2016 Starting Rotation

[User Name]

I'd say that Archer and then maybe Stroman are f***ing close.

 

"Sustained" is the key word here. Neither Archer nor Stroman has "sustained" ace level production.

[User Name]

Nobody is crowning the Sox. We are all expecting them to compete for a playoff spot, which isn't the same thing. Jacko just needed to frame an argument so that he could piss all over everything again.

 

Dat Jacko strawman.

[Dojji]

Dojji, there are definitely candidates to take the #2 spot. One could definitely step up. Or all could return to last seasons performance and you'll have a shiny hot rod towing a pile of s*** for the rotation

 

Granted but the statement I was responding to was "we have no #2, abloo hoo hoo all the world is forever ended." Even you know that that is a nonsensical statement

[a700hitter]

Speaking of #2's, what do people think about Cliff Lee? He would be a very expensive dumpster dive and a very risky move. If he would take a deal very heavily weighted with incentives, would you give him a $9 million plus incentives deal? We threw away $9 million on Masterson last year.

[Bellhorn04]

Speaking of #2's, what do people think about Cliff Lee? He would be a very expensive dumpster dive and a very risky move. If he would take a deal very heavily weighted with incentives, would you give him a $9 million plus incentives deal? We threw away $9 million on Masterson last year.

 

We also have to keep in mind, the Sox are well over the tax cap and paying 30% tax on every additional dollar they spend now.

[a700hitter]

We also have to keep in mind, the Sox are well over the tax cap and paying 30% tax on every additional dollar they spend now.

It would be a 1 year commitment. It would be an extra $2.7 million on the base contract. It would be an expensive dumpster dive, but I don't think Lee suits up for chump change.

[User Name]

If they're going to go for a reclamation project, they should go for the best.

[Kimmi]

We have some uncertain situations for sure. Much like last year. Adding Price and a better bullpen makes us look a little better going forward. I think projecting them to be the second best team in all of baseball might be a little premature. they should be better than last year. This is assuming that if we get off to a bad start, changes are made el pronto.

 

Projections tend to change as we get closer to Opening Day. Free agents are still being signed and team rosters are still changing. You all will be happy to know that Davenport's (co-founder of Baseball Prospectus) computer projections have the Sox finishing 2nd in the division with 87 wins, behind the Jays.

 

On a different note, if we get off to a bad start, I have no doubt that changes will be made quickly.

[Kimmi]

It lacks a legit 2 yes, but there are a couple candidates who could step up over the year. Making this kind of sweeping statement is not justified.

 

As was the case last year, our starting rotation is not supposed to be our strength, outside of Price. Our strengths will be our BP, our offense, and our outfield and up the middle defense. Our rotation won't dominate, but should be good enough to get the job done.

[Kimmi]

Let's see if KC can repeat, I pick the Guardians to win the central. They have the best rotation by far in the AL. Good position players as well.

 

I like the Guardians as well.

[jung]

Might depend on whether KC can turn the trick at home again. 51-30 was one heck of a home record. I think Cleveland will likely be the better balanced team but if KC piles up win totals at home like that again, they might be hard to beat. Probably what the projections missed last year regarding KC.

[jacksonianmarch]

The Royals basically saw Holland leave, although he was a shell of himself last season and brought Soria back. They still have Davis and Herrera back there so that three headed monster will be real good. They add in another reclamation project in Kennedy, who could be a real nice buy low candidate and see Cueto move on. They were able to keep Gordon somehow. Their offense should be really good, their defense should be really good, their pen should be really good. Their rotation has Volquez, Ventura, Kennedy, Young and ???. Regardless, KC is gonna be good. I don't believe in Detroit, their moves were puzzling for a team on the rebuild. Minnesota should have some offense, but their rotation is abhorrent. Cleveland will miss Brantley for the beginning of the season and aside from a few positions, will have a terrible lineup. Their pen is solid, their rotation probably the best in the division, but they aren't gonna score runs. KC will win that division by 8 or 9 games this upcoming yr

[jung]

That is one of the things that makes these projections useless. They miss everything about what makes a group of players a game winning team. The Royals are as well designed for the place they play 81 games as any team I have seen in a good long while...at least they were last year and even the year before that. The projections totally miss factors like that which is why they did not rate the Royals highly last year and don't have them rated highly again this year.

[Dojji]

Actually IIRC the Royals were picked to make the playoffs last year after their brilliant postseason performance of the year before. Last year wasn't the first time KC turned the magic on in September.

[cp176]

Projections tend to change as we get closer to Opening Day. Free agents are still being signed and team rosters are still changing. You all will be happy to know that Davenport's (co-founder of Baseball Prospectus) computer projections have the Sox finishing 2nd in the division with 87 wins, behind the Jays.

 

On a different note, if we get off to a bad start, I have no doubt that changes will be made quickly.

