One of the first "projected" standings, Sox dead last

[sircaffey]

that's the thing, I don't see a lot of them. Sheffield and Rogers were both old, so bad seasons makes sense (though possibly not to the level that they had), Nate Robertson just isn't very good (though again, maybe not to a 6+ ERA...he's not much better than a 5 ERA pitcher though), their bullpen isn't that talented and they cut Aquilino Lopez who was one of their best relievers last year, and outside of really Guillen and Bonderman, injuries didn't strike them that badly (Granderson missed like 2-3 weeks at the beginning of the season but was healthy the rest of the season). I just don't think they are a very good team at all and without another move or so, I'd be surprised if they finished out of last place.

 

That said, I'd agree with whoever said that the Central won't be very competitive. I see the Twins and Indians as the favorites and I could honestly see any team winning it with just a couple breaks.

 

Verlander was horrible last season (11-17, 4.84 ERA), and Cabrera had a horrible first half by his standards (and finished the season ~.100 pts off his previous 2 seasons' OPS). As for injuries, in addition to Bonderman and Guillen, Rodney missed more than half the season, and Zumaya missed almost all of it. I'm not saying they're a great team, but a lot of things went wrong last season (some not entirely unexpected, but some quite unexpected). I think the Sox and Tigers are on even levels, both have many question marks to go with some very talented players.

Edited January 15, 2009 by sircaffey

[bmags]

zumaya doesn't seem like someone you should rely on to stay healthy at this point.

[GreatScott82]

Anyone who makes 'projected' standings this early in january is a nimrod.

[ThunderBolt]

Anyone who makes 'projected' standings this early in january is a nimrod.

Agreed, at least wait until projected lineups are somewhat a given. We're talking like two weeks into spring training.

[WCSox]

that's the thing, I don't see a lot of them. Sheffield and Rogers were both old, so bad seasons makes sense (though possibly not to the level that they had), Nate Robertson just isn't very good (though again, maybe not to a 6+ ERA...he's not much better than a 5 ERA pitcher though), their bullpen isn't that talented and they cut Aquilino Lopez who was one of their best relievers last year, and outside of really Guillen and Bonderman, injuries didn't strike them that badly (Granderson missed like 2-3 weeks at the beginning of the season but was healthy the rest of the season). I just don't think they are a very good team at all and without another move or so, I'd be surprised if they finished out of last place.

 

Agreed. They have too many stars in their mid-30s or older. Their bullpen is a complete mess and, out of their starters, I'd have a tough time seeing anybody other than Verlander or Bonderman bouncing back.

 

I fully expect that at least one team will be surprisingly good, maybe more than that. That's how it always is in baseball.

 

I agree with this as well. But I'd be surprised if more than one was playoff-good. It's difficult to see a Wild Card team coming out of the Central... at this point, anyway.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Rickey Henderson says he is available to play. A GM just has to call.

 

Do we know any teams in need of a leadoff hitting outfielder?

 

[bmags]

is bill veeck still our owner?

[Balta1701]

I agree with this as well. But I'd be surprised if more than one was playoff-good. It's difficult to see a Wild Card team coming out of the Central... at this point, anyway.

I'll agree with that, but it's not because I think the Central will implode like it did last year. I just think that the Rays, Yankees, and Red Sox are going to be feasting on enough teams that it'll be hard for the WC to not come out of the east.

[MO2005]

Wait the Sox signed Bartolo Colon, now we are a 95 win team!!!

[Melissa1334]

what's funny was that was the prediction for last years team. Who finished first.

i thought u thought it was funny the prediction for this year bcuz u thought we would be better than that.

[bmags]

no, for one I didn't post what you responded to, so that wasn't me.

[WCSox]

I'll agree with that, but it's not because I think the Central will implode like it did last year. I just think that the Rays, Yankees, and Red Sox are going to be feasting on enough teams that it'll be hard for the WC to not come out of the east.

 

Yeah, I see a lot of decent 82-87 win teams in the Central this year, but no WC winner.

