PDA

View Full Version : Rogers on Sox playoff chances


Johnny Mostil
09-08-2005, 08:56 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-050907rogers,1,5348909.column?coll=cs-home-headlines

He uses a formula to rank them third (behind Oak and LAA) in AL, but doesn't explain how well his formula would have worked in past seasons. (I'm too lazy to figure out how it would have, but I wish he, at least, had.)

mccoydp
09-08-2005, 09:11 AM
I read the same piece of garbage this morning...you can bet if it was the Cubs instead of the Sox with the identical record, they would be listed as not only the best team in baseball, but a lock to win the World Series as well.
Phil Rogers is doing nothing more than spewing more anti-Sox rhetoric; it's as if he wants the Sox to fail just so he can sit back and smirk.

FielderJones
09-08-2005, 09:23 AM
Lack of offense blah blah blah

Same as the rest of the propellerheads who haven't adjusted to the post-steroids era.

Phil, here's a clue: it's pitching and defense now, combined with timely hitting.

TomBradley72
09-08-2005, 09:34 AM
What's with Phil Rogers? There are about 20-30 really great stories to be told about one of the most speciall teams in Chicago baseball history...the 2005 Chicago White Sox. But what does he focus on? His own personal formula that he pulled out of his a**. Any analysis Phil on how well this formula would have predicted previous post season success so we know it's valid? Of course not...why write about the 25 great guys in the clubhouse, the great job the manager is doing, the great moves by the GM, one of best attendance records in franshise history...when you can create a b.s article based on a formula that has no proof of validity?

Johnny Mostil
09-08-2005, 09:34 AM
Same as the rest of the propellerheads who haven't adjusted to the post-steroids era.


That's an interesting point. How well would his formula have held up over different eras of baseball?

I honestly wouldn't care if his formula ranked Sox chances for postseason success as 14th in the league--if he had shown how well his formula worked over time. He shoulda, coulda, etc.

Hangar18
09-08-2005, 09:35 AM
Good article ..........he makes some very valid points. An A's team can
be very dangerous when theyre on a roll .......

Heffalump
09-08-2005, 09:40 AM
Good article ..........he makes some very valid points. An A's team can
be very dangerous when theyre on a roll .......


Rogers is a complete melvin..........ANY team is dangerous when they are on a roll.

That is what the playoffs are all about......Whomever is hot is going to excel.

He says that if you throw out all the Sox one run wins, they would be even with the Red Sox and Cleveland. BUT WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS !!!.....The Sox ability to win the close ones is what have made them the best team in the AL. Anyone can win a game when they score twelve runs.

Oh well, I shouldn't get too upset. It's just the Trib and its lackey writers trying to fill up space in their "bash the sox" section.

I can't wait until The ticker tape parade after our World Series victory. I will personally shred a few Tribune copies to throw down on our Sox


See ya at the Core of the Core tonight !!

GO SOX!!

kjhanson
09-08-2005, 10:02 AM
He says that if you throw out all the Sox one run wins, they would be even with the Red Sox and Cleveland. BUT WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS !!!

I'm glad somebody mentioned this. He says that if you threw out the one-run games of the White Sox, they would only be up by a couple games. Why we're at it, why don't we throw out Boston's home games, July and August for Oakland and all of Bartolo Colon's starts for the Angels?

See Phil? I too can manipulate the data by excluding the best qualities of each team.

I respect Phil's baseball knowledge compared to other Chicago writers; however, a "formula" to predict playoff success is ludacris. Especially considering one of his top two teams (A's, Angels) probably won't even make the playoffs.

Here's a good idea: Let them play the games on the field. I am confident the Sox will reign supreme, no matter the opponent.

Flight #24
09-08-2005, 10:11 AM
I like How Phil takes a big chunk of the "hot team" stat using August #s, when the Sox were struggling with injuries and the dog days. I can guarantee you that if the Sox continue to play September like they have so far, the fact that they slumped in August will mean nothing.

Without taking too much of a conspiracy angle on it, this smacks of creaeting something to achieve a desired result. The A's have scored a grand total of 21 more runs than the Sox on the year, a whopping .15 R/G. And as for "hot" teams, they're currently 2-5 in September as compared to the Sox, who are.....7-0.

Nice try there, Phil. But the A's aren't even all that likely to MAKE the playoffs.

JRIG
09-08-2005, 10:20 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-050907rogers,1,5348909.column?coll=cs-home-headlines

He uses a formula to rank them third (behind Oak and LAA) in AL, but doesn't explain how well his formula would have worked in past seasons. (I'm too lazy to figure out how it would have, but I wish he, at least, had.)

