PDA

View Full Version : BP PECOTA projected standings


jeremyb1
03-18-2004, 06:43 PM
Ok. So BP just released their depth charts for the season which projects playing time for each club and adjusts VORP projections accordingly. The VORP figures can then be used to predict team's records for the season. The projections for the central are:

White Sox 82-80
Twins 81-81
Royals 79-83
Indians 73-89
Tigers 65-97

The obvious caveat here is that predictions of playing time are difficult because they rely on predicting human judgement. Its not a given that a GM will call up a team's excellent young prospect late in the season because he could be an idiot. Also there are always freak injuries and the like.

pudge
03-18-2004, 06:44 PM
Well, that's about as close as we all expect it to be... I imagine someone's going to get hot and win the division with more than 82 wins.

MRKARNO
03-18-2004, 06:46 PM
I had only looked at the White Sox one and I figured they picked the twins to win after seeing 82-80. That's truly hysterical

jeremyb1
03-18-2004, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
I had only looked at the White Sox one and I figured they picked the twins to win after seeing 82-80. That's truly hysterical

Yeah its pretty insane. I hope for the sake of the division someone wins at least 87 games.

MRKARNO
03-18-2004, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Yeah its pretty insane. I hope for the sake of the division someone wins at least 87 games.

If the Sox won with 82 wins, you'd never hear the end of the crap from all sports analysts across the country. I want the Sox to win the division with 90 wins as it would bring them legitimacy.

What the sabermetrics dont account for is that these teams have to play each other for half of their schedule which will inflate the win total of the Sox when they win the division.

jabrch
03-19-2004, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
If the Sox won with 82 wins, you'd never hear the end of the crap from all sports analysts across the country. I want the Sox to win the division with 90 wins as it would bring them legitimacy.

What the sabermetrics dont account for is that these teams have to play each other for half of their schedule which will inflate the win total of the Sox when they win the division.

Unless they all suck equally and play to about .500 vs eachother.

Deadguy
03-19-2004, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Ok. So BP just released their depth charts for the season which projects playing time for each club and adjusts VORP projections accordingly. The VORP figures can then be used to predict team's records for the season. The projections for the central are:

White Sox 82-80
Twins 81-81
Royals 79-83
Indians 73-89
Tigers 65-97

The obvious caveat here is that predictions of playing time are difficult because they rely on predicting human judgement. Its not a given that a GM will call up a team's excellent young prospect late in the season because he could be an idiot. Also there are always freak injuries and the like.

I doubt the Kittens are going to have a 22 game improvement over 2003. They have to be the worst franchise in sports since 1989.

SSN721
03-19-2004, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Deadguy
I doubt the Kittens are going to have a 22 game improvement over 2003. They have to be the worst franchise in sports since 1989.

Worse than the Hawks? Even their early 90's success doesn't make up for the depth of ineptitude they wallow at right now.

voodoochile
03-19-2004, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Deadguy
I doubt the Kittens are going to have a 22 game improvement over 2003. They have to be the worst franchise in sports since 1989.

Pudge should add a few wins all by himself. I also think their young pitchers are going to be better this year. They've got some guys who can bring it, but just don't have any experience and struggle with their control (like all young pitchers). I don't know if they are going to win an extra 22 games, but they will definitely be better...

sas1974
03-19-2004, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I don't know if they are going to win an extra 22 games, but they will definitely be better...

It's going to be awfully tough to not be better than they were last year. :smile:

Brian26
03-19-2004, 09:03 AM
I'd like to see the Sox win the Central with 82 games and then sweep the A's and Yankees in the playoffs. It would be poetic justice for 2000, '94, '93 and '83.

Frater Perdurabo
03-19-2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
I'd like to see the Sox win the Central with 82 games and then sweep the A's and Yankees in the playoffs. It would be poetic justice for 2000, '94, '93 and '83.

You beat me to it.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1

White Sox 82-80
Twins 81-81
Royals 79-83
Indians 73-89
Tigers 65-97


I'd argue that the Sox might go 84-78, but I agree with the other prognostications. If a team wins more than 85 games in this division, it's going to be because they beat up on the rest of the Central. The Sox couldn't even beat up on Detroit and Tampa Bay last year.

