Playing the Dozen: Twelve Metrics at Mid-Season
I think this is pretty self-explanatory—six hitting stats, six pitching stats, chosen to measure a range of important qualities on both sides of the ball, with all rankings for the National League only—so (for once) I’ll spare you the throat-clearing and jump right in:
Hitting
Runs: 409, 5th (1st: Reds, 437) (2009 Phillies rank: 1st)
HR: 91, 5th (1st: Reds, 108) (2009: 1st)
OBP: .324, 11th (1st: Braves, .344) (2009: 8th)
SB: 42, 13th (1st: Mets, 83) (NB: 1st in SB pctg) (2009: 2nd)
BB: 276, 11th (1st: Braves, 361) (2009: 7th)
XBH: 266, 4th (1st: Brewers, 292) (2009: 1st)
News flash: the 2010 Phillies aren’t hitting as well as their recent predecessors. With significantly fewer home runs and walks to their credit, the team has scored three runs or fewer in about half their games, and while the injuries to most of the infield certainly have played a part, at least as big a deal is the dropoff from the guys who have been healthy. Outfielders Raul Ibanez, Shane Victorino and Jayson Werth all went to the 2009 all-star game; none of them are there this year, and for cause. In the first half of ’09, Victorino hit .309/.375/.464; this year, .250/.317/.449. Ibanez is slugging more than 250 points below the .649 he put up in the first half a year ago, not surprising given that his homers have plummeted from 22 to 7. Werth’s overall numbers are actually very close to those of his ’09 first half: this year he has a few more singles and doubles, and--like pretty much everyone else on the club--a few less walks and homers.
Then there’s Ryan Howard, who will be going to the Midsummer Classic; he’s projecting for full-season career lows in homers, RBI, walks, strikeouts, and pitches per plate appearance and a career high in hits (also: triples), while flirting with a .300 average. That’s still a fine player, though not the Big Piece the Phils need to anchor their lineup. (Looking for a hopeful sign? Howard’s second-half numbers in ’09 were tremendous, and he’s consistently hit better after the break through his career.) The evidently pending return of Placido Polanco, a .300 hitter who does a bit of everything, should help—but counting on some combination of Greg Dobbs, Cody Ransom, Wilson Valdez and Juan Castro to replace Chase Utley’s production for the next six or seven weeks seems really foolish. Little help here, Ruben?
Pitching
ERA: 3.96, 7th (1st: Padres, 3.21) (2009 Phillies rank: 6th)
OOBP: .313, 2nd (1st: Padres, .303) (NB: 9th in OOPS) (2009: 7th)
K/BB: 1st, 2.65 (2nd: Padres, 2.53) (2009: 1st)
Starter IP: 1st, 555.2 (2nd: Reds, 551.1) (2009: 6th)
Reliever ERA: 3.86 (9th) (1st: Padres, 2.91) (2009: 9th)
WHIP: 1.28, 2nd (1st: Padres, 1.22) (2009: 6th)
The Phillies haven’t turned into a pitching-and-defense team, though games like the consecutive 1-0 wins over the Reds (an even more impressive feat, by the way, when you look at all the offensive categories in which Cincy leads the league) could give you that idea. But while Ruben Amaro and Charlie Manuel claim to be looking for a pitcher on the trade market, the guys now in place have really done just fine. Roy Halladay has more complete games (7) than any other team in the league (Rockies, 5), which largely explains why the Phils starters have racked up so many innings as well as the sterling strikeout-to-walk ratio. The solid performances of Cole Hamels, Jamie Moyer and (for a #5 starter) Kyle Kendrick have kept the team competitive on most of the days Doc doesn’t go. Joe Blanton has been awful, but he’s another second-half guy. If the team does add a starter, it’ll be interesting to see how Manuel carves out innings from Moyer, Blanton and Kendrick.
