PDA

View Full Version : 2014 Red Sox Statistical Predicitions



BostonSports96
01-16-2014, 10:59 PM
Made this thread for people to post their thought on players stats this season. Here are my predictions, and I went by intervals of 5 so I don't have to guess too much:

1. LF Nava .280/.365/.425, 12 HRs, 50 RBIs, 60 runs (I'll give him more credit than most projections, who make him out to be a fluke)
2. RF Victorino .275/.340/.430, 10 HRs, 55 RBIs, 70 runs, 25 SB
3. 2B Pedroia .300/.370/.430, 15 HRs, 80 RBIs, 80 runs, 20 SB
4. DH Ortiz .295/.380/.545, 28 HRs, 95 RBIs, 60 runs (Feel he's one of those special plyers who just doesn't regress with age, only if he gets injured)
5. 1B Napoli .235/.350/.470, 26 HRs, 75 RBIs, 55 runs
6. SS Bogaerts .280/.350/.450, 18 HRs, 65 RBIs, 55 runs (I feel he'll be good right off the bat, AL ROY favorite)
7. C Pierzynski .265/.295/.430, 17 HRs, 65 RBIs, 45 runs
8. 3B Middlebrooks .240/.295/.430, 22 HRs, 60 RBIs, 45 runs
9. CF Bradley Jr. .260/.335/.400, 7 HRs, 40 RBIs, 55 runs

Bench:

C Ross .220/.280/.370, 6 HRs, 20 RBIs, 20 runs
1B Carp .240/.300/.420, 10 HRs, 35 RBIs, 25 runs
INF Herrera .245/.310/.390, 3 HRs, 30 RBIs, 30 runs
OF Gomes .240/.325/.420, 13 HRs, 50 RBIs, 40 runs

1. Lester 17-9, 3.35 ERA, 210 IP
2. Lackey 14-10, 3.65 ERA, 170 IP
3. Buchholz 12-8, 3.80 ERA, 140 IP
4. Peavy 11-10, 4.15 ERA, 150 IP
5. Doubront 11-4, 4.05 ERA, 140 IP
6. Dempster 8-6, 4.35 ERA, 110 IP

Don't feel like attempting bullpen/call-up projections.

BoSox47
01-16-2014, 11:37 PM
Made this thread for people to post their thought on players stats this season. Here are my predictions, and I went by intervals of 5 so I don't have to guess too much:

1. LF Nava .280/.365/.425, 12 HRs, 50 RBIs, 60 runs (I'll give him more credit than most projections, who make him out to be a fluke)
2. RF Victorino .275/.340/.430, 10 HRs, 55 RBIs, 70 runs, 25 SB
3. 2B Pedroia .300/.370/.430, 15 HRs, 80 RBIs, 80 runs, 20 SB
4. DH Ortiz .295/.380/.545, 28 HRs, 95 RBIs, 60 runs (Feel he's one of those special plyers who just doesn't regress with age, only if he gets injured)
5. 1B Napoli .235/.350/.470, 26 HRs, 75 RBIs, 55 runs
6. SS Bogaerts .280/.350/.450, 18 HRs, 65 RBIs, 55 runs (I feel he'll be good right off the bat, AL ROY favorite)
7. C Pierzynski .265/.295/.430, 17 HRs, 65 RBIs, 45 runs
8. 3B Middlebrooks .240/.295/.430, 22 HRs, 60 RBIs, 45 runs
9. CF Bradley Jr. .260/.335/.400, 7 HRs, 40 RBIs, 55 runs

Bench:

C Ross .220/.280/.370, 6 HRs, 20 RBIs, 20 runs
1B Carp .240/.300/.420, 10 HRs, 35 RBIs, 25 runs
INF Herrera .245/.310/.390, 3 HRs, 30 RBIs, 30 runs
OF Gomes .240/.325/.420, 13 HRs, 50 RBIs, 40 runs

