Are we really that good?

[southsider2k5]

I feel like we are an 83 win team if we have an average season, we need the danks/garcia/bullpen great years to get us to 88 wins.

 

This feels right to me. The number I had in my head was 85 wins, with potential into the low 90's with some big years.

[southsider2k5]

One thing these computer based projections don't account for simply adding stabilizers like Robertson and Duke at the end of bullpen will take away pressure from guys like Petricka, Putnam, Guerra and Webb. If we are only asking them to pitch the 6/7/8 instead of high leverage 8th and 9th, it would put them in a better position to succeed as well. 3 of those guys have a big fastball, they just didn't command it well last year. Taking pressure off them would certainly help.

 

But yea, 2 WAR for this bullpen grossly under-projecting.

 

So true.

[mmmmmbeeer]

To assume that Johnson will be starting at 2B - unless the Sox just don't give a s*** about his measurable readiness - and Rodon will put up 2 WAR is ludicrously optimistic. This isn't about "what could be," this is about what is the most likely outcome if weighting every possibility based on its individual likelihood.

 

 

The most polished, possibly best, pitcher in a solid 2014 draft class grabbing a 2 WAR this season is "ludicrous" but a computer program having Q lose 3 WAR for no apparent reason is to be believed?

 

I dig the stats and they do have value, but c'mon.

[Jake]

One thing these computer based projections don't account for simply adding stabilizers like Robertson and Duke at the end of bullpen will take away pressure from guys like Petricka, Putnam, Guerra and Webb. If we are only asking them to pitch the 6/7/8 instead of high leverage 8th and 9th, it would put them in a better position to succeed as well. 3 of those guys have a big fastball, they just didn't command it well last year. Taking pressure off them would certainly help.

 

But yea, 2 WAR for this bullpen grossly under-projecting.

 

They don't do that because the effects of doing things like that are repeatedly tested and never show an effect. If it does, it is so infrequently that it can't be distinguished from random chance. The only thing about those acquisitions that makes us better is that those players are better than the ones they are replacing.

[ILMOU]

Why is WAR the end all be all?

 

It isn't, and many of the projections are clearly dumb. Lexi is stealing bases better/more efficiently than ever over the last two seasons. Are they expecting him to get fat, now that the calendar has turned?

 

The most polished, possibly best, pitcher in a solid 2014 draft class grabbing a 2 WAR this season is "ludicrous" but a computer program having Q lose 3 WAR for no apparent reason is to be believed?

 

I dig the stats and they do have value, but c'mon.

 

 

This, as well. I won't get worked up over it. If RH feels there will be "gaping holes", then stopgaps are still on the menu. He's not going to come this far, only to leave too much up to the unproven.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Stan Bahnsen

[Vance Law]

To assume that Johnson will be starting at 2B - unless the Sox just don't give a s*** about his measurable readiness - and Rodon will put up 2 WAR is ludicrously optimistic. This isn't about "what could be," this is about what is the most likely outcome if weighting every possibility based on its individual likelihood.

 

I think the assumption that Micah may well start at 2B is based on all of the word/innuendo that we seem to hear coming from the Sox. It could be wrong. He could have a terrible spring. But this projection system didn't give him any playing time while in reality he probably has at least a 50/50 shot at being the starter while Leury is probably 4th on the depth chart behind Saladino.

 

Probably all 4 of Micah, Sanchez, Saladino, and Leury get some playing time throughout the year with circumstances/performances dictating playing time.

[Eminor3rd]

In general, fans are never realistic about their players' upcoming regression. We always assume the guys that underperformed will get better, but the guys that overperformed have "broken out."

 

If we're being realistic, we'll probably get worse performance out of 3B, SS, and C. We're hoping for upside out of RF, CF, and 2B. There's a good chance we'll see noticeable negative regression out of Sale and Quintana, because they both had AWESOME seasons. I mean, can you really ever "project" a guy to be a Cy Young finalist? We can't bank a 2-flat ERA out of Sale any more than we can bank a league average bat out of Gillaspie.

