103-105 wins? For realz? (aka Can they blow a 14.5 game lead?) Options

[Fratboy]

(Tangentially related to the "Is this team as good as they look?" thread, but it's on page 2, and hasn't been visited for a week, so I'll start anew, I suppose. Feel free to move this there if that thread has some stuff left in the tank.)

Nate Silver from his BP chat yesterday:

mattymatty2000 (Philly, PA): Simple question, but feel free to give as complex an answer as you want: Are the Red Sox this good?

Nate Silver: Guys that are going to cool off: Lowell (a lot); Youkilis (a little, but he's looking like a real power hitter now); Beckett (a little); Wakefield (a lot); Okajima (a lot).

Guys that are going to heat up: Ramirez (a lot), Crisp (maybe), Drew (probably), Matsuzaka (a little).

Right now they're on pace to win 113 games and I don't think they'll sustain that but they haven't been playing that far above their heads; they've had some hot starts but some cold starts too. I think it's probably a 100-102 win team in terms of true talent level.

dokomoy (LA): Does that mean you think they *will* win 100-102 games, or that on paper they're a 100-102 win team?

Nate Silver: I think they have 100-102 win talent but will end up at 103-105 wins because of their hot start.

Not too much of a stretch, but the Nate-ster also think the Mets are the team to beat in the National League:

Mike (NY): The braves need a lot of starting pitching. Do you think they will deal Escobar for a starter and do you think Elvis Andrus will amount to anything?

Nate Silver: The Mets are a 100-win team, so I think Schuerholz is going to survey the wild card race and make an optimal decision. Sorry if that's a lame answer; he's maybe the only GM that I won't pretend to give advice to.

The Red Sox are playing pretty well through what projected to be a brutal month. We can reasonably expect the Yankees to hang tough against the Sox (they're not really as bad as their win/loss record indicates, for those in denial) as well as the Indians and Angels in the coming days, but they'll have a reprieve in Interleague, when they play everyone in the NL West except the first place Dodgers.

This post has been edited by Fratboy: May 29 2007, 10:08 PM

[Worst Trade Evah]

If Silver thinks their talent level now is 102 wins or whatever, I wonder why Pecota, B-P and all the rest pegged the Sox for about 10 wins less than that at the beginning of the year? Where's the surplus talent level coming from?

[Jethro Q. Walrus...]

If Silver thinks their talent level now is 102 wins or whatever, I wonder why Pecota, B-P and all the rest pegged the Sox for about 10 wins less than that at the beginning of the year? Where's the surplus talent level coming from?

He believes that Youks' breakout season is a real improvement in skill not a hot start. Papelbon as dominant closer not average starter is worth 3 extra wins. The other guys in the bullpen are better than we thought when the season began.

[Bowlerman9]

If Silver thinks their talent level now is 102 wins or whatever, I wonder why Pecota, B-P and all the rest pegged the Sox for about 10 wins less than that at the beginning of the year? Where's the surplus talent level coming from?

Here's my guess:

At the beginning of the year it was pretty safe to say Beckett and Matsuzaka would each win 14-15 games, since one was coming off a 5 ERA year and the other was new to the country. Also the Sox had no set up man.

Now Beckett and Matsu look like legit 20 win guys and Okajima is going to save the Sox 30-40 runs over the course of the season. That right there is probably 12-13 wins or so. Throw in decreased projections for Manny and Drew, and we could be 8-10 games over the "pre-season" projections.

[bowiac]

If Silver thinks their talent level now is 102 wins or whatever, I wonder why Pecota, B-P and all the rest pegged the Sox for about 10 wins less than that at the beginning of the year? Where's the surplus talent level coming from?

1. Beckett. Projections had him with an ERA in the mid 4s. Silver probably thinks that a lot of his success this year has been "real", probably because it's not just the ERA which has been good, but the peripherals are there too.

