PDA

View Full Version : White Sox picked to win ALCD in 2006


ondafarm
03-14-2006, 02:12 PM
The baseball savant has picked the White Sox to win 92 games and win the central division.

http://baseballsavant.blogspot.com/

He also uses "White Sox" and "God's gift to baseball" in the same sentence.

Hangar18
03-14-2006, 02:14 PM
The baseball savant has picked the White Sox to win 92 games and win the central division.

http://baseballsavant.blogspot.com/

He also uses "White Sox" and "God's gift to baseball" in the same sentence.


As long as SI isnt picking us to win anything .......im all for it

miker
03-14-2006, 02:15 PM
Obviously not a "real" baseball expert or a member of the "real" media like all our friends at ESPN or SI or the Cubune...

Baby Fisk
03-14-2006, 02:19 PM
Anyone who uses more exclamation points than me is immediately suspect!

batmanZoSo
03-14-2006, 02:20 PM
Eh, it's just a blog but I take issue with the whole luck thing. He says fantastic health for the entire team, but the main reason we went .500 in July and August was Podsednik's health. The offense just fell lame during that time because he was either out or not a threat on the basepaths. We weren't scoring any runs.

Sure they may have been just as dominating a team as the 85 Royals or the 90 Reds, but what separates the White Sox out a little bit is that they seemed a little bit weaker than the teams they were with in the American League. A whole lot of people thought Cleveland was the better team. Dido for New York, Boston, Anaheim, and maybe even Oakland.

That's just garbage all around. And what does sexy pop singer, Dido, have to do with baseball?

DaleJRFan
03-14-2006, 02:29 PM
That's just garbage all around. And what does sexy pop singer, Dido, have to do with baseball?



I dunno, man... last time I saw Dido (yea, my girlfriend made me go) she looked tired and had a pooch belly. Not very sexy. But she sounded amazing.

DaleJRFan
03-14-2006, 02:32 PM
On a serious note, do these media "experts" predict the Sox will win 90-93 games (so far 93 was the highest I've seen) because they don't trust the Sox talent and ability to win, or it is because they feel the division the Sox play in got stronger over the off-season? The Sox owned the Royals last year and it looks like they'll be able to at least put up a fight this season, while the rest of the teams (other than the Sox) are no better than they were last year. Any predictions below a 99 win, world championship season are an insult, as far as I am concerned.

GregoryEtc
03-14-2006, 02:32 PM
Avoiding the injury bug is a luck thing. We caught a lot of breaks by not catching any BREAKS (i.e. Mark Buehrle's broken ankle in spring training that turned out not to be broken...or even injured).

I don't think thats to say that the Sox lucked into a title. But they could have had everyone on the team play just as good and only won 80 games if we'd had one or two major players go down for 6-8 weeks.

DaleJRFan
03-14-2006, 02:35 PM
Avoiding the injury bug is a luck thing. We caught a lot of breaks by not catching any BREAKS (i.e. Mark Buehrle's broken ankle in spring training that turned out not to be broken...or even injured).

I don't think thats to say that the Sox lucked into a title. But they could have had everyone on the team play just as good and only won 80 games if we'd had one or two major players go down for 6-8 weeks.

I still don't get the whole "Sox got lucky and avoided the injury bug" when our best hitter was out almost ALL of the year. Crede, Everett, Hermanson, El Duque and Pods all spent time on the DL.

Maybe Buehrle, Garcia, Garland and Contreras made it through the season unscathed because of proper mechanics. The position players that didn't spend time on the DL got LOTS of days off.

Maybe the rest of the league should take a gander at how Ozzie manages his roster. It wasn't luck that the Sox were mostly healthy last year.

Corlose 15
03-14-2006, 02:42 PM
Avoiding the injury bug is a luck thing. We caught a lot of breaks by not catching any BREAKS (i.e. Mark Buehrle's broken ankle in spring training that turned out not to be broken...or even injured).

I don't think thats to say that the Sox lucked into a title. But they could have had everyone on the team play just as good and only won 80 games if we'd had one or two major players go down for 6-8 weeks.

Uh, you could say that about every team in baseball. Whats your point?

ondafarm
03-14-2006, 02:44 PM
I think he makes a couple of valid points.

1) The Sox are baseball's best bet to only use six starting pitchers this year. Those teams average 95 wins.

2) The power surge of Thome-Konerko-Dye should be as solid as anyone's

3) The Sox could use some better high OBP guys (although he misses that that is why Ozzie is trying the Uribe hitting #2 experiment. If it works, then Uribe will be a better, read that more focussed, hitter which for him means higher OBP. Iguchi should also add several points of BA and OBP not needing to hit #2.)

4) Good team defense got the Sox where they went in 2005

5) Minn and Cleveland really didn't improve this year.

