PDA

View Full Version : BP Sox projection.


Pages : [1] 2

LITTLE NELL
02-12-2013, 06:33 AM
No respect again.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-chicago-white-sox-baseball-prospectus-20130211,0,7279767.story

SephClone89
02-12-2013, 06:42 AM
Respect really doesn't have anything to do with it.

DonnieDarko
02-12-2013, 07:03 AM
Respect really doesn't have anything to do with it.

Respect...

...is EVERYTHING.

blandman
02-12-2013, 07:22 AM
No respect again.


:rolleyes:

There's a bit of a difference between this club and previous years, don't ya think?

DonnieDarko
02-12-2013, 07:28 AM
:rolleyes:

There's a bit of a difference between this club and previous years, don't ya think?

I think that this team gives me a feeling much like the beginning of last year: I don't expect much. So maybe that'll tell you something about what happens! I mean, they completely shattered my expectations last year, maybe they'll do the same thing again.

SI1020
02-12-2013, 07:43 AM
Their track record leaves much to be desired. I realize this is a very flawed Sox team, but when it comes to prognositication I'll take a dart board over BP.

blandman
02-12-2013, 07:43 AM
I think that this team gives me a feeling much like the beginning of last year: I don't expect much. So maybe that'll tell you something about what happens! I mean, they completely shattered my expectations last year, maybe they'll do the same thing again.

Last year I didn't expect much either. But I expected us to compete. This year, barring some major acquisitions, I do not feel we will be competitive. I think we're right there with KC, at around 75-77 wins. Asking us to win 90 and the Tigers to win less than 90 at the same time is a lot to have happen.

blandman
02-12-2013, 07:45 AM
Their track record leaves much to be desired. I realize this is a very flawed Sox team, but when it comes to prognositication I'll take a dart board over BP.

Do you have a basis for this or are you just using two outlying sox seasons as your basis for their body of work?

aryzner
02-12-2013, 08:11 AM
I don't think the Sox will win the division but I also don't think they will be below .500.

LITTLE NELL
02-12-2013, 08:34 AM
I don't think the Sox will win the division but I also don't think they will be below .500.

With our pitching I also think we finish over .500. How much, no one knows. If we see the Danks of old we might even contend for the division. Teams have been known to win with very good pitching and just enough hitting.

blandman
02-12-2013, 08:39 AM
With our pitching I also think we finish over .500. How much, no one knows. If we see the Danks of old we might even contend for the division. Teams have been known to win with very good pitching and just enough hitting.

With Danks of old, we might get over .500. I'm not sure where the "just enough hitting" is going to come from.

Chez
02-12-2013, 08:51 AM
I don't care what BP projects. I'm looking forward to watching the games.

doublem23
02-12-2013, 09:00 AM
Good, quick snip at the BP Projections that should make you all feel at least a little better. :cool:

http://www.southsidesox.com/2013/2/12/3979200/white-sox-pitchers-and-catchers-report-yeeeeaaaaahhhhhhhhh

TheOldRoman
02-12-2013, 09:01 AM
With Danks of old, we might get over .500. I'm not sure where the "just enough hitting" is going to come from.
The Sox offense was better than the vaunted Tigers' offense last year. And that was with Viciedo in his first full season and with a complete black hole at 3B, even after Youkilis was acquired. But of course, nobody on the Sox will improve at all, all their vets will hit massive cliffs, Sale will totally get injured cuz he's skinny, Peavy's arm is likely to fall off just because he once had a surgery or something, and Danks might never throw a baseball again because I said so. Meanwhile, Torii Hunter will repeat the career season he had at age 36, Victor Martinez will come back from major surgery just as good as before, and rampant obesity will somehow propel the middle of Detroit's lineup to hit even better than last year.

There is a line from The Usual Suspects, "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." In that same vein, the most impressive thing BP ever did was convince people it was relevant.

dickallen15
02-12-2013, 09:04 AM
With Danks of old, we might get over .500. I'm not sure where the "just enough hitting" is going to come from.
Considering the Sox were 4th in the AL in runs scored last season, I think they even scored more runs than the Tigers, with Konerko banged up most of it, and even with Youkilis, about a .600 OPS out of 3B overall, Ramirez pretty ineffective, it's not unreasonable to think the offense should be enough if Viciedo, Beckham or Flowers improves.

From the article, PECOTA has shortchanged the Sox an average of about 7 wins per season. They were correct once, in 2007. If you ever get the BP yearly, they even admit they always are a little light on their White Sox win total projections. Chances are they will be light again.

russ99
02-12-2013, 09:11 AM
Considering the Sox were 4th in the AL in runs scored last season, I think they even scored more runs than the Tigers, with Konerko banged up most of it, and even with Youkilis, about a .600 OPS out of 3B overall, Ramirez pretty ineffective, it's not unreasonable to think the offense should be enough if Viciedo, Beckham or Flowers improves.

With the top of our lineup, especially after adding a good contact bat in Keppinger, we'll score a good amount of runs.

But the real question is if the 6-9 spots can get those RISP/pressure runs in that can win games. Last year, especially late, that was a real challenge.

The other concern is with so many strikeout bats, would opposing starters will last longer in games against us?

doublem23
02-12-2013, 09:12 AM
Considering the Sox were 4th in the AL in runs scored last season, I think they even scored more runs than the Tigers, with Konerko banged up most of it, and even with Youkilis, about a .600 OPS out of 3B overall, Ramirez pretty ineffective, it's not unreasonable to think the offense should be enough if Viciedo, Beckham or Flowers improves.

From the article, PECOTA has shortchanged the Sox an average of about 7 wins per season. They were correct once, in 2007. If you ever get the BP yearly, they even admit they always are a little light on their White Sox win total projections. Chances are they will be light again.

I think you can expect somewhat of a rebound from Konerko and Ramirez and perhaps some growth from Viciedo, but you're going to lose a lot of offense from AJ's 2012 campaign to what we can realistically expect from Flowers, so the questions are going to be A) can the Sox pick up enough offense elsewhere (Dunn? Keppinger? Beckham?) and B) does Flowers' improved defense behind the plate offset that loss?

dickallen15
02-12-2013, 09:19 AM
I think you can expect somewhat of a rebound from Konerko and Ramirez and perhaps some growth from Viciedo, but you're going to lose a lot of offense from AJ's 2012 campaign to what we can realistically expect from Flowers, so the questions are going to be A) can the Sox pick up enough offense elsewhere and B) does Flowers' improved defense behind the plate offset that loss?

I am big AJ fan, and really wanted him re-signed. But, if they re-signed him, it is very unlikely he would have matched his 2012 production.

Flowers could bust, Viciedo might not get better, Beckham may be what he is, Rios might revert to his 2011 form, Dunn and Konerko may hit like the last 4 months of last season, Danks might be done, Peavy might be ineffective, Sale may blow out his elbow, blandman might be right for a change and the Sox might be awful. Chances are, a couple of those things will be true, and a couple will be just the opposite. We have to hope that there is more of the opposite.

doublem23
02-12-2013, 09:24 AM
I am big AJ fan, and really wanted him re-signed. But, if they re-signed him, it is very unlikely he would have matched his 2012 production.

Oh no doubt, AJ is a huge candidate for regression this season but I think there's still a gap between his floor and Tyler's ceiling offensively for at least 2013 and maybe for several years until AJ's remarkable durability betrays him. So the question that needs to be answered this year is if Tyler's defense and how he handles the pitching staff can make up for the production we've lost offensively.

SI1020
02-12-2013, 09:31 AM
I am big AJ fan, and really wanted him re-signed. But, if they re-signed him, it is very unlikely he would have matched his 2012 production.

Flowers could bust, Viciedo might not get better, Beckham may be what he is, Rios might revert to his 2011 form, Dunn and Konerko may hit like the last 4 months of last season, Danks might be done, Peavy might be ineffective, Sale may blow out his elbow, blandman might be right for a change and the Sox might be awful. Chances are, a couple of those things will be true, and a couple will be just the opposite. We have to hope that there is more of the opposite. I like this post. It is also one example of why baseball is such a hard sport to predict. Especially if you're using wooden statistical models of dubious value.

cheezheadsoxfan
02-12-2013, 09:37 AM
I'm always more scared when we're predicated to do well. And Old Roman, great line about BP being considered relevant.

doublem23
02-12-2013, 09:52 AM
I'm always more scared when we're predicated to do well. And Old Roman, great line about BP being considered relevant.

BP is extremely relevant in the baseball world. People are free to believe or deny that as much as they'd like, but there's a reason that many BP writers go on to be hired by MLB clubs, other baseball syndicates, or other high profile statistic-driven jobs. I mean, the PECOTA projections here are the brainchild of Nate Silver whose arguably one of the most well respected statisticians in the world at present. I know it's fun to think of these guys as nerds you remember in high school sitting in their parent's basement, splitting time writing numerical fantasies about baseball and watching porn, but the reality is they're deeply intellectual people with a very, very sound understanding of the game and what they're trying to measure and evaluate. If there is a problem with it, it's that too many people who don't fully understand their work put waaaaaay too much stock into certain numbers at times (and subsequently miss the forest for the trees). But that doesn't really change their relevance in the baseball world. There's a reason why everyone looks at BP projections and few others.

mahagga73
02-12-2013, 09:56 AM
Last year I didn't expect much either. But I expected us to compete. This year, barring some major acquisitions, I do not feel we will be competitive. I think we're right there with KC, at around 75-77 wins. Asking us to win 90 and the Tigers to win less than 90 at the same time is a lot to have happen.
The Sox have good pitching, they should win close to 80 on that alone. I say a good chance to win the same as last year or a few more at least.

mahagga73
02-12-2013, 09:58 AM
BP is extremely relevant in the baseball world. People are free to believe or deny that as much as they'd like, but there's a reason that many BP writers go on to be hired by MLB clubs, other baseball syndicates, or other high profile statistic-driven jobs. I mean, the PECOTA projections here are the brainchild of Nate Silver whose arguably one of the most well respected statisticians in the world at present. I know it's fun to think of these guys as nerds you remember in high school sitting in their parent's basement, splitting time writing numerical fantasies about baseball and watching porn, but the reality is they're deeply intellectual people with a very, very sound understanding of the game and what they're trying to measure and evaluate. If there is a problem with it, it's that too many people who don't fully understand their work put waaaaaay too much stock into certain numbers at times (and subsequently miss the forest for the trees). But that doesn't really change their relevance in the baseball world. There's a reason why everyone looks at BP projections and few others.
I follow baseball as close as anybody and I don't know any of my baseball minded friends that ever read BP. I look at it and immediately start getting very sleepy, I've never read it. Their projections are just that, guesses. They are about as accurate as a dartboard usually like a previous poster said. They almost always undersell the Sox . I would bet I could guess the league standings as accurate or moreso than the number crunchers at BP just by looking at the lineups. Don't get me wrong, I love Bill James and sabermetrics, own a whole library of his and others works, but as far as assigning a won loss record before the season, there is no reason to put any stock into this stuff.

Bucky F. Dent
02-12-2013, 09:58 AM
We have a good to very good starting rotation, we have a solid group of arms in the bullpen, and we have a good to very good defensive team with our only real weakness being Viciedo's mobility.

It's all going to come down to the bats with this team.

voodoochile
02-12-2013, 09:58 AM
Do you have a basis for this or are you just using two outlying sox seasons as your basis for their body of work?

No, it's more that when you factor in their standard deviation once you get to 95% accuracy, it really doesn't tell you much.

Also the pitching staff is going to be better than it was last year, IMO. I would lay odds this team will be at or above .500 again.

mahagga73
02-12-2013, 10:05 AM
No, it's more that when you factor in their standard deviation once you get to 95% accuracy, it really doesn't tell you much.

Also the pitching staff is going to be better than it was last year, IMO. I would lay odds this team will be at or above .500 again.
yep this ^^^

doublem23
02-12-2013, 10:07 AM
No, it's more that when you factor in their standard deviation once you get to 95% accuracy, it really doesn't tell you much.

Ignoring the fact that most people are aware that PECOTA Team Projections are more or less a fun exercise in statistical modeling and not to be taken as serious, carved in stone predictions, if you're measuring their accuracy against actual W-L record you've already demonstronstrated your ignorance as to what this projection is actually measuring. Just in case you wonder why nobody ever cares about your ERRRGH STANDARD DEVIATION argument.

doublem23
02-12-2013, 10:14 AM
I follow baseball as close as anybody and I don't know any of my baseball minded friends that ever read BP. I look at it and immediately start getting very sleepy, I've never read it. Their projections are just that, guesses. They are about as accurate as a dartboard usually like a previous poster said. They almost always undersell the Sox . I would bet I could guess the league standings as accurate or moreso than the number crunching nerds at BP just by looking at the lineups. Don't get me wrong, I love Bill James and sabermetrics, own a whole library of his and others works, but as far as assigning a won loss record before the season, there is no reason to put any stock into this stuff.

Do your friends run Major League Baseball teams? No? Then why the **** would anyone care what they value or don't? This is as silly as if I were to say, "well all my friends do read BP SO TAKE THAT." ****, every baseball game I go to I see thousands of people forking over $8+ for a ****ty Miller or Bud. None of that has anything to do with why we have this argument over BP EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. It's because they constantly undersell the Sox, people on the board take offense to it, and then make up all these ridiculous reasons why "OH, UH, BP ISN'T REALLY RELEVANT ANYWAYS" when nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm not saying people have to like them, respect them, care about sabermetrics, or any of that ****. But to say that they don't hold a lot of water in the baseball community is tantamount to arguing with a physicist that that Isaac Newton guy doesn't really matter.

mahagga73
02-12-2013, 10:26 AM
Do your friends run Major League Baseball teams? No? Then why the **** would anyone care what they value or don't? This is as silly as if I were to say, "well all my friends do read BP SO TAKE THAT." ****, every baseball game I go to I see thousands of people forking over $8+ for a ****ty Miller or Bud. None of that has anything to do with why we have this argument over BP EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. It's because they constantly undersell the Sox, people on the board take offense to it, and then make up all these ridiculous reasons why "OH, UH, BP ISN'T REALLY RELEVANT ANYWAYS" when nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm not saying people have to like them, respect them, care about sabermetrics, or any of that ****. But to say that they don't hold a lot of water in the baseball community is tantamount to arguing with a physicist that that Isaac Newton guy doesn't really matter.
Don't get why are so adamant about everyone acknowledging the greatness of BP. You act like you have an interest in it or something. I don't care how many of it's writers get hired by MLB teams. WHO CARES? It's just another rag to me and others.

TheOldRoman
02-12-2013, 10:30 AM
Ignoring the fact that most people are aware that PECOTA Team Projections are more or less a fun exercise in statistical modeling and not to be taken as serious, carved in stone predictions, if you're measuring their accuracy against actual W-L record you've already demonstronstrated your ignorance as to what this projection is actually measuring. Just in case you wonder why nobody ever cares about your ERRRGH STANDARD DEVIATION argument.So, you're suggesting these are silly projections with no basis in reality, which are just for fun and not to be taken seriously. But on the other hand, it's very relevant and above reproach. Alrighty then.

LITTLE NELL
02-12-2013, 10:30 AM
I'm sure they are relevant in the Baseball world but I can't give them much respect in return. How on earth could they project us at 82-80 in 2006 after having gone all the way in 2005 not to mention going 11-1 in the post season.
They can go pound sand with their projections.

skobabe8
02-12-2013, 10:34 AM
How on earth could they project us at 82-80 in 2006 after having gone all the way in 2005 not to mention going 11-1 in the post season.


I couldn't believe that when I saw it.

mahagga73
02-12-2013, 10:38 AM
So, you're suggesting these are silly projections with no basis in reality, which are just for fun and not to be taken seriously. But on the other hand, it's very relevant and above reproach. Alrighty then.
and gets upset when they are dismissed as folly. They haven't even been nearly right about the Sox in years according to what I've heard and read. If they were right every once in awhile I might put some stock in the methodology . Football and Basketball are far easier to project than baseball . The fact the Sox have a pretty good pitching staff suggests to me they will at least be competitive so I say their latest projections are going to be erroneous also.

doublem23
02-12-2013, 10:39 AM
Don't get why are so adamant about everyone acknowledging the greatness of BP. You act like you have an interest in it or something. I don't care how many of it's writers get hired by MLB teams. WHO CARES? It's just another rag to me and others.

I don't care if you like them, respect them, think it's pointless mental masturbation, WHATEVER, that's all a personal opinion which I cannot sway one way or the other. But if you're making a declarative statement that BP is simply an irrelevant entity in the baseball world, I will challenge that as simple fiction.

So, you're suggesting these are silly projections with no basis in reality, which are just for fun and not to be taken seriously. But on the other hand, it's very relevant and above reproach. Alrighty then.

Well first off, anyone who understands Stats 101 knows that even good models turn out bad results from time to time.

That said, the PECOTA Team Projections are only a very, very small sample of what BP does day in and day out. Yes, these are more "for fun." Just like how respected newspapers occasionally publish silly stories on April Fool's Day but then remain respected members of the journalism community the other 364 days of the year, PECOTA's Team Projections are more for fun to see how the statistical model is working, but that doesn't take away from the other, more meaningful work they do that amounts to the vast majority of the work they contribute.

asindc
02-12-2013, 10:42 AM
BP is extremely relevant in the baseball world. People are free to believe or deny that as much as they'd like, but there's a reason that many BP writers go on to be hired by MLB clubs, other baseball syndicates, or other high profile statistic-driven jobs. I mean, the PECOTA projections here are the brainchild of Nate Silver whose arguably one of the most well respected statisticians in the world at present. I know it's fun to think of these guys as nerds you remember in high school sitting in their parent's basement, splitting time writing numerical fantasies about baseball and watching porn, but the reality is they're deeply intellectual people with a very, very sound understanding of the game and what they're trying to measure and evaluate. If there is a problem with it, it's that too many people who don't fully understand their work put waaaaaay too much stock into certain numbers at times (and subsequently miss the forest for the trees). But that doesn't really change their relevance in the baseball world. There's a reason why everyone looks at BP projections and few others.

