PDA

View Full Version : PECOTA 2010 Good News and Bad News for White Sox


Fenway
02-14-2010, 03:05 AM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/

The good news is they project the White Sox to finish in a 3 way tie in the Central with Murder City and Minny

However the projected record is 80-82

If this happens get Hawk a truckload of scotch.

oeo
02-14-2010, 03:11 AM
If that happens I will tattoo I <3 PECOTA on my forehead.

Nellie_Fox
02-14-2010, 03:16 AM
What a load of crap. There is no way that the entire central division finishes below .500.

jabrch
02-14-2010, 03:20 AM
What a load of crap. There is no way that the entire central division finishes below .500.

This is why modeling is so stupid in baseball. This result is so clearly assinine and unrealistic that it should be the basis for all future PECOTA discussions.

doublem23
02-14-2010, 03:30 AM
What a load of crap. There is no way that the entire central division finishes below .500.

Why not? (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/1994.shtml)

The Central is pretty god awful from top to bottom.... Which makes it even more laughable that we're standing pat with this ****ing god awful offense.

oeo
02-14-2010, 03:39 AM
Why not? (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/1994.shtml)

The Central is pretty god awful from top to bottom.... Which makes it even more laughable that we're standing pat with this ****ing god awful offense.

If the win totals are as low as they are in these projections, the chances are extremely small to nearly impossible. Only three teams over 90 wins and they're all in the same division? That should be your first tipping point that this is way off the mark.

Also, you do realize that all of the Sox, Twins, and Tigers get to play the Indians and Royals 36 games each, right? It's not happening. Maybe if all the teams were at the same level, but there are two AWFUL teams in the division.

doublem23
02-14-2010, 03:46 AM
If the win totals are as low as they are in these projections, the chances are extremely small to nearly impossible. Only three teams over 90 wins and they're all in the same division? That should be your first tipping point that this is way off the mark.

And why not? That's almost the exact scenario that played out in 1994 in the American League; AL West completely under .500 and of the 4 teams that had winning percentages that translate to 90 wins, 3 were in the Central.

Also, you do realize that all of the Sox, Twins, and Tigers get to play the Indians and Royals 36 games each, right? It's not happening. Maybe if all the teams were at the same level, but there are two AWFUL teams in the division.

That has some bearing when you note that good teams, like the Yankees and Red Sox, get to play **** teams like Toronto and Baltimore a combined 38 times, but in our case, the Tigers definitely suck, the Sox probably suck, and the Twins have a good chance of sucking.

Let's not pretend like we're talking about world beaters here. Combine the Sox, Tigers, and Twins and you've got a team that might win the AL East. Maybe make the play-offs, but would definitely finish at least 4th in that division.

Nellie_Fox
02-14-2010, 03:52 AM
Why not? (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/1994.shtml)

The Central is pretty god awful from top to bottom.... Which makes it even more laughable that we're standing pat with this ****ing god awful offense.Because neither the Sox nor the Twins are that bad. The Sox have too much pitching, the Twins have a pretty damn good offense. I still say there's no way in hell the entire central finishes below .500 this year. And this crap is why so many of us hate these stats that pretend to predict.

oeo
02-14-2010, 03:53 AM
And why not? That's almost the exact scenario that played out in 1994 in the American League; AL West completely under .500 and of the 4 teams that had winning percentages that translate to 90 wins, 3 were in the Central.

It's funny that your defense is a season that wasn't even finished. No, in fact, it's hilarious.

We've seen some terrible divisions from the NL West in recent years, and this current AL Central is not even that bad. The division leader still came out with a winning percentage over .500. The chances of it happening are so very small. And considering the Sox have one of the best, and arguably the best (check in at the end of the year) pitching staff in baseball, it will be enough to carry them alone to an above .500 record, poor offense or not.

That has some bearing when you note that good teams, like the Yankees and Red Sox, get to play **** teams like Toronto and Baltimore a combined 38 times, but in our case, the Tigers definitely suck, the Sox probably suck, and the Twins have a good chance of sucking.

Let's not pretend like we're talking about world beaters here. Combine the Sox, Tigers, and Twins and you've got a team that might win the AL East. Maybe make the play-offs, but would definitely finish at least 4th in that division.

I didn't think this could get any more foolish...but it did. Looks like somebody had a little too much to drink tonight.

doublem23
02-14-2010, 04:00 AM
I didn't think this could get any more foolish...but it did. Looks like somebody had a little too much to drink tonight.

I obviously don't think that the entire Central will finish below .500, the Twins will probably win around 85-90ish games. But it's true the Central is teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeerible.

