PDA

View Full Version : Shocker -- BP Says Sox Luck Unlikely To Continue


infohawk
02-01-2006, 09:18 PM
Well folks, our friend at BP (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4734) have determined that the Sox played over their heads and, based upon the 2005 run differential, are unlikely to repeat.

Letís face it, White Sox fans--you donít like statheads at the moment. First of all, your general manager didnít come off very well in a best-selling book about the analytical revolution in baseball. Then, prior to the 2005 season, nobody in the media--analytical branch or otherwise--picked your team to go all the way. (No, Ken Harrelson does not really count as media.) So, because we were wrong, the laugh is on us.
In any event, if Sox fans hated statheads before, wait until the predictions for 2006 start coming out and they find their team pegged for second, third, and--for those keen on a Tiger awakening--even fourth. Thereíll be hell to pay sure in Chi-town then, by gum. General manager Kenny Williams even predicted such a reaction from the experts immediately after the World Series ended, saying he fully expected nobody would predict the White Sox would repeat once the preseason picks came out.
The inescapable truth is that the White Sox did play over their heads during the 2005 season. Even the most diehard Cell habituť must concede that. They scored and allowed about enough runs to win in the low nineties and ended up instead with 99 victories. This will be the main cause for doubts about their 2006 chances among the stat-reliant crowd and their fellow travelers in the media.
In fairness to the author, he didn't address the new additions to the team (Vazquez, Thome, Mackowiak and a full-season of Brandon McCarthy perhaps in the pen). I'm sure he is aware that the team has changed some. The article was really about how teams with a similar run differential as the White Sox performed the following year. It wasn't, therefore, about what those teams did to try and improve that differential. I think even KW would admit that the Sox couldn't sit back and expect to win quite as many one-run games. Thus the acquisition of Thome for the middle of the order.

RedHeadPaleHoser
02-01-2006, 09:24 PM
Infohawk, here's what I read on that...

"blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah...."

Then, your comment. What a waste of time.(BP's story, that is)
I await the "Favorite BP Sox Hater Online Story Thread".

1951Campbell
02-01-2006, 09:25 PM
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/PythagoreanTheorem_1000.gif

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

buehrle4cy05
02-01-2006, 09:26 PM
Well, if BP says it, it MUST be true!:rolleyes:

These eggheads don't understand that there are other componenets to the game than stats.

Palehose13
02-01-2006, 09:28 PM
Hmmmm...let's see KW didn't come across favorably in a book written by the ultimate stathead GM, Billy Beane. And how many World Series Championships does Billy have? :D:

chisoxfanatic
02-01-2006, 09:30 PM
And how many World Series Championships does Billy have? :D:

As many as the Cubs do in the past 98 years! :D:

God, does it ever suck to be a Sox fan!!! :bandance:

buehrle4cy05
02-01-2006, 09:30 PM
Hmmmm...let's see KW didn't come across favorably in a book written by the ultimate stathead GM, Billy Beane. And how many World Series Championships does Billy have? :D:

According to BP, he theoretically should have 7.

No teal.........they didn't say it, but it's implied.

samram
02-01-2006, 09:33 PM
In any event, if Sox fans hated statheads before, wait until the predictions for 2006 start coming out and they find their team pegged for second, third, and--for those keen on a Tiger awakening--even fourth.

Anyone who picks the Sox for fourth next year should be put to sleep because they are officially brain dead.

The inescapable truth is that the White Sox did play over their heads during the 2005 season. Even the most diehard Cell habituť must concede that. They scored and allowed about enough runs to win in the low nineties and ended up instead with 99 victories. This will be the main cause for doubts about their 2006 chances among the stat-reliant crowd and their fellow travelers in the media.

I don't have to concede anything. You just carry on with your wishful thinking, BP.

RadioheadRocks
02-01-2006, 09:36 PM
IMHO this is probably just a feeble credibility restoration effort by BP to justify why they missed their predictions for the 2005 season.

DVsoxfan
02-01-2006, 09:37 PM
He doesn't even address the fact that rotation is stronger this year AND our lineup is as well. wow

Dan Mega
02-01-2006, 09:38 PM
Well I know how much the statheads worship Billy Beane as the 2nd coming, but how many championships does he have compared to Kenny?

0

Flight #24
02-01-2006, 09:45 PM
The inescapable truth is that the White Sox did play over their heads during the 2005 season. Even the most diehard Cell habituť must concede that. They scored and allowed about enough runs to win in the low nineties and ended up instead with 99 victories. This will be the main cause for doubts about their 2006 chances among the stat-reliant crowd and their fellow travelers in the media.

The only thing "inescapable" is the dopes who continue to place their emphasis on the fallacy that "1-run victories are luck" That's how their run differential analysis works, IIRC. The fact that the Sox under Ozzie are consistently good in 1-run games, or that teams that play a similar style like the Twins have consistently "outperformed their pythagoreans" escapes BP & their ilk.

Flight #24
02-01-2006, 09:46 PM
Hmmmm...let's see KW didn't come across favorably in a book written by the ultimate stathead GM, Billy Beane. And how many World Series Championships does Billy have? :D:

Forget World Championships. Let's start small, like stacking up Beanie's playoff series wins against KW's.......hmmmm......guess it's back to the drawing board!

itsnotrequired
02-01-2006, 10:12 PM
I only listen to percentages. What are we talking about here,a 0.0001% or 0.00001% chance? The numbers are diminished since there is only an 88% chane that they actually won the WS.

:rolleyes:

santo=dorf
02-01-2006, 10:15 PM
According to BP, he theoretically should have 7.

No teal.........they didn't say it, but it's implied.




You can't round!!! It's 6.6573 Championships.

HebrewHammer
02-01-2006, 10:21 PM
BP just doesn't get that there is no stat for heart, no stat for courage and no stat for guts.

If they can't quantify it, they discredit it. Our beloved World Champion Chicago White Sox are a perfect example.

DumpJerry
02-01-2006, 10:23 PM
So a best selling book says KW is lousy? I guess that makes it so.

Seriously, however, I am very concerned about the team's VORP score. That could be our undoing.

We don't "hate" statheads. We pity the fools!

sullythered
02-01-2006, 10:25 PM
There is no "playing over your head." There is how you played, and only how you played. The White Sox played well enough to win 99 reg season games and go 11-1 in the playoffs. That is not over their heads, it is how good they are. I know this, because they freakin' did it. People are not robots w/ caps on output and potential ceilings. People sometimes step it up and do things that are unexpected. That is why statistical theories about potential performance are fundamentally flawed.

VA_GoGoSox
02-01-2006, 10:49 PM
BP just doesn't get that there is no stat for heart, no stat for courage and no stat for guts.

If they can't quantify it, they discredit it. Our beloved World Champion Chicago White Sox are a perfect example.