2. Okajima. Obviously nobody saw him being this good. However, he's got the peripherals to back it up.

3. Papelbon. Silver probably thinks he's better than the 3.04 ERA PECOTA projects him to.

That's probably about it. PECOTA had the Red Sox scoring lots of runs (probably more than they'll end up scoring), but it didn't buy the pitching being particularly good. The improvements of Beckett, Okajima, and Papelbon relative to projections is probably where the 10 wins come from.

EDIT - For the record, I'll take the under on 103 wins. I'd take the under on 100 wins too.

This post has been edited by bowiac: May 22 2007, 10:28 AM

[Rudy Pemberton]

I'm assuming BP, if they had as us a 92-93 win team, just has us as +10 so far...and expects us to play to the projections going forward? If they've adjusted the expectations forward based on overperformance, though, wouldn't they have to adjust other projections downward (thinking Drew, Lugo, etc.). Have we just banked the extra wins at this point?

Just seems weird to me...that 25% of the season would cause them to adjust their projections by so much, no?

[DJnVa]

though, wouldn't they have to adjust other projections downward (thinking Drew, Lugo, etc.). Have we just banked the extra wins at this point?

Sure, Rudy, that's why a post up above has this line:

Throw in decreased projections for Manny and Drew, and we could be 8-10 games over the "pre-season" projections.

The point is the "improvements" from Beckett, Okajima, Papelbon (to the pen) are giving a larger bump than the decrease for Manny, Drew, etc.

[TomRicardo]

Just seems weird to me...that 25% of the season would cause them to adjust their projections by so much, no?

When the predictions were made Timlin was our closer and Josh Becket was 2/3 starter. Our bullpen as well as Beckett are what really changed the prediction. You have to remember the bullpen was predicted to be one of the worst bullpens in the league. The Rotation had great potential but the projections didn't see the rotation living up to its full potential as it has.

[Fratboy]

I'm assuming BP, if they had as us a 92-93 win team, just has us as +10 so far...and expects us to play to the projections going forward? If they've adjusted the expectations forward based on overperformance, though, wouldn't they have to adjust other projections downward (thinking Drew, Lugo, etc.). Have we just banked the extra wins at this point?

The 103-105 wins is Silver's opinion, not PECOTA's analysis. Per the Postseason Odds report, taking into account the banked wins and a regression to the PECOTA forecast, this is still a 103 win team. They've simply been playing out of their minds - 20 wins above forecast, but that performance has been real.

[yecul]

When I saw "For Realz" I knew this was a Frat post.

At this moment I'm having a hard time projecting them because they're a mix of over and under performing players. As he said, Wake, Lowell, and Okajima will drop off. The latter two have been big keys to the early success. Wake, despite his great performances, has been involved in some tough low scoring losses. Conversely, Manny and Drew (and others) are underperforming. Those two by a lot and they are integral players on this team.

Maybe it's my/our pessemistic nature, but with a player like Manny you can't just assume an improvement going forward. It's very likely, but he is aging and there are certainly points of concern with his current approach at the plate. A down season and/or beginning of a decline is certainly a reasonable thing to worry about.

Drew had his contract held up due to his shoulder and has lots of stipulations built into his deal. That's a tangible reason for concern about his struggles and the chances of improvement.

Now, I happen to think they will turn it around. At what point and how much is the only question.

Will they win 102 games? No, I don't think so. Over the long haul their pen isn't going to maintain and the 5th starter coupled with a Wake decline will catch up to the team. The lineup will also end up being a little blotchy. In no way am I saying they will be bad, but mid-90s or so is still pretty damn good. 100 is definitely possible, but I would take the under. Over 90 definitely, the top of the rotation and funamental talent is strong enough.

