Kimmi

I bet the FOs look at them as a check against their own projections and opinions.

You guys are cracking me up. Poor Pablo. He gets no love.

From what I understand, JBJ is the everyday CF both on the road and at home. I think Farrell stated that pretty directly. Personally, I prefer JBJ in RF and Mookie in CF, but I will defer to Farrell's ability, knowledge, and experience over mine.

I was just reading an article about how when things are going bad for a team, the media tries to jump on every little "clubhouse turmoil" story and run with it. They tried to do so with the Pablo smartphone story, but that really went nowhere. You also didn't hear anything besides a couple of speculative whispers about Hanley being a clubhouse cancer or about how he is such a lazy person. None of those stories went anywhere. Why? Because it isn't true.

I, for one, have never used the "great in the postseason" argument in defense of Pablo because I know how meaningless postseason stats are relative to the overall ability of a player. I don't believe for a second that someone as statistically oriented as Ben is would ever buy into the "postseason greatness" hype. As far as the weight clause goes, in hindsight, that probably would have been a good idea. That said, some people/players really appreciate their bosses having enough confidence/respect for them not to have to force an issue upon them, and they respond accordingly. It didn't work with Pablo. I get the feeling that Dombrowski has pretty much told him how it's going to be with his conditioning and weight, and if Pablo does not comply to the extent where his performance doesn't suffer, he will find himself doing a lot of sitting.

A man's gotta eat.

Of course. And this is why it is statistically impossible for any person or system to have a sustained level of accuracy of less than 6.4 games.

Why would FOs look at the projections if they have no need for them? Clearly, the projections fulfill some purpose. I agree that their Fangraphs' standings projections likely do not influence their player moves, at least not significantly.

There are reasons why things happen, some of which are out of a player's control. They're not excuses, but reality. As far as I know, Porcello has owned up to his poor performance last season.

Kind of my point. We had some really fluky bad performances last year. Do you think the Sox, as currently constructed, will be contenders this year?

I tend to agree that 92 seems a little optimistic. I'm just saying that it's not unrealistic. There are some on this board that think that the 92 win projection is way out of line, and some that think that the Sox won't even be contenders next season. So, if this team is so unlikely to improve by 11 games, I'd like to hear their reasoning for it? Has our rotation not improved by 4 wins with Price? Has our BP not improved by 3-4 wins with Kimbrel and Smith? Are both Hanley and Pablo going to be below replacement level again? And if so, will they be our starters the whole season or will they be replaced with better options?

Nice. That's this weekend, isn't it? Sounds like a good time. If Pablo is there, give us a report on how "conditioned" he looks.

Well informed fans would likely do as well with standings projections. To be fair, though, I'm guessing most well informed fans probably look at player projections to help form their opinions, which are based off the same data that standing projections are based off of. At any rate, there is a lot of luck involved. I know that if I want to see if my opinion is realistic, I'm going to look at projections from all the major sites, including a site like SI, whose projections are not computer based. In other words, I'm going to compare my projections against the "experts", not a decently informed fan. I think it's like that in any area where predictions are involved.

They serve as an objective reality check. As I said, you are fooling yourself if you think that FOs are not looking at these projections.

Here's why I don't think the 92 wins projection is that out of line: 1. Our Pythagorean W-L was 81-81. Start from there, not our actual record. So, 92 wins would be an 11 win improvement. 2. Hanley and Pablo were both below replacement level last year. If they both regress to just replacement level, that's a 4 win improvement. If either one of them is that horrible again, we have Shaw or Holt who could certainly give us replacement level performance. 3. Our BP last year was awful. Don't underestimate just how bad they were. The additions of Kimbrel and Smith, which in turn lengthen the rest of the pen, easily improve the team by 3 wins, probably more. 4. I will let you all decide how many wins Price adds over Masterson. How many wins will a full year of Rodriguez add? Anywhere close to 4? I would think so. I don't think an 11 win improvement is at all unreasonable. That doesn't include any steps forward from any of our young position players or any improvement Porcello might make. Granted, some players might take steps backwards as well, but the 11 win improvement is still reasonable.

In terms of telling you what will actually happen on the field, no one can predict that with any accuracy for the reasons I've just stated above. In terms of telling you how the team looks on paper, they do a very good job. I know that you have no use for how a team looks on paper, but you can bet that GMs do. You are fooling yourself if you think that the analytics people in the FOs are not looking at Fangraphs, PECOTA, or other projections.

Here's the thing about MLB projections, whether they are made by computers or by the most knowledgeable baseball analyst/scout, because of the randomness of the game and the unknowns of the human element, it is IMPOSSIBLE for any system or person to consistently predict a team's record within 6.4 wins. Here is how one stat geek describes it: "Basically, it's like a law of nature that it is impossible to regularly forecast team records with a margin of error of fewer than around 6.4 wins. Not difficult, but *impossible*. It's impossible in the same sense as constructing a perpetual motion machine is impossible, or turning lead into gold on your kitchen stove is impossible, or accurately determining the temperature 100 years from today at 4:33 pm is impossible. No matter how much you know about the team, and the players, and the second baseman's diet, and the third baseman's mental state, and whether the right fielder is on PEDs ... the best you can do, in the long run, is a standard error of around 6.4 wins. When forecasters have a contest, and after the season, one of them has "won" with, a standard error of, say, 4.9 wins ... well, you may be impressed. But he was certainly at least partly lucky. He beat the natural limit of 6.4. He was better than perfect. You may think you're praising his forecasting acumen, but, really, you're implicitly praising his ability to influence coin tosses." So, if you're expecting any forecaster to be within 2-3 games of most predictions, you are going to be gravely disappointed. It statistically cannot happen. That does not make projections useless, however. They still are a very good gauge of how teams look on paper in terms of talent, and how things should end up if everything went according to plan, even though we all know that they won't. As of now, the Sox are the second best team in baseball on paper. In terms of the offseason, that's about the best a GM can do.

Some people just don't like fun, I suppose. As I said, everyone looks at projections. They aren't foolproof by any means, but nor are they useless. At the very least, they give you an objective view of how the team looks on paper.

Keep in mind, though, that both Vazquez and Hanigan were injured early. The lack of a strong defensive catcher most likely didn't help with either pitch selection or execution. A good game caller will know how to best utilize a pitcher's strengths, which might different in one game than it is in the next. Also, with Swihart being called up before he was ready, I think the coaching staff probably outlined the game plan with Swihart pretty thoroughly before the games. An experienced catcher would know what in game adjustments to make when the game plan isn't working. Swihart probably didn't, but rather tried to stick with the plan even though it wasn't working.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Everyone looks at projections.

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.