Jordan4life_2007 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 25, 2006 -> 03:41 AM) Just read through the comments posted after the article. They grudgingly accept our championship, yet continually note our "luck." I admit there were numerous lucky breaks with we were fortunate to exploit--I'd be foolish not to--but winning 99 regular season games should have given some consideration to our talent. I've said this before, and I'll say it again--anyone feeling confused by the Sox success can label our championship "lucky," but I guarantee Beane wishes he ballclub were this "lucky." Rather be the worst team within the last 15 years to win a World Series title than the best not to. The arrogance which is often evident through the writings of sabermetric fans is why we'll never be given credit. I don't dislike the advent of advanced statistics in baseball. I don't feel threatened, as Hawk or other oldtimers might. It just so happens these people are incredibly absorbed in their methods and would rather dish out plates of "luck" than reflect upon reasons why their wrong when such events occur. Although I suppose influencing Baseball Prospectus to reassess defense can be chalked up as a small success. Honestly, aside from the personal satisfaction and pride of winning another World Series, I'd like to win another to prove everyone wrong. Our players have all the motivation they could possibly need with a subcription to Baseball Prospectus. Maybe if we repeat, BP will create a new category named after the White Sox which can accurately predict luck. Excellent post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted March 25, 2006 Author Share Posted March 25, 2006 The easiest thing to see from last year was that the good teams all had good pitching. The best pitching staffs in terms of stats were all at the top of the league: STL, HOU, CLE, CWS, LAA, OAK. Even though other teams get into the playoffs with inferior pitching doesn't mean that they always will (NYY, BOS). CBS Sportsline has a player and team ranking system that is fairly accurate. It had the Sox, Cards, and Yanks in the Top 5 most of the year regardless of their record. It adds up each players value to get a team value. Here is the link from 2005: http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/playerrankin...ularseason/TEAM It had the Yankees #1, Astros #2, Cardinals #3, and Sox #4 at the end of the regular season. The Sox had the 9th best Infield, 12th best Outfield, 3rd best Starting pitching, and 10th best bullpen. I think those numbers are pretty accurate. Granted, the overall team ratings were a little off because the Yankees offense was so strong, but otherwise it is pretty close. Just using that ranking system, it is clear that the Sox were a top team, and luck was not as much of a factor than people make it out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Mar 25, 2006 -> 08:17 AM) Also... I heard they don't believe in the Easter Bunny. And they like France. And hate FREEDOM. You're either with us, or against us! I, for one, am prepared to fight. Statheads eat babies too. The statheads will never like us. We pitch great, play great defense, and win 1 and 2 run games. To statheads, 1 and 2 run wins are a matter of luck so to them our triangular pythagorean square root theorum record was really 71-91 last year since close wins don't count. Yeah, statheads absolutely HATE teams with good pitching and great defense. I mean, look at Oakland. Awful pitching (err, wait), and a bunch of fat-men who can't play defense (oh, wait, that's wrong too). :banghead Edited March 25, 2006 by CWSGuy406 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 25, 2006 -> 06:52 PM) Statheads eat babies too. Efficiently -- only low VORP babies. QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 25, 2006 -> 06:52 PM) Yeah, statheads absolutely HATE teams with good pitching and great defense. I mean, look at Oakland. Awful pitching (err, wait), and a bunch of fat-men who can't play defense (oh, wait, that's wrong too). :banghead Face it, Keith, everyone has pegged you to the life. You hate baseball. You love spreadsheets. I bet you never played baseball as a kid, never watched a single game until you knew that you could scorn the game and limit your involvement to really complicated math concepts, like "sum" and "average". You hated being outside and are only truly happy in the soft glow of an LCD. You don't understand "heart" because you clearly don't have one. And that's why you eat babies, Keith. That's why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 25, 2006 -> 12:52 PM) Statheads eat babies too. Yeah, statheads absolutely HATE teams with good pitching and great defense. I mean, look at Oakland. Awful pitching (err, wait), and a bunch of fat-men who can't play defense (oh, wait, that's wrong too). :banghead Oakland really hasn't built a team with any sort of good defense besides making sure the 1B could pick it until very recently. It's