Punch and Judy Garland Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 The page i come from to get here (ss***men) has an article that projects 2005 white sox numbers. I found it interesting only in how laughable it was. It has nuggets such as Maggs hitting 25 homers next year and Frank putting up awesome numbers like .242-24-75. Anyone wanna take the over on that one? Silly projections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Ya, thats Cheat's blog. Great blog to read (for those that haven't checked it out) and those projections also had a couple other oddities, one of which was Escobar hitting 24 hr's and Takatsu with an ERA on the 4's. These aren't numbers Cheat came up with, but something another guy does using past stats and what not to come up with some formula for the upcoming numbers. I wonder how he does it for Takatsu who doesn't have any major league numbers and then who knows when it comes to Escobar, but 24 hr's, thats some stinking confidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 I don't know the whole process, otherwise I would have detailed it, but he takes a players past few years (majors and Minors) factors in their age, and how simillar players performed across history at the same age. runs a few hundred projections, and takes an average. (most players peak between 27-29, and fall off after about 34) He's not being mean to the sox it's an objective projection... And like I said, I wish I could disagree with the Frank Thomas one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch and Judy Garland Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 I don;t htink anybody is implying that it's malicious, just that it's bad. I recall a similar worthless projection that Rob Neyer covered once. It involved being able to predict a team's record over a 10 year period. It ended up predicting evy team winning between around 75 and 85 games. It was pretty worthless and that is how I feel a lot of projections are. I'd like to go back to my roto-mags and compare Adrian Beltre's numbers with his projected numbers. These aren't robots afterall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchetman Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 not sure how anyone in their right mind could project escobar to hit 24 homers. maybe in AAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 not sure how anyone in their right mind could project escobar to hit 24 homers. maybe in AAA. Put him in the Cell and give him 500 AB's, and he'll have at least 20. I can't guarentee what his average will be, but he's got some serious pop (about the same as Borchard) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchetman Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 i'd love to see borchard and escobar get 500 AB's. history would be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USAF_11F4H Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Perhaps South Side shouldn't be abbreviated -- a quick glance has that site look like the s***men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Perhaps South Side shouldn't be abbreviated -- a quick glance has that site look like the s***men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Perhaps South Side shouldn't be abbreviated -- a quick glance has that site look like the s***men. Yeah -- I realized that very early on, though not early enough I suppose, but never figured I would stick with the blog as long as I have, so I didn't change it. fast forward a few months, and the site has a small but loyal following. If I am able to keep up my interest through the off-season, and make it until spring training, I'll dish out the cash for a real site, with a much more user friendly URL. But for right now, I kinda like it the way it is. You can't link to it on some forums. I was turned down for Google's AdSense program because of improper language. It's not like it's a bad word or anything, They said it 140-some times on South Park one episode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Yeah -- I realized that very early on, though not early enough I suppose, but never figured I would stick with the blog as long as I have, so I didn't change it. fast forward a few months, and the site has a small but loyal following. If I am able to keep up my interest through the off-season, and make it until spring training, I'll dish out the cash for a real site, with a much more user friendly URL. But for right now, I kinda like it the way it is. You can't link to it on some forums. I was turned down for Google's AdSense program because of improper language. It's not like it's a bad word or anything, They said it 140-some times on South Park one episode. LOL that episode was on last sunday, good stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Law Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 These projections are actually pretty interesting. I do, however, have some issues with the AB's and pitching totals. Cheat also stated on his blog that the pitching numbers look inflated. Name W GS Mark Buehrle* 17 35 Freddy Garcia 14 32 Jose Contreras 9 28 Jon Garland 12 33 Damaso Marte* 5 0 Shingo Takatsu 6 0 Cliff Politte 3 0 Felix Diaz 7 21 Neal Cotts* 5 15 Jon Adkins 5 16 Scott Schoenew* 6 14 Arnaldo Munoz* 7 21 Jeff Bajenaru 3 0 Jason Grilli 7 28 Assuming that the author assumed no transactions, our pitching staff will compile 110 wins in 243 starts!!!!! I realize prognosticating is hard, and I would struggle mightily to do better myself. But GS should always be based on 162 games...that's the first thing I check. And AB's should roughly be the same as the previous team AB's the prior season with a reasonable standard deviation allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 These projections are actually pretty interesting. I do, however, have some issues with the AB's and pitching totals. Cheat also stated on his blog that the pitching numbers look inflated. Name W GS Mark Buehrle* 17 35 Freddy Garcia 14 32 Jose Contreras 9 28 Jon Garland 12 33 Damaso Marte* 5 0 Shingo Takatsu 6 0 Cliff Politte 3 0 Felix Diaz 7 21 Neal Cotts* 5 15 Jon Adkins 5 16 Scott Schoenew* 6 14 Arnaldo Munoz* 7 21 Jeff Bajenaru 3 0 Jason Grilli 7 28 Assuming that the author assumed no transactions, our pitching staff will compile 110 wins in 243 starts!!!!! I realize prognosticating is hard, and I would struggle mightily to do better myself. But GS should always be based on 162 games...that's the first thing I check. And AB's should roughly be the same as the previous team AB's the prior season with a reasonable standard deviation allowed. Mark me down as stating that I have NO DOUBT that the Sox could win 110 of the 243 starts!!! YEAH!!! A 110 WIN SEASON!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Rudy, the projections are MLE's, or Major League Equivalents. they basically figure each player individually, as if he were on the big league club for the entire season, which is obviously impossible considering I listed about 40 guys. Also if a pitcher was a starter at the Minor league level it automatically assumes you're going to get some starting opportunities at the big league level... Hence Munoz having 21 starts. We all know he's not going to start another game in a WS uni. He'll be used exclusively out of the pen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitlesswonder Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Yeah -- I realized that very early on, though not early enough I suppose, but never figured I would stick with the If I am able to keep up my interest through the off-season, and make it until spring training, I'll dish out the cash for a real site, with a much more user friendly URL. But for right now, I kinda like it the way it is. It's a great blog -- I hope you stick with it. Getting linked to by Gleeman is definitely a sign of success Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.