SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2024 Red Sox win projections
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 29, 2024 12:59:23 GMT -5
Anybody who is good at statistics and/or psychology: is the 5th percentile outcome more likely than the 95th percentile outcome? Obviously the math will say no, but my gut says yes and I have nothing to back that up. I feel like it's easier to bet on failure, especially when it's a team stat, than success. So many things can go wrong but rarely does everything go right. It depends on what you're doing, IMO. If you're just flipping a coin where there is no force acting against you (I'm sure there's actually a word for it, I just don't know it), then those two percentile outcomes are exactly the same. But when you are in a competitive environment with factors like injuries that disproportionately affect you in the negative (a Devers injury hurts the Red Sox for every game they play whereas an Aaron Judge injury only helps them directly for the 16 or whatever games they play the Yankees), it is just intuitively "easier" to be bad than it is to be good.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Jan 29, 2024 13:07:09 GMT -5
93 wins. Casas and Devers hit 40 bombs each, Duran hits 50 doubles and swipes 40 bags, Giolito puts up a vintage 4-WAR season, Pivetta finally puts it all together and gets Cy Young votes, Story stays healthy the whole season and hits 25 bombs, Grissom takes to second immediately and hits .300, Yoshida maintains an .880 OPS for the full season, and Abreu/O’Neill combine to significantly outproduce Verdugo and Duvall. Tanner Houck adds a nasty splitter that helps him hold lefties to a .700 OPS and greatly reduces his 3rd time penalty. This isn’t especially likely to happen but it’s no less likely than the scenario where they lose 90 games. This feels significantly less likely than a scenario in which they lose 90 games lol, and I say that as someone who is generally optimistic about things still. I would be thrilled if like 30% of these things happened. I guess for me when I go through the list of things that could go wrong next year at each position, a bunch of them already happened last year and they won 78 games. Like, say Story stinks and Grissom can’t play defense. Well, that already happened last year. Devers stunk compared to what we’ve become accustomed to from him. Casas was the worst hitter in baseball for a month and a half, and missed another month on top of that. Kluber was obscenely bad. Houck broke his face. Whitlock got hurt again. Kenley struggled with the long ball. Yoshida slowed down and really stunk. Duran missed nearly two months with injury. Duvall broke his wrist and was swinging a wet noodle for a month after returning. Bello ran out of gas at the end of the year. Realistically, how much worse can it get? How much more room is there for things to go wrong with this collection of talent to lose an extra six games over last year? Is it reasonable to expect more to go wrong with nothing changing to break in their favor? It’s possible, but I don’t see it as very likely at all.
|
|
|
Post by itinerantherb on Jan 29, 2024 13:07:18 GMT -5
The good-but-flawed nature of the roster and the prospect of significant trade deadline moves in either direction makes the prediction game especially slippery this year. Assuming they make at least one more modest move (like SP depth and/or a RH outfielder/backup 1B), I’d guess that they’ll be in the 82-85 range. But that’s exactly the range in which a few wins in either direction could turn them into deadline buyers or sellers. If injuries pile up and/or unprovens like Abreu and Grissom underperform and/or the SP experiments fail, it’s not hard to imagine them at .500 or below at the deadline. In that case, they become sellers and cash in Giolito, Jansen, and Martin, and could well end up at 75 wins or worse. But if things break right and they’re in line for a WC, they could become buyers and end up at 88 or 90. In other words, the prospect of trade deadline moves both expands the team’s already-wide range of possible outcomes and makes my prediction of 82-85 wins the least likely outcome. But I’m feeling optimistic today, so I’ll say that some combination of the massive improvement in the MI and relative health from a good enough rotation makes them buyers at the deadline and they finish at 89 wins.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Jan 29, 2024 13:17:22 GMT -5
Anybody who is good at statistics and/or psychology: is the 5th percentile outcome more likely than the 95th percentile outcome? Obviously the math will say no, but my gut says yes and I have nothing to back that up. I feel like it's easier to bet on failure, especially when it's a team stat, than success. So many things can go wrong but rarely does everything go right. It depends on what you're doing, IMO. If you're just flipping a coin where there is no force acting against you (I'm sure there's actually a word for it, I just don't know it), then those two percentile outcomes are exactly the same. But when you are in a competitive environment with factors like injuries that disproportionately affect you in the negative (a Devers injury hurts the Red Sox for every game they play whereas an Aaron Judge injury only helps them directly for the 16 or whatever games they play the Yankees), it is just intuitively "easier" to be bad than it is to be good. I get where you both are coming from, but the flip side of that is that, usually, you can plan around when things go wrong and take action to mitigate negative outcomes. The 5th percentile outcome isn’t just the scenario where all your primary plans go belly-up, it’s usually when all your backup plans do, too. Conversely, the 95th percentile outcome isn’t necessarily the one where all your primary plans work, it can be one where your secondary plans work out better than expected.
