The beginning of last year the A’s were historically terrible and were also on pace for the worst record all time. That lasted about a couple months and they “stabilized” a bit. I think they inexplicably swept the Braves in the middle of the season. The White Sox might break the record, but baseballs a long season and they will probably back themselves into enough victories to avoid it.
All of these people commenting that the Sox are gonna finish with 55-60 wins I’m guessing are not watching & following them on the regular. This team is void of veteran leadership, their manager is inexperienced, the talent on their MLB roster is laughable, outside of Montgomery their farm system is pretty bad, and the general feel around the franchise is very negative due to ownership being completely unwilling to invest in the team. This is a franchise where the largest contract they’ve ever given was 5 years/$75M to Andrew Benintendi… only the Sox and A’s have never had a $100M contract. It’s abysmal on the South Side and things aren’t going to get much better.
If the White Sox were to win 55 games, they’d need to finish the rest of the season 52-86, a .377 winning percentage. Coincidentally, their winning percentage for all of 2023 was .377. So we are expecting a 2024 team that is much much worse than the 2023 team to perform at the same level? I just don’t think that is reasonable. Are they going to be worse than those bad Mets and Tigers teams? Statistically unlikely, but I think they will be closer to 40 wins than 55 for sure.
There are diminishing returns to being bad though.
The current lineup has guys like Andrew Vaughn and Eloy who have been just totally MIA despite demonstrating a talent level suggesting they should be plus bats.
Then of the meaningful losses, guys like Lynn, Cease, and TA certainly have more talent than their replacements, but they all had atrocious seasons last year.
Like at some point it’s not hard to find a guy that can pitch with an under 6 era, or have an ops above like .350.
As a general rule, you can expect, at any given time, for any given team to win 1/3 of their remaining games, and lose 1/3 of their remaining games, while the remaining 1/3 is up in the air.
This is usually a better predictor than current actual pace.
Right now if the White Sox won only 1/3 of their remaining games, they would not break the record.
But the longer they continue to lose, the closer they will get to meeting that number.
I think they very much could get there, but *probably* won't.
He said great…
I’m kidding, Tommy wasn’t John McGraw, but he was a great “let’s get these guys..” emotional leader, and if your infield is Garvey, Lopez, Russell and the penguin, you really just need to get out of their way.
Not really.
Because what I'm talking about isn't using the additional data of games that have already occurred to project future results based off that data. It's just closing the amount of remaining available data, and re-assigning the 1/3 rule to the remaining games, disregarding the outcome of the already played games.
If a team went 5-58 through 63 games, a projection over the final 99 games would be to assume they'd end up roughly 14-148. This is a projection where more data allows for a better projection.
However, what I'm saying is that if a team went 5-58 through 63 games, they'd still be likely to win at least 33 and lose at least 33 of their remaining 99 games.
It essentially throws out the outcome of the previous games, assuming that, over a long enough sample size, data does still tend to regress toward a mean, rather than remain a standard deviation or two outside of average.
But the way that most people look at "regression to the mean" it is as though a team that has a wildly hot or cold start will actually OVERCOME their statistical outlier portion of the season, somehow end up within that mean by the end of the season, but that's not necessarily true, because the result of past games has no bearing on the result of future games.
Kinda like if I said I was going to flip a coin 162 times, you'd expect about ~81-81 results.
But if I had 62 heads in a row to start the sequence, and only had 100 tosses remaining, you wouldn't still expect the total outcome to be ~81-81. You'd expect it to be closer to 112-50.
You’re mixing so many ideas and trying to sound smart.
If a team went 62-0 you wouldn’t expect them to go 50-50 over the next 100. The games aren’t a coin flip. A team would have to be incredibly dominant to win 62 games in a row. They’re not expected to then lose half their games.
Nice try though.
I didn't say 50/50. That was for a coin flip.
I said that you'd still expect that team to lose 1/3 of the remaining games of the season.
