PDA

View Full Version : ESPN says Sox have less of a chance than Dennis Kucinich


maurice
03-30-2004, 01:21 PM
Linky (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2004/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=1771198)

Jayson Stark calls the cubs "surefire contenders," says that the twinkies "look good on paper," lists KC as "possible" contenders, but omits the Sox, implying that they will finish third or worse in the AL Central.

duke of dorwood
03-30-2004, 01:25 PM
A look from a far is not always a bad view

sas1974
03-30-2004, 01:28 PM
I am personally tired of hearing what all of these "experts" think about our chances. When was the last time that one of these fools actually went out on a limb? It's real bold to pick the Yanks and Cubs. I am glad that no one is picking us. As it has been reported several times out of camp, that they love being underdogs.

ChiSox14305635
03-30-2004, 01:30 PM
Screw Philly Stark and Pawtucket Gammons and their clueless predictions. They'll be eating their words before long.

SoxxoS
03-30-2004, 01:31 PM
I'd be willing to bet all the tea in China that NONE of these experts had:

The D'Backs
The Angels
The Marlins

At this time last year. Coinsidentally, 90% of the "experts" are morons, so there is a corralation there.

MRKARNO
03-30-2004, 01:35 PM
I love how these experts like to conveniently forget that the Royals have no pitching and the Twins' staff is severely weakened. The White Sox are the most complete team in the division and the most talented team. When the White Sox win the division by a lot, these writers will be clueless as to why, but we will know why.

sas1974
03-30-2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
I love how these experts like to conveniently forget that the Royals have no pitching and the Twins' staff is severely weakened. The White Sox are the most complete team in the division and the most talented team. When the White Sox win the division by a lot, these writers will be clueless as to why, but we will know why.

That's the problem w/ these people...no they won't. They will all completely forget their previous predictions and move on like they never said anything. When was the last time you heard one of these guys go back to what he said in the beginning of the season and say, "Boy, I was way off on that one." They will just analyze the present and write off their past remarks.

Dadawg_77
03-30-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
I'd be willing to bet all the tea in China that NONE of these experts had:

The D'Backs
The Angels
The Marlins

At this time last year. Coinsidentally, 90% of the "experts" are morons, so there is a corralation there.

I am sure some of them thought the D'Backs could do damage. They had Schilling and Johnson, if they made the post season, that combo would cause trouble for any team.

Dadawg_77
03-30-2004, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
That's the problem w/ these people...no they won't. They will all completely forget their previous predictions and move on like they never said anything. When was the last time you heard one of these guys go back to what he said in the beginning of the season and say, "Boy, I was way off on that one." They will just analyze the present and write off their past remarks.

Thatís why I like the BP predictions which eliminate personal bias and just look at projected production from projected playing time. The BP says it will be a toss between the Twins, Royals and Sox.

SSN721
03-30-2004, 02:27 PM
It is irritating, but considering the moves made by Houston, Boston, New York and the Cubs I am sure they spent more time trying to break stories then breaking down teams. Although I think that the SOx will win the Division, I dont think it will be by much and I can easily see them not winning it. I highly doubt they will come in third though.

sas1974
03-30-2004, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Thatís why I like the BP predictions which eliminate personal bias and just look at projected production from projected playing time. The BP says it will be a toss between the Twins, Royals and Sox.

I am still not sure that I completely buy into all of the statistical mumbo jumbo used to predict success. There are extremes that they just can't account for that have a real effect on the game. They can't take into account injuries or the emotional aspects of the game. I am not sure what the stats have said in the past, but Sox seemed to have a better team on paper than the Twins, yet still lost. I doubt stats predicted the Royals hot start last year, Mark's 10 game losing streak last year, Paulie's fall off in the second half of '02(or his hot first half for that matter).

Dadawg_77
03-30-2004, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
I am still not sure that I completely buy into all of the statistical mumbo jumbo used to predict success. There are extremes that they just can't account for that have a real effect on the game. They can't take into account injuries or the emotional aspects of the game. I am not sure what the stats have said in the past, but Sox seemed to have a better team on paper than the Twins, yet still lost. I doubt stats predicted the Royals hot start last year, Mark's 10 game losing streak last year, Paulie's fall off in the second half of '02(or his hot first half for that matter).

Actually the BP work has a range of possibilities and uses a weighted mean. No it doesn't take into account an injury like Frank's in 2001, but no one could.

sas1974
03-30-2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Actually the BP work has a range of possibilities and uses a weighted mean. No it doesn't take into account an injury like Frank's in 2001, but no one could.

Hmm....I suppose I'll have to give them a closer look before I shoot them down. Any links?

My original thought still stands though. There are still many factors that play out every year that no one can take into account. That's why the play the games...

Veeky
03-30-2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
I'd be willing to bet all the tea in China that NONE of these experts had:

The D'Backs
The Angels
The Marlins



Furthermore....They missed on the Sox and the A's in 2000, on the Twins in 2002, on the Royals and Cubs in 2003.

Hell......Even the Vlad-less Expos were 11 games over .500 at some point last year, playing in the toughest division in baseball...which means if they were healthier and played in ALC or NLC, they could have crept up on everybody!

