276 replies to this topic

[Snodgrass'Muff]

The starting point is the problem. Talent, luck, injuries and competition happen to every team every year which makes starting at 100 silly. I mean, the team has won 100 games like 3 times in their history, why is this the benchmark for determining a starting point? It's like you said, if you judge solely on their talent when healthy and not unlucky with normal amounts of injuries and luck they will win less than 100, so why start there? If using RS/RA as a predictor and that doesn't match what actually happened on the field, that makes the predictor flawed as well as the methodology.

So, why not start at 93 or 95 wins?

Because you start with what you expect based on the talent alone, then adjust from there based on expected variables like injuries, luck, regression, growth from young players, depth, ect ect. Your base line should include as few unknown variables as possible.

Why would you set your base line expectation with variables that fluctuate so wildly from year to year? Why not start with something more stable, then make your guesses about how those unknown variables will play out?

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Because you start with what you expect based on the talent alone, then adjust from there based on expected variables like injuries, luck, regression, growth from young players, depth, ect ect. Your base line should include as few unknown variables as possible.

Why would you set your base line expectation with variables that fluctuate so wildly from year to year? Why not start with something more stable, then make your guesses about how those unknown variables will play out?

Starting with a baseline of 100 wins is unrealistic since it means that if everything breaks right you might finish with 105 or even 110 wins.

Since the team hasn't won 100 games since 1946, starting with the assumption that the team has 100 win talent strikes me as fanciful. Very few teams ever start their seasons with 100 win talent. And looking at this one certainly doesn't change that factor: the rotation is still too far unsettled and RF, LF and SS remain question marks.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

100 wins? No.

I voted 91-95 and I think I am being optimistic. The last two seasons have gotten off to terrible starts. Last year's April horror show was just as bad as September's.
I'm counting on this team coming out of the blocks faster. Just a little more engagement and energy generated by Valentine???. They certainly are talented enough if things go relatively well.

Nothing would surprise me. The set up man and closer from last year's team were arguably the best in baseball. That could be difficult to replace or even come close.

No, it wasn't. It wasn't even close. They had a .423 winning percentage in April. It was .259 in September. A .423 winning percentage in September and Tampa never even seriously threatens them for the wild card.

[Dogman2]

Because you start with what you expect based on the talent alone, then adjust from there based on expected variables like injuries, luck, regression, growth from young players, depth, ect ect. Your base line should include as few unknown variables as possible.

Why would you set your base line expectation with variables that fluctuate so wildly from year to year? Why not start with something more stable, then make your guesses about how those unknown variables will play out?

That's the problem. You expect talent alone to win 100 games if everything goes your way. Reasonable people expect, with the talent/holes the team has, to win 90-95. You are starting with, what you call, a stable talent level of 100 wins. Almost everyone disagrees simply because the team hasn't been talented enough to win 100 in 60 years. This year is no different.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Starting with a baseline of 100 wins is unrealistic since it means that if everything breaks right you might finish with 105 or even 110 wins.

No, it doesn't. I means if everything breaks right you win 100. That's what EV said, so how about we don't start making stuff up just to continue the pile on? He's predicting 96-100 wins, not 100-105 or 110.

Since the team hasn't won 100 games since 1946, starting with the assumption that the team has 100 win talent strikes me as fanciful. Very few teams ever start their seasons with 100 win talent. And looking at this one certainly doesn't change that factor: the rotation is still too far unsettled and RF, LF and SS remain question marks.

I don't think anyone seriously thinks the team is likely to win 100 games. But saying they have 100 win talent isn't even remotely crazy. This is one of the most talented teams in the majors, easily. The offense was the best in the majors last year. They're all back. They should be a top 3 offense at least. The pitching staff, even decimated by injuries, was able to keep this team on pace for 100 wins through five months, even accounting for the 2-10 start. The pitching staff is in far better shape than it was in the second half of the season last year. This isn't even debatable. The bullpen may be a little weaker at the top, but should be deeper meaning less strain on the set up man and closer.

Really, we're back to what caused September. There's the crowd that thinks it wasn't bad luck and injuries, and there's the crowd that thinks it was. My opinion is that September of 2011 was a fluke. There is simply no way it could happen that way again. Even with the same cast of characters. They had a .259 winning percentage for the month. The worst team in the majors last year won at a .346 clip. .259 is 1962 Mets bad. That's historically bad baseball.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

That's the problem. You expect talent alone to win 100 games if everything goes your way. Reasonable people expect, with the talent/holes the team has, to win 90-95. You are starting with, what you call, a stable talent level of 100 wins. Almost everyone disagrees simply because the team hasn't been talented enough to win 100 in 60 years. This year is no different.

OK, you clearly don't understand what I and a few others are arguing. The actual results of a season take into account every variable that plays out in a season. Talent is just one of those variables, and is the most measurable one. When we start by expecting 100 wins based on talent alone, we're ignoring every other variable to establish a baseline. Then we incorporate those less stable variables to come up with an actual prediction. In my case, it's 91-95, not 100 wins. EV sees 96-100. We're expecting different amounts of injuries, luck and variation in play.

Saying no Sox team has won 100 in 60 years does not address this approach. It willfully ignores it. You are also willfully ignoring that I'm not predicting 100 wins.

Edit: And last year's team was clearly talented enough to win 100. They were on pace for it after 5 months of play. It was the other variables that prevented them from reaching that number.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 27 March 2012 - 12:16 PM.

[Dogman2]

No, it doesn't. I means if everything breaks right you win 100. That's what EV said, so how about we don't start making stuff up just to continue the pile on? He's predicting 96-100 wins, not 100-105 or 110.



I don't think anyone seriously thinks the team is likely to win 100 games. But saying they have 100 win talent isn't even remotely crazy. This is one of the most talented teams in the majors, easily. The offense was the best in the majors last year. They're all back. They should be a top 3 offense at least. The pitching staff, even decimated by injuries, was able to keep this team on pace for 100 wins through five months, even accounting for the 2-10 start. The pitching staff is in far better shape than it was in the second half of the season last year. This isn't even debatable. The bullpen may be a little weaker at the top, but should be deeper meaning less strain on the set up man and closer.

Really, we're back to what caused September. There's the crowd that thinks it wasn't bad luck and injuries, and there's the crowd that thinks it was. My opinion is that September of 2011 was a fluke. There is simply no way it could happen that way again. Even with the same cast of characters. They had a .259 winning percentage for the month. The worst team in the majors last year won at a .346 clip. .259 is 1962 Mets bad. That's historically bad baseball.

If the team won 100 games last year it would have been an outlier. What EV and you are doing is using that outlier as a benchmark for talent. It's wrong and this is why people are calling out the insane optimism.

[Dogman2]

OK, you clearly don't understand what I (and a few others are arguing). The actual results of a season take into account every variable that plays out in a season. Talent is just one of those variables, and is the most measurable one. When we start by expecting 100 wins based on talent alone, we're ignoring every other variable to establish a baseline. Then we incorporate those less stable variables to come up with an actual prediction. In my case, it's 91-95, not 100 wins. EV sees 96-100. We're expecting different amounts of injuries, luck and variation in play.

Saying no Sox team has won 100 in 60 years does not address this approach. It willfully ignores it. You are also willfully ignoring that I'm not predicting 100 wins.

Nope, I understand full well what you are attempting to argue. I am not ignoring your prediction either. Your defense of EV is stunning.

Additonally, You believe the talent level of the team is 100 wins before any variables. Everyone else believes the talent level is 85-95 with the holes the team has (not factoring in any variables).

it's you whom doesn't understand.

Edited by Dogman2, 27 March 2012 - 12:17 PM.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

The starting point is the problem.

...[snip]...

So, why not start at 93 or 95 wins?

Because the Sox roster is built to better initial specs than that.

As a fast-and-loose method, I looked at Fangraphs' separate sections on expert vs. fan projections. Now I think fWAR methodology leaves a lot to be desired, but it makes for a handy resource for some back-of-the-envelope calculations.

According to the experts, the Sox' current roster projects to a 56.4 WAR team. Fan-based projections for the team actually peg it a little lower, at 55.5 WAR. That's not entirely surprising, since I tried accounting for limitations on playing time, by simply throwing out most fan-based numbers for bench players, bullpen, and prospects.

Since the estimate for a 0.0 WAR team is 47.4 wins, fan-based methods think the Sox project to a 103-win team in aggregate, while the experts start them off at 104. That's from just one source, and I'm sure there are many other methods that can be used.

But according to Fangraphs, EV is being pessimistic on the talent level of the roster. Wrap your minds around that!




[edit: cleaned up wording, and added some links and methodology stuff]

Edited by Buzzkill Pauley, 27 March 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

If the team won 100 games last year it would have been an outlier. What EV and you are doing is using that outlier as a benchmark for talent. It's wrong and this is why people are calling out the insane optimism.

If it was going to be an outlier, then why is there statistical evidence from some of the brightest minds in the stat community (cited by EV above) that they were actually that talented?

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Nope, I understand full well what you are attempting to argue. I am not ignoring your prediction either. Your defense of EV is stunning.

Additonally, You believe the talent level of the team is 100 wins before any variables. Everyone else believes the talent level is 85-95 with the holes the team has (not factoring in any variables).

it's you whom doesn't understand.

What's stunning is that people keep arguing against EV's prediction of 100 wins when he hasn't predicted 100 wins. The anti-EV crowd is frothing at the mouth and isn't thinking straight.

And I can certainly entertain an argument that their talent level is 95 rather than 100. Reasonable minds can disagree, but 85 is absurd. There is no way this team is at an 85 win talent level. None.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

If it was going to be an outlier, then why is there statistical evidence from some of the brightest minds in the stat community (cited by EV above) that they were actually that talented?

Since the real-life results haven't matched that level of performance in 60+ years, why start now?

They had 100+ win talent in '04. They had 100+ win talent in '07. They were the best team in all of baseball both years yet didn't make the magical 100 win mark. There's substantial evidence based on the shape of the pitching rotation that this team is neither as talented as those two were AND the competition in the division is much better than it was in either of those years.

Looking at statistical analysis is an excellent start, but it's too blithely thrown about regarding the team's "incredible" talent. The core of last year's gag artists is still here.

"Talent level" is becoming a crutch around here. It's really quite meaningless if the team's results never match what people insist the talent level should be.