I’ve long believed that there’s a positive relationship between starter IP and reliever ERA (in that the more the starters work, the better the relievers perform), so it’s a bit of a bummer to see the bullpen squarely in the middle in the pack on that stat… though the imminence of a full return to health among that unit augurs well for second-half performance. Indeed, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Charlie Manuel go to a bullpen pattern on days Halladay isn’t in like the one he used down the stretch in 2007, when Brett Myers, Tom Gordon and J.C. Romero seemed to pitch every night; if they get hot, Romero, Jose Contreras, Ryan Madson and Brad Lidge can replicate that kind of game-shortening effect.
The great philosopher Bill Parcells once said that ultimately, "you are what your record says you are." The Phils’ record through 87 games says that they are a slightly above average ballclub that’s not quite playoff-caliber. Of course, we’re not at "ultimately" yet; and this is a team with some track record to suggest they save their best for the back half. But they’re going to need a lot more from the bats, whether through returns to health and form from the guys who started the year or reinforcements via trade or call-up. (If Ibanez has an OPS under .750 in mid-August, the veteran might sit for Domonic Brown, who will play right while Werth shifts to left. While it's not a perfect comparison, Manuel has benched big-money guys before, as Geoff Jenkins can attest.) Moyer and Kendrick are likely to regress; Blanton is likely to improve; hopefully Halladay keeps on keeping on, and Hamels continues to resemble the solid #2 he needs to be. The health and effectiveness of J.A. Happ is one x-factor; the possible addition of a Dan Haren or Roy Oswalt or Ted Lilly through trade is another.
In a sense, the Phillies already have accomplished something significant: thanks largely to the concluding four-game sweep of the Reds, they exit the first half squarely in the race, having survived a rash of injuries far worse than anything they’ve seen in at least five years. What we’ll see over the next two and a half months is whether this veteran team, having endured, can conquer again.
94 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
But while Ruben Amaro and Charlie Manuel claim to be looking for a pitcher on the trade market, the guys now in place have really done just fine
I’ve said the same in that adding Haren really doesn’t help that club’s problems. This rotation is doing quite well. The bats need to come around. I’ll go so far as to say the team is lucky that it’s W/L record is where it is, considering how atrocious the offense has been.
I don’t suppose telling you that their expected win percentage is .561 would help matters?
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 12, 2010 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure it would.
That’s a 48.8-38.2 (or 49-31) record, which would put us only 2GB, and only 0.5GB in the loss column.
Even the much less forgiving third order adjusted standings from BP — based on equivalent runs scored and surrendered (i.e. the runs are calculated based on peripherals), and adjusted for strength of schedule — paints a rosier picture of the Phils’ situation than the actual standings.
NL EAST GB
Braves 49.4 - 38.6 --
Phillies 45.4 - 41.6 3.5
Marlins 45.6 - 42.4 3.8
Mets 44.8 - 43.2 4.6
…
WILD CARD GB
Padres 47.5 - 40.5 --
Dodgers 47.2 - 40.8 0.3
Phillies 45.4 - 41.6 1.6
Marlins 45.6 - 42.4 1.9
Reds 46.5 - 43.5 2.0
Giants 45.1 - 42.9 2.4
Mets 44.8 - 43.2 2.7
Yes, that took way too long to type out, but I think it shows that even with the injuries and Slumpmas, the Phils haven’t played all that poorly, especially relative to the other National League clubs. Oh, and the added bonus is that it knocks the Mets down a peg.
isn’t that strictly a pythag tho? I imagine after the first part of the year their exp W-L was probably around .650 or something. I think if you could break the team into “pre-getting-caught-stealing-signs” and “post-getting-caught-stealing signs” (disclaimer…i don’t think that has anything to do with the performance, but it marks a semi-convenient transition point in the offesnse, and then normalized the two exp W-L based on # of games, etc…..you’d find the phils lucky to have won what they have. (confused now?)