1. Lester 17-9, 3.35 ERA, 210 IP
2. Lackey 14-10, 3.65 ERA, 170 IP
3. Buchholz 12-8, 3.80 ERA, 140 IP
4. Peavy 11-10, 4.15 ERA, 150 IP
5. Doubront 11-4, 4.05 ERA, 140 IP
6. Dempster 8-6, 4.35 ERA, 110 IP

Don't feel like attempting bullpen/call-up projections.

thats a lot of wins coming out of the starters even if a few are projected to to be bullpen appearences out of dempster.

bagwell368
01-17-2014, 09:13 AM
I'm going to wait until the end of ST. I see a lot of solid seasons projected by you, no great ones, nothing really awful. I'd have to say I think we'll get a bit more in the not so good -> awful bracket, and hopefully a few to counteract those on the great side.

Ortiz in the last 7 seasons has 3 (30-35 HR seasons) and 4 (23-29 HR seasons). He's supposed to be 38.5 years old at the start of the season. Ortiz will decline, the question is when. As of now this team is not prepared to handle that this season.

Walligans
01-17-2014, 11:26 AM
Trying to predict rate statistics are a crap shoot but I expect improvement from Middlebrooks, Peavy and the bullpen in general (we blew a lot of games in late innings last year despite Koji's success) and I expect regression from Nava, Napoli and Carp (as well as CF and C).

GeronimoSon
01-17-2014, 11:38 AM
thats a lot of wins coming out of the starters even if a few are projected to to be bullpen appearences out of dempster.

About a 20 % increase in W's from starters (72 W's v 60 W's) with a corresponding 5 % reduction in innings pitched (920 v 970).. In short, an overall improvement in quality of the starting pitching across the board, but, not terribly out of line with what may be possible/probable...

Walli's comment on stat projection.. is noted and true..

Nomar
01-17-2014, 04:07 PM
Nobody having 100 RBIs is unlikely. If Ortiz doesnt it will be because of injury and if he's injured Napoli should rack up RBIs like he did last April. I could give a **** about RBIs though so why am I even typing this?

-Lavigne43-
01-17-2014, 05:09 PM
I think the only things worth projecting are slash lines for hitters and era, K/BB rates for pitchers.

BostonSports96
01-17-2014, 07:11 PM
Nobody having 100 RBIs is unlikely. If Ortiz doesnt it will be because of injury and if he's injured Napoli should rack up RBIs like he did last April. I could give a **** about RBIs though so why am I even typing this?

I think run producing will be a collective effort this year, not one player racking them up unless Ortiz defies odds again. And I think Napoli has a slight regression from his career high 92 RBIs last season, but at least 75. If Ortiz regresses or is injured at all he could finish with under 100 RBIs, considering he only had 109 in the best offense in the league last year. Finally, I could see Bogaerts getting 80 RBIs if he is better than expected in his rookie year.

filihok
01-18-2014, 10:56 PM
Trying to predict rate statistics are a crap shoot

Walli's comment on stat projection.. is noted and true..

Ridiculous.

Here are some projected rate stats for Pedroia, Ortiz and Middlebrooks. If it was a 'crapshoot' then there'd be no way to tell which is which. I bet you guys can guess which projection is for which player

.249/.291/.425
.285/.352/.425
.295/.386/.552

Anybody think that Pedroia, Ortiz and Middlebrooks are equally likely to put up one of those three lines?

Walligans
01-20-2014, 11:38 AM
Ridiculous.

Here are some projected rate stats for Pedroia, Ortiz and Middlebrooks. If it was a 'crapshoot' then there'd be no way to tell which is which. I bet you guys can guess which projection is for which player

.249/.291/.425
.285/.352/.425
.295/.386/.552

Anybody think that Pedroia, Ortiz and Middlebrooks are equally likely to put up one of those three lines?

Projections are better thought of as over/unders than actual predictions of how a player will perform. They are always conservative because that gives them the smallest gaps statistically between the projections and the actual results, and they rarely provide insight in to a player's ability that fans couldn't come up with on their own. Crowd-sourced fan "predictions" are often just as accurate as projections.

filihok
01-20-2014, 06:58 PM
Projections are better thought of as over/unders than actual predictions of how a player will perform.
Most projections are mean projections, yes.
There are, of course, other types.

For example, the mean Davenport Projection for David Ortiz for 2014 is .282/.366/.477
The 90th % projection is .310/.391/.549
the 10th % projection is .252/.333/.425
*http://www.claydavenport.com/ht/ORTIZ19751118A.shtml


They are always conservative because that gives them the smallest gaps statistically between the projections and the actual results
:confused:
They are conservative because that makes them more accurate (smallest gap between projections and actual results)? What are you saying

They are always 'conservative' because they consider, as they should, the risk of injury.
Fan projections are typically optimistic because, I believe, fans don't accurately assess the risk of injury.


Crowd-sourced fan "predictions" are often just as accurate as projections.
Is that an attempt at a criticism of projections?
Because it's not one.

Walligans
01-21-2014, 12:57 PM
Most projections are mean projections, yes.
There are, of course, other types.

For example, the mean Davenport Projection for David Ortiz for 2014 is .282/.366/.477
The 90th % projection is .310/.391/.549
the 10th % projection is .252/.333/.425
*http://www.claydavenport.com/ht/ORTIZ19751118A.shtml


:confused:
They are conservative because that makes them more accurate (smallest gap between projections and actual results)? What are you saying

They are always 'conservative' because they consider, as they should, the risk of injury.
Fan projections are typically optimistic because, I believe, fans don't accurately assess the risk of injury.


Is that an attempt at a criticism of projections?
Because it's not one.

You're talking past me. Projection systems provide very little insight in to how a player will perform that the typical fan couldn't get simply by checking a player's statistics the last few years. They're essentially weighted averages that are regressed to the mean (to make them look more accurate and compensate for a lack of understanding around injuries and playing time). And even then, seasons are a constant cycle of hot and cold streaks and pitchers and hitters adjusting to each other.

For those reasons, to say "I believe X player will hit X amount of home runs next year" is rather arbitrary. It would make more sense to discuss reasons why a player may or may not improve their production from the previous year.

-Lavigne43-
01-21-2014, 02:35 PM
You have to project to build your team. Best way to do that is a combo of stats and rich scouting/insight.

Someone like Ortiz you can easily project a season like his last 3 years and you will be right, unless he's injured or this is the year age gets to him. Someone like Napoli who had a huge babip I would project to have a lower average and OBP, those numbers could potentially crash. Nava's projection would be purely opinion on whether or not you think his season was legit. Victorino is more complex. His numbers were heavily boosted at the end of the season when he exclusively hit right handed. In the playoffs it appeared that right handed pitchers learned how to take care of that. If he goes exclusively right handed next year he might not be as successful vs RHP. On the other hand, fully healthy he might perform better.

BostonSports96
01-21-2014, 09:15 PM
@filihok @Walligans

I really don't give a **** how either of you defines projections or thinks they should work. This space isn't for arguing that. I created this for people to post their statistical predictions/projections for the roster this season. If either of you cares to do any or share them, be my guest to post them here, but not any of that other subjective crap.

Walligans
01-22-2014, 12:50 PM
@filihok @Walligans

I really don't give a **** how either of you defines projections or thinks they should work. This space isn't for arguing that. I created this for people to post their statistical predictions/projections for the roster this season. If either of you cares to do any or share them, be my guest to post them here, but not any of that other subjective crap.

Chill, this is a public forum.

filihok
01-22-2014, 07:36 PM
You're talking past me. Projection systems provide very little insight in to how a player will perform that the typical fan couldn't get simply by checking a player's statistics the last few years. And even then, seasons are a constant cycle of hot and cold streaks and pitchers and hitters adjusting to each other.
Ok?


