thxfrthmmrs

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 12:07 PM) Hannigan is better than Brantly. He's still a backup. I am using an analogy here. Trade made sense for both teams, Red Sox overpaid to fill a need, Padres got great value from the deal.

That's a robbery for Padres. Could we have traded Brantly for Middlebrooks?

Steven Souza is a good athlet, but spent 5 years in A ball because he was never able to hit. Then something clicked at age 23 and started to rake. Just maybe Trayce Thompson isn't completely dead yet.

I think the team's biggest problem is defending the pick and roll. I think all of Calderon's points came off of pick and rolls. Rose, Hinrich and Brooks are all terrible against that play

So the left handed version of Tyler Flowers huh?

Stats don't lie.

Ironically Cutler is having his best statistical season. We all know he get those stats from, just speaks volume on how much he sucks when he's under pressure.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 02:24 PM) Why is Castro, who is 2 years older and, other than 1 year, been a worse offensive player than Dayan a bounce back candidate but Viciedo is not? Because defense matters.

Not sure if you mistake Cabrera as someone else, but he's pretty bad on defense. In fact, all current Cabrera lineage are bad on D, Miguel, Melky, Asdrubal, and Everth...

Dunleavy's got a little Swaggy P in him lately.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 01:16 PM) I agree. But I think something around Viciedo and Nieto could get them talking. Try Viciedo and Montas. There is almost no market for Viciedo, and he could be had for less after DFA'd. Castro is a candidate for a bounce back season at a premium position.

He's lost a month to injury, but Russell Westbrook might be the best player in NBA this season.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 03:07 PM) Daryl Van Schouwen ‏@CST_soxvan 1m1 minute ago Former Yankee David Robertson: "I want to win another World Series. It’s fun." Scott Merkin ‏@scottmerkin 2m2 minutes ago Robertson: "I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think this team wasn’t capable of getting to the playoffs." Now I am confused.

The difference is Jake's reference to Fangraphs projection is heavily based on future performance indicators such as FIP and BABIP that regresses/progresses outlier performances. Your analysis is heavily based on past performances. While I think one analysis is more accurate than the other, I do think that there are variables not accounted for in both analysis that could end up favoring the Sox.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 01:37 PM) Surprises me that Q threw softer than that. He did, barely, at 91.6 lol. I was surprised old man Penny could throw that hard.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 12:31 PM) Trivia question, which threw the hardest in 2014, Quintana, Danks or Penny? Since no one figured this one out, the answer is a shocker, with Brad Penny clocking 91.7 mph on his fastballs!

Trivia question, which threw the hardest in 2014, Quintana, Danks or Penny?

f*** CUTLER YOU PIECE OF s***. I am tired of his dumb ass padding stats every single game in garbage time!! Lost by 0.8 points in the semi's after that last second touchdown to Jeffery. Just go away you f***ing piece of s***, you still suck ass when it actually matters

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 07:00 PM) I'm not talking about WAR, I'm talking about the top projection systems and what they say about players. If you add up WAR and guess records, you're going to be way off. Everyone agrees with this. To which I said in the other post how these projection systems are extremely conservative and projects the most likely outcome, but rarely predicts well with breakout seasons. I believe the Sox will have more players who are positive outliers compared to the projections. I wasn't advocating to look at WAR to predict team record, but I believe it's a good indicator of team success. And FWIW, the average variance of last season's record for all teams compared to team WAR total is 4.3 wins, which might be better than some of the beat writers' projections.

We will win anywhere from 0-162 games, possibly somewhere in between, definitely not towards the extreme.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 04:06 PM) I plotted this up at the end of last season. If your team was in the range of 40 WAR you were extremely likely to be a playoff team. If your team was in the range of 20 WAR you were about the worst in the league. I did as well. I like WAR as a rating system, but I take these WAR projections with a huge grain of salt. Having WAR in the 40 range would mean you're an 88 + win team, and in the 20's says you'll win around 70 games. FWIW Sox ended up with 24 WARs last year, and they end up winning 73 games, so I think it's a pretty good indicator.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 02:36 PM) 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. It's a macro-level frame of reference, based on the most likely outcome, but I wouldn't call it pretty damn accurate. It's accurate in the sense that the system will produce 1,000 WARs in a season, and there will be a large subset of players producing around their most likely outcome, but like you mention there will be outliers, and major ones at that, it happens more than the system would expect to. Every year, there are a fair number of likes of Ben Zobrist, Josh Donaldson, Josh Harrison, Michael Brantley, Corey Kluber that comes along and completely skews the curve, and Clayton Kershaw or Mike Trout have that potential to beat their projection by a lot, even though they are projected to be amongst the best. The projection system lacks the visibility to see those breakouts. At the end of the year, the difference in total WAR value between the best team and the worst team will be a lot greater than 10, because the number of minor/major positive outliers on a team does not equal to its minor/major negative outliers. I think the Sox would be one of those teams that will have more positive outliers than negative ones.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 01:06 PM) 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.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 12:09 PM) The team has not ignored defense, that's an overstatement. Cabrera is a large defensive upgrade over Viciedo, LaRoche is a good defensive 1B who will play there some of the time, and a guy like Brantly is better than Phegley can provide (and better pitcher handling than a young Nieto). So there have been upgrades. I'd also suggest that 2B is an open question - Sanchez would be better than Beckham was I think, but Johnson would be a downgrade. So that is an unknown. Also worth noting - Abreu looked a lot better as the year went on, and Gillaspie has improved a little in my view. Flowers has improved quite a lot. So even in static positions there have been some positive trends that look good. The glaring defensive holes now are 3B and RF. I just don't see any other major defensive holes now. That doesn't seem that bad. I don't really agree with this. To say someone is an upgrade over Viciedo defensively isn't saying anything at all. While better than Viciedo, Melky is still a huge liability rather than an asset defensively. What you are saying here is I don't want the worst, but having anything better than the worst is acceptable. IMO defense takes talent more than anything, especially if we look at UZR which factors in range heavily. A player like say Conor Gillaspie could improve their fundamentals, make smarter throws in certain situations, or play the bunt better, but his range or his arm will never improve, which I think are the keys for a good defensive player. You generally don't see players with terrible UZR for most of their career suddenly becoming good defensive players over time, there could be an outlier season here and there, but that's usually not the case. FWIW, Gillaspie went from -2.9 UZR to -8.1 last year, my bet is he won't do much better this year. Out all positions you mentioned, I think improvement will most likely come from catcher position, as fundamentals, knowledge, and arm plays a huge factor, and I think Tyler does have what it takes to be a good defensive catcher. 1B should be an improvement, but it won't have significant impact on overall team defense. The 35 year old LaRoche has the reputation, but he's declining every year. Avi keeps on rounding out in RF, I don't think you could expect much improvement from him in terms of range and defensive runs saved. On top of that, we all saw Alexei losing a step last season. To sum it up, we have huge liabilities at LF, RF, and 3B; what is now league average defense at SS and 1B. 2B, CF, and C are the only positions we can expect good defense out of. I think collectively this is still one of the worst defensive teams in the league.

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.