Bottom line: they need to be better than last year. MUCH better. Period.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Since the real-life results haven't matched that level of performance in 60+ years, why start now?

Because no one is predicting 100 wins. Well, there are a few votes, but I attribute those to people fucking with the poll which is a tradition here. It's a starting point, not the actual prediction.

They had 100+ win talent in '04. They had 100+ win talent in '07. They were the best team in all of baseball both years yet didn't make the magical 100 win mark. There's substantial evidence based on the shape of the pitching rotation that this team is neither as talented as those two were AND the competition in the division is much better than it was in either of those years.

Which is why no one is predicting 100 wins.

Looking at statistical analysis is an excellent start, but it's too blithely thrown about regarding the team's "incredible" talent. The core of last year's gag artists is still here.

"Talent level" is becoming a crutch around here. It's really quite meaningless if the team's results never match what people insist the talent level should be.

Bottom line: they need to be better than last year. MUCH better. Period.

But no one is predicting 100 wins. Say it with me.

No. One. Is. Predicting. 100. Wins.

Using what statistical analysis tells us about this team's talent level as a starting point is the most logical way to start putting together a prediction for the 2012 season. But it's a starting point and nothing more.

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

If you assume no injuries and between career prime and career best years, this team is easily a 100win team. I agree it is a good place to start, because that would equal what the team has talent to accomplish. If you start to add in injuries, age related decline, bad luck etc. etc. then you start to peel away victories.

I figure that leaves the team between 92 and 96 wins..... thats saying with perfect health and career prime years from each position you'd have had 100 wins...

That seems totally reasonable to me. No one expects to win 100 but in a vaccuum, in the perfect scenario this team wins 100

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Because no one is predicting 100 wins. Well, there are a few votes, but I attribute those to people fucking with the poll which is a tradition here. It's a starting point, not the actual prediction.



Which is why no one is predicting 100 wins.



But no one is predicting 100 wins. Say it with me.

No. One. Is. Predicting. 100. Wins.

Using what statistical analysis tells us about this team's talent level as a starting point is the most logical way to start putting together a prediction for the 2012 season. But it's a starting point and nothing more.

Van is using 100 wins as baseline, which IMO is silly. The pitching rotation is in chaos right now, we have no idea who's going to be filing out the end of it. Figure out who the 4th starter might be and I'd have more confidence in even making any sort of wins prediction.

[Dogman2]

Van predicted 96-100 wins. The poll results show 24 other people predicting those same 96-100 wins. People are predicting it Snod.

Say it with us...25 people predicted the Sox could finish with 100 wins.

[NickEsasky]

There is no way this team is at an 85 win talent level. None.

But a few injuries here and there coupled with some bad production from key players and they could realistically end up right there. There is more talent than 85 wins on this team, but there are very realistic events that could occur that could leave them there.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Van is using 100 wins as baseline, which IMO is silly. The pitching rotation is in chaos right now, we have no idea who's going to be filing out the end of it. Figure out who the 4th starter might be and I'd have more confidence in even making any sort of wins prediction.

base·line
noun, often attributive \ˈbās-ˌlīn\


Definition of BASELINE


1
: a line serving as a basis; especially : one of known measure or position used (as in surveying or navigation) to calculate or locate something


4
: a usually initial set of critical observations or data used for comparison or a control
5

: a starting point <the baseline of this discussion>

What part of that is difficult for you to understand? It's not his prediction. It's no one's prediction. The question marks you have listed here and in other places are used to adjust the baseline. Repeatedly bringing them up does not address the claim that this team is a 100 win talent before factoring in injuries, luck and the potential for growth or regression in performance.

Van predicted 96-100 wins. The poll results show 24 other people predicting those same 96-100 wins. People are predicting it Snod.

Say it with us...25 people predicted the Sox could finish with 100 wins.

You do realize that saying 96-100 wins is not the same thing as saying you think they'll win 100 games, right?

[Rasputin]

Isn't this roughly what many were saying about Lackey just over a year ago, that he couldn't possibly get worse than he'd been the previous year? And look what he did last year.

Yeah, and you know what? If Ross, Aviles, and Kalish all rip their knees to shreds perhaps we'll have to run him out there every day because his knee still has one shred attached.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

But a few injuries here and there coupled with some bad production from key players and they could realistically end up right there. There is more talent than 85 wins on this team, but there are very realistic events that could occur that could leave them there.

I wouldn't call that realistic. Possible? Sure. But they were hit with a catastrophic number of injuries to the pitching staff, lost their clean up hitter for the stretch and suffered some enormous bad luck in September and still won 90. 85 would mean a season that makes the luck and injuries seen in the two seem trivial in comparison.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I wouldn't call that realistic. Possible? Sure. But they were hit with a catastrophic number of injuries to the pitching staff, lost their clean up hitter for the stretch and suffered some enormous bad luck in September and still won 90. 85 would mean a season that makes the luck and injuries seen in the two seem trivial in comparison.

Nope. Not possible. Cody Ross's high socks alone are enough to will this team to win past 85 games.

[NickEsasky]

I wouldn't call that realistic. Possible? Sure. But they were hit with a catastrophic number of injuries to the pitching staff, lost their clean up hitter for the stretch and suffered some enormous bad luck in September and still won 90. 85 would mean a season that makes the luck and injuries seen in the two seem trivial in comparison.