Anyways, the reason most people get so riled up by B-R projections is that they stamp a W-L record to their projections, but they're just basic Pythagorean records, anyone who confuses that with an actual hard-line projection on wins and losses should invest in this book:

http://cdn.overstock.com/images/products/muze/books/0764554239.jpg

doublem23
02-14-2010, 04:05 AM
It's funny that your defense is a season that wasn't even finished. No, in fact, it's hilarious.

And yet, it would have happened, had that season played out, so let's cut the **** tangent argument like B-R is predicting the entire Central is going to go 0-162 and refocus on the very legitimate opinion that this division is ****ing horse****.

I mean, HOW COULD THEY BE DOWN ON THE SOX when the great Andruw Jones is still our likely primary DH, just days away from the start of Spring Training!?!?!?!?

oeo
02-14-2010, 04:35 AM
You're completely over-exaggerating, which is funny coming from yourself considering you're usually closer to a Pollyanna than a dark cloud. Things are not as bad as you make them seem. Yes, the offense isn't very good, but it's not awful. It will score enough runs to win a good amount of games because of our pitching staff. Take a deep breath, it's not like we're the Royals here. We have, arguably, the best pitching staff in baseball. That's going to win games or at least keep games close which at the very least is a recipe for an exciting season of late-inning comebacks.

oeo
02-14-2010, 04:45 AM
And yet, it would have happened, had that season played out, so let's cut the **** tangent argument like B-R is predicting the entire Central is going to go 0-162 and refocus on the very legitimate opinion that this division is ****ing horse****.

It would have? Just like the Sox would have won the World Series? *****. There's a reason they play 162 and not 115. If only the 2006 Sox could have played a shortened season. I'm so glad you can predict things so well, what's going to be your excuse when this thread is brought back up in the future?

I mean, HOW COULD THEY BE DOWN ON THE SOX when the great Andruw Jones is still our likely primary DH, just days away from the start of Spring Training!?!?!?!?

A better question is how could they be down on just about every team in baseball. These projections suck every year. Baseball seasons are never full of this much mediocrity. This looks more like a projection for the NFL, where you have 1 or 2 elite teams and then a fall off from there. It doesn't happen in baseball.

Frater Perdurabo
02-14-2010, 08:26 AM
Let's not pretend like we're talking about world beaters here. Combine the Sox, Tigers, and Twins and you've got a team that might win the AL East.

This is pure hyperbole and it discredits the rest of your argument. This roster of just Sox and Twins would almost certainly win the AL East:

Rotation: Peavy, Buehrle, Danks, Floyd, Blackburn
Bullpen: Nathan, Jenks, Thornton, Guerrier, Rauch, Mijares, Baker
Lineup: CF Span, 2B Hudson, C Mauer, LF Quentin, 1B Morneau, RF Cuddyer, DH Kubel, 3B Beckham, SS Alexei
Bench: AJ, Rios, Paulie, Hardy

Rdy2PlayBall
02-14-2010, 10:26 AM
They also thing the Red Sox with get 94 wins and the Yankess 92... I've never seen such disgusting predictions for a season.

mzh
02-14-2010, 10:42 AM
Why not? (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/1994.shtml)

The Central is pretty god awful from top to bottom.... Which makes it even more laughable that we're standing pat with this ****ing god awful offense.
I don't think any team in Major League History has won a division under .500. teams hav ewon going 82-20 a couple times, but that's just ridiculous. They are essentially saying that the sox are 1 game better than 2009. So basically Colon = Garcia, Contreras = Peavy, and Rios = Wise? :scratch:

dickallen15
02-14-2010, 10:49 AM
I think their deadline is in December or early January to get their numbers in. Many guys aren't signed or haven't been traded by then. Considering the preseason threads that come up on this board with predictions done at the end of spring training, and considering how off many predictions are, it would be interesting how off some predictions are 2 or 3 months earlier. Its easy to say Boston and New York with be in the playoffs, but beyond that, every year they prove there is a reason why they play the games.

Its a fun tool. I get the BP book every year. Sometimes they are right on, sometimes they couldn't be more off, but that's how baseball goes. Some can't miss prospects bust, some guys passed up by other teams 30 times in the draft throw perfect games.

voodoochile
02-14-2010, 10:52 AM
Am I mis-thinking something on this issue?

Shouldn't the win total of all the teams equal the loss totals of all the teams?

I mean in the end, MLB's over all record has to = .500 every year, right?

Then why are they projecting 4 more wins (2432) than losses (2428)?

Rdy2PlayBall
02-14-2010, 10:53 AM
I don't think any team in Major League History has won a division under .500. teams hav ewon going 82-20 a couple times, but that's just ridiculous. They are essentially saying that the sox are 1 game better than 2009. So basically Colon = Garcia, Contreras = Peavy, and Rios = Wise? :scratch:The argument is Thome > Jones/Kotsay and Dye/Wise/Pods > Pierre/Rios...

I'd rather have our new outfield ANYDAY of the week, and the loss of Thome isn't that big of a deal if you ask me. We are 20RBIS worse at DH than last year!! OMG the shy is falling!!! We are at minimum 10 games better than last year. And if everyone plays to expectations (NOT CAREER YEARS)... then we can win at least 90 IMO.

dickallen15
02-14-2010, 10:59 AM
I don't think any team in Major League History has won a division under .500. teams hav ewon going 82-20 a couple times, but that's just ridiculous. They are essentially saying that the sox are 1 game better than 2009. So basically Colon = Garcia, Contreras = Peavy, and Rios = Wise? :scratch:
We heard the same thing when some were predicting doom and gloom for the Bears now with Jay Cutler.

Pecota isn't going to give you a glowing prediction for Putz. It probably will give you a drop in production for AJP, Konerko. Probably a little increase for Quentin, a drop for Pierre. Rios, probably somewhere in between his 2008 and 2009 season. A little drop for Buehrle, maybe a slight drop for Danks and Floyd. A decent drop for Jenks. No expections for Kotsay or Jones. Probably more of the same for Teahan.

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Pecota use similar players in performance and age in MLB history to determine trajectory?

If you polled BPs staff, there probably isn't one person who thinks the ALC will be won by a sub .500 team, and in their book they usually mention what they think of the Pecota projection whether its high or low. They have percentages for breakouts, collapses and remaining status quo.

You just have to remember its just a tool. If it were gospel, they might as well not even play. I would reccommend anyone who has never read it to pick it up. Its a lot of fun to read.

dickallen15
02-14-2010, 11:02 AM
Am I mis-thinking something on this issue?

Shouldn't the win total of all the teams equal the loss totals of all the teams?

I mean in the end, MLB's over all record has to = .500 every year, right?

Then why are they projecting 4 more wins (2432) than losses (2428)?


It happens because of percentages. If they round up and 2 teams have 80.5, that goes from 161 to 162, so that would be 162-160 instead of 161-161.

voodoochile
02-14-2010, 11:08 AM
It happens because of percentages. If they round up and 2 teams have 80.5, that goes from 161 to 162, so that would be 162-160 instead of 161-161.

Okay, still, I'd think they'd want to use a smoothing formula or something to correct that.

dickallen15
02-14-2010, 11:10 AM
Okay, still, I'd think they'd want to use a smoothing formula or something to correct that.

I understand, but its pretty close. Its 2 wins total too many for 30 teams.

Daver
02-14-2010, 11:14 AM
Am I mis-thinking something on this issue?

Shouldn't the win total of all the teams equal the loss totals of all the teams?

I mean in the end, MLB's over all record has to = .500 every year, right?

Then why are they projecting 4 more wins (2432) than losses (2428)?

Because the entire process is nothing more than mental masturbation, so why bother having it make sense.

Rdy2PlayBall
02-14-2010, 11:19 AM
Btw, MLB.com has our pitching staff (The Chicago White Sox) winning 88 games.
Twins - 85
Tigers - 83

asindc
02-14-2010, 12:02 PM
We heard the same thing when some were predicting doom and gloom for the Bears now with Jay Cutler.

Pecota isn't going to give you a glowing prediction for Putz. It probably will give you a drop in production for AJP, Konerko. Probably a little increase for Quentin, a drop for Pierre. Rios, probably somewhere in between his 2008 and 2009 season. A little drop for Buehrle, maybe a slight drop for Danks and Floyd. A decent drop for Jenks. No expections for Kotsay or Jones. Probably more of the same for Teahan.

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Pecota use similar players in performance and age in MLB history to determine trajectory?

If you polled BPs staff, there probably isn't one person who thinks the ALC will be won by a sub .500 team, and in their book they usually mention what they think of the Pecota projection whether its high or low. They have percentages for breakouts, collapses and remaining status quo.

You just have to remember its just a tool. If it were gospel, they might as well not even play. I would reccommend anyone who has never read it to pick it up. Its a lot of fun to read.

Then what is the point of using PECOTA?:scratch:

asindc
02-14-2010, 12:03 PM
I obviously don't think that the entire Central will finish below .500, the Twins will probably win around 85-90ish games. But it's true the Central is teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeerible.

Anyways, the reason most people get so riled up by B-R projections is that they stamp a W-L record to their projections, but they're just basic Pythagorean records, anyone who confuses that with an actual hard-line projection on wins and losses should invest in this book:

http://cdn.overstock.com/images/products/muze/books/0764554239.jpg

Again I ask, what is the point, then?

asindc
02-14-2010, 12:05 PM
Am I mis-thinking something on this issue?

