PDA

View Full Version : No Surprise, Idiot Neyer Does It Again


MUScholar21
01-18-2006, 02:15 PM
Well, Rob Neyer is at it again (http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=2296529). He once again used his beloved statistics to "prove" why the White Sox will not win their division next year. Among his points:
1) Regression to the mean-the Sox, and every other team won a percentage of games they should not have won, which makes sense excepting the fact that just as a team likely wins games it shouldn't, it also would have to lose games it shouldn't also.

2) Second Order Wins, which gives me a headache just thinking about explaining much less actually doing it. Basically Neyer uses it to back up his first assertion.

Here is the most Sox-centric part of the article:



And if we're looking for 2005 division winners who seem unlikely to repeat, we've got a couple of prime candidates in the White Sox and the Angels. If you believe in second-order wins -- and I think that you do -- the White Sox were 11 games worse than the Indians last season, and only three games better than the Twins. No, the Indians probably won't play as well in 2006. Yes, the White Sox might be the best team in the Central Division (particularly if Jim Thome (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4762) is healthy). But if given a choice between betting on the White Sox or the field, you have to take the field, because there's a pretty good chance that the Indians or the Twins -- both of whom strengthened their rosters this winter -- will knock off the Sox.

This is my biggest problem-what have the Twins OR Indians done to strengthen their rosters? The Twins lost Jackie Jones in right, are trying desperately to keep Torii Hunter, and the only thing that might qualify as an "upgrade" is Luis Castillo and Rondell White. The Indians added Paul Byrd, but also lost Kevin Millwood (who lost a ton of games last year due to lack of offense). How do these qualify as upgrades? Anyway, just wanted to see what everyone else thought.

By the way, I know not a lot of people have ESPN's Insider, but I can't post the entire article.

DenverSock
01-18-2006, 02:19 PM
Well, Rob Neyer is at it again (http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=2296529). He once again used his beloved statistics to "prove" why the White Sox will not win their division next year. Among his points:
1) Regression to the mean-the Sox, and every other team won a percentage of games they should not have won, which makes sense excepting the fact that just as a team likely wins games it shouldn't, it also would have to lose games it shouldn't also.

2) Second Order Wins, which gives me a headache just thinking about explaining much less actually doing it. Basically Neyer uses it to back up his first assertion.

Here is the most Sox-centric part of the article:



This is my biggest problem-what have the Twins OR Indians done to strengthen their rosters? The Twins lost Jackie Jones in right, are trying desperately to keep Torii Hunter, and the only thing that might qualify as an "upgrade" is Luis Castillo and Rondell White. The Indians added Paul Byrd, but also lost Kevin Millwood (who lost a ton of games last year due to lack of offense). How do these qualify as upgrades? Anyway, just wanted to see what everyone else thought.

By the way, I know not a lot of people have ESPN's Insider, but I can't post the entire article.

Why do you care? :smile::smile:

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 02:19 PM
Well, Rob Neyer is at it again (http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=2296529). He once again used his beloved statistics to "prove" why the White Sox will not win their division next year. Among his points:
1) Regression to the mean-the Sox, and every other team won a percentage of games they should not have won, which makes sense excepting the fact that just as a team likely wins games it shouldn't, it also would have to lose games it shouldn't also.

2) Second Order Wins, which gives me a headache just thinking about explaining much less actually doing it. Basically Neyer uses it to back up his first assertion.

Here is the most Sox-centric part of the article:



This is my biggest problem-what have the Twins OR Indians done to strengthen their rosters? The Twins lost Jackie Jones in right, are trying desperately to keep Torii Hunter, and the only thing that might qualify as an "upgrade" is Luis Castillo and Rondell White. The Indians added Paul Byrd, but also lost Kevin Millwood (who lost a ton of games last year due to lack of offense). How do these qualify as upgrades? Anyway, just wanted to see what everyone else thought.

By the way, I know not a lot of people have ESPN's Insider, but I can't post the entire article.When you have to resort to junk statistics to prove your point, what you've really proven is something else.

kittle42
01-18-2006, 02:19 PM
The Indians lost Howry, so that's an upgrade. :smile:

1951Campbell
01-18-2006, 02:22 PM
Anyway, just wanted to see what everyone else thought.



I think Neyer should put down the calculator and take a look at how solid our starting pitching is.

I think Neyer should compare our offseason (very good) to the Twins' and Indians' (not inspiring) offseasons.

I think baseball punditry would be vastly improved by Neyer not participating in it.

Palehose13
01-18-2006, 02:22 PM
**** Rob Neyer. He is not worthy of the clubhouse.