|
|
|
Post by bloomstaxonomy on Jan 29, 2024 13:22:57 GMT -5
It depends on what you're doing, IMO. If you're just flipping a coin where there is no force acting against you (I'm sure there's actually a word for it, I just don't know it), then those two percentile outcomes are exactly the same. But when you are in a competitive environment with factors like injuries that disproportionately affect you in the negative (a Devers injury hurts the Red Sox for every game they play whereas an Aaron Judge injury only helps them directly for the 16 or whatever games they play the Yankees), it is just intuitively "easier" to be bad than it is to be good. I get where you both are coming from, but the flip side of that is that, usually, you can plan around when things go wrong and take action to mitigate negative outcomes. The 5th percentile outcome isn’t just the scenario where all your primary plans go belly-up, it’s usually when all your backup plans do, too. Conversely, the 95th percentile outcome isn’t necessarily the one where all your primary plans work, it can be one where your secondary plans work out better than expected. I so badly want to connect this to the Monty Hall paradox but my brain can't quite get there. Really wish I had that Fields Medal now.
|
|
|
Post by bishop on Jan 29, 2024 13:23:14 GMT -5
While it remains to be seen what is going to happen in the next couple of weeks but the Red Sox roster as currently constructed is somewhat like the Tower of London with a couple of base supports missing or using some wads of Bozooka bubble gum from those old sets of baseball cards to hold your dentures in place. It might work if everything goes right but it wouldn't take much to make it a disaster. Can Whitlock get through a season without being injured? (The same question can be asked of half the roster). Can Houck make it through a line-up twice? Will we all be enthused about Raefala when he is hitting .080 in June as a regular in the line-up? What about Abreu when he is being called the 'Butcher of Fenway' when he is leading the major league outfielders in errors and is playing everyday because of injuries? What happens when Cora stops whining and showing up players in August if they get 15 ganes under .500 With rose colored glasses and squinting, there is path forward to 81 wins. It could just as easily (if not more likely) be 71. Bring on the Patriots! lol - Whitlock is one of 3 guys competing for the 5th starter spot, if he gets hurt they give it to one of the other two. I agree his health is a worry but he's not a critical pitcher I worry about getting hurt. - Seemed like he could do twice, but don't think the lefty issue is getting solved. Would prefer him as a MIRP/piggyback pitcher for that reason. - Rafaela is at best 5th on the depth chart right now. I would be fine with him going through a Pedroia or Casas like slow start if the peripherals are fine, but as it stands he won't be getting every day AB's unless injuries or his performance force it. - Are you mixing Abreu up with Valdez or someone else? He seems like a pretty solid fielder (and much better than their starting LF, CF, SS, 2B, 3B and 1B to start last season, even if I think Duran and Casas did and can continue to improve.) - Barring major injuries and ridiculously bad luck in close games if this team is 15 games under .500 in August I would hope we've already moved on from Cora or plan to do so at the end of the season. This was effectively a .500 team last year with some gaping holes to start the season and some bad injury luck to end it. Corey Kluber was our opening day starter and Kiké/Christian Arroyo our double play combination, we're already a better constructed team even if it feels like they are leaving some upgrades on the table if they don't spend more.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 29, 2024 13:42:10 GMT -5
Anybody who is good at statistics and/or psychology: is the 5th percentile outcome more likely than the 95th percentile outcome? Obviously the math will say no, but my gut says yes and I have nothing to back that up. I feel like it's easier to bet on failure, especially when it's a team stat, than success. So many things can go wrong but rarely does everything go right. It depends on what you're doing, IMO. If you're just flipping a coin where there is no force acting against you (I'm sure there's actually a word for it, I just don't know it), then those two percentile outcomes are exactly the same. But when you are in a competitive environment with factors like injuries that disproportionately affect you in the negative (a Devers injury hurts the Red Sox for every game they play whereas an Aaron Judge injury only helps them directly for the 16 or whatever games they play the Yankees), it is just intuitively "easier" to be bad than it is to be good. I don't agree with this. The definition of the term 5th/95th percentile outcome is mathematical. It is unambiguously, unequivocally, equally likely that the the 5th percentile outcome occurs as it is that the 95th percentile outcome occurs. If the actual results end up landing on the 5th percentile more often than the 95th percentile for a given model it means that the model was wrong about what the 5th and 95th percentiles were, but the true 5th percentile and true 95th percentile outcomes are always equally likely.