I'll grant you everything you said about BP and PECOTA projections, but my main objection to them with regard to the Sox is that while realizing that their PECOTA model consistently misses the mark in projecting the Sox' performance, they don't seem to be able (or willing) to adjust accordingly. I think they know what they are doing generally, but I don't think they get how the Sox roster is specifically constructed and managed. At least their consistently-wrong Sox projections indicate such.

blandman
02-12-2013, 10:42 AM
The Sox offense was better than the vaunted Tigers' offense last year. And that was with Viciedo in his first full season and with a complete black hole at 3B, even after Youkilis was acquired. But of course, nobody on the Sox will improve at all, all their vets will hit massive cliffs, Sale will totally get injured cuz he's skinny, Peavy's arm is likely to fall off just because he once had a surgery or something, and Danks might never throw a baseball again because I said so. Meanwhile, Torii Hunter will repeat the career season he had at age 36, Victor Martinez will come back from major surgery just as good as before, and rampant obesity will somehow propel the middle of Detroit's lineup to hit even better than last year.

There is a line from The Usual Suspects, "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." In that same vein, the most impressive thing BP ever did was convince people it was relevant.

Come now. It isnt' so much that any individual pitcher on our staff has injury concerns as it is that all of them do and there's no one waiting to step in effectively. At the same time, the pitching is the ONLY strength on the team.

Victor Martinez has been preparing to return for more than a year. The Tigers were smart and didn't rush him. In the meantime, Danks had a procedure in the offseason and is rushing to be ready for opening day. If you can't see the difference there, there's no helping you.

Considering the Sox were 4th in the AL in runs scored last season, I think they even scored more runs than the Tigers, with Konerko banged up most of it, and even with Youkilis, about a .600 OPS out of 3B overall, Ramirez pretty ineffective, it's not unreasonable to think the offense should be enough if Viciedo, Beckham or Flowers improves.

From the article, PECOTA has shortchanged the Sox an average of about 7 wins per season. They were correct once, in 2007. If you ever get the BP yearly, they even admit they always are a little light on their White Sox win total projections. Chances are they will be light again.


The Sox were 4th in runs scored mainly because:

1. Konerko and Dunn had tremendous first halfs. Injury and reality set in.
2. Rios had a tremendous year, but seems to always follow that up with a terrible year. Betting on him to not hit .240 next year is a risky proposition, at best. He's been just as horrible as good two of the last four years.
3. AJ. Yeah, he wouldn't bring that same production again. But we've replaced our best offensive season last year with a guy that's going to be an offensive black hole.

No, it's more that when you factor in their standard deviation once you get to 95% accuracy, it really doesn't tell you much.

Also the pitching staff is going to be better than it was last year, IMO. I would lay odds this team will be at or above .500 again.

If no one on the staff gets hurt I think we'll get to .500 too.

kittle42
02-12-2013, 10:46 AM
The annual slop debate here.

I'll toss in my annual statement - if BP picked the Sox to win the division every year for the past 20 years, regardless of how ridiculously wrong they would be, at least several of the usual group of posters who dismiss their projections would think they were the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I feel this is evidenced by the immediate "no respect" attitude. It is far from a question of respect. In fact, respect has basically nothing to do with it.

doublem23
02-12-2013, 10:49 AM
and gets upset when they are dismissed as folly. They haven't even been nearly right about the Sox in years according to what I've heard and read. If they were right every once in awhile I might put some stock in the methodology . Football and Basketball are far easier to project than baseball . The fact the Sox have a pretty good pitching staff suggests to e they will at least be competitive so I say their latest projections are going to be erroneous also.

Again, nobody, myself included, cares what you PERSONALLY think about their work. If you think NUMBERS R 4 NERDZ N VIRGINS or that they suck at their job, that's fine, that's a personal opinion that I cannot sway. I am only challenging the notion that BP isn't a relevant entity, which is, again, complete bull****.

mahagga73
02-12-2013, 10:51 AM
I don't care if you like them, respect them, think it's pointless mental masturbation, WHATEVER, that's all a personal opinion which I cannot sway one way or the other. But if you're making a declarative statement that BP is simply an irrelevant entity in the baseball world, I will challenge that as simple fiction.



Well first off, anyone who understands Stats 101 knows that even good models turn out bad results from time to time.

That said, the PECOTA Team Projections are only a very, very small sample of what BP does day in and day out. Yes, these are more "for fun." Just like how respected newspapers occasionally publish silly stories on April Fool's Day but then remain respected members of the journalism community the other 364 days of the year, PECOTA's Team Projections are more for fun to see how the statistical model is working, but that doesn't take away from the other, more meaningful work they do that amounts to the vast majority of the work they contribute.
I don't doubt it's relevant to the baseball establishment just that baseball won loss projections are like drawing numbers out of a hat. No amount of number crunching is going to make it any more accurate.

asindc
02-12-2013, 10:51 AM
The annual slop debate here.

I'll toss in my annual statement - if BP picked the Sox to win the division every year for the past 20 years, regardless of how ridiculously wrong they would be, at least several of the usual group of posters who dismiss their projections would think they were the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I feel this is evidenced by the immediate "no respect" attitude. It is far from a question of respect. In fact, respect has basically nothing to do with it.

I agree that respect has nothing to do with it, but aside from such curious remarks from a few, I think almost all those who criticize BP here do so with the understanding that it is nothing personal. On the contrary, I think most realize that being consistently wrong suggests at least a stubborness about their methodology that has nothing to do with who they think will actually win the AL Central.

mahagga73
02-12-2013, 10:54 AM
Again, nobody, myself included, cares what you PERSONALLY think about their work. If you think NUMBERS R 4 NERDZ N VIRGINS or that they suck at their job, that's fine, that's a personal opinion that I cannot sway. I am only challenging the notion that BP isn't a relevant entity, which is, again, complete bull****.
you got it wrong buddy, nobody cares what you think or BP projections. Read the other posts . I never said numbers are for nerds or whatever, you need to learn how to read or something because I already said I am a sabermetrics fan. You sound like you have a dog in the fight or something.

blandman
02-12-2013, 10:56 AM
The annual slop debate here.

I'll toss in my annual statement - if BP picked the Sox to win the division every year for the past 20 years, regardless of how ridiculously wrong they would be, at least several of the usual group of posters who dismiss their projections would think they were the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I feel this is evidenced by the immediate "no respect" attitude. It is far from a question of respect. In fact, respect has basically nothing to do with it.

Yeah, it's the chip on the shoulder mentality. It worked for the 2005 sox, but that was a really good team. The notion that any projection that doesn't have us outright in the thick of things (despite reality) is an affront....is kind of embarrassing, IMO.

doublem23
02-12-2013, 10:56 AM
I don't doubt it's relevant to the baseball establishment just that baseball won loss projections are like drawing numbers out of a hat. No amount of number crunching is going to make it any more accurate.

Right, which is why it's frustrating seeing people slam their body of work as a whole over something we know is done more for the fun of it than the serious nature of it's work.

I agree that respect has nothing to do with it, but aside from such curious remarks from a few, I think almost all those who criticize BP here do so with the understanding that it is nothing personal. On the contrary, I think most realize that being consistently wrong suggests at least a stubborness about their methodology that has nothing to do with who they think will actually win the AL Central.

Well, part of that is because PECOTA projects into Pythagorean W-L so while they have consistently undersold the Sox actual record, the Sox have also consistently performed better than their Pythagorean W-L and the gap there, most people know is the kind of things that are almost impossible to quantify.

Lip Man 1
02-12-2013, 10:57 AM
They've been wrong so often in the past (and not by just a game or two but by a relative lot) that I suspect they'll be wrong by a lot again this year.

Not losing any sleep over this anymore.

Let the 'debate' continue on this thread. Am waiting to see Daver chime in.

Lip

mahagga73
02-12-2013, 10:59 AM
The annual slop debate here.

I'll toss in my annual statement - if BP picked the Sox to win the division every year for the past 20 years, regardless of how ridiculously wrong they would be, at least several of the usual group of posters who dismiss their projections would think they were the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I feel this is evidenced by the immediate "no respect" attitude. It is far from a question of respect. In fact, respect has basically nothing to do with it.
You might be right, but most of us would have no doubt their methodology was a joke. I question it because it seems the Sox are always doing better than their BP projecion. Last year they were projected to lose nearly a hundred games. I looked at the roster and I couldn't fathom why that would be, they had good pitching. When's it's off that badly every year I have no choice but the question it's validity.

mahagga73
02-12-2013, 11:04 AM
Yeah, it's the chip on the shoulder mentality. It worked for the 2005 sox, but that was a really good team. The notion that any projection that doesn't have us outright in the thick of things (despite reality) is an affront....is kind of embarrassing, IMO.
so you don't think the Sox above average pitching will at least make them competitive? You don't sound real positive about the season. I think they will be in it at least long enough to make the season and summer interesting. With some health and breaks maybe compete for the wild card . Let's remember the Sox almost always do something to improve the team at the deadline. But this is a new GM .

Noneck
02-12-2013, 11:05 AM
Their prediction means nothing. When vegas puts out their annual line on # of wins, then one has a means to put their money where their mouth is.

TheOldRoman
02-12-2013, 11:06 AM
Come now. It isnt' so much that any individual pitcher on our staff has injury concerns as it is that all of them do and there's no one waiting to step in effectively. At the same time, the pitching is the ONLY strength on the team.
Pitching was our only strength despite us scoring more runs than the Tigers' and our defense being lightyears better than the Tigers'. Right.

Victor Martinez has been preparing to return for more than a year. The Tigers were smart and didn't rush him. In the meantime, Danks had a procedure in the offseason and is rushing to be ready for opening day. If you can't see the difference there, there's no helping you.False. August 5th isn't the offseason. And from all accounts, although rare, it was a relatively routine surgery with no complications. Other than a few message-boarders saying he will never be the same just because, I haven't read anything suggesting the surgery could be career altering or anything speculating that six months recovery time before spring training is "rushing it."


The Sox were 4th in runs scored mainly because:

1. Konerko and Dunn had tremendous first halfs. Injury and reality set in.
2. Rios had a tremendous year, but seems to always follow that up with a terrible year. Betting on him to not hit .240 next year is a risky proposition, at best. He's been just as horrible as good two of the last four years.
3. AJ. Yeah, he wouldn't bring that same production again. But we've replaced our best offensive season last year with a guy that's going to be an offensive black hole.
Not reality, just injuries. Sure, nobody expected Konerko to hit .400, but he shouldn't have fallen off the face of the earth as he did. And Dunn was having a very good season until he injured his oblique. Sure, those guys could get injured again, but so could Victor Martinez. Cabrera had a historic year last season, which nobody would be likely to reproduce. Add into that the fact that he is a drunken fatass. I'd say there's a good chance he will have a few too many Beefeaters and Italian Beefs and either will impact his performance. Prince Fielder's gotta be about 325lbs and his numbers were down noticably from the year before. He's not getting any younger or skinnier. And you can think Flowers' offense will be terrible, that's fine. In another thread you stated he was only hyped because of numbers he put up before a PEDs suspension, despite the fact that he put up those numbers after his suspension at age 20. Flowers has hit well in the majors when he got playing time. Of course, another huge addition is Keppinger. 3B gave us terrible production last year. Even if he puts up a career-average year for him (.288/.337/.396), it will be a gigantic improvement over last season. And that doesn't account for the idea that any of our players could actually improve.

TheOldRoman
02-12-2013, 11:13 AM
Again, nobody, myself included, cares what you PERSONALLY think about their work. If you think NUMBERS R 4 NERDZ N VIRGINS or that they suck at their job, that's fine, that's a personal opinion that I cannot sway. I am only challenging the notion that BP isn't a relevant entity, which is, again, complete bull****.If they make irrelevant projections for ****s and giggles, yeah...

Don't get up in arms about people not taking them seriously for being consistently wrong by a wide margin about the Sox, then claim that the projections don't mean anything anyway and others are dumb if they read too much into them. Good models turn out bad results, sure. But if the model is consistently turning out results which are off, even if it's just one team the model underestimates every year, maybe the model sucks.

mahagga73
02-12-2013, 11:13 AM
Pitching was our only strength despite us scoring more runs than the Tigers' and our defense being lightyears better than the Tigers'. Right.

False. August 5th isn't the offseason. And from all accounts, although rare, it was a relatively routine surgery with no complications. Other than a few message-boarders saying he will never be the same just because, I haven't read anything suggesting the surgery could be career altering or anything speculating that six months recovery time before spring training is "rushing it."


Not reality, just injuries. Sure, nobody expected Konerko to hit .400, but he shouldn't have fallen off the face of the earth as he did. And Dunn was having a very good season until he injured his oblique. Sure, those guys could get injured again, but so could Victor Martinez. Cabrera had a historic year last season, which nobody would be likely to reproduce. Add into that the fact that he is a drunken fatass. I'd say there's a good chance he will have a few too many Beefeaters and Italian Beefs and either will impact his performance. Prince Fielder's gotta be about 325lbs and his numbers were down noticably from the year before. He's not getting any younger or skinnier. And you can think Flowers' offense will be terrible, that's fine. In another thread you stated he was only hyped because of numbers he put up before a PEDs suspension, despite the fact that he put up those numbers after his suspension at age 20. Flowers has hit well in the majors when he got playing time. Of course, another huge addition is Keppinger. 3B gave us terrible production last year. Even if he puts up a career-average year for him (.288/.337/.396), it will be a gigantic improvement over last season. And that doesn't account for the idea that any of our players could actually improve.
Paulie's wrist or whatever it was was killing him, and the power went out the window because of it I think . He was being what he is ,a real team player . I like what you said about Flowers, he started doing pretty well with the bat in the power department at the end of the year when he was finally playing somewhat regularly ,like for more than a day or so. Most players are going to underperform when they don't get regular playing time.

Domeshot17
02-12-2013, 11:25 AM
I dont know, part of me is like, if the Sox don't want to be projected to be bad, stop running out weak teams.

The Tigers have more talent than the White Sox, fact, I don't think anyone would argue that. The Sox are hoping things go right and they win more games. It could happen as well.

blandman
02-12-2013, 11:27 AM
Pitching was our only strength despite us scoring more runs than the Tigers' and our defense being lightyears better than the Tigers'. Right.

False. August 5th isn't the offseason. And from all accounts, although rare, it was a relatively routine surgery with no complications. Other than a few message-boarders saying he will never be the same just because, I haven't read anything suggesting the surgery could be career altering or anything speculating that six months recovery time before spring training is "rushing it."


Not reality, just injuries. Sure, nobody expected Konerko to hit .400, but he shouldn't have fallen off the face of the earth as he did. And Dunn was having a very good season until he injured his oblique. Sure, those guys could get injured again, but so could Victor Martinez. Cabrera had a historic year last season, which nobody would be likely to reproduce. Add into that the fact that he is a drunken fatass. I'd say there's a good chance he will have a few too many Beefeaters and Italian Beefs and either will impact his performance. Prince Fielder's gotta be about 325lbs and his numbers were down noticably from the year before. He's not getting any younger or skinnier. And you can think Flowers' offense will be terrible, that's fine. In another thread you stated he was only hyped because of numbers he put up before a PEDs suspension, despite the fact that he put up those numbers after his suspension at age 20. Flowers has hit well in the majors when he got playing time. Of course, another huge addition is Keppinger. 3B gave us terrible production last year. Even if he puts up a career-average year for him (.288/.337/.396), it will be a gigantic improvement over last season. And that doesn't account for the idea that any of our players could actually improve.

Oi. I think Danks will be fine. But recovery from his type of injury, in general, takes more than 365 days before a pitcher is as effective.

Injury is a reality for Konerko.

Your fat argument seems to be based on nothing but your opinion of fat people. Plenty of fat people produce with no trouble. And Cabrera's "historic" season isn't really different from his last few. He's just that good. He's the best right handed hitter in baseball the last few years.


so you don't think the Sox above average pitching will at least make them competitive? You don't sound real positive about the season. I think they will be in it at least long enough to make the season and summer interesting. With some health and breaks maybe compete for the wild card . Let's remember the Sox almost always do something to improve the team at the deadline. But this is a new GM .

It isn't about being positive or negative. We have slightly above average pitching. Our pitching is not as good as the Tigers. Our 1-4 starters all have injury concerns. We have ZERO minor league depth to weather injuries to the rotation. We'd have to have all guys healthy and pitching well all year to be over .500. It's possible. But I'm not going to act like it's likely. That it happens shouldn't be the expectation, because it's pretty darn unlikely. I'm mad at the team, because this is an obvious flaw in their team design. And I get even angrier that people think this is a negative view. It's a damn realistic view. And it sucks.

Hitmen77
02-12-2013, 11:31 AM
No respect again.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-chicago-white-sox-baseball-prospectus-20130211,0,7279767.story

I'll grant you everything you said about BP and PECOTA projections, but my main objection to them with regard to the Sox is that while realizing that their PECOTA model consistently misses the mark in projecting the Sox' performance, they don't seem to be able (or willing) to adjust accordingly. I think they know what they are doing generally, but I don't think they get how the Sox roster is specifically constructed and managed. At least their consistently-wrong Sox projections indicate such.

