A Pitchf/x Primer, and why Trevor Cahill should start 2010 in Sacramento.
by danmerqury on Sep 20, 2009 10:24 PM PDT
329 comments
I don’t know how familiar the AN population is with the specifics of the wonderful Pitchf/x system, so I’ll start from the beginning. For those that do…I’m sorry. Skip ahead if you’d like.
In 2006, Sportsvision (the company behind the original yellow TV first down line and pretty much every piece of TV sports graphic wizardry out there) launched Pitchf/x. They installed multiple high-speed cameras in every MLB stadium that track every pitch, computing the ball’s trajectory and location to within a half an inch. Over time, the power of the system grew, and today, the cameras allow the Pitchf/x system to calculate a huge collection of variables about the trajectory of every pitch, definitely not limited to what you see on MLB Gameday.
Thankfully, data for every pitch is freely available from MLB.com. It’s easier to access data from a source like FanGraphs or Brooks Baseball, where they have tools and graphs already set up, but if anyone wanted to work with the raw data, you can download the spreadsheets too. I used FanGraphs for this FanPost, but it’s really up to you. In either case, the data generated by the Pitchf/x system gives us the greatest tool we’ve ever had for analyzing a pitcher’s pitches. For example, here’s a movement graph from Justin Verlander’s start on 8/8.
Keep in mind that this isn’t a location graph. That is, the dots don’t correspond to where they crossed the plate. Rather, this is a movement graph. The vertical axis corresponds to vertical movement—from the graph it looks like his fastball (the green dots) averaged about seven or eight inches of backspin. In other words, his fastball crosses the plate roughly eight inches higher than it would have if it was thrown without spin. The horizontal axis is very similar, showing horizontal movement. In these graphs, all movement numbers are seen from the batter’s point of view, so Verlander’s fastball comes in to right-handed batters by approximately six inches. It’s counterintuitive, but fastballs break just as much as curveballs do. The very best curveballs can break downwards by around ten inches (think Zito), but almost everyone throws a fastball that breaks upward anywhere from 6-11 inches. Upward vertical movement has to fight against gravity, however, so a hard fastball will fly far straighter than a spinless ball will, where downward breaking curveballs fall with gravity working for it.
The reason I used Verlander as an example is because his pitches are well-defined. He throws them repeatedly, with consistency. Take a look at this.
This is from Trevor Cahill’s 5/7 start, which, by all accounts, was a good one. He went seven innings, generated loads of groundballs, and only allowed one run. But yet, his movement chart is troubling. Unlike Verlander’s, Cahill’s pitches are not well-defined. Instead, the graph looks more like a smear of pitches, as opposed to tight bunches. And this is one of his good starts. When he’s bad…
Gio Gonzalez has, to put it lightly, control problems. He has trouble locating his pitches. But when he throws his fastball, the same pitch comes out every time. Cahill has trouble throwing the same pitch start after start. Here are all of Cahill's starts this year, from the beginning to 9/2. The date text is in green if he had a quality start, and it appears in red if he didn’t. (I changed the definition of "quality start" from 6.0 IP/3ER to 5.0 IP/3ER because he’s a rookie, and, well, he wouldn’t have too many quality starts if I left it as is.)
I see no consistency. I also don’t see much of a pattern. In an attempt to find one, I sorted his starts again, but instead of using earned runs as the deciding factor, I sorted them by the number of groundballs. He’s a sinkerballer, so I considered any start where he generated 50% groundballs or more as good. Anything under 50%, again, appears in red.
Now there’s some semblance of a pattern. I came to the rather obvious result that Cahill tends to generate more groundballs when his fastball has more sink. To illustrate the difference, I pooled all of his starts together, sorted by groundball rate.
In the starts where he generates less than 50% groundballs, his fastball has a nasty tendency to rise, losing it's characteristic sink. When his fastball is working, it tends to lose some of that positive vertical movement and causes batters to get poor contact. It looks like Cahill tends to overthrow his fastball at times, causing it to get more backspin than it should, which leads to the rise.
Cahill needs to get time in Sacramento to work on his consistency. If his fastball can become that consistent sinking force it needs be, he can succeed on the highest stage.
18 recs |
329 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Oh, and to anyone who cares,
Here’s the same pooled start gifs, with line drives as the deciding factor. Anything under 20% was considered good.
by danmerqury on Sep 20, 2009 10:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Does this data come in a csv or xls format as well? Could you run stats tests on it? It’d be interesting to find out the difference in standard deviation between good and bad starts. Eyeballing can only get you so far.
by speckops on Sep 20, 2009 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a great idea.
You can download the data in XML format from MLB.com. I found a series of great video tutorials from Youtube.
Luckily, I already downloaded them. Here they are, titled by date, in a zip file.
by danmerqury on Sep 20, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holy carp. That’s a lot of data. I’ll try to get around to working that up at some point tomorrow after work.
by speckops on Sep 20, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for doing that
I think it’ll be really interesting and also, my first reaction, like yours, was that some statistics would show more than the eyeball of the plots.
by ohmangoAs on Sep 21, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
danmerqury, this is a damn good post. Rec’d.
Two thoughts: Some of those pitches have so much variation from start to start, that I would almost want to see someone we acknowledge as having exquisite control (e.g. Dan Haren, or even Verlander), just to see if there’s that much variation in the PitchF/X system from ballpark to ballpark. Do you know if there is much variation? Somehow I don’t think there should be, but you’re a chemist. You know the value of a good control. ;)
Second thought: I wonder if his release point is all over the place, i.e. his pitch issues are so far over the place that even PitchF/X can spot why he’s getting crazy results.
by speckops on Sep 20, 2009 10:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
His release point is also something that’s tracked by Pitchf/x, and FanGraphs has game charts (the same ones I used here) for release point tracking.
My quick knee-jerk reaction: it’s not that bad. Could be better, but it’s not bad enough to be a problem.
by danmerqury on Sep 20, 2009 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I'm fairly certain that the cameras and the system are pretty accurate from park to park.
But that’s definitely a topic worth further research.
by danmerqury on Sep 20, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cahill should have been in AAA almost all of this year. Wasn’t he supposedly pretty raw still? I think his MLB numbers bear this out in addition to your Pitchf/x work. His FIP is 5.40 and he hasn’ t been striking out enough batters to continue even his modest success in 2009.
by wickethewok on Sep 20, 2009 11:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
nice post, dan.
i think the other thing to note is just how few purple dots (curveballs) there are, and how little movement they’re getting. that’s the pitch he really needs to perfect.
by Elston Gunn on Sep 20, 2009 11:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Watch the graphs later in the season
He’s virtually mothballed the pitch.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the curveball might be done
I remember hearing during the broadcast a while ago that they decided to stop throwing the curve and have Cahill work on developing a slider. I don’t know if this means the knuckle curve is gone for good or if he will try to work on it in the off-season but the lack of a consistent breaking pitch is troubling.
I’m not completely decided on where I think Cahill should start next season, but for me it depends on the breaking ball. If he comes to spring training next season and still doesn’t have a semi-consistent breaking ball that can generate some swings and misses he should head to the minors and get that worked out.
by DiegoAsFan on Sep 21, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats the point
if he comes to ST with a curveball and not arm slot fluxuation (or at least acceptable) then fine, run him out there, he will be a good MLB player, if not have him work on it.
by Future Ed on Sep 21, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is great work and rec'ed
To think that tRA suggests that Cahill has been getting lucky this year and should have given up 17 more runs than he has is scary considering how bad he has been.
It also appears that there is substantial loss of rise on his change up in starts where Cahill does well by ER GB or LD. Is that accurate?
It also appears like his slider is his most consistent pitch.
One last question: Does his Pitch f(x) data show a complete abandonment of the knuckle curve?
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 20, 2009 11:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m a bit of a neophyte when it comes to pitch types, but how exactly is a knuckle curve different from a regular curve? Different grips? Does it generate different movement?
by speckops on Sep 20, 2009 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From what I understand,
a knuckle curve and a spike curve (slightly different grips, same general result) are designed to look like a poorly-thrown changeup, then break down and away at the last second.
Which is why Cahill doesn’t get the sheer negative vertical movement on his curve that Zito or Gio Gonzalez gets—it’s more of a smaller, less sharp sort of curve.
by danmerqury on Sep 20, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This isn't really true.
I throw a knuckle-curve, the pitch is in general thrown the same way as a regular curveball, except that instead of having the first two fingers flat and curved on the ball, the middle finger’s knuckle or fingernail is the part that touches the ball and the rest sticks up.
The end result is that the pitch is usually slower and MORE vertical (or at least should be) than a regular curve, more along the lines of Brett Anderson’s curve (though his curve has been called a slurve and is certainly thrown harder than many curves).
