2016 Starting Rotation

[cp176]

IMO, Farrell, with his undying faith in players and his general stubbornness will play Hanley and Panda till they drop almost regardless of what they are doing with a bit of a nod to Shaw but not much of one. DD does not look inclined to give Farrell an option with regard to Castillo who I expect will play 100+ games or more if he holds up.

 

Loyalty is a great quality to have but when it reaches a point where it is flat out stubbornness and hurts the teams' performance it becomes joke like. If some of the positive predictions just don't seem to working out, I hope Dombrowski will be able to get things done.

[mvp 78]

When you sign a guy for $20M, it's kinda hard to through him on the bench. Panda and Hanley both had better track records than any of their replacements. They were stuck playing Panda. They found an injury to sideline Hanley. Not sure there was anything else to do.

 

Castillo and JBJ both struggled for most of the season. Brock Holt struggled once July hit. I'm not sure there were better options than Hanley and Panda, but they painted themselves into that corner. That's on Ben, not the manager.

[a700hitter]

When you sign a guy for $20M, it's kinda hard to through him on the bench. Panda and Hanley both had better track records than any of their replacements. They were stuck playing Panda. They found an injury to sideline Hanley. Not sure there was anything else to do.

 

Castillo and JBJ both struggled for most of the season. Brock Holt struggled once July hit. I'm not sure there were better options than Hanley and Panda, but they painted themselves into that corner. That's on Ben, not the manager.

 

Ben painted himself into a corner by signing both the Doughnut and Hanley. He left himself with no contingency plan and no maneuverability.

[SoxnCycles]

Ben painted himself into a corner by signing both the Doughnut and Hanley. He left himself with no contingency plan and no maneuverability.

 

No s*** Capt. Obvious.

Can you post that 5000 more times, before the start of the season?

[Kimmi]

Didn't they also say the sox were the favorite coming into last yr? Really reliable

 

No one is saying that projections should be taken as gospel. There is so much randomness in baseball that a team finishing within a 16 game interval around its projection can be considered "normal". It is impossible, not unlikely, but impossible for any projection system or human to make such predictions with a great deal of accuracy over a long and large enough sample.

 

That said, projections are not nothing and they are not random either.

[Kimmi]

Couldn't find one. My guess is that they are so wrong, that they hide that s*** as quick as possible so that people won't immediately ignore the following year's projections. I take zero stock in fangraphs and Bill James' projections as they never seem to remotely pan out.

 

These guys admit their shortcomings and mistakes all the time. They aren't trying to hide anything. They are also constantly tweaking their systems to make them better.

 

They also acknowledge that no matter how good their system is, it will never be able to account for randomness, and it will never be able to replace what can best be described as "gut feelings" when it comes to individual players.

[Kimmi]

Fan graphs tried to project teams as close to the median that they can say they predict most teams accurate down to 8-10 games or so. I cannot conceivably think that the sox are done or that the team as is is a good bet for 92 wins. I think DD has something else up his sleeve. He's still got a lot of prospects and a major hole at #2

 

Most systems are projecting less of a spread in wins between the best teams and the worst teams in recent years.

[Kimmi]

I can see a case for the Sox being projected for 90 wins or so. Their 2015 Pythagorean record was 81-81. I think Price and the bullpen upgrades add about 9 wins on paper.

 

Dave Cameron did an excellent analysis of Fangraphs' projection of 92 wins for the Sox. None of the players' projections are really out of line or overly optimistic, except for the defensive projection for Hanley. Our greatest projected gain is coming in our BP, which was really terrible last year.

 

It's a great read: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/investigating-steamers-optimism-for-the-red-sox/

 

I love this guy.

[a700hitter]

These guys admit their shortcomings and mistakes all the time. They aren't trying to hide anything. They are also constantly tweaking their systems to make them better.

 

Are their results easily searched?

[Kimmi]

Are their results easily searched?

 

Well if you're looking for a single published article with all of their results, there isn't one, as far as I know. However, since all of their projections are published, you should be able to look for yourself on a year by year basis.

 

As I've stated before, because of the randomnesss of the game, it's impossible for any system or for any human to have sustained accuracy better than a certain degree.

 

You can't take the projections as gospel, but that doesn't mean that they're useless either.

 

Here's a good synopsis of projections (many systems, not just Fangraphs) from 2005 to 2014:

 

A graph:

 

 

 

FanGraphs

The first takeaway: there's enough there to show the projections aren't random. On average, teams projected to be bad have been bad, and teams projected to be good have been good. For example, consider the teams projected to win at least 95 games. They've averaged 96 projected wins, and they've averaged 95 actual wins. Now consider the teams projected to win no more than 70 games. They've averaged 68 projected wins, and they've averaged 68 actual wins. Projections mean something. There's both signal and noise.