I don't think their 2013 projection is anything to get worked up about. They're probably underestimating what the Sox are likely to do, but they're not all that far off the mark. They say 77 wins and this team looks like a .500 team to me.

What I do find interesting, though, is that they've been so wrong about the Sox in so many years going back to 2005. Only twice in the last 8 seasons did they overestimate the Sox win total and those times it was only by a small amount.

mzh
02-12-2013, 11:31 AM
Since 2005, BP has never projected the Sox to win more than 82 games. They've won at least 85 five times in that span. Their prediction is meaningless. Just my $.02.

Pitchers and Catchers report today... all that's left to do is play the games.

doublem23
02-12-2013, 11:33 AM
If they make irrelevant projections for ****s and giggles, yeah...

Don't get up in arms about people not taking them seriously for being consistently wrong by a wide margin about the Sox, then claim that the projections don't mean anything anyway and others are dumb if they read too much into them. Good models turn out bad results, sure. But if the model is consistently turning out results which are off, even if it's just one team the model underestimates every year, maybe the model sucks.

PECOTA doesn't project in wins and losses so comparing the Sox's record to their PECOTA projection is pointless. :shrug:

kittle42
02-12-2013, 11:49 AM
Pitchers and Catchers report today... all that's left to do is play the games.

I think this is what Cubs, Pirates, and Royals fans say to comfort themselves every year.

blandman
02-12-2013, 11:54 AM
I think this is what Cubs, Pirates, and Royals fans say to comfort themselves every year.

No, anything can happen just by playing the games.

kobo
02-12-2013, 12:02 PM
They've been wrong so often in the past (and not by just a game or two but by a relative lot) that I suspect they'll be wrong by a lot again this year.

Not losing any sleep over this anymore.

Let the 'debate' continue on this thread. Am waiting to see Daver chime in.

Lip
What exactly are they 'wrong' about? They are making a prediction based on a lineup that has yet to play a game. They are not stating a fact. If you are taking their projection as the final say as to how the White Sox will perform this season then that's your fault, not theirs.

Their projections are nothing more than opinions using statistical evidence to reach their conclusion.

dickallen15
02-12-2013, 12:07 PM
No, anything can happen just by playing the games.
Actually, despite what you think you know, and your past indicates that it is far less than you believe, playing the games does matter. 2 teams BP projected to finish in last place in their respective divisions in the AL last year made the playoffs. Washington was projected to finish 4th, St.Louis 3rd, SF was projected to finish 2nd. BP had the White Sox finishing behind Cleveland, and these were projections that came out at the end of spring training. And I'm no BP hater. I buy it every year.

asindc
02-12-2013, 12:10 PM
What exactly are they 'wrong' about? They are making a prediction based on a lineup that has yet to play a game. They are not stating a fact. If you are taking their projection as the final say as to how the White Sox will perform this season then that's your fault, not theirs.

Their projections are nothing more than opinions using statistical evidence to reach their conclusion.

He said that they have been wrong in the past and he suspects they'll be wrong again this year. He didn't say that they are wrong about the 2013 season.

dickallen15
02-12-2013, 12:15 PM
He said that they have been wrong in the past and he suspects they'll be wrong again this year. He didn't say that they are wrong about the 2013 season.

They will be wrong. Everyone is always wrong. They will be correct on a few and miss on many. It is what happens every year. If you can get half the playoff teams correct at this moment, you are ahead of most people who get paid to project for a living.

Whitesox029
02-12-2013, 12:22 PM
Do you have a basis for this or are you just using two outlying sox seasons as your basis for their body of work?
Over the last 8 seasons (including every one of them--not just 2005 and 2008) Baseball Prospectus underestimates the Sox by an average of 7 wins. 8 seasons is a sizable chunk to be that wrong about, and 7 wins is, coincidentally, the difference between the 2012 projection of 78-84 and the actual record of 85-77. It took the Sox taking everyone by surprise last year and leading the division for most of the summer to even reach the average amount that BP is wrong by. The system does not take intangibles into account at all--as evidenced by the 82-80 projection the year after a 99-win championship season. Like clockwork, the Sox outpaced the 2006 projection by 8 games. You didn't have to look far to find other publications picking the Sox to win at least 90 games in 2006--that's because most other projections take such intangibles into account--and guess what? Intangibles apparently matter, because the majority was right that year, and BP was as wrong as ever.


Well first off, anyone who understands Stats 101 knows that even good models turn out bad results from time to time.


6 years out of 8 is not "from time to time"-- it's 75% of the time.
www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-chicago-white-sox-baseball-prospectus-20130211,0,7279767.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-chicago-white-sox-baseball-prospectus-20130211,0,7279767.story)

My final argument is this: when numbers are blindly used as the only basis for prediction, the prediction will very often fail. Here's a simplistic analogy: If you roll a die 1000 times and take the average of all the values that come up, you will get something close to 3.5. Yet only an idiot would actually believe that this means that 3.5 was the most likely number to come up on the next roll, because he would be failing to account for other factors, such as the fact that 3.5 is not a number that appears on any side of a die. Similarly, someone who believes a 162-game baseball season can be reasonably predicted just by looking at numbers--and actually makes important decisions that are based on those projections--is just as big a fool.

TheOldRoman
02-12-2013, 12:24 PM
Your fat argument seems to be based on nothing but your opinion of fat people. Plenty of fat people produce with no trouble. And Cabrera's "historic" season isn't really different from his last few. He's just that good. He's the best right handed hitter in baseball the last few years.
Not at all. Sabathia is by far the most successful contract ever given to a player with weight problems, but he's not the norm. Most players who are overweight and can't keep in shape in their mid 20s don't get in better shape as they age. There does tend to be a cliff for those guys because the extra wear and tear takes its toll. Cabera's triple crown season saw him best his previous career highs by 7 homers and 13 RBIs, while hitting 14 homers and collecting 24 more RBI than the year before. 2012 was by far the best season of his career. So, no, he wouldn't be likely to reproduce that season based on his career at this point and him being 30. Add in the fact of him being overweight and it doesn't portend any more triple crowns in the future. He will most likely put up great seasons the next 2-3 years at least, but I don't think he will come close to what he did last year. And even with his historic season, the Tigers barely made the playoffs. Also, as I touched on, Fielder is extremely overweight and his regression might have started last year.

Munchy, my point is that you take the worst possible outcome for the Sox (injury, regression, no improvement) and combine it with the Tigers' players staying injury free and either putting up the same numbers or improving.

doublem23
02-12-2013, 12:30 PM
you got it wrong buddy, nobody cares what you think or BP projections. Read the other posts . I never said numbers are for nerds or whatever, you need to learn how to read or something because I already said I am a sabermetrics fan. You sound like you have a dog in the fight or something.

Since you seem utterly clueless about what BP's PECOTA projections are I would say you are, at best, a fairweather sabremetrics fan and furthermore, I would counter that you can't truly be a fan of the sabremetrics movement in baseball and argue EDIT - CORRECTION against the relevance of BP. They are the gold standard of the industry. Again, I don't care if you don't like the stats game, plenty of people out there are good, knowledgeable baseball fans that don't like all the number crunching. I respect that immensely. But to say "I like sabremetrics" but then "I think BP is a worthless rag" is essentially saying you fundamentally believe in the teachings of modern science, physics, and evolution, but you also believe in a literal translation of Creationism. They are incompatible ideas. That doesn't mean you have to take BP at their word for being 100% accurate with everything they publish, but to say they have no value or worth automatically disqualifies you from sabremetrics.

DumpJerry
02-12-2013, 12:34 PM
Having taken graduate statistics courses up to, and including, Econometrics, I can safely say when it comes to public stat models like this, I'm in the Mark Twain School of Statistical interpretation.

I'm also highly unimpressed with the work of Nate Silver. My reasons were covered over at the PI board, but I'll leave it at saying his self-promotion skills are better than any other skill sets he has demonstrated.

blandman
02-12-2013, 12:36 PM
Not at all. Sabathia is by far the most successful contract ever given to a player with weight problems, but he's not the norm. Most players who are overweight and can't keep in shape in their mid 20s don't get in better shape as they age. There does tend to be a cliff for those guys because the extra wear and tear takes its toll. Cabera's triple crown season saw him best his previous career highs by 7 homers and 13 RBIs, while hitting 14 homers and collecting 24 more RBI than the year before. 2012 was by far the best season of his career. So, no, he wouldn't be likely to reproduce that season based on his career at this point and him being 30. Add in the fact of him being overweight and it doesn't portend any more triple crowns in the future. He will most likely put up great seasons the next 2-3 years at least, but I don't think he will come close to what he did last year. And even with his historic season, the Tigers barely made the playoffs. Also, as I touched on, Fielder is extremely overweight and his regression might have started last year.

Munchy, my point is that you take the worst possible outcome for the Sox (injury, regression, no improvement) and combine it with the Tigers' players staying injury free and either putting up the same numbers or improving.


Bring up more historical references to fat please. Because baseball has a 100 year history of fat asses playing well into their late 30's, starting with Babe Ruth.

Dismissing my points as "worst outcome" for us and not for them is completely 100% biased of you. You are making stuff up to create a scenario where two of the best players in all of baseball are going to suddenly fall off of a cliff while conversely ignoring the fact that it's more likely that we suffer multiple critical injuries than it is we don't suffer any. And we absolutely need to not suffer any if there's any chance of competing.

doublem23
02-12-2013, 12:41 PM
My final argument is this: when numbers are blindly used as the only basis for prediction, the prediction will very often fail. Here's a simplistic analogy: If you roll a die 1000 times and take the average of all the values that come up, you will get something close to 3.5. Yet only an idiot would actually believe that this means that 3.5 was the most likely number to come up on the next roll, because he would be failing to account for other factors, such as the fact that 3.5 is not a number that appears on any side of a die. Similarly, someone who believes a 162-game baseball season can be reasonably predicted just by looking at numbers--and actually makes important decisions that are based on those projections--is just as big a fool.

:clap:

This is literally the single worst analogy I have ever read because A) only a complete and utter moron would base probablity on mean and not mode. Like, I cannot comprehend how stupid someone would have to be to make such an error and B) obviously a dice roll is the definition of a random event. Even if you rolled a 6 on a 6-sided dice 10,000 times in a roll the odds you'd roll a 6 on #10,001 is still 1/6. Comparing a weighted, statistical model (such as say... PECOTA) to a truly random event shows a real and fundamental lack of understanding of statistics and probability.

doublem23
02-12-2013, 12:44 PM
I'm also highly unimpressed with the work of Nate Silver. My reasons were covered over at the PI board, but I'll leave it at saying his self-promotion skills are better than any other skill sets he has demonstrated.

Ah yes, the thrilling work where you note that if you simply alter or ignore reality, his models no longer function. Brilliant!

blandman
02-12-2013, 12:46 PM
:clap:

This is literally the single worst analogy i have ever read because a) only a complete and utter moron would base probablity on mean and not mode. Like, i literally cannot comprehend how stupid someone would have to be to make such an error and b) obviously a dice roll is the definition of a random event. Even if you rolled a 6 on a 6-sided dice 10,000 times in a roll the odds you'd roll a 6 on #10,001 is still 1/6. Comparing a weighted, statistical model (such as say... Pecota) to a truly random event shows a real fundamental lack of understanding of statistics and probability.

thank you.

DumpJerry
02-12-2013, 12:56 PM
Ah yes, the thrilling work where you note that if you simply alter or ignore reality, his models no longer function. Brilliant!
Since that is not what I said, I assume you did not understand my point.

blandman
02-12-2013, 01:04 PM
Since that is not what I said, I assume you did not understand my point.

You didn't make one. You only claimed to make one on another board. Spit it out if you want people to believe you.

TheOldRoman
02-12-2013, 01:04 PM
Bring up more historical references to fat please. Because baseball has a 100 year history of fat asses playing well into their late 30's, starting with Babe Ruth.

Dismissing my points as "worst outcome" for us and not for them is completely 100% biased of you. You are making stuff up to create a scenario where two of the best players in all of baseball are going to suddenly fall off of a cliff while conversely ignoring the fact that it's more likely that we suffer multiple critical injuries than it is we don't suffer any. And we absolutely need to not suffer any if there's any chance of competing.
Babe Ruth in his prime was probably 100 pounds less than Prince Fielder now. Of course, he didn't have nearly the muscle Prince does, but he was three inches taller. Cecil Fielder was four inches taller than Prince, was in far better shape and he still put up his last decent season at age 32 before leaving the game at 34. Fernando Valenzuela, Bartolo Colon, Alex Fernandez and Bobby Jenks all spent a good amount of time on the DL with strained fat. In basketball, Shaq took 2-3 years of dominance away from his career by spending his prime 50 pounds overweight.

Look, I am not saying that Cabrera and Fielder are going to hit .200 after a Fear-and-Loathing-in-a-Las-Vegas-Seafood-Buffet binge fest, but the fact exists that they are overweight, they are putting extra strain on their bodies, and it could catch up to them via injury or a slow decline. Add in the fact that Cabrera has noted alcohol problems, and he could have a relapse which cost him time or causes him to slump.

Chez
02-12-2013, 01:06 PM
I think this is what Cubs, Pirates, and Royals fans say to comfort themselves every year.

There are plenty of people who are going to watch the games because they, you know, LIKE watching baseball. Is watching baseball more enjoyable when your team is doing well? Of course. But I'm not going to be less interested or watch fewer games simply because BP tells me that my team is not going to have a good year. I realize that many fans enjoy the statistical analysis of the game and are distressed that BP seems to have under estimated (on a regular basis) how well their team is predicted to do. But if you're not going to show up to the ballpark simply because BP predicts a bad season for your team, then I've got no answer. I guess it's Reason/Excuse Number 795 why Sox fans don't come to the park -- BP predicted a lousy season. Can't we just see what happens before we give up on the 2013 season (and this is not directed at Kittle42 who I've quoted)?

dickallen15
02-12-2013, 01:12 PM
BP is a great read, but their projections are just projections. The "we're doomed" crew will use it as proof the Sox suck. If the projection was for 95 wins, the optimists would use it as proof the Sox would be great. There will be a few teams they will be right on or really close with, and several teams they will be way off. Just go back over the years and check. It's not any reason to be more optimistic or more pessimistic, and it doesn't do anything to prove your stance on either side. Nothing is proven either way yet. MLB isn't the NBA where a chimp could name 90% of the playoff teams 2 months before the season starts. Too many things can happen.

blandman
02-12-2013, 01:14 PM
Babe Ruth in his prime was probably 100 pounds less than Prince Fielder now. Of course, he didn't have nearly the muscle Prince does, but he was three inches taller. Cecil Fielder was four inches taller than Prince, was in far better shape and he still put up his last decent season at age 32 before leaving the game at 34. Fernando Valenzuela, Bartolo Colon, Alex Fernandez and Bobby Jenks all spent a good amount of time on the DL with strained fat. In basketball, Shaq took 2-3 years of dominance away from his career by spending his prime 50 pounds overweight.

Look, I am not saying that Cabrera and Fielder are going to hit .200 after a Fear-and-Loathing-in-a-Las-Vegas-Seafood-Buffet binge fest, but the fact exists that they are overweight, they are putting extra strain on their bodies, and it could catch up to them via injury or a slow decline. Add in the fact that Cabrera has noted alcohol problems, and he could have a relapse which cost him time or causes him to slump.

Cabrera isn't even overweight...so I don't know why you keep adding him to the equation. As for his alcohol problems in a few offseasons, if it does catch up with him, it'll be the first time. Look...I despise the guy. He's a drunk and a wife beater. I think he belongs in jail. But there's no reason to believe he isn't the strong favorite for next year's MVP.

And I'm going to assume you don't know much about Prince Fielder, but he's actually a really limber fellow who eats a much healthier diet than probably every other major leaguer in baseball. Some people are just larger than others.

SI1020
02-12-2013, 01:18 PM
Actually, despite what you think you know, and your past indicates that it is far less than you believe, playing the games does matter. 2 teams BP projected to finish in last place in their respective divisions in the AL last year made the playoffs. Washington was projected to finish 4th, St.Louis 3rd, SF was projected to finish 2nd. BP had the White Sox finishing behind Cleveland, and these were projections that came out at the end of spring training. And I'm no BP hater. I buy it every year. It doesn't matter. Just like in religion, politics, science, the arts, you name it. Dogma trumps all. It doesn't matter if tangible evidence or reality defies the dogma, you must believe. You must accept. I just got finished reading a long article about the archaeologists and other researchers who fought a decades long battle to prove that Clovis people were not the original inhabitants of the Americas. It turns out they were right. The Saber people have to a large degree overturned the traditionalists, in large part I think because traditional ways of evaluating players often left a lot to be desired. Unfortunately in life the cure is often worse than the ailment. Believe me I love stats. I posted on another board my lifelong experiences with demographics and other statistical metrics but thankfully will spare you and not do that here. If BP is the gold standard then it is fools gold. A heretic I will remain.

dickallen15
02-12-2013, 01:21 PM
Cabrera isn't even overweight...so I don't know why you keep adding him to the equation. As for his alcohol problems in a few offseasons, if it does catch up with him, it'll be the first time. Look...I despise the guy. He's a drunk and a wife beater. I think he belongs in jail. But there's no reason to believe he isn't the strong favorite for next year's MVP.

And I'm going to assume you don't know much about Prince Fielder, but he's actually a really limber fellow who eats a much healthier diet than probably every other major leaguer in baseball. Some people are just larger than others.

