Crooked Numbers Help A's, Eveland Win Series
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 4:39 PM PDT
465 comments
Final Score: A's 7, Rays 1
I am a motivator; it's what I do. All the grief I gave Dana Eveland this week about the fact that he gives up lots of hits and walks and only goes about 5 innings? Just hoping someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew Dana would see it, causing a chain of events that would end with Eveland being determined, motivated, a changed man in his quest to prove me - some blogger on the internet - wrong.
It kinda happened. Eveland only went 5+ innings, and he walked the leadoff man twice, but in general he was quite solid, limiting the Rays to 1 run on 4 hits before turning things over to the A's bullpen for 4 shutout innings of relief.
Meanwhile, after falling behind 1-0, the A's put up 4 runs in the bottom of the 2nd against Andy Sonnanstine, with a walk to Holliday followed by singles from Cust and Garciaparra - surprise, it came on the first pitch - and a two-run double by sizzling Suzuki. Ellis capped the rally with an RBI single.
In the 5th, the A's chased Sonnanstine and put the game away with 3 more, getting RBI singles from Cabrera and Holliday and a bases loaded walk to Suzuki. Every A's starter had at least one hit in the 10-hit attack.
I thought the A's had a great approach against Sonnanstine, often swinging at the first pitch instead of letting Sonnanstine get ahead in the count. Sonnanstine is a "get ahead, the best pitch you'll see is the first one" type of pitcher and the A's did not let him get away with centering a lot of first pitches.
Props to Michael Wuertz, who inherited a two on, nobody out mess in the 6th, coaxed a DP ground ball and went on to hurl 2 scoreless innings. Casilla (9 pitches) and Springer (2 Ks) each threw a perfect inning to close it out. If there has been a consistent positive in the first 17 games, it has to be the outstanding work of the A's bullpen. It would just be nice if they didn't have to pitch around 4 innings a game, but with the A's on route to Texas for their next series...don't wait up.
0 recs |
465 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
i hearby sentence Nico
to attend every home game started by Eveland?!?!?!?
Wang’s ERA is the same as the balance in my checkbook - Jennifer
by closetasfan on Apr 26, 2009 4:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
actually some credit must be given to Baseball Girl
who responded to the team’s need for wins at home and in the daytime by coming north for yesterday’s and today’s game.
by OaklandSi on Apr 26, 2009 4:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I was there, too. Both games.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Apr 26, 2009 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good work, Mike
in addition, BBG got on a plane from Southern California to help the A’s along…I think that’s worthy of special mention.
by OaklandSi on Apr 26, 2009 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You should see the big ass BBQ I lugged to the game from Livermore.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Apr 26, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so the BBQ is 1-1 so far this season?
by OaklandSi on Apr 26, 2009 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed, but I'm 2-1 personally.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Apr 26, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gymnastics?
Giambi looks kind of evil here…
by whiteshoes40 on Apr 26, 2009 4:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"Step into my office, Travis."
“Sure thing, G. No windows in here, huh? Bold choice. Hey, uh… what’s that Louisville Slugger doing in here?…”
I just remembered I love Eric Chavez.
by Joey C. on Apr 26, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"...what the hell are those kids over there doing on my lawn?"
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Apr 26, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could've sworn the pool boy said he was coming Friday...
I'm so sick of the Hannahan/A-Rod comparisons.--Rocktopus
by Leopold Bloom on Apr 26, 2009 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he's staring down Geren, concerning his
treatment of Buck.
by OldhamA on Apr 26, 2009 5:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Couple notes
It’s good to see a rebound series win against a good team like the Rays coupled with the fact that we got beat up in the first game. I’d take this sort of effort from Eveland every time so hopefully he’s fixed something and can keep it up.
As for the 5th inning I do have a bit of a beef. Cormier was having trouble finding the strike zone as evidenced by his walk to Suzuki. So what happens next? He throws a first pitch ball to Buck and then Buck pops the next pitch up and it was too shallow for Holliday to score. Then Ellis swings at the first pitch and grounds out to second. Now some of you may say “Who cares?” since we scored 7 runs but that sort of hitting is unacceptable. Make the guy throw strikes and have a better approach up there, especially with the bases loaded.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Apr 26, 2009 5:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
swinging early in the count = praise
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 26, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That instance
should serve as a reminder to all those who lament that the A’s take too many pitches and aren’t aggressive enough. Being aggressive does not equal success, in fact it can make you look foolish a lot of the time.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Apr 26, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Swinging early in the count, and taking a lot of pitches,
aren’t inherently good or bad ideas. They depend on the circumstances. Swinging early in the count is what got the A’s on the board early and often against Sonnanstine, and it was also what hurt them against the bullpen.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's good to swing at the first pitch if it's a good one for you as a hitter
In other news, oxygen is good to breathe.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not for obligate anaerobic bacteria
objective analysis beats conventional wisdom again
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 26, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
or plants that need CO2
good analogy and conclusion.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 12:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
facultative anerobes, on the other hand,
will swing whenever they see their pitch, whether it is at oxygen or some other terminal electron acceptor.
by el generico on Apr 27, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
unless
the first two batters made first-pitch outs, etc. etc. etc.
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
by flipgatey3 on Apr 27, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I figure if it's a good pitch to hit, go for it and take your chances
Some will get through. Some won’t. Better than going down 0-2 right away.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that makes sense
but in my experience, you gotta wear a deep count to help out your pitcher in that case. not a problem for me since i hit leadoff and do that almost any at-bat anyway.
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
by flipgatey3 on Apr 28, 2009 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
I guess what I was trying to say but failed to make clear was that being aggressive for the sake of being aggressive is not the answer. Case in point; the 5th inning.
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Apr 26, 2009 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
by flipgatey3 on Apr 27, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Having reviewed the game thread
I’m glad to see that the LIVE! DOT! RACING! was on the TV broadcast, otherwise you’d never have believed us.
Great game, great tailgate, thanks all!
by Englishmajor on Apr 26, 2009 5:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I took a picture!
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
by baseballgirl on Apr 27, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am a fan of Eveland, which there haven't been a lot of around these parts
So i am really happy to see him pitch well. Hopefully he keeps proving to us that he belongs in the rotation.
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
by winchester5 on Apr 26, 2009 5:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What I'd really like to see from Eveland before I can get optimistic is for him to
average more like 6-7 innings instead of 5 innings, because if he’s not going to be “great” he at least needs to save the bullpen from working too much. The “only 5” innings and the 3 walks concern me, BUT…this was definitely a step forward.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"a step forward" it certainly was.
hopefully this game, for eveland, will help him take that step forward, like it hopefully will do for the teams offense. i understand that he may never be an oustanding pitcher, but maybe this will get him moving towards a point, where, at least he can be someone who will eat up some innings and keep us in the game. but i will stand by the fact that geren did the right thing in keeping a short leash on him, maybe that’s just the way the needs to be handled right now.
ken korach's voice is like peanut butter on velvet, not joe buck's.
by mrbendy on Apr 26, 2009 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't be too concerned
He’s been our best pitcher so far this season.
tRA:
Eveland 3.64
Braden 4.30
Anderson 4.51
Cahill 8.31
Outman 9.34
It’s popular around here lately to blame pitchers for their bad luck and praise them for their good luck. If people show normal regression, in a few weeks we’ll be reading posts about how Cahill is “allowing” too many hits and Eveland is inducing so much weak contact.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Oh my - yes, Dana Eveland has pitched better overall so far than Dallas Braden
Thanks for the reminder. Yikes.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh snap. Does this mean we actually have to reconsider our falsely held preconceived notions?
Facts, numbers, logic — always so pesky.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 26, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, if you want to believe that Eveland has outpitched Braden so far this year,
you go right ahead. It’s your right to do so.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cool.
And you go right ahead believing that Eveland shouldn’t even be in the rotation.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 26, 2009 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he's fine as a #5, actually
I just think he’s not a middle-of-the-rotation guy and that Gio and Gallagher have a chance to pass him.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Basically, I think ultimately he's #7 on the "current pitchers" depth chart,
behind Duchscherer, Braden, Anderson, Cahill, G. Gonzalez, and Gallagher, but ahead of Outman.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a Joe Morgan-esque statement
Continuing to assert your idea without any sort of justification isn’t debate so much as it is obstinacy.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
No, honestly I just don't feel like engaging you in the conversation
Sorry.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But don't worry
Nico is still a “stat” guy and AN isn’t hostile to stats.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This has nothing to do with whether or not AN is hostile to stats
I like stats. Nico likes stats. We’re the only two people “representative” of AN saying something, but that doesn’t mean we’re speaking for AN. We’re speaking for ourselves.
The question people should be asking is “What’s wrong with tRA if it rates Eveland better than Braden?”
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not hostile to stats?
Poster 1: I have an argument… [lays argument out]
Nico: Wrong [makes no argument]
Flashfire: yep, wrong
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Sure, sure. Okay.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cute
You’re an asset to this site.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
Should I assume you think Eveland has been, should be or will be better than Braden, or are you just arguing because you see my name attached to the debate?
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think someone made a valid point
That you have provided no rebuttal to (except a conclusory one).
On the debate, I think Eveland is likely to be better (because that’s what the predictive stats say) but that Braden has been better (iglew’s point).
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My rebuttal has been the results speaking for themselves
If you go back to my points last year about Pythag records, I’m not a big believer in luck making that much of a difference, especially when I see the ability Braden’s showing compared to what Eveland has and is showing now.
Eveland really hasn’t done anything to make me believe he’s going to outperform Braden the rest of the season.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you think Eveland's year-end BABIP will be over .400?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, but I do think Braden will continue to perform better
Have you watched the two of them pitch this year? Have you seen how much better Braden’s been? He’s the one who’s pitched like he has a clue and knows what he’s doing, not Eveland.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Apparently, you've never seen a baseball game, or you'd know..."
This is the problem with the small sample size eyeball test. Of COURSE Eveland looks bad when he’s getting historically bad luck. Also, teams that aren’t hitting look “hopeless” and Jeter looks like a good defensive shortstop.
I agree that I’d rather have Braden’s starts than Eveland’s so far. I don’t think that’s obvious, or even necessarily true, over the rest of the season
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where I start to wonder about things is...
…how much of it is bad luck and how much of it is Eveland just not being that good a pitcher? I think that’s a lot of what Nico’s saying as well because I believe we’ve both seen enough inconsistency out of Eveland to blame that more than luck.
At what point is it more about him than other variables?
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The more he pitches
The more it’ll be about him because we’ll have more confidence that what we are seeing is his talent level. If he had a 10-year career with a 400 plus babip, we’d say that’s him (and 10 GMs would be fired).
The point is, your eyes can deceive you. In the early part of baseball seasons, they often do. Stats that regress to the mean take care of a lot of that and, as a result, are surprising. That doesn’t make them wrong.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm glad I wasn't part of this conversation
Nico’s narrow minded, arrogant, dismissive attitude has really been getting on my nerves the day or two.
His first sentence in this write-up that made an A’s victory over the defending AL champs a story about himself made me put this aside till Monday morning.
I hope we’re not turning from AN into Nico’s World.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 27, 2009 5:47 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm also glad I wasn't part of this argument
but only because I hate to see mommy and daddy fighting.
by cityplANner on Apr 27, 2009 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is just a weird comment
You’ve forgotten what AN was like before last week? You can get professional opinions in the newspapers or magazines. log onto a fan page and expect something other than a personal story?
Nico made a joke about the argument that was had on THurday last. SO what? Can’t you see that the argument lives in this very thread? its topical and people want to chime in. Good move on his part.
by Future Ed on Apr 27, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not Joe Morgan-esque at all
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
by travdog6 on Apr 26, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Braden has done a better job than Eveland, regardless of what that stat suggests
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yuppers.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's just no comparison when looking at all the numbers between the two of them
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
Dallas Braden FIP (Hardball Times formula): 4.42
Dana Eveland FIP: 4.00
Dallas Braden LD%: 19%
Dana Eveland LD%: 17.2%
Dallas Braden tRA+: 117
Dana Eveland tRA+: 129
*Eveland’s stats haven’t been updated with today’s start.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 26, 2009 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
stop it dude, this is how enron started...
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 26, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay
And then there’s ERA (2.52 to 5.95), WHIP (1.28 to 2.08), AVG against (.250 to .349), etc. that are all in Braden’s favor, things that aren’t even close. You know, all the things that actually mean more when it comes to results on the field?
Are you really going to try to convince people Eveland has been a better pitcher than Braden so far? Seriously?
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, I'm not trying to unequivocally prove that Eveland has been better than Braden.
But that wasn’t my point in my post. You said that there’s no comparison between those two’s numbers, implying that Braden is head and shoulders above Eveland. I showed you some numbers that obviously revealed that this was not the case. That is, a legit case can in fact, be built to support the very opposite, that Eveland has actually been better than Braden.
Also, if you’re trying to make statistic-based case as to what’s “in Braden’s favor,” please use stats that are not affected deeply by extraneous factors beyond the pitcher’s control. This excludes ERA, WHIP, and BAA.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 26, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say the pitcher has a little bit to do with it when the differences are so great
I mean, I’m going to put a little more stock in that than Eveland’s LD% being slightly better.
There’s really no case whatsoever that legitimately supports Eveland having been better so far. Sorry.
Until today Eveland had pitched like crap while Braden has been the only one on the staff giving them quality starts. If not for having to leave early yesterday because of his groin, it’d be four of four for Braden, who is also the only one that has worked late into the games, saving the bullpen.
There is NO question about this.
Cahill was pitching more lucky than anything else in his first three games and it caught up to him in his last one. Anderson’s also done fairly well so far. Outman, no debate. He was terrible as a starter so far. Even with today’s better outing, Eveland’s still worked 6 innings just once in four starts.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd like to know in what way "Mr. I" and "lensy"
feel Eveland has pitched well in his 19.2 IP. Do you think the 29 hits have mostly been products of bad luck? That’s a freaking lot of bad luck. How do you assess the 12 walks? That’s a truckload of free passes. He pitches from behind in the count, he misses his target frequently, and he averages 5 IP / start. What’s the part that’s been good, and how do you explain all the bad stuff?
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know, but apparently we have a few cherry-picked stats that prove Eveland's been better
This is why sometimes I hate the more obscure stats.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The stats are only as bad as they're used
It not the stat’s fault that it’s sometimes extremely accurate and insightful, and at other times flawed and misleading.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I don't get is why anyone would even try to pretend Eveland's been better so far
That’s just crazy talk.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I don't get is why anyone would continue to pretend that they are winning an arguement
that the other side is not even making. Do you actually read the responses from the other posters, or do you just keep patting yourself on the back about how much smarter you are then the stupid stats being posted?
Both of the posters have said that they are not arguing that Eveland was better then Braden. They are only arguing that Eveland has been very unlucky so far and might actually be much better then the results show. So at least argue against what is being said rather then making up the other guys position for him.
by AsFanInLA on Apr 26, 2009 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was about to, but I wanted to watch
the end of the NYY-BOS game first.
First off, 12 BB in 19.2 IP is very bad. You can’t walk 5 batters per 9 IP and expect to succeed in the big leagues, especially if you’re the type of pitcher who allows more than a hit/inning – as Eveland has in every major league season, by the way.
Second of all, I agree that Eveland won’t continue to have a .439 BABIP against him, but the problem Eveland will have is that when his BABIP regresses to the norm he’ll still be giving up about a hit an inning (just not 1.5) and a pitcher who gives up 2 hits and a walk every 2 innings, instead of 3 hits and a walk every 2 innings, is still not a good pitcher.
He does one thing well, and he has done it well the first four starts: He keeps the ball in the park. But he has not pitched well in that he has been both hittable and wild, has pitched behind in the count (which makes opposing hitters better) – and because he cannot throw enough strikes early or at all, he runs high pitch counts that prevent him from even being an “innings eater.”
Eveland’s results have been poor, but his process has also been poor. Giving up a lot of hits and giving up a lot of walks is a poor formula for success. Unfortunately, it’s what Eveland has done in every major league stint he has ever had.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay Nico
But the thing is, since you do believe that his BABIP will not remain at .439, this will not only reduce his H/IP rate but will also reduce his BB/IP rate (as innings will end sooner, meaning fewer batters will bat per inning, giving Eveland fewer opportunities to walk guys)
The crazy inflated BABIP is actually affecting not just the number of hits allowed, it is creating more walk oppurtunities (creating more walks) and keeping his IP down as well (if the innings ended sooner he could pitch more of them).
by AsFanInLA on Apr 26, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, good point.
The thing is, what has happened to Eveland so far this year isn’t different from what has happened to him his entire career.
Eveland has struggled to throw strikes or keep hits off the board every season, or part of a season, he has taken a major league mound.
And if you watch him pitch, you see why – he not only gives batters a 1-0 head start far too often, but if Suzuki wants a pitch in on the hands it’s anybody’s guess whether the pitch will be in on the hands, a “great pitch” on the outside corner, or will catch too much of the plate. The % of pitches he throws where he intended to throw it is just too low to succeed in the big leagues.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thing is, what has happened to Eveland so far this year isn’t different from what has happened to him his entire career.
I’m glad you posted this, because this is precisely the point: Eveland probably hasn’t substantially become a worse pitcher than he was last year. He’s thrown pitches of around the same quality, but he’s been a lot less lucky. Eveland walks too many batters, and he won’t ever be a really good pitcher until he learns control, but his results this year have been determined more my aberrant luck than anything.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except that his career WHIP is 1.66
And last season he had a WHIP of 1.48 while posting a 4.34 ERA pitching half his games in a pitcher’s park. Oops.
For the record, early last season when Eveland had a pretty shiny ERA I said I thought he was having exceptionally GOOD luck and it wouldn’t sustain.
