Dick Allen

Other than Robertson, BP is projecting the rest of the projected Opening Day bullpen to be worse than replacement level. They also don't even have a projection for Noesi saying if life was a meritocracy, the 172 innings he pitched in the major leagues last season would decrease 172 innings in 2015.the good news is John Danks 0.6 projected WAR would make him a projected 2 or 3 starter on the Royals if that were based on WAR.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jan 31, 2015 -> 10:17 AM) The sin was zig-zagging and not getting full value for either the prospects he traded nor the vets he traded. He overpays for E Jackson then gives him away; he overpays for Swisher, then gets zip when he dumps him. He gifts TCQ to the Padres. Etc. Etc. In hindsight, the Swisher crap looks real bad. In real time, not that bad. He was a switch hitter signed to a team friendly contract, who took his walks, and got on base, hit with power and was coming into his prime years. Gio was a high price, but he wasn't loved here at Soxtalk. People want to be like the Cardinals. They traded Shelby Miller for a one year rental who hits lefties worse than Adam LaRoche, and people here seem to freak out about how LaRoche can't hit lefties. Swisher obviously didn't work out. He refused to work with the coaches, performed poorly, and his act got old fast. They were getting rid of him no matter what. They got garbage in return without a doubt, but that was the going rate. With the Edwin Jackson, I still don't understand how that is a franchise killer. Hudson was impressive for a while. Jackson was really good with the White Sox. Hudson now has had 2 TJ surgeries, and the Sox still have Daniel Webb to show from the EJax trade. At this point, I would rather have Webb than Hudson. Carlos Quentin wasn't netting the Sox anything. He spends most of the baseball season on the DL.

The problem with the White Sox system before was not that they traded away good prospects and therefore had none left, they traded away except for one or two exceptions, guys that turned out to be not so great, but they still had no one any good in the system. Hopefully the guys they have now are different. Prospects are BS for the most part, and some guys all of us really like now will be considered garbage in a year or two. I wasn't exactly a KW supporter, but by dealing prospects that didn't amount to much, he wound up with a lot more value than if he had let them develop into what they would ultimately become in the White Sox system. The sin wasn't trading prospects away.

QUOTE (AlSoxfan @ Jan 31, 2015 -> 09:21 AM) I'm with Dick on him. I think we have as good if not better right now. Not a big fan of his but still wonder why Det. is not picking him back up. The other thing about him is he is still getting play like it is 2008. He really hasn't been any good longer than Gordon Beckham.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Jan 31, 2015 -> 08:10 AM) When the owner says "jim thome will be a manager one day", that's when you know he's ventura's replacement. That said, I wish bell took the job in 2011. I belive they would have made the postseason in 2012 with a veteran manager. Bell was a veteran manager in Colorado and KC. All 3 of his stops which includes Detroit, the team won more games the year before he managed, and the year after he left than they did when he was managing, Maybe it is a coincidence, but listening to what he had to say abiut clear busts, would make one think not.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 02:37 PM) I think I'm starting to like the idea of adding Joba Chamberlain to the bullpen. He had an excellent first half of the season but really struggled in the 2nd half. During his off days, he was traveling back home to Nebraska to be with his ailing mom at the time, so you can say that could of affected him mentally. Rosenthal also said that he has already turned down offers from teams he does not want to be apart of. What you guys think? With all of their bullpen woes, it does make you wonder why the Tigers don't seem to want him back.

