Hot Stove Heaters

[SSH2005]

Do these numbers include last year's numbers for Hernandez (.269 .288 .434 against lefties) in which he was extremely medicore against them, and thus bringing down his numbers a bit (especially that OBP)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. I'm not going to spend the time to figure out his numbers minus his 2005 season. The main difference between Hernandez and Perez against lefties is that Perez can actually draw walks against them. Hernandez is a strikeout machine. Perez's ability to draw walks against lefties should keep his numbers up, whereas Hernandez failed horribly in 2005. It's an improvement for the Indians but they didn't improve in enough other areas. They never brought in a good starting right fielder and they greatly downgraded from Millwood to Byrd. Add in the fact that they lost Howry and Wickman had a career year in 2005, I don't see them being better than last season except for their young players maturing.

Edited January 18, 2006 by SSH2005

[Kyyle23]

Just reading some other posts the Indians did imrprove a little, who is to say that Paul Byrd and Millwood are about the same pitchers, they arent very different,

 

Well yeah, if a power throwing pitcher is the same as a junkballer.

[RME JICO]

They need to adjust the formula, because obviously it doesn't work.

 

The problem with a lot of those formulas is they take into account runs scored and runs allowed, but if a team scores 10+ runs in a couple of blowouts it can skew the formlua big time. The same thing goes for one run games, which a lot of stat-heads don't value.

 

For team comparisons, I like RPI since it takes Strength of Schedule into account. Last year the Sox were #1 at .527, #2 Cards, Angels, Sawks at .525, and Yanks in 5th with .524.

 

In 2004, the top 2 teams were the Sawks and Cards, so unless there is a huge upset in the playoffs, then the RPI can be carried into the playoffs with pretty good results.

 

The 2nd Order wins don't seem to predict or show anything of any value, except they are a way to discount what the Sox did.

 

In regards to the Twins off season, I like what the Twins manager had to say about it:

"As [the White Sox] announced they got [Jim] Thome and [the Mets] got Carlos Delgado, we announced we got new jerseys. We were pretty excited about our announcement. We got vests." -- Minnesota manager Ron Gardenhire, on the Twins' quiet offseason.

Edited January 19, 2006 by RME JICO

[nitetrain8601]

They need to adjust the formula, because obviously it doesn't work.

 

The problem with a lot of those formulas is they take into account runs scored and runs allowed, but if a team scores 10+ runs in a couple of blowouts it can skew the formlua big time.  The same thing goes for one run games, which a lot of stat-heads don't value.

 

For team comparisons, I like RPI since it takes Strength of Schedule into account.  Last year the Sox were #1 at .527, #2 Cards, Angels, Sawks at .525, and Yanks in 5th with .524.

 

In 2004, the top 2 teams were the Sawks and Cards, so unless there is a huge upset in the playoffs, then the RPI can be carried into the playoffs with pretty good results.

 

The 2nd Order wins don't seem to predict or show anything of any value, except they are a way to discount what the Sox did.

 

In regards to the Twins off season, I like what the Twins manager had to say about it:

 

I wonder how they look like.

[TLAK]

By all the usual statistical measures the 2005 White Sox record was better than their numbers. The tried and true Pythagorean theorem put them at 91-71. The other formulas put them in the same range. These theories assume that any stats they are not measuring will be about the average of all teams put together. But nobody won games by slim margins like the White Sox, that’s what was abnormal. It usually takes X runs scored over Y runs yielded to get to a certain record and over a long period of time it comes true.

 

So how in the world did the White Sox squeeze so many wins out of such a small statistical margin? I credit the type of players they had, the manager and ‘chemistry’.

 

By type I mean the guys concentrated on the routine play first and the highlight films second. By manager I mean Ozzie was excellent at communicating a specific mission in a given at bat or batters to face, and he was excellent at not asking players to do what they couldn’t do. By ‘chemistry’ I mean that the players happily accepted the missions, sometimes over their own personal goals, for the good of the whole.

 

Before the season started I said that if you could put together a team where everybody just did their jobs, no hero stuff, they would be hard to beat. The ’05 team played this style beyond my wildest dreams. They swept the freaking World Series by a total margin of 6 runs!

 

As to 2006 the two big guys they brought in, Thome and Mack seem to fit this profile perfectly. It’s no secret I don’t like Vazquez, and there are 5 other spots on the roster to be finalized. KW has been masterful at finding the right ‘type’, calls them grinders, and I hope he can keep it going.