I think in the same way that Lee was more important for the playoffs than he was for the division last year, Haren’s value would come as a guy who can shut down a good-to-great lineup in a huge spot. The “Ha-Ha-Ha” playoff rotation would be pretty scary for any NL opponent at least.
That said, Haren has been considerably worse in the second half pretty much through his whole career.
I’ll concede that, but if the team doesn’t make the playoffs, Haren’s addition/rental becomes absolutely meaningless, and turns out to be a detriment to the long term organizational health.
You shouldn’t sell playoff tickets when your odds of making the playoffs are ~ 25%.
I’m consciously avoiding an argument over Haren because we’ll just be rehashing the same positions, but there is one thing to point out: part of the value in trading for Haren is that he is not a rental. He’s owed $12.75 million in both 2011 and 2012, with a $15.5 million option for 2013 — a pretty substantial bargain for a 29-year old starter who hasn’t thrown less than 216 innings or merited an xFIP over 3.87 in the past 6 years.
agreed. no need to re-hash.
Forgot he was signed thru next year. In that case, there would be some value added, but I would also think the club he’s on would be less likely to move him, unless they’re already sand-bagging next year too.
Actually, through 2013 if you assume the option is worth exercising, so three full years after this one.
Arizona just fired its GM (Josh Byrnes, who I thought had done a decent job) and is on the verge of a pretty substantial sell off of pieces — pretty much everything not named “Justin Upton” is probably available for the right price. The real question is whether whatever management team that’s in place thinks that Haren’s contract is good value (in which case the asking price will be completely prohibitive), or sees it as an unnecessary long-term expense (unlikely, but a situation worth monitoring nonetheless).
Bottom line: I’d gladly move any three pieces in our system, Domonic Brown excluded, for Haren. I’m unsure as to whether that would be enough though.
by three pieces you mean Kendrick, Castro and Mayberry, right?
by Clyde Simmons on Jul 12, 2010 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Minor adjustment: the Phils have played 1-2 games less than many other teams, so they’re actually 4th in Runs per game (HRs per game ranking doesn’t change, and I haven’t checked the others). Which of course in no way changes the point that they’re not hitting as well as recent years.
expected regression
Oddly enough, if we measure luck by xFIP-ERA, the “luckiest” of the Phillies’ five starters has been Halladay.
Halladay +0.75
Kendrick +0.30
Hamels +0.07
Moyer -0.07
Blanton -0.81
why does it always seem the better pitchers get better luck?
Is this coincidence, flawed stats or some of each?
by Clyde Simmons on Jul 12, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you think Kyle Kendrick is a better pitcher than Cole Hamels? or even Joe Blanton?
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 12, 2010 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions
For their careers – not just this season – you believe there’s an argument for Kyle Kendrick being better than Joe Blanton?
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 12, 2010 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
ok…now is that the equivalent of 2 line drives that ended up in gloves for one pitcher and not the other, or something else.
(I’ll admit to having zilch understading of xFIP and how it’s calculated, because to me, other than removing errors from fielders (which is a bad stat), and giving extra credit to Ks as they shouldn’t led to other actions on hit balls, I can’t fathom how you take a fielder out of the equation, since they are after all, a pretty big part of keeping runs off the board)
Fielding-independent stats are derived from pitchers’ rates of K, BB, GB/FB, HR. If you understand what the inputs are and which inputs are good and which ones are bad, that’s all you really need to know to understand how the stats basically work. The difference between FIP and xFIP is that the former uses a pitcher’s actual HR/FB rate, while the latter applies a constant HR/FB rate to all pitchers, on the theory that variations in HR/FB are explainable by luck.
ok. thanks.
I personally would place more faith in FIP over xFIP because I don’t buy into the HR/FB ratio variations being luck. Line drives leave the ballpark too.
so back to my previous query….how big a difference is 0.2 in xFIP?
I don’t understand that question at all. 0.2 = 0.2.