For all the things that would have to go wrong to make this an 85 win team, we'd have to have the opposite level of luck, health, and career years to make it a 100 win team.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

For all the things that would have to go wrong to make this an 85 win team, we'd have to have the opposite level of luck, health, and career years to make it a 100 win team.

OK, but how is that relevant? I'm predicting 91-95 wins. The most optimistic predictions in the thread are conceding that even if things go really well they can't be confident in more than the 96-100 range. If there was an influx of 100+ votes, you might have a point... but there aren't.

[Eric Van]

That is an interesting way to look at it. Personally, I like to go by wins and losses, but understand that there might be a 'fail yet succeed' metric involved that I don't really understand.

I don't have time to even read this thread, and just glancing at it, it's clear that some people get it, and some people don't and probably never can. So I'm not picking on EE here -- just that his post is a great opportunity to rebut in a nutshell.

One of the great points hammered over and over again by Bill James, and virtually every other analyst that's followed him, is that if a front office takes the attitude that EE does here, that is an absolute recipe for disaster.

You don't see it much any more, because every team now has more than a clue. But history is filled with teams that overperformed their statistics by 10 wins and stood relatively pat over the winter, then were non-contenders the next year, exactly as expected if you knew your ass from shinola. And teams that underperformed by 10 wins and blew it all up and actually made themselves worse.

If you don't get that a team's won / lost record is a result of

A) How good they are

PLUS

B) Lots of other shit

than you really ought not to waste your time here, really. To say that's Sabermetrics 101 is an insult to the concept of introductory material.

So much for mocking my statement that we were one of the three best teams in baseball. If your concept of how good a baseball team is is limited to how many games they won, you should probably share that insight with the other third graders.

Amd to restate my main point: this team has a long history of underperforming their talent due to injuries and inefficiency, and there is no reason to think that won't happen again this year. It always fucking happens.

What I'm trying to explain to folks is that it happened to an incredible degree last year. And before you deduct it from this year, you have to add it back in. You don't look at the 90 wins, think about the roster moves, understand that replacing Lackey alone is a big upgrade, and comes up with 92 - 93 wins as the most likely scenario, while figuring that bad shit always happens and is likely to be the same this year as last. Because it isn't. You have to understand that they underperformed by 10 wins last year and that 5 is a much more likely figure in any given year.

[Eric Van]

And looking at this one certainly doesn't change that factor: the rotation is still too far unsettled

Van is using 100 wins as baseline, which IMO is silly. The pitching rotation is in chaos right now, we have no idea who's going to be filing out the end of it. Figure out who the 4th starter might be and I'd have more confidence in even making any sort of wins prediction.

It's interesting ... people often pick a known negative rather than uncertainty. A lot of apparently "masochistic" behavior is settling for a bad thing just to get it over with, even if it means precluding the possibility of good. In other words, some people find uncertainty to be even more stressful than suffering.

What you are doing here is the evaluatory equivalent. You are regarding chaos and uncertainty as intrinsically worse than any sort of defined outcome, no matter how bad. And last year's, as you well know, was historically bad.

We don't need to know who the fuck the 4th and 5th starters will be from among the many options, because whatever we end up with will be an upgrade, and probably a huge upgrade.

What you have done in these two posts is take the biggest reason for optmimism about the 2012 Boston Red Sox and cite it as your most gnawing doubt.

[Jnai]

I don't have time to even read this thread, and just glancing at it, it's clear that some people get it, and some people don't and probably never can. So I'm not picking on EE here -- just that his post is a great opportunity to rebut in a nutshell.

One of the great points hammered over and over again by Bill James, and virtually every other analyst that's followed him, is that if a front office takes the attitude that EE does here, that is an absolute recipe for disaster.

You don't see it much any more, because every team now has more than a clue. But history is filled with teams that overperformed their statistics by 10 wins and stood relatively pat over the winter, then were non-contenders the next year, exactly as expected if you knew your ass from shinola. And teams that underperformed by 10 wins and blew it all up and actually made themselves worse.

If you don't get that a team's won / lost record is a result of

A) How good they are

PLUS

B) Lots of other shit

than you really ought not to waste your time here, really. To say that's Sabermetrics 101 is an insult to the concept of introductory material.

So much for mocking my statement that we were one of the three best teams in baseball. If your concept of how good a baseball team is is limited to how many games they won, you should probably share that insight with the other third graders.

Amd to restate my main point: this team has a long history of underperforming their talent due to injuries and inefficiency, and there is no reason to think that won't happen again this year. It always fucking happens.

What I'm trying to explain to folks is that it happened to an incredible degree last year. And before you deduct it from this year, you have to add it back in. You don't look at the 90 wins, think about the roster moves, understand that replacing Lackey alone is a big upgrade, and comes up with 92 - 93 wins as the most likely scenario, while figuring that bad shit always happens and is likely to be the same this year as last. Because it isn't. You have to understand that they underperformed by 10 wins last year and that 5 is a much more likely figure in any given year.

Sigh.

[Rasputin]

Starting with a baseline of 100 wins is unrealistic since it means that if everything breaks right you might finish with 105 or even 110 wins.

