PDA

View Full Version : BP Pegs Sox at 72-90, 4th place


santo=dorf
02-26-2007, 06:56 PM
I saw on the Cubs' MB the full posting of BP's predictions for 2007.

If you're wondering why I gave a thumbs up, the last time some nimrod at BP predicted the Sox to finish in 4th (with a record of 71-91) was in 2005.

Here are the highlights from that old article. (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3869)


The White Sox are substituting activity for performance, which is one of the last steps before "unemployment" for a baseball management team. When signing Jermaine Dye (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/dyeje01.php) to a two-year deal is the good move of the winter, it's a very bad sign. Actually, that shorts the pickup of Tadahito Iguchi (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/IGUCHI00000000A.php), who was kind of a Japanese Ray Durham (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/durhara01.php). Keep in mind that Durham had his last healthy, effective season at 29; Iguchi turned 30 in December.

Carlos Lee (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/leeca01.php) is now Scott Podsednik (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/podsesc01.php). Frank Thomas (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/thomafr04.php) might be back in April, May or never. Aaron Rowand (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/rowanaa01.php) is presumably back, taking the place of the alien that played in his body last year. It's one thing to again hope that this is the year Joe Crede (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/credejo01.php) finds the keys; it's quite another to need it to be the case. The "small ball" concept should claim another victim this year. The pitching staff isn't going to make up for the falloff in runs scored.

Freddy Garcia (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/garcifr02.php) and Mark Buehrle (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/buehrma01.php) are mid-rotation innings guys who get paid like aces. They head a rotation that's long on hope--not just one, but two Cubans with shaky recent track records exiled from the Bronx--and short on anything you can rely upon.
Dye has arguably been the best/most important signing in White Sox history.

2007 predictions:
Yankees 93-69 (+24)
Red Sox 93-69 (+24)
Blue Jays 80-82 (-2)
Devil Rays 77-85 (-8)
Orioles 74-88 (-14)

Twins 91-71 (+20)
Indians 89-73 (+16)
Tigers 85-77 (+8)
White Sox 72-90 (-18)
Royals 67-95 (-28)

Angels 87-75 (+12)
Athletics 81-81 (0)
Rangers 80-82 (-2)
Mariners 73-89 (-16)

NL
East
Philadelphia 87-75 (+12)
New York 85-77 (+8)
Atlanta 81-81 (0)
Florida 79-83 (-4)
Washington 66-96 (-30)

Central
Chicago 85-77 (+8)
Milwaukee 84-78 (+6)
St.Louis 81-81 (0)
Houston 79-83 (-4)
Pittsburgh 77-85 (-8)
Cincinnati 71-91 (-20)

West
Arizona 88-74 (14)
San Diego 86-76 (10)
Los Angeles 80-82 (-2)
Colorado 80-82 (-2)
San Francisco 78-84 (-6)

Adding the cumulative record is -2 games below .500. A mathematical impossibility.

AuroraSoxFan
02-26-2007, 07:00 PM
Weren't they the same outfit that gave Sox like a 55% shot to make the playoffs in 2005 AFTER they clinched the division?? sounds like quite a brilliant organization.

WizardsofOzzie
02-26-2007, 07:07 PM
:rolling: I love it

itsnotrequired
02-26-2007, 07:15 PM
Weren't they the same outfit that gave Sox like a 55% shot to make the playoffs in 2005 AFTER they clinched the division?? sounds like quite a brilliant organization.

Oh come on, give them more credit than that!

It was 86%.

:redneck

dickallen15
02-26-2007, 07:15 PM
I enjoy BP, much like major league GMs they are right on sometimes, and couldn't be more wrong others. But 72-90 is pretty crazy. I couldn't imagine the carnage if 2007 turned out like that.

oeo
02-26-2007, 07:28 PM
Did the Twins get a pitching rotation, and I didn't hear about it? :?:

And I just noticed...the Devil Rays are going to have a better record?

caulfield12
02-26-2007, 07:36 PM
Bonser, Ponson, Silva and Ortiz CLEARLY are better than Buehrle, Garland, Vazquez and Floyd.

LOL.

Whatever dudes.

Heck, most MLB GM's would still take Floyd on potential alone over any of those four with the possible exception of Boof Bonser, who had his moments last season, but it still far from a proven commodity.

Dan Mega
02-26-2007, 07:37 PM
And when the Sox win 97 games in 2007, the propellerheads will just say "they got lucky".

I love it.

RadioheadRocks
02-26-2007, 07:38 PM
Lab analysis of water samples taken from the offices of BP will be made available shortly. :rolleyes:

DumpJerry
02-26-2007, 07:43 PM
:supernana: :bandance: :bandance: :supernana: :bandance: :supernana:
This means a 100-62 regular season record and 11-0 playoff run! What a difference a one game improvement makes.

PaulDrake
02-26-2007, 08:07 PM
Did the Twins get a pitching rotation, and I didn't hear about it? :?:


And I just noticed...the Devil Rays are going to have a better record?
The Pirates too.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-26-2007, 08:09 PM
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/3765/115788qvxuwjj3.jpg

Ludacris

SoxandtheCityTee
02-26-2007, 08:12 PM
I'm feeling better and better about 2007. What a good laugh.

TheOldRoman
02-26-2007, 08:29 PM
BP is SOO off. The Royals will totally catch us for fourth place. :rolleyes:

thomas35forever
02-26-2007, 08:51 PM
What a horrible thing! This is going to be the worst year ever for me as a Sox fan!

Vernam
02-26-2007, 08:52 PM
I love how BP picks the Yankees and Boston to finish in a tie, rather than risk pissing off one of their two main markets. :kneeslap:

Vernam

jackbrohamer
02-26-2007, 08:54 PM
My favorite part about the "logic" in the 2005 summary is where they suggest that because Durham was last healthy and effective at 29, Iguchi won't be either healthy or effective because he's 30. What a bunch of dopes.

skobabe8
02-26-2007, 09:13 PM
I cant help but to think about that commercial with the one guy working with a bunch of monkeys as the BP offices.

santo=dorf
02-26-2007, 09:19 PM
My favorite part about the "logic" in the 2005 summary is where they suggest that because Durham was last healthy and effective at 29, Iguchi won't be either healthy or effective because he's 30. What a bunch of dopes.
Even sillier was how great Ray-Ray was last season.

BP goes down looking.

Fenway
02-26-2007, 09:27 PM
I love how BP picks the Yankees and Boston to finish in a tie, rather than risk pissing off one of their two main markets. :kneeslap:

Vernam

not the first time they have done that either :tongue:

White Sox at 72 wins??? They are insane

RadioheadRocks
02-26-2007, 10:12 PM
not the first time they have done that either :tongue:

White Sox at 72 wins??? They are insane


Given their STELLAR prognostication rate, I'm amazed these clowns are still in business.

rdivaldi
02-26-2007, 10:26 PM
To put things in perspective, this prediction would give the White Sox their worst record since 1989 when we were 69-92.

For comparison sake the 1999 White Sox finished 75- 86. Here's the starting rotation:
James Baldwin
Mike Sirotka
Jim Parque
Jaime Navarro
John Snyder
Of which only Sirotka finished with an ERA below 5.10!

I feel sorry for people that pay to read BP....

RadioheadRocks
02-26-2007, 10:29 PM
I feel sorry for people that pay to read BP....



In the immortal words of P.T. Barnum, "There's one born every minute!!!"

norsepalehoser
02-26-2007, 10:29 PM
BP has us being the 4th worst team in baseball this year being only ahead of the Royals, Reds and Nationals. If that happens then the Cubs will win the World Series.

SOecks
02-26-2007, 11:51 PM
To put things in perspective, this prediction would give the White Sox their worst record since 1989 when we were 69-92.

For comparison sake the 1999 White Sox finished 75- 86. Here's the starting rotation:
James Baldwin
Mike Sirotka
Jim Parque
Jaime Navarro
John Snyder
Of which only Sirotka finished with an ERA below 5.10!

I feel sorry for people that pay to read BP....

I still miss Baldwin and Sirotka (and Durham) :(:. Those were some of my favorite players in the "kids can play" era. BP just makes me laugh. They are some small, silly little people.

23Ventura
02-27-2007, 12:34 AM
My favorite part about the "logic" in the 2005 summary is where they suggest that because Durham was last healthy and effective at 29, Iguchi won't be either healthy or effective because he's 30. What a bunch of dopes.
:rolling:

I found that part hilarious. They're "kind of" similar. Therefore, if Durham gets hurt, all other "kind of" similar players are destined to get hurt at the same age.

MUsoxfan
02-27-2007, 12:41 AM
:supernana: :bandance: :bandance: :supernana: :bandance: :supernana:
This means a 100-62 regular season record and 11-0 playoff run! What a difference a one game improvement makes.


Exactly. I never feel better about the Sox than when BP ****s all over them. :D:

Cuck the Fubs
02-27-2007, 02:03 AM
I cant help but to think about that commercial with the one guy working with a bunch of monkeys as the BP offices.

Someone needs to run over to the BP offices and turn the chart the right way like the guy in the ad ASAP!:cool:

WhiteSox5187
02-27-2007, 02:13 AM
Woe unto anyone who under estimates the Sox.

maurice
02-27-2007, 01:27 PM
The only way the Sox win 72 games is if the season gets cancelled early.

He are a few pertinent stats for these pinheads:
- The Sox won 90 games in 2006
- The rotation is 80% identical to the 2006 rotation
- The lineup is 89-100% identical to the 2006 lineup
- The Sox haven't finished sub-.500 since 1999
- The Sox haven't lost 90+ games since 1989
- The Sox never have finished below 3rd in the AL Central

If you punch this into your calculator and it comes out "72 wins / 4th place / < PIT / = SEA / = CIN" then your calculator is broken.

RedHeadPaleHoser
02-27-2007, 01:33 PM
If you punch this into your calculator and it comes out "72 wins / 4th place / < PIT / = SEA / = CIN" then your calculator is broken.

I think mine should be broken - over the staff of BP's head.

soxtalker
02-27-2007, 02:00 PM
The only way the Sox win 72 games is if the season gets cancelled early.

He are a few pertinent stats for these pinheads:
- The Sox won 90 games in 2006
- The rotation is 80% identical to the 2006 rotation
- The lineup is 89-100% identical to the 2006 lineup
- The Sox haven't finished sub-.500 since 1999
- The Sox haven't lost 90+ games since 1989
- The Sox never have finished below 3rd in the AL Central

If you punch this into your calculator and it comes out "72 wins / 4th place / < PIT / = SEA / = CIN" then your calculator is broken.

