Evaluating Closers: A Staturday Challenge
by Nico on Apr 4, 2008 9:49 AM PDT
Email
PrintIn 2006, two closers underscored how difficult it can be to measure success at this specialized position. First you have Joe Borowski, he of the 5.07 ERA, 1.43 WHIP...and league-leading 45 saves. Then you have Huston Street, he of the 2.88 ERA last year and 0.98 WHIP...but who has, despite terrific peripherals, converted only about 75% of his save chances each of the last two years - with a league-leading 16 blown saves over that time.
ERA is too simple, WHIP too simple, saves and save percentage too simple - and here, simple is another word for downright misleading. One complexity is that not all save chances are alike, and in fact they just aren't that similar. You can convert a save by giving up two runs in one inning, and you can blow a save by coming in to give up a sacrifice fly. Some saves require you to get five outs over two different innings, while others ask you nicely just to please retire one batter before giving up, say, back-to-back HRs?
So my Staturday challenge, posed here on a Striday, is to establish the best measure of a closer's effectiveness. What is the simplest paradigm that when used, will rank closers pretty much in the order that we agree they should be ranked - certainly with Borowski and Street neither at the very top nor bottom of the pile?
Oh, guess who has the 9th inning tonight at the Coliseum? That would be Street and Borowski. See you at 7:00pm!
98 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
'two closers underscored...'
Underscored? Isn't that what the whole team has been doing?
formerly known as mdl
OBP against
I wonder why hitters are measured a lot by OBP and Slugging (or OPS) but pitchers aren't measured by the same metrics. I would think OBP, Slugging, OPS against would be good measures. Huston probably has a lot of blown saves because he has ZERO margin for error too often.
Let's have our Piazza and eat the Cust too - SPWC
The reason why this isn't used more
is because pitchers don't have a huge amount of control over whether players get hits or not. So given that there's a large element of luck anyway, you might as well just use runs allowed. At least it tells you about the results, if not about the process.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I advocate not spending any serious time on the issue
because it's a made-up one, and just using WPA per appearance, or something.
I recall having said this before, but a loss is a loss. You aren't entitled to think you "should have won it" just because you had a lead going into the ninth inning.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I was going to say the same thing.
WPA, baby. Maybe I'll write up a post explaining WPA.
stat-addled alien overlord
how about IPA
Explain what 6 IPA's does.....ok that was lame.
"The two of them deserve each other. One's a born liar, the other's convicted."
I'll second that ...
win probability added deals with both the leverage of the situation, the length of the appearance and -- in the event of a blown save, how badly the save was blown.
It would be kind of silly to do so ... but if there was sufficient demand, you could look at WPA in save situations ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Man
Did anyone think the Dodgers still had a shot in Game 1 when Eck took the mound?
by SwisherForever33 on Apr 5, 2008 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd like to see a "tough saves converted" stat
If you've got a 3 run lead and the A's #6 hitter coming up (and it's September, so this was the Rockhounds #9 hitter at the start of the season), it's not a tough save. If you've got a 1 run lead and Johnny Damon at the plate, it is. My guess is that this is much of the difference for Huston Street - i.e., how many of his save chances were one run leads?
My earliest memory in life is of Campy Campaneris
by eastcoasta'sfan on Apr 4, 2008 10:23 AM PDT reply actions
Somebody do this because I'm too lazy
How many of Borowski's save opportunities last year were 1+ run leads? How many of Street's blown saves were 1-run leads?
I would bet that Borowski had very few 1-run saves (though the game may have ended up as a 1-run win for Cleveland). The Indians offense is better than the A's offense, so it makes sense they'd play with a 2- or 3-run lead a lot more often.
What I'm saying: Street on Cleveland (a distinct possibility later this year, I think) would be absolutely amazing. Borowski on the A's would be elephant man ugly.
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Apr 4, 2008 10:39 AM PDT reply actions
i remember in the playoffs last year
the announcers said joebo had the most saves in the league with a 3-run lead (which almost never, it seemed, ended up that way)
President of the Joey Devine fan club as of 1/15/08. Accepting applications for other positions. "He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown
Looking back and looking forward
The right answer depends on what question you're trying to answer, and one key distinction is whether you want to measure what did happen, or predict what will happen.