Think Mike Mussina’s curve for knuckle-curve.
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Sep 20, 2009 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops, sorry
now that I’m thinking about it, it’s actually the index finger which touches its knuckle to the ball in a knuckle-curve grip…
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Sep 20, 2009 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll trust you.
I may have misremembered somewhere down the line, that’s for sure.
by danmerqury on Sep 21, 2009 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Mussina probably is the most recognizable knuckle curve artist of this era.
I can’t find a good youtube video of it but if you look on MLB’s archive you should be able to find some good examples.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That comports with my recollection of the movie "Sugar"
Which I recommend, but not in a “jumping off the chair clapping” kind of way.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 21, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, okay
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the spike curveball too, but I dunno if I’ve got any pics of it from my work.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
by Flashfire on Sep 21, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yup!
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Sep 21, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm.
I didn’t notice that about the changeup, but you definitely may be on to something. I was hoping people would notice things about the moving gifs that I didn’t.
And yes, about a month and a half ago, he stopped throwing his knuckle curve altogether. Yet another reason he should stay down in AAA, as I’ve seen scouting reports on the pitch ranging from “good” to “plus-plus”.
by danmerqury on Sep 20, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great post
if you notice in the dated graphic purple disapears after july. He has also said he doesn’t throw it anymore.
by Future Ed on Sep 20, 2009 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Calling his slider his most consistent pitch is misleading.
His slider has been his most consistently bad pitch besides the infamous curveball, being worth, according to Fangraphs, -1.21 runs per 100 pitches thrown below average. It also appears from pitch f/x that his slider has just about No movement at all.
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Sep 20, 2009 11:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
I was not commenting on anything but the ability to consistently throw the pitch at the same level of vertical and horizontal movement which as you pointed out is very little horizontal or vertical movement.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 20, 2009 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Got it, good call.
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Sep 21, 2009 12:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As an interesting Pitchf/x related tangent,
I may have accidentally figured out one of the reasons for Zack Greinke’s dominance when looking for a good pitcher to compare Cahill to.
He can throw his curveball at any speed from 65 to 85 mph, all with the same spin and movement. That’s nasty.
by danmerqury on Sep 20, 2009 11:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and it's worth noting that Pitchf/x's pitch classifications aren't always accurate.
It’s guessing, and usually does a decent job with it, but for someone with odd pitches, it may trip up quite a bit. Look more at the location of the dots, less at the color.
by danmerqury on Sep 21, 2009 12:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I noticed this a lot with Cahill
When watching gameday on mlb his sinker often gets misclassified as a change-up. Both pitches seem to have similar movement but it’s hard to tell from the data.
by DiegoAsFan on Sep 21, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
MLB gameday is pretty seriously flawed in that it gives you Break and “PFX,” which is actually a combination of the horizontal movement and vertical movement (to be accurate, it’s the magnitude of the total movement vector, SQRT). So they could have the same “PFX” even if one has only horizontal movement but the other has only equal vertical movement. I think THT had a good post a while ago detailing how BRK is actually less strongly correlated with how good a curveball is than vertical movement; break isn’t exactly a great measurement.
Bottom line: don’t trust MLB gameday on this stuff; the numbers they spit out may or may not actually be the same.
by speckops on Sep 21, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really like this analysis but I don't see how it shows that Cahill should start at
Sacramento. For one thing it fails to compare him to the other options for the rotation. It may well be that as unready as he is, there isn’t anyone else better on the team. The bad part about the A’s rotation isn’t that Cahill’s in it, it’s that Cahill, Gio and Mazzaro are all in it…and that Mortensen, Edgar and Eveland aren’t any better.
I recommend the post anyway though. It’s still really cool.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 12:13 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I was looking in the best interests of Trevor Cahill's development,
not so much in terms of Oakland’s depth chart. In that “time away from the spotlight” sort of way.
by danmerqury on Sep 21, 2009 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I was going to bring this up, too
This is a very interesting fan post, but you don’t present any evidence to support your conclusion. What you’ve shown is, ‘Trevor Cahill needs to work on his pitching to become a better (more consistent) pitcher’.
Is he better off doing this in Sacramento rather than in Oakland? Peripheral concerns (the success next year of the team, the desire of fans to see him, lack of other options, etc) aside, under what circumstances is he most likely to improve? In Sacramento, where he’s away from pressure, and can miss starts if he needs to work on a specific problem, or in Oakland, where he’s facing major league pitchers, and is under the watchful eye of the Oakland coaching staff?
I don’t know the answer to this, but I suspect there are arguments to be made either way.
by bobnothing on Sep 21, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Major League Hitting
I think at this point, with a year under his belt, I have a feeling he needs to work with major league hitters in order to get an accurate read on his own pitching and consistency.
My question concerns his last few starts: is there greater consistency there, or is he all over the map (and thus lucky)?
by richwol1 on Sep 21, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
THe end of this year
would have been a perfect time to work on his curve in front of major league hitters. Problem is, he hasn’t. ANd Geren does no favors by pulling him, Gio and Edgar after too many walks. Yes, winning is important, but If the A’s are to be a good team going forward Gio and Trevor need to stay in games to work it out.
by Future Ed on Sep 21, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, no.
If the A’s are going to be a good team going forward, Gio and Trevor need to limit their innings pitched. Issuing walks like they’re candy doesn’t help that.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
point taken
what I mean is, if you want them to work on it in the majors, now is the time, not next year.
by Future Ed on Sep 21, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Is Brett Meyers going to have a better year than Cahill?
I think 30 starts with an ERA of about 4.00 that cost you nothing is one of the most valuable assets a team can have. Anderson and Braden are the 1-2 and Cahill is a very respectable 3 for the next year or two, graduating to a 1-2 when he’s about 26 or so.
by PL78 on Sep 21, 2009 12:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm probably being really dense, but
I can’t for the life of me figure out what the fifth pitch. I figured out that FA, CU, SL and CH are fastball, curve, slider and changeup, but what the heck it FT?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 12:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Two seem fastball I believe.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 12:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would seam so, yes.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
4 seam and two seam?
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, so I wasn't dense.
“FT” = “two seam”?? Why not just call it “2S”?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fastball-twoseam
FF would be a better abbreviation for four-seamers, I have to admit, if you wanted to be consistent.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would have done F2 and F4
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As has been mentioned here and there previously,
there is some evidence that Cahill has made some substantial improvements in the last month or two.
My eyeball take was that Cahill seemed to turn a corner about the time of his August 6th start against the Rangers where he struck out 6, though also gave up 2 HRs. I remember because I was on my way to the airport on my way to college, about ready to throw in the towel with Cahill, but when I checked my phone, he had racked up 4 or 5 swinging strikeouts in the first couple innings on his changeup.
It was at that point I think that he started realizing that his changeup is a plus pitch and started to throw it more, particularly to right-handed batters. (Not sure how to check that in Fangraphs… anybody know?)
Anyhow, so here are some quick stats since that game:
48 IP, 18 ER, 3 HR, 30 K, 15 BB.
By my math, that spits out a 3.38 ERA and a 3.70 FIP.
I’m not sure of a way to check his groundball rate for all those games except to go back and look at all the boxscores (though I’m sure there is one), but his groundball % in September is at 59% according to firstinning.com, which is both extremely excellent and in line with his minor league numbers.
Now if only he could have a good curve ball! Anyhow, my point is only that it’s possible Cahill is finally starting to make those adjustments and that particularly if he is doing so, he’ll be better off in the A’s rotation to finish learning to get out major league hitters than in AAA.
It’s possible that it might be worth it to send him down to save his service time, but I would also worry about that being a confidence killer for young White Rabbit.
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Sep 21, 2009 12:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Cahill's changeup by the way,
has been worth 0.73 runs above average per 100 pitches thrown so far this year—quite good.
To clarify, I was wondering if anybody knows a way to check out LH/RH splits of pitchf/x and other such goodies..?
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Sep 21, 2009 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
baseball-reference.com has GB/FB numbers by start
Go to Cahill’s gamelog page. The GB/FB numbers on that page seem to total every batted ball, including all hits and homers.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Sep 21, 2009 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Cahill goes to AAA for a couple of months.......
Who are you replacing him with?
Myers? Sheets? A Tomko clone?
If we’re going anywhere in ‘10 (or attempting to) we’ll need depth behind our kiddie pitchers.