I haven't read the BP analysis (which I believe is true for most of us commenting in this thread), so I don't really know why they said what they said. And I also look at 72 wins as being completely unrealistic.

But part of the problem in making such guesses is that we're in a really tough division. What other division in recent memory had four teams that were projected to be this strong? I suspect that many people on the outside are figuring that these 4 teams are going to beat each other up pretty badly and that at least one of the teams is going to fall more than the others. On the inside (e.g., here at WSI), we see what the Sox have and (for the most part) think that it looks pretty good.

maurice
02-27-2007, 02:11 PM
I don't think that the AL Central will be any tougher this year than it was last year, when the Sox won 90 games:
- The Twins lost 2 of their top 3 starters and added nobody. I'm not counting them out, but they should be at least a bit worse.
- Detroit added an old DH, but a number of their players probably will decline. I suspect that they'll win fewer games.
- The media seem to think that the Sox will be worse, but I think they'll be a little bit better.
- Cleveland is overrated . . . again. They have the same problems they had last year.
- KC should improve somewhat, but that doesn't mean much considering how far they have to go.

spawn
02-27-2007, 02:17 PM
When signing Jermaine Dye (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/dyeje01.php) to a two-year deal is the good move of the winter, it's a very bad sign.

:rolling:

soxtalker
02-27-2007, 02:45 PM
I don't think that the AL Central will be any tougher this year than it was last year, when the Sox won 90 games:
- The Twins lost 2 of their top 3 starters and added nobody. I'm not counting them out, but they should be at least a bit worse.
- Detroit added an old DH, but a number of their players probably will decline. I suspect that they'll win fewer games.
- The media seem to think that the Sox will be worse, but I think they'll be a little bit better.
- Cleveland is overrated . . . again. They have the same problems they had last year.
- KC should improve somewhat, but that doesn't mean much considering how far they have to go.

I think that your evaluation is not far off from what a lot of WSI members are thinking. I'd tend to agree with you, but there's a nagging thought that I really don't know the other teams very well.

I guess that I'd be interested in the analysis from an equivalent group of fans in Cleveland, Detroit, and Minneapolis. We'll probably see what the media in those cities have to say just before the season starts.

I just remember back to that stretch in the middle of last year when we played the NL Central. I remembered thinking that we were really good. But it turned out that we had the 3rd best record against the NL Central -- Detroit and Minnesota were even better!

Dibbs
02-27-2007, 04:38 PM
That is beyond crazy. They have the Sox predicted as the 4th worst record in ALL of baseball. I would looooooove for them to open up these predictions for a gambling White Sox fan (like myself), and put their money where their mouth is. Usually this stuff doesn't bother me, but this time it's over the top!

Scottiehaswheels
02-27-2007, 04:42 PM
I think the division will be tough this year... I honestly believe the division winner gets 90 wins tops... I also have this strange feeling the division will really come down to whoever does best in interleague... 1-2 game difference between 1st and 2nd again this year...

gf2020
02-27-2007, 04:46 PM
They are just asking to be wrong. I mean, worse case scenario, there is a remote possibility that we finish fourth. But 72 wins? And the Twins winning the division?

They can go to hell. I can't wait for their articles examing how they were so wrong at the end of the season with the final explanation amounting to this is an unlikely fluke that will never happen again.

mrfourni
02-27-2007, 05:24 PM
That is beyond crazy. They have the Sox predicted as the 4th worst record in ALL of baseball. I would looooooove for them to open up these predictions for a gambling White fan (like myself), and put their money where their mouth is. Usually this stuff doesn't bother me, but this time it's over the top!


Racist

J/K

s.dedalus
02-27-2007, 07:12 PM
Anybody have a link to the actual article? I'm a Baseball Prospectus subscriber and I don't recall seeing any concrete predictions like this up yet. I don't think anybody would have taken the time to make all this up, but it just seems like a piece that I would have noticed. Hopefully somebody can refresh my memory.

WizardsofOzzie
02-27-2007, 07:59 PM
Anybody have a link to the actual article? I'm a Baseball Prospectus subscriber and I don't recall seeing any concrete predictions like this up yet. I don't think anybody would have taken the time to make all this up, but it just seems like a piece that I would have noticed. Hopefully somebody can refresh my memory.
Well, someone is gonna say it so it might as well be me. Why the hell would you actually pay to read that junk??

itsnotrequired
02-27-2007, 08:08 PM
Anybody have a link to the actual article? I'm a Baseball Prospectus subscriber and I don't recall seeing any concrete predictions like this up yet. I don't think anybody would have taken the time to make all this up, but it just seems like a piece that I would have noticed. Hopefully somebody can refresh my memory.

I don't believe their was an actual article. Someone went to each of the team previews and compiled the records.

http://baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/index.php?tm=SLN

A. Cavatica
02-27-2007, 09:07 PM
Actually, I think BP's projection may be optimistic.

Consider that Podsednik may be hurt when the season starts. We will have nobody in left, and a lot of balls will drop. Jermaine Dye has lost a step at shortstop, Toby Hall is no basestealer, and Jon Garland's batting average dropped three hundred points in 2006.

itsnotrequired
02-27-2007, 09:37 PM
Actually, I think BP's projection may be optimistic.

Consider that Podsednik may be hurt when the season starts. We will have nobody in left, and a lot of balls will drop. Jermaine Dye has lost a step at shortstop, Toby Hall is no basestealer, and Jon Garland's batting average dropped three hundred points in 2006.

