What's It Going To Take?

by Landfill on Mar 13, 2007 12:56 PM CDT Comment 32 comments

My sense is that among the knowledgeable, statistically literate baseball pundits (exemplefied by the Rob Neyer/Baseball Prospectus crowd), the consensus is that the Sox are not a contending team. Even if they back down a little from the forecast of a 90 loss season, most of the people I respect are picking the Sox for a non-contender in the very difficult AL Central. The basic thesis is that the excellent 2006 run production is going to decline because it was based on exceptional performances by a few aging and/or injury prone hitters while the mediocre run prevention is unlikely to improve significantly.

The way I see it, we are going to need something like 94 wins to make the playoffs. Even with all the good teams in the Central, someone is going to win a bunch of games so you're not going to steal the Division with 91 wins. By the same token, the second place team in the East is going to be pretty good, so the Wild Card isn't going to sneak in with a crappy NL-type record. So make 94 wins the target. I don't have resources at my fingertips to calculate this, but I'd guess that means a run differential of at least 95 and probably more like 105. Call it 100 runs better than the enemy as a fair target for the playoffs. (And, yes, I know that that the Pythagorean predictions aren't perfect but they serve as a pretty good baseline for this purpose.)

The question is, where are you going to get those 100 runs?

As Smiling Jack Ross said in A Few Good Men, "These are the facts and they are undisputed:"

2005 741 scored (9th), 645 allowed (3rd), (96 diff.) 99-63 (91-71 Pyth.)
2006 868 scored (3rd), 794 allowed (10th), (74 diff.) 90-72 (88-74 Pyth.)

I don't see us scoring 868 runs again. It would be a pleasant shock to me if Dye/Thome/Konerko/Crede were as collectively healthy and awesome as they were in 2006. Could it happen? Sure, but that's not the safe way to bet. Plus, I don't see anyplace in the lineup where the slack is going to be made up. Is Toby Hall going to make up the difference between Dye 2006 and Dye 2007? No. Do even the most optimistic of us seen Anderson and Uribe being alot better than they were in '06? I'm afraid I don't.

So, we're scoring less and every run we don't score, we're going to have to get back on the prevention side, plus 26 more runs prevented on top of that. Can we do that? Well, we did in 2005, but we were much, much worse in 2006 (an increase of 149 runs allowed!). I can see the bullpen, rotation and defense each getting a little better, if things go right, but I don't see any single factor that is going to dramatically improve our run prevention. We didn't acquire Johan Santana. Our bullpen is going to have good and bad patches. Iguchi is not going to turn into Homer Bush. But if we get incremental improvement in all phases of run prevention, we can shave the runs down by more than we lose in runs scored.

And that's what it is going to take, in my view. So, for example, Buehrle has to pitch more like Buehrle. Masset and Haeger have to be better than Cotts and Politte. Anderson and Erstad/Podsednik have to catch the ball better and/or hit enough to stay in the lineup. If we win on enough of those kinds of bets, we can offset the likely offensive decline and contend. But that is alot of things that have to go right and anytime you're betting on a series of contingencies, you are betting against the odds.

So, what do you think? Are my assumptions flawed? Am I missing a source of likely improvement? Or do you agree with me that it is unlikely that the Sox will make the playoffs?

SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.

0 recs | Comment 32 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

most interesting...

The differences between the 05 & 06 teams in personnel aren't that vast. So, one of those years a team could have put 868 runs and given up only 645 (225 Run Difference - Wow) or could have put up 741 and given up 794 (-53 difference).

Go Badgers!

by shaftr on Mar 13, 2007 2:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

thome

is a big difference from everett. but, even taking that into account, you're right.

my view is that our overall pitching will be better and our overall offense will be worse. i think our improved pen will offset our fifth starter being a bit worse and that our other starters will improve from last year. i think that improvement will pretty much offset the decline in our offense.

the story for me will not be so much with the sox but mostly with the other teams in the division. the indians will make up for the decline in the twins. the question for me is how good the tigers will be. the sheffield pick-up for them sort of reminds me of the thome pick-up for us last season. i think their offense will still be quite good but i question whether the pitching will be. verlander looked shaky at the end of last year and has been absolutely lit up so far in the spring. i think they overworked him last year and will see the effects of it. one of these years the gambler has to run out of luck. of course, the tigers are pretty deep pitching-wise so this all could be offset by some of their other guys.

outside of our division, the west looks weaker while the east looks improved. i think the assessment that the wild card will be tougher to get this year is correct. the bosox will be contending again and i like the jays, as well.

if i had to make a prediction, i'd say we'll be on the outside looking in when october rolls around but i see us in serious contention well into september. barring major injuries - and i don't mean thome or crede, i mean pitching - i can't see us losing 90 games.

by larry on Mar 13, 2007 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Playoffs?!