Shouldn't the win total of all the teams equal the loss totals of all the teams?

I mean in the end, MLB's over all record has to = .500 every year, right?

Then why are they projecting 4 more wins (2432) than losses (2428)?

I think you forgot to account for the VORW (value over replacement wins).

dickallen15
02-14-2010, 12:21 PM
Then what is the point of using PECOTA?:scratch:

Pecota determines player performance. It obviously isn't the end all and when guys collect the stats they will collect there still are a lot of variables that will determine whether the team wins or loses. Right now, BP projects Min, Det and the Sox as equals. That's what you should take out of it, not they they really think they will be in a 3 way tie at 80-82.
Its still February. If you really want a laugh, Go back to the prediction thread last year after spring training and look at all of those who call BP a bunch of idiots predictions.

guillen4life13
02-14-2010, 12:27 PM
And why not? That's almost the exact scenario that played out in 1994 in the American League; AL West completely under .500 and of the 4 teams that had winning percentages that translate to 90 wins, 3 were in the Central.



That has some bearing when you note that good teams, like the Yankees and Red Sox, get to play **** teams like Toronto and Baltimore a combined 38 times, but in our case, the Tigers definitely suck, the Sox probably suck, and the Twins have a good chance of sucking.

Let's not pretend like we're talking about world beaters here. Combine the Sox, Tigers, and Twins and you've got a team that might win the AL East. Maybe make the play-offs, but would definitely finish at least 4th in that division.

I respectfully disagree. You create a best of team and you get (from positions 2-DH, then pitching staff):

2 - Mauer
3 - Morneau
4 - Beckham
5 - Teahen
6 - Ramirez
7 - Quentin
8 - Rios
9 - Cuddyer/Ordonez
DH - Cabrera

SP1 Peavy
SP2 Verlander
SP3 Buehrle
SP4 Floyd
SP5 Danks

I'll match that team against ANYONE.

GoGoCrede
02-14-2010, 12:38 PM
So what did they predict for us last year, then?

dickallen15
02-14-2010, 12:45 PM
So what did they predict for us last year, then?
74-88. Remember, that's with Jerry Owens as a regular and Josh Fields manning 3rd every day.Pecota was the worst for forecasting systems last year. From 2005-2008 it was the most accurate. 2005 they didn't give the Sox much of a chance, but none of the systems did.

Rdy2PlayBall
02-14-2010, 12:51 PM
I respectfully disagree. You create a best of team and you get (from positions 2-DH, then pitching staff):

2 - Mauer
3 - Morneau
4 - Beckham
5 - Teahen
6 - Ramirez
7 - Quentin
8 - Rios
9 - Cuddyer/Ordonez
DH - Cabrera

SP1 Peavy
SP2 Verlander
SP3 Buehrle
SP4 Floyd
SP5 Danks

I'll match that team against ANYONE.I love how most of that offense is from the White Sox. But our offense sucks right? I agree with what you are saying, but many here think our offense is the worst in baseball or something.

asindc
02-14-2010, 12:55 PM
Pecota determines player performance. It obviously isn't the end all and when guys collect the stats they will collect there still are a lot of variables that will determine whether the team wins or loses. Right now, BP projects Min, Det and the Sox as equals. That's what you should take out of it, not they they really think they will be in a 3 way tie at 80-82.
Its still February. If you really want a laugh, Go back to the prediction thread last year after spring training and look at all of those who call BP a bunch of idiots predictions.

That's fine, but why bother assigning wins and losses to that type of analysis, especially when no other reasonably-aware observer would make those win-loss predictions?

asindc
02-14-2010, 12:59 PM
I respectfully disagree. You create a best of team and you get (from positions 2-DH, then pitching staff):

2 - Mauer
3 - Morneau
4 - Beckham
5 - Teahen
6 - Ramirez
7 - Quentin
8 - Rios
9 - Cuddyer/Ordonez
DH - Cabrera

SP1 Peavy
SP2 Verlander
SP3 Buehrle
SP4 Floyd
SP5 Danks

I'll match that team against ANYONE.

That team would win a minimum of 105 games in the AL East. You can sub Alexei for Hardy and/or Span for Rios but I think the result would be the same. I think doublem23 got a bit carried away with his response.

DirtySox
02-14-2010, 01:03 PM
I love how most of that offense is from the White Sox. But our offense sucks right? I agree with what you are saying, but many here think our offense is the worst in baseball or something.

Kubel and Span could easily be fit into that list.

doublem23
02-14-2010, 03:38 PM
I love how most of that offense is from the White Sox. But our offense sucks right? I agree with what you are saying, but many here think our offense is the worst in baseball or something.