If I am not mistaken, the theory that HR/FB variation is luck is based on empirical evidence. Pitchers do not show an ability to maintain consistently high or low HR/FB rates from year to year.
A difference in 0.2 in an ERA for two pitchers who throw about 150 innings each is ~3.3 ER, which in my opinion is pretty insignificant.
Lemme check HR/FB rates for a few guys before I delve into my heretical rant.
Alright. I don’t see how that supports your supposition that Kendrick has been better than Blanton this year, though.
For HR/FB, ballpark obviously matters.
agree that HR/FB is ballpark dependant.
KK’s ERA ~2 pts better than Blanton’s. You can state that luck is the reason for the difference, or maybe you can predict that the trend will reverse, but you can’t revise history, and the history is that KK has thrown more innings than cookies for the ballclup this year (by 20, but Blanton was hurt..), has a lower ERA, and has allowed fewer baserunners per inning (by 0.22).
So feel free to predict away as to how they’ll end the year, or how they should have pitched, but the reality is that KK has outpitched cookies YTD.
If it’s based on luck, in what sense has he outpitched him?
If Person A invest his money wisely and Person B plays takes it to Vegas, and Person A happens to lose everything despite a sound investment strategy while Person B hits the jackpot, has Person B out-invested Person A?
I place 1,000 on a roulette table for #12
You place 1,000 on a roulette table for #23
23 comes up
Do you feel because your number came up and mine didn’t that you bet better or were you just lucky?
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 12, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
i did bet better. I bet on the number that won.
You guys are confusing results with expectations and statistics.
i am not suggesting that Kendrick is going to continue to pitch better than Blanton, but the statement was
Alright. I don’t see how that supports your supposition that Kendrick has been better than Blanton this year, though.
The results clearly show that he has, regardless of how it’s happened.
No, because how well someone pitches (or invests, or what have you) is only one of the inputs that leads to the output of who enjoys the better results.
so in hindsight, you’d rather have given the money to the guys that lost it all investing wisely rather than get your share of the jackpot?
Liar if you say yes.
this is baseball guys, I don’t think it is quite as black and white as who made more money at the roulette table.
by Clyde Simmons on Jul 12, 2010 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
If it is, it’s because you dug out a far-fetched example, and then got mad when it still didn’t make your point.
It’s called a reductio ad absurdum and it is a perfectly legitimate tool of logical reasoning. It is supposed to be “far-fetched” so as to best isolate the relevant underlying principles.
The fact is that your viewpoint here is not based on logic but on an ideological precommitment to certain first principles. As such, logic can’t help you here. The fact that you refuse to accept certain basic principles of ethics and metaphysics that the rest of us understand is not an indictment of “my point”.
Now you know why I find it to be a waste of time to debate with this guy.
"F#$% [player]!" --FuquaManuel
because I just don’t accept whatever you say and accept it for gospel? Because I argue back?
Because I don’t look at a stat and when it says “A should have pitched better than B” I don’t auto-convert that to “A pitched better than B”?
You’re as hard-headed as I am, the difference is you just resort to attempting to debase the other party when you can’t fathom the possibility of their argument having any validity.
Because I (and Taco Pal) present evidence. You, as taco pal said, come to an argument with a set of ideological precommitments from which you are unwilling to back down. Not to belabor the point, but take the Bobby Abreu debate, for instance. You came to said debate committed to the position that Abreu was a poor baseball player that you disliked. You attempted to use stats to justify this ideological precommitment. These stats were refuted by me, and others. However, fully committed to the notion that you for some reason disliked Abreu, the refutation of your statistical argument did nothing to dissuade you from your initial view.
"F#$% [player]!" --FuquaManuel
I don’t debase you because I can’t fathom your argument having any validity. I debase you because your arguments very rarely have any validity at all. In other words, I debase you because you are indeed a dishonest, vapid, dunce.
"F#$% [player]!" --FuquaManuel
It’s a bit harder to prove, but the record certainly doesn’t work in your favor.
