PDA

View Full Version : Baseball Prospectus Picks White Sox 4th AGAIN


SouthSide_HitMen
03-29-2006, 03:17 PM
AL East W L RS RA
Yankees 94 68 910 777
Red Sox 93 69 913 783
Blue Jays 79 83 788 809
Orioles 77 85 777 817
Devil Rays 69 93 744 869

AL Central W L RS RA
Indians 88 74 825 757
Twins 84 78 757 727
Tigers 83 79 800 776
White Sox 82 80 785 772
Royals 61 101 695 901

AL West W L RS RA
A's 93 69 823 705
Angels 81 81 723 732
Rangers 80 82 874 877
Mariners 77 85 761 806

NL East W L RS RA
Mets 88 74 771 702
Phillies 86 76 790 743
Braves 85 77 791 745
Marlins 71 91 660 751
Nationals 70 92 636 742

NL Central W L RS RA
Cardinals 86 76 748 703
Cubs 85 77 725 690
Brewers 84 78 742 713
Astros 81 81 717 716
Pirates 79 83 731 755
Reds 78 84 746 778

NL West W L RS RA
Dodgers 87 75 748 694
Giants 80 82 738 742
Padres 78 84 698 724
D'Backs 77 85 762 798
Rockies 74 88 806 880


My subscription runs out in 5 days. :supernana:

I am still steaming at the person who recommended this to me for fantasy baseball. :angry:

daveeym
03-29-2006, 03:20 PM
My subscription runs out in 5 days. :supernana:

I am still steaming at the person who recommended this to me for fantasy baseball. :angry: That's funny. I would be too. I bet you he doesn't use it and laughs about setting you up.

I'll add a serious question to this. How does BP present this? Is it presented as "we ran the numbers and this is what is projected." or do they actually try to justify it and say this is how the season would turn out and make adjustments to the numbers based on things like Thome coming off an injury? If it's just numbers presented I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it. The last 5 years as a sox fan has shown all of us that "on paper" doesn't mean much, good or bad.

nedlug
03-29-2006, 03:20 PM
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha haha.

CHISOXFAN13
03-29-2006, 03:26 PM
They have three teams winning 90-plus games?

That's a little low and very unrealistic if you ask me.

MarySwiss
03-29-2006, 03:29 PM
That's incredible. As I see it, they got every single division wrong!

AL East
Toronto (yeah, I know; Burnett's a question mark, but I really think they improved themselves)

AL Central
Who else?

AL West
Angels

NL East
Braves

NL Central
Astros

NL West
D'Backs (I actually don't think they have the pitching, but given the division, I'm breaking out the home team discount.)

Can't wait to see who's closer--me or those clowns.

Baby Fisk
03-29-2006, 03:30 PM
Once again, while I am not a representative of PETA, I feel it is necessary for there to be a CALL TO ACTION to conduct a raid of the Baseball Prospectus offices and rescue the little monkey whose butt they pulled these predictions out of. Poor little monkey... :(:

veeter
03-29-2006, 03:31 PM
They picked the Sox for 4th last year? Then I love these predictions.

0o0o0
03-29-2006, 03:36 PM
I am still steaming at the person who recommended this to me for fantasy baseball. :angry:
Wow. Those must be some sweet fantasy rankings then.

daveeym
03-29-2006, 03:36 PM
Wow just looked up the Sox rs and ra from last year.

741 rs and 645 ra. They predict
785 rs and 772 ra. I think they misplaced a decimal or carried an extra one somewhere on the runs against. That's an 127 run increase.

CLR01
03-29-2006, 03:39 PM
I wonder what the defenders have to say about this?

Flight #24
03-29-2006, 03:39 PM
That's odd, because their commentary has generally been positive towards the Sox in their various articles & chats. I assume it's the article that discusses their ranking based strictly on PECOTA, so I could see how it might undervalue the Sox.

The question IMO is what their commentary on the results is. At the very least I'd expect them to address it when their output has the team most "mainstream" media outlets are picking for the division and in many cases the title dropping to 4th place. Any subscribers able to post a short nugget (within copyright allowances) on their Sox commentary?

Iwritecode
03-29-2006, 03:42 PM
They have three teams winning 90-plus games?

That's a little low and very unrealistic if you ask me.