For the former question, saves aren't such a bad way of judging how effective a closer has been. Closers typically get the vast majority of their work with a narrow lead at the end of close games and their job is to preserve that lead. Counting how many times they do so, and how many they don't, is a crude but accurate measure of their ultimate effect on team wins and losses.
As Paul and sal suggest, you can also look at win probability added, which similarly measures the effect of their performance on the win/loss bottom line, but in a more sophisticated way, giving more weight to narrow leads than to wider ones (and also including tie games and other non-save situations). In many ways WPA is the ultimate "looking back" stat.
But if you're more interested in predicting future performance, you're better off just using more generic measures of effectiveness (ERA, WHIP, or something based on strikeout/walk/HR rates). In the long run, good relievers will be good closers, and bad relievers will not, and their past "clutchness" has little predictive value.
So Street's low save percentage over the last couple of years really doesn't make me worry at all about whether he has what it takes to be a closer. What does worry me, though, and I know Nico agrees with this part, is the fact that so far this year his velocity is down and his location looks off, especially in light of last season's injury to the nerve in his elbow. I have a bad feeling that he's headed for the operating table this year.
"Tomorrow it may rain." - Leo Durocher
Well put
To be even more concise:
If you're trying to figure out who wins the Rolaids Relief Award, use WPA.
If you're trying to figure out who to sign to the $30 million contract or who to predict WILL win the Rolaids Relief Award this season, use ERA (or FIP, or something similar).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Err using ERA for relievers, even if you're park adjusting
would be a poor idea.Given the really small samples that most relievers put up.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Exactly right, andeux -
It's not just the drop in velocity, it's also the reduced use (I think, especially Wednesday) of the slider. He just doesn't look right and it's worrisome. It might soon be TGIF - Thank God It's Foulke.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
tangent
I feel like saves should be:
You enter a game you didn't start and finish the game when a batter whom can tie it is at the plate at some point and you get him out, as long as you didn't create the situation that lead to the tying run coming to the plate.
Granted I'm no baseball lawyer and it could be worded better but the current way of doing things can be too...misleading.
http://sonicliving.com
another thought
if he has approx 3 era, and trying to save small leads, 75% conversion doesnt sound too off. give up a run every 2-3 outings per 10, and little margin for error. Ergo 75% success rate. Not that bad I would think
Let's have our Piazza and eat the Cust too - SPWC
That's why 3.00 ERA relievers don't make good closers
You can't afford to give up a run for every three innings you pitch when you're a closer. Unless you - like some closers actually do - pitch a scoreless inning the vast majority of the time and then occasionally give up 5 runs in 2/3 of an inning.
Perhaps one of the best measures of a closer is the % of appearances in which he does not give up a run. Most relievers, including mediocre ones, can preserve a 3-run lead, and your decent relievers are all good for protecting a two-run lead the lion's share of the time. The question is when there's no margin for error and that's when you need the guy who usually doesn't give up anything - even if when he's bad, he's really bad.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Most pitchers have next to no control over the distribution of the runs they give up
It's pretty much dumb luck whether you give up 3 runs in one inning or 3 runs in three different innings.
The distribution of runs in run-scoring innings is pretty constant, I think. If you have a pitcher with a certain RA, and know the number of innings he's going to pitch and the number of times he'll get a 1, 2 or 3 run lead, you should be able to generate a standard save percentage from which the variance will be, basically, random.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
just beat me to the punch- was just gonna say that.
im trying to think of some variable that would separate out these two types of pitchers, but i cant think of any
The point would be that the "3.00 ERA" pitcher
who is usually dominant but occasionally has nothing and gets lit up is in fact a 2.00 ERA pitcher, or 1.50 ERA pitcher, in "sheep's clothing". He appears to be a 3.00 ERA pitcher, but he is in fact far better than that, with stats that are skewed by how bad he is when he's bad. Example:
1.0 IP, 0 hits, 0 ER, 0 BB, 2 K
1.1 IP, 1 hit, 0 ER, 0 BB, 1 K
1.0 IP, 0 hits, 0 ER, 1 BB, 0 K
1.0 IP, 0 hits, 0 ER, 0 BB, 1 K
1.1 IP, 1 hit, 0 ER, 0 BB, 3 K
1.0 IP, 1 hit, 0 ER, 1 BB, 1 K
0.2 IP, 3 hits, 4 ER, 2 BB, 0K
1.2 IP, 1 hit, 0 ER, 0 BB, 1 K
This guy is 0-1 with an ERA of 4.00 and he is 7/8 in save opportunities. He is a front line closer who is like many pitchers: when he's bad he's awful.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
hm. hadnt really thought about it before
but i guess what you're saying is that it could be worthwhile to toss this type of outlying data when valuing the overall effectiveness of a player that has stats like this?
in which case, id say that this is the value in the fuzzy, human managing- for players that perform like this. only a human would be able to say "his changeup wont fool anybody today the way it is looking"
(disclaimer: feels like i am treading dangerous waters here... could get ripped from any side...)
In theory, I like the idea
if the outlying data is really unique, and does not help in giving you a more accurate indication, then you should throw it out.
I would think that the issue is really being able to tell if it's an unusual one-off occurence, or indicative of a new pattern. Is it just a bad inning, or has the league caught up to him? Was it an off week, or is he injured? And by the time you have enough new data to decide that the specific even was just a strange outlier, he has already been signed by another team/demoted/trade/whatever.
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
As PT said, the distribution is dumb luck.
Per usual, you're looking for meaning where there is none.
stat-addled alien overlord
Per usual, no.
The kind of distribution I give in my example should be expected, partly because closers pitch only about 1 inning at a time. The best they can do is 1 IP, 0 ER - yet there is no limit to how BADLY they can do in their worst innings. So while on a good day, a closer won't go one inning and allow -4 ER, or go 5 shutout innings, on a bad day he may well go one inning and allow 4 ER. Hence the predictable distribution my example illustrates.
The same is true of a starter like Harden, or Blanton - except that on a good day, when they pitch a scoreless inning they stay out there and throw some more scoreless innings. A closer can't do that - but can occasionally "give up a four-spot in the first inning" just like Cupcakes can do.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
If you look, you will find that this is probably not the distribution that is usually observed.
stat-addled alien overlord
You're missing the point here
The point is that if I take two pitchers, each of whom allows 3 runs per nine innings pitched, and throw them into a random (but identical) bunch of save situations, they're likely to differ pretty substantially in the percentage of those saves that they convert based solely on luck.
I'm completely making this up here, but let's say that your pitchers are each going to pitch 48 "save innings." OK? So they're each going to give up 16 runs. Now, if I recall rightly, the distribution of run scoring innings is something like 60% 1 run, 25% 2 runs, 10% 3 runs, 5% 4 or more runs, which I'm going to call 4 runs here because at that point you've lost the game anyway. So, skipping over some back-of-the-envelope math here, each pitcher is going to give up, on average, something like 1 run 6 times, 2 runs 3 times, and 4 runs once. Incidentally, you'll note that this 10 times allowing runs out of 48 is consistent with the rates in mikeA's post below.
So the number of blown saves can vary from one (obviously 4 runs allowed will blow the save) to 10 based on how those runs allowed interact with the score situation at the start of the inning. Then factor in the fact that pitchers' runs allowed don't always neatly line up to be exactly the historical distribution of runs scored as above, and you've got even more variation. None of this variation is meaningful in any way.
And on top of THAT, you have the variation of differing numbers of runs scoring for pitchers of the same quality due to wind, weather, the exact angle of bat striking ball, and whether the left fielder had a cheeseburger that didn't agree with him for lunch and gacked the play on a can of corn.
The actual useful data is buried under a Swiss avalanche-sized mountain of noise when you're looking at save percentages, which is why they're useless for predicting future performance.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
The point would be that this pitcher does not exist
except in very rare instances when a guy is pitching while injured, which is a dumb thing to do anyway and should be avoided if at all possible.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
2007: one or more run
Street: 23%
Borowski: 35%
F-rod: 28%
Putz: 13%
Nathan: 16%
Rivera: 21%
Embree: 25%
I wouldn't expect those numbers to be very consistent. You're not going to find guys that consistently have odd run distributions.