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
by Daniel777 on Sep 21, 2009 1:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd want another starter anyway since Mazzaro and Gio are far from sure things.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plenty more kiddie pitchers where those ones came from
Might not be GOOD kiddie pitchers, but Cahill hasn’t been good, either, so it’s picking a more palatable poison.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're saying you'd send Cahill down and keep Mortensen or Godfrey or Ross on the
theory that they’d all likely have a 5.20 ERA?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I sure would.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So if Cahill had a 10% chance at a 4.20 ERA and the others had less than 1%
chance it wouldn’t matter to you?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Given that means that all of them still have a 90% chance to do much worse than that
I’d let Cahill stay in AAA and fix whatever the hell is wrong with his curveball that caused him to jettison it this year.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes the player development argument is persuasive...if you can convince
people that his development would actually be better in the minors. Any pitching coaches out there?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where would you rather have him work on a pitch?
In the big leagues, where it hurts the team if he gets hammered, or in the minors, where it doesn’t really matter and he can just focus on throwing the pitch right?
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know. I see three issues and I don't know which ones are most important.
1) Big league is more pressure and might discourage a pitcher from working on a pitch that isn’t very good yet
2) Big league hitters are better and playing against better competition might improve a pitcher in other ways
3) I want the A’s to win and, if Cahill is one of the five best options I want him in there.
You’re focusing on #1. #1 makes intuitive sense, but I don’t know whether or not it trumps #2.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd think it does.
With #1 out of the way, it gives Cahill the ability/confidence/whatever to figure out the pitch. Basically, if I’m Beane I tell him “I want you to start the season in Triple A next year. As soon as you can throw your knuckle curve for a strike regardless of the batter, count, or game situation, you’re back in Oakland to stay.”
Given the issues you laid out, I don’t want him working on Issue 2 until he’s got Issue 1 resolved. Why send him out against the best competition in the world without having perfected the tools he has available to use?
As far as 3, I think PT laid out that there’s a pretty good chance that Cahill isn’t one of the five best options anyway right now.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The trouble with your position is that Cahill did in fact improve
quite a bit in the second half, so it’s not at all clear that he would have improved more in the minors.
I don’t see anything that PT posted that means that Cahill isn’t one of the team’s 5 best options right now. His posts appear to say that he wasn’t very good this past year. I think we all agree on that.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Scroll down
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2009/9/20/1046224/a-pitchf-x-primer-and-why-trevor#
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
#1 is a small sacrifice of #2 & #3 for long term gains of #2 & #3.
- & #3 can create a long-term detriment of #1.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
by DMOAS on Sep 21, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I need to find a potty
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
gotta go number 3?
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
`
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
What, was I the only person who thought that?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking about it as I was typing it
so no, not the only one.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
by DMOAS on Sep 21, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Objection-- assumes facts not in evidence
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Withdrawn
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
TWHS
A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 21, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you mean TWHD
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
TWSS
A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 21, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you object "asked and answered"
there will be only 3 posts a month here
by Future Ed on Sep 21, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why should he start in AAA?
There’s one main reason and it doesn’t need any research… arbitration. Obviously, Cahill needs some polish. Why not spend a month in AAA and be able to keep him for a year longer?
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
by brenarlo on Sep 21, 2009 6:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Because he might be better than the guy you replace him with.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
geekery at its worst
Cahill fits the A’s plan — young and talented. He’s had enough success that there’s no going back.
Last year when Barton hit .200 with no power there was probably a chart that showed his swing was perfect, but that still doesn’t make him your clean-up hitter.
by BlueMoon on Sep 21, 2009 6:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well...
That reply certainly didn’t shed any light on the subject.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 6:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A comparison to Barton seems sort of fitting
Talent is still there, just didn’t show enough at the MLB level to give him rights to a spot on the MLB roster next year. But yeah, no really argument there.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
by DMOAS on Sep 21, 2009 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Barton's done OK for a 22-23 year old. A 100 Career OPS+ isn't bad for someone
at that age.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Barton’s doneOK for a 22-23 year old. A 100 Career OPS+ isn’t bad for someone at that age.
A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 21, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What kind of chocolate?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
white chocolate?
"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 21, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent work
However, I disagree with the conclusion that this proves he needs time in AAA. Consistency is something that every pitcher should strive towards (especially if we’re talking the good kind o’ consistency) but one of the most important lessons a pitcher learns is to figure out what he’s got on any given day and make it work for him.
We knew when we saw the Opening Day roster that Cahill was being rushed. We knew there were going to be days when he was going to get hammered like a guy who had barely pitched above A-ball. People are too quick to grab on to the data that readily supports their pre-determined conclusions and they aren’t asking the right questions.
Like I said, nice work and I’m giving it a rec.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 6:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I tend to think he should start in AAA because of his arby clock...
But I look forward to you addressing this issue. Will one month in AAA do any damage that should make me think that he should start in the bigs with the A’s losing a year of his services?
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
by brenarlo on Sep 21, 2009 6:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate and loath the arby clock argument in this discussion
This was the season to worry about the service time issue, unfortunately Cahill emerged from ST as 1 of the 5 best SP options for the A’s. Cahill should have started the 2009 season in the minors but he didn’t. I can understand wanting to see Trevor in Sac next season because of performance based criteria. I will not accept the idea of demoting him if he ends up being 1 of the 5 best SP options at the start of next season just because you or the A’s want to be cheap.
Potentially sacrificing 2010 wins to save 2015 dollars doesn’t work for me.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 6:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that this season was a better time to worry about his arby clock.
I don’t think it’s cut and dry as to whether he’ll be a top 5 pitcher for the A’s. If we’re talking 5 or 6 starts and the 6th best pitcher is only slightly worse, how many wins would actually be sacrificed? Also, the argument could be made that wins in 2015 are more important than wins in 2010. Of course that all depends on what the A’s do this off-season.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
by brenarlo on Sep 21, 2009 7:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Counting SP
I don’t know what the master plan is this offseason so we’ve got to work with the material in front of us.
Braden
Anderson
Cahill
Mazzaro
Gio
Mortensen
Eveland
Outman is on the DL, we shouldn’t expect him back until July at best. Tomko and Duke are FA. Simmons, Godfrey and Ross all need more time in the minors.
You’d basically need to find, at minimum, 2 SP to bring in to challenge Cahill for a rotation spot.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I put Mazzaro in the same boat.
Again, how many wins will Eveland “cost” the A’s if he pitches instead of Cahill for 5 or 6 starts? 1? Are we really only 1 win away from making the playoffs?
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
by brenarlo on Sep 21, 2009 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, Cahill's been somewhere in the bottom-five ML starters by FIP and tRA.
Fangraphs has him at 0.6 WAR so far this season. Eveland, for example, has had half the WAR in less than a fifth of the innings.
This is all assuming he didn’t turn the corner or anything, of course.
by danmerqury on Sep 21, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eveland may indeed have turned a corner
I forget which pitch, but he has added a pitch this summer, and he threw it a lot in his last start.
Eveland said that the addition of that pitch “Made all the difference.”
…..a little more emphatically than that, but he basically was quite upbeat about the difference.
"It is the mark of a truly intelligent person to be moved by statistics. " GB Shaw
by One won lost won on Sep 24, 2009 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was a cutter
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Sep 24, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good choice
there was a recent Beyond the Box Score article about how effective cutters tend to be, in spite of the fact that (or maybe because) so few pitchers throw them.
by colin on Sep 24, 2009 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would probably cost you more than 1 win
But more importantly, it tells the team you are more interested in being cheap then in winning. Not exactly a prime sales pitch to FA or when trying to keep homegrown talent after 6 years.
Sending Cahill to AAA strictly to affect his arbitration clock is screwing him over. You don’t screw over your people.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they miss the playoffs by one game let it be on your head
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This was for brenarlo, not grover
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the A's have a shitty team with no pitching in 2015 it'll be on your head
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I value my 2010 head more than my 2015 head
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
silly people... there's not going to BE a 2015...
not if my Mayan Superpowers have anything to do with it!
"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Sep 21, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would probably cost you more than 1 win?
Really?
In 5 or 6 games, Eveland is going to cost you 15+ runs vis a vis Cahill? (That’s the threshold at which it is “probable” that he will cost you two wins.)
The difference between Dan Haren and replacement level isn’t 15 runs over 5 games. That’s just absurd.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This
Also, the reason this is an argument for AAA is that in working on consistency Cahill might have to change mechanics/ flirt with failure/experiment/etc. That’s ok in AAA, it isn’t ok in Oakland. Once he learns how to pitch, he can come back up.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 21, 2009 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with everything you're saying about getting Cahill to have
confidence in his curve before bringing him up. Those promoting that argument would be a lot more persuasive if they just didn’t bring up the service clock thing.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't going strictly by 10 runs = 1 win
More like, if Dana Eveland pitches 6 games at least 2 are going to be epic disasters, 2 are going to be bad and the other 2 ranging somewhere between average and good.
