PDA

View Full Version : We all had a good laugh over this projection....


Fenway
06-25-2007, 11:40 AM
We all thought Baseball Prospectus was nuts with this projection last March....

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6023


White Sox 72-90


:whiner:

UserNameBlank
06-25-2007, 11:44 AM
They're still dumb as hell even if they're right. The numbers they had pegged for the team were ridiculous and they couldn't have forseen all these injuries. I think a lot of people were expecting Dye to regress a bit but not that much. Paulie was a huge surprise but he'll have somewhat respectable numbers by year's end IMO. Thome will be productive as long as he stays healthy.

Mr. White Sox
06-25-2007, 12:03 PM
They're still dumb as hell even if they're right. The numbers they had pegged for the team were ridiculous and they couldn't have forseen all these injuries. I think a lot of people were expecting Dye to regress a bit but not that much. Paulie was a huge surprise but he'll have somewhat respectable numbers by year's end IMO. Thome will be productive as long as he stays healthy.

Someone show me the PECOTA projections suggesting the bullpen would have a 6.5+ ERA by July. I'm waiting.

WizardsofOzzie
06-25-2007, 12:33 PM
Someone show me the PECOTA projections suggesting the bullpen would have a 6.5+ ERA by July. I'm waiting.
I always think of this thread (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=86701&highlight=best+bullpen) myself. How the mighty have fallen :whiner: :(:

Fenway
06-25-2007, 12:36 PM
I always think of this thread (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=86701&highlight=best+bullpen) myself. How the mighty have fallen :whiner: :(:

I don't know how Kenny can sleep at night....it all looked perfect on paper

skobabe8
06-25-2007, 01:06 PM
We all thought Baseball Prospectus was nuts with this projection last March....

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6023


White Sox 72-90


:whiner:

Did they say the starting pitching would be good and the offense would be dead last? Or did they say the exact opposite, but still happen to probably predict the record?

munchman33
06-25-2007, 01:11 PM
Did they say the starting pitching would be good and the offense would be dead last? Or did they say the exact opposite, but still happen to probably predict the record?

I remember reading them saying the Sox would be in trouble because of an aging core and that we'd be in trouble when Thome, Konerko, and Dye all failed to hit due to injury and fading ability. We all tended to agree the sox would be in trouble if that happened to all three.

Well ****. It did.

esbrechtel
06-25-2007, 01:30 PM
as the slide has continued I thought, "damn now we make BP look right..."

spiffie
06-25-2007, 01:34 PM
as the slide has continued I thought, "damn now we make BP look right..."
To celebrate they can throw a party in Nate Silver's mom's basement. Maybe she'll make snacks for them.

oeo
06-25-2007, 02:07 PM
I don't know how Kenny can sleep at night....it all looked perfect on paper

It obviously all looked perfect in results, as well. They were pretty damn good for that first month and a half. Out of nowhere, everyone just lost it.

ND_Sox_Fan
06-25-2007, 02:30 PM
White Sox 72-90

Ignore the reasons they cited, and their record prediction might very well be too optimistic.

soxtalker
06-25-2007, 02:40 PM
Whenever fans get on the BP guys, I always remember hearing an interview of one of the BP fellows on WGN right after this came out. He had one major additional comment about the Sox. He said that KW was so aggressive that he'd expect him to make moves to correct the situation if it looked like their prediction was proving accurate. Now, so many things have fallen apart so fast / early that even this hasn't worked out.

downstairs
06-25-2007, 03:01 PM
Sheesh... while I admit that BP geeks get a bit too religious about their ideas... come on, they pegged "something" damn right that no one but no one here was willing to forsee (fair enough, we're all Sox fans!)

And, if you look at their projections for all teams over a few years... they're close to right more often than they're not.

BTW- quit blaming injuries. They aren't our problem. Just not. Sorry.

jackbrohamer
06-25-2007, 03:49 PM
A broken clock is right twice every day

downstairs
06-25-2007, 03:55 PM
A broken clock is right twice every day

So you look at things like the BP projections and see them no differently than if someone randomly placed teams by pulling them out of a hat?

ma-gaga
06-25-2007, 03:58 PM
Someone show me the PECOTA projections suggesting the bullpen would have a 6.5+ ERA by July. I'm waiting.