The A's colors are green and gold.
The Friday Staturday doesn't come with actual stats,
just a plea for stats from someone else. Of course, the Friday Staturday is the new Stunday (except no egg roll after 3:00pm).
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Very interesting Nico
I've had this exact conversation lately...is it possible to be a good pitcher, but not a good closer?
Or is there really 'clutch' pitching?
So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one
Or is that there's no such thing as "clutch pitching"
but there is a such thing as "unclutch pitching"? Or is it just that there is "sucky pitching" - otherwise known as "Colby Lewis"?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Yes, like clutch hitting, clutch pitching most certainly exists.
The question is whether clutch pitchers exist or not, the answer to which is almost certainly "I don't know and you don't know either."
It is possible to be a bad pitcher but a successful closer, or a good pitcher but an unsuccessful closer - but we have no way of knowing a priori and the "skill" (such as it exists) is almost certainly immeasurably small. In other words, if you want a good closer, go get a good pitcher.
One final thing about Borowski...his peripheral numbers last year were quite good (not great, but good): 7.7 K/G, 2.2 BB/G, 1.2 HR/G. Street, of course, was even better, and any reasonable person would choose Street over Borowski to close games.
stat-addled alien overlord
I think almost every manager, pitching coach, and GM
would tell you that "good relief pitcher" and "good closer" are not one and the same - that the 9th inning is where some good pitchers just can't excel. If there is any area of the game where the mental/intangible element seems to be real, it's in the area of pitchers closing games out. And FWIW, I say that partially based on numerous conversations I had with managers and pitching coaches during my minor league/spring training broadcasting career.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Then we're going to have to agree to disagree.
(Actually, we should agree that your response has little to do with what I wrote.)
Anyway, how can I respond to your assertions? They're not based on arguable fact, aside from "because coaches and managers told me so," to which I can't really respond.
Here's a fun game: we should make a list of all the relief pitchers today who may one be called upon to close, agree on a measuring stick for success, and then make two lists: the "good" relief pitchers (based on performance) and those who we think will succeed because they have the mental fortitude.
stat-addled alien overlord
What about this
Relief pitchers who have had success pitching middle relief AND closing often say their's a different tension when pitching the 9th inning.
(Obviously talking save situation here.)
If the numbers can't tell the difference, shouldn't practical experience push the decision. In this case, Nico being right.
I know, if that doesn't make one recheck the numbers then nothing will!
The monster at the end of this blog.
I'll offer my challenge to Nico to you as well ...
how many good relief pitchers can you name that failed as closers in a reasonable sample size, having nothing to do with health, but left closing and were successful again?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
You'll have to forgive me my friend
Maybe you mentioned this in your comment to Nico and I failed to see it, but how are you defining "reasonable sample size"? Because we have to take into account the reality that a manager will not keep a guy as his closer for very long if he struggles to finish the 9th.
And to steal a line from Sal... what does your challenge have to do with my comment?
Doug Jones met your criteria at least 3-4 times during his career.
Goose Gossage lost his edge but still put up a few solid years in middle relief.
Jeff Nelson had a rep as an 8th inning pitcher.
Arthur Rhodes.
I can think of a few others who's names escape me that carried the wrap of not handling the 9th inning well.
The monster at the end of this blog.
It's a reply to your post ...
in as much as when CW is true there are usually some examples of it being true.
Doug Jones pitched much better in the seasons that he was a closer than those that he wasn't ... but his successes and failures pretty well corresponded with a normal age curve.
Goose Gossage certainly didn't forget how to be a closer. He just got old.
Jeff Nelson may have had that reputation but he allowed a .569 OPS in the 9th inning and a .686 OPS in the 9th inning.
Arthur Rhodes didn't pitch poorly until shortly before he went on the DL. He continued pitching poorly after returning from the DL as a middle reliever. His problems were more related to health, age, and no longer being limited to favorable platoon match ups.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
CW being true?
You want examples of Truth? OK.