And I’m basing that on Eveland’s 2009 performance, where in 7 GS for the A’s he’s given up at least as many runs as innings pitched 4 times, 1 QS and 2 5 inning affairs.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What justification do you have for junking the 10 run rule
and replacing it with this thing?
Also, why can’t Eveland improve next year back to how he pitched in 2008?
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd have more hope for the Eveland bouncing back...
if he hadn’t sucked in Sac this year.
As for junking the 10 run rule, I figure a SP doesn’t have to give up 15 runs more than another SP over a 5 game spread to cost his team more than 1 additional loss. When you focus on such a limited window of opportunity like 5 games it doesn’t take much performance difference to have an impact in the standings. Your 1.5 WAR stance lacks subtly when considering the narrow parameters.
But like I said, the W/L difference doesn’t really bother me nearly as much as the screw job that comes with sending Cahill down for the purposes of managing his service time. It puts money before wins, it puts money before the good of the team and it puts money before the good of the player.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, we know you're opposed to the straw-man position
that Cahill is one of the 5 best A’s pitchers and they should send him to the minors anyway.
Since no one here is actually arguing that position, perhaps you would like to actually address the issues being raised.
Your first paragraph is simply wrong in win probability terms. The win probability impact of “-1 run” is actually (fractionally) reduced by it being concentrated into a smaller number of games.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If no one is arguing that Cahill should be sent to the minors
for service clock reasons, even though he gives the team the best chance to win, why does it matter to what degree he gives the team the best chance to win?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because if he fixes his issues quickly in the minors
where he can concentrate on that and nothing else. The short term “lose” by having him out of therotation in the majors will be made up by the long-term gain of having him return to the majors a better pitcher.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
by DMOAS on Sep 21, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
I mean that seriously. I don’t understand what you’re saying in this post at all. Rephrase?
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I got it.
If we agree that Cahill is one of the five pitchers that give us the best chance to win, why does it matter how much better of a chance he gives us to win than pitcher #6?
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Sep 21, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, ok.
It doesn’t matter. (Well, it does from a team wins-and-losses standpoint, but I fully acknowledge that there’s a morality issue involved in bad-faith demotions of players.)
I was just reacting to grover’s rather hyperbolic characterization of the season-long impact of starting a slightly worse pitcher for 6 games.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correction, PT
You aren’t arguing the position that Cahill blah blah blah send him down anyways. And I never implied you were. The topic has been discussed, however, therefore you can’t call it a straw man.
You need to pull your head out of the stats. There is more to discuss than tRA or FIP or any other statistical measure you’d care to indulge in. Put simply, Cahill needs to find a breaking ball. If he finds one (or re-discovers his faith in the knuckle-curve) your projections are going to be… well, not invalidated but much less reliable because the pitcher in question has changed. The variables (i.e. his pitches) that produced his results will have altered, couldn’t that lead to a dramatic change in his 2010 results?
Look, I’m not saying adding a breaking ball will make everything rainbows and puppies for Cahill. There are other areas he needs to work on as well. But young talent can mature and improve at a dramatic rate and it is extremely difficult for any projection system to account for that, especially when it comes to pitchers.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I seem to recall us talking about a certain pitcher needing to discover a breaking ball last offseason
That didn’t work out very well for anyone this year.
You are, of course, correct that pitchers are extremely variable, and certainly we’ll know more about their status as of March 31 of next season (at least to the extent that we can wade through the typical spring-training media pabulum), but you can’t just assume a pitch (back) into existence. Right now, he doesn’t have it.
If and when he demonstrates that it’s working for him in Sacramento, he can get his train ticket back to the Bay Area.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes we did and no it didn't
Thing is, Cahill had a lot of things he needed to work on from Day 1 just to survive in the Bigs.
And survive he did. The breaking ball issue is slightly different in this case, as there is at least the potential of Cahill rediscovering a pitch he already had vs. Simmons learning a new pitch. That remains to be seen.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends upon how you define survive
He sucked this year.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 21, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did he?
I don’t want to give away how I’m going to put that position into question.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
PT's posted the stats elsewhere
He’s anything from well-below-average, to one-of-the-very-worst depending upon which statyou use.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 21, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guess you'll have to wait for my counter argument
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With bated breath
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 21, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I kinda doubt that
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
tRA+ of 74 last time I checked.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would actually argue for the straw man.
but realize that its a harder case to make than the original supposition.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alright, well, that's your own lookout
I just don’t think it’s necessary to reach the issue in this situation, and indeed think it’s almost impossible for a situation implicating that issue to actually come up in the real world.
Even the supposedly cut-and-dried cases (Longoria, Wieters, etc) are persistently mischaracterized because of the teleological assumption that prospects will always work out well. As of April 1, 2008, it wasn’t at all clear that Evan Longoria would perform better in the short run than Willy Aybar.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't have to be clear that Longoria was better
in the short run. It only has be true that the Rays believed it and still didn’t play him….thereby arguably sort of throwing those games.
It’s no better than Pete Rose starting a pitcher he perceives to be crappier in the games he’s not betting on. Even if Mr. Crappy throws a shutout, it doesn’t make what Rose did moral.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that is absurd
Did the A’s have a “moral” obligation to play Crosby over Pennington if they thought he was .o1% better?
If the A’s think next offseason that Ynoa would be slightly better as the last guy in the bullpen than Joe Veteran do they have a moral obligation to put him on the team?
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, although they would be wrong in both
cases. Crosby is not better than Pennington and Ynoa would not have been better than Edgar.
That being said, there is an argument for keeping guys in the minors for development purposes.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a bad analogy
If Rose did that, he did it in order to achieve a goal that had nothing to do with the team’s interests at all, in the long, medium, or short term (winning money on bets he placed with a bookie).
What the Rays did was done in order to improve the team in the long run (by holding onto Longoria for longer, or keeping their payroll within budgetary limits).
That doesn’t make it right, but it’s nothing like what Rose did.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Sep 22, 2009 6:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that I'm trying to give Eveland an excuse...
…but part of him sucking at times in Sacramento probably coincided with him working on the cutter, which it sounds like he’s using to some level of success already. If that helps him perform better, great.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
by Flashfire on Sep 21, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
If there are other reasons for starting Cahill in AAA, fine. (I actually lean slightly in the direction of doing so, depending on what he’s able to do with his arm slot consistency issues during the off-season.) But not for his arbi clock.
In the recent interview with Melissa Lockard, Farhan Zaidi said, “The service time issue obviously has a financial impact, but we’ve never made roster decisions based on that,” and I hope that’s true.
I never want to see the A’s keep a guy down solely for arbitration clock purposes, even if to do so is worth more wins in the long run. It’s just not the right thing to do. Some things are more important than marginal improvement in your expected wins, and this is one of them.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't remember them ever making decisions based on service clock
Buck in 2007, Cahill and Anderson in 2009. For that matter Mulder in 2000 and Tejada in 1998.
They really need to fix the rules to encourage teams to play their best players all the time, but A’s don’t seem to have been corrupted yet.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think there's a strong need to change the rules.
I don’t think the incentives are messed up so badly. Most of the time, if a guy really is good enough for the big leagues, you’re going to want him up now. To say, as a GM, “this guy will help me win games right now, but I’d rather defer that gratification in order to hopefully have him help me win more games five years from now,” is a pretty cold calculation. Some may choose to do it, but I don’t think it’s the sort of moral hazard where you really don’t want to but the temptation is too great to resist.
And if you do, it will be fairly plain to the players and journalists and you’ll suffer bad will or bad press accordingly. I think that’s correcting mechanism enough.
Perhaps there’s room for improvement in the rule here, but I don’t think of it as problematic in the same way as, say, slot-based signing bonuses for draft picks.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
francisco liriano
2008. Killing in AAA, not called up until july
by Future Ed on Sep 21, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ryan Braun 2007 as well.
Evan Longoria 2008 too, but he came up in time and the Rays made the playoffs anyway.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Longoria didn't matter
He signed a 6 year contract like 15 minutes after he was called up.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes he only missed a week or two. It didn't matter
in that case
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you don't think that the extra year of control had anything to do with the Ray's leverage?
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really.
He signed for the length of time he’d be with the team anyway.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they had called him up on opening day they would have had him through 2013
The contract he signed has club options through 2016. It made a big difference….
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They could have signed that contract in March
Both sides would have been better off.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they could have,
but the only reason Longoria would have gone along with it would have been the Rays saying “We’ll staart you in the minors otherwise.”
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which makes me want to change the
rules to avoid this moral hazard…or even appearance of it.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've got no problem with that
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect most of us would agree with you. Perverse incentives are bad.
The question is how. I’m open to suggestions, but I can’t think of anything without more troublesome drawbacks
(Incidentally, is something weird happening with the blogging platform? I’ve never had the "textbox running off the visiible area problem before, but I sure am today.)