So where you’re saying “he’s not any worse than last year, just less lucky,” I actually think it’s better described by “He’s not any better than last season, just not as lucky.”
Anyway, I’m done here. I won’t change your mind and that’s fine. Let’s see how Eveland’s career is doing in a couple years.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I'm done here as well
Anyone who wants to convince themselves Eveland is better (and better than Braden, because this is what Mr. I started it all off with), go right ahead.
I think we’re seeing Braden mature and grow as a real pitcher before our eyes while Eveland is still trying to figure out what the heck he’s doing out there.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, that is not what I posted.
I posted that so far this year eveland has been better.
Braden is better than Eveland, and if you look up career tRA and FIP, they agree, but so far this year Eveland has just been very unlucky.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your italics
“So far this year”.
This is exactly where I think the stats folk go off track.
There is a reason we keep looking at these new stats and that is they are proven to be better predictors of future performance. If I’m looking at ERA and AVG against while you’re looking at tRA and FIP and probably others I haven’t even heard of, you are going to be able to better predict which pitcher is likely to succeed in the next game. That’s because your stats are a better measure of things that are repeatable skills.
I get that.
But what I most assuredly don’t get is when you turn it around and say these predictive stats also prove someone was better in the past. If the question is who has been better so far this year we don’t need any predictive stats, all we need to look at is the actual performance.
Predicting future performance is hard, but observing past performance is very simple. Braden got the outs, Eveland didn’t. You can say he was just unlucky. OK, fine, so it was just bad luck that he hasn’t been as good so far. But he still hasn’t been as good so far. Maybe you think the evidence shows he’ll be better than Braden in the future. OK, fine, but he still hasn’t been as good so far.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 26, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Now this is a persuasive point
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points, iglew. Seriously.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Iglew, as to measuring actual performance
That’s actually exactly what tRA is designed for. It was meant as a much more effective method of measuring pitching performance than ERA and such because it’s not as skewed by park and defense factors, and is much more stable year to year. Essentially, it tries to measures the pitcher’s actual abilities… not abilities + team defensive performance and luck. tRA* is the one that’s more of a predictive stat.
Hence, this is why the debate commenced. I looked at Braden’s and Eveland’s tRA and saw that Eveland had a better tRA, which indicated to me at least a slight, but not entirely dismissable chance, that Eveland might have pitched better than Braden.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 26, 2009 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is obviously a semantic difference.
You mean something very different when you say “actual performance” or “pitched better”.
In my world, the guy who gets the out “pitched better” than the guy who gives up a HR, regardless of whether the HR was a lucky fluke hit off a good pitch or the out was a meatball that the hitter unluckily whiffed on.
Even if you’re 10 times better than me, if I get lucky and win this one time, then this one day I played better than you did.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 26, 2009 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
I guess our fundamental difference comes down to:
if I get lucky and win this one time, then this one day I played better than you did.
In regards to baseball, you clearly believe the credit should be given to the pitcher for getting a luck influenced result. I do not. I’m pretty sure I’m not going to be able to convince you otherwise, so I’ll leave it at that.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 26, 2009 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
I’m very glad that the rules of the game align with my perception. If every “luck influenced” result were reversed and the win awarded to the team that was objectively judged superior, regardless of the actual score, the sport would be very boring.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 26, 2009 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's like saying poker would be boring if A-A always beat 7-2
meaning you’re right, but someone playing poker would be an idiot to play 7-2 and fold A-A based on the “luck influenced” results of a previous hand. it’s not about determining who won, the winner is the winner based on results, but process is still more important.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then why is his FIP in line with projections
Also both Zips and James project Eveland to improve on last year’s FIP
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 1:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You realize that tRA takes pretty much all of this into account?
A methodology on how it’s calculated can be found here and here
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 26, 2009 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is starting to look like the Pyhtag Record debate to me
“Eveland is better because his tRA is better than Braden’s.”
Except Braden allowing fewer runs, hits, walks and so on is more important than a stat like tRA that is in Eveland’s favor.
“The A’s are better because their Pythag Record is actually better than the Angels.” (And this came up a lot last year during much of the season)
Except actual wins and losses are more important than what a formula says they should be, because the actual results are not always what a formula predicts.
Sorry to be so sarcastic here, but results are a little more important to me and the results clearly show Braden’s been better than Eveland so far this year. His process has been better as well, as has his efficiency.
You can talk about hypotheticals all you want but Braden’s been the one pitching the best of all the starters.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I played my friend in pool last week, and I was the winner of the game. This was luck. He is a better pool player.
Skill doesn’t always translate to a win.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you think Eveland's a better pitcher than Braden?
Even Braden’s skills have been better than Eveland’s.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, actually, I don't
Braden is likely to be a better pitcher, but Eveland has been a lot less lucky.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You also might want to work on your examples
The pool example is a fluke. You’re suggesting what’s going on with Eveland and Braden right now is also a fluke.
It’s not.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
normally I would expect some sort of rationale to follow that last sentence, but you’ve already established that you have no intention of actually providing any.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
Mr. I started this off by saying Eveland has “been our best pitcher so far this season.”
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CG #1
Personal attacks on community members, directly or through sarcasm/belittling, e.g., “You’re an idiot,” “You don’t know what you’re talking about, dumbass,” “Apparently, you’ve never seen a baseball game, or you’d know…”, “My Chihuahua knows more about baseball than you do,” etc.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Feel free to flag it
If I get a strike, I get a strike.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't plan to
I do, however, hope you think about the way you sound in this thread. Maybe you’ll grow as an admin.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm comfortable with the way I sound
And I’m not an admin any more. I do gameday threads but I don’t moderate on AN.
I think it’s ridiculous to sit here and claim tRA is a more valid way of proving anything between Eveland and Braden compared to the actual results so far. In all seriousness, Iglew’s point about it being a future predictor compared to viewing past evidence was a great one.
The past evidence proves Braden’s done better so far. If you believe tRA and so on suggest Eveland will be better with some more luck or something, cool. Based on everything we’ve seen so far, I feel very secure in telling you I think Braden has been much better in approach, effectiveness, results and so on.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The big change in fan attitude is not
due to the advancement of stats. It’s due to the spread of fantasy leagues.
There are a whole lot of fans out there who are accustomed to thinking of players in terms of picking them in their leagues, which is by nature a predictive attitude.
Being a spectator fan, on the other hand, tends to emphasize who actually got the job done, regardless of whether it was due to luck or skill.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 26, 2009 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's part of it
But also given what they have done is in the books, the interesting question is what they’ll do going forward.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
See, that's exactly the cultural divide.
To me, the interesting question is what they did today, not what they’ll do tomorrow. I want to enjoy the moment, not be perpetually looking ahead to the next game.
Today, Kurt Suzuki was great. He got two walks and a bases-clearing double. That’s something I enjoy. It’s fun. If you say, “Sure, but over the next few weeks he’s bound to regress to the mean”, that’s not fun at all. That’s pooping in the punch bowl.
So no, I don’t think the interesting question is what they’ll do going forward. I think the interesting question is what they did today.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 26, 2009 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't clear
I was talking about roster moves (for example, sending Eveland to AAA or something).
I do, however, also think it’s interesting when Eveland starts next (as it was today) to know that he was likely to pitch well. Much like it was interesting to know that Outman was likely to get shelled.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"the spread of fantasy leagues"
but flashfire is the one using ERA and (lol) WHIP, fantasy stats… 99.99% of fantasy league participants have never heard of tRA and FIP.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 1:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nico please explain how flawed and misleading FIP and tRA are
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They've led you to believe Eveland has outpitched Braden
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I assume that's a euphamism for "I don't understand them and they don't agree with what I think therefore I disregard them."
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You can assume that if you wish.
I’ve actually taught statistics, but you’re welcome to assume what you like.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fact that you taught high school stats doesn't mean a thing
You’ve continually attacked the validity and applicability of tRA and FIP, yet refused to explain your reasoning in any way that is logically valid. You continually hold up straw men or debate subjects not being discussed without ever addressing the crux of the debate head on. As soon as you state why you feel the statistics in question are internally or externally invalid, your stature in secondary education does not lend more or less credence to your position.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW, I actually agree that
my teaching background doesn’t mean a thing, other than to say, “If you think the problem is that I don’t get how statistics works, that’s not really the issue.” But I’m honestly not here to “prove” anything and this is tiresome to me. Best wishes. Time to watch “Family Guy.”
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is getting ridiculous
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
by flipgatey3 on Apr 27, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here is the breakdown
Stats the pitcher does not have under his control say eveland sucks
Stats the pitcher can control say Eveland has been fine
It’s not cherry picking to make legitimate distinctions between stats based on objective criteria. It’s the same reason why Juan Pierre can hit .290 and still suck – because some stats tell us a lot more about what we can expect in terms of future results.
Noone’s disputing that the results in games started by Eveland have been bad, and if you actually read the posts I’ve allowed that Braden could very possibly have been better than Eveland thus far. The question is how much of the result has been under Eveland’s control.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I'm laughing at is that there's even a question here
You shouldn’t even need to say Braden “could very possibly” have been better thus far.
He HAS been.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So if Eveland isn't controlling how many batters he walks,
who is? And who’s controlling his % of first pitch strikes? ’Cuz I want to speak with them harshly!
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now you're cherrypicking stats to prove your point.
The point isn’t that his Braden’s results haven’t been better, because they haven’t. The point is that Eveland has pitched well—better than Braden. Results aren’t the same as performance.
Say, for some reason, the Raiders drafted me—a non-athete—and decided to start me at quarterback. I throw up all kinds of ridiculous passes all the time. Well sometimes they’ll be caught by one of my wide receivers and say all those happened to be bunched into one game and we end up beating the Patriots. I certainly haven’t performed better than Tom Brady, but I beat him.
Baseball is so dependent on fluky situations that for you to just dismiss stats that say perhaps Eveland has been very unlucky and Braden has been very lucky because Braden has seen the results doesn’t make much sense to me.
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait, what's your 40 time?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"lensy"
Seriously dude? So this is what AN management has come to….
It’s entirely possible that luck has a great effect on such a small sample of 19 IP. Luck, and other factors, evens out over a course of a season. And explain, to me how exactly I’m using tRA and FIP misleadingly, how am I cherry-picking, and how are these advanced metrics more flawed than results and luck based statistics like ERA and such.
I’m starting to think that the only reason people disregard these advanced metrics is because they don’t understand them. Meh, I guess it makes to sense to dislike what you don’t understand.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 26, 2009 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you're the one having trouble understanding how Braden's been better than Eveland
It’s not rocket science. Just look at the results. You know, the stuff that actually matters.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quick exercise:
I flip a quarter and get heads three times in a row. Does that change your evaluation of the coin in any way? It shouldn’t, it’s just as likely to be tails next time. Results, especially given a very small sample, are very misleading.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yet the results say Braden has been much better than Eveland this season
Flipping a coin is pure chance. Pitching is not.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Braden's performance has been better as well
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And this is where I bring in statistics like
tRA and FIP that say, “No, Braden’s performance hasn’t been better.” Where is your evidence?
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And this is where I say "I'm not going through this again."
I already pointed to Braden’s better strike percentage and lower pitch counts per inning as being important factors in his performance being better, which helps him pitch more efficiently and effectively. It looks like the fact he’s allowed two homers to Eveland’s none skews some figures so far, but from what someone else said him getting more fly balls is actually helping him than Eveland’s tendency to get more ground balls is so far.
tRA seems to be suggesting Eveland should be pitching better, but Braden’s the one who is at this point.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with Flashfire 100 percent
Braden is pitching much better
by Trainman on Apr 27, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strike percentage is a bad stat to look at.
I bet any major league pitcher can grove BP fasballs that get jacked for HRs if they really wanted to increase their strike percentage.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except I don't think that's what Braden is doing
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Braden's the one who's getting better results
But when you consider how fluky baseball is and how small a sample size we’re talking about, then it’s not difficult to make a concession that Eveland could be pitching better than Braden right now.
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So then I'd ask why you think Braden's getting better results
It’s not just good luck for him and bad luck for Eveland. At some point you have to allow for their approaches. Braden’s pitching like he knows what he’s doing, developing into someone who wins by putting the ball where he wants it since he can’t overpower people. Eveland’s pitching is all over the place.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why cant it just be luck based?
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because it's not that simple
And blaming it all on just luck is a copout as far as I’m concerned. That isn’t giving any credit (or discredit, as the case may be) to the pitcher.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But it has a LOT to do with luck.
You can hit a ball hard right at somebody that gets caught and you can hit a blooper over somebody’s head. The fact that Eveland’s line drive rate is lower than Braden’s indicates that people hit the ball harder off him. And Eveland’s ridiculously high BABIP indicates that a lot of balls hit off him are not hit hard but still end up turning into hits.
You can give a pitcher all the credit you want but there’s a defense behind him that he depends on. This is why we talk about Cust’s true outcomes—K, HR, BB—because they’re the only ones that are just hitter and pitcher. Every other possible scenario involves some other situation which can be chocked down to luck.
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know why.
The defense likes Braden more.
HAH. NO STATS CAN PROVE THAT.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Apr 27, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well actually...
i got nothin
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Apr 27, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't say there's no luck involved
I said there’s more to it than just luck.
If someone wants to base it primarily on luck, go right ahead. I don’t.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But if it's not all luck...
then you’re saying other than BB, K and HR, Eveland has the ability to control where batters hit the ball and he just chooses not to?
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In a way, he does
That’s where pitch location and scouting comes into play. If you want to try to force someone to hit to the opposite field because he loses more power on his swing that way, wouldn’t you pitch him away instead of inside?
If Braden’s better at making the ball go where he wants than Eveland is, which one do you think will succeed more over time? I’ll take the guy with better control.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
that control is key, but that doesn’t mean all control pitchers are always better than stuff pitchers (though it’s often the case). But after the ball is put into play, the pitcher has no control over what happens, unless it’s hit to him. So slapping results like ERA and WHIP, which are defense dependent stats, on the pitcher is unfair.
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's all a big combination of a lot of little things
Yes, where a ball is it and how hard it’s hit and who’s playing defense and where they’re positioned and how fast the runner is and which way the wind is blowing all weigh in on the end result. No debate there.
Still, there comes a point where if someone’s WHIP is around 2.00 it’s got less to do with all those variables and more to do with him. No, I don’t expect Eveland’s to remain that high, but his career WHIP is 1.65. That’s terrible. He got it to 1.48 with the A’s last year and improved after his stint in Sacramento, but it still has to come down more for him to have better success. He can’t keep putting that many runners on without paying for it. It’s a good thing he doesn’t give up a lot of homers, or some of those numbers would be much worse.
At least the two Braden’s given up so far have been solo shots and the only runs the opposition scored in those two innings. In that sense, if he’s going to allow a run I’d rather it be on a solo homer and have him get right back to setting hitters down instead of giving up a few walks and singles that drive his pitch count up.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and just to check it
Braden’s allowed 19 homers so far in his career. Of those, 12 were solo, 5 were with a man on and 1 was with two on.
Eveland’s allowed 16, of which only 4 were solo. 6 came with a man on and 6 with two on.
That does show that when Braden has given up the longball, he hasn’t been hurt as much by people on base.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're crediting Braden
for only giving up solo HR, as if Braden thinks to himself, well if I’m going to give up a HR, I should make it a solo—you’re giving too much unfair credit to the pitcher. Positive credit to Braden and negative credit to Eveland.
And I’d like to point out that this is not about career performance, this about who’s been better this year—and when you take luck out of the equation, stats indicate Eveland has performed better. Just because Eveland has given up 1.50 baserunners per inning does not mean that he hasn’t outpitched Braden over X period of time.
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone gives up homers
So yeah, if someone can limit the damage to solo homers and make it harder for someone to take him out for three runs on one swing, yes, I’m going to give him some credit there. Why shouldn’t you?
I’d hope a pitcher is thinking “If I’m going to give up a homer, it’d better be with the bases empty.”
I still disagree that Eveland has performed better this season, with or without luck, but my mind isn’t changing on that one at this point in time.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You shouldn't give credit
Because pitchers don’t have the ability to choose to give up solo HR rather than three-run HRs. If you could choose that, then why would you ever give up ANY HR?
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I'm saying is...
…no, of course pitchers can’t choose what kind of homer to give up, but they can absolutely bear down and work harder to avoid the probability of one in certain cases. Stay away from a hitter, keep the ball down in the zone more to someone who likes it up, vice versa.
I don’t think you’re giving pitchers nearly enough credit for their ability to influence what happens. It’s not just a case of “Well, I can’t do a thing about what happens the moment the ball leaves my hand.”
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that last part
But research shows that on balls in play (not walks, Ks, or HRs) pitchers really can’t control what happens to their FB, GB, and LDs.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 27, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd agree with that
A lot of that depends on how good a swing someone gets. We all know pitchers make good pitches and get beat anyway, and they make bad pitches they get away with.
I’m just saying that it’s not just pure chance once they let go of the ball. The pitcher is still the one who knows what’s being thrown, not the hitter. The pitcher is normally going to have the advantage in most situations because of that and will win the battle if he’s good enough, more often than not.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If a pitcher has the ability
to bear down in situations, keep the ball down and not give up HR, then why on earth wouldn’t every pitcher bear down in all situations and keep the ball down all the time?
And a pitcher really only has control until the ball leaves his hand. He can try to put it where he wants to, but when the batter hits it, you tell me what a pitcher can do to prevent fluky hits.
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because everyone who is clutch is actually a slacker who plays at 80% their maximum level in normal situations.