I almost feel bad for these guys because they're missing all these intangibles and everything else that makes baseball great. You wonder if they've ever just sat in the stands with a beer and enjoyed a friggin' game.

Ol' No. 2
02-01-2006, 11:25 PM
So having completely whiffed on last years' predictions, they conclude that their model must be right and the games were wrong. :rolling:

Last year my reaction to this was :angry:

This year my reaction is :neener:

What a difference a World Series makes.

samram
02-01-2006, 11:32 PM
So having completely whiffed on last years' predictions, they conclude that their model must be right and the games were wrong.

Well, see, that's the problem- they actually played the games, which just leads to inaccuracies. Baseball is still old-fashioned like that.

RealMenWearBlack
02-01-2006, 11:33 PM
:hawk
Screw 'em!

Fuller_Schettman
02-01-2006, 11:41 PM
My nominee for Post of the Year:

Well, see, that's the problem- they actually played the games, which just leads to inaccuracies. Baseball is still old-fashioned like that.

jdm2662
02-01-2006, 11:49 PM
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/PythagoreanTheorem_1000.gif



Am I the only one on this board that hates graphs?? I despise them. Whenever I see one in my classes, I throw a fit.

Corlose 15
02-02-2006, 12:27 AM
What the morons at BP fail to realize is that maybe, just maybe, teams constructed like the Sox are teams that should do well in one run games. Very good bullpen and a dynamic offense that can score a lot of different ways. A perfect example of this is the final game of the Dodgers series.

Frank Thomas walks, pinch runner, Podsednik bunts him over and the 2B is pulled off first. Willie Harris bunts both runners over and Rowand singles in both runs. Then the bullpen shuts the door in the ninth. A good bullpen and the ability to play smallball should make you much more effective in one run games.

Tragg
02-02-2006, 12:30 AM
Every other article I've read there contains the following phrase: "Cleveland, technically baseball's best team last year"...

Chisox003
02-02-2006, 12:33 AM
Yawwwwwwn

Shove it BP

MRKARNO
02-02-2006, 12:56 AM
I have problems with some of BP's methodology from a sabermetric point of view. One of the central pieces of the BP philisophy is that "All runs are equal in weight." I have problems accepting that. Clearly, towards the end of games, runs have greater weight and being able to prevent runs will do more to help your team win. The reason (in my estimation) that the Twins were able to transcend their Pythagorean records (by a significant amount, I might add) in three straight years, 2002-2004 was not luck, but an excellent bullpen. Hawkins, Guardado, Santana, Romero, Rincon.... that was an amazing bullpen.

Now I think it is impossible to deny a basic linkage between run differential and win/loss record, but I also think that luck is not the only factor in the difference between Pythagorean record and actual record. The bullpen plays a big role in that.

I would say that "clutch" hitting and smallball play a much smaller, but extant part in the ability to win 1-run games more often than normal, but a great bullpen is the key factor that separates teams from their Pythagorean record.

Sox-o-matic
02-02-2006, 01:41 AM
Every other article I've read there contains the following phrase: "Cleveland, technically baseball's best team last year"...

Cleveland technically sucks fundamentally. Sure, they'll score a lot of runs beating up on the likes of the Tigers and Royals, but it doesn't mean a damn thing if they can't bunt a runner into scoring position or hit a sacrifice fly in a game that is most likely going to be decided by two runs or less.

Cleveland relied upon its big guns in Pheralta, Hafner, and Martinez last year. Sparkplugs like Crisp and Sizemore got on base and the big guys drove them in, but the entire bottom of the lineup was terrible. So, if you have good pitching, you can let the sparkplugs get on base, take out about 3 hitters, and be in the clear until the heart of the order comes up again because you know there's no way in hell they'd ever try to manufacture a run.

RadioheadRocks
02-02-2006, 01:55 AM
Am I the only one on this board that hates graphs?? I despise them. Whenever I see one in my classes, I throw a fit.

How about a nice Venn diagram? :D:

http://regentsprep.org/Regents/math/venn/VennDiagramlabeled.gif

Sox-o-matic
02-02-2006, 01:57 AM
Baseball Prospectus and co. need to start marketing Billy Beane bobbleheads before people all over the country start to realize that the stat-worshipping steroid era is over.

Baseball is being played differently these days and will continue to be played differently for a long time now. The best Yankee teams in recent memory, the Marlins, the Angels, the Diambondbacks, and of course our Sox won World Championships because of pitching and defense, not by WARP and VORK and PORK and all of that other crap. If a team plays good defensively and is backed by a solid starting staff and a strong back end of a bullpen, that team doesn't give up as many runs in a game. This means that games you would normally LOSE by 1-2 runs you end up tied or ahead by a run or two, which makes fundamentals very, very important. That's why teams that have all three usually win. You ask a stat-tard about bunting and he'll say it's a wasted out. You ask a little league coach the same thing and he'll tell you that is how you play the ****ing game of baseball.

Mohoney
02-02-2006, 02:19 AM
99% of what BP says is bull****. The other 1% is horse****.

1951Campbell
02-02-2006, 08:13 AM
Am I the only one on this board that hates graphs?? I despise them. Whenever I see one in my classes, I throw a fit.

Euclid's Proposition I.47 is a thing of beauty!

The Critic
02-02-2006, 08:15 AM
He doesn't even address the fact that rotation is stronger this year AND our lineup is as well. wow
The bench is stronger too, in my opinion, with Mackowiak instead of Harris/Blum.

RoobarbPie
02-02-2006, 09:29 AM
"I'm Baseball Prospectus. People seem to like me because I am polite and I am rarely late. I like to eat ice cream and I really enjoy a nice pair of slacks. Years later, a doctor will tell me that I have an I.Q. of 48 and am what some people call mentally retarded."

Hitmen77
02-02-2006, 09:32 AM
The inescapable truth is that the White Sox did play over their heads during the 2005 season. Even the most diehard Cell habituť must concede that. They scored and allowed about enough runs to win in the low nineties and ended up instead with 99 victories. This will be the main cause for doubts about their 2006 chances among the stat-reliant crowd and their fellow travelers in the media.

I love how this bozo calls this "inescapable truth". *****, talk about an exaggeration. Since when is some statistic mumbo jumbo = inescapable truth? The only inescapable truth is that the White Sox are WORLD CHAMPIONS!

Wow, the Sox should have won only 93 games instead of 99? Wow, that 99 really is way over their heads! :kukoo: So, I suppose with the addition of Thome, Vazquez, and Mackowiak (assuming everone is healthy), these stat heads should be willing to bump up the number of games the Sox "should" win this year, right? I'm glad to hear that the stats show that the Sox should win close to 100 games in 2006!:cool:

So, if the Sox "should have won" 93 games last year and they have improved their team on paper during the offseason, how does one expect them to be picked to finish fourth? :nuts:

Hangar18
02-02-2006, 09:38 AM
There was alot of "Luck" that went the SOX way last year .....and to their credit, took advantage of it. They had NO HITTING at all (which many accused them of preseason), but the SOX in the offseason addressed all of their weaknesses!! The last few years, the SOX would create a hole to fill a hole ......Not this time. This team is STRONGER because of that, the SOX are easily the team to pick this time around.