I think the real key here is how many starters each team has who started 30 games and had at least 190 innings pitched last season.

ron_j_galt
09-08-2005, 10:59 AM
I like How Phil takes a big chunk of the "hot team" stat using August #s, when the Sox were struggling with injuries and the dog days. I can guarantee you that if the Sox continue to play September like they have so far, the fact that they slumped in August will mean nothing.

Without taking too much of a conspiracy angle on it, this smacks of creaeting something to achieve a desired result. The A's have scored a grand total of 21 more runs than the Sox on the year, a whopping .15 R/G. And as for "hot" teams, they're currently 2-5 in September as compared to the Sox, who are.....7-0.

Nice try there, Phil. But the A's aren't even all that likely to MAKE the playoffs.

I don't think Rogers achieves anything with this "statistic." Weighting the last two months more heavily is going to skew his result due to unbalanced schedules--the Sox winning 7 in a row doesn't have much of an impact on the playoffs when you consider the teams they've beaten. Teams that have higher overall batting averages are going to have higher batting averages with men in scoring position.

The Sox certainly have one of the best defenses in the league; his point about errors is misleading boredering on irrelevant. Completely tossing out one-run games is absurd; teams with weak offenses and strong pitching will get in a lot of one-run games, and, if they have strong bullpens, win their fair share. While winning 66% of these games involves some luck, it isn't fair to toss these out entirely. (It isn't the 29-15 one-run record that's created a "relative misconception of the team," it's the 25-5 record against Detroit and Kansas City.)

Then he predicts the results of completely hypothetical postseason matchups when two, if not three, of the remaining slots are completely up for grabs. Then he tops himself by pretending that what Mark Mulder and Jason Giambi did to Chris Singleton and Herb Perry in 2001 is somehow relevant to the 2005 postseason. What a joke.

Unregistered
09-08-2005, 11:30 AM
Yep, I call BS. It's almost as if Phil picked every stat that didn't favor the Sox and made a formula based on it. Add to the fact that he's only taking W-L stats from August, and naturally it's going to show how we're destined to get swept in the first round.

Meanwhile, it's almost 10 days into September and we HAVEN'T LOST YET. As insane as it sounds, the Sox could still go UNDEFEATED the entire month of September and certainly be "on a roll" right into the playoffs. But I guess that wouldn't count considering our a 29-0 September wouldn't increase our "Hottest Team %" of August. :?: :rolleyes:

1951Campbell
09-08-2005, 11:35 AM
When win/loss percentage does not conform to what you want the facts to be, usually there is a "formula" waiting in the wings.

Iwritecode
09-08-2005, 11:40 AM
A cottage industry tries to do the impossible—anticipate what is going to happen in baseball. Never is that more of a folly than at this time of the year.

Tell me, did you see Houston's 36-10 finish coming a year ago? Or even Florida's 21-8 run to capture the National League wild card in 2003? Did you have the Angels and Giants meeting in the 2002 World Series?


I didn't think so. The honest answer, when asked what's going to happen in the playoffs, is how the heck would anyone know? You might as well take odds on which leaves are going to fall first.

No matter how much we would like to pin it down, there's an almost random nature to postseason success. Witness the 12-23 record of teams with the better regular-season record in playoff series, including the World Series, over the last five years. Witness the 19-19 record of teams with home-field advantage in the championship series since the best-of-seven format was instituted in 1985.

(Bold added for emphasis)

Now tell me, why would anyone with half a brain even bother reading the rest of the article after he plainly describes why the future cannot be predicted?

He might as well admit that he pulled this "formula" out of his ass and that a monkey could do just as well trying to pick the winners in the post-season.

I also find it hilarious that he includes # of errors and double-plays turned in evaluating defense. :rolleyes:

BainesHOF
09-08-2005, 11:55 AM
Great formula, Phil! The Angels or A's may not even make the playoffs.

mdep524
09-08-2005, 12:03 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the team that gets the best pitching, hitting and defense in the playoffs will win the World Series.

russ99
09-08-2005, 12:47 PM
It's just the Trib and its lackey writers trying to fill up space in their "bash the sox" section.

At least that Cubbie-fanboy isn't writing for ESPN anymore as far as I can tell. Phil, why don't you and your friends at ESPN track down Steve Bartman again and ask him for his playoffs formulas.

Brian26
09-08-2005, 01:01 PM
Why do I get the sense that Rogers just sits around his apartment trying to come up with ideas on how to piss us (specifically WSI) off. I bet he can't wait in the morning to log on and check out our reaction to this bunk he writes.

Fenway
09-08-2005, 01:28 PM
Great formula, Phil! The Angels or A's may not even make the playoffs.

Angels are completly spooked at Fenway Park. We maybe looking at Oakland's big comeback of the season as huge.

doublem23
09-08-2005, 02:20 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the team that gets the best pitching, hitting and defense in the playoffs will win the World Series.