Well there's no way Teahen would be on the team (the Royals dumped him, for christ's sake), and it looks like you're betting WAAAAAAAAAAY high on Rios and Quentin. I got to believe there's a better SS out there than Alexei, too, unless you need to add more strikeouts in your lineup.

doublem23
02-14-2010, 03:42 PM
That's fine, but why bother assigning wins and losses to that type of analysis, especially when no other reasonably-aware observer would make those win-loss predictions?

Because it's ****ing interesting to read and analyze, and it sure beats the alternative of having to read pre-season "analysis" by ****heads like Phil Rogers (http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2008/01/best-system-ever.html).

jabrch
02-14-2010, 04:04 PM
Well there's no way Teahen would be on the team (the Royals dumped him, for christ's sake), and it looks like you're betting WAAAAAAAAAAY high on Rios and Quentin. I got to believe there's a better SS out there than Alexei, too, unless you need to add more strikeouts in your lineup.

You seem awful convinced of your opinions that you state as fact...I can't wait until we have some facts to discuss.

SI1020
02-14-2010, 04:06 PM
Because it's ****ing interesting to read and analyze, and it sure beats the alternative of having to read pre-season "analysis" by ****heads like Phil Rogers (http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2008/01/best-system-ever.html)."For the record, Swisher is a beast who has walked 197 times in the last two years. He's 26 and really good."

Is this the kind of analysis you prefer or not?

asindc
02-14-2010, 04:09 PM
Well there's no way Teahen would be on the team (the Royals dumped him, for christ's sake), and it looks like you're betting WAAAAAAAAAAY high on Rios and Quentin. I got to believe there's a better SS out there than Alexei, too, unless you need to add more strikeouts in your lineup.

Teahan is the best 3rd baseman on the roster of any of the three teams. A healthy Quentin is better than every other OF among the three rosters. Rios at his career norms could be replaced by Span at his career norms, but it is not clear-cut at all. The only SS among the three rosters that should even be considered to replace Alexei in the starting position is Hardy. Oh by the way, here are the strikeout comparisons between them the past two seasons:

TCM:
2008- Games 136, 61 SOs.
2009- Games 148, 66 SOs.

Hardy:
2008- Games 146, 98 SOs.
2009- Games 115, 85 SOs.

So while TCM is trending better in terms of SOs, Hardy is trending worse. The grass certainly looks better to me on this side of the fence in that regard.

Rdy2PlayBall
02-14-2010, 04:19 PM
Well there's no way Teahen would be on the team (the Royals dumped him, for christ's sake), and it looks like you're betting WAAAAAAAAAAY high on Rios and Quentin. I got to believe there's a better SS out there than Alexei, too, unless you need to add more strikeouts in your lineup.I didn't make the list. I have no idea why your telling me this. :rolleyes:

asindc, I think you mean TCM, not TCQ... I think...

TheVulture
02-14-2010, 04:42 PM
I got to believe there's a better SS out there than Alexei, too, unless you need to add more strikeouts in your lineup.

Hogwash - Ramirez has placed in the top 15 in the AL for SO/AB in both seasons he's been in the league while nearly tripling his walk total last year.

Lip Man 1
02-14-2010, 08:30 PM
I've been out of town on a roadtrip but wasn't this topic discussed in another thread a few weeks ago or is something different now with these projections?

I remember them saying for example the Nationals were going to win more games than the White Sox and there is absolutely no way any team "wins" a division with a losing record it just isn't going to happen and never has in modern (post 1900) baseball history.

Lip

guillen4life13
02-14-2010, 08:33 PM
I've been out of town on a roadtrip but wasn't this topic discussed in another thread a few weeks ago or is something different now with these projections?

I remember them saying for example the Nationals were going to win more games than the White Sox and there is absolutely no way any team "wins" a division with a losing record it just isn't going to happen and never has in modern (post 1900) baseball history.

Lip

I think that those were the BP or BA predictions.

oeo
02-14-2010, 08:41 PM
Well there's no way Teahen would be on the team (the Royals dumped him, for christ's sake), and it looks like you're betting WAAAAAAAAAAY high on Rios and Quentin. I got to believe there's a better SS out there than Alexei, too, unless you need to add more strikeouts in your lineup.

:scratch:

Alexei does not strike out much at all. In fact, among starting position players in all of baseball, his 66 SO's in 2009 ranked 23rd least, right in the same area as Joe Mauer and Albert Pujols. Your posts are increasingly getting funnier and funnier.