[Worst Trade Evah]

Just a comment about luck. Several people appear to be suggesting that because peripherals are in line with results, that therefore the results are "real". I agree that results confirmed by peripherals are more secure, but isn't there a role for luck in the production of the peripherals themselves? Okajima's had great results which have been in line with his peripherals. He's been great. I also think he's been lucky -- including in where his peripherals have come from. Just because the peripherals are in line with results doesn't mean we haven't been lucky. Not as lucky as getting good results from bad peripherals, but to some extent maybe the luck's just been moved around.

I also agree that Beckett is a great source for extra wins -- but he was around last year too, and has had stretches of pitching well. He's been great this year, and his results do seem more real than last year, but then again he's also on the DL with a recurrence of a finger problem (I don't really believe the story about the defective baseball). Who knows what we'll see when he comes back. Youkilis was on the team last year also. They don't really have new people around that the pre-season projection people didn't have access to, including the free agents and the Japanese guys.

Is 40 games really enough to rewrite the "talent level"? Sure, the results will likely be better just because of the hot start, but do we know enough about the talent level?

For my part, I see them as a 95 win team which because of the hot start will win around 98-99 games. I'd take the under on 100 also.

This post has been edited by Worst Trade Evah: May 22 2007, 12:18 PM

[Bowlerman9]

Is 40 games really enough to rewrite the "talent level"? Sure, the results will likely be better just because of the hot start, but do we know enough about the talent level?

Well sure, for a couple of reasons. First off, the Sox had 2 players who had never pitched in America before, so its understandable that projection systems would be way off on them. Its safer to say the Sox are going to go 16-16 in games Matsuzaka starts, because then you cant really be that far off. Now that we're 1/4 of the way into the year and the Sox are 7-2, we can feel safe in saying that we will win more than 50% of his games. Not 77%, but even 60-70% would be above projection. Similar for Okajima. Safe to predict a 4.5 ERA, because that way you cant be off by too much. Even if he ends at a 2.2, he will be worse than he is now but still ahead of projections.

Then we get to the streaky Josh Beckett. Last year the Sox were 18-15 in his starts (54.5%). This year, if you include Gabbards start, the Sox are 9-0 on "day 2" in the rotation. People who had previously predicted the Sox would go 20-13 or 20-14 on "day 2" should now be revising those projections to, say, 24-10. Granted, we arent always going to win games down 5-0 in the 9th, nor is Gabbard going to win all his starts. But the Sox had a lot of places where they truly have improved the "talent level" from where they were in February.

Maybe this has been Matsuzaka's true talent all along. But not all projection systems accurately forecasted this. Same with Oki and Beckett.

[NYCSox]

Just a comment about luck. Several people appear to be suggesting that because peripherals are in line with results, that therefore the results are "real". I agree that results confirmed by peripherals are more secure, but isn't there a role for luck in the production of the peripherals themselves? Okajima's had great results which have been in line with his peripherals. He's been great. I also think he's been lucky -- including in where his peripherals have come from. Just because the peripherals are in line with results doesn't mean we haven't been lucky. Not as lucky as getting good results from bad peripherals, but to some extent maybe the luck's just been moved around.

Very true. For example if you look at standard peripherals for a pitcher (such as BAA or H/IP) without looking at BABIP/DIPS data, you are not getting a complete picture. As you correctly note, luck (both good and bad) can play a factor in producing a given set of peripherals. Which is why you always have to dig a little deeper.

[Worst Trade Evah]

Well, I thought B-P projected Matsuzaka at 5.4 WARP or so, so wherever the talent level revision comes, it shouldn't be from him.

[William Robertso...]

If they win between 95 and 99, I'll be dancing in the streets. That's no knock on this team, or on the statistical wisdom expressed above; rather, we just know that winning 105 is a truly extraordinary thing, and this team looks to be a few weak spots short of extraordinary. The team is loaded with talent, and I'm very optimistic, but for one thing, you're not going to go too much longer without a spell of things falling wrong and losing a few games you shouldn't. We haven't had our share of that yet.

