PDA

View Full Version : How did they know?


LITTLE NELL
08-18-2007, 06:23 PM
Some publication in the spring predicted the Sox would win 72 games. Right now they look like geniuses. Question is what did they base their prediction on. Did they know that the offense and bullpen would have major meltdowns. I thought we were good for 90plus wins.

oeo
08-18-2007, 06:24 PM
Some publication in the spring predicted the Sox would win 72 games. Right now they look like geniuses. Question is what did they base their prediction on. Did they know that the offense and bullpen would have major meltdowns. I thought we were good for 90plus wins.

No, our starting pitching was supposed to suck.

jabrch
08-18-2007, 06:26 PM
Some publication in the spring predicted the Sox would win 72 games. Right now they look like geniuses. Question is what did they base their prediction on. Did they know that the offense and bullpen would have major meltdowns. I thought we were good for 90plus wins.

The had vision as to all the injuries and the bullpen failures we'd have. BP was dead right. I was dead wrong. Either they are clairvoyant, or they just got lucky. Since they were right, and I was wrong, I'm going to assume they are clairvoyant. That said, make the same prediction next year and the odds are good that they will be wrong.

Tragg
08-18-2007, 06:31 PM
As said above, they thought our Starting pitching would suck. That was the major argument.

But they also said that some of our position players would experience declining production: we had a lot of players in that 31-35 age group, which experiences injury and decline in production. They were correct in that assessment.


By and large they got lucky. They also said we'd win 72 games in 2005.

jabrch
08-18-2007, 06:36 PM
As said above, they thought our Starting pitching would suck. That was the major argument.

But they also said that some of our position players would experience declining production: we had a lot of players in that 31-35 age group, which experiences injury and decline in production. They were correct in that assessment.


By and large they got lucky. They also said we'd win 72 games in 2005.

Tragg - any idea how accurate they are usually?

itsnotrequired
08-18-2007, 06:41 PM
The had vision as to all the injuries and the bullpen failures we'd have. BP was dead right. I was dead wrong. Either they are clairvoyant, or they just got lucky. Since they were right, and I was wrong, I'm going to assume they are clairvoyant. That said, make the same prediction next year and the odds are good that they will be wrong.

BP may have arrived at an accurate prediction of the record but for totally flimsy reasons.

Tragg
08-18-2007, 06:43 PM
Tragg - any idea how accurate they are usually?

My very overall non-scientific assessment is that they're pretty good on predicting hitters and offense.

But they're really way off in evaluating pitching; and even they pretty much admit that they don't know squat about defense and how it affects team performance.

In pitching, they look at almost exclusively strikeouts - so they don't like Garland or MB. And if you don't like those 2, you don't think much of the Sox. And of course, for contact pitchers, defense is key, and if you can't evaluate defense...


They love Cleveland and have for the last several years. Not suprising -they have a lot of young hitters, but real holes in their pitching. Don't like us - average offense, but good good defense and pitching.

And then there are just some biases....for example, they dogged the acquisition of Garcia for many reasons including saying that Garcia wasn't that good of a pitcher (also, Reed was "elite"); but yet, when we traded him, they dogged us for trading him because we gave away a solid starter. Now really, he was no more solid in 2006 than in 2004. They don't like Williams but love Shaprio. This will be the first year EVER that Shapiro has finished ahead of Williams. So, it's not all spreadsheets....something else is going on.

But I give them my $24 a year.

I'll see if I can dig out their predictions at the start of the year.

Here they are....pretty good this year (these are the computer PECOTA predictions...I dont' know what PECOTA means):

Yanks (93), BoSox (92), Twins (91), Tribe (90), Tigers (85), Sox (73) Angels (86), Rangers (80), As (80), Mariners (73), Phils (87), Mets (86), Braves (82), Cubs (85), Brewers (85), Cards (82), Astros (80), Snakes (88), Padres (86), Dogers (80)

MisterB
08-18-2007, 06:43 PM
Blind squirrel, nut, etc...

Madvora
08-18-2007, 07:00 PM
Even if their prediction is dead on correct, it is still idiotic. There is was no logic to predicting a team coming from a World Series Championship, to a 90 win season would then finish up with 72 wins. There's no logic to say why the Sox did suck this year either.

JB98
08-18-2007, 07:04 PM
Even if their prediction is dead on correct, it is still idiotic. There is was no logic to predicting a team coming from a World Series Championship, to a 90 win season would then finish up with 72 wins. There's no logic to say why the Sox did suck this year either.

Well, as other have said, it would be one thing if they had correctly predicted the reasons for the suckage. Alas, they did not. They thought our starting pitching would blow goats. In fact, the starting pitching has been above average for most of the year.

As we all know, an unbelievable stretch of poor relief work, a league-worst offense and crippling injuries to key personnel have conspired to drag down the Sox. They predicted none of the above.

DumpJerry
08-18-2007, 07:06 PM
Some publication in the spring predicted the Sox would win 72 games. Right now they look like geniuses. Question is what did they base their prediction on. Did they know that the offense and bullpen would have major meltdowns. I thought we were good for 90plus wins.
IIRC, they predicted a 4th place finish for the Sox in 2005. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Tragg
08-18-2007, 07:15 PM
.

As we all know, an unbelievable stretch of poor relief work, a league-worst offense and crippling injuries to key personnel have conspired to drag down the Sox. They predicted none of the above.
Really, we've only had one crippling injury to a starter and one to a bench player. Then we've had assorted short-term injuries from players who are injured every year (Thome, Erstad, Podsednik). Note that we've had virtually no injuries to the pitching staff (and we are still 13 below - scary)
I'd blame it on:
1)Failure to attempt to improve the offense; when you don't try to improve, you usually get worse, and we assuredly did;
2) Bullpen
3) Injuries

JB98
08-18-2007, 07:20 PM
Really, we've only had one crippling injury to a starter and one to a bench player. Then we've had assorted short-term injuries from players who are injured every year (Thome, Erstad, Podsednik).
I'd blame it on:
1)Failure to attempt to improve the offense; when you don't try to improve, you usually get worse, and we assuredly did;
2) Bullpen
3) Injuries

Pods hasn't had an injury-plagued year like this before. Sure, he's had prior DL stints, but missing three months or whatever isn't the norm for him. Obviously Crede, and then Erstad missed two months. I don't consider that short-term. I consider that 1/3 of the starting lineup missing a helluva lot of time.

Then, you add supersub Ozuna to that list. His absence has really hurt against left-handed pitching and late in games. Pablo can do some things offensively off the bench in the late innings.

I agree that injuries are number three on the list of why the Sox failed. But it has to be mentioned when you tell the sad tale of the 2007 season.

Goose
08-18-2007, 07:32 PM
IIRC, they predicted a 4th place finish for the Sox in 2005. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

That is not necessarily true. If said clock shows AP/PM then it is only right once a day. This, I believe, more accurately describes BP.

Tragg
08-18-2007, 08:06 PM
Maybe BP knows a lot more about pitching and perhaps teaching, than I think they do:

"Bryan, Does a guy like Nardi Contreras (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/contrna01.shtml) aspire to coach at a higher level? Or are coaches like him content at getting the first crack at new talent?" Bryan Smith: "Matt, .... I think he might be best working with minor leaguers, though, fixing those curveballs at a young level when they'll buy into his teachings."

MCHSoxFan
08-18-2007, 08:11 PM
I cannot believe that were correct. Sure, they said some old players would have trouble. However, thry really were saying it would be SP. I guess I would say NO!!!