First off, Cabrera is overweight. Secondly, Prince was a vegetarian. That lasted a couple of weeks. Eventually the extra weight catches up to you. Maybe they will drop some pounds. Tony Gwynn got fatter and fatter and still was able to hit, but had a tough time staying healthy enough to play, missing 20-40 games a season his last 10 years or so.
If Prince got his genes from his father, he should have a couple of productive seasons left, then fall off a cliff. Cecil was hefty, but would look like Chris Sale standing next to his son.

TheOldRoman
02-12-2013, 01:21 PM
And I'm going to assume you don't know much about Prince Fielder, but he's actually a really limber fellow who eats a much healthier diet than probably every other major leaguer in baseball. Some people are just larger than others.And I'm going to assume you heard one quote about Fielder and based your opinion off of it. He became a vegetarian in 2008, and that storyline has kept going. However, he said last spring that him being a vegetarian "lasted about three months." Even is he were still a vegetarian, they can eat all the deep-fried cheese and butter croissants they want. Chances are a 300 pound vegetarian is not eating any better than a 200 pound omnivore. And yes, Prince is very limber and athletic for his size, but the fact that he can't stay on the right side of 260 (or even 300) means that he probably isn't going to keep playing well for very long.

doublem23
02-12-2013, 01:24 PM
But if you're not going to show up to the ballpark simply because BP predicts a bad season for your team, then I've got no answer.

I don't think anyone has made that claim. People just like the stats stuff because it's an interesting way to mix hobbies like math and sports. I didn't really need PECOTA to tell me on paper, the Sox don't look that great, but even the most ardent sabremetrics guy will tell you that what's printed on paper only matters to the page's edge and that there's a lot of stuff that happens on the field that can't, and maybe shouldn't, be quantified.

DumpJerry
02-12-2013, 01:32 PM
You didn't make one. You only claimed to make one on another board. Spit it out if you want people to believe you.
Go to the PI Board. I can't post it here because of the rules.


Oh, I don't care if people "believe" or not since we're talking about an opinion of mine and not a factual statement by me. There is nothing to "believe." I know that distinction does not exist in your world.

blandman
02-12-2013, 01:35 PM
First off, Cabrera is overweight. Secondly, Prince was a vegetarian. That lasted a couple of weeks. Eventually the extra weight catches up to you. Maybe they will drop some pounds. Tony Gwynn got fatter and fatter and still was able to hit, but had a tough time staying healthy enough to play, missing 20-40 games a season his last 10 years or so.
If Prince got his genes from his father, he should have a couple of productive seasons left, then fall off a cliff. Cecil was hefty, but would look like Chris Sale standing next to his son.

I don't think Cabrera is overweight. There is a tremendous difference between big and overweight.

Prince still eats healthy. He was vegetarian for 3 months and then stopped. But he's mostly a whole foods, plant based diet. He just can't claim to be vegetarian because he does eat some meat.

spawn
02-12-2013, 01:35 PM
I don't think Cabrera is overweight. There is a tremendous difference between big and overweight.

Prince still eats healthy. He was vegetarian for 3 months and then stopped. But he's mostly a whole foods, plant based diet. He just can't claim to be vegetarian because he does eat some meat.

So you follow him around and watch what he eats? You've studied his diet plan? Riiiiiiiiight.....

blandman
02-12-2013, 01:38 PM
So you follow him around and watch what he eats? You've studied his diet plan? Riiiiiiiiight.....

ACTUALLY, I attended a talk in which he was on a panel. Us veg-heads stick together.

dickallen15
02-12-2013, 01:40 PM
I don't think Cabrera is overweight. There is a tremendous difference between big and overweight.

Prince still eats healthy. He was vegetarian for 3 months and then stopped. But he's mostly a whole foods, plant based diet. He just can't claim to be vegetarian because he does eat some meat.

First off, I doubt what you typed is true, secondly, he can eat tree bark and grass or double quarter pounders every meal, the bottom line is both Cabera and Prince are very heavy and the toll that takes on your joints and other body parts will catch up to them at some point. They have to run around for a living.

spawn
02-12-2013, 01:42 PM
ACTUALLY, I attended a talk in which he was on a panel. Us veg-heads stick together.

And when did you attend this panel? Was it before or after he stopped being a veg-head?

TheOldRoman
02-12-2013, 01:42 PM
I don't think Cabrera is overweight. There is a tremendous difference between big and overweight.

Prince still eats healthy. He was vegetarian for 3 months and then stopped. But he's mostly a whole foods, plant based diet. He just can't claim to be vegetarian because he does eat some meat.Yes, some people are just larger. People have different metabolisms. Sometimes genetics are a bitch. However, there is no way in hell you can convince me that a Prince eats properly. As a professional athlete who undoubtedly works out often just to keep the proper muscles and stamina to play pro baseball, he's gotta be sneaking some eclaires on the side. It's pretty much impossible for a guy in his 20s to eat well, work out regularly and still be 300 pounds. So, either Prince doesn't work out at all (unlikely), or he doesn't eat nearly as well as you think.

blandman
02-12-2013, 01:53 PM
Yes, some people are just larger. People have different metabolisms. Sometimes genetics are a bitch. However, there is no way in hell you can convince me that a Prince eats properly. As a professional athlete who undoubtedly works out often just to keep the proper muscles and stamina to play pro baseball, he's gotta be sneaking some eclaires on the side. It's pretty much impossible for a guy in his 20s to eat well, work out regularly and still be 300 pounds. So, either Prince doesn't work out at all (unlikely), or he doesn't eat nearly as well as you think.

WELL, I can't say I wouldn't doubt it. He's certainly not as strict as someone like me. But he's not 300 pounds because of eating bad food either. He's 300 pounds because of a combination of diet as well as a ridiculous amount of muscle.

TheOldRoman
02-12-2013, 01:55 PM
WELL, I can't say I wouldn't doubt it. He's certainly not as strict as someone like me. But he's not 300 pounds because of eating bad food either. He's 300 pounds because of a combination of diet as well as a ridiculous amount of muscle.What purpose does the large, round, soft mass of muscle around his midsection serve? C'mon man. We're not talking about Julius Peppers being 290 pounds of solid muscle. Prince didn't get to be 300 pounds by lifting weights.

Nellie_Fox
02-12-2013, 02:01 PM
He's 300 pounds because of a combination of diet as well as a ridiculous amount of muscle.Oh, so that's muscle I see flapping up and down all over his torso when he runs? Got it.

SI1020
02-12-2013, 02:08 PM
Oh, so that's muscle I see flapping up and down all over his torso when he runs? Got it. Yes. Anybody have a picture of him with his shirt off? Really I don't want to denigrate him. He's a gifted athlete. He's one of those heavy set people who are nevertheless athletic.

DumpJerry
02-12-2013, 02:11 PM
Oh, so that's muscle I see flapping up and down all over his torso when he runs? Got it.
That's not muscle you see.







Those are bean sprouts.

LITTLE NELL
02-12-2013, 02:17 PM
Oh, so that's muscle I see flapping up and down all over his torso when he runs? Got it.

Nellie, you just broke my heart.

Lip Man 1
02-12-2013, 02:17 PM
"They pick us there every year and more often than not, they’ve been wrong. Whatever. We get it. We know going into the year we’re not the favorites. We understand that. As cliché as it sounds, that’s why you play the games." -- John Danks on BP

Lip

spawn
02-12-2013, 02:36 PM
He's 300 pounds because of a combination of diet as well as a ridiculous amount of muscle.
:rolling: That's got to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've read here, even for you munch! :rolling:

Rocky Soprano
02-12-2013, 03:00 PM
:rolling: That's got to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've read here, even for you munch! :rolling:

Well he never said it was a good diet. :D:

TaylorStSox
02-12-2013, 03:03 PM
The stats part of this thread bores me. The part discussing how fat Prince and Miggy are is great reading. Did Munch say Cabrera isn't fat? LOL. Dude, he's not fat, he's obese.

TaylorStSox
02-12-2013, 03:09 PM
Obviously the Tigers are better than us, but the addition of VMart makes the fattest team in the history if sports even fatter. Just wait until Hunter's old ass starts eating either these guys. I have a feeling this season is going to be fun.

blandman
02-12-2013, 03:17 PM
The stats part of this thread bores me. The part discussing how fat Prince and Miggy are is great reading. Did Munch say Cabrera isn't fat? LOL. Dude, he's not fat, he's obese.

So, joking on Fielder aside, Cabrera is NOT fat anymore. He WAS fat before last season, but actually got himself into pretty decent shape knowing he was going to play 3B. Here's a pic of him before last season. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/26/miguel-cabrera-is-in-the-best-shape-of-his-life/

I don't see how anyone could look at that picture and consider him obese.

TaylorStSox
02-12-2013, 03:50 PM
So, joking on Fielder aside, Cabrera is NOT fat anymore. He WAS fat before last season, but actually got himself into pretty decent shape knowing he was going to play 3B. Here's a pic of him before last season. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/26/miguel-cabrera-is-in-the-best-shape-of-his-life/

I don't see how anyone could look at that picture and consider him obese.

I don't think that pic is helping your cause.

kittle42
02-12-2013, 03:55 PM
Between a 3.5 die roll, and Fielder not being fat, this thread rules.

SCCWS
02-12-2013, 05:18 PM
One point on Keppinger. He has played twice as many games at 2nd in his career than at 3rd. He even has played more shortstop than 3rd. The only reason he played 3rd last year in Tampa was because Longoria was out so long with an injury. So if Morel and Keppinger hit in the spring and Beckham doesn't, it may force Robin to make some decisions offensively.

SI1020
02-12-2013, 05:44 PM
One point on Keppinger. He has played twice as many games at 2nd in his career than at 3rd. He even has played more shortstop than 3rd. The only reason he played 3rd last year in Tampa was because Longoria was out so long with an injury. So if Morel and Keppinger hit in the spring and Beckham doesn't, it may force Robin to make some decisions offensively. It's always nice to have options.

dickallen15
02-12-2013, 05:44 PM
So, joking on Fielder aside, Cabrera is NOT fat anymore. He WAS fat before last season, but actually got himself into pretty decent shape knowing he was going to play 3B. Here's a pic of him before last season. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/26/miguel-cabrera-is-in-the-best-shape-of-his-life/

I don't see how anyone could look at that picture and consider him obese.

Just go by a year old picture after he spent the winter with a trainer. You might want to google,some playoff pictures and look at the overhang around the waist.

TaylorStSox
02-12-2013, 06:23 PM
Man, I wish I was home. There's nothing I want more than for this thread to turn into a Fat Tigers Pic Thread.

Whitesox029
02-12-2013, 07:14 PM
:clap:

This is literally the single worst analogy I have ever read because A) only a complete and utter moron would base probablity on mean and not mode. Like, I cannot comprehend how stupid someone would have to be to make such an error and B) obviously a dice roll is the definition of a random event. Even if you rolled a 6 on a 6-sided dice 10,000 times in a roll the odds you'd roll a 6 on #10,001 is still 1/6. Comparing a weighted, statistical model (such as say... PECOTA) to a truly random event shows a real and fundamental lack of understanding of statistics and probability.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the concept of an "analogy". An analogy is not meant to compare two situations in every possible way. Obviously baseball is not random, and PECOTA is not merely a bunch of averages. That isn't the point. I am not trivializing the difference between "weighted statistical models" and random events any more than I would be trivializing the difference between fish and mammals if I were to say sharks:teeth::whales:baleen. Obviously, These two animals are very different in many ways. The analogy would be pointing out nothing more than the fact that teeth and baleen are located in the same place on the animal's anatomy--AND NOTHING MORE. It does not imply that they serve the same purpose or that they are made of the same material (they don't, and they're not).

I realize that I've just used an analogy to explain the concept of analogies, but bear with me.

Likewise, my die analogy does not imply that PECOTA is nothing more than arithmetic means. I will spell it out for you again: The analogy is that in both the case of the die roll, and the case of executives who place a lot of weight on PECOTA projections, you have a person who is basing an important decision purely on numbers, where there are other factors at play. In the case of the die, the other factor is that 3.5 is not a number on a die. In the case of PECOTA, the other factors are various--managers, team chemistry, fan support, etc, etc.
In a way though, you did grasp my point--guessing 3.5 as a die roll is obviously absurdly stupid. I'm arguing that basing baseball decisions PURELY on numbers is also pretty damn stupid, if not as stupid as the former.

spawn
02-12-2013, 07:26 PM
Yes. Anybody have a picture of him with his shirt off? Really I don't want to denigrate him. He's a gifted athlete. He's one of those heavy set people who are nevertheless athletic.
I don't think anyone is trying to denigrate him. But the man is overweight, and to suggest he isn't, and that he's only as big as he is due to diet and muscle is absurd. I remember the first time I saw him. It was on MTV when they had a softball challenge. His dad played, and in the later innings, as a kid, he played. I believe he caught the last out, and if not, one of the final outs. he was a large boy then. He's a large man now. And it isn't all muscle. I give him credit, that as big as he is, he is a gifted athlete, as you have said. But eventually, that weight will take it's toll.

StillMissOzzie
02-12-2013, 10:45 PM
Well, if THIS isn't enough to make you flush BP and PECOTA down the crapper, I don't know what will, but I discovered that PECOTA has pegged both the Sox and the North Side Pathetics with the SAME 77-85 record!!!

Me, I am hoping to see the Cubs go back-to-back on 100 losses, but for PECOTA to predict the same record for both teams? Meh

SMO
:rolleyes::roflmao::rolling::puking:

blandman
02-13-2013, 07:42 AM
I don't know if this belongs in the same thread, but this morning Jim Bowden ranked offseasons of all 30 MLB teams. The Tigers had the 5th best offseason. We had the fifth worst.

Cleveland (6) and Kansas City (10) were also in the top ten best offseasons. Minnesota ranked 13th, but it's hard not to improve on that squad.

MUsoxfan
02-13-2013, 08:23 AM
I don't know if this belongs in the same thread, but this morning Jim Bowden ranked offseasons of all 30 MLB teams. The Tigers had the 5th best offseason. We had the fifth worst.

Cleveland (6) and Kansas City (10) were also in the top ten best offseasons. Minnesota ranked 13th, but it's hard not to improve on that squad.

Well if Jim ****ing Bowden says it, the Sox shouldn't even bother to lace 'em up. All is now officially lost. I'd better make different plans for Opening Day

blandman
02-13-2013, 08:29 AM
Well if Jim ****ing Bowden says it, the Sox shouldn't even bother to lace 'em up. All is now officially lost. I'd better make different plans for Opening Day

I love the "anything I don't like to hear means lets lace 'em up and see" attitude. Like that attitude alone could make a bad team good.

It's information. Use it or dismiss it. But have a reason. Call Bowden a moron for all I care. But have a reason.

SCCWS
02-13-2013, 08:30 AM
Well if Jim ****ing Bowden says it, the Sox shouldn't even bother to lace 'em up. All is now officially lost. I'd better make different plans for Opening Day

Don't jump off the ship so quickly. Do not attend opening day since FA predicts a real lousy day in Chicago. But watch the game on TV.

MUsoxfan
02-13-2013, 08:40 AM
I love the "anything I don't like to hear means lets lace 'em up and see" attitude. Like that attitude alone could make a bad team good.

It's information. Use it or dismiss it. But have a reason. Call Bowden a moron for all I care. But have a reason.

The reason is that all these guys are almost always not just wrong, but very wrong. They can't predict who will win half the divisions on September 1, muchless on Feb 12.

Go ahead and find people and numbers to cite your anti-Hahn/Sox agenda. But at the end of the day, 162 games will be played and not a person on this planet can tell you what will happen to any degree of accuracy

dickallen15
02-13-2013, 08:48 AM
I don't know if this belongs in the same thread, but this morning Jim Bowden ranked offseasons of all 30 MLB teams. The Tigers had the 5th best offseason. We had the fifth worst.

Cleveland (6) and Kansas City (10) were also in the top ten best offseasons. Minnesota ranked 13th, but it's hard not to improve on that squad.

Where were the Marlins and Angels ranked last offseason?

kittle42
02-13-2013, 08:53 AM
I don't know if this belongs in the same thread, but this morning Jim Bowden ranked offseasons of all 30 MLB teams. The Tigers had the 5th best offseason. We had the fifth worst.

Well, when you basically do nothing, that happens.

kittle42
02-13-2013, 08:56 AM
Where were the Marlins and Angels ranked last offseason?

Ugh. Saying a team had a good or bad offseason is not saying they'll win their divisions. For example, a team that is projected to be really great could have barely done anything in the offseason, or even lost a key player, and finish near the bottom of "best offseasons," but still be projected to finish first. The opposite holds true, too.

I still stand by my theory that the only reason many here dislike predictions and projections is because they rarely rate the Sox high in such prognostications. I bet Yankee fans love predictions.

johnnyg83
02-13-2013, 09:06 AM
Ignoring the fact that most people are aware that PECOTA Team Projections are more or less a fun exercise in statistical modeling and not to be taken as serious, carved in stone predictions, if you're measuring their accuracy against actual W-L record you've already demonstronstrated your ignorance as to what this projection is actually measuring. Just in case you wonder why nobody ever cares about your ERRRGH STANDARD DEVIATION argument.

I care.

dickallen15
02-13-2013, 09:15 AM
Ugh. Saying a team had a good or bad offseason is not saying they'll win their divisions. For example, a team that is projected to be really great could have barely done anything in the offseason, or even lost a key player, and finish near the bottom of "best offseasons," but still be projected to finish first. The opposite holds true, too.

