chitownsportsfan

Regression to the mean. I honestly don't think Contreras will be much better or worse than he was over the course of 2005. One half magical half season will not convince me that he has completely cured his control problems. Maybe Don Cooper is a pitching coach god--I'll glady eat crow if he is. However, lacking statistical evidence to support that, I'll hold off on expecting it.

I would agree that the "ceiling" for this years staff is def higher than last years. But I don't think the "mean" projection is. Vasquez is a huge upgrade over last years Bmac and Duque. But unfortunetly some improvement out of the 5th starter isn't likely to overcome what I see as likely regression from Jon G and Buehrle. Buehrle was great last year, and his W/L record doesn't shot it. His peripherials had him as top 3 in the AL easy. I peg him as top 10 in the AL this year, nothing to shake a stick at, but not elite category. Very Good yes, but not elite like 2005. Jon G I see coming back down to earth and posting something around a 4.00 ERA, good numbers, but not as good as 2005 again. I should say that I think there is a slight chance the pitching staff outperforms last years, but a slightly greater chance that they underperform from last year. Also, the 'ceiling" on this group is much higher than last year. If Vasquez has a great year, (and that possibility is another thread and post in and of itself) then I agree, this staff will be hand down the best in baseball.

Yea, you did qualify your statement with "if"--but I still think that "if" is so unlikely to happen that we shouldn't even factor it into our predictions--unless of course we want to be wildly disapointed and wrong. I don't think your post said anything wrong, I just think it needed context.

Wow, that is quite the statement. I find it much too optimisic though. I suppose 105 could happen--if everyone on the team outperforms the most optimistic predictions and no injuries occur outside of the occasional hamstring pull. However, the chance of that happening is probably less than .1 percent, which doesn't really even make it worth considering in my mind. If this team played 100 seasons I think they would win 105 about once. As of now (and its very early) I see a team that wins 94 games and either ends up as the central champ (in a very tight race with the Indians) or the wild-card. I've read too many good studies of the 2005 Sox and 2006 by people I respect that suggest that while the Sox were a worthy and great champion--they did have alot of things go very, very right. Some might say they were lucky. I say good and lucky. I don't care personally, I don't get upset when people write that the Sox were lucky; I just care that they are World Champions and a great team. I don't think that the bullpen will be nearly as good this year as it was last year. I also don't think that the record in 1 run games will be anywhere near what it was last year. Yet the offense is clearly better on paper, and the starting pitching figures to about the same or maybe just slightly worse. Injuries to more than one starter will be devastating, and it does happen from time to time. Not to say it will, just that the Sox don't have the offense to support many injuries to their starters. Probably only the Yankees do, and their pitching sucks even when healthy, so that is their only option. I see Crede, Uribe and Iguchi having better seasons OPS wise, and Kong, Dye, Pods, AJ and Anderson to perform slightly worse as a group than last season. The big wild card is of course Thome. I give him around 450 AB's and .930 OPS--a huge improvement over Frank and Carl. The bench is another clear area of improvement, and I think the bench will be the biggest improvement of the 2006 Sox, as Timo and Ozuna combined for such suckiness last year that Mack, Ozuna and Borchard will probably seem like the '27 Yankees. I really hope Tribe fans don't get ahold of that 105 quote, I fear what they could do with it if the Sox fall on their face and only win say--92 games.

Yo Count me in--I'm new too.

Ha, just being a cubs fans means swimming in a pacific ocean of metaphorical piss every summer and fall--I wouldn't worry about it.

Here is another one: Detroit: At least it's not Baltimore.

Well he pretty much qualified the entire article by saying the Tigers are a much better bet for 4th than for 1st, and that any run will take lots of luck. But that is better than the Tigers have seen the past few years. He also said the AL Central is the toughest in baseball--high praise gentlemen! Please don't compare Perry to Mariotti, nobody, not even Dayn deserves that--well, maybe Woody Paige.

Perry is an idiot, but this mistake is really not significant. I'd be much more upset if he made up quotes like Mariotti or misused statistics like Phil Rogers.

Well, I believe he ignored all bunts in the study. He says he did anyway. I assume that means all bunts--successful or not--since he was using pbp data. Are you saying that the "stealers" have a better chance to reach 3rd because they are running on the play--or because they are just faster than average? I think it's a good start for a more in-depth look at how base stealers affect that game, but I wonder if more historical data was availabe, past the last few seasons. That would have greatly increased his sample size and made the study more reliable. Intuition tells us that a "stealer" will distrupt the pitcher, but his data suggests that walks actually go down with a stealer on base. I wonder if the pitchers are conciously deciding to "get ahead in the count", and "make 'em hit it" with a runner on. Likewise, I wonder if the batter simply becomes less patient with a runner on. I guess we won't know until pitched ball data becomes more available, then we can see if the pitchers are more aggressive or not. It's good to see the stat community exploring areas like this that give a bit of credit back to the speed and defense guys. I still a take a .380 OBP from our leadoff with 10 steals over a guy like PODS. I like PODS, but for a corner outfielder he really doesn't give much production beyond speed and average, two things not very important in run creation compared to OBP and OPS.

