PDA

View Full Version : Perry's man love for Indians. (More Pods hate)


chisoxmike
01-18-2007, 09:33 AM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6372960

One final point on the Indians: If you look at what their record should've been based on runs scored and runs allowed (89-73 instead of their actual record of 78-84), then you'll see that they're in for a serious rebound in 2007. Expect that to happen

Yeah, well, the Sox should've had a record of 102-60 if it weren't for the 12 blown games coming in the 7th inning or later. But thats why you play them uh?

As of right now, I can see the AL Central play out like this 1: Tigers 2: Sox 3:Twins 4: Indians 5: Royals

spiffie
01-18-2007, 09:48 AM
Have we yet instituted a board rule that this jackass goes straight to the ****house just like the Windsock? If not, we should.

Yeah, Cleveland with 2 good months of baseball in 2 years, they're the team to beat. As usual, the only good propellerhead is a dead propellerhead.

itsnotrequired
01-18-2007, 10:16 AM
one of the best up-and-coming young teams in the league (the Indians).

Maybe for the batters but their pitching staff was one of the older staffs in 2006. With the addition of guys like Foulke and Borowski, it has only gotten older.

spiffie
01-18-2007, 10:19 AM
Maybe for the batters but their pitching staff was one of the older staffs in 2006. With the addition of guys like Foulke and Borowski, it has only gotten older.
You forgot Roberto Hernandez, who just recently celebrated his 42nd birthday.

itsnotrequired
01-18-2007, 10:25 AM
You forgot Roberto Hernandez, who just recently celebrated his 42nd birthday.

Yep. They also got Faults who will be 33 on Opening Day.

Risk
01-18-2007, 10:54 AM
Well, that article was a waste of 3 minutes of my life. One thing I have overlooked in the past is that this duchbag actually has penned a novel (albeit, I probably won't read it, much less use the pages of it to line the puppy cage--don't want to disrespect the dog).

I hate propellerheads.

Risk

soxtalker
01-18-2007, 11:21 AM
I'm sorry, but I can't see the outrage at the article.

One of his main themes seems to be that players and teams who have had very good or very bad years compared to their statistical averages will revert back toward those averages. That's an ok argument, though players do get better or break down over time. I think that I'd be interested in a follow-up detailed analysis of why the performance might have been so much better or worse than average.

The comment on Pods was very cryptic, though there has been plenty of discussion on WSI on both sides of the argument. You can either look at Pod's 2005 season as an aberration, or you can hope that the drop-off in the past year (actually year and a half) is hamstring recovery time.

The arguments on the Indians are interesting. We see plenty of discussion about the Sox, but it is just as important to know what the competition is doing. In particular, I'd really like to see a more detailed discussion of the runs-scored/runs-allowed argument. I know that a lot of people just want to dismiss these, but I'd ask what is the underlying reason for that statistic. What does it say about the Indians team? And have they changed anything to address that?

spiffie
01-18-2007, 11:31 AM
I'm sorry, but I can't see the outrage at the article.

One of his main themes seems to be that players and teams who have had very good or very bad years compared to their statistical averages will revert back toward those averages. That's an ok argument, though players do get better or break down over time. I think that I'd be interested in a follow-up detailed analysis of why the performance might have been so much better or worse than average.

The comment on Pods was very cryptic, though there has been plenty of discussion on WSI on both sides of the argument. You can either look at Pod's 2005 season as an aberration, or you can hope that the drop-off in the past year (actually year and a half) is hamstring recovery time.

The arguments on the Indians are interesting. We see plenty of discussion about the Sox, but it is just as important to know what the competition is doing. In particular, I'd really like to see a more detailed discussion of the runs-scored/runs-allowed argument. I know that a lot of people just want to dismiss these, but I'd ask what is the underlying reason for that statistic. What does it say about the Indians team? And have they changed anything to address that?
Well, if people should revert, then we ought to be great since our entire pitching staff had down years last year and the Tigers had massive up years.