Railsplitter
03-19-2004, 09:17 AM
Th AL Central a division four teams lose rather than one team wins.

Lip Man 1
03-19-2004, 10:22 AM
Do these projections take into account recent team history? Just wondering since the average Sox record the past six seasons is 83-79.

Hey there's something for all Sox fans to root for! Let's break the all time record for playoff mediocrity. 83 wins by the 1973 Mets.

What a pathetic organization..... To think that with the 'comedy' Central ripe for the taking, this was the best they could do.

Lip

kermittheefrog
03-19-2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Do these projections take into account recent team history? Just wondering since the average Sox record the past six seasons is 83-79.

Hey there's something for all Sox fans to root for! Let's break the all time record for playoff mediocrity. 83 wins by the 1973 Mets.

What a pathetic organization..... To think that with the 'comedy' Central ripe for the taking, this was the best they could do.

Lip

And if they had predicted us to win more games or fewer games you would have called it sabermetric BS....

Deadguy
03-19-2004, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
And if they had predicted us to win more games or fewer games you would have called it sabermetric BS....

Sabermetrics are BS as far as making projections and predictions. There's just too many permutations and parameters to account for to even make a half-hearted attempt at trying to predict what will happen in the future. Historical numbers are a good basis, but I've never even paid attention to predictions and projections that sabermetricians try to make.

Sabermetrics are much better used to analyze what has already taken place on the field.

batmanZoSo
03-19-2004, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Ok. So BP just released their depth charts for the season which projects playing time for each club and adjusts VORP projections accordingly. The VORP figures can then be used to predict team's records for the season. The projections for the central are:

White Sox 82-80
Twins 81-81
Royals 79-83
Indians 73-89
Tigers 65-97

The obvious caveat here is that predictions of playing time are difficult because they rely on predicting human judgement. Its not a given that a GM will call up a team's excellent young prospect late in the season because he could be an idiot. Also there are always freak injuries and the like.

Their reasoning is that CHI, MIN, and KC will all be so good and beating up on each other right? haha

MRKARNO
03-19-2004, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Do these projections take into account recent team history? Just wondering since the average Sox record the past six seasons is 83-79.

Hey there's something for all Sox fans to root for! Let's break the all time record for playoff mediocrity. 83 wins by the 1973 Mets.

What a pathetic organization..... To think that with the 'comedy' Central ripe for the taking, this was the best they could do.

Lip

I know it probably wont make you feel any better, but the opening day payroll as it stands is about 6 or 7 million higher than the planned 65 million. I think that shows that the ownership isnt going to be like a lot of the other teams around baseball, where they set a dollar value and if they're not within one million of that then they trade a player for prospects. The ownership kept the core of players together but they couldnt keep the icing on the cake that we had last year.

Can you really fault them for not trying to match the 5 mil a year for Gordon or the 51 mil over 4 years for Colon? The organization treated Alomar like crap and I fault them for that, but we didn't really need Sullivan and Grafanino thinks he's going to get more playing time in KC.

Everett was a luxury this team couldnt really afford...without trading Maggs.

I commened the ownership for increasing payroll while many other teams around the league are lowering it. I know this isn't good enough for you or for me, but you have to put the whole situation in retrospect.

If the front office believes it will take only 86 wins to win the division and they think we have a 90 win team, why should they feel like it's necessary that they go and get more talent? The playoffs aren't necessarily going to be won by the best team on paper and for the past 3 years, they haven't been.

Argue away, but it isn't going to bring more talent to the White Sox. I wish that we could have been given a much better team by the ownership like everyone else, but it's unfair to call them "pathetic." The Pirates organization is pathetic. The Brewers organization is pathetic. The Devil Rays organization is pathetic. The White Sox organization is not pathetic.

kermittheefrog
03-19-2004, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Deadguy
Sabermetrics are BS as far as making projections and predictions. There's just too many permutations and parameters to account for to even make a half-hearted attempt at trying to predict what will happen in the future. Historical numbers are a good basis, but I've never even paid attention to predictions and projections that sabermetricians try to make.

Sabermetrics are much better used to analyze what has already taken place on the field.

If you've never paid any attention to the projections sabermetricians make how do you know they are inaccurate and useless?