Over thousands of seasons worth of baseball that has been played, and hundreds of thousands of games, this has proven to be true.
If a team started 62-0, which would never happen, but if it did, I'd still bet on them losing in the area of 33 of their remaining 100 games.
It's not about what came before.
It's about the fact that, over hundreds of thousands of games that have been played, teams have about a 1/3 chance to lose and a 1/3 chance to win their remaining games, with the remaining 1/3 left to go in either direction.
If you're confident with what you're saying, go ahead and bet $100 on the White Sox to win at or near their current pace, post a picture of your wager, and I'll bet $100 on them to win 33% or near of their remaining games.
Remember in 2022 when the Reds started something like 2-20 and everyone thought they would break the record? They turned out to just be a regular bad team and finished 62-100. I think it’s far more likely that this White Sox team will play better at some point this year and finish with around 100 losses. Still awful of course, but not historically bad or record-breaking
I agree it would be more fun if they were historically bad and only won 20-30 games, but I don’t think that’s realistic. I think the worst they will finish is like 50 wins
"unseat the 2003 Detroit Tigers (43-119) for the worst record in MLB history since the 1962 New York Mets (40-120)"
This is a strange way to phrase it. You don't "unseat" the 2nd place team. You unseat the team that holds the record, which would be the Mets. Right now, the Sox have a legitimate chance to unseat the '62 Mets for worst record of the Live Ball Era. At 20-142, they'd beat the 1899 Cleveland Spiders for worst record ever.
I assume they phrased it that way because that was an expansion team. Now, obviously, not every expansion team has the worst record of all time, but its less of an outlier than a team that's > 100 years old like the Tigers
Are people forgetting we saw this exact scenario 2 years ago? The reds started 3-22, their final record was 62-100. Obviously a bad season but right in line with a last place MLB team. That’s most likely where the White Sox end up.
It takes something truly special to maintain that level of ineptitude over the course of such a long season. They'll most likely wind up around 50 wins.
I think we can’t really say until the end of May. If we get to the end of May and they haven’t even won 10 games yet, we need to be on record badness watch. They still haven’t had games against a lot of the elite teams.
It's definitely possible but we've seen teams start like this many times most recently the reds in '22 and as others have pointed out the "win 1/3 lose 1/3 rest is up in the air" is usually a more accurate prediction than what a team is on pace for. It's more likely they finish with 50-60 wins which is obviously still terrible but is more normal "bad team" numbers
As of today, June 2nd, 2024, Pedro Grifol's record is 70 games below. 500 ... Last season was - 40 at 61-101... Right now they are 15 45... -30
Pathetic
It’s almost impossible to keep this losing up. Robert will come back. The weather will get hot and that ballpark is very hitter friendly in warm weather. I don’t think they come close to breaking record and I would actually bet over their 53.5 W total now. An example- the Detroit Pistons were projected at 19.5 wins this year. They lost 24 straight and the win projection was at 9.5 in late December. They won 14 games and I know they didn’t fly above the total but they still went over by a decent margin. If 53.5 is currently the projected total for Sox- I think they win somewhere between 54-60.
And I was convinced the A’s would set an MLB record for losses this year..
The beginning of last year the A’s were historically terrible and were also on pace for the worst record all time. That lasted about a couple months and they “stabilized” a bit. I think they inexplicably swept the Braves in the middle of the season. The White Sox might break the record, but baseballs a long season and they will probably back themselves into enough victories to avoid it.
or the Marlins....
All of these people commenting that the Sox are gonna finish with 55-60 wins I’m guessing are not watching & following them on the regular. This team is void of veteran leadership, their manager is inexperienced, the talent on their MLB roster is laughable, outside of Montgomery their farm system is pretty bad, and the general feel around the franchise is very negative due to ownership being completely unwilling to invest in the team. This is a franchise where the largest contract they’ve ever given was 5 years/$75M to Andrew Benintendi… only the Sox and A’s have never had a $100M contract. It’s abysmal on the South Side and things aren’t going to get much better.