First it would take a run diff. of more like 125-130 runs for a pythagorean 94 wins. Of course only 2 teams in all of baseball got to 94 pytagorean wins (yanks and tigers) last year.

Otherwise, I think your assumptions are solid, but you take them too far. The true talent of the pitching staff is sig. better than last years results, but sig worse than '05 results. Every projection system except PECOTA agrees with that assessment (see fangraphs for a compilation of the other systems). If you average those systems out the big 4 get an average ERA of about 4.25. Much better than last year, but not as good as '05.

So lets split the difference and give them 720 runs allowed.

Offense, they'll be worse than last year and better than '05. 2 of main differences between the teams should remain: Crede's improvement and Thome instead of Everett/occasional Thomas. Anderson and Uribe have to improve because they can't be much worse. If anderson even hits .250 and Uribe posts a .300 OBP those are huge improvements. Dye will regress. Overall I see us closer to last year than '06. The Thome/Everett difference is huge.

So let's give us 820 runs scored. There's your 100 runs! Which is a pythagorean of about 91 wins. We get a little luck to get those last 3 wins and we're in. I would put our over/under right at 91 wins. But of course these are just opinions and we know about those. Let's get started already!

by bhoov on Mar 13, 2007 2:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I accept your runs scored/allowed

as realistic. If they are, I see the other 3 wins coming from here:

50-60 games with no Mack in CF.
Toby Hall with 30-40 starts vs. lefties.

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Mar 13, 2007 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pods/Erstad

Production from the top of the order is critical. If either of those two can somehow manage to pull a good year out of the hat the Sox will score plenty of runs - at least as many as last year. Ozzie seems to have lots of manlove for Erstad, so I hope and pray he has one decent year left in him as he burns up AB's early in the season at the top of the order.

Pitching last year was atrocious. Bullpen seems to be in good shape (ahem, c'mon Bobby), decent production there and top 4 starters returning to norm should be at least 50 fewer runs allowed I would think. Abracadabra... playoffs.

by ChicagoPete on Mar 13, 2007 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bullpen and Midseason?

I agree with most here but the biggest neglect I see is the ability to improve the team mid way/ trade deadline if they are still in contention. Obviously you cant predict that but its impact could be huge.

by Tdogg on Mar 13, 2007 5:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Sox Could be in Trouble

I know many have poo poo'ed the Tigers acquisition of Sheffield but this could the difference the Tigers need to win the WS. Without a doubt the Tigers are the team to beat in the Central. Can the Sox beat them? Sure they can beat them, head-to-head that is, but that's about it. They cannot match the Tigers consistency against less than stellar teams, e.g., the Royals. The Tigers consistently beat the teams they need to beat, the Sox had a habit of executing that.

The pitching outlook is not rosy. The starting rotation, in my opinion, is shakey. The only one I feel comfortable with is Garland. He needs to win 20 or else we are in trouble. Contreas is reverting to his NY days, Vazquez is a pot luck special never knowing what you're going to get and rarely able to go past the 6th, and Buerhle, well we can always pray. KW should unload Buerhle at the earliest possible time and hopefully get more than a prospect in return.

I have a better chance winning lotto than Masset and Haeger having a 2005 Cotts and Politte season. That is absurd. The bullpen is questionable.

Then there is the dynamic duo of the bandit Uribe and his offensive sidekick Anderson. How in the world these two make the starting lineup on opening day is sad. They are major league offensive liabilities. I vote for Erstad in CF, he can't be any worse.

I want to see the Sox win but I am having some doubts. I can only hope for the best. At least Joey Cora will be in the dugout when the Sox bat. That is looking to be the best of the off-season moves, to date.

by waitonhim on Mar 13, 2007 10:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Bullpen

Nobody's asking Masset and Haegar to be a 2005 Cotts and Politte. That's Thornton and MacDougal's job. Masset and probably Sisco would be more like Vizcaino and Marte in 2005, and Haeger, if he makes the team, would be used mostly in mop-up duty, spot starts, and as a bullpen saver because he can pitch every day. To me, that sounds like a strong and balanced bullpen, not a weakness.

by Ryno on Mar 14, 2007 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've got

the offense for about 800 runs... Too much Pods and Erstad could take that down about 25. Rebound years from Anderson and Uribe could have that back near or above last year's mark.