Baseball Prospectus says "The SOX luck will run out" in 2006. No ****! Thats why they went out and addressed those weaknesses in the offseason.

KyWhiSoxFan
02-02-2006, 09:59 AM
I'm not sure why they think the Sox played over their heads. Individually they did not. Only a few players, notably pitchers, had career years, like Garland, but he is young and could be expected to improve. Few, or none, of the hitters had a career year.

Collectively, as team, and playing as a team, they performed better than their stats may indicate, but that's what can happen if you get good pitching, stay in every game, do the little things necessary to win, and play as a team. I thought that was the object of baseball. Instead of of discrediting the achievement, they should be praising it.

SoxFan78
02-02-2006, 10:00 AM
I think this article is very good news for the Sox. After last year, it showes that BP doesnt know waht the **** they are talking about. So this year they say the Sox are not gonna repeat, and could do as well as FOURTH?

Good news to me. Now if BP said the Sox were gonna win 100 games and sweep through the playoffs, I would be worried.

mccoydp
02-02-2006, 10:16 AM
More ****ing bull**** from our friends at BP.

Their relevancy in today's game is a complete and utter joke.

I parrot the response of several posters: who gives a **** what they say.

Flight #24
02-02-2006, 10:23 AM
I have problems with some of BP's methodology from a sabermetric point of view. One of the central pieces of the BP philisophy is that "All runs are equal in weight." I have problems accepting that. Clearly, towards the end of games, runs have greater weight and being able to prevent runs will do more to help your team win. The reason (in my estimation) that the Twins were able to transcend their Pythagorean records (by a significant amount, I might add) in three straight years, 2002-2004 was not luck, but an excellent bullpen. Hawkins, Guardado, Santana, Romero, Rincon.... that was an amazing bullpen.

Now I think it is impossible to deny a basic linkage between run differential and win/loss record, but I also think that luck is not the only factor in the difference between Pythagorean record and actual record. The bullpen plays a big role in that.

I would say that "clutch" hitting and smallball play a much smaller, but extant part in the ability to win 1-run games more often than normal, but a great bullpen is the key factor that separates teams from their Pythagorean record.

Another factor not accounted for by BP - the "scratching out" of 1-2 runs early gives a good SP a bit of momentum, often resulting in a better outing. I recall some stat about the Spx having a great record in games where they scored first, and it was usually execution that generated that.

Teams that execute will win close games. Because you don't give up opportunities (via bullpen & D), and because you capitalize on opportunities provided to you, albiet with small numbers of runs. It's Pierzynski getting to 1B and then the SB and hit by Crede - instead of having a greater chance of 1 out & men on 2d & 3d if they didn't run).

TomBradley72
02-02-2006, 10:25 AM
Grinder Rule #10. Only one statistic matters: W :gulp:

FedEx227
02-02-2006, 10:27 AM
Anyone notice the tone of this writing?

It was like "Yes, we know we're morons, heres what were predicting"

I mean can anybody who watches a MINUTE of baseball put us fourth place behind the....the.....TIGERS?! Thats what I got out of this little piece, they come across as very insecure and sorta cocky. "Yeah our predictions never work, but heres what we got again."

With that being said I'm very concerned with the White Sox MNVOPOTYIR/9 x GAIQQQTTTUQUQTUTUT rating. .999958154 is not going to cut it when the Royals are dropping a .9999685125

MarySwiss
02-02-2006, 10:36 AM
I think this article is very good news for the Sox. After last year, it showes that BP doesnt know waht the **** they are talking about. So this year they say the Sox are not gonna repeat, and could do as well as FOURTH?

Good news to me. Now if BP said the Sox were gonna win 100 games and sweep through the playoffs, I would be worried.

Well, that's it; the sign I've been waiting for. The Sox were picked 4th last year and I bet on them to take it all, so I guess I should bet on them winning it all again, right?

Oh, wait. I already did! :cool:

Ol' No. 2
02-02-2006, 10:45 AM
I have problems with some of BP's methodology from a sabermetric point of view. One of the central pieces of the BP philisophy is that "All runs are equal in weight." I have problems accepting that. Clearly, towards the end of games, runs have greater weight and being able to prevent runs will do more to help your team win. The reason (in my estimation) that the Twins were able to transcend their Pythagorean records (by a significant amount, I might add) in three straight years, 2002-2004 was not luck, but an excellent bullpen. Hawkins, Guardado, Santana, Romero, Rincon.... that was an amazing bullpen.

Now I think it is impossible to deny a basic linkage between run differential and win/loss record, but I also think that luck is not the only factor in the difference between Pythagorean record and actual record. The bullpen plays a big role in that.

I would say that "clutch" hitting and smallball play a much smaller, but extant part in the ability to win 1-run games more often than normal, but a great bullpen is the key factor that separates teams from their Pythagorean record.I think you're grossly underestimating the importance of smallball. Just as an example, the BP approach is to calculate the average runs scored with a runner on 2nd vs. the average runs scored with a runner on 1st and compute the success rate necessary for a stolen base to make it a net positive outcome. Simple. And wrong. Just two reasons why:

1. It doesn't account for the ancillary effects of a base-stealing threat, e.g. distracting the pitcher, change in pitch selection or shift to slide step, the possibility of an error on a pickoff, etc., etc., etc.

2. The use of average runs scored in each situation carries an implied assumption that the decision to steal is a random event. It's clearly not. Teams attempt to steal in situations where it provides the most benefit.

I could go on, but I'll stop there. It's symptomatic of the entire BP approach to use averages inappropriately and to just ignore effects they don't know how to quantify.

Iwritecode
02-02-2006, 10:47 AM
There is no "playing over your head." There is how you played, and only how you played. The White Sox played well enough to win 99 reg season games and go 11-1 in the playoffs. That is not over their heads, it is how good they are. I know this, because they freakin' did it. People are not robots w/ caps on output and potential ceilings. People sometimes step it up and do things that are unexpected. That is why statistical theories about potential performance are fundamentally flawed.

I agree completely. It's amazing how they can turn all players into machines with certain limited capabilities and anything that happens beyond those capabilies is impossible or just unexplainable luck.

I also love the "run differential" thing. If that held any water the Sox would have been in the World Series years ago. I remember when they would outscore teams 20 - 5 in a three game set yet still lose 2 of the games 2-1 and 3-2. Yet according to BP's logic, they should have swept the series... :rolleyes:

ma-gaga
02-02-2006, 11:08 AM
Let's have a show of hands. Who read the full article???