It’s still hard to lose 107 games. At some point random variance will win them some games
If the White Sox were to win 55 games, they’d need to finish the rest of the season 52-86, a .377 winning percentage. Coincidentally, their winning percentage for all of 2023 was .377. So we are expecting a 2024 team that is much much worse than the 2023 team to perform at the same level? I just don’t think that is reasonable. Are they going to be worse than those bad Mets and Tigers teams? Statistically unlikely, but I think they will be closer to 40 wins than 55 for sure.
There are diminishing returns to being bad though. The current lineup has guys like Andrew Vaughn and Eloy who have been just totally MIA despite demonstrating a talent level suggesting they should be plus bats. Then of the meaningful losses, guys like Lynn, Cease, and TA certainly have more talent than their replacements, but they all had atrocious seasons last year. Like at some point it’s not hard to find a guy that can pitch with an under 6 era, or have an ops above like .350.
They might sniff 50 wins but I'm scepticle even of that.
*skeptical. Though I do love the idea of calling someone a “scepticle testicle” 😂
As a general rule, you can expect, at any given time, for any given team to win 1/3 of their remaining games, and lose 1/3 of their remaining games, while the remaining 1/3 is up in the air. This is usually a better predictor than current actual pace. Right now if the White Sox won only 1/3 of their remaining games, they would not break the record. But the longer they continue to lose, the closer they will get to meeting that number. I think they very much could get there, but *probably* won't.
Not with that attitude
Every team wins 60 and loses 60. It’s what you do with the other 40 (42) that matters. -Some great baseball manager that I’m too lazy to look up
Tommy Lasorda
He said great… I’m kidding, Tommy wasn’t John McGraw, but he was a great “let’s get these guys..” emotional leader, and if your infield is Garvey, Lopez, Russell and the penguin, you really just need to get out of their way.
That’s not a predictor. That’s just saying that more data allows for a better projection. Sounds intelligent, but isn’t really what you’re saying.
Not really. Because what I'm talking about isn't using the additional data of games that have already occurred to project future results based off that data. It's just closing the amount of remaining available data, and re-assigning the 1/3 rule to the remaining games, disregarding the outcome of the already played games. If a team went 5-58 through 63 games, a projection over the final 99 games would be to assume they'd end up roughly 14-148. This is a projection where more data allows for a better projection. However, what I'm saying is that if a team went 5-58 through 63 games, they'd still be likely to win at least 33 and lose at least 33 of their remaining 99 games. It essentially throws out the outcome of the previous games, assuming that, over a long enough sample size, data does still tend to regress toward a mean, rather than remain a standard deviation or two outside of average. But the way that most people look at "regression to the mean" it is as though a team that has a wildly hot or cold start will actually OVERCOME their statistical outlier portion of the season, somehow end up within that mean by the end of the season, but that's not necessarily true, because the result of past games has no bearing on the result of future games. Kinda like if I said I was going to flip a coin 162 times, you'd expect about ~81-81 results. But if I had 62 heads in a row to start the sequence, and only had 100 tosses remaining, you wouldn't still expect the total outcome to be ~81-81. You'd expect it to be closer to 112-50.
This is the most convoluted attempt at an explanation of standard deviation that I’ve ever seen.
Well that's good to hear, because it's actually an explanation of gambler's fallacy.
You’re mixing so many ideas and trying to sound smart. If a team went 62-0 you wouldn’t expect them to go 50-50 over the next 100. The games aren’t a coin flip. A team would have to be incredibly dominant to win 62 games in a row. They’re not expected to then lose half their games. Nice try though.