 

I'm not happy that someone thinks we are a second place team although I think an 87 win projection isn't too bad. In all honesty, I really don't care at all what the professional projecting say. Just something for me to read and stay semi- involved before things get going. Statistics have meaning for me when the games begin. My interest in them extends to seeing how the players play. Using them to try to determine before the games are played who will win and who should be playing where is for someone else. Clearly their value can and has created great conversation topics. Interesting for sure but ...

[jacksonianmarch]

Andrew Marchand, beat writer for the Yanks, predicted the Yanks to be in first June 1, then start to fade and actually deal off Miller and Gardner at the break to try a rebuild. Interesting

[Bellhorn04]

Andrew Marchand, beat writer for the Yanks, predicted the Yanks to be in first June 1, then start to fade and actually deal off Miller and Gardner at the break to try a rebuild. Interesting

 

Nobody can predict baseball that accurately.

[Kimmi]

That is one of the things that makes these projections useless. They miss everything about what makes a group of players a game winning team. The Royals are as well designed for the place they play 81 games as any team I have seen in a good long while...at least they were last year and even the year before that. The projections totally miss factors like that which is why they did not rate the Royals highly last year and don't have them rated highly again this year.

 

There are absolutely factors that humans can incorporate into their projections that computer systems cannot. OTOH, no human can objectively process the enormous amounts of data that computers can. As with stats in general, it would be foolhardy to not take into consideration as much information as you can, both from the human perspective and from the computer systems. Saying that computer projections are useless is just as foolhardy as saying that human insight into the game doesn't matter.

[jung]

Neither is accurate to within anything worth talking about. its fun with numbers or just fun. Call it what you want. If you took them to Vegas and bet them you would be broke in a nanosecond.

 

Plus Fangraphs has a vested interest in promoting outcomes based on purely stats based analysis. That and the Fantasy Leagues it bolsters are its bread and butter. It has no real interest in the accuracy of a standings projections other than that it gives it another talking point...another means to accumulate stats in a way that produces some result and draws attention (PR). Do you really think they care how accurate they are? If they did they would consider last year and every year they have done them colossal failures.

 

Why sports fans refuse to follow the simplest rule of all...follow the money......The majority of the time, you will come closer to accurate if you follow that simple rule. Whether its Fangraphs or your local supermarket.....follow the money.

Edited January 29, 2016 by jung

[Bellhorn04]

Neither is accurate to within anything worth talking about. its fun with numbers or just fun. Call it what you want. If you took them to Vegas and bet them you would be broke in a nanosecond.

 

I agree, but I'll take it a step further. Betting with Vegas on sports will break most people no matter what system they use. Betting is one of the stupidest things people do. The house wins.

 

When you play poker with your friends at least it's a zero-sum game.

[Kimmi]

Neither is accurate to within anything worth talking about. its fun with numbers or just fun. Call it what you want. If you took them to Vegas and bet them you would be broke in a nanosecond.

 

Plus Fangraphs has a vested interest in promoting outcomes based on purely stats based analysis. That and the Fantasy Leagues it bolsters are its bread and butter. It has no real interest in the accuracy of a standings projections other than that it gives it another talking point...another means to accumulate stats in a way that produces some result and draws attention (PR). Do you really think they care how accurate they are? If they did they would consider last year and every year they have done them colossal failures.

 

Why sports fans refuse to follow the simplest rule of all...follow the money......The majority of the time, you will come closer to accurate if you follow that simple rule. Whether its Fangraphs or your local supermarket.....follow the money.

 

Of course Fangraphs cares how accurate they are. Thinking otherwise is just silly.

 

As I've said many times, I have no doubt that major league teams look at those projections and use them as a gauge or reality check against their own projections. They know that what happens on the field might be something entirely different, but nevertheless, the projections are a very good indicator of the talent level of the team in comparison to other teams.

 

No one is going to Vegas to bet based on the projected standings.

[jung]

Fangraphs cares about the accuracy of its statistical data on players which is what Fangraphs is all about. This is in technical terms what some would call a finite group analysis where each change to one member of the group effects all the other participants and the group size is finite. It is not growing nor can it grow. There are other names for it as well but that one will do for our purposes. A political poll for example is an entirely different kind of statistical analysis where the level of confidence goes up as the number of participants polled increases.

 

There is no practical use for a finite group analysis with a margin for error of +/- 11% or more or a total of 22+%. Elk apparently found the margin for error somewhere on their site. So I am taking his word for that piece. I care to spend zero time looking at fum with numbers. It is statistically invalidated by a number of things not the least of which is the margin for error on the number. It is at the least statistically irrelevant.

 

But you are simply not understanding what Fangraphs does nor the basis for finite group analysis.

 

This is nothing more than an excellent PR tool for Fangraphs for the exact reason that it gets some mileage here. It is simply another way to group numbers in a way that is to some extent provocative ....that is it!

 

Another way to think about this sort of "data" and it barely deserves to be called that is to reduce it to some sort of a betting line. This "projection" would support something like a $1.00 throw away bet. "I bet $1.00 and if I hit, I am a millionaire." It would be the equivalent of a lottery ticket....at best. i would be inclined to think that the actual data being compiled as relevant as far as it goes but the result when used this way is irrelevant.