But do you have a formula to prove that? :rolleyes:

PennStater98r
09-08-2005, 05:06 PM
He says that if you throw out all the Sox one run wins, they would be even with the Red Sox and Cleveland. BUT WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS !!!.....The Sox ability to win the close ones is what have made them the best team in the AL. Anyone can win a game when they score twelve runs.



I needed to comment on this. I once read an article - I think by Rob Neyer - that said winning one-run games requires an element of luck. There's no doubt about that. There are some luck factors in having an exceptional record in one-run games. However, the point that Neyer went on to make was that teams often make their own luck or minimize the luck factor for other teams. The types of teams that seem to make their own luck best are those with pitching, speed and defense - as there's less room for error - whether it be a bad pitch or a shortstop that can't get to a ball.

Ever since I read that article, I have strongly agreed with this - because speed and defense never slumps - but hitting teams and pitching does from time to time - and that's why the taking away the one-run game victories is ridiculous. You see, many times this year the Sox have made their luck because they're keeping the games close by scoring runs via moving runners over and utilizing sacrifice.

Both the teams mentioned in the AL do not have nearly the quality of pitching that the Sox do and are always one game away from having to rely on a burst of offense - whereas the Sox consistantly stay in the game. I can not emphasize how happy I am this year to not witness the Sox blowing out opponents and then losing the next day 2-0 or 2-1 or 3-0. I'd like to see Rogers look to see how many times all these teams have lost by more than three runs - or been blown out... That'd be interesting.

slavko
09-08-2005, 05:21 PM
Easy concept: Great bullpen = one run wins. Rogers manages to turn this into a bad thing. His article is a spin piece with no merit.

PennStater98r
09-08-2005, 05:24 PM
In addition to the poll on the front page of this site:

Identify the Cubune's most likely October headline.

There should also be a choice that reads something like:

Phil Rogers: Formula as to why the Sox won't repeat World Series Championship next season.

maurice
09-08-2005, 05:37 PM
teams often make their own luck or minimize the luck factor for other teams. The types of teams that seem to make their own luck best are those with pitching, speed and defense - as there's less room for error - whether it be a bad pitch or a shortstop that can't get to a ball. . . . speed and defense never slumps - but hitting teams and pitching does from time to time . . . .

We had an interesting thread on this topic during the offseason. Needless to say, the level of analysis and the math employed by the posters in that thread was far beyond the powers of Phil Rogers.

MRKARNO
09-08-2005, 05:44 PM
The problem with this is that Rogers is trying to use simple statistics which don't tell the whole story in a complicated formula which is attepting to do just that. Why does he pick the 40/40/20 split? It's totally arbitrary and not based on past history. Since when are double plays and errors the best indicator of team defense? Is reliever ERA and starter ERA really weighted equally? If it is, why would you do that if the starters are getting more than twice as many innings as the relievers? Save percentage matters as much as runs per game? Why is record since August 1st more telling than record since September 1st? September 15th?

The article should really be entitled "Madness Which Predicts Nothing" because that's what Rogers is presenting. I won't accuse him of anti-Sox bias, because I don't honestly think that's what he was getting at. He is trying to legitimitely come up with some formula to predict playoff success. He just fails miserably in the process because such a formula would be extremely complicated and require a lot of research. Even then, it wouldn't have all that much predictive value because of the amount of luck involved in postseason play.

IowaSox1971
09-08-2005, 06:21 PM
Rogers is the same genius who, right after our emotional series victory in New York last month, wrote that we NEEDED to trade for Palmeiro. Since then, Palmeiro has gone 2-for-26 and has been sent home by the Orioles. Over the years, no baseball columnist has been wrong as regularly as Rogers has been.

Ol' No. 2
09-09-2005, 04:57 PM
The problem with this is that Rogers is trying to use simple statistics which don't tell the whole story in a complicated formula which is attepting to do just that. Why does he pick the 40/40/20 split? It's totally arbitrary and not based on past history. Since when are double plays and errors the best indicator of team defense? Is reliever ERA and starter ERA really weighted equally? If it is, why would you do that if the starters are getting more than twice as many innings as the relievers? Save percentage matters as much as runs per game? Why is record since August 1st more telling than record since September 1st? September 15th?

The article should really be entitled "Madness Which Predicts Nothing" because that's what Rogers is presenting. I won't accuse him of anti-Sox bias, because I don't honestly think that's what he was getting at. He is trying to legitimitely come up with some formula to predict playoff success. He just fails miserably in the process because such a formula would be extremely complicated and require a lot of research. Even then, it wouldn't have all that much predictive value because of the amount of luck involved in postseason play.Maybe he's angling for a job at BP.