Since the team hasn't won 100 games since 1946, starting with the assumption that the team has 100 win talent strikes me as fanciful. Very few teams ever start their seasons with 100 win talent. And looking at this one certainly doesn't change that factor: the rotation is still too far unsettled and RF, LF and SS remain question marks.

Why is the fact that this team hasn't done it since 1946 even relevant? The relevant fact is that it's very hard to win 100 games. The next relevant fact is that despite it being hard, it happened in 2011, 2009, 2008, 2005, twice in 2004, three times in 2003, three times in 2002, and twice in 2001 including 116 games won by Seattle. That's fourteen times in the past eleven seasons. That's in the category of very hard to do but not absurdly hard.

Perhaps more to the point, between 1946 and 1975 the Sox only topped 90 wins four times. For the most part they just didn't have the talent level for 100 wins to even be possible.

Meanwhile, in the same eleven seasons that have seen 14 teams win 100 games or more, the Sox have won less than ninety three times and 95 or more six times.

That's the problem. You expect talent alone to win 100 games if everything goes your way. Reasonable people expect, with the talent/holes the team has, to win 90-95. You are starting with, what you call, a stable talent level of 100 wins. Almost everyone disagrees simply because the team hasn't been talented enough to win 100 in 60 years. This year is no different.

But this year really is different than the majority of those other seasons. Most of those years the Sox weren't very good. 1967 is called the Impossible Dream and not the Hey We Thought They Were Good But We Didn't Think They Were This Good Dream for a reason. And now we have a team that has been within striking distance of 100 wins for most of the last decade.

And we have all personally seen teams take their foot off the pedal. This team. Other teams in this division. And this year they are less likely to do so as early as they have in the past because the difference between winning the division and winning a wild card is very meaningful.

Van is using 100 wins as baseline, which IMO is silly. The pitching rotation is in chaos right now, we have no idea who's going to be filing out the end of it. Figure out who the 4th starter might be and I'd have more confidence in even making any sort of wins prediction.

Do you understand that Van didn't use 100 wins as a baseline because he felt like it? He used the number that the predictive models came up with.

And Daniel Bard is the fourth starter. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

Nope, I understand full well what you are attempting to argue. I am not ignoring your prediction either. Your defense of EV is stunning.

Additonally, You believe the talent level of the team is 100 wins before any variables. Everyone else believes the talent level is 85-95 with the holes the team has (not factoring in any variables).

it's you whom doesn't understand.

You not only don't understand the argument being made, you don't understand the reality it is being made from.

If you believe this team has 85-95 win talent then you have to believe that the injuries suffered last year were normal. They were not. This team won 90 games last year with an abnormally high degree of injuries and you think it's reasonable to think that they're 5 games worse. It's not.

A reasonable projection of this team starts at higher than 90 wins. How much higher depends on how much better you think Bard and Doubront will be compared to Wake and Lackey because no, it is not reasonable to think they will be worse. It depends on how much you think a Ross/Sweeney platoon will be better than JD Drew because no, it's not reasonable to think they will be worse. It depends on how quickly Crawford comes back and how much better he will be than last year. It depends on how much Ellsbury is going to regress. It depends on all the little differences there are from one player one season to the same player the next season.

What it doesn't depend on, which an inordinate number of folks seem not to understand, is your emotional reaction to a shitty September and a shitty off season.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Since the real-life results haven't matched that level of performance in 60+ years, why start now?

...[snip]...

They had 100+ win talent in '04. They had 100+ win talent in '07. They were the best team in all of baseball both years yet didn't make the magical 100 win mark.

...[snip]...

Bottom line: they need to be better than last year. MUCH better. Period.

SJH, it sounds like you could use a hug, too.

And if you're finding it hard to keep smiling, just remember that things can change and get better:

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

I think the idea that nobody knows who is pitching as the 4th and 5th starters is pretty silly right now. Just look at the ST innings pitched and who has started the games.... There you have your 1, 2 3, 4 and 5 starters.... It's getting too late in the ST season for anyone else to be in the mix.

Lester
Beckett
Buchholz
Bard
Doubront

[Seven Costanza]

God damn, I wish they played baseball in the vaccum of outer space where nothing could ever go wrong. We'd win 110 games every year, easy- just like how we predicted.

[Dogman2]

Why is the fact that this team hasn't done it since 1946 even relevant? The relevant fact is that it's very hard to win 100 games. The next relevant fact is that despite it being hard, it happened in 2011, 2009, 2008, 2005, twice in 2004, three times in 2003, three times in 2002, and twice in 2001 including 116 games won by Seattle. That's fourteen times in the past eleven seasons. That's in the category of very hard to do but not absurdly hard.

Perhaps more to the point, between 1946 and 1975 the Sox only topped 90 wins four times. For the most part they just didn't have the talent level for 100 wins to even be possible.

Meanwhile, in the same eleven seasons that have seen 14 teams win 100 games or more, the Sox have won less than ninety three times and 95 or more six times.




But this year really is different than the majority of those other seasons. Most of those years the Sox weren't very good. 1967 is called the Impossible Dream and not the Hey We Thought They Were Good But We Didn't Think They Were This Good Dream for a reason. And now we have a team that has been within striking distance of 100 wins for most of the last decade.

