PDA

View Full Version : <teal>Thumbs up to BP</teal> Simulated Series Thread


dropkick371
01-08-2006, 12:29 AM
I'm not sure this belongs here.

Or anywhere.

But, as it relates to the Sox, I thought I'd post, and as I couldn't find any mention of it anywhere else on WSI's forums, I'm going ahead with that in "What's the Score?".

And so.

Baseball prospectus is currently doing the equivalent of having a more advanced copy of MVP 2005 (http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4687) play a series between the White Sox and the Chiba Lotte Marines (champs of the Japan Series), and attempting to pass it off as scientific.

Or interesting.

It promises to be neither, considering their predictions in the past and their method for this.

At this point, the series is tied, 1-1.

doublem23
01-08-2006, 12:42 AM
Jose Contreras loses Game 1, 10-1?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

CubsfansareDRUNK
01-08-2006, 12:54 AM
The only thing that COULD actually happen in game one is this:
Lefty Damaso Marte (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/marteda01.shtml) allowed another single that scored the Marines’ sixth and final run of the inning.
Everything else is BS

buehrle4cy05
01-08-2006, 01:01 AM
These people need to go out and play some baseball once in a while. When you're on a roll, you're on a roll. You have complete confidence in your ability and you not only expect, but you know that you will go out and win.

Jose's stats for 2005 don't tell the full story. You cannot rely only on stats and crazy math formulas to tell how a player does. End of story.

Banix12
01-08-2006, 01:04 AM
MLB castoffs Matt Franco and Benny Agbayani bat in the middle of the Marines order. Seriously, in real life any any MLB team that has them in their starting lineup should be swept and would probably be a 70 win team. This is just your standard. "We're BP, it's the offseason, and we seriously have nothing better to do" kind of thing.

SouthSide_HitMen
01-08-2006, 01:14 AM
MLB castoffs Matt Franco and Benny Agbayani bat in the middle of the Marines order. Seriously, in real life any any MLB team that has them in their starting lineup should be swept and would probably be a 70 win team. This is just your standard. "We're BP, it's the offseason, and we seriously have nothing better to do" kind of thing.

They are trying to "defeat" the White Sox by any means necessary.

Reality (against Chicago White Sox pitching):

Vladamir Guerrero 1-20 .050
Johnny Damon 3-13 .231

BP's Fantasy World

Benny Agbayani 4-9 .444

Yeah right.

Fredsox
01-08-2006, 05:55 AM
Clearly these people are comparing statistics on a sheet of paper and then making assumptions about performance. I'd be interested in understanding how they allowed for any difference in athletic ability or talent, assuming that the did this. Did they just take Bobby Valentine at his word that his team is as good as any MLB team?

Tragg
01-08-2006, 08:48 AM
MLB castoffs Matt Franco and Benny Agbayani bat in the middle of the Marines order. Seriously, in real life any any MLB team that has them in their starting lineup should be swept and would probably be a 70 win team.

I was thinking teal, but that's not exactly it - that team wouldn't win 50 games - the Royals would drill them.

voodoochile
01-08-2006, 08:57 AM
I give BP a 10% chance of writing something meaningful with this crap.

Banix12
01-08-2006, 11:10 AM
I was thinking teal, but that's not exactly it - that team wouldn't win 50 games - the Royals would drill them.

You're right. I was giving them too much credit. They would compete for the loss record.

TommyJohn
01-08-2006, 11:37 AM
I give Baseball Prospectus a 100% chance of making complete idiots out of
themselves.

Erik The Red
01-08-2006, 12:27 PM
Even if the Sox come out on top in their "simulation", they will probably only win 88% of the series.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-08-2006, 12:29 PM
Baseball prospectus is currently doing the equivalent of having a more advanced copy of MVP 2005 (http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4687) play a series between the White Sox and the Chiba Lotte Marines (champs of the Japan Series), and attempting to pass it off as scientific.

It's "scientific" because Baseball Prospectus promises not to rig the dice for the outcome they want. They also promise not to cheat by moving along the baserunners when their opponent is in the washroom, or deliberately leaving a bowl of macaroni and cheese on the table so that the dog jumps up and knocks the board over "forcing" a whole new game to be played.