something Beane himself has admitted he's had a change of philosophy in. And I assume your a stathead, do you consider the Sox title legit? Your square root victory theorum says we were lucky and will suck this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 25, 2006 -> 08:27 PM) Oakland really hasn't built a team with any sort of good defense besides making sure the 1B could pick it until very recently. Last year, Oakland was rated first in Defensive Efficiency Rating, which is the number of balls in play converted into outs. Does this actually mean Oakland was the best team in baseball defensively? I'll leave that up to debate, but there's no question they were a top defensive team last year. Is that concept of DER to tough for you to wrap your mind around? You know, dividing numbers? BTW, are you really ignorant and/or an idiot? Oakland doesn't have any good defense besides a 1B-man? Mark Ellis? Eric Chavez? Mark Kotsay? Maybe you should just stick to the college basketball threads. You have no idea what you're talking about, and come across as really foolish. And I assume your a stathead, do you consider the Sox title legit? Your square root victory theorum says we were lucky and will suck this year. No, I consider the Sox title fake. In fact, the Sox didn't win the Central, the Indians did, as they had a better Pythag. The Sox probably shouldn't get rings -- they should just give them to Cleveland. :rolly Hey, though -- did you come up with that square root victory theorum thing by yourself? How freaking clever!!!!! Edited March 25, 2006 by CWSGuy406 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 the sox fans in the comments portion did a good job defending...i would have incredulously made fun of everyone in that thread. But. Such is life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 It's often mistaken that "statheads" don't actually watch baseball, and have never played baseball. For all the pub Billy Beane gets about "starting sabermetrics", (lol) nobody seems to remember that he played the game at the highest level himself. And "stathead" seems to imply this monolithic and dogmatic ideal around here, probably something like the worst article Baseball Prospectus has ever written. In reality, "stathead" means many different things to many different people. I enjoy sabermetrics, but am I going to suddenly pursue an advanced degree in statistics so I can go work for Theo Epstein? No way. However baseball as a game leads naturally to statistical analysis, as there are a discreet number of outcomes--like chess on a diamond. Yet each game is unique, which makes it more than just a science. I can appreciate looking at the game as a science, and I can appreciate the artistry in at as well. These things aren't mutually exclusive to statheads. Regarding the luck thing, the one thing I never hear critics of sabermetrics say is that "well the Sox got lucky last year according to sabermetricians, but they also said most great teams are lucky, so I guess it's a wash." Almost every sabemetric oriented article I've read about the Sox and luck also mentions that almost every world series champion enjoy good luck throughout the season. e.g. good health, 1-run W/L, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Mar 26, 2006 -> 03:42 AM) It's often mistaken that "statheads" don't actually watch baseball, and have never played baseball. For all the pub Billy Beane gets about "starting sabermetrics", (lol) nobody seems to remember that he played the game at the highest level himself. And "stathead" seems to imply this monolithic and dogmatic ideal around here, probably something like the worst article Baseball Prospectus has ever written. In reality, "stathead" means many different things to many different people. I enjoy sabermetrics, but am I going to suddenly pursue an advanced degree in statistics so I can go work for Theo Epstein? No way. However baseball as a game leads naturally to statistical analysis, as there are a discreet number of outcomes--like chess on a diamond. Yet each game is unique, which makes it more than just a science. I can appreciate looking at the game as a science, and I can appreciate the artistry in at as well. These things aren't mutually exclusive to statheads. Regarding the luck thing, the one thing I never hear critics of sabermetrics say is that "well the Sox got lucky last year according to sabermetricians, but they also said most great teams are lucky, so I guess it's a wash." Almost every sabemetric oriented article I've read about the Sox and luck also mentions that almost every world series champion enjoy good luck throughout the season. e.g. good health, 1-run W/L, etc. OMFG, reasonableness. You Soxhating stathead!!!!! Seriously, well said. I don't think there's anything I'd disagree with there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 25, 2006 -> 12:52 PM) Statheads eat babies too. I knew it all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.