PDA

View Full Version : Prospectus Triple Play: White Sox


jeremyb1
03-09-2004, 02:03 PM
Here's the second one of the spring: http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2650

Hangar18
03-09-2004, 02:28 PM
wow. Nothing like a bucket of cold water in the face
to wake SOX fans up. And realize we need a TON of things
to go right for us this year. If we werent going to sign Colon,
then we surely needed someone just like him....to Eat Innings.
Sox did nothing to address that situation, instead relying on
good old lady luck. Hey, at least we've been to the World Series using this kind of thinking about 7......er..4......wait...weve been to the series twice at least right? Wait...we havnt been
to The series at all using this kind of logic have we?
What the heck is going on here?

SoxxoS
03-09-2004, 02:35 PM
Let's just not play the season.

jeremyb1
03-09-2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
wow. Nothing like a bucket of cold water in the face
to wake SOX fans up. And realize we need a TON of things
to go right for us this year. If we werent going to sign Colon,
then we surely needed someone just like him....to Eat Innings.
Sox did nothing to address that situation, instead relying on
good old lady luck. Hey, at least we've been to the World Series using this kind of thinking about 7......er..4......wait...weve been to the series twice at least right? Wait...we havnt been
to The series at all using this kind of logic have we?
What the heck is going on here?

Yeah well the PECOTA forecasts for Buehrle and Garland are quite pessimistic. Garland is projected to pitch 150 innings despite throwing 190+ the past two seasons. My guess is this is almost entirely because he threw in relief in '01. If he can produce at the level of the past two seasons, that will give us another 40 IP. The pen is somewhat shaky though. The projections for Takatsu are certainly alarming.

MisterB
03-09-2004, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Here's the second one of the spring: http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2650

One glaring flaw in that analysis is the fact that they're using PECOTA, which I believe projects individual performance and simply putting them all together to get a team projection. This might be OK except that Schoeneweis individually (based on past usage) is projected at 74 ip, which if he's penciled in for 30+ starts this year is completely unrealistic (in his last season as a full-time starter, he threw 205 innings). This then forces them to have to account for more innings from the #5 starters and the bullpen which throws the team projection out of whack. My take is this is an oversimplified analysis and not one I'd put much stock in.

jeremyb1
03-09-2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
One glaring flaw in that analysis is the fact that they're using PECOTA, which I believe projects individual performance and simply putting them all together to get a team projection. This might be OK except that Schoeneweis individually (based on past usage) is projected at 74 ip, which if he's penciled in for 30+ starts this year is completely unrealistic (in his last season as a full-time starter, he threw 205 innings). This then forces them to have to account for more innings from the #5 starters and the bullpen which throws the team projection out of whack. My take is this is an oversimplified analysis and not one I'd put much stock in.

You're correct. PECOTA also projects playing time. In some instances it is valuable. If a lack of playing time is projected for say Kevin Brown, it is indicative that he is highly injury prone and is likely to miss a portion of the season. Shoeneweis by comparison is not such an effective projection of playing time since the decision lies in the organization's hands to determine his role. He should log more innings. It should however be noted that he won't perform as well as projected as a full time starter.

MisterB
03-09-2004, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
It should however be noted that he won't perform as well as projected as a full time starter.

Agreed. Projecting an ERA under 5 as a starter would be optimistic

SSN721
03-09-2004, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
Let's just not play the season.

I agree, obviously from all the stats we have been given it is absolutely hopeless for the Sox to win and shouldnt even bother taking the field.

white sox bill
03-09-2004, 04:16 PM
Would like to see PECOTA's projections were for last yr's Fish, 02's Halos and '01 Dbacks

jeremyb1
03-09-2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
Would like to see PECOTA's projections were for last yr's Fish, 02's Halos and '01 Dbacks

The '03 PECOTA projections are down right now but should be available in the archives soon I believe. What you have to remember is that the weighted mean projections take the average of all the possible outcomes so they represent the most likely results. PECOTA features projections for 10, 25, 50, 75, and 90 percent projectiles. For instance, at the 90th percentile Loaiza will post a 2.8 ERA outperforming his numbers from last year but there is only a 1 in 10 chance of that occurance. There's also a 1 in 10 chance his ERA will skyrocket to 5.2 at the 10th percentile. Guys don't always produce the numbers they are most likely to post so there is variance via luck and intangibles just not an incredible amount.

white sox bill
03-09-2004, 04:24 PM
Thats intersting, but way too much logic---baseball's not a real logical sport :smile:

Tekijawa
03-09-2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
Thats intersting, but way too much logic---baseball's not a real logical sport :smile:

Especially on the South Side

hftrex
03-09-2004, 05:05 PM
Some folks have gotten themselves into statistics so much, they've lost touch with reality.

jeremyb1
03-09-2004, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by hftrex
Some folks have gotten themselves into statistics so much, they've lost touch with reality.