Baseball isn't magic.
by rebus on Apr 27, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because if you threw that way every single pitch, you'd burn out
That’s why starters can’t go all out on every pitch. They have to vary speeds and how hard they throw. If you ask any starter, they’ll tell you they never throw 100% because they have to leave something extra there when they need it.
It’s different for closers and relief pitchers, who only have to go an inning. They can go much harder because they’re not going to go through a lineup multiple times.
Also, in a lot of cases if you’re keeping the ball down you’re probably throwing outside the strike zone and hoping the batter will chase your pitch. Obviously you can’t pitch out of the strike zone all the time. In those tense situations, the pressure is on the hitter to do something with a pitch just as much as it’s on the pitcher to make a good one.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a weak argument
A pitcher doesn’t have to throw 100% to be effective—you just said that—and he has to vary speeds—you said that, too. So a pitcher can throw lighter than usual in pressure situations, but it’s too physically taxing.
A pitcher can’t control when he gives up homeruns, or else he would never give them up.
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not a weak argument at all
What I’m saying is when they need a little more, like a few extra MPH on a fastball to surprise a hitter when he’s expecting something a little slower because that’s what he’s seen so far, that can make a big difference between him getting around on a ball and pulling it vs. being late and fouling it off, popping it up, etc. Of course the pitcher could still end up beaten.
If they threw as hard as they could on every pitch, there’d be nothing left to fall back on. That’s the whole point I’m making.
Obviously once the bat makes contact with the ball the pitcher’s taken out of the equation, but he’s the biggest factor in it up to that point.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm done after this
But I just don’t understand how you can claim that Braden has the ability to choose to only give up solo HR and Eveland does not…
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never said that at all
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everone gives up homers. So yeah, if someone can limit the damage to solo homers and make it harder for someone to take him out for three runs on one swing, yes, I’m going to give him some credit there. Why shouldn’t you?
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's still not me saying Braden's choosing to only allow solo homers
Not really sure why you think it does.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously?
So you’re giving him credit for something he’s not capable of doing?
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was talking about a pitcher bearing down in a situation like that...
…so he’d ideally limit the chances of allowing a homer with runners on.
You pitch a lot differently with nobody on base than you do when someone’s on.
I never came close to saying a pitcher can decide “Well, I’m just going to give up solo homers and that’s it.”
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think
what I quoted you as saying in the block quote indicates otherwise. If a player cannot control such things, then why are you giving Braden credit for it?
Flip flopped and said you never said that.
Then you said that pitchers bear down in situations with runners on. I took that to mean that you again think Braden can bear down with runners on so as to not allow HR, but he doesn’t care when runners aren’t on?
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It coincides with my belief...
…that a pitcher doesn’t lose control or influence of an outcome the moment the ball leaves his hand. Once it’s hit he does, but depending on the pitch he throws he can influence the outcome of the contact as well. Up to that point, he is very much in control of the result by nature of what he throws and where he locates it, especially if he’s exceptionally good at it.
No flip flop at all. Never said he doesn’t care when he gives up a home run. Suggested that he works harder not to give up a home run when runners are on. I’m pretty sure all pitchers do that, but in comparing Braden and Eveland it showed Braden’s had more success avoiding the multi-run homer than Eveland has. Make of that what you will.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Over their careers
Braden has allowed 10.2 H/9, while Eveland has allowed 10.3 H/9. If they both allow the same number of hits over 9 IP, then once the ball is put in play, it’s out of their control and neither have a say of which of those 10.25 hits go over the fence or when.
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget their walk ratios
Braden: 3.14 BB/9
Eveland: 4.57 BB/9
That’s going to factor into whether or not that home run is a solo shot or with men on.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, a very tiny factor.
Seeing as when a homerun is given up is out of his control
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
So far this season:
Braden: 2.88 BB/9
Eveland: 5.49 BB/9
Eveland may not have had some luck on his side so far, but he’s lucky he hasn’t allowed a homer yet or the rest of his numbers would probably look even worse.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget his BABIP
Which sits about .400 right now and will likely regress to around .310—77.5% of the amount of hits he’s allowing right now. 77.5% of 13.3 H/9 (what he’s giving up right now) is 10.3—his career average. Interesting, huh?
Less fluky hits = less batters faced = less walks = less pitches thrown.
5.5 BB/9 is also much higher than his career average, so that will likely regress to the mean and he’s back to the pitcher he was last year.
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is, the pitcher he was last year still isn't all that good
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was better than Braden.
Eveland’s 2008 FIP: 4.09
Braden’s 2008 FIP: 4.57
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Braden's shown more progress since
Braden’s given me more to believe in.
And I’m done.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What evidence has he given you?
Other than a small sample size early on?
And I’m done, too. It was a pleasure.
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It goes back to what I said earlier about command of his pitches and all that
Watching Braden command the strike zone has given me more confidence that he’ll pitch better than Eveland’s command has made me feel.
In the end I want both of them to do well because they pitch for the A’s and for what it’s worth, I hope if the majority of this really is bad luck for Eveland, then it changes to good luck sooner rather than later.
Take care.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone gives up homers. So yeah, if someone can limit the damage to solo homers and make it harder for someone to take him out for three runs on one swing, yes, I’m going to give him some credit there. Why shouldn’t you?
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this might help
you understand what people are saying. The point is not that the pitcher has no control, but that the pitcher has no control over balls in play.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 27, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I'm not arguing that part at all
I fully agree that the pitcher can’t do anything about a ball once it’s in play. Just said it above, in fact.
What I disagree with is the point that the pitcher has as little effect on an outcome as NateHST seems to be suggesting. Even further, there are absolutely situations where the pitcher WANTS the hitter to make contact – just think of Ziggy and double plays.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the point of that link is that Nate is right
BABIP doesn’t correlate year-to-year. HRs/Ks/BBs do. A pitcher can control those things, and they matter a lot, but a pitcher cannot control much else.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 27, 2009 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I pretty much subscribe to the idea that pitchers can control
Line drive, grounder, fly ball, and pop up rates, but not home runs.
Is there some good reading that might sway me to think more about home runs?
Baseball isn't magic.
by rebus on Apr 27, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
I think you’re right
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 27, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the link!
Baseball isn't magic.
by rebus on Apr 27, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
K%, BB%, and GB%
have a high yty correlation, the rest do not. There’s skill/non-randomness in all of it, but you’d want a lot of years of data to say if someone is good at limiting HRs or LDs, and then at that point the pitcher’s true talent has probably changed as it is wont to do for pitchers, so it’s kinda hopeless. Just looking at Ks and BBs will get you a lot of the way there.
HR rates and line drive rates are sort of weak proxies for “how hard the ball is hit” which is itself a proxy for the quality of pitches thrown, which is what pitching is really about. Even the more advanced stats have a lot of noise. There will be a “how hard the ball is hit” stat relatively soon, and that should improve things.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Apr 27, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks mikeA. I always appreciate your thoughtful input.
Baseball isn't magic.
by rebus on Apr 27, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I imagine he's saying that Eveland doesn't
have the ability to control where the ball goes in the strikezone, which in turn controls where the ball goes on the field of play.
by OldhamA on Apr 27, 2009 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Eveland has the level of control Braden does
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, they're saying that
both Braden and Eveland have some limited ability to control where batters hit the ball to, both choose to do so as much as they are able, and Braden happens to be better at it.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually think a pitcher DOES
have some control over how many of his HRs are solo, 2-run, etc. Danny Haren is a great example. Haren gives up a lot of solo HRs because when the bases are empty, especially leading off an inning, he will challenge hitters more to avoid walks; the flip side is that his HRs go up a bit.
But with runners on base, he will not give in as much (even if the count is 2-0, 3-1). Part of Eveland’s problem, IMO, is that as a “thrower” not a “pitcher,” he issues a lot of leadoff walks where he’d be better off throwing more strikes, giving up the occasional solo HR, but avoiding big innings that start with leadoff walks – as happened his previous start in NY with Swisher.
In other words, the way you “control” what kind of HRs you give up is to be intentional about how much you give in on first pitches, 2-0 and 3-1 counts, and so on. Pitchers like Haren and Braden do that, while throwers like Eveland and Cahill either don’t, or can’t.
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
by Nico on Apr 27, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also keep in mind...
…even today, Eveland still only got through 5 innings because his pitch count was so high. Another game where the bullpen had to work more.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And having been at the game, I can tell you that
luck only worked in Eveland’s favor, i.e., he benefited from well hit balls being playable a lot more than he benefited from poorly hit balls finding holes.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bad example.
If I have no a priori knowledge that makes me believe the coin is evenly weighted, then yes, it absolutely should change my evaluation of the coin.
Better example: From a large sample of marbles, of which half are black and half are white, a random handful is taken and put into a small bag.
Now you draw a marble from the bag: it’s black. You put it back, mix it up, and draw again: it’s black. You put it back, mix it up, and draw again: it’s black.
Now you’re about to draw a fourth time. Should the fact that you drew three blacks in a row make you predict another black, or should the fact that the original supply was 50-50 make you think the next draw is just as likely to be white?
This is basic probability. The fact that three blacks were drawn in a row tells us something about the probability that there are more blacks in the bag than whites.
The difference between your example and mine is that yours presumes all information of the system is known, while mine inserts a step that represents unknown information. Which do you think is more applicable to baseball?
Every time a predictive stat is inconsistent with past performance, some component of that discrepancy is the possibility that there is an unknown non-random factor that the stat fails to measure.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 26, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
I kind of like the coin example. You show me a normal-looking quarter. You flip heads three times. The fact that you did that makes me begin to question whether the quarter is evenly balanced or whether you are trying to cheat me.
In other words, I don’t have specific knowledge about your quarter. I do learn about it every time you flip it. I also have extensive experience with flipping quarters to draw off of.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess the point here is a little different
Do what degree does three heads in a row infleunce your perception of the likelyhood of the next event? It’s entirely that every quarter is not weighted perfectly. So what are the odds of a heads flip? What is the spread of weighting in the population of quarters? These are all parameters which you must define and take into account before making an assessment.
Taking the analogy back to baseball, the range of possible values for the likelyhood of a heads result, or a hit on a ground ball, or whatever result you want to look for based on the input, are pretty well established. If we look at 20 years of data and say that a pitcher should have a given BABIP, but his results in a very small sample have deviated drastically from that range, we should expect that his future results will be very close to the established range of results. As the size of the sample grows, it will become more meaningful in infleuncing our predictions. This is where regression is used.
by MrIncognito on Apr 27, 2009 6:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm trying my best not to respond with a facepalm.gif
But dude, if you insist on arguing a point in which you basically defend it by saying, “it’s obvious that it’s true”…well, you’re not going to win many converts.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 26, 2009 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really don't care if I get any converts
I think most people would agree with me that Braden’s been the better pitcher.
And you know what? They’d be right. Not you.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eveland has a .292 BA against for his career
a WHIP of 1.66 and a career ERA of 5.36 before today On hits alone he gives up 1.15 hits per inning and that’s not counting walks and HBP’s
Yeah, he’s a great pitcher for single A ball. At least to date he is.
by Trainman on Apr 26, 2009 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you call other people pretentious?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not here to get people to agree with me
I’m speaking my mind and expressing a strong belief in something.
I’ve never called anyone pretentious.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm glad you have a strong belief in something
Criticizing else with the “most people would agree” and “you’re wrong” arguments, however, is something you should be better than.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 26, 2009 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
In that sense, I let myself get carried away.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, let's use a career 247 inning sample for Eveland then.
284 hits (and 125 walks, for a WHIP of 1.66). What you’re seeing from Eveland isn’t actually new, just more of the same. His main problem is that he doesn’t actually get a lot of batters out. It is, unfortunately, kind of an important problem.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We were talking 2009
Braden is probably a better pitcher than Eveland based on career rates, and I was a big defender of him last year when his results were poor but his underlying performance was good. But this has nothing to do with the debate that led up to this point.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It does, because we're talking about your expecation
that Eveland will regress to a better mean than he probably will in fact.
Let it put it this way: Why do you believe Eveland will start giving up few enough hits and few enough walks to keep runs off the board at a “not thoroughly mediocre pitcher” rate?
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't regress to different means
The basic function of regression is to take into account the probability that random fluctuations have influenced your data set, so you regress everyone to the population mean.
tRA* is the regressed performance prediction for the rest of the year, if you ever were really curious about that sort of stuff.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why I find it odd
to use tRA+ instead of WPA/LI when describing their performances here to fore.
by sleepingcobra on Apr 26, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WP is result based
It’s essentially the area under the curve of the WPA for the team. It a pitcher gives up 50 ground ball singles in a row he’s going to have a brutal WPA despite pitching well.
I didn’t bring up tRA* because with such a small sample size, it tells us basically nothing about a pitcher’s likely long run performance.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a results-based argument.
The sample is so small the 50 Ground Ball Single argument holds as little weight as their win-loss records. Take out the fielders, and Eveland is pitching better in a FIP vacuum. Add in situation-specific results, and Braden has been nearly a win’s-worth superior.
by sleepingcobra on Apr 26, 2009 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But isn't the entire argument about how when NOT looking at context (luck, defense, game situations, etc),
there is some evidence to show that Eveland has, questionably at least, been a little better than Braden? At least, that’s what I’m saying. All I’m questioning is Flashfire’s claim that Braden has been unequivocally better than Eveland. Unless you’re saying that WPA/Li is the preeminent statistic to evaluate small sample size pitching…
To be fair, I’m not that familiar with WPA/Li, with regards to pitchers. I know that offensively, some has used it as an actual statistic based argument on how A-Rod actually does become less valuable in high leverage situations. Anywho, I find this argument much more compelling than anything Nico and Flashfire said.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 26, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're slightly right
but mostly wrong. Looking at What-Pitchers-Control-Only Metrics is kind of misleading this early into the season.
Braden has 12 SO and 8 BB.
Eveland has 12 SO and 12 BB.
Braden’s pitched 6 more innings.
The way I interpret this in a vacuum is that Braden’s thrown less pitches out of the strike zone per inning. This is the reason he’s given up 2 home runs: opponents have had more opportunities to square up on a ball down the chute.
Therefore, considering the utter glut of peripheral statistics that point to Braden being superior, it makes me believe that Braden has been superior.
I think you also cited their LD%s?
Eveland has a slightly better LD%, but Braden’s given up more IFFBs and more IFHs. That doesn’t tell us much, but it certainly says that while Braden may have given up one or two more smoked shots, he’s also induced more bad contact. I’d call this a wash.
But let us not focus on LD%.
The point is that FIP, because it’s so heavily weighted to debit home runs, is a pretty terrible metric this early into the season. So far as I can tell, FIP is the only descriptive (non-predictive) metric you’re using to make Eveland’s case.
I think it’s a tenuous one.
by sleepingcobra on Apr 27, 2009 6:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thank you for making a reasonable reply
I have not used FIP thus far in this debate. The numbers I am quoting are tRA, which is directly derived from GB%, LD%, FB%, and IF%. Home runs are largely a function of fly balls – a given percentage go over the fence. tRA is derived from FB%, so the expected run value from a home run is built into the formula. The fact that Braden has allowed more HRs than Eveland has no effect on their tRAs.
by MrIncognito on Apr 27, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's good to see this turn into an interesting two-way discussion finally
of course that only happened because now both sides appear to be “stat-minded friends”…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's wrong; tRA counts HRs as HRs
and outfield flies as non-HRs (subject only to a park adjustment). So the HR difference is a huge factor in their tRAs this early in the year.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Apr 27, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
okay so that brings us back to sleepingcobra's comment on FIP below
eveland doesn’t give up a lot of home runs, though, even when he was getting knocked around in arizona and milwaukee…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's silly to compare them based on tra or fip or era or anything else at this point
Eveland appears to be good at limiting HRs, Braden does not; Eveland gets more Ks. Braden is of course much better at limiting BBs. There’s probably not much difference in them overall, although Eveland has lost velocity on his fb compared with the rest of his career, whereas Braden has improved since 2007. Eveland also has a 100-point ops split with bases empty vs. men on, and at least some of that is probably “real” which is bad. I’d take Braden for the rest of the year.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Apr 27, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
is it too early to read anything into eveland's 2mph drop in fastball velocity?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, it's bad, so that's one thing
I would also assume that pitchers don’t tend to add velocity as the season goes on (maybe some do?)
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Apr 27, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does OPS really stabilize for pitchers?
And even if it does, I wonder if Eveland would have faced enough batters with men on base to get a clear read of this skill (or lack thereof).
That said, I pretty much agree with you about them being roughly equal overall. I think Eveland has a minor mechanical problem that’s causing a lack of movement and velocity. The correction or domino effect from this will largely determine how he compares to Braden going forward.
Baseball isn't magic.
by rebus on Apr 27, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
eveland or braden
I’d take Braden for the rest of the year.
i think it will be somewhat close in the end, but i would also take braden.
1. i have been a braden fan since like 2005
2. i’m biased against players who make excuses regarding physical problems / mechanical flaws (bocro, DJ). brian mccann isn’t waiting until the season ends to see an eye doctor.
but it’s silly that suddenly many consider braden a potential ace, and want to send eveland to AAA (when we barely have a four-man rotation).
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
And this is the part that’s bugging me about all the so-called “analysis” going around these days:
but it’s silly that suddenly many consider braden a potential ace, and want to send eveland to AAA (when we barely have a four-man rotation).
