Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PECOTA projections puts White Sox in 3rd place

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by vegandork View Post

    We have exactly five starting pitchers and Reynaldo Lopez. Two of them are in their 30's. One is Carlos Rodon. And one is a young pitcher with zero control of his pitches to date. What happens if one of them doesn't work out? Lopez comes in. Let's say Cease is pitching bad and Rodon is normal Rodon? Now we're throwing someone from our minors that isn't ready or isn't that good. Now add to that...what if Keuchel returns to the guy that was approaching a 5 FIP before arriving here? Now we're in real trouble. And if, heaven forbid, that happens to Lynn too? We'd have one major league quality pitcher in our rotation. Maybe Kopech enters the equation, but his projection is all over the place too, and has innings limitations.

    Now, the odds of all four not panning out together is not very unlikely. But it is a possibility. And we're not equipped to deal with it as an organization. Whereas, a team like Cleveland could weather that better than us.

    PECOTA didn't only predict a regression in our offense, it's predicting declines in our starting pitching. It has both Lynn and Keuchel with ERA's around 4. It has Cease closer to 5. It has Rodon, Kopech, and Lopez all getting significant rotation innings with below average production.

    Outside of Hendricks, it predicts pretty much everyone in our bullpen to be worse.
    Wasn't going to reply in this thread because projections mean literally nothing (even if they predicted 100 wins for the Sox). I can accept volatility, but that seems to not apply to the Twins who have question marks everywhere, but have been given 7 more wins...

    Regarding the Indians, are you saying that they have been better at developing pitchers in general, so they are going to handle volatility in their rotation better specifically for '21? They have to have the MLB ready warm bodies for that to even happen. Their top 3 are dependable (Bieber, Plesac, and Civale), but after that it is really not dependable. McKenzie has thrown only 123 innings over the last 3 seasons and probably won't throw more than 100 this season, Logan Allen's last time pitching regularly was in '19 AAA with a close to 6.00 ERA, and Plutko isn't good. What's even after that? A lot of that past success is because of Kluber, Clevinger, and Carrasco who aren't there now. But hey, let's give them 2 more projected wins with likely 150 innings unaccounted for in the rotation, a worse pen and lineup.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by JazzyCyclist View Post

      That doesn’t need to happen for the Sox to win the division. If every team in the division plays its B game, I think the Sox win the division. If every team plays its C- game, I think the Sox win the division.
      Agreed.

      Comment


      • #48
        Just curious (speaking as someone who has taken Stats in graduate school, so we're not talking basic stats): how does PECOTA include a variable for "team chemistry?" Hint: they can't, it is not a quantifiable variable that can be controlled.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Dumpjerry View Post
          Just curious (speaking as someone who has taken Stats in graduate school, so we're not talking basic stats): how does PECOTA include a variable for "team chemistry?" Hint: they can't, it is not a quantifiable variable that can be controlled.
          Correct. That goes for any stat that is trying to measure feelings over facts. Can't be done.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Dumpjerry View Post
            Just curious (speaking as someone who has taken Stats in graduate school, so we're not talking basic stats): how does PECOTA include a variable for "team chemistry?" Hint: they can't, it is not a quantifiable variable that can be controlled.
            The early-70s A's teams hated one another. They just went out there and kicked ass anyway.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Mohoney View Post

              The early-70s A's teams hated one another. They just went out there and kicked ass anyway.
              They were united, however, in their hatred of owner Charlie Finley, if the biographies are to be believed. The late great Ed Herrmann said the 1972 White Sox weren't a great team in terms of talent, but they were a tight team that sat around and talked baseball after games. But for Bill Melton's back that put him out for most of 1972 (the season after his home run title) and Dick Allen's broken arm in 1973, there may have been no A's dynasty, talent notwithstanding. That isn't to suggest that the A's got lucky or that they White Sox were robbed. People hold up the dynasty A's as an example of how little team chemistry matters. At the same time, anyone who watched the 1972 season, anyone who remembers those hard-fought extra-inning games with the A's (the 19-inning A's win, the 15-inning Sox win and the 12-inning Wilbur Wood complete-game two-hitter win to name a few) can tell you how close that race was regardless of the matchups. The White Sox were a game behind the A's on the June 1973 night that Allen went down, hitting over .300 and slugging over .600..

              Suggesting that the A's dynasty shows that chemistry is insignificant ignores that the AL West in 1972 and into 1973, as Wellington described Waterloo, was a close run thing. And once the A's talent was no longer tied to Oakland by the reserve clause, the lack of chemistry broke up the dynasty.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by TDog View Post

                They were united, however, in their hatred of owner Charlie Finley, if the biographies are to be believed. The late great Ed Herrmann said the 1972 White Sox weren't a great team in terms of talent, but they were a tight team that sat around and talked baseball after games. But for Bill Melton's back that put him out for most of 1972 (the season after his home run title) and Dick Allen's broken arm in 1973, there may have been no A's dynasty, talent notwithstanding. That isn't to suggest that the A's got lucky or that they White Sox were robbed. People hold up the dynasty A's as an example of how little team chemistry matters. At the same time, anyone who watched the 1972 season, anyone who remembers those hard-fought extra-inning games with the A's (the 19-inning A's win, the 15-inning Sox win and the 12-inning Wilbur Wood complete-game two-hitter win to name a few) can tell you how close that race was regardless of the matchups. The White Sox were a game behind the A's on the June 1973 night that Allen went down, hitting over .300 and slugging over .600..

                Suggesting that the A's dynasty shows that chemistry is insignificant ignores that the AL West in 1972 and into 1973, as Wellington described Waterloo, was a close run thing. And once the A's talent was no longer tied to Oakland by the reserve clause, the lack of chemistry broke up the dynasty.
                OK. How about a more recent example?

                At one time, it was the universal opinion of everybody in baseball that A.J. Pierzynski was just about as toxic as a player could possibly be. He signs here and proceeds to become a franchise icon.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by ChiSoxNationPres View Post

                  Wasn't going to reply in this thread because projections mean literally nothing (even if they predicted 100 wins for the Sox). I can accept volatility, but that seems to not apply to the Twins who have question marks everywhere, but have been given 7 more wins...

                  Regarding the Indians, are you saying that they have been better at developing pitchers in general, so they are going to handle volatility in their rotation better specifically for '21? They have to have the MLB ready warm bodies for that to even happen. Their top 3 are dependable (Bieber, Plesac, and Civale), but after that it is really not dependable. McKenzie has thrown only 123 innings over the last 3 seasons and probably won't throw more than 100 this season, Logan Allen's last time pitching regularly was in '19 AAA with a close to 6.00 ERA, and Plutko isn't good. What's even after that? A lot of that past success is because of Kluber, Clevinger, and Carrasco who aren't there now. But hey, let's give them 2 more projected wins with likely 150 innings unaccounted for in the rotation, a worse pen and lineup.
                  The Twins have been elite for multiple seasons now. As for the Indians...perhaps it's a wake up call to all of you that think highly of our arms and then trash other team's arms out of instinct. McKenzie is just plain a better bet than Kopech and Cease. The Indians minor league pitchers are just plain better option than what we have in our system. Deal with it.

                  By letting the opportunity to get Bauer pass by, we invited Cleveland back into the equation. And pitching is where they have a large advantage over us.
                  Last edited by vegandork; 02-10-2021, 01:29 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Mohoney View Post
                    OK. How about a more recent example?

                    At one time, it was the universal opinion of everybody in baseball that A.J. Pierzynski was just about as toxic as a player could possibly be. He signs here and proceeds to become a franchise icon.
                    What are you arguing? Was Pierzynski toxic as a member of the White Sox? He was with the Giants, by all reports. Was he disruptive to team chemistry on the 2005 White Sox? I've never read anything that would indicate Pierzynski was someone his 2005 teammates only tolerated between the lines. I've always understood that he was a character, but he seemed to be part of the gang. Richie Allen reportedly wasn't good for the chemistry of the Phillies or Cardinals or Dodgers, who traded him in successive offseasons, but that doesn't mean the 1972 White Sox overachieved in spite of the bad chemistry Dick Allen brought to the team. There was a point late in Allen's career with the Phillies where he missed a twi-night doubleheader because he had gone to a race track and got stuck in traffic. He was suspended indefinitely and the tear immediately ran off a nine-game winning streak. When the White Sox lost Allen indefinitely in 1973, the team struggled. There was a 1972 preseason baseball publication (I was 14 at the time), with a preseason prediction for the White Sox to finish last because Allen would destroy the chemistry of his new young up-and-coming team. It was wrong.

                    You can't quantify chemistry. As much as you want to deny it, it's there.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      So the argument against PECOTA is you can't quantify intangibles and therefore you can toss out the entire system?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Anyway, Fangraphs came out with their Playoff Odds: https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds

                        88 wins with a 60.8% chance of making the playoffs and a 4.9% chance of winning it all. The teams they predict have a higher chance will are the Dodgers, Padres, Mets, Braves, Astros, Twins, and Yankees. I agree with the Yankees, Padres, Dodgers, and Mets.

                        They explained why their system picked the Twins to be 1 game better than the White Sox; it's depth.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by blurry View Post
                          So the argument against PECOTA is you can't quantify intangibles and therefore you can toss out the entire system?
                          My argument against PECOTA is that it smugly professes to explain baseball while not understanding baseball. A corollary argument against it is that because people buy into it, PECOTA oversimplification of baseball in the guise of complex analysis is used factors into the building of teams, although that is a symbiotic relationship. The pro-PECOTA argument has its logical fallacies.

                          The things people are talking about here in support of the PECOTA prediction would and actually have been preseason arguments regardless of the prediction. The issue isn't whether debate whether the White Sox can compete with the Twins and Indians. The issue is whether PECOTA has any relevance as the authority it professes to precisely be. You may agree with PECOTA, but a lot of people (not limited to those who agree with me) in this forum have a more valid argument than PECOTA.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by TDog View Post

                            My argument against PECOTA is that it smugly professes to explain baseball while not understanding baseball.
                            What specifically doesn't PECOTA understand about baseball?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              The big difference between the PECOTA and the FanGraphs projections is the playing time that FanGraphs assumes for the starters.

                              https://twitter.com/SoxMach_pnoles/s...797778944?s=20

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by blurry View Post

                                What specifically doesn't PECOTA understand about baseball?
                                A census taker once tried to quantify baseball. The purists ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X