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 21, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes and its really annoying
Chromium would push it off to the side so you could see the whole box but then it would break after a couple of page loads.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
It’s happened to me consistently in the last couple of weeks when I’m replying to a post that’s already pretty far to the right.
Like this one.
by danmerqury on Sep 21, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you agree, why no rec?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
because the
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1.3 wins
if Eveland is replacement rate and Cahill pitches like Tim Lincecum if you wait for 6 starts its 1.3 wins.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quick question on RA equivalents with pitchers
Is that RA/W-L ratio based on basic runs/win ratios? Because a pitcher giving up a lot of runs and being pulled in the 4th wears out the bullpen, as well — this was actually a big problem for the A’s earlier this season.
To put it a different way: if pitching badly wears out the bullpen and gets Casilla an extra appearance in a high-leverage situation, it might cost more than the 1.3 wins! Though it would be hard to test statistically — you’d probably have to design some way of measuring overuse of good relievers and high-leverage use of bad ones, and see if those are triggered by bad starts.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Sep 21, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is what Tom Tango found
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correction thats replacement rate vrs a league average pitcher
the numbers came from an old post that i remembered incorrectly.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why are you willing to do it in 2009 and not 2010
I think I and others showed that the value of putting Cahill in the rotation last year was inconsequential in value when compared with the prospect of loosing a year of control. It is likely that this will be the case next year. What makes you unwilling to do it then.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure I understand your question.
You seem to be replying to grover about the arbitration clock, and as far as I can tell I’m in agreement with grover on that question.
In both 2009 and 2010 I want the A’s to make their roster decisions independent of any consideration of money savings come arbitration time, and as far as I can tell that’s exactly what they’re doing. What is it you’re seeing that’s inconsistent about that?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not considering it AT ALL just boggles my mind
If you have several guys who you would expect to perform about the same (which was more or less the situation last spring) it can’t even be a tie-breaker?
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right. I didn't mean to be so absolutist about it.
I just don’t want one of those situations where your decision would clearly be something else if it weren’t for the arbi clock savings. That’s when I think you’re being a cheap bastard and treating people like cogs not people.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This was what I was responding to
This was the season to worry about the service time issue,
I don’t see how one year its ok to mess with service issues but another isn’t.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, OK.
I don’t want to do it in either year.
I assume you acknowledge that, in terms of the personal/reputational downside of playing with someone’s clock — even if that’s just a practical issue in your view — demoting a guy after he’s already been up can be a stickier problem than delaying bringing him up in the first place, in terms of expectations, rationalization, etc.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't willing to do it in 2009
I thought Cahill (and Anderson) needed more time to develop in the minor leagues before getting called up. So a side effect of them starting 2009 in the minors for developmental reasons would have been delaying the start of their service clock.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats fair.
You must hate what the Brewers did with Hardy then.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In their defense
he also sucked.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Much unlike Cahill?
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 21, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, he kinda sucked too.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Many have argued that Alcides Escobar
really was hitting better than Hardy, so the move made sense just from a game-play point of view.
I don’t follow the NL at all, so I don’t know if that’s true, but if it is, I have no problem with that.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But clearly Hardy was better than whoever their utility IF is
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(I'm obviously a champion of using service time in decision-making, but that one was sketchy...)
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But maybe Hardy would have been a problem child as a big league bench player
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure he's ever played 2B or 3B
Craig Counsell is the utility guy and McGehee played both 2B and 3B so there were LH and RH options at all 3 infield spots.
by JetSam on Sep 21, 2009 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a hard time judging that one
Like mikev said, he really wasn’t playing well and Escobar was their top prospect. I don’t doubt that service time was a factor in the decison but I haven’t looked at the Brewers’ stats to see how Escobar has performed since the move.
There is a definite dick factor involved but was it secondary to the greater (team) good?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There wasn't a grievance filed or anything, was there?
I’d think that would be the most telling sign of wrongdoing.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So it was only justified if Escobar played well?
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
More like...
They’ve got an excellent cover story if Escobar is playing well. A key question is: What kind of production did the Brewers expect out of Escobar when they made the move? Did they expect to get a better player by making the switch or were they more interested in boosting Hardy’s trade value in the upcoming season?
In the hypothetical demotion of Cahill it has been made clear (in some of the arguments) that service time is of more import than winning in 2010. It’s a clearer picture when we discuss Cahill.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you make this argument
You also must prove that conistency on a pitch/fx chart is TRULY something that is really really good, and also that inconsistency is something that is bad. Although it seems mildly intuitive, i think that is mostly because graphs that look neat and organized are simply more attractive than graphs which are all clustered or pretty. Adrian Monk, for example, would highly prefer Justin Verlander’s chart.
But until I see a lot more evidence that nice, tight, clustered charts are super important, I think I’d rather just look at the individual statistics. Yes, it probably shows Cahill has worse control and more inconsistency than Justin Verlander, but what really matters are the BB/9, H/9, K/9, HR/9, BABIP, or whatever the good statistics are for measuring a pitcher. Arguing that he needs to go to AAA because his pitch/fx chart doesn’t look like Verlander’s seems closer to arguing that he needs to go AAA to work on getting his “body type” more like Verlander’s than getting his statistics to look more like Verlander’s.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Sep 21, 2009 7:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that's exaggerated
Yes, it probably shows Cahill has worse control and more inconsistency than Justin Verlander, but what really matters are the BB/9, H/9, K/9, HR/9, BABIP, or whatever the good statistics are for measuring a pitcher.
The appeal of pitchf/x is that it’s measuring something that’s entirely in the pitcher’s control — what pitches he throws and how he throws them. All of the other stats you mention are affected by hitters and and by teammates’ defensive performances, which can vary wildly in ways that have nothing to do with the pitcher.
It’s still a fair point that a comparison to other pitchers would be very interesting. You could do a pitchf/x comparison of 1st-half Anderson to 2nd-half Anderson: did he improve because his pitches became more distinct? If so, were they more distinct by movement or by velocity (his fastball seemed a lot slower at the start of the season)? Or has he improved just because he’s throwing a lot more strikes than before?
And it would be great to do a comparable pitchf/x study of the top pitchers, beyond Verlander, to find out how their data differs from Cahill’s (or Braden’s or Gio’s, for that matter).
But that all sounds like a hell of a lot of work, and I think it would be perfectly fair for danmerqury to say that all that is “beyond the scope of this essay”.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Sep 21, 2009 7:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's an interesting point.
Intuitively, if you continue it to its far extreme, making your pitches entirely consistent is a bad thing. Suppose some android pitcher has four pitches and they are so mechanical that he throws them in the exact same spot every single time. Well, then, as the hitter, I’ve only got four spots to cover with my swing, rather than the entire strike zone. So even batting blind I’ve already got a .250 chance of making solid contact.
Obviously that’s an extreme example, but it does raise the question of whether these charts are measuring a pitcher’s control or just how predictable he is.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well technically, it's not really control
The chart doesn’t show the pitch location, only the movement it makes compared to a completely straight trajectory. So this doesn’t show that his fastball is generally all over the place, it’s showing that he seems to be unable to get it to move in the same way all the time. This is the major issue because a sinkerballer who’s fastball sometimes sinks and sometimes doesn’t isn’t going to be very effective.
by DiegoAsFan on Sep 21, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, right.
I got that when I read the post last night. But this morning I forgot and started thinking the clump of dots represented actual pitch location.
So nevermind what I just said above.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it would be nice to have charts for everyone
but I think the point is a pitcher should have enough contorl of their pitches to throw them with the same movement each time. WHat is a noticable contrast with verlander is the tight groupings. Cahills look more like a map of all the starbucks in the greater bay area.
by Future Ed on Sep 21, 2009 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The blue dots are Starbucks, and the red dots are Walmarts.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very informative.
Nice work, danmerqury, and thanks for posting this.
I wonder if PitchF/X shows any correlation between FB velocity and vertical movement (for Cahill, and for others). Announcers frequently claim that overthrowing results in less of a sinking effect, and/or that sinkerballers are more effective on short rest when they’re a little tired. It’d be interesting to see if that is corroborated by the data.
by oblique on Sep 21, 2009 9:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Fangraphs generates four graphs for every game:
Vertical Movement vs. Horizontal Movement (what I used)
Release Point
Velocity vs. Horizontal Movement
Vertical Movement vs. Velocity
That last one sounds like something that’d be pertinent, and worth taking a look at, for sure.
by danmerqury on Sep 21, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
Just peeked over there. Eyeballing graphs is dangerous, but it does look for most games like there’s an upward slope; slightly higher velocity ~ quite a bit more upward movement (but also looks like a big SD). I’ll try to put together some you-style composites if I find some time…
Again, nice work.
by oblique on Sep 21, 2009 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Am I the only one who found it confusing that
they swapped the axes in the last two? I understand they want vertical to show vertical and horizontal to show horizontal, but in order to do so they had to make velocity and movement switch axes from one to the other, causing me to want to turn my monitor on its side for one chart and leave it alone for the other.
