PDA

View Full Version : Jake Peavy article- Buster Olney


JermaineDye05
03-31-2010, 08:33 PM
Link (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/preview10/news/story?id=5042945)

oeo
03-31-2010, 08:53 PM
The Twins have a deep rotation? Hmm...news to me. So deep that Pavano is what, their 3rd starter?

From the video, Olney is way overestimating the role of a closer. Yes, Nathan is one of the best, but no, they're not going to lose the division because they don't have him. If anything it will be because of that supposed "deep" rotation.

SephClone89
03-31-2010, 09:00 PM
Wow, I had no idea Peavy was such a competitor.

Marqhead
03-31-2010, 09:16 PM
The Twins have a deep rotation? Hmm...news to me. So deep that Pavano is what, their 3rd starter?

From the video, Olney is way overestimating the role of a closer. Yes, Nathan is one of the best, but no, they're not going to lose the division because they don't have him. If anything it will be because of that supposed "deep" rotation.

Deep doesn't mean good :shrug:

They've got 5 average to above average pitchers and 1-2 guys who can fill in pretty well if someone goes down. I'd say they're deep.

And yes, everyone is over estimating the impact of losing their closer, I don't think it's as big of a deal.

munchman33
03-31-2010, 09:22 PM
The Twins have a deep rotation? Hmm...news to me. So deep that Pavano is what, their 3rd starter?

From the video, Olney is way overestimating the role of a closer. Yes, Nathan is one of the best, but no, they're not going to lose the division because they don't have him. If anything it will be because of that supposed "deep" rotation.

They've got five guys that will at least throw quality starts in half their outings, a really deep pen, and one of the better offenses and defenses in baseball. The Twins could conceivably win over 100 games if things play out right for them.

Jpgr91
03-31-2010, 09:39 PM
They've got five guys that will at least throw quality starts in half their outings, a really deep pen, and one of the better offenses and defenses in baseball. The Twins could conceivably win over 100 games if things play out right for them.

100 Wins, really? How many Joe Mauer jerseys do you own?

munchman33
03-31-2010, 10:13 PM
100 Wins, really? How many Joe Mauer jerseys do you own?

"if things play out right for them"

As in maximum. Most publications have them winning 88-94 games, and that's without everything going right.

oeo
03-31-2010, 10:20 PM
Deep doesn't mean good :shrug:

They've got 5 average to above average pitchers and 1-2 guys who can fill in pretty well if someone goes down. I'd say they're deep.

And yes, everyone is over estimating the impact of losing their closer, I don't think it's as big of a deal.

That's not what I would consider deep. Every rotation is "deep" then. I think their rotation is below average, and they're going to fill it in with guys that couldn't even make the team over say, Carl Pavano? If last year's results are any indication, they're in for some high-scoring affairs, especially if their new park is a hitter's park.

oeo
03-31-2010, 10:21 PM
100 Wins, really? How many Joe Mauer jerseys do you own?

Munch loves to exaggerate. He does it on every thing and every sport.

As in maximum. Most publications have them winning 88-94 games, and that's without everything going right.

What the **** does that even mean? I'm pretty sure predictions are done by "everything going right." Most of the predictions out there are banking off of Liriano becoming one of the best young pitchers in the game again.

munchman33
03-31-2010, 10:27 PM
Munch loves to exaggerate. He does it on every thing and every sport.

I repeat, most publications have them in the 88-94 win range (10 games above us usually, mind you). And they don't have them in that range saying "everything will go right for the Twins." I said if everything did, they could easily win 100 games and make the division moot. We need everything to go right and the Twins to be slightly worse than what they should be. You might think that's an exaggeration, but then it's an exaggeration many are experiencing in regards to baseball predictions.

oeo
03-31-2010, 10:28 PM
I repeat, most publications have them in the 88-94 win range (10 games above us usually, mind you). And they don't have them in that range saying "everything will go right for the Twins." I said if everything did, they could easily win 100 games and make the division moot. We need everything to go right and the Twins to be slightly worse than what they should be. You might think that's an exaggeration, but then it's an exaggeration many are experiencing in regards to baseball predictions.

If they're not saying, "everything will go right for the Twins" (which is irrelevant because that rarely, if ever, happens), then what are they saying?