I mean, we have refuted practically every other reason that you could possibly dislike Abreu, and you still dislike him. What else could it be?
"F#$% [player]!" --FuquaManuel
Well, we also have the Bourn-Golson episode and a few other things that I could go back into the archives and check on but I won’t because at the end of the day I actually don’t give a shit (believe it or not).
But still, I’m waiting for you to explain what it is that makes Abreu so unlikable to you, but I’m sure I’ll never get an answer.
"F#$% [player]!" --FuquaManuel
That’s not better, that’s luckier, there’a a difference
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 12, 2010 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry. Kendrick has outdone Cookies. Y’all can refuse to accept it because your measurement tool says otherwise. You’ve done nothing to sway me other than say “he’s lucky”, which essentially admits that he has, but states that “he shouldn’t have”.
sorry to start all this with a blanket statement….
At the end of the day Bilzo actually agreed with my intenion: Kendrick has pitched better than cupcakes this year…but it appears to be because of luck based upon the stat produced.
I would like to see a guy with an 8 ERA who ALSO had luck on his side.
by Clyde Simmons on Jul 12, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
The rate seems to fluctuate between about 0.04 and 0.10, but good pitchers (aka Halladay) seem to have better rates than others. Comparing Halladay, Hamels, Blanton, pavano, and Guthrie (last two chosen at random)…
Halladays career HR/FB rate is lower than those other guys, and Guthrie’s level has never dipped below Halladay’s career norm, nor has Halladay thrown a level since 2004 (thats as far back as ESPN lists FB outs) that’s as high as any of Guthries.
It’s an admittedly small sampling, but it suggests to me that bad pitchers throw more gopher balls, and good pitchers might have fluctuations, but they’re lower.
Hamels rate has ping ponged around from 7-11%, Pavano from 5-10%, Blanton 4-9%, Halladay 5-8%, Guthrie 9-14%.
Bilzo, let me try to give you a better expalantion, using SIERA instead of xFIP. SIERA is the version that Eric Seidman and I co-invented for Baseball Prospectus. What SIERA does is look at strikeouts, walks, and groundball & flyball numbers and spit out an expected ERA. xFIP does the same thing, except that it assumes that pitchers are the same at everything else. SIERA does not. What SIERA does is ask “what have pitcher ERAs been in recent history when the pitchers have had these strikeout, walk, ground ball and fly ball rates?” The reason that is different is that while pitchers do have some control over things like BABIP and HR/FB, these effects are volatile and hidden by how much luck is involved. However, those things correlate pretty well with strikeout, walk, and ground ball and fly ball rates. So the SIERA formula gives more credit to high-strikeout pitchers than xFIP does, and more credit to high-ground ball pitchers than xFIP does, because high-strikeout pitchers get more weak contact and high-groundball pitchers erase base runners with double plays.
Kendrick has a SIERA of 4.90. Blanton has a SIERA of 4.41. That is a better indicator of how they have actually pitched.
Kendrick has a .270 BABIP. The only pitchers who are good at getting low BABIPs have numbers around 15 points below their team average, and those pitchers are almost all high-strikeout pitchers who get enough fly balls that they also get a lot of infield pop ups. Kendrick has neither of those qualities. He is the type of pitcher who is bound to give up a lot of hard contact. In fact, he pretty much has. His infield fly rate is 7.4 percent, below the league average by several points. His HR/FB is about league average, which is probably not surprising, given how much luck there is in HR/FB. Now, a lot of Kendrick’s low BABIP is because of low BABIP in important situations— a .230 BABIP with RISP. Sounds clutch until you realize his overall low BABIP is a result of, mostly, an abnormally low number of ground balls finding the whole— only about 11 percent, as compared with a league average of about 17 percent. That’s about 9 extra balls not getting through and being outs instead, leading to about 7 fewer runs. Is Kendrick doing some sort of magic to keep his ground balls from reaching the outfield? It sure doesn’t look like it. Pitchers don’t vary much in their ability to keep the ball from bouncing between people. He’s also got a low rate of outfield flies landing for hits. About 12-13% opposed to a league average of about 17%. Why are Kendrick’s outfield flies finding their ways into gloves? Is he really affecting the outfield flies that much? If a batter can hit the ball 300 feet off of you, do you really control whether it falls between outfielders or in one of their gloves? Seems rather unlikely!