And we have all personally seen teams take their foot off the pedal. This team. Other teams in this division. And this year they are less likely to do so as early as they have in the past because the difference between winning the division and winning a wild card is very meaningful.




Do you understand that Van didn't use 100 wins as a baseline because he felt like it? He used the number that the predictive models came up with.

And Daniel Bard is the fourth starter. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.



You not only don't understand the argument being made, you don't understand the reality it is being made from.

If you believe this team has 85-95 win talent then you have to believe that the injuries suffered last year were normal. They were not. This team won 90 games last year with an abnormally high degree of injuries and you think it's reasonable to think that they're 5 games worse. It's not.

A reasonable projection of this team starts at higher than 90 wins. How much higher depends on how much better you think Bard and Doubront will be compared to Wake and Lackey because no, it is not reasonable to think they will be worse. It depends on how much you think a Ross/Sweeney platoon will be better than JD Drew because no, it's not reasonable to think they will be worse. It depends on how quickly Crawford comes back and how much better he will be than last year. It depends on how much Ellsbury is going to regress. It depends on all the little differences there are from one player one season to the same player the next season.

What it doesn't depend on, which an inordinate number of folks seem not to understand, is your emotional reaction to a shitty September and a shitty off season.

Bullshit.

I understand it full well. What you guys are blindly doing is simply saying the entirety of the roster (every player that will be used over the course of the year because of injuries or whatever reason) possesses the talent to win 100 games. What we are saying is that the entirety of the roster that will be used (because of injuries, etc) isn't good enough to win that many games. It wasn't good enough to win that many games last year or any year for the last 60.

Theo and every other team have said repeatedly that it takes 10-11starting pitchers as well as roughly 20 positional players ( I did not count relievers) to play a 162 game schedule. The true talent level for all of those players the team will use this year (4th-11th starter and all the additional positon players) doesn't approach 100 wins. This is why we feel using 100 wins to start with, as a talent level, is wrong and insanely optimistic.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

The fact that you keep using actual win-loss records over the last 60 years to refute the idea that this team has 100 win talent demonstrates that you either do not understand the premise or are being intentionally obtuse to try and derail the conversation.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

What you guys are blindly doing is simply saying the entirety of the roster (every player that will be used over the course of the year because of injuries or whatever reason) possesses the talent to win 100 games.

That's not what they're doing at all. EV cited statisiticians and projections that say the team has the talent to win 100 games. That's not blindly doing anything. That's taking what the math tells you. From there, you adjust for injuries or whatever, and come to a final conclusion of where you think the team winds up, which as has been repeatedly stated, is somewhere between short and far short of 100 wins.

All you're doing is skipping all the analysis and blindly coming to your conclusion.

[Seven Costanza]

What's the point of having talent if you can't maximize it or make use of it? Clearly the Sox don't have the talent required to maximize their talent efficiently.

Edited by Seven Costanza, 27 March 2012 - 03:19 PM.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

What's the point of having talent if you can't maximize it or make use of it? Clearly the Sox don't have the talent required to maximize their talent efficiently.

Seriously? You think it's simply a matter of maximizing the pieces they have? What about injuries? What about poor luck? What about bad weather forcing double headers late in the season? There are a ton of variables that go into winning and losing games beyond talent. I'm absolutely astonished at how many people are having difficulty with this concept...

Let me ask a question. If the 2011 Red Sox didn't have the talent to win 100 games, how could they possibly have been on pace to win that many after 5 months of play?

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Bullshit.

I understand it full well. What you guys are blindly doing is simply saying the entirety of the roster (every player that will be used over the course of the year because of injuries or whatever reason) possesses the talent to win 100 games. What we are saying is that the entirety of the roster that will be used (because of injuries, etc) isn't good enough to win that many games. It wasn't good enough to win that many games last year or any year for the last 60.

Theo and every other team have said repeatedly that it takes 10-11starting pitchers as well as roughly 20 positional players ( I did not count relievers) to play a 162 game schedule. The true talent level for all of those players the team will use this year (4th-11th starter and all the additional positon players) doesn't approach 100 wins. This is why we feel using 100 wins to start with, as a talent level, is wrong and insanely optimistic.

No, your analysis is wrong. Speaking only for myself, even when deliberately tweaking SJH's nose I have not said the entirety of the roster has the talent to win 100 games. For example, if come next November, Punto and Anderson each played 100 games on the right side of the infield, the 2012 season is unlikely to have ended well. That's fine. If Brandon Duckworth was called into action to the 25-man roster at any point in time, then likewise the same conclusion.

What I am saying, is that -- based on each starting player's established past performance -- reasonable projections suggest this team is far more capable than you and many others seem willing to give them credit. This team easily has the talent to win 100 games.

Whether they do is another matter, and I certainly do not assume they will. But I know they could, with a lot of good health and not too much bad luck. I mean come on, it's not as though 100 wins is some holy grail that can only be claimed by the virtuous. The MFYs have done it five times in the last twenty years, the bastards.

And as for whether the 2012 Sox can maximize their talent -- I was only half-joking when I put up that picture for SJH.