:rolling:

CLR01
02-27-2007, 09:37 PM
- The Sox haven't finished sub-.500 since 1999
- The Sox haven't lost 90+ games since 1989
- The Sox never have finished below 3rd in the AL Central

I don't know what goofy system BP uses to make their predictions but if you are using any of the above three stats to make yours your system is just as screwed up.

infohawk
02-27-2007, 10:25 PM
Well, for what it's worth, I checked out the White Sox depth chart stats on BP. They've got Buehrle at 4.83, Contreras at 4.96, Garland at 4.77, Vazquez at 4.50 and Floyd at 6.56. They also prognosticate that Thome will hit .263 with 28 homers and 79 RBIs. No wonder they only have the Sox winning 72 games. They've got Konerko with 32 homers and Dye with 30.

They derive their winning percentage estimates using a pythagorean formula. This involves a calculation using the number of wins and losses. I think it's a somewhat useful exercise once the season starts in looking at who's outplaying or underplaying their actual runs for/runs against numbers. It basically lets you know if a team is over-performing or under-performing, with the assumption that eventually a team will reach the number of wins appropriate for their run differential. It's obviously not determinative, but a tool to show where most teams should be with their runs for/runs against numbers. It has to be remembered that a team can over-perform or under-perform for an entire season.

I don't know exactly how they calculate runs for/runs against before the season even starts, though. For what it's worth, the 2005 White Sox significantly outplayed their in-season pythagorean estimate -- no surprise. Some of the 2001- 2004 White Sox teams significantly under-performed theirs while the Twins over-performed during those same years.

soxinem1
02-27-2007, 10:41 PM
Well, for what it's worth, I checked out the White Sox depth chart stats on BP. They've got Buehrle at 4.83, Contreras at 4.96, Garland at 4.77, Vazquez at 4.50 and Floyd at 6.56. They also prognosticate that Thome will hit .263 with 28 homers and 79 RBIs. No wonder they only have the Sox winning 72 games. They've got Konerko with 32 homers and Dye with 30.

They derive their winning percentage estimates using a pythagorean formula. This involves a calculation using the number of wins and losses. I think it's a somewhat useful exercise once the season starts in looking at who's outplaying or underplaying their actual runs for/runs against numbers. It basically lets you know if a team is over-performing or under-performing, with the assumption that eventually a team will reach the number of wins appropriate for their run differential. It's obviously not determinative, but a tool to show where most teams should be with their runs for/runs against numbers. It has to be remembered that a team can over-perform or under-perform for an entire season.

I don't know exactly how they calculate runs for/runs against before the season even starts, though. For what it's worth, the 2005 White Sox significantly outplayed their in-season pythagorean estimate -- no surprise. Some of the 2001- 2004 White Sox teams significantly under-performed theirs while the Twins over-performed during those same years.

So that's what it is!! I thought they confused the 2007 roster with the 1988 White Sox roster!!

itsnotrequired
02-27-2007, 10:51 PM
Well, for what it's worth, I checked out the White Sox depth chart stats on BP. They've got Buehrle at 4.83, Contreras at 4.96, Garland at 4.77, Vazquez at 4.50 and Floyd at 6.56. They also prognosticate that Thome will hit .263 with 28 homers and 79 RBIs. No wonder they only have the Sox winning 72 games. They've got Konerko with 32 homers and Dye with 30.

They derive their winning percentage estimates using a pythagorean formula. This involves a calculation using the number of wins and losses. I think it's a somewhat useful exercise once the season starts in looking at who's outplaying or underplaying their actual runs for/runs against numbers. It basically lets you know if a team is over-performing or under-performing, with the assumption that eventually a team will reach the number of wins appropriate for their run differential. It's obviously not determinative, but a tool to show where most teams should be with their runs for/runs against numbers. It has to be remembered that a team can over-perform or under-perform for an entire season.

I don't know exactly how they calculate runs for/runs against before the season even starts, though. For what it's worth, the 2005 White Sox significantly outplayed their in-season pythagorean estimate -- no surprise. Some of the 2001- 2004 White Sox teams significantly under-performed theirs while the Twins over-performed during those same years.

To be fair, they say they will update the projections as ST progresses. With Floyd's recent injury, the Sox will be lucky to win 65 games.

caulfield12
02-27-2007, 10:59 PM
To be fair, they say they will update the projections as ST progresses. With Floyd's recent injury, the Sox will be lucky to win 65 games.


It should go up by 5 games, BA had two hits in an intrasquad game.

Whitesox029
02-27-2007, 11:02 PM
Sox in 4th and the Phillies are going to win the NL East. Apparently their views of Aaron Rowand and Freddy Garcia have changed substantially over the last two years. :rolleyes:
Just more bulletin board material. I'm finding that '07 and '05 to this point are eerily similar. I think we'll all agree this is a good thing.

Soxfanspcu11
02-27-2007, 11:15 PM
THIS IS SERIOUSLY TOTAL BULL****!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY THE HELL didn't BP release this information BEFORE I renewed my season tickets?!?!?!?!

If I had known that the Sox were going to finish in 4th place, I NEVER would have re-up'd my season tickets!

Seriously, someone should investigate this. How "convienent" that they didn't release this information before I made my commitment to come back as a full season ticket holder.