I still stand by my theory that the only reason many here dislike predictions and projections is because they rarely rate the Sox high in such prognostications. I bet Yankee fans love predictions.

I just think telling everyone who had the best and worst offseason without any games being played is silly. The best time to determine who really had the best and worst offseason will be around Halloween.

When Bowden, just like everyone else, comes up with his predicted order of finish before the season starts, at the end of the year, you will see a couple he was correct with, and a whole bunch he couldn't have been more wrong. It's why I find these team projections and rankings of offseasons so humerous. No one really knows.

And I don't think BP is a joke. I think their individual player projections are interesting and I'm a yearly customer. But I'm never going to get worked up over some of these rankings.

kittle42
02-13-2013, 09:37 AM
I am going to come back to this thread at the end of April and see how many people who hate projections and say we should play out the string before we analyze are also going nuts over the performance of our Sox over the first month, basically throwing in the towel or printing World Series tickets. Just wondering if there will be a correlation.

blandman
02-13-2013, 09:47 AM
I just think telling everyone who had the best and worst offseason without any games being played is silly. The best time to determine who really had the best and worst offseason will be around Halloween.

When Bowden, just like everyone else, comes up with his predicted order of finish before the season starts, at the end of the year, you will see a couple he was correct with, and a whole bunch he couldn't have been more wrong. It's why I find these team projections and rankings of offseasons so humerous. No one really knows.

No, but there are agreements among experts that will be true. The Tigers will win our division. Handily. The experts all agree. And it will happen. It's as close to a sure thing as there is. Sure as for a long stretch, the Yanks won their division. And everyone picked them to do so as well. Because they were just so much better than everyone else. And their division. And it was a no brainer.

The Tigers are the best team in baseball. Maybe that's debatable, but to most people that's clear.. We are fighting to stay middle of the pack, talent-wise, in a division that got better around us. That's debatable too, but to most people that's clear. I have no trouble believing we aren't winning the division. It's as closer to impossible as it is to possible. A lot closer.

blandman
02-13-2013, 09:48 AM
I am going to come back to this thread at the end of April and see how many people who hate projections and say we should play out the string before we analyze are also going nuts over the performance of our Sox over the first month, basically throwing in the towel or printing World Series tickets. Just wondering if there will be a correlation.

Considering Danks likely won't be ready for that first month too, I wouldn't doubt a really bad start.

MUsoxfan
02-13-2013, 09:53 AM
No, but there are agreements among experts that will be true. The Tigers will win our division. Handily. The experts all agree. And it will happen. It's as close to a sure thing as there is. Sure as for a long stretch, the Yanks won their division. And everyone picked them to do so as well. Because they were just so much better than everyone else. And their division. And it was a no brainer.

The Tigers are the best team in baseball. Maybe that's debatable, but to most people that's clear.. We are fighting to stay middle of the pack, talent-wise, in a division that got better around us. That's debatable too, but to most people that's clear. I have no trouble believing we aren't winning the division. It's as closer to impossible as it is to possible. A lot closer.

So what would you have done to the roster to surpass the unbeatable Tigers?

Also, what about all the same experts that had Baltimore in last place this past season?

spawn
02-13-2013, 09:54 AM
No, but there are agreements among experts that will be true. The Tigers will win our division. Handily. The experts all agree. And it will happen. It's as close to a sure thing as there is. Sure as for a long stretch, the Yanks won their division. And everyone picked them to do so as well. Because they were just so much better than everyone else. And their division. And it was a no brainer.

The Tigers are the best team in baseball. Maybe that's debatable, but to most people that's clear.. We are fighting to stay middle of the pack, talent-wise, in a division that got better around us. That's debatable too, but to most people that's clear. I have no trouble believing we aren't winning the division. It's as closer to impossible as it is to possible. A lot closer.
As close to a sure thing as Derrick Rose being a bust of epic proportions?

Domeshot17
02-13-2013, 10:01 AM
As close to a sure thing as Derrick Rose being a bust of epic proportions?

I am not saying he didn't bring it on himself, or the extreme negativity doesn't sometimes warrant it, but good lord can this die? It is almost becoming straw man in the sense that instead of refuting a statement it just gets brought up that he was wrong about Derrick Rose and outside the personal vendetta is just kind of tired (not from you just in general).

I mean, we had poster's who called Gordon Beckham the next Derek Jeter, should that be brought up EVERY...SINGLE...TIME....THEY...POST...ANYTHING? It is just a big of a swing and miss statement as the Rose one.

Its obvious the offseason leads to debate on WSI, everything does. But when the debates and discussion turn into a pissing match over who was wrong in the past, it gets pointless.

spawn
02-13-2013, 10:08 AM
I am not saying he didn't bring it on himself, or the extreme negativity doesn't sometimes warrant it, but good lord can this die? It is almost becoming straw man in the sense that instead of refuting a statement it just gets brought up that he was wrong about Derrick Rose and outside the personal vendetta is just kind of tired (not from you just in general).

I mean, we had poster's who called Gordon Beckham the next Derek Jeter, should that be brought up EVERY...SINGLE...TIME....THEY...POST...ANYTHING? It is just a big of a swing and miss statement as the Rose one.

Its obvious the offseason leads to debate on WSI, everything does. But when the debates and discussion turn into a pissing match over who was wrong in the past, it gets pointless.
It's a reminder of the perils of saying things as absolutes. So...no. I won't let it die. Saying it's an absolute the Tigers are the best team in baseball? The Tigers will win the division handily? I'm sorry, but I really have a hard time with people that do that. You want to state it as your opinion? Fine. But to state it as if it has already happened, and to do it with every single argument...nope. So if I find an example of how wrong that person is, especially when the person states in another thread he doesn't post opinions but cites experts, then...no. I will beat it to death. :shrug:

Domeshot17
02-13-2013, 10:11 AM
It's a reminder of the perils of saying things as absolutes. So...no. I won't let it die. Saying it's an absolute the Tigers are the best team in baseball? The Tigers will win the division handily? I'm sorry, but I really have a hard time with people that do that. You want to state it as your opinion? Fine. But to state it as if it has already happened, and to do it with every single argument...nope. So if I find an example of how wrong that person is, I will beat it to death. :shrug:

I get that, like I Said I don't think its totally unwarranted by any means, I mean if I think a poster is being negative than I would hate to see what everyone else thinks haha. Just is like, I get it, Rose is awesome, Munch was wrong. I just think, like I said, if people started refuting other posters with "Hey, is Beckham still the next Derek Jeter" people would immediately start to knock it as well.

dickallen15
02-13-2013, 10:14 AM
So what would you have done to the roster to surpass the unbeatable Tigers?

Also, what about all the same experts that had Baltimore in last place this past season?

Oakland was predicted for last in a division with the best team in baseball, the Angels. Blandman fancies himself an expert, which is really hysterical when you examine his record.

The Tigers might win. They might be the best team in baseball, but how often does the pre-season consensus pick for best team in baseball actually win the WS?

blandman
02-13-2013, 10:19 AM
I get that, like I Said I don't think its totally unwarranted by any means, I mean if I think a poster is being negative than I would hate to see what everyone else thinks haha. Just is like, I get it, Rose is awesome, Munch was wrong. I just think, like I said, if people started refuting other posters with "Hey, is Beckham still the next Derek Jeter" people would immediately start to knock it as well.

I think it would make more sense if I still believed Rose was a bust, but now it just seems lazy. :shrug: My two cents. Know that doesn't mean much around here either.

blandman
02-13-2013, 10:23 AM
Oakland was predicted for last in a division with the best team in baseball, the Angels. Blandman fancies himself an expert, which is really hysterical when you examine his record.



The problem with using teams like Oakland, load with top prospects, and comparing them to us, is it ignores TALENT level. Oakland rose up because they had talented pitchers that were unproven but really high ace quality ceilings. They could have easily been first or last. You can't say that about our team this year.

I NEVER called myself an expert.

spawn
02-13-2013, 10:24 AM
I get that, like I Said I don't think its totally unwarranted by any means, I mean if I think a poster is being negative than I would hate to see what everyone else thinks haha. Just is like, I get it, Rose is awesome, Munch was wrong. I just think, like I said, if people started refuting other posters with "Hey, is Beckham still the next Derek Jeter" people would immediately start to knock it as well.

Believe me, I respect your opinion here. And trust me, there are plenty of times when I think to myself "yeah, that's enough of that." But something is posted with dramatic effect, and I reminded as to why I continue to bring it up. To be honest, I don't even remember anyone saying that about Beckham. Not saying it didn't happen, but I don't remember it. However, with Rose, it wasn't just the one statement. It was multiple statements, from him being a bust to him not improving his outside shot because he was already a gym rat, and other statements. It's just tough taking anything said seriously because it is done with such dramatic effect and then to tell others you're not stating your opinion but those of other experts? *****.

blandman
02-13-2013, 10:28 AM
Believe me, I respect your opinion here. And trust me, there are plenty of times when I think to myself "yeah, that's enough of that." But something is posted with dramatic effect, and I reminded as to why I continue to bring it up. To be honest, I don't even remember anyone saying that about Beckham. Not saying it didn't happen, but I don't remember it. However, with Rose, it wasn't just the one statement. It was multiple statements, from him being a bust to him not improving his outside shot because he was already a gym rat, and other statements. It's just tough taking anything said seriously because it is done with such dramatic effect and then to tell others you're not stating your opinion but those of other experts? *****.

Believe me Spawn, when I bring up evidence and people like you have no response but to dwell on irrelevant past because you can't think for yourself, I think in asterisks too.

dickallen15
02-13-2013, 10:30 AM
The problem with using teams like Oakland, load with top prospects, and comparing them to us, is it ignores TALENT level. Oakland rose up because they had talented pitchers that were unproven but really high ace quality ceilings. They could have easily been first or last. You can't say that about our team this year.

I NEVER called myself an expert.

No you haven't, you just imply it, and occassionally try to give people a scouting lesson. As for pitching, Sale, Peavy, Danks, Floyd if they pitch to their capabilities are as good as what Oakland can throw out there if not better, and the Sox bullpen has a ton of guys who can throw hard and be effective. So yes, I can say that about our team this year.

spawn
02-13-2013, 10:31 AM
The Tigers might win. They might be the best team in baseball, but how often does the pre-season consensus pick for best team in baseball actually win the WS?
There's the rub, and why I try never to make predictions, because more often than not, I'm wrong. In a 162 game season, anything can happen. As was pointed out...look at the A's, the Orioles, and most of the season the White Sox? If I remember correctly, weren't the Red Sox in some circles picked to win the WS? That's why it's ridiculous to state anything as an absolute before the first pitch is even thrown.

blandman
02-13-2013, 10:34 AM
No you haven't, you just imply it, and occassionally try to give people a scouting lesson. As for pitching, Sale, Peavy, Danks, Floyd if they pitch to their capabilities are as good as what Oakland can throw out there if not better, and the Sox bullpen has a ton of guys who can throw hard and be effective. So yes, I can say that about our team this year.

Ah I see. So when someone says something obviously wrong, I'm not suppose to link to articles because being right makes me look like an expert.

Got it.

spawn
02-13-2013, 10:35 AM
Believe me Spawn, when I bring up evidence and people like you have no response but to dwell on irrelevant past because you can't think for yourself, I think in asterisks too.
I have no problem thinking for myself. I'm just not stupid enough to state my opinions as facts and absolutes. :shrug:

blandman
02-13-2013, 10:35 AM
I have no problem thinking for myself. I'm just not stupid enough to state my opinions as facts and absolutes. :shrug:

:tongue:

dickallen15
02-13-2013, 10:41 AM
Ah I see. So when someone says something obviously wrong, I'm not suppose to link to articles because being right makes me look like an expert.

Got it.

Jim Bowden's opinion doesn't make you right. Link Miguel Cabrera hoisting the WS trophy next October and you will get your credit. If not, you couldn't have been more wrong. Again.

blandman
02-13-2013, 10:44 AM
Jim Bowden's opinion doesn't make you right. Link Miguel Cabrera hoisting the WS trophy next October and you will get your credit. If not, you couldn't have been more wrong. Again.

We aren't even talking about the WS, we're talking about the division. The playoffs are a crap-shoot. The best team almost never wins. But if you wanna make a bet on the division this year, I'm all ears.

Rocky Soprano
02-13-2013, 10:56 AM
We aren't even talking about the WS, we're talking about the division. The playoffs are a crap-shoot. The best team almost never wins. But if you wanna make a bet on the division this year, I'm all ears.


How about paying on our bet? The one you stated, as an absolute, that Ozzie would be back to manage the Sox in 2012.

:D:

blandman
02-13-2013, 11:21 AM
How about paying on our bet? The one you stated, as an absolute, that Ozzie would be back to manage the Sox in 2012.

:D:

Still waiting on what my sig's supposed to say!

(you are the envy of WSI, make it count)

SoxNation05
02-13-2013, 11:43 AM
Considering Danks likely won't be ready for that first month too, I wouldn't doubt a really bad start.
Could you provide the link that says this? Or are you simply making this up?

SCCWS
02-13-2013, 11:46 AM
At this time of year, every team has many fans who see their team vastly improved going into spring training. Then you have the fans who are impressed with the spring training results and see their team vastly improved. Then there is always the team who takes off and has an impressive April and some segment of their fans think this is the year.
But luckily baseball is a marathon and almost every team will have several peaks and valleys from beginning to end. Key injuries will change the fate of some teams along the way as well.
A year ago the White Sox had a lot of question marks, injury concerns going in and a manager who had no managerial experience. But they certainly made it interesting. This year's roster may be a little better, the manager has expereince and the division is probably better.
There are still going to be the fans that see this as a pennant year and the fans who see doom and gloom before a game is played. Relax and enjoy.

blandman
02-13-2013, 12:09 PM
Could you provide the link that says this? Or are you simply making this up?

Could you provide a link to an article that DOESN'T say he's likely to be held back?

I'm confused, are you writing this because you simply do not know/don't read articles on the subject, or because you are trying to "get" me.

Quit with the personal garbage. Danks could be ready on time. I didn't discount that. But even our local papers metion he's likely to be held back after the team breaks camp. Hell, the Sun-Times article said that this VERY WEEK.

doublem23
02-13-2013, 12:29 PM
Could you provide a link to an article that DOESN'T say he's likely to be held back?

Nobody of any authority has set down any definitive timetable for Danks' return.

dickallen15
02-13-2013, 12:34 PM
Could you provide a link to an article that DOESN'T say he's likely to be held back?

I'm confused, are you writing this because you simply do not know/don't read articles on the subject, or because you are trying to "get" me.

Quit with the personal garbage. Danks could be ready on time. I didn't discount that. But even our local papers metion he's likely to be held back after the team breaks camp. Hell, the Sun-Times article said that this VERY WEEK.
http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/white-sox/post/_/id/13321/danks-anticipates-an-on-time-start

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130212&content_id=41577530&notebook_id=41577770&c_id=cws

Danks and the team seem to think he is doing well. The team indicates he could be held back, but nothing in there about a month. Your "likely won't be ready for the first month" is just made up doom and gloom.

spawn
02-13-2013, 12:43 PM
Could you provide a link to an article that DOESN'T say he's likely to be held back?

I'm confused, are you writing this because you simply do not know/don't read articles on the subject, or because you are trying to "get" me.


Nobody of any authority has set down any definitive timetable for Danks' return.

On top of this munch, you're the one stating he likely won't be ready the first month, so the onus is on you to provide the proof. After all, you said this in the Bulls thread about Derrick Rose:

If it isn't based on anything, there's no need to say it. It causes confusion. That's how bad rumors start. People baselessly saying late February is exactly why so many people baselessly believe he'll be back in late February.

Isn't this exactly what you're doing here with regards to Danks?

blandman
02-13-2013, 12:46 PM
On top of this munch, you're the one stating he likely won't be ready the first month, so the onus is on you to provide the proof. After all, you said this in the Bulls thread about Derrick Rose:



Isn't this exactly what you're doing here with regards to Danks?

There isn't anything that says his return timetable isn't in question as regards to the beginning of the year, so absolutely not. That Danks SHOULD be there opening day is the questionable statement, the only mention of it is Danks himself being optimistic in reaction to the team's timetable.

And FWIW, Danks isn't even doing normal throwing, let alone normal spring training stuff right now. So to think he'll be ready opening day is pretty optimistic by any stretch of the imagination.

dickallen15
02-13-2013, 12:49 PM
There isn't anything that says his return timetable isn't in question as regards to the beginning of the year, so absolutely not. That Danks SHOULD be there opening day is the questionable statement, the only mention of it is Danks himself being optimistic in reaction to the team's timetable.
There isn't anything except your posts saying he is "likely to miss the first month". For a guy who asks for links, why not come up with one?

blandman
02-13-2013, 12:49 PM
http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/white-sox/post/_/id/13321/danks-anticipates-an-on-time-start

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130212&content_id=41577530&notebook_id=41577770&c_id=cws

Danks and the team seem to think he is doing well. The team indicates he could be held back, but nothing in there about a month. Your "likely won't be ready for the first month" is just made up doom and gloom.

I like how I basically just paraphrased what Coop said and you completely ignored that. I'm done with this personal crap. I'm being attacked just to be attacked. Go troll someone else, I'm out of the thread.

dickallen15
02-13-2013, 12:54 PM
I like how I basically just paraphrased what Coop said and you completely ignored that. I'm done with this personal crap. I'm being attacked just to be attacked. Go troll someone else, I'm out of the thread.

Good. You said likely to miss the first month. Cooper said nothing of the sort. I'm not trolling and you are not being attacked. You are being called out.

