Thurston Fluff

I don't think we can draw any conclusions from comparing our pitchers' ERAs because it would be highly unlikely that they've had the same defensive performance behind them. It takes several years of data to determine how good a player's defense is compared to other players not because the player's defense fluctuates so much from day to day but because it takes a large amount of data to determine what it is vs other players. Including errors in collection of data. It also is used for individuals not the entire team. An individual may get what 10 chances to make a play per game? The team gets a whole lot more. Multiply the chances of one player by nine and you have the amount of data collected by the whole team. It would stand to reason then that team defense accumulates it's data much quicker than any individual on it. Beyond that you have to ask yourself which set of data is most complete/telling? You are right that there may be some amount of variance in how well the team actually defended in one game vs the next. As I already pointed out that variance should go down much quicker when measuring an entire team. So we should ask how even is the defense vs how much good data we can collect by adding so much more information than what xFIP give us? Remember xFIP and FIP leave out a whole lot of outcomes that the pitcher had a significant amount of control over. Some of that information is telling of the pitcher's ability just not exclusively his ability. If there is a way to include that data without skewing the results it should be added to get a more complete picture. In cases of comparing two pitchers on the same team I think that data should be used because it adds more good information without adding much bad info. While FIP may not add any bad info it leaves out so much that the amount of bad info from the defense is negated when comparing player on the same team. While I can agree ERA isn't perfect to judge pitchers on the same team I disagree that FIP gives you more accurate information.

Well Wickman was traded the day before his poster give away, but that was a different ownership group... Not that Bob had the following that Craig does, but he was actually a good player, where as Craig isn't so much outside of a specialized role. After Wickman was traded he was still playing. Hell he was in a better situation. Releasing Counsell would mean his career is likely over. But, as Hawing said, it should be about the performance on the field. I was willing to give Kotsay plenty of time but it may be time to end it now. My first choice would be to send Gomez down and see if someone can't get through to him but that doesn't appear to be the case.

1) LOB%. Unless you believe that Greinke becomes a totally different pitcher when runners are on base (and has forgotten how to pitch with runners on base this year), his LOB% simply cannot be explained by anything other than bad luck. Go back and look at the fangraphs article posted in this tread. His LOB can be explained by his line drive rate being higher. That is not luck. 2) Sample size. Since it generally takes 3 years of data to get a good read on a defender's ability on defense, I highly doubt we can reasonably expect the same defense to put up the same or even similar statistics behind two different pitchers over half a season's worth of starts. I'd imagine if the defensive performance behind every Brewer starter this year was measured and compared, there would be some pretty wild discrepancies. To tell how good a guy is compared to others may take three years. To compare how good he is against himself takes no time at all.

the other function of these stats is that they do a good job of isolating events on the baseball field and telling us how well a pitcher performed on the stuff he could control. Greinke has done well for the most part on the stuff he can control (K's, BBs). Just because he can't control his fielders doesn't mean every pitch put in play was completely out of his control. I get why using FIP is valuable when comparing two pitchers on different teams. It is the best available stat that eliminates variables outside of the pitcher's control. That doesn't mean it's better than other stats if those variables are equaled out. By and large with FIP a weak grounder and a screaming line drive are the same. Given many plays are fielding dependent if you can use a stat that equals out the defense then it should be more accurate than FIP which leaves out a quite a bit of information. I think having the same defense should equal out the defensive discrepancies nicely. ERA when pitchers have the same defense seems to me to be better than FIP. The upshot of that is Greinke has the same danged defense behind him as every other pitcher on this team. Yet with his defense being equal to the other pitchers he has not had nearly as good of results as they have.

