November 17, 200223 yr http://www.soxnet.net/michel/article-11.1.html This is an article from the front page of this site. My question is, is how did it get there? Look at the predictions. I added up the W-L column trying to see what he thought our record would be. I counted 99 wins so I assumed there must be 63 losses. Very, very good, I thought. Then I decided to make sure he got it right. Well, along with maybe the Tigers and D-Rays, we were one of the few possible 100 game losers in baseball. I had counted 100 losses! Mr Michel, which league are you referring to? Cuz the league I follow sure doesnt play 199 games...
November 17, 200223 yr Well, when someone throws out predictions I don't think it really ever adds up to 162 games, but I do see what your talking about. Also, a lot of those predictions are dependent on whether the guys actually are playing for the major league club.
November 17, 200223 yr Author Oh maybe thats just me. I always make sure the win loss total adds up to 162. Maybe if this guys total added up to 170 games I wouldnt have jumped on him so much but, come on, he went 37 over the actual total. Thats sad.
November 17, 200223 yr Well, talk to Doublem about that. He wrote the column so he'd be the one to best explain to you his work. He's a good writer and a real knowledgeable Sox fan. Actually...while looking through the article, if you are couting players like Edwin Almonte, Joe Valentine, Mike Porzio, Matt Ginter then the numbers you have are off a bit. None of them will be on the active roster, but they have outside shots of making it. Those players therefor, wouldn't be playing and he's only basing the stats if they actually played. So maybe that helps you a bit. According to my math that would take off 50 decisions, which would make it pretty accurate.
November 17, 200223 yr he wasn't predicting the actual roster and the guys set numbers, he was just doing an evaluation of each player. I do understand what you mean however.
November 17, 200223 yr thanks for the comment though roman. next time though, write him an e-mail so you can directly ask him. That is why his e-mail is there, so you can comment and critique him personally.
November 17, 200223 yr Author Yeah, while I was writing this post I was kinda worried that the writer might be a board member and I apologize to doublem if he is offended by this. I actually read the offensive projection and thought it was very good, conservative while not pessimistic. Also, if you take out Simas, Porzio, Valentine, Ginter and Almonte, all of whom most likely wont be on the team next year, we are 89-70. Comsidering some players may make minor impacts thruout the season that comes out about right...
November 17, 200223 yr we don't mind the criticism, as long as its constructive and not done just to put someone or the site down. thanks though.
November 17, 200223 yr Originally posted by Moltowe don't mind the criticism, as long as its constructive and not done just to put someone or the site down. thanks though. Yep, feedback only makes us better.
November 18, 200223 yr Originally posted by Moltowe don't mind the criticism, as long as its constructive and not done just to put someone or the site down. thanks though. Agreed. I don't mind criticism as long as it's not, "You suck!" The point of that column is to look at each player as an individual, and assess his value to the team; not to look at the team and assess each individual to it. Do I even think guys like Ring and Porzio will see much time, if any with the big league squad? Nope. The numbers provided are the numbers I see them putting up if they were given ample playing time in a situation best fit for them (i.e.; Mark Buehrle - #1 pitcher; Keith Foulke - closer). Just like the first article; where I only have about 100 games covered at the catcher position, the idea isn't to predict every game and everyone's day-to-day performance; its to give a broad view of what I think each player could do under ideal conditions for both himself and the team. Also, if you take the combined records of the top 11 (basically, the pitching staff as I see...), you get a record of 84-76 (160 games).
November 18, 200223 yr Originally posted by doubleM23 Originally posted by Moltowe don't mind the criticism, as long as its constructive and not done just to put someone or the site down. thanks though. Agreed. I don't mind criticism as long as it's not, "You suck!" The point of that column is to look at each player as an individual, and assess his value to the team; not to look at the team and assess each individual to it. Do I even think guys like Ring and Porzio will see much time, if any with the big league squad? Nope. The numbers provided are the numbers I see them putting up if they were given ample playing time in a situation best fit for them (i.e.; Mark Buehrle - #1 pitcher; Keith Foulke - closer). Just like the first article; where I only have about 100 games covered at the catcher position, the idea isn't to predict every game and everyone's day-to-day performance; its to give a broad view of what I think each player could do under ideal conditions for both himself and the team. Also, if you take the combined records of the top 11 (basically, the pitching staff as I see...), you get a record of 84-76 (160 games). You suck! 4 years of Notre Dame education down the drain.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.