Hahaha. I'd argue that statistics are the purest measure of reality because they measure what actually occurs in the game. Results are the key to baseball. Wins are a statistic, so are runs.

Lip Man 1
03-09-2004, 06:55 PM
But of course statistics can't see into the future can they? So how someone did last year under different circumstances, under perhaps different pressure, under perhaps a different scenario health-wise can't possibly tell you with any accuracy how things are going to come out this year can they?

Can stats predict different or unusual weather conditions that can effect team play throughout a season? (If so maybe they should take over for all TV weathermen?)

And of course we refer back to that pythagorian formula that said the past two seasons the Twins should NOT have won the Central Division...yet somehow they did.

I do think stats have a place in baseball however I don't agree that organizations (or some individuals) should be using them with the confidence that they seem to be indicating as to how baseball teams should be run and built.

Lip

gosox41
03-09-2004, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
But of course statistics can't see into the future can they? So how someone did last year under different circumstances, under perhaps different pressure, under perhaps a different scenario health-wise can't possibly tell you with any accuracy how things are going to come out this year can they?

Can stats predict different or unusual weather conditions that can effect team play throughout a season? (If so maybe they should take over for all TV weathermen?)

And of course we refer back to that pythagorian formula that said the past two seasons the Twins should NOT have won the Central Division...yet somehow they did.

I do think stats have a place in baseball however I don't agree that organizations (or some individuals) should be using them with the confidence that they seem to be indicating as to how baseball teams should be run and built.

Lip

Stats are no the end all, but they do tell a lot about previosu performance. It's hard to project the future, but it is probably more reliable then other ways to project.

On a slgihtly different not, it bugs me to see Ozzie talking about playing small ball, when with all those stolen bases the Marlins had last year, they still dind't score that many runs. They bunted a lot and led the ML in SB's. There were teams that scored a ton more runs waiting for the 3 run blast and not wasting precious outs on bunts. Of course they didn't win the championship like the Marlins, but other variables effected that outcome, not just the number os SB's and bunts a team had.

Bob

Daver
03-09-2004, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Hahaha. I'd argue that statistics are the purest measure of reality because they measure what actually occurs in the game. Results are the key to baseball. Wins are a statistic, so are runs.

Have they come up with a stat for attitude yet?

How about one for work ethic?

What stat tells you if a player has good off field habits or not?

gosox41
03-09-2004, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Have they come up with a stat for attitude yet?

How about one for work ethic?

What stat tells you if a player has good off field habits or not?

Of course there is no stat for that...yet. But what they do/don't do with their attitude and off the field activities shows up in their perofrmance.

Unless you're going to get a player to quit smoking or womaninzing or to eat less, it doesn't matter much what they do in the off season since all their actions will be reflected in their performance on the field.

If a player is a superstar, I could care less what he does off the field as long as he's not hurting anyone or juicing up (cheating). The results is what matters.

Bob

jeremyb1
03-09-2004, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
But of course statistics can't see into the future can they? So how someone did last year under different circumstances, under perhaps different pressure, under perhaps a different scenario health-wise can't possibly tell you with any accuracy how things are going to come out this year can they?

Can stats predict different or unusual weather conditions that can effect team play throughout a season? (If so maybe they should take over for all TV weathermen?)

And of course we refer back to that pythagorian formula that said the past two seasons the Twins should NOT have won the Central Division...yet somehow they did.

I do think stats have a place in baseball however I don't agree that organizations (or some individuals) should be using them with the confidence that they seem to be indicating as to how baseball teams should be run and built.

This falls exactly into my earlier post. PECOTA uses a wealth of information to project the most likely results but luck is always a factor. That's what makes life and baseball so interesting. Its incredibly unlikely that I will get struck by lightening but people do get struck by lightening from time to time. I don't think an inability to read the future is a good reason not to predict the future to the best ability. I'm not going to buy a sports car with the hope I'll win the lottery and be able to make the payments. Knowing the most likely result in the future (me being unable to afford a fancy car) is of great value to me even if I cannot make the claim with 100% certainty.

kermittheefrog
03-10-2004, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by hftrex
Some folks have gotten themselves into statistics so much, they've lost touch with reality.

Or maybe some folks are so in touch with reality that they decided to record what events are occuring and systematically analyze them.