Somebody should run the #'s and see if it's even mathmatically possible. The past few years there hasn't been any less than 7 teams with 90+ wins. Sometimes as many as 11.


Also, when is the last time a team has had a 17 game dropoff after winning the World Series the year before? Well, the Angles went from 99 wins in 2002 to 77 wins in 2003 so I guess it's possible but I seriously doubt it with the pitching staff the Sox have.

I think they still can't get over how "lucky" the Sox were last year...

SouthSide_HitMen
03-29-2006, 03:46 PM
They picked the Sox for 4th last year? Then I love these predictions.

Last year they said the White Sox would finish 70-92. This year they figured on 12 more wins.

Daveeym - If I would have read this site before I bought the subscription, I would have never bought it.

These numbers were their "PECOTA" Computer generated model and they tried to backpeddle from some of the predictions including the White Sox (though they wholeheartedly embraced the 70-92 prediction for 2005 and said they had a chance of Kansas City coming close).

The author added this to the "predictions" (and my comments).

AL East - He'd bet Boston over New York (I wouldn't) - moneyball bias shows again.

AL Central - He says he thinks the White Sox 82 wins seems low but they should not be a prohibitive favorite to win the AL Central.

AL West - A's are the prohibitive favorites for the 14th consecutive season.

NL East - Mets bought their way to a title (sidenote - I am a Mets fan, I don't have them winning the division).

NL Central - The Cards deserve the 86 win prediction (I think they run away again - no way the cubs are within striking distance of anything).

NL West - I agree with their Dodgers pick only because this division still blows.

Here are my predicitions:

AL East

NY Yankees 96-66 -
Boston 91-71 5 (Wild Card)
Toronto 85-77 11
Baltimore 79-83 17
Tampa Bay 71-91 25

AL Central

White Sox 93-69 -
Cleveland 89-73 4
Minnesota 84-78 9
Detroit 80-82 13
Kansas City 64-98 29

AL West
Oakland 88-74 -
Angels 80-82 8
Texas 78-84 10
Seattle 73-89 15

White Sox over Boston 3-1
New York over Oakland 3-1

White Sox over New York 4-2

NL East
Atlanta 88-74 -
Philadelphia 87-75 1 (Wild Card)
NY Mets 83-79 5
Washington 69-93 19
Florida 66-96 22

NL Central
St. Louis 94-68 -
Houston 86-76 8
Chicago 84-78 10
Milwaukee 82-80 12
Cincinnati 75-87 19
Pittsburgh 73-89 21

NL West
Los Angeles 86-76 -
San Diego 80-82 6
Arizona 78-84 8
San Francisco 77-85 9
Colorado 73-89 13

St. Louis over Philadlephia 3-2
Los Angeles over Atlanta 3-1

St. Louis over Los Angeles 4-2

White Sox over St. Louis 4-1


I may be wrong about the playoffs but I think my picks will turn out better than BPs (though that is really not saying much).

Iwritecode
03-29-2006, 03:47 PM
Here's a board with the entire article. (http://mb3.scout.com/fclevelandindiansfrm1.showMessage?topicID=9671.top ic)

They can get into trouble for having copyright violations. Just don't start trolling the board or dragging trolls back here...

SouthSide_HitMen
03-29-2006, 03:49 PM
Wow. Those must be some sweet fantasy rankings then.

They have helped with a few sleepers but those were more than offset by several stinkers. I ran their projections this year but mostly relied on other sources. The one thing I think they do well is the injury work of Will Carroll - they rank the players based on health risk and he has uncovered several things denied by the clubs which turned out to be true several days later (including Prior and Wood which the Cubs were lying about).

Sox83Kid
03-29-2006, 03:53 PM
The BP will be about as worthless as my NCAA brackets come October! :redneck

samram
03-29-2006, 04:19 PM
That's odd, because their commentary has generally been positive towards the Sox in their various articles & chats. I assume it's the article that discusses their ranking based strictly on PECOTA, so I could see how it might undervalue the Sox.

The question IMO is what their commentary on the results is. At the very least I'd expect them to address it when their output has the team most "mainstream" media outlets are picking for the division and in many cases the title dropping to 4th place. Any subscribers able to post a short nugget (within copyright allowances) on their Sox commentary?

I got a password from a buddy of mine, so here's what I found:

- The Sox got lucky.