Lip Man 1
03-19-2004, 08:26 PM
Mr. Karno:

Two things...

Even with them being 5 or 6 million over their self imposed salary cap, that's still less then the median baseball payroll in 2003. (70 million.) This is Chicago not Milwaukee, Pittsburgh or Kansas City.

Second, according to this organization and specifically Kenny Williams the object is to get to and win the World Series, not being satisfied with (maybe) winning the A.L. 'comedy' Central division.

Lip

MRKARNO
03-19-2004, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mr. Karno:

Two things...

Even with them being 5 or 6 million over their self imposed salary cap, that's still less then the median baseball payroll in 2003. (70 million.) This is Chicago not Milwaukee, Pittsburgh or Kansas City.

Second, according to this organization and specifically Kenny Williams the object is to get to and win the World Series, not being satisfied with (maybe) winning the A.L. 'comedy' Central division.

Lip

Well when San Diego, Minnesota and Oakland outdraw you (Oakland being in the same metro area as the very popular SF Giants), you can only spend and act like them.

The goal of any organization is to win the World Series, teams just have different max payrolls to get to the goal.

anewman35
03-19-2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Second, according to this organization and specifically Kenny Williams the object is to get to and win the World Series, not being satisfied with (maybe) winning the A.L. 'comedy' Central division.

Show me a way to assure your team wins the World Series. Money certianly doesn't seem to do a whole lot, at least not the last few years.

Lip Man 1
03-20-2004, 12:45 PM
Anewman:

No it doesn't... but it sure as hell improves your chances doesn't it? Just ask the Yankees, Braves, Cubs (based on last year when they spent 95 million), Giants, Cardinals, Red Sox and Mariners for example.

Funny I see them in the post season a hell of a lot more then I see the White Sox, Twins, Padres, Brewers, Royals and Reds.

I wonder why? Let's see...bigger payroll means more talent and the ability to get even more talent when it becomes available in July....

But maybe in actuality they were those teams in disguise!

Mr. Karno:

and obviously the Sox payroll goal hasn't even been enough to win the 'joke' comedy Central division the past three years has it?

Lip

Mohoney
03-20-2004, 12:55 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MRKARNO
[B]Well when San Diego, Minnesota and Oakland outdraw you (Oakland being in the same metro area as the very popular SF Giants), you can only spend and act like them.

Not when your ticket prices are higher than all three of those cities, not to mention higher concession prices, parking prices, etc...

gosox41
03-20-2004, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Anewman:

No it doesn't... but it sure as hell improves your chances doesn't it? Just ask the Yankees, Braves, Cubs (based on last year when they spent 95 million), Giants, Cardinals, Red Sox and Mariners for example.

Funny I see them in the post season a hell of a lot more then I see the White Sox, Twins, Padres, Brewers, Royals and Reds.

I wonder why? Let's see...bigger payroll means more talent and the ability to get even more talent when it becomes available in July....

But maybe in actuality they were those teams in disguise!

Lip

The Cubs spend about $85 mill. last year.

Bob

Lip Man 1
03-20-2004, 07:53 PM
No Bob, according to WGN-TV after the six veteran additions in July the Cubs payroll was 94 million and change. Right now it's over 90 and may (if the Dodgers downsize) be the highest in the National League.

Besides you're splitting hairs, even 85 million is a hell of a lot more then the Sox spend isn't it?

Lip

MRKARNO
03-20-2004, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mr. Karno:

and obviously the Sox payroll goal hasn't even been enough to win the 'joke' comedy Central division the past three years has it?

Lip

As far as I'm concerned, we had enough talent to win a world series last year. The management put a team on the field that could compete with any in baseball on paper. It just didnt work out the way we all wanted it to. This year, Maggs, Thomas, Konerko, Buehrle, Lee, Loaiza & company are all making more money than last year. The difference is a Colon in terms of payroll.

I want to see the best team on the field just like you do, it's just that this ownership is not going to put it money that it didnt make off the team back into the team. This is just a fact and we can't do much about it so let's all whine about it and see how far it gets us.

Lip Man 1
03-20-2004, 11:36 PM
Mr. Karno:

As if pulling together to support mediocrity is going to do anything either?

I call them as I see them, if you consider it whining so be it.

With respect having closely followed this team for 43 seasons I'm entitled to "whine."