MUScholar21
01-18-2006, 02:22 PM
Why do you care? :smile::smile:

How long have all of us here been saying we need to win it to get respect? It is frustrating, today wasn't a good day, and this just aggravated me-at least I can vent that here. I love the fact that we go wire to wire, win the whole damn thing, and outside of this city (which is an improvement, I might add) 2005 is being treated as a statistical anomaly. And, b/c Neyer is on my s*@! list anyway.

munchman33
01-18-2006, 02:26 PM
Rogers (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=rogers_phil&id=2295075)

Neyer (http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=2296529)

Law11
01-18-2006, 02:27 PM
Anyone have Insider on ESPN? There an article today by Rob Neyer as to why the Sox will have it tough in 06 I'm interested in reading.

edit- sorry i missed the post already on here

SoxFan76
01-18-2006, 02:27 PM
How long have all of us here been saying we need to win it to get respect? It is frustrating, today wasn't a good day, and this just aggravated me-at least I can vent that here. I love the fact that we go wire to wire, win the whole damn thing, and outside of this city (which is an improvement, I might add) 2005 is being treated as a statistical anomaly. And, b/c Neyer is on my s*@! list anyway.

I guess they'll just have to do it again.

Hangar18
01-18-2006, 02:28 PM
Anyone have Insider on ESPN? There an article today by Rob Neyer as to why the Sox will have it tough in 06 I'm interested in reading.

ESPN also said the SOX wouldnt win the division last year ........

Uncle_Patrick
01-18-2006, 02:29 PM
How long have all of us here been saying we need to win it to get respect? It is frustrating, today wasn't a good day, and this just aggravated me-at least I can vent that here. I love the fact that we go wire to wire, win the whole damn thing, and outside of this city (which is an improvement, I might add) 2005 is being treated as a statistical anomaly. And, b/c Neyer is on my s*@! list anyway.

Personally, I found it very amusing to get no respect in 2005, win it all, and watch all the "experts" and haters have to go back and eat their words, or come up with lame excuses as to why the White Sox won it all. Nothing is better than making these people look foolish.

Law11
01-18-2006, 02:29 PM
Dont have insider.. What does it say...

DenverSock
01-18-2006, 02:31 PM
How long have all of us here been saying we need to win it to get respect? It is frustrating, today wasn't a good day, and this just aggravated me-at least I can vent that here. I love the fact that we go wire to wire, win the whole damn thing, and outside of this city (which is an improvement, I might add) 2005 is being treated as a statistical anomaly. And, b/c Neyer is on my s*@! list anyway.
Calm down, don't be angry at me. I'm on your side. Even if we don't repeat we had one of the greatest teams of all time, easily up there with the '29 Athletics, and some people around here have made reasonable comparisons to the '27 Yankees. If we even do well next year we shall be on the verge of a dynasty like the A's in the early 70's. Why can't that be enough?

Two Intelligent respenses:

Personally, I found it very amusing to get no respect in 2005, win it all, and watch all the "experts" and haters have to go back and eat their words, or come up with lame excuses as to why the White Sox won it all. Nothing is better than making these people look foolish. **** Rob Neyer. He is not worthy of the clubhouse.

BringBackBlkJack
01-18-2006, 02:34 PM
Well, I guess it's mixed news from the Eastern Sports Promotional Network.

ESPN has two stories featuring the White Sox. One is written by Phil Rogers (who writes for the Trib) and is highly complimental, stating that the Sox are serious about repeating and seem to be on the right track and making the right moves: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=rogers_phil&id=2295075

However, ESPN also has an article by Rob Neyer that seems to allude to the "fact" that the White Sox aren't even going to win their division, let alone make the playoffs. Also, it seems to state that the White Sox got lucky more than anything. Wow, haven't heard that one before. It is one of those Insider articles so I am unable to see the whole thing: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=2296529&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2***b %2finsider%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3dneyer_r ob%26id%3d2296529

Anyone have access and want to post it?



ESPN... one step forward, two steps back....

WhiteSoxFan84
01-18-2006, 02:35 PM
I don't like people predicting a repeat. I'd rather read about how we'll finish 3rd in our division. And no teal needed.

As long as we, the true Sox fans, know how good our ballclub is, who cares what writers say.

SoxSpeed22
01-18-2006, 02:39 PM
Too bad for him that "second-order wins" don't mean as much compared to actual wins.

Chicken Dinner
01-18-2006, 02:41 PM
Who cares.

MarySwiss
01-18-2006, 02:42 PM
Too bad for him that "second-order wins" don't mean as much compared to actual wins.

Pardon my ignorance, but what the hell is a "second-order" win?:?:

buehrle4cy05
01-18-2006, 02:43 PM
Who cares.

I'll say it better.
:whocares

jdm2662
01-18-2006, 02:45 PM
*YAWN*

There is already a thread about this.

