RME JICO

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 09:51 PM) Yea, Rob Neyer is not at the top of my list of sabermetrics writers. Give me Studes and Bill James. Studes is probably my favorite right now. He seems to like writing about the White Sox, and he loves to explain the math stuff in a way that the amateur can get. And, as Studes concluded, at some point in the season, usually June, the actual record is more important than the Pythagorean record. I agree with your point about blowouts RME to an extent. I mean, isn't "blowing people out" a sign of a dominant team? I agree though that the formula is skewed towards rewarding run producing and not run stopping. I feel like a win is a win, and that should carry the most weight. Does it really matter if you beat a team 3-1 or 10-4? In most of those formulas the 10-4 would yield a better result because the team would be +6 and not +2. So now if you do that to KC for a 3 games, you are now +18, but then you could lose 6 games by 2 runs (-12) and you would be 3-6, but have a positive RS/RA ratio of +6. Here would be the order of teams with the flawed system of Pythagenport. AL Indians - 98 (World Series Champs of 2005) Yankees - 94 * (AL East) A's - 91 (AL West) Red Sox - 91 * (WC) Angels - 88 * Rangers - 87 # Sox - 87 * Twins - 84 Orioles - 81 # * Actual Playoff teams # Teams with Losing Records So using 2nd Order wins you could only predict 2 of the 4 playoff teams, and the Rangers and O's were severely upgraded due to their offense.

They need to adjust the formula, because obviously it doesn't work. The problem with a lot of those formulas is they take into account runs scored and runs allowed, but if a team scores 10+ runs in a couple of blowouts it can skew the formlua big time. The same thing goes for one run games, which a lot of stat-heads don't value. For team comparisons, I like RPI since it takes Strength of Schedule into account. Last year the Sox were #1 at .527, #2 Cards, Angels, Sawks at .525, and Yanks in 5th with .524. In 2004, the top 2 teams were the Sawks and Cards, so unless there is a huge upset in the playoffs, then the RPI can be carried into the playoffs with pretty good results. The 2nd Order wins don't seem to predict or show anything of any value, except they are a way to discount what the Sox did. In regards to the Twins off season, I like what the Twins manager had to say about it:

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 05:21 PM) Well, I think the Central's top 3 teams can go toe to toe with the AL East's and AL West's teams. Detroit should be better, as should the Royals. The Central is no longer a division of the Twinkies and a bunch of also-rans. It's possibly the best division in the American League next year. It definitely has some of the top rotations (Sox, Tribe, Twinkies), compared to the other Divisions (Yanks, Sawks, Jays) or (A's, Angels, Rangers).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 07:03 PM) The other side of that token is this one...we did what we did last year with only 3 people in our lineup really putting up numbers that weren't below their career numbers, maybe 4 if you count Iguchi (since half of what he did was move Pods over anyway). Therefore, we won the world freaking series with Crede, Pierzynski, Rowand, Uribe, and DH all having significant room for improvement offensively, and very little room to get worse offensively. If any of those guys (BA instead of ARow), and Iguchi and Konerko, step it up next year...we could wind up going from winning a world series on entirely pitching to having one of the best combinations of pitching, offense, and defense seen in years. If you just look at our lineup, and try to project "What is the best reasonable numbers we could expect from this guy", then there's enough there for people to really be afraid of our lineup, up and down the list. I agree 100%. It is hard to see anyone having a significant drop-off. People always said that it would be hard to repeat by winning all those one run games again, but with the new lineup I don't think the Sox will be in as many as last year. If the offense scores more, that will also take the pressure off the pitchers, which is always a good thing, especially for someone like Vazquez. You take all that into consideration, then you throw the postseason experience into the equation and they are a pretty tough group to match up with. If Anderson can match Rowand's numbers from 2005: 13 HR, 69 RBI, and .270 AVG, .329 OBP, .407 SLG, .736 OPS, and have a lower K total (Rowand 116 in 578 AB), the Sox are going to be looking really good across the board.