The pitching needs to come down to the 700 runs or fewer area for the Sox to be a serious contender.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 14, 2007 1:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Wouldn't Brian Anderson's possible rebound year...

score more runs for the Charlotte Knights?

by SSH2005 on Mar 14, 2007 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the main areas I've seen offset Pyth W-L

are, not to be cliche but I am, pitching and defense, which is part of the reason the Sox were 8 games better in 2005 than their Pyth W-L. It appears as though KW is atleast trying to recreate that pitching staff. The hope is that Erstad or Podsednik can get back to some type of .335-.350 OBP, because that'd really be all that's necessary at the top of the order for the middle to drive them in. That, and that Anderson and Uribe can be solid offensively.

If the above happens - it's realistic but not likely - the Sox could be in the 810-840 range. At that point, it's about the pitching improving, and the Sox getting a little lucky (or perhaps some of you refer to it as being clutch).

by wite on Mar 14, 2007 2:18 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Luck...

I think the Sox write-up in the 2007 BP explains well how it was "luck" that played a huge factor in the last 2 seasons. Good luck in '05 and bad in '06. That isn't to say that the team wasn't good in '05 but simply that there were factors that were outside of the expected.

I don't want to just rattle off everything in the write-up. But I do think it was HUGE that the 05 pitching staff held opponents to a .658 OPS with runners in scoring position. Last year it was .796. So in 05 they were 40 runs below expected in those situations and in 06 they were 10 runs above expected (which honestly isn't THAT bad). There were just a lot of things that happened that you can't reliably count on to happen again.

I guess I'm agreeing with pretty much what everyone else is saying. The offense will likely dip a bit from last year but should still be solid...Pitching needs to pull its weight if we're hoping for a playoff run. Oh...and a little bit of that '05 "luck" would help too.

AIM: BrentBrookhouse http://www.badlefthook.com - a part of the SportsBlog Nation Family

by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 14, 2007 12:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

is the residue of design

I'd feel a whole lot luckier if BMac or Fredo was the #5 starter right now instead of two ?'s

Floyd had that job pretty much handed to him and he blew it big time. If he can't handle the pressure in ST I sure don't want him starting for us in the majors.

by ChicagoPete on Mar 14, 2007 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Floyd..

stinks. He has always stunk and I don't think Coop has such a miracle touch that he can fix him. Floyd will always be the kind of guy who leaves way too many pitches up and gets hammered because of it.

AIM: BrentBrookhouse http://www.badlefthook.com - a part of the SportsBlog Nation Family

by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 14, 2007 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Based off of 100+ IP in the majors?

by wite on Mar 19, 2007 3:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

pitchers leave baseball after less

not that i'm necessarily agreeing with the final assessment, but that ain't exactly a small sample. if this guy didn't have good "stuff" we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

by larry on Mar 19, 2007 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's half a season of work

for a guy that was once a top 5 pick and, as far as I recall, has never had any major injury at all throughout his career. He may not be the 93-96 with the fastball, but he's still got talent, just as you've said, and his stuff looked pretty good in his last outing. 100 innings is not nearly enough time; whether it's wrong or right, a guy with the talent of Gavin Floyd should be given 300-400 innings at the least to prove himself, and if he can't work in the rotation after that, move him to the pen.

Those that weren't given 100 innings either were in the wrong place at the wrong time, messed up their arms, or never had good stuff to begin with. Gavin Floyd doesn't fit into any of those categories, so I really don't see why he shouldn't be given more of an opportunity to pitch.

by wite on Mar 19, 2007 8:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

300-400 is pretty generous

that's more than two full seasons - 60+ starts. no team can afford having a starter with a WHIP of 1.75 and an ERA approaching 7.00 hanging around for that long. no one - no matter how talented - gets that many chances to prove themselves as a starter.

he'll get one more chance to start with the sox. if he doesn't improve in 4 or so major league starts, he'll be moved to relief. that's the way it goes.

by larry on Mar 19, 2007 10:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

todd van poppel

seems like a pretty good comp for floyd. obviously their situations are a bit different (e.g., because of the contract he signed, he had limited options), but i worry that's pretty much what we've acquired.

by larry on Mar 19, 2007 10:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Van Poppel never had command of his pitches

atleast Floyd's BB/9 have been south of 3.5, save 2005. You're comparing Floyd to a pitcher whose BB/9 rate didn't get below 6 until he was moved to the bullpen. That's a bit unfair, don't you think?

I find Roy Halladay to be a better comparison. Mediocre in his first MLB stint (though his ERA suggests he was solid - he seemed to get really lucky), was horrible after that, figured his shit out in the minors and he was on his way to becoming one of the best starters in the league.