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 27, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, that's actually a factually based counter-argument
And one that I can agree with. Thanks again for the reasoned reply.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 27, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention
FIP is weighted heavily by HRs. Because Braden’s given up 2 and Eveland 0, Eveland’s FIP will naturally be artificially shrunken in the tiny 4-start sample. Except for the 2 jacks, Braden has pitched better than Eveland using nearly very metric.
by sleepingcobra on Apr 26, 2009 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And, also, in addition
WPA/LI doesn’t weight every home run (or walk) the same. FIP does. A home run given up in a blow out isn’t worth as much as a walk given up with the bases loaded in a tie game. I think WPA/LI is a more useful metric here, specifically given such small samples.
by sleepingcobra on Apr 26, 2009 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
reading through this thread, sleepingcobra's comment is the best (only?) argument made so far by the braden side
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 1:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah and its a better argument that i thought existed for Braden.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bingo
… so you regress everyone to the population mean.
You don’t see the fundamental problem with that? Why would you assume everyone regresses to the same mean?
If a high school pitcher went out for the A’s and put up an 84 ERA before getting pulled after 0.1 innings, would you say he will regress to the population mean? Of course not because you know he’s not the same as the population.
But you also know that the members of the population aren’t the same either. You’re assuming regression is an exact science when it patently is not. You’re basically saying that any difference between pitchers which tRA fails to measure must be purely random, which is simply not true.
The stats aren’t bad, but you’re making assertions with them that they don’t support.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 26, 2009 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one is saying
EVERY pitcher will regress to the mean. In statistics, there’s no such thing as a 100% chance that anyone will do anything, which I’m sure you know already. However, we do know that some things seem to occur time and again a large percentage of the time. And the fact of the matter is, regression of the mean is one of those things because statisticians have determined that’s what usually happens over a large enough sample size.
So essentially, statisticians have determined that it is far more likely that a pitcher WILL in fact regress to the mean, which is why we always have to account for it. As to this, I’ll cite an excellent article by Dave Studeman of THT which explains this far better than I ever could
Is Marcel saying that each of these players will regress to the mean? Absolutely not. Some of them won’t. But enough of them will regress to the mean to validate the entire approach.
That I figure, is the most important concept to be taken from that article. Your high school pitcher example is irrelevant because in MLB, the members of the population are at very similar talent levels. Certainly Dana Eveland, probably a #3 starter at best, is closer to that of an average MLB starter than a high school pitcher. Certainly it’s valid to believe that he has a far far greater chance of regressing to the population mean than not.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 26, 2009 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is THE question
We cannot empirically differentiate between random fluctuations, which you expect in any system, and results that indicate a trend. What we can do is take into account the likelyhood that a number reflects a trend vs. randomness, and this is the function of regression.
If you look at Eveland and Braden’s regressed tRA, they are virtually identical because the samples right now are so small as to be nearly meaningless compared to the established range of likely values. This is why I’m not, and have not, made any predictions about future performance based on the results so far this season. This is about who has placed the team in the most likely position to win. While clearly Eveland’s result has been poor, the degree to which plain bad luck is responsible for this result is very open to debate.
by MrIncognito on Apr 27, 2009 6:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This makes sense to me.
As does lenscrafter’s post just above it.
I’m not objecting to regressing to the mean, obviously. I just objected to what appeared to be a dogmatic attitude which seemed to claim that the stats themselves were more important than the underlying realities that they attempt to measure.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reality is subjective
Not to be too philosophical about the whole thing, but everyone has very different interpretations of events depending on view point.
Our perceptions are all human and flawed. Ideas that were unchangable and common wisdom for millenia are susceptable to challenge and disproval. The sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, newtonian physics gave way to relativity which may give way to something else. Defense independent pitching stats (DIPS) actually grew out of Voros McCracken’s attempt to figure out which pitchers induced the weakest contact, but he discovered that he was unable to find anyone who was able to substantially effect their BABIP. This is clearly counterintuitive and contradicts the way I viewed baseball and pitching for most of my life, but sometimes data and empiricism forces us to view things differently. It makes the world more complicated occasionally, but it also allows us to replace intuiting and magical thinking with more accurate descriptions of the nature of things.
Degrees of certainty exist for everything. In one of the first two posts in this thread, I stated that there’s a lot of contact quality that is missed in our current data set and therefore substantial uncertainty in all of this, but the fact remains that the data says something different than the common wisdom.
by MrIncognito on Apr 27, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s really no case whatsoever that legitimately supports Eveland having been better so far. Sorry.
Until today Eveland had pitched like crap…
There is NO question about this.
The advanced metrics say otherwise. Really, all you have to do is use a statistically sound (and again, this excludes usage of stuff like ERA) argument that proves Dallas Braden has been unconditionally better than Dana Eveland.
That’s all I’m asking.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 26, 2009 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eveland = Throwing baseballs at a target and missing horribly with the body language of a Little Leaguer.
Braden = Crafty, Thinking man’s pitcher.
by Colorado Fan on Apr 26, 2009 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
...
Really, all you have to do is use a statistically sound (and again, this excludes usage of stuff like ERA) argument that proves Dallas Braden has been unconditionally better than Dana Eveland.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 26, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Results.
End of story.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heck, I'm talking process too
Eveland hasn’t really been good by either measure.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about FIP?
Why doesn’t that qualify?
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 1:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Eveland has allowed 235 million base runners. Cannot find the strikezone to save himself (for the most part). Is not a good pitcher. Has lost velocity and quire honestly, all I care about is runs given up and he has given up plenty.
My opinion is that he has not been good. Got lucky today. I will change my mind if he lowers his ERA to belowe 4.00. Not going to happen very soon is it?
by Trainman on Apr 26, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cahill was pitching more lucky than anything else in his first three games and it caught up to him in his last one.
i’m confused, what’s the non-stat position on this again?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 1:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And then there’s ERA (2.52 to 5.95), WHIP (1.28 to 2.08), AVG against (.250 to .349), etc. that are all in Braden’s favor, things that aren’t even close. You know, all the things that actually mean more when it comes to results on the field?
WHIP? so we’re talking about fantasy baseball now?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your friend Tom Tango likes to think that
Dallas Braden’s WPA/LI is .21; and
Dana Eveland’s is -.52
Eveland’s been FIPing and tRA+ing up a storm, but he’s cost the A’s a total of 1/2 a win thus far, where as Braden is above board.
Nod goes to Braden.
by sleepingcobra on Apr 26, 2009 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that is not at all surprising based on the results of those few games
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 12:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there's a good arguement to be made that this is true
There is a lot to contact quality that we aren’t catching with things like GB%, and harder hit balls to get through the infield faster. It’s entirely feasible that Braden has pitched better than Eveland. My issue was more with the general notion that Eveland has pitched so poorly, because he really hasn’t.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if you decide that all the hitting against him -
and it’s 29 hits in 19.2 IP, far beyond the range of “luck” – somehow does not reflect poorly on Eveland, he has also walked 12 batters in those 19.2 IP.
He is squirming around with an average of more than 2 baserunners an inning, which is not bad, it’s putridly terrible, and it’s not all just bad fortune. Unless you truly believe he has allowed 29 bloop hits and been the victim of 12 at bats where the umpires had it in for him.
Oh, he’s also averaging just under 5 IP/start, meaning the bullpen is required to pitch an average of 4 innings when he starts.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
results vs. process
His results have been terrible, which is what you’re proving by using things like hits and IP. The question is what exactly is under his control.
Soon we’ll have HitFX, which will give us velocity and angle of every batted ball. Until then, the only data available is things like GB/LD/FB/K/BB. By those objective measures, Eveland has been good.
It’s not 29 bloop hits, it’s a question of how many hits he has allowed vs. a pitcher with similar batted ball profile. If you honestly think he’ll continue to have a .439 BABIP, you’re just plain wrong. As the season goes on, more of those balls will turn into outs, he’ll have shorter innings (his BB% isn’t that bad – the large number of walks is the result of the ridiculously long innings he’s pitched), etc.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed on the IP point
His advanced metrics can come out amazing every time, he can even limit the number of runs he gives up in the actual games; but if he can’t go more than 5+ innings every time he goes out, he is going to put some serious strain on the bullpen. That kind of pressure will lead to lost games and relievers with blown out arms.
There is nothing in Eveland’s game that suggests he can economize his pitches to go for more IP. Braden has better control, is better at pitching to contact and is better at going deep into games. The workload he saves the bullpen from shouldering is being entirely overlooked.
by cityplANner on Apr 27, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not just entirely feasible Braden has pitched better than Eveland...
…it’s an absolute fact.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Imagine someone looking Curt Young in the eye and saying,
“I think so far this year, Dana Eveland has outpitched Dallas Braden.” I’d like to hear what Young would say once he got his laughter under control.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he'd say something that's not fit for all ages to read
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because pretending what REAL "baseball men" would say is obviously the most convincing possible evidence
Coaches say all sorts of silly things all the time. Media statements are political, not factual.
by MrIncognito on Apr 26, 2009 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rest assured if Curt Young said Braden's been the better pitcher so far it wouldn't be silly.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I cannot believe this is being debated
Before today it was 14.2 IP 25 H 9 BB. That is disgsting. Today he had quite a few line outs and hard hit balls and while he pitched better, he got lucky.
Dallas Braden has pitched, way, way ,way better and he’s like a #3 at best who has improved out of sight IMO.
by Trainman on Apr 26, 2009 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The whole thing is absurd
There’s just no defense for anyone actually trying to say Eveland’s better, has done better, will be better, whatever.
He’s not. He isn’t. He won’t be.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is the bottom line not
ERA here.
Who gives a rats you know what about those other stats
by Trainman on Apr 26, 2009 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do
"True fact: In a global thermonuclear war, the only human who would survive would be David Eckstein" -PT
by travdog6 on Apr 26, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Taking a game,
an essentailly artisitic performance and grinding it down into numbers, and then arguing about which numbers are more valid, and more predictive, and more indicative, etc. is very strange. It is like looking at the pixel numbers of a beautiful work of art… and also, it is not a science. If it were, there would be no point in playing out a game. It reminds me a lot of economists arguing about the reasons for the recession and what to do about it… but of course, nobody ever claims economics is a science. Whoops, wait, they do.
by Chilango on Apr 26, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This isn't dance
There’s no winner in art. A lot of people like Kandinski. I think he’s garbage. There’s no way to quantify art or beauty. Baseball is ultimately about numbers – runs, wins, championchips. If you prefer the way Braden pitches, that’s a seperate debate. I prefer the way Braden pitches too. I hate walks, and Eveland walks way too many people. Which one has done more to increase the A’s odds of winning games though?
by MrIncognito on Apr 27, 2009 6:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly...
It is the unquantifiable intangibles that make up a game that keep it interesting, much as you can’t explain in concrete terms why a work of art ‘works’ or doesn’t. The only “statistic” that really means anything is whether a game is won or lost. Everything else is just fodder for those who like to turn things into numbers, perhaps like an artist’s accountant.
A baseball game is a struggle that has as much human nature. luck, skill, talent, and timeliness as any work of art. I find the life story of any individual player and how this manifests in any particular moment on a baseball field far more interesting than statistics. Which is not to say I don’t understand statistics. It is just not beautiful to me.
by Chilango on Apr 27, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not like you watch the game hoping for a GB and not caring weather it turns into an out
I think we all enjoy the game in pretty much the same way. We want wins. Stats are just describing the underlying process.
by MrIncognito on Apr 27, 2009 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
^^^^^^ precisely why I HATE fantasy baseball
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Apr 27, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But how can you make a statistic for
how Braden looks unfazeable after he gives up a hit, or how Eveland wears his heart on his sleeve. Stats only describe some of the process, thankfully.
by Chilango on Apr 27, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Random stats that I don't fully understand!
How I’ve missed you!
by OldhamA on Apr 27, 2009 5:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
pardon my ignorance
but what is tRA?
by gbtmOAK on Apr 27, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"12.chicken3"
some would have you believe condescending stat jerks never answer those questions.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's sad that we have to go to LL to find that sort of thing,
but I do thank you (and lenscrafters) for the links.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Often I wish LL was an A's blog
They are highly stats oriented and banned TWSS, what more could you want in a baseball blog?
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I like HH's rule that
you are allowed the F word only once a month.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the guy who developed tRA writes for LL,
so that might be why.
by Rocktopus on Apr 27, 2009 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Graham, and I respect his knowledge
but lacking any significant stat knowledge of my own, I’m even more inclined to respect the big name stats guys who have been at it for a long time, like McCracken, Silver, Tango, etc
Call me conservative, but when a relatively new stat comes along (tRA dates to Dec 2007, as far as I can tell) and already everyone is telling me it’s superior to FIP, DIPS, PERA, QERA, EqERA, and all those other pitching sabermetrics, my reaction is to be suspicious.
I’m not saying that it isn’t. Hell, I don’t even know what all those other ones are. I’m just saying that from my point of view it feels more like fashion than science. For about ten years now I’ve been hearing, “Oh, pfff, I can’t believe you’re still using XYZ. Everyone knows that QRS is a better metric. You really should be looking at QRS.” Why should I believe in tRA now, when chances are by next fall someone else will have a new metric and you’ll all be turning up your nose at tRA?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FIP tells the same story though.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course stats, like everything else, improve over time
Is that a reason not to use the best ones you have?
The thing people miss about sabermetrics is that its a very self-critical area. People are totally upfront with the shortcomings of their stats, and they show their work explaining why new stats are better. Some of it is certainly counter-intuitive, and that gets the most press for that very reason. Some of it is intuitive.
The point is that, given the best understanding we have of pitching to date, tRA does a great job of isolating a pitcher’s performance. It helps that, as DFA says, other good stats agree.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 27, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can you cite recommendations?
Has tRA been widely embraced among the sabermetric community?
That’s a serious question, I honestly don’t know.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm curious what the pros and cons of it are
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me try this one...
Graham, who rights for Look Out Landing, the SBN blog of the Mariners created it and came to AN to explain it and I think did a better job at StatCorner. He will do a better job that I.
tRA is an attempt to determine the pitcher’s influence on events due to skill rather than park defense or luck.
FIP fails to take into account the pitcher’s ability to exert at least partial control over batted ball profiles. tRA does. By determining the average runs scored and outs made on each of the defence-independent outcomes in each season and league, we can credit a pitcher with runs and innings pitched simply by looking at statistics that they have control over. The following statistics are accounted for in the tRA model:
Strikeouts (K)
Walks (BB)
Hit By Pitch (HB)
Ground Balls (GB)
Bunts (BU)
Line Drives (LD)
Outfield Flies (OFB)
Infield Flies (IFB)
Home Runs (HR)
Essentially, tRA takes all of the outcomes and measures them against their expected value of runs and outs. Here is the 2008 table for expected out values:
Then you have to create a run expectancy matrix to look for the expected runs allowed. Here are the 08 values:
Now once you get there it is easy to find tRA. tRA = expected runs / expected outs x 27. That will be the expected number of runs
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's probably clear from my comments last night...
…but this is a pretty new stat to me. I get what is trying to be measured and would agree there’s value in that, but it sounds like the type of pitcher someone is can really affect the way the formula works.
In Braden’s case, in his first four starts he’s had a 0.50 GO/AO ratio or 21-42, which is lower than it’s been before (0.74 career). Eveland’s is 2.46, or 32-13 (1.50 career). Would the expectation then be that the more ground balls someone gets, the more likely they are to give up fewer runs? Further, is the luck argument basically stating that eventually more of those ground balls will wind up in someone’s glove instead of in the outfield?
If that’s the case, I can see how it’d help lead to Eveland’s tRA being lower than Braden’s. Braden is allowing more fly balls, so the expectation should be he’s going to allow more extra base hits and home runs than someone who keeps the ball on the ground.
Still, where I look at it more is in how a pitcher pitches. Just because someone gives up more fly balls doesn’t mean they’re being hit hard (sure, that’s going to be where LD% comes into play too). Braden has also shown himself to be better at working the count, keeping runners off base, and pitching in danger less than Eveland. Eveland’s had higher pitch counts, fewer innings, and higher stress situations. Maybe he’s had some bad luck thrown in, but he also puts himself in those situations by not being as effective as Braden.
Of Braden’s 373 pitches, 62.5% have been strikes. Eveland’s thrown 396, 58.8% for strikes. Based on Braden’s efficiency so far, he’s thrown an average of 14.9 pitches per inning while Eveland’s at 20.1, just over 5 more pitches per inning. Who’s pitching more effectively based on that? How are those things factored in?
I think that’s where some of my issue stems from, along with Mr. I’s initial claim that based on tRA, Eveland has been the best starter on the staff this season when everything else shows that’s not the case. Maybe if he said that based on tRA the PROBABILITY of him improving the most is likely then I’d see the point better, but taken at face value “He’s been our best pitcher so far this season” is not true just because tRA says so. There still has to be something taken into account for the way someone pitches.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think your second paragraph is spot on
And I can appreciate this observation: “Braden has also shown himself to be better at working the count, keeping runners off base, and pitching in danger less than Eveland.”
Of course, the reason that Eveland looks so bad at keeping runners off base is that he’s been horribly unlucky. With normal luck, he’d look a lot better (and have fewer pitches/inning, etc).
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 27, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
I still don’t know if we can accurately say how good or bad Eveland is without the luck factor. All I’ve seen is someone who doesn’t seem to have very good plate command and someone who allows a lot of baserunners. He seems good at not allowing the home run as much as others, but he gets hurt (and hurts himself) in other ways.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's certainly true
Walks are bad, and he’s issued a lot of them.