The Twins need everything to go right in their rotation to even reach the 88-94 wins (who the **** has them winning 94 games, anyway?). They're banking on Francisco Liriano becoming a #1 type pitcher again, Scott Baker to prove 2008 wasn't a fluke, Carl Pavano to not only stay healthy but be more than an innings eater, and Kevin Slowey returning and being as good as he was a couple years ago. Their rotation has just as many, if not more, questions than our lineup does. How in the hell is 88-94 wins their floor?

munchman33
03-31-2010, 10:29 PM
What the **** does that even mean? I'm pretty sure predictions are done by "everything going right." Most of the predictions out there are banking off of Liriano becoming one of the best young pitchers in the game again.

No, predictions are the average outcome. There's a plus or minus six game range attributable to most predictions based on what could go right or wrong. When you predict a team will win 82 games, it means you really believe they'll realistically fall anywhere from 76 games to 88 games.

oeo
03-31-2010, 10:46 PM
No, predictions are the average outcome. There's a plus or minus six game range attributable to most predictions based on what could go right or wrong. When you predict a team will win 82 games, it means you really believe they'll realistically fall anywhere from 76 games to 88 games.

According to my rules, there's a plus or minus 15 games. So if I say the Sox are going to win 85 games, that means they will win anywhere from 70 to 100 games.

Sound ridiculous? So does your system. +/- 6 games? Seriously? That's a nice, convenient way to cover all the bases. In other words, it's difficult to be wrong, and anyone that goes by this "rule" shouldn't have their prediction taken seriously.

And who has the Twins winning 94 games? Twins Interactive?

goon
03-31-2010, 10:56 PM
100 Wins, really? How many Joe Mauer jerseys do you own?

No team gets close to 100 wins this season, at least in the AL.

soltrain21
03-31-2010, 10:57 PM
If they're not saying, "everything will go right for the Twins" (which is irrelevant because that rarely, if ever, happens), then what are they saying?

The Twins need everything to go right in their rotation to even reach the 88-94 wins (who the **** has them winning 94 games, anyway?). They're banking on Francisco Liriano becoming a #1 type pitcher again, Scott Baker to prove 2008 wasn't a fluke, Carl Pavano to not only stay healthy but be more than an innings eater, and Kevin Slowey returning and being as good as he was a couple years ago. Their rotation has just as many, if not more, questions than our lineup does. How in the hell is 88-94 wins their floor?

I'd say there was a team in 2005 that pretty much had every single thing go right for them.

goon
03-31-2010, 10:58 PM
I'd say there was a team in 2005 that pretty much had every single thing go right for them.

The Indians?

soltrain21
03-31-2010, 11:03 PM
The Indians?

Oh, cmon.

goon
03-31-2010, 11:07 PM
Oh, cmon.

I'm thinking...

munchman33
04-01-2010, 12:06 AM
According to my rules, there's a plus or minus 15 games. So if I say the Sox are going to win 85 games, that means they will win anywhere from 70 to 100 games.

Sound ridiculous? So does your system. +/- 6 games? Seriously? That's a nice, convenient way to cover all the bases. In other words, it's difficult to be wrong, and anyone that goes by this "rule" shouldn't have their prediction taken seriously.

And who has the Twins winning 94 games? Twins Interactive?

:smile:

The +-6 is based on the average standard deviation of the mean of predictions in a 162 game season. Predictions generally fall within that range. It is commonly referred to by any site making predictions.

And yes, the upper end is Twins sites. But I'm giving us that benefit too. No national prediction is giving us 84 wins, only local. And to be blunt, if the twins get any pitching at all they're going to run away with it. They've got the best defense in the A.L. and probably the second best offense in the AL after the Yankees with the Red Sox and Angels both downgrading.

parlaycard
04-01-2010, 08:05 AM
I have to disagree with the subtitle of the article.

Peavy is not the Sox second ace behind Buehrle.

Peavy is the Sox #1 pitcher. There is no question about that.

It is irrelevant who pitches on Opening day.

If you have to win 1 game, and you need not worry about anything else, Peavy would be pitching that game.

asindc
04-01-2010, 08:13 AM
I'd say there was a team in 2005 that pretty much had every single thing go right for them.

Well, there was a team in 2005 that had these things occur:

1) Opening Day closer injured;
2) Replacement for Opening Day closer injured;
3) Starting DH miss all but one month of season;
4) Leadoff hitter miss significant time for an injury;
5) 5th starter miss significant time for an injury; and
6) Starting 3B miss significant time for an injury.