The male to female ratio is like a Rush show.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 02:29 PM) Another view would be that people look at these projections (which are biased as I've said) and pay for this company to exist. It's kind of like weather personalities. They know they are most likely wrong but people still like them. If I can be 7 games off and still have a company that gets paid to do it, I'm going to say that the teams who are going to finish in the bottom half will win 75, that gives me 68-82 as a range. Teams that look good I'm going to say 82, that gives me 75-89 range. I will be right most often and be correct as PECOTA and weather personalities, although I don't look as good as Cheryl Scott and I'm not as accurate as Tom Skilling. Yes. If you just said everyone would be .500, you would have been off an average of 8.16 a team. The White Sox number is 78 this year. Last year, there were 2 teams with a 78. One team won 88, the other 68. They averaged the 78 they were projected, but both projections obviously weren't accurate.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 02:13 PM) The wild card is here is would appear management is telling the players to tune out the coach vs. the players independently tuning out the coach. That is my problem in all of this. It is the front office, who I largely respect, taking too much of an ownership in the coaching, all while we have one of the best and most respected coaches in the league. Its disgraceful. It is the type of thing where you need JR to put everyone in a room and tell them to STFU. I would hope JR has learned from the Krause / PJax fiasco and really, Reinsdorf (maybe Paxson...depending on his overall feelings and how much he sides with Gar..presumably he does given their relationship) is the one guy who could make it all better and quick. After the STFU, Paxson and Gar should make a statement that he thinks Thibbs is doing a fantastic job and he has our full support. Right now, Gar just gives luke warm responses and does not say Thibbs is doing a really good job or anything like that. Rumors can hurt and sometimes you need to make those statements...even if the reality is the situation is still icy..let the disagreements reside in-house, don't let this get hashed out in the media. I agree. A big problem is the players see what is going on, know Thibs is becoming lame duck, and it begins to snowball. And I don't even know if it really is tuning him out that is happening. Rose and Noah had been on minutes restrictions. Just about everyone else has been banged up and missed time. I saw a graphic the other day than Noah and Rose have only both been in the line up 33% of the time the last fews years, and at full strength, probably not at least half of that. Gar Forman bothers me for some reason. Maybe it is because he was a Tim Floyd assistant at ISU. I think he got into a lot of trouble when he was coaching in college. I think Thibs is great. People complain all the time about his minutes. Look at the minutes Phil Jackson used to play Pip and MJ, and Rodman and Grant. He rode them hard. No one moaned.

Advanced stats, length of the game, the biggest reason why this idea will never happen is money. Besides, why do they want to make it even harder to hit? It will be like the NHL back when it was first to 2 wins.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 02:00 PM) Here's what I thought when I saw the projections: "Whoa, shouldn't that be higher? It seems like they added enough talent to be projected at at least .500. Christ, I keep forgetting about Danks and Noesi. The projections don't like them. Yeah, it sure makes sense why they don't like them. Those guys were both worse than they seemed last year, and could easily be even worse this year. I guess that's more of an issue than I originally thought. Also, this projects Sale and Quintana and Abreu all to take major steps back. I guess i can;t really EXPECT a Cy/MVP season out of those guys. Sure they're capable, but I wouldn't BANK on it. Why are these guys so high? Ah, they get a ton of value from their depth. When I look at the White Sox, I don;t see a lot of capable backups. i suppose it makes sense that when people get hurt, Leury garcia has to play, and that's going to make a big difference." Leury Garcia isn't going to play, although they did give him a better chance of improvement over Matt Davidson. BP projects Abreu to hit .295 with 23 homers 74 rbi and 36 walks. They project Avi Garcia to hit 7 homers. In their write up, they mentioned Q as one of the best lefties in the league and projected him to have a better chance of improving over just about every other White Sox. Then he made the top 10 list in highest projected WAR decrease. David Robertson is actually projected to have fewer saves than Mariano Rivera. It was pretty inconsistent this year.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 01:06 PM) It IS open for debate. That's what we're doing. No one is holding anything up to a pedestal! In your issue of BP, does it say anything at all about how these projections are so accurate we don't even need to play the games? Or, instead, does it say something about how they provide a useful and interesting frame of reference and then go onto cite its shortcomings? They DO matter. The number they land on doesn't matter, but that number in context of the other tell us things about our team. Every week, some random sap wins the freaking lottery, even though his odds were one in 2,000,000. He didn't actually buy 2,000,000 tickets to ensure a victory. But the odds were the odds. The White Sox number is 78. What does that tell you about the team you didn't already know before this number was revealed? How did this number effect the way you feel about the current team? Last year, Baltimore and Chicago each had a number of 75. One team won 96 games, the other 73. Washington had a number of 88, they won 96. Boston had an 89, they won 71. The number doesn't matter. They didn't take Baltimore's division title away because PECOTA gave them 75 wins before the season started.