 

[scenario]

Did a little more digging to see how well these people have done in projecting the Sox in the last few years.

 

Here are the projected and actual wins for the last 4 seasons.

 

The last column show the number of games that the Sox either outperformed(+) or underperformed(-) the projections.

 

WhiteSox

Year - Proj. / Actual / (+-)

2005 - 79 / 99 / (+20)

2006 - 82 / 90 / (+8)

2007 - 77 / 72 / (-5)

2008 - 67 / 89 / (+22)

 

So... over the last 4 years, they have projected the Sox on average to win 76 games per year. And they projected them to win more than 80 only once.

 

But... in terms of actual performance... the Sox have averaged 87.5 wins over the last 4 years. And have won 89 or more games 3 times.

 

Bottom line... system? what system? Wrong on average by over 11 games per season. Wrong by 20 or more games 2 of the last 4 seasons? Dung flinging monkeys could've done a better job pulling numbers out of a hat.

Edited January 18, 2009 by scenario

[witesoxfan]

Did a little more digging to see how well these people have done in projecting the Sox in the last few years.

 

Here are the projected and actual wins for the last 4 seasons.

 

The last column show the number of games that the Sox either outperformed(+) or underperformed(-) the projections.

 

WhiteSox

Year - Proj. / Actual / (+-)

2005 - 79 / 99 / (+20)

2006 - 82 / 90 / (+8)

2007 - 77 / 72 / (-5)

2008 - 67 / 89 / (+22)

 

So... on over the last 4 years, they have projected the Sox on average to win 76 games per year. And they only projected them to win more than 80 only once.

 

But... in terms of actual performance... the Sox have averaged 87.5 wins over the last 4 years. And have won 89 or more games 3 times.

 

Bottom line... system? what system? Wrong on average by over 11 games per season. Wrong by 20 or more games 2 of the last 4 seasons? Dung flinging monkeys could've done a better job pulling numbers out of a hat.

 

Sox pitchers, namely Mark Buehrle, never perform well in these types of simulations or predictions because they use several sabermetric statistics in making their standings and Buehrle, like most Sox pitchers, never holds up well in these. Vazquez was always considered the Sox best pitcher using just raw numbers, but that never works. That's probably one of the biggest reasons why.

[hogan873]

Even if the Sox don't make anymore moves, dead last in the Central is just a bad prediction. As it stands, we have 3 quality starters and a potential fourth with Colon. Offense-wise, what did we lose? We still have Konerko (who you'd hope will have a better year), Quentin, Dye, and Thome. With some speed and potential speed added, this team doesn't look too bad right now. I'm not saying I'm excited about where we are, but the Sox are a better team than the Royals. And like I saw it posted by someone else, when the Sox are predicted to be bad they turn out to be pretty damn good.

[Kyyle23]

Wait the Sox signed Bartolo Colon, now we are a 95 win team!!!

 

And clearly that is what everyone is now saying.

[knightni]

I can see 85 wins from this team if the chips fall like they should.

 

Of course, that could be 3rd place.

[witesoxfan]

I can see 85 wins from this team if the chips fall like they should.

 

Of course, that could be 3rd place.

 

If they fall like they should, I'd agree. If they fall better, I could see 90 wins. I'm excited for the upcoming year.

[caulfield12]

Sox pitchers, namely Mark Buehrle, never perform well in these types of simulations or predictions because they use several sabermetric statistics in making their standings and Buehrle, like most Sox pitchers, never holds up well in these. Vazquez was always considered the Sox best pitcher using just raw numbers, but that never works. That's probably one of the biggest reasons why.

 

 

How could you project a team coming off a 110-64 stretch to be an 82-80 squad in 2006?

 

Did the computers not watch that season's playoff games? Guess not.

 

Apparently the computers automatically predicted our pitching staff would regress, but with all the talent/money added to payroll, I would have a hard time imagining any HUMAN BEING picking the White Sox for less than 88-90 wins coming off that World Series championship.