It was a study to see historically how teams like the W.Sox perform. But hey, let's make fun of people that can do math. That is fun.


Of course, not all 96-run differentials are created equally. They donít predict won-loss records the same way the further to the extreme in total runs scored they are. (See Rockies; Colorado) So, in the search for good comps, a team like the 1996 Mariners didnít make the cut in spite of dialing in very close with a 98-run differential.
...
1976 Kansas City Royals
1984 Chicago Cubs
1986 California Angels
1989 San Francisco Giants
1990 Cincinnati Reds
1992 Pittsburgh Pirates
1992 Minnesota Twins
1992 Toronto Blue Jays
1996 San Diego Padres
1997 Los Angeles Dodgers
2003 Philadelphia Phillies



Those are the teams that put up similar numbers to the W.Sox last year. Some of them had good rebound seasons (1992 Blue Jays), some didn't (1992 Minnesota Twins). Overall, the breakdown is 9 teams regressed, 2 teams advanced.

That is history. Can the W.Sox beat the odds?


I get that the basic premise is "Runs Scored vs Runs Against" and a lot of people are offended by that. But I just don't understand why.

White Sox Randy
02-02-2006, 11:26 AM
Yeah, he's saying the Sox were SO lucky.

According to his own information, the Sox win total SHOULD have been in the low nineties but instead they won 99.

So what. They should have won "only" 93 games ? Oh, that's not too good.

I guess there is no possibility of repeating after such a LUCKY season.

Flight #24
02-02-2006, 11:35 AM
I get that the basic premise is "Runs Scored vs Runs Against" and a lot of people are offended by that. But I just don't understand why.

It's not the premise that RS v. RA matters, it's the premise that that's the primary determining factor that can be used to accurately estimate how a team will fare. IMO it's a fairly flawed methodology that doesn't account for a lot of factors and instead explains them away as "luck".

And the issues were more with comments like the Sox could finish behind the Tigers, and the arrogant posture that they were actually the 2d or 5th best team last year despite leading the league wire to wire and almost sweeping the playoffs. Why? "Because our model says so, and any results that don't fit the model must involve luck".

White Sox Randy
02-02-2006, 11:44 AM
There is a complex concept involved here that many are unable to grasp.

A team need only score one more run than their opponent in order to win the game.

There is no additional reward for a team to outscore it's opponent by a large sum.

nebraskasox
02-02-2006, 11:53 AM
:walnuts

I guess we'll have to do this again.

TommyJohn
02-02-2006, 12:07 PM
Let's have a show of hands. Who read the full article???

It was a study to see historically how teams like the W.Sox perform. But hey, let's make fun of people that can do math. That is fun.




Those are the teams that put up similar numbers to the W.Sox last year. Some of them had good rebound seasons (1992 Blue Jays), some didn't (1992 Minnesota Twins). Overall, the breakdown is 9 teams regressed, 2 teams advanced.

That is history. Can the W.Sox beat the odds?


I get that the basic premise is "Runs Scored vs Runs Against" and a lot of people are offended by that. But I just don't understand why.

It isn't the math they are making fun of, it is the arrogant attitude of
"we're never wrong, and if anyone beats our model, they are lucky."
Give me a break. Historically, how many teams have repeated? Only
2 since 1980 have repeated as WS champs. So the odds are against
the Sox repeating, odds that have nothing to do with BP and their
reams of statistics. So if the White Sox don't repeat (and there could
be many different reasons why, none having to with VORP and VAP)
the BP boys will be the first to climb on their snobby high horses and
say "see? We told you!"

One part of the article puts down Kenny Williams by sneering that he
was made to look bad compared to Billy Beane. Well, the World
Championships scorecard reads Williams 1, BeaneGod 0. You would
never know that by reading that sampling.

The stat snobs were wrong, they can't stand it and won't admit it.
Or they are saying "we are superior. Wait until next year! You'll see!"
Sorry, but that is just arrogant gall at its absolute most annoying.

My guess is that when the BP guys were kids, the playground bullies
either hit them too hard or not hard enough, one or the other.

gobears1987
02-02-2006, 12:10 PM
The White Sox have a 35% chance of winning the 2005 WS. And won 85.4% of the AL Central in 2005.

gobears1987
02-02-2006, 12:11 PM
I wish Jeremyb1 was here so we could wail on that Beane lover.

ma-gaga
02-02-2006, 12:15 PM
One part of the article puts down Kenny Williams by sneering that he
was made to look bad compared to Billy Beane.

What the hell are you talking about?

spiffie
02-02-2006, 12:20 PM
What the hell are you talking about?


First of all, your general manager didnít come off very well in a best-selling book about the analytical revolution in baseball.
I think that's it.

ma-gaga
02-02-2006, 12:23 PM
IMO it's a fairly flawed methodology that doesn't account for a lot of factors and instead explains them away as "luck".
...
And the issues were more with comments like the Sox could finish behind the Tigers, and the arrogant posture that they were actually the 2d or 5th best team last year

Well, the article didn't mention "luck" anywhere, however it uses the "playing over their heads" line which is pretty close.

Is there enough of a gap, or are they saying the same thing?

So, the question is, did they "play over their heads"? Or is this repeatable heading into 2006?

I like the fact that KW did not bring back the same team. He played a fairly sizable overhaul. The pitching is there. The hitting is there. Assuming that Ozzie doesn't lose his edge this offseason, that will still be there. It's a matter of whether or not:
a. the pitching staff stays healthy.
b. the offense shows up
c. the manager/bullpen work.

But that's the simple analysis that any Jeff Brantley can spout...

It takes a special sort of idiot to make up statistics, and use them as your primary arguments...

ma-gaga
02-02-2006, 12:26 PM
I think that's it.

yeah. It is. You're right.

Well, **** that. That is a single line, and it isn't the point of the article or even the paragraph that it's in.

But hey, focus on what you want. :cool:

scottjanssens
02-02-2006, 12:32 PM
The only thing "inescapable" is the dopes who continue to place their emphasis on the fallacy that "1-run victories are luck" That's how their run differential analysis works, IIRC. The fact that the Sox under Ozzie are consistently good in 1-run games, or that teams that play a similar style like the Twins have consistently "outperformed their pythagoreans" escapes BP & their ilk.

Paulie says the Sox got lucky a lot last year too. I wonder if he's a FOBB.

BTW, not all statheads worship BB.

I wrote a letter to the author thanking him for the insight that when teams with low run differentials who increased their run differential the following year they did better than the teams that didn't. Who'da thunk it? I also asked in light of this if he was predicting the Sox' run differential would decrease in '06. No word back from him yet.