In a nutshell, 200 AB and this line: 276 .313 .330 .643 I don't mind that line nearly as much as Timo's though: 218 .266 .296 .562 179 AB Yuck, Yuck, Yuck.

JR for his money I can take, Ozzie for making me look like an "angel" on the course after a bad shot, and KW because the man is smooth. If "Stringer" Bell was a GM instead of a character on HBO, he would be KW.

The fact that Pablo Ozuna and Timo Perez won't have 400 combined AB's has to be worth at least 10 runs and two wins this year.

I think it just hit me how much Sox radio won't be the same without John. Man, this sucks.

Well said!

270 .329 .407 Who's numbers are those? Any guesses? The departed Arow's. So, who wants to bet me that BA puts up more than a .738 OPS? BA is likely an offensive upgrade over the Arow of 2005. I don't see the problem here. As for the Thome/Frank/Jurassic thing--don't some of you realize just how putrid the DH position was last year? As posted, Jurassic's splits just sucked. His homer numbers were inflated by playing in the Cell, and his OPS still sucked. No matter what happens injury wise with Frank and Thome, nobody can seriously argue that Thome does not represent less injury risk than Frank. But to simplify this down to risk is well, risky. Thome does two things Frank cannot: bats LH, and can play 1B. Both are important things to consider. I agree that trading Rowand for Thome to replace what was arguably already possesed (Frank Thomas), and then losing Frank, is a bit of a hard pill to swallow on the dawn of a world championship. However, Rowand is the definition of fungible in CF--a no hit good defense guy--MLB has plenty of those guys. Thome is a rare commodity: a LH who hits for a high OBP and slugging.

Darn! And I was going to try and use "sabermatrics" to prove why Jon's 2005 wasn't a fluke, but since you'll just discount it maybe I shouldnt... "sabermatrics" tell a few things about Jon: 1) He has an excellent F/G ratio--a must for pitching half your starts at the Cell 2) His walk rate dramatically improved in 2005. "sabermatrics" also tells that the Sox have perhaps the best team defense in MLB. So, call it "confidence" or "finding himself", the thing is that if Garland can keep his control problems in line, (as many have mentioned) he is an excellent candidate to not be a "fluke". The fact that KW and the Sox' "sabermatric" inclined FO decided he was a better long-term bet than Contreras speaks volumes.

I grew up watching Frank Thomas mash balls. Nothing will ever take those memories away. My pre-swing routine all through HS and College varied between his shoulder tap and the Robin Ventura throw the bat out low. So it pains me to see him so upset. Frankly though, I don't give a damn if he feels he was mistreated. Frank has always been a selfish guy, but it didn't matter when he was putting up little league numbers in his prime. Now that he's mostly washed up (hurts to say it), I think he needs to realize his comments won't stand. He wanted to be activated for the playoff roster? You've got to be kidding me! What, a guy with no swings since July, who is still wearing a boot...ugh

Cotts never had much success starting, whereas BMAC has a proven minor league track record and at least one brief season of mostly quality starting pitching. Cotts also doesn't have the assortment of major league pitches that BMAC has, which is another reason I think the Sox put Cotts in the bullpen. I wouldn't worry about BMAC being a permantent member of the Sox Pen. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Cotts given a chance to start in 2007.

Oh snap! Goes the Milkman.

I think Cotts has the stranglehold on setup coming into ST, but anything can happen. I'd be shocked though if he sees any action other than the long guy out of the pen once the season starts. Although things could change quickly during the season, if Dustin and Pollitte fail or get injured.

My suggestion would be to change the call in you sig from Joe Buck to John Rooney. Welcome aboard!

Value over replacement player. Basically a stat adjusted for league and park (but not position) that measures a player's worth relative to a "replacement player", which is basically just a AAA+ player. A pretty cool stat I think.

Bottom 5 AL Left Fielders, by Value Over Replacement Player (VORP) Player Team EqA Projected VORP VORP Timo Perez CHA .197 0.2 -9.4 Eric Byrnes BAL .200 22.0 -9.2 Tony Womack NYA .218 5.6 -8.9 Charles Thomas OAK .107 6.3 -6.6 Mike Ryan MIN .215 3.7 -4.3 Thanks to the guys over at BP. Good job Timo!

I really think that Jay Mariotti does the best job. He isn't afraid to go against public opinion and really proves that what is popular isn't always right.