The data is great, but I think the charting and labeling could use some tweaking. (But then, I think that of a majority of the charts I see….)
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fangraphs had a "swinging strikes based on vertical location within the strike zone" graph a month ago.
They put vertical location on the y-axis and swinging strikes on the x-axis. It was the same thing, in that they wanted vertical location on the vertical axis…but it put the dependent variable on the x-axis, which confused the hell out of me.
by danmerqury on Sep 21, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow.
I know the stat guys must love you…this is impressive.
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 10:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a stat guy, but I like the pretty pictures.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
really?
thats news to me
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me ask the lot of you something.
How’s come, even though I have literally no desire to do it myself, I enjoy reading you guys spar back and forth so much? I really have little idea for the most part what you’re talking about, but I love to read it anyhow.
Maybe I’m sick in the head.
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hi Leopold. How's Florida?
Or are you not there anymore?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm still here.
It’s sign-a-licious!
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because debate is amazing and fun.
If you ever need help following along with whats being said just ask… I and Im sure others would be glad to help.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
stfu and get back in your mom's basement.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again I haven't had to live in the basement since my dog recoverd from knee surgery
I have my own room on the third floor thank you very much.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you are like PT with a sense of humor.
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
mind = blown
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few days ago PT said something that I found hilarious
but then I found out he really wasn’t parodying himself like I thought he was.
But he uses words like “teleological”, and he drops occasional references to medieval history, so you gotta love that.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't quite approve of his use of "teleological"
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I assumed he was trying to suggest
teleology in the sense of utilitarian ethics, as opposed to philosophical higher purpose. But yeah, I didn’t quite get it either.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
do you prefer to translate "τέλοϛ" as
“that-for-the-sake-of-which” or the more plebeian “purpose” or “end”?
by Elston Gunn on Sep 27, 2009 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe not, but I ended up in the right place
Yes, thank you, I’ll be here all week.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You didn't know I liked pretty pictures?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(you're always so vague about that)
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You like celebration fireworks and rally Salmas?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can anyone not?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I consider you one of the stats posters
I guess analytic posters is probably a broader and effective grouping.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK sure....I like it when we're trying to get to the truth or some optimal solution.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dan's done the scouting, now I get to do the statting
Plausible 2010 A’s pitchers by FIP this season:
E. Gonzalez 3.71
Braden 3.72
Anderson 3.75
Outman 4.49
Mazzaro 4.91
G. Gonzalez 4.96
Eveland 4.99
Cahill 5.31
Mortenson 5.58
Plausible 2010 A’s pitchers by xFIP this season:
Anderson 3.91
G. Gonzalez 4.51
Outman 4.60
Braden 5.00
Cahill 5.09
Mazzaro 5.25
Mortensen 5.26
E. Gonzalez 5.28
Eveland 5.42
Plausible 2010 A’s pitchers by tRA this season:
Anderson 3.72
Braden 4.14
E. Gonzalez 4.30
Outman 4.78
Eveland 4.99
G. Gonzalez 5.14
Mazzaro 5.65
Mortenson 5.83
Cahill 6.01
Italics = small sample; strikethrough = injured.
So, among these three “advanced metrics” we have 2 which think Cahill is terrible compared to the other options… and one which says he’s middle of the pack, but in a rotation which is itself terrible and clearly untenable for a playoff contender.
Keep in mind, if you are tempted to dismiss these metrics, that they are statistically proven to have a stronger correlation to ERA in the following year (2010, in this case) than ERA-in-2009 does.
It’s pretty clear that Cahill was not one of the 5 best starting options this year (indeed, had it not been for injuries, he might not have cracked the top 10). That does not necessarily mean that he will not be top 5 next year, but it’s very strongly inclining in that direction. I know that he has pitched better down the stretch, but that sample of play is so small (50 innings? at most?) that it is rightly subject to enormous regression to the mean in a serious analysis.
More later, I have to go.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 10:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
tRA and xFIP disagree badly on quite a few things. Do any of these measures speak to their confidence interval?
I don’t know how baseball “statistics” get bandied about so much without ever doing some of the methodological things we expect in other statistical areas (such as medical studies or political polls).
by ohmangoAs on Sep 21, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They don't disagree as much as they measure different things.
xFIP basically ignores batted ball types.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Proper statistical methods in *political polls*?
Ha ha ha. Maybe Nate Silver (which is why his projections were so much more accurate), but everyone else? Not so much.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was a brilliant stroke of genius by Nate Silver, by the way.
It was a fantastic idea, and it payed off, that’s for sure.
by danmerqury on Sep 21, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope this topic qualifies as meta-political, and not political
but in the larger economic sense, methodologically sound election projections like Silver’s didn’t emerge until 2007-2008 for the same reason that sabermetrics appeared when it did: prior to that, there simply wasn’t a popular market for them.
The continuing expansion of the Internet in general and the subculture of political junkies in particular created a demand for reasonably accurate projection. (And a relatively small one, too, compared to political media coverage on the whole.) Before that, there really wasn’t anyone with an interest in that kind of analysis, at least not publicly:
It doesn’t do the candidate and his campaign any good. Suppose he runs the numbers and finds out there’s a 80% chance he’s going to lose, what’s he going to do, quit? He’s just going to keep at it and try to beat the odds. To whatever extent his private numbers helps him better target his campaigning effort, that’s not something he cares to share with the public, so anyone hired by the campaign isn’t going to be out blogging about it. Anything that gets publicized is just going to be whatever twisted numbers they figure will help the cause, with accurate projection not being the primary incentive.
It doesn’t do the news media any good either. They want a storyline, which means they want a horse race. The way to sell newspapers is report each new poll like it’s a movement in the race and today candidate X is up and tomorrow he’s down, accompanied with all sorts of breathless speculation about whether this gaffe or that new TV ad caused the "movement" in the polls.
On fivethirtyeight, by contrast, the story was typically something like, "the polls are bouncing around, but based on what we know we can project with 80% certainty that candidate Y will win race Z," and then for the next five months the story remains unchanged except that the level of certainty gradually creeps upward. That didn’t sell any newspapers.
It still doesn’t. It’s just that now the media is fragmented enough that it can support a niche market for the junkies who do like that stuff.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
people give him a bit too much credit
I was an avid reader of his site during the election, and it was the best site out there by far for what it did, but his complex formulas are really just a tiny improvement over taking some much simpler slightly weighted poll average, and almost certainly less accurate at most points along the way than prediction markets. I think (could be misremembering) that prediction markets outperform sabermetric projections also.
He was great in the primaries, though.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where I thought fivethirtyeight was different
from the rest of the field is that, if you properly read the methodology, it essentially called everything by mid-summer. By October, sure, everyone had caught up.
I was in a prediction pool to guess which way each state would go in the presidential race (something I’ve been doing since 1988), but we had to make our picks in August. I basically used fivethirtyeight as my guide plus (important step) projecting a national trend which was not showing on the charts at the time but which I could fill in based on the description of what is and what isn’t included in the model. With that, I got every state but IN.
(Unfortunately, some other guy got every state but LA (!), so I lost by one electoral vote. On election night, I was like the guy who bet $200 on the Super Bowl underdog to beat the spread. Everyone knew by then that Obama would win, but to win the prize I needed McCain to take IN. There were a couple of oddball scenarios where someone else could sneak in, but basically we had known for a week that it was between me and the other guy depending on how IN broke.)
I didn’t follow the prediction markets, but my recollection was that in August and September, most places were calling states like NC, VA, and FL red. (Actually, I think fivethirtyeight still had NC and FL as red for most of September, too, but reading between the lines you could see where they were going.) I don’t know, maybe if you applied the right adjustments to other sites, you could get good results there, too. But I remember seeing a lot of stuff on the mainstream news that was just clueless. And there were plenty of otherwise intelligent people in our pool who missed the boat on some trends that were clearly evident in the data by August.
Anyway, my point wasn’t that Nate Silver did a better job than the others doing serious analysis. My point is that before 2008 no one was doing serious analysis, at least not publicly, and even in 2008 the mainstream still wasn’t. Because serious analysis was a niche market with a limited audience, there was really only room for one purveyor of it to get any attention, and fivethirtyeight squeezed out the others in terms of visibility.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends upon how you define serious analysis
electoral-vote.com did analysis I’d call serious in 2004 (but admittedly less sophisticated than Silver’s).