Baseball Prospectus is a joke. This just confirms it.
:gulp:

SoxSpeed22
01-08-2006, 02:39 PM
Baseball Prospectus is a joke. This just confirms it.
:gulp:Those stat-simulations are not very kind to the 2005 White Sox, I ran a 7-game series against the 2004 Sox, and here are the scores,
(2004-2005)
15-13, 5-1, 9-7, 3-7, 3-4, 7-4.
Any series that has the '04 team beating the '05 team is total BS!
Edit: I used whatifsports.com

CLR01
01-08-2006, 03:07 PM
Baseball Prospectus is a joke. This just confirms it.
:gulp:


It amazes me people continue to defend them.

Whitesox029
01-08-2006, 07:01 PM
Clearly these people are comparing statistics on a sheet of paper and then making assumptions about performance.
Oh, but we all know how well that works. Based on "stats," the '05 Sox should have finished 3rd or worse according to most publications.

soxfanatlanta
01-08-2006, 07:42 PM
O darn, do we have to give the trophy back, now?

gobears1987
01-08-2006, 08:00 PM
You're right. I was giving them too much credit. They would compete for the loss record.The 2003 Tigers could beat this crappy team.

Ventura Fan 23
01-08-2006, 09:39 PM
What a freaking joke, honestly.

1951Campbell
01-08-2006, 09:39 PM
It's "scientific" because Baseball Prospectus promises not to rig the dice for the outcome they want. They also promise not to cheat by moving along the baserunners when their opponent is in the washroom, or deliberately leaving a bowl of macaroni and cheese on the table so that the dog jumps up and knocks the board over "forcing" a whole new game to be played.

Baseball Prospectus is a joke. This just confirms it.
:gulp:

(An undertanding of baseball that's deep as a puddle) + (12-sided die) = BP

:gulp:

SouthSide_HitMen
01-08-2006, 09:54 PM
(An undertanding of baseball that's deep as a puddle) + (12-sided die) = BP

:gulp:


http://voiceofpower.net/images/ediebrickell.jpg

Contributing BP writer Edie Brickell.

1951Campbell
01-08-2006, 09:59 PM
http://voiceofpower.net/images/ediebrickell.jpg


Contributing BP writer Edie Brickell.


Excellent obscure reference.

voodoochile
01-08-2006, 10:16 PM
I give Baseball Prospectus a 100% chance of making complete idiots out of
themselves.

Don't you mean 93.1% chance?:tongue:

voodoochile
01-08-2006, 10:17 PM
It amazes me people continue to defend them.

No one likes to admit they got suckered. They paid good money for the service so damnit it must be worth every ****ing penny.

It's the same principle that makes it hard to catch the Internet scammers who prey on old folks.

1951Campbell
01-08-2006, 10:27 PM
Benny Agbayani

There's a name from the way-back machine.

ma-gaga
01-09-2006, 11:09 AM
It amazes me people continue to defend them.

No one likes to admit they got suckered. They paid good money for the service so damnit it must be worth every ****ing penny.

It's the same principle that makes it hard to catch the Internet scammers who prey on old folks.

It amazes me that people continuously rip on them without knowing what exactly they publish.

But hey, ignorance is bliss. Nice analogy. Spot on.

You know, Baseball America once said that the Tampa Bay Devil Rays are the team of the future! I guess they are a bunch of idiots too! What a bunch of phonys.

voodoochile
01-09-2006, 11:14 AM
It amazes me that people continuously rip on them without knowing what exactly they publish.

But hey, ignorance is bliss. Nice analogy. Spot on.

You know, Baseball America once said that the Tampa Bay Devil Rays are the team of the future! I guess they are a bunch of idiots too! What a bunch of phonys.
It's a White Sox site. You can't defend the things they've said about the team this year now can you? I mean they not only completely missed on all predictions, but they tried to retrofit the data and now they are running some BS title series on a computer.

I'd have more respect for them if they would step back from the stats a bit. It's too complicated of a game to analyze statistically at least with the current stats available...

ma-gaga
01-09-2006, 01:12 PM
It's a White Sox site. You can't defend the things they've said about the team this year now can you?

I know where I am. It's a razor's edge I walk along as well. :cool:

I agree, some of the stuff they spout off is crap... The 88% division winner was a joke, and they handled it like unprofessional school children. But their world series coverage was exceptional. They correctly analyzed how Ozzie/Kenny built and made this team, and utilized the bullpen. From an outsiders view, they've praised the W.Sox organization AS MUCH as they've criticized it over the last year. But negativity sells and is remembered more than the praise. Besides, they criticize all organizations, the W.Sox just another team to them...