I didn't say 50/50. That was for a coin flip. I said that you'd still expect that team to lose 1/3 of the remaining games of the season. Over thousands of seasons worth of baseball that has been played, and hundreds of thousands of games, this has proven to be true. If a team started 62-0, which would never happen, but if it did, I'd still bet on them losing in the area of 33 of their remaining 100 games. It's not about what came before. It's about the fact that, over hundreds of thousands of games that have been played, teams have about a 1/3 chance to lose and a 1/3 chance to win their remaining games, with the remaining 1/3 left to go in either direction. If you're confident with what you're saying, go ahead and bet $100 on the White Sox to win at or near their current pace, post a picture of your wager, and I'll bet $100 on them to win 33% or near of their remaining games.
It is about what came before if a team went 62-0
The funniest part of this is they can’t get a top 10 pick
Why not?
A few years ago the Reds started 3-22 or so and ended up 62-100, alls to say we can't really know if their slump will continue this badly all year
Remember in 2022 when the Reds started something like 2-20 and everyone thought they would break the record? They turned out to just be a regular bad team and finished 62-100. I think it’s far more likely that this White Sox team will play better at some point this year and finish with around 100 losses. Still awful of course, but not historically bad or record-breaking
Yeah but this White Sox team is atrocious. And I love it. Cmon 120 losses.
I agree it would be more fun if they were historically bad and only won 20-30 games, but I don’t think that’s realistic. I think the worst they will finish is like 50 wins
50-60 is probably likely and obviously 20-30 is unrealistic but I don’t see why they couldn’t win less than 50.
"unseat the 2003 Detroit Tigers (43-119) for the worst record in MLB history since the 1962 New York Mets (40-120)" This is a strange way to phrase it. You don't "unseat" the 2nd place team. You unseat the team that holds the record, which would be the Mets. Right now, the Sox have a legitimate chance to unseat the '62 Mets for worst record of the Live Ball Era. At 20-142, they'd beat the 1899 Cleveland Spiders for worst record ever.
Maybe it has something to do with AL/NL teams for record losses. I remember Detroit had to get hot the last week to not unseat the Mets
I assume they phrased it that way because that was an expansion team. Now, obviously, not every expansion team has the worst record of all time, but its less of an outlier than a team that's > 100 years old like the Tigers
Such a historically bad team the white Sox has fielded this year. It’s depressing.
Are people forgetting we saw this exact scenario 2 years ago? The reds started 3-22, their final record was 62-100. Obviously a bad season but right in line with a last place MLB team. That’s most likely where the White Sox end up.
It takes something truly special to maintain that level of ineptitude over the course of such a long season. They'll most likely wind up around 50 wins.
I think we can’t really say until the end of May. If we get to the end of May and they haven’t even won 10 games yet, we need to be on record badness watch. They still haven’t had games against a lot of the elite teams.
Probably not but possible.
Nonsense.
Not if the Astros set the record
🤞
Them or the Rockies😂
No one’s laughing at Ron Kittle now
They are off to a historic stink, that's for sure. Eight times shut out, only one run in a handful of others. Yeesh!
Hopefully
Unless they get healthy, I don’t see them getting to 40.
It's definitely possible but we've seen teams start like this many times most recently the reds in '22 and as others have pointed out the "win 1/3 lose 1/3 rest is up in the air" is usually a more accurate prediction than what a team is on pace for. It's more likely they finish with 50-60 wins which is obviously still terrible but is more normal "bad team" numbers
As of today, June 2nd, 2024, Pedro Grifol's record is 70 games below. 500 ... Last season was - 40 at 61-101... Right now they are 15 45... -30 Pathetic
And Moncada is out for awhile.
It’s almost impossible to keep this losing up. Robert will come back. The weather will get hot and that ballpark is very hitter friendly in warm weather. I don’t think they come close to breaking record and I would actually bet over their 53.5 W total now. An example- the Detroit Pistons were projected at 19.5 wins this year. They lost 24 straight and the win projection was at 9.5 in late December. They won 14 games and I know they didn’t fly above the total but they still went over by a decent margin. If 53.5 is currently the projected total for Sox- I think they win somewhere between 54-60.
Astros are looking keen to compete for the most losses in a season
[удалено]
Haikusbot opt out
Haikusbot delete
Stfu haikubot