TheVulture
02-13-2013, 01:27 PM
Cabera's triple crown season saw him best his previous career highs by 7 homers and 13 RBIs, while hitting 14 homers and collecting 24 more RBI than the year before. 2012 was by far the best season of his career. So, no, he wouldn't be likely to reproduce that season based on his career at this point and him being 30

Don't forget 2012 was the only season Cabrera had Fielder protecting him in the lineup. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like that is going to change.

WhiteSox5187
02-13-2013, 03:32 PM
I'm sure someone has already said this but BP and Pecota have almost always been wrong. The one year they were right was in 2007 and that year they said the strength of the White Sox was their bullpen. Oops.

Having said that, I think that 77 wins is a fairly accurate representation of our win total this year. What I find surprising is that they think the Indians are better than the Royals, as the Indians have ZERO pitching. I also don't understand how they think the Cubs could have improved by 16 wins by Edwin Jackson and a closer in his 30s who has never thrown a pitch in a professional league in the United States. Their methodology makes no sense to me.

spawn
02-13-2013, 03:42 PM
There isn't anything that says his return timetable isn't in question as regards to the beginning of the year, so absolutely not. That Danks SHOULD be there opening day is the questionable statement, the only mention of it is Danks himself being optimistic in reaction to the team's timetable.


Yes, but you are the only one stating he will likely miss the first month of the season, so yes, you are doing just that...posting a rumor as a fact without evidence to back it up.

And let's make one thing clear. You aren't being subjected to personal attacks. That's just ridiculous.

dickallen15
02-13-2013, 05:58 PM
We aren't even talking about the WS, we're talking about the division. The playoffs are a crap-shoot. The best team almost never wins. But if you wanna make a bet on the division this year, I'm all ears.

So you just admit there is no possible way you wouldn't be pessimistic about the White sox this year. You have proclaimed the Tigers the best team in baseball, and I think you even mentioned they may set a record for wins a month or so ago. So in order for the White Sox to beat them, they would have to be the best team in baseball, and you say the best team almost never wins the World Series. So any way it Is sliced, the season is doomed.

Dibbs
02-13-2013, 07:44 PM
Ahhh, the BP projection is always one of my favorite times of the year. Could anything be more useless? They aren't close.

Projection actual difference
2005 80-82 99-63 +19
2006 82-80 90-72 +8
2007 73-89 72-90 -1
2008 77-85 89-74* +12
2009 73-89 79-83 +6
2010 79-83 88-74 +9
2011 82-80 79-83 -3
2012 78-84 85-77 +7

blandman
02-13-2013, 09:23 PM
So you just admit there is no possible way you wouldn't be pessimistic about the White sox this year. You have proclaimed the Tigers the best team in baseball, and I think you even mentioned they may set a record for wins a month or so ago. So in order for the White Sox to beat them, they would have to be the best team in baseball, and you say the best team almost never wins the World Series. So any way it Is sliced, the season is doomed.

In that the Tiger's are probably best in baseball and we're somewhere south of the middle of the pact? Yes. That's pretty much EVERY synopsis on the upcoming season you'll read not on a team's fan site.

Why would you be optimistic? There's really no reason to be. I don't think accepting the truth of the situation is necessarily pessimistic though.

blandman
02-13-2013, 09:27 PM
Yes, but you are the only one stating he will likely miss the first month of the season, so yes, you are doing just that...posting a rumor as a fact without evidence to back it up.

And let's make one thing clear. You aren't being subjected to personal attacks. That's just ridiculous.

Fair on the exact wording, but I've read it plenty too. That I'm not being attacked on everything I write no matter what? Please. But whatever. Children will be children. It isn't about the wording I use. It's about getting me. There was no reason to look at my comment and think it was off-base in the first place, as every publication, even included in this thread, has mentioned john would be held back. No exact time, but a month is pretty damn optimistic. If I wanted to exaggerate, I'd have said half the season. The truth is, if it's a month, we're really lucky. There's no timetable for a reason. There's no good guess other than he's not going to be ready.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
02-13-2013, 10:26 PM
In that the Tiger's are probably best in baseball and we're somewhere south of the middle of the pact? Yes. That's pretty much EVERY synopsis on the upcoming season you'll read not on a team's fan site.

Why would you be optimistic? There's really no reason to be. I don't think accepting the truth of the situation is necessarily pessimistic though.

Maybe because baseball is the one sport where hardly anything turns out as predicted?

Did anyone see the Nationals winning the NL East? No, the preseason synopsis was that was the Marlins' division, and it wasn't even close. There was NO way the mighty Marlins could possibly have fell on their face and blown it all up by midseason.

The NL West was nothing but Dodgers this, Dodgers that, who would they have pitch in the first game of the NLCS versus the Marlins, etc. Wait, the Dodgers didn't win the division? Huh. I thought the Giants never had a chance, according to the prognosticators. And they won the World Series too? Dear god.

The AL West was going to be a two team race between the Rangers and Angels, with the A's and Mariners nothing but spectators as the two titans slug it out. So, why did the A's win the division again, and both the Rangers and Angels were spectators during the playoffs?

Sure, people predicted the Yanks would win the AL East, but they also predicted the wild card would come from the East too...the Red Sox. They were half-right: the wild card team did indeed come from the East, but since when did the Red Sox wear orange and have a bird as their logo?

The AL Central was going to be clinched by the Tigers by early August. Everyone else was nothing but afterthoughts. So, why did the Tigers suck so bad up until they got hot in late September, in conjunction with a White Sox collapse?

People can predict all they want, but in this game, NOTHING is ever a sure thing. There's too many variables at play in this game. So that's why people pooh-pooh your claims of ABSOLUTE TIGER SUPERIORITY and opt to just wait until all 162 games are played.

central44
02-13-2013, 10:31 PM
In that the Tiger's are probably best in baseball and we're somewhere south of the middle of the pact? Yes. That's pretty much EVERY synopsis on the upcoming season you'll read not on a team's fan site.

Yes. Nobody is arguing this. The Tigers look like one of the best teams in baseball. The Sox on paper don't have the same offense. Everybody agrees with you.


Why would you be optimistic? There's really no reason to be. I don't think accepting the truth of the situation is necessarily pessimistic though.

Annnnnd this is the garbage that makes people call you out. No reason to be optimistic? Seriously? You're basically saying here that there is nothing, not a single thing to look forward to this season, that it's a foregone conclusion that it's going to absolutley suck and we shouldnt even bother with it. You cite "experts" as proof--experts who are wrong just as often as they are correct.

But that's not even it. It's the attitude of "this team is going to be terrible and anyone who can't see that is an idiot." Despite the fact that people said the same thing last season, and the Sox won 85 games (and handed the division to Detroit-they had it virtually won before they choked). As though the Sox don't have a lot of young players who still have a chance to improve, or a guy in Rios who had an outstanding season, or a legitimate ace in Sale and a former Cy Young winner in Peavy, or a talented young manager entering only his second season, or one of the best defenses and top pitching staffs in baseball top to bottom.

No, when it comes to the Sox, all that bears mentioning is the negative, all the time. Nothing positive can possibly happen, we need to assume the worst and if we don't, we're stupid. Meanwhile, Detroit is going to have everything go right all year for some reason I still don't understand--probably just because they don't play in Chicago.

The Sox MIGHT be terrible this year. They also might NOT be. There's a chance they could be really good, and Detroit will be ravaged by injuries. Who knows? It's spring training, that's an exciting time of year, and people want to talk about baseball--but every thread has been devolving into the same pissing match over and over again. They all blend together at this point--someone makes a topic, and pretty soon its invaded by some variation of "it's not going to matter, this team sucks, these guys are going to get hurt, etc." and then we're back here.

It's not personal attacks. It's just really old at this point.

Soxman219
02-14-2013, 01:26 AM
As long as the Sox are in a crappy division like the AL Central, we're never out of it.

voodoochile
02-14-2013, 02:08 AM
Ignoring the fact that most people are aware that PECOTA Team Projections are more or less a fun exercise in statistical modeling and not to be taken as serious, carved in stone predictions, if you're measuring their accuracy against actual W-L record you've already demonstronstrated your ignorance as to what this projection is actually measuring. Just in case you wonder why nobody ever cares about your ERRRGH STANDARD DEVIATION argument.


I see so it's a statistically derived projection that isn't really meant to be a projection, more just some kind of something something fun... or something...

Good times... Have fun with that...

Glad I never gave them any money since they aren't really serious about their projections and all and didn't jump up and down, beat their chests and point with glee the one year they got one team's projection dead on (just happened to be the Sox) Even if the reasons they said those numbers would be the way they are were completely opposite of the reason they actually were that way and they pulled a blind fart out of a dead skunk's ass and then whiffed it and said, "This is the greatest blind fart anyone has ever whiffed, give us moar money plox!" it matters not because...

FUN!

or something...

doublem23
02-14-2013, 07:15 AM
I see so it's a statistically derived projection that isn't really meant to be a projection, more just some kind of something something fun... or something...

Good times... Have fun with that...

Glad I never gave them any money since they aren't really serious about their projections and all and didn't jump up and down, beat their chests and point with glee the one year they got one team's projection dead on (just happened to be the Sox) Even if the reasons they said those numbers would be the way they are were completely opposite of the reason they actually were that way and they pulled a blind fart out of a dead skunk's ass and then whiffed it and said, "This is the greatest blind fart anyone has ever whiffed, give us moar money plox!" it matters not because...

FUN!

or something...

:rolleyes:

Apparently all this content I read from them that is not related to the preseason predictions must be from someone else.

Really, the only reason they are even this big of a deal is because they are blown out of proportion by idiots.

doublem23
02-14-2013, 08:17 AM
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the concept of an "analogy". An analogy is not meant to compare two situations in every possible way. Obviously baseball is not random, and PECOTA is not merely a bunch of averages. That isn't the point. I am not trivializing the difference between "weighted statistical models" and random events any more than I would be trivializing the difference between fish and mammals if I were to say sharks:teeth::whales:baleen. Obviously, These two animals are very different in many ways. The analogy would be pointing out nothing more than the fact that teeth and baleen are located in the same place on the animal's anatomy--AND NOTHING MORE. It does not imply that they serve the same purpose or that they are made of the same material (they don't, and they're not).

I realize that I've just used an analogy to explain the concept of analogies, but bear with me.

Likewise, my die analogy does not imply that PECOTA is nothing more than arithmetic means. I will spell it out for you again: The analogy is that in both the case of the die roll, and the case of executives who place a lot of weight on PECOTA projections, you have a person who is basing an important decision purely on numbers, where there are other factors at play. In the case of the die, the other factor is that 3.5 is not a number on a die. In the case of PECOTA, the other factors are various--managers, team chemistry, fan support, etc, etc.
In a way though, you did grasp my point--guessing 3.5 as a die roll is obviously absurdly stupid. I'm arguing that basing baseball decisions PURELY on numbers is also pretty damn stupid, if not as stupid as the former.

NO, YOUR ANALOGY JUST SUCKS, GUY. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, the fact that you keep hammering on this ridiculous notion that someone who understands how stats and probability work would actually come up with 3.5 as the most likely number to come up on a 6-sided dice only goes to prove that. By your logic, I could say that the printed word is useless because look, if I pound away on my keyboard I get:

kjsadkljs dkljsdajsadflkjdsak j;sdafoi;dsfaij;lsefio;efsaiusdaf iljsdfailusdailusdafli jsdalijsdafkljs daiusdakljs kjsadkjldsai ouewq98p321p981234n osadiodfsaioufdsankasfd waoqw943wq9 0qr2niqcw swoqwoqwfe;onqwf q0923140r1oqfcq 292431oql;kqnq sisnscnmcslq w0wq

None of that makes any sense, ergo, reading, writing, etc... Totally useless.

This is, of course, a completely invalid argument because anyone would note that if you don't follow the simple rules of grammar, spelling, etc. you will get jibberish. Likewise, if you don't follow the rules of basic stats and probability, you will get jibberish. But your worthless example that "3.5 is the most common number to come up on a 6-sided dice" doesn't invalidate stats and probability any more than my worthless keyboard pounding invalidates reading or writing. It just proves when you do stupid things, you get stupid answers.

And yes, comparing weighted models like PECOTA to random events, again, underscores that you do not have a solid grasp of these ideas. A person betting on which number a dice roll will come next can get no help from looking back at the last 10,000 times that dice was rolled. The next number up is a completely random event. But, much in the same way you probably think Paul Konerko will be a better hitter this season than Gordon Beckham or Tyler Flowers, PECOTA does take past results into consideration and likewise, will probably tell you Konerko is more likely to be successful hitting this season than Beckham or Flowers. It is a weighted model designed to take past results and make an educated guess, much like you when you watch the Sox and then look at their projected lineups and rosters on paper in February. Just because you disagree with the way PECOTA or any other model works does not mean they are just taking magic numbers out of the sky. There is an actual method to that mean. So to say it's the same thing as rolling a dice and getting 3.5 shows that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

tstrike2000
02-14-2013, 08:49 AM
The Sox offense was better than the vaunted Tigers' offense last year. And that was with Viciedo in his first full season and with a complete black hole at 3B, even after Youkilis was acquired. But of course, nobody on the Sox will improve at all, all their vets will hit massive cliffs, Sale will totally get injured cuz he's skinny, Peavy's arm is likely to fall off just because he once had a surgery or something, and Danks might never throw a baseball again because I said so. Meanwhile, Torii Hunter will repeat the career season he had at age 36, Victor Martinez will come back from major surgery just as good as before, and rampant obesity will somehow propel the middle of Detroit's lineup to hit even better than last year.

There is a line from The Usual Suspects, "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." In that same vein, the most impressive thing BP ever did was convince people it was relevant.

:thumbsup:

TheOldRoman
02-14-2013, 09:14 AM
Really, the only reason they are even this big of a deal is because they are blown out of proportion by idiots.
Yes. Blown out of proportion by idiots who get mad when others don't take BP seriously for making predictions that are continually well off. Idiots who say "THEY ARE WELL RESPECTED!" and then say the predictions are irrelevant and people are dumb for putting too much stock into them.

blandman
02-14-2013, 09:15 AM
Yes. Nobody is arguing this. The Tigers look like one of the best teams in baseball. The Sox on paper don't have the same offense. Everybody agrees with you.



Annnnnd this is the garbage that makes people call you out. No reason to be optimistic? Seriously? You're basically saying here that there is nothing, not a single thing to look forward to this season, that it's a foregone conclusion that it's going to absolutley suck and we shouldnt even bother with it. You cite "experts" as proof--experts who are wrong just as often as they are correct.

But that's not even it. It's the attitude of "this team is going to be terrible and anyone who can't see that is an idiot." Despite the fact that people said the same thing last season, and the Sox won 85 games (and handed the division to Detroit-they had it virtually won before they choked). As though the Sox don't have a lot of young players who still have a chance to improve, or a guy in Rios who had an outstanding season, or a legitimate ace in Sale and a former Cy Young winner in Peavy, or a talented young manager entering only his second season, or one of the best defenses and top pitching staffs in baseball top to bottom.

No, when it comes to the Sox, all that bears mentioning is the negative, all the time. Nothing positive can possibly happen, we need to assume the worst and if we don't, we're stupid. Meanwhile, Detroit is going to have everything go right all year for some reason I still don't understand--probably just because they don't play in Chicago.

The Sox MIGHT be terrible this year. They also might NOT be. There's a chance they could be really good, and Detroit will be ravaged by injuries. Who knows? It's spring training, that's an exciting time of year, and people want to talk about baseball--but every thread has been devolving into the same pissing match over and over again. They all blend together at this point--someone makes a topic, and pretty soon its invaded by some variation of "it's not going to matter, this team sucks, these guys are going to get hurt, etc." and then we're back here.

It's not personal attacks. It's just really old at this point.

Way to miss the point entirely.

It's not the Ra-Ra crowd I'm calling out for personal attacks. It's when I say something like "Danks is likely to miss the first month of the season" and I get called out for, as one poster put it, "making stuff up", when all I was doing was giving it an OPTIMISTIC estimation. And the reason I'm called out? Because for posters like that, it's a personal thing.

TheOldRoman
02-14-2013, 09:26 AM
Way to miss the point entirely.

It's not the Ra-Ra crowd I'm calling out for personal attacks. It's when I say something like "Danks is likely to miss the first month of the season" and I get called out for, as one poster put it, "making stuff up", when all I was doing was giving it an OPTIMISTIC estimation. And the reason I'm called out? Because for posters like that, it's a personal thing.Holy crap. You were making an optimistic estimation that Danks would miss at least one month when no news outlet has reported that it was even likely he would miss any time? You're in your own world, Munchy.

blandman
02-14-2013, 09:27 AM
Holy crap. You were making an optimistic estimation that Danks would only miss a month when no new outlet has reported that it was even likely he would miss any time? You're in your own world, Munchy.

No, only Danks himself has said he would be ready for the season. Every outlet has said he's more likely to be held back. Keep in mind...HE ISN'T EVEN THROWING FROM A MOUND YET.

amsteel
02-14-2013, 09:31 AM
Are people angry that BP isn't projecting 85 wins since that's what they did last year? You realize the functional difference between 85 wins and 77 wins is likely zero, right?

I hope they win 77 just to watch people's heads explode.

At 85 wins lat year, the Sox were the 8th best team in the AL. 77 wins would have been good enough for...8th best.

2011 77 wins = 10th
2010 77 wins = 11th
2009 77 wins = 10th
2008 77 wins = 10th

Are the Sox somewhere around the 8th-11th best team in the league? Of course, so stop losing your **** just because you don't like the numbers.

doublem23
02-14-2013, 09:34 AM
Yes. Blown out of proportion by idiots who get mad when others don't take BP seriously for making predictions that are continually well off. Idiots who say "THEY ARE WELL RESPECTED!" and then say the predictions are irrelevant and people are dumb for putting too much stock into them.