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Jan 29, 2024 13:58:07 GMT -5
If the actual results end up landing on the 5th percentile more often than the 95th percentile for a given model it means that the model was wrong about what the 5th and 95th percentiles were, but the true 5th percentile and true 95th percentile outcomes are always equally likely. This is true, but depending on the shape of the distribution of outcomes, it can easily be the case that (say) the 1-20% outcomes are all pretty similar but there is a huge difference between 94% and 95%. When this kind of thing is true it is far more likely that performance will be *near* the 5th %ile than *near* the 95th.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Jan 29, 2024 14:46:56 GMT -5
I get where you both are coming from, but the flip side of that is that, usually, you can plan around when things go wrong and take action to mitigate negative outcomes. The 5th percentile outcome isn’t just the scenario where all your primary plans go belly-up, it’s usually when all your backup plans do, too. Conversely, the 95th percentile outcome isn’t necessarily the one where all your primary plans work, it can be one where your secondary plans work out better than expected. I so badly want to connect this to the Monty Hall paradox but my brain can't quite get there. Really wish I had that Fields Medal now. I’ll take a shot at putting that math minor to good use. The way the Monty Hall problem works is that choosing to switch is really just choosing the two doors you didn’t pick at the start, right? Opening one of them up and revealing a zonk has the psychological effect of tricking you into thinking the choice is now 50-50, but in reality you already knew that at least one of the doors you didn’t pick was a loser. Nothing has actually changed, and there’s still only a 1 in 3 chance you picked the right door at the start. The way this translates to building a baseball team is that even though it’s basically guaranteed that some of your team-building choices aren’t gonna work out, if you give yourself enough options with upside then odds are good that you’re gonna get an overall satisfactory outcome. Having more options mitigates the risk of the bottom falling out, and gives you more chances for someone to have a big year and outperform expectations.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,492
|
Post by shagworthy on Jan 29, 2024 16:24:57 GMT -5
73, and they are out of it by the AS break and guys start getting sent to greener pastures. I agree with this. 73-75 wins. The offense will be a lot better, but unless Bello can make a Cy Young caliber leap, they took a sizable step back in the rotation. There's going to be a bunch of 9-7 losses in their future if they don't add anyone else. I just don't see how you downgrade, even with the injury concerns of Sale to Gialito in that rotation and expect winning. Sure, the infield defense can't possibly be worse, and hopefully an offseason is enough to course correct Yoshida, but we subtracted the only net positive defender in the OF, our rotation is weaker, and our lineup requires a huge leap of faith.
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Jan 29, 2024 16:28:58 GMT -5
Doing this in January doesnt make sense but I still contributed lol.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 29, 2024 16:37:58 GMT -5
73, and they are out of it by the AS break and guys start getting sent to greener pastures. I agree with this. 73-75 wins. The offense will be a lot better, but unless Bello can make a Cy Young caliber leap, they took a sizable step back in the rotation. There's going to be a bunch of 9-7 losses in their future if they don't add anyone else. You in another thread: Do you think Snell would be worth like 12 wins?
|
|
|
Post by iamnotluistiant on Jan 29, 2024 16:53:56 GMT -5
Schell may not be worth 12 wins but the quality of the starting pitching has more of impact on wins and losses that goes beyond an algorithm. Leading and winning begets more winning. Being behind 4-0 after the first inning or 8-1 after 3 innings is not great for winning games (as we all know after the last couple of years especially). I do think having a semi frontline pitcher like Schell would not only extend the staff in terms of providing quality innings but would provide a psychological boost to the team/contribute to a winning attitude. Conversely, not having a frontline pitcher is going to have a greater negative impact on both. How often last year did you think Devers was trying to do too much because the Sox were already 4 or 5 runs in the third or fourth inning?