Did they say the starting pitching would be good and the offense would be dead last? Or did they say the exact opposite, but still happen to probably predict the record?

It's pretty funny, about half the posters on this thread are on my ignore list. :cool:

Here are the "Depth Chart" projections from April 16th, (they've been updating them about once a month since the start of the season) and then I pulled the "actual" from the White Sox Baseball-Reference page, and did some basic comparisons at the bottom.

They kind of nailed the pitching. But even BP didn't expect this much offensive dropoff:

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~dunca016/BP%20Projections%20-%20WSox%20-%2004_16_07.jpg

Look at that bottom row; Runs, Homeruns, RBI's, SB's - all *edit* 19%+ lower than even the BP projections predicted.

It'll be interesting to see the final numbers. :gulp:

Foulke You
06-28-2007, 03:42 PM
BTW- quit blaming injuries. They aren't our problem. Just not. Sorry.
So...you're saying injuries played no part in the '07 Sox fade? I'm sorry, I tend to agree with Greg Walker's take on this year. It was a perfect storm that hit the Sox. Injuries, bad bullpen, and offensive struggles all equally contributed to our downfall. You can't single out one over the other and you certainly can't say that injuried didn't contribute to the slide.

roadrunner
06-28-2007, 04:04 PM
thome, erstad,pods,crede = reasonably foreseeable injuries

Other teams have also had injuries. Off the top of my head I'm thinking det's bullpen and joe mauer and LORIANO.

Injuries were not the reason that Konerko and Dye began the season hitting like puds. I would include Crede too since his back problem was no secret.

As long as the pitching is healthy I don't think you can blame injuries.

santo=dorf
06-28-2007, 04:11 PM
So...you're saying injuries played no part in the '07 Sox fade? I'm sorry, I tend to agree with Greg Walker's take on this year. It was a perfect storm that hit the Sox. Injuries, bad bullpen, and offensive struggles all equally contributed to our downfall. You can't single out one over the other and you certainly can't say that injuried didn't contribute to the slide.
Yes injuries have played a part in this season, but when you sign injury prone players to be key contributors, you better have a backup plan in place.

If you build a house by the ocean, you better not complain when the hurricane eventually hits and you don't have homeowner's insurance.

chaotic8512
06-28-2007, 04:49 PM
It's pretty funny, about half the posters on this thread are on my ignore list. :cool:

Here are the "Depth Chart" projections from April 16th, (they've been updating them about once a month since the start of the season) and then I pulled the "actual" from the White Sox Baseball-Reference page, and did some basic comparisons at the bottom.

They kind of nailed the pitching. But even BP didn't expect this much offensive dropoff:

Look at that bottom row; Runs, Homeruns, RBI's, SB's - all 44%+ lower than even the BP projections predicted.

It'll be interesting to see the final numbers. :gulp:

Might be because whoever did that counted Jim Thome twice, Josh Fields 4 times, Rob Mackowiak 5 times... you get the point.

I mean, really, who thought we'd be THIS far off pace from 300 team HRs? :D:

voodoochile
06-28-2007, 06:53 PM
It's pretty funny, about half the posters on this thread are on my ignore list. :cool:

Here are the "Depth Chart" projections from April 16th, (they've been updating them about once a month since the start of the season) and then I pulled the "actual" from the White Sox Baseball-Reference page, and did some basic comparisons at the bottom.

They kind of nailed the pitching. But even BP didn't expect this much offensive dropoff:



Look at that bottom row; Runs, Homeruns, RBI's, SB's - all 44%+ lower than even the BP projections predicted.

It'll be interesting to see the final numbers. :gulp:

The starters haven't been nearly as bad as BP projected on 4/16. The main starting 5 have an ERA of 3.99 (actual calculation) and a WHIP of 1.28 (just an average of the WHIP - actually should be a bit lower as the two guys with the worst numbers have also pitched much less innings).

If anything this shows the Sox may have a run in them because the offense is bound to progress to the norm and the starting pitching is out performing the projections (and actually putting up numbers in line with career averages). The sole question mark remains the bullpen and it clearly is having a horrible year. I don't need stats to see that's true.