Tito's Red Sox were always positioning themselves to make the postseason when rested, in order to do as much damage as possible once October rolled around. We simply don't know how BobbyV and the extra wild-card spot will work toward maximizing the talent on this squad. My assumption is that he'll have the team gunning for the division for the first time since 2005, so that the Sox don't have to win the one-game playoff.

[Rasputin]

Bullshit.

I understand it full well. What you guys are blindly doing is simply saying the entirety of the roster (every player that will be used over the course of the year because of injuries or whatever reason) possesses the talent to win 100 games. What we are saying is that the entirety of the roster that will be used (because of injuries, etc) isn't good enough to win that many games. It wasn't good enough to win that many games last year or any year for the last 60.

No. You have just explicitly demonstrated that you do not understand what we are talking about.

What we are saying is that the first step in estimating how many games a team might win is to estimate the talent level. EV took a look at a bunch of predictive models and came up with a talent level of 100 games. That's the talent level before you account for injuries and assorted other shit.

Then you account for normal injuries and other shit. This brings the win total down. One of the posts above suggests it's an average of three games for a team. Maybe it is. Maybe it's five. I dunno, I haven't done the math but three and five both sound reasonable to me.

Then you account for a range of random shit that just isn't susceptible to prediction and come up with a worse case scenario and a best case scenario and you stick those around whatever total you get from step 2. So if you think the average team loses three games due to injuries you try to judge whether this team is more or less likely to be injured, more or less likely to have breakout or breakdown players, and come up with a range. Say you think the team is a bit more likely to get injuries because they're old or whatever, and they don't have younger players in position for breakouts so that's a bit less likely and you say the range of downside is 5 but it's only 3 on the upside. Take your 100 wins, subtract the three for injuries, subtract the other five for excessive shit going bad, and you have 92 wins as a low end prediction. Add the 3 for upside back to the 97 and get your 100 win upside.

That is, in a nutshell, what EV did and came up with a range and you're getting all butthurt because he started with 100 wins. It shows that you're not understanding the process. You're acting like EV picked 100 wins out of his ass because he's an optimistic fellow. He didn't.

Theo and every other team have said repeatedly that it takes 10-11starting pitchers as well as roughly 20 positional players ( I did not count relievers) to play a 162 game schedule. The true talent level for all of those players the team will use this year (4th-11th starter and all the additional positon players) doesn't approach 100 wins. This is why we feel using 100 wins to start with, as a talent level, is wrong and insanely optimistic.

What is your definition of "approach 100 wins" because unless this team gets hurt overly much by injuries and whatever then it probably will approach 100 wins. I would consider 95 wins to be approaching 100, would you?

You don't seem to understand the concept of randomness. Sometimes you have fewer injuries and assorted shit than normal. In 2004 the Sox had 5 games started by people other than their top five starters. If that had happened last year the Sox would have been able to replace Lackey in the rotation, made the postseason with ease, and if they didn't actually win 100 games, it would have been damn close.

Seriously? You think it's simply a matter of maximizing the pieces they have? What about injuries? What about poor luck? What about bad weather forcing double headers late in the season? There are a ton of variables that go into winning and losing games beyond talent. I'm absolutely astonished at how many people are having difficulty with this concept...

Let me ask a question. If the 2011 Red Sox didn't have the talent to win 100 games, how could they possibly have been on pace to win that many after 5 months of play?

I think he's just being intentionally provocative.

But I'll add this question. If they didn't have that level of talent, why did it take a historic collapse to result in 90 wins?

[Seven Costanza]

If they had the talent to win 100 games, they would have done so. They did not.


I think being able to handle the variables 'bad weather' and 'injuries' falls under 'talent'. I think others do not think this way- but that's OK with me. And yes, i was being intentionally provocative.

Edited by Seven Costanza, 27 March 2012 - 03:30 PM.

[Rasputin]

If they had the talent to win 100 games, they would have done so. They did not.


I think being able to handle the variables 'bad weather' and 'injuries' falls under 'talent'. I think others do not think this way- but that's OK with me. And yes, i was being intentionally provocative.

So, in short, you deliberately used words in a manner differing from those you were arguing with in order to get a rise out of someone and in the process demonstrated yourself to be both an idiot and an unmitigated ass?

[Snodgrass'Muff]

If they had the talent to win 100 games, they would have done so. They did not.


I think being able to handle the variables 'bad weather' and 'injuries' falls under 'talent'. I think others do not think this way- but that's OK with me. And yes, i was being intentionally provocative.

Then we are operating under completely different ideas of what "talent" covers and will never see eye to eye on this. Personally, I'm not sure how avoiding an injury is a talent, but apparently that's just me (and Ras, Buzz, EV...)

[RedOctober3829]

We all know this team has a lot of talent. We also know that it is extremely hard to win 100 games no matter how talented a team is. Injuries, setbacks, and poor performances happen. Can we just leave it at that?

[Rasputin]

We all know this team has a lot of talent. We also know that it is extremely hard to win 100 games no matter how talented a team is. Injuries, setbacks, and poor performances happen. Can we just leave it at that?

Evidence would suggest otherwise.

[EastCoasterOutWest]

This debate is ridiculous.

If you don't think this team has the talent to win 100 games (keeping in mind that means NOTHING goes wrong), what do you think is the best case scenario? Why?