I knew that there would be a few consensus picks to improve next year, but it is pretty interesting to see the order. Gooch looks like he is the most popular, then Crede and Uribe, then AJ. The good thing is that as long as each player can at least do what they did last year and at the same time have a few of these guys improve, the Sox will be improved offensively next year. That is not even taking the addition of Thome into consideration, which in itself should be a huge boost. So regardless of how many second-order wins the Sox had last year, I cannot see how they will be worse than last year unless several players regress unexpectedly or get injured for an extended period. BTW, SoxFan1, I love the new Sig. Should have Peanut laying on the field though.

I didn't include Thome due to his injury or Anderson since this will be his first full season. Out of the others though, Iguchi seems like he has the most room for improvement from his transition to US baseball, and Crede and Uribe seem to be ready for breakout years. AJ had a down year hitting in 05, and Paulie will now be protected by Thome in the lineup. So out of those, who will be the most improved in 2006?

I cannot believe AJ didn't get more consideration for a Gold Glove. So I guess he got snubbed too with a .999 Fielding Percentage. Varitek won it but he only had a .990 Fielding Percentage. AJ also did a great job of handling the staff, and I only can imagine that 2006 will be even better, especially with AJ's hitting.

QUOTE(Wanne @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 02:12 AM) Didn't we he that alot last year?!? Standard company line.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 06:33 PM) of all sabremetrics, their defensive ratings are the most valuable and the best. Aarons D in center will certainly be missed. What people need to realize is just how important range in the OF is. If a shortstop makes an error its 1 base. If an OF doesnt get to a ball, its 2 maybe 3 bases, not to mention runners scoring. its one of the reasons why fielding percentage is a terrible stat by itself. i sat down a figured it out one time, using zone ratings that the difefrence between the best shortstop fldg% wise and the worst was something like 22 errors, so 22 unconverted outs. Range wise the diff between the top and bottom was something like 37 unconverted outs. its essentially the reason why beane said jose valentin wasnt half as bad an infielder as most thought So if 37 is between top and bottom, you can safely say the middle would be somewhere around 18. So 18 unconverted outs for an entire season. Now out of those 18 unconverted outs, how many will actually result in a score? I would say less than half, maybe 7. So an average fielder to best fielder yields a difference of 7 runs a year. Now if those are spread over an entire season, how many games are lost due to those runs? 2 or 3 at the most. So even though fielding is an important, the difference between great and average does not affect the game as much as hitting or pitching does.

That makes no sense regardless of how you look at it. If it was the regular season and they lost, fine, but it is the playoffs and their season is over. So what, can the Bears move up next week in his Power Rankings because they didn't lose? That makes no sense. Just another boob writer trying to make a story out of nothing.

Signing him to anything other than a one year deal would be somewhat of a risk. I also assume that Boras was going to force a 1 year deal to give Joe a chance for more money.

This is awesome news. Seems like a reasonable salary. Just glad the Sox and Joe didn't have to go to arbitration.

QUOTE(TLAK @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 09:25 PM) Date- D_ERA- IP- ER 8/31/2005- 11.81- 5 1/3- 7 6/4/2005- 18.00- 4- 8 4/4/2005- 37.80- 1 2/3- 7 8/14/2005- 40.50- 2- 9 Does this help? I was talking about single bad innings. If you remove his 4 worst innings of the year, his ERA drops almost a point. You are right though, he has been very inconsistent or volatile if you will. He is great and horrible, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Erkel and Mike Tyson. He has a higher upside than most pitchers, so there has to be some talent there. Maybe he just hasn't landed in the right spot, or maybe he is completely overrated. We will find out in the WBC against the Haitians.

QUOTE(TLAK @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 08:51 PM) I took each appearance and calculated his ERA for that day only, then I just counted how many days for each group shown and show his W/L for the games in each group. For example, last opening day he went 1-1/3 innings vs the grub and gave up 7 earned for a D_ERA of 37.80. So I put this in the 10+ group. At the bottom I totaled them, calling 3 or less quality, 3 to 6 meh and > 6 horrible. Of those horrible outings, how many innings were bad? I took out his 4 worst innings of 2005 and his ERA almost dropped a point. You have him listed with 10 horrible starts from 2005. Out of those how many innings of 3 or more runs did he give up?