Just because someone writes a lousy and weak article at the height of the offseason drought doesn't mean **** against stats. Actually, I suspect he's playing the lot of you.

spiffie
02-02-2006, 12:39 PM
Just because someone writes a lousy and weak article at the height of the offseason drought doesn't mean **** against stats. Actually, I suspect he's playing the lot of you.
I think certain members of the media know that they can always get a reaction by tweaking us, as I can't think of any fanbase that is nearly as sensitive to criticism as ours. Pretty much anyone this offseason who hasn't predicted us for 120 wins and a WS repeat has been deemed "idiot".

In the end, I think their point is, as others have said, somewhat proven by Kenny's actions this offseason. Get more offense, get more pitching, make it so that there is less chance of anything causing us to lose a few of those many close games. If there was no reason to fear any of this we would have kept the same team as last year since it worked just fine.

scottjanssens
02-02-2006, 12:39 PM
[quote=Ol' No. 2]So having completely whiffed on last years' predictions, they conclude that their model must be right and the games were wrong. :rolling:

Last year my reaction to this was :angry:

This year my reaction is :neener:[quote]

It's not even a model. It's a pointless comparaison to teams in the past with similar run differentials that doesn't take much into acount what happened to those teams between seasons, at least not in the final analysis. It's an embarrasing analysis, and I suspect one that's the result of, "Oh ****, I need to post an article tomorrow!"

I love statistical analysis of baseball, but this article is just an embarrassment.

scottjanssens
02-02-2006, 12:43 PM
In the end, I think their point is, as others have said, somewhat proven by Kenny's actions this offseason. Get more offense, get more pitching, make it so that there is less chance of anything causing us to lose a few of those many close games. If there was no reason to fear any of this we would have kept the same team as last year since it worked just fine.

Agreed. The "analysis" was spurious simply because it didn't take offseason moves into account. It simply said, gee more teams with similar run differentials in the past did worse than better the following season. Of course anyone who thinks the Sox run differential isn't going to improve has been living in a cave the past few months.

Flight #24
02-02-2006, 12:50 PM
Paulie says the Sox got lucky a lot last year too. I wonder if he's a FOBB.

BTW, not all statheads worship BB.

I wrote a letter to the author thanking him for the insight that when teams with low run differentials who increased their run differential the following year they did better than the teams that didn't. Who'da thunk it? I also asked in light of this if he was predicting the Sox' run differential would decrease in '06. No word back from him yet.

Just because someone writes a lousy and weak article at the height of the offseason drought doesn't mean **** against stats. Actually, I suspect he's playing the lot of you.

I don't have a problem with someone saying the Sox were, at times lucky (of course, what's often not said is that most championship teams get the benefit of some lucky breaks). When Paulie says it, he's referring to things like AJ getting on first with Josh Paul's brainfart. That's legitimate. He doesn't use it to say the Sox weren't the best team.

What I have a problem with is someone runs a model that is inherently flawed, attributes failings in the model to luck, and uses that to say the Sox got lucky. BP isn't citing things like AJ getting to first, it's saying that you can't build a team to win close games (because those victories are luck). That's just plain wrong, and it's why the consistently underrate the Sox (and the Twins).

Actually, I don't even have a problem with it. It's wrong, but they have a right to be wrong. What's disappointing is that so many in the media accept their flawed premises as fact and spout the crap releatedly.

White Sox Randy
02-02-2006, 12:56 PM
Over 162 games, the only way that the Sox were luckier than most teams is in having fewer injured players.

Ol' No. 2
02-02-2006, 01:08 PM
[quote=Ol' No. 2]So having completely whiffed on last years' predictions, they conclude that their model must be right and the games were wrong. :rolling:

Last year my reaction to this was :angry:

This year my reaction is :neener:[quote]

It's not even a model. It's a pointless comparaison to teams in the past with similar run differentials that doesn't take much into acount what happened to those teams between seasons, at least not in the final analysis. It's an embarrasing analysis, and I suspect one that's the result of, "Oh ****, I need to post an article tomorrow!"

I love statistical analysis of baseball, but this article is just an embarrassment.I enjoy statistical analysis of baseball, too. A lot can be learned when used retrospectively. The difficulty comes in when they 1) use it predictively, and 2) overinterpret the statistics and fail to account for all factors. The hacks at BP do these things consistently. Any mope with a computer can generate reams of statistics. Generating something meaningful is more difficult. The oldest rule of statistics still applies: garbage in, garbage out.

scottjanssens
02-02-2006, 01:12 PM
What I have a problem with is someone runs a model that is inherently flawed, attributes failings in the model to luck, and uses that to say the Sox got lucky.

Actually, I don't even have a problem with it. It's wrong, but they have a right to be wrong. What's disappointing is that so many in the media accept their flawed premises as fact and spout the crap releatedly.

From Paulie: "We won some games that were too close to call, where if we tried to do it again, it could go the other way. Some would even call it luck. To not address those needs and try to ride that wave through Spring Training, the regular season and the playoffs, it's asking a lot." http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060125&content_id=1301069&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

I don't see any media talking about what's on BP. In fact, BP disagrees with almost all the things that are said as truisms by the media.

[BP's] saying that you can't build a team to win close games (because those victories are luck). That's just plain wrong, and it's why the consistently underrate the Sox (and the Twins)

That's not what BP is actually saying, but I've already had that conversation here too many times. It stems from BP not using the dictionary meaning of the word "luck". People here tend to interperet that when BP says luck they're implying that the beneficiary of that luck didn't deserve the outcome. That's an incorrect interpretation.

Hokiesox
02-02-2006, 01:14 PM
Well folks, our friend at BP (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4734) have determined that the Sox played over their heads and, based upon the 2005 run differential, are unlikely to repeat.

Letís face it, White Sox fans--you donít like statheads at the moment. First of all, your general manager didnít come off very well in a best-selling book about the analytical revolution in baseball. Then, prior to the 2005 season, nobody in the media--analytical branch or otherwise--picked your team to go all the way. (No, Ken Harrelson does not really count as media.) So, because we were wrong, the laugh is on us.

In any event, if Sox fans hated statheads before, wait until the predictions for 2006 start coming out and they find their team pegged for second, third, and--for those keen on a Tiger awakening--even fourth. Thereíll be hell to pay sure in Chi-town then, by gum. General manager Kenny Williams even predicted such a reaction from the experts immediately after the World Series ended, saying he fully expected nobody would predict the White Sox would repeat once the preseason picks came out.

The inescapable truth is that the White Sox did play over their heads during the 2005 season. Even the most diehard Cell habituť must concede that. They scored and allowed about enough runs to win in the low nineties and ended up instead with 99 victories. This will be the main cause for doubts about their 2006 chances among the stat-reliant crowd and their fellow travelers in the media.

