Metrics mania.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 86redsox. Show 86redsox's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    metrics encourage math, not actually watching games.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I'd put them in this order:

     

    1) C= WAR

    2) E= ERA

    3) A= WHIP

    4) D= Win% (career)

    5) B= xFIP

    6) F= Wins (career)

     



    I was not going to post again on this thread, but since you obviously put a lot of effort into these stats , I will just add one more post. One thing that stands out is that , no matter which stat you may prefer, the same names keep showing up.  How one might rate the top ten pitchers of that era is strictly a matter of opinion.  Wins ( career ) can be deceiving because it depends on longevity and health , as well as just ability. If you ignored all of those stats and just gave your opinion of the best pitchers of that era , the same names would appear. Different people would rank them in different orders, but it is clear who the top pitchers are , no matter how you look at it. When it comes down to Cy Young awards and Hall of Fame voting, I think the main consideration is still wins and losses and ERA.  I would also like to say thanks for your effort and input into this discussion. I am done. 

     

     

     



    One name is only on the wins and win% list: Glavine. While some may argue he is a top 10 SP since 1990, I would not. He was helped by having a good to great team around him, pitching in the NL with no DH, and not having a better's park for his home field or a particularly great offensive division he played in over those years.

     

    Tim Hudson appears on just two lists, and he's 4th on win%-- your stat and 9th in ERA (your other stat). Do you really think he's even a top 10 SP since 1990, let alone #6 (if you average your two criteria lists).?

     




    I feel like Al Pacino on this thread: " Just when I thought I was out , they pull me back in."  I think it is somewhat deceptive to start the time frame in 1990.  Tim Hudson's career did not start until 1999. While he has flown under the radar much of the time, when healthy , he has consistently been one of the best of his era. Top ten since 1990 ?  No.   Top ten since 1999? Very possible.  As for Glavine , he is a certain Hall of Famer. Anyway , I was not thinking so much of career wins in this discussion. They depend greatly on health and longevity. I was thinking more of evaluating a pitcher from year to year. A pitcher could be great one year , but not measure up over the long haul. That does not change the fact that he was great in that one year. And , this is absolutely my last post in this thread.  I will not be pulled back in , even if you make me an offer I can't refuse.

     




    One interesting point on Hudson: the only year he won 20 games was his second worst ERA season of his career at 4.14. He also led the leagu in winning percent.

    That 6.35 run support really helped, but those stats don't count when only looking at wins and ERA. Only 3 of his 30 starts had 2 or less run support. Imagine what Beckett's 2011 season would have been like had he had that run support... CY Young?

    I can see W-Ls being higher rated when SPs used to go 8-9 innings routinely, but they don't anymore. There's much more "team" in wins now than back in the day.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to 86redsox's comment:

    metrics encourage math, not actually watching games.



    Not for me.  It's more like metrics helps fill the time between games.  It's just tossing numbers around really.  If someone takes it too seriously then maybe they have a problem.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to 86redsox's comment:

     

    metrics encourage math, not actually watching games.

     



    Not for me.  It's more like metrics helps fill the time between games.  It's just tossing numbers around really.  If someone takes it too seriously then maybe they have a problem.

     



    Exactly, it's not like the games are 24 hours long.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to BaddBrains' comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    In response to 86redsox's comment:

     

    metrics encourage math, not actually watching games.

     



    Not for me.  It's more like metrics helps fill the time between games.  It's just tossing numbers around really.  If someone takes it too seriously then maybe they have a problem.

     

     



    Shouldn't you be working at your office job?

     



    Odd comment.  But if you really care, thanks to modern technology I can multi-task, pike. Cool 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    I trust metrics more than the eye, especially with major leaguers. A guy can have tremendous numbers in the minors but show that he is completely unable to adjust to off speed stuff or better control in the majors. Or simply have a hole in his swing which gets exploited in the majors.


    In contrast, guys like Middlebrooks  and Lowrie started off in the minors looking like duds but became great hitters over time. They were working on their game, on their weaknesses and improved. I bet Middlebrooks looked a lot better in person than he did in the box scores in those early years. I completely discounted him as a prospect until he got to AA ball.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    Other guys like Nava, put up tremendous minor league numbers but were always discounted because they didn't look like they had tools. Sometimes just being able to hit is almost enough to make it. Some guys can just flat out hit. No matter what they look like.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    The goal in sports is to win. No amount of trendy stats ever takes the place of winning.

     



    So when a pitcher throws a no hitter and still ends up with the loss that means he didn't do enough to win the game?!? that's absurd and utterly rediculous.