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 21, 2009 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There definitely is a benefit or hinderance to campaigns
in terms of helping convince people to give money.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that does not create a demand for
the most accurate projections possible. It creates a demand for projections which are accurate enough that you can defend them, but which still say what you want them to say.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to admit, this post amuses me
PT defending Edgar Gonzalez.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hence the italics.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 21, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
But did you notice that when you don’t count the guys in italics you’re left with Braden, Anderson, Mazzaro, Gio and Cahill? That’s only 5 SP, yet PT claims that that Cahill might not even be top 10 worthy? That’s some fancy math.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's no reason not to count them as available starters
What is reasonable is regressing those numbers more strongly toward their prior track record. Which is why I indicated them as SSS.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And what is Edgar's career FIP?
Paul, scoffed at the suggestion of a possible “turned-the-corner” moment on the part of Cahill based on the sample of the IP. I can understand that and I think it’s a fair position to have.
Until you post the FIP of Eveland and Edgar, who’s sample sizes are just as small as Cahill’s. Yet you’ve got them up there because it gives the appearance of supporting your position that it would be easy to find 5 other pitchers who could be expected to out-pitch Cahill next season.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would much rather have had Eveland in my rotation this year
and next year for that matter
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't like the idea of bringing up Cahill and Anderson this year
But unless you’ve got a flux capacitor in your shorts there’s not much we can do to change history.
The question is, are we going to punish Cahill in 2010 (and at this point, folks calling for Cahill’s demotion w/o him having the chance to prove himself a better pitcher in ST are indeed punishing him) for the mistakes of 2009?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody had a problem doing that with Barton this year.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was really no way to defend what Barton did in 2008
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Had a bad year with the bat and played good 1B defense?
Was he so fucking awful that it made sense to go out and sign Giambi, who can’t play defense AND decided this would be the year to fall off the cliff offensively?
I guess I just don’t understand why Cahill should avoid being “punished” in 2010 by being in AAA when the same thing happened to Barton this year, but there were no in-house options that would have been equivalent.
Did Barton gain anything by playing in AAA?
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Couple things...
I can defend Cahill’s 2009 performance, which pretty much invalidates any comparison between him and Barton. I think I tried to find a defense for Barton a year ago but came up empty.
If you feel the demotion of Barton was indeed unjustified then why would you encourage the A’s to mess up again and punish Cahill?
And I have no idea if Barton gained anything by playing in AAA this year. Maybe he worked on his diving technique.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Invalidates? I don't think so.
They were both young, probably too young to be in the big leagues, and both had bad seasons. I’m not trying to defend Barton’s 2008, but it was apparent that the team didn’t plan on letting him try and improve in 2009 with the big league squad.
Cahill is very much in the same boat right now.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really
I think it would have been hard to dispute that Barton should have been given a call up in 2008 where as I think it is very easy to dispute that Cahill should have been called up in 2009.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh, AA to MLB is a bigass jump in talent.
At least Barton proved he could play in AAA in 2007.
Regardless, this is turning into Barton v Cahill and that’s not what I intended. Simply put, the team has set the precedent before, and nobody that gets called up is here for good.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't clear
Barton’s performance in 2008 was indefensible while Cahill’s 2009 performance can be defended.
One position is untenable and that is what invalidates the comparison.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can argue either side, for both players.
Barton, pro: He was a 22 year old rookie who struggled with the bat, but showed the ability to hit well both in a 2007 callup and the end of the 2008 season. Also, signficantly improved 1B defense. Really not any other 1B options in the system until Carter/Doolittle are ready.
Barton, con: Hit like shit. Dove into a pool. Team had $$ available to go look for a mashing 1B type in order to make a run at the division after trading for Holliday. (Oops, we signed Giambi instead of Dunn!)
Cahill, pro: Made the jump from Double-A to the big leagues, and at least had some starts where he looked like he belonged in the bigs.
Cahill, con: Gave up way too many homers, walked way too many guys, struggled with his mechanics and repeating his arm slot, had way too many cases of “throw it and see where it goes” syndrome. Performance could have easily been equaled by basically any freely available journeyman type pitcher. Or Dana Eveland. Or Jerome Williams.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This
There was a very good case that we shouldn’t have signed Giambi and played Barton this year.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whod've thunk it
Oh, right…
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 21, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was also a very good case
to go outside the organization and find a 1B for 2009.
It would appear that Giambi might not have been the ideal canidate for the role.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, and I didn't really like it at the time either.
Too much chance something bad would happen… like exactly what did happen.
I mean, it’s not like Barton had 5 years to prove that he sucked, like Crosby
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd argue that we really didn't sign Giambi to play 1st
He was truly meant to DH and back up first. Then we signed Cabrera, KEPTCrosby and signed Nomar. The latter two really caused a roster crunch that forced Barton out. Had Nomar not been signed or Crosby traded/released, Barton would have started at 1st, Giambi at DH, Cust in RF. Barton didn’t start in the Majors simply because we ran out of roster space at the major league level.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
by DMOAS on Sep 21, 2009 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But only because Barton isn't
6’2" with flowing golden locks and a winsome grin.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's so few of us who are.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I posted them up there because they
a. started more than one game for the A’s this season,
b. are not free agents after this season, and
c. have not been traded or designated for assignment.
Those seem like reasonable, objective criteria to me.
For the record, and we’ve got some remarkable coincidences here, Gonzalez’s career FIP is exactly the same as Cahill’s (5.31) and Eveland’s is a rather sterling (by comparison) 4.31, exactly one run lower.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reasonable criteria? Absolutely.
It was just disingenuous of you to use Edgar’s SSS FIP instead of his career line. Add the fact that Eveland has been demoted twice in his A’s career for performance issues and it makes even his career 4.31 FIP look sketch in comparison to the upward potential of Cahill.
I’m not saying you lied about any of this. You just twisted the Hell out of the numbers to paint a better picture for your position.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
says the guys who on the davis/cust thread just wanted to use this years numbers...
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes...
to discuss how well the two were going to hit for the rest of this season and to help decide which one would lose at bats to a hypothetically called up Aaron Cunningham.
Please don’t leave out the important details of that conversation.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's an important detail
WERE YOU WEARING PANTS WHEN YOU TYPED IT??
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't recall
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
super grover wears a cape
and waiter grover wears a bowtie, I don’t know what blogging grover wears
by Future Ed on Sep 21, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Black horn rim glasses with a bandaid holding the nosebridge together?
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Elmo has a computer
but it looks like a 486
by Future Ed on Sep 21, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
DON'T SPEAK THAT LITTLE SHIT'S NAME!!!
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
'bout time you grew a sack around him.
I say we hold him down and beat him til he talks.
Or doesn’t. you know, whatever.
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
pajamas?
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I used this year's numbers because obtaining them required like two mouse clicks instead of 40
and I was leaving the house within 10 minutes.
The notion that I was “twisting the numbers” is just silly. Eveland’s career numbers look far better than his numbers from this season. Edgar Gonzalez is probably a little worse for career than 2009 (I haven’t checked his career xFIP or tRA) but nowhere near as much so.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where the Hell were you getting your numbers?!?!
‘Cause I know Edgar’s 2009 FIP is on the same page as his career numbers.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 21, 2009 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mostly from the fangraphs and statcorner team pages
Hence, the decreased number of clicks, since it’s one team instead of like 10 individual players, times three different websites.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
THT being the third, for xFIP
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mobile commenting available! Keep the conversation going.
A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 22, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the monkey has a point, PT.
Maybe you can find one made by Go F**k Yourself San Jose... -Poppy
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 22, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
These same guys by midseason ZiPS FIP
Anderson — 3.63
Cahill — 4.53
Mazzaro — 4.53
Braden — 4.58
Tomko — 4.65
Outman — 4.75
Edgar — 4.79
Eveland — 5.22
Gio — 5.88
Mortensen — 6.28
So ZiPS thinks that Cahill will be just fine in the near future, no matter how bad he was in the beginning of the year. It predicted that he’d improve in the second half and he did, by K-rate and K/BB.
Clearly he’s one of the 5 most talented starters on the team and talent mostly wins.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 10:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this wholeheartedly
Cahill has really benefitted, as Anderson, from the trial by fire approach and has made some great progress. Thus, I believe he will be just fine next season. Braden, Cahill, Anderson are a lock and should be better than average. Mazz hopefully comes back strong, and who knows, maybe EvilKneveland will be more effective with his new pitch and actually FINALLY stick in the bigs.
"Tonto think Billy Beane need to make team full of squirrels and bears."
by OptimistPrime on Sep 21, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you're right, but I'm not sold on Mazzaro's or Braden's health.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, what?
What is “midseason ZiPS FIP?” Are you talking about ZiPS’s Rest of Season projection?