 

There are TONS of problem with these WAR projections, but there's some truth in what they illustrate, which is that it isn't safe to expect that every player on our team performs within 10% of their absolute peaks.

[ptatc]

To assume that Johnson will be starting at 2B - unless the Sox just don't give a s*** about his measurable readiness - and Rodon will put up 2 WAR is ludicrously optimistic. This isn't about "what could be," this is about what is the most likely outcome if weighting every possibility based on its individual likelihood.

This is the most likely outcome based on the metrics this group uses. You should clarify that.

 

In the medical world, I never based my conclusion on anything just one person/group says.

[thxfrthmmrs]

They don't do that because the effects of doing things like that are repeatedly tested and never show an effect. If it does, it is so infrequently that it can't be distinguished from random chance. The only thing about those acquisitions that makes us better is that those players are better than the ones they are replacing.

 

The would you want to elaborate on the phenomenon when great setup men are put into the closer position they fail miserably? Or do you subscribe to Billy Beane's theory that closers are the same as any other reliever pitchers?

 

I don't think projections take into these elements because they can't, as they would project 7th inning stats the same way they would project 9th inning stats.

 

 

 

 

[ILMOU]

This is the most likely outcome based on the metrics this group uses. You should clarify that.

 

In the medical world, I never based my conclusion on anything just one person/group says.

Yes, and isn't it obvious that their knowledge of how the org views its personnel is lacking? You can start there as a point of contention. Leury likely not in plans, ALaR likely at DH predominantly, do they not read the papers?

 

Most importantly, not the finished product quite yet.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Stan Bahnsen

[Balta1701]

In general, fans are never realistic about their players' upcoming regression. We always assume the guys that underperformed will get better, but the guys that overperformed have "broken out."

 

If we're being realistic, we'll probably get worse performance out of 3B, SS, and C. We're hoping for upside out of RF, CF, and 2B. There's a good chance we'll see noticeable negative regression out of Sale and Quintana, because they both had AWESOME seasons. I mean, can you really ever "project" a guy to be a Cy Young finalist? We can't bank a 2-flat ERA out of Sale any more than we can bank a league average bat out of Gillaspie.

 

There are TONS of problem with these WAR projections, but there's some truth in what they illustrate, which is that it isn't safe to expect that every player on our team performs within 10% of their absolute peaks.

The reality though is that some guys should get better, some guys should get worse, right?

 

It shouldn't be "every single guy will perform worse than he did last year" as shown here.

 

What I found fascinating is that with a projection of "every single guy on the White Sox has a worse 2015 than they did in 2014", we're still right on the edge of what would make that a competitive team.

[Dick Allen]

How did the WAR projections work out with the standings last season? I think I read the Red Sox led the AL East in actual WAR, not projected, and finished in last.

 

Some guys will beat their projection, some guys won't. That's how it goes every year. And even if they don't win the WAR trophy, it doesn't mean they won't actually be better than teams that finished ahead of them.

[Vance Law]

It shouldn't be "every single guy will perform worse than he did last year" as shown here.

 

It would seem a projection system like this will only project for improvements for a player if they have multiple years of success or continual improvement, or if they're a highly regarded prospect who has so far sucked (see Boston Red Sox). If there is X% percent likelihood that Abreu has the same All-Star year he did in his only year in MLB, or even improves, and then there is X% chance he regresses, slumps, gets injured the overall projection is some combination of those. The projection thus has to assume he is worse than last year. That's why the usefulness of these projections is limited, especially for players like Abreu and Eaton.

 

 

[Leonard Zelig]

How accurate have these FG projections been in the past?

[Balta1701]

How accurate have these FG projections been in the past?

Another thing that annoys me is that there's no "1 sigma" margin of error posted and since this is a prediction stat you ought to actually be able to calculate that for every season.

[Jose Abreu]

It would seem a projection system like this will only project for improvements for a player if they have multiple years of success or continual improvement.

So why would Quintana not be projected for improvement?