In fairness to the author, he didn't address the new additions to the team (Vazquez, Thome, Mackowiak and a full-season of Brandon McCarthy perhaps in the pen). I'm sure he is aware that the team has changed some. The article was really about how teams with a similar run differential as the White Sox performed the following year. It wasn't, therefore, about what those teams did to try and improve that differential. I think even KW would admit that the Sox couldn't sit back and expect to win quite as many one-run games. Thus the acquisition of Thome for the middle of the order.

I won't read past the first sentence. Because I have never liked any statheads. Baseball is a game of streaks and the Sox are still set up as a team that can go on prolonged winning streaks. That's all that matters.

Ol' No. 2
02-02-2006, 01:22 PM
From Paulie: "We won some games that were too close to call, where if we tried to do it again, it could go the other way. Some would even call it luck. To not address those needs and try to ride that wave through Spring Training, the regular season and the playoffs, it's asking a lot." http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060125&content_id=1301069&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

I don't see any media talking about what's on BP. In fact, BP disagrees with almost all the things that are said as truisms by the media.



That's not what BP is actually saying, but I've already had that conversation here too many times. It stems from BP not using the dictionary meaning of the word "luck". People here tend to interperet that when BP says luck they're implying that the beneficiary of that luck didn't deserve the outcome. That's an incorrect interpretation.I understand exactly what they mean by "luck". They're talking about chance variations from the norm. This is the term they apply to everything that's not in their model, the implicit assumption being that their model accounts for everything but chance variations. It's that arrogance that people find so infuriating.

There's no doubt that chance variations contribute to the outcomes of games. But over a long season, those breaks tend to even out. Moreover, what they don't seem to comprehend is that good teams make their own breaks, and that champions are the ones who are able to take advantage of them. You might attribute Pierzynski's famous "strikeout that wasn't" to chance. I disagree. That was a classic case of someone making his own break. Even more to the point, that only left them with a runner on 1st with 2 outs - hardly a sure thing. But they managed to steal a base and score the run on Crede's double, winning by one run. Luck? Chance? Hardly. This is what championship teams do, and it's something that BP will never understand or admit.

scottjanssens
02-02-2006, 01:23 PM
I won't read past the first sentence. Because I have never liked any statheads. Baseball is a game of streaks and the Sox are still set up as a team that can go on prolonged winning streaks. That's all that matters.

Wow, that's amazingly open minded.

I'm also wondering how your insistence that baseball is all about streaks is any different than any model presented by BP? I suspect statistical analysis of the past 100 seasons or so will show that division winners had more streaks of wins than those that didn't finish first. Funny thing those stats. Who knows maybe in the next few years we'll see GMs start building teams with the objective of winning games in streaks.

scottjanssens
02-02-2006, 01:33 PM
There's no doubt that chance variations contribute to the outcomes of games. But over a long season, those breaks tend to even out. Moreover, what they don't seem to comprehend is that good teams make their own breaks, and that champions are the ones who are able to take advantage of them. You might attribute Pierzynski's famous "strikeout that wasn't" to chance. I disagree. That was a classic case of someone making his own break. Even more to the point, that only left them with a runner on 1st with 2 outs - hardly a sure thing. But they managed to steal a base and score the run on Crede's double, winning by one run. Luck? Chance? Hardly. This is what championship teams do, and it's something that BP will never understand or admit.

Ol' No 2, I know _you_ know what they mean by luck. But I also know most here don't by the comments they make. While it could be interpreted as "We feel these factors are unimportant", it can also be interpreted as "We haven't come up with a way to satisfactorally account for these factors yet". Of course some of the factors simply can't be accounted for. I know you tend to think that makes the whole excercise pointless and futile, but I think the exercise is fun in it's own right. There's nothing wrong with tilting at windmills if you like tilting at windmills.

I think most of BPs predictors are of dubious predictive value. For the most part I just don't hear the tone of arrogance that others see from BP. There was in this particular article, but this is only one BP author, and a poor one at that. And lest anyone accuse me of shilling for BP, this is the first year I've been a subscriber, and I'll not be renewing my subscription. There were too many articles like this one.

At BP Sheehen commended the Sox for taking advantage of the opportunities they had, citing many of the same things you just did.

Ol' No. 2
02-02-2006, 02:01 PM
Ol' No 2, I know _you_ know what they mean by luck. But I also know most here don't by the comments they make. While it could be interpreted as "We feel these factors are unimportant", it can also be interpreted as "We haven't come up with a way to satisfactorally account for these factors yet". Of course some of the factors simply can't be accounted for. I know you tend to think that makes the whole excercise pointless and futile, but I think the exercise is fun in it's own right. There's nothing wrong with tilting at windmills if you like tilting at windmills.

I think most of BPs predictors are of dubious predictive value. For the most part I just don't hear the tone of arrogance that others see from BP. There was in this particular article, but this is only one BP author, and a poor one at that. And lest anyone accuse me of shilling for BP, this is the first year I've been a subscriber, and I'll not be renewing my subscription. There were too many articles like this one.

At BP Sheehen commended the Sox for taking advantage of the opportunities they had, citing many of the same things you just did.I've spent more than 30 years generating and analyzing experimental data. In that time I've learned (sometimes the hard way) that one needs to have a healthy respect for the tendency to be led astray by the siren song of statistical analysis. What the hacks at BP don't seem to understand is that just because you can calculate a number doesn't mean you've learned anything. When those unaccounted-for factors dominate the effect you're trying to study, the inaccuracies in your predictions become larger than the differences you're trying to predict. At that point, it is pointless and futile to try to predict based on the few factors you can measure.

Pythagorean W-L is a classic case. But when the problems stare them in the face, instead of reassessing their model, they just insist the model is right so the data must be wrong (i.e. tainted by luck). Undaunted by the utter failure of their model to match the real world, they then proceed to second-order wins, which is even more ridiculous.

scottjanssens
02-02-2006, 03:18 PM
Pythagorean W-L is a classic case. But when the problems stare them in the face, instead of reassessing their model, they just insist the model is right so the data must be wrong (i.e. tainted by luck). Undaunted by the utter failure of their model to match the real world, they then proceed to second-order wins, which is even more ridiculous.

I don't think many at BP consider Pythagorean Wins a solid model as much as simply a tool for comparison. It provides a baseline to which comparisons can be made. I think talking in shorthand in articles written for an audience different than the casual fan it can sound like they consider it gospel. Pythagorean Wins isn't a predictive statistic (I'm not even sure I'd call it a statistic). When a team's wins varies greatly (more than five games) than their Pythagorean Wins that just says the team has done/is doing something better/worse than you would normally expect of some "generic" team. It's simply an indicator that says this team bears closer scrutiny.

I don't think it's a stretch to say the Sox performed better than most would have expected last season. Ok, so why? They won more 1-run games than one would normally expect of most teams. Ok, so why? Mainly pitching that performed better than expected, but also because they took advantage of opportunities when presented (but mostly the pitching).