No, blown out of proportion by folks who literally don't spend a second more looking into BP's methods and simply declare their work pointless based on the whole 0.1% of their work for the season they've bothered to look at. BP's does a lot more than just the preseason predictions, which at this point, I have to assume they release solely to watch the overreactions by the kind of people who think you can roll a 3.5 on a dice.

And again, you are more than free to think what you like of them but if you think that every front office in baseball isn't reading their work, then you're kidding yourself. You sound like the execs at Kodak who never invested in digital photography because they couldn't dream of a world where the nerds on their computers would replace the film everyone grew up with and loved.

doublem23
02-14-2013, 09:35 AM
No, only Danks himself has said he would be ready for the season. Every outlet has said he's more likely to be held back. Keep in mind...HE ISN'T EVEN THROWING FROM A MOUND YET.

Yes he is

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/15/john-danks-throwing-off-mound-shoulder-feels-great/

voodoochile
02-14-2013, 09:48 AM
:rolleyes:

Apparently all this content I read from them that is not related to the preseason predictions must be from someone else.

Really, the only reason they are even this big of a deal is because they are blown out of proportion by idiots.

Last I checked our prediction contest doesn't cost one single dime to play and very few of the posters claim to be some kind of expert or have tried to pass off their predictions as anything more than a best guess. Maybe some people out there are running some kind of statistical analysis to come up with their numbers but I doubt it and I don't think any of our prediction contest people are charging anyone money to view their stab at the crystal ball.

See that's the part that I find most hilarious is that there are a lot of statheads who actually think BP has some kind of special ability to predict this stuff and buy into the projections. Stats have a place in baseball and mean something, but BP tries to make it the e all and end all of the discussion and bluntly speaking, it's not.

doublem23
02-14-2013, 09:54 AM
Last I checked our prediction contest doesn't cost one single dime to play and very few of the posters claim to be some kind of expert or have tried to pass off their predictions as anything more than a best guess. Maybe some people out there are running some kind of statistical analysis to come up with their numbers but I doubt it and I don't think any of our prediction contest people are charging anyone money to view their stab at the crystal ball.

See that's the part that I find most hilarious is that there are a lot of statheads who actually think BP has some kind of special ability to predict this stuff and buy into the projections. Stats have a place in baseball and mean something, but BP tries to make it the e all and end all of the discussion and bluntly speaking, it's not.

Well those people are as hilariously misguided as the people who think BP is just some rag that nobody really pays any attention to. I mean ****, even a moron can see that things like injuries, roster moves, etc. will completely alter the roster of a team, in many cases, before the 1st pitch of the season is thrown. Nobody takes the BP projections to Vegas and drops $1,000,000 on the Sox winning exactly 77 games. If you think that's what people do with these then your "opponents" are figments of your imagination.

dickallen15
02-14-2013, 09:59 AM
No, only Danks himself has said he would be ready for the season. Every outlet has said he's more likely to be held back. Keep in mind...HE ISN'T EVEN THROWING FROM A MOUND YET.
Wrong. Show one link, and it should be easy considering every outlet said he's more likely to be held back, that states he most likely will miss the first month. Just one is all we neeed. You are also wrong about what you typed in all capitals. He's been throwing from a mound for a month and a half. But don't let facts get in the way of your incorrect posts.

voodoochile
02-14-2013, 10:04 AM
Well those people are as hilariously misguided as the people who think BP is just some rag that nobody really pays any attention to. I mean ****, even a moron can see that things like injuries, roster moves, etc. will completely alter the roster of a team, in many cases, before the 1st pitch of the season is thrown. Nobody takes the BP projections to Vegas and drops $1,000,000 on the Sox winning exactly 77 games. If you think that's what people do with these then your "opponents" are figments of your imagination.

No I didn't say that, but there certainly are a group of people who buy into this stuff way more than it's worth. I mean the standard deviation is what 5-6 wins (from past years that is what I remember)? So basically they are saying that the Sox are a 99% confidence interval to win 59-95 games. Even if' it's 3 its 68-87. Way to go out on a limb there BP...

kittle42
02-14-2013, 10:13 AM
Are people angry that BP isn't projecting 85 wins since that's what they did last year? You realize the functional difference between 85 wins and 77 wins is likely zero, right?

I hope they win 77 just to watch people's heads explode.

At 85 wins lat year, the Sox were the 8th best team in the AL. 77 wins would have been good enough for...8th best.

2011 77 wins = 10th
2010 77 wins = 11th
2009 77 wins = 10th
2008 77 wins = 10th

Are the Sox somewhere around the 8th-11th best team in the league? Of course, so stop losing your **** just because you don't like the numbers.

/thread

spawn
02-14-2013, 10:13 AM
Way to miss the point entirely.

It's not the Ra-Ra crowd I'm calling out for personal attacks. It's when I say something like "Danks is likely to miss the first month of the season" and I get called out for, as one poster put it, "making stuff up", when all I was doing was giving it an OPTIMISTIC estimation. And the reason I'm called out? Because for posters like that, it's a personal thing.

For the love of all that is holy...YOU ARE NOT BEING PERSONALLY ATTACKED!!! The only thing being attacked is your position. This Danks issue is a clear example. No media outlet is reporting a timetable, yet you keep stating he will miss the first month of the season...without posting anything to back your position. You telling me in this thread that I don't think for myself is more of a personal attack than anything said about your positions. So please, knock it off, because it's just a blatant falsehood.

doublem23
02-14-2013, 10:20 AM
No I didn't say that, but there certainly are a group of people who buy into this stuff way more than it's worth. I mean the standard deviation is what 5-6 wins (from past years that is what I remember)? So basically they are saying that the Sox are a 99% confidence interval to win 59-95 games. Even if' it's 3 its 68-87. Way to go out on a limb there BP...

For what seems like the millionth time, PECOTA does. not. project. W-L.

Do they do a simple manipulation to convert their data to W-L? Kind of yes. But that is not what the formulas spit out.

asindc
02-14-2013, 10:20 AM
Are people angry that BP isn't projecting 85 wins since that's what they did last year? You realize the functional difference between 85 wins and 77 wins is likely zero, right?

I hope they win 77 just to watch people's heads explode.

At 85 wins lat year, the Sox were the 8th best team in the AL. 77 wins would have been good enough for...8th best.

2011 77 wins = 10th
2010 77 wins = 11th
2009 77 wins = 10th
2008 77 wins = 10th

Are the Sox somewhere around the 8th-11th best team in the league? Of course, so stop losing your **** just because you don't like the numbers.

No.

DumpJerry
02-14-2013, 10:26 AM
To the person who thinks the Tigers are a lock for the Division based on their roster, all I have to say is "2006 White Sox." Many people felt that team was better than the 2005 team on paper. They lost nine more games than the '05 team and did not play in October.

Baseball is 162 games, too much can happen to make an accurate prediction in February (you're looking at 162 variables on game outcome alone, Then you have to factor in-season injuries which are 100% unknown in February). The NFL with only 16 games is easier to predict. Much easier.

kittle42
02-14-2013, 10:37 AM
For the love of all that is holy...YOU ARE NOT BEING PERSONALLY ATTACKED!!! The only thing being attacked is your position. This

Actually, I think his position smells and dresses poorly.

kittle42
02-14-2013, 12:13 PM
No, only Danks himself has said he would be ready for the season. Every outlet has said he's more likely to be held back. Keep in mind...HE ISN'T EVEN THROWING FROM A MOUND YET.

Link (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/mlb/1323/john-danks)

Pwned, as the kids say.

Whitesox029
02-14-2013, 12:14 PM
I said this:

That isn't the point. I am not trivializing the difference between "weighted statistical models" and random events any more than I would be trivializing the difference between fish and mammals if I were to say sharks:teeth::whales:baleen.
...
In a way though, you did grasp my point--guessing 3.5 as a die roll is obviously absurdly stupid.

You quoted that in the very same post that you then said:
NO, YOUR ANALOGY JUST SUCKS, GUY.

...

And yes, comparing weighted models like PECOTA to random events, again, underscores that you do not have a solid grasp of these ideas.

...

So to say it's the same thing as rolling a dice and getting 3.5 shows that you really have no idea what you're talking about.
I can only infer that YOU DID NOT EVEN READ the post that you quoted. I SAID that I was NOT comparing PECOTA to a random event. How much clearer could I have been? Do you still think that sharks:teeth::whales:baleen is a terrible analogy because, duh! whales are mammals and sharks are fish?

I'll say it again. This is high school English stuff. An analogy is not a comparison. It is meant to show that two DIFFERENT situations exhibit a similar relationship.

Am I alone here? Was there anyone who actually understood what I was trying to say?

doublem23
02-14-2013, 12:27 PM
I said this:


You quoted that in the very same post that you then said:

I can only infer that YOU DID NOT EVEN READ the post that you quoted. I SAID that I was NOT comparing PECOTA to a random event. How much clearer could I have been? Do you still think that sharks:teeth::whales:baleen is a terrible analogy because, duh! whales are mammals and sharks are fish?

I'll say it again. This is high school English stuff. An analogy is not a comparison. It is meant to show that two DIFFERENT situations exhibit a similar relationship.

Am I alone here? Was there anyone who actually understood what I was trying to say?

You can harp on this for as long as you want but your original analogy is still the stuff of complete buffoonery.

spawn
02-14-2013, 12:50 PM
No, only Danks himself has said he would be ready for the season. Every outlet has said he's more likely to be held back. Keep in mind...HE ISN'T EVEN THROWING FROM A MOUND YET.

Yes he is

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/15/john-danks-throwing-off-mound-shoulder-feels-great/

Link (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/mlb/1323/john-danks)

Pwned, as the kids say.
You were saying, munch?

TheFrisbee
02-14-2013, 01:04 PM
:popcorn: This thread rules

kittle42
02-14-2013, 01:18 PM
You were saying, munch?

You see, it's all irrelevant anyway since the Tigers are a guaranteed lock for the WS.

dickallen15
02-14-2013, 02:26 PM
There isn't anything that says his return timetable isn't in question as regards to the beginning of the year, so absolutely not. That Danks SHOULD be there opening day is the questionable statement, the only mention of it is Danks himself being optimistic in reaction to the team's timetable.

And FWIW, Danks isn't even doing normal throwing, let alone normal spring training stuff right now. So to think he'll be ready opening day is pretty optimistic by any stretch of the imagination.
Wrong yet again. You should consider becoming an author. At least then you would get paid to have people read your fiction.
Meghan Montemurro ‏@M_Montemurro
Cooper on Danks: "If you lined up 10 pitchers on the mounds out there & said pick out the guy who had surgery, you couldn't have did it."

Whitesox029
02-14-2013, 02:29 PM
You can harp on this for as long as you want but your original analogy is still the stuff of complete buffoonery.

Situation one: Die
-Has a person who bases his decision purely on statistics
-Person gets prediction wrong because he forgot to consider another factor
Situation two: PECOTA
-Has people who base decisions purely on statistics
-People get prediction wrong because they forgot to consider another factor
This makes it a valid analogy. That is what an analogy is.

Your idea of a valid analogy is evidently one in which everything is exactly the same: "People who base decisions on weighted statistical models are just like people who base decisions on weighted statistical models because both of them base decisions on weighted statistical models." or, "A zebra is just like another zebra because they are both zebras."

These statements are meaningless.

Calling someone a buffoon just because he paid attention in English class in high school and knows what an analogy is meant to convey is typical--among high school students. Not adults.

kittle42
02-14-2013, 02:36 PM
Situation one: Die
-Has a person who bases his decision purely on statistics
-Person gets prediction wrong because he forgot to consider another factor
Situation two: PECOTA
-Has people who base decisions purely on statistics
-People get prediction wrong because they forgot to consider another factor
This makes it a valid analogy. That is what an analogy is.

By the technical definition, yes, if you take what you say as the case in each situation, but the analogy is horrible because your first example is a terrible one. No one in the first situation would "forget to consider" that a die only has 6 whole numbers. The relevant statistic is that there is a 1/6 chance that any number will come up on any roll. An average number there has zero bearing at all on prediction of results. Thus, you are saying two non-analogous situations are analogous.

blandman
02-14-2013, 02:41 PM
"The White Sox will be very careful to ensure Danks stays strong throughout the season, which could mean not breaking camp with the team even if he's ready"

From the White Sox OFFICIAL SITE.

From a link in this ****ING thread.

The MINIMUM if he doesn't break camp with the team to start the season, since he'd have to be DL'd, is 15 games. A month is not a ****ING STRETCH. To call me a liar for saying it's likely he'll miss about a month is ****ING PREPOSTEROUS AND NOTHING BUT ****ING PERSONAL BULL****.

Dibbs
02-14-2013, 02:42 PM
Are people angry that BP isn't projecting 85 wins since that's what they did last year? You realize the functional difference between 85 wins and 77 wins is likely zero, right?

I hope they win 77 just to watch people's heads explode.

At 85 wins lat year, the Sox were the 8th best team in the AL. 77 wins would have been good enough for...8th best.

2011 77 wins = 10th
2010 77 wins = 11th
2009 77 wins = 10th
2008 77 wins = 10th

Are the Sox somewhere around the 8th-11th best team in the league? Of course, so stop losing your **** just because you don't like the numbers.

This is very interesting math.

MUsoxfan
02-14-2013, 02:45 PM
"The White Sox will be very careful to ensure Danks stays strong throughout the season, which could mean not breaking camp with the team even if he's ready"

From the White Sox OFFICIAL SITE.

From a link in this ****ING thread.

The MINIMUM if he doesn't break camp with the team to start the season, since he'd have to be DL'd, is 15 games. A month is not a ****ING STRETCH. To call me a liar for saying it's likely he'll miss about a month is ****ING PREPOSTEROUS AND NOTHING BUT ****ING PERSONAL BULL****.


Keep digging that hole

doublem23
02-14-2013, 02:45 PM
Situation one: Die
-Has a person who bases his decision purely on statistics
-Person gets prediction wrong because he forgot to consider another factor
Situation two: PECOTA
-Has people who base decisions purely on statistics
-People get prediction wrong because they forgot to consider another factor
This makes it a valid analogy. That is what an analogy is.

Your idea of a valid analogy is evidently one in which everything is exactly the same: "People who base decisions on weighted statistical models are just like people who base decisions on weighted statistical models because both of them base decisions on weighted statistical models." or, "A zebra is just like another zebra because they are both zebras."

These statements are meaningless.

Calling someone a buffoon just because he paid attention in English class in high school and knows what an analogy is meant to convey is typical--among high school students. Not adults.

This is what you are simply not understanding, your situation 1 is NOT "BASED ON STATISTICS." Just because something has numbers and you use big college-type words like "average" doesn't make it a statistical model. Only a complete idiot would do what you are proposing. To say that invalidates the work of brilliant minds would be to say we should outlaw NASCAR because my cousin got drunk this weekend, tried to drive home, and ended up splitting his car on a telephone pole. Just because some people are too stupid to drive a car (or, understand stats) doesn't mean that people who are really, really good at it aren't correct. It just means the world is populated by troglodytes who think you can roll a 3.5 on a dice.

To be a proper analogy, the two situations have to have something in common, which these do not. And if you think they do, well, this is a good place to start (http://pic.leech.it/i/53c3a/02f23657p7.jpg).

dickallen15
02-14-2013, 02:45 PM
"The White Sox will be very careful to ensure Danks stays strong throughout the season, which could mean not breaking camp with the team even if he's ready"

From the White Sox OFFICIAL SITE.

From a link in this ****ING thread.

The MINIMUM if he doesn't break camp with the team to start the season, since he'd have to be DL'd, is 15 games. A month is not a ****ING STRETCH. To call me a liar for saying it's likely he'll miss about a month is ****ING PREPOSTEROUS AND NOTHING BUT ****ING PERSONAL BULL****.
How does "which could mean not breaking camp with the team" translate to "likely to miss the first month"?

Obviously you didn't excel at reading comprehension in school.

Dibbs
02-14-2013, 02:46 PM
And what's with all the crazy Danks talk? It is very possible the team will be better without him. Who knows what to expect when he comes back. It won't matter if he does miss a month.

blandman
02-14-2013, 02:47 PM
How does "which could mean not breaking camp with the team" become "likely to miss the first month"?

Obviously you didn't excel at reading comprehension in school.

Because the team admits EVEN IF HE IS HEALTHY he's probably not breaking camp with them. So the best case scenario is 15 days. BEST CASE. As in, not the most likely case. Jesus.

blandman
02-14-2013, 02:48 PM
And what's with all the crazy Danks talk? It is very possible the team will be better without him. Who knows what to expect when he comes back. It won't matter if he does miss a month.

Well, it's hard to say we wouldn't be better with a 100% healthy Danks. He's a hell of a pitcher.

dickallen15
02-14-2013, 02:49 PM
Because the team admits EVEN IF HE IS HEALTHY he's probably not breaking camp with them. So the best case scenario is 15 days. BEST CASE. As in, not the most likely case. Jesus.

There is no mention of probably not breaking camp with the team. And no best case 15 days. You need to learn how to read.

blandman
02-14-2013, 02:51 PM
There is no mention of probably not breaking camp with the team. And no best case 15 days. You need to learn how to read.