And let’s discuss Blanton. His ERA is high primarily because his BABIP is high (.322), especially with men on (.342). Is he giving up hard hit contact? Probably not. His line drive rate is the lowest of his career (14.7%, below league average of 19%). It’s just that 10.4% of his ground balls this year have been infield hits (average is around 6 percent). Can you really blame him for infield hits? Take away six of those, and you have 4-5 runs shaved off his numbers and about 0.6 shaved off his ERA. Seems pretty unlucky. And his fly balls can’t seem to find a glove— 16/86 of his outfield flies have found the grass, when league average is about 12/86. Sure seems unlucky to me. Take away those and all of a sudden his ERA goes down nearly another run. Especially because all of this bad luck seems to come at inopportune times, you probably want to subtract another few tenths of a run from his ERA too. So that’s how you get that he’s pitching well enough to put up a 4.41 ERA and Kendrick only well enough to get a 4.90 ERA.
There’s not really anything Kendrick is doing better than Blanton, is there? More walks, way fewer strikeouts, exact same ground ball rate. Blanton’s getting fewer line drives. Kendrick’s getting fewer home runs but more outfield flies, which historically is correlated with more home runs far more than actual home run totals.
After the season is over, don’t forget to look at 2nd half ERA of Blanton and Kendrick and compare. Using these methods so far we’ve been right about Hamels’ direction of performance twice, right about Kendrick’s direction of performance once already, right about Blanton’s performance after a rough start last year (based on April, I said that he would have a borderline career year actually, not just an improvement). When is it time to trust us? Using SIERA or xFIP will make you right about 50% more often than past ERA at predicting future ERA.
How we doing on this now? Questions?
by Matt Swartz on Jul 12, 2010 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Thanks Matt. That’s a lot of ‘splaining you did there, and it’s very much more helpful than the other arguments I’m seeing.
I don’t know that I agree entirely with your Blanton run erasure scenarios. I wouldn’t expect every IF hit causes runs, 5-6 of them shouldn’t create 4 more runs….unless he’s giving them up with 2 outs and instead of out of the inning, he’s facing 3 more guys who all do additional damage…but then that reverts back to ‘bad pitcher’, doesn’t it?
I’ve always thought of KK as a groundball pitcher, who pitches to contact, and doesn’t get a lot of Ks, which would mean he’s more prone to luck of where the ball is hit.
My take on Blanton has been Chollie always seems to leave him in 3 batters too long. That may not be his fault either, but you can’t negate how he performs there.
Thank you for giving hard examples of “luck” rather than just blanketing it and saying “because I said so”.
I’m fine with accepting stats, just explain to me why I should believe them. I’m never going to say that the naked king’s outfit is the most beautiful robe I’ve ever seen.
I’ve posed this same debate with a co-worker of mine who’s big into SABR and he’s said “I’m (bilzo is) wrong” as well. He hasn’t convinced me yet, but I do respect his opinion on matters such as these.
The 4 more for 5-6 infield hits was a rough number based on historical estimates. I think you don’t appreciate the helpfulness of an out, which saves you 0.3 runs on average, versus a single which gets you 0.5 runs on average.
KK is a ground ball and a fly ball pitcher all at once, thanks to the extreme lack of strikeouts.
Agreed that Charlie leaves Blanton out there too long— I think that his pre-100 pitch ERA in Oakland was way lower than his post-100-pitch ERA. Part of his improvement when he came to Philly was that Dubee seemed to help him improve his K-rate, while Manuel took him out before Macha (or whoever was in Oakland? I suck at manager names) did.
You know, Matt, I’m guilty of utilizing xFIP on a pretty consistent basis in lieu of SIERA, and I’ll admit it’s mostly a combination of my overreliance on Fangraphs and laziness. (Although, my recollection from your intro piece was that SIERA and xFIP graded similarly and are head and shoulders above the other ERA predictors.)
But just wanted to say I greatly appreciate the explanation here; I knew SIERA was superior for high strikeout pitchers, but didn’t realize it was actually superior for high ground ball pitchers too. Secure in that knowledge, I’ll make an effort to take the extra 30 seconds to head to BP and use SIERA from here on out. It’s the least I can do here to support our blogger emeritus, right?
Yeah, SIERA scores marginally better than xFIP, though it seems to do particularly well for anomalous pitchers— high-GB and high-K guys especially. It will score better and better over time, though, because as we gather more data, we can fine tune it. There are only so many pitchers with reliable batted ball data right now, so it’s already doing marginally better even without anywhere near the data it will eventually have. xFIP is based on the same outcome weights, so it won’t really get more or less accurate. Stick with SIERA going forward. We got a team of people on it! Also, a team of people working on making it easier to get these numbers so that people don’t just default to Fangraphs.
by Matt Swartz on Jul 12, 2010 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions
The biggest obstacle that I have — and definitely correct me if I’m wrong here — is that the easiest way to access SIERA information is through the sortable statistics reports. But the player hyperlinks take you to the beta site that includes plenty of stats (including PECOTA) but not SIERA… so I’m trawling through the reports to find a SIERA score for an individual, and I can’t even do something easy like sorting by team.
Let me know if I’m missing something, because I’m admittedly bad at navigating the BP statistics.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 12, 2010 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions
for their careers obviously not, but Cookies has been Grade A horrible this year.
I would rather have Kendrick in the rotation than Steve Carlton right now for what it’s worth.
Cookies obviously isn’t this bad, but it’s wholly possible that from this point forward in both their careers, KK could outperform him.
Kyle Kendrick is amazing, I dunno what your smokin.
But seriously….going up and down that list the people who have struggled are near the bottom and the people who have pitched well are near the top. It’s almost like Luck is the only thing that matters.
It’s not just this either, I see the same argument for BABIP.
by Clyde Simmons on Jul 12, 2010 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Kyle Kendrick is amazing, I dunno what your smokin.
This is joke or this is serious statement? I don’t know whether to laugh or be aghast
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 12, 2010 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions
What does the whole post have to do with Clyde saying Kendrick is amazing?
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 12, 2010 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Howard at DH batting 4th in AllStar game
does he deserve it?
Does it matter if he deserves it or not?
How many undeserving all stars have there been in MLB history due to the fact that every team has to have at least one representative?
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 12, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Starting this over...
But for formatting’s sake, doing it on the left of the page.
This was Clyde Simmons earlier this afternoon:
sorry to start all this with a blanket statement….
At the end of the day Bilzo actually agreed with my intenion: Kendrick has pitched better than cupcakes this year…but it appears to be because of luck based upon the stat produced.
I would like to see a guy with an 8 ERA who ALSO had luck on his side.
The problem with this is that it is equating ERA with “pitching” when in fact ERA measures a composite of pitching, defense, and (yes) luck. The attempt of ERA to isolate the pitcher’s contribution by excluding unearned runs is crude at best. People say that a pitcher’s job is to prevent runs, but that’s not really true: it’s his job along with the defense. The pitcher’s job really is to pitch in such a manner as to minimize the chances for the other team to score runs. Voluminous research over the last 10 years or so has shown that the pitcher can best do this by striking out as many as possible, walking as few as possible, and inducing as many ground balls as possible on those balls allowed in play (I’m simplifying here of course).