Making season projections on 4/16 is silly anyway, because anybody can have a great or horrible 2 week run. Heck, the newspapers don't even start listing stats until late April/early May. Yet, BP thinks they can make projections a day after taxes are due. That's just plain silly...

rdivaldi
06-28-2007, 07:22 PM
I'm still laughing at that prediction because this team is going to win a lot more than 72 games.

WLL1855
06-28-2007, 11:30 PM
So you look at things like the BP projections and see them no differently than if someone randomly placed teams by pulling them out of a hat?

Pretty much. Throw enough crap at a wall and some of it will stick.

ma-gaga
06-29-2007, 04:42 PM
Might be because whoever did that counted Jim Thome twice, Josh Fields 4 times, Rob Mackowiak 5 times... you get the point.

I mean, really, who thought we'd be THIS far off pace from 300 team HRs? :D:


aw crap. No wonder I'm getting my ass kicked in Fantasy Baseball.

The overall "counting" stats are supposed to be ratio'ed by PA's. They obviously aren't, and the lightbulb didn't go off in my head when I came up with the 45% - 50% errors.

I'll tweak it and update the picture. :cool:

AZChiSoxFan
06-29-2007, 04:51 PM
A broken clock is right twice every day

Ding, ding! We have a winner.

If they predict the Sox to suck every year, eventually some year they will be right. And you can bet your last dollar they will be sure and let everyone know they were right, all the while ignoring the fact that they have been wrong about the Sox for the last 7 years. What a bunch of tools.

ma-gaga
06-29-2007, 04:52 PM
Making season projections on 4/16 is silly anyway, because anybody can have a great or horrible 2 week run.

Well, the projections are based on their PECOTA's, which are generated in January/February and then is tweaked based on projected Plate Appearances (based on subjective factors, like Ozzie's typical lineups, and injury projections). So, the base projections, like Crede's 26 homeruns, won't change, but that's number is based on 569 PA, and it's clear that he won't hit that number.

So what it looks like happens is that they take his PA numbers and ratio everything down. So, something like, they project Crede to hit a homerun every 21.9 PA's. ...

EndemicSox
06-29-2007, 04:56 PM
I, for one, appreciate what the guys at BP do.

FarWestChicago
06-29-2007, 05:27 PM
I, for one, appreciate what the guys at BP do.You appreciate they hate the Sox, even when they won the World Series? I guess your name means EndemicRedSox. You had me faked out.

While it's obvious many White Sox fans are a bit obnoxious, I still prefer them to BP fans.

ma-gaga
06-29-2007, 05:39 PM
Might be because whoever did that counted Jim Thome twice, Josh Fields 4 times, Rob Mackowiak 5 times... you get the point.

There, I "fixed" it. Reload this page and the picture should be updated with the correct overall team projections; ie. 207 homeruns. But yeah, the overall point stands, nobody expected SUCH an offensive dip...

But I'll say that I don't know why anyone can legitimately make a claim that BP "blew it". Unless someone else can show up with prediction that the entire team would have a hitting line of: 0.250/0.350/0.400, I simply don't see where you can throw stones at BP's projections.

The ERA's are high, and the AVG/OBP/SLG are low. We'll see if they even out at the end of the year.

voodoochile
06-29-2007, 07:39 PM
Well, the projections are based on their PECOTA's, which are generated in January/February and then is tweaked based on projected Plate Appearances (based on subjective factors, like Ozzie's typical lineups, and injury projections). So, the base projections, like Crede's 26 homeruns, won't change, but that's number is based on 569 PA, and it's clear that he won't hit that number.

So what it looks like happens is that they take his PA numbers and ratio everything down. So, something like, they project Crede to hit a homerun every 21.9 PA's. ...

Well I'm sorry, but that makes even less sense. According to your picture they have the Starters with a 5.00 ERA based on what god only knows.

Buehrle at 4.83 and Contreras at 4.96 make absolutely NO sense.

Garland at 4.77 and Vazquez at 4.5 also don't make much sense, but at least they might happen if both of them have really awful years.

It's like they took darts and threw them at a board and then said, "hey look, Buehrle came up 4.83."

Where the **** do they come up with some of this crap? It makes NO sense from a historical perspective at all.

It would be one thing if they were rating tools and felt that the tools shown by Buehrle and Contreras were slipping, but they are stats guys and historical trends don't back up their numbers.

ma-gaga
06-30-2007, 01:08 AM
Well I'm sorry, but that makes even less sense. According to your picture they have the Starters with a 5.00 ERA based on what god only knows.
...
It would be one thing if they were rating tools and felt that the tools shown by Buehrle and Contreras were slipping, but they are stats guys and historical trends don't back up their numbers.

Well, the ratio stats (ERA, AVG) are constant, the counting stats (Wins, Homeruns) depend on the amount of Innings Pitched or Plate Appearances a player gets.

The IP/PA are updated monthly, and are adjusted based on injuries, demotions, promotions, actual lineups.

You can argue that their methods are faulty and I can't really argue against you since it's a "black box" formula. However, just doing a quick and dirty check, Buehrle had a 4.99 ERA last year, which probably screws up his projection.

Conteras is 36 years old, and he's simply not that consistent. His yearly ERA's coming into this year looks like: 3.30, 5.50, 3.61, 4.27.

ok. I'm done arguing this. Above is what their full season projections look like. We really won't know until the end of the year how close they are.


:gulp:

jabrch
06-30-2007, 12:20 PM
It took a lot of catastrophic injuries to make that projection anywhere close to right. Half way through the season, it is looking possible, but that still was ridiculous. It took losing our LF for half the year, our CF for at least that, our DH for a quarter of the year, our 3B for nearly the whole season as well as our best bench player in order to be this poor.

Tragg
06-30-2007, 01:18 PM
It took a lot of catastrophic injuries to make that projection anywhere close to right. Half way through the season, it is looking possible, but that still was ridiculous. It took losing our LF for half the year, our CF for at least that, our DH for a quarter of the year, our 3B for nearly the whole season as well as our best bench player in order to be this poor.
They would say that they factor in injuries, which is a major reason they picked us to have 72 wins. And Thome and Pods and Crede were injury prone. Erstad was also an obvious injury risk and he wasn't the assumed CF starter anyway.
I don't think they are accurate predictors and it's sheer luck they'll be close to right BUT those Sox injuries weren't exactly surprises.
They've been predicting the Indians for 5 years and they MAY get it right this year....but they may not. Hell, the INdians won 75 games last year, after their predictions of 95 or whatever. The As were a 100+ win team for 2006 (Sheehan said that As pitchers 6-10 could start for most ML teams). They're notoriously biased toward beane and beane progeny . They do a reasonably good job of evaluating offensive skill, but defense is a big zero for them and they are ridiculously weak on pitching (Ks is the best they can come up with).

BUT, these Sox injuries weren't suprises and a conspiracy of bad luck.

skobabe8
06-30-2007, 02:17 PM
It's pretty funny, about half the posters on this thread are on my ignore list. :cool:

:gulp:

Does that mean I am on your ignore list? If so, what in particular have I said? Just curious.

Lukin13
06-30-2007, 07:13 PM
They're still dumb as hell even if they're right. The numbers they had pegged for the team were ridiculous and they couldn't have forseen all these injuries.

Yea, I wouldn't have dreamed in a million years that Pods, Erstad, Thome and Crede would miss time this year.

UserNameBlank
06-30-2007, 07:46 PM
Yea, I wouldn't have dreamed in a million years that Pods, Erstad, Thome and Crede would miss time this year.
You could predict time on the DL or maybe a few games off here and there, sure, it's a 162 game season, but like this? Grinderstad plays 1/2 of an inning between DL visits. Pods was only here for what, a few weeks before going down? Hall tears up his shoulder. Thome was out at the beginning of the year which I don't think anyone saw coming, and I doubt anyone thought Crede would be out the whole season.

BP just doesn't like the Sox, and they never will, because our front office and our manager don't play statsheet baseball. Had the Sox hit without Pods-Erstad-Thome, like they should have, they wouldn't be standing outside the basement door right now and everyone would be laughing at another BS BP prediction.

BTW, didn't they peg us for like 4th in 2005? Didn't they peg the Tigers for something like 4th in 2006? If I spent my entire day throwing around BS numbers and saying "this guy will do this, this guy will do that" I'd eventually be right about something too. Just because BP writes some crap that a lot of people read doesn't mean they know what they are doing. All their formulas and graphs and charts and everything is just as effective as you or I or anyone else standing underneath a ceiling fan with a handful of dog****.

santo=dorf
06-30-2007, 08:08 PM
Joe Crede was obviously hurting since last year (My God, did he have an awful September) and the Sox were encouraging him to get back surgery. Even if he is healthy, he is a below average offensive player. Same goes with Erstad. Sure, I'm guessing nobody was predicting he would hurt himself on the first play he made (taking a bad route ala Rowand) after coming off the DL, but it was expected for him to miss time. Pods had surgery right after the Sox signed him.

Hall - Freak injury caused by mostly by mismanagement. His replacement seem to help the pitchers succeed, but was awful with the stick.
Thome - He's older now, and the injury was a little weird, but the Sox were looking to give Thome more time off during the 2007 season yet for some silly reason decided not to bring Eduardo Perez along even though he was tearing the cover off the ball in ST.
Dye - He has been labeled (incorrectly) as injury prone due to his freak injuries, but his health has been questioned and nobody was expecting him to duplicate last season's MVP caliber numbers.

StillMissOzzie
07-01-2007, 03:59 AM
We all thought Baseball Prospectus was nuts with this projection last March....

White Sox 72-90

:whiner:

My biggest gripe is that too many people won't look into the "whys", but simply praise the BP propeller-heads for their "spot-on" work.

SMO
:rolleyes:

ma-gaga
07-02-2007, 03:12 AM
Does that mean I am on your ignore list? If so, what in particular have I said? Just curious.

You are not on my list. :cool:

The people I have on my list are dismissive without reason, and/or total morons.

And no, I'm not sharing my list...

peelwonder
09-30-2007, 12:34 AM
Don't look now but if we lose tomorrow........

chisoxmike
09-30-2007, 02:14 AM
Still, **** BP.

:threadsucks

STILL!

Grzegorz
09-30-2007, 05:49 AM
I don't know how Kenny can sleep at night....it all looked perfect on paper

Things on the south side are not as dismal as they look. This off season will be the ultimate test of his skills.

ilsox7
09-30-2007, 05:52 AM
A blind squirrel and a nut come to mind . . .

AZChiSoxFan
09-30-2007, 11:36 PM
We all thought Baseball Prospectus was nuts with this projection last March....

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6023


White Sox 72-90


:whiner:

Didn't they predict basically the same record for the Sox in 2005?

Those clowns predict that the Sox will be bad every year. I guess they were finally right.

The old addage rings true....even a broken clock is right twice a day.

AZChiSoxFan
09-30-2007, 11:39 PM
It's pretty funny, about half the posters on this thread are on my ignore list. :cool:

Here are the "Depth Chart" projections from April 16th, (they've been updating them about once a month since the start of the season) and then I pulled the "actual" from the White Sox Baseball-Reference page, and did some basic comparisons at the bottom.

They kind of nailed the pitching. But even BP didn't expect this much offensive dropoff:

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~dunca016/BP%20Projections%20-%20WSox%20-%2004_16_07.jpg

Look at that bottom row; Runs, Homeruns, RBI's, SB's - all *edit* 19%+ lower than even the BP projections predicted.

It'll be interesting to see the final numbers. :gulp:

My problem with the whole thing though is that the fine folks over at BP told us that the Sox would suck in 2005. Wait, they've said that the Sox would suck every year for about the last 10. Congrats to them for finally being right. :rolleyes:

fusillirob1983
10-01-2007, 12:03 AM
My problem with the whole thing though is that the fine folks over at BP told us that the Sox would suck in 2005. Wait, they've said that the Sox would suck every year for about the last 10. Congrats to them for finally being right. :rolleyes:

This is encouraging! I have a better than 10% shooting percentage when I play basketball. Maybe I should try to make an NBA team or start a website explaining how to shoot a basketball.

