can't always tell you what he's going to do...especially when that player only has a few years of service. I know that sounds obvious, but it just means that you can't lose sleep over pre-season predictions. Even pre-season predictions that use computers and formulas.

I would give them more credit for last year if they had anticipated Dye's dramatic 2nd half decline and TCQ missing 63 games.

Which is why I dismiss the seemingly, spot-on 72 win prediction from 2007 people love to reference. I mean, they got the final number right, but their math was wrong. If I recall correctly, they predicted the Sox rotation would be awful that year but the offense would be decent. They were completely off on both of those.

Personally I think Pena needs to stick with his hard stuff more. Stop trying to be a 3-4 pitch pitcher. You don't need them when you're a one inning reliever. He has a real nice fast ball and should focus on it.

Pena needs to become a better pitcher. He tends to just sort of sling it up there.

oldcomiskey
02-04-2010, 06:55 PM
Well, it goes without saying, but I feel it should be said anyway: this is PECOTA's take. BP's writers often disagree with PECOTA, and don't treat it as an infallible tool of forecasting.

The writers, I'm sure, feel differently. How much differently? I don't know. I've found PECOTA's projections are often pared to the mean so much that they become a little too subdued, and fail at projecting breakouts and forecasting peaks. I prefer Marcels or CHONE, in all honesty.

now what does Bill Pecota have to do with it?