[Vance Law]

So why would Quintana not be projected for improvement?

 

He's not on the Red Sox.

 

 

For real though, good question. I don't know. His peripherals were better than his results last year.

[Eminor3rd]

The reality though is that some guys should get better, some guys should get worse, right?

 

It shouldn't be "every single guy will perform worse than he did last year" as shown here.

 

What I found fascinating is that with a projection of "every single guy on the White Sox has a worse 2015 than they did in 2014", we're still right on the edge of what would make that a competitive team.

 

 

How did the WAR projections work out with the standings last season? I think I read the Red Sox led the AL East in actual WAR, not projected, and finished in last.

 

Some guys will beat their projection, some guys won't. That's how it goes every year. And even if they don't win the WAR trophy, it doesn't mean they won't actually be better than teams that finished ahead of them.

 

Exactly, and that's why it makes sense to use the aggregate as a frame of reference rather than get caught up in the specifics. That's what math is really good at: macro-level trends. At the end of the year, you'll be able to go through and find all kinds of outlier players that the system missed on, but as a whole, it's going to be pretty damn accurate.

[spiderman]

I feel like we are an 83 win team if we have an average season, we need the danks/garcia/bullpen great years to get us to 88 wins.

 

I was thinking I should have revised my prediction down some from 85-90 to 85 if things go about as expected.

[greg775]

I was thinking I should have revised my prediction down some from 85-90 to 85 if things go about as expected.

 

My opinion is anybody who says a healthy Sox team is not THE favorite to win the Central is delusional. Folks, our starting rotation is Sale, Shark, Q, Danks and stiff to be named later. The closer is Robertson with suitable setup guys.

The lineup has Abreu, Melky, LaRoche, Eaton, Garcia. There are no excuses for Robin. This is a WS roster.

[bmags]

My opinion is anybody who says a healthy Sox team is not THE favorite to win the Central is delusional. Folks, our starting rotation is Sale, Shark, Q, Danks and stiff to be named later. The closer is Robertson with suitable setup guys.

The lineup has Abreu, Melky, LaRoche, Eaton, Garcia. There are no excuses for Robin. This is a WS roster.

 

White Sox have been paper champions a lot of years. I'd like this to be the year they take it. BUt we haven't earned being the favorites.

[shipps]

My opinion is anybody who says a healthy Sox team is not THE favorite to win the Central is delusional. Folks, our starting rotation is Sale, Shark, Q, Danks and stiff to be named later. The closer is Robertson with suitable setup guys.

The lineup has Abreu, Melky, LaRoche, Eaton, Garcia. There are no excuses for Robin. This is a WS roster.

 

This reads as complete satire.

[Princess Dye]

On paper we're hoping/praying to be as strong as the Oakland team last year. Just hoping to be at that point. Dont rule out returns to the mean from Conor/Eaton/LaRoche. Frighteningly C too. The defense from RF/3B do not inspire confidence. we dont even know 2B yet.

 

So hopefully that cools the highest optimism jets considerably.

 

But the point isnt to be the most talented team in MLB, it's just to get in. Once you're in, the chaos of baseball can/will take over.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Jose Paniagua

[witesoxfan]

My opinion is anybody who says a healthy Sox team is not THE favorite to win the Central is delusional. Folks, our starting rotation is Sale, Shark, Q, Danks and stiff to be named later. The closer is Robertson with suitable setup guys.

The lineup has Abreu, Melky, LaRoche, Eaton, Garcia. There are no excuses for Robin. This is a WS roster.

 

Do you ever wonder why you're disappointed come August? The team is talented but there's plenty that could go wrong to keep this team from contending and winning a division, just as there's plenty that could go right to keep this team winning or even running away with the division.

 

They've done the right thing. Let the games happen in the field. Quit trying to win games on paper.

[greg775]

White Sox have been paper champions a lot of years. I'd like this to be the year they take it. BUt we haven't earned being the favorites.

The paper's quality is cardboard now. I forgot Lexi in my previous post as well.