ptatc

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 12:04 PM) Then I will rephrase, what SHOULD have happened, and what a guy like Harold Reynolds who obviously doesn't have a big fanbase thinks WAS going to happen, wasn't so different accuracy-wise. I also think most if pressed to be accurate with predictions, will use what SHOULD happen vs. what they hope or think will happen most times. Another view would be that people look at these projections (which are biased as I've said) and pay for this company to exist. It's kind of like weather personalities. They know they are most likely wrong but people still like them. If I can be 7 games off and still have a company that gets paid to do it, I'm going to say that the teams who are going to finish in the bottom half will win 75, that gives me 68-82 as a range. Teams that look good I'm going to say 82, that gives me 75-89 range. I will be right most often and be correct as PECOTA and weather personalities, although I don't look as good as Cheryl Scott and I'm not as accurate as Tom Skilling.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 01:02 PM) That, plus the securitization/"risk-spreading" stuff that Y2HH covered. Though I might frame it as banks lending more than they should have as they're supposed to be the financial professionals. That's an interesting point of view. Not knowing the financial world much, I bet this was a huge debate. Who is more at fault the banks for taking the risk or the people who accepted the loans taking the risk. From a societal stand point I guess I would lean toward the people taking the money shouldn't have taken it and agreed to pay it back as opposed to the ones offering it trying to make the money. Kind of like the State of Illinois. Don't spend more than you have. (but I'm a little bias on this one being a state employee)

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 12:50 PM) 30 is way too much. I say 26 at most. But honestly would just rather see it stay. Game will become way too specialized if it gets any bigger. Not only that but it inherently raises the payroll. The game would see even more players that don't belong in the MLB especially pitching.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 10:20 AM) This makes me smile. Freep Sports ‏@freepsports 9m9 minutes ago Victor Martinez could be in the mix at catcher early in the season for the #Tigers. http://on.freep.com/1yeI6YZ That would be really nice. Wear those legs out early.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 11:04 AM) Just to add to that a bit, the banks and mortgage brokers would also knowingly and willingly lie on the paperwork or encourage the borrow to lie, or they'd simply hand out money with no verification whatsoever in NINJA loans. But the big investment banks also started to believe in their own MBS snake-oil and held on to a later of the paper themselves. Or maybe they knew it was garbage but didn't care because they were making huge fortunes every year and knew that, even when it all hit the fan, they'd still be walking away with millions. This is where the buyer should realize how much they can spend without over extending themselves? It's the whole "house poor" scenario. Everyone wants a bigger house so they push it and don't make it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 10:41 AM) While not everyone might want to go to college, I don't think "how much money your parents have" is one of the hurdles they should have to clear if they want to. Actually, going through this right now, the more money your parents have the less likely you are to get money and must incur more debt. Unless the parent are willingly to borrow money as well. The middle class gets stuck here. You make decent money but not enough to pay a extra 20,000 a year for school and your child cannot get government money so they must go to the private lenders.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 10:25 AM) Depending on how you read your first sentence with the third, not exactly. There have been numerous studies looking into the causes, trends, etc. and there really isn't much evidence poorer borrowers being the primary cause. The third sentence in isolation is more less or correct in that too many people at too great of a risk of not paying it back were loaned too much money, but what this most recent study found is that people were overextending themselves across the income scale: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7897035/poor-...crisis-mortgage and then of course what could have been a relatively isolated mortgage default problem was hugely amplified by all sorts of "AAA rated" mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps. So, generally speaking, yes, the root of the problem was banks/mortgage brokers telling people they could take out loans much larger than they could actually afford because the banks were just going to securitize or sell those mortgages right away anyway and people taking these loans that the banks assured them they were qualified for. But if by "those who really need it" you mean people with lower incomes, then no, they weren't more of a cause than any other income group. Got it. That makes more sense. It was everyone who borrowed more than they should have regardless of current income. Is that more accurate? Again in a simplistic manner.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 09:40 AM) No idea, I'd imagine not a very good one, though. The loan game is inherently unfair to the people that actually need to borrow money the most. Isn't this based on the fact that people who really need it have a greater risk of not paying it back? Wasn't this was one of the primary factors of the housing crash. Too many people who were at too great of a risk of not paying it back were loaned too much money. Or is this simplifying it too much?