That's the basic analysis, that the Sox got lucky and won a bunch of one run games.

Some specifics:

- Their offense wasn't very good last year and Thome won't make it much better this year.

- The BP is shaky and McCarthy may end up being the closer, but it will take a while to make that change, which they contend is bad.

- Losing Rowand will hurt the defense and Konerko and Crede were lucky to be so good.

My guess is they just rewrote last year's PECOTA article with different names.

Dan Mega
03-29-2006, 04:49 PM
BP is completely worthless. They worship everything and anything that Billy Beane does/says, and if any other team besides Oakland does well its because they got lucky. BP said the same thing about the Red Sox in 2004 (!).

Championships:
Kenny Williams-1
Billy Beane- Goose Egg

PaulDrake
03-29-2006, 05:18 PM
Are those 82 real wins or Pythagorean wins?

samram
03-29-2006, 05:31 PM
Are those 82 real wins or Pythagorean wins?

They're 82 BP wins, which means nothing, since they don't like any player that doesn't walk or homer everytime at bat, or any pitcher who doesn't strike out every batter he faces.

SoxEd
03-29-2006, 05:57 PM
Once again, while I am not a representative of PETA, I feel it is necessary for there to be a CALL TO ACTION to conduct a raid of the Baseball Prospectus offices and rescue the little monkey whose butt they pulled these predictions out of. Poor little monkey... :(:

:kneeslap:

On the subject of BA saying we'll finish 4th in the Division, if they say this every year, one year they'll wind up being right, and then they'll be able to point out what bunch of geniuses they are.

The Numpties.
:rolleyes:

maurice
03-29-2006, 06:08 PM
Chances are that it'll take awhile before the 4th-place prediction comes true. I post this every year, but it's amazing to me that a bunch of statheads remain unaware of the fact that the Sox haven't finished lower than 3rd place since 1989--a pretty amazing feat. (Heck, the Sox have finished in 1st or 2nd place in 13 of the last 16 years. In the same time span, the Cubs have finished 1st or 2nd only 3 times.) It's extremely unlikely that the Sox would win the World Series, jack up their payroll, compile the deepest starting rotation in recent memory, and then collapse to 4th place behind the lowly Tigers.

Then again, BP made the same 4th-place prediction well into the 2005 season, when the Sox had the best record in baseball. At that point (if not sooner), it became obvious that BP deserves to be printed on 2-ply tissue paper.

Banix12
03-29-2006, 06:40 PM
The only thing this proves is the sox don't do well in simulations. Which I expect since most of these simulations are built on the biases of the creators and how they believe a team wins ballgames. The sox have pretty much shown that they don't necessarily suscribe to most of those theories that these people hold dear so they should fail at their simulations most of the time.

daveeym
03-29-2006, 06:49 PM
The only thing this proves is the sox don't do well in simulations. Which I expect since most of these simulations are built on the biases of the creators and how they believe a team wins ballgames. The sox have pretty much shown that they don't necessarily suscribe to most of those theories that these people hold dear so they should fail at their simulations most of the time. And we all know who the king of simulations are.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-29-2006, 06:53 PM
And we all know who the king of simulations are.

Baseball Prospectus picked us fourth? That's odd. I ran the simulation and we came up fifth!

:wink:

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

PaleHoseGeorge
03-29-2006, 06:56 PM
In other news, Baseball Prospectus runs a NASCAR simulation and declares Jeff Gordon definitely overrated. And lucky, too.
:roflmao:

http://jaghobbies.com/images/slotcars/tycocars/tyco_4.jpg

SouthSide_HitMen
03-29-2006, 07:14 PM
In other news, Baseball Prospectus runs a NASCAR simulation and declares Jeff Gordon definitely overrated. And lucky, too.
:roflmao:

BP Football Simulator -
http://www.jsonline.com/packer/arc/0124/image/FOOTBALL.jpg

BP Prospectus Hockey Simulator -

http://www.peterreynolds.ca/games/eaglex.jpg

BP World Cup Predictor - 1 Stathead for each team

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_oct2004/FoosballMaze.jpg

BP Boxing Predictor -

http://www.mrtoys.com/board-games/pics/Rockem-Sockem-Robots-Game.jpg

ma-gaga
03-29-2006, 07:20 PM
I wonder what the defenders have to say about this?

I think the company line is "Players tend to regress to the mean". And since several W.Sox had "career years" last year, they expect a regression...

I don't really have much interest in defending specific ideas/arguments against the 20+ of you that have already posted, and/or the 20 that will followup with clever posts about me justifying my subscription, or cool geometrical figures, or slams involving Billy Beane...

You either like what they do, or you don't.

I'll take a look at the projections, and will post some of the more outrageous ones.

Lip Man 1
03-29-2006, 07:35 PM
Screw BP and the horse they road in on. 'Fantasy-Geek' baseball at it's best, which means it has absolutely no connection or involvement in the real world or what actually happens in a 'real' baseball game.

What dumb doofusses.

Lip

TDog
03-29-2006, 08:03 PM
I think the company line is "Players tend to regress to the mean". And since several W.Sox had "career years" last year, they expect a regression...

Is it only a "career year" if your team wins? I've heard a lot of people say Garland had a career year. I don't think I've heard anyone say Derek Lee had a career year.

I view career years differently. I won't say someone has had a career year until his career is over and I can look at his career. Now it can be seen, for example, that Jerome Walton's career year was his rookie year. Same goes for Mark Fydrich.

ma-gaga
03-29-2006, 08:05 PM
yeah. So, if you want to see the main stat categories for the W.Sox, Twins and Indians, follow the link:

HERE. (http://www.tc.umn.edu/~dunca016/Pecota%20-%203_29_06.jpg)

No big surprises. Jon Garland, Jose Conteras and the entire bullpen regresses. Thome only hits 22 homers which looks low. However he stays healthy enough to get 433 plate appearances...

bleagh, they have Batista getting 444 plate appearances at 3rd base for the Twins, and Cuddyer DH'ing. Somehow RonDL White stays healthy for 436 plate appearances...

And the Indians... who cares. Take a look.

Now I'm sure the "park factors" cavaet applies. Strictly looking at ERA isn't exactly the best measure. The Twins play in a pitchers park, and the W.Sox play in a hitters park. A couple of the 'park adjusted' stats are a little more appropriate, but I'm not posting VORP.

:cool: enjoy.

santo=dorf
03-29-2006, 08:39 PM
yeah. So, if you want to see the main stat categories for the W.Sox, Twins and Indians, follow the link:

HERE. (http://www.tc.umn.edu/~dunca016/Pecota%20-%203_29_06.jpg)

No big surprises. Jon Garland, Jose Conteras and the entire bullpen regresses. Thome only hits 22 homers which looks low. However he stays healthy enough to get 433 plate appearances...

bleagh, they have Batista getting 444 plate appearances at 3rd base for the Twins, and Cuddyer DH'ing. Somehow RonDL White stays healthy for 436 plate appearances...

And the Indians... who cares. Take a look.

Now I'm sure the "park factors" cavaet applies. Strictly looking at ERA isn't exactly the best measure. The Twins play in a pitchers park, and the W.Sox play in a hitters park. A couple of the 'park adjusted' stats are a little more appropriate, but I'm not posting VORP.

:cool: enjoy.

Javier leads the staff with a 4.04 ERA? :?:

If my math is correct, the cumulative record of all the teams is 6 games below .500. A mathematical impossibility. Either BP is full of ****, or they plan on using the same excuse after the Sox clinched even though they declared the Sox had an 88% chance of winning the division.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/images/logo.gif (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/)
"Phytagorean, Euclid, and Newton have decided that if two teams play a game, one must win and lose leading to a .500 record. These mathematicians call a win+loss divided by 2 a .500 record, but just because they call it that doesn't make it .500.

But it's their studies and their laws, so in that respect they can do whatever they want."


:rolleyes:

maurice
03-29-2006, 09:07 PM
We've been through this before. Only a small number of Sox players actually had a "career year." In fact, several key players dropped off in major statistical categories. The Sox spent millions of dollars on guys who played poorly, rarely, or not at all. Besides, rookies and players in their mid-20s are incapable of having "career years." There is no established "mean" for them to "regress to."

The Sox posted the best record in the AL and then went 11-1 in the playoffs. They would have been better than the Tigers, even if Pablo Ozuna, Dustin Hermanson, and Cliff Politte didn't have career years.
:rolleyes:

RadioheadRocks
03-29-2006, 09:09 PM
I think I saw that issue of Baseball Prospectus at the store, right between White Cloud and Charmin in the paper products aisle. :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Ol' No. 2
03-29-2006, 09:12 PM
They pick the Sox for 12 more wins than last year? 111-51 :bandance::bandance::bandance::bandance::bandance:

maurice
03-29-2006, 09:24 PM
follow the link: HERE. (http://www.tc.umn.edu/~dunca016/Pecota%20-%203_29_06.jpg)

It's extremely unlikely that the entire Sox staff will finish with a 4.something ERA and zero pitchers with more than 13 wins. Nonetheless, they project a 4.33 team ERA. That would have been 6th in the AL last year. Going with that extremely conservative estimate and then adding in the Sox improved offense and nearly identical defense, there's no way in hell that the Sox finish in 4th place behind the Tigers.

drewcifer
03-29-2006, 09:37 PM
There's no way the Sox finish with less than 86 Wins, period. That's their AVERAGE over the last 5 years and this is the best ALL AROUND team in that time (and only one finish lower than 2nd to boot).

BP is just trying to sell their product. Their math is no better than my g/fs uniform color formula for picking winners.

My autosig is a special tribute to the Saber ****heads I came across last year (not here, obviously).

And the tip of the iceberg is getting Billy Beane to autograph my copy of "Moneyball" on the page he calls KW an idiot....

Hey Billy -
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f322/fugnutz/image98.jpg
Got a suction feature on that calculator?

TommyJohn
03-29-2006, 10:00 PM
Last year some Mr. Peepers look-a-like wrote a long dissertation on how
"mediocre" teams have won the World Series lately, citing the Diamondbacks,
Angels, Marlins and White Sox. (The 2000 Yankees and 2004 Red Sox are
absent) He throws out a slew of hard-to-comprehend statistics to prove
his point. He also states that it no longer happens "once in a while" a la
the 1969 Mets.

This is what infuriates me about all these BPers. They suck all the fun out
of baseball with their myriad statistics. An upset or "Cinderella" team is
no longer a great story of how a team given no chance rises up to take
down a Goliath and shock the sports world; it is a case of a "mediocre"
team getting "lucky" because they don't fit the profile of a "good" or
"great" team as determined by all of their statistical formulae. They have
successfully quantified and dehumanized baseball and bascially reduced
it to cold numbers. Give me the "Miracle Mets" or 2003 Marlins-Yankees
"David beats Goliath" over "The A's and Billy Beane didn't win. Therefore
the winners got lucky."

RadioheadRocks
03-29-2006, 10:07 PM
Last year some Mr. Peepers look-a-like wrote a long dissertation on how
"mediocre" teams have won the World Series lately, citing the Diamondbacks,
Angels, Marlins and White Sox. (The 2000 Yankees and 2004 Red Sox are
absent) He throws out slew of hard-to-comprehend statistics to prove
his point. He also states that it no longer happens "once in a while" a la
the 1969 Mets.

This is what infuriates me about all these BPers. They suck all the fun out
of baseball with their myriad statistics. An upset or "Cinderella" team is
no longer a great story of how a team given no chance rises up to take
down a Goliath and shock the sports world; it is a case of a "mediocre"
team getting "lucky" because they don't fit the profile of a "good" or
"great" team as determined by all of their statistical formulae. They have
successfully quantified and dehumanized baseball and bascially reduced
it to cold numbers. Give me the "Miracle Mets" or 2003 Marlins-Yankees
"David beats Goliath" over "The A's and Billy Beane didn't win. Therefore
the winners got lucky."

Shouldn't that be a clue for these statheads to give it up?

1951Campbell
03-29-2006, 10:34 PM
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/PythagoreanTheorem_1000.gif

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

itsnotrequired
03-29-2006, 11:38 PM
Hey Billy -
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f322/fugnutz/image98.jpg
Got a suction feature on that calculator?

Half the guys on that bus aren't even on the team anymore. Repeat is impossible.

SOXSINCE'70
03-30-2006, 08:31 AM
NL East - Mets bought their way to a title (sidenote - I am a Mets fan, I don't have them winning the division).

Neither do I.I do agree with your NL wild card choice.
Rowand and the Phillies will be there if they get any
kind of consistant pitching.:cool: The Braves will win yet another N.L. East title.