By the way,

CHICAGO WHITE SOX 2005 WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS

Next question...

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 02:47 PM
Oddly enough, Neyer was one of the few to say the Sox were going to win their division last season...proving once again that even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

goofymsfan
01-18-2006, 02:52 PM
However, ESPN also has an article by Rob Neyer that seems to allude to the "fact" that the White Sox aren't even going to win their division, let alone make the playoffs. Also, it seems to state that the White Sox got lucky more than anything. Wow, haven't heard that one before. It is one of those Insider articles so I am unable to see the whole thing: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=2296529&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2***b %2finsider%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3dneyer_r ob%26id%3d2296529

Anyone have access and want to post it?



ESPN... one step forward, two steps back....

Neyer is a Joke waiting to happen.

BringBackBlkJack
01-18-2006, 02:53 PM
"Who cares?"




Well, since you asked, both of you goons went out of your way to reply to this thread.

I care because I as a die-hard Sox fan am concerned with the unwarranted bad press we get on a national level while our loser buddies on the north get their ***** licked for acquiring Juan Pierre. If justice in the baseball climate is to be done in Chicago, these morons have to be called out.

Yeah, Rob Neyer isn't ever going to be able to take a World Championship away nor is he going to factor in how the Sox do next season, but am I wrong for getting a little P.O.ed about it?

Chisox003
01-18-2006, 02:54 PM
:rolleyes:

I used to read these things (last offseason) and get upset, now I use them to wipe my ***.

And I don't even think they're worthy of that.

Chicken Dinner
01-18-2006, 02:56 PM
It's like "beating a dead horse".

ondafarm
01-18-2006, 03:00 PM
I've seen several analyses saying that because the White Sox won so many one run games last year that they won't repeat. Neyer's regression to the mean arguement is pretty much the same thing. They both overlook several factors. Good teams typically win alot of games. I look for the 2006 team to have a few difficulties but do very well overall and certainly to be in the playoffs.

jdm2662
01-18-2006, 03:09 PM
"Who cares?"




Well, since you asked, both of you goons went out of your way to reply to this thread.

I care because I as a die-hard Sox fan am concerned with the unwarranted bad press we get on a national level while our loser buddies on the north get their ***** licked for acquiring Juan Pierre. If justice in the baseball climate is to be done in Chicago, these morons have to be called out.

Yeah, Rob Neyer isn't ever going to be able to take a World Championship away nor is he going to factor in how the Sox do next season, but am I wrong for getting a little P.O.ed about it?

Not every so called "expert" is going to go ga ga over the White Sox. He doesn't think they will repeat. While his explanations are silly, it's what he thinks. Oh well. If you haven't noticed, ESPN likes to set a panel per say where one side likes this and one side like that. I see this here with Phil Rogers writing. Rogers took the pro, Neyer took the con. We've had the chance to stick up their asses when the Sox won the series. What anyone says now is moot point.

Give yourself a favor and pay no attention to ESPN. I've done it for the past two years, and I never enjoyed sports more...

oeo
01-18-2006, 03:14 PM
Last year they were writing out the Red Sox to repeat and they actually became a worse team over the offseason. The Sox actually IMPROVE their CHAMPIONSHIP team, and now even the Twins can beat them out for the division? Give me a break...

Not every so called "expert" is going to go ga ga over the White Sox.

No, he doesn't even think they can win the division...which I thought all we heard before was, until someone else is crowned, they are the team to beat. I guess we just lucked out winning 99 games, and going 11-1 in the playoffs.

spiffie
01-18-2006, 03:29 PM
"Who cares?"




Well, since you asked, both of you goons went out of your way to reply to this thread.

I care because I as a die-hard Sox fan am concerned with the unwarranted bad press we get on a national level while our loser buddies on the north get their ***** licked for acquiring Juan Pierre. If justice in the baseball climate is to be done in Chicago, these morons have to be called out.

Yeah, Rob Neyer isn't ever going to be able to take a World Championship away nor is he going to factor in how the Sox do next season, but am I wrong for getting a little P.O.ed about it?
To be fair, the media has pretty much ripped the Flubbies a new one this offseason. Even our friend Dayn Perry jumped in the act, grading their offseason a D.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to say that the Sox might not win the Central. It took until the last week of the season to clinch, despite winning 99 games. To say it's impossible that some of the breaks go the other way and maybe we win 93 next year, and maybe CLE wins 94 isn't hating on the Sox.

That said, I don't see 4 teams in the AL beating the Sox if we keep any vestige of good health this year. And I have no idea where the sense the Twins could jump back to first comes from. The AL Central is a 2 team race, and I think the other team is the Wild Card this year.