Greinke's younger, has far better stuff, hasn't had TJ surgery, & just won't continue to get this bad of results. He had a bad start against the best offense in baseball, there's really nothing more to it than that. Marcum has a lower career ERA, WHIP and BAA than Greinke. I know it doesn't tell you everything but at this point it's pretty obvious nothing does. Over an entire career I think those three are fair enough a measurement even if a single season or two are not. If you want to go with other measures go ahead. I'll settle for the guy who gives up the fewest runs, hits/walks over a long period of time than someone who is great in other categories. As far as the TJ surgery one surgery doesn't mean he is more likely to have another than Greinke does his first. Greinke throws a slider which is known to be hard on the elbow so he would probably be more likely. While Greinke did have a bad start against one of the best teams in baseball Marcum faced the very same team the next day with better results. But you are right one bad start does not mean anything. When compiled with the rest of the evidence that also suggest Marcum may be better though it seems to fit in. This made me laugh from the fangrahs article. Umm no he isn't having the best season of his career. At least now I see fully why so many people keep saying such things. Some of the best, most analytical sites we have do. The only reason fangraphs thinks so is because they are measuring success in a way that has nothing to do with actual success. It has a lot to do with predicting future success but they seem to equate the two as the same. They are not the same thus cannot be measured the same. It appears to me to be institutionalized thinking the the likelihood of future success has now become the acceptable measurements of past success. I'm sorry to keep repeating this stuff but it really does seem to be permeating many people's thinking. We really need to separate our measuring devices to their proper use.

Clearly, if a lot of people disagree with that sentiment, it's probably not clear. The philosopher is shining through. I am so proud of you right now. I personally care more about what to expect for the rest of the year. So am I. I think by this point we can all agree he has not pitched well enough so far. I keep hoping he strings together a nice run and look at his outliers and think he will. But then I look at last season and he really didn't. He was good but not great. At first I heard he stopped throwing his slider because it was a lost season but now I'm not so sure that holds up. But then I hear things about him pitching to those predictive stats which I think could screw up the value of those stats. Simply doing so can skew those number's effectiveness at prediction. Then again I don't know if it does. Merely that it may. At this point I really don't know what to think going forward. As an optimist and someone who does ultimately accept large sample predictive stats I think I'll just keep believing the next one is the beginning of a great stretch.

You should look at baseball-reference WAR, BUC. They use ERA in their calculations instead of FIP. Thanks I will. I always sort of thought it was a fangrapshs thing. Good to know others are taking a different approach. I'll look at it and adjust my war on WAR accordingly. Wolf's LOB% has really helped his ERA. You can argue that he performed better in tight spots than Grenkie has, but over his career that isn't true. Over time he should come back to his norms. Thats an additional reason why WAR, FIP, and xFIP indicate that Grenkie has done more for his team than Wolf. You just said because Greinke projects to be better than Wolf in the future it means he was better than him so far this season. How does one follow from the other? The stats you cited are merely indicators of how effective a pitcher should be at accomplishing those goals. They are not the goals themselves. xFIP and FIP should be used as predictive stats not descriptive ones. To use them as descriptive ones means you are using them as the basis for defining success so far. The only way xFIP and FIP means ipso facto one is better than the other so far is to assume they actually are the very description of success. They are not. Innings pitched and runs allowed are what indicate success or failure. Doesn't matter if it was sheer luck or that it won't last. So far Wolf has pitched more innings, both per game and overall, while allowing less runs per game to score. That would seem to indicate Wolf has helped the team win more games so far. What happens in the future are best foretold by some of those stats not what happened so far.