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 05:32 AM) Exactly what are they used for? Baseball is a game not a mathematical equation. Every player can have the exact same stats and teams could have a wide range of records. I actually read BP every year. My copy came yesterday. I doubt anyone in the White Sox front office is losing sleep over these projections. I also would imagine if they did win 78 games, like they are projected from this system, Robin Ventura would be considered even a bigger idiot than he currently is considered. LOL at accuracy. This system was off 39 games between the projected first and last place team in the AL East last season. They had the team that won 96 games finishing in last, and the team they projected to win 89 wins up in last. Ohhh. You're in trouble now you old guy that doesn't like stats.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 06:14 PM) 4 or 5 players being involved in a trade isn't important, it's the ability of those players. It's not like we traded away Anderson, Rodon (as PTBNL), etc. We traded from our biggest area of strength, middle infield, where we now have Sanchez/Johnson/Bonifacio/Saladino/L.Garcia/Beckham/Anderson... The ONE and only concern most have is that Bassit looked really good at times, but nobody knows if he can make it as a starter long-term. And that's the biggest area of weakness, the 4-5 spots. In the end, adding a 2-3 starter outweighed having insurance for a 4-5 starter in Noesi. And to reiterate, Ynoa still has lots of potential. Not to mention the fact that we've got plenty of catching options now (Soto/Kottaras/Brantly) and Nieto/Kevan Smith passed Phegley in the eyes of the front office. correct. My pint ios that this is a unique situation where the Soxwere able to trade lesser talent because he is a 1 year rental they hope he gives them a a better chance to sign him because he is from the area. These do not come along very often. Also, if the Sox continually trade 4 players for 1 year rentals, they will not sign all of them and the minors will be depleted. This type of trade was really good for the Sox. However, to say that this is what they should always be able to do with a strong minor league system is inaccurate because this situation doesn't come along very often. They weren't able to do it because of a strong system it was luck and the right scenario.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 06:07 PM) What? How did you possibly come to that conclusion from his post? The whole point of this thread, and his response in summary, is that the team has reached a point where it can AFFORD to make some moves with prospects and still be left with a middle-of-the-pack system. The key to maintaining that is moderation -- realizing that the cost of going ALL IN is too high and return too little in the current MLB environment, and that a balanced approach to remaining competitive without ebing the best team in the league allows you to also maintain a decent farm which leads to sustained competitiveness. What you just said I agree with is exactly the opposite of what I agree with. We are looking at the discussion from a different point of view then. his example of Smaardzja was in response to why it's important to have a minor league system as opposed to acquiring veterans with a minor league system. My point was that trades like that one would eventually deplete the minor league system so this example goes against anyone who wants to keep the minors intact.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 05:25 PM) Understanding this is essential if one is going to make an informed criticism of projections. Also, RE: the bolded -- the errors bars depend upon the confidence level you set. Usually people use 90 or 95%, so you might say "I'm 90% sure that the Sox will win between 71 and 85 games." If you want to be 95% sure, you've got to widen it. If you only want to be 50% sure, you can narrow it. The actual number these projections land on is the mean of whatever confidence interval they set. What they really need to do is come up with the Standard Error of Measure based on how far off they've been over the last decade or so. That would give them enough data to predict how far off they are likely to be.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 05:56 PM) As is the case in many white sox threads, we have experienced deviation From this board that deviation would be standard.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 03:43 PM) This is just a Hawk vs. Sabermetrics situation. Older guys don't appreciate statistics saying their team isn't good as they "feel like" it is. what some people don't understand is that computer algorithms are not stats in the pure sense of the word and do have biases. They have the biases of the people who created the algorithms. PECOTA is a complicated program but one of the biases that stands out to me is that it assumes that older players will regress and younger players will improve. Another is the assumed number of injuries and days off, especially from the pitching staff. I think this is why it predicts the Astros will only be one game worse than the White Sox. On paper they look a lot farther apart than that.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 02:58 PM) Yes, well put. So you agree that trading 4 players for 1 year rentals is a good idea? It's going to cost a great deal of money to keep them or continually losing 4 players from the minor league depth will eventually wear it down.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 02:57 PM) Quintana has been a 200 inning guy both of the last two years. He doesn't have any more of a problem going deep into games than any other guys in the league now. Also, the logic is flawed -- in a short series with lots of off days, going deep into a game is LESS important than in the regular season, where day-to-day durability and rest of the bullpen is concerned. He has gone 200 innings but his performance toward the end of the season really drops off. This is not the situation the sox want to be in if they want to go deep in the playoffs.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 01:37 PM) Gambling with veterans is more often successful, but when it's unsuccessful it's a massive blow. Which is where my second point comes in. It's not about hoarding prospects or hoarding high priced veterans. It's about being able to trade 4 prospects away for a Jeff Samardzija, and still have a farm system that's got some talent in it. If some of our signings bust from this offseason, we aren't necessarily screwed for the next few years like we were last time. That's true. However, as you pointed out it is often more successful. So you will win more than you lose which is how you build a good team. The trading prospects away for Samardzja only worked because he is a one year rental and now will become very expensive to keep. It's the reason the price was so low, compared to the talent received. It's a somewhat unique situation where the team hopes to get a little hometown discount or at least an edge to keep him. So the sox may be giving away 4 players for a player for one year. Continuously doing that will deplete the farm system very quickly so you are really arguing against maintaining minor league talent if the Sox do this type of deal often. Unless they are willing to give out huge deals to veterans on a regular basis.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 01:16 PM) I don't understand. Their shortstop had a 2.4 WAR last year. It's not a weakness for them. Their SS is as good as Alexei for waaaaay less money. They don't seem to think so as they have been in rumors trying to acquire a proven SS. Of course, they are rumors.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 01:07 PM) It doesn't change the fact that you're still gambling with major league players. Adam Dunn failed spectacularly while being paid quite a bit more than, say, Viciedo or Beckham. It's all basic probability with expected values. You're missing the overall point, though. We were able to spend big this offseason, trade prospects for good mlb talent, AND we still have a roughly top-15 system. You can have both a good minor league system and have a good, well paid, major league team. It's not one or the other. It is a gamble. It's always a gamble with the mix of players and egos. However, the gamble with proven veterans is less. I'm not saying that the building of the farm system to the exclusion of trading them is wrong. It can work and does in several cases. I'm just saying that teams to not NEED to have a top ranked system to succeed. I'm lean more to the philosophy of retaining young pitching due to the injury rate and trading position players to get more pitching. I think too many people get caught up in hanging on to prospects when obtaining proven players has a better rate of success of retaining talent. However, it is more expensive. I agree with your overall point but the first post in the thread was essentially challenging the people who prefer veterans over prospects. My basic point is that the aspect of having a top ranked system really isn't that important. Ron Schueler hoarded prospects and had a top ranked system in the 90's. Where did it get the Sox? Nowhere (although you can make a case for the 94 WS canceled team) until KW took over and started trading some of them for proven talent. Again I'm not arguing against the minors, I'm saying that you cannot hoard the prospects and expect all of them to pan out. You can to trade some for proven players to be successful.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 12:10 PM) The difference between the two is the cost of hte players on your major league roster. Kids are cheaper than the vets you trade them for. True. However, it is also more of a gamble going with the prospects because you have no idea how good they will be. Plus it usually takes a couple of years for the young player to settle in, if they ever do. you have a better idea MLB proven player is going to do. It's less of a risk.

To test this hypothesis that this top 1/2 ranked MiLB system will help the White Sox win, track the current top 30 players today.. 1. How many make to to Chicago and contribute. 2. How many are traded and bring useful pieces. I saw we as a board make a separate thread with the current ranked players and track them all individually. It will show if this system is successful in helping the White Sox.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 11:49 AM) how do you develop the minors if you have to trade prospects to get your "extra" pieces? The only purpose of the minors is to help the MLB team win. This can be done by bringing the players to the MLB team or trading them to another team for proven players. Either way the players developed in the minors and left the minors to help the MLB team.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 01:16 AM) I'm optimistic about the team and this year. Totally. But that said, those of you thinking about upper 80s to 90 wins are - in my mind - completely out of touch with reality. BP is projecting 78 wins, and while we usually beat PECOTA by an average of 7 wins/season, that STILL only puts us at 85 wins. Things would have to swing astronomically in the right direction for us to be in the playoff picture. 5 more wins is a lot to get out of this lineup/pitching staff. Not impossible - it happened in '05 - but unlikely. I don't think there's any world in which Robin gets fired this year UNLESS the team does worse than last year, which I also don't see happening. Side note. Gordon Beckham is a better baseball player than Emilio Bonafacio, so in that regard, I like the move. I think your predictions is off base. With the additions I do see an upper 80's win total.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 28, 2015 -> 06:46 PM) My thoughts exactly. I wonder how many will be able to stick. Anderson should be ahead of Trea Turner but whatever. 4

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 28, 2015 -> 08:57 PM) Have we seen any indication that Ventura's (or Hahn) envisioning a strict platoon system with LaRoche, or just our idea based on the splits? They will not do a strict platoon with any players. Just my feeling from comments but Ventura will play this new bench more but it will not be a strict platoon.