As far as the luck factor, we can guess (pretty well) since the normal range for babip (batting average on balls in play) doesn’t change in any meaningful way from pitcher to pitcher. In other words, it is not a skill. If you take his GB/LD/FB profile and apply a normal babip, you are already making a pretty good guess about how his balls in play should look. Adding in his control problems and ability to keep the ball in the park, you have an advanced stat that is basically what fip does.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 27, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Walks are bad, mm-kay.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is the premise of my question below...
there is bad luck…line drive falls in, fly ball becomes home run. but then there’s you start every batter 2-0 and they can sit fastball.
that’’s where my understanding fails. i’m not critical of the new stats, but i don’t understand how they’re all put together yet. it’s not second nature to me yet.
by inbillywetrust on Apr 27, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're reading the numbers a little bit backwards
Would the expectation then be that the more ground balls someone gets, the more likely they are to give up fewer runs? Further, is the luck argument basically stating that eventually more of those ground balls will wind up in someone’s glove instead of in the outfield?
As far as I can see, the out values are slightly higher for fly balls than ground balls (.830 to .812), and the run values for fly balls lower in correspondence (.046 to .053).
On average, more ground balls get through and become hits than fly balls. This is why some extreme fly ball pitchers (Zito being the example off the top of my head) can depress their BABIP somewhat.
Baseball isn't magic.
by rebus on Apr 27, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops, bolded instead of block quoted. My bad.
Baseball isn't magic.
by rebus on Apr 27, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's why I was wondering just how it all goes into the formula to say...
…Eveland’s tRA is better than Braden’s.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's mostly the home runs.
Weighted in calculating tRA, a home run is a little over 4x as damaging to your expected runs per 9 innings.
1.394/0.329 = 4.237
Braden has given up 2 more home runs than Eveland, but only walked 4 fewer (though in more innings, which tRA does take account for). So that’s a big chunk right there.
Of course, through all this, there is the issue of sample size and which stats are stable through only ~100 batters faced. I’d like to post a diary on it soon, but not many numbers are more signal than noise at this point.
Baseball isn't magic.
by rebus on Apr 27, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So it'd probably be better to revisit this in a month or so.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually I think it would just be better, considering their overall time in the league (not much), to evaluate them based on their careers so far.
Braden’s demonstrated better control, but Eveland has been able to strike out more hitters. He has better stuff. I think they’re roughly equal in terms of ceiling and value.
Baseball isn't magic.
by rebus on Apr 27, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair, you were grabbing my butt.
I'm so sick of the Hannahan/A-Rod comparisons.--Rocktopus
by Leopold Bloom on Apr 26, 2009 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
okay, I ctrl-clicked on that pic, and found out that it's called
jizzinpantsandysamberg.jpg
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Apr 26, 2009 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, you should definitely click this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4&videos=PcqvaLTicTM&playnext_from=TL&playnext=1
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Apr 26, 2009 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does anyone think SNL is funny anymore?
Anyone?
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The eternal conundrum.
The answer is that everyone thinks SNL used to be funny, but no one thinks it’s funny now. In five years there will be a generation that is sure that SNL was funny in 2009.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really ive only found a couple of things from SNL funny ever.
Blues Brothers, Celebrity Jeopardy, and the 2000 election special.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It has its moments, but frankly I don't think it was *ever* a must-watch show.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Apr 27, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1992 presidential campaign
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is that Cust?
"I Will Not Relent, I Am Driven"... Clutch
Bring Back The Bash!!!
by Shippee33 on Apr 26, 2009 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know it's early but...
the A’s really need to do well in the next ten games or they could be out of the race. The next ten are against AL West and those four games back can become 9 pretty fast. We should know quite a bit about the A’s after this stretch.
by jonxstri on Apr 26, 2009 5:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's really early, but
but not too soon for fairly outlandish pronouncements.
No memory of 2001? 2002? 2005? (No they didn’t win the division, but they battled back from a horrendous, almost two month long swoon at the beginning of the year to almost catch the Angels)
We’re barely 10% into this season. The A’s are a half-game ahead of the team picked by most to win the division; a half-game behind another division rival; and 3 games back in the loss column of the team that lost 101 games last year. Of course we’d rather have them have a good trip than bad… but “could be out of the race” is not within the realm of possiblity unless they lose all 6 and the Mariners’ pull a 2001 all over again.
here’s the thing— go back to March 1st. Now tell me Duke will miss the first three weeks, tell me Holiiday will be godawful, and Chavez and Nomar will both have injuries bad enough to cause them to miss nearly half the games. Tell me the two rookie starters plus Outman will really struggle. Now look at the schedule and see that it includes three series— nearly half the A’s games— vs. the consensus preseason best three teams in baseball; and another series vs. the AL West favorite. And tell me due to a rainout and an unforseen tragedy, the A’s will play 17, not the scheduled 19, games.
What would you have guessed their record to be? If you say anything better than 8-9, I don’t believe you. So they are 1 game behind that pace. Not great, not what we hoped, but hardly a disaster. The season is a marathon. In another three weeks we’ll have a better idea just how good or bad they really are, and the same for the rest of the division. I agree with you there, but “could be out of the race?”— Come on.
by jasonthea on Apr 26, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think if you had told me,
“Duke will miss the first three weeks…and Chavez and Nomar will both have injuries bad enough to cause them to miss nearly half the games,” I would have said, “Yeah, I know, so?” :-(
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
put it this way
The texas series will be a gut check. 2 rookies in a hitters park. How they do this series will tell me if they should stay or go to AAA. I had the A’s around .500 at the end of June so they are about where I expect them without Duke. If Duke comes back strong that will put the A’s over .500 if not another so so year.
by Arcman on Apr 26, 2009 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm excited to see what Texas will do for our hitting
Maybe that bandbox will be the cure for what ails Holliday. Suzuki’s hot streak, Buck’s proven prowess vs. righties. There’s a lot to look forward to.
by cityplANner on Apr 27, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another good all-round effort by the green and gold
We’ve been asking for the team to put together pitching and hitting in the same game, and they’ve done it in the last 2 days. Today’s game pretty much encapsulates what I expected of this team to start the year: More aggression in the batter’s box, moderately effective but inefficient pitching, and a bullpen pitching way too many innings. I’d like to see less of the latter, but a series win is a series win, so I’ll take it.
A sweep or two would be nice. The Mariners and Rangers are pretenders, and the Angels are in some serious pitching trouble. This division is very winnable if the A’s continue to play like this.
I just remembered I love Eric Chavez.
by Joey C. on Apr 26, 2009 5:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Watching Justin Masterson pitch,
it seems like he would be a good goal for what Cahill can hope to become next, as a stepping-stone to trying to become Derek Lowe —> trying to become Brandon Webb.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 6:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's kind of nice to know he can get more than just A's hitters out fairly easily
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ellsbury straight steal of home with the bases loaded - pretty sweet.
It looked like the umpire pointed towards first and then signaled “safe,” instead of just signaling that Ellsbury had beaten the tag. No balk was called – did anyone catch what the ump was signaling?
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ne'er mind - it was to call the pitch a strike
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Horrible play by Posada. Awful, awful tag attempt.
Of course now we’ll get to hear the Sportscenter hacks slobber all over Ellsbury.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Apr 26, 2009 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was wondering why Posada didn't take a full step forward
There is a such thing as a “catcher’s balk” if he leaves the catcher’s box too early, but I don’t at what point he’s allowed to come as far up as the plate – maybe not until the pitch crosses the plate.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I enjoyed the story of steals of home in history
especially the one about two steals of home — one right after the other. I would have loved to see that one!
by OaklandSi on Apr 26, 2009 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still remember the triple steals Billy Martin's A's used to pull off,
with guys like Wayne Gross as the lead runner. Awesome.
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was pretty awesome, I have to admit
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 26, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was great
Sure caught them by surprise
by Trainman on Apr 26, 2009 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW:
That Eveland pictures says it all. “Oh No!!!! Where is this pitch going!!!”… Good Choice.
by Colorado Fan on Apr 26, 2009 8:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yay for Comcast on-demand
I wasn’t able to watch today’s game live, so I’m getting it Memorex.
"The glass is half full….and we are going to drown in it." - OptimistPrime
by doctorK on Apr 26, 2009 8:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Interesting: Jerry Blevins tonight, in Sacramento's extra inning game,
pitched 3 innings of hitless ball on just 31 pitches, 22 strikes. Good job, Blevins!
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
by Nico on Apr 26, 2009 9:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
For sure,
the more interesting question is what his tRA* is.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 26, 2009 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was 12.chicken3
He was actually throwing underhand, right-handed.
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
by Nico on Apr 27, 2009 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha... you peeps are crazy...
with the who is better Braden or Eveland debate. I think they’re both good. I think they both should’ve been (and should be in the Oakland rotation). I’ve said so many times.
I’ve also said I didn’t think Duke would make it through this season (boy, was I right). Gio… I dunno… he may see some time in the rotation this year. Probably will, given the A’s recent history, but it probably won’t be because he beats anyone of the current 5 out of a job. Gallager, on the other hand, has a much better chance to do so.
I know, no stats to back up all of that. But, it doesn’t matter because I’m always right.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Apr 26, 2009 11:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ill be at the games in texas on tuesday and Wed
Cahill and Anderson in that ball park should be fun, also there supposed to be alot fo rain around here starting Monday
by buckfan6 on Apr 26, 2009 11:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Guys..
We’re arguing about how bad Dana Eveland is here.. Let’s all just gather ’round and come to a conclusion:
Rally Salma works
"To this day and dating back 25 years, before every game he plays, Henderson stands completely naked in front of a full length locker room mirror and says, "Ricky’s the best," for several minutes."
by VORP is too nerdy on Apr 27, 2009 12:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Does Salma provide warmth and sustenance?
I'm so sick of the Hannahan/A-Rod comparisons.--Rocktopus
by Leopold Bloom on Apr 27, 2009 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, and she has allowed less base runners than Eveland!
erm, couldnt think of anything better
by Synx on Apr 27, 2009 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yay Salma
I didn’t check the game thread but I’m just guessing she made an appearance!
I say it’s a good conclusion, VORP
by streetfan on Apr 27, 2009 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I couldn't be there yesterday... I had to record the game on my DVR..
So I’d appreciate someone taking over Rally Salma duties when appropriate when I’m not there.
"To this day and dating back 25 years, before every game he plays, Henderson stands completely naked in front of a full length locker room mirror and says, "Ricky’s the best," for several minutes."
by VORP is too nerdy on Apr 27, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Salma got married (again) today...
But, Rally Salma does work. I’m 100% behind Salma!
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Apr 27, 2009 12:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Suggestion for my stat-minded friends
Over the years, I have learned a lot from the stat-minded folks who have drifted in and out of AN.
But it is incumbent on anyone who trots out obscure or new statistical measures to explain what they mean and why they are important. Telling people they are stupid is, in my experience, a poor way to persuade anyone that you are right.
I am of the opinion that Eveland belongs in the rotation right now, because he is almost certainly one of the best five starters available. I don’t think he’s especially good, and his performance thus far hasn’t impressed me. He gives up too many walks and too many hits. Even today, staked to a big lead and doing better than usual, he couldn’t pitch more than five innings.
That’s fine for a fifth starter, which is what I think he is. If you want to argue otherwise, go ahead. That’s what the site is all about. But please leave out the smug sarcasm and superior attitude.
by bear88 on Apr 27, 2009 12:32 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
they can't help themselves
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Apr 27, 2009 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um well tRA's creator came her and told people how to use it
Really these statistics aren’t that obscure or newfangled. FIP is pretty well respected and widely used. Finally I would suggest that the moderators who are mocking people trying to used real measures of success and failure to explain why in fact Eveland has pitched acceptably, should change their attitudes.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 12:43 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
"yay" -jeepers
do the non-stat-minded folks explain themselves?
Oh my – yes, Dana Eveland has pitched better overall so far than Dallas Braden
Thanks for the reminder. Yikes.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As far as I can see, no one on the statistical side of things here has called anyone stupid
Rather it’s the ones on the other side of the issue that has resorted to attacks and mockery.
It’s interesting to me that it seems like every time there’s a stats vs. what everyone else thinks argument on AN, the people on the “what everyone else thinks” side blames the statistical side for being pretentious, arrogant, smug, yada yada yada when there are times when they are JUST as [insert negative adjective here] as what they’re accusing the stat folks of being.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 27, 2009 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I am going to have to agree with the above posters and say you are off base on this one
It was the “pro-Braden” camp (for lack of a better term) that were the ones with the “smug sarcasm” and “superior attitude” in this argument. That may not always be the case, but I heard a lot of the condescending attitude that PT got in trouble for in many of the comments in this thread.
I mean how many times can those guys make comments like “I can’t believe anyone would even think that, you are quite obviously wrong” before it sounds condescending? Even better are the comments like, “I am tired of your responses and no longer care to reply to you anymore”. They fall short of actually saying “you’re stupid” but I think that message comes through loud and clear in this thread.
by AsFanInLA on Apr 27, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL. Fair enough
Though the “don’t care to discuss anymore” really wasn’t meant as anything but “let’s just agree to disagree because I’m tired of snarking back and forth.” Maybe I should just have said that.
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
by Nico on Apr 27, 2009 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it’s a bit strange to categorize both snark accompanied by actual analysis and snark with no further explanation/elaboration as “snark”…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hopefully bear88 will return and explain why this is directed at his "stat-minded friends"
But it is incumbent on anyone who trots out obscure or new statistical measures to explain what they mean and why they are important.
might as well post this here…
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
tRA was discussed, at lenght, several times previously
Here was Graham’s first intro from last year:
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2008/12/15/694369/the-lowdown-on-tra
by MrIncognito on Apr 27, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, there's also this thing called google...
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 27, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tried googling for tRA
Seriously. I had overlooked the link that apparently was there last night (I noticed it this morning after Bhaskar linked to it), and I wanted to know what the formula was. I tried several different search strings in Google and couldn’t come up with anything. I’m sure if I kept at it I would have eventually found something that led me to it, but really, it’s not an easy thing to Google.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just googled "tra baseball"
And got:
www.statcorner.com/
ballhype.com/story/about_tra/
www.lookoutlanding.com/2008/6/23/557089/the-big-tra-post
While the first one doesn’t go directly to a story, there is a link on the front page.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 27, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I got that first link
It was the first thing I found, and I followed several of the links from that page. I found a shitload of discussion about tRA, but nothing that told me what it actually measures. All the discussions I saw assumed that I already know what it is, which is exactly what was happening here on this thread that made me want to go looking for the formula.
The LL post was very helpful. My bad for not seeing the link originally provided. It’s a long thread, and I somehow missed that post in the crowd. Kudos to others this morning who followed up by highlighting it and discussing the formula here.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't like conditional complaining about managers based on the win or loss, so here it goes.
Garen’s decision to pull Eveland was a very poor one. Eveland had only thrown 90 pitches and started the 5th with a 6 run lead. While it is a terrible idea to walk your first batter, even if both of Eveland’s runners had proceeded to score the A’s would still have a manageable 4 run lead. Even if both scored and Eveland finished the inning, he still would have had a "quality start". If the A’s bullpen can’t secure 4 run leads, we aren’t going to make the playoffs. What is more likely is the bullpen is dead by June due to overuse, causing blown games latter in the season. Eveland had already rolled one double play ball and had 8 ground ball outs before the 5th. Garen should have shown some confidence, kept Eveland in, and let him deal with his own mess.
Furthermore, there really is no excuse for using Wuertz, Casilla, and Springer in a game where we were leading by 6. This is why Dan Giese is on the major league roster. So what if he goes three innings and coughs up a goferball? We’re leading by 6. If you can’t trust someone with a 6 run lead they really shouldn’t be on your major league roster.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 12:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
was Giese available?
But, I woulda let Eveland go longer.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Apr 27, 2009 12:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I assume so but Outman would have sufficed either way...
the point is to actually use long/mop up men for 6 run leads.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno...
Didn’t Giese pitch in long relief in the blowout? Isn’t Outman a starter? (I know, not for long, but… still they’re not gonna use a starter in long relief).
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Apr 27, 2009 12:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right about Giese but Outman's start is in 5 days
letting him pitch three innings and stay stretched out is probably a good idea. I didn’t watch the game past when Cahill got pulled so I didn’t see Giese come in.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 1:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the A’s bullpen can’t secure 4 run leads
if this a’s bullpen can’t be trusted with a 4 run lead, what bullpen can?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
IP
something to think about while the season is young: somebody in either the bullpen or rotation or both is going to log more innings than would be preferable. I actually dont mind that the starters are averaging 5-6 innings per start, just because — especially for Anderson and Cahill — pretty quickly this season they are going to approach their career highs in IP. Downside: the bullpen could end up completely taxed by the end of summer.
Heres hoping Duke (and Gio) come back healthy and effective.
Save Rajai Davis
by oakinboston on Apr 27, 2009 6:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
FIP/tRA
the debate is interesting, but calling out Nico and Flash the way its been done on this thread is really annoying. Everyone made pretty clear points. Its like a debate between a Republican and a Democrat where they think if they just reiterate their points and talk louder they will convince the other person they are right.
No, you’re wrong.
I miss Chad God
by ChadGod on Apr 27, 2009 7:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well Chad
I’d like to know in what way “Mr. I” and “lensy”
I’d say this is where this debate started going downhill. No points for guessing who said it.
"Swinging and missing to me is like 'Jesus, what happened?'" Scott Hatteberg
by Razr on Apr 27, 2009 7:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
was it "the flasher" or "talentless german heroin addict chick"?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who her?
At least she had the good sense to hang around with the Velvet Underground and Andy Warhol.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If by "talentless german heroin addict chick" you mean genius,
then, yeah, that was Nico. Besides her work with the VU, much of her solo work (esp. those involving John Cale) was brilliant, esp. The Marble Index and Desertshore. To take just one example, “The Falconer” - in which a gorgeous piano melody emerges from the icy introductory section, only to fade away - is one of the most haunting songs I know in all of pop/rock.
If she wasn’t taken seriously by Lou Reed, that says as much about Lou Reed as it does about her.
by Ray of Lite on Apr 27, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know why that strikeout font appeared!