 

The noise, though, would be the second takeaway. We observe a linear relationship, but with a lot of points bouncing around. People have found this before, but just to re-state it, for the current record: one standard deviation of the difference between actual wins and projected wins is found here to be 8.7. That's a 17-win window, around a central projection, where a team could end up anywhere and it wouldn't even be the slightest bit strange. I know a 162-game season can feel interminable, but it's really not that long, mathematically. There's room for a lot of unpredictability.

[Bellhorn04]

 

FanGraphs

The first takeaway: there's enough there to show the projections aren't random. On average, teams projected to be bad have been bad, and teams projected to be good have been good. For example, consider the teams projected to win at least 95 games. They've averaged 96 projected wins, and they've averaged 95 actual wins. Now consider the teams projected to win no more than 70 games. They've averaged 68 projected wins, and they've averaged 68 actual wins. Projections mean something. There's both signal and noise.

 

For me a question that arises is: how much better are the projections than what a decently informed baseball could do, based on a review of last year's standings and the offseason transactions? You don't need any fancy projection systems to know that St. Louis and the Cubs are going to be at least 30 games better than Milwaukee and Cincy again this year.

[a700hitter]

Well if you're looking for a single published article with all of their results, there isn't one, as far as I know. However, since all of their projections are published, you should be able to look for yourself on a year by year basis.

 

As I've stated before, because of the randomnesss of the game, it's impossible for any system or for any human to have sustained accuracy better than a certain degree.

 

You can't take the projections as gospel, but that doesn't mean that they're useless either.

 

Here's a good synopsis of projections (many systems, not just Fangraphs) from 2005 to 2014:

 

A graph:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]293[/ATTACH]

 

 

FanGraphs

The first takeaway: there's enough there to show the projections aren't random. On average, teams projected to be bad have been bad, and teams projected to be good have been good. For example, consider the teams projected to win at least 95 games. They've averaged 96 projected wins, and they've averaged 95 actual wins. Now consider the teams projected to win no more than 70 games. They've averaged 68 projected wins, and they've averaged 68 actual wins. Projections mean something. There's both signal and noise.

 

The noise, though, would be the second takeaway. We observe a linear relationship, but with a lot of points bouncing around. People have found this before, but just to re-state it, for the current record: one standard deviation of the difference between actual wins and projected wins is found here to be 8.7. That's a 17-win window, around a central projection, where a team could end up anywhere and it wouldn't even be the slightest bit strange. I know a 162-game season can feel interminable, but it's really not that long, mathematically. There's room for a lot of unpredictability.

Who are these projections useful to other than possibly odds makers?

[mvp 78]

Who are these projections useful to other than possibly odds makers?

 

Odds makers do hust as well with their own projections. Not sure they need fangraphs.

[Kimmi]

For me a question that arises is: how much better are the projections than what a decently informed baseball could do, based on a review of last year's standings and the offseason transactions? You don't need any fancy projection systems to know that St. Louis and the Cubs are going to be at least 30 games better than Milwaukee and Cincy again this year.

 

You are right. In terms of standings projections, human projections from sites like SI or ESPN tend to do just as well as the computer projections. For the most part, projected standings tend to be fairly comparable. You do not need a fancy computer system to have a good idea of how the teams should fare.

 

The nice thing about the computer projection systems is that they are completely objective. It's nice, as a "homer" human, to be able to look at them and see that they are on the same page. When I say that I am confident that the Sox will be contenders this season, it's nice to know that Fangraphs agrees with me.

 

That doesn't mean that we'll be right, but it does mean that I'm not out in left field with my opinion.

[Kimmi]

Who are these projections useful to other than possibly odds makers?

 

Everyone looks at projections.

[a700hitter]

Everyone looks at projections.

For individual players for Fantasy teams yes, but I don't know too many people digging into team projections. Not everyone looks at team projections.

[Kimmi]

Odds makers do hust as well with their own projections. Not sure they need fangraphs.

 

Odds makers look at computer projections. It might not be Fangraphs, but one the head Vegas odds maker looks at PECOTA projections, and he said that they also use their own computer programs for other projections.

[a700hitter]

Odds makers look at computer projections. It might not be Fangraphs, but one the head Vegas odds maker looks at PECOTA projections, and he said that they also use their own computer programs for other projections.

They are probably much better at it than FanGraphs.

[Kimmi]

For individual players for Fantasy teams yes, but I don't know too many people digging into team projections. Not everyone looks at team projections.

 

I think most people do. I would bet that most of the sports analysts look at them just to see if they're on the same page. I know the team at SI does. If I recall correctly, they were of the opinion that it would be stupid not to look at them, being in their profession.

[a700hitter]

I think most people do. I would bet that most of the sports analysts look at them just to see if they're on the same page. I know the team at SI does. If I recall correctly, they were of the opinion that it would be stupid not to look at them, being in their profession.