But to say that Kendrick has out-pitched Blanton isn’t really correct.
As I read Bilzo, his worldview is that if A achieves better results than B, A by definition outperformed B. That A was luckier than B and that B deserved better results than A are both irrelevant, because as a simple matter of word definitions, performance = results.
Of course that isn’t the way that the vast majority of the human race defines the concept of performance. Performance involves the quality of one’s actions, not the quality of the results that follow those actions. But that’s the way he defines it. If you experience better results, you performed better by necessity.
The ideological precommitment I was referring to above involves the belief that life is fair and that everyone gets what they deserve. Many people hold this worldview, but in most cases, when they are confronted with counterexamples, they rebut them by making factual distinctions. For example, if I were to say “there is racial injustice in our society, look at the socioeconomic disparities between different races,” most people like that would respond, “well maybe they need to take personal responsibility for their actions” – i.e. to imply that the socioeconomic disparities are not explained by structural injustice but by things minorities are doing wrong.
I don’t think Bilzo is like that. He isn’t saying that Joe Blanton deserved to pitch worse than Kyle Kendrick in the first half of 2010, or that a gambler who hits it big at roulette deserves to make money more than a sound investor whose investments tank. He’s just rejecting the concept that what you deserve has any relevance to evaluating how you performed, even though that’s the way that pretty much everyone else who speaks the English language defines performance. Instead, he’s saying that what you deserve is a separate question, and how well you did is equivalent to how things turned out for you.
I agree that Bilzo recognizes that Blanton deserves better results than he has gotten, and Kendrick worse. But it’s not a big leap from that to recognizing that how they performed is NOT truly reflected by ERA. ERA is a measure of TEAM performance behind a particular pitcher. It’s more reflective of the pitcher’s contribution than is W-L record, but it’s far from perfect.
I never said blanton deserved to pitch worse. I just said he performed worse. I’m not assigning blame, I’m assessing results.
Taco Pal is actually spot on here with my thought process in this assessment. The roulette wheel example is an exaggeration, but it’s de facto. We’re looking at past performance independent of future expectations. It’s kind of hard and cold, and the key thing to remember is that if I had to pick which one I wanted to pitch in the second half of the year, I’d take Blanton, as you can expect him to do better in the future.
If I got to pick whose actual pitching performance I’d want going down in the books from what’s already been established, it’d be Kendrick.
It's NOT pitching
It’s pitching and defense (and luck).
I wouldn’t call what you are doing assessing results so much as picking a point of view and then cherry picking the information you want to fix it and ignoring the rest dismissively because you can’t refute it.
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 12, 2010 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I would like to see a guy with an 8 ERA who ALSO had luck on his side.
I forgot to address this. I don’t know offhand of a 8 ERA guy who has benefited from luck (though I’m sure baseball history is littered with them) but to look at a reverse example, Pedro in 1999, one of the most dominant seasons of all time by ERA+, actually posted an ERA over a half-run worse than FIP would suggest.
I would like to see a guy with an 8 ERA who ALSO had luck on his side.
It’s semi-cheating, but Evan MacLane has an ERA of 9.00 and a FIP of 16.00 this year.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
Guess that proves lucky won’t make you good!
by dannijd on Jul 13, 2010 9:04 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Another point
In all the comparisons to 2009 one thing that stood out to me was the decrease in runs scored at the AS break was equalled exactly by the decrease in runs allowed. 2010: 410 scored, 362 allowed. 2009: 460 to 412. Last year’s record of 48-38 was only 1.5 games better thtn this year, but the team was four games ahead in first. The big difference this year, as far as chances of making the playoffs go, is that both the Braves and the Mets are playing much better. Also, like last year, there’s a good chance there will be a strong second place team from the NL West.
by phillyinportland on Jul 13, 2010 3:50 AM EDT reply actions

by 



