Realist
03-10-2004, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
One glaring flaw in that analysis is the fact that they're using PECOTA, which I believe projects individual performance and simply putting them all together to get a team projection. This might be OK except that Schoeneweis individually (based on past usage) is projected at 74 ip, which if he's penciled in for 30+ starts this year is completely unrealistic (in his last season as a full-time starter, he threw 205 innings). This then forces them to have to account for more innings from the #5 starters and the bullpen which throws the team projection out of whack. My take is this is an oversimplified analysis and not one I'd put much stock in.

I nominate you for diplomat of the year. What you're saying here is, "They got no brains cause they ain't thinkin' this through very far".

Realist
03-10-2004, 04:17 AM
stats = steaming piles of horsecrap.

Ask last year's Marlins.
Ask the year before's Angels.

Baseball is all about heart, health, and timely hitting. You can drag the rest of the crap out to the curb with your used up Dungeons and Dragons paperwork.

Please don't use the recycleable blue bags, for all of our sakes.

SSN721
03-10-2004, 06:11 AM
I think that stats have become grossly overrated and overused in the last few years. Baseball can become such a sport of chance, its so hard to get players that have consistent output from year to year. To make assumptions on health, performance, strength of opponent when they actually meet those opponents are so impossible to predict. I don't see how anyone can make predictions of the course of an entire season with any level of accuracy. There is so much chance involved I have a hard time giving any credence to most of these stat based predictions compiled before the current team has even played together in a real game this year.

gosox41
03-10-2004, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by SSN721
I think that stats have become grossly overrated and overused in the last few years. Baseball can become such a sport of chance, its so hard to get players that have consistent output from year to year. To make assumptions on health, performance, strength of opponent when they actually meet those opponents are so impossible to predict. I don't see how anyone can make predictions of the course of an entire season with any level of accuracy. There is so much chance involved I have a hard time giving any credence to most of these stat based predictions compiled before the current team has even played together in a real game this year.

Yet at the bottom of your signature you're predicting the team will have 90 wins. That's a stat. Why not just use a goal like, 'Future 2004 AL Central Division Champions'

And what did you use to determine 90 wins? What wsa you're thinking there?

Bob

hold2dibber
03-10-2004, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by Realist
stats = steaming piles of horsecrap.

Ask last year's Marlins.
Ask the year before's Angels.

Baseball is all about heart, health, and timely hitting. You can drag the rest of the crap out to the curb with your used up Dungeons and Dragons paperwork.

Please don't use the recycleable blue bags, for all of our sakes.

What a crock. You can't really believe this. First of all, there's no way to take stats out of baseball. Would you trade Aaron Rowand for Barry Bonds? From all accounts, Rowand has much more heart than Barry Bonds and he's healthy now and younger than Bonds (so less of a health risk)? Or do you think Bonds is better than Rowand, despite the fact that Rowand has more "heart"? And if you think Bonds is better than Rowand, why do you think that? Because of his stats of course. Bonds hits lots of home runs and gets on base all the time and the reason you know that to be true is because of his ... stats!

The Angels and the Marlins did appear to have heart and they certainly had health. They also had luck, in that they got hot at the right time. But they put themselves in that position because they had talent - KC had a lot of heart last year, but they only won 83 games in the worst division in baseball. If you've got talent but not heart, you've still got a chance. If you heart and no talent, you have no chance. If you've got heart AND talent, you're going to be successful.

SSN721
03-10-2004, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Yet at the bottom of your signature you're predicting the team will have 90 wins. That's a stat. Why not just use a goal like, 'Future 2004 AL Central Division Champions'

And what did you use to determine 90 wins? What wsa you're thinking there?

Bob

I am not guaranteeing 90 wins, call it an optimistic hope more than anything else. It isn't set in stone. All I was saying is that not every player in MLB is consistent with their stats, so while they can be useful spread out over the course of the season it is hard to make any accurate predictions. All I am saying is that it seems a lot of people take stats and the be all end all of everything and can make 100% accurate predictions every year. I just think that is silly. You cant predict all the variables that will happen in a season, stats or no stats. Stats cant predict random events. Of course everything that happens is a stat, I know its a good way to chart histories of teams and players, but I think it is better to use it to look back at a teams history or overall career of a player then to make accurate predictions on how teams will do over a season before the season has started.

hold2dibber
03-10-2004, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by SSN721
I am not guaranteeing 90 wins, call it an optimistic hope more than anything else. It isn't set in stone. All I was saying is that not every player in MLB is consistent with their stats, so while they can be useful spread out over the course of the season it is hard to make any accurate predictions. All I am saying is that it seems a lot of people take stats and the be all end all of everything and can make 100% accurate predictions every year. I just think that is silly. You cant predict all the variables that will happen in a season, stats or no stats. Stats cant predict random events. Of course everything that happens is a stat, I know its a good way to chart histories of teams and players, but I think it is better to use it to look back at a teams history or overall career of a player then to make accurate predictions on how teams will do over a season before the season has started.