As we recently learned (to my detriment, so you’d better believe I’m busting it back out when it’s to my advantage), ZiPS rest-of-season is not a projection for 2010.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes it is ZiPS ROS projection. It isn't a projection for 2010, but it's the most recent
projection I have. If you have a more recent one, let’s see it.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They don't exist
It’s simply a question which cannot be answered for another few months. We’re just going to have to have some patience on this issue.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(whistles)
I’ve been walking these streets at night,
Just trying to get it right.
It’s hard to see with so many around.
You know I don’t like being stuck in a crowd.
And the streets don’t change but maybe the name.
I ain’t got time for the game…
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can AN run the A's?
I wonder how good the A’s would be… I have a feeling they would go 162-0. Either that or 0-162.
by idunno723 on Sep 21, 2009 1:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That would depend of method for administering decision making ability.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd put you statheads in charge,
as long as I got to run concessions.
And got to control who I put in the Stomper suit.
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mmmm...Louisiana Hots
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
for all.
I’m a kind and loving overlord.
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a great diary.
Although I have to say, it just makes me skeptical of the value of predictive statistics, especially where 21-year-olds are concerned.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Sep 21, 2009 2:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How did this diary make you any more or less skeptical than you were before?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In reading some of the recent posts...
it shows me that there are so many different statistical analysis (analyses?) nowadays that it’s easier for someone to find one to fit their argument.
(My feeling for this whole thing was if you were going to keep him in the minors, he should have stayed there this season. His last few starts have also shown putting him in the fire is working. I also think with so many young starters, a 6 man rotation for busier parts of the season might not be a bad idea.)
by ChuckBudd on Sep 21, 2009 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ideally you build your opinion around the evidence, not seek evidence to fit your preconceived argument
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 21, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aha! This goes far in exlaining why I don't like to participate...
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is the part I don't get.
DFA has tried to tell me that my perception of competitive debate is wrong, but they do still assign what side you’re supposed to argue, right? And from time to time I hear people say you ought to be able to argue both sides of any issue.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the difference between debate-as-exercise and searching-for-truth
Most of us could argue both sides of most issues. In some instances, both arguments would be strong. Usually, though, if you look at evidence without a preconceived argument you find that one side is stronger and therefore become convinced.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 21, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you believe that in any issue
you can obtain evidence without a preconceived argument?
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do not.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
As an easy example, if you were to ask me whether the A’s should trade for a non-superstar NL player (i.e. one I don’t know much about) I would obtain evidence without a preconceived argument.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 21, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but chances are real good
you would have some kind of preconceived notion, some general feeling, about the non-superstar NL player, no?
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing to write home about
Maybe there’d be a name or team bias, but I would be unlikely to have seen ’em play.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 21, 2009 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are plenty of non-superstar NL players
I know absolutely nothing at all about. Why would I have a preconceived notion?
This isn’t just theoretical. Every time DFA does one of his trade targets articles, at least half the guys he lists are guys I’d never even heard of before.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 21, 2009 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lots of issues
eg “what is the capital of Namibia”? Well, I don’t know. And much much more…
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Sep 21, 2009 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's not really an issue.
Al: We gotta form a government for the settlement.
Merrick: Who does?
Al: Us! You and me. Come to me in a vision! You stupid bastard.
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 21, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it is for namibians, jerk
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 Sep 21, 2009 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the namibians' education system
is so poor they don’t know their own capital, then I think they have bigger issues than LB dismissing them.
They’re going to be pissed that mikeA doesn’t know and can’t tell them whole lot more.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
by DMOAS on Sep 21, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like Such As Africa and the Iraq
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
THEY DON'T HAVE MAPS!!!!
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 21, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Windhoek. My friend's dad went there on business.
I want to go to Namibia someday.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Sep 22, 2009 1:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can see the street that's named after Hermann Goering's father!
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 22, 2009 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nice.
Maybe you can find one made by Go F**k Yourself San Jose... -Poppy
by Leopold Bloom on Sep 22, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I generally have an idea of what I believe before research
then while doing research I either confirm or change my original position based on the data presented.
I think the ability to argue both sides of a particular resolution, policy problem, or moral dilemma shows you the weaknesses and strengths of the position you are taking.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really
Generally speaking, debate resolutions are extremely broad topics. No one argues the entire resolution, since you’d be wasting your time spouting platitudes for two hours. Instead, people generally present a “plan,” which does something within the resolution, and then the negative side attacks that plan from any of a number of different angles.
It’s actually possible to have your negative and affirmative strategies be exactly the same (how’s that for mind-bending, eh?) if you’re running a particularly out-there form of affirmative. My senior year, we experimented at a couple of tournaments with a Feminist Int’l Relations affirmative which was essentially identical to our Feminist Int’l Relations negative critique.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As the neg you can claim almost all of AFFs ground
where as with Aff you get to chose yours.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did always want to actually just run a "do the resolution" aff once
We’d probably lose, but it’d be worth it to see the steam coming out of the other team’s ears during the 1AC.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 21, 2009 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With most of that it is impossible to show advs without a plan within the res
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
counter plan: i rip up PT's plan and you give me the W
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 Sep 21, 2009 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate performance NEGs
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 21, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just want to point out here for iglew's benefit
that all this conversation is about a single debate event — variously called On-Topic Debate, Policy Debate, Team Debate, Oxford Debate, Oregon Debate, or Cross-Examination (Cross-Ex) Debate.
High-school debaters who do this event exclusively are (or at least were) known to refer to it as “real debate”. Those of us who had the chops to excel in more than one event thought that was funny.
There are 2 other debate events in high school, plus a lot of speech events (in which competitors give speeches in front of a judge, but are not debating with one another over a resolution), plus model Congress events. And in college, there’s a variety of leagues and events beyond what you can do in high school.
It’s all just rhetorical competition, however you slice it. The point isn’t to find the “truth” — it’s to win. You can learn a good deal about a lot of obscure issues — from integrated pest management to East Timor to grand jury procedure — but all of that is secondary to the goal of winning.
It’s not just sophistry — it’s an adventure!
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Sep 22, 2009 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see. Sort of like boxing, then.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Sep 22, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think of sophistry as being a particularly important part of boxing...
Now, managing a boxer… there sophistry is definitely a key job skill.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 22, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just found a list of all the National Forensics League topics
It cleary took them a little while to find their sea legs. The topic in 1941:
Resolved: That the power of the federal government should be increased.
Well, okay then. Glad you narrowed that down.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Sep 22, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wasn't one about strip malls?
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 22, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not on that list
though the consumer protection topic (which was just before I started high school) might have had some kind of strip mall case. I know some folks ran a case banning highway billboards under that topic (a case that was subsequently revived under the federal employment topic that I did debate).
Some of them are incredibly specific: there was a resolution for direct, popular election of the President — twice! And another one on reducing the voting age to 18. Can you imagine debating either of those for a whole year? Zzzzzzzzzz.
The weirdest one is from 1950-51:
Resolved: that the American people should reject the welfare state.
What kind of plan do you run?
Plank 1: All Americans will read The Foundainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and the collected works of Ludwig van Mises.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Sep 22, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Christ, what an Atlas Prose
A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate @('.')@
by monkeyball on Sep 22, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did CX with
2001-02
Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy significantly limiting the use of weapons of mass destruction.
great topic.
I also did a little on the mental health topic the next year but did a lot of parli.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 22, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That topic year was the source of the semi-serious Fem IR aff that I alluded to above
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 22, 2009 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's parliamentary debate in high school now?
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Sep 22, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
now there is. I coach
but I did debate for two years in college that was parliamentary in nature.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 23, 2009 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, should have been clearer.
It was the discussion, not the diary itself.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Sep 22, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reading all this intelligent analysis
with big words like teleological and predictive. Time to say thanks for all the thinking and writing and dots, everyone, I am heading to the ballpark. Anyone going? Swing by 126-22-13. Or I may move further forward.
by LibrariAN on Sep 21, 2009 4:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Great fanpost; thanks for posting
I have nothing to add except to note that one of the graphs looks a lot like a Jackson Pollack painting. But that’s probably not all that helpful.
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 Sep 21, 2009 5:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Knowing Nothing About Forensics and Debate Strategy
I hesitate to venture into this pool.
But it seems to me that to advocate that a pitcher who has lasted longer and outperformed all but one other starter on this year’s team should be pitching in Sacramento next year then:
1) You better have 5 preferable alternatives;
2) You better be convinced that it’s the best way for him to improve, because obviously he’s on their short list to be in the rotation for years to come;
I think the last 7 starts or so place both those assumptions under serious doubt, and begin to weigh the argument pretty strongly the other way.
by eliot123 on Sep 23, 2009 1:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