Maybe my computer has had enough of my opinions and decided to take xbhaskarx’s side.
by Ray of Lite on Apr 27, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(i have multiple nico songs on my ipod)
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How do you suggest dealing with people who use their platform as moderators to repeat their
opinions ad nauseum without support, and when challenged to support their positions, reply that debate is “tiresome” and that they have other things to do?
I’ve never wanted to set any poster to Ignore on any website and don’t even know if it’s possible on AN, but if there’s a way to automatically Ignore Nico’s posts, I’d like to know how.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 27, 2009 7:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not read them?
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
by Nico on Apr 27, 2009 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You'd probably have to go to a different blog.
Speaking of which, does anyone know if the following posters AN has lost have resurfaced on another blog?
salb918
Danny
rfloh
74mk
FSU
monkeyball
devo
PT
I am probably forgetting others.
It’s a shame.
"We've come a long way, and I'm not talking about Virginia Slims, either." - Art Howe
by EastCoastA on Apr 27, 2009 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've actually seen Danny and devo here recently
andeux is probably a better example for your list.
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
by Nico on Apr 27, 2009 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, you're right
There are still people on AN I enjoy reading, but I learned a lot from/was entertained by those folks.
"We've come a long way, and I'm not talking about Virginia Slims, either." - Art Howe
by EastCoastA on Apr 27, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you're saying AN without Nico is so small as not to be worth visiting?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 27, 2009 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously not.
If you don’t want to read anything Nico writes you’ll be hard pressed to do so by visiting a blog for which he is a front page writer/moderator.
Or you can just grin and bear it and not engage him in discussion. Goodness knows there are some posters who nearly make my head explode, but I just avoid any discourse with them. (Which is easy since I rarely post anyway.)
"We've come a long way, and I'm not talking about Virginia Slims, either." - Art Howe
by EastCoastA on Apr 27, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Re: those guys
I sent you an email on this, btw ( I know totally unsolicited considering you don’t know me from Adam)
"Swinging and missing to me is like 'Jesus, what happened?'" Scott Hatteberg
by Razr on Apr 27, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks.
"We've come a long way, and I'm not talking about Virginia Slims, either." - Art Howe
by EastCoastA on Apr 27, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could tell you, but
then I’d have to kill you.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
THEY'RE ALL THE SAME PERSON???
Say something funny.
by muffinpryde on Apr 27, 2009 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well comments I know
If you are using Firefox the add-on Greasemonkey lets you kill (aka hide) comments from any user.
"Swinging and missing to me is like 'Jesus, what happened?'" Scott Hatteberg
by Razr on Apr 27, 2009 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's my suggestion.
Stop trying to turn everything into a debate.
What I find most annoying, regardless of which side does it, is when someone tries to create an argument out of something that doesn’t need to be argued.
Examples:
A: I think that blah blah blah.
B: What is your justification for making such a claim? You can’t just make bald assertions like that. What’s your evidence? Where is the analysis to back it up?
A: I think that blah blah blah.
B: Really? I believe the opposite. Here’s why: [cites various numbers and links]
A: OK, well, I think you’re wrong.
B: How can you disagree? I gave evidence and you didn’t. If you can’t back up your case you have to admit you’re wrong.
A: I think that blah blah blah.
B: No, actually it’s bleh bleh bleh.
A: Well, I think blah blah blah.
B: Bleh bleh bleh.
A: Blah blah blah.
B: Bleh bleh bleh.
A: Look, I don’t want to argue about it. Can’t we just disagree on this?
B: Oh, so now you want to back out. You can make these claims but when someone calls you on it you can’t back it up. You lose.
In every case, B pisses me off, because he keeps insisting on making a stupid contest out of it instead of just letting it be a friendly discussion.
Earlier in this thread someone asked — genuinely, I assume — why is it that the stat guys are perceived as smug and self-righteous when it’s the non stat guys who make lofty pronouncements and insult whoever disagrees. Well, for me this is the answer. I don’t hate stupidity, and I don’t hate insults, but I do hate petty argumentativeness. You can say that a baseball player’s true talent comes from psychic channeling of the love of the fans and that’s why Derek Jeter is the greatest of all time, and I don’t care. You can say that anyone who doesn’t love Joe Morgan is a fucking idiot wanker, and I don’t care. But when you say, “you’re not allowed to say that unless you provide me with the evidence that I demand” then you piss me off.
To me, that’s smug. To me, it sounds like you’re saying, “I have the keys of knowledge and if you don’t argue on my terms then you aren’t entitled to your opinion”. It doesn’t matter if you don’t insult anyone. It doesn’t even matter if you’re actually correct on the facts and the other guy isn’t. I actually like stats, and if it were just about the merits I’m sure I’d be on the stat side way more often than not. But the stat people are far more likely to have that argumentative attitude that pisses me off so much.
So next time you disagree, just state your case and let the other guy be wrong. Stop trying to draw him into an argument, and stop acting as if your rebuttal deprives him of the right to persist in his errant beliefs.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agree
I posted my own thoughts on this below, but I think iglew said it better.
The constant need, and it’s not only the stat guys who do this, to have the last word is an annoying tic. It’s hard to resist, but sometimes it’s better you say your piece and leave it at that.
I like hearing the stat guys’ views, often because they argue counter-intuitive points. But I don’t like being treated as if my opinion isn’t just incorrect, but unworthy of consideration.
by bear88 on Apr 27, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this only points out that we'
by inbillywetrust on Apr 27, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
re here for two different reasons.
some are passionate fans that let emotion rule.
others have decided that baseball should broken down to its basic elements and can be factually proven.
the worlds are colliding in that we all like the a’s. that should be the central premise
by inbillywetrust on Apr 27, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dislike that dichotomy
Dividing the world into emotional fans versus rational thinkers is simplistic.
It’s also part of the problem.
by bear88 on Apr 27, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
it might be simplistic, but it's a large part of what's going on in my view.
i’m trying to bridge the gap between both myself but these petty arguments between the guys favoring stats and those using observation get in the way.
the pure stat websites go over my head (a time issue) and the emotional sites are boring.
by inbillywetrust on Apr 27, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That tic was PT's tragic flaw.
I know he tried to fight it, but too often he could not resist. Sometimes the only answer is to admit your powerlessness and give it up cold turkey.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem I have with "stat-heads" is pretty simple.
And no, this doesn’t always happen, and yes, sometimes I get as stubborn in defending my side (along with a bit of “Come on, this should be obvious!” thrown in), but with that said:
I often get the impression that because some people do dig deeper into stats like tRA, FIP and so on, and they’ve done so for a while, they can talk about them with the expectation that everyone should understand the stats as well as they do. Anyone who doesn’t, or anyone who tries to offer a rebuttal using more universally-recognized stats is basically ignorant.
I grew defensive and dismissive last night and turned to the “look at the results” argument after seeing how things like Eveland’s much higher WHIP (which is even higher than his norm) and average against were basically cast aside as dumb because of luck, defense, or other things Eveland has no control over. Maybe there’s some of that, but Eveland sure does have some control over how he pitches compared to Braden. That’s one thing I’ve tried explaining further since the debate got out of hand last night.
I know there are people out there who are trying to find the best ways possible to measure pitching because it’s the thing that just hasn’t been done as much compared to hitters with things like OPS+ and so on. I think that’s cool, seriously. But it doesn’t mean those formulas are perfect or without flaws.
That tRA says Eveland should perform better than Braden is one thing. That Braden is performing better than Eveland is another. Where they go from here, I have to factor in how they pitch and right now the edge goes to Braden because of his lower pitch counts and higher strike percentage. At times his tendency to allow more fly balls is going to hurt him, but at the same time a lot of those fly balls are going to have time for outfielders to get to. While some of Eveland’s ground balls are surely due to be gloved more than they are, he’s still going to have a certain percentage that get through the holes in the infield.
None of this is perfect.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another thing
I don’t know all the places many of these stats and formulas are kept at, and though on occasion people leave links I don’t always see them. I’d love to understand some of them better, at least in how they’re arrived at, but I’m a pretty visually-oriented person and would probably need to see a few real examples to go through the process before it starts to click for me.
Lately I’ve been finding I can’t just look at the result of a formula and say “Okay, I get it.” I need to be able to follow the process and work that formula out myself, but it’ll probably take someone who knows it better to go over a few of them with me to get that going.
I probably need to ask someone to do that and help get it started.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh, I'm just waiting for someone to post
a statistical analysis explaining why Braden has been better over the short term than Eveland. I’ve got tickets to Vegas.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Apr 27, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think everything NEEDS to be explained with a statistical analysis
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your approach is wrong...
If that
I’d love to understand some of them better, at least in how they’re arrived atis truly your goal your attitude in this and a lot of recent posts is a huge impediment to anyone explaining these metrics to you. Basically youre doing the equivalent of steadfastly telling people they’re idiots for believing that wins are the best way of judging pitching or that Derek Jeter is a great defensive shortstop. If you (and Nico) had instead engaged us asking questions rather than calling us idiots this thread would have gone much differently.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the middle of an argument, asking for some help in understanding something better doesn't happen a whole lot
When I can think about it more later on, it’s more likely.
I don’t think wins are the best way to judge pitching or that Jeter is a great defensive SS anyway, though I know those are just a couple examples.
There was attitude being tossed around on both sides, right or wrong, stubborn or not. I said some things I believe (and still do) but that doesn’t mean I’m not interested in learning more about why or how you and others are arriving at the conclusions you are.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But it wasn't.
Your first post in this debate was an attack on stats-centric posters. If you had instead said why would tRA, FIP and other stats suggest something that is different from what I see, a lot of this negativity wouldn’t have happened. Your attitude in general is pretty hostile toward people who represent the “stats community” and if you ever want to learn about stats attacking people rather than ideas is not the way to do it.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
This was my first comment. Not much to it, but after a while I got as frustrated as anyone else here because a lot of the same stuff was going on. I pointed to a few reasons why I thought Braden was doing better and some scoffed at it. I scoffed at others who ignored the results and stuck with some stats because to me it felt like a rehash of the Pythag record debates of last year, etc.
I’m a lot more results-oriented in the end compared to putting as much stock in stats that say “this should be happening.” When it’s not happening, I don’t give those stats as much weight. If things turn around and Eveland and Braden pitch like tRA apparently thinks they should, then I’ll probably say “Okay, now it works.”
It’s like the A’s being 40-60 when their Pythag record says they should be 50-50 (because it was skewed thanks to a few blowout wins combined with a lot of low-scoring, close losses). Coulda, woulda, shoulda, but ain’t.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are right.
The comment was not your first. Im sorry about that, it was the earliest one listed on your user page’s recent comments from this. I guess the other ones were buried by a lot of new comments. Lets look at what you did say a couple comments down after dismissing stats out of hand:
There’s just no comparison when looking at all the numbers between the two of them
To which people gave you numerous statistics that showed otherwise and you went off. Your aggressive attitude contributes to these dust ups both here and in other threads. I am merely suggesting that you reconsider it.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand this
And I think we have a fundamental disagreement.
If I believe something, it means I think it’s right. The only way for me to find out if it is right is to have it challenged intelligently. If I don’t present my view, I’ll never be convinced I’m wrong. Similarly if the other person doesn’t present their view, I’ll never be convinced I’m wrong. Given my goal is to learn whether what I think is wrong, both of these outcomes are frustrating.
For this reason, I don’t react to the second block quote the same way you do.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 27, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The discourse theory of truth.
I approve this message.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
“i have opinions, but i can’t explain or justify them (stupidity). even though i’m being a jerk (insults), YOU are the real jerk for wanting to discuss this (argumentativeness). leave me alone and let me be ignorant in peace.”
why would someone post their opinions on a public forum if they feel this way?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To engage in conversation with others, for one thing.
Preferably others who don’t feel that every conversation must be a Socratic dialogue in search of absolute truth.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would you engage in that kind of dialogue?
Person A “I believe this for absolutely no reason”
Person B " I believe something else for absolutely no reason"
Person A “OK”
Person B “OK”
Person A “So how about about that weather”
It seems rather pointless. I prefer my truth seeking otherwise I would just watch Baseball Tonight for uninformed baseball opinions (save Gammons who I respect a lot).
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fortunately, AN is big enough for both kinds of discussions
Unfortunately, there seems to be some disagreement regarding which category the game recap thread should be in.
I don’t usually think of a game recap as a stats discussion, but somehow this one turned into one. And the non-stats people resisted.
If someone went into a DLD and said, “How can you claim that Travis is more sexy than Ryan when their respective adj*xButt metrics clearly demonstrate otherwise?” then we’d know it’s ridiculous. Or if someone went into a stats discussion and said “yeah, but Rajai is more gritty” then we’d know that’s ridiculous, too.
Here on a game recap, it’s not clear which group owns the thread, so there’s a culture clash.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your first example is silly because the stat is silly
Your second example is silly because grit is silly.
Stats are, and should be, part of any conversation about how players are doing/will do/compare to each other. That’s what they are for.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 27, 2009 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
In that case,
I believe that wins are the best way to measure pitcher performance.
Don’t tell me I’m wrong! And don’t try to refute me…you smug, arrogant stathead.
That’s basically what your point comes down to, right?
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 27, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was guilty of sarcasm and stubbornness last night
But I still don’t see how the stats being put out there like tRA and so on prove Eveland has been a better pitcher than Braden so far. People can laugh at ERA all they want, and I get the criticisms of it. But average against and WHIP? I really don’t care if people dislike those stats, but they give a pretty clear picture of who’s doing well and who isn’t.
It’s not all about the defense behind you. If people are hitting over .300 against you while others on the staff have a lower average against, you’re the one who’s not pitching well. Same thing with WHIP. If your WHIP is at 2.00, it’s not the defense’s fault. Even 1.66 is too high.
Also, just because someone comes up with a new stat to track something doesn’t mean it’s automatically more valid than any other. If tRA proves to be good as a predictor, great. The pitcher still has to go out and live up to that expectation and validate the stat. Until then, he’s just not as effective as someone else. Eveland’s tRA can be 3.50 or whatever and Braden’s 4.50, but if Braden’s the one getting more outs, keeping more people off the bases and allowing fewer runs to score, you know what? Braden’s the better pitcher.
At some point this becomes more common sense and less about burying noses in stats. Common sense shows beyond a doubt that Braden has been the best starter on the team so far, and it’s not like he’s earned that distinction by default. He’s not getting lit up the least, to put it one way. He’s pitching very well and I really can’t take anyone seriously if they’re going to throw some predictive stat out there that claims no, Eveland is actually doing better right now. He absolutely isn’t. If it says Eveland WILL do better and he DOES, then great. Until then, Braden’s the best on the staff based on the results.
People can criticize me all they want about not understanding a stat or being ignorant of this and that, but I don’t care. I’m not the one trying to prove Eveland’s the best on the staff when he hasn’t been.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The limited point that
these guys were trying to make (imho) is that Eveland hasn’t been as bad as the conventional stats make him out to be.
As far as the defense behind you, this also varies depending on which player are in the lineup, especially considering the A’s have had Crosby playing 3B for the first time, Chavez seems to have a noodly arm and all the the other juggling going on. A pitcher might get lucky having a better defense behind him or maybe his pitching style is more suited to the range etc of the players. There is a reason many baseball fans pay less attention to conventional stats – they are not as accurate in showing what a player is contributing to his and how good he is. For example, Hatty, by most conventional measurements, wasn’t particularly great, but there were certain aspects of his hitting not captured by AVG, RBIs, etc that showed, that in 2001 (if I remember correctly from Moneyball), a lineup of 9 Scott Hatteburgs would have scored something like 920 runs.
"Swinging and missing to me is like 'Jesus, what happened?'" Scott Hatteberg
by Razr on Apr 27, 2009 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, though by and large the defense the A's have had in the field...
…isn’t all that different from one game to the next. The outfield’s mostly unchanged, we’ve got Cabrera and Ellis up the middle, and the corner infielders all have their weak points. For the most part, I think the pitchers have had to deal with the same stuff behind them and that’s where I think we’re seeing who’s doing a better job with what’s out there and who isn’t.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I too apologize for letting my frustration turn to snark
What I would try to explain, in the calm light of morning, is that by nature stats become more useful over time and observation less useful, and that the more complex the metric the more data you need for it to be useful.
So when the sample is 4 starts and 20-25 IP, process and eyeball accounts are a lot more valid than they will be over a larger and more reliable sample, and really the best comp of Braden’s and Eveland’s tRA is to say that both are “don’t know yet” – because in such small samples things like “2 HRs vs. 0 HRs” get too much weight, as cobra pointed out above. In other words, if Cabrera starts the season 2 for 4, it is not accurate to say “He’s hitting great this year” or “well he’s off to a good start.” It is more accurate to say “don’t know,” because in that sample, using those stats, you haven’t learned anything one way or the other.
Similarly, the “observation” that Chavez never hits with RISP is refuted by a substantial body of work, suggesting that the stats show truth where memories are tainted by a few examples or general emotion.
In summary, in the smallest sample, process and observation is key. In a slightly larger sample, the more basic stats (like BBs, 1-0 vs. 0-1 counts) are key. In a large sample, the more complex metrics (like tRA) may be key. But the more complex a metric you want to use, the larger a sample you need.
In the cases of Braden and Eveland in 2009, I’d suggest fans look at more basic stats, like how many first pitch strikes each has thrown, how many times each has pitched from a 2-1 or 1-2 count – those kinds of basic stats will likely explain how/why Braden is rendering hitters, in general, less effective against him than Eveland is, because hitters’ BA, SLG, OPS, BABIP, etc. can be influenced by simple things such as the count they have to work with, and the fact that Eveland has had to do so much of his pitching off the stretch – often from leadoff walks that are purely his doing – and pitchers are often not as effective off the stretch.