I mean, if they had just told me this earlier, I could have spent my money on Cubs season tickets!!!

Somebody told me that the Cubs are going to be AWESOME this year!!!

Sure, I don't know who is on the team other than Alfonso Soriano, Derek Lee, Mark Prior, Sammy Sosa and Shawn Dunston, but this guy at the Dave Matthews show told me that the Cubbies are going to win it all FOR SURE this year!!!

Damn!!! I am sooooo ****in pissed that I spent my Hollister paychecks on buying Sox season tickets!!!:angry:

What was I thinking?:angry:

WhiteSoxFan84
02-28-2007, 04:29 AM
Are they serious? I'm not just talking about the White Sox, but look at the NL... every race will be decided by 2 games or less.... no team will win over 88 games (the one team that wins 88 is Arizona.... iffy)... the Mets will only win 85 games? Same number as the Cubs with no pitching rotation? Highest win total in the majors will be 93 games? Twins will win 91 games with 1.5 starting pitchers??

Never liked baseball proskeptist, hate them now. They probably did this to get a reaction/attention like the on we're giving them, but that's just dumb.

oeo
02-28-2007, 09:56 AM
Are they serious? I'm not just talking about the White Sox, but look at the NL... every race will be decided by 2 games or less.... no team will win over 88 games (the one team that wins 88 is Arizona.... iffy)... the Mets will only win 85 games? Same number as the Cubs with no pitching rotation? Highest win total in the majors will be 93 games? Twins will win 91 games with 1.5 starting pitchers??

Never liked baseball proskeptist, hate them now. They probably did this to get a reaction/attention like the on we're giving them, but that's just dumb.

They don't go out there and make bold predictions, that's for sure. If everything is close, then they can just make excuses at the end of the year.

But I do see the Mets seeing a dropoff this year. Their rotation is quite weak, and they should get good competition from the Phillies and Braves.

Lip Man 1
02-28-2007, 10:57 AM
Folks:

Remember this is the web site that said after the fact they couldn't understand how the Twins won three straight divisional titles since the 'numbers' didn't add up in their minds.

Lip

rdivaldi
02-28-2007, 01:22 PM
If you look at the Vegas O/U, they have us as the second strongest team behind Detroit. I'd take the Vegas oddsmakers over BP any day.

Detroit - 88.5
White Sox - 87
Cleveland - 85.5
Minnesota - 83.5
Kansas City - 67.5

voodoochile
02-28-2007, 01:47 PM
If you look at the Vegas O/U, they have us as the second strongest team behind Detroit. I'd take the Vegas oddsmakers over BP any day.

Detroit - 88.5
White Sox - 87
Cleveland - 85.5
Minnesota - 83.5
Kansas City - 67.5

Anyone else get the impression BP is going to look horribly bad at the end of the year?

I mean seriously that's a 15 game difference and somehow I doubt Vegas is off by 15 games...

soxfan13
02-28-2007, 01:52 PM
If you look at the Vegas O/U, they have us as the second strongest team behind Detroit. I'd take the Vegas oddsmakers over BP any day.

Detroit - 88.5
White Sox - 87
Cleveland - 85.5
Minnesota - 83.5
Kansas City - 67.5

Never doubt these guys!!! They are eerily right on with their numbers as I have found by betting when I think something is horrible out of whack:wink:

downstairs
02-28-2007, 02:00 PM
Does anyone have a link to their 2006, 2005, 2004, etc. pre-season projections? I mean the actual wins/losses for each team by division.

soxtalker
02-28-2007, 02:23 PM
Never doubt these guys!!! They are eerily right on with their numbers as I have found by betting when I think something is horrible out of whack:wink:

I thought that the betting numbers get skewed by big fan-base teams (e.g., the Cubs).

rdivaldi
02-28-2007, 03:00 PM
I thought that the betting numbers get skewed by big fan-base teams (e.g., the Cubs).

That can work two ways. If a bunch of Cub lemmings start pumping up the win number it gets brought back down by the rest of us who take advantage of the overinflation.

It usually evens out, the Vegas guys are not dumb.

rdivaldi
02-28-2007, 03:01 PM
Anyone else get the impression BP is going to look horribly bad at the end of the year?

Why should this year be any different than any other year?

:wink:

esbrechtel
02-28-2007, 06:31 PM
I heard this on the score today....if the Sox aren't at least .500 I will :puking:

maurice
03-01-2007, 12:41 PM
I don't know what goofy system BP uses to make their predictions but if you are using any of the above three stats to make yours your system is just as screwed up.

:rolleyes:
History is no guarantee of future performance, but it's fantastic indicator. I guess it's possible that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, but I wouldn't bet on it. BP says 72 wins. I'm taking the over, and I'm very confident that my "system" will pay off.

The Sox have been a 81-99 win team for 7 straight years, including last year when they won 90 games. If you're going to predict that the Sox suddenly will finish 18 games under .500 and ring up more losses than they've had in any of the past 17 years, you'd better have a much better reason than "We don't like the Erstad signing."

Dan Mega
03-01-2007, 12:51 PM
If you're going to predict that the Sox suddenly will finish 18 games under .500 and ring up more losses than they've had in any of the past 17 years, you'd better have a much better reason than "We don't like the Erstad signing."

Is it just me or has BP had some sort of personal vendetta against the Sox ever since their god Billy Beane criticized KW?

I remember their reasoning when the Sox won it all in 2005: "They got lucky".

