Al Lopez's Ghost Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Murphy on the Score today had someone from BP, and he said that their early projection for the Sox this year was... 72 and 90. Which struck me as a mite pessimistic, but there you have it. They thought our question marks in the outfield, 5th spot in the rotation, Uribe, and our tough division would add up to one hell of a bad year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 QUOTE(Al Lopez @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 04:42 PM) Murphy on the Score today had someone from BP, and he said that their early projection for the Sox this year was... 72 and 90. Which struck me as a mite pessimistic, but there you have it. They thought our question marks in the outfield, 5th spot in the rotation, Uribe, and our tough division would add up to one hell of a bad year. Did that person give the predictions for the entire division? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 06:01 PM) Did that person give the predictions for the entire division? Yeah, Flash posted these here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scenario Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Al Lopez @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 04:42 PM) Murphy on the Score today had someone from BP, and he said that their early projection for the Sox this year was... 72 and 90. Which struck me as a mite pessimistic, but there you have it. They thought our question marks in the outfield, 5th spot in the rotation, Uribe, and our tough division would add up to one hell of a bad year. So.... we won 90 games last year with the same questionable outfield, the same shortstop having a miserable year, and when almost our entire starting pitching staff had career worst years... But we're going to only going to win 72 this year.... because why... because we got rid of Freddy Garcia??? Edited February 28, 2007 by scenario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 QUOTE(scenario @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 05:40 PM) So.... we won 90 games last year with the same questionable outfield, the same shortstop having a miserable year, and when almost our entire starting pitching staff had career worst years... But we're going to only going to win 72 this year.... because why... because we got rid of Freddy Garcia??? Since Freddy is gone obviously nobody will play any better. So you take 90 wins minus Freddy's 17 and subtract another for the horrible McCarthy trade and you get 72 wins. It makes perfect sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 05:29 PM) Yeah, Flash posted these here. Thanks. Wow...someone over there is smoking some SERIOUS crack. Twins? Without Liriano? And an unproven staff besides Santana? Whew. I'll give them the Tigers and Indians. Ridiculous! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 No one in the NL winning 90 games?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwolf68 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 This is superb news. I like it when the Sox are under the radar. Didn't think they'd be THAT far under, but whatever...too many champions and too much pride on this team to lose 90 games. It will take a meltdown of epic proportions and an uncontrollable rash of injuries to see 90 losses on the southside this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 07:11 PM) No one in the NL winning 90 games?? Noone in the majors winning more than 93 wins, either. It's probably just a function of having some regression-to-the-mean built into whatever model they're using. Some team will get much better than average performances, or a good deal of luck, but you can't now predict which one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 4th worst in the majors? That would be a hell of a draft pick (if KW can sign them)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitlesswonder Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 06:00 PM) Thanks. Wow...someone over there is smoking some SERIOUS crack. Twins? Without Liriano? And an unproven staff besides Santana? Whew. I'll give them the Tigers and Indians. Ridiculous! They picked the Sox for third last year...and were right. And they also picked the Twins to win the division...and were right. So, I'm not going to accuse anyone of smoking anything. I'll just go get ready for Garza pitching like Liriano. Bastards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 07:50 PM) They picked the Sox for third last year...and were right. And they also picked the Twins to win the division...and were right. So, I'm not going to accuse anyone of smoking anything. I'll just go get ready for Garza pitching like Liriano. Bastards. Their finishes don't explain why a team would see an 18 win difference from the previous season, and why the 6th best team in the majors (record wise) becomes the 4th worst when all the Sox lost of note was 1 starting pitcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 They picked us to finish fourth in 2005...and were wrong. It's a crapshoot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 QUOTE(3E8 @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 08:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They picked us to finish fourth in 2005...and were wrong. It's a crapshoot. No it isn't. Do your research and you'll have a much better edge in predicting the results. You can't do that in dice. FWIW, Joe Sheehan had the Sox at 71-91 in 4th place before the 2005 season, yet even after the Sox ass pounded the Blow Sox 14-2, he couldn't get off his high horse and admit the Sox were the best team. He said the Sox were just "good," and that they wouldn't win the series against Boston. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I get BP every season, and they are no less accurate over the years than all the "experts" that get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars on various networks. I don't buy 72 wins, they use PECOTA and that probably has the offense a lot less effective than last season. I'm sure Gavin Floyd doesn't project too well with just about anybody's systems. And the rest of the White Sox pitching staff is loaded with questions. They could be great, they could be awful. I would think if everything turned bad the Sox would win more than 72, but assuming they are going to win 96+ games is probably equally as crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitlesswonder Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 QUOTE(3E8 @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 08:36 PM) They picked us to finish fourth in 2005...and were wrong. It's a crapshoot. I agree (well...I don't know what the odds are in craps, but I agree in principle). I was just saying that I'm not going to call the BP people idiots, because I thought they were last year, and yet they weren't. I'm not saying I think they are right about the 72 wins thing. I'm expecting more. I am getting pretty tired of the Twins bringing up young pitchers that excel beyond any reasonable expectation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 09:12 PM) No it isn't. Do your research and you'll have a much better edge in predicting the results. You can't do that in dice. Crapshoot means unpredictable or risky, not totally random. BP's success rate is under 50%. It's easy to say the Yankees will be good or the Nationals will be bad, but placing teams in exact division finishing positions? Good luck. Edited March 1, 2007 by 3E8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vance Law Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 07:50 PM) They picked the Sox for third last year...and were right. And they also picked the Twins to win the division...and were right. So, I'm not going to accuse anyone of smoking anything. I'll just go get ready for Garza pitching like Liriano. Bastards. I'll bet they didn't pick Detroit for second and 95 wins and they didn't pick Cleveland for 4th with 78 wins, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 If Minnestoa goes .500 this season, I'd give Gardenhire manager of the year. That team has not starting pitching outside of their ace.... I don't think the White Sox will win the division, but they are going to be in the race. To come up with 72 wins, they must be predicting injuries to Thome, and a few pitchers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 i luuuv being the underdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 QUOTE(Reddy @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 12:03 AM) i luuuv being the underdog Well, tradesports.com has us as the 5th most likely to win the WS (at last check -- and the Tigers were very close, so that could change soon), so if you want to believe that, you'd best not look at other sites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 BP isn't staffed by idiots, but the overuse of statistics in baseball is pretty obvious with stuff like this. Too much changes from year to year for each individual player for these models to be anything more than entertainment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottyDo Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 if the Sox finish 13 games behind the tigers like they say, i'll buy an effing bonderman jersey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 QUOTE(ScottyDo @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 12:57 AM) if the Sox finish 13 games behind the tigers like they say, i'll buy an effing bonderman jersey May be a good investment. I heard he's been tinkering with a changeup, and from accounts of teammates it's rather effective. People have been predicting a breakout season from him for years. I wouldn't doubt it for this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 01:07 AM) May be a good investment. I heard he's been tinkering with a changeup, and from accounts of teammates it's rather effective. People have been predicting a breakout season from him for years. I wouldn't doubt it for this season. Last year wasn't a breakout season for him? 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.