Saying, "this team hasn't won 100 games in x years, so they can't this year" is crap. By that logic, at the start of 2004 you should have been saying "this team hasn't won a world series since 1918, so they can't do it this year either."

[Dogman2]

No. You have just explicitly demonstrated that you do not understand what we are talking about.

What we are saying is that the first step in estimating how many games a team might win is to estimate the talent level. EV took a look at a bunch of predictive models and came up with a talent level of 100 games. That's the talent level before you account for injuries and assorted other shit.

Then you account for normal injuries and other shit. This brings the win total down. One of the posts above suggests it's an average of three games for a team. Maybe it is. Maybe it's five. I dunno, I haven't done the math but three and five both sound reasonable to me.

Then you account for a range of random shit that just isn't susceptible to prediction and come up with a worse case scenario and a best case scenario and you stick those around whatever total you get from step 2. So if you think the average team loses three games due to injuries you try to judge whether this team is more or less likely to be injured, more or less likely to have breakout or breakdown players, and come up with a range. Say you think the team is a bit more likely to get injuries because they're old or whatever, and they don't have younger players in position for breakouts so that's a bit less likely and you say the range of downside is 5 but it's only 3 on the upside. Take your 100 wins, subtract the three for injuries, subtract the other five for excessive shit going bad, and you have 92 wins as a low end prediction. Add the 3 for upside back to the 97 and get your 100 win upside.

That is, in a nutshell, what EV did and came up with a range and you're getting all butthurt because he started with 100 wins. It shows that you're not understanding the process. You're acting like EV picked 100 wins out of his ass because he's an optimistic fellow. He didn't.



What is your definition of "approach 100 wins" because unless this team gets hurt overly much by injuries and whatever then it probably will approach 100 wins. I would consider 95 wins to be approaching 100, would you?

You don't seem to understand the concept of randomness. Sometimes you have fewer injuries and assorted shit than normal. In 2004 the Sox had 5 games started by people other than their top five starters. If that had happened last year the Sox would have been able to replace Lackey in the rotation, made the postseason with ease, and if they didn't actually win 100 games, it would have been damn close.




I think he's just being intentionally provocative.

But I'll add this question. If they didn't have that level of talent, why did it take a historic collapse to result in 90 wins?

I'm not butthurt in the least. You cannot account for true talent level without using the entirety of the players that will be used.

I root for the same team you do but any optimisim I have is tempered by the holes the team has. Last years team should temper any optimism you guys have. It doesn't and you guys act insulted if someone even slights this team.

93 wins.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'm not butthurt in the least. You cannot account for true talent level without using the entirety of the players that will be used.

I root for the same team you do but any optimisim I have is tempered by the holes the team has. Last years team should temper any optimism you guys have. It doesn't and you guys act insulted if someone even slights this team.

93 wins.

So your baseline is 93. OK. What do you expect once you account for injuries and other variables?

[Rasputin]

I'm not butthurt in the least. You cannot account for true talent level without using the entirety of the players that will be used.

Translation: "I don't care what you do or how many times or how clearly you explain your methodology or define your terminology, it's wrong because I said so."

I root for the same team you do but any optimisim I have is tempered by the holes the team has. Last years team should temper any optimism you guys have. It doesn't and you guys act insulted if someone even slights this team.

You're acting like this team has a lot of holes. It doesn't. It has a mediocre shortstop, a catcher tandem that is nothing special, and a platoon in right. Those aren't holes.

What you're really talking about is the 4th and 5th starters and since you're uncomfortable with probabilities and there's a little more uncertainty around them than the other starters you're calling them holes. They aren't holes. They are players for whom the most likely scenario is that they provide perfectly acceptable production for their positions.

93 wins.

I literally do not understand how someone can look at last year and not think this team is more than 3 games better.

Fuck it. Fuck everyone, I'm predicting 117 wins.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm not butthurt in the least.

No, evidently the trouble is elsewhere.

I root for the same team you do but any optimisim I have is tempered by the holes the team has. Last years team should temper any optimism you guys have. It doesn't and you guys act insulted if someone even slights this team.

Nobody's acting insulted. It's not a question of sentiment or loyalty. It's a question of the ability, or lack thereof, to grasp certain rational processes. Rasputin just did a wonderfully coherent job of laying those processes out -- it had been done a couple of times already in this thread, but I think he wins the prize for lucidity--and in your response you *totally ignored everything he said*. There must be a prize for this, or something.

[Dogman2]

So your baseline is 93. OK. What do you expect once you account for injuries and other variables?

Nope, that is accounting for injuries and other variables. That is accounting for using everyone (known and unknown) throughout the year.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Nope, that is accounting for injuries and other variables. That is accounting for using everyone (known and unknown) throughout the year.

OK, so your projection is right in line with mine. What baseline number of wins did you start at? Because when you take out injuries and other variables, that number should be higher than 93. Even if it's just 2 higher (which would be a fairly small margin of error) you're looking at a difference of 5 wins in your evaluation of the talent level of this team and EV's/Ras'/mine. Is a five win difference in evaluating their talent really worth the shit storm you've stirred up in this thread? Is 5 wins really the difference between rational and preposterous?

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Fuck it. Fuck everyone, I'm predicting 117 wins.

You know, if that happens, SJH should be forced to use BobbyV's tan and smiling face as his avatar.