Perry hates Pods because Pods helped the Sox to be successful without maximing OBP and by stealing bases, 2 things that according to geeks like Perry should never succeed.

As for CLE, it tells us they are great at getting those extra runs to make a 7-0 game into a 12-0 game, but that they fold like a bunch of choking dogs the minute the pressure is on. Just look at the last series of 2005 for how that goes.

itsnotrequired
01-18-2007, 11:33 AM
Perry hates Pods because Pods helped the Sox to be successful without maximing OBP and by stealing bases, 2 things that according to geeks like Perry should never succeed.

I'm pretty sure Perry mentions the White Sox in his articles simply so he can take a shot at Pods.

champagne030
01-18-2007, 11:35 AM
Yeah, Cleveland with 2 good months of baseball in 2 years, they're the team to beat.

What the **** did you smoke this morning? Chief Yahoo's club has had FOUR very good months over the last two seasons (06/05, 08/05, 09/05 08/06) and a good month in May-05.

SABRSox
01-18-2007, 11:44 AM
Why even bother posting a thread about this clown's articles? Haven't we already proven he doesn't know what he's talking about?

FedEx227
01-18-2007, 11:49 AM
One of the main reasons why the pythagorean W-L record is a joke. It doesn't reward teams for winning close games, which are the majority of playoff games. The Indians aka Travis Hafner can outslug teams... that's wonderful. Can they pitch a CG shutout, I doubt it. Can they rely on their bullpen for 3+ innings of scoreless work, doubt it. Can they turn the ball over to whoever their flavor of the month closer is, doubt it.

maurice
01-18-2007, 11:55 AM
If you look at what their record should've been based on runs scored and runs allowed (), then you'll see that they're in for a serious rebound in 2007.

Only if you don't understand baseball. Rob Neyer tried to predict the AL Central in this manner for years and always was wrong, because the Twinks kept outplaying their run differential while other teams did the opposite.

Also, if the Jndjans are "up and coming" (and if their GM wasn't overrated), they wouldn't need to "rebound." They would have improved last year instead of getting much worse.

spiffie
01-18-2007, 11:55 AM
What the **** did you smoke this morning? Chief Yahoo's club has had FOUR very good months over the last two seasons (06/05, 08/05, 09/05 08/06) and a good month in May-05.
Oh, my bad, they're good 1/3 of the time. Book those World Series tickets now.

BlackAndWhite
01-18-2007, 11:59 AM
the pythagorean W-L record is a joke. It does't reward teams for winning close games

QFT

FedEx227
01-18-2007, 12:07 PM
Only if you don't understand baseball. Rob Neyer tried to projedct the AL Central in this manner for years and always was wrong, because the Twinks kept outplaying their run differential while other teams did the opposite.

Also, if the Jndjans are "up and coming" (and if their GM wasn't overrated), they wouldn't need to "rebound." They would have improved last year instead of getting much worse.

Yeah, I really can't wait for guys to stop using that as a predictor, or to stop using it at all. It doesn't work plain and simple.

In 2002, we were "expected" to win 87 games, we won 81. Twins "expected" 87, they won 94.

In 2003 we were "expected" to win 89 games, we won 86. The Twins were "expected" to win 85, they won 90.

In 2004, we were "expected" to win 84, we won 83. The Twins were "expected" to win 88, they won 92.

In 2005, the teams "expected" to be better then us were Angels, Braves, Athletics, Indians and Cardinals. The Toronto Blue Jays should have won 89, ended up winning 80.

That doesn't mean I don't think it's interested, I still do, but to judge a teams performance based on it is an absolute joke.

thedudeabides
01-18-2007, 12:13 PM
[quote=soxtalker;1464303]

The comment on Pods was very cryptic, though there has been plenty of discussion on WSI on both sides of the argument. quote]

"and Scott Podsednik will remain a glaring liability in left"

What is cryptic about that comment?

soxtalker
01-18-2007, 12:35 PM
[quote=soxtalker;1464303]

The comment on Pods was very cryptic, though there has been plenty of discussion on WSI on both sides of the argument. quote]

"and Scott Podsednik will remain a glaring liability in left"

What is cryptic about that comment?