Rdy2PlayBall
02-14-2010, 08:45 PM
:scratch:

Alexei does not strike out much at all. Your posts are increasingly getting funnier and funnier.I know. I seriously think hes beginning to lose it. :tongue:

Fenway
02-14-2010, 09:44 PM
The Boston Globe reminds that these people have a decent track record

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2010/02/pecota_loves_th.html

doublem23
02-14-2010, 10:25 PM
"For the record, Swisher is a beast who has walked 197 times in the last two years. He's 26 and really good."

Is this the kind of analysis you prefer or not?

I like how you've overlooked their praise of TCQ, and, if you notice the date, this was written before his break-out season when none of us knew who he was.

Now, that said, I know TCQ played Swisher out of a job, and I know his sulking rubbed Ozzie the wrong way at the end of 2008, so I know that KW pretty much had to trade him, but from an on the field standpoint, it's looking a lot like the Sox would have been better off keeping Swisher and dumping Dye before last season.

.249/.371/.498/.869, 129 OPS+, 29 HR, 82 RBI, 607 PA
.250/.340/.453/.793, 103 OPS+, 27 HR, 81 RBI, 574 PA

Craig Grebeck
02-14-2010, 11:19 PM
I like how you've overlooked their praise of TCQ, and, if you notice the date, this was written before his break-out season when none of us knew who he was.

Now, that said, I know TCQ played Swisher out of a job, and I know his sulking rubbed Ozzie the wrong way at the end of 2008, so I know that KW pretty much had to trade him, but from an on the field standpoint, it's looking a lot like the Sox would have been better off keeping Swisher and dumping Dye before last season.

.249/.371/.498/.869, 129 OPS+, 29 HR, 82 RBI, 607 PA
.250/.340/.453/.793, 103 OPS+, 27 HR, 81 RBI, 574 PA

Yeah, I think that Swisher-Dye point is pretty much indisputable.

jabrch
02-14-2010, 11:22 PM
but from an on the field standpoint, it's looking a lot like the Sox would have been better off keeping Swisher and dumping Dye before last season.

Really? Cuz if we had Swish instead of Dye in the first half, there's no way we'd have been a better team. Yes - he was much better than second half JD. But if you look at those stats, they are really fairly similar. a 5-10 run difference over 600 PAs...BFD.

I am still not sure I see your point. Swish vs JD? I never even recall that being an option. And regardless - until the second half, JD was a far better player. What the heck happened to JD that he fell apart like that?

doublem23
02-14-2010, 11:25 PM
Yeah, I think that Swisher-Dye point is pretty much indisputable.

Of course, the economy last off-season is the huge wildcard, but I'd also like to think the Sox could have gotten something a little more substantial for Jermaine than Nick, since we pretty much sold low with Swisher and could have at least sold sort-of high with Jermaine.

This all said, I know Swisher played himself out of the Sox by acting like a douche in the latter part of 2008, so I'm not at all putting too much blame on KW for dumping him at the first chance he got, I'm just saying that 1 bad year here doesn't necessarily mean Swisher is a terrible player, he was just ultimately a bad fit here for a lot of reasons on and off the field.

Craig Grebeck
02-14-2010, 11:28 PM
Really? Cuz if we had Swish instead of Dye in the first half, there's no way we'd have been a better team. Yes - he was much better than second half JD. But if you look at those stats, they are really fairly similar. a 5-10 run difference over 600 PAs...BFD.

I am still not sure I see your point. Swish vs JD? I never even recall that being an option. And regardless - until the second half, JD was a far better player. What the heck happened to JD that he fell apart like that?
On what are you basing the numbers here?

Craig Grebeck
02-14-2010, 11:28 PM
Of course, the economy last off-season is the huge wildcard, but I'd also like to think the Sox could have gotten something a little more substantial for Jermaine than Nick, since we pretty much sold low with Swisher and could have at least sold sort-of high with Jermaine.

This all said, I know Swisher played himself out of the Sox by acting like a douche in the latter part of 2008, so I'm not at all putting too much blame on KW for dumping him at the first chance he got, I'm just saying that 1 bad year here doesn't necessarily mean Swisher is a terrible player, he was just ultimately a bad fit here for a lot of reasons on and off the field.
Yep, he acted like a douche. I wish we wouldn't have acted like we had to deal him, which allowed the Yankees to offer a pile of **** and we acted like we had to take it. I absolutely would have kept him.

oeo
02-14-2010, 11:32 PM
Now, that said, I know TCQ played Swisher out of a job, and I know his sulking rubbed Ozzie the wrong way at the end of 2008, so I know that KW pretty much had to trade him, but from an on the field standpoint, it's looking a lot like the Sox would have been better off keeping Swisher and dumping Dye before last season.