I didn't realize that you were talking about professional analysts who do their own projections. Of course, they would look. They are in the same business creating useless projections. They are not everyone. I doubt GMs are guided by these projections even if they look at them.

[mvp 78]

Odds makers look at computer projections. It might not be Fangraphs, but one the head Vegas odds maker looks at PECOTA projections, and he said that they also use their own computer programs for other projections.

 

Well, of course they have their own projections. I'm not saying all projections are useless, I'm just saying fangraphs is given too much stock for what it is.

[Kimmi]

I didn't realize that you were talking about professional analysts who do their own projections. Of course, they would look. They are in the same business creating useless projections. They are not everyone. I doubt GMs are guided by these projections even if they look at them.

 

I didn't realize that you would take the word "everyone" literally. Somebody's 2 year old niece is obviously not looking at projections.

 

I bet GMs (or someone in the FOs) are looking at projections, and I bet they also have their own projection systems. Again, no one is taking them as gospel. But since most projection systems tend to be in the same ballpark with each other, looking at them is a good gauge of where the team stands, and it's also a good gauge of whether one's projections are reasonable or way out of line.

 

So yes, "everybody" looks at projections.

[Kimmi]

Well, of course they have their own projections. I'm not saying all projections are useless, I'm just saying fangraphs is given too much stock for what it is.

 

I don't think Fangraphs is given too much stock. Most projection systems will largely agree with each other and with human projections when it comes to standings. Even so, people know to take projections with a grain of salt.

 

That said, I do think that projections, meaning both computer and human ones, give you a good idea of how the team looks on paper. As I have many times, assembling a team that looks good on paper is the GM's offseason job.

[User Name]

I don't understand a700's insistence on taking the fun out of everything. I like to look at projections because I like to see/analyze probably scenarios of how the season may play out. I do it when I have some free time, because it's fun. It's not an integral part of my existence, just something to check out and say "Yeah, I agree with that" or "How does that make sense? How did they reach that conclusion?". Nothing more.

[a700hitter]

I didn't realize that you would take the word "everyone" literally. Somebody's 2 year old niece is obviously not looking at projections.

 

I bet GMs (or someone in the FOs) are looking at projections, and I bet they also have their own projection systems. Again, no one is taking them as gospel. But since most projection systems tend to be in the same ballpark with each other, looking at them is a good gauge of where the team stands, and it's also a good gauge of whether one's projections are reasonable or way out of line.

 

So yes, "everybody" looks at projections.

 

Except for "someone's 2 year old niece."

Edited January 17, 2016 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

I am very skeptical of the value of preseason baseball projections. I don't think they have a great track record. Red Sox projections for the last 5 years have been wildly inaccurate. That has certainly been a factor in souring me on them.

[cp176]

I don't understand a700's insistence on taking the fun out of everything. I like to look at projections because I like to see/analyze probably scenarios of how the season may play out. I do it when I have some free time, because it's fun. It's not an integral part of my existence, just something to check out and say "Yeah, I agree with that" or "How does that make sense? How did they reach that conclusion?". Nothing more.

 

I like to see if the projections agree with my own. They are just pretty much entertainment for me. Just like all of the projected stats. I'm not in a position to have to use them and I'm glad of that. Box scores really are just as much fun for me. I want to watch the games, follow my favorites, and in general be entertained.

[a700hitter]

The FanGraphs projections like all other projections are useless except for entertainment value. Knowledgeable GMs could come up with the same projections by just perusing team rosters. The computer models that come up with this stuff is a waste of technology.

[cp176]

The FanGraphs projections like all other projections are useless except for entertainment value. Knowledgeable GMs could come up with the same projections by just perusing team rosters. The computer models that come up with this stuff is a waste of technology.

 

There are a few benefits. Keeps a few people employed and serves to piss off players like Pedroia who really could give a crap about what any of the projections say about how he might or might not perform. A motivated Pedroia is good for us so I hope that he keeps hearing about how he is clearly entering the twilight of his career. Also - even though I am pretty sure that it isn't going to happen - I would be curious to see how Sandoval's overall play would be affeected by his 2 adays as well as a big time weight loss. He might actually present a pleasant surprise as well. You have to think that his weight gain has been at least a little responsible for his downward spiral.

[a700hitter]

There are a few benefits. Keeps a few people employed and serves to piss off players like Pedroia who really could give a crap about what any of the projections say about how he might or might not perform. A motivated Pedroia is good for us so I hope that he keeps hearing about how he is clearly entering the twilight of his career. Also - even though I am pretty sure that it isn't going to happen - I would be curious to see how Sandoval's overall play would be affeected by his 2 adays as well as a big time weight loss. He might actually present a pleasant surprise as well. You have to think that his weight gain has been at least a little responsible for his downward spiral.

 

Let's just hope that Sandoval's 2 adays doesn't refer to naps. Lol!