Dadawg_77
03-30-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Veeky
Furthermore....They missed on the Sox and the A's in 2000, on the Twins in 2002, on the Royals and Cubs in 2003.

Hell......Even the Vlad-less Expos were 11 games over .500 at some point last year, playing in the toughest division in baseball...which means if they were healthier and played in ALC or NLC, they could have crept up on everybody!

I would say the AL East is the toughest in baseball right now. 40 games vs Red Sox and Yankees is tough.

Huisj
03-30-2004, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
That's the problem w/ these people...no they won't. They will all completely forget their previous predictions and move on like they never said anything. When was the last time you heard one of these guys go back to what he said in the beginning of the season and say, "Boy, I was way off on that one." They will just analyze the present and write off their past remarks.

the one guy at espn who does that periodically is rob neyer. he will periodically run columns where he looks back at certain predictions he put into previous articles, and then explain what actually happened. he's my favorite writer at espn. he's the only one who doesn't seem to be permanently filled with bs.

SoxxoS
03-30-2004, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
the one guy at espn who does that periodically is rob neyer. he will periodically run columns where he looks back at certain predictions he put into previous articles, and then explain what actually happened. he's my favorite writer at espn. he's the only one who doesn't seem to be permanently filled with bs.

I absolutely agree. Neyer is solid.

I also enjoy "Rumblings and Grumblings" by Jayson Stark, just b/c of the funny nuances of the game. Not his actual input.

sas1974
03-30-2004, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
the one guy at espn who does that periodically is rob neyer. he will periodically run columns where he looks back at certain predictions he put into previous articles, and then explain what actually happened. he's my favorite writer at espn. he's the only one who doesn't seem to be permanently filled with bs.

Actually you're right. I have seen a couple columns like that where he will admit he's wrong. I have also seen a couple where he goes through his email and blasts people that bash him when he actually ends up being right. Those are pretty funny too. It's still few and far between though...

My initial point was that most of these guys are never really held accountable for their predictions. In addition, they tend to state the obvious far too often as opposed to looking for a unique angle. "The Yankees and Boston are good!" Well, no kidding. It takes real bright guy to dream that one up.

white sox bill
03-30-2004, 03:36 PM
I'm glad were underdogs, The pressure's off and we seem to perform better. As far as the flubs, theres a goat somewhere that says 3rd place is more like it. :smile:

Frater Perdurabo
03-30-2004, 03:49 PM
This thread title hurts on two fronts. :(: Shouldn't it be moved to PI? :cool:

Seriously, I think the Sox have just a bit more of a shot than Kucinich does at the White House.

Whitesox029
03-30-2004, 10:23 PM
I'm sick and tired of hearing what the chicago media, the national media and every birdbrained cubs, twins and royals fan has to say about the White Sox and their so-called "miniscule" chances. We should all just smile, nod, speak to them as if they are mentally challenged, and walk away (As in, "Yes, Mr. Jones we know all about the tiny blue giraffe bathing in your bird bath. We see him too."). If you truly believe the Sox have a chance you will have no problem waiting til October when our comeuppance arrives.

MRKARNO
03-30-2004, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Frater Perdurabo
This thread title hurts on two fronts. :(: Shouldn't it be moved to PI? :cool:

Seriously, I think the Sox have just a bit more of a shot than Kucinich does at the White House.

Well here's the most important difference: Dennis Kucinich can't win because Kerry already has the delegates to win but the White Sox can.

1951Campbell
03-30-2004, 10:34 PM
C'mon guys...what have I heard around here the last 4 springs?

2001: "The ALC is so weak, we can win it again!"

2002: "Okay, the division is still weak, this time we'll win!"

2003: "No...wait...yes, the ALC is still weak...we'll back into the title!"

2004: "Seriously guys, this time I mean it. I swear."

I'm just sayin' is all. A lot of folks here seem to have pre-ordered their 2004 ALC Division Champs T-shirts. Just because EPSN or SI or whoever is always wrong doesn't mean that they'll be wrong in our favor.

Whitesox029
03-30-2004, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by 1951Campbell

I'm just sayin' is all. A lot of folks here seem to have pre-ordered their 2004 ALC Division Champs T-shirts. Just because EPSN or SI or whoever is always wrong doesn't mean that they'll be wrong in our favor.

The reason it is different this year is because Gandhi is no longer the manager. 2001 we matched up well with Cleveland. 2002 and 2003 we matched up better than well against Minnesota. The thing was we didn't have the same energy. It didn't carry over from 2000 because the fat slob (you know who I mean) killed it, and it just never came back. Ozzie is the match that will light the sox up, like it or not.

soxnut
03-30-2004, 11:15 PM
It's really amazing how these boobs pick anything. They'll say something about the Twins losing 5 pitchers, and really not compensating for it at all, and the Sox lose one major pitcher, and yet they'll give the Twins the nod over the Sox.

Let 'em say whatever they want. As people ahve stated in this thread, they do state the obvious, and don't ever account for their errors later. The media is a joke for the most part anyway.

Veeky
03-31-2004, 11:28 AM
2001: "The ALC is so weak, we can win it again!"