Hitmen77
01-18-2006, 05:10 PM
How in the world have the Indians and Twins strengthened their rosters this winter? Didn't the Indians LOSE their ace? So, they lost Milwood and Howry and Wickman is 1 year older. But, they have added Paul Byrd. That's "strengthened"? I didn't see the Twins doing anything spectacular during the offseason either.

He conveniently ignores that the Sox have strengthened their roster by adding not only Thome, but Vazquez and Mackowiak.

Dick Allen
01-18-2006, 05:15 PM
After winning 99 games in 1983, the Sox came back with basically the same team but added Tom Seaver. They proceeded to have a horrible year. Anything is possible. But I wouldn't let the doughheads at ESPN be the ones to tell me.

fusillirob1983
01-18-2006, 05:15 PM
The Indians also lost their #5 starter and two guys out of the bullpen.

SOecks
01-18-2006, 05:31 PM
I'd also like to know what a second order win is.

Risk
01-18-2006, 05:34 PM
I think Neyer should put down the calculator and take a look at how solid our starting pitching is.

I think Neyer should compare our offseason (very good) to the Twins' and Indians' (not inspiring) offseasons.

I think baseball punditry would be vastly improved by Neyer not participating in it.

I second that notion, counselor.

Risk

INSox56
01-18-2006, 05:39 PM
Neyer is just so stupid it's almost incomprehensible. I mean how can anyone read that and think he's right. LOL laughable...how bout they give me a huge contract with ESPN due to the fact that you just have to be a simple moron to work there.

veeter
01-18-2006, 06:03 PM
I just think about how Michael Jordan would constantly be challenged by some writer or sports guy, who would question his ability. MICHAEL JORDAN: THE GREATEST BASKETBALL PLAYER OF ALL TIME!!! So, this stuff by Neyer or Dayn Perry just comes with the territory of being the best. I take it as a compliment, but hopefully it will motivate the Sox like it did for King Jordan all those years. (But I also think those guys are clueless).

ondafarm
01-18-2006, 07:30 PM
I'd also like to know what a second order win is.

See Simulated wins as in what Kerry Wood collects.

miker
01-18-2006, 07:45 PM
To be fair, the media has pretty much ripped the Flubbies a new one this offseason. Even our friend Dayn Perry jumped in the act, grading their offseason a D.
Oh, the sports media is just doing that because its the popular thing to do right now. In reality, you couldn't rip their lips off of the Cubs butt.

Domeshot17
01-18-2006, 08:26 PM
doesnt bother me much. Neyer is a stats guy. He likes to think analytical. He is right that we shouldnt had won as many as we did with our offense BUT we did. That is why the games still get played ( see steelers colts game). In sports anything can happen, it is a world of complete unpredictably. Guys like Bud Smith can throw a no hitter and not win 10 games in their career.

SOecks
01-18-2006, 08:36 PM
See Simulated wins as in what Kerry Wood collects.

I understand "simulated wins" but I'm still confused :(:. Are these supposed to be wins that we didn't deserve or something?

Jjav829
01-18-2006, 08:54 PM
Rob Neyer : Baseball expert :: Me : Hockey expert

*Hint* I know **** about Hockey. Well, except that Alexander Ovechkin is one hell of a player.

RadioheadRocks
01-18-2006, 09:02 PM
Just chalk it up to Neyer being an envious tool who's still smarting from being proven WRONG last year!!!

buehrle4cy05
01-18-2006, 09:13 PM
If Rob Neyer says to stop believing, then how about I stop reading his **** that he puts out there every week?

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 09:49 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but what the hell is a "second-order" win?:?:I wondered, too, but I just KNOW that if I take the time to research it, it's going to be something stupid and I'll just be pissed off that I wasted precious minutes of my life that I could have been doing something useful....like writing this, for instance.:tongue:

ChiSoxNationPres
01-18-2006, 10:09 PM
Why is Neyer taking stats from last year's team and saying that this year's will do bad? There are eight players not on the '06 team that arent really going to be missed (except for rowand). They have a much better team on paper than last year's. My point is that he is saying that the '05 team wouldnt make the playoffs in '06, but the team is completely different and the offense is revamped and the pitched is bolstered.

ChiSoxNationPres
01-18-2006, 10:14 PM
Plus I'm tired of the majority of the responses being that they dont care. You should be pissed off that someone is saying that the Sox who are world champs cant even defend their division title let alone their world championship title.

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 10:19 PM
Plus I'm tired of the majority of the responses being that they dont care. You should be pissed off that someone is saying that the Sox who are world champs cant even defend their division title let alone their world championship title.Would you be pissed off if Ronnie Woo-Woo said the Sox wouldn't win their division? The credibility level is about the same.

