Ennder

I think Zambrano is a complete tool and should have gotten a much stiffer penalty since he does this kind of thing every year. I'm fine with players showing emotion, watching HR, etc., but you can take it too far. The NBA and NFL have both gone too far with this type of thing and I don't really want baseball to follow.

Just about anything can be cause for worry, just not cause to make other people worry http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif. If you want to back up your opinions for being worried about Hart you are better off looking at why he is struggling than just citing his past season and saying he sucks, I guess that is the point. Like I said above I'd personally be a lot more worried about Hart if he struggled all year in 2008 but the fact it was 3 crappy weeks at the very end of his first full season of games lessens it a little bit for me. This year we just don't have enough data to be worried just yet, he had a great few weeks and a bad few and of course his stats will look bad directly after the bad few, that happens with any slump. I will say that his low BB rate concerned me enough that I downgraded him on my fantasy sheets, I think that is the biggest area of concern.

I said that his major cold streak was fishy because of his strange strike out and walk rates in Oakland and that I'd expect something closer to the Chicago numbers than the Oakland ones. In fact my exact quote was... http://forum.brewerfan.net/search.php?keywords=275373/t/Most-Likely-to-Progress-Regress.html or this one His Oakland OPS was .542, his Chicago one was .718, his 2008 line was .651. His K/BB in Oakland were 27 K, 12 BB, in Chicago it was 15 K, 19 BB, in 2008 it was 45 K, 50 BB. I was a little off on the OBP expectations as he didn't manage the .330 I had hoped for ending with a .327. Players towards the end of their careers, players who have had injuries, players who have wildly different numbers season to season and players who are just coming into their 3rd year of data are the ones that I generally take a closer look at. Going by straight projections is ok for the easiest of players but I think where most of the error in projection systems comes from are the harder to project players and those are the ones you generally want to break down more to see what is really going on. None of this has anything to do with Hart though, I was just commenting that if you are going to use only part of his data instead of a full 3 years you need to drill down and look at it closer, not just post some random small sample and say he is finished. You need to find a reason why that smaller sample is more telling than the large one and just grabbing the data doesn't do that.

I don't disagree with that rluzinski. I think you have two options when looking at a players statistics. 1. Look at at least 3 years of data and use that as your basis for what to expect. This is generally what you want to do if you have that much data. 2. Break down a shorter period of data if you think there is a really good reason part of the data is suspect. Now what he is doing by just looking at 150 games is #2 and the only way that doing #2 makes sense is if you really break the data down in detail to see if there is something in it that suggests a significant change in the player. In the case of Hart you'll find one horrible 3 week streak which to me says that #2 is not a very valuable way to go, #1 is almost certainly a more reliable data set. I'd be so much more worried about Hart if he was just steadily mediocre all of 2008 than him having a very steady season and then a horrible final 3 weeks. An example of #2 being a smarter way was JJ Hardy heading into 2008, I surmised that the first half of his rookie year was so terrible because he shouldn't have been in the majors that it actually corrupted the sample of data to where you would be better off not including it. In that case I ended up being correct as he put up stats you would have expected in 2008 if you were to ignore the first half of his rookie season. In effect all I did was weigh the more recent data more than I normally would because I thought the older data was a worse representation of his skillset. I'm generally looking at stats with an eye towards fantasy and #2 is how you win fantasy leagues more times than not, by identifying the players who have legitimately changed before they get enough data that everyone expects it out of them.

It isn't erasing it, it is putting things into context. Corey Hart didn't stink all year, he did about what is expected out of him until late September and then had a just woefully bad last 3 weeks with a line of .32/.159/.197/.356 over the last 20 games. To get the big picture you have to break a season down. Now that terrible month could be due to injury, could be due to pitchers figuring him out, could be due to him being tired like he said, could just be a slump, we don't know for sure. If you just want the most accurate data sample you are probably best off using 3-4 years of data so that is more valuable than his last 150 games, if you want to look just at a recent block of games then you probably need to break things down and look at the hows and whys of what he did over that sample to get anything more meaningful out of it.

I dunno what it is, but I meant the entire face. If you had them swap uniforms I probably wouldn't know which is which. It is more striking on TV as they have the same facial expressions too.