2002: "Okay, the division is still weak, this time we'll win!"

2003: "No...wait...yes, the ALC is still weak...we'll back into the title!"

2004: "Seriously guys, this time I mean it. I swear."

2001 ALC may have been weak but Indians still were a dynasty. Sox lost half the key players from 2000 early on and had NO chance in retrospect.

2002 Frank hadn't recovered from tricep tear, PLUS Ritchie-for-Wells trade = Twins got the lead early and haven't look back.

2003 There is no excuse -- Wright, Koch, White, Rios and Konerko decide to take the year off and Professor Tinkerton bestows 115 atbats on a RH-batting Valentin. It was pathetic.

2004: Both Sox and JR atone for their 2002-2003 sins and win 92 games. Tell your friends.

Dan H
03-31-2004, 01:19 PM
I don't really care what the predictions are. After all, we have gone into seasons with high expectations only to have them crushed. Everything is decided on the field and it is time for the Sox to produce.

ma_deuce
03-31-2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Linky (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2004/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=1771198)

Jayson Stark calls the cubs "surefire contenders," says that the twinkies "look good on paper," lists KC as "possible" contenders, but omits the Sox, implying that they will finish third or worse in the AL Central.

I disagree... I think Dennis Kucinich has a much better chance at winning the division than we do.

Deuce

jeremyb1
03-31-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
I am still not sure that I completely buy into all of the statistical mumbo jumbo used to predict success. There are extremes that they just can't account for that have a real effect on the game. They can't take into account injuries or the emotional aspects of the game. I am not sure what the stats have said in the past, but Sox seemed to have a better team on paper than the Twins, yet still lost. I doubt stats predicted the Royals hot start last year, Mark's 10 game losing streak last year, Paulie's fall off in the second half of '02(or his hot first half for that matter).

Well first of all, in regards to using statistical analysis to project team's success as BP does with PECOTA, the projections do not need to be entirely accurate to be good projections. They could be right 2/3rds of the time but if most baseball writers are only correct half the time, the PECOTA projections would be incredibly accurate compared to the rest of the field.

Making perfect projections is incredibly hard because a lot of baseball is luck and there are always going to be teams that get good or bad baseball bounces throughout the season and events that no one can predict. No one predicted Frank's injury in '01, Bonds and Sosa's record breaking season, the year Brady Anderson hit 50 home runs, etc. One player's season can have a huge impact on a team when it deviates from expectations as greatly as these examples so its really unfair to expect anyone to project unforseen events ahead of time. Even with the Marlins last year a lot of things went right. A lot of players performed within reasonable expectations but it was unlikely for so many guys to have outstanding seasons at once. How anyone would forsee that ahead of time is a mystery to me.

BP acknowledges the variability of predictions. Their PECOTA projections include different percentiles for each player. There's a one in ten chance the player will perform in the 90th percentile or the 10th percentile. I'm not sure how one could determine which players will do so before the season. No one on this board predicted Paully's abomination of a season last year just as I wouldn't expect anyone to project Willie Harris to hit .315 this season but its certainly possible. Its just not likely.

jeremyb1
03-31-2004, 03:21 PM
The problems with projections by analysts such as Jason Stark is that they have no basis for how to formulate their opinions into an accurate projection of how well a team will perform. They are capable of making various assumptions about teams (the A's have great pitching, the Angels have good hitting, the White Sox have bad defense up the middle, the Yankees have injury concerns) which are sometimes correct but they don't have a consistent, thought out manner of how to weigh all of these observations.

A common problem with these analysts is that they tend to weigh any perceived flaw much more greatly than a perceived weakness. For instance, if you ask Stark about the Sox he'll probably say he has concerns about the back end of the rotation and the defense up the middle or something to that effect. What he's just done however is rate the team based on its weaknesses without even discussing the team's strengths!!! Maybe the back end of the rotation and the defense up the middle cost the team 60 runs over the course of the season but the offense and front end of the rotation are 150 runs better than average! That would make us much better than a team that was simply average accross the board because our net runs above average would be 90 whereas the net runs above average of a team that is average in every category is 0. Stark however would argue the average team is better most likely because they don't have any flaws for him to pick apart.

The bottom line is that assessing strenghts and weaknesses is worthless unless you accurately assess the degree of each strength and weakness and also conceed the fact that defense up the middle may not be as important to winning games as the team's overall offensive strength. Stark has no process for bringing it all together to analyze the quality of a team. I don't know if he thinks he does but he seemingly just throws all the factors together and then relies on his gut opinion of these factors which is completely useless to formulate a decision.

maurice
03-31-2004, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by ma_deuce
I disagree... I think Dennis Kucinich has a much better chance at winning the division than we do.

He would have finished ahead of the Tigers in 2003 . . . but not this year, given all the talent they added during the offseason.

Whitesox029
03-31-2004, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by ma_deuce
I disagree... I think Dennis Kucinich has a much better chance at winning the division than we do.

Deuce
The Sox are certainly not in any position to win the presidential election anyway....They wouldn't even win a nationwide vote for most popular chicago baseball team.