SoxEd
03-30-2006, 02:58 PM
They pick the Sox for 12 more wins than last year? 111-51 :bandance::bandance::bandance::bandance::bandance:
Or 110-52 & 11-0.

Uncle_Patrick
03-30-2006, 03:03 PM
Half the guys on that bus aren't even on the team anymore. Repeat is impossible.

:everett:
"That's what I said. I was a leader."

SouthSide_HitMen
03-30-2006, 03:05 PM
Today the writers overruled the computer and bumped up the White Sox to second place (behind Cleveland) in their consensus ballot. Joe Sheehan previewed the AL Central and predicted Minnesota to win the division (White Sox edging out Cleveland for third).

I am glad BP did not pick the White Sox otherwise I would be worried entering this season. :tongue:

FedEx227
03-30-2006, 03:30 PM
Why is everyones fashionable pick for the past 5 years been either Oakland or Minnesota?

I'm sorry, yes Oakland has a nice pitching staff, and yes I understand BP sucking Oakland's teet... but almost every news source I've seen has at least one or two of their expert writers picking Oakland to win it all.

Did I miss something? Or is this still the team whose only great hitter is Eric Chavez, and are banking on Milton Bradley not having a mental breakdown again?

Plus I don't see anything really overwhelming me about the Twins. Yes they have Santana, and they have some great young pitching, but their offense still looks pretty dull to me, even if Morneau gets going again.

TDog
03-30-2006, 06:01 PM
...

Did I miss something? ...

I wonder if I missed something, like maybe the baseball season has been replaced by a popular contest. Let's hear them predict which team will hand out World Series rings on the field next week.

The truth is, I don't expect the White Sox to win the World Series this year. I don't see how any fan can expect their team to win three rounds of short series after finishing first (or at least with one of the league's four best records) over six months with games nearly every day. I hope the Sox will repeat. I think they have a good chance.

I don't think anyone can "expect" the White Sox to finish third or fourth either.

Lip Man 1
03-30-2006, 10:38 PM
I'll be more then satisfied if they can get to the post season in back to back years for the first time in franchise history.

Lip

Banix12
03-30-2006, 11:29 PM
Why is everyones fashionable pick for the past 5 years been either Oakland or Minnesota?

I'm sorry, yes Oakland has a nice pitching staff, and yes I understand BP sucking Oakland's teet... but almost every news source I've seen has at least one or two of their expert writers picking Oakland to win it all.

Did I miss something? Or is this still the team whose only great hitter is Eric Chavez, and are banking on Milton Bradley not having a mental breakdown again?

Plus I don't see anything really overwhelming me about the Twins. Yes they have Santana, and they have some great young pitching, but their offense still looks pretty dull to me, even if Morneau gets going again.

My theory about why Oakland always wins in BP's projections is that Oakland uses many of the same sabermetric theories to build their team that BP uses to build their simulation. So it's possible that they have an advantage in the computer simulation

Though Oakland hasn't exactly been bad during this period, they have been a very good team, they just have never finished the deal.

As for Minnesota, It seems to be a product of people being very high on their prospects combined with a lot of projections underrating the in division competition.

As for non-BP people picking those teams. I think a lot of teams like Oakland's pitching, they like how hot they got in the second half, and I think a lot of people think the Angels have stagnated and didn't improve much in the offseason.

Minnesota this year seems to be some sort of underdog thing. Much like how guys are actually picking Detroit this year as well.

AuroraSoxFan
03-31-2006, 10:06 AM
iF ANYONE AT BASEBALL PROSPECTUS WANTS TO PUT THEIR $$$ WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS THAT IS OK WITH ME!

soxinem1
03-31-2006, 01:43 PM
That's incredible. As I see it, they got every single division wrong!

AL East
Toronto (yeah, I know; Burnett's a question mark, but I really think they improved themselves)

AL Central
Who else?

AL West
Angels

NL East
Braves

NL Central
Astros

NL West
D'Backs (I actually don't think they have the pitching, but given the division, I'm breaking out the home team discount.)

Can't wait to see who's closer--me or those clowns.


Another slap is the obvious insistence that the AL Central is very weak, as noticed by them giving noone in the division 90 wins.

Oh well, can't please everyone!! The team will just have to prove them wrong, AGAIN!!!