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
by Nico on Apr 27, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
TOLD YOU that you should have just scheduled the game recap before the game started, and then stayed at the tailgate.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Apr 27, 2009 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As usual, mikev is right.
:-(
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
by Nico on Apr 27, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
See, I only *LOOK* dumb.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Apr 27, 2009 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, trust me
it’s more than just looks.
pat pat
"To this day and dating back 25 years, before every game he plays, Henderson stands completely naked in front of a full length locker room mirror and says, "Ricky’s the best," for several minutes."
by VORP is too nerdy on Apr 27, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get it.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Apr 27, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
'Beyond a doubt'
Common sense shows beyond a doubt that Braden has been the best starter on the team
Actually, I think this thread shows that it is not beyond doubt. Whether the dissenting opinion is correct, I don’t know, but clearly there is some doubt.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
question about tRA and FIP...
i’ve read the links that you’ve all provided. i don’t pretend to be proficient with statistics. But my question is this. The adjustments to tRA and FIP are based on assumptions to reach a pro forma conclusion. What if the adjustments made are incorrect based on a pitchers behavior? for example, if you give up a fly ball to Pujols and it becomes a home run, tRA makes the adjustment that Pujols turns more flyballs into HRs than the average player, so this is bad luck. But if Eveland is a guy that throws a lot of balls, so Pujols can sit on a fastball is this really bad luck or just Eveland?
i apologize for my ignorance in advance. thanks.
by inbillywetrust on Apr 27, 2009 11:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I can't answer that but I'd say it just goes to show why...
…it’s not the best idea to try to compare players based on one or two formulas. There are too many variables that go into all of this for any one way to be foolproof. Eveland and Braden are completely different types of pitchers, which complicates things even further.
All I know is which one is performing better at this time and I can give an opinion on why I think that is.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually its exactly the opposite.
Because Braden and Eveland pitch differently makes stat based analysis even more valuable The disparate means by which they achieve the results are easily mistaken for skill differences by the eyes. Stats are the best way of comparing two disparate players.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How would you factor in ERA+?
Taking into account the short sample of four starts each, Braden’s is 178 (though 83 for his career, hurt a lot by his rookie season of 62 before 98 last year) and Eveland’s is 75 (79 for his career, 93 last year being his best).
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't
ERA is a bad metric compared to FIP which is less accurate than tRA. Then comparing ERA to an average era doesn’t improve the flaws of ERA. Also you can’t just throw out Braden’s rookie year and not throw out bad years that Eveland has had.
Also unrelated one thing that I never understood is why pitchers fielding errors aren’t counted against them when computing ERA. They screwed up, not another member of the team.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It does not
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm sorry i don't follow...
it does not what?
by inbillywetrust on Apr 27, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
It does not make adjustments for facing Superman… er I mean Pujols.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it doesn't correct for facing pujols, but it does correct for...
unusually high home run rates vs fly balls? thanks.
by inbillywetrust on Apr 27, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The irony
is that yesterday’s spat really didn’t need to happen.
Mr.Incognito and lenscrafters were making an argument that could have gone something like this:
“You may think Eveland has been terrible based on more traditional statistics and observation, but his results are actually not as bad as you think. [Insert tRA stat numbers.] This may be skewed by a small sample size, and tRA is more a predictive measure, but it suggests that A’s fans who dislike Eveland and want him pulled from the rotation are being deceived by their lying eyes. It’s counterintuitive, based on what we’ve seen thus far, but it can be argued that Eveland is actually the team’s best starter. And if you don’t buy that, there’s support for the idea that he will be as least as good as Braden this season.”
Nico and Flashfire wouldn’t have agreed with that, but could have responded with:
“Eveland’s stats are bad now. They weren’t much better last year. I’m convinced he is terrible, and is a fifth starter at best. But okay, let’s see how it plays out, and we will hope you are right and we are wrong.”
None of that happened, and we got another pissing match.
The reason why I came down harder on the stat folks is because they were taking the counter-intuitive position, and needed to defend it better than simply pointing at some statistical metrics (in small sample sizes) and acting as if anyone who didn’t accept their conclusions were wrong. I also had been through the same sort of argument the night before after Nico posted an “analysis” of what the A’s should have done with their pitching staff. A critical poster basically said Nico didn’t know what he was talking about and described his piece as a “rant” unworthy of the front page.
Nico can defend himself, and often does so with a heavy dose of saracasm, so he doesn’t need my help. But I don’t like an atmosphere in which people are told they must know the ins and outs of every statistic metric in existence to participate in this forum.
That’s what Nico, and by extension others, were being told. That, I suspect, is why they lashed out. They weren’t right in doing so, but at least I understand it.
Remember, everyone, if you want people to adopt your views or change theirs, you need to avoid such a know-it-all pose. That pushes people away, and makes them disinclined to agree with you no matter how right you are.
by bear88 on Apr 27, 2009 11:07 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
No argument here
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think this is entirely fair
I do agree that people could have avoided a spat the way you describe.
I do not agree that the people presenting a stat-based argument failed to defend it (people broke down WHY the formula provided a counter-intuitive result AND linked to an explanation of the stat)
I do not think that people need to know the ins and outs of every statistic, but I do think they need to consider that their eyes might be deceiving them when they are presented with a saber argument that is counter-intuitive.
I do not agree that presenting stats that are new to some constitutes taking a know-it-all attitude. To the extent it demonstrates knowledge that others don’t have, it is sharing that knowledge. You can’t blame the person who understands tra.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Apr 27, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so we're going to have two different standards
and one side can adopt a condescending know-it-all pose and act as if anyone who does not accept their conclusions is wrong.
that is just fucking brilliant… i don’t want to have a “debate” about this, but in my opinion you should be ashamed of yourself.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In all your comments to this post, I haven't seen you actually weigh in on the debate...
…except to snipe here and there, which is much of what you’ve been doing on AN for quite some time now.
What’s your opinion of Braden vs. Eveland?
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i haven't seen bear88 weigh in on the debate, except a snipe here and there
what’s his opinion of braden vs eveland?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe I asked you
And I would appreciate it if you stop taking my words and repeating them. This is something you’ve also been doing a lot of lately and I don’t see the purpose it serves except to annoy.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if my comments annoy you, you could...
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude....
This is pretty much exactly what you said in your earlier post above. And you were refuted by a lot of people, but you chose not to respond to them. Yet, you continue to spout the same views. Huh.
Mr.Incognito and lenscrafters were making an argument that could have gone something like this: "You may think Eveland has been terrible based on more traditional statistics and observation, but his results are actually not as bad as you think. [Insert tRA stat numbers.] This may be skewed by a small sample size, and tRA is more a predictive measure, but it suggests that A’s fans who dislike Eveland and want him pulled from the rotation are being deceived by their lying eyes. It’s counterintuitive, based on what we’ve seen thus far, but it can be argued that Eveland is actually the team’s best starter. And if you don’t buy that, there’s support for the idea that he will be as least as good as Braden this season."
Quotes from me and Mr. I
But that wasn’t my point in my post. You said that there’s no comparison between those two’s numbers, implying that Braden is head and shoulders above Eveland. I showed you some numbers that obviously revealed that this was not the case. That is, a legit case can in fact, be built to support the very opposite, that Eveland has actually been better than Braden.
That’s actually exactly what tRA is designed for. It was meant as a much more effective method of measuring pitching performance than ERA and such because it’s not as skewed by park and defense factors, and is much more stable year to year.
I think there’s a good arguement to be made that this is true. There is a lot to contact quality that we aren’t catching with things like GB%, and harder hit balls to get through the infield faster. It’s entirely feasible that Braden has pitched better than Eveland. My issue was more with the general notion that Eveland has pitched so poorly, because he really hasn’t.
Not exactly the wording your wanted but close enough right? And please show us where exactly we state “oh no we’re certainly right”. Especially when I just said:
there is some evidence to show that Eveland has, questionably at least, been a little better than Braden? At least, that’s what I’m saying. All I’m questioning is Flashfire’s claim that Braden has been unequivocally better than Eveland.
I’d like to be nice and all, but if you’re going to make shit up and accuse me of saying something I obviously didn’t say…well, who’s the problem here?
Remember, everyone, if you want people to adopt your views or change theirs, you need to avoid such a know-it-all pose
Two guesses from whom these quotes come from:
Oh my – yes, Dana Eveland has pitched better overall so far than Dallas Braden. Thanks for the reminder. Yikes.
What I’m laughing at is that there’s even a question here. You shouldn’t even need to say Braden "could very possibly" have been better thus far. He HAS been.
The whole thing is absurd. There’s just no defense for anyone actually trying to say Eveland’s better, has done better, will be better, whatever. He’s not. He isn’t. He won’t be.
It’s not just entirely feasible Braden has pitched better than Eveland……it’s an absolute fact.
Imagine someone looking Curt Young in the eye and saying, "I think so far this year, Dana Eveland has outpitched Dallas Braden." I’d like to hear what Young would say once he got his laughter under control.
Hint: It’s not me and Mr. I. And I could come up with more of these, but I think (hope) you get the point.
So again, I’d like to see a simple refutation to this. Really, I would. Show us where we’ve been pretentious, know-it-alls, smug, whatever. Otherwise, you’re just making stuff up in an attempt to defend your friends (honorable I’m sure). And yes, we HAVE defended our points. We have cited statistics, articles, methodology on how tRA/other stats are used…all while trying to be as civil as possible. We got dismissal, snark, and ridicule.
I have no problem being civil with someone who argues a reasonable counterpoint (see sleepingcobra). But if you’re going to sit here on your high pedestal and accuse me of actions I didn’t do and things I didn’t say, well, let’s just say civility can only go so far.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 27, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Quick point
I don’t know bear88 at all.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought bear88 was wrong in his criticism of the stats guys in this thread in particular
and said so in a response to him earlier. When I saw that all of those responses were ignored, and essentially the same erroneous argument was made again, I thought about responding with some quotes to show who was being helpful, and who was being stubborn and condescending.
Now, since lenscrafters did a better job then I would have, I would just add that it is frustrating to see a couple of stats guys actually trying to explain these stats (which I was not that familiar with) and still getting hit with the stereotypes that many non-stats guys have decided is true of stats-guys, even though many of the more prominant AN stats guys are in fact not like that at all. (Unfortunately many of them are not posting around these parts anymore, but the point still stands.)
by AsFanInLA on Apr 27, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
i will recommend this
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 27, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
eventually? :-P
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, well...
So much for my unearned “Voice of Reason” moniker. It’s kind of fun to be controversial, though, even if it isn’t my stupid fight.
I will first stipulate that Nico and Flashfire were out of line with some of their comments last night. I think that was part of my point. They fired the first shots.
The first problem I have with the stat guys in this thread is that they operate on the assumption that tRA is gospel. It’s a year-old method of measuring pitching performance, and seems especially dubious as a way to prove that Pitcher A is better than Pitcher B after four starts. Any statistic that pegs Eveland as better than Braden based on their starts thus far seems dubious to me. I might be wrong, but I need more proof than the raw tRA numbers.
One of the quotes from you or Mr. I responds to a “pro-Braden” poster: “I showed you some numbers that obviously revealed that this was not the case.” See? It’s “obvious.” That’s sounds like a bit of a know-it-all attitude to me. And that’s from the first of your cherry-picked quotes.
If you’re going that route, I would like to see some real-life examples to support the numbers. You could say: Braden appears to be doing better. But remember the fifth inning of his last game. Two guys hit screaming liners off him, but they were caught. He was lucky that time not to have surrendered a couple of runs. I could grasp an example like that. No one has provided one, for Braden or Eveland.
The second issue is more fundamental. It’s the assumption that the only legitimate baseball discussion must contain large amounts of often-obscure-to-the-average-baseball-fan statistics in order to be legitimate. You praise sleepingcobra for his reasonable counterpoint, but that’s because he’s speaking your language. WaddellCanseco blasted Nico’s piece on the rotation as a “rant” unworthy of the front page, apparently because it lacked enough statistical support. Flashfire and Nico are criticized for using the wrong statistics.
The message sent, perhaps unintended, is that anyone who posts on AN – even in a simple post-game thread – must argue using your criteria, your statistics, your methodology. And if anyone suggests your methodology might be flawed, or that the results sound fishy, they are blasted for being emotional fans who can’t think rationally or refuse to do their homework.
That’s off-putting. And it makes it no fun to come to AN.
by bear88 on Apr 27, 2009 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Show me where exactly tRA has been treated as gospel
Show me exactly where any stat has been treated as gospel. Finally, show me where anyone has made any decisive conclusions about anything. Because for all you’re claiming, the only thing that Mr. I and I ever questioned was the claim that Braden has been unconditionally better than Eveland and the claim that Eveland has been pitching as poor as some on here believe he has. Funny, I think I saw that somewhere before….oh yeah, it’s directly from our quotes I cited above. Please stop basing your arguments on stuff that you believe you saw, not what actually happened.
Secondly as to "I showed you some numbers that obviously revealed that this was not the case." Perhaps you didn’t read the whole quote or completely disregarded context….again, here’s the whole quote:
But that wasn’t my point in my post. You said that there’s no comparison between those two’s numbers, implying that Braden is head and shoulders above Eveland. I showed you some numbers that obviously revealed that this was not the case. That is, a legit case can in fact, be built to support the very opposite, that Eveland has actually been better than Braden.
Notice that when I said “obvious,” I didn’t mean that “it’s obvious Eveland has been better than Braden.” I meant it’s obvious in that some numbers refute Flashfire’s original claim that the numbers between the two were not comparable….obvious in that it’s not unequivocally true that Braden has been better than Eveland. So again, I’m going to have to ask you to stop accusing me of saying things I didn’t say. Also, I find it hilarious that you chose to (erroneously) single out that one word while totally disregarding all the real “know-it-all” attitudes coming from Nico and Flashfire I cited in the subsequent quotes. Still not believing me about only seeing what you want to see?
And the reason why statisticians refrain from using “real-life” examples when making their points is simple: subjective bias. Even the best and most intelligent of humans are subject to varying interpretations of “reality,” often because emotions, likes, and dislikes result in confirmation biases. For example, I might decide that I have an irrational hatred of Dana Eveland. My brain would then subconsciously start to recall instances in which I could confirm why I dislike him and disregard any instance which has the potential to change my belief. I might start to remember only the moments when Eveland has shown poor composure on the mound and forget the times he hasn’t. I might conjure up the notion that all the hits off him have been hit hard. Who knows. But by using a statistic-based analysis, we eliminate most of these human biases and gain a far more objective picture of things. No, it’s not meant to confuse the average baseball fan. In a way, it clears a lot of things up.
Lastly, as to your complaint about not being able to state anything without stats to back it up. Well, to tell you the truth I’m torn on the issue. I don’t believe empirical reasoning is entirely useless in baseball. But I also believe that statistical (rational) reasoning trumps it. Essentially, I guess it’s fine if you want to say something without statistical backing. But if that something you say contradicts statistics, I’m going to challenge you on the issue. And in the end, all I’m asking for is not ridicule and dismissal (which I found when presenting my case in this thread) in response, but rather consideration. If that happens, then I think both sides would be better off in the long run and might actually learn something from each other.
bear88 I’ve read most of your posts on here and you don’t seem like an unintelligent, unreasonable person. But I do think that you resorted to preconceived notions and as AsFanInLa said, stereotypes about stat-heads, when commenting in this thread. I’ve shown you numerous quotes as samples to what actually conspired and they all contradict what you stated. And all I’m asking for is for you to reconsider those notions and stop misrepresenting my (and others) positions and attitudes.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 27, 2009 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Apr 28, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol thanks dude
You’ve got a million of those huh?
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 28, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This situation seems very confusing
But here is what I believe in a nutshell:
If we are looking backward at Braden’s performance so far, it is obvious that he has performed better, hence the better ERA, WPA/LI, and WHIP. However if Eveland and Braden were both pitching at their true skill level in this ridiculously small sample size, i.e. they induced their true GB rate, FB rate, etc, then Eveland is pitching better. Eveland has a great GB rate and a slightly better LD rate. Because of these peripherals Eveland’s BABIP will lower and their tRAs will more accurately reflect their skills. However, based on what we can see as well as their career stats, Eveland is likely to be worse than his peripherals (including tRA).
This situation reminds me of the Angels and A’s situation last year. The Angels were performing terribly and the A’s actually had a better Pythag W-L however the Angels had gotten lucky and had the better W-L. However, at the same time, the Angels were under-performing. They were a better team that had performed worse but gotten lucky. This could very well be the case of Braden and Eveland.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
by vignette17 on Apr 27, 2009 1:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This entire thread is crooked.
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Apr 27, 2009 1:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You can't prove that.
Statistically.
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
by mikev on Apr 27, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m really tired of you having the last word, mikev. I’m taking my ball and going home.
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Apr 27, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few notes on tRA and such
If you’re really interested in getting an in depth look at how it works, you’re probably better off asking the guys over at LL, Graham and Matthew. Since they developed it, they have a far better idea about its intricacies and can probably explain all it’s detailed points better than any of us.
And if you feel too intimidated about commenting there (if you think the statheads on this site are arrogant….), there’s always the search function. I’m sure that can answer 90% of the questions asked about it.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 27, 2009 2:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
At the risk of opening another can of worms,
there’s something I don’t understand here. Several of the stats people have drawn a distinction between predictive and descriptive stats. Lenscrafters specifically told me that tRA is descriptive while tRA* is predictive. Some stats people have also drawn a distinction between results and performance. NateHST in particular has emphasized this.