:cool:

SBSoxFan
03-01-2007, 02:04 PM
They derive their winning percentage estimates using a pythagorean formula. This involves a calculation using the number of wins and losses. I think it's a somewhat useful exercise once the season starts in looking at who's outplaying or underplaying their actual runs for/runs against numbers. It basically lets you know if a team is over-performing or under-performing, with the assumption that eventually a team will reach the number of wins appropriate for their run differential. It's obviously not determinative, but a tool to show where most teams should be with their runs for/runs against numbers. It has to be remembered that a team can over-perform or under-perform for an entire season.

I don't know exactly how they calculate runs for/runs against before the season even starts, though. For what it's worth, the 2005 White Sox significantly outplayed their in-season pythagorean estimate -- no surprise. Some of the 2001- 2004 White Sox teams significantly under-performed theirs while the Twins over-performed during those same years.

Which points out a major problem with Pythagorean wins --- it doesn't account for variability in runs scored. An all-or-nothing offense like the 2001-2004 White Sox will under-perform in that measure. Which is better, to score 10 runs one game and 0 the next, or 5 in each game? Pythagorean wins doesn't account for this.

On a side note, I don't know why they call it Pythagorean wins anyway, because it's not based on the Pythagorean formula, or at least the only one I'm familiar with regarding right triangles, which would be easy to do. Instead, as far as I know, it's a best fit to historical data.

AZChiSoxFan
03-01-2007, 04:50 PM
:rolleyes:
History is no guarantee of future performance, but it's fantastic indicator. I guess it's possible that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, but I wouldn't bet on it. BP says 72 wins. I'm taking the over, and I'm very confident that my "system" will pay off.

The Sox have been a 81-99 win team for 7 straight years, including last year when they won 90 games. If you're going to predict that the Sox suddenly will finish 18 games under .500 and ring up more losses than they've had in any of the past 17 years, you'd better have a much better reason than "We don't like the Erstad signing."

As usual, well said Maurice.

HotelWhiteSox
03-02-2007, 06:35 AM
I think it's kind of funny that it's very similar to the 05 offseason. I remember the general thoughts of -

OF - You traded away Lee and replaced him with Podsednik? in an outfield with Rowand? Where's the offense? Dye is likely to breakdown too, he's due.
SS - I believe an exact quote on the Score was 'no baseball team with Juan Uribe as the starting shortstop will ever win the World Series'
#5 spot - El Duque was the cheap solution. Won't give you innings, will probably break down soon. A questionable staff to begin with with guys that can be above average but also have a great possibility of being bad.

IndianWhiteSox
03-04-2007, 01:28 PM
And when the Sox win 97 games in 2007, the propellerheads will just say "they got lucky".

You mean when they win 102 games this year and go 11-0 in the post-season.

I love it.

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/3765/115788qvxuwjj3.jpg


Ludacris
:kneeslap::kneeslap:

jabrch
03-04-2007, 01:49 PM
I mean seriously that's a 15 game difference and somehow I doubt Vegas is off by 15 games...

EXACTLY

I'm still amazed there is anyone out there who spends their hard earned money on this crap. BP is a complete and total joke. It reminds me of the stock market analysts, the monkey and the dart board.

BP likes crapping on organizations that don't follow their philosophical models and then, once in a million times when they are right, bragging to it.

For those interested, I'm sure you can find many sports books that would give you wonderful odds if you were looking to take the under on BPs number.

IndianWhiteSox
03-04-2007, 01:56 PM
Anyone else get the impression BP is going to look horribly bad at the end of the year?

Isn't that always the case?
:?:

I mean seriously that's a 15 game difference and somehow I doubt Vegas is off by 15 games...

Aren't the odds at Vegas created by who people gamble on?

:?:

soxtalker
03-05-2007, 09:50 PM
The BP guys were back on WGN this evening. They seemed to spend most of their time talking Cubs, but they did devote about 10 minutes to the Sox. (That's not a comment on BP; it is the Cubs station.) They reiterated their 72-90 prediction, but seemed to back off a bit -- that's what the computer said. One of the fellows even said that he's more of a Sox fan. The most interesting comment, though, was that Kenny could be counted on to make changes if, in fact, the worst-case scenario started to play out.

CLR01
03-06-2007, 11:03 AM
:rolleyes:
History is no guarantee of future performance, but it's fantastic indicator. I guess it's possible that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, but I wouldn't bet on it. BP says 72 wins. I'm taking the over, and I'm very confident that my "system" will pay off.

The Sox have been a 81-99 win team for 7 straight years, including last year when they won 90 games. If you're going to predict that the Sox suddenly will finish 18 games under .500 and ring up more losses than they've had in any of the past 17 years, you'd better have a much better reason than "We don't like the Erstad signing."

Right because the Sox winning this year because they haven't finished with more than 90 losses since 1989 is every bit as guaranteed as the where the sun will rise. I hope that didn't hurt when you pulled it out of your ass. :rolleyes: Where do I sign up for your magazine? 2005 Sox and 2004 Red Sox? No chance of winning a World Series.


I am not predicting the Sox to finish 18 games under .500 this year but using what a different team 20, 10, 5, or even 2 years ago did as a indicator of what next years team will do is every bit as stupid as the system BP uses. **** happens, bad calls, injuries, bad bounces, career years, etc.... All things that may or may not have happen last year or 20 years ago that may happen this year.

ondafarm
03-06-2007, 11:41 AM
On a side note, I don't know why they call it Pythagorean wins anyway, because it's not based on the Pythagorean formula, or at least the only one I'm familiar with regarding right triangles, which would be easy to do. Instead, as far as I know, it's a best fit to historical data.