I'll be very happy to stop when either:

a. Good ole' Uncle Jerry has left the scene one way or another.

b. The Sox get to, they don't even have to win, the World Series.

Right now I think the odds are better of 'a' taking place don't you?

Lip

SoxxoS
03-21-2004, 02:18 AM
I agree with Lip on this one...until the Sox show a World Series appearance, they deserve all the speculation they get.

Same thing with the Flubbies.

We are at the point we're they need to prove US wrong.

Chisoxfn
03-21-2004, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
If the Sox won with 82 wins, you'd never hear the end of the crap from all sports analysts across the country. I want the Sox to win the division with 90 wins as it would bring them legitimacy.

What the sabermetrics dont account for is that these teams have to play each other for half of their schedule which will inflate the win total of the Sox when they win the division.

However they get in is fine with me :D:

But no way do I see 82 wins being enough.

gosox41
03-21-2004, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
No Bob, according to WGN-TV after the six veteran additions in July the Cubs payroll was 94 million and change. Right now it's over 90 and may (if the Dodgers downsize) be the highest in the National League.

Besides you're splitting hairs, even 85 million is a hell of a lot more then the Sox spend isn't it?

Lip

Did that include pro-rated salaries of the players they traded for or were theere full season salaries figured in there?

Bob

gosox41
03-21-2004, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mr. Karno:

As if pulling together to support mediocrity is going to do anything either?

I call them as I see them, if you consider it whining so be it.

With respect having closely followed this team for 43 seasons I'm entitled to "whine."

I'll be very happy to stop when either:

a. Good ole' Uncle Jerry has left the scene one way or another.

b. The Sox get to, they don't even have to win, the World Series.

Right now I think the odds are better of 'a' taking place don't you?

Lip

Lip,

I think you'd whine if the Sox made the World Series and didn't win. :D:
Bob

Lip Man 1
03-21-2004, 01:27 PM
Bob:

No...I'd be grateful they got there even if they dropped four straight.

Lip

hftrex
03-21-2004, 01:55 PM
Really?

gosox41
03-21-2004, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob:

No...I'd be grateful they got there even if they dropped four straight.

Lip

I should file this quote away somewhere. Something tells me you'll find something negative to go into the next season with.

Bob

Lip Man 1
03-21-2004, 10:08 PM
Bob:

We won't need to worry about it anyway. They haven't been to a series since 1959 and nothing makes me think they'll even be close to one in the next four years.

As Hal says at the end of his latest column, the problem with trying to catch lightning in a bottle is that you can't.

Lip

bartmanisgod
03-22-2004, 01:36 AM
I think it will take at least 86 wins to win the central...And I think it will come down to the last month between the Twinkies Royals ans the sox... hopefully we don't find a way to blow it this year, and have to sit at home and pray that the cubs don't make it/ lose in the first round!

gosox41
03-22-2004, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob:

We won't need to worry about it anyway. They haven't been to a series since 1959 and nothing makes me think they'll even be close to one in the next four years.

As Hal says at the end of his latest column, the problem with trying to catch lightning in a bottle is that you can't.

Lip

I would say things look bleak for this year, but the Sox could be the tallest midget and ekje into the playoffs. While that's hardly satisfying to you or me, I wouldn't write off a playoff team right away just because they they play in a weak division.

As for 4 years, that's almost impossible to predict. Of course the odds are in your favor. Ther eare many factors involed from the freeing up of bad contracts such as Jose, Koch, and PK t ohopefully putting more money into the team if this new TV thing works out to the fact that if you believe what Dacver and all those write about the Sox farm system then there is room for hope.

Of course it's easy to be negative about this team, but not everything about it is doom and gloom

If the Sox do have a bad year (which I hope they don't) I can always look forward to the fact that KW will hopefully be canned.


Bob

SoxxoS
03-22-2004, 11:25 AM
Absolutely. The key is getting to the playoffs. The Twins seemed to do OK the past two years.

You never know if a certain pitcher is hot at that time, if the other teams staff is struggling, injuries, weather...it's all variable. But you got to get there. Once you get there, you can't write anyone off.

Passion and Kerry Wood were going games 6 and 7 and only needed to win one of those games. What happened?