I don't think you'll get any argument from anybody that predicting stats are perfect or can account for all variables. I would be interested in hearing from the hardcore stats guys about the accuracy of some of the prediction stats (e.g., PECOTA, major league equivalents for minor league players, etc.). I know a lot of very smart people put a lot of time and effort into these analysis, so I would imagine that the formulas they have come up with have shown some statistically relevant tendency to accurately predict performance. That, of course, is not to say that they're right all of the time (or even close to all of the time), but that isn't really the question. The question is, are these predicting "stats" a useful tool in trying to determine the probability of future performance?

Realist
03-10-2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
What a crock. You can't really believe this. First of all, there's no way to take stats out of baseball. Would you trade Aaron Rowand for Barry Bonds? From all accounts, Rowand has much more heart than Barry Bonds and he's healthy now and younger than Bonds (so less of a health risk)? Or do you think Bonds is better than Rowand, despite the fact that Rowand has more "heart"? And if you think Bonds is better than Rowand, why do you think that? Because of his stats of course. Bonds hits lots of home runs and gets on base all the time and the reason you know that to be true is because of his ... stats!

The Angels and the Marlins did appear to have heart and they certainly had health. They also had luck, in that they got hot at the right time. But they put themselves in that position because they had talent - KC had a lot of heart last year, but they only won 83 games in the worst division in baseball. If you've got talent but not heart, you've still got a chance. If you heart and no talent, you have no chance. If you've got heart AND talent, you're going to be successful.

Of course stats count for SOMETHING. It's just that I don't believe that they're worth as much as many people think. My comment was reactionary on purpose.

The rest of you post basicly supports the idea of timely hitting. Talent is built right into that factor.

In retrospect. I'm sure the Marlins are happy they didn't have Rowand or Bonds last year.

ma-gaga
03-10-2004, 12:51 PM
I want the stat that accurately predicts the future 100% of the time. Me and my bookie.

Stats are a quantification of what is happening on the field. Last year Colon threw 242 innings of 3.87 ERA. They are simply trying to figure out where those innings are going to come from this year.

It's unreasonable to think that EVERYTHING will be exactly the same this year. Pecota attempts to quantify it. If you don't like it, ignore it.

jeremyb1
03-10-2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by SSN721
I think that stats have become grossly overrated and overused in the last few years. Baseball can become such a sport of chance, its so hard to get players that have consistent output from year to year. To make assumptions on health, performance, strength of opponent when they actually meet those opponents are so impossible to predict. I don't see how anyone can make predictions of the course of an entire season with any level of accuracy. There is so much chance involved I have a hard time giving any credence to most of these stat based predictions compiled before the current team has even played together in a real game this year.

Even if you're completely correct, stats still have a purpose. Even if the game is 90% luck and "heart", whoever can predict the remaining ten percent best is going to have an edge over the competition. I completely disagree however that stats are useless. If baseball is entirely heart and timely hitting then the statistics would be more or less randomized. The Devil Rays would have a shot at beating the Yankees every season. Funny though, the NL East standings have been the same for four or five years now. Would you say that's because the level of luck, heart, and timely hitting have been the same each season or because the Yankees have had the best talent with the best performance as measured by stats each season?

gosox41
03-10-2004, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by SSN721
I am not guaranteeing 90 wins, call it an optimistic hope more than anything else. It isn't set in stone. All I was saying is that not every player in MLB is consistent with their stats, so while they can be useful spread out over the course of the season it is hard to make any accurate predictions. All I am saying is that it seems a lot of people take stats and the be all end all of everything and can make 100% accurate predictions every year. I just think that is silly. You cant predict all the variables that will happen in a season, stats or no stats. Stats cant predict random events. Of course everything that happens is a stat, I know its a good way to chart histories of teams and players, but I think it is better to use it to look back at a teams history or overall career of a player then to make accurate predictions on how teams will do over a season before the season has started.


Right now stats are the best tool out there to predict the future. It's used by everyone from GM's to fantasy league players. Sure there are other variables that could effect the outcome, but over time things have a tendency to even out.

If you know a more accurate way to make predictions, I'm all ears.

The thing is the so-called stat revolution is in its infancy. New ways to analyze and account for different variables will develop over time. The inormation is out there, it's just figuring out what's important and measuring it in the right way.

Bob

Bob