6) Pods isn't the be-all end-all. His OBP for a lead-off hitter is low.

ondafarm
03-14-2006, 02:45 PM
The position players that didn't spend time on the DL got LOTS of days off.

Maybe the rest of the league should take a gander at how Ozzie manages his roster. It wasn't luck that the Sox were mostly healthy last year.

I agree 100%.

soxfanatlanta
03-14-2006, 02:50 PM
Anyone who uses more exclamation points than me is immediately suspect!

An english major, he is not. However his predictions, albeit not very bullish, are pretty close to what I read here. Pods cool-aid? Shesh!

Flight #24
03-14-2006, 02:54 PM
I think he makes a couple of valid points.


3) The Sox could use some better high OBP guys (although he misses that that is why Ozzie is trying the Uribe hitting #2 experiment. If it works, then Uribe will be a better, read that more focussed, hitter which for him means higher OBP. Iguchi should also add several points of BA and OBP not needing to hit #2.)



As evidence, albiet in few AB, Uribe is doing great at both avg & OBP in ST.

Unregistered
03-14-2006, 03:02 PM
My preview for the defending World Champions!

Like, Omigawd!

OK, That's where I stopped reading. A little too much excitement to start off a baseball preview.

Kinda reminds me of this:

http://www.unt.edu/pais/vwbk/images/cheerleader.jpg

"Ready, OK! The White Sox will win - 92 GAMES! G-A-M-E-S!"

SBSoxFan
03-14-2006, 03:17 PM
The pitching was helped out tremendously by having the best defense in all of baseball
Uuuummmm .... isn't that sort of the point? :?:

Too much of this statistical "analysis" deals with "regression to the mean". The problem, seems to me, is that it's impossible to tell whether an athlete has improved or declined due to a process change. And that's the only element in a process or system that statistics can measure. Humans are way to complicated to predict accurately.

In industry, the analysis tool is called SPC, Statistical Process Control, and it's a measure of the performance of a process as measured against a baseline, its mean. The mean is set by taking a bunch of samples while holding everything else equal. Trends above and below the mean are considered out-of-control points, as well as single points above the control limits, based on +/- standard deviations away from the mean. Based on this, was 2005 an "out-of-control point" for Garland and Contreras, for example, and should they both regress to the mean? Problem is, when the process changes, the mean and the control limits have to be adjusted. The goal of course, in both industry and atheltics, is to keep improving the mean. Compared to life, an industrial process is fairly simple to track, measure, and assess when a process change has been implemented. In life, however, the process is always changing, and it's not always possible to detect the sublties that effected the change. Last year, which could be considered process changes for Contreras? Changing his arm angle? The influence of El Duque on him? The influence of Cooper on him? If one believes any of these positively influenced Contreras' "pitching process" then his mean has to increase which likely would increase a win prediction for 2006.

So, as a final assessment I would posit that the analysis, as it's being used, is not applicable to athletic performance since the mean changes so frequently.

batmanZoSo
03-14-2006, 03:29 PM
Like, Omigawd!

OK, That's where I stopped reading. A little too much excitement to start off a baseball preview.

Kinda reminds me of this:

http://www.unt.edu/pais/vwbk/images/cheerleader.jpg

"Ready, OK! The White Sox will win - 92 GAMES! G-A-M-E-S!"

You would be turned off by that sorta thing. :cool::tongue:

Lip Man 1
03-14-2006, 03:39 PM
I don't know who this person is and what their credentials are but you have to start wondering when you read something like this:

"The 99-wins during the regular season was good enough for a 1st round bye..."

What????? :?:

Also to Dale Jr. it is very unrealistic to expect another 99 win, World Series appearance. That's pushing it to the nth degree. You mean to tell me that if the Sox win say 92 games and return to the playoffs that's a 'bad' year??

The focus should be on getting to the playoffs in back to back years for the first time in franchise history. Anything after that is gravy...

Personally if the Sox get back to the playoffs and get swept in the ALDS I won't have any complaints about it being a 'bad' year...please.

Lip

INSox56
03-14-2006, 04:46 PM
I dunno...even IF we "relied on the long ball" last season, it was, as was said earlier, because of Pods being unable to steal and put pressure on. Does anyone remember watching games the first half of the seaon? I pretty much assumed we had a run if pods got on with 1 or less outs...and I was usually right.

russ99
03-14-2006, 05:24 PM
I'm really sick of these so-called baseball experts bashing on Podsednik.

This isn't fantasy baseball, this is the real thing.

Do we really think that "he doesn't have the numbers of a corner outfielder" and can we really care less about exotic meaningless stats such as "win shares". Pods is a big reason why the Sox won last season, if only for the chaos he created in the mind of opposing pitchers when on first base.