How's about former Seattle closer Eddie Guardado saying (to paraphrase) "Pitching the 9th is different from pitching in the 7th or 8th."
Nelson... I'm guessing one of those 9th innings was supposed to be an 8th inning? Nelson may have had a .686 OPS in the 9th inning but not all 9th innings = save situations. A more indepth look is needed to determine if Nelson's rep holds water.
The guy's been there, done that and made enough money to buy the high quality Egyptian cotton T-shirt. He's not the first pitcher to say that, just the latest I've read to say that.
As for Rhodes pitching "well" prior to going on the DL, I don't remember when exactly Rhodes got hurt but his performance definetly took a turn for the worse June 16th. Prior to that date he had blown 5 saves in 13 chances, 4 of those blown saves resulted in A's losses. For a guy expected to get the final 3 outs to preserve a win, an 8 Sv to 5 BSv is a poor ratio.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Edit error
I didn't mean to slip the Nelson bit between Eddie and his cotton T-shirt.
That sounds rather lewd.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Eddie Guardado performed admirably in his first couple of seasons as a closer ...
he also pitched his best in the 9th inning with a .674 OPS.
With Rhodes, I was thinking up until May 28th, at which point he was 8 of 10 in Sv Opps with a 3.32 era. Three weeks later he was on the DL with an ERA 2 runs higher and three more blown saves in four attempts.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I think it's hard to find data because
the guys who don't have the mental fortitude to handle closing usually aren't allowed to fail and provide date precisely because their managers know they don't have the mental fortitude to handle closing and know that closing does have a mental aspect to it.
Great examples to me are LaTroy Hawkins and Kyle Farnsworth, both of whom had "closer" stuff and were at times solid set-up men, but did not have "what it takes mentally" to be closers. However since their managers were generally wise enough not to let them close, there isn't a lot of data to throw out there.
But if quotes from guys like top set up man, and top closer, at different times, Eddie Guardado aren't convincing, then just assume that LaTroy Hawkins would have been a solid closer for years if only managers and GMs who were lacking good closers had thought to let him try. And that Ed Whitson just forgot how to pitch overnight. And that Dave Engel and Mackey Sasser had a strange muscle disease that affected their throwing arms.
Mackey Sasser.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I may be out of my league
But does that appy with "pinch-hitters" also? Meaning some have the mental fortitude to come up with a "clutch' hit and some don't, but we don't really know because the managers already know who does and who doesn't? Or is it moot because "pinch hitter" is not really the same as "closer" as far as "defined roles' go.
It just seems that, while there are a lot of excellent points being made here, there are way too many unknowns to determine what points are the pointiest.
I'm here to talk about the past.
Well, Dan Johnson is 0-for-his career
as a pinch hitter. But then again, he's about 1-for-his career as a starter.
No, I don't think pinch hitting is the same - for one thing, there is not the "27th out" factor every time, nor are you the only one under the microscope for the entire 9th inning - if that's even the inning you pinch hit.
Finally, when you can't figure out whose points are the most excellent, the tie-breaker is who has the best hair.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Besides Rhodes, that same year
Chad Bradford, who had been very effective in middle relief, tried unsuccessfully to close, as did Mecir. That led to the Dotel trade - a "lights out" set up man who was only a "lights in" closer. Now all those guys have their mitigating stories - Bradford wasn't given many chances, Mecir's best seasons were behind him, Dotel got injured and that factored into his post 2004 career. Still, that's a lot of examples on just one team in one year!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Chad Bradford only blew one real save opportunity ... (not counting blown holds)
and he was poor all season. He served as the closer for two (consecutive) games. His ERA was 4.71 entering the first of those games.
Jim Mecir hadn't been a good pitcher since 2001.
I believe it's pretty clear from Dotel's career arc over the last few years that the problem wasn't that he was a closer -- it's that his arm was dangling from the last shred of ligament.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Mecir... pretty solid in 2004
I looked this up a long while ago, but if my brain cells are working correctly the A's lost 10 games in 2004 after they had had a lead going into the 9th inning.
How many games did the A's finish behind the Angels?