Maybe not the correct use of the word. I meant that he gave a very short statement with no elaboration. His overall opinion is clear; I was just asking for details.

soxtalker
01-18-2007, 12:37 PM
One of the main reasons why the pythagorean W-L record is a joke. It doesn't reward teams for winning close games, which are the majority of playoff games. The Indians aka Travis Hafner can outslug teams... that's wonderful. Can they pitch a CG shutout, I doubt it. Can they rely on their bullpen for 3+ innings of scoreless work, doubt it. Can they turn the ball over to whoever their flavor of the month closer is, doubt it.

OK. So that points to the bullpen -- maybe a few particular spots -- as the main reason for the Indians failing to win close games. Have they addressed that?

chisoxmike
01-18-2007, 12:44 PM
Have they addressed that?

Meh. Yeah they did address it. But with Roberto Hernandez, Joe Borowski, and Keith Foulke.

mjmcend
01-18-2007, 12:49 PM
Well, if people should revert, then we ought to be great since our entire pitching staff had down years last year and the Tigers had massive up years.

People do tend to revert to their career averages. That is why many people here believe Mark Buerhle will have a better year than last. Most people including this writer believes that our pitching will improve.

It is not a huge stretch to say that the Indians will improve this year.

Perry hates Pods because Pods helped the Sox to be successful without maximing OBP and by stealing bases, 2 things that according to geeks like Perry should never succeed.

Most people believe that Pods is just not that good. However, this guy's obsession with Pods borders on the insane.

As for CLE, it tells us they are great at getting those extra runs to make a 7-0 game into a 12-0 game, but that they fold like a bunch of choking dogs the minute the pressure is on. Just look at the last series of 2005 for how that goes.

Just like the White Sox. The Indians won games by 3 or more runs 47 times to the White Sox 45. Every team beats up weak pitchers to score runs in bunches.

mjmcend
01-18-2007, 12:51 PM
Yeah, I really can't wait for guys to stop using that as a predictor, or to stop using it at all. It doesn't work plain and simple.

In 2002, we were "expected" to win 87 games, we won 81. Twins "expected" 87, they won 94.

In 2003 we were "expected" to win 89 games, we won 86. The Twins were "expected" to win 85, they won 90.

In 2004, we were "expected" to win 84, we won 83. The Twins were "expected" to win 88, they won 92.

In 2005, the teams "expected" to be better then us were Angels, Braves, Athletics, Indians and Cardinals. The Toronto Blue Jays should have won 89, ended up winning 80.

That doesn't mean I don't think it's interested, I still do, but to judge a teams performance based on it is an absolute joke.

Judging a team solely on a ratio or its runs scored vs. runs allowed is silly. However, as you note, it does give a rough approximation of a team's strength.

Based on that, it is not a joke to think that the Indians will improve this year. However, I still don't think they have enough to put them over the top.

FedEx227
01-18-2007, 12:56 PM
Meh. Yeah they did address it. But with Roberto Hernandez, Joe Borowski, and Keith Foulke.

Exactly. If this was 1999, they'd be amazing. Unfortunately it's 2006, so we'll see. They really blew it by throwing Faustuo Carmona out there too quickly and their youth in pitching really bit them in the ass last year as many of the guys were simply unprepared.

chisoxmike
01-18-2007, 12:57 PM
...it is not a joke to think that the Indians will improve this year. However, I still don't think they have enough to put them over the top.

Totally. I think the Indians will put a run in during the season and will be consistant all season, rather than just a month like they have been for two years. I don't think it will be enough for them to make the playoffs but I think it will be a four team race with the Indians pulling up the rear.

chisoxmike
01-18-2007, 12:57 PM
Exactly. If this was 1999, they'd be amazing. Unfortunately it's 2006, so we'll see.