Other than that, pretty much every single thing went right for that team.

asindc
04-01-2010, 08:35 AM
:smile:

The +-6 is based on the average standard deviation of the mean of predictions in a 162 game season. Predictions generally fall within that range. It is commonly referred to by any site making predictions.

And yes, the upper end is Twins sites. But I'm giving us that benefit too. No national prediction is giving us 84 wins, only local. And to be blunt, if the twins get any pitching at all they're going to run away with it. They've got the best defense in the A.L. and probably the second best offense in the AL after the Yankees with the Red Sox and Angels both downgrading.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/361723-2010-mlb-predictions-al-central-preview

http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20100327090204423

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/370026-2010-mlb-predictions-al-central-preview

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/2010_mlbs_american_league_central_early_preview

http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/2010MLBpredictions.htm

goon
04-01-2010, 10:09 AM
and one of the better offenses and defenses in baseball.

The Twins had one of the worst defenses in baseball last year.

Jim Shorts
04-01-2010, 10:19 AM
I think we should all wait and see how that team plays in their new stadium before crowning their ass

Thatguyoverthere
04-01-2010, 10:25 AM
I don't get it. The Twin's starting rotation posted one of the worst ERAs in the AL last year, and they have added nobody to it. Their "deep" rotation (:rolleyes:) could be as bad as many are saying our offense is going to be.

areilly
04-01-2010, 10:45 AM
Well, there was a team in 2005 that had these things occur:

1) Opening Day closer injured;

Shingo? I thought the league just caught up to him.

munchman33
04-01-2010, 10:50 AM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/361723-2010-mlb-predictions-al-central-preview

http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20100327090204423

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/370026-2010-mlb-predictions-al-central-preview

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/2010_mlbs_american_league_central_early_preview

http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/2010MLBpredictions.htm


Well...I'd never heard of four of those...but touche.

I don't really think we should be taking seriously the about.com mlb preseason rankings. Just a hunch. :cool:

munchman33
04-01-2010, 10:51 AM
The Twins had one of the worst defenses in baseball last year.

I can't even contemplate what you are basing that on. Do you also believe our defense is good?

Randar68
04-01-2010, 03:22 PM
They've got five guys that will at least throw quality starts in half their outings, a really deep pen, and one of the better offenses and defenses in baseball. The Twins could conceivably win over 100 games if things play out right for them.


Wowza. That's nuts.

A 5-man rotation of Slowey(10-3 4.86), Liriano(5-13 5.80), Baker(15-9 4.37), Blackburn (11-11 4.03), and Pavano (14-12 5.10) with Deunsing as the 6th man if/when needed?

That's a middle of the pack rotation at best and without Nathan, they will struggle to collect on the wins they did with the mediocre ERA's last season. Who is closing, Rauch?

Now, if Liriano really is back to 2006 form, yes, they're a better rotation because of it, but nothing earth shattering. They look like they have about 4 #4 starters to me, and that will tax their bullpen.

goon
04-01-2010, 04:05 PM
I can't even contemplate what you are basing that on. Do you also believe our defense is good?

http://www.fangraphs.com/teams.aspx?pos=all&stats=fld&lg=all&type=0&season=2009&month=0

munchman33
04-01-2010, 09:43 PM
http://www.fangraphs.com/teams.aspx?pos=all&stats=fld&lg=all&type=0&season=2009&month=0

You can't take a team's UZR seriously when they played half their games in a dome. It skews the infield horribly negative because they simply won't get to as many balls due to the speed of the surface in relation to what other clubs have to face.

Boondock Saint
04-01-2010, 10:13 PM
You can't take a team's UZR seriously when they played half their games in a dome. It skews the infield horribly negative because they simply won't get to as many balls due to the speed of the surface in relation to what other clubs have to face.

Then why are the Rays ranked 2nd in baseball?

munchman33
04-02-2010, 08:22 PM
Then why are the Rays ranked 2nd in baseball?

Because they were REALLY good defensively last year.

Think about what UZR is. It takes into consideration a zone around a player with no regard to how fast balls in that zone are moving. On turf, ground balls are moving WAY faster. If you play half of your games on turf, your UZR is going to suffer over what it would be had you not.

I like UZR. But just like any other statistic, you have to understand it and to use it correctly.

goon
04-02-2010, 08:31 PM
Because they were REALLY good defensively last year.

How many Tampa games did you watch last year?

Tragg
04-02-2010, 08:40 PM
Oh, cmon.
Like lose the first 2 closers and hall of fame DH?