Contrary to popular belief, I think they do watch a ton of baseball, and try to make what they "see" work in the numbers. And a lot of the stuff on their website has nothing to do with the W.Sox. Projections and prognostications have been around baseball forever. They are no worse than ESPN, CNNSI, FOX SPORTS, Baseball America, Amatuer Baseball, or any number of books written by scouts, ex-players, general managers, newspaper writers, or player agents. But they get the bum rap because they 'don't know what the inside of a locker room smells like'. Or some such insider nonsense like that. That kind of statement is designed to do one thing. Protect the current system that keeps newspaper writers/columnists in business. "Keep out the infidels, this is MY territory..."

Anyways, I've argued most of this before with a lot of the same people in this thread (I don't see Ol' No.2 yet). I don't expect to "win" anyone over, but the venom is unjustified.

Ol' No. 2
01-09-2006, 01:42 PM
I know where I am. It's a razor's edge I walk along as well. :cool:

I agree, some of the stuff they spout off is crap... The 88% division winner was a joke, and they handled it like unprofessional school children. But their world series coverage was exceptional. They correctly analyzed how Ozzie/Kenny built and made this team, and utilized the bullpen. From an outsiders view, they've praised the W.Sox organization AS MUCH as they've criticized it over the last year. But negativity sells and is remembered more than the praise. Besides, they criticize all organizations, the W.Sox just another team to them...

Contrary to popular belief, I think they do watch a ton of baseball, and try to make what they "see" work in the numbers. And a lot of the stuff on their website has nothing to do with the W.Sox. Projections and prognostications have been around baseball forever. They are no worse than ESPN, CNNSI, FOX SPORTS, Baseball America, Amatuer Baseball, or any number of books written by scouts, ex-players, general managers, newspaper writers, or player agents. But they get the bum rap because they 'don't know what the inside of a locker room smells like'. Or some such insider nonsense like that. That kind of statement is designed to do one thing. Protect the current system that keeps newspaper writers/columnists in business. "Keep out the infidels, this is MY territory..."

Anyways, I've argued most of this before with a lot of the same people in this thread (I don't see Ol' No.2 yet). I don't expect to "win" anyone over, but the venom is unjustified.BP perfectly illustrates the difference between retrospective statistics and predictive statistics. Retrospective statistics are always right and exact (assuming no math errors). A player had a particular batting average (or VORP or BUURP or whatever) in a particular year. It's a historical fact. You can debate the meaning, but in reality, debates over meaning inevitably wind up being debates about the predictive power, which is a whole different kettle of fish. Predictive statistical analysis is something altogether different, with its own pitfalls. Somehow, they never seem to get the difference.

There is no reason to think their ability to "predict" the results of a Sox vs. Japanese league series is any better than their ability to "predict" the Sox winning the WS last spring (i.e. zero). I have yet to see any propellorhead stat that's any better at predicting anything in individual player performances than just taking the average of a player's three previous years. Predicting team success is even worse.

skobabe8
01-09-2006, 02:47 PM
In case anyone cares, They had Jon G. get lit up and chased in the 2nd inning of game 3 to a 6-0 deficit. But the Sox "scratch and crawl" their way back to win 7-6.

gobears1987
01-09-2006, 04:05 PM
Why does the score 7-6 sound so familiar?

I just can't pinpoint it.

OMI GOD!!! OMI GOD!!!! good memories

Lip Man 1
01-09-2006, 04:59 PM
Skoba:

You're right...no one cares.

:smile:

Lip

SouthSide_HitMen
01-09-2006, 07:01 PM
A player had a particular batting average (or VORP or BUURP or whatever) in a particular year.

The acronym is BURP with one U, not to be confused with SLURP, TWERP and GULP - which when taken as a whole predicted the White Sox would have 72 wins and finish two games ahead of Detroit for fourth place in the AL Central in 2005. BP has come up with SUPER BIG GULP to rectify their 2005 failures which shows the White Sox with 75 wins in 2006 and in fourth in the AL Central. For the 8th straight year the Oakland A's are huge (not to be confused with HUGE - Heavy Uniformed Girth Expectation, their highly accurate method of predicting stats for players over 250 lbs) favorites to win the World Series.

dropkick371
01-09-2006, 07:45 PM
I know where I am. It's a razor's edge I walk along as well. :cool:

I agree, some of the stuff they spout off is crap... The 88% division winner was a joke, and they handled it like unprofessional school children. But their world series coverage was exceptional. They correctly analyzed how Ozzie/Kenny built and made this team, and utilized the bullpen. From an outsiders view, they've praised the W.Sox organization AS MUCH as they've criticized it over the last year. But negativity sells and is remembered more than the praise. Besides, they criticize all organizations, the W.Sox just another team to them...