For those reasons, to say "I believe X player will hit X amount of home runs next year" is rather arbitrary. It would make more sense to discuss reasons why a player may or may not improve their production from the previous year.
That all depends upon what one is trying to do, correct?

filihok
01-22-2014, 07:37 PM
You have to project to build your team. Best way to do that is a combo of stats and rich scouting/insight.
Exactly.

Teams absolutely use projections. I don't understand why some people are so...offended by them.

Walligans
01-22-2014, 07:58 PM
Exactly.

Teams absolutely use projections. I don't understand why some people are so...offended by them.

Who's offended by them?

BostonSports96
01-22-2014, 10:23 PM
Chill, this is a public forum.


Could you please keep the personal stuff to PM's so we can keep this forum baseball related?

Is this not your response to someone else in the "2014 offseason" thread? Why not abide by your own rule in this forum?

You've turned you're baseball related conversation into an argument over definitions and personal opinions with filihok. Keep it to baseball.

filihok
01-22-2014, 10:25 PM
Who's offended by them?
Yeah.
I didn't like that word either.
But I'm fairly confident that you have some idea what I mean.

Walligans
01-22-2014, 10:59 PM
Is this not your response to someone else in the "2014 offseason" thread? Why not abide by your own rule in this forum?

You've turned you're baseball related conversation into an argument over definitions and personal opinions with filihok. Keep it to baseball.

Discussing the validity and accuracy of baseball projections (in a thread about baseball projections) is baseball related.

BostonSports96
01-22-2014, 11:11 PM
Discussing the validity and accuracy of baseball projections (in a thread about baseball projections) is baseball related.

Yeah "discussing"....it's childish arguing over a definition and its application. And you're wrong btw, teams value projections highly....I thought that was the reason why the Sox brought in Bill James and the A's brought in Paul DePodesta.

Try checking Bill James' projections for the Sox roster prior to the 2013 season.....most are almost dead on or pretty close. His were not a 'crap shoot'...not even close.

Walligans
01-22-2014, 11:15 PM
Yeah "discussing"....it's childish arguing over a definition and its application. And you're wrong btw, teams value projections highly....I thought that was the reason why the Sox brought in Bill James and the A's brought in Paul DePodesta.

Try checking Bill James' projections for the Sox roster prior to the 2013 season.....most are almost dead on or pretty close. His were not a 'crap shoot'...not even close.

I never said that teams didn't value projections... if you have an issue with the way I discuss something then please PM me instead of making multiple complaints about it in a forum.

BostonSports96
01-22-2014, 11:24 PM
I never said that teams didn't value projections... if you have an issue with the way I discuss something then please PM me instead of making multiple complaints about it in a forum.

Okay, but can you address the accuracy of Bill James' projections for last season? It seems to me you are arguing that projections and their formulas are a crap shoot (pretty sure you said that too). Explain to me how James's projections were pretty accurate then. Clearly his formula is working for the most part.

Here are his projections compare to the players' performances:http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/33512/james-sox-projections-were-on-mark

Walligans
01-23-2014, 12:06 AM
Okay, but can you address the accuracy of Bill James' projections for last season? It seems to me you are arguing that projections and their formulas are a crap shoot (pretty sure you said that too). Explain to me how James's projections were pretty accurate then. Clearly his formula is working for the most part.

Here are his projections compare to the players' performances:http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/33512/james-sox-projections-were-on-mark

Bill James is in no way involved with the projections that the "Bill James Handbook" publishes. I imagine the work he does for the Red Sox has a lot more to do with projecting the overall value that a player has on offense, defense, baserunning, etc. and has very little to do with trying to predict how many RBI's they will have. I took issue with attempting to project "rate stats", not all projections.

As for the projections published by the Bill James Handbook, they were hit or miss. They projected Middlebrooks would hit 29 home runs, he hit 17. They projected Ellsbury would steal 37 bases, he stole 52. They projected 75 RBI for Napoli, he had 92. They projected 21 stolen bases from Kalish, he didn't play. They were also way off on the ERA's for Buchholz, Doubront, Lackey and Dempster.

BostonSports96
01-23-2014, 02:12 AM
As for the projections published by the Bill James Handbook, they were hit or miss. They projected Middlebrooks would hit 29 home runs, he hit 17. They projected Ellsbury would steal 37 bases, he stole 52. They projected 75 RBI for Napoli, he had 92. They projected 21 stolen bases from Kalish, he didn't play. They were also way off on the ERA's for Buchholz, Doubront, Lackey and Dempster.

James cannot predict injuries/demotions accurately, so his projections on Middlebrooks, Kalish and Buchholz would be expected to be significantly off (considering Kalish didn't play a single game and Buchholz missed three months, so those were weak cop out choices for you to make here). And there is no doubt in my mind Buchholz would have cooled off and pitched something close to a 3.64 ERA over a full season in 2013. There was no way he was going to sustain the success he was having.

Napoli's RBIs were inflated by his unsustainable .367 BABIP last season, and despite that he missed the OPS total by only .005 points. That's freaking good.

And I'm pretty sure nobody projected Lackey having that great of a season one year removed from TJ surgery and two years removed from the worst season in his career.

Overall, more hits than misses, so lets not cherry pick.

Walligans
01-23-2014, 10:19 AM
James cannot predict injuries/demotions accurately, so his projections on Middlebrooks, Kalish and Buchholz would be expected to be significantly off (considering Kalish didn't play a single game and Buchholz missed three months, so those were weak cop out choices for you to make here). And there is no doubt in my mind Buchholz would have cooled off and pitched something close to a 3.64 ERA over a full season in 2013. There was no way he was going to sustain the success he was having.

Napoli's RBIs were inflated by his unsustainable .367 BABIP last season, and despite that he missed the OPS total by only .005 points. That's freaking good.

And I'm pretty sure nobody projected Lackey having that great of a season one year removed from TJ surgery and two years removed from the worst season in his career.

Overall, more hits than misses, so lets not cherry pick.

It's not a cop out, it's illustrating one of the many issues with these projection attempts. Kalish is always injured, and he was projected to be healthy. Middlebrooks was demoted because he played nothing like his projection suggested. You can't discount how wrong the projection was by saying it was because he played poorly enough to be demoted.

You can nitpick about why the projections were wrong, but in the end they missed the mark on roughly half of their projections.

Nomar
01-29-2014, 02:45 AM
Grady Sizemore .275/.365/.520 CPOTY

bagwell368
01-29-2014, 08:01 AM
Grady Sizemore .275/.365/.520 CPOTY

I have to go under: .256/.328/.432 - which is better than JBJ will do, the question is the games played? Can he play game after games? Will he block JBJ, or make it possible/necessary to deal one of: Nava/Carp/Gomes? Carp is the popular choice, Nava makes sense. If Sizemore does as well as I have or above, then BC scores again.

Nomar
01-29-2014, 09:05 PM
I have to go under: .256/.328/.432 - which is better than JBJ will do, the question is the games played? Can he play game after games? Will he block JBJ, or make it possible/necessary to deal one of: Nava/Carp/Gomes? Carp is the popular choice, Nava makes sense. If Sizemore does as well as I have or above, then BC scores again.

I could see that. Mine was a bit of a joke.

theGhost-isGone
01-29-2014, 09:50 PM
@filihok @Walligans

I really don't give a **** how either of you defines projections or thinks they should work. This space isn't for arguing that. I created this for people to post their statistical predictions/projections for the roster this season. If either of you cares to do any or share them, be my guest to post them here, but not any of that other subjective crap.


Chill, this is a public forum.


To be honest, I don't have a problem with your projections or your topics of discussion - but couldn't you lay off the seemingly personal attacks at some of the more senior posters? I haven't been around long, but I can recognize who deserves the respect of fellow posters. Just because this is a public forum doesn't mean you can harass or provoke those who disagree with you or with the projections you come up with. As you can see this has been an issue building up to the point of combustion with some people. Just speaking my 2 cents as this is a public forum, as you so eloquently stated. The "Chill" sentiment can go both ways imo.