Even worse, it's 2007. Another year older.:D:

caulfield12
01-18-2007, 01:05 PM
Yep. They also got Faults who will be 33 on Opening Day.

Aaron Fultz

SBSoxFan
01-18-2007, 01:06 PM
One of the main reasons why the pythagorean W-L record is a joke. It doesn't reward teams for winning close games, which are the majority of playoff games. The Indians aka Travis Hafner can outslug teams... that's wonderful. Can they pitch a CG shutout, I doubt it. Can they rely on their bullpen for 3+ innings of scoreless work, doubt it. Can they turn the ball over to whoever their flavor of the month closer is, doubt it.

It also doesn't take into account a team's ability to score runs consistently. Winning one game 10-0 then losing the next two games 1-0 and 2-1 really messes up the pythagorean W/L!

Anyone know what the Sox' pythagorean W/L over/under was in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004?

edit: Oh, I guess someone does! Thanks FedEx.

caulfield12
01-18-2007, 01:10 PM
It also doesn't take into account a team's ability to score runs consistently. Winning one game 10-0 then losing the next two games 1-0 and 2-1 really messes up the pythagorean W/L!

Anyone know what the Sox' pythagorean W/L over/under was in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004?


2001 81-81
2002 86-76
2003 88-74
2004 84-78

The Immigrant
01-18-2007, 01:24 PM
As for CLE, it tells us they are great at getting those extra runs to make a 7-0 game into a 12-0 game, but that they fold like a bunch of choking dogs the minute the pressure is on. Just look at the last series of 2005 for how that goes.

:hawk

"I love it when you analyze"

spiffie
01-18-2007, 02:14 PM
People do tend to revert to their career averages. That is why many people here believe Mark Buerhle will have a better year than last. Most people including this writer believes that our pitching will improve.

It is not a huge stretch to say that the Indians will improve this year.



Most people believe that Pods is just not that good. However, this guy's obsession with Pods borders on the insane.



Just like the White Sox. The Indians won games by 3 or more runs 47 times to the White Sox 45. Every team beats up weak pitchers to score runs in bunches.
I agree CLE will do better than last year. But I don't think Keith Foulke, Aaron Fultz, and Roberto Hernandez are going to help them make up the very large gap between them and the top 3. I'd pencil in CLE for a season of just over .500, maybe 84 or so wins. They'll score tons of runs, give up tons of runs, and at times look unstoppable.

A healthy Podsednik is a very essential player in giving the White Sox balance. We have lots of power guys who can mash the ball. But when he's healthy he adds a dimension that makes our team very hard to beat.

Winning by 3 is one thing. But it's the huge wins. They won by 5 or more runs 32 times. Among those wins were victories of 19-1, 14-1, 13-0, 14-2, 11-0, 12-2, 11-0, 14-3, 15-1 and 15-3. Their only loss by 10 or more runs was a single defeat of 14-2 to LAA. If you remove the blowouts from the equation, their expected winning percentage becomes .484, or 78 wins, which is exactly what they won last year.

PKalltheway
01-18-2007, 03:09 PM
One of the main reasons why the pythagorean W-L record is a joke. It doesn't reward teams for winning close games, which are the majority of playoff games. The Indians aka Travis Hafner can outslug teams... that's wonderful. Can they pitch a CG shutout, I doubt it. Can they rely on their bullpen for 3+ innings of scoreless work, doubt it. Can they turn the ball over to whoever their flavor of the month closer is, doubt it.
Exactly. They're just a clone of the Texas Rangers, or the AL version of the Reds. They can stomp you 10-1 one night, but lose 3-2 the next day.

churlish
01-18-2007, 04:12 PM
Meh. Yeah they did address it. But with Roberto Hernandez, Joe Borowski, and Keith Foulke.

Wow! They got rid of 5+ ERA guys and replace them with more 5+ERA guys.

Sounds like a recipe for a crappy team. Again.

Does 'once upon a time being a good closer' count in his rationale for the Indians expected finish? (teal?)