Watching the games, you can not come to a conclusion that Greinke and Narveson have been better than Wolf this year. Warning I am about to continue my war against WAR. This does not mean I hate all stats or sabremetrics in general. It means I hate WAR. All this does is show how useless WAR is. Anything that tells you Greinke has contributed to more wins than Wolf this season should have it's veracity questioned. "Because it doesn't fit with my preconceived notions" is not an acceptable argument. Unless you can prove that your preconceived notions are always 100% correct. There may be valid criticisms of WAR out there, but this is not one. If you can't accept Wolf has helped this team more than Greinke this season because WAR tells you he isn't then I think you are the one who has preconceived notions. Your preconceived notion of WAR seems to blind you to the fact that Wolf has been better than Greinke. This once again goes back to someone crunching a bunch of numbers based off stats that are predictors of performance to tell us what their performance has been. This is the same argument as k's/ab being used to tell us someone was fine when he just got shelled. Simply because he struck out a bunch of guys doesn't mean he had a good game. If, for example the other guys hit homeruns his K's/ab didn't accurately tell us his performance that day. xFIP is fine for telling us what we can expect in the future. I think doing things like correcting for flyballs/HR to the norm makes it useless for telling us how well they have done in the past. Pitchers know where they are pitching and part of their ability being measured should be adjusting to the situation. If you are in Wriggly with the wind blowing out assuming no pitcher can adjust to get more groundballs seems wrong. To just assume it isn't a skill any of them possess is incorrect. Pitchers who are flyball pitchers should be penalized for being such since they do give up more HR in bad conditions. After all they are going to be expected to pitch in those situations so why isn't that part of the skill set measurement? To make those adjustments for predicting the future success is fine since the goal is to measure in an all things equal sort of way. To make those adjustments to show his past success is not. Thus in my mind xFIP, by making those adjustments, turns it into purely a predictive stat. It works well for that. It is not nearly as good at telling us what the actual production was in the past. Unless you use xFIP as the definition of what success is xFIP does not = success. xFIP = probability of future success. The sooner people understand the difference the sooner they will stop accepting things like WAR that use them wrong. Perhaps Fangraphs needs to learn that as well. WAR has it has it backwards. If WAR was telling me who is likely to be better in the future then it can use xFIP. If it wants to tell us how good someone has been then why use a predictive stat instead of the measurement of success that very same predictive stat was supposed to be measuring to? Ok done with my war on WAR rant now. Well almost... One thing I have to ask about ERA vs WAR. Wolf seems to be showing it isn't as bad as some make it out to be for showing actual production. The major issue with ERA is it is a team stat due to fielders contribution. Yet Wolf is more the pitch to contact type who is relying on an admittedly subpar defense more than the guy who isn't relying on the subpar defense. If ERA is so bad at telling us what happened and WAR so good at it why does ERA seem to describe what actually happened more accurately in this situation? I understand ERA isn't perfect. But so far those who dismiss ERA because it isn't perfect seem to accept WAR which is even less perfect. Seems odd to me.

Plus the legacy of Mo Vaughn isn't forgotten among the Mets' faithful. Totally forgot about that. While I don't equate the two I can see how the Met faithful would. Same goes for the ownership. Also, probably not major news, but the baseball insider down here on the local sports station (Seth Everett) is pretty convinced Prince is going to be a Cub. I hate to say it, but that makes a lot more sense than the Mets right now...but that still sucks. He's said it multiple times and thinks it is pretty much a slam dunk. Any issues the Mets may have about Mo Vaughn Would be double with the Cubs. They need a 1st baseman and could build around him but their current problems are due to handing out expansive long term deals to players who are not worth their contracts half way through. I wouldn't be surprised if there is more interest in the media and fans than the ownership.

LOL WUT??? It was either a joke or frustration. But I think it's clear he's performed below expectations so far. I can buy him not being this bad going forward due to some stat or another that is supposed to tell me everything I need to know but I really hope no one is going to try to say he's been fine. That he's been unlucky or the defense has let him down, his BAPIP is unusually high, his FIP says he's doing well, he's in early season form, sample sizes are too small or any other excuse. Bottom line is he hasn't pitched as well as he should and danged well better turn it around in a quick hurry.

Reyes comes with as much if not more risk. As much as people make of Prince's size he isn't so much fat as just plain big. He has never been injured and plays every day. Perhaps Prince won't age well but age related issues are a few years away even if they do set in earlier than other players. Reyes has already had a couple significant injury years and plays a more demanding position. So the injury worry is pretty much the same if not worse for Reyes than Prince. I could see the Mets going after him instead of Reyes and building around him. Don't know why Cecil's words should be taken seriously though. He has no more insight on this than those of us here.