Some at BP do talk about Pythagorean Wins as you mentioned. For some it's simply by omission of context, a short hand, for others it's short-sightedness. That doesn't make Pythagorean Wins useless. It's only useless when it's value is overstated (as you said earlier) or misused. I've seen good points made with Pythagorean Wins on BP and elsewhere, just as I've seen it used to try and support some amazingly stupid conclusions. But then I see the same thing all the time with traditional stats and theories both here and in the media.

If anything should be questioned at BP, it's PECOTA. But they don't give out the algorithm for that. (And I don't pay much attention to it.)

My point is, this one poorly thought out article doesn't mean all articles at BP are without merit. (For example, the recent stats they had for leveraged relievers was quite interesting.) And all the articles without merit at BP doesn't make all analysis bogus, even with simple indicators like Pythagorean Wins.

Ol' No. 2
02-02-2006, 03:50 PM
I don't think many at BP consider Pythagorean Wins a solid model as much as simply a tool for comparison. It provides a baseline to which comparisons can be made. I think talking in shorthand in articles written for an audience different than the casual fan it can sound like they consider it gospel. Pythagorean Wins isn't a predictive statistic (I'm not even sure I'd call it a statistic). When a team's wins varies greatly (more than five games) than their Pythagorean Wins that just says the team has done/is doing something better/worse than you would normally expect of some "generic" team. It's simply an indicator that says this team bears closer scrutiny.

I don't think it's a stretch to say the Sox performed better than most would have expected last season. Ok, so why? They won more 1-run games than one would normally expect of most teams. Ok, so why? Mainly pitching that performed better than expected, but also because they took advantage of opportunities when presented (but mostly the pitching).

Some at BP do talk about Pythagorean Wins as you mentioned. For some it's simply by omission of context, a short hand, for others it's short-sightedness. That doesn't make Pythagorean Wins useless. It's only useless when it's value is overstated (as you said earlier) or misused. I've seen good points made with Pythagorean Wins on BP and elsewhere, just as I've seen it used to try and support some amazingly stupid conclusions. But then I see the same thing all the time with traditional stats and theories both here and in the media.

If anything should be questioned at BP, it's PECOTA. But they don't give out the algorithm for that. (And I don't pay much attention to it.)

My point is, this one poorly thought out article doesn't mean all articles at BP are without merit. (For example, the recent stats they had for leveraged relievers was quite interesting.) And all the articles without merit at BP doesn't make all analysis bogus, even with simple indicators like Pythagorean Wins.Baseline is a good way to describe it. But from what I've seen, most at BP don't view it that way. Certainly the author of the screed that started this thread doesn't. And then you have idiot sportswriters who perpetuate this nonsense, such as the numbskull (who didn't leave a sufficient impression on my memory banks that I can recall his name) who wrote that the Sox wouldn't repeat because of their second order wins.

As for PECOTA, along with VORP and most of the other alphabet soup BS statistics they foment, they're almost all garbage. Look into it and you find out that VORP is just OPS disguised with some lipstick. The whole Pitcher Abuse Points is based on badly flawed methodology. And on and on. There are a few that I like, such as attributing inherited/bequeathed runners to the pitchers who should be held responsible. Not perfect, but a big step in the right direction.

Flight #24
02-02-2006, 03:58 PM
Some at BP do talk about Pythagorean Wins as you mentioned. For some it's simply by omission of context, a short hand, for others it's short-sightedness. That doesn't make Pythagorean Wins useless. It's only useless when it's value is overstated (as you said earlier) or misused. I've seen good points made with Pythagorean Wins on BP and elsewhere, just as I've seen it used to try and support some amazingly stupid conclusions. But then I see the same thing all the time with traditional stats and theories both here and in the media.


This is the key that BP misses, and understandably so,since admitting it would basically kill their business of selling their "analysis". Stats by themselves can be useful if taken in th proper context and used appropriately. However, when you take them and use them inappropriately, as in saying because of run differential, team XX was definitely better than team YY, that's just plain dumb.

And ON2 - I think the guy you're referring to is Rob Neyer, with his quote something like "If you believe in second order wins (and I think by now, you do), the White Sox were the 2d best team in the Central in 2005". Ignoring not only the wire to wire AL lead & the playoff sweep, but also the head to head record against the "best" team in the Central.

Stoky44
02-02-2006, 03:58 PM
When should we start rebuilding for the future? I mean we might as well not even play this year, its over.

scottjanssens
02-02-2006, 04:03 PM
When should we start rebuilding for the future? I mean we might as well not even play this year, its over.

You may not have noticed but the Sox moved a whole lot of players around this offseason. They did rebuild for the future, the future called the 2006 season.

BP was very complementary toward KW and the moves the Sox made this season.

scottjanssens
02-02-2006, 04:11 PM
Stats by themselves can be useful if taken in th proper context and used appropriately.

What I meant by ommision of context is that the author assumes that the reader already understands the proper context and doesn't specify it in his article. When someone who doesn't understand the context reads it, they get the impression the author is saying something he isn't. It doesn't help that they tend to come up with poor terms to describe various concepts.

Flight #24
02-02-2006, 04:31 PM
What I meant by ommision of context is that the author assumes that the reader already understands the proper context and doesn't specify it in his article. When someone who doesn't understand the context reads it, they get the impression the author is saying something he isn't. It doesn't help that they tend to come up with poor terms to describe various concepts.

That certainly plays into some of the criticism, but it's still a fundamental issue that BP has - over & misuse of statistics.

ma-gaga
02-02-2006, 06:37 PM
That certainly plays into some of the criticism, but it's still a fundamental issue that BP has - over & misuse of statistics.

Sure, but you can't watch every single game, and every single player, and every single pitch. You have to use statistics to get a good feel for what you are seeing, and how it relates to other teams.

The problem is that the whole BP/statistical theory to building a baseball team is/was brilliantly summarized by BB, "my **** doesn't work in the playoffs".

So, non-statistical people give a lot of credit to those last 11 games/wins. And the stat-heads don't because of "sample size". There's a happy medium somewhere in between, and we obviously haven't found it yet.

:gulp:

Ol' No. 2
02-02-2006, 06:43 PM
Sure, but you can't watch every single game, and every single player, and every single pitch. You have to use statistics to get a good feel for what you are seeing, and how it relates to other teams.

The problem is that the whole BP/statistical theory to building a baseball team is/was brilliantly summarized by BB, "my **** doesn't work in the playoffs".

So, non-statistical people give a lot of credit to those last 11 games/wins. And the stat-heads don't because of "sample size". There's a happy medium somewhere in between, and we obviously haven't found it yet.

:gulp:No, the problem is that the BP/statistical theory doesn't work in the regular season, either. Unless, of course, you have Mulder, Hudson and Zito anchoring your rotation. Then pretty much any system will work.

The entire approach is flawed because the statistics are mostly used incorrectly without proper accounting for variability and other factors.