Edited January 29, 2016 by jung

[Kimmi]

Fangraphs cares about the accuracy of its statistical data on players which is what Fangraphs is all about. This is in technical terms what some would call a finite group analysis where each change to one member of the group effects all the other participants and the group size is finite. It is not growing nor can it grow. There are other names for it as well but that one will do for our purposes. A political poll for example is an entirely different kind of statistical analysis where the level of confidence goes up as the number of participants polled increases.

 

There is no practical use for a finite group analysis with a margin for error of +/- 11% or more or a total of 22+%. Elk apparently found the margin for error somewhere on their site. So I am taking his word for that piece. I care to spend zero time looking at fum with numbers. It is statistically invalidated by a number of things not the least of which is the margin for error on the number. It is at the least statistically irrelevant.

 

But you are simply not understanding what Fangraphs does nor the basis for finite group analysis.

 

This is nothing more than an excellent PR tool for Fangraphs for the exact reason that it gets some mileage here. It is simply another way to group numbers in a way that is to some extent provocative ....that is it!

 

Another way to think about this sort of "data" and it barely deserves to be called that is to reduce it to some sort of a betting line. This "projection" would support something like a $1.00 throw away bet. "I bet $1.00 and if I hit, I am a millionaire." It would be the equivalent of a lottery ticket....at best. i would be inclined to think that the actual data being compiled as relevant as far as it goes but the result when used this way is irrelevant.

 

There may be no use for the data in terms of using it to forecast how the season is actually going to play out. There is use for it in terms of judging the talent level of the team, and for comparing that talent level to the talent levels of other teams.

[jung]

Fine....it is simply not relevant as a projection on standings which is how the data is presented.

 

 

And

 

You don't have to present the data in that format if that is what you are after. In fact, you don't have to prsent the data in that format at all if that is what you are after.

[a700hitter]

There may be no use for the data in terms of using it to forecast how the season is actually going to play out. There is use for it in terms of judging the talent level of the team, and for comparing that talent level to the talent levels of other teams.

If they are using it to measure relative talent levels of teams, that is really misguided.

[Bellhorn04]

If they are using it to measure relative talent levels of teams, that is really misguided.

 

I think some of the data sources like FanGraphs provide can be very useful if used properly and in conjunction with other information.

[jung]

Sure it can....most of it can....but the data is the data and data is what Fangraghs is good at. The data they provide is likely essential to those indulging in Fantasy Leagues for example though I am not one....Rolling that data up into a projection on standing is not data.....nor is it useful to anybody IMO other than Fangraphs itself. Frankly I don't have an issue with that either. Fangraphs is a for profit organization and just like any other for profit organization it finds ways to keep itself relevant. So I have no issues with Fangraphs efforts to provoke thought and discussion by taking data and rolling it up any way they choose. It is when WE then take that and make more of it that it is that I start to respond.

 

The only reason I even think what Elk found was meaningful is because IMO that is Fangraphs saying to its audience, that the way we rolled up THIS DATA into a projection on standings is fun with numbers and nothing more. It becomes a little difficult to run a profitable web based service when your audience has taken your information, bet the mortgage on it and LOST when they themselves did not intend it to be taken seriously even as a comment on the actual outcome of the season about to be played.

 

People want to argue that this is the caliber that can compete for a championship. That is fine as far as it goes. Using this sort of information as part of that argument is simply wrong headed.

 

If the Sox were at the bottom of a list like this and some nitwit Yankee troll came into the site claiming that to be some sort of relevant comment on the season about to be played and the eventual standings I would react the same way.

Edited January 30, 2016 by jung

[Bellhorn04]

The FanGraphs projected standings are merely a product of their player WAR projections, aren't they?

[jung]

I would agree with that in principle. They are probably using more than WAR though as they have so many data points at their disposal. That said, even if more data points were added, that would not result in a meaningful comment on standings because rolling up data this way simply does not offer a result with any statistical relevance. I understand what Fangraphs is doing. It is even doing it in a way that tries to caution its audience about what this stuff is...but some in the audience apparently don't understand what Fangraphs is, don't understand how to read into results of this sort or achieved this way and probably have difficulty parsing Fangraphs very detailed and relevant statistical data from this sort of exercise thinking that one equals the other. It doesn't.

 

You can build a fantasy team using Fangraphs...very helpful...you could even try to build a real team this way...though I would not recommend it. Rolling up those data points into a comment on eventual standings simply does not result in a relevant comment on standings. It is a house of cards that crumbles very quickly and it seems Fangraphs even knows it. Again, I have no issues with Fangraphs.

Edited January 30, 2016 by jung

[User Name]

That's not how it works. You don't sum up WAR and s*** out a projected standing. And why is s***ing on projections such a big deal? It's just a tool that has its limitations.