1
All of which illustrates the importance of having someone good to pitch in the 9th, none of which directly pertains to the question at hand.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I can certainly agree with your last point ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Good
Then maybe you'd be willing to answer the appropriate sized sample question.
There I go being lewd again.
The monster at the end of this blog.
While both of you are here ...
... a series of statements, questions, and pleas completely unrelated to the matter of 9th inning superpowers:
1. I've said this before, but the Staturday stuff is great.
2. The community-generated fanpost content has lately been ... well, somewhat ridden with lameness noise less than incisive content.
3. I wonder if #2 is at least in part a consequence of #1, in that many astute contributors have shuffled over to the middle of the screen.
4. From an unabashedly selfish standpoint, I hope that both of you plan to contribute more than the once a month Staturday posts during the season. Though I rarely comment on your offerings (having not much to say), I always thoroughly enjoy them and learn a lot from the discourse therein.
5. So: Please confirm that you have not completely eschewed fanposting as part of some elaborate scheme to starve the viewership of good content in order to cultivate anticipation for Staturdays.
6. The fact that I just employed "fanpost" in numerous sentences and in multiple configurations, as though it was a real word, is exceedingly problematic. Sometimes I hate the Internet.
I can't speak for devo
But I'm in the process of fixing up my place while trying to find a new home 300 miles from my current location. So I don't have a ton of free time to post right now.
Glad you're liking Staturday.
The monster at the end of this blog.
74mk...
1. I totally agree
2. I sort of agree, although it seems that some AN'ers are starting to migrate toward the FanShots. The area where I sort of disagree is due to the (IMO) gray area of what constitutes a post that isn't "lameness noise". Is it one that isn't analytical?
3. I agree here. Lots of cooks in the kitchen, and while deservedly so, its left other areas of the house lacking.
4. Agree, but I think you should comment more. While you may "not have much to say", you somehow manage to say a lot.
5 & 6: See last sentence in Number 4.
I'm here to talk about the past.
#2
Gosh, no - I hope it didn't read that way.
It's the "hey have you heard this rumor" or "I told this famous person he sucked" or "here's this one link I saw on ESPN" or "hahaha the Giants are lame" or "!!:) YAY!" posts that make me want to apply an electric drill to my forehead.
Actually, I'd love to see more interesting fanposts of the non-analytical variety. Your posts, or FSU's, or the Japan travelogues ... all great stuff. I'm a fan of thoughtful, crafted-with-care offerings, whatever the genre.
And anyway, my impression isn't necessarily in sync with reality - it's not as though I've conducted an awesomeness/noise ratio comparison study or anything. Certainly, front page content is more robust now, with the addition of several new voices to complement the holdovers.
It's also possible that the presence of avatars on the site has rendered me permanently grumpy, unable to view any glass in any context as anything other than half empty. Even though I can (and do) choose not to view them, I know they're there, and it bothers me, in a "something is horribly awry with the cosmos" sort of way.
I'll speak for devo ...
1. Thanks! Glad you like it. I appreciate hearing it because those types of articles generally don't generate the same number of comments as ones more based on speculation ...
2. I'd suspect this has a lot to do with the time of year. Now that games are happening, there's little reason or opportunity for either speculation or retrospective discussion but since the season is so young, there's not a lot to talk about in that regard, either ... give it some time.
3. I can assure you that the regular column has increased my writing, not vice-versa. You'll notice that I only wrote 9 non-Staturday columns in the past year. Eight in the ten months before Staturday, one in the two months since. While it's possible that I would have written a diary or two in that period, I doubt I would have written more than one (probably on PECOTA projections). I just haven't had that much time. So there may be some shift of location -- but I definitely think I am and will continue to write more, overall.
4/5/6. I will commit to continuing to write diaries when I have time and something to say ... and I hate the term fanpost so I also commit to continuing to call them diaries.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
At the risk of grossly offending some people...
well, shoot, that's never stopped me before...
"I think almost every [Christian] would tell you that [science] and [the origin of the universe] are not one and the same - that [the origin of the universe] is where [science] just can't excel. If there is any area of [life] where the [nonrational] element seems to be real, it's in the area of [the origin of the universe]. And FWIW, I say that partially based on numerous conversations I had with [ministers] during my [churchgoing] career."
Before you all lynch me, let me say that I'm not making this comparison to mock religion as much as I am to demonstrate that Nico's statement above is a faith-based, rather than a reason-based, statement.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I'm not offended ... but I think that's an igorant statement ...
fwiw, what the bible says about the beginning of the world isn't necessarily inconsistent with scientific theories about the origin of the world. Most Christians are reasonable, open minded people ... in fact, it's roughly the same percentage as non-Christians.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Apr 4, 2008 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ah, but the above analogy
doesn't require the equation "The Christian view of the universe's beginning" = "Earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaurs never existed, etc. etc."
All it takes is (pretty basic theological assertion, no?) the belief that the universe was created or set in motion by a God. It's as apposite for Gregg Easterbrook Christianity as it is for the bible-thumping variation.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Please do not favorably compare Easterbrook to anyone or anything.
The A's colors are green and gold.
Not a fan, eh?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
The scientific theories do not argue against the idea that God created or set in motion the universe ...
they start with "Something happened" and then the development of the universe followed:
There was a sun, there was an earth, there was land and water;
Then life began to appear, starting with very simple plant life;
Eventually life evolved into more complex beings, starting in the sea;
Those sea creatures then evolved into creatures of land and air;
Eventually, man appeared, evolving from other creatures of the land.
That is an accurate (as best we can tell), though terribly simplistic, history of the earth, from the scientific perspective.
Compare that to Genesis, Chapters 1-2:(Summarized)
On the first day, God created the heavens and the earth. It was good.
On the second day, God created the sky. It was good.
On the third day, God created the land and the sea on the earth. He then created plant life. It was good.
On the fourth day, God created the sun and the moon. It was good.
On the fifth day, God created creatures of the sea and then creatures of the air. It was good.
On the sixth day, God created land animals and then man. It was good.
On the seventh day, God rested. It was blessed.
Now the sun and the moon should have been created a bit earlier and I'd have to imagine that basic land animals should have come before animals of flight -- but other than those two relatively minor sequential problems, it matches up pretty well, no?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
FIRE GOD NOW!!!!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
OK
As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@
YAY!!!!!!!!!
-Cindi
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
You're missing the point here
Christianity makes a faith-based statement about the beginning of the universe. Namely, that it was caused by God. This is not a scientifically accessible statement, at least not given our current level of knowledge.
And neither is the statement about closer mentality. I can no more disprove that without opening the black box of human psychology than I can disprove the theory that God began the universe without opening the black box of the Big Bang.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
That's not true ...
with sufficient data, you could show whether or not some otherwise quality relievers have a tendency to fail as closers and other, otherwise marginal relievers have a tendency to succeed when the game is on the line.
With sufficient data -- if such a phenomenon existed -- you could show it.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Question (baseball related, not theological)
Do you know any differences (qualitative or methodological) between WXRL and WPA?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Well, apart from the obvious one
that one of them is at a replacement level benchmark and the other is at an average one, no, I can't say that I do. That's a pretty sizable difference, though.
I'd incline to favoring WPA because mediocre relief pitchers are so easy to find, and how many innings a guy throws often has more to do with his manager than his skill level.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Your analogy is not really accurate
Nico when referring to managers and coaches is referring to expert opinion. Or "expert" opinion.
Like it or not, Christians are not experts / "experts" on the topic of the origin of the universe.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Replace Christians with Christian ministers, and you could argue that ministers
and GMs/managers who hold that opinion about closers are "experts" in a similar enough sense.
The A's colors are green and gold.
3 at once
PT: Color me amused.
devo: The rigor with which you approach statistical evaluation seems not to have permeated some other areas of your consciousness. Which part of PT's post is "ignorant", exactly?
rfloh: Change "Christians" to "ministers" in the first line (as in the last), and the analogy works fine.
The concept that most Christians believe that scientific and bibilical explanations of the origins of the universe
are incompatible or even in conflict.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here.
And I'm pretty unconvinced by your casual dismissal of the science as amounting to "something happened". Maybe we should just stipulate that lots of Christians take issue with lots of things that "science" holds to be true, such as evolution.