Pureone
02-02-2006, 07:10 PM
They are only predicting the Indians to finish 1st because they improved so much over the offseason, and the Twins second because Santana will be pitching every game for them this season. :redneck

Daver
02-02-2006, 07:38 PM
No, the problem is that the BP/statistical theory doesn't work in the regular season, either. Unless, of course, you have Mulder, Hudson and Zito anchoring your rotation. Then pretty much any system will work.

The entire approach is flawed because the statistics are mostly used incorrectly without proper accounting for variability and other factors.

What about the statistics they just make up for no reason whatsoever, like VORP?

PaleHoseGeorge
02-02-2006, 08:14 PM
Stop trying to argue the point with Baseball Prospectus. They played a full season of Electric Baseball and you simply can't dispute their scientific methods.

:roflmao:

http://www.backtobasicstoys.com/images/2183.jpg

:hitless
"That's me playing behind second base!"

NSSoxFan
02-02-2006, 08:43 PM
:hitless
"That's me playing behind second base!"

:jerry
"Ice cream is still on me!"

PaleHoseGeorge
02-02-2006, 08:48 PM
In related news, Baseball Prospectus ran a full season of simulated NASCAR races and has determined to a statistical certainty Dale Earnhardt, Jr. is overrated.

:cool:

http://www.hoslotcarracing.com/image/4-WaySplit.gif

PaleHoseGeorge
02-02-2006, 08:51 PM
Baseball Prospectus says Steelers by 10 over Seattle.

:cool:

http://www.backtobasicstoys.com/images/813.jpg

DMarte708
02-02-2006, 09:12 PM
These threads always follow the same patterns

What seems to be a monthly occurance, an article is written by Baseball Prospectus or Hardball Times which criticizes our ballclub and predicts failure. First few pages are either full of "Who Cares?" statements or those which unmercifully bash their methods. Then, usually you have your typical Beane Disciple--whose idea of a night of passionate love is cuddling up by 'Moneyball' with stragetically placed holes for certain, uh, activities. These noble individuals like to persuade people of the usefullness advanced statistics, when conjoined with traditional scouting, provide a balanced picture of predicting success. Banter continues back and forth until the detractors of FOBB assemble and remind people these publications are still reeling from our WS. Need to add something new to the cycle. :redneck

thomas35forever
02-02-2006, 09:14 PM
Just one of those "hineybirds out there who don't believe."

Ol' No. 2
02-02-2006, 09:15 PM
What about the statistics they just make up for no reason whatsoever, like VORP?They didn't exactly make it up for no reason. When you look deeper, you find it's just OPS disguised with some lipstick. And the reason is that VORP sounds so much more impressive than OPS. Sadly, no teal.

1951Campbell
02-02-2006, 11:04 PM
These threads always follow the same patterns

What seems to be a monthly occurance, an article is written by Baseball Prospectus or Hardball Times which criticizes our ballclub and predicts failure. First few pages are either full of "Who Cares?" statements or those which unmercifully bash their methods. Then, usually you have your typical Beane Disciple--whose idea of a night of passion love is cuddling up with Moneyball with stragetically placed holes for certain, uh, activities. These noble individuals like to persuade people of the usefullness advanced statistics, when conjoined with traditional scouting, provide scouting. Banter continues back and forth until the detractors of FOBB assemble and remind people these publications are still reeling from our WS. Need to add something new to the cycle.

That's all true, yet each time the jokes make me laugh out loud!

Actually, PHG's "NASCAR simulation" is friggin' priceless. :D:

SoxSpeed22
02-02-2006, 11:35 PM
Baseball Prospectus says Steelers by 10 over Seattle.

:cool:

http://www.backtobasicstoys.com/images/813.jpg"Okay, half of you vibrate that way, two of you fall down, Nelson, you just spin around in a circle."

A. Cavatica
02-02-2006, 11:47 PM
This has become one BORING subject.

How many days 'til pitchers and catchers report?

Chisox003
02-03-2006, 12:05 AM
This has become one BORING subject.

How many days 'til pitchers and catchers report?
Just over 2 weeks

:dancers: :Rocker: :gulp::moonwalk: :drunken: :bandance:

ma-gaga
02-03-2006, 11:11 AM
These threads always follow the same patterns
...
Then, usually you have your typical Beane Disciple--whose idea of a night of passionate love is cuddling up by 'Moneyball' with stragetically placed holes for certain, uh, activities.

Nice.

See I enjoy listening to Flight #24, voodoo, and Ol.No.2 who have at least put some thought into the subject before concluding that it's false, than the intelligent and witty banter of people like this.

So, the main question I have is, who keeps bringing this **** up and why??

:gulp:

Flight #24
02-03-2006, 11:16 AM
Wow. Sox Army flexes its muscles and BP hears and responds to the various critiques.



I wanted to revisit my last outing (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4734) today to clarify and expand on a few things. I think there is a perception in some quarters that I was dismissing the White Soxís chances for 2006 when that is not the case at all. I did point out that recent teams with similar run differentials didnít fare as well by and large the following year but I did so in a vacuum, not commenting on the moves they have made this offseason.
A number of the responses I got understood where I was coming from. The following note did so while also summing up the Chicago situation and throwing in a sane emotional approach to the upcoming season as well:
I'm sitting here wearing my White Sox World Series sweatshirt. I took my son to Game 1. As a Sox fan, nothing else will ever matter again. I did the one thing I often wondered if I would ever do.
Your assessment is probably pretty reasonable. To their credit, they haven't stood pat this winter. There is a good chance this is a stronger team than the one that won the World Series. Health, luck, and defense will tell a lot this year. Thome answers a critical need. Mackowiak helps the bench. Vazquez and/or McCarthy will be an upgrade over Hernandez. If they can keep the health question marks (Thome, Crede, Hermanson) on the field and productive (no small task) and if they can cover the loss of Rowand's glove adequately, this team is actually poised to be better. Of course, they could be better and still not make the playoffs or not sweep through them. All in all, I'll take my chances with the team Kenny Williams has assembled, though. And if they fall short, I'll always have 2005.
--S.B.

That's the "free" portion, so I'm not actually sure what his conclusions are, but the intro is certainly a lot less snarky towards the team than much of their other writings.

Ol' No. 2
02-03-2006, 01:31 PM
Wow. Sox Army flexes its muscles and BP hears and responds to the various critiques.



[/indent]That's the "free" portion, so I'm not actually sure what his conclusions are, but the intro is certainly a lot less snarky towards the team than much of their other writings.This is what he said in his first article that got everyone's shorts all knotted up.The inescapable truth is that the White Sox did play over their heads during the 2005 season. And with good reason. It's a stupid statement. They only played over their heads if you assume their "correct" level is their Pythagorean W-L total. Spin it any way you want, but it's a statement based on typical propellerhead logic.