They tried to deal Dye, too. Remember when Abreu was supposed to sign here? That wasn't going to happen until Dye was unloaded, and it never happened because the best deals out there were Edwin Jackson or Homer Bailey.

doublem23
02-14-2010, 11:34 PM
Really? Cuz if we had Swish instead of Dye in the first half, there's no way we'd have been a better team. Yes - he was much better than second half JD. But if you look at those stats, they are really fairly similar. a 5-10 run difference over 600 PAs...BFD.

I am still not sure I see your point. Swish vs JD? I never even recall that being an option. And regardless - until the second half, JD was a far better player. What the heck happened to JD that he fell apart like that?

Whatever, the difference between Dye and Swisher's OPS in the 1st half of the season was 120 points in Dye's favor, the difference in the 2nd half was over 300 points in Nick's favor in the 2nd half and considering how the Sox faded in the 2nd half, it's at least arguable that we'd be better off with Swisher than Dye. And looking past 2010, Swisher is 29 years old, under contract for 2 more seasons and gives the Yankees real defensive versatility, something Ozzie craves. Dye, bless his heart, I love the guy, but is 36 and is a bit delusional in that he still thinks he's going to play everyday at RF for some team and we're banking on Rios and Quentin as our COF/DH answers and yes, they're fantastic players when they play to their potential but they have HUGE question marks.

Craig Grebeck
02-14-2010, 11:35 PM
They tried to deal Dye, too. Remember when Abreu was supposed to sign here? That wasn't going to happen until Dye was unloaded, and it never happened because the best deals out there were Edwin Jackson or Homer Bailey.
I think his point was they should have replaced Dye with Swisher.

doublem23
02-14-2010, 11:37 PM
They tried to deal Dye, too. Remember when Abreu was supposed to sign here? That wasn't going to happen until Dye was unloaded, and it never happened because the best deals out there were Edwin Jackson or Homer Bailey.

Right, and in retrospect, would anyone have preferred Dye + Nobody over Abreu + Jackson/Bailey? And maybe even throw Nick Swisher into possibility #2?

This argument is getting convoluted anyway, like I said I know why the Sox had to trade Nick after 2008, and I've never ragged on KW for that move, all I was pointing out was that one bad season here doesn't automatically make the guy bad. He just wasn't a fit here. We would have been better off keeping him, but let's move on without him.

oeo
02-14-2010, 11:39 PM
I think his point was they should have replaced Dye with Swisher.

I understand that, but it seems like the plan was to actually get rid of both and probably use the extra money to bolster the pitching staff or even add another bat.

oeo
02-14-2010, 11:41 PM
Right, and in retrospect, would anyone have preferred Dye + Nobody over Abreu + Jackson/Bailey? And maybe even throw Nick Swisher into possibility #2?

In retrospect, yes, it would have been better, but trading Dye for Bailey or Jackson alone, at the time, would have been as bad a deal as the Swisher one.

jabrch
02-14-2010, 11:42 PM
Whatever, the difference between Dye and Swisher's OPS in the 1st half of the season was 120 points in Dye's favor, the difference in the 2nd half was over 300 points in Nick's favor in the 2nd half and considering how the Sox faded in the 2nd half, it's at least arguable that we'd be better off with Swisher than Dye. And looking past 2010, Swisher is 29 years old, under contract for 2 more seasons and gives the Yankees real defensive versatility, something Ozzie craves. Dye, bless his heart, I love the guy, but is 36 and is a bit delusional in that he still thinks he's going to play everyday at RF for some team and we're banking on Rios and Quentin as our COF/DH answers and yes, they're fantastic players when they play to their potential but they have HUGE question marks.


No doubt it is arguable - I just don't think anything is conclusive either. I will say this - I'd rather not be obligated to 17mm over 2 years for Nick.

What "defensive versatility" does Nick offer? He's a LF who was grossly out of position in CF and has not got the arm to play RF. He's a fine backup 1B - but that true of Kotsay also - for much less.

No doubt Rios and TCQ are Qs. We have LOADS of Qs. But I just don't think Nick is an A to any of those Qs.

Craig Grebeck
02-14-2010, 11:44 PM
No doubt it is arguable - I just don't think anything is conclusive either. I will say this - I'd rather not be obligated to 17mm over 2 years for Nick.

What "defensive versatility" does Nick offer? He's a LF who was grossly out of position in CF and has not got the arm to play RF. He's a fine backup 1B - but that true of Kotsay also - for much less.

No doubt Rios and TCQ are Qs. We have LOADS of Qs. But I just don't think Nick is an A to any of those Qs.
Doesn't have the arm to play RF? Dye didn't/doesn't have the legs to even play the outfield.

doublem23
02-14-2010, 11:45 PM
In retrospect, yes, it would have been better, but trading Dye for Bailey or Jackson alone, at the time, would have been as bad a deal as the Swisher one.