[chitownsportsfan]

Yea, Rob Neyer is not at the top of my list of sabermetrics writers. Give me Studes and Bill James. Studes is probably my favorite right now. He seems to like writing about the White Sox, and he loves to explain the math stuff in a way that the amateur can get.

 

And, as Studes concluded, at some point in the season, usually June, the actual record is more important than the Pythagorean record.

 

I agree with your point about blowouts RME to an extent. I mean, isn't "blowing people out" a sign of a dominant team? I agree though that the formula is skewed towards rewarding run producing and not run stopping.

[RME JICO]

Yea, Rob Neyer is not at the top of my list of sabermetrics writers.  Give me Studes and Bill James.  Studes is probably my favorite right now.  He seems to like writing about the White Sox, and he loves to explain the math stuff in a way that the amateur can get.

 

And, as Studes concluded, at some point in the season, usually June, the actual record is more important than the Pythagorean record.

 

I agree with your point about blowouts RME to an extent.  I mean, isn't "blowing people out" a sign of a dominant team?  I agree though that the formula is skewed towards rewarding run producing and not run stopping.

 

I feel like a win is a win, and that should carry the most weight. Does it really matter if you beat a team 3-1 or 10-4? In most of those formulas the 10-4 would yield a better result because the team would be +6 and not +2. So now if you do that to KC for a 3 games, you are now +18, but then you could lose 6 games by 2 runs (-12) and you would be 3-6, but have a positive RS/RA ratio of +6.

 

Here would be the order of teams with the flawed system of Pythagenport.

 

AL

Indians - 98 (World Series Champs of 2005)

Yankees - 94 * (AL East)

A's - 91 (AL West)

Red Sox - 91 * (WC)

Angels - 88 *

Rangers - 87 #

Sox - 87 *

Twins - 84

Orioles - 81 #

 

* Actual Playoff teams

# Teams with Losing Records

 

So using 2nd Order wins you could only predict 2 of the 4 playoff teams, and the Rangers and O's were severely upgraded due to their offense.

[Chisoxfn]

The Indians strengthened their roster this year Rob?  Paul Byrd being that huge upgrade from Millwood?

Seriously, I understand stats being a good way to analyze things, but it isn't the only way.

 

Oh well I don't care.

[G&T]

So there it is. Defending White Sox and Angels? Out. Defending Braves and Padres? Out. All hail the New Order in 2006.

 

You guys have pointed out plenty of issues in this article, but this last line annoys me.

So the resulting teams would include the Yankees and Red Sox and that is somehow a new order? No Thanks.

[southsideirish71]

You guys have pointed out plenty of issues in this article, but this last line annoys me.

So the resulting teams would include the Yankees and Red Sox and that is somehow a new order? No Thanks.

 

 

I wouldnt take Neyers opinions too seriously.

 

He picked the sox to win the central last year in the preseason. Then spent the rest of the season pulling every stat out of the SABR handbook to prove why we will fall apart. Then after all of that SABR came up with a new reason that their formulas failed them, it was missing a new variable. LUCK. Yes they actually used luck as a mathmatical formula to explain the variance in how far they were off with their pythagorean projections. BP did an article on the sox being lucky. Neyer in an ESPN chat last year stated he didnt like the sox and one of the reasons was our uniforms and the ballpark. After this a bunch of us jumped on him emailed him and invited him here for friendlydebate. He actually responded in a b****y way to a bunch of posters here and that was the end of it.

 

Rob and Rany are just bent out of shape Royal fans who worship Bill James and think that all things SABR are the only way baseball should be played.

 

SABR is set of math formulas that can be used as a tool. However what winds up happening is that people overutilize this tool, and state that it is the end all and be all of baseball.

Edited January 19, 2006 by southsideirish71

[witesoxfan]

I feel like a win is a win, and that should carry the most weight.  Does it really matter if you beat a team 3-1 or 10-4?  In most of those formulas the 10-4 would yield a better result because the team would be +6 and not +2.  So now if you do that to KC for a 3 games, you are now +18, but then you could lose 6 games by 2 runs (-12) and you would be 3-6, but have a positive RS/RA ratio of +6.

 

Here would be the order of teams with the flawed system of Pythagenport.

 

AL

Indians - 98  (World Series Champs of 2005)

Yankees - 94 * (AL East)

A's - 91 (AL West)

Red Sox - 91 * (WC)

Angels - 88 *

Rangers - 87 #

Sox - 87 *

Twins - 84

Orioles - 81 #

 

* Actual Playoff teams

# Teams with Losing Records

 

So using 2nd Order wins you could only predict 2 of the 4 playoff teams, and the Rangers and O's were severely upgraded due to their offense.