     

    If your defense lets you down shouldn't the loss be on them? why assign it to the pitcher who just threw a no hitter? that's why W/L for pitchers is the dumbest thing i've ever heard of. Baseball is a team sport. there is a reason why the phrase "win as a team, lose as a team" exists. Assigning team numbers to an individual is asanine. Especially when the numbers are COMPLETELY out of the pitchers control. and you can not dispute that fact. If you could, we would not be having this conversation and studs like king Felix would win 25 games a year.

    if you gauge a pitchers performance using W/L then IDC who you are, you're not using your noggin.

     




    A pitcher throwing a no hitter and losing is so rare that it is preposterous to use it as an example.

     

     



    there are examples every day of pitchers throwing great outings who shouldn't be attributed to the loss and yet still recieve one. That's why it's dumb. it's a team stat being assigned to an individual. a win/loss is completely out of the control of a pitcher.

     

     




    A pitcher throwing a good game and losing is part of the game. The opposing pitcher probably was a little better. Only one can get the win. It is always interesting to watch two great pitchers go head to head. This is the last time that I am going to reiterate that ERA must be looked at along with wins and losses. A pitcher who consistently pitches well will have a good ERA. To say that a win / loss is completely out of the control of a pitcher is simply not true.

     




     

    If you claim that “the opposing pitcher probably was just as good” then you are admitting the pitcher is not in control of his own decision.   W-L is overrated, and repeatedly citing ERA as a necessary compliment is more proof.   Ivan Nova won 12 games last year with an ERA over 5.  11 pitchers won fewer games with an ERA less than 5.  Was Nova really any better than Jeremy Hellickson last year?   Or did he just have a team that gave him a much larger margin for error?

    ERA also has a fault.  Pitchers with strong run support can and do allow more runs, particularly in blow out games.  Why give them your best stuff when you have a 7 run cushion?   At some point, many ptichers simply let a hitter get himself out, and even the best do so 7 out of 10 times.  But letting up like this negatively effects their ERA.   As W-L is influenced by so many others on both teams, this is why DIPS were created, leading to stats such as BABIP and eventually FIP.   The entire premise of these statistics is to emphasize the only real outcomes a pitcher can control – strikeouts, walk, and home runs.   Anything else is influenced by teammates or opponents, and influenced by them heavily.  (Arguably, home runs are influenced by ballpark.  Hence the addendum of xFIP, which is to neutralize ballpark to a consistent HR/FB rate.)

    If you want to argue that WHIP is meaningless and ERA is important, the counterargument is that the pitcher who gives up more hits and walks will also give up more runs.  As a Red Sox fan, you have undoubtedly noticed that the Sox have mounted a much stronger offense when they focused on OBP and put more men on base.   The logical conclusion for pitchers is that one with a higher WHIP aka put more men on base will also tend to have a higher ERA.  More baserunners equals more opportunities to score, which in turn means more scoring.

    And if you want to boil it down so simply for winners, citing the object is to win, why not oversimplify offense stats as well?  The object of the offense is to score runs, so therefore the most productive offensive players are the ones who lead the league in runs scored.   This would be on par with how every sport evaluates their best players.   You look at league leaders in touchdowns, points, goals, whatever, and those are the top offensive guys - the ones who change the marks on the scoreboard. So why not boil baseball down so simply?   

    I think we can all agree that the most productive offensive player in baseball spanning 2011 and 2012 was far and away Curtis Granderson (238 RS) and the second best was Ian Kinsler (226 RS).  Miguel Cabrera (220 RS) was a distant third.   Sure Cabrera had more hits and home runs and RBI and a Triple Crown and all that fluff, but what is the goal of offense?  To get credited with putting men on base, or to score runs?  

    Or is THAT when we start deciding that there is some team effort involved

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to 86redsox's comment:

    metrics encourage math, not actually watching games.




    No, metrics encourage thinking and learning...

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to 86redsox's comment:

    metrics encourage math, not actually watching games.



    Not for me.  My love of baseball has always gone hand in hand with statistics.  I find that the metrics greatly enhance my viewing experience.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to 86redsox's comment:

     

    metrics encourage math, not actually watching games.

     



    Not for me.  My love of baseball has always gone hand in hand with statistics.  I find that the metrics greatly enhance my viewing experience.

     



    I rarely think of any stat of metric when watching a game, but inbetween, I find some data fascinating.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

    In response to 86redsox's comment:

     

    metrics encourage math, not actually watching games.

     



    Not for me.  My love of baseball has always gone hand in hand with statistics.  I find that the metrics greatly enhance my viewing experience.

     

     



    I rarely think of any stat of metric when watching a game, but inbetween, I find some data fascinating.

