CHONE picks Indians for 2nd place
Funny how a .500 record now passes for irrational exuberance. You can browse through the projections for every team's roster from Sean's home page.
7 months ago
Jay
93 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Why?
Felix had an amazing year, but he could slide down a bit and still have a great year. Washburn had an amazing superficial 2009, essentially producing what Cliff Lee can if he continues to dominate. Eric Bedard had 15 dominant starts before he got hurt. Who is going to replace that? Gutierrez had a breakout year, Branyan had a career year, Ichiro had perhaps his second-base season at the plate, Aardsma had a career year, and Sean White threw 60 innings of amazing relief despite a 20BB/28K ratio.
Everything went right in 2009, except Beltre’s injury. They were an 83-win team according to their third-order wins, and that’s with so many things going right. They aren’t the 2010 team everyone thinks.
Yeah, you’d think Figgins would predict hist team to finish first considering he just signed there. Good luck with the fanbase Chone.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Feb 5, 2010 10:19 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Dumb Question: Do you pronounce it CHONE, as in how it’s spelled, or Shawn, like “Chone” Figgins?
I've really got to change my signature.
Even when I see Chone Figgins, I pronounce it CHONE.
by Roger Dorn on Feb 6, 2010 12:52 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
He has cousins that live locally that pronounce it with the soft Thome.
I could really use an oscillation overthruster
My high school art teacher’s name was Thome also with the alternate pronunciation.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Feb 6, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
I said “Sa-bay-thia” his whole first year in the majors somehow.
by Logodaedalus on Feb 7, 2010 12:45 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks to John Sanders, I still don’t know how to pronounce Broussard.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 7, 2010 9:24 AM EST up reply actions
I was going to pose this question in one of the many Fanshots where the awesomeness of Jack Z was brought up, but what would happen if Seattle does only win 70 something games? Will Jack Z feel some backlash?
I will consider this upcoming season to be a huge success if we manage to finish.500.
Fixed.
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Feb 6, 2010 12:40 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Also, Santana. Seems like Chone has a much harsher penalty generally for players who haven’t made it to the majors.
The pitching numbers aren’t bad. Carlos Carrasco looks like fun.
When did we get Mike Redmond? I must have missed that.
by odradek on Feb 6, 2010 12:24 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
Agreed. Gotta figure .500 rests on the backs of the starting rotation.
Anything in life is possible, except for skiing through revolving doors.
by MooneysRebellion on Feb 6, 2010 8:08 AM EST up reply actions
You havent’ read Adam/Andrew’s piece yet, have you? 95 loses minimum.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I did, I did. I didn’t know PECOTA had pegged us at 76-86. It seems about right, though.
I just don’t see us cracking 90 losses.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 6, 2010 10:59 PM EST up reply actions
Months ago Jay said that one of the reasons for the decrease in interest in the Tribe was unrealistic expectations. I agree.
I’ll take all of this “Indians finish in second place” action I can find.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
We still have an avatar bet. Was it 15 games under .500? Or a number of games out of first?
Steel Nick
Outside of the Pirates, Nationals, and Orioles, .500 really isn’t unrealistic for any team. The Mariners went from 2nd worst to above .500 in one season.
The Orioles could be a surprise this year. I don’t think they’ll get to .500, but somewhere close to that.
I really thought Markakis was going to be a superstar.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 7, 2010 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
He will be. He’ll be a superstar on a crappy team full of overpriced, over-the-hill veterans in a great ballpark with an owner who can only approach a clue tangentially.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
I am very surprised at all the optimism of this projection. I like all the parity in baseball, however i think it is highly unlikely that there is only one 90 loss team. in that projection the only 90 loss team is the blue jays…how are the nats not a 90 loss team???
I believe 81 wins is possible…POSSIBLE but not likely. the indians are pretty young and raw. shapiro has admitted this is a rebuilding year. Last year we were 65-97. the bill james projection of wins which is usually very accurate had us winning about 72 wins. teams rarely consistently overperform/underperform these numbers (unless the coach is spectacular/horrible). the indians statistically should win at least 73-74 wins. I feel best case scenario is 76-77 wins.
I also think they have underrated the tigers and twins.
I am very surprised at all the optimism of this projection. I like all the parity in baseball, however i think it is highly unlikely that there is only one 90 loss team. in that projection the only 90 loss team is the blue jays…how are the nats not a 90 loss team???
I think you are failing to appreciate how projections work. Projections are basically predicting what the best guess is, a guess that teams will inevitably overperform and underperform. Projections will regress all teams toward a mean, making a very high win projection unlikely and a very low win projection unlikely.
True…
I still think the projections show more parity than I have seen. I highly doubt even other projections put the nationals above 70-72 wins.
here is the bill james pythagorean projection vs the amount of wins the indians actually won during Wedge’s tenure.
2009: James 72-90 Indians 65-97 EW: -7
2008: James 86-76 Indians 81-81 EW: -5
2007: James 87-75 Indians 96-66 EW: +9 (also won manager of the year that yr)
2006: James 85-77 Indians 78-84 EW: -7
2005: James 91-71 Indians 93-69 EW: +2
2004: James 82-80 Indians 80-82 EW: -2
2003: James 77-85 Indians 68-94 EW: -9
Both of these stats do have a margin of error…but there is still a troubling trend. in general, teams do not consistently finish below their projected win rate. if they do, it is a sign of the coaching staff in a way. not all the blame is there, but a good amount.
by these stats, the indians overperformed only twice. once it was by 2 wins (nothing that significant) and one it was by 9 wins. that year wedge won coach of the yr. he did deserve the award, but like dick jauron in buffalo (except the season was with the bears) he had one great season and his teams underperformed at all other times.
