Anybody got Insider?

[Wanne]

Just a summation or something. It starts out like this on the front page:

 

Before South Siders get high fives ready for '06, Rob Neyer has a warning: Stop believing.

 

then on the link:

 

White Sox could be in for a tough year

 

By Rob Neyer

ESPN Insider

Archive

 

Which of 2005's division winners won't repeat in 2006?

We start with the assumption that the very best teams of 2005 won't be as good in 2006.

 

Why? The technical term is "regression to the mean." In nonstatistician terms, the reasoning is simply this: Teams that win a significantly impressive number of games were probably a little bit lucky (among other things), and can't count on their luck to hold.

 

Just wondering what leads him to believe we're in for a tough year...or maybe he's just running out of stuff to write about...

[RockRaines]

Which of 2005's division winners won't repeat in 2006?

 

We start with the assumption that the very best teams of 2005 won't be as good in 2006.

 

Why? The technical term is "regression to the mean." In nonstatistician terms, the reasoning is simply this: Teams that win a significantly impressive number of games were probably a little bit lucky (among other things), and can't count on their luck to hold.

 

We see the same effect with individual players. Many fans might guess that Rookies of the Year only get better in the season after they win that award. As a group, they do not. From 1996-2004, 13 nonpitchers won Rookie of the Year awards. Here's what they did in their winning seasons, and in the next:

 

Games Runs RBI BA/OBP/SLG

Season 1 150 95 82 .297/.363/.473

Season 2 132 85 71 .287/.359/.468

 

It's actually been a pretty good run for the ROYs, percentage-wise, in that time span. Thanks largely to strong follow-up seasons from Scott Rolen, Nomar Garciaparra and Jason Bay, the sophomores were very nearly as effective, per plate appearance, as they'd been as freshmen. The catch, of course, is that first column. In their Rookie of the Year seasons, 10 of the 13 played in at least 149 games. A year later, only five of the 13 played in at least 149 games (and four played fewer than 110).

 

They were the same players they'd been; they just weren't as healthy or lucky.

 

Teams that win a lot of games are like rookies who play particularly well: The odds are not in their favor.

 

Six teams last season won more than 90 games: the Cardinals (100), White Sox (99), Yankees (95), Angels (95), Red Sox (95) and Indians (93). Without even getting into the specifics of roster composition, I'd be willing to bet, even money, that at least four of those six teams will win fewer games in 2006. If I knew absolutely nothing about these teams but their records, that's what I would say. But of course we know quite a bit more about them. We know how they really played (aside from their wins and losses) and we know what they've done in the offseason (so far).

 

To measure how they really played, we can look at "second-order wins," as seen in the Baseball Prospectus standings. Second-order wins show us how many games each team "should" have won, considering its batting and pitching statistics (except runs scored and allowed).

 

Some of you won't like these next numbers, so feel free to skip ahead (or read somebody else's column; we're always posting new ones)...

 

Real 2W

Cardinals 100 91

White Sox 99 87

Yankees 95 93

Angels 95 88

Red Sox 95 90

(Indians 93 98)

 

Well, that was easy. We didn't even have to play the 2006 schedule, and five of the six teams are already worse than their 2005 record -- and it's not even Opening Day yet!

 

And if we're looking for 2005 division winners who seem unlikely to repeat, we've got a couple of prime candidates in the White Sox and the Angels.

 

If you believe in second-order wins -- and I think that you do -- the White Sox were 11 games worse than the Indians last season, and only three games better than the Twins. No, the Indians probably won't play as well in 2006. Yes, the White Sox might be the best team in the Central Division (particularly if Jim Thome is healthy). But if given a choice between betting on the White Sox or the field, you have to take the field, because there's a pretty good chance that the Indians or the Twins -- both of whom strengthened their rosters this winter -- will knock off the Sox.

 

The Angels are in bigger trouble, I think. Three reasons. One, they've lost two key components off last season's roster (Bengie Molina and Jarrod Washburn). Two, they really weren't all that good last season. And three, they face Oakland and Texas squads that have improved measurably since last season. The Angels are certainly in the running, but nobody should be all that surprised if they finish third.

 

In the East, the Yankees and Red Sox have both engaged in their annual winter dance, and while the Red Sox have actually done more, the Yankees seem to have come out ahead. This is probably the hardest race to handicap, though, because it seems unlikely that the Sox will actually feature Alex Cora (shortstop) and Adam Stern (center field) in their Opening Day lineup. And no, I'm not forgetting about the Blue Jays. I like what they've done, but they probably need some help in the form of a rash of injuries to one or both of the other contenders' geriatric pitching rotations (which is more than a remote possibility).

 

The Cardinals also seem primed for a big drop-off, but at the same time they still look like a fairly safe bet to repeat. Sure, there's always "the Cubs' lament": 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. But they combined for 43 in 2004 and 37 in 2005, so I don't expect them to magically become Koufax and Drysdale in 2006. And considering the Astros' loss of their best pitcher, the Cardinals look pretty safe to me, even with the big hole they have in left field.

 

It's a different story on the edges of the country, where both defending champs are at great risk. The Padres really were the best team in the West last season, whether you look at real wins (82) or second-order (76). But the Dodgers were exceptionally unlucky in regard to injuries and they've improved at two or three positions. Maybe it won't be the Dodgers, but maybe it will be. Maybe it will be the Giants, but maybe it won't. The Padres are more likely to lose the West than they are to win it.

 

I hate to do this, because it's exceptionally easy and I'm going to antagonize, once again, all the loyal Braves fans. Here it is, though: I don't see them winning again. They've made one significant move -- replacing Rafael Furcal with Edgar Renteria -- and it's a negative move. They don't have a closer, and they've lost their pitching coach. Meanwhile, the Mets, whose 89 second-order wins last season were three more than the Braves', have added Carlos Delgado and Billy Wagner to their roster. Things never seem to go exactly as planned in Flushing Meadows, but the Mets look to me like the best team in the National League.