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 12:20 PM) Right, but there is a distinction. If you asked Jeff Sullivan or Dave Cameron what will happen, they will say "I don't know." But even what they are saying should happen is open to debate. I like BP. I get it every year. In fact, it was delivered yesterday. But I don't know what makes their projection something we should hold up on a pedestal. At the end of the day, if they project the White Sox to win 60 or 95 ,it doesn't matter, and that has been my point all along.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 11:54 AM) Wite brought up a great distinction: Predictions are what you think WILL happen Projections are what you think SHOULD happen based on past performance. PECOTA is a projection system. Then I will rephrase, what SHOULD have happened, and what a guy like Harold Reynolds who obviously doesn't have a big fanbase thinks WAS going to happen, wasn't so different accuracy-wise. I also think most if pressed to be accurate with predictions, will use what SHOULD happen vs. what they hope or think will happen most times.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 11:19 AM) I don't think your posts are stupid and pointless, but you brought up a legitimate question as to why you felt they should be taken seriously, you've been given a multitude of responses as to why we feel they should be taken seriously, and you continue to ignore those points and say "they were off by 6.7 games." As I said, if they were predictions, which would be attempting to predict the future and give us accurate numbers for what will come up, I'd agree, these shouldn't be taken seriously. These are not predictions. They are a series of numbers that are determined by previous numbers to try and determine talent level of the 30 teams in the majors taking context out of the equation. Context and what happens is a huge, huge part of the equation, which is why we do the whole "playing the game thing." Without that, these numbers wouldn't exist in the first place. If you can get past the difference between predictions and projections, you may see that these aren't designed to predict the future but to project a likely outcome based on previous information. It's a learning tool. You may also continue to ignore them, and that's fine, but if you are going to continually s*** on them, it may be worth more to you to leave the discussion. This isn't a threat or anything, and you can continue to say how you feel, but just know that by doing so, you're being a Debbie downer and really killing the vibe. Killing the vibe? I have been the one accused of ignoring the projection just thinking the Sox will be great. I think they will beat this projection and be a good team. Certainly capable of making the playoffs. Debbie Downers are the ones taking this projection and thinking the team isn't very good, with little chance at the playoffs.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 11:03 AM) I don't go into the soccer thread and say "soccer is stupid, it's pointless and doesn't do anything." Because I really don't care to watch soccer and I don't think it's that entertaining, I stay out of the discussion. If you find projections are that useless and baseless, why are you discussing them still? You think my posts are stupid and pointless, yet you keep responding. If you read my first post in this thread, I would have been done. But for some reason, people kept responding.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 10:59 AM) And... you... just don't like opinions that are different than yours... Sorry? I guess I just don't understand why anyone takes these projections very seriously. They were off an average of 6.7 games per team last season. IMO, that's not very accurate, and not something I would use to determine anything. Not that anything really needs to be determined at this point.. But by all means, consider them accurate. If there are Oriole fans that think like you do, they probably planned a long summer vacation last year and missed some great baseball.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 10:39 AM) Fandom is also made for fun. Nothing about sports really MATTERS. But we all get a lot of enjoyment from following this team and sport closely, so we do. Projections feed discussion and discussion is why we're here. You don't have to care -- but if you don't, then just don't participate. Don't crap on everyone else for caring about stuff you don't give a s*** about. Projections feed discussion. You just don't like opinion that is different than yours. Sorry. If you want to ignore the past and think this is a really accurate "tool" as you like to say which lets you know where every team is at, fine. I think you are wrong.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 10:23 AM) If your projections were significantly more accurate on a yearly basis, I would subscribe to Dick Allen Analytics and would start using dWAR as my go to number. But why? Projections are made for fun. At the end of the year, most will look like a fool, and if you didn't one year, chances are, you will the next. It amazes me how serious some are over these things. It's a freaking projection. Not a tool. I feel sorry for anyone who bases their excitement of their team based on something like this.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 10:15 AM) So let's see your MLB predicts and we will see who is closer after the season. I will have them when the season starts. As I stated earlier, it is still January. Yet another reason to take these with a grain of salt. Besides, if I was more accurate, how would my projections be considered a useful "tool"?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 09:55 AM) Because we beat their projection by an average of 7 wins per season? Which means that gives you a good baseline to start from before taking into account luck and other unexpected breakouts/collapses? I feel like a broken record. If you take the number of inaccuracies and divide it by 30 teams, the average team's projection was off 6.7 in 2014. You can give me as much hard time as you want for saying a projection means nothing, and for thinking this isn't some useful "tool". The fact is, when the games count, this projection, like any other, doesn't come into play.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 09:37 AM) Lliterally this is because you don't understand what they're meant to do. But that's ok, because you also aren't trying to. I guess we're the ones talking to the chair in this scenario. So they are not really projecting records? If not, why did you post this earlier in the thread? QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 02:11 PM) It's easy to disagree with PECOTA Sox projections - the sox beat them almost every year, sometimes by double digits. On average the sox beat the projection by 7 wins per season, putting us at 85, which is great, but just short of the playoffs unless everything hits our way on the luck front

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 09:28 AM) I cannot fathom why you're still hung up on this record-for-record stuff. I'm trying to tell you that isn't the point. The record is a frame of reference that is based on projected player performance. It's a ROUGH total of what you'd expect to happen if every player acted exactly like they were a typical guy of their age and ability. It will NEVER work out exactly this way and no one has EVER said it will. They are still useful because they stack teams up against one another on a mean-performance basis, which is a reasonable proxy for "true talent." This can be eye-opening for a lot of people, primarily because it provides an objective method for factoring playing time somewhat accurately (whereas fans only seem to look at the starting 9, assuming they'll all be healthy not doing a good job of factoring in how important bench and depth are), and because fans have a tendency to assume that players that have had good seasons will repeat those seasons, whereas players with bad seasons can improve, despite the fact the the good players regress downward just as much as the bad players regress upward. For the 2015 White Sox, it illustrates that our talent drops off sharply from our stars, it illustrates just how bad John Danks and Hector Noesi really are despite the fact that we seem to feel comfortable with the former because his name still carries value and we can hang "innings eater" on him, and the latter because he appeared to improve when he came to us last year, even though he faded BIG time down the stretch. It also reminds us that we likely saw Chris Sale and Jose Quintana's ceilings last year, and that while those guys are still good, it isn't likely for them to perform at the same level again. Once again, the actual number of win ISN'T the point -- the point is how the teams stack up against each other, and the utility is to encourage further analysis of the completeness of each team. Teams can project shockingly HIGH too -- like the 2015 Mariners. Why? Well when you look closely at them, you start to see how quickly having a decent player EVERYWHERE can add up. You also see how much of their success is pinned on the further development of James Paxton and Taijuan Walker, and so you can easily see what could go wrong with that team. The way fans are wired misses some important things. It's not different than how our brains perceive everyday life. Our brains filter input that they haven't evolved to retain, but we KNOW some things are happening because we can measure them with instruments. Fans tend to overvalue stars versus solid players, for example. Fans tend to ignore depth, underestimate the risk of injury, and irrationally favor positive regression more than negative regression. Tools like these are like sensors that measure radiation -- they tell us about things that are happening that are bodies aren't able to reliably sense on our own. Quit talking down to me, or anyone else that doesn't take these things seriously so we obviously miss "important things." This isn't an important thing. It is a projection that has proven to be way off in the past. I am not a White Sox fanboy who just assumes they will win 150 games a season. I don't even like Samardzija. I think Duke is a waste of money. If this projection had them 25 games better than anyone else, I would still be saying you have to play the games. The most accurate thing at the end of the day isn't xFIP, or WAR or any other advanced number, it is the actual record at the end of the season.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 09:11 AM) Forget it, he's rolling. Great comment. Can you tell me the purpose of the PECOTA projections? Do you think when they came out Rick Hahn was tossing and turning thinking he spent a lot of JR's money and he has a team that isn't very good? The good news is if these things show the true talent level like some claim, Robin Ventura is a far better manager than Joe Maddon. So the Cubs should really suck this year.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 08:49 AM) Ohhh. You're in trouble now you old guy that doesn't like stats. Here is how teams really fared compared to their 2014 projection: Boston -18 Tampa -12 NYY +2 Tor +3 Balt +21 Det +2 Cleve +6 KC +10 Sox -2 Min -1 Oak correct Ana +11 Tex -18 Sea +5 Hous +4 Wash +8 Atl -6 Phil -3 Mets +5 Miami +8 Stl +2 Cinci -7 Mil +2 Pit +10 Cubs +2 LAD -4 SF +1 SD -4 AZ -15 Colo -8 That is 11 teams who have a projection 8 games or more inaccurate. If you did a projection which said every team would finish 81-81, there would be 16 8 games or more off. So a little better than mindless. Still meaningless. I don't see anyone but BP getting paid for these projections. I like looking at projections just like anyone else. But I can't understand why people think they actually mean much. You can still look at rosters and see which teams should be better than others.