MDF3530
01-18-2007, 04:19 PM
Here's a question: Why do certain Chicago sports fans feel they need the national sports media to give a seal of approval to their team's success? Personally, I don't care what some idiot in New Yawk, Hollyweird, or Bristol, CT thinks about my team.

jdm2662
01-18-2007, 04:36 PM
Here's a question: Why do certain Chicago sports fans feel they need the national sports media to give a seal of approval to their team's success? Personally, I don't care what some idiot in New Yawk, Hollyweird, or Bristol, CT thinks about my team.

I don't think it's an issue here, though. I think in this case, most people are trashing the opinion as to why Cleveland is going to succeed based on some numbers. Numbers are fine and dandy, but the only one that matters in the end is wins.

I personally don't care if one likes my respective teams or not. Lots of people hate the Bears, White Sox, Bulls, and Fire. The only thing I ask if you don't think a team will succeed, come up with valid reasons. You know, like actually analyze. That seems to be a lost cause these days. A great example is this week's Bears games. If you feel the Saints will win because they have a very good offense, the Bears defense has been average lately, and the Bears offense won't keep up, it's a valid reason. Stuff like, well, they haven't played anyone, they just aren't that good, their QB sucks, everyone is rooting for NO, etc doesn't cut it for me.

FedEx227
01-18-2007, 08:44 PM
Here's a question: Why do certain Chicago sports fans feel they need the national sports media to give a seal of approval to their team's success? Personally, I don't care what some idiot in New Yawk, Hollyweird, or Bristol, CT thinks about my team.

Thank you. I use to get caught up in that stuff, but thanks to 2005 I say Good riddance, don't pay a bit of attention to us we'll just keep winning. To me what matters is the team, not the analysis of the teams chances in January.

SOXSINCE'70
01-20-2007, 02:33 PM
Roberto Hernandez, Joe Borowski, and Keith Foulke.

The AL Central owes a debt of thanks to the idiocy
of Mark Shapiro.These 3 stooges make the 'Toons
pen WORSE, not better.:D: :D:

I can't wait for the HR balls Hernandez,Borowski and Foulke
throw to Thome,Dye,Konerko and Crede in 2007.:cool:

SOXSINCE'70
01-20-2007, 02:36 PM
Exactly. They're just a clone of the Texas Rangers, or the AL version of the Reds. They can stomp you 10-1 one night, but lose 3-2 the next day.

White Sox fans saw their hometown 9
resemble this team from 2001-2004.
At times,they resembled this team in 2006.

MDF3530
01-20-2007, 03:53 PM
Thank you. I use to get caught up in that stuff, but thanks to 2005 I say Good riddance, don't pay a bit of attention to us we'll just keep winning. To me what matters is the team, not the analysis of the teams chances in January.Me too. I just got used to being snubbed by the national media types to care if they thought any team in Chicago that doesn't wear blue hats with a red C on it is any good.

Cambridge
01-20-2007, 09:08 PM
Most people believe that Pods is just not that good.

Statistically, it is obvious that Podsednik is not very good. I believe that he was ninth among regulars in OPS on the championship team, which is notable in that he played a position with relatively little importance defensively.

Did Podsednik contribute to a World Series championship? Absolutely. That makes him a valuable contributor. However, a great number of MLB outfielders could have contributed more.

My point? If you contributed to a championship, you deserve adoration from the fans. But that doesn't mean you're good. Podsednik could have done exactly the same things in a different season -- a season in which the team wasn't very good -- and he would get little respect. Looking at White Sox history, a lot of guys have done more but have been ignored, or even criticized, basically because they didn't play on as good of a team.

RadioheadRocks
01-20-2007, 09:43 PM
Have we yet instituted a board rule that this jackass goes straight to the ****house just like the Windsock? If not, we should.

Yeah, Cleveland with 2 good months of baseball in 2 years, they're the team to beat. As usual, the only good propellerhead is a dead propellerhead.


Motion seconded.