So Marcum last 4 innings and Estrada comes in for 3. Next day Gallardo last 3 innings, and then? I'm hardly a fan of Mitre but the Brewers are exposing him and have absolutely no depth for a #6/7 starter. Not to nit pick but Wolf starts after Marcum. But the larger point should be how much risk do you assume in other areas trying to make sure you are covered should a relatively unlikely event occur? They aren't going with less players they are adding a lefthanded reliever who can go multiple innings and a batter who will contribute far more towards producing runs than Mitre would preventing them. To answer your hypothetical question. Granted there can be consecutive short starts anytime. It's not nearly as common with good starters and a manager willing to let them go long. Barring injury if a starter is in trouble and the pen is short they'll ask him to go an extra inning along with using everyone to get thorugh the game. They can bring up someone else to help on day 3. I guess you could be arguing there should be 12 pitchers is that what you're saying? It was more why move James now. There isn't a 40 man squeeze unless a trade is coming My guess it that tells you what they think of him as a prospect. Does anyone know if a guy on the 40 man is worth less than the same guy off it? It could see how a non 40 man guy could help give flexibility in a trade.

I guess it all depends on how much money the team is willing to spend on long relief. I tend to think that is an area you can skimp on. For Carlos' sake I'm happy they didn't try t keep him in that role. I always liked him. As it turns out he gets a much better shot there than he would have here. Though I guess he would have been the top candidate to take Greinke's spot at the beginning of the season so maybe not. Either way I'm happy he's getting a fair shot and is doing well. I hope it continues.

The NL central is the only division in all of baseball with 4 teams above 500.

Carlos Villanueva is putting together a pretty nice little run in Toronto. Always sort of liked him I'm glad to see he's doing well.

It really sucks to have road construction front of our store. I sucks even worse to know as soon as it's done in front of the store it will be in front of my house.

I know there are many other factors, but that's what is will look like. It will only look like that until he gets a chance to interview with another GM and tell him of the other factors. IF the GM agrees that he was put in an untenable position I see no reason why that would prevent him from a job if he was otherwise the best candidate. Not sure how he'll convince anyone that he is the best option but hat is another issue.

If success is measured by runs given up, of course a high strikeout rate does not equal success. A high strikeout rate suggests the pitcher is performing well in general but it doesn't guarantee it either. Exactly. K/AB rates will tell us he is bound to get better at preventing runs but that is not the same as his K rate means he was preventing runs. Since preventing runs is ultimately what determines if he was successful that is the only stat that can tell us if he was successful. Now if someone wants to say it was just bad luck or his defense let him down as reasons for lack of success we can have that discussion. But that discussion is about why he did lack success not that he was successful even if it didn't show. For my part I think he is going to be fine. I think so for the same reason's you do. His predictive stats look promising. AS to why he didn't succeed to the level I thought he would until now I think he just missed his spots a little more than usual and maybe one or two of his pitches weren't as sharp as they could be. I'm basing that mostly on comments by RRR after a pretty good outing by Greinke that he can be even better. Also after his last outing he made a comment somethign to the effect of his change-up working well so when he made a mistake with a pitch they hitter was off balance and it didn't get tagged. That would lead me to believe, though his mistakes were few, they were getting hit not by bad luck but by a lack of effectiveness prior to that mistake pitch. I'm not one to just assign luck as a reason until other factors are eliminated as possibilities.

Barring something really bad it takes more than one instance to lose any possibility to get another job. If the report is true that two of his veterans didn't listen to him due to his status then I have to wonder what is wrong with those guys. Everyone has a job and role to play. Being a hindrance to someone else doing their job is really about the worst thing a person can do in any job. After all you are messing with their livelihood. I doubt either of them would appreciate it if Riggleman returned that favor by screwing with their careers. Not that it matters who does it but Werth at least is an established well above average player who just signed a major contract. Marquis is a textbook example of pedestrian. Don't know where he gets off copping any sort of attitude.

I'm not talking about FIP's value as much as I would rather a player not worry about stats at all. They have a pretty simple job. Help win as many games as possible. I tend to worry about players who look at stats simply because I think that can lead to losing sight of that main objective. If that is his way of obtaining the main objective fine. It's really not that big of a deal. It only concerns me if his focus on FIP trumps his focus on helping the team win as many games as possible. I know they tend to go hand in hand but I think you know what I'm getting at.

That isn't something I want to hear from a pitcher. They should pitch to get guys out and limit runs and the stats will take care of themselves.

That was Narveson's problem last season as well. The only constant is the pitcher in question. I don't know what you expected out of Dillard. He was pretty much always a fringe major league player at best. Stetter is hurt so I don't know how that is on the pitching coach. Same goes for Braddock. Unless you count teaching a guy how to sleep as part of the pitching coaches job I don't know how you related Braddock's issues to the pitching coach. Loe hasn't been in the majors long enough to know what should be expected of him to know if he is under or over performing. If we start blaming pitching coaches for every flash in the pan reliever who fails after a year or two Kranitz has a lot of company. Narveson isn't close to under performing IMHO. That leaves us with two guys who haven't been up to snuff so far. YoGa and Greinke. Small samples and random variance are more reasonable explanations than incompetence in coaching with those two. When two out of an entire staff are not up to snuff and more than that are over performing I think it's safe to say the evidence is against some sort of pitching coach incompetence as a whole.

I disagree with the usefulness of using K rate. Do you disagree with using K rate to forecast the future or that it is incorrect to use it to say the player's results have been good? I agree K rates/ab tell us what the success rate should be going forward. The correlation has been well established. I disagree that it tells us he's had good results. I don't know how to explain it in mathematical terms but I can in a logic format. If k rates are indicators of a pitchers ability to be successful then that ability has to be defined by another standard than simply K rates. Otherwise you would be saying: If K then K. While that is wonderful example of a-priori knowledge it is also useless in this discussion. What I think was meant is: If K then S. With Success being a set standard of measurement other than K itself. That set standard of results is what determines if he was successful to that point not the K rate. In other words; If S then S. Now if we accept S, and not K, as the set standard of how well he has done and accept the: If K then S, argument as true then it should always equate to success regardless of sample size. I don't think it does and I 'm sure you would agree. Thus I think there is a correction that needs to be made to the syllogism. I suggest; If K then FS. With FS meaning future success. Those are two separate arguments. One I agree with the other I do not. K=S is not true. K=FS is true. Does that make sense?

Some only care about results, some attempt to infer the cause of good or bad performance, so attempt to estimate future performance. This is where people tend to talk past each other. I think there is some confusion as to which each metric is doing. One thing I tend to see with Greinke's K rate is it gets used as a stat that tells us he was doing fine when in fact it is more of a predictive stat to tell us he will be fine in the future. K rates tend to get used as the definition of doing well. That to me is the wrong way to use it. The only reason it was ever determined to be a good indicator of performance was because players with good K rates had good results. It wasn't the k rates that was inherently good but the indicator of such.

Blame? This isn't some sub 500 team with no chance of winning. It's one of the best teams in the NL. Usually the term "give credit" is warranted for teams in serious playoff contention. Would love to see Reyes or Hardy finish the year and re-sign, but I don't think the Brewers have the players to get either one. The Orioles might be interested in Gamel, but do you trade him for what might only be a half season of Hardy? Or the use Prince as a trade chip with the idea that Gamel plus the type of shortstop Prince gets improves the team. If for instance a three way trade can be worked out to get Reyes I think a Gamel/Reyes combo could be better than a Yuni/Prince combo