Contrary to popular belief, I think they do watch a ton of baseball, and try to make what they "see" work in the numbers. And a lot of the stuff on their website has nothing to do with the W.Sox. Projections and prognostications have been around baseball forever. They are no worse than ESPN, CNNSI, FOX SPORTS, Baseball America, Amatuer Baseball, or any number of books written by scouts, ex-players, general managers, newspaper writers, or player agents. But they get the bum rap because they 'don't know what the inside of a locker room smells like'. Or some such insider nonsense like that. That kind of statement is designed to do one thing. Protect the current system that keeps newspaper writers/columnists in business. "Keep out the infidels, this is MY territory..."

Anyways, I've argued most of this before with a lot of the same people in this thread (I don't see Ol' No.2 yet). I don't expect to "win" anyone over, but the venom is unjustified.
You're right. The White Sox are just another team in the eyes of Baseball Prospectus. At least, if we agree that they're being objective here. That's not the problem. Trying to predict how players will benefit or hurt a team based on actual (if undervalued) statistics isn't inherently a bad idea. Whether or not a team actually uses that to make decisions on who to sign and who to trade, it's just another strategy. I'm absolutely positive they do watch lots of baseball, and that they may or may not know what the inside of a locker room smells like is irrelevant. I have no problem with watching how players play, and then thinking that that might have something to do with the future.

That's not what they're doing here though. They're taking statistics, which can be used to predict general trends, how a certain hitter will hit one year, about how many outs you can expect Mr. X to rack up, and how Pitcher Y is probably going to do in a given season and tying them down to remarkably specific instances. Which defies logic, from my perspective. If you tell me that Player X tends to hit to the right facing lefties is one thing. To expect me to believe that you can predict that Player X will hit a double, followed by a short grounder by Player Y, a pop-up by Player Z, that's dropped by Opposing Player M and a triple by Player A extends beyond the capabilities of the statistics.

Which renders this kind of exercise meaningless.

That they're discussing the White Sox is more or less irrelevant. It only matters in that I brought it up here because this happens to be a White Sox board. If they were doing the same thing, but with the Indians, my response would be the same.

voodoochile
01-09-2006, 08:12 PM
You're right. The White Sox are just another team in the eyes of Baseball Prospectus. At least, if we agree that they're being objective here. That's not the problem. Trying to predict how players will benefit or hurt a team based on actual (if undervalued) statistics isn't inherently a bad idea. Whether or not a team actually uses that to make decisions on who to sign and who to trade, it's just another strategy. I'm absolutely positive they do watch lots of baseball, and that they may or may not know what the inside of a locker room smells like is irrelevant. I have no problem with watching how players play, and then thinking that that might have something to do with the future.

That's not what they're doing here though. They're taking statistics, which can be used to predict general trends, how a certain hitter will hit one year, about how many outs you can expect Mr. X to rack up, and how Pitcher Y is probably going to do in a given season and tying them down to remarkably specific instances. Which defies logic, from my perspective. If you tell me that Player X tends to hit to the right facing lefties is one thing. To expect me to believe that you can predict that Player X will hit a double, followed by a short grounder by Player Y, a pop-up by Player Z, that's dropped by Opposing Player M and a triple by Player A extends beyond the capabilities of the statistics.

Which renders this kind of exercise meaningless.

That they're discussing the White Sox is more or less irrelevant. It only matters in that I brought it up here because this happens to be a White Sox board. If they were doing the same thing, but with the Indians, my response would be the same.

Exactly, there are simply too many different averages accounted for. Science as we know it cannot take the averages of 30 people and predict the outcome for the team result. The individual deviations will cause the end curve to have too large of a deviation for the predictive power to be worth ANYTHING.

Heck, anyone can take the averages of the Yankees and say they will win 80-100 games this year.