RadioheadRocks
01-18-2006, 10:21 PM
Plus I'm tired of the majority of the responses being that they dont care. You should be pissed off that someone is saying that the Sox who are world champs cant even defend their division title let alone their world championship title.

It's called considering the source. It's pretty much a given that Neyer wears his ass for a hat, so he's entitled to his inconsequential opinions. Like I said in an earlier post, this stems from his apparent hissy-fit after the White Sox proved him wrong by winning it all.

MisterB
01-18-2006, 10:21 PM
For those of you who really want to know, it's like this:

There are real wins.
There are pythagorean wins, which are a theoretical amount of wins based off of real runs scored and runs allowed.
Then there are second order wins, which are a theoretical amount of wins based off a theoretical amount of runs scored/allowed based off of real batting and pitching stats adjusted for park factors and such.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php

See bottom of page.

ChiSoxNationPres
01-18-2006, 10:23 PM
Would you be pissed off if Ronnie Woo-Woo said the Sox wouldn't win their division? The credibility level is about the same.

Yes their credibility is the same, but Neyer is putting this article where millions of people go and they think that because someone on espn.com says the sox wont be good then they lose respect for the sox.

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2006, 10:25 PM
For those of you who really want to know, it's like this:

There are real wins.
There are pythagorean wins, which are a theoretical amount of wins based off of real runs scored and runs allowed.
Then there are second order wins, which are a theoretical amount of wins based off a theoretical amount of runs scored/allowed based off of real batting and pitching stats adjusted for park factors and such.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php

See bottom of page.See??? I KNEW it was going to be something stupid. But Neyer forgot to consider THIRD order wins, which are...aw, never mind.

Jjav829
01-18-2006, 10:27 PM
For those of you who really want to know, it's like this:

There are real wins.


And last I checked, those are the only ones that count.

A_ROW33
01-18-2006, 10:37 PM
For those of you who really want to know, it's like this:

There are real wins.
There are pythagorean wins, which are a theoretical amount of wins based off of real runs scored and runs allowed.
Then there are second order wins, which are a theoretical amount of wins based off a theoretical amount of runs scored/allowed based off of real batting and pitching stats adjusted for park factors and such.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php
See bottom of page.

Ahh I get it, that's how we only won 88% of the division.

1951Campbell
01-18-2006, 10:38 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but what the hell is a "second-order" win?:?:


http://www.obkb.com/dcljr/IMAGES/euclid/euclbrch.gif

+

http://westturningleft.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/bullcrap.jpg.w300h225.jpg

=

"Second order win."

KyWhiSoxFan
01-18-2006, 10:53 PM
http://www.obkb.com/dcljr/IMAGES/euclid/euclbrch.gif

+

http://westturningleft.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/bullcrap.jpg.w300h225.jpg

=

"Second order win."

LOL

TornLabrum
01-18-2006, 11:15 PM
Rob Neyer = is living proof that there are more http://www.yankeepotroast.org/images/fowlerhorsetail.jpges in the world than there are http://www.placer.ca.gov/hhs/hhs-sub/com-diseases/images/horses.jpg.

SOecks
01-18-2006, 11:30 PM
http://www.obkb.com/dcljr/IMAGES/euclid/euclbrch.gif

+

http://westturningleft.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/bullcrap.jpg.w300h225.jpg

=

"Second order win."

Classic, now I get it :D: Honestly, what the heck is the point of reading all of this statistical hypothetical crap anyways. It's like listening to the tv guys' "picks" for this weeks football games. An untrained monkey usually does better and is more interesting to watch. This crap is so boring I don't think anyone needs to worry about thousands of people seeing it. Nice life, jackass.

MisterB
01-18-2006, 11:40 PM
And last I checked, those are the only ones that count.

Damn straight. :thumbsup:

1951Campbell
01-18-2006, 11:45 PM
Classic, now I get it :D: Honestly, what the heck is the point of reading all of this statistical hypothetical crap anyways.

In re the pictures: if someone could photoshop a pile of poo in each square, we'd have ourselves a tag.

To be fair, statistical crap is a fairly good (by no means perfect) tool looking backwards to settle historical arguments, but there are too many variables to use it in a forward-looking manner. Was Walter Johnson better tham Bert Blyleven? Yes, I think we can prove that. Will Mark Buehrle have a good season next year? Probably, but it takes (God forbid) one Bryce Florie-esque shot back through the box to blow that out of the water.

MarySwiss
01-19-2006, 10:17 AM
http://www.obkb.com/dcljr/IMAGES/euclid/euclbrch.gif

+

http://westturningleft.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/bullcrap.jpg.w300h225.jpg

=

"Second order win."