Teams in general should finish around the amount they projected too. the yankees did (girardi is a competent manager) and so did the twins. occasionally there will be a difference of a couple but 5 or more is pretty significant. the fact that 4 of wedge’s seasons were signifcantly underperforming (-5, -7, -7, -9) makes me glad he is gone.
while these stats do not truly show completely the competence of a manager, it shows trends and shows generalities. the indians got off to horrible starts which plagued wedge throughout his career here.
if you want to break it down into raw numbers wedge’s contribution was one great season, -19 wins, and only 2 out of 7 seasons above .500 only 2 seasons should we have finished below .500
if they do, it is a sign of the coaching staff in a way.
There is no evidence that this is the cause.
We discussed this to death dozens of times before you arrived. Trust me, there’s no good discussion to be had here.
I am not saying it is always the coaches fault. I never tried to say that wedge deserves even a majority of the blame. at the same time, the indians teams consistently underperformed during wedge and that is a fact. they got off to horrendously slow starts and that is a fact. they won less games than their stats suggest they should…consistently, and that is a fact. whether or not it is all wedge is not for certain. he may have neded up being the scapegoat. but at the same time, teams rarely underperform that badly, that consistently (when compared the the bill james pythagorean projection)
It is rare, but I think you are assuming more than you realize with your statements.
You say they “consistently underperformed,” and I agree with that. But when you say “they won less games than their stats suggest they should,” well, I might agree with that, but that statement rather presupposes that the Pythagorean method is definitive — that it is the last word on how many games a team “should” have won.
I would say that the Pyth method is rather reliable but far from infallible and certainly not definitive. I would say that the Wedge-era Indians are not only suggest problems with Wedge, but equally problems with the Pyth method.
How many games “should” they have won? Enough to win the division. They didn’t, ergo, they underperformed. That’s really the bottom line, right there.
I agree about your analysis of the pythagorean theorem. I never meant for any of this to be taken truly definitively but just some interesting food for though.
I agree, there are probably some flaws with the Pyth method, but I would say that there probably were some problems with wedge (and I felt we did see that at times.
Well, gee, you posted six paragraphs about it, looked up a bunch of stats, stated your opinions in very strong terms … I think you actually did mean for this to be taken truly definitively.
Why can’t you, just one time, say, “Yeah, that’s a good point, maybe I wasn’t totally right about this.” This act of yours where you always say, “That thing that I said before, I actually wasn’t trying to say that at all.” It’s freaking tiresome.
Sometimes, you’re just wrong. Even me. Even you.
by Jay on Feb 10, 2010 11:26 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
You did make a very good point.
I did state it in very strong terms I will admit that and i was wrong, but I never truly meant it to be taken definitively. I admit and I believe I admitted in there, that the stats and analysis I was using was not definitive. the last paragraph does come off as definitive and that was a mistake. I will admit that. the whole thing though was not meant to be definitive. I understand the Pyth Method isn’t definitive, nor is its correlation to coaching.
In legal terms, i was more trying to use it for the effect on the listener, and not the truth asserted. it does not go to the truth of the matter.
Well — assuming for the moment that I’ll take you at your word on that — you need to cut that out. Post what you actually think. This “effect on the listener” crap is way, way above your skill level as a writer.
what do you mean “effect on the listener” crap is way way above my skill level??
I was not saying the whole thing as fact or truth but as something that was interesting. I was not trying to assert truth but just giving food for thought that might make people think. that was my goal.
the point I was trying to make for that is it was an intriguing correlation I noticed. correlation does not mean causation. I will agree to that. What I actually thought was that it was interesting that the indians consistently played under the Pyth level. I should not have posted the last paragraph. It is completely misleading. the rest is actually what I think though.
I am not saying
I never tried to say
I never meant for any of this to be taken
was not meant to
i was more trying to
I was not saying
I was not trying
that was my goal
the point I was trying to make
What I actually thought
I should not have posted
It is completely misleading
the rest is actually what I think
by Brick. on Feb 11, 2010 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 8 recs
not only is this awesome, it also looks awesome.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
Especially in green.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Feb 17, 2010 10:11 PM EST up reply actions
If you’re posting something just because you think it’s interesting or food for thought, then just say that.
If you’re making a serious argument, then say that you are.
Don’t write as if you’re making a serious argument when you’re (allegedly) just trying to present food for thought.
And that is what I mean by “above your skill level.” And though it pains me to point this out, most people would consider the above guidelines simply a matter of common sense.
Looks like our favorite meme will now have to be …
IN
THE
NL
CENTRAL
based on these projections
by talonk on Feb 9, 2010 3:11 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
For lack of a better place to put this, I hope our infield defense “grades out” better than it did last year. Hopefully Peralta, knowing he is going to be at 3B, performs well in the role. Same thing with Cabrera at SS. I think a lot of us liked what we saw from Valbuena at 2B last year but the numbers suggest he was below average. It would be nice to see him improve in that category. And if Donald serves as a super sub at those three positions, it would be nice to see tangible evidence of his above average defensive skills. Improved infield defense would go a long way towards making our young (and not so young) pitchers look better and in that context make our team a lot better.
Garko.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 13, 2010 3:11 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- BIG Series: Padres and Giants set to battle for control of NL West
- The Grandstand: Crunch time in September arrives again
- Hello, Bourjos: Angels rookie plays it fast on both sides of ball
- An off-the-wall take on why the Twins will make the World Series
- John Lindsey couldn't have come any closer to his first at-bat
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