I'd like to see them make the same prediction next year and be wrong.

TDog
10-01-2007, 12:21 AM
Didn't they predict basically the same record for the Sox in 2005?

Those clowns predict that the Sox will be bad every year. I guess they were finally right.

The old addage rings true....even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Yes, they predicted basically fthe same for 2005. They also projected in March that the White Sox would have a strong bullpen, but it wouldn't overcome other problems.

I haven't checked to see it BP projected the Twins to finish below .500.

fquaye149
10-01-2007, 12:38 AM
Sheesh... while I admit that BP geeks get a bit too religious about their ideas... come on, they pegged "something" damn right that no one but no one here was willing to forsee (fair enough, we're all Sox fans!)

And, if you look at their projections for all teams over a few years... they're close to right more often than they're not.

BTW- quit blaming injuries. They aren't our problem. Just not. Sorry.

GMAMFB

what was the BP projection for 05? 06? 04 even?

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut.

You and Ken Tremendous can circle jerk around the one time in the past 5 years BP was even close to right.

I'll stick to evaluating baseball on a number of levels, statistic and otherwise...and I'll feel a lot better about my predictions year to year

spiffie
10-01-2007, 01:49 AM
GMAMFB

what was the BP projection for 05? 06? 04 even?

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut.

You and Ken Tremendous can circle jerk around the one time in the past 5 years BP was even close to right.

I'll stick to evaluating baseball on a number of levels, statistic and otherwise...and I'll feel a lot better about my predictions year to year

In 2006 they pegged us for 82-80
2005 they said 80-82
2004 they guessed 79-83.

So going into this year they had been off by an average of 10+ games per year.

One interesting thing though is over the last few years no team was so consistently opposite what the PECOTA system said than the Sox. That makes sense considering the Sox have, to varying degrees the last three years, pushed things that saber guys don't care much for, but that when well applied (like SBs and playing for one run if you have a strong pen) can lead to wins.

fquaye149
10-01-2007, 02:02 AM
so like we both seem to be saying---there's a lot more to anticipating a team's success than pecota projections....

things like who's actually going to be taking the field and how they play (nb: i'm not saying "they know how to play the game" or "THESE guys are baseball players" or "they know how to win" or anything like that---i'm talking about what they actually do on the field)

tinycorkscrew
10-01-2007, 06:49 PM
This is my first post.

I bought a White Sox ticket plan before the 2005 season, and I upgraded my plan for 2006 and 2007.

I've also been a longtime BP subscriber.

I was afraid the PECOTA projections would be accurate, and they were dead-on.

If anyone needs reminding, the Sox ended the year at 72-90, exactly what was projected.

I absolutely hate the moves Kenny has made this season, and I doubt I buy tickets in 2008.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=84656

voodoochile
10-01-2007, 06:59 PM
First, don't bump old threads, simply start a new one. You can even link to the thread in question if you want to. I added a link to the thread you are referencing in your post.

Second, You might want to go back and look at what BP actually said in their predictions. I mean the fact that they hit the number of wins right this year is neato, jiffy, but the reasons they gave are completely the opposite of what actually happened.

Third as has been documented in numerous other discussions of this fact around these boards, BP completely screwed the pooch in each of the past several years, not once coming close to the actual number of wins the Sox had, so if they happened to get it right this year, might want to chalk it up to luck as much as to some amazing ability to predict the future.

Hey, BP, this one's for you...

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=2791

The Immigrant
10-01-2007, 06:59 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=89525

Beaten to death in another thread.

rdivaldi
10-03-2007, 12:57 AM
This is my first post.

I bought a White Sox ticket plan before the 2005 season, and I upgraded my plan for 2006 and 2007.

I've also been a longtime BP subscriber.

I was afraid the PECOTA projections would be accurate, and they were dead-on.

If anyone needs reminding, the Sox ended the year at 72-90, exactly what was projected.

I absolutely hate the moves Kenny has made this season, and I doubt I buy tickets in 2008.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=84656

:dtroll:

Thanks for registering to make one post undercover Flub fan...