Ahhhhh! NOW I understand! :cool:

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2006, 10:27 AM
Proposal to mods:

If photos of women in skimpy clothing with body parts hanging out are summarily kicked to the Roadhouse and excised, doesn't consistency demand that mentions of Rob Neyer be given the same treatment? All boobs should be treated the same.

ondafarm
01-19-2006, 11:34 AM
I'm no fan of Neyer's but let me defend the statistical approach with a few important modifications.

While many people, especially statheads, believe that one run victories and that Pythagorean residual is a matter of chance, I believe that several factors helped the White Sox last year and will continue to do so this year.

First, Ozzie seems to be smarter at his onfield decision making than most of the other managers he faces. Not that he hasn't made mistakes, but he doesn't seem to repeat them so much.

Second, the Sox coaching staff are more instructional even to their major league players than most other staffs. And because the Sox coaches are recent major leaguers they seem to be listened to.

Third, the Sox team seems to be more intelligent than most other major league teams. They do things right and take instruction well.

Fourth, he Sox have a wider array of ways to win a game than most AL teams. Less bash but more capable of scratching out runs.

Fifth, the Sox have above average defenders at all positions. Better defense, fewer runs allowed. The opponents batting line should be producing more runs, but the above average defense is cutting down on those runs.

longshot7
01-19-2006, 12:20 PM
Proposal to mods:

If photos of women in skimpy clothing with body parts hanging out are summarily kicked to the Roadhouse and excised, doesn't consistency demand that mentions of Rob Neyer be given the same treatment? All boobs should be treated the same.

bought dinner?

Professor
01-19-2006, 12:20 PM
For those of you who really want to know, it's like this:

There are real wins.
There are pythagorean wins, which are a theoretical amount of wins based off of real runs scored and runs allowed.
Then there are second order wins, which are a theoretical amount of wins based off a theoretical amount of runs scored/allowed based off of real batting and pitching stats adjusted for park factors and such.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php

See bottom of page.

Given that Neyer is a second-order reporter (i.e., his baseball acumen is purely theoretically based off of his theoretical knowledge of baseball--and hence not actual), we ought not take his predictions seriously.

spiffie
01-19-2006, 02:50 PM
The problem is, as usual when any sort of stats are mentioned, is that both sides immediately get defensive and have to rip the other side without any look at their own side.

Fact: It is rare for a team to do as well as the Sox did with the kind of stats they put up. Most of the time, a team with stats like ours will NOT go 99-63. Sox fans can acknowledge this without in any way diminishing what we did last year. However, we can ask what can be done to make sure we improve. Kenny asked that question, which is why we have Jim Thome (more run support) and Vasquez (insurance since we were very healthy last year).

Fact: It is not a knock against the analysis of baseball statistics to admit that the field is imperfect. The problem with the SABR guys is that they, especially the younger ones, rarely ever are willing to consider any sort of outlier as an issue to be studied. If a team does well in 1-run games, that team, in a vaccum is considered simply to be lucky. They don't go to the next step of considering why teams will do well in such situations, and whether there are trends and principles at work that can ensure a team does well. I think this is due to a couple of things:
1. 1-run teams tend to be built on pitching. The SABR world revolves around run production and offense, which tends to allow for greater swings. A team who scores 10 runs in 5 games and 0 runs in 5 games is still seen as better in the second-order wins than a team that scores 5 runs in 9 games and 4 runs in 1 game. Yes, some of winning close games is luck, but there is an element of building a team that will be better prepared to win close games (solid pitching top-to-bottom, solid defense, ability to score both with the HR and with manufactured runs). The Sox of 2005 were perfectly created for close games.

2. Very rarely do teams do well on a consistent basis in 1-run games. The modern game tends to change team dynamics relatively quickly. Just look at our team. We would hope that with the changes to our offense (Thome, an improved Crede, Mackowiak, hopefully Anderson) that we will have less 1-run games. Thus even if we do well in them, it won't be such an overwhelming part of our record. This seemingly removes the urgency in studying the issue as more than simply an anomaly.

Stat geekery can be great at isolating a single issue, or at looking at a player's career. But as a predictor, it does not yet dive deep enough into why some of the numbers make things happen. From everything I've read it hasn't yet pulled together enough of a balance between all the stats to really look at a team's overall chances. Perhaps because each of these things tends to seemingly and in past performance have only a small impact. However, when the role of defense and the role of pitching and the role of balanced offense come together, they seem to multiply rather than simply add together.

Or the Sox will go 15-30 in 1-run games this year and a bunch of SABR geeks will beat us with their pocket protectors.

soxfanatlanta
01-19-2006, 02:51 PM
I love it when the Sabermetric people put down their spreadsheets and weigh in. To echo ondafarm's post, 162 ballgames are more than enough to determine which teams are good, and which are not.