Well, not if the Sox had a deal with Abreu done hinging on Dye being traded. I was real excited for Homer Bailey, too, I see a bit of Gavin in him, big time stud prospect who needs a change of scenery (his manager is Dusty ****in Baker, lord have mercy on his arm).

Of course then that raises all sorts of other questions, would the Sox have pursued Jake Peavy? Do they turn around and trade away Danks/Floyd? Lots of question marks that can't get answered because, quite frankly, I don't have any idea what KW is thinking.

doublem23
02-14-2010, 11:48 PM
No doubt it is arguable - I just don't think anything is conclusive either. I will say this - I'd rather not be obligated to 17mm over 2 years for Nick.

That's a perfectly justifiable argument against Swisher, but, to play devil's advocate, we're also paying Alex Rios nearly $60 million until 2014.

Craig Grebeck
02-14-2010, 11:56 PM
I will go to my grave disputing the notion that we "had" to trade Swisher. Sure, once you publicly call a player out and make it known that he's not welcome anymore, you have to trade them. But, if you handle it with grace and resist the urge to tear down players within your organization, you can avoid losing your top 3 prospects for nothing.

If there's one thing I can't stand about KW and Ozzie, it's their inability to keep their tempers in the press. And their refusal to handle player exits with any class whatsoever.

jabrch
02-15-2010, 12:39 AM
That's a perfectly justifiable argument against Swisher, but, to play devil's advocate, we're also paying Alex Rios nearly $60 million until 2014.

One difference is that Rios was a much better player just one year ago than was Swish. I agree with you, bye the way, that one year doesn't make a guy crap. I was never a huge Swisher fan - he doesn't swing enough for my liking. I was willing to take a shot when we got him, but his style never did it for me. Rios is also a superior defender in every way to Swish; I don't think anyone would argue that.

But the biggest difference, in my opinion, is that a great season for Swisher in 2010 (at USCF) would be somehting like .250/.370/.450. (I'm assuming his Yankee Stadium Power wouldn't translate - and his 2006 seems like an outlier for his carreer). For Rios, a great season would be something like .290/.350/.480. Give me a guy who hits over a guy who walks any day. Rios is more likely to create runs. Swisher is more likely to hope someone else does. Note: There are no facts to this horsecrap - just rampant speculation based on what we have seen from these guys.

I know you (clearly) said you were playing devil's advocate - so which guy would you take? (and yes - the $ we have now committed to this guy really concerns me)

Frater Perdurabo
02-15-2010, 07:17 AM
I know you (clearly) said you were playing devil's advocate - so which guy would you take? (and yes - the $ we have now committed to this guy really concerns me)

I prefer Rios. He costs a lot more, but there is plenty of historical evidence to suggest that it is reasonable to predict that he will "progress to the mean" of his career averages and that his 2009 was the outlier, just like 2003 and 2008 were the "outliers" in Konerko's career. Rios' career averages are much better than Swisher's, and he's a better defender, too.

jabrch
02-15-2010, 10:54 AM
I prefer Rios. He costs a lot more, but there is plenty of historical evidence to suggest that it is reasonable to predict that he will "progress to the mean" of his career averages and that his 2009 was the outlier, just like 2003 and 2008 were the "outliers" in Konerko's career. Rios' career averages are much better than Swisher's, and he's a better defender, too.


He's still a .280/.350/.490 hitter on his career over almost 7000 ABs - despite your dislike.

kkappelk
02-19-2010, 03:57 PM
I'm an idiot for wasting my time reading the 5 pages of nonsense in this thread.

Dub25
02-19-2010, 11:00 PM
Why is there arguing over computer projections? Last time I checked Windows 7 doesn't play SS and bat cleanup for anyone.

MeanFish
02-20-2010, 09:29 AM
Why is there arguing over computer projections? Last time I checked Windows 7 doesn't play SS and bat cleanup for anyone.

Pfft. That's why you use a Mac. :D:

(Just kidding...)

voodoochile
02-20-2010, 09:57 AM
Pfft. That's why you use a Mac. :D:

(Just kidding...)

I thought Mac(k) played CF and CF only...:o:

Johnny Mostil
02-20-2010, 10:34 AM
The Boston Globe reminds that these people have a decent track record

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2010/02/pecota_loves_th.html



Where? The closest I saw at the link was a claim that it has proven to be very accurate over the years--without, ironically, any data to support the claim. Did I miss something?

For the record, I don't mind reading PECOTA and related stuff, but, again, I didn't see anything at the link but a blogger's (unsupported) claim.