Fairly simple answer here.

The formula for estimated winning percentage is runs scored squared divided by runs scored squared plus runs allowed squared. Becuase of all these squareds in the equation, it reminded someone of the Pythagorean formula and so for shorthand it was so named.

My opinion: Are you saying Pythagoras can't hit a curve ball?

maurice
03-06-2007, 12:18 PM
Right because the Sox winning this year because they haven't finished with more than 90 losses since 1989 is every bit as guaranteed as the where the sun will rise. I hope that didn't hurt when you pulled it out of your ass.

Your reading comprehension skills need work. I never "guaranteed" that the Sox will "win" anything. Nobody knows who will win. My only predicton is that the Sox will win more than 72 games. History shows that this is extremely likely. People (like you and the guys at BP) who ignore history are doomed to make ****ty predictions.

I'm not looking at "what happened 20 years ago." I'm looking at what happens every single year in MLB. Or maybe you can give us lots of examples of teams with winning track records coming off of consecutive 90+ win seasons and then losing 90 games the very next season. Even if this happened a few times, that just shows that it's possible but extremely unlikely.

Again, history is no guarantee of future performance, but it's fantastic indicator.

**** happens, bad calls, injuries, bad bounces, career years, etc.... All things that may or may not have happen last year or 20 years ago that may happen this year.

Yeah, lots of things "may happen." So what? Are you predicting that these things probably will happen? Do you think that BP's computer is predicting that they probably will happen? Reasonable predictions are based on probabilities and not dark cloud fantasy scenarios.

Even if we nonsensically assume that everything will go wrong, everything went wrong for the Sox in 2001, yet they still won 83 games and finished above .500 in 3rd place. Therefore, even under your dark cloud fantasy scenario, it remains likely that the Sox will win more than 72 games in 2007.

Since you think that every prediction must be "guaranteed," please give us yours. I won't bother asking for supporting reasons, since you won't be able to pull them out of your ass with your head stuck up there.

ondafarm
03-06-2007, 12:22 PM
I'm willing to post my prediction.

The 2007 White Sox will win the ALCD. Mark Buehrle will win 20 games and be in the hunt for the Cy Young.

CLR01
03-06-2007, 12:45 PM
Your reading comprehension skills need work. I never "guaranteed" that the Sox will "win" anything. Nobody knows who will win. My only predicton is that the Sox will win more than 72 games. History shows that this is extremely likely. People (like you and the guys at BP) who ignore history are doomed to make ****ty predictions.

I'm not looking at "what happened 20 years ago." I'm looking at what happens every single year in MLB. Or maybe you can give us lots of examples of teams with winning track records coming off of consecutive 90+ win seasons and then losing 90 games the very next season. Even if this happened a few times, that just shows that it's possible but extremely unlikely.

Again, history is no guarantee of future performance, but it's fantastic indicator.



Yeah, lots of things "may happen." So what? Are you predicting that these things probably will happen? Do you think that BP's computer is predicting that they probably will happen? Reasonable predictions are based on probabilities and not dark cloud fantasy scenarios.

Even if we nonsensically assume that everything will go wrong, everything went wrong for the Sox in 2001, yet they still won 83 games and finished above .500 in 3rd place. Therefore, even under your dark cloud fantasy scenario, it remains likely that the Sox will win more than 72 games in 2007.

Since you think that every prediction must be "guaranteed," please give us yours. I won't bother asking for supporting reasons, since you won't be able to pull them out of your ass with your head stuck up there.


And it's my reading comprehension skills that need work? I've never said I agreed with BP prediction or their method for getting there. I just said that your method of using the Sox sub .500 record since 1999, total losses since 1989 and final division rank in the ALC as any type of indicator for 2007 is just as stupid as whatever they use. You seem to be happy with that so have fun it it.

Since we shouldn't ignore history bet big on the Cubs. They have never lost a world series in a year ending in 07. We should probably bet big on the Braves too considering their recent playoff streak. Oh wait a minute....

My prediction? 89 wins. That may change depending on what happens during ST but I promise my supporting reasons have nothing to do with their record going back to 1989 or the margin of difference in the earth's orbit of the sun and the resulting effects.

Flight #24
03-06-2007, 01:20 PM
FWLIW, BP has a Sox feature up today, and the free part seems actually quite rational.



PECOTA's current prediction is for the team to go 72-90, as the system expects an already old team to get a little bit older, and therefore more than a little bit worse. But a quick look at what went wrong in 2006 shows that in reality they only have to improve on one side of the field in order to get back to the caliber level of play from 2005. The key, as is often the case, is pitching.

The 2006 White Sox were actually a much better offensive team from the previous year's World Series champs, thanks mostly to a breakout year from Joe Crede (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/credejo01.php), a career year from Jermaine Dye (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/dyeje01.php), and the arrival of Jim Thome (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/thomeji01.php). But the pitching collapsed, as the 2005 rotation that produced four starters who didn't miss a turn and compiled ERAs in the threes, suddenly had four starters who didn't miss a turn, but all had ERAs greater than 4.50.
The net result was a loss of nine wins, from 99 down to 90. With the Twins (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/team_audit.php?team=MIN) improving by 13 games and the Tigers (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/team_audit.php?team=DET) by an astounding 24, it meant a disappointing third-place finish in the suddenly highly-competitive American League Central.