Yes, there were many one run wins, the propeller heads will dismiss that as just a freak accident - a statistical anomoly. They go back to thier numbers, because the real world does not fit in their model.

And yet the honey-bees still fly...

nebraskasox
01-19-2006, 03:53 PM
Stat geekery can be great at isolating a single issue, or at looking at a player's career. But as a predictor, it does not yet dive deep enough into why some of the numbers make things happen. From everything I've read it hasn't yet pulled together enough of a balance between all the stats to really look at a team's overall chances. Perhaps because each of these things tends to seemingly and in past performance have only a small impact. However, when the role of defense and the role of pitching and the role of balanced offense come together, they seem to multiply rather than simply add together.



This is an interesting point. In statistics, this point is called an "interaction effect" where the effect of one variable DEPENDS on the level of another. Individual variables can have ZERO overall effect yet participate in strong interactions with other variables. The graph of an interesting type of interaction effect looks like an X.

A hypothetical example: a researcher wants to see the effects of two different methods of instruction on performance. Suppose the average scores are

Meth A B

Boys 10 20
Girls 20 10
Avg 15 15

If you just looked at method A vs. B, you'd conclude there was no effect (avg sore of 15 for both A and B). Actually, the effect was quite pronounced but was different for boys vs. girls (Boys better with B, Girls better with A).

The 2005 Sox were built to win one and two run games (Duh, look at the real records in these games). It wasn't luck. A moderate but balanced and more consistent offense that could score with both smallball and HRs, a solid defense, great starting pitching and a great bullpen. All these factors interacted to produce a champion. Look at the world series. A six run differential in a four game sweep. It was a microcosm of the season.

As Konerko said in post season interviews, the Sox have the team to win this. "We've been good all year."

So I agree with the notion that by citing these stats to show what should have happened, Neyer actually shows the opposite. In science, when something unexpected happens, i.e., when reality contradicts what the theories predict, we learn something and revise or discard the theories.

As one poster said elsewhere, "I hope Cleveland enjoyed their second order championship".

Jerome
01-19-2006, 04:22 PM
I agree in the sense that a team with a lot of one run wins is not quite as good as the record indicates IMO. But I thought this back at the beginning of last year when we won that game over the Royals 2-1 by scoring 2 runs in an inning without getting a single hit. The pitching and defense really allowed the team to stay in games where the offense wasn't quite sterling, which led to some close wins.

I am convinced that the Sox can stay competitive with the meager offense because the pitching and defense are so good, and it really decreases the margin of error for the opposition. I also think last year's offensive stats should be looked at with a critical eye.

Ozzie most likely cost the team total runs by wasting a lot of outs on the basepaths and with Iguchi always sacrificing. But guess what? As a result of that we had a lot of early ONE RUN leads that our pitching was able to make stand up. So over 162 games, we scored a lot less runs than 04 BUT the runs were more meaningful. And IMO the offense will not be so meager this year, I think it will actually be pretty good barring any injuries. At this point I am preaching to the choir so I will shut up.

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2006, 05:03 PM
I love it when the Sabermetric people put down their spreadsheets and weigh in. To echo ondafarm's post, 162 ballgames are more than enough to determine which teams are good, and which are not.

Yes, there were many one run wins, the propeller heads will dismiss that as just a freak accident - a statistical anomoly. They go back to thier numbers, because the real world does not fit in their model.

And yet the honey-bees still fly...





There's something the propellerheads will never understand or accept. Good teams make their own luck. That's what makes them good teams.

Tragg
01-19-2006, 11:38 PM
I'm no fan of Neyer's but let me defend the statistical approach with a few important modifications.

While many people, especially statheads, believe that one run victories and that Pythagorean residual is a matter of chance, I believe that several factors helped the White Sox last year and will continue to do so this year.

First, Ozzie seems to be smarter at his onfield decision making than most of the other managers he faces. Not that he hasn't made mistakes, but he doesn't seem to repeat them so much.

Second, the Sox coaching staff are more instructional even to their major league players than most other staffs. And because the Sox coaches are recent major leaguers they seem to be listened to.

Third, the Sox team seems to be more intelligent than most other major league teams. They do things right and take instruction well.

Fourth, he Sox have a wider array of ways to win a game than most AL teams. Less bash but more capable of scratching out runs.

Fifth, the Sox have above average defenders at all positions. Better defense, fewer runs allowed. The opponents batting line should be producing more runs, but the above average defense is cutting down on those runs.
I think with that analysis, you will be summarily ex-communicated from the sacred second order of propellor-heads. Defense, intelligence, scrayching out, instruction - heresy! Defense should be mentioned by its proper name: run prevention.