I am really more skeptical about the Sox starting pitching than most people on this board. Everyone has 'potential' but perhaps maybe aside from Bello who maybe a 3 or perhaps a 4, all the others are either unproven, injury prone or don't really have the stuff to be a starting pitcher (if we are talking about going more than 4 innings). Maybe Breslow can work some miracles but our starting pitching is full of question marks. Is the starting staff going to be better than last year? Hope I am wrong but I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Jan 29, 2024 17:06:17 GMT -5
I agree with this. 73-75 wins. The offense will be a lot better, but unless Bello can make a Cy Young caliber leap, they took a sizable step back in the rotation. There's going to be a bunch of 9-7 losses in their future if they don't add anyone else. I just don't see how you downgrade, even with the injury concerns of Sale to Gialito in that rotation and expect winning. Sure, the infield defense can't possibly be worse, and hopefully an offseason is enough to course correct Yoshida, but we subtracted the only net positive defender in the OF, our rotation is weaker, and our lineup requires a huge leap of faith. There aren’t a ton of things I’m genuinely confident about regarding this team, but I’d be pretty surprised if an Abreu/O’Neill platoon didn’t significantly improve on Verdugo’s production. By all accounts Abreu is a solid defensive outfielder, and O’Neill is no slouch. Duvall was no center fielder, but if they bring him back he should fit well enough in the corners, too. And for better or worse, they’re clearly banking on superior coaching techniques to help the pitching play up. It’s putting a lot of faith in themselves, no doubt about it, but it can work. The Dodgers and Rays don’t just have a keen eye for breakout potential and special minerals in their water, they have best-in-class coaching and training that helps guys become better players.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jan 29, 2024 17:20:30 GMT -5
I agree with this. 73-75 wins. The offense will be a lot better, but unless Bello can make a Cy Young caliber leap, they took a sizable step back in the rotation. There's going to be a bunch of 9-7 losses in their future if they don't add anyone else. You in another thread: Do you think Snell would be worth like 12 wins?
You are also in another thread. They finished with 78 wins last year and are worse off right now then what they were. If Giolito pitches the way he's been since they outlawed the sticky stuff this team is not good. I don't know why or how you can't see that. Its not for shock value. This team just is not good as presently constructed. Snell could give them stability at the top and get them over .500. With luck they could make the 3rd WC playoff spot. An ace does that for a team. Is this team better off with Giolito or Snell?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 29, 2024 17:37:27 GMT -5
You in another thread: Do you think Snell would be worth like 12 wins?
You are also in another thread. They finished with 78 wins last year and are worse off right now then what they were. If Giolito pitches the way he's been since they outlawed the sticky stuff this team is not good. I don't know why or how you can't see that. Its not for shock value. This team just is not good as presently constructed. Snell could give them stability at the top and get them over .500. With luck they could make the 3rd WC playoff spot. An ace does that for a team. Is this team better off with Giolito or Snell? I don't know why or how you came to any conclusion about what I think, given that I haven't given a win prediction yet - and in fact have been arguing all off season that they need more pitching.
Anyway, I think if they had signed Snell rather than Giolito they'd project to be about 1 win better in 2024. (The projections have it around 0.8 wins but I'm rounding up.)
|
|
|
Post by itinerantherb on Jan 29, 2024 18:42:32 GMT -5
You in another thread: Do you think Snell would be worth like 12 wins?
You are also in another thread. They finished with 78 wins last year and are worse off right now then what they were. If Giolito pitches the way he's been since they outlawed the sticky stuff this team is not good. I don't know why or how you can't see that. Its not for shock value. This team just is not good as presently constructed. Snell could give them stability at the top and get them over .500. With luck they could make the 3rd WC playoff spot. An ace does that for a team. Is this team better off with Giolito or Snell?
|
|
|
Post by itinerantherb on Jan 29, 2024 18:46:26 GMT -5
Using 78 wins as the obvious baseline suggests a blinkered view of the current roster. There were two major problems last year—middle infield and starting pitching. They’ve replaced a disastrous middle infield with one that will be at least good. And as of right how, the opening-day rotation is at least as strong as last year a perhaps a little better. Even if Bello just holds steady and even if second-half Pivetta was a mirage (which I don’t believe), they’ve swapped Sale’s upside for Giolito’s reliability, which I’d call a lateral move, and Crawford will begin in the rotation instead Kluber. SP depth is still a problem, as it was last year. Beyond that, they’ve replaced one oft-injured RRH outfielder (Duvall) with another (O’Neil). The only obvious area of decline is the hole left by the loss of Turner, which they may still fill.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 30, 2024 15:41:41 GMT -5
15.
Not 15 wins. But pick 15 in the 2025 draft with 80 wins in 2024 - assuming no significant additions between now and the start of the season.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,664
|
Post by gerry on Jan 31, 2024 0:39:56 GMT -5
After an off-season of surprises I guess 2024 projections really are simple. This is a demonstrably capable team in all elements: hitting, fielding, SP, RP but still need that big bat and steady arm for the next level. If they sign a Montgomery and a Soler or Duval, the Sox will win more than 85 games and compete for the playoffs. If they don’t they won’t.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Feb 5, 2024 8:00:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 5, 2024 10:03:32 GMT -5
On the one hand, a lot of the quotes here that are critical of the team's leadership are sensible. On the other hand, it's kind of wild how far the sentiment has swung based on all of two mediocre and kind of hard-luck seasons.
I think it's that the Mookie trade really scarred Red Sox Nation. Everything since then has been seen in a far more negative light. Assuming it were possible to do so, they probably should have just given him his $400 million, even if it wouldn't have been the best thing for the team's long-term health.
|
|
|
Post by trotman on Feb 5, 2024 11:27:45 GMT -5
First ESPN power rankings are out with Boston at #17 and all our AL East buddies hanging out in the top 10. NL West, NL East and AL West each have 2 representatives. Thank goodness the schedules were changed to reduce inter-division play.
Worst case scenario would be another mediocre team, lacking clear direction at the deadline. Hopefully, Breslow is more active the Bloom but we're still shaping up for another sub .500 team.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Feb 5, 2024 11:49:06 GMT -5
On the one hand, a lot of the quotes here that are critical of the team's leadership are sensible. On the other hand, it's kind of wild how far the sentiment has swung based on all of two mediocre and kind of hard-luck seasons.
I think it's that the Mookie trade really scarred Red Sox Nation. Everything since then has been seen in a far more negative light. Assuming it were possible to do so, they probably should have just given him his $400 million, even if it wouldn't have been the best thing for the team's long-term health.
I can only speak for myself but I just think it's absolutely atrocious to win 78 games 4 years after trading Mookie, and then follow it up with the offseason we've had. If you are going to do a rebuild, then do a rebuild. Instead they have done this weird partial rebuild which in my opinion is the worst of both worlds and how you wind up perpetually a .500-ish team.
Compare the Red Sox to the Cubs, for example. Most people believe the Cubs system is one of of the best in baseball and they just landed 7 guys on MLBs top 100. Of those 7 guys, 4 of them were acquired via trade. None of the Red Sox top 100 guys were acquired via trade, and the only guy in the top 10 is Abreu. You could count Grissom if you want since he would probably be a top 100 guy if eligible, but as good as this system is I don't think it is as good as it should be considering how bad the major league team has been recently.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 5, 2024 14:02:25 GMT -5
On the one hand, a lot of the quotes here that are critical of the team's leadership are sensible. On the other hand, it's kind of wild how far the sentiment has swung based on all of two mediocre and kind of hard-luck seasons.
I think it's that the Mookie trade really scarred Red Sox Nation. Everything since then has been seen in a far more negative light. Assuming it were possible to do so, they probably should have just given him his $400 million, even if it wouldn't have been the best thing for the team's long-term health.
I can only speak for myself but I just think it's absolutely atrocious to win 78 games 4 years after trading Mookie, and then follow it up with the offseason we've had. If you are going to do a rebuild, then do a rebuild. Instead they have done this weird partial rebuild which in my opinion is the worst of both worlds and how you wind up perpetually a .500-ish team.
Compare the Red Sox to the Cubs, for example. Most people believe the Cubs system is one of of the best in baseball and they just landed 7 guys on MLBs top 100. Of those 7 guys, 4 of them were acquired via trade. None of the Red Sox top 100 guys were acquired via trade, and the only guy in the top 10 is Abreu. You could count Grissom if you want since he would probably be a top 100 guy if eligible, but as good as this system is I don't think it is as good as it should be considering how bad the major league team has been recently.
Without getting into the strategic merits, but just to speak to fan sentiment... I do not think a world in which the Red Sox stink for ~5 solid years with like sub-70 win totals and never have that nice run in 2021 is a world in which the fanbase is happier than they are now.
|
|
|