BP Playoff Odds Report Update

by colintj on Jun 15, 2008 7:07 PM CDT Comment 20 comments

We're down to 65.5% after a peak of 82.7% on June 11. Meanwhile Detroit has gone from a low of 6.8% on June 8 to nearly 20% today. They've picked up a full 5 projected wins on the season in that time span. What I'm getting at is I think Detroit is going to be our main competitor going forward. And, looking at the BP team audit, I think their post-season hopes may very well hinge on Kenny Rogers pitching lights out.

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 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: bp, playoff odds, Chicago White Sox

Comments

yep

that’s why i posted the “must win?” fanpost a few days ago…

by furby2056 on Jun 15, 2008 8:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm liking my 7-1 odds on the Tigers to win the division.

by stanchar on Jun 15, 2008 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didnt you also like the odds for Clev a month ago?

Easy money I believe you said. So how many feel like Detroit will pack it in now? The Sox are definitely streaky. But Detroit and Cleveland now move to the road for 6 straight.

The SSS motto should be the answer to "What is our deepest fear?". Or maybe just Prozac.

by Tdogg on Jun 16, 2008 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

sox extremely streaky

rely too much on long ball. its either all or nothing. when they hit the long ball then they win, as witnessed by the 19 homers in 7 game win streak (or whatever it was). if they not hitting long balls, then they lose many games. their ability to manufacture runs is poor

by The Scoper on Jun 15, 2008 11:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

"Their ability to manufacture runs is poor"

Thus, the reason why we trade David Cook for Tadahito Iguchi in a month and a half.

by JoeCoolMan24 on Jun 16, 2008 12:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

59.2% today

which i think is in the range of where i would have put it without all this fluctuation and whatnot. 2 in 3, perhaps because it’s an easy ratio, has sounded about right to me. i don’t think i really believe that a five game span or whatever can/should actually cause a 20+% difference.

"The Cubs would've won that game. They're the bestest team ever." - SSH2005

by larry on Jun 16, 2008 9:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree on the jumps

It is now taking me a half day’s work to talk my friends off the ledge as usual. Up and down.

The SSS motto should be the answer to "What is our deepest fear?". Or maybe just Prozac.

by Tdogg on Jun 16, 2008 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's sort of funny how these odds have taken on a life of their own

i posted them initially for complete amusement’s sake because i think that’s pretty much what they’re worth. the fact that davenport was fucking up the calcs the whole season certainly adds to that. they’re probably in the ballpark (if the ballpark is petco) but, yeah, if 3% of a season can cause that much of a jump, i’m certainly adding to my already large concerns about what efficacy should be attributed to them.

"The Cubs would've won that game. They're the bestest team ever." - SSH2005

by larry on Jun 16, 2008 9:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm glad you said that...it comes off as way bizarre to me too

5 games in June can decide that much of your fate? That’s a pretty massive change that would indicate a fundamental change in either the enviroment or the team.

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on Jun 16, 2008 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well they have their assumptions

chief amongst them are bonderman and willis collectively throwing 375 innings and producing a VORP in excess of 50. there are a few things wrong with using unadjusted PECOTAs (if only for playing time) from early in the season. not to even get into actual calculations.

"The Cubs would've won that game. They're the bestest team ever." - SSH2005

by larry on Jun 16, 2008 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it certainly isn't the same team.

Galarraga and ??? are replacing those two and the former leads the team in pitching VORP despite being an obvious albeit youngish journeyman with a decidedly unimpressive fastball. They’ll keep hitting, but Zumaya is still a ways off and Rodney is no guarantee according to Carroll.

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on Jun 16, 2008 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

no one is really the same team

the sox, most notably with quentin, aren’t either. pretty much no one is. one can debate about the overall effect of such things (impact is probably more noticeable on a team like the tigers than the royals) but, if we’re going to be attempting to predict/project the final standings with any professed accuracy (which i don’t think BP really does), some more precision is required.

"The Cubs would've won that game. They're the bestest team ever." - SSH2005

by larry on Jun 16, 2008 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Carlos looks to be the sort of player his 90th percentile predicts

fwiw, PECOTA’s 50th percentile on Alexei looks pretty close: .290/.340/.451

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on Jun 16, 2008 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

good point

by The Scoper on Jun 16, 2008 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yea - tell that to the markets too

by Brush Back on Jun 16, 2008 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

sox idle, tigers lose one game, division chances go up 1.7%

"The Cubs would've won that game. They're the bestest team ever." - SSH2005

by larry on Jun 17, 2008 9:38 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

up 6.5% today

even with the twins and tigers both winning. crazy, crazy shit. pass the bong.

"The Cubs would've won that game. They're the bestest team ever." - SSH2005

by larry on Jun 18, 2008 10:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Very strange...

That would seem like too much even if the Twins and Tigers had lost.

Rockies @ White Sox (6/14/2008):
Cy De La Rosa's line -- 5.0 IP, 1 H, 0 ER, 1 BB, 8 SO
The White Sox "unlucky" offense dropped Cy De La Rosa's ERA from 8.13 to 6.89.

by SSH2005 on Jun 18, 2008 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yup

i would imagine the +11 run differential from the game is the primary reason for it since that would bump up the projected win total. this is why the fluctuations should be taken with a hunk of salt.

"The Cubs would've won that game. They're the bestest team ever." - SSH2005

by larry on Jun 18, 2008 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs