I thought Nate was a Tiger fan?

He is a Tigers fan. And he hasn't written for BPro in, what, four years? And they've completely overhauled PECOTA since he left.

But apart from that, yeah, totally, Cubs Fan Nate Silver's PECOTA system is totally biased against the 2013 White Sox.

Maybe being a Cubs fan is a weighted bias even Silver’s methodology can’t overcome.

Egad. This is the analysis of a "business news producer"? Is that what they call the guy who gets the donuts?

Even if this was Nate Silver doing it intentionally, "research" should give you more than that.

Did they outperform pythag?

If not that, is PECOTA under projecting the hitters? The pitchers?

Once you know that, any specific player types?

He is a Tigers fan. And he hasn't written for BPro in, what, four years? And they've completely overhauled PECOTA since he left.

His departure also coincided with PECOTA going from best projection system available to worst.

Didn't we discuss this a week ago? The White Sox many years ago made a pact with the devil under which none of their players would ever get injured, and in exchange they had to employ Ozzie Guillen as manager for ten years.

Did they outperform pythag?

Actually, yes, almost all the time under Guillen

Ventura
2012 -3

Ozzie
2011 +4
2010 +2
2009 -1
2008 0
2007 +5
2006 +2
2005 +8

+20 wins over Pytahg from 2005-2011. Only one season under pythag, and that was just -1.

Thats actually pretty impressive. Kevin Towers/Kirk Gibson, eat your heart out.

As we all know, Nate Silver hasn't been involved in PECOTA for several years. Some ####### research this guy did. Colin Wyers, however, is a Cubs fan.

Remember in 2007,when PECOTA guessed 72 wins for the white Sox, prompting about a billion articles like this one, and then the white Sox went on to win exactly 72 games? That was funny.

Colin Wyers, however, is a Cubs fan.

That would seem to insinuate that I'm not very bright, sure, but I really can't figure out what this guy thinks "Nate" (or me) would get out of cooking the books to slant the numbers against the White Sox on purpose.

Interesting that this guy lauds Nate Silver given this his own analysis justifies all the criticism Nate Silver has made about the pundit class.

but I really can't figure out what this guy thinks "Nate" (or me) would get out of cooking the books to slant the numbers against the White Sox on purpose.

Do you think Vegas looks at PECOTA to inform their lines? I could see a good opportunity here for you.

Well, I guess it's better than suggesting it's because Silver is gay. But not by much.

Well, I guess it's better than suggesting it's because Silver is gay. But not by much.

So he wanted to get back at notorious homophobe Ozzie Guillen.It almost makes sense.

Didn't we discuss this a week ago?

Yes.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/ofman_pecota_likely_wrong_about_cubs_sox_predictions

So he wanted to get back at notorious homophobe Ozzie Guillen.

...so Silver engineered outrageously high expectations for the Marlins, leading inevitably to their fire sale and Ozzie's firing. Brilliant!

+20 wins over Pytahg from 2005-2011. Only one season under pythag, and that was just -1.

Thats actually pretty impressive. Kevin Towers/Kirk Gibson, eat your heart

If you want to outperform your Pythagorean record, the best thing to do is to find a really crappy pitcher and put him in the game whenever you are down by a bunch of runs. That way you add to your runs against without changing any outcomes. The 2012 Blue Jays underperformed their Pythagorean record by one game. If they'd only given up 18 extra meaningless runs in blowouts then they'd have outperformed Pythagoras by one game. If John Farrell had managed to find more a bunch more mopup innings for Jesse Chavez, or had put Omar Vizquel on the mound a few times, then he would've outperformed Pythagoras and been a certifiable genius. Hopefully now that he is in to a more saber-aware organization he'll take such steps to improve the team's performance vis a vis Pythagoras.

EDIT: And Guillen's run, I think, was significant. That's not what I'm babbling about.

I'm pretty sure that every fanbase thinks every major outlet has a bias against their team.

If you want to outperform your Pythagorean record, the best thing to do is to find a really crappy pitcher and put him in the game whenever you are down by a bunch of runs. That way you add to your runs against without changing any outcomes.

This explains why the Dbacks have Adam Eaton on the roster. But in typical wacky Dback style they hired the wrong Adam Eaton.

What if you eliminated blowouts (say, 6+ runs) from the Pythag projections? Would there be a significant difference?

Eliminate or cap?

This explains why the Dbacks have Adam Eaton on the roster. But in typical wacky Dback style they hired the wrong Adam Eaton.

They've already drafted the wrong Ryan Zimmerman.

What if you eliminated blowouts (say, 6+ runs) from the Pythag projections? Would there be a significant difference?

That would make sense, as managers do throw in the towel at some inning/run-difference point. Then the guys who need work come into the game and the star players come out.

Pretty sure Dave Cameron is trolling BTF for column ideas. Whichever way the wind blows (defense is the new OBP!) Cameron goes.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-white-sox-and-beating-projections/

I'm pretty sure that every fanbase thinks every major outlet has a bias against their team.

Nah. I don't think major media outlets are biased against the Cubs one bit. In fact, they'd all go sorta nuts in celebration if the Cubs ever pull it off.

They've already drafted the wrong Ryan Zimmerman.

They also barely missed with this guy