 

So basically, Neyer is concluding that the Texas Rangers were as good last year as the Chicago White Sox?

 

 

And yes he is...which is how unbelievably flawed Neyer's reasoning is, and how much of a copout article this is. I mean, this is something I'd expect to see on a Cleveland Indian message board, not on ESPN from a "well-respected" writer.

 

BTW...anyone remember why the Sox won the World Series last year? Pitching, speed, defense. Red sox in 04? Pitching, speed, defense(same may see this as strange, but without Roberts stealing 2nd, there isn't a chance in hell Boston makes it to the series. Nomar was traded and Anthrax was brought in...both moves were made because of defense). Marlins in 03? Pitching, speed, defense. Angels in 02? Pitching, speed, defense. As I recall, the 01 DBacks had all 3 of the same attributes, the Yankees did in the early part of their run, the Twins basically built their entire organization around it, and yet it still gets unnoticed to this very day, and a lot of times it does by so-called statistician writers such as Rob Neyer.

[chitownsportsfan]

The problem is that guys like Neyer ruin the reputations of sabermetric writers and the discipline itself.

 

Baseball Prospectus and Rob are both too arrogant.

 

If you want the stats without the attitude, I strongly encourage you to check out The Hardball Times and The USS Mariner blog.

 

http://www.ussmariner.com/

http://www.hardballtimes.com/

[rventura23]

shouldnt we only regress towards the mean if we kept the same talent? I think we upgraded to no regression

[chitownsportsfan]

shouldnt we only regress towards the mean if we kept the same talent? I think we upgraded to no regression

 

Yea, which is why trying to use second order wins last season as a predictor of future success is counter-productive. Why doesn't Neyer just use the Zips projections as a measure of how teams will do? Those are flawed as hell too, but at least they admit it's only a rough judge, at least they have the updated rosters.

[chitownsportsfan]

Another thing that pisses me off about this article is how casually Neyer throws out second order wins without any real explanation--not even a link. I realize that not everyone needs to know exactly how the formula is derived and why it works how it works; however, If you're going to use an advanced stat and use it as your main premise, why not explain it? Is he afraid that like many of us have pointed out, 2nd order wins has its flaws, flaws that fellow sabermetricians and Soxtalkers alike have pointed out?

[TLAK]

BTW...anyone remember why the Sox won the World Series last year?  Pitching, speed, defense.  Red sox in 04?  Pitching, speed, defense(same may see this as strange, but without Roberts stealing 2nd, there isn't a chance in hell Boston makes it to the series.  Nomar was traded and Anthrax was brought in...both moves were made because of defense).  Marlins in 03?  Pitching, speed, defense.  Angels in 02?  Pitching, speed, defense.  As I recall, the 01 DBacks had all 3 of the same attributes, the Yankees did in the early part of their run, the Twins basically built their entire organization around it, and yet it still gets unnoticed to this very day, and a lot of times it does by so-called statistician writers such as Rob Neyer.

[innersanctum]

I am so sick of hearing about Kerry Wood. He is an average pitcher and on the White Sox he would be a 6th, maybe a 5th starter. Take that game against Houston and his 20 strikeouts off his resume, well you get a pitcher that can't win more than 14 games and is injured a lot of the time. I just don't get the hype about Wood. The media has embraced him since that game and he just hasn't produced since.

[Kyyle23]

I am so sick of hearing about Kerry Wood.  He is an average pitcher and on the White Sox he would be a 6th, maybe a 5th starter.  Take that game against Houston and his 20 strikeouts off his resume, well you get a pitcher that can't win more than 14 games and is injured a lot of the time.  I just don't get the hype about Wood.  The media has embraced him since that game and he just hasn't produced since.

 

If you are sick of him, why did you bring him up? Kerry Wood wasnt even being discussed in this thread. Why? Because noone cares, and this subject isnt about the Cubs.

[chitownsportsfan]

LOL kyle, I was kinda wondering where that Kerry Wood thing came from. Out of left field I guess.

[Kyyle23]

LOL kyle, I was kinda wondering where that Kerry Wood thing came from.  Out of left field I guess.

 

Yeah, out of left field on the Northside. The only thing I can find that remotely references Kerry Wood is in Rob Neyer's article, where he laughingly inserts that if "Prior and Wood are healthy... Hey, it could happen. If those guys combine for 60 starts, the Cubs have a real shot at knocking off the Cardinals.".

 

Thats it.