Get all of them if you have the cash, otherwise go with the Trib, Sporting News and SI ones, since the Sun-Times one is $19.99. The others are all under $12. and the SI one for $6.99: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158... Ron Kittle's Tales from the dugout is also now a classic: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 07:09 PM) So...do we have some reason to think that any of those guys are the next hall-of-fame coach? I haven't yet. Could be good, but could also wind up quite bad. I was just naming them, no one knows if they will be the next Bill Walsh or Marty Morningweg.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 06:46 PM) Yankee Hangover? Possibly, but check this out. I took the theory a little deeper and only subtracted his worst 4 innings (not games). I used his 4 worst innings of 5, 5, 6, and 7, and came up with 211.2 IP, 83 ER for an ERA of 3.53. So from 4.42 to 3.53, a 0.89 drop in ERA for only 4 innings! So if he can avoid 4 bad innings out of his 215 IP he can be pretty effective. Garland (4 bad innings - 6, 5, 5, 3) subtract those and he has a 2.78 ERA. 217 IP and only 67 ER.

Wow, Vazquez had some horrible outings. In the 4 games that were subtracted he had some glaring numbers: 31 ER in those 4 games (13 IP) 23 runs occurred in 4 innings (1 big inning per game 5, 5, 6, 7) He also started the year really bad (0-2, 13 IP, 23 hits, 17 ER, 2 HR, 4 BB, 17 K) in his first 3 games. So hopefully he can start out strong this year.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 06:12 PM) Can you give me some reason to think that those 3 teams will hire good coaches and not bad ones? (i.e. Dick Jauron?) New Coaches Vikings - Brad Childress Packers - Mike McCarthy Lions - TBD (Marinelli, Haslett, or Grimm)

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 05:55 PM) yeah but the packers almost beat the bears twice this year with a offense with arena league players and Minnesota will actually have a real coach next year, same with detriot. teams change so much year to year its hard to tell for sure. Almost beat the Bears? Is an almost win a new stat? and which game was that? The first game was 19-7, and the Bears had 2 Interceptions and dominated the whole game, or the second game 24-17 where the Bears were up 24-7 with 9 minutes left in the 4th and the Bears had 4 Interceptions. The Packers scored on a freak 85 punt return in the 4th, but other than that the Bears killed Favre there too. Brett Favre threw a grand total of zero TDs against the Bears and 6 INTs in 2 games. GB, Minnesota and Detroit will all have new coaches, and new coaches bring in new schemes and plays, so there will be a learning curve. Yes they will be better, but not next year. Right now who are the QBs in Min, Det, and GB? Culpepper or Johnson, Harrington or Garcia, Favre or Rodgers?

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 03:07 PM) Shockley wouldn't play as a QB but as a PR or maybe extra WR like he did at Georgia before he took over as full time QB. Oh, in that case it would be fine, I thought you wanted him as a QB. I would take V. Davis, M. Lewis or L. Pope as a TE in the 1st Round. Any of those guys adds an element to the Bears offense that is currently non-existent, a pass catching TE. Davis 51 - 871, 6 TD - ACC TE Receiving Leader Lewis 58 - 741, 10 TD - John Mackey Award Winner Pope 39 - 541, 4 TD