Mary Swiss, that was too funny!:D:

MRKARNO
01-20-2006, 12:15 AM
I'm willing to give Neyer his fair chance, but I think he's not really allowing the following possibilities to enter his mind:

1. The White Sox offense actually underperformed in 2005. I would think players like Uribe and Iguchi have more in them and that most players don't have much room downward to go.

2. Thome comes on the scene and has a big offensive impact. I've seen a lot of statistical and empirical evidence saying that this is a good possibility.

3. The pitching staff doesn't regress all that much due to good defense and the addition of Vazquez

4. Contreras and/or Vazquez ends up breaking out totally and competing for Cy Young.

I think enough of the above will come true that will allow the White Sox to stay about where they are at, 97-100 wins.

SoxEd
01-20-2006, 10:21 PM
Ozzie most likely cost the team total runs by wasting a lot of outs on the basepaths and with Iguchi always sacrificing. But guess what? As a result of that we had a lot of early ONE RUN leads that our pitching was able to make stand up. So over 162 games, we scored a lot less runs than 04 BUT the runs were more meaningful. And IMO the offense will not be so meager this year, I think it will actually be pretty good barring any injuries. At this point I am preaching to the choir so I will shut up.

Your post is well thought-out and logical, so it'll never be considered by Worshippers of the Holy Statbook like Neyer.

Also, may I ask that you please refrain from using language like that which I made bold above?

After all, if that kind of thinking gets around, the next thing we'll start hearing the BP drones buzzing on about is 'Second Order Runs', or some such balderdash.
:wink:

1951Campbell
01-20-2006, 10:34 PM
After all, if that kind of thinking gets around, the next thing we'll start hearing the BP drones buzzing on about is 'Second Order Runs', or some such balderdash.
:wink:

Don't give them any ideas.

Flight #24
01-21-2006, 09:31 AM
I've seen several analyses saying that because the White Sox won so many one run games last year that they won't repeat. Neyer's regression to the mean arguement is pretty much the same thing. They both overlook several factors. Good teams typically win alot of games. I look for the 2006 team to have a few difficulties but do very well overall and certainly to be in the playoffs.

The primary problem with Neyer's and other similar analysis is their underlying assumption that 1-run victories are luck and therefore team should always be at around .500 in those games. This is where they get it 100% wrong. Teams that play sound fundamental ball and have good pitching (especially in the 'pen) will consistently fare well in close games because they don't make key mistakes and they capitalize on opportunities. In a short (2-inning) game, i.e. late situations, that tends to be the deciding factor.

You want proof: Check the Twins, who have historically outperformed their Pythagorean record. Or check Ozzie's first year as Sox manager, when his record in 1-run games was about the same as it was in the "lucky" '05 season.

Which shows you the arrogance of some statheads - they ignore a growing mound of data because it contradicts their underlying assumptions.

EDIT: It's also got something to do with the style fitting the team you have. A team with excellent starting pitching can afford to sacrifice a potential big innig for a relatively sure 1 or 2 runs because that lets the pitcher pitch more comfortably (with a lead), and increases the chance of a win.

wsox3505
01-21-2006, 03:01 PM
My email to Rob last week:

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:12:44 -0800 (PST)From:"Sam Isfan" <samisfan35@yahoo.com> http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/pim/el/abook_add_1.gifAdd to Address Book (javascript:document.frmAddAddrs.submit()) http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/nt/ic/ut/bsc/txtmess12_1.gifAdd Mobile Alert (http://us.f357.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=9564_773308_10000_623_769_0_728_2 059_3694580384&Idx=5&YY=23058&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Sent#)Subject:Wsox pieceTo:rob.neyer@dig.com
Rob,

Maybe YOU'LL be in for a tough year. Do you ever apply the luck factor to your career? I predict that fewer of your articles will be read next season.

To measure the content of your article, we can look at "second rate sports journalism" as seen with many ESPN writers and "experts". "Second rate sports journalism" shows us how many opinions "should" matter and be heard, yet are clearly favoring the NYY and Boston Red Sox.

You may not like this criticism, so feel free to skip ahead to something less biased.

How's the rain?

Jerome
01-21-2006, 03:21 PM
Your post is well thought-out and logical, so it'll never be considered by Worshippers of the Holy Statbook like Neyer.

Also, may I ask that you please refrain from using language like that which I made bold above?

After all, if that kind of thinking gets around, the next thing we'll start hearing the BP drones buzzing on about is 'Second Order Runs', or some such balderdash.
:wink:


Haha thanks for the kind words, thats just what I observed from last year. There might be something to that second-order win stat, but with a pitching staff as good as the Sox I'm not that worried about close / one run games. It's not like the 01 Bears who got lucky. It just makes me appreciate the spectacular pitching we had last year even more.