     



    Interesting.  For me, it is pretty fluid.  I find myself summoning stats in my head while watching a game.  Sometimes it feels sort of Rainman-ish, but to me, thats just part of the in-the-moment experience, the math.  

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

    In response to 86redsox's comment:

     

    metrics encourage math, not actually watching games.

     



    Not for me.  My love of baseball has always gone hand in hand with statistics.  I find that the metrics greatly enhance my viewing experience.

     

     



    I rarely think of any stat of metric when watching a game, but inbetween, I find some data fascinating.

     

     



    Interesting.  For me, it is pretty fluid.  I find myself summoning stats in my head while watching a game.  Sometimes it feels sort of Rainman-ish, but to me, thats just part of the in-the-moment experience, the math.  

     



    I do look at the opponent's numbers posted at each AB or pitchiung change. I pretty much know most of our own pretty closely anyways. But, when I watch a game, I usually don't think of numbers or stats. 

    I pay particular attention to SS defense, pitch calling, location, and defense in general. I also enjoy watching baserunning (not just SBs) and who does the little things not captured by stats.

    What a great game baseball is!

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

    In response to 86redsox's comment:

     

    metrics encourage math, not actually watching games.

     



    Not for me.  My love of baseball has always gone hand in hand with statistics.  I find that the metrics greatly enhance my viewing experience.

     

     



    I rarely think of any stat of metric when watching a game, but inbetween, I find some data fascinating.

     

     



    Interesting.  For me, it is pretty fluid.  I find myself summoning stats in my head while watching a game.  Sometimes it feels sort of Rainman-ish, but to me, thats just part of the in-the-moment experience, the math.  

     

     



    I do look at the opponent's numbers posted at each AB or pitchiung change. I pretty much know most of our own pretty closely anyways. But, when I watch a game, I usually don't think of numbers or stats. 

     

    I pay particular attention to SS defense, pitch calling, location, and defense in general. I also enjoy watching baserunning (not just SBs) and who does the little things not captured by stats.

    What a great game baseball is!



    you must really be loving ShaVic then. he does everything right. and does whatevers needed to win the game. what a pickup!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    Victorino puts pressure on the other team with his speed and his smallball skills.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    I do look at the opponent's numbers posted at each AB or pitchiung change. I pretty much know most of our own pretty closely anyways. But, when I watch a game, I usually don't think of numbers or stats. 

     

    I pay particular attention to SS defense, pitch calling, location, and defense in general. I also enjoy watching baserunning (not just SBs) and who does the little things not captured by stats.

    What a great game baseball is!

     



    you must really be loving ShaVic then. he does everything right. and does whatevers needed to win the game. what a pickup!

    Yes. I thought at his age we paid too much and for too long, but this guy knows how to play the game. The way he rounds the bases and is "in the game" every second is something you just don't see enough these days. The Fenway RF is a tough spot to play, and I'm not sure I have felt this confident about our RF defense since Dewey. I know Drew was very good out there, and I have seen a couple SV plays out there that looked a little shaky, but he got the ball in the end, and should improve as he learns the breaks a ball takes to RF'ers.

    I hope he keeps it up, and with his defense, we don't need great offense. It's been a bonus so far.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Victorino puts pressure on the other team with his speed and his smallball skills.




    He has also been impressive defensively. I am hopeful he can continue to contribute offensively for the duration of his contract, which I still think was a year too long.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to TV-Guy's comment:

    Don't get Pumpsie wrong here, he really is an avid Red Sox fan. He has said over and over again that he would love to see Sox players do well but he doesn't think that they will.  He, in fact, will eat his hat if the Sox ever make the playoffs.  Don't take his 24/7 concerns the wrong way, he is really a tremendous Sox fan.



    Nobody takes you wrong here Pike. Every single poster knows exactly what you are about here.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to TV-Guy's comment:

     

    Don't get Pumpsie wrong here, he really is an avid Red Sox fan. He has said over and over again that he would love to see Sox players do well but he doesn't think that they will.  He, in fact, will eat his hat if the Sox ever make the playoffs.  Don't take his 24/7 concerns the wrong way, he is really a tremendous Sox fan.

     



    Nobody takes you wrong here Pike. Every single poster knows exactly what you are about here.

     



    Yes, he is the resident "concern troll" that rarely ever makes a point about baseball.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    We need a troll metric.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Metrics mania.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    We need a troll metric.



    LOL

    I think Pike has an OPS of about 1.3.

    The O is his pct. of posts that are Off-topic, which stands at about .8.  And the S is his pct. of posts that are Stalking, which stands at about .5.

     

Share