Just looking at the final stat line over the past 150 games doesn't tell you the big picture though. Hart really struggled for 3 weeks of last season, until mid September he was hitting the ball just fine, does an absolutely anemic final 3 weeks offset the rest of the year when you are trying to decide the future of a player? He hit the ball fine this year until 2 weeks ago and thus you get into a bit of a data issue because everyone looks bad directly after a slump and good right after a hot streak.

He looks like Ted Lilly to me. http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/manny-parra-709744.jpg vs http://cubs.topbuzz.com/cubs-pictures/d/412-2/ted-lilly-capt_5ce281ea4bcc4d73b5653cf7548473d7_cardinals_cubs_baseball_cxc103.jpg

So two little seeing eye singles makes a difference to you? What a guy does over 14 AB is pretty much useless for judging anything about a player. Ryan Theriot had a 14 AB stint where he hit like 4 HR this year, he probably won't hit 4 more HR all season just as an example.

"How is the term "mentally weak" any more dismissive than say "he lacks poise under pressure"." This is specifically the argument I have a problem with btw. I don't have a problem with people who say he overthinks and makes too many adjustments etc, that stuff is still opinion but I don't have a big issue with it because he has admitted he does it sometimes. Lots of pitchers say this same thing so it is pretty common though so I don't think that makes him 'mentally weak'. If Parra lacks poise under pressure than why does he have a career .488 OPS against with 2 out and RISP and why does he have a career .693 OPS against with RISP and a .739 with runners on. He is at his worst with nobody on. That doesn't show a lack of poise under pressure and pretty much completely debunks the idea. Parra has two big issues, he has problems throwing strikes for whatever reason and he has a lot of problems the 3rd time through the order. These are things that most young pitchers struggle with so I don't really think it says much out of him personally.

But again the reasons don't matter one tiny little bit, the results do. Whether David Eckstein puts up his stats because of his grit or because of talent doesn't make one bit of different. There are 100s of reasons Parra could be missing the strike zone by so much but everyone seems to be just grabbing onto the mentally weak thing for no good reason. Personally I didn't see a mentally weak pitcher at the game today, he pitched his best when things were tough, I saw a pitcher who was having problems throwing strikes like he has all season, like tons of pitchers do over a handful of starts every year.

Wonder if the Cardinals will think that is classy?

13-15 20 HR

He is the emergency catcher and Kendall is already out of the game.

Ryan Franklin is really due for a regression to well Ryan Franklin levels. Put me down for a walkoff HR by someone.

Wow he got it in the air, I figured he'd just ground out.

Gamel doesn't really have a split so he can bat against anyone.

You could probably also look at his stats in early September and say that last year was just a bad 3 weeks and he has been average or better for the rest of his 3 seasons. What he does the rest of this year is going to really decide which angle is the right one.

To be fair Hart is swinging at balls in the dirt a lot less this year than last year, he is missing more balls in the strike zone this year which is what his problem is. His contact rate on balls in the strike zone is terrible compared to his previous seasons.

"If someone hasn't come up with a way to measure a statistical impact, you don't believe, it's that simple. I'm in no position to tell people what to believe in but it's pretty obvious that the vast majority of what's wrong with Manny as a pitcher is mental and not physical in nature. " It isn't obvious though, he made some comments about overthinking and everyone just says it is true now. He isn't throwing strikes, could that be a mental thing, sure. It could be a physical thing too though. My point was really that it doesn't matter, the statistics at the end of the day are what matter. There is no need to sit here and try to say all his problems are just mental when there is no way on earth you could know whether that is true or not and it doesn't really matter regardless.

I still think Escobar is worth more just because of the service time etc. Maybe if Parra comes out and throws a couple really solid games things would change but he is still having problems throwing strikes late in May which can't help his trade value.

Most people who claim he is mentally weak say he cannot deal with adversity that comes up in a game and he breaks down when anything goes wrong and that isn't the case. What you posted is basically saying Manny Parra is a normal young pitcher. Do a search on "pitcher overanalyze baseball" in google once. I did just that to give you examples but found over 100 so didn't feel like posting them all. That is just normal.

Without a doubt, just as good a hitter, better fielder.

"Earned Run" and no error for that play shows just how much of a joke ERA and errors are.

Every single time Parra is mentioned people don't have to take a knock at his mental makeup either. Does it really help the conversation in any way? There is no proof that it has anything to do with the problems and even if does is it any different than him just not being able to throw strikes like tons of other young pitchers? That isn't what he or the coach said at all, it is what people read into the statements. Not being mentally prepared at the start of 2008 does not mean mentally weak.