While I've made a comparison to one of the best pitchers in the league, I'm not suggesting Floyd won't be. What I am suggesting is that it took Roy Halladay 230-300 innings to finally turn the corner and become that league's elite starter. You're essentially willing to write Floyd off after a little less than half to a third of the total innings it did Halladay to figure it out.

Basically, if Floyd hasn't figured it out after a season and a half of starting, he's destined to become the next TVP/Jamey Wright. I think he'll be atleast league average 4 months from now, and probably better.

by wite on Mar 20, 2007 12:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It will take 87-88 to win division

I think projection of 94 wins to win division is wrong. It took 96 last year because KC was extremely bad and Indians underachieved. Tigers are not going to win 15 games against KC this year for sure. The division games might split this year like they do in other side of town. I think 87 to 89 wins should be good enough this year to win Central. I see Sox finish Second at the worst in ALC because Minnesota is not getting same production from Cuddeyer and minus Radke they have definately regressed. Same way I see Cleveland's best starter Sowers is not going to get more than 180 innings. For Tigers, I think they collectively overachieved in pitching last year. I pick Sox to win this division. (Hope is never a bad thing)

by indianguy30 on Mar 14, 2007 1:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

sowers their best starter?

by larry on Mar 14, 2007 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sowers

Yes Larry, I don't have split handy, but he was the best starter in American League after All star break behind Santana last year

by indianguy30 on Mar 14, 2007 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's just a bold statement

i know the kid is good - and will only get better - but putting a rookie ahead of c.c. (who, by the way, had a superior WHIP and ERA last year in twice the starts) is interesting. just wondering what you're thinking behind it was.

by larry on Mar 14, 2007 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

More info

May be it was stretch to say that (or my key board didn't stop when I was writing that) but this kid has another buehrle in him. Check out his last 10 games stat.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?share=1&n1=sowerje01&year=2006&t=p#5:14:sum
When I look at CC and his power pitching I always remember he started season on DL 2 years in a row. (Last year he did pitch in 2 innings in first game though)

by indianguy30 on Mar 14, 2007 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh well now you convinced me

That last 10 starts stat is Golden.

Of course, it also shows that Buehrle -- your choice, not mine -- is the worst pitcher in baseball. ever.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 14, 2007 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So

a soft tossing lefty with a pedestrian strikeout rate and an unsustainably high % of runners stranded is the best starter on a team that includes C.C. Sabathia -- who was one of the best pitchers in the AL for the entire season, while throwing in the mid-to-upper 90's and striking out just under one per inning?

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 14, 2007 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eureka!

There you go again injecting reason and analysis into the discussion.

If religion is the opiate of the masses, then I reckon I'm an addict.

by Toonderstrook on Mar 14, 2007 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Way low...

in my opinion. At least 2 of these teams are going to be 90+ win quality. Since 2002 there have only been 2 division winners below what you're suggesting and they were both in bad NL divisions.

92 to win the division? maybe...but anything under 90 just doesn't seem realistic to me.

AIM: BrentBrookhouse http://www.badlefthook.com - a part of the SportsBlog Nation Family

by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 14, 2007 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

90 is a decent number

I have that number reasonably low because I'd guess that a lot of the ALC teams just beat up on each other. I don't think the talent level is very far between the top four teams. If I were forced into answering, I'd say Detroit still holds the top spot (good pitching -- very deep in the staff, too -- and an equal or improved offense with Sheffield) with the Sox and Cleveland as an interchangeable two and three, and Minny as a four (I just can't see how the back of that rotation is going to hold up).

by CWSKeith on Mar 14, 2007 2:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

the tigers

are liable to get even better. they're going to be able to use shelton to shore up the few problem areas they have.

by larry on Mar 14, 2007 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree on Tigers

I disagree on Keith's assessment. They are in the same boat as Sox were last year. We added Thome(Sheffield). Pitching staff too deep(Vazquez + BMac). It is very hard to predict pitching performances year to year especially in bullpen. Who would have thought that from World Championship series to next year(2006) Sox would loose two closers(Shingo and Hermanson) best setup men(Pollite) and best leftie(Cotts - I consider him non factor for 2006 - or rather I consider him one of the reason we missed in 2006). Biggest difference in 2005 to 2006 for Sox was AL Central record + One run game. We simply could not repeat that performance. I think this year we score about 70 less runs and compensate that with half a run lower era in bullpen and rotation.

by indianguy30 on Mar 14, 2007 4:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs