The Spirit of the Sky!

Sky Andrecheck lives on as we can see in this headline:

New, revitalized Jazz are semi-legitimate

Ballsy.

Only the most maladjusted and insecure among those on hand at EnergySolutions Arena, including the players, could have cared in the least about the final count Thursday night, when the Jazz opened their 2010 preseason against Portland in the annual Who-Gives-A-Flyin’-Rip Classic.

Yeah. Pre-season NBA basketball is the only thing on earth less meaningful then...well...regular season NBA basketball.

Not even Jerry Sloan cared about the end result. The proof? He played Kyrylo Fesenko, Earl Watson, Sundiata Gaines, Jeremy Evans, and Gordon Hayward for most of the fourth quarter, while the front-line guys spectated.

S.O.P. in preseason basketball games I would guess. I've never actually watched one. It's true. I'm not a scout so why the heck would I?

Winning a game on Oct. 7 mattered not enough to even mention the score here.

Yuck! That sentence left a bad taste in my mouth. But yes, we get the point, preseason basketball doesn't matter. I'm going to fix that sentence also: The game was so meaningless I'm not even going to mention the score.

The numbers on the board were mere digits in the lights on this insignificant night.

Right, the game lacked any meaning. It was a black hole of meaning. Put dog crap in one hand and the meaning of that game in the other and see which one gets filled first. We all get it.


The real issue was how the new and revitalized Jazz would fit together in their first taste of semi-legitimate competition against a semi-legitimate opponent in semi-legitimate circumstances.
The semi-legitimate short answer? Semi-legitimate.

That's some legitimately terrible writing from a semi-legitimate journalist.

But semi-legitimate enough for Deron Williams to believe this bunch of Jazz players could be the best he’s ever competed with in his six seasons here. His only qualifiers: “Once we start clicking,” and, “We’re going to need that second group.”

Why even list these cliche's? Why? And what was Deron supposed to say? "Yeah, without Boozer we're much worse off. I've pretty much written the season off and look forward to playing for the Heat in the future."


The first group, a starting lineup of Williams, Raja Bell, Al Jefferson, Paul Millsap, and Andrei Kirilenko, rolled up a big lead on the Blazers, and from there ... planted a new seed that looked promising, indeed.

The first group 'planted their seed' in the Blazers. Heh...

That's it for me. The rest of the article is a good analysis of the Jazz players and how they looked. Nothing more to see here folks.

Case Closed.

What Would I Do Without You Phil?

Risk of adding Ramirez may be rewarding for Sox

I don't want to get too excited, but the unsure nature of that headline makes me suspicious that my boy Sky Andrecheck is writing headlines for the Tribune. Wow, the combined powers of Phil Rogers and Sky would be unstoppable! Well lets get to the good stuff (me in regular/Phil in italics).

Williams already has traded Daniel Hudson and entry-level lefty David Holmberg for Edwin Jackson, and the Sox have lost six games in the standings with Jackson (at an additional $1.4 million) on the payroll. Here's hoping Williams doesn't add to the body count to lessen the financial burden of acquiring Ramirez.

In 4 starts Edwin has not given up over 1 ER and has a .96 ERA. He also has 2 wins if you care about that sort of thing. My point is, I do not think it's Jackson's fault that the Sox are free falling from the playoff picture.

Considering the Sox are getting such a diminished version of Ramirez that the Dodgers have been starting Scott Podsednik instead of him, the risk seems extreme. But their lineup isn't the greatest either, even if they have averaged 6.2 runs over the last two weeks.

I can't believe Phil is going to make me look up Manny Ramirez's numbers and compare them to Podsednik. Manny OPS .915. Pods .708. The reason they have been starting Pods recently is so Manny doesn't get hurt before the Dodgers could deal him. At 38, Manny is injury prone. That would have been a much more valid argument. I don't see why he didn't mention it.

Ramirez, ejected during a pinch-hit at-bat Sunday in Colorado, has 40 RBIs and a .915 OPS in 66 games this season, which has been interrupted by three stints on the disabled list. Paul Konerko is the only Sox regular who has been as productive with performance prorated by availability.

Oh he did. Way to make me seem like a jerk Phil.

Don't worry too much about Ramirez's dreadlocks and what he does or doesn't do in the clubhouse. He has historically been a non-factor off the field — although, sure, it would be nice if he kept his uniform on until the end of games, something he might not have always done in Los Angeles.

Here's the snap. Go deep. The Sox are so desperate, they're calling the hail-Manny play.

Looks like someone was just as desperate for a joke to end him column with.

Case Closed.

Uncertainty

Obviously if you've ever read this blog you know I read a lot about sabermetric stats and try and keep up on the newest invention of that community. In the course of this you have to read a lot of articles, a lot of articles written by geeks. Now, obviously I'm one of them which is why I feel fine about picking on the lovable stat nerds. One thing I've noticed is their inability to choose a stance to take on anything, like our good friend Sky Andrecheck who wrote his articles with all the confidence of a 12-year-old trying to talk to his best friend's 16-year-old sister when she's sunbathing in her bikini. R. J. Anderson provides us with our latest example. The articles is discussing whether or not the Cubs will trade Lilly and what they could get for him. Also what Type-A status means. The part I want to point to is the end of the article:

The discrepancy seems unlikely to change since the Cubs will soon shift from surrounding Lilly with their 24 other players who present the best collective chance at victory to the other 24 players who have a future in Chicago with value to the Cubs being higher than value to the rest of the league. Presumably the teams have a better grasp on the rankings game than we do, so if Lilly’s moved, don’t be shocked. If he’s kept, don’t be too shocked either.

Let's rewrite that last part a few times and see what happens:
"If Lilly get's hurt, don't be shocked. If he stays healthy, don't be too shocked either."
"If Lilly quits to join a screamo band don't be shocked. If he doesn't, don't be too shocked either."
I could turn this into a board game like Pictionary. I'll call it "Hypothetical Teddy" and it'll have a picture of a teddy bear with his fist under his chin, thinking hard. Man, I'm gonna be so rich I won't have to do this blog anymore. It'll be wonderful.

Case Closed!

There is no God!

I'm not positive, but I think Sky Andrecheck lost his job writing for SI.com. Look here. No articles since April 22nd. This is horrible news for me who built this blog off ripping apart his articles. At least I still have Phil Rogers.

Vanilla Sky

Since I usually pick on Sky Andrecheck, I'm going to switch it up and promote a good article he wrote for SI.com :

Target Field won't likely provide that good ol' home-field advantage

I'm really not trying to pick on Sky

It's just he keeps writing commentaries that are marred with fallacious logic. I'm going to skip to the conclusion of his article:


Even a great closer like Nathan rarely makes a huge difference

The Twins will most likely be replacing Nathan and his 1.80 ERA with a guy whose ERA is 1.5 to 2 runs higher. Whereas Nathan would likely allow just 14 runs in his customary 70 innings of work, his replacement will probably allow nearly double that amount. When you factor in that the closer's innings are worth about 70-percent more than regular innings because of the highly important situations in which they pitch, the number of effective runs given away due to Nathan's absence is about 22. Add in the fact that the Twins' other relievers will now be pitching in more important roles and the math says that the overall impact of the Nathan injury is about 30 runs, translating to about three wins.
Three wins. Losing a closer -- even one of the greatest of all time -- simply isn't terribly costly.
Don't get me wrong, three wins is nothing to sneeze at, and teams pay big money for that kind of production, but in the end even the mighty Nathan is worth only a handful of games. Losing the best closer in baseball may feel like a huge blow to Twins fans, but the reality is that his absence won't dramatically change the course of Minnesota's season. If the Twins finish .500 this year, it probably won't be accurate for fans to say, "If only we had Nathan, we could have been contenders." Likewise, if you thought the Twins would be great before the injury, the loss won't prevent Minnesota from still being a very good ball club.

Just 3 wins. Last year the Twins won the division thanks to a play-in game. The year before that, the Twins lost the division on a play-in game. 2006, division was decided by 1 game. So 3 of the last 4 years, the division has been decided by 1 game. Also, I know Sky didn't waste time doing any real calculations on this, and couldn't be bother to go here, but Nathan has a WAR of about 2 for the last 3 years.

I love how Sky throws in that "teams pay big money for that kind of production" casually when describing how unimportant Nathan is to the Twins.

The real impact of Nathan's injury -- if he does indeed require season-ending surgery -- will only occur if the Twins are once again on the cusp of making the playoffs. If so, his absence could be enough to cause Minnesota to narrowly miss the postseason.

I already pointed that out. That's why his injury does matter.

Various experts have the Twins picked to finish around .500 this season, although with no clear leader in the AL Central, one could easily see the White Sox, Indians, Tigers or Twins all having a legitimate chance at winning the division.

What about the Royals?!?!

It's true that the loss of Nathan is a blow to the Twins' chances, but in the big picture Minnesota's championship hopes will rest far more on the performance of the other 24 players in the clubhouse than on whether or not Joe Nathan is healthy.

Good point Sky, the other 24 players are more valuable than 1 closer.

Case closed!

Sky's back!!!!

I was planning on writing a post about how great the WWE's lead up to Wrestlemania is going, but then I found an article written by my boy Sky Andrecheck...and well...it's too good to pass up. Here's the first one I did by Sky. And as you'll see in this article, he's still as unsure as a freshman asking out the hottest senior in school:


Spring training games aren't as meaningless as they may seem

Alright, way to take a stand Sky. Spring training games are kinda meaningless, but not totally meaningless. There's some meaning. Not a lot. But some. You're like that monk that burned himself alive, except you just lit a shoe box on fire and said "Well you get the idea."

One of the most hopeful sights of the year takes place this week: Pitchers and catchers report to spring training.

At this point I started humming "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year." Then I remembered there's still over a month before opening day. Damn it.

...in a couple weeks they'll even begin playing games. But pretty soon the novelty will wear off. Exhibition games are boring, and of course the results don't have any impact on the regular season.

He does have a point about the novelty wearing off. About 3 innings into the first spring training game I watch I slowly realize, "Why am I watching the Brewers B team facing the Royals B team?" I've found the cure is to throw 'Major League' into the DVD player. All are invited to come over and watch. And feel free to act out your favorite scene.

Count me as one who has never paid much heed to the results of spring training games. If my team gets beat up in a spring training game, I'm not going to get down.

Keep that in mind.

While of course that's technically true, is there a possibility that spring training games really do have some predictive power?

(Slams fists on keyboard) NO!!! The whole point of the article is that they don't matter. Don't go back on your word.

Last year the Los Angeles Angels and New York Yankees were the respective champions of the Cactus and Grapefruit Leagues. And which two teams played for the AL pennant in October? The Angels and Yankees. But don't tell that to the Milwaukee Brewers, who went 22-10 in spring training but struggled during a disappointing regular season, finishing under .500.

Come on Sky. You really want to contradict yourself within the same paragraph? Usually you wait one or two before you do that.

The history books are littered with teams that tore it up in spring training, only to fall to earth during the regular season. The 2006 Marlins come to mind, as do the 2008 Oakland A's. What's that? You don't remember those teams? Of course not, because no one pays attention to spring training records.

Alright, a little more back on track there...wait a second...

But should they? The examples above are just anecdotal.

No!! Don't beat you own argument up.

To get a better idea we need to go back and look at several years of hard data.

Hehehe, he said hard...

As one might expect, there is some association between a team's spring training record and its regular-season record.

Why would we expect that when you just gave a bunch of examples dispelling that notion?

Going back to 2003, there is a small but noticeable correlation (r-squared of .21) between the two.

Can you break that down for those of us who studied cosmetology at Triton Community College?


That's not a very strong correlation, but it certainly is more informative than nothing.

Yes, nothing holds up like facts that don't have a strong correlation. That's why Isaac Newton was so well known. It wasn't that he was right, it's just that he was "informative" and that's better than nothing. It's the Fox News style of science.

But of course we know a lot more about the teams than just their spring training records. We didn't need spring training to tell us that the 2009 Yankees were going to be pretty good and the 2009 Orioles were in for a rough year.

So we're back to spring training doesn't matter?

Sure, the spring training records bore out with those assessments, but the question is whether spring training records can tell us something that we don't already know.

Well you're almost to the end of the article so you better figure out which it is.

To describe what we do already know, there are a slew of expert projections, the most famous of which is the Baseball Prospectus' self-described "deadly accurate" PECOTA projection system, which has been produced since 2003. If spring training records can tell us something beyond what we already know from PECOTA, then they might be worth looking at after all.

Again, he uses "they might". Sky, you just refuse to let anyone pin your opinion down don't you?

Some initial evidence is striking: Of the 20 best spring training teams since 2003, 16 outperformed their PECOTA projections, indicating that there might be reason to give spring records a second look.

Yes!!! You did it. A real argument with facts to back it up!

Putting both a team's PECOTA projection and its spring training record into a statistical model, we can test this theory out more rigorously. Does a team's spring training record really tell us anything? Surprisingly, it does. A team's spring training record is a statistically significant predictor of its regular-season record, even when taking into account its pre-season projection.

Sky, my man, you're on a roll. What else you got for us?

The predictive power of spring training is small, but it's there. Prior to the 2009 season, PECOTA wasn't too high on the chances of the 2009 Angels, expecting them to go 84-78 on the season. However, the Halos had a fantastic spring training winning percentage of .779. Because of their great spring, the new statistical model added about three wins to their projection, predicting them to win 87 games instead of 84. Meanwhile, the Arizona Diamondbacks had a horrible spring training, in which they posted a .324 winning percentage -- vastly below their optimistic 87-75 PECOTA projection. Because their spring was so bad, however, the new model knocked more than three games off of their projected win totals. In this case their poor spring did indeed foreshadow a miserable 70-92 campaign.

What does it all mean? In a nutshell, if your team is having an extremely surprising spring training (for good or for bad), you would do well to adjust your expectations accordingly by about three games.

Check, instead of expecting the Pirates to win 67 games, I'll bump them up to 70. Wohoo!

The Diamondbacks and Angels are extreme examples, so the effect is generally not huge.

Don't go back on it now Sky!

Still, in a sport where every minute detail counts, spring training results can add some insight.

About as much as this article.

Case Closed!

Sky's the limit

It's a bad time to be a fan of the Royals or Pirates. And it has been a bad time for over a decade. Even at my old age it's hard to remember when either of those teams were good. I vaguely remember someone named Bonds playing in Pitt. And I dunno, do the Royals still have Carlos Beltran? No? What about Mike Sweeney? Wow. Guess I should pay attention more. But hurray! I don't have to. Why? Because the unflappable Sky Andrecheck has paid attention, and has high hopes for the clubs. Take it away Andrecheck (his article in italics):


Even for Royals and Pirates, much can change in five years

Are you ready for the 2014 World Series between the Pirates and Royals? It could happen.

Yes, and a black man could become president, but I wouldn't bet on it. Oh...wait. But still that World Series match up is MUCH less likely.

I'll admit that it sounds insane.

Well more unlikely than insane, but continue:

Aren't the Pirates and Royals two small-market teams that just spent the last decade or two in the cellar? Can I really be talking about the same two inept franchises who don't spend much money and whose farm systems are just so-so? Aren't these two teams the same clubs that just lost 99 and 97 games respectively? Even the most optimistic fans in Pittsburgh or Kansas City might concede that there's little hope for contention any time soon. So why on earth would I be predicting a World Series involving these two clubs in just five short years?

How many rhetorical questions does it take to get to your word count mark? And five years is a long time in sports. A LOOOONG time.

First of all, let me say that I'm not predicting it.

Way to go out on a limb. So what is the point of the article then?

But I'm also saying that such a matchup is not out of the question.

Again, not exactly going out on a limb. Right now Sky sounds like a guy who just walked up to a girl in a bar, complimented her shoes or something lame like that, and is now just standing there awkwardly sipping his beer while she squirms in her seat hoping her friends get back with the next round.

Granted, there's not presently a lot to like about the those two teams, but as bad as their fans feel now, it's actually a good bet that a downtrodden club like the Royals or Pirates can turn it around within the just five years.

Alright Sky, now the girl is looking at a picture of Devo on the wall while you're trying to come up with something else to say. Tell her to have a good night, and go back to your stool. Remember, even though you feel embarrassed you have to stay for one more drink or you'll look sad and pathetic.

Flashback to 2004, when there were eight teams that seemed similarly comatose. Coming off several poor seasons in a row, they were reluctant to spend money, resided in small markets and had dwindling fan bases. Indeed, fans of the Expos, Reds, Rays, Tigers, Brewers, Rockies, Royals and Pirates had little hope of brighter days in the near future. What happened, though, was that four of these teams had remarkable success, turning their franchises around and making the playoffs within five years. What's more, three of the teams (Rays, Rockies and Tigers) went to the World Series in that time period.