[JakeRae]

Well, I guess I'll be the optimist and take the over to add some variety to the thread. I see this team as a low 100 win team. I think the only thing that will keep them from getting to 100 wins is serious injury trouble. Schilling looks like he has another effective season in him, Beckett seems to have figured out whatever was wrong last year and looks to be moving toward his ceiling, which he still isn't at yet. Okajima is better than anyone expected. Tavarez is a decent 5th starter. All of these things were not true going into the season when this was probably a 94-96 win team.

I'm not willing to commit to Youks breakout being real yet and I know Lowell will regress, but I think bouncebacks from other members of the offense will compensate for that. Coco is the guy I have the least faith in rebounding, but we have other CF options in Wily Mo and possibly Jacoby who could improvement at that position if Coco continues to struggle.

The pitching will not continue to be this good, but the offense should be this good if not slightly better and that should be enough, with the hot start, to carry this team to 100+ wins and a division title.

[Carlos Cowart]

They’re going to end up with 95 - 97 wins because no one in the division is going to mount a serious challenge and they’ll play sub-500 ball in September with Pawtucket’s roster. If they gave out rings for having the best regular-season record, then this team could probably muster 103 - 105.

[Eric Van]

Then we get to the streaky Josh Beckett. Last year the Sox were 18-15 in his starts (54.5%). This year, if you include Gabbards start, the Sox are 9-0 on "day 2" in the rotation.

Actually, Hansack took Beckett's first missed turn. Gabbard ended up taking his second missed turn; the rainouts and doubleheaders pushed Tavarez and Schilling an extra day, filling in the scheduled Beckett start on Wednesday, so they opted to push Wakefield, too, and insert Gabbard into the resulting hole. Very strange for a pitcher to miss two turns and have them end up being on consecutive days!

I'm sure this will cause eternal confusion, as it's obvious that Beckett is missing 2 turns (starting on the 13th, then the 29th, with the Sox off once in between) and it's obvious that Hansack and Gabbard did start instead, but it doesn't seem possible at first glance that the two cancel each other out. But they do.

This post has been edited by Eric Van: May 22 2007, 01:52 PM

[Bowlerman9]

Actually, Hansack took Beckett's first missed turn. Gabbard ended up taking his second missed turn; the rainouts and doubleheaders pushed Tavarez and Schilling an extra day, filling in the scheduled Beckett start on Wednesday, so they opted to push Wakefield, too, and insert Gabbard into the resulting hole. Very strange for a pitcher to miss two turns and have them end up being on consecutive days!

I'm sure this will cause eternal confusion, as it's obvious that Beckett is missing 2 turns (starting on the 13th, then the 29th, with the Sox off once in between) and it's obvious that Hansack and Gabbard did start instead, but it doesn't seem possible at first glance that the two cancel each other out. But they do.

9-1. My apologies to SoSH, Josh Beckett, Devern Hansack, and Kason Gabbard as well as their families for the confusion in my previous post and hope we can move on with our lives in light of my horrendous miscalculation.

[The Gray Eagle]

If this season was one game, we'd be winning 4-0 or 5-0 over the Yankees in the 3rd inning right now. That's a fantastic start, but you haven't won anything yet, a million teams have overcome 5 run leads in the third inning. The team chasing us has a ton of high priced talent, and they're about to add a $28 million a year pitcher to the mix.

If you're up 5-0 in the third, that doesn't mean that you expect to win 15-0. Sure you could, but realistically, you're just off to a great start and you hope to maintain it.

What matters is how big our lead in the division is, not how many total games we win. So far in this series, two more games have gone off the schedule and NY has gained no ground in this series at their place. That's like getting them out with no runs allowed in the 3rd inning of one game. You can't win anything yet, but it's nice to see.

I just hope we have a peak Papelbon pitching our "9th inning" this year, not Heathcliff Slocumb. Ideally, we'll be far enough ahead in the "9th" that we can throw some scrub out there.