I read just fine, thanks. I'm pretty sure I know what the statement meant. And what the disabled list rules are. But thank you for your concern. It is unwarranted.

dickallen15
02-14-2013, 02:52 PM
I read just fine, thanks. I'm pretty sure I know what the statement meant. And what the disabled list rules are. But thank you for your concern. It is unwarranted.

You must be trolling. You're wrong. Everyone knows it.

Nellie_Fox
02-14-2013, 02:52 PM
Because the team admits EVEN IF HE IS HEALTHY he's probably not breaking camp with them. So the best case scenario is 15 days. BEST CASE. As in, not the most likely case. Jesus.
"Could mean" =/= "probably"

doublem23
02-14-2013, 02:54 PM
Because the team admits EVEN IF HE IS HEALTHY he's probably not breaking camp with them. So the best case scenario is 15 days. BEST CASE. As in, not the most likely case. Jesus.

Dude. Just give it up. This is painful to watch.

blandman
02-14-2013, 02:58 PM
You must be trolling. You're wrong. Everyone knows it.

"Could mean" =/= "probably"

Dude. Just give it up. This is painful to watch.

Yeah, they wrote it for hypothetical purposes.

I'm willing take any bets about Danks making his first turn in the rotation. Takers?

spawn
02-14-2013, 02:59 PM
Dude. Just give it up. This is painful to watch.

I know, right? Yikes...

spawn
02-14-2013, 03:01 PM
Yeah, they wrote it for hypothetical purposes.

I'm willing take any bets about Danks making his first turn in the rotation. Takers?

No one here has stated definitively that Danks will be in the rotation when the season starts. You, on the other hand, are the only one here stating definitively that he won't. This includes media outlets, the coaching staff, pretty much everyone involved in the situation. I mean, you are the one stating he hasn't' begun throwing off of a mound to back your position, even though two links and a few tweets have stated otherwise..

MUsoxfan
02-14-2013, 03:02 PM
No one here has stated definitively that Danks will be in the rotation when the season starts. You, on the other hand, are the only one here stating definitively that he won't. This includes media outlets, the coaching staff, pretty much everyone involved in the situation.

He only deals in absolutes

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:04 PM
No one here has stated definitively that Danks will be in the rotation when the season starts. You, on the other hand, are the only one here stating definitively that he won't. This includes media outlets, the coaching staff, pretty much everyone involved in the situation.

You're right in that there is no timetable. Plenty have said it could be longer. When the official team page mentions it, it gives it a pretty significanct amount of credence.

I'm taking exception to someone calling me a liar because I raised the possibility. Because it is pretty likely. And it's not coming from no where. And calling me a liar for it is a personal attack.

Nellie_Fox
02-14-2013, 03:04 PM
Yeah, they wrote it for hypothetical purposes.They said "could mean." You changed it to "probably." Those are very different, i.e., "It's getting cloudy, that could mean rain" is not the same as "it's getting cloudy, it will probably rain." "Could be" acknowledges a possibility. "Probably" means more likely than not.

I'm willing take any bets about Danks making his first turn in the rotation. Takers?Yet another new argument. Missing the first turn is not the same as missing the first month.

kittle42
02-14-2013, 03:04 PM
"The White Sox will be very careful to ensure Danks stays strong throughout the season, which could mean not breaking camp with the team even if he's ready"

From the White Sox OFFICIAL SITE.

From a link in this ****ING thread.

The MINIMUM if he doesn't break camp with the team to start the season, since he'd have to be DL'd, is 15 games. A month is not a ****ING STRETCH. To call me a liar for saying it's likely he'll miss about a month is ****ING PREPOSTEROUS AND NOTHING BUT ****ING PERSONAL BULL****.

That's from two days ago. 2/12/2013 6:50 P.M. ET, to be precise. He threw off a mound today. Hey, if there's a news story out there that says "John Danks may not be able to throw off a mound for 2 months" from a week ago, and he threw off a mound today, which is true?

It's not personal. You just won't admit you are currently incorrect, which seems to be frustrating people/logic.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:06 PM
They said "could mean." You changed it to "probably." Those are very different, i.e., "It's getting cloudy, that could mean rain" is not the same as "it's getting cloudy, it will probably rain." "Could be" acknowledges a possibility. "Probably" means more likely than not.

Yet another new argument. Missing the first turn is not the same as missing the first month.

Probably missing the first month when it's possible he could miss a lot longer is not a reason to attack someone and call them a liar. :shrug: I don't appreciate it and it is very personal.

kittle42
02-14-2013, 03:07 PM
Man, this thread just keeps getting better.

amsteel
02-14-2013, 03:07 PM
I think someone needs to start a separate 'Crazy Uninformed Yelling About John Danks' thread. It's really messing up the 'Crazy Uninformed Yelling about PECOTA' thread.

kittle42
02-14-2013, 03:07 PM
Probably missing the first month when it's possible he could miss a lot longer is not a reason to attack someone and call them a liar. :shrug: I don't appreciate it and it is very personal.

Being incorrect does not equate to being a liar.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:08 PM
That's from two days ago. 2/12/2013 6:50 P.M. ET, to be precise. He threw off a mound today. Hey, if there's a news story out there that says "John Danks may not be able to throw off a mound for 2 months" from a week ago, and he threw off a mound today, which is true?

It's not personal. You just won't admit you are currently incorrect, which seems to be frustrating people/logic.

I am incorrect in that I didn't know he started throwing off a mound two days ago. I am not incorrect in that it's likely he could miss a month of the year. I'm wrong if I said he's missing the first month of the year. But i didn't say that. Only that he probably would. Based on PLENTY.

spawn
02-14-2013, 03:08 PM
Probably missing the first month when it's possible he could miss a lot longer is not a reason to attack someone and call them a liar. :shrug: I don't appreciate it and it is very personal.

Oh *****. Where did someone, ANYONE, say " munch/blandman, you're a liar?". Seriously, this **** is getting real old, real fast.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:08 PM
Being incorrect does not equate to being a liar.

Except someone said it.

dickallen15
02-14-2013, 03:08 PM
Probably missing the first month when it's possible he could miss a lot longer is not a reason to attack someone and call them a liar. :shrug: I don't appreciate it and it is very personal.
Still waiting for the link that states he's likely to miss the first month. You said it was all over the media.

WhiteSox5187
02-14-2013, 03:09 PM
I like baseball.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:09 PM
Oh *****. Where did someone, ANYONE, say " munch/blandman, you're a liar?". Seriously, this **** is getting real old, real fast.

I believe the original statement accused me of making things up. And it's pretty clear that it came from somewhere.

spawn
02-14-2013, 03:10 PM
I believe the original statement accused me of making things up. And it's pretty clear that it came from somewhere.

Quote the statement. Show me.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:11 PM
Still waiting for the link that states he's likely to miss the first month. You said it was all over the media.

There are articles that say half the year. There are articles that say they don't know how much time. All mention it. Even the damn team website gives 15 days (if you know anything about baseball rules).

dickallen15
02-14-2013, 03:12 PM
There are articles that say half the year. There are articles that say they don't know how much time. All mention it. Even the damn team website gives 15 days (if you know anything about baseball rules).
Just link one.

spawn
02-14-2013, 03:13 PM
There are articles that say half the year. There are articles that say they don't know how much time. All mention it. Even the damn team website gives 15 days (if you know anything about baseball rules).

Show us these articles please. I'd love to read them.

dickallen15
02-14-2013, 03:13 PM
Quote the statement. Show me.
I accused him of making up the story of likely to miss a month, and if that's how he translated the piece he quoted, that is exactly what he did.

kittle42
02-14-2013, 03:15 PM
Could you provide the link that says this? Or are you simply making this up?

This is what munch must be referring to.

A stretch to be calling you a liar, methinks. A speculator, perhaps.

Nellie_Fox
02-14-2013, 03:18 PM
Probably missing the first month when it's possible he could miss a lot longer is not a reason to attack someone and call them a liar. :shrug: I don't appreciate it and it is very personal.I've seen people get frustrated because you won't respond to what they post refuting your statements, but change the wording somehow to try make yourself look correct. I've not seen anything that would qualify as personal attacks.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:18 PM
Show us these articles please. I'd love to read them.

Seriously? I'm supposed to keep tabs of all the articles from the offseason for you? There were articles in the damn Tribune all winter from Mark Gonzalez speculating Danks could miss all of 2013. And you want me to quote this stuff? Why? This is sounding way to much like a personal vendetta. Knock it the **** off.

Just link one.

YOU LINKED IT. I'M QUOTED YOUR OWN DAMN ARTICLE.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:20 PM
I accused him of making up the story of likely to miss a month, and if that's how he translated the piece he quoted, that is exactly what he did.

And that you're doing that, despite my explanation, is TROLLING the **** out of me.

I said a month because I was being optimistic. If you can't accept that YOUR OWN LINKS show why I might come to that conclusion, you're only do this to annoy me.

dickallen15
02-14-2013, 03:20 PM
Seriously? I'm supposed to keep tabs of all the articles from the offseason for you? There were articles in the damn Tribune all winter from Mark Gonzalez speculating Danks could miss all of 2013. And you want me to quote this stuff? Why? This is sounding way to much like a personal vendetta. Knock it the **** off.



YOU LINKED IT. I'M QUOTED YOUR OWN DAMN ARTICLE.
No, the article that says he's likely to miss the first month.

This is actually funny.

Nellie_Fox
02-14-2013, 03:22 PM
Seriously? I'm supposed to keep tabs of all the articles from the offseason for you? There were articles in the damn Tribune all winter from Mark Gonzalez speculating Danks could miss all of 2013. And you want me to quote this stuff? Why? This is sounding way to much like a personal vendetta. Knock it the **** off.



YOU LINKED IT. I'M QUOTED YOUR OWN DAMN ARTICLE.You will not acknowledge that you are off base by taking "could be" and changing it to "probably," not break camp with the team, and then extending that "probably" to missing the first month, and then defending your double construction by claiming that is what they originally said.

Stop digging a hole and then crying "personal attacks" when people point to the hole you're in.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:22 PM
No, the article that says he's likely to miss the first month.

This is actually funny.

:dtroll:

It was my own estimation. Based on what I've read. I could have read your article alone and come up with that estimation.

This isn't funny. You are purposefully antagonizing me.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:24 PM
You will not acknowledge that you are off base by taking "could be" and changing it to "probably," not break camp with the team, and then extending that "probably" to missing the first month, and then defending your double construction by claiming that is what they originally said.

Stop digging a hole and then crying "personal attacks" when people point to the hole you're in.

"COULD BE" isn't a reference in that piece to injury. It's a reference to 100% healthy. In the situation where Danks is 100% healthy, he still may not break camp. That doesn't even account for the chances of him not being 100%. So how likely now?

I swear, it's like people don't know how to read.

dickallen15
02-14-2013, 03:25 PM
:dtroll:

It was my own estimation. Based on what I've read. I could have read your article alone and come up with that estimation.

This isn't funny. You are purposefully antagonizing me.

So you admit you are basing the likely to miss the first month stuff on your personal feeling, not any article that actually states that claim. That is a different stance than you previously were taking, but at least we all know it's just your personal opinion.

spawn
02-14-2013, 03:25 PM
Could you provide the link that says this? Or are you simply making this up?

Seriously? I'm supposed to keep tabs of all the articles from the offseason for you? There were articles in the damn Tribune all winter from Mark Gonzalez speculating Danks could miss all of 2013. And you want me to quote this stuff? Why? This is sounding way to much like a personal vendetta. Knock it the ****
Now it's a personal vendetta? :rolling: Sorry, but, uh...no. I hate to break it to you like this, but when you take extreme positions without backing up said positions, you invite the critique of said positions. It's not personal. Strictly business. You now say you're quoting articles that have been around all winter, but you can't post them because you can't keep tabs on them? For someone that has the statistical analysis of everything Prince Fielder eats on a daily basis (yes, that is hyperbole), I find it hard to believe that you can't do a search and link an article that backs your position. And the longer you hem and haw, the more you change the terminology, the less credible your position becomes.

As Nellie said, and he IMO is without reproach when it comes to determining personal attacks, nothing posted here qualifies.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:27 PM
Now it's a personal vendetta? :rolling: Sorry, but, uh...no. I hate to break it to you like this, but when you take extreme positions without backing up said positions, you invite the critique of said positions. It's not personal. Strictly business. You now say you're quoting articles that have been around all winter, but you can't post them because you can't keep tabs on them? For someone that has the statistical analysis of everything Prince Fielder eats on a daily basis (yes, that is hyperbole), I find it hard to believe that you can't do a search and link an article that backs your position. And the longer you hem and haw, the more you change the terminology, the less credible your position becomes.

As Nellie said, and he IMO is without reproach when it comes to determining personal attacks, nothing posted here qualifies.

It's not a ****ing extreme position. Quit trolling me.

dickallen15
02-14-2013, 03:27 PM
I swear, it's like people don't know how to read.

This is gold.

Nellie_Fox
02-14-2013, 03:28 PM
"COULD BE" isn't a reference in that piece to injury. It's a reference to 100% healthy. In the situation where Danks is 100% healthy, he still may not break camp. That doesn't even account for the chances of him not being 100%. So how likely now?

I swear, it's like people don't know how to read.Keep digging. They said it "could be" that he won't break camp with the team, acknowledging a possibility. You said that means he probably won't, and then extended that to probably will miss the first month, and defend that position by claiming that's what the Sox said. That is NOT what they said, and no amount of semantic dancing on your part is going to change that.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:28 PM
So you admit you are basing the likely to miss the first month stuff on your personal feeling, not any article that actually states that claim. That is a different stance than you previously were taking, but at least we all know it's just your personal opinion.

I don't admit that at all. I admit making an educated guess based on articles, as I have expressed to you several times now. It is no different from my previous stance. Which is why you are trolling me.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:29 PM
Keep digging. They said it "could be" that he won't break camp with the team, acknowledging a possibility. You said that means he probably won't, and then extended that to probably will miss the first month, and defend that position by claiming that's what the Sox said. That is NOT what they said, and no amount of semantic dancing on your part is going to change that.

100% = chance he won't break camp
not 100% healthy = breaking camp with team

Got it, Nellie.

Look, this isn't about likelihood of any scenario. This is about arguing with me on it for no reason other than to give me a hard time for making an educated assumption.

spawn
02-14-2013, 03:30 PM
It's not a ****ing extreme position. Quit trolling me.

I don't admit that at all. I admit making an educated guess based on articles, as I have expressed to you several times now. It is no different from my previous stance. Which is why you are trolling me.

So, now we're going from you being "personally attacked" to people trolling you. Wow. :rolleyes:

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:32 PM
So, now we're going from you being "personally attacked" to people trolling you. Wow. :rolleyes:

I don't distinguish between the two. You're arguing with me for no reason. There's a really good chance I'm right, and it's based on things published in legitimate media outlets.

Nellie_Fox
02-14-2013, 03:32 PM
100% = chance he won't break camp
not 100% healthy = breaking camp with team

Got it, Nellie.
I don't even understand what the hell you just said.

Nellie_Fox
02-14-2013, 03:35 PM
I don't distinguish between the two. You're arguing with me for no reason. There's a really good chance I'm right, and it's based on things published in legitimate media outlets.He's arguing with you based on you making statements that are NOT supported by things published in media outlets, and then moving your statements around on every post. Instead of addressing where your statements have been refuted, you bring up a different argument.

Here's a suggestion: just stop trying to defend it. But if you do, unless someone starts calling you names, don't cry about the opposition you're getting.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:37 PM
I don't even understand what the hell you just said.

The article mentions that even if Danks is 100%, which is not a given by any stretch, he could be held back. So in that scenario, 15 days is probable. And that's not even the most likely scenario.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:38 PM
He's arguing with you based on you making statements that are NOT supported by things published in media outlets, and then moving your statements around on every post. Instead of addressing where your statements have been refuted, you bring up a different argument.

Here's a suggestion: just stop trying to defend it. But if you do, unless someone starts calling you names, don't cry about the opposition you're getting.

You know what. Forget it. I can't make people read for context clues if they've never been taught.

I give up. Believe whatever the **** you want.

Nellie_Fox
02-14-2013, 03:38 PM
The article mentions that even if Danks is 100%, which is not a given by any stretch, he could be held back. So in that scenario, 15 days is probable. And that's not even the most likely scenario.
Dammit, COULD BE is not the same as PROBABLE. Until you grasp this, you're way overstating the case.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:41 PM
Dammit, COULD BE is not the same as PROBABLE. Until you grasp this, you're way overstating the case.

Nellie the only reason this is EVEN MENTIONED as a possibility is because Danks is trying to defy the odds and be ready by opening day. Not because being ready is probable. What I said shouldn't have caused any uproar at all.

Nellie_Fox
02-14-2013, 03:43 PM
Nellie the only reason this is EVEN MENTIONED as a possibility is because Danks is trying to defy the odds and be ready by opening day. Not because being ready is probable. What I said shouldn't have caused any uproar at all.Again, you don't address what I said. COULD BE does not equal PROBABLE, and you again shuffle words. No one, I repeat NO ONE, has said it's probable that he WILL be ready. You, however, DID say that it's PROBABLE that he'll miss the first month.

blandman
02-14-2013, 03:47 PM
Again, you don't address what I said. COULD BE does not equal PROBABLE, and you again shuffle words. No one, I repeat NO ONE, has said it's probable that he WILL be ready. You, however, DID say that it's PROBABLE that he'll miss the first month.

I said likely. And I don't think that's a stretch based on even the articles brought up to attack me. Hell, I could said the whole year. That's actually been published this offseason. Saying a month based on all things isn't lying or making stuff up. And I shouldn't have to vehemently defend the position against trolls for three wasted pages.