Lets see, Reds, still can't make playoffs. Expos, no longer there, now the worst team in the league. Tigers, spent a lot of money getting better. Rays hit a prospect goldmine which is the route the Royals and Pirates should take. But again, in five years, any player that's good now, will be too expensive for the Pirates or Royals.

Oh no, Sky just spotted a tall brunette and he's going in:

While it's no guarantee, of course (the other four teams, including Pittsburgh and K.C., continued their ineptitude), previous history shows that it's possible for even the most despondent of clubs to claw back to not only respectability, but to greatness in a short period of time.

Way to show confidence there man. Nothing women or readers like more than a squirrelly guy with no convictions. That's fine though because Sky finally shows some testicular fortitude right here...sorta:

Building on some work I did over at Baseball Analysts, I developed a rough statistical model for predicting future team performance five years down the road. What's surprisingly unimportant is a team's history of winning or losing. In other words, no matter how good or bad your favorite team played last year or last decade, it won't have much of an effect on its performance five years later. This gives hope to every perennial loser, from Washington to Kansas City. Simply put, the fact that your team stinks, and has stunk throughout its recent history, becomes irrelevant in just five short years. While conventional wisdom might say that you can write off a team that has lost year after year, the data (as well as the Rays, Rockies and Tigers) show that, in fact, they've got a shot to be good just like everybody else.

I guess he's kind of taking a stand there, saying that every team has a shot on opening day. That's a sort of stand I suppose. Assuming a conventional platitude is a stand.

Looking at Baseball America's rankings from 1984 through 2009 shows a strong correlation between a team's farm system today and its performance five years from now.

That's probably because 5 years is a long time in sports.

A good farm system can also boost a team's future prospects by another three to five wins. The third important factor, though not as important as the other two, is a team's recent spending history. Not surprisingly, teams which tend to throw money around are expected to do a couple of games better in the future. Their willingness to sign free agents and break the bank to sign a winner bodes well for a team's chances in the future. The other finding, is that, not surprisingly, baseball is unpredictable. Even teams which seem to be sitting pretty now could fall apart in just five years. In statistical terms, the standard errors of any five-year predictions tend to be quite high, meaning that anything can happen.

That's probably because five years is a long time in sports. Sky, did you not read me write this earlier?

The good news, for teams such as the Pirates and Royals, is that their putrid recent history will be irrelevant five years from now. The bad news is that money and market size matter, neither of which are their strong suits. However, earlier this year John Manuel of Baseball America put both the Pirates and Royals in the top half of all farm systems. Considering that farm system talent is a strong indicator of future performance, that's good news.

This part reminds me of that Simpson's Horror episode where Homer buys the Doll for Bart's B-day. The dolls is cursed. That's bad. But it comes with a free 'Frogurt'. That's good!

Factoring in everything, the statistical model predicts that the Royals and Pirates will win just three fewer games than the average team in 2014. This means that even considering all that has gone wrong for these clubs over the past two decades, their chances to contend in 2014 are pretty similar to every other team. In other words, they've got a chance. Given the high degree of variability in these predictions, it's not at all out of the question to predict that one of these clubs will be a contender or even go to the World Series within the next five years.

That whole paragraph means NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING. Why are you still writing if you have nothing else to say? Also you just spent the paragraph before that explaining how it was almost impossible to predict what will happen in 5-years. Remember?

While it's hard to fathom that a team as woeful as Pittsburgh could actually overtake a powerhouse like Los Angeles in five years' time, history shows that it can easily happen.

Read that again. Sky really wrote that. He actually contradicted himself in the SAME SENTENCE. At least earlier in the article he'd wait a paragraph or two. Sky...it's either hard to fathom or not. Don't ask the girl if she wants to see a movie this weekend. Pick a day, Saturday or Friday.

This article goes on for another couple hundred words of him rambling the same point over and over, that the teams have a chance, but he isn't predicting they will, but they could if they do things right, but you need luck, so he predicts they might, but you can't predict the future with certainty, but....

Yeah so Sky I know you got the girl's number, but that's just because she wanted you to go away.

Case Closed.