Of course the D-Rays will win 70-90 using the same forumla, so what information is actually generated by these stats?

SoxSpeed22
01-09-2006, 09:33 PM
Heck, anyone can take the averages of the Yankees and say they will win 80-100 games this year.

Of course the D-Rays will win 70-90 using the same forumla, so what information is actually generated by these stats?All teams will win 0-162 games this year, based on averages.

dividedsk717
01-10-2006, 07:01 AM
My initial PECOTA calculations project no one from BP will have a date in 2006. :D:

ma-gaga
01-10-2006, 10:36 AM
Exactly, there are simply too many different averages accounted for.

Alright, I understand.

BP cannot possibly fathom the depths of baseball. Any attempt is futile, misguided, and offensive. Baseball is life.

But comparing BP to Social Security Scam artists is just as bad.

Ol' No. 2
01-10-2006, 10:56 AM
Alright, I understand.

BP cannot possibly fathom the depths of baseball. Any attempt is futile, misguided, and offensive. Baseball is life.

But comparing BP to Social Security Scam artists is just as bad.Any mope with a calculator can make a projection. Making a projection that's worth anything is something else again. Rarely at BP does one see any effort at a reality check. In those cases where they do check their projections, they typically check them against other alphabet-soup projections, and the usual result is that they're all about the same within a small margin. There's a reason they all predict equally well, but I'm sure I don't have to tell you what that reason is.

voodoochile
01-10-2006, 11:37 AM
Alright, I understand.

BP cannot possibly fathom the depths of baseball. Any attempt is futile, misguided, and offensive. Baseball is life.

But comparing BP to Social Security Scam artists is just as bad.

You might be able to crunch a better estimate IF you knew the right variables AND had a strong enough computer to do it.

I didn't compare BP to SS scam artists I said the people's reactions were similar. Buy something you want it to mean something. If you end up with a piece of crap and no recourse, you tend to start rationalizing that it isn't as big of a piece of crap as others say it is. That's just human nature. Congative Dissonance (sp?) at it's best...

ma-gaga
01-10-2006, 12:20 PM
If you end up with a piece of crap and no recourse, you tend to start rationalizing that it isn't as big of a piece of crap as others say it is.

yeah yeah. I'm rationalizing.

All I'm saying is that it's not as big of a "piece of crap" as you are telling me it is.

How do you know?

voodoochile
01-10-2006, 12:25 PM
yeah yeah. I'm rationalizing.

All I'm saying is that it's not as big of a "piece of crap" as you are telling me it is.

How do you know?

Nothing about the analysis I have seen reposted here in links, summaries or rebuttals makes me want to pay money for that site.

That's fine if you are happy with it. I was merely pointing out that once we pay for something we are more likely to conclude it has value than if it is given away free.

I probably do miss out on the better part of their content, but the bad stuff I have seen makes me wonder how good it actually is.

dropkick371
01-10-2006, 12:39 PM
Alright, I understand.

BP cannot possibly fathom the depths of baseball. Any attempt is futile, misguided, and offensive. Baseball is life.

But comparing BP to Social Security Scam artists is just as bad....except that that wasn't the point (that BP cannot possibly fathom the depths of baseball, or that any attempt is futile, misguided and offensive.)

I accept that given enough statistics, you can make a pretty accurate preduction of a given player's stats for the upcoming season. I'll even accept that you can tell me to within a reasonable margin how many he'll bounce into right.

But that's not what this model is doing. It's predicting extremely specific activity. That's not saying "Crede will hit x singles, y doubles, z triples, m homeruns, walk n times, and ground out to short about l times in 2005."

That's saying "On June 6 at Comerica Park in light rain with a 14 mph wind coming out of the southeast, Crede will go 2 for 4 with a single to right, a pop fly to the shortstop, a double that will result from the 1B misreading the ball, and a fly out to right (against the wall catch, after a 7 pitch AB)".

That's why this particular system that is being discussed breaks down. It's trying to be too specific. It's attempting to eliminate chance entirely, which is just foolish.

I don't believe I've said BP was a piece of crap per se. Just that this fake series is.

Ol' No. 2
01-10-2006, 12:48 PM
You might be able to crunch a better estimate IF you knew the right variables AND had a strong enough computer to do it.Actually, you can't. Even if you have every relevant piece of historical data, every hitter's action on every pitch, the type of pitch, the count, pitch count, time of day, relative humidity, what the umpire had for breakfast...you still couldn't do much better than simpler projections. The reason is that baseball events are controlled in significant measure by chaotic circumstances.

Take a simple example: Imagine a machine that can throw a baseball at exactly the same speed and with exactly the same spin every time. Put it on the mound and do 100 pitches and they'll all be slightly different. Microscopic variations in air currents, the threads on the seams of the baseball, the roughness of the horsehide and large numbers of other factors all contribute to variations in the ball's trajectory, which cumulatively can be quite large. The same is true after it's hit by the bat. Add in variations in the field surface, the fielder's actions, etc., etc., and you find that inherently chaotic factors control a large portion of the outcome of baseball. The fact that these tend to average out is often used as justification to ignore them, but that's wrong. The fact that they average out in no way reduces the inherent variability. It just means that with a large enough number of trials, the effect on the means should be reduced (but not eliminated).

Flight #24
01-10-2006, 12:49 PM
On a related note, I just ran the same simulation using my own model. I call it "Electric Baseball", and it's based on a very detailed analysis. The basic structure is a metal board upon which plastic players move based on a complex algorithm incorporating both their own historical performance and that of other players. The board then vibrates at a high frequency and the games commence.

Unfortunately, in my simulation, the series had to be called in the first inning when for some unexplainable reason, all the players started running around in circles at the first pitch. Probably some sort of cultural conflict between US & Japan that I neglected to account for, I'll have to check my translation tables.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004NKJF.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

voodoochile
01-10-2006, 12:53 PM
Actually, you can't. Even if you have every relevant piece of historical data, every hitter's action on every pitch, the type of pitch, the count, pitch count, time of day, relative humidity, what the umpire had for breakfast...you still couldn't do much better than simpler projections. The reason is that baseball events are controlled in significant measure by chaotic circumstances.

Take a simple example: Imagine a machine that can throw a baseball at exactly the same speed and with exactly the same spin every time. Put it on the mound and do 100 pitches and they'll all be slightly different. Microscopic variations in air currents, the threads on the seams of the baseball, the roughness of the horsehide and large numbers of other factors all contribute to variations in the ball's trajectory, which cumulatively can be quite large. The same is true after it's hit by the bat. Add in variations in the field surface, the fielder's actions, etc., etc., and you find that inherently chaotic factors control a large portion of the outcome of baseball. The fact that these tend to average out is often used as justification to ignore them, but that's wrong. The fact that they average out in no way reduces the inherent variability. It just means that with a large enough number of trials, the effect on the means should be reduced (but not eliminated).

Well, if you could model all of that you could get the estimate down to a 6 game margin probably maybe even lower, but you could reduce it to 10 with a better model and a better computer. The problem is that weather systems are governed by chaos math themselves, so it is impossible to predict what the weather will be like in Chicago on 7/27/2006 at 7:15 PM. Given the nature of Chicago weather, it could of course be radically different at 7:45 PM on the same night.

I think it was last season this first came up and they predicted the Sox to win between 73-93 games or something equally ridiculous. Every single team had the number 81 in it's range so it was pretty much a meaningless piece of crap estimate...

PaleHoseGeorge
01-10-2006, 05:48 PM
On a related note, I just ran the same simulation using my own model. I call it "Electric Baseball", and it's based on a very detailed analysis. ...
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004NKJF.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Okay, now that's funny!
:thumbsup:

I wonder what Baseball Prospectus would say about Royce Clayton's Range Factor using Electric Baseball?
:roflmao:

voodoochile
01-10-2006, 10:59 PM
Okay, now that's funny!
:thumbsup:

I wonder what Baseball Prospectus would say about Royce Clayton's Range Factor using Electric Baseball?
:roflmao:

I thought that was Royce on that diamond. What the heck, it moves about as well...

FarWestChicago
01-10-2006, 11:15 PM
I thought that was Royce on that diamond. What the heck, it moves about as well...:rolling:

:buddylee

Hey, I resemble that remark!

Flight #24
01-11-2006, 09:20 AM
And in other news, once again, BP seems to think that OBP is more important than....pitching.

From their latest chat

Seamus (s.f.): Do the Yanks win it all next year? Who is better in Al, if anyone?
Jay Jaffe: I think the Yanks can take the East, but beyond that, I'm not sure they've got enough to get out of the AL. I like Anaheim and Cleveland to give them the strongest challenges.

Johnson could match Elarton's surprisingly good year, but moving from Detroit to the Jake, I doubt it. Millwood to Paul Byrd? Bob Howry in a great year to Danny Graves? Ummmm.....no.

:kneeslap:

Iwritecode
01-11-2006, 09:51 AM
And in other news, once again, BP seems to think that OBP is more important than....pitching.

From their latest chat


Johnson could match Elarton's surprisingly good year, but moving from Detroit to the Jake, I doubt it. Millwood to Paul Byrd? Bob Howry in a great year to Danny Graves? Ummmm.....no.

:kneeslap:

Maybe he's assuming that NY will face the WC winner in the playoffs?

:dunno:

Whitesox4ever
01-12-2006, 08:11 AM
from baseball prospectus


Game 1 | Marines 10, White Sox 1 | Box (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/images/japansoxgame1.txt) | Marines lead series, 1-0
CHICAGO (BP) - Apparently, Joe Crede (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/credejo01.shtml)’s postseason antics have followed him to the Battle of Champions.
Unfortunately for Chicago, the White Sox needed nine Joe Credes last night to stand any chance against the free-swinging Chiba Lotte Marines. The Marines rallied behind starter Shunsuke Watanabe to rout Jose Contreras (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/contrjo01.shtml) and the White Sox 10-1 in Game 1.
The game was scoreless until the top of the fourth inning, when Contreras (0-1) issued a leadoff walk to Saburo Ohmura to open the floodgates. Toshiaki Imae, MVP of the Nippon Series, singled in the first run. Shortstop Tsuyoshi Nishioka’s single quickly expanded the lead to three. The White Sox could have escaped further damage, but a fourth run scored when A.J. Pierzynski (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/pierzaj01.shtml) dropped a bulls-eye throw from center fielder Aaron Rowand (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/rowanaa01.shtml) that should have killed the rally. In the fourth inning alone, Contreras coughed up five singles and two walks on 41 pitches before manager Ozzie Guillen pulled the plug. Lefty Damaso Marte (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/marteda01.shtml) allowed another single that scored the Marines’ sixth and final run of the inning.

Whitesox4ever
01-12-2006, 08:14 AM
but they have us winning the world series in 5 games

A. Cavatica
01-12-2006, 08:23 AM
:whocares

Simulated baseball is not baseball. This doesn't belong in the clubhouse.

Hangar18
01-12-2006, 08:25 AM
Keep us informed of the games daily, I do find this interesting :cool:

FloridaSox
01-12-2006, 08:50 AM
Game 1: Marines 10, White Sox 1; Jose bombed.
Game 2: White Sox 5, Marines 4; Iguichi, 9th inning grand slam.
Game 3: White Sox 7, Marines 6; Sox overcome 6 run deficit
Game 4: White Sox 12, Marines 4; Powered by three home runs and Carl Everett (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/evereca01.shtml)’s 5-for-5 binge.
Game 5: White Sox 5, Marines 2; CHAMPIONS OF THE WORLD AGAIN

Pods, Everett, Dye and Crede all hit over .400 for series.

oeo
01-12-2006, 08:52 AM
Game 1: Marines 10, White Sox 1; Jose bombed.
Game 2: White Sox 5, Marines 4; Iguichi, 9th inning grand slam.
Game 3: White Sox 7, Marines 6; Sox overcome 6 run deficit
Game 4: White Sox 12, Marines 4; Powered by three home runs and Carl Everett (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/evereca01.shtml)’s 5-for-5 binge.
Game 5: White Sox 5, Marines 2; CHAMPIONS OF THE WORLD AGAIN

Pods, Everett, Dye and Crede all hit over .400 for series.

10 runs off of Contreras? Give me a break...

DaleJRFan
01-12-2006, 09:28 AM
10 runs off of Contreras? Give me a break...

yea, no kidding... and the only conceivable way Carl Everett goes 5-5 is off of a lefthanded pitcher with all five hits being bloop singles to right field.

Hangar18
01-12-2006, 09:34 AM
10 runs off of Contreras? Give me a break...

Ozzie was resting the bullpen ..........

Hangar18
01-12-2006, 10:04 AM
" We had great respect for Paulie and Jermaine-san, expecting Everett to fold under pressure of our bullpen, but he made us pay" -Chiba Lotte Marines after game 4.