 

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

 

Senior writer Rob Neyer writes for Insider two or three times per week. To offer criticism, praise or anything in between, send an e-mail to [email protected].

[dmbjeff]

typical ESPN doin what they do best....um the Yankees and Red Sox will still be good, everyone else who was good will be bad...... go figure

[chitownsportsfan]

This was already posted in the thread about the Phil Rogers article on ESPN.com

[Wanne]

This was already posted in the thread about the Phil Rogers article on ESPN.com

 

Well goody!

 

thanks Rock!

[chitownsportsfan]

hehe, clogging the bases!

[RockRaines]

Well goody!

 

thanks Rock!

just trying to help.

[Damen]

typical ESPN doin what they do best....um the Yankees and Red Sox will still be good, everyone else who was good will be bad...... go figure

 

Had the Sox entered 2006 looking basically the same as 05 I don't know if I would have disagreed with the article. But we haven't. We've improved our hitting, improved our pitching, and kept our defense at the same high level it was last season. I don't see how you can judge the Sox roster heading into '06 and assume the Twins and Indians have gained ground with their marginal improvements.

[AirScott]

Had the Sox entered 2006 looking basically the same as 05 I don't know if I would have disagreed with the article.  But we haven't.  We've improved our hitting, improved our pitching, and kept our defense at the same high level it was last season.  I don't see how you can judge the Sox roster heading into '06 and assume the Twins and Indians have gained ground with their marginal improvements.

don't be mistaken though, this will be a tight 3-team race. I would've expected the Twins to compete this year not having picked up Luis Castillo...their only problem is finding someone to play shortstop (though Bartlett couldn't do too much worse at the plate than last year). then I'd expect the Indians to finish with about the same record, just this time to even it out and not have to play .800 ball in the last few months just to make a playoff push before the Sox can sweep them and send them packing.

[Damen]

don't be mistaken though, this will be a tight 3-team race.  I would've expected the Twins to compete this year not having picked up Luis Castillo...their only problem is finding someone to play shortstop (though Bartlett couldn't do too much worse at the plate than last year).  then I'd expect the Indians to finish with about the same record, just this time to even it out and not have to play .800 ball in the last few months just to make a playoff push before the Sox can sweep them and send them packing.

 

 

I don't disagree with you. I'm not saying this is going to be a cakewalk, but of the three teams that matter in the Central, I'd say the Sox have improved their team the most on paper this offseason.

[ZoomSlowik]

don't be mistaken though, this will be a tight 3-team race.  I would've expected the Twins to compete this year not having picked up Luis Castillo...their only problem is finding someone to play shortstop (though Bartlett couldn't do too much worse at the plate than last year).  then I'd expect the Indians to finish with about the same record, just this time to even it out and not have to play .800 ball in the last few months just to make a playoff push before the Sox can sweep them and send them packing.

 

I really don't expect to see much from the Twins next year. They're a much weaker version of us last year. Their lineup is pretty pathetic. Stewart and Castillo are decent at the top, but they don't have any real middle of the order hitters or a whole lot of power. Mauer is decent and Hunter does some damage here and there, but both are far from elite (and Mauer doesn't play every game). Unless Morneau turns into the beast that people thought he would be last year or Kubel bursts onto the scene, they won't score enough to do anything. Their rotation isn't as good as people seem to think either. Santana is awesome, but Radke is only decent and on his last legs, Silva is fairly solid but is very hittable, and some younger guys that may or may not pan out this year are at the back end of the pen. Yes, if Liriano and Baker pitch up to their potential that's a dangerous rotation, but it seems unlikely that even one of them will dominate much less both. Their bullpen also isn't as deep as it once was with the departure of Romero. This might be the beginning of the end with the Twins. I think they might be a Santana injury away from 4th place with this team.

 

The Indians are always going to be a threat with that lineup, but this time they're not going to get much help from the starting pitching. Millwood was a monster for them last year, and now he's gone. Sabathia gets credit for being an ace, but he's only had an ERA under 4 once. I think he might be the most overrated pitcher in the league not named Kerry Wood. Lee is a decent pitcher but not stellar. At times he can compete with our guys but he hasn't dominated for long stretches yet. The rest of their guys are nothing special, and only Byrd was effective last year. Their pen will help them win games late, but even that might lose some punch if Wickman isn't as solid at the back as he was last year.

 

I'd be very surprised if the Sox win less than about 92, and they have the potential to win quite a few more. Thome's health is the one major thing that worries me, although it seems like he'll be healthy long before opening day. I'm also somewhat worried about the bullpen, but we should have a little leeway with our other arms unless Jenks and Cotts fall off considerably from last year's performances (you can even afford a bit of dropoff from Cotts, he was pretty dominant).

 

On the other hand, the Twins have some fairly major lineup issues and not a whole lot of depth in their rotation or bullpen, and the Indians have some problems with their rotation and a possible issue with their closer. I really don't see the Twins winning over 90 (I think more like 86), and I think that's right around the best that the Indians will do unless their pitching performs well. They seem to be a lot like the Sox teams of old, depending on their lineup to carry them. The only problem is their lineup doesn't have as many thumpers as the Sox did, and the pitching isn't as strong either. They won 93 last year with a stronger starting staff and one of the best hot streaks that I've ever seen. That probably won't happen again, and I don't think their starting pitching will make up for it.

 

Unless the Sox fall apart they really should win this division before the last weak of the season. Neyer's endless ripping of the defending champs and the best team in baseball on paper entering the 2006 season is really getting annoying.