Edited January 19, 2009 by caulfield12

[ptatc]

Sox pitchers, namely Mark Buehrle, never perform well in these types of simulations or predictions because they use several sabermetric statistics in making their standings and Buehrle, like most Sox pitchers, never holds up well in these. Vazquez was always considered the Sox best pitcher using just raw numbers, but that never works. That's probably one of the biggest reasons why.

 

This is because stats, as well as a number of people on this board, state that winning games is over rated by pitchers. They look at all of thenumbers other than wins to determine if you are a good pitcher. Buerhle "wins" more than his numbers show.

 

[lostfan]

This is because stats, as well as a number of people on this board, state that winning games is over rated by pitchers. They look at all of thenumbers other than wins to determine if you are a good pitcher. Buerhle "wins" more than his numbers show.

Buehrle doesn't allow a lot of baserunners and he hardly ever walks anyone on a consistent basis, hence he wins. But the fact remains that he couldn't do this if he played on a team like the Pirates.

[StrangeSox]

How could you project a team coming off a 110-64 stretch to be an 82-80 squad in 2006?

 

Did the computers not watch that season's playoff games? Guess not.

 

Apparently the computers automatically predicted our pitching staff would regress, but with all the talent/money added to payroll, I would have a hard time imagining any HUMAN BEING picking the White Sox for less than 88-90 wins coming off that World Series championship.

 

Results are only as good as your data and model. Apparently, they have a crappy model.

 

"Garbage in, garbage out"

[ILMOU]

Sox pitchers, namely Mark Buehrle, never perform well in these types of simulations or predictions because they use several sabermetric statistics in making their standings and Buehrle, like most Sox pitchers, never holds up well in these.

 

Nope. Buehrle only holds up well in the actual playing of baseball.

[witesoxfan]

This is because stats, as well as a number of people on this board, state that winning games is over rated by pitchers. They look at all of thenumbers other than wins to determine if you are a good pitcher. Buerhle "wins" more than his numbers show.

 

There is something to be said about the pure aspect of pitching. Buehrle allows a lot of hits, allows his fair share of homers, and he doesn't strike a ton of guys out. However, when you know how to pitch to contact, know how to induce soft groundballs or average pop flies, and field your position well (along with having a good defense behind you), you'll perform well. There are several different pitchers with peripheral statistics similar to Buehrle who do not perform well and it's because, simply put, they are not nearly the caliber pitcher that Mark Buehrle is.

 

Buehrle is a fun pitcher to analyze. He can allow a lot of hits (2008), allow a lot of homers (2004...though his HR/9 isn't horrendous because he set a career high in innings pitched), strike very few out (2007), walk a relatively high amount (2002) and still be a good pitcher. It's when he does all of those poorly (2006) when he's a bad pitcher, and that had a lot to do with a dead arm in the second half of 2006. It doesn't seem like it, but he was a deserving All-Star that that year, but was also very close to the worst starter in the game in the second half of the year.

[ThunderBolt]

This is because stats, as well as a number of people on this board, state that winning games is over rated by pitchers. They look at all of thenumbers other than wins to determine if you are a good pitcher. Buerhle "wins" more than his numbers show.

Winning Games is not at all a factor in determining what makes a good pitcher unless that win is a product mostly of the pitchers own making (no-hitter, complete game, shutout, holding a team below four runs, ETC). Edwin Jackson won 14 games last year, and it wasn't because he was a great pitcher, he was a product of a great offense and defense. Mark Buehrle, however, has proven himself a great pitcher, becasue he has moved past having what some would term as "mediocre" stuff, and become a great pitcher through the use of a cutter, and his ability to force ground balls in a hitters ballpark, while pitching at a pace that allows him to take complete control of a game. It's unfortunate that there's no real stat that can incorportate the very tangible qualities that Buehrle has (i'm not talking grindeyness here) that's why Mark is underrated not because of wins.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Thunderbolt