You seem intent on putting a modern face on what you believe, and that's fantastic - I'm sure you're an enlightened guy and I'm equally certain there are many millions of Christians who are tons smarter than me and don't think the world was conjured up in a few days, or is a couple thousand years old, or whatever. But I'd be really careful about saying "most", especially if the bulk of your life experience has been relegated to the Bay Area. That's an awfully sweeping, highly dubious assertion to make, and I find it somewhat jarring coming from someone who so assiduously insists on intellectual precision when talking about stuff like baseball.
Also, I think you missed PT's original point entirely, choosing to focus on semantics and perceived insult rather than accepting the basic premise. He didn't make a value judgement about religiosity, he simply presented an analogy to illustrate the difference between faith and facts. And I'm certain that if he'd used some foil other than Christian/Minister, you'd have agreed wholeheartedly, since you make the same argument all the time. But you got stuck on the invocation of those words and assumed they implied an insult that, while perhaps existing inside PT's head, definitely wasn't in his post.
When someone leads off a post with, 'I'm probably going to piss people off by saying this, but I'm going to do it anyway ...'
it's logical to assume that the interpretation of what he says that would piss people off is what he means.
That said, re-reading his post, you are correct, I misunderstood PT's meaning. It's a poor analogy, though, because the origins of the universe is not simply a practice in faith for Christians, it is an area that, when getting at the point where things really started (before the Big Bang) we have no scientific knowledge, what-so-ever. We know the world was created -- the only explanations has to how that was set into motion are faith based. With closers, we do not know that there is such a thing as a "closer mentality" and there are lots of counter the concept that it does exist. The only (or at least primary) basis for believing that it does exist is faith based -- but unlike the origins of the universe, it is faith based in the face of significant subjective evidence instead of in the absence of subjective evidence.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
To be perfectly frank,
I don't think that my post above ought to offend people.
However, I'm fully aware of how politically incorrect it is, here or anywhere, to say anything that could be even vaguely construed as a criticism of religion, so I felt the disclaimer was warranted.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
My only criticism of religion is
I want part of my penis back.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
wouldn't closers be more analogous to eschatology?
... and starters to cosmology?
As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@
Is starting Jason Windsor
Scientology? Basically counting on the hitter to get himself out because the pitcher won't be doing anything?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
from my understanding of Scientology ...
... they really don't count on anyone getting themselves out (in either sense of the word).
As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@
Scientology took Jim Henson,
and I'm still mad about it. I assume grover is too.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I think you mean Christian Science
As reassuring as Bud's words were, the dulcet tone of his voice and his dashing appearance really sealed the deal for me. ~ GreenNGoldSooner @('.')@
neither like medicine and they both have "scie" in their names,
so lets just call it the same thing.
The A's colors are green and gold.
Tomayto-Tomahto
mikeA-mikeAH...Monkayball-Monkahball...
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Here's a challenge for ya ...
how many good relief pitchers can you name that failed as closers in a reasonable sample size, having nothing to do with health, but left closing and were successful again?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I agree somewhat
The problem is that the mental / intangible aspect is VERY DIFFICULT to identify and isolate. For outsiders, and this includes scouts of other teams, who do not have access to the players, it's impossible.
Even for a coach, it's questionable just how well they can isolate the mental aspects from all the other variables. As it is, it's very difficult to asses reliever performance, due to the small samples involved. When you try to parse the data for all manner of variables, you end up with ridiculous samples and ridiculous conclusions.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Street prolly has to pitch in more close games...
thanks to the A's anemic and abysmal offense over the last two years. He also has a tendency to give up the long ball. Put these two together and you got blown saves galore! Borowski on the other hand can give up hits and runs because his team is usually up by two or three runs.
At least when he enters the game...
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
No work tomorrow
and I'm staying up late here in EDTime to listen on mlbaudio...whilst I do my laundry one mile down the hall, 9 floors and half mile down the hall in this hotel.
Looking forward to seeing how Duke does and if we can muster some offense.
alaska A
You didn't mention your cat. I'm disappointed.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
