BP Sox projection.

[Frater Perdurabo]

Originally Posted by CoopaLoop

This is pretty interesting stuff.

The difference in injuries compared the rest of baseball is pretty amazing.

I also thought that was a great article. In this case, stats support what many of us concluded based on observation; since the 2005 season the Sox get solid starting pitching that generally stays healthy. Sabermetric predictions don't factor this into formulae, and we fans may tend to overrate our pitching, which can account for the differences between BP projections and our own prognostications.

[asindc]

Originally Posted by Frater Perdurabo

I also thought that was a great article. In this case, stats support what many of us concluded based on observation; since the 2005 season the Sox get solid starting pitching that generally stays healthy. Sabermetric predictions don't factor this into formulae, and we fans may tend to overrate our pitching, which can account for the differences between BP projections and our own prognostications.

I thought it was a great article as well. It illuminated several points that add to both sides of the debate.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by mahagga73

You might be right about the Sox . Maybe someone can give a list of players that are even close to being ready to come up.

You just did!

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by asindc

I thought it was a great article as well. It illuminated several points that add to both sides of the debate.

I don't see how it's possible to read that as anything other than a complete ass kicking of the anti-BP crowd, but whatevs

[sullythered]

Originally Posted by doublem23

I don't see how it's possible to read that as anything other than a complete ass kicking of the anti-BP crowd, but whatevs

Well, perhaps because the writer clearly states why BP has been very consistently wrong about the Sox. It pretty nicely illustrates why a team like the Sox (while unique in the league) does certain things that expose flaws in the system. It also makes clear why Sox fans have the most reason of any fans in the league to be critical of BP.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by sullythered

Well, perhaps because the writer clearly states why BP has been very consistently wrong about the Sox. It pretty nicely illustrates why a team like the Sox (while unique in the league) does certain things that expose flaws in the system. It also makes clear why Sox fans have the most reason of any fans in the league to be critical of BP.

All you picked out of that was the surface argument?

After random chance, we've only outperformed their model by 5 games/year. It's really not all THAT significant. Outperforming their model by 5 games this year would make us .500. Clearly not all that significant.

[dickallen15]

Originally Posted by blandman

All you picked out of that was the surface argument?

After random chance, we've only outperformed their model by 5 games/year. It's really not all THAT significant. Outperforming their model by 5 games this year would make us .500. Clearly not all that significant.

Considering you have been saying the Tigers are a threat for 116 wins, wouldn't you say their PECOTA projection of 92 is a bit off? How are you defending a system you personally think is 24 games off?

I personally like BP, but don't take these projections too seriously. If you go back, some are accurate, others are not. They get a couple playoff teams right. A couple of last place teams wind up in the post season. People should just take them for what they are.

[asindc]

Originally Posted by doublem23

I don't see how it's possible to read that as anything other than a complete ass kicking of the anti-BP crowd, but whatevs

Please read below.

Originally Posted by sullythered

Well, perhaps because the writer clearly states why BP has been very consistently wrong about the Sox. It pretty nicely illustrates why a team like the Sox (while unique in the league) does certain things that expose flaws in the system. It also makes clear why Sox fans have the most reason of any fans in the league to be critical of BP.

Exactly. If anything, it is the opposite of a "complete ass kicking of the anti-BP crowd" (which, by the way, consists of only a few of those who ridicule BP's projections in this context, not necessarily BP as a whole).

[blandman]

Originally Posted by dickallen15

Considering you have been saying the Tigers are a threat for 116 wins, wouldn't you say their PECOTA projection of 92 is a bit off? How are you defending a system you personally think is 24 games off?

I personally like BP, but don't take these projections too seriously. If you go back, some are accurate, others are not. They get a couple playoff teams right. A couple of last place teams wind up in the post season. People should just take them for what they are.

Oh for the love of God. I don't think the Tigers are going to win 116 games. But they CAN win that many. I do feel 92 is awfully low. But the idea is there. I'm less concerned with the totals than I am where they are in relation to other teams. For instance, they have the Tigers 15 games better than us. I think that's pretty fair.

[voodoochile]

Originally Posted by doublem23

I don't see how it's possible to read that as anything other than a complete ass kicking of the anti-BP crowd, but whatevs

No it's a defense of Pecota projections if done correctly. BP's model obviously doesn't factor in enough variables, so it's not a defense of BP but a simple statement that given enough variables it might be possible to make more accurate projections team by team.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by voodoochile

No it's a defense of Pecota projections if done correctly. BP's model obviously doesn't factor in enough variables, so it's not a defense of BP but a simple statement that given enough variables it might be possible to make more accurate projections team by team.

[dickallen15]

Originally Posted by blandman

Oh for the love of God. I don't think the Tigers are going to win 116 games. But they CAN win that many. I do feel 92 is awfully low. But the idea is there. I'm less concerned with the totals than I am where they are in relation to other teams. For instance, they have the Tigers 15 games better than us. I think that's pretty fair.

So if you think 92 is low for the Tigers and say 15 games is fair, you do admit the 77 for the Sox is low, and if 15 games is fair, if the Tigers could win 116, I believe you said they even could win more, it's not so crazy to think the Sox could win 101, correct?

[asindc]

Originally Posted by dickallen15

So if you think 92 is low for the Tigers and say 15 games is fair, you do admit the 77 for the Sox is low, and if 15 games is fair, if the Tigers could win 116, I believe you said they even could win more, it's not so crazy to think the Sox could win 101, correct?

Now, now, don't confuse him.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by dickallen15

So if you think 92 is low for the Tigers and say 15 games is fair, you do admit the 77 for the Sox is low, and if 15 games is fair, if the Tigers could win 116, I believe you said they even could win more, it's not so crazy to think the Sox could win 101, correct?

No. I think it's more likely we win 60 than 100. Not that either is likely.

[sullythered]

Originally Posted by blandman

All you picked out of that was the surface argument?

After random chance, we've only outperformed their model by 5 games/year. It's really not all THAT significant. Outperforming their model by 5 games this year would make us .500. Clearly not all that significant.

The writer himself says that BP has been particularly and significantly wrong when it comes to the White Sox. He then proceeds to tell us why. The reasons given are exactly why whole team projections are really just for fun, and not very useful, as opposed to specific player projections. There are too many variables to project an entire team's success as anything other than a fun little exercise. Meaningless, and not useful to anyone. Not even gamblers, really.