I understand the difference between predictive and descriptive, and I understand the difference between results and performance (as apparently defined here). What I don’t understand is why these two distinctions aren’t the same thing. That is, if you are trying to isolate performance from results, what significance can that possibly have other than to be predictive?
Let’s set aside Braden and Eveland for now. Imagine we have reliever A and reliever B. Reliever A comes in to pitch the 9th in a tied game. His velocity is down and he’s not fooling anyone. Three consecutive hitters make solid contact, but all three go straight at an infielder so reliever A gets out of the inning unscathed. Reliever B comes in to pitch the 10th. He has great stuff and is hitting all his spots, but then one hitter gets on base with broken-bat bloop that falls right where the defenders aren’t. Two batters later reliever B throws a beautiful slider to the outside corner but somehow the hitter manages to get under it and knocks it for a double that scores the run.
I assume that in this simple and artificially clear example your analysis would tell you that although A had better results B had a better performance, right? That analysis might very well be predictive, but it is still true purely as a descriptive analysis, right?
So here’s my question: Why do you care? Why is it important to determine, purely as a descriptive analysis, that B was “better” than A? As a predictive measure, I totally understand. If two days later you have to choose between A and B for a highly leveraged situation, it is absolutely important to know that B is more likely to succeed. But you’ve drawn a distinction between predictive and descriptive. Setting aside the predictive value (which I understand), what motivation do you have to measure the discrepancy between a player’s performance and his results?
Why do you need to justify booing the guy who completed the 9th and cheering the guy who lost the game? Does your sense of justice compel you to determine which winners don’t truly “deserve” to win and which losers don’t truly “deserve” to lose? In NateHST’s exchange with Flashfire, I notice he repeatedly objects to Braden being “given credit” for things he didn’t control. Is that what this is about? Is the purpose of sabermetrics to make sure the right players are given the right praise?
If your answer is an emotional one, OK, I can undestand that. But stats guys usually pride themselves on being rational while calling the rest of us emotional, so I want to know what the rational motivation is for this. If I’m understanding this discussion correctly, you’ve told me that there is a stat which is explicitly designed to distinguish results from performance in a purely descriptive (ie, non-predictive) way. Why? What do you gain from knowing this?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 3:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would be interested in seeing where the more statistically studied draw that line.
As an interested neophyte, I see all predictive stats as also descriptive of performance. When I think of purely descriptive stats, I think of stats like WPA/Li, stats that tell us a history that generally is agreed to be based upon situation rather than skill.
Attempted predictive stats like tRA isolate the repeating patterns of the game, so I find them to be descriptive of past performance too. I don’t see how stats can be predictive without measuring past performance accurately – then assuming those trends repeat in some fashion.
Baseball isn't magic.
by rebus on Apr 27, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't WPA/LI measure contex as well?
for example if the pitcher A threw a scoreless complete game and the A’s only scored 1 run a WPA/LI measure would show a better performance as pitcher B who threw the exact same game where the A’s scored 17 runs.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup. I didn't mention it because I was focused on predictive v. descriptive.
Baseball isn't magic.
by rebus on Apr 27, 2009 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then when comparing starting pitcher I don't see it as a very useful descriptive stat.
Is there a reason why it would be useful to compare two different pitchers?
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well it doesn't compare talent, but it seems useful as a record of on field contributions to the probablility of getting a win.
I’d think of it more in deciding the MVP of the World Series than in picking a player over another for playing time or acquisition.
Baseball isn't magic.
by rebus on Apr 27, 2009 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So it basically mesures clutch?
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In my discussion with Flashfire
I was simply disappointed by the fact that him, Nico, and others gave snarky, unsubstantiated responses to people (stat guys) with real, verifiable evidence that Eveland has been much better than his results indicate.
Baseball is an incredibly subjective sport, and as A’s fans, I think we should cherish this. Instead of looking at players with rocket arms and big and tall bodies with speed and a quick bat and saying, “Wow, that kid if going to be good!” Beane and Co. came in and asked, “Well has he performed?”
Statistics are concrete evidence of what a player is doing, with all this subjectivity taken out of the equation. In an argument about Player A or Player B, the only thing that matters is evidence. It’s like when FJM made fun of an article where the author compared Livan Hernandez and Francisco Liriano, where Hernandez had won more games with a higher ERA and Liriano had a losing record with a lower ERA. The author said he’d rather have Hernandez because of his wins, and FJM tore their head off and said something like, “Okay, you take him, we’ll take Liriano—and in the future, we will destroy you.”
Don’t get me wrong, I like Braden a lot more than Eveland because he’s a hell of a lot more fun to watch. But when there are real statistics that show that Eveland is outpitching Braden and getting horribly unlucky, I get disgusted when people dismiss these stats because they see something in a different light but offer no tangible evidence to their point.
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, suppose that it's the last game of the season
and both A and B are retiring. You’re never going to see either of them again, so it makes no difference how good they will be in the future. If that’s the case, do you still care that B performed better than A in the final game?
Or if the same example is extrapolated over an entire career, is it important to you that the historical record note that B was a “better” pitcher even though A finished his career with better numbers?
I ask these questions because I’m trying to determine if this is about anything other than prediction. Everything in your response here is essentially about predicting who will be good in the future, not who was good in the past.
I think my own biggest difference with the consensus on this forum (and this is just me, not anti-stats people in general), is the feeling that everyone here is always living in the future and never enjoys the present or the past.
I share your disgust at the Eveland hate. There was a whole lot of anti-Eveland negativity on the game thread, and I really disliked that. But then again, I would have disliked it regardless of what his numbers say about his true talent level.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If A is better than B, but B is luckier than A and therefore gets better results
I would take player A. You want to play the players that give you the best chance to win—the best players. Luck is a huge factor in baseball and when you take it down to a sample size of one game, it’s completely random, but you want the player who hits the ball the hardest or pitches the best—outcomes be damned.
It’s definitely predictive and I consider myself a “stat guy” because I think stats are a whole hell of a lot better in predicting what a player is going to do or in saying, “This player’s better than that player.”
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do you mean by "I would take player A"?
Take him where? In a fantasy league? Out to dinner to express your admiration?
This whole concept of “I would take that player” — and I’ve heard it from others besides you — is foreign to me. I can understand “I like A-Rod better than Jeter” or “I think A-Rod is a better player than Jeter” or “I wish A-Rod were on my favorite team, but not Jeter”, but “I would take A-Rod over Jeter” doesn’t make any sense.
I was rebuffed before when I suggested this is all about fantasy leagues, but if not fantasy leagues, what does it mean? In what context would you take a player? Are you imagining you’re the GM and they’re all auditioning for you in spring training? Imagining they’re all first year players eligible for the draft? I don’t get it.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that the statement correlates similar to this...
If there was an a draft of players such as an expansion draft or whatnot, I would choose player x over player y with my pick.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was responding to what you said...
Suppose that it’s the last game of the season… and both A and B are retiring. You’re never going to see either of them again, so it makes no difference how good they will be in the future. If that’s the case, do you still care that B performed better than A in the final game?
by NateHST on Apr 27, 2009 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the idea is that the results being looked at are different
The result that ERA measures is runs scored, muddied up a bit with errors. The “result” that tra looks at is just some characterization of each PA, and does not have anything to do with any runs that scored or didn’t score. So in your example, pitcher B would have the better “result.” Of course, the choice of which result to pay attention to is determined by how much the “result” tells you about the performance. There is no particular reason why runs-actually-scored per inning should be the relevant “result” that we look at instead of some other result, like “whether the pitcher got a win” or tra or anything else. ERA is not particularly good at telling you what the pitcher’s performance was, in large part because it is influenced by the defense, which has nothing to do with the pitcher. tRA is somewhat better (it takes defense completely out), but still not really that good at telling you about the pitcher’s performance. Offensive “result” stats are much more correlated to the actual performance of the hitter than any “pitching result stat” like ERA or tRA, and there is no stat that can directly measure performance.
An analogy would be RS/RA vs. team record. Both are results, RS/RA is preferable in many contexts because it has more to say about the process underlying the results.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Apr 27, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll give it a shot
First of all you’re absolutely right in that the distinction between being predictive and descriptive is very arbitrary at best. In a sense, most if not all descriptive statistics are used as a predictive stats. For example, if you look at a pitcher’s ERA, while it does tell you how has he performed up to that point, you also use it to predict how he will do in the future. Similarly tRA is descriptive in the sense that it tells you how a pitcher has performed and predictive in the sense that you use it to determine it’ll look in the future (aside: when I said tRA* is predictive, I meant that it’s used as a better, and more solely predictive measure than plain tRA, not that one can only be used as descriptive and one can only be used as predictive).
As to why people care about, for lack of a better term, “real” performance (absolved of luck, defense, other non-pitcher controlled factors, etc) as opposed to “actual” performance…well, I think you answered it yourself by stating it’s for predictive purposes. And why do we care about pitching performances in a vacumn? Because this is the performance a pitcher would most likely regress to in the future when a large enough sample is applied. As such, when we disregard these things, we might end up making unsound baseball decisions (like declaring Dana Eveland to be unfit for a starting rotation and banishing him to the minors). This is why smart baseball management, like the A’s, became so enamored with determining “real” performance…because “real” performance actually does become strongly correlated with “actual” performance over a large sample. Now, is that always true? No, of course not. Like I said before, nothing in statistics is always “true”. But the thing is, it’s true a large percentage of the time. This is why it matters and this is why it’s a probably a better way to measure pitching performance than any other system (including human observation).
In the end, it’s not about justice or awarding credit or whatever. The purpose of sabermetrics isn’t to give praise or punish guys for getting results influenced by extraneous factors. The purpose of sabermetrics is tell us what we do know and what we do not know and then making a sound, less subjectively influenced decision off of that.
I hope this answers your questions a little. I’m sure there’s more statistically inclined posters out there who could explain this much much better than me. But hey, I tried!
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Apr 27, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, L.
That actually makes a lot of sense to me. The part that really stuck in my craw last night was when the statement was not that Eveland’s numbers show that he’s likely to be just as good as Braden in games to come but rather that he has already performed better already so far this season, which seemed nonsensical to me.
I wonder if clarification on that point would have helped a lot of others as well. It’s one thing to assert evidence that things will be different from what they appear and another to deny what has already happened. It’s like the difference between saying clutch is a non-repeatable skill and there’s no reason to think Marco Scutaro is more likely to hit another walk-off home run than Alex Rodriguez, versus claiming that since it was just luck Scutaro really didn’t have an unusually high number of walk-offs in his Oakland career. Luck or not, he did.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Apr 27, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Statistically, I root for all A's pitchers even if I think they suck
I also enjoy AN posters and moderators even if I disagree with them or if they disagree with me. Peace.
Now if I get snarky with someone in the future you can point me back to this post and tell me to chill out.
Let’s go, A’s!
by worldblee on Apr 27, 2009 3:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The internet is just not the place to learn this stuff.
I have a question for all you stat heads. How many of you really understand what you are discussing? Statistics is an amazing science, and is far too complicated to simply comprehend through reading some dude’s post over at the Mariners forum.
I agree, Nico and Flash (especially Flash) came off looking like they belong at HalosHeaven, but at the same time, but at the same time, are their credentials that much different than yours? In that, if they so chose, I’m sure they could read the same conclusions as their understanding of the subject is probably not that much different.
The perception I get (and feel free to correct me) is that many of the stat-subscribers read the numbers and blindly follow them. That’s such an insignificant and limited part of inference and data analysis. There’s a reason Nate Silver has the job he does, just as there’s a reason scout XYZ does what he does. To get to that position, they surely did not read a few articles on the internet and then attempt to practice that which they had learned.
Now, I’m not saying you have to have your masters or PhD in statistics or applied mathematics, but if the stat-guys want to argue so confidently, I myself would feel better knowing that the poster at least has some background or experience in the subject matter. This is a two-way road; however, and this is where Nico and Flash failed. If they wish to argue that Braden trumps Eveland using a non-statistical approach, then give us the “why”. Don’t retreat into “simple” stats, rather tell us what mechanically Braden is doing that Eveland is not. What is it about Braden’s pitches that are producing the results that they are? What is it about Eveland’s that are not?
What’s beautiful in nature, is that often times the empirical observations that the scouts observe are further enforced by the numbers. It is those sticky situations such as this one, where seemingly the numbers are not coinciding with what people are observing that cause the problem.
I think at one point, I was trying to establish an argument that simply reading up on a metric of statistic by means of the internet does not impress me. I’m not sure what I’m doing now. Go Sharks?
by Pucking Insane on Apr 27, 2009 6:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I thought I had addressed
If they wish to argue that Braden trumps Eveland using a non-statistical approach, then give us the "why". but let me do so here:
- Braden has the command to spot his fastball so he is able to get first-pitch strikes on a more regular basis. He is pitching from ahead in the count a lot more often than Eveland, which puts him in position to manage opposing hitters better – both their stats (BAA, OBP) but also the quality of their swings in general.
- Braden is controlling the bat speed well. Eveland does this pretty well in theory, but in practice he often can’t focus on it because he has bigger issues (e.g., strikes, unfavorable count) to navigate.
- The walks are huge. Walking 5 batters / 9 IP vs. walking 3 batters / 9 IP is a significant difference when inevitably some legitimate hits and some “lucky” hits are bound to follow sometimes.
- Braden has had a true “plus pitch” to fall back on (the changeup), whereas Eveland doesn’t have a pitch he can locate well enough, consistently enough, for it to be a reliable “plus pitch.” The closest is his sinker, but he misses location enough that it isn’t reliable for him the way Braden’s changeup is for him.
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
by Nico on Apr 27, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You do realize that for their careers Braden only throws 1.6% more strikes than Eveland, right?
What does controlling bat speed even mean?
Walks are a component of control and batters faced. Eveland is actually throwing more strikes than he did last year and .5% more than his career. Considering that Eveland is facing terrible luck outside of his control which is causing him to give up more hits and face more batters which suggests that with a constant walk rate Eveland would walk more people.
As for the “plus pitch” Eveland actually gets more out of zone swings than Braden, as a key mark of a plus pitch is it gets batters to chase out of the zone. Secondarily both pitchers get almost the exact same amount of contact per swing.
The problem with your “observation” is that they aren’t even supported by the evidence that should correlate with your views, such as basic data like strike patterns.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A front page article on the different strengths and weaknesses of the 7-10 rotation candidates
analyzing Pitch Fx data (First strike , 0-swing, etc) and FB speed pitch selection data and statements from interviews with the players with the author’s own supported beliefs sprinkled in would have been a heckuva more valuable — and less arrogant — article than one that just listed all your preconceived notions…followed by “if you don’t agree with me, then you’re wrong” responses to all comments.
If the author wanted to discuss his preconceived notions, then it would have been a lot more interactive to say something like “this is what I believed before analyzing this information, and after having done so I now believe ____, but am still skeptical about ______. Now what do you guys think?”
If you don’t have time or interest in doing all this work, you might want to use your position as Front Page Editor (or whatever your title is) to attract someone else to do that. It’s what Blez was so successful in doing.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 28, 2009 4:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm...Actually what he did first was to "hire" me to write
exactly what I write, so…
Anyway, what I think you’re saying is that you don’t believe analysis, opinion, observation, etc. without data to back it up is worth writing or reading. I would just suggest you accept that many feel differently (including Blez, actually, both as a reader and as an admin once searching for front page writers) and if you don’t care for those pieces, just skip them and let others enjoy them.
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
by Nico on Apr 28, 2009 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"what does controlling bat speed even mean?'
Good question. Fortunately, Nico was able to ask the pitcher himself during spring training:
I think a lot of it has to do with being in the bullpen and really seeing results there. The ball is your best teacher – the ball is going to tell you exactly what you’re doing right, exactly what you’re doing wrong. And you can go out there and throw, and throw, and throw, and that’s when you’re going to get a feel for, “Ok, here’s my mechanics: I get the velocity I need here, and that’s towards the higher end of velocity, and now I take away, and I can feel my mechanics doing so and I get this result.” So you take away on the back side and you’re not driving through a pitch, that’s going to help you create a little more sink, a little less velocity. You stay on your back side longer and really drive through a pitch, that’s gonna get the increased velocity, take away a little movement possibly, but nonetheless you’re speeding up and slowing down the bat of the hitter.
by OaklandSi on Apr 27, 2009 9:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah that really just seems like gibberish to me... and I use to be both a pitcher and a catcher till I blew out my shoulder
I mean of course I get adding and subtracting velocity and movement on pitchers but the batter controls bat speed.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think what Braden is saying is he can affect it by surprising the hitter with a certain pitch...
…so instead of the hitter being able to take a full, normal swing he has to either make a quicker one to catch up to a pitch that’s faster than he’s expecting or slow the swing down to wait on something that’s slower than he’s expecting. A result of that can be a bad swing that improves the probability of an out. If that’s the case, all pitchers can do that.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nico didn't say creates weak contact, which combined with missed swings is what you described.
However neither is borne out by the evidence. While Braden has a slight advantage in infield flies that is more than made up by Braden getting a lot of balls hit in the air to the outfield and less swinging strikes out of the zone.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All I'm saying is I think that's what Braden meant
Nico’s not the one who brought up the quote, either.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Apr 27, 2009 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know... but he didn't substantiate his claim, which i think is deeply flawed, either.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 27, 2009 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Small Twitter account creates big drama in White Sox camp
- John Danks sticks with the script — no matter the consequence
- Spring Snapshot: Will fresh faces produce a White Sox winner?
- Vin Scully OK after tumble but scares bejeezus out of everybody
- Musical interlude: Gordon Beckham and Jake Peavy 'Take It Easy'
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