SweetnesSox
03-14-2006, 05:24 PM
I stopped reading once he mis-spelled "Chicago" in the first line.

ondafarm
03-14-2006, 06:22 PM
I dunno...even IF we "relied on the long ball" last season, it was, as was said earlier, because of Pods being unable to steal and put pressure on. Does anyone remember watching games the first half of the seaon? I pretty much assumed we had a run if pods got on with 1 or less outs...and I was usually right.

I've said it before, Pods game is disrupting the opposing pitcher. I think that Young will be up and doing that in another year and will take over in two.

palehozenychicty
03-15-2006, 09:56 AM
I've said it before, Pods game is disrupting the opposing pitcher. I think that Young will be up and doing that in another year and will take over in two.

Uh, Young got traded to the Snakes this offseason, which is too bad. :(: I would've given them Anderson, but what do I know?

Frater Perdurabo
03-15-2006, 10:02 AM
Uuuummmm .... isn't that sort of the point? :?:

Too much of this statistical "analysis" deals with "regression to the mean". The problem, seems to me, is that it's impossible to tell whether an athlete has improved or declined due to a process change. And that's the only element in a process or system that statistics can measure. Humans are way to complicated to predict accurately.

In industry, the analysis tool is called SPC, Statistical Process Control, and it's a measure of the performance of a process as measured against a baseline, its mean. The mean is set by taking a bunch of samples while holding everything else equal. Trends above and below the mean are considered out-of-control points, as well as single points above the control limits, based on +/- standard deviations away from the mean. Based on this, was 2005 an "out-of-control point" for Garland and Contreras, for example, and should they both regress to the mean? Problem is, when the process changes, the mean and the control limits have to be adjusted. The goal of course, in both industry and atheltics, is to keep improving the mean. Compared to life, an industrial process is fairly simple to track, measure, and assess when a process change has been implemented. In life, however, the process is always changing, and it's not always possible to detect the sublties that effected the change. Last year, which could be considered process changes for Contreras? Changing his arm angle? The influence of El Duque on him? The influence of Cooper on him? If one believes any of these positively influenced Contreras' "pitching process" then his mean has to increase which likely would increase a win prediction for 2006.

So, as a final assessment I would posit that the analysis, as it's being used, is not applicable to athletic performance since the mean changes so frequently.

Excellent post. Many stat-heads believe that if something cannot be quantified, it either doesn't exist or it isn't important.
:kukoo:

Corlose 15
03-15-2006, 11:10 AM
I think its funny how he says the Sox should have traded Podsednik instead of Rowand because they won with the long ball. Yeah, I doubt Anderson will be able to make up the 13 home runs that Rowand hit last year. :rolleyes: I also like how everyone one of these stat heads just assumes that Anderson won't be as good as Rowand defensively. Do they have any basis to that assumption or are they just thowing darts?

ondafarm
03-15-2006, 11:22 AM
Excellent post. Many stat-heads believe that if something cannot be quantified, it either doesn't exist or it isn't important.
:kukoo:

"Where you cannot measure your knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory."
-- Lord Kelvin

As every U of C alum knows, this is printed on the cupola of Foster Hall.

ondafarm
03-15-2006, 11:26 AM
I think its funny how he says the Sox should have traded Podsednik instead of Rowand because they won with the long ball. Yeah, I doubt Anderson will be able to make up the 13 home runs that Rowand hit last year. :rolleyes: I also like how everyone one of these stat heads just assumes that Anderson won't be as good as Rowand defensively. Do they have any basis to that assumption or are they just thowing darts?

I'd say if Anderson doesn't hit at leats 13 home runs this year it will be a disappointing year from him. It normally takes a year or two for a player to adjust to the different parks that they play in at the major league level as compared to every minor league park and to adjust to the different hitters and pitchers and getting top-notch jumps. I take the Savant's statement as praise of how well Rowand performed last year as opposed to criticism of Anderson.

Frater Perdurabo
03-15-2006, 12:06 PM
"Where you cannot measure your knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory."
-- Lord Kelvin

As every U of C alum knows, this is printed on the cupola of Foster Hall.

World Series Championships:

Ozzie Guillen: 1
Lord Kelvin: 0

:)

McCuddy
03-15-2006, 03:04 PM
And what does sexy pop singer, Dido, have to do with baseball?

Isn't she the one who sings "There'll be no white flag trade....." ?

SBSoxFan
03-15-2006, 03:08 PM
Excellent post. Many stat-heads believe that if something cannot be quantified, it either doesn't exist or it isn't important.
:kukoo:
Thanks for sayin'. And I think that's the crux. Even if you can pinpoint some change (change in arm angle for example), the stat-heads seem to ignore it.

:puking:regression to the mean