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 02:29 PM) yeah i mapped out a plan earlier (can't find it) and he was on that list. Here is what they should do in the draft: 1st Round: Leonard Pope TE - Georgia (Very good TE that should be available in the late 1st Round) 2nd Round: Jason Avant WR - Michigan (2nd Round steal) 3rd Round: Anwar Phillips CB - Penn State (guy is a stud) or Demario Minter CB - Georgia 4th Round: Kevin Simon ILB - Tennessee 5th Round: Deuce Lutui OL - USC 6th Round: DJ Shockley QB - Georgia 7th Round: Dan Fitzpatrick P - Notre Dame Sign Antwan Randle El to be your PR and a 2nd/3rd Wide Receiver. Sign a veteran QB to be a back up (McNair might be a good choice or if he is let go Kitna) That would be an awesome draft. I like your picks. I think that most of those are the biggest needs (TE, CB, WR, OL, and P). I don't see the Bears drafting another QB having Grossman and Orton.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 12:24 PM) So one bad game makes him a horrible punter... not even bad game more like bad half. Also at the begining of the season we made a lot of mistakes on special teams and really he should of only had maybe 8-9 touchbacks I can remember 2 times specifically we f***ed up. And while we are a field position team our defense played so crappy the Panthers would of scored where ever they started so... I was actually more pissed at our kick off coverage team that let them get to the 40 or close to it every time it seemed. The recievers arent great but Bradley showed potential b4 the injury and Berrian has emerged as a favorite to Grossman. And even though it was Gage's 4th year can you really blame him.... his 1st season got little playing time but showed flashes, 2nd season our retarded OC like totally took him out of the game even though he was supposedly awesome in the summer camps and stuff, 3rd season had the likes of Quinn, Krenzel, and Hutchinson throwing, and this season had Orton. Also with Berrian and Bradley he could be the 3rd-4th reciever so he is fine. I dont mind us looking at a WR through F/A like I said in another thread I think 2 guys I think we should look at that wont cost a fortune are Brandon Lloyd except he is a rfa and than Andre Davis of the Pats.... he showed he could be a playmaker with the Browns b4 injury. I gotcha. The point about Maynard is he is in the game for 7 plays and he f***s 3 of them up horribly. He was part of the problem. I was just saying if there was an elite college punter who has a great average and he is available in the late rounds then take a shot. I understand about Gage, but having bad QBs hasn't stopped a lot of other receivers from putting up good numbers. I just think the Bears could upgrade over him as the #2 or #3 receiver. If he is the #4 then I have no problems with him, but #2 or #3 is a little high for him. I would take Jurevicius, Givens, Lloyd, Randle El, or Caldwell from the FA market. Also, Reggie Wayne is available and the Colts are going to have a hard time finding cap room to keep him. Just think of Wayne, Muhammad, and Berrian or Bradley. That would be a pretty nice receiving corps for Grossman.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jan 16, 2006 -> 12:58 PM) I think dates and schedules are needed. Need to see who they play off their bye week. Who they play coming off weak teams and who they play coming off good teams. I'll go based pure off teams though. HOME San Francisco 4-12 - Win Seattle 13-3 * - Loss Buffalo 5-11 - Win Miami 9-7 - Loss Tampa 11-5 * - Win Detroit 5-11 - Win Green Bay 4-12 - Loss Minnesota 9-7 - Loss AWAY Arizona 5-11 - Win St. Louis 6-10 - Win New England 10-6 * - Loss NY Jets 4-12 - Win NY Giants 11-5 * - Win Detroit 5-11 - Win Green Bay 4-12 - Loss Minnesota 9-7 - Win 10-6 record which should be good enough to get in the playoffs. If Favre is back, Packers win that division. Minny is still a darkhorse though. I think your Away games seem reasonable though I think the STL game and NYG game will be tough. I was figuring they would lose one of those and the NE game to go 5-3 Away. Your Home games seem way off, 4-4 at home? Even when the Bears finished 7-9 on 2003 they still were 6-2 at home. I figure they will do no worse than 6-2. If Favre comes back that is a good thing for the Bears. He is not getting any younger, there is no way you can fill that many holes in one season and with a new coach. There is no way GB or MIN win the Division. I figure it will be the Bears at 10 or 11 wins, MIN at 8 or 9 wins, then GB and DET both with about 6 or 7 wins. Minnesota and Detroit both have their problems. All 3 of those teams have new coaches and there is always some type of an adjustment period.

Here is a quick rundown of what the 2006 schedule should look like, no dates, just opponents. The NFC North plays out of Division games vs the NFC West, AFC East, and one game vs the NFC South (TB), and NFC East (NYG). HOME San Francisco 4-12 Seattle 13-3 * Buffalo 5-11 Miami 9-7 Tampa 11-5 * Detroit 5-11 Green Bay 4-12 Minnesota 9-7 AWAY Arizona 5-11 St. Louis 6-10 New England 10-6 * NY Jets 4-12 NY Giants 11-5 * Detroit 5-11 Green Bay 4-12 Minnesota 9-7 Opponents Record 114-142 4 Playoff Teams * The schedule looks pretty favorable with only 3 away games vs winning teams. They also get Seattle, Tampa, and Miami at home which should help. NE and STL (Dome) will be tough away games. Overall not bad. I can see at least 10 wins again, maybe even 12 (7 home wins, 5 road wins).