Anyone with access care to summarize the rest?

Iwritecode
03-06-2007, 02:03 PM
FWLIW, BP has a Sox feature up today, and the free part seems actually quite rational.

Seems like what we all already knew last year. The offense wasn't the problem, it was the pitching...

Craig Grebeck
03-06-2007, 02:16 PM
They were very complimentary, pretty much lauding the bullpen moves and pimping Haeger for the fifth spot. They believe we've got a chance to dominate due to the Twins' regression and our bullpen.

maurice
03-06-2007, 06:52 PM
My only predicton is that the Sox will win more than 72 games. History shows that this is extremely likely.
And it's my reading comprehension skills that need work?
Apparently. You just provided a couple of great examples:
Since we shouldn't ignore history bet big on the Cubs.
Of course, everybody (except the Trib, other delusional Cub fans, and you) knows that "history" is an excellent reason to bet against the Cubs in '07. Could they win their division? It's certainly possible but not bloody likely, seeing as they're coming off a 96 loss season and have only 1 division title in the past 17 years. For the same reasons, the Cubs are a much better candidate to win only 72 games than the Sox are.
We should probably bet big on the Braves too considering their recent playoff streak.
Another great example . . . for me. Like the Sox and the Yankees and the Red Sox and the A's and the Twins, the Braves' sustained success made them an excellent candidate to win more than 72 games and finish higher than 4th place in 2006. Guess what? In a horribly disappointing season, that's exactly what they did. In fact, ALL of those teams won more than 72 games and finished higher than 4th place. Egads! What an amazing coincidence!

santo=dorf
03-06-2007, 07:02 PM
They believe we've got a chance to dominate due to the Twins' regression and our bullpen.
So why did they rank the Twins so high? :?: What did they say about them?

AnkleSox
03-06-2007, 08:25 PM
So why did they rank the Twins so high? :?: What did they say about them?

I didn't read it, but it sounds like BP is saying, "the sox could suck and only win 72 games, or they could dominate." Brilliant!

RoobarbPie
03-06-2007, 09:34 PM
I didn't read it, but it sounds like BP is saying, "the sox could suck and only win 72 games, or they could dominate." Brilliant!

I check out BP every once in a while and my understanding is that all of those predicted records were a result of the computer program that they use to project player performances. While the computer projects them to win 72 games, it sounds like whoever wrote that piece on the Sox today would put them at a win total higher than 72.

Common sense would say to listen to what Vegas is telling you about the Sox more than what one computer is saying... that's who I would trust when looking for a decent prediction on the Sox win total.

captainclutch24
03-06-2007, 09:42 PM
What does Vegas have us pegged at or are the predictions not out yet?

RoobarbPie
03-06-2007, 09:45 PM
What does Vegas have us pegged at or are the predictions not out yet?

From an earlier post in this thread:

Detroit - 88.5
White Sox - 87
Cleveland - 85.5
Minnesota - 83.5
Kansas City - 67.5

Vernam
03-06-2007, 11:36 PM
The Sox themselves seem somewhat amused by the BP prediction, according to this Scott Merkin story: http://tinyurl.com/3x9pjx

Vernam

SBSoxFan
03-12-2007, 05:17 PM
Fairly simple answer here.

The formula for estimated winning percentage is runs scored squared divided by runs scored squared plus runs allowed squared. Becuase of all these squareds in the equation, it reminded someone of the Pythagorean formula and so for shorthand it was so named.

My opinion: Are you saying Pythagoras can't hit a curve ball?

Well, I guess that is based on the Pythagorean theorem if you consider runs scored and runs allowed as the two legs of a right triangle that include the right angle. Lets make the vertical leg runs scored, and the horizontal leg runs allowed. The length of the third leg (the hypotenuse) is then the square root of ( rs^2 + ra^2 ) where rs = runs scored and ra = runs allowed. Then the equation you mention is the value of sine squared of the angle between the runs allowed leg and the hypotenuse. In either case, it's obvious that the more runs you score, the greater number of games you are expected to win, as that angle will get larger and larger and your winning % approaches 1. In addition, both cases work out to a 0.500 winning % if runs scored = runs allowed.

To crunch some numbers, if a team scores 800 runs and allows 600, then, based, on your formula, their expected win total is 104 since win "%" = 800^2 / (800^2 + 600^2) = 0.640. Playing 0.640 ball over 162 games equates to 104 wins (rounding up). If you base the win percentage on sine instead of sine^2, the win percentage is slightly lower. The angle for this case is arcsine( 800 / square root (800^2 + 600^2)) = 53.1 degrees. Since the maximum value this angle can have, theoretically, is 90, let's calculate the winning % as 53.1/90 = 0.590, or 96 wins. (sorry, I tried to draw a picture to show this, but microsoft paint is lame :redface: )

So, somewhere, someone got the idea that a non-Pythagorean value was a good indicator of winning percentage. I believe they came to this using historical data. I've seem similar "best fits" done for football, and they also call it a Pythagorean win percentage.

I still think it's weak tea as it doesn't account for variability in runs scored